2 new TKD forms from the Kukkiwon

[bigfootsquatch]

Kind of reminds me of what has happened to tai chi...nice competition forms that look somewhat nice at first, but can easily be picked up apart I hate to see taekwondo turned into a complete sport, but oh well I guess.

 

[AceHBK]

Do you have a sense of what it is that makes it difficult for you to retain the sequence of movements making up the form? Do you try to practice them, say, twenty minutes a day, three days a week, or something like that? For most people, that's enough to get the forms ingrained in your muscle memory... and it's only an hour a week, total.

You know, from day 1 I never cared for them. I found them as boring, rigid movements. Now I performed the to the best of my ability and put in the work to make them look good but after that they left my mind.

At the time my instructor realized this and was cool enough not to bust my chops about it but said for Black Belt test I would need to know all of them. To test for next belt we just had to do previous belt and current belt level.

I think it maybe more mental than anything but when I hear "forms" its like hearing a woman say to me "we need to talk".......I automatically know nothing good is gonna come from this.

 

[AceHBK]

I hate to see taekwondo turned into a complete sport, but oh well I guess.

I thought it already was. I mean for me I don't really seperate the sport and self defense aspect b/c the sport is still self defense.

I think that when people hear TKD they think "sport" and automatically assume that people who do sport TKD can't defend themselves.

 

[exile]

You know, from day 1 I never cared for them. I found them as boring, rigid movements. Now I performed the to the best of my ability and put in the work to make them look good but after that they left my mind.

At the time my instructor realized this and was cool enough not to bust my chops about it but said for Black Belt test I would need to know all of them. To test for next belt we just had to do previous belt and current belt level.

I think it maybe more mental than anything but when I hear "forms" its like hearing a woman say to me "we need to talk".......I automatically know nothing good is gonna come from this.

Ace... do yourself a favor. Go to this site and take a look at some of the articles on kata and bunkai (the analysis of kata movements as practical combat moves, linked together so as to force your assailant out of the fight—typically as a result of major body damage). We're not talking about sparring here, but streetfighting, an unprovoked attack by an untrained but violent and dangerour aggressor. Every single article on Abernethy's website is free, no strings attached... you just download them and read them! Consider the possibility that you haven't yet been shown the riches contained in the forms in terms of realistic fighting tactics guided by sound principles of close-quarter combat. You've got nothing to lose but your distaste for forms, after all, eh? :wink1:

 

[newGuy12]

Iain Abernethy is awesome! One of the brightest stars of today, in my estimation!

 

[foot2face]

...bunkai (the analysis of kata movements as practical combat moves, linked together so as to force your assailant out of the fight—typically as a result of major body damage). We're not talking about sparring here, but streetfighting, an unprovoked attack by an untrained but violent and dangerour aggressor.

That's interesting, Exile. The application of the poomse I was taught were almost exclusively geared towards trained attackers, particularly those who rely on different styles and methods.

 

[SageGhost83]

Self Defense applications...Isn't that what the Hoshinsul is for? Aren't the self defense and fighting techs already isolated for them to be worked individually? Maybe the orgs can get away with doing forms for pure demo purposes because there is already a component to the art that teaches brutal self defense and fighting techs. Very interesting topic.

 

[exile]

That's interesting, Exile. The application of the poomse I was taught were almost exclusively geared towards trained attackers, particularly those who rely on different styles and methods.

Really?? But would trained martial artists be the ones you'd be most likely to be in danger from? I tend to think of the real baddies as aggressive, violent bullies who wouldn't last long in most good schools...

The boon hae that I've learned, or worked out based on what I've learned, have been based on the assumption that you're probably going to be attacked by some untrained jerk with a lot of street experience who grabs you and throws a roundhouse punch to your face, or moves in to push you backwards and come in quickly, before you can recover, to punch you, again to the face, or kick you in the groin, or one or two other common attack-starters that Patrick McCarthy has catalogued as the most common `habitual acts of physical violence' initiate a fight. Most of the techs in the TKD hyungs I've studied, and the karate kata that are usually the source for the separate sequences in these hungs, are ideally suited to counterattacking just such initiations—initiations which aren't the kind of attack that a trained MAist would begin with.

