The ITF Pattern Moves That Have Changed Over Time (and/or are most contested)

[Earl Weiss]

1965 Text re print available. Amazon.com

 

[Earl Weiss]

Copy Available Taekwon-Do: The Art of Self-Defence by Choi Hong Hi - Hardcover - 1965 - from Quirky Used Books & More (SKU: 230411010)

 

[BaehrTKD]

I'm putting together a video on the three "hidden" grappling techniques in the color belt patterns because (as I suspected) they don't exist in the earlier texts. (Or certainly not as what they would come to be in later books.)

For reference:

• Do-San (the move after the fingertip middle straight thrust)
• Joong-Gun (the move after the back-fist side strike)
• Hwa-Rang (the move after the right middle punch)

The way we were taught was as follows:

• Your arm never gets grabbed.
• Do the next technique exactly like you normally would.

That means you pivot into the back-fist side strike as usual in Do-San.
That means you rechamber and do the reverse middle punch as usual in Joong-Gun.
That means you do a right round punch into your left fist in Hwa-Rang and then side kick from that position.

By doing the above, you achieve the perfect wrist lock escape in every one of those patterns. In other words, by treating it like it's not there, you actually do the optimal escape technique if there really had been a grab, but our philosophy (in general) is that there isn't.

(Although with Hwa-Rang, a backward step would be needed to avoid jamming oneself on the side kick. Again, our philosophy is that there is no grab, so it's a moot point.)

Anyone else ever get taught these techniques before they became grappling escapes?

 

[Earl Weiss]

I don't know if they were ever was "Before they became grappling escapes for the Chang Hon Patterns. " Each of the moves provide a different method of trying to release a grab.. The value is in the different motions. The result of the motion can have different applications

An example here is a Do San alternate application.

 

[BaehrTKD]

I don't know if they were ever was "Before they became grappling escapes for the Chang Hon Patterns. " Each of the moves provide a different method of trying to release a grab.. The value is in the different motions. The result of the motion can have different applications

An example here is a Do San alternate application.

Well in the 1965 book it doesn't mention any grab in pattern Do-San. It mentions a "releasing motion" in pattern Joong-Gun, but not like later books do. It says nothing of a grab in pattern Hwa-Rang.

In the video you showed I think that's an example of "overreach". (Taking it too far basically.) A technique like that might have merit if the defender were being grabbed on the uniform by the chest or something. (I'll make a video for people to watch. Too difficult to explain in text.) Then it would be plausible to grab the arm that's grabbing you, strike, and go into an arm bar submission, but to come forward and grab their arm after they've punched is going down a false trail.

But that's a good video for me to do a reaction video on, so I'll get to it ASAP.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Well in the 1965 book it doesn't mention any grab in pattern Do-San. It mentions a "releasing motion" in pattern Joong-Gun, but not like later books do. It says nothing of a grab in pattern Hwa-Rang.

In the video you showed I think that's an example of "overreach". (Taking it too far basically.) A technique like that might have merit if the defender were being grabbed on the uniform by the chest or something. (I'll make a video for people to watch. Too difficult to explain in text.) Then it would be plausible to grab the arm that's grabbing you, strike, and go into an arm bar submission, but to come forward and grab their arm after they've punched is going down a false trail.

But that's a good video for me to do a reaction video on, so I'll get to it ASAP.

1. The 1965 Text does not mention a lot of things.
2. Hwa Rang the position of the hand on fist is unique- The purpose is to grab and pull the fist.
3. Video example may be over reach but the Position of the Right Hand / Arm to use the tricep tendon Pressure point and the foot work is a heck of coincidence. FWIW whether you grab a Right Punch or if they grabbed your uniform the point is the same. Utilize very similar motions but with a different intent and result.

 

[BaehrTKD]

1. The 1965 Text does not mention a lot of things.
2. Hwa Rang the position of the hand on fist is unique- The purpose is to grab and pull the fist.
3. Video example may be over reach but the Position of the Right Hand / Arm to use the tricep tendon Pressure point and the foot work is a heck of coincidence. FWIW whether you grab a Right Punch or if they grabbed your uniform the point is the same. Utilize very similar motions but with a different intent and result.

