Self defense from forms

[Kong Soo Do]

Sulky? I used an analogy, Tez, to help explain the point that you seemed to have missed, namely that Mr. Weiss seems to be interested in some rather particular information instead of just a modern bunkai framework, no matter how effective it can be.

Are you sulking? I know you train with Mr. Abernethy and more power to you for it, but it's apples to oranges. The answer to all bunkai questions is not Iain Abernethy. In this case, we're not even really discussing bunkai. We're discussing historical intent of kata of the 'founders' which while related is not the same thing.

Sorry if that bugs you.

No offense intended, but I have to agree with Tez that your reply really wasn't necessary and added nothing to the thread. Although some of the flow of the thread has drifted to historical intent (and that is well and fine), the OP is SD from forms, which Abernathey Sensei is a pretty recognized authority. Whether one agrees with his premise or not is moot, what he teaches has had excellent results in real confrontations, the students are learning and enthusiasm is high for what he has to offer. That is a pretty good 'thumbs up' for what he offers and more than many.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I don't know about other systems/styles, but reverse engineering has never been part of Kukkiwon poomsae instruction and practice, in so far as its top practitioners -- the teachers at the Kukkiwon -- are concerned.

Once again, as I've mentioned several times, a person cannot teach what they themselves did not learn. That is NOT a slam on any TKD senior, just stating, once again, fact.

I can't imagine what it would like if I faced Grandmasters PARK Hae Man, KIM Soon Bae or LEE Chong Woo -- who are alive and were involved with development of Kukkiwon poomsae -- and told them I was performing taeguk so and so in a particular way, because I have altered it using my own knowledge, knowledge gleaned from what I believe is a "base" art or information I lifted from a book authored by an Englishman.

If he is a good teacher, truly interested in your personal development, he's take an honest, hard look at what you've done. He'd evaluate it with his experience. If what you offered was beyond his experience, but looked viable, he'd consult with someone that was versed in the principles you've extracted from the form(s). If it was then valid, he should commend you for expanding the art for the betterment of your students. As I've mentioned, again many times, Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming stated in the JAMA that the highest honor a student could do for their instructor is to surpass their knowledge. Many unfortunately just don't understand the depth of that statement.

It could be that I misunderstand the term, "reverse engineer," but even if I took it to mean that I have used Kukkiwon taeguk and yudanja poomsaee to create a self defense technique, there would be a problem if I misinterpreted the basic movements in the poomsae . That misinterpretation of techniques would show up in how I perform, practice and teach the poomsae. If, for example, I decided that an augmented back fist in a form is actually an augmented outside inside middle block (for perceived historical accuracy and self defense purposes), that misinterpretation would become evident in the way I perform the form.

You have misunderstood the term. Reverse engineering does not change the movement, it provides an alternate application using the movement. For example; Low block...what is more effective for this movement, blocking a kick or using it as an attack to the lower body of an attacker while grappling? From a SD perspective the answer is obvious. Same movement, different applications. Some applications are better than others.

Maybe a bigger question in all this is whether we should try to reverse-engineer something we have not mastered in taekwondo and still claim we are practicing taekwondo.

Depends upon whom you mean when you say 'we'. People that have an understanding of both b-p-k and more in-depth principles can have the ability to reverse engineer. An interest in doing so is a different question.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Another good question. This IS something I have taught in the past with students with some success. Was it still taekwondo? Well, I would say yes, given the perspective that the early TKD men often had backgrounds in both karate and judo. Was it KKW taekwondo? I would freely admit not.

Agreed.

TKD is and/or can be block/punch/kick/lock/throw/choke/cavity press/misplace bone-tendon etc.

KKW TKD cannot be based upon the present, accepted teaching methodology and focus towards competition. Doesn't make KKW TKD inferior. Just means the focus lies along a different path.

I stress that people need to remember this isn't a 'this vs. that' sort of thing. As mentioned, TKD can be, and is, quite diverse. Which is a good thing.

 

[dancingalone]

No offense intended, but I have to agree with Tez that your reply really wasn't necessary and added nothing to the thread. Although some of the flow of the thread has drifted to historical intent (and that is well and fine), the OP is SD from forms, which Abernathey Sensei is a pretty recognized authority. Whether one agrees with his premise or not is moot, what he teaches has had excellent results in real confrontations, the students are learning and enthusiasm is high for what he has to offer. That is a pretty good 'thumbs up' for what he offers and more than many.

