Taegue Il Jang application

[Kong Soo Do]

In another section we've been discussing bunkai in kata as far as interpretation. I thought it would be interesting to examine applications here as well to see if there are different interpretations. With that in mind, I'd thought the appropriate place to begin would be Taegue Il Jang. Looking at just the first sequence after the opening; The instructor begins to turn to his left while performing a down block with his left hand. The down block is completed as he completes a full 90 degree turn to the left. He then steps forward with his right foot and delivers a right straight punch to mid-section height.

How do you view this sequence? What is the purpose? What is the interpretation as far as a self-defense movement? Is there a SD movement? No wrong answers and it is all based upon what you were taught that it means. How do you view it and how do you teach it?

 

[ralphmcpherson]

we do the palgwe forms so Im not familiar with the taegeks, but Im very interested in applications of forms so I look forward to seeing some of the responses you get here. This seems a very basic form, is it one of the first in the taegek series?

 

[puunui]

I thought it would be interesting to examine applications here as well to see if there are different interpretations. With that in mind, I'd thought the appropriate place to begin would be Taegue Il Jang.

Actually it is not interesting. Instead, I find the whole idea of reverse engineering applications into poomsae a complete waste of time. My teacher also finds it an exercise in futility, and he was the chief editor of the taegeuk (not "taegue") poomsae. Another teacher of mine is the gentleman who is demonstrating taegeuk 1 jang in the video clip included in your original post. Can you tell me where that footage originally came from?

 

[Dirty Dog]

we do the palgwe forms so Im not familiar with the taegeks, but Im very interested in applications of forms so I look forward to seeing some of the responses you get here. This seems a very basic form, is it one of the first in the taegek series?

Our school also uses the palgwes, but I train with the taegeuks (and Chang Hon forms) as well. Il Jang is 'first chapter', same as palgwe il jang. They even share the same gwae (keon) and thus have the same meaning (heaven). The application is very simple. Learning the simplest stance (a walking stance), a basic block (low block, which can be used against attacks of various sorts aimed at targets from your armpit down) and a basic attack (middle punch, typically aimed at the solar plexus). Yes, a low block can also be considered a hammerfist blow, perhaps aimed at the groin, bladder, femoral nerve, common peroneal nerve... but that's not (as I understand it) the purpose of forms. They're intended to teach stances and specific movements, using both sides of the body.

I don't really think there are any secrets hidden in them, but it's fun and productive to consider applications for which the movements are suited.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Actually it is not interesting.

Then you shouldn't do it. So why are you in this thread?

Instead, I find the whole idea of reverse engineering applications into poomsae a complete waste of time.

And since you find it a waste of time, nobody should do it. You don't see the arrogance of such an attitude?

I find it fun, interesting and productive, and so does my teacher. So does his teacher. Some people seem unable to recognise that there is more than one path.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Then you shouldn't do it. So why are you in this thread?



And since you find it a waste of time, nobody should do itSo. You don't see the arrogance of such an attitude?

I find it fun, interesting and productive, and so does my teacher. So does his teacher. Some people seem unable to recognise that there is more than one path.

So very very true. Both my instructor and GM also find it interesting and productive and we are encouraged to look at our forms this way.

 

[Jaeimseu]

Then you shouldn't do it. So why are you in this thread?



And since you find it a waste of time, nobody should do it. You don't see the arrogance of such an attitude?

I find it fun, interesting and productive, and so does my teacher. So does his teacher. Some people seem unable to recognise that there is more than one path.

To be fair, one reason he says he finds it a waste of time is that some of the men who helped put the Taeguek poomse together told him it was a waste of time and not to bother with it.

I don't care if someone wants to study applications for individual techniques found in the poomse, but if the men who created the poomse say it's a waste of time, then I feel like there are plenty of other things that I could practice that would be a better use of my time. To each his own, obviously. If someone enjoys that type of thing, I say more power to them.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

To be fair, one reason he says he finds it a waste of time is that some of the men who helped put the Taeguek poomse together told him it was a waste of time and not to bother with it.