I do think it's a good application if you're already being grabbed, and I have another example of that which I did with my Dad:

 

[BaehrTKD]

2. Hwa Rang the position of the hand on fist is unique- The purpose is to grab and pull the fist.

I know that's what the modern books say; however, if you step closer to your opponent you will be too close to use a side kick. My instructor demonstrated that one day in class. You're already within punching distance to do the right middle punch. For your opponent to grab your wrist, you have to be within arm's reach. (I'm assuming it's not a giant that is grabbing you.) That means you're generally too close for side kick to begin with, but to make matters worse, the next move pivots and moves in even closer.

Here's some food for thought (see picture):

This is how I was taught: You punch an opponent in front of you. You turn to the side, grab and punch an opponent approaching beside you with a round punch, and then kick the original opponent that you punched earlier with the side kick (while holding the other person). In effect, this is an example of a "grasping kick" in the ITF pattern set.

The philosophy is simple: It's impossible to grab someone's wrist when they're punching. So yes, there's a grab, but it's you grabbing your opponent's head before driving into their temple with a round punch, just as there are many techniques in TKD that involve a head grab before a strike.

 

[HighKick]

I don't know if they were ever was "Before they became grappling escapes for the Chang Hon Patterns. " Each of the moves provide a different method of trying to release a grab.. The value is in the different motions. The result of the motion can have different applications

An example here is a Do San alternate application.

Agree, but I Hate seeing a young white belt used as the Uke.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I do think it's a good application if you're already being grabbed, and I have another example of that which I did with my Dad:

Exactly - Same idea except for the follow up which provides a reason to turn 180 degrees.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Agree, but I Hate seeing a young white belt used as the Uke.

Agree but sometimes you use what's available at the moment.
I guess I should not mention how I use white belts when I want a whirlpool. I have then come to the tub with straws.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I know that's what the modern books say; however, if you step closer to your opponent you will be too close to use a side kick. ................................ (I'm assuming it's not a giant that is grabbing you.) That means you're generally too close for side kick to begin with, but to make matters worse, t

1. Don't use it if you step too close.
2. I assume it would probably be a larger and not smaller person that grabs you. (Agreed on your instructor's illustration of possible issue)
3. Only makes matters worse if you assume for textbook applications The knifehand follows the kick for the same opponent who has not been moved backward by the force of your kick. A does not always follow B. Starting with Chon Ji, proper Blocking distance for #1 makes you too close for same opponent for #2 for textbook application.

 

[Earl Weiss]

The philosophy is simple: It's impossible to grab someone's wrist when they're punching. So yes, there's a grab, but it's you grabbing your opponent's head before driving into their temple with a round punch, just as there are many techniques in TKD that involve a head grab before a strike.

As I said before - Patterns teach you how to move. "Wax on Wax Off" The stated applications are but a tool helping you understand how to move. The pattern specifications also provide a convenient point from which to morph the technique in any number of ways to suit a situation.

 

[BaehrTKD]

As I said before - Patterns teach you how to move. "Wax on Wax Off" The stated applications are but a tool helping you understand how to move. The pattern specifications also provide a convenient point from which to morph the technique in any number of ways to suit a situation.

As long as the listed application isn't setting the student up for failure/disappointment, I agree.

At the end of the day, making a right round punch into your left hand is making the same motion that the book describes, but the application is very different. The main difference is getting rid of the half steps / cheater steps / intermediate / flow interrupting movements as I call them. Perhaps that's the biggest difference of all. I believe those extra movements weren't there originally. The book sometimes breaks down an atomic movement into pieces that aren't separable.

There's a very clear philosophical/style difference between the way my instructor was taught and how things appear today in the books, and it's consistent every time in every pattern where one of these techniques emerges. That's no accident. It's deliberate. Bottom line: I think we learned a different style of taekwondo, a much older style, and it would have been the first style that went under the name Taekwondo, before the English books were published, and I think that's pretty neat all things considered.

 

[HighKick]

As long as the listed application isn't setting the student up for failure/disappointment, I agree.

At the end of the day, making a right round punch into your left hand is making the same motion that the book describes, but the application is very different. The main difference is getting rid of the half steps / cheater steps / intermediate / flow interrupting movements as I call them. Perhaps that's the biggest difference of all. I believe those extra movements weren't there originally. The book sometimes breaks down an atomic movement into pieces that aren't separable.