I think my comment was relevant. Mr. Weiss was asking for sources about how the 'founders' (I think he meant people 1-2 steps up from Itosu) and my previous posts have addressed this along with the acknowledgement that there is a dearth of historical karate records from that span and before.

Mentioning that Iain Abernethy is visiting Kansas in light of the subject of the interest (not modern re-engineering) seems unhelpful to me regardless of what level of value one attaches to his material. It can be great stuff. So what? It's still not what is being sought. If I ask you where the local Enterprise car rental is, are you going to point me to the taxi cab company instead? Come on.

No offense by the way. I generally think your posts are productive and worth reading.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I think my comment was relevant. Mr. Weiss was asking for sources about how the 'founders' (I think he meant people 1-2 steps up from Itosu) and my previous posts have addressed this along with the acknowledgement that there is a dearth of historical karate records from that span and before.

Mentioning that Iain Abernethy is visiting Kansas in light of the subject of the interest (not modern re-engineering) seems unhelpful to me regardless of what level of value one attaches to his material. It can be great stuff. So what? It's still not what is being sought. If I ask you where the local Enterprise car rental is, are you going to point me to the taxi cab company instead? Come on.

No offense by the way. I generally think your posts are productive and worth reading.

Thank you, I understand what you're saying. I'd simply like to point out that Abernethy (and other MA'ists) had been mentioned throughout the thread in terms of SD applications for forms. I appreciated Tez's post about him teaching here in the U.S. and just wish it was closer. This is something I would have been interesting in doing, if closer.

And I appreciate your posts as well. And I think, regardless of the members perspective that the thread is very interesting and productive.

 

[Earl Weiss]

[edit] I was thinking of Tak Kubota... Dillman of course flows from the Taika Oyata tree (or did - not sure what he currently claims on his lineage chart). [/edit]

IMO, the 'real' karate men don't do the bunkai seminar circuit really. You have to join their schools and train with them to get the good stuff.

That is why I went to see Oyata, after seeing Dilman. Dilman apparently had made some claims about being taught by Oyata, I had heard Oyata did not look favorably on this and I was cautioned not to mention Dilman when I was at the Oyata seminar, or I might find myself being the Uke ---repeatedly.

 

[bluewaveschool]

To clarify a few things - while we do try to 'reverse engineer' some of our SD from the forms, I do NOT change or allow my students to change the true movements of the form. If Mr. Weiss came to my school, he would certainly recognize my students as doing Chang Hon forms, not something similar to Chang Hon forms.

We also teach plenty of SD that has nothing to do with forms. The forms deal is more of a challenge - to see the student start to think for themselves, and not just blindly follow everything we teach them.

 

[Archtkd]

Once again, as I've mentioned several times, a person cannot teach what they themselves did not learn. That is NOT a slam on any TKD senior, just stating, once again, fact.

I'm not quite sure that it's a fact the pioneers who created the Kukkiwon and yudanja poomsae did not learn/know enough of the elements of kata in Okinawan/Japanese martial arts. If it's indeed a fact please let us know where we can find material in which those pioneers, especially Grandmasters PARK Hae Man, KIM Soon Bae and LEE Chong Woo, detail their training regimen and discuss their philosophical thoughts on the creation of Kukkiwon taeguk and yudanja poomsae. This folks made very deliberate choices to create poomsae they way they did. I believe they did so from a position of superior knowledge, not lack thereof as some might argue. Here's are excerpts from Kang Won Sik and Lee Kyong Myong's "A Modern History of Taekwondo," which sheds some light on what the piooneers knew. It's lengthy but worth the read. Wouldn't be great if there was video of the event:

"The first Promotion Test was held at the Kuk Min Hwe Eui Dang on November 11, 1962. The Korea Taesoodo
Association supported the event, along with the Korean Amateur Sports Association (KASA), the Daehan
Jaekeon Kukmin Un Dong Bonbu (political party) and the Dae Han Ilbo Sa (Korea Newspaper Company). There
were 25 judges and they included: CHOI Myung Shin, LEE Nam Suk, LEE Chong Woo, UHM Woon Kyu, PARK
Chul Hee, LEE Young Sup, HYUN Jong Myun, HONG Jong Pyo, KIM Soon Bae, KIM Soo Jin, LEE Byung Ro, KO Jae Chun, LEE Kyo Yun, BAEK Joon Ki, among others.....