I really don't worry about street violence from people who've put in the time, effort and discipline training MAs in a formal setting. The cocky bully, or insecure defective with a zero-length fuse, is the one I figure I'm going to be facing. It's not that these guys aren't dangerous—they are, very—but they don't approach a fight the way a MAist would, and training for another MAist isn't going to 'fit' what the actual street nasties are planning to do...

 

[foot2face]

Really?? But would trained martial artists be the ones you'd be most likely to be in danger from?

During times of war when you are most likely to face a trained enemy soldier, absolutely! Remember, TKD began as a military fighting system and situations such as this played an integral part in its development. Our “fighting” skill is very aggressive and dominating. It can easily overwhelm and incapacitate most unskilled and even many moderately skilled adversaries. Skilled adversaries, however, pose a threat, having the ability to neutralize our “fighting” skill, significantly reducing our ability to defend our self, leaving us vulnerable to their attack. Think of a Judoka closing the gap and grabbing you to setup a throw or a Karateka pining and trapping you as they proceed to pummel you with their free hand. Its this type of situation, being in your attackers “kill box”(a dangerous, vulnerably position were your attacker has decisive advantage), that our boon hae were meant to counter.

I tend to think of the real baddies as aggressive, violent bullies who wouldn't last long in most good schools…

That’s wishful thinking. My master would never allow us to underestimate an attacker by having such a low opinion of their ability. He taught us that haughtiness like that would get you in trouble. We trained as if every attacker had the will, ability and skill to cause us great harm.

The boon hae that I've learned, or worked out based on what I've learned, have been based on the assumption that you're probably going to be attacked by some untrained jerk with a lot of street experience … Most of the techs in the TKD hyungs I've studied, and the karate kata that are usually the source for the separate sequences in these hungs, are ideally suited to counterattacking just such initiations…

I think this is one of the many differences that separate JMAs and Kwan era TKDs from the post-Kwan ere TKD that was developed. We definitely have a differing perspective on our forms and their applications.

 

[Kacey]

That’s wishful thinking. My master would never allow us to underestimate an attacker by having such a low opinion of their ability. He taught us that haughtiness like that would get you in trouble. We trained as if every attacker had the will, ability and skill to cause us great harm.

Definitely. Expect the worst, hope for the best... on the other hand, unskilled opponents are often harder to predict.

Training should include a wide variety of possible scenarios - using techniques directly from forms, and then adapting them to a variety of possible uses.

 

[exile]

During times of war when you are most likely to face a trained enemy soldier, absolutely! Remember, TKD began as a military fighting system and situations such as this played an integral part in its development. Our “fighting” skill is very aggressive and dominating. It can easily overwhelm and incapacitate most unskilled and even many moderately skilled adversaries. Skilled adversaries, however, pose a threat, having the ability to neutralize our “fighting” skill, significantly reducing our ability to defend our self, leaving us vulnerable to their attack.

There's a sizable body of informed opinion which takes the karate-based arts to have originated as civilian fighting system, designed to protect people on the streets of their towns and villages. Iain Abernethy, who brilliantly combines MA history with bunkai methodology and realistic combat-simulation training, observes that

Karate is a civil tradition... the applications of the karate katas are for use against the violent and untrained, they are not for use against a skilled warrior on a battlefield or a participant in a sporting competition...

In a real fight, it is highly unlikely that the opponent will use techniques such as Oi-Zuki or Mawashigeri. Karate is a civil tradition and consequently the katas contain very few techniques for dealing with teh skilled combinations of a trained fighter. Kata is all about defeating an attacker in a real civilian encounter... as martial artists, we spend a great deal of time practising with, and against, practitioners of the same discipline. As a result, boxers get good at fighting boxers, judoka get good at fighting other judoka and karateka get good at fighting other karateka. The techniques within kata are designed for use against the violent and untrained, not other martial artists. Kata techniques most often deal with wild swings, grabs, tackles, etc. Any kata application that is interpreted as a defense against a lunging punch or other such karate technique is incorrect.
​

(Bunkai-Jutsu: the Practical Application of Karate Kata 2002, 49, 52-53)). Look at the 'family' CMA systems, for example; again, these weren't designed for military conditions, but for application to personal violence in civilian situations. TKD, coming from Okinawa via Japan, reflected the thinking of people like Matsumura, Azato and Itosu, who were looking at civilian self defense exclusively—there was no military context for the Okinawans, after all, except as draftees into the Japanese army. And when Funakoshi brought karate to Japan, it wasn't looked upon as a military combative system by the Defense and Education ministries, but rather as a kind of group calisthenic for instilling discipline (which was one of the major reasons for the adoption of kihon line drills as the preferred method of training, something absent from the Okinawan training methods of Funakoshi's predecessors on the islands).

