What forms do you do?

[miguksaram]

To be clear, too, I don't think my instructor has ever said, "This is Taekwondo." That's just his primary training. I try to tell people it's TKD-ish, or TKD based, but really... I just don't know. I'm going to start calling it Shihan Jeff Wood-do...

Well there you go. You have your style. As you can see by my list of forms, we have have a mixture as well. We have both Okinawa karate and KKW taekwondo. If I needed to I can teach them as separate arts entirely. Am I a TKD school? No. Am I a karate school? No. I am a martial art school.

 

[Koshiki]

No. I am a martial art school.

When people ask, I always say first, I study martial arts. Then they ask what kind, and I get in trouble, "Uh, well, used be taekwondo, I guess, but really more Tang Soo Do, or maybe just Karate of some sort, but then there's some Tai Shing background that influences the movements, but not very visibly, and the highest ranked black belt aside from the shihan adds a huge tai chi element to bunkai, and the instructor I spent the most time with was from a Shotokan background, and, and, and..."

From now on, maybe I'll just say, "just martial arts." So much simpler. Thanks.

 

[Dirty Dog]

When people ask, I always say first, I study martial arts. Then they ask what kind, and I get in trouble, "Uh, well, used be taekwondo, I guess, but really more Tang Soo Do, or maybe just Karate of some sort, but then there's some Tai Shing background that influences the movements, but not very visibly, and the highest ranked black belt aside from the shihan adds a huge tai chi element to bunkai, and the instructor I spent the most time with was from a Shotokan background, and, and, and..."

From now on, maybe I'll just say, "just martial arts." So much simpler. Thanks.

Since most of the people you're saying this to won't know a pole form from a pole dance, I'd just give them the name of the school and leave it at that.

 

[Koshiki]

Since most of the people you're saying this to won't know a pole form from a pole dance, I'd just give them the name of the school and leave it at that.

Well, by "people," I meant martial artists. But I guess other humans are people too... Otherwise, I just say K'rawdi!

And I'd be willing to bet somewhere in performance martial arts there's a pole-dance-influenced pole-form!

 

[Balrog]

I teach in the ATA, so we do the Songahm forms.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Just the Kukkiwon taegeuk and yudanja pumsae. They're fun.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Kicho Hyungs 1-3, Pyung Ahn hyungs 1-5, Bassai, Naihanchi hyungs 1-3, Chinto, and Kang Song Kun are the primary hyungs studied in our association.

 

[Manny]

Hwarang Tae Kwon Do we do Kicho1, kicho 2, kicho 3, kicho 4 then Taegukk 1, 2, 3, 4,5,6,7,8 and koryo poomsae for 1st Dan, for second dan all the above plus kungam , for 3rd dan all above plus taebek, and so on.

Manny

 

[sopraisso]

Excellent post, thank you so much for taking the time to write it. I love this forum!

Also, I didn't mean to imply that your thoughts were mere, "speculation", just to be clear. If I came across that way, I apologize instantly! (Not that you seem offended, just covering my bases!)



We spend quite a bit of time at my school discussing bunkai. The highest rank in the school likes to go through forms and turn every technique into a takedown. We like to take a section of a given form and spend a class experimenting with as many ways as possible to utilize it. The turning down block at the beginning of Basic One/Kicho Il bo/Taikyoku Shodan could be a simple turning block to jam up a waist level round or front kick. It could be a clearing defense against a grab to the belt/waist. It could be a hammer strike against the head of an attacker attempting a double leg takedown, and the stance might in this case be interpreted as more of a sprawl. It could be a low groin strike to an attacker from the rear. With some manipulation it becomes a very clear armbar/break or takedown, with the chambered hand immobilizing the wrist. It could be a bear hug defense against an attacker from the right, breaking the hold with the downblock-ing arm, and elbow striking to the rear with the chambered hand. It could be an across the chest throw against an attacker 45 degrees to your left, with your front leg of your stance as the fulcrum behind their knees. I'm certain it could be many more things, and they are intensely fun to speculate about, experiment with, and train. The front leg of the stance can, in and of itself cause a huge disruption to the opponents footwork, which could be intensified by a more pushing application of the downblock.

So yes, we have wondered about the chambered hand, as well as many other things. One instructor's answer is rarely the same as another. However, for something like that first turning downblock, especially followed by the stepping punch, I tend to think that the explanation which requires the LEAST modification of the technique is jamming a kick, stopping a low grab or takedown, and following with a driving punch. Also, the forward stance, to me, indicates a desire to have stability and power in the direction one is facing. In the forward/front/hill stance I have generally encountered, the stance is considerably weaker from pressure to and from the sides or rear, and is exceptionally strong to the front.

Of course, that said, I am now simply burning with curiosity to know what interpretations you had in mind for the "downblock" and chambered hand!