I don't care if someone wants to study applications for individual techniques found in the poomse, but if the men who created the poomse say it's a waste of time, then I feel like there are plenty of other things that I could practice that would be a better use of my time. To each his own, obviously. If someone enjoys that type of thing, I say more power to them.

Its not so much his opinion, but the fact that if this thread doesnt interest him, stay away. Going to a thread you have no interest in just to make a smart *** remark is just wasting everybody's time. If my GM (after 44years training) and my instructor (38years training) say there is much value in breaking down the forms for applications then thats good enough for me, and from my experience it opens up a whole new way of thinking when you start to view forms this way. I consider it progressive thinking, being too stuck in your ways becomes counter productive in martial arts in my opinion.

 

[seasoned]

There is a saying, "don't do what I do, but, do what I did to get here".

I am also in the wrong thread, But, building blocks are the same across the arts, IMO.
I'm not sure about the form above, but it looks very basic, and perhaps some of the first building blocks within this system.

What I have learned over the years is things sometimes never are what they appear to look like. Case in point are some of the basic high, middle, and low blocks. It is the movement that is important, not what it seems to be doing. Trying some of these blocks in sparring will prove a point very quickly. In GoJu all blocks can also be strikes, done the same way they are done in forms when assumed they were blocks. Also some of the open hand "blocks" are locks and traps, but still look and are taught as, "blocks" to the newer students. This is part of the building of a system, but I'm not sure how it is with other teachings.............. Sorry if I am off tract pertaining to the flow of this thread.

 

[miguksaram]

FWIW...that is an older version of Taeguk Il-jang that you are showing. I would recommend this video which I believe is more recent.

Yes, there are subtle differences and those differences may or may not change what you would do as how you interpret the boonsae.

Everyone will have their own interpretation. Some will be basic (example: First move I'm blocking a kick then countering with punch), others will tend to be more in fancy technique mind set (example: I'm stricking the ST36 point with my hammer fist and then countering with a blow to the CV6), and of course you will get those who will interpret every single move (example: The first move is actually countering a right handed straight punch. I am stepping to the outside blocking with my left hand while I strike with my right hand to the stomach. Then I am doing a second strike with my left hand towards his carotid artery in a diagnol strike....that is how the Koreans disguised all their moves so that only they would know. I found out because I am the last in the line of the secrety squirrel society which teaches these moves).

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Here are some of my thoughts;

Karate kata can be viewed as either block-punch-kick or alternative applications. Several founders of Karate Ryus have talked about this in their writings. I've mentioned before that Itosu Sensei was credited with re-labeling the Pinan katas to a b-p-k format in order for it to be allowed into the Okinawan school curriculum. Now, there is nothing wrong with the b-p-k method, and in many instances it is the simplest and most effective response to a violent altercation. It has been noted;

What I have learned over the years is things sometimes never are what they appear to look like. Case in point are some of the basic high, middle, and low blocks. It is the movement that is important, not what it seems to be doing. Trying some of these blocks in sparring will prove a point very quickly. In GoJu all blocks can also be strikes, done the same way they are done in forms when assumed they were blocks. Also some of the open hand "blocks" are locks and traps, but still look and are taught as, "blocks" to the newer students.

Many different styles of Karate teach this methodology including the ones I took. Blocks can be and are strikes or have other applications. Furthering this thought, the father of TKD is Karate. Since Karate kata can serve a dual purpose i.e. b-p-k and alternative applications, I submit that to an extent, so can TKD forms. The founders of TKD, as I've pointed out in the past, were initially very low level practitioners themselves with at least on exception I'm aware of. Their levels of actual experience varied widely, but mostly they were of very low rank or even no rank. That is just history and not meant to down play their contribution to the establishment of TKD.