It's certainly true that TKD had an important connection to military application. But the work of Burdick and others who have studied the history of TKD in the Korean War era suggest strongly that the North Koreans were not nearly as adept, or interested in, martial arts as the South Koreans, for ideological reasons among others. Nor were the North Vietnamese or Viet Cong in the Vietnam War; the latter feared the ROK troops precisely because they had little in the way of close-quarters empty-hand combat experience to counter the well-trained Korean forces with. And as Simon O'Neil notes in his Combat TKD description of the military applications of TKD, these were in effect intensified and 'stripped down' versions of the standard 'civilian' TKD techiques that had been brought back by the Kwan founders from their training in Japan. The ROK forces were not facing trained martial artists on the battlefield; the Okinawans had not designed TKD for use on the battlefield. The assumption was that your attacker was not going to be a soldier, but a thug, of whom, apparently, there were plenty, both in 19th c. Shuri and 20th c. Seoul. This is a critical point: neither General Choi's Chang Hon tuls nor the Song Moo Kwan hyungs (or any of the other 'original five' Kwan forms) were defined in terms of a situation in which your attacker was going to be using the same techniques that you were. As the half-dozen books on my desk offering alternative analyses of the Pinan/Pyung-Ahn forms make clear, the attacker envisaged in these forms was not a karateka or TKDist. Grab and punch, grab and head-butt, shove and kick, shoot in and tackle... those are the kinds of attacks that these forms are brilliant at stopping dead in their tracks. A trained combatant isn't going to go in with a shirt-grab and a roundhouse to the head. Would you?

That’s wishful thinking. My master would never allow us to underestimate an attacker by having such a low opinion of their ability.

Wishful thinking? Not likely—an experienced streetfighter is as dangerous an adversary as you're going to encounter. I've emphasized in my previous post that these people are dangerous. They have a few basic techniques that they use and are very good at. Their lack of training is exactly that—they have not done what MAists call training; instead, they gain experience by fighting, no rules, except do whatever you need to do to destroy the person you're attacking. Why did you assume that I was dismissing the danger such people represent?

He taught us that haughtiness like that would get you in trouble. We trained as if every attacker had the will, ability and skill to cause us great harm.

Skill, yes, and will—but the methods such people employ, and your random street bully, are distinctly different from what you are going to get from a trained MAist. This was my point about Patrick McCarthy's work over the past several decades. Bill Burgar, in his book Five Years, One Kata gives an excellent summary of McCarthy's findings about the rather small set of attack initiation techniques employed in streetfights (based on a variety of data sets, including police reports, hospital records and criminology research); there's also a good discussion in Titchen's new book, Heian Flow System: effective karate kata bunkai. It's very clear from these studies that the half-dozen or so stock initiations to street attacks do not involve martial arts techniques, and statistically, by far the most common is a grab/swinging punch combination. The bunkai for most of the classic kata and TKD hyungs that I'm familiar invariably contain one or two sequences which encode an effective response to just this combination.

I'm still at a loss to figure out how you find my characterization of this most-common set of street attacks to reflect 'haughtiness'. 'Untrained' isn't a judgment of dangerousness or effectiveness; it refers rather to the kinds of actions that, 9 times out of 10, you're going to find yourself facing in a bar or street confrontation with an aggressive antagonist. The numbers, and their sources, are in the references I've given, and Patrick McCarthy, who is the pioneer of this line of research, happens to be one of our members. If you're skeptical of the data I've cited, or of his results, I'm sure he'd be more than happy to discuss his 30-odd years of work in this area with you.

I think this is one of the many differences that separate JMAs and Kwan era TKDs from the post-Kwan ere TKD that was developed. We definitely have a differing perspective on our forms and their applications.

That's certainly possible. But I have never been threatened, or attacked, by a martial artists. My relatively few encounters with street violence, in the rather violent New York City of the 1960s and after, were with street punks. I think you could actually do some interesting research polling members of MT about situations in which they had to defend themselves, and how often it was the case that they were attacked out of the blue by punks using sequences recognizable from kumite