HONG Jong Pyo (72 years old in 1999) kept the paperwork for the event and stated: 'For 3rd Dan promotion
and higher, the three areas tested were Hyung (forms), Taeryun (sparring) and Nonmun (written examination).
The 1st Dan candidates were required to perform hyung from the 5 Pyong Ahn Hyung, Chul Ki Chodan Hyung
(Chul Ki #1), Naebojin Chodan Hyung (Naebojin #1), Ja Won Hyung, and Hwarang Hyung.' ....

With respect to the Hyung (form) portion of the examination, the examinees chose two forms from the
following group:

2nd Dan forms:
Balhan Hyung Dae
Chul Ki E Dan Hyung (Chul Ki #2);
Naebojin E Dan Hyung (Naebojin #2);
Kima E Dan Hyung (Kima #2); Choong Moo Hyung

3rd Dan forms:
Ship Su Hyung
Pal Sae Hyung
Yon Bi Hyung
Dan Kwon Kyung
No Pae Hyung
Ge Baek Hyung
Ul Ji Hyung

4th Dan forms:
Chul Ki Sam Dan Hyung (Chul Ki #3)
Naebojin Sam Dan Hyung (Naebojin #3)
Kima Sam Dan Hyung (Kima #3)
Ja Un Hyung; Jin Soo Hyun
Am Hak Hyung
Jin Dong Hyung

5th Dan forms: Kong Sang Kun Hyung
Kwan Kong Hyung
Oh Ship Sa Hyung
Ship Sam Hyung
Ban Wol Hyung
Pal Ki Kwon Hyung

At the time, the Hyung (Poomse) were adapted from Karate as was the Daeryun (Kyoruki). In the 1950's, CHOI
Hong Hee's Chang Hon Ryu forms Ge Baek and Choong Moo used at the Oh Do Kwan was included in this
promotion test.

Sam Il Hyung
Jang Kwon Hyung

Candidates for 3rd Dan and above also had a Nonmun, or written examination requirement. The 1st Exam
question was "Please explain the importance of the unification and standardization of the different Hyung." As
the question shows, the biggest problem of the Korea Taesoodo Association was the unification of the different
Kwan methods. However, as time went on, the written examination was taken out of the testing requirements.
During this time period, the main focus of every Kwan was to foster the attitude of the martial artist, as well as
develop the basic techniques, movement and philosophy of each Kwan. The training of Hyung was from Karate,
and Daeryun or sparring techniques and specialties varied depending on each Kwan's specialty...."

 

[Archtkd]

Someone who chooses not to identify themselves put this in my reputation. I think it's a cowardly act, particularly in this discussion, where every poster has really been serious and elevated the intellectual discourse to a level we've not seen in a long, long time: "Nothing you quote from the Modern History book supports your assertion about the level of knowledge the Kwan heads had."

Let it be noted that I've never hidden my identity in any open or closed post on MT.

 

[bluewaveschool]

How do I even see reputation?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Someone who chooses not to identify themselves put this in my reputation. I think it's a cowardly act, particularly in this discussion, where every poster has really been serious and elevated the intellectual discourse to a level we've not seen in a long, long time: "Nothing you quote from the Modern History book supports your assertion about the level of knowledge the Kwan heads had."

Let it be noted that I've never hidden my identity in any open or closed post on MT.

I guess that somebody doesn't like it when you support your position with solid documentation. If you annoy someone like that, then it means that they have nothing to offer in rebuttal, but don't want to say what they said publicly and do not wish to risk receiving bad rep in response. Thus the secrecy.

Recently, someone who chooses not to identify themselves did something similar to me on another thread, taking the time to write a lengthy accusing me of acting Puunui and Mastercole. I took it as a compliment.

My last rep to you was 'Fantastic!' But you'd already know that because I signed my name.

How do I even see reputation?

Go to settings and scroll down past recent threads/subscriptions, and you should see a section of reputation given followed by a section of reputation received.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Originally Posted by Archtkd

Someone who chooses not to identify themselves put this in my reputation. I think it's a cowardly act, particularly in this discussion, where every poster has really been serious and elevated the intellectual discourse to a level we've not seen in a long, long time: "Nothing you quote from the Modern History book supports your assertion about the level of knowledge the Kwan heads had."

Let it be noted that I've never hidden my identity in any open or closed post on MT.