Wow. I officially qualify myself as a "lurker" when I realize I have already read through two of the three threads (the first two). To my credit I DID actually jump in on the thread about blocking a few days ago, so I haven't JUST been lurking. I've been stumbling across this site for years. Love it. I have to say, too, that reading the first two threads previously, and revisiting them now, as well as the last one, I greatly enjoy the input you (and others) have expounded upon.



I take a little bit of issue here... I can't speak as to what Funakoshi was really envisioning with the Taikyoku kata. I'm not entirely certain that he had envisioned them so much as perfectly applicable self-defense, either. For all I know, he was mainly thinking about introducing an training stances and techniques. You seem MUCH more well versed in Karate history than I, and I would guess that you DO know.

Here's what I take issue to; that Funakoshi's intent must be the only interpretation. That may not be what you meant, but that's how I am understanding you, currently. I love tradition, but when it comes to Martial Arts, I love experimentation and testing more. So, when someone tells me, "here is the original way, the true way, the legitimate way," I may believe, them, but I don't accept that because that is how it WAS done, that that is how it SHOULD be done. It depends greatly on whether or not your focus is on maintaining a traditional art, or continuing the millennia of development and adaptation of the art.

That said, I am deeply interested in what you have to teach us about what Funakoshi and other early 20th century practitioners envisioned with these forms. I admit that I am having a great deal of difficulty mentally, in understanding how technique one of Taikyoku Shodan is a dodge from an attack to the front. Also, when I have seen this form Shotokan style, the may not head snap, but they still face 90 degrees. I understand what you have said about the plasticity of the angles in application versus tradition, but, shouldn't the direction of your vision generally be towards your attacker? I'm not trying to be a pedant here, just explaining my confusion. Help me out, I'm stuck, and it's going to drive me crazy trying to see that first move as a dodge from a forward attacker!

Again, thanks for the input!

Lol it took me quite some time to write your answer, so I hope it isn't useless right now.

Actually you do seem to have a much above average understanding about kata analysis and applications. I don't think there's so much to add about, say, low block applications. Only maybe that you need to use the movement enough so you can find out how it better works for you (and that probably means more than one application, as it does to me). Also note that distinguishing one application from others is many times merely a didactical thing: when practicing you can perform various objectives of the technique at the same time, and if one doesn't work you can still go with the other. So you down block can be a deflection to an incoming attack to your head (with the forearm that goes up before going down), or an elbow attack (or round punch) to the opponent with that same arm; simultaneously you can use the "chambering" hand to control or disrupt your opponent's movement -- also, the initially extended chambering hand can be used to protect your low section or even to attack your opponent's low or mid section right from the beginning; and then you still go down as an arm lock and a groin strike (you can use your own torso to lock the opponent's elbow instead of your descending arm); and you can still go further to take your opponent down in the end. The most important thing is to move, and the microcontext at the moment will say what you will do. I believe you should spar with a live opponent to have a better understanding of what this means -- it worked for me, I believe it should work for you.

All of this said, it is true that those applications are some kind of speculation (with a fair ammount of probability IMO, though). In the other hand, there are really a few masters (most from Okinawa, I believe) who have learned them from people who have been taught in lineages that would suggest the applications have been really passed on since the older masters of the past, the ones that we'd suppose to have known well the "original" meaning of the techniques.

However, one very important thing that you have to note is that kata only provides a formal representation of the real movement you will have to perform. You'll always have to adapt the movement to the situation in the fight, and it will never be a literal reproduction of what you did in kata. Note that kata is not meant for that, it is more like some kind of live textbook that transmits the combative ideas. So the fact you're going to need to adapt the original movement in the kata (the ammount of body shifting/rotation, for example) to make the movement work doesn't really mean the movement is wrong and that you'd have to necessarily pick up another application that is closest to the original movement. Today I see that one of the biggest mistake karate and taekwondo practicioners make when studying their arts is trying to interpret forms movements literally. Also note that different forms have been created and modified by different masters across the years, so different movements in various moments could represent the same general idea; conversely equal movements could also represent different things depending on the context.

As for what you mentioning Funakoshi, I believe you may have confused him with Kenwa Mabuni, as I cited the latter in my previous post, but not the former. Even if you don't feel confident enough with the teachings of either Mabuni or Funakoshi (what is IMO an acceptable attitude), it is important to note that it was surely not only them who have taught some of the important ideas we may use to our karate today -- other good masters of the past supported those ideas. Also it's not a case for using their teachings as a norm, but instead to have them as additional ideas/suggestions for you to solve your own karate puzzle. What works best for you is what you should use -- and if a certain movement has no use for you, I don't think you should bother to use it!

Furthermore, I believe it is important that you know that kata have been changed in the past, so even if the application you use doesn't fit perfectly the movement in the style you learned, it doesn't mean it wouldn't fit another style's version. So there's no need to be tied so closely to the kata movement (although you have to be resonable while observing the relation). One thing I like to do is comparing different versions of the same kata in different styles, and I recommend this kind of study.

