Korean forms and applications

[Daniel Sullivan]

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.

Unfortunately, this thread is actually an extension of several others in which the OP and the poster in question have had major differences.

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!

Perhaps, perhaps not, but I am of the opinion that until you are familiar with the forms and practice them long enough to have some depth of knowledge about them, you shouldn't go posting about what they actually do and do not contain or make technical assessments about them; technical assessments have been made that are simply wrong.

Lack of familiarity with the forms prevents you from knowing details that are not readily apparent to the eye when watching solo forms (such as which part of the arm is being used as the striking surface in arae makki).

After all, one cannot know what you have not learned.

 

[StuartA]

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.

As i said in my last post - I can only read what I saw in the thread and thats how I read it! And I know they wanted something 'Korean' - yet they still used the building blocks of something 'Okinawan' and thus retained its DNA!

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.

I would agree the same... for reasons dicsussed already! Doesnt change the facts IMO.

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

Cool then

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.

I dont think bunkai/boon hae will ever be part of a larger orgs teachings TBH... they are too set in their ways to acknowledge this area.. sure, they change some things (mainly sport rules or a move adjustment in patterns/poomsae) but its never something in this area, that IMO, could really benefit the art in the way I see things! I do know Drill instructors in Vietnam, Master BS Han (RIP) and Master Willie Lim ALL teach/taught applications to patterns (ITF) pre-1980s and even earlier, but whether they used the term 'boon hae' I am not sure - I will ask Master Lim next time I see him.

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 think thats a bad example, as people 'evolve'. Forms, poomsae, Tule are basically copies of Kata with a bit of regigging IMO! If they wernt, why not make them totally unique like the Ram muay or something!

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.

No offence, but as you posted it, I thought you would be able to explain it. in fact, if its so different and unique and ingained surely every KKW'er with a few years behind them should be able to explain it! One thing i have seen through my research over the years is that things are copied, changed a little and then some 'reason' is put on them - after the fact however!

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

Okay. TBH.. it does seem some repetition is creeping in LOL.. guess thats just how these discussion go!

Stuart

 

[StuartA]

Unfortunately, this thread is actually an extension of several others in which the OP and the poster in question have had major differences.

So they have differences.. so one tries to belittle the other in order to make his point seem more sound... hmmm, hardly the actions of a martial artists who follows the tenets IMO!

Perhaps, perhaps not, but I am of the opinion that until you are familiar with the forms and practice them long enough to have some depth of knowledge about them, you shouldn't go posting about what they actually do and do not contain or make technical assessments about them; technical assessments have been made that are simply wrong.

Lack of familiarity with the forms prevents you from knowing details that are not readily apparent to the eye when watching solo forms (such as which part of the arm is being used as the striking surface in arae makki).

So.. where would I stand in this regards? My response was to what you said about this thread being on 'Korean forms', but I havnt studied the KKW forms as deeply as the ITF ones - but does that matter, or does that make my thoughts irrelevant? My thoughts arent based on the forms themselves, but from the foundation they were build upon!

After all, one cannot know what you have not learned.

Good quote for those that say theres no bunkai in poomsae (Joke)

Stuart

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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!

Look bad or look Japanese?

I guess your quote could be c).. but i doubt it! JMHO.

Based on what?

Honestly, if I were putting together a self defense class (not an MA class), I wouldn't use forms from any art. Teaching SD with forms is inefficient and extraneous. I would definitely teach applications and use scenarios as a basis rather than teaching off of forms.

Forms are a nice way to practice techniques and maintain flexibility and fitness, plus whatever philosophical element a particular form set embodies, so I do consider them useful and beneficial. But for teaching SD, pulling applications out of forms is simply inefficient. If you want to teach people how to defend against wrist grabs, throw people, or defend against punches, then it is most efficient to simply teach them those techniques without the added pomp and circumstance of forms.

 

[StuartA]

Weird.. just on FB and came across this:

“뜻으로 풀은 동작과 법을 실전 사용이 가능하게 수련하여 직접적으로 실전에 적용한다.”
“One must adapt what he has learned to his practical use, finding out the practicability.”
Kukkiwon Taekwondo Textbook p. 306

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Perhaps, perhaps not, but I am of the opinion that until you are familiar with the forms and practice them long enough to have some depth of knowledge about them, you shouldn't go posting about what they actually do and do not contain or make technical assessments about them; technical assessments have been made that are simply wrong.

