Discussion in 'Tae-Kwon-Do' started by Kong Soo Do, Aug 9, 2012.
Your comments on Iljang indicate otherwise.
Of course. Which is why I am quite able to determine effectiveness of teaching methodology of SD.
Since you keep repeating it, I would hope so.
Nope. Though you may choose to take it that way if you wish.
Please link the thread or threads in question.
Bashing the art and its founders on the first page and in numerous previous threads is hardly engaging.
And before he was ever posting on this board, this topic was discussed at length, so I'd say that you are mistaken in saying that KKW members have no interest in.
My thought is that KSD is indeed poking some here, hence his choice in forms to discuss. Bad doggie.
But for that matter, you could use some chill time too. I think your response to Seasoned was a little unjustified and you're letting your ire at KSD spread to other people.
I am getting more and more turned off by MT these days. This isn't meant to attack anyone in particular... But all this meaningless conflict is unappealing to me as a member. Let's calm down and go hit the heavy bags for a bit.
Yet, you brought it up in the first place and the opinoin had no relevance in the thread, yet you had to make a comment about the founding fathers which, is based on personal opinoin. Unless you have trained with these "low ranked" students as you called them, you really do not know what it is they learned or taught. Perhaps it would have been better to just stick to the original topic that you posted instead of interjecting pieces of opinoin which is irrelevant to the discussion. You opened up the can, don't accuse others of simply picking that the worms that spilt out.
Indeed. To my knowledge, Sanchin being a notable exception, the karate kata were always more about development of physical skills and qualities. There is no surviving document that would tell us differently, though certainly this too could be retrofitted to the kata if desired. Some Tang Soo Do organizations already do this to an extent when they attribute various animal traits to the forms.
To be clear, that is not the approach in Okinawan karate either. Students generally learn the form in isolation first. Then they learn the surface meaning through partner drills. Over time, they develop personal understanding and the shape and expression of their oyu/okuden (I use both to avoid arguing about definition semantics) bunkai can look different from one student to the next.
How is the learning progression within Kong Soo Do made for that shoulder lock? How do you get a white belt from point A to point Z? Do you follow the Okinawan karate training methodology?
Just to clarify, I'm not trying to engage KKW members with this thread, rather I'm trying to engage martial artists regardless of afflitation. And I appreciate very much those that have responded to the topic. And if you would like to toss in Pyung Ahn Chodan then please do!
We have one standard form, consisting of 25 movement sequences. The progression is to learn the basics in a static format (line drills) then move into dynamic format (drills) and then breaking the form into five separate segments. Each seqment is a dynamic drill in-and-of-itself which leads to multiple variations based on the students strengths. As an example, that particular shoulder lock is the #2 movement sequence of the fourth segment. By this time the student is well versed in various locks, balance displacement, throws etc. It is a building block format.
By being form specific IE Taeguk Il-jang then you segregate part of the TKD population who do not practice the form. Having those people chime in on boonsae for Taekguk Il-jang is exactly what puunni was talking about, reverse engineering. Shouldn't one have actual basic knowlege of the form prior to going and trying to discover the hidden meanings of its techniques? Lastly, the video of the Taeguk Il-jang that you posted is out dated. So you are already starting the conversation off in the wrong direction by trying interpret a form that is no longer standard.
Perhaps you should be posting these things in the general MA section then? You might get a broader response. Here, it is pretty much the same people responding with the same answers and getting into the same conflicts.
I would suggest avoiding the Taegeuk and Palgwe for a time then. Really the Chang Hon patterns too. The karate forms however have been 'open sourced' and are unlikely to draw any negative attention from any.
Returning to the idea of the down block and step through punch... as an example of personalized bunkai, I learned the 'heaven and earth' throw from Goju-ryu well before I got into aikido and discovered it was one of the signature techniques in aiki.
It's this throw. Skip to 59 seconds in.