Many of the forms in certain Korean arts are simply renamed Okinawan kata. Again, just stating the obvious. However, to their credit, the Koreans did develop many forms of their own for the new art(s). My suggestion is that since Korean forms use many/most of the same movement patterns of Okinawan kata, and since Okinawan kata contains both b-p-k and alternative or more advanced applications, that Korean forms will also contain them to an extent. I do not believe the founders of TKD for the most part were experienced enough in their original training to have any appreciable amount of in-depth knowledge about more advanced applications. They in turn would not understand these principles for the most part when developing their own forms. As I've mentioned before, one can only teach what they've learned or researched or discovered for themselves. Some will point out that the creators of these forms suggest no deeper meanings, and they are correct. They would not have known, again for the most part, the deeper meanings of Okinawan kata and therefore not understood what was going into the forms they were creating. For example, if in an Okinawan kata a certain movement sequence contains a b-p-k and an advance application and that movement sequence is transplanted into a newly created Korean form, then it will have the same b-p-k and advanced applications even if only one is known and/or understood.

I see Okinawan kata as well-written and complete 'stories' so-to-speak. Conversely, I see Korean forms, as far as advanced applications, as somewhat choppy. In other words, most of the words are there but many of the sentences are somewhat broken, fragmentary or incomplete. This is because some/many of the Korean forms were put together with purely b-p-k in mind because the more advanced applications weren't known. Therefore some movement sequences were transplanted intact and some were altered to a lesser or greater extent to make the forms flow as far as b-p-k. However, imo, sometimes the flow of the b-p-k is questionable which, too me, lends credence to the existence of a more advanced application within the sequence.

For an example of what I mean, take a look at the opening sequence of the form in the video.

The practitioner is looking forward initially. As he begins the 'down block' he is also simultaneously looking towards his left. Why? If the attack is coming from the front, what is the attack? What will the 'down block' do to that incoming frontal attack? The follow up is a straight punch to mid-section height at a 90 degree angle to the starting position. If the attack was frontal, what did that 'down block' specifically do to the attacker to cause their body to move a full 90 degrees to the practitioner's left in order to be in position to receive that straight punch to mid-section height?

Or

If the attack is coming in from the left of the practitioner, how is he seeing what type of attack is coming? Peripheral vision? Possibly, but is that good enough to have already committed to a specific blocking strategy? Why is he turning into the attack rather than moving laterally away from it to a position of advantage or better defense? If indeed he was able to identify the mode of attack with peripheral vision, and respond to it simultaneously, is the 'down block' the best option? I can see a down block deflecting a straight kick, but it is a very poor choice against a kick coming in from the side i.e. the radial bone isn't a match against a shin bone unless you've done a LOT of hard body conditioning to your arms. Normally, TKD schools don't center on that type of arm conditioning. Certainly not to the degree of specific Karate Ryus (I know, I've done it). So the question becomes; is this really a b-p-k defense from either the front or side? Or are there better alternatives available using the movements indicated in the form?

Now take into account that writing this stuff may not be as effective as if we were all in a group and I was able to physically explain what I'm saying with a partner to assist. Hopefully I've done a sufficient enough job explaining it to get the point across? I'll come back later with some possible alternatives to offer, and I'd love to see others input on what they see as advanced applications. And to me this is the most interesting parts of forms/katas. They demonstrate more advanced principles and therefore give additional incentive for forms work. Rather than learning a form per colored belt, one could literally spend a year dissecting just one form for all of the nuggets it contains. If they were so inclined.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

As a side note, if/when anyone comes into the thread with negative comments/smart-aleck remarks/snipes etc, my suggestion is to simply ignore them and let the mods take care of it. That way there are no rabbit trails and the thread doesn't get derailed (which is probably their intention in the first place). Just ignore them and let's see what we can learn together.

 

[oftheherd1]

...