Lack of familiarity with the forms prevents you from knowing details that are not readily apparent to the eye when watching solo forms (such as which part of the arm is being used as the striking surface in arae makki).

So.. where would I stand in this regards? My response was to what you said about this thread being on 'Korean forms', but I havnt studied the KKW forms as deeply as the ITF ones - but does that matter, or does that make my thoughts irrelevant? My thoughts arent based on the forms themselves, but from the foundation they were build upon!

Depends on what you have to say. I don't dismiss a post out of hand based on the background of the poster, but based on the content.

In terms of the big picture, I'd say that you, any karateka, and any KKW taekwondoist could have general discussions about any number of forms and all offer valid points.

Suppose, however, that I made the assessment of sanshin (sanshou?) that apparently has some muscle flexing section, that doing a pose down for your attacker is silly and reflects some lack of knowledge on the part of the creator. Apparently, that section is meant to show muscular control, so my assessment would be incorrect due to lack of details that go beyond what I can see on youtube.

I'm not overly familiar with that form, so the analogy may not be all that good. Dancingalone explained it and I'm sure knows which form I'm talking about.

 

[StuartA]

Look bad or look Japanese?

Look bad! The japanese thing is just a 'get out clause' because the original kata wern't even japanese anyway and the Okinawans were just as oppressed as Koreans were - they actually have a lot in common! In fcat, to say that.. means they acknowledge the Japanese roots to poomsae if you think about it!

Based on what?

Honestly, if I were putting together a self defense class (not an MA class), I wouldn't use forms from any art. Teaching SD with forms is inefficient and extraneous. I would definitely teach applications and use scenarios as a basis rather than teaching off of forms.

This has been discussed - Its not about SD - its simply about making forms (which everyone does alot) more productive and more than the sum of their parts were originally!

Forms are a nice way to practice techniques and maintain flexibility and fitness, plus whatever philosophical element a particular form set embodies, so I do consider them useful and beneficial. But for teaching SD, pulling applications out of forms is simply inefficient. If you want to teach people how to defend against wrist grabs, throw people, or defend against punches, then it is most efficient to simply teach them those techniques without the added pomp and circumstance of forms.

And how does a person practice wrist grab releases etc. with out a partner - hmmmmm... forms!

Stuart

 

[StuartA]

Suppose, however, that I made the assessment of sanshin (sanshou?) that apparently has some muscle flexing section, that doing a pose down for your attacker is silly and reflects some lack of knowledge on the part of the creator. Apparently, that section is meant to show muscular control, so my assessment would be incorrect due to lack of details that go beyond what I can see on youtube.

I'm not overly familiar with that form, so the analogy may not be all that good. Dancingalone explained it and I'm sure knows which form I'm talking about.

I get ya... but Sanchin is a very different kata to most and is about Ki development. the poomsae are not, and are simply 'versions' of whats been before, as are the ITF tul... and a simple look at them shows this!

Heres something wierd for ya - I had a little discussion witha student the otehr day, about how stances have changed and they made a joke about the 'short' stances seen in some KKW poomsae and I told them, they may actually be closer to the 'original' than we are (meaning the Okinawan forms), as they used short stances as well and the long stances were a japanese development!

Stuart

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

And how does a person practice wrist grab releases etc. with out a partner - hmmmmm... forms!

Or you can just practice wrist grab release motions. You don't need a kata for that. We don't use forms in hapkido at all, so apparently - hmmmmm.... not forms.

Besides, if you practice wrist grab releases without a partner, you really aren't practicing wrist grab releases. It's like shooting baskets with a basketball but no basket. You can pretend that you've got a backboard and hoop, but without one, you're just throwing the ball.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I get ya... but Sanchin is a very different kata to most and is about Ki development. the poomsae are not, and are simply 'versions' of whats been before, as are the ITF tul... and a simple look at them shows this!

Not the point. And if you get me, then the rest of this is just argument for its own sake.

If you think that you can get every detail, every subtlety from just looking, then I respectfully disagree with you. It doesn't matter what the subtlety is, be it ki development or variations of how a particular technique is performed; there are certain things that you simply won't get unless you practice something. And a simple look will not show this.

Heres something wierd for ya - I had a little discussion witha student the otehr day, about how stances have changed and they made a joke about the 'short' stances seen in some KKW poomsae and I told them, they may actually be closer to the 'original' than we are (meaning the Okinawan forms), as they used short stances as well and the long stances were a japanese development!