There's a very clear philosophical/style difference between the way my instructor was taught and how things appear today in the books, and it's consistent every time in every pattern where one of these techniques emerges. That's no accident. It's deliberate. Bottom line: I think we learned a different style of taekwondo, a much older style, and it would have been the first style that went under the name Taekwondo, before the English books were published, and I think that's pretty neat all things considered.

Aaaand, how old to you think this style of TKD is?

 

[isshinryuronin]

The stated applications are but a tool helping you understand how to move.

Are you saying the application has been designed to give meaning to the technique, rather than the technique being designed to fit the application? In other words, the self-defense situation was created to explain the technique's meaning, rather than the technique being created to deal with the self-defense situation.

 

[Earl Weiss]

There's a very clear philosophical/style difference between the way my instructor was taught and how things appear today in the books, and it's consistent every time in every pattern where one of these techniques emerges. That's no accident. It's deliberate. Bottom line: I think we learned a different style of taekwondo, a much older style, and it would have been the first style that went under the name Taekwondo, before the English books were published, and I think that's pretty neat all things considered.

Can't speak to philosophical differences but there are technical distinctions between how pioneers who were usually Black belts by the time they learned General Choi's system and their prior system such as the Chung Do Kwan. They often did not change their habits and those differences remained in their progeny. An example is the Chung Do Kwan flavor of Pioneer progeny such as those of He Il Cho, Jhoon Rhee, Han Cha Kyo and Name Tae Hi. I would not be surprised if much of the direct instruction received by your instructor was one of those pioneers and he retained the "Flavor" .

While it was expedient for General Choi to Develop and recruit instructors to demonstrate and teach his system, the downside was some lack of uniformity.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Are you saying the application has been designed to give meaning to the technique, rather than the technique being designed to fit the application? In other words, the self-defense situation was created to explain the technique's meaning, rather than the technique being created to deal with the self-defense situation.

I think they may be 2 sides of the same coin. I don't think saying textbook application is but one example of how a move can be used and is a tool to help someone understand how to move as well as all important aspects of distance and direction is the same as saying the technique would have no meaning without textbook application. I also don't think - at least as far as General Choi's texts are concerned - he intended the stated applications to be exclusive or exhaustive examples of the application for the motion.

 

[HighKick]

Are you saying the application has been designed to give meaning to the technique, rather than the technique being designed to fit the application? In other words, the self-defense situation was created to explain the technique's meaning, rather than the technique being created to deal with the self-defense situation.

Possibly an unforeseen and unintentional side-affect. I don't really see how you could create one without creating the other. And I don't see a "chicken or the egg" conundrum.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Possibly an unforeseen and unintentional side-affect. I don't really see how you could create one without creating the other. And I don't see a "chicken or the egg" conundrum.

It's not a conundrum or a chicken/egg thing at all. The question goes to the very root of what the purpose of a form is. Originally, forms were designed as a collection of tactical responses (like a pin. counter grab, step and strike combo) to a variety of common attacks such as chokes, wrist grabs, and punches. These types of attacks already existed. The response was created to deal with them. The combinations did not exist in a void for their own sake; they had a specific purpose. In this light, the way a form looks was not that important.

Many TKD poomsae are based on Shotokan kata adapted from Okinawan kata. During this journey thru time and geography some of the techniques have evolved so they no longer reflect their original purpose. The forms have been repurposed as a vehicle to showcase the techniques themselves for development of physical skill and competition. Here, the look of the form is more important than discussed above.

Yes, kicks or punches can still be used to fight, but in terms of kata, they are done out of context, losing sight of what the form was originally designed for. This "problem" is not unique to TKD. Japanese and even Okinawan styles struggle with the question, "What is the real meaning of this technique or combo?"

Now, such problems and questions are moot if the form has been designed specifically to practice techniques for their own sake, striving for the best posture, power and speed. (Or has evolved to become this.) This may be seen as a new class of forms. Some schools may have forms for just this purpose, which is fine. But, in this case, trying to correlate a specific series of moves to a wrist grab escape, for example, may be more problematic.

It all comes down to what facets of poomsae/kata a school or style wishes to emphasize: Appearance, execution, purpose, principles, health, etc. Stressing one may cause a trade-off with another in some cases. The important thing is to do it the best one can and find personal benefit from it. That's the real purpose of MA.