Finally, there's one more mistake that I believe people to be practicing today, that is to view bunkai as mere "applications". The very word bunkai doesn't really mean that, it's more something like "analytical study". Thus, the applications are only the result from such a study. Kata doesn't only teach applications of techniques. In kata you also find tactical lessons about how to behave in a battle -- some people call this principles, and they're many times even more important than the very techniques.

This subject is hard to explain only through text, but I hope I have helped you somehow. :asian:

 

[Koshiki]

Let me, first off, just thank you for a spectacular post. Truly excellent! I assure you, no insights into Kata and Bunkai will ever be useless, for me, *or* for any others reading this thread!

Lol it took me quite some time to write your answer, so I hope it isn't useless right now.
...
All of this said, it is true that those applications are some kind of speculation (with a fair ammount of probability IMO, though). In the other hand, there are really a few masters (most from Okinawa, I believe) who have learned them from people who have been taught in lineages that would suggest the applications have been really passed on since the older masters of the past, the ones that we'd suppose to have known well the "original" meaning of the techniques.

I agree that, even if we knew NOTHING about the original intent, many motions have such an obvious or perfect application, it might be reasonably safe to make a guess towards, at least generally, what was initially envisioned. I also agree that what is most important is the constant drive to explore and dissect the techniques and premises within.

I was actually confused, I thought that you, (or possibly someone else) had at least implied that what was of most concern was the tradition of maintaining specific application for techniques, rather than an evolving and exploring of motion in martial context. Both are valid, but for different driving goals, I feel.

However, one very important thing that you have to note is that kata only provides a formal representation of the real movement you will have to perform. You'll always have to adapt the movement to the situation in the fight, and it will never be a literal reproduction of what you did in kata. Note that kata is not meant for that, it is more like some kind of live textbook that transmits the combative ideas. So the fact you're going to need to adapt the original movement in the kata (the ammount of body shifting/rotation, for example) to make the movement work doesn't really mean the movement is wrong and that you'd have to necessarily pick up another application that is closest to the original movement. Today I see that one of the biggest mistake karate and taekwondo practicioners make when studying their arts is trying to interpret forms movements literally. Also note that different forms have been created and modified by different masters across the years, so different movements in various moments could represent the same general idea; conversely equal movements could also represent different things depending on the context.

We often refer to kata as a book, or encyclopedia, but I sometimes think it is more of a card catalog. The purely physical motions each direct you to an area of study, rather than supply you with ready information. Exactly as you say. Kata should not be a series of, "If they do this, then you do this and they'll fall down," but rather, "here's something you can do with your body which you might not otherwise have thought to experiment with. See what you can do with it!"

I have almost never seen a practical application derived from bunkai that looked like the pure motion contained within the form, as performed. Personally, I tend to view it less as a formal representation, although it is, and more of an idealized example of technique. If we look at a simple reverse punch to, say, the solar plexus, I can, I hope, illustrate what I mean. Performing a reverse punch as part of a formal kata, you can focus on *precisely* how you wish to punch, to derive the most speed, power, and focus, utilizing the entire body as close to perfectly as possible. When you transfer the same technique to a heavy bag, or to an uke, you meet resistance, and the pure, ideal form of the motion will suffer, however slightly. When utilized in a free sparring situation, you are often lucky to even hint at this pure, perfect formal technique, although you come as close as possible. For this reason, I feel that it is important that your applications, if they were performed ideally, would closely approximate the formal motion. Otherwise, you are not practicing the motion when performing solo kata.

Does that make sense? I know what I mean, but not whether I have said what I mean!

As for what you mentioning Funakoshi, I believe you may have confused him with Kenwa Mabuni, as I cited the latter in my previous post, but not the former.

If I recall, I think I mentioned Funakoshi in reference to the Taikyoku forms. I think I was saying, that *I* might interpret and practice the opening motion of Taikyoku Shodan in any number of ways, but that I can't actually say that Funakoshi intended any of those uses. I might be misremembering, but I think that's how Funakoshi got into all of this...

Finally, there's one more mistake that I believe people to be practicing today, that is to view bunkai as mere "applications". The very word bunkai doesn't really mean that, it's more something like "analytical study". Thus, the applications are only the result from such a study. Kata doesn't only teach applications of techniques. In kata you also find tactical lessons about how to behave in a battle -- some people call this principles, and they're many times even more important than the very techniques.

You know, I don't think I've ever actually heard a definition of "bunkai" before, now that you mention it. It's always just been used to mean something like, "figuring-out-what-the-heck-all-these-funky-moves-are-for." One of those silly things I never thought about, you know?

This subject is hard to explain only through text, but I hope I have helped you somehow.

Definitely, a difficult subject. I think you tackled it wonderfully, especially, since I believe English may be your second language? You write it better than many of of A-Mur-Uh-Kans here on the internetz. You have written an enormously informative post. Thanks very many times!

-Zack