Stuart

That was actually said by Puunui and Dancingalone in a conversation a while back.

 

[dancingalone]

I think thats a bad example, as people 'evolve'. Forms, poomsae, Tule are basically copies of Kata with a bit of regigging IMO! If they wernt, why not make them totally unique like the Ram muay or something!

Actually forms evolve too, based on individual practitioners. This should be readily evident when looking at any of the permutations of the Okinawan kata Passai or for a simpler timeline we can compare Seibuken Pinan Nidan to Shito-ryu Pinan Nidan to Heian Shodan to Pyung Ahn Chodan.

Forms mean nothing without the people that practice them. Any meanings, usages, or technical parameters to them come solely from their users. And so as the users go, so too does the form go. So in your hands, a hyung could perhaps be the starting point for some neat practical usages. Practiced by someone else, it might just be a way of defining fundamental stances, blocks, and strikes. Neither perspective is 'wrong', but certainly individuals and organizations can decide what is 'right' for them.

No offence, but as you posted it, I thought you would be able to explain it. in fact, if its so different and unique and ingained surely every KKW'er with a few years behind them should be able to explain it! One thing i have seen through my research over the years is that things are copied, changed a little and then some 'reason' is put on them - after the fact however!

Reading the highlighted words, it seems like you are manufacturing a strawman or that you have negative bias against the poomsae in the first place. Did anyone say the philosophy behind the poomsae was 'different, unique, or engrained'? I didn't. I did say the poomsae embody certain ideas intentionally. This should be self-evident given their names (Taegeuk, Palgwe, and so on). Heck, didn't General Choi pick certain names for his tuls to teach both lessons historical and philosophical to his students? Why should the same not be true for the poomsae regardless of my willingness or ability to explain on a message board what they are?

And for the record, I've been practicing KKW poomsae for less than a year.

 

[dancingalone]

I get ya... but Sanchin is a very different kata to most and is about Ki development.

IMO Sanchin primarily is about learning structural stability through aligning stance, posture, and muscular tension. It also can be iron vest training which includes some aspects of qi building.

 

[StuartA]

Actually forms evolve too, based on individual practitioners. This should be readily evident when looking at any of the permutations of the Okinawan kata Passai or for a simpler timeline we can compare Seibuken Pinan Nidan to Shito-ryu Pinan Nidan to Heian Shodan to Pyung Ahn Chodan.

they did.. but they don't now unless its via a KKW or ITF IIC (or similar).. sorry, but... oh, wait! Im gonna say this on my next line so...

Forms mean nothing without the people that practice them.

Except 99.9% of the people, practice them as the org tells them too... its not like it was originally. I would love this to be true,.. but its not. period.

Any meanings, usages, or technical parameters to them come solely from their users. And so as the users go, so too does the form go.

If that was so,... why do 99.9% simply quote the exact same applications as they learn in a manual (or via their instructors who learnt from a manual etc.)?

So in your hands, a hyung could perhaps be the starting point for some neat practical usages. Practiced by someone else, it might just be a way of defining fundamental stances, blocks, and strikes. Neither perspective is 'wrong', but certainly individuals and organizations can decide what is 'right' for them.

I never said they are wrong... unless they deny the connection.. people can use them for what they want.. but should also realise.. if they want.. there is more to them than an 'org' will say!

Reading the highlighted words, it seems like you are manufacturing a strawman or that you have negative bias against the poomsae in the first place.

Not sure why you would think that or what I said to make you feel that! Ive nothing against any type of forms... I just want ALL TKD'ers to understand theres more to them and utilize them IF THEY WANT!

Did anyone say the philosophy behind the poomsae was 'different, unique, or engrained'? I didn't.

You made a stance that theres a philosophical difference.. but when asked to explain what that was.. you redirected me... but surely if its that self-evident.. all would know!

I did say the poomsae embody certain ideas intentionally. This should be self-evident given their names (Taegeuk, Palgwe, and so on). Heck, didn't General Choi pick certain names for his tuls to teach both lessons historical and philosophical to his students? Why should the same not be true for the poomsae regardless of my willingness or ability to explain on a message board what they are?

Yes he did... but the names (IMO) have no relation to the patterns... they are simply a Korean history lesson (interesting none the less).. could it not be the same with WTF Pommsae?

And for the record, I've been practicing KKW poomsae for less than a year.