What I have learned over the years is things sometimes never are what they appear to look like. Case in point are some of the basic high, middle, and low blocks. It is the movement that is important, not what it seems to be doing. Trying some of these blocks in sparring will prove a point very quickly. In GoJu all blocks can also be strikes, done the same way they are done in forms when assumed they were blocks. Also some of the open hand "blocks" are locks and traps, but still look and are taught as, "blocks" to the newer students. This is part of the building of a system, but I'm not sure how it is with other teachings.............. Sorry if I am off tract pertaining to the flow of this thread.

I have said before, there are movements in TKD, and probably Karate, the meaning of which has apparently been lost to most Master practitioners, and apparently some GM. I had a student who was a 4th dan in TKD, who would point them out to me sometimes, and I have seen some which look to me like they should/could have been grabs, instead of the "art" they are often explained as.

As to whether or not you will be a better TKD practioner knowing that or not, I can't say. Regardless of whether or not forms movements are sudo-grabs/locks, or kick defenses, in fact TKD doesn't teach those things, nor use them, unless some Master teacher or GM has decided to put them in.

Even then, there may be no realization there is a form movement that expresses that same thing. So maybe Puunui and his teachers are right after all.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

In another section we've been discussing bunkai in kata as far as interpretation. I thought it would be interesting to examine applications here as well to see if there are different interpretations. With that in mind, I'd thought the appropriate place to begin would be Taegue Il Jang. Looking at just the first sequence after the opening; The instructor begins to turn to his left while performing a down block with his left hand. The down block is completed as he completes a full 90 degree turn to the left. He then steps forward with his right foot and delivers a right straight punch to mid-section height.

How do you view this sequence? What is the purpose? What is the interpretation as far as a self-defense movement? Is there a SD movement? No wrong answers and it is all based upon what you were taught that it means. How do you view it and how do you teach it?

All of the taegeuk pumse are designed to draw one of the eight gwe (pal-gwe), the same as the palgwe pumse were. So to a certain extent the turning from facing north to facing west is simply the beginning point of drawing that pattern, in this case, Keon, symbolizing Heaven, yang, and creation of all things in the universe.

Regarding the actual movment itself, you have a turn and putting forth of the left foot and arae makki followed by stepping with the right foot and executing dwit son jireugi, all performed in ap seogi. I don't have the textbook with me, but if I remember correctly, the interpetation given is that of parrying ap chagi and stepping to deliver deit don jireugi to the solar plexus.

Arae makki 'defends the self' against the ap chagi, so in the most basic sense, there is an action of self defense. The pumse intent is not to emulate a real fight, but to teach movement and execution of basic technique within the frame work of Keon.

Individual elements of the pumse, such as the parry/counter can be taken and placed into the context of a practical SD scenario, and further techniques can be drawn from the movments themselves. Given that this is a basic level pumse (pal geub), I would not view it as anything more, on a physical level, than teaching transition from defensive to offensive techniques and walking in ap seogi, and transitioning from ap seogi to ap kubi, teaching transition from defensive to offensive techniques and moving in ap kubi.

Students at this level are not ready to be extrapolating practical SD from the pumse. I was taught, and teach, separate techniques, such as falling, defenses against grabs, and utilizing grabs, pulls, sweeps, and takedowns, separately from pumse.

I do not mix pumse with practical self defense, though I do connect things in practical self defense with techniques that the students have learned in the pumse when appropriate, though more to allow them to see the principles the pumse communicate rather than in bunkai fashion the way that it is done in some karate ryu.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I have said before, there are movements in TKD, and probably Karate, the meaning of which has apparently been lost to most Master practitioners, and apparently some GM. I had a student who was a 4th dan in TKD, who would point them out to me sometimes, and I have seen some which look to me like they should/could have been grabs, instead of the "art" they are often explained as.

As to whether or not you will be a better TKD practioner knowing that or not, I can't say. Regardless of whether or not forms movements are sudo-grabs/locks, or kick defenses, in fact TKD doesn't teach those things, nor use them, unless some Master teacher or GM has decided to put them in.

Even then, there may be no realization there is a form movement that expresses that same thing. So maybe Puunui and his teachers are right after all.

Valid considerations. Here are my thoughts; we sometimes forget that masters, GM's, seniors, founders etc are still men. They don't know everything, and probably would not claim to know everything. Simply put, no one, knows everything. Someone that develops a form in the 'modern era' is not the first person to develop a form. Many forms already pre-existed. If/since there are elements within many of those forms, any similar sequence of movements will also have those same elements whether or not the form creator had the insight, experience or training to recognize it. In short, it doesn't matter whether a forms creator in the modern era claims there are no advanced applications or recognizes them. It doesn't matter if this or that GM understands/recognizes these applications. That would be up to the individual instructor. In essence these applications simply are there if one wishes to use them. If they don't wish to use them, no harm/no foul. It is their choice. If someone wishes to use them, research into them, reverse-engineer them or whatever, providing that it works for the intended purpose then that is their choice as well.

No right or wrong here, simply a matter of choices. Too me, it is profitable to see others interpretations of a movement sequence as it may present options I had not previously considered. Thus, my training advances. If I can offer something they hadn't considered that benefits their training then that is great as well.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

If you don't mind my asking, what is your specific interest in this topic? You don't use these forms yourself; presumably, you have your own forms and their associated applications in the IKSDA. Or are you planning to teach Taegeuk pumse?

I don't see Shotokan, TSD, Goju, Tai Chi, or Kyokushin practitioners over here asking about our bunkai; they already have their own and engage in discussions thereof in their own forums. You seem to be particularly interested in this; even people of other TKD styles don't post about Taegeuk applications with any frequency or at all, but you have posted serveral threads on the topic over the past year or so.

I don't care that you're asking, nor saying that you shouldn't; it is a public forum and there are no rules preventing you from doing so, but your posts come off as being dismissive of KKW pioneers in this matter (as evinced by your post above) and seem very focused on the subject as though it is some glaring oversight in the system. Perhaps that is not your intent, but your posts on the subject do tend to read that way.

It isn't an oversight; KKW schools simply do not teach SD in that fashion. Layering of lessons in that way is cool, and if a KKW instructor opts to do so, then as far as I am concerned, more power to them. But taekwondo is not karate and does not use the same teaching methodologies found in many karate ryu.

I know that you and some of the others here do not get on well with Puunui, but he is a senior in the art. I see a distinct lack of respect for what he has to say on the subject. If you want to dismiss everything he says about matters not KKW, that is understandable, but with regards to what is contained in the art and why it is contained or not, he is in a much more authoritative position than yourself or anyone else who has yet posted on this thread.

Dirty Dog asked him why he's in this thread. I could ask any non KKW practitioner why they're in this thread and you why you're even in this section and not in whatever section Kong Soo Do would fall under (karate?). But I've already given that answer in my own post: it is a public forum and there are no rules preventing you from doing so, so it would be just as silly for me to ask that as it was of Dirty Dog to ask it of Puunui.

Notice that aside from myself and Miguksaram (both KKW practitiones), none of the other posters have in any way answered the questions posed in your OP, but have either made very non specific comments or spent their time debating Puunui's right to post in this thread?

I don't mind that you post the topic; I wouldn't have participated earlier if I did. But you do come across as looking down at the art and at its pioneers.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

If you don't mind my asking, what is your specific interest in this topic?

Sure. I find it an interesting topic. Secondly, I think others may find it interesting. Thirdly, there is possibility to learn an application that I'm unfamiliar with by discussing it.

As you mentioned, it is a free forum and it is for the exchange of information regarding to a topic. If any KKW practitioner finds no interest in the topic, they are under no obligation to post and will find a plethora of threads to their liking. Indeed, this thread isn't to discuss 'if' so much as to discuss 'what'. It is for those that see various applications, or would like to take a look at it openly. If they don't wish to look at the topic of discussion, then they really should be on to other topics of interest to them.