I agree. This happened to me a couple of times. Just dismiss it. I think it should be a function of giving 'rep' that you identify yourself. I would help if there were a way to thank someone as well when they give you a thumbs up. I've gotten some positive rep but don't know who it was and no way to say thank you.

 

[Archtkd]

I agree. This happened to me a couple of times. Just dismiss it. I think it should be a function of giving 'rep' that you identify yourself. I would help if there were a way to thank someone as well when they give you a thumbs up. I've gotten some positive rep but don't know who it was and no way to say thank you.

Everybody has been fairly good in this thread so far. Many of us will disagree, but I believe learning is taking place on all sides and that's why we all keep coming back.

 

[bluewaveschool]

I guess I assumed that giving rep somehow identified you. So I've given rep (positive) without id'ing myself before. Thanks for whoever +rep me in this thread.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I agree. This happened to me a couple of times. Just dismiss it. I think it should be a function of giving 'rep' that you identify yourself. I would help if there were a way to thank someone as well when they give you a thumbs up. I've gotten some positive rep but don't know who it was and no way to say thank you.

I guess I assumed that giving rep somehow identified you. So I've given rep (positive) without id'ing myself before. Thanks for whoever +rep me in this thread.

Some forums (Kendoworld, for example) do identify the giver of reputation, be it positive or negative.

Personally, I don't care if someone does a phantom rep, be it negative or positive; its the internet and how many green or red dots somebody has under their name does not alter the quality of their posting, be it good or bad.

But if they're going to write a paragraph of rebuttal to the post that they're negging, it's pointless; nobody will see what they have to say and they will never receive a response from me. They could have saved themselves the time and left it blank.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Everybody has been fairly good in this thread so far. Many of us will disagree, but I believe learning is taking place on all sides and that's why we all keep coming back.

Seven pages so far and no one seems to be bent out of shape, pretty good

 

[Earl Weiss]

>>>

Originally Posted by Kong Soo Do
Then we'll simply have to be in disagreement on this particular issue. I think looking at the parent arts, founders of those parent arts and their views can be an enriching pursuit. YMMV
I would be interested to review the views of the founders of the parent arts. Where might I find them? <<<

In a nutshell we have diferent schools of thought and certainly reasoneable minds can disagree. Kong Soo Do seems to subscribe to the school of thought that views of founders can be an enriching pursuit vis a vis self defense applications.

While I think it would be enriching, so far all evidence that I consider credible is lost to antiquity vis a vis the founders who first established pattern motions. Certainly you can believe that somehow they were handed down thru the generations without alteration. I am sorry but I don't consider Fuankoshi a founder of a parent art, although the term may have some technical accuracy when you use the term founder and parent art directly I think it implies originators, not those who formulated modern day arts based heavily on the predecessors.

Similarly, to borrow an analogy from General Choin no one person or country can claim to have invented the wheel or discovered fire. In all likelyhood similar developments developed simaltaneously. As was most likey the case with any number of "Blocks" and all their various "real' or alternate applications.

In any event, at the end of the day what is really important? Is it some "Real" or alternate application. I submit theat any stated application is but a tool which helps develop what is much more important. Efficient, powerful, well balanced, motion. Once that is done that motion can be used in any number of fashions.

The current issue of Totally TKD has an article by Michael Munyon which calls this the "Master Key" concept. The prior issue has my article on the "Pattern Paradigm".

In summery you can think of Danial San learning "Wax on, Wax Off" was he really learning the application, or the motion?

 

[jks9199]

Folks, one of the rules around here is that we don't discuss rep in threads. If you've got a problem with rep you've received, notify a staff member. We don't have a policy requiring you to sign rep, positive or negative, that you issue, and the current settings don't automatically reveal who's issued it, but it is considered polite to "sign" when you issue rep, at least with your username.

For those wondering how to see their rep, there are a couple of ways. It's on your Settings page. You should also get a Notification at the top of the window telling you about it, and possibly an email depending on how you've set your options.

 

[Archtkd]

Folks, one of the rules around here is that we don't discuss rep in threads. If you've got a problem with rep you've received, notify a staff member. We don't have a policy requiring you to sign rep, positive or negative, that you issue, and the current settings don't automatically reveal who's issued it, but it is considered polite to "sign" when you issue rep, at least with your username.

Apologies. I was not aware of the rep rule and I don't think the one I posted about is a problem worth reporting.