Which goes back to my comment about one user calling anothers 'lack of training in KKW forms' into question.. who cares.. your opinion is based on what you know... and though I`ve put my experience down.. I am happy to discuss things with you - even if we don't change our minds. I will not belittle you like that post tried to do, in order to say "I know cos of what I know... and my predigree .. and that makes you wrong" - this is just a discussion thread after all!

Stuart

 

[StuartA]

IMO Sanchin primarily is about learning structural stability through aligning stance, posture, and muscular tension. It also can be iron vest training which includes some aspects of qi building.

Though I`m not a Goju guy.. ive studied this for a bit.. as part of an article about Ki in TKD and why we dont have an 'internal' kata.. and I know a Goju BB


For the record: http://www.raynerslanetkd.com/ARTICLES_internalpattern.html

Stuart

 

[dancingalone]

they did.. but they don't now unless its via a KKW or ITF IIC (or similar).. sorry, but... oh! Im gonna say this on my next libne so...


Exceppt 99.9% of the people, practice them as the org tells them too... its not like it was originally. I would love this to be true,.. but its not. period.



If that was so,... why do 99.9% simply quote the exact same applications as they learn in a manual (or via their instructors who learnt from a manual)?


I never said they are wrong... unless they deny the connection.. people can use them for what they want.. but should also realise.. if they want.. there is more to them than an 'org' will say!


Not sure why you would think that or what I aid to make you feel that! Ive nothing against any type of forms... I just want ALL TKD'ers to understand theres more to them and utilize them IF THEY WANT!

I'm starting to think you're an idiot savant in this respect. (No insult intended.) You don't understand what I've been trying to say, do you? You're so invested in the idea that TKD forms must have combat application that you can't conceptualize any other perspective as being valid even though they're coming from entirely different starting points than yours and so the destination might be different too.

You made a stance that theres a philosophical difference.. but when asked to explain what that was.. you redirected me... but surely if its that self-evident.. all would know!

I gave you a link that would have given you basic knowledge about the very topic that you asked about. The connection of the poomsae to Korean philosophy is self-evident is you knew what Taegeuk is or what the trigrams are, which it seems that you don't. Reading the link would have given this knowledge and you would be better equipped to seek further readings and discussions, assuming you have genuine interest in the topic.

Yes he did... but the names (IMO) have no relation to the patterns... they are simply a Korean history lesson (any interesting one no less).. could it not be the same with WTF Pommsae?

So there are no philosophical or cultural lessons to be learned from discussing such words as juche or tong-il? Or subtextual meanings attached to names like Eui-am which might be more accessible perhaps to a Korean?

Which goes back to my comment about one user calling anothers 'lack of training in KKW forms' into question.. who cares.. your opinion is based on what you know... and though I`ve put my experience down.. I am happy to discuss things with you - even if we don't change our minds. I will not belittle you like that post tried to do, in order to say "I know cos of what I know... this is just a discussion thread after all!

Indeed. If we disagree, we disagree. It happens.

Though I`m not a Goju guy.. ive studied this for a bit.. as part of an article about Ki in TKD and why we dont have an 'internal' kata.. and I know a Goju BB

OK. I would suggest that the form still is more about structure than it is about qi. Tell your friend what I said when you have spare time and see what he says.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I'
So there are no philosophical or cultural lessons to be learned from discussing such words as juche or tong-il? Or subtextual meanings attached to names like Eui-am which might be more accessible perhaps to a Korean?



QUOTE]

Tong - Il has symbolic meaning attached to certain moves. There may be more but here are some:
#1 - one country
#2 - Divided
#3 Suddenly attacked

#38 Breaking the 38th Parallel.

The pattern diagram (the manner in which your steps lay out on the floor) for Ju Che stands represents the Baekdu mountain.

So, the above are examples of a symbolic intent rather than martial intent.

 

[andyjeffries]

Weird.. just on FB and came across this:

“뜻으로 풀은 동작과 법을 실전 사용이 가능하게 수련하여 직접적으로 실전에 적용한다.”
“One must adapt what he has learned to his practical use, finding out the practicability.”
Kukkiwon Taekwondo Textbook p. 306

I think this is bending a quote to your meaning though. Reading this quote with a kukkiwon head on, I would take to mean using those sequences in other places, e.g. Step sparring, or using the philosophies learnt in a practical way (e.g. The speed and fluidity of Taebaek). I wouldn't read it as changing the movements beyond the obvious...