Being a KKW senior is of no relation to the topic if that senior doesn't have the experience necessary to discuss various applications of a more in-depth nature, or wished to believe they don't exist. But again, this thread isn't designed for 'if' it is designed for 'what' and the conversation should remain on topic. That is my request as the OP to avoid rabbit trails and derail attempts.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Dirty Dog asked him why he's in this thread. I could ask any non KKW practitioner why they're in this thread and you why you're even in this section and not in whatever section Kong Soo Do would fall under (karate?). But I've already given that answer in my own post: it is a public forum and there are no rules preventing you from doing so, so it would be just as silly for me to ask that as it was of Dirty Dog to ask it of Puunui.

Nothing silly about it. If you think this discussion is a waste of time, then wondering why you'd be involved in it seems an entirely reasonable question.

Notice that aside from myself and Miguksaram (both KKW practitiones), none of the other posters have in any way answered the questions posed in your OP, but have either made very non specific comments or spent their time debating Puunui's right to post in this thread?

Simply not true. I posted my opinions on the applications. Did you miss that, or dismiss that?

 

[dancingalone]

Although normally forms applications are a topic of high interest for me, I have avoided posting on this thread because frankly I am tired of the catty stuff all around. Some stray thoughts from me:

1)There's really no reason to bring up Tae Geuk Il-jang as a topic for discussion, considering the same opening movements are present in a bunch of other kata/hyung like Chonji or Pyung Ahn Chodan or Kibon/Kicho Hyung Chodan. Why avoid the Tae Geuks? Well, I would out of sensitivity for the KKW folks who no doubt are tired of the discussion of self-defense and its teaching method in their system. It would be less antagonizing to showcase one of the other forms as an initial discussion point or at the very least give a spotlight on all of them and then request comment on any/all of them to look for commonality or differences in the approaches the MT participants have.

2) It's a valid perspective to say there is no bunkai in the KKW poomsae as intended by the forms inventers. It's equally valid to say there could be if there is an interest in adding it retroactively and it's also fair to get into some discussion of WHY there is a lack of applications study in the KKW system. However, as MT is a place for polite, friendly discussion, it would behoove all to stay above on the belt when talking about history, etc.

3) I would consider Kong Soo Do a form of taekwondo, not karate. It apparently uses Korean terminology, so sticking to my definition of TKD as a melting pot of martial influences, I have no problems reading about KSD in the TKD section.

That's all I have to say for now. Going to lunch on someone else's dime! I'll be back in a few.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Nothing silly about it. If you think this discussion is a waste of time, then wondering why you'd be involved in it seems an entirely reasonable question.

What he actually said is quoted below:

Actually it is not interesting. Instead, I find the whole idea of reverse engineering applications into poomsae a complete waste of time. My teacher also finds it an exercise in futility, and he was the chief editor of the taegeuk (not "taegue") poomsae. Another teacher of mine is the gentleman who is demonstrating taegeuk 1 jang in the video clip included in your original post. Can you tell me where that footage originally came from?

The fact that a senior in the art considers it a waste of time and that his instructor, who was the chief editor of the taegeuk pumse, found it to be an exercise in futility actually does contribute, though not in the way you, or the OP might like. You may not agree with the point of view of either gentlman, but it is relevant to the topic.

The taegeuk pumse, unlike kata in some karate ryu, were not designed with hidden applications in mind and are meant to be taught and practiced in a specific way. Do I personally think that it is a waste of time or an exercise in futility? Depends on who's doing the reverse engineering and how they're teaching it.

I can only tell you that I have read a lot of books by seniors in the art and I cannot recall any of them that get into pumse applications in any depth or at all. Some of them have had specific self defense applications for techniques found in KKW taekwondo and in the pumse, but they weren't reverse engineering the pumse in order to communicate it.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with pulling applications from or reverse engineering pumse. Some people are just into that type of layered teaching methodology. But it is not the norm for teaching self defense applications within the art.

Simply not true. I posted my opinions on the applications. Did you miss that, or dismiss that?

Missed it. Read it, thanked on it. Good post! Apologies for missing it.