In Goju-ryu, the beginning kata Gekisai Dai Ichi starts out with a upper block and step through punch that seeds the heaven and earth throw. You can flip it around with a down block and step through punch as well to get to Pyung Ahn Chodan.
Now people who haven't trained Okinawan karate methodically will see this as 'reverse engineered' since upon cursory glance the throw looks foreign, if all one has trained is the down block and step through punch. The difference is that there should be plenty of intermediary partner-based drills (that hapkido/aikido/jujutsu thing) that develops the student to where they realize this particular technique as simply closing in and then applying leverage on uke once you are connected to each other. That is an example of how structured karate training likewise leads to hapkido-like (lite ?) skills in an organized fashion.
Thanks for the answer. If you have a video, I would be interested in seeing the form.
I do recall you saying you on'y have a single form. Wow, that's a throwback to the old days for sure. I must have flightier students than you do. I almost had rebellion on my hands when I wanted to focus my Goju-ryu students on just Sanchin for 3 months. LOL.
How was it unjustified? There was no ire whatsoever directed to him and honestly, I have no ire for KSD either. To be honest, for the most part this thread has been fairly ire free.
Not sure where you're getting ire from: I agreed with the general thrust of Season's post: that the art should not be just a young man's art, but one for men and women of all ages; I simply don't think that it applies to the topic, or the debate about the topic, which at heart is a difference in teaching methodology. He doesn't practice the art. That isn't a slam. He's telling someone else who does practice how the art should be, but as an outsider, he really doesn't know what the art is, particularly with regards to how it is an art that one may grow with. Bunkai doesn't fit into that subject.
I also asked him why he's hesitant to post on karate forums. That is a reasonable question, seeing as he saw fit to mention it in his post.
As I said before, this is the same territory being explored again and again, and the content of the posts isn't overly different. Some people like bunhae, some people find it a waist of time. I'm neutral to the idea; I'm more inclined to judge the finished product than I am the idea of it.
That is a good question IMO. To play devil's advocate, does it matter, if we are merely analysing the poomsae at the base, physical level? Left walking stance, left down block, right walking stance, right lunge punch. Do we need to know more than that to pose alternative meanings of what those 4 discrete techniques can mean in conjunction?
Oh, I don't think it would matter if it was now or six months.
Bingo! I've always found it a very logical, orderly progression. I really think this gives tremedous credit to the various kata founders.
We're in the process of making one. I'd be happy to let you know when it's done to seek your input.
I know exactly what you're saying. I remember the stories of Uechi Kanbun Sensei discussing the Uechi/Pangainoon version of Sanchin in that he worked exclusively on the opening movements of Sanchin for three full months. Can you imagine this today!
By the way, have you read the book, "Way of Sanchin Kata" by (IIRC Kris Wilder)? Good book. He concentrates more on the Goju version, but much will apply to the Uechi version as well. I enjoyed this and the other book, "Way of Kata".
Maybe it is just a matter of perspective. I've always welcomed the relationship between karate and TKD and so I've always felt any comments coming from Seasoned and other non-taekwondoin were fine and even interesting/relevant at times.
If I inferred more from your post than I should have, I apologize.
I own a copy of both books but honestly haven't read much from either. They're dense reading, for my puny brain anyway, and I have ample enough to work on without introducing more influences on my karate, even if it is only in the back of my mind. I want to say I have actually met Mr. Wilder in person if he's the same guy I think he is though this was years before he wrote his books.
I welcome it as well. In his post, he made a comment about being open minded, but the sense that I get from his post is that he views not training in bunkai as somehow neglecting older students, which I don't really see how one could say about Kukki taekwondo if one doesn't practice it. If you are looking at taekwondo from the perspective of a karateka and arriving at those conclusions then you are starting in the wrong place. Just as looking at Goju ryu from a Kukki taekwondo perspective and arriving at those conclusions would be starting in the wrong place.
You have nothing to apologize for. 123
Separate names with a comma.