On the next page it refers to the practicable techniques as:

"This includes practically used techniques only, which are classified into a series of chigi techniques, a series of makki techniques and a balanced combination of chigi and makki techniques".

(I can't be bothered to type the hangul on my iPad, but if it's important I can type it out tomorrow night)

Note, there's no talk of makki techniques (blocks) becoming chigi (strikes) or grabs.

 

[andyjeffries]

So they have differences.. so one tries to belittle the other in order to make his point seem more sound... hmmm, hardly the actions of a martial artists who follows the tenets IMO!

They've niggled at each other for ages, don't pick on this one incident and believe it's one-sided.

Also, while you may disagree with what was said, surely you can agree that if you are going to talk about nuances, subtleties and techniques in a pattern then your level of experience in it is relevant.

Anyway as the poster is unable to reply to defend himself, maybe we can all agree to drop the ragging on him (regarding whether he follows the ITF tenets or not, still comes across as an insult).

Disclaimer: while I have spoken to Puunui on many occasions, I haven't since his expulsion (co-incidence) and my defensive comments here are because I respect his experience and willingness to share the insights he's had from the founders/seniors of our art and feel that while he may be abrasive to some, that doesn't deserve attacks where he can't defend himself.

 

[StuartA]

I'm starting to think you're an idiot savant in this respect. (No insult intended.)

So you think i`m mentaly handicapped witha good memory!!!! Err.. okay...

You don't understand what I've been trying to say, do you? You're so invested in the idea that TKD forms must have combat application that you can't conceptualize any other perspective as being valid even though they're coming from entirely different starting points than yours and so the destination might be different too.

Actually its the reverse... I can understand poomsae can have different useages.. and those ae valid... I just disagree that SD useage isnt there! So yes, i understand what you are trying to say.. simply disgree.. and for that you label me "idiot savant"! LOL

I gave you a link that would have given you basic knowledge about the very topic that you asked about. The connection of the poomsae to Korean philosophy is self-evident is you knew what Taegeuk is or what the trigrams are, which it seems that you don't.

Actually I do... its just, like most other cases in KMA.. a meaning give after, rather than based upon it for real!

Reading the link would have given this knowledge and you would be better equipped to seek further readings and discussions, assuming you have genuine interest in the topic.

thats not the point. You made out it was some "special" thing.. yet you didnt feel equiped enough to explain it - how rooted is that then!!!! I can happily explain the forms I do til the cows come home - technqiues, definitions, philopophy behind them - the whole hog - its not hard if you know waht your talking about (no offence intended)

So there are no philosophical or cultural lessons to be learned from discussing such words as juche or tong-il? Or subtextual meanings attached to names like Eui-am which might be more accessible perhaps to a Korean?

Sure.. but do they have a REAL relation to the patterns.. Tong-Il aside, as a maybe.. no.. what has the perfromance of Juche got to do with the realization of Juche.. no much, apart from af ew postures on Kim, Il Sung and the diagram representing a mountain where a BS story of where "Juche idea" was formed- that isnt even true anyway except in NK folklore.... ask any ITF'er what a 'dodging reversing turning kick' has to do with NK or the BS idea of Juche and I bet your simply hear - Blank! Tong-Il is meant to have some meaning of the moves.. wow.. the first 3 and last... what about all the others if its so ingrained! Its easy to put meaning to odd moves etc... thats not the whole pattern... and so it is with the KKW forms AFAIC. And even if there is.. it STILL doesnt change the DNA facts on how they were built up!

OK. I would suggest that the form still is more about structure than it is about qi. Tell your friend what I said when you have spare time and see what he says.

No need. I asked him when I wrote that article as I like to research as thorughly as I can... he concured.. he's a Goju 2nd dan btw

Stuart

 

[StuartA]

I think this is bending a quote to your meaning though. Reading this quote with a kukkiwon head on, I would take to mean using those sequences in other places, e.g. Step sparring, or using the philosophies learnt in a practical way (e.g. The speed and fluidity of Taebaek). I wouldn't read it as changing the movements beyond the obvious...

I didnt bend it for any meaning.. its just weird it appear whilst i was involved in this thread is all. Though I do fnd the words 'practical' et al interesting - it reminds me of those who say Gen Choi said at his seminars that "if it works, its a good application" - which to me always seemed like a get out clause for.. i don't know.. but if you can make it work, its cool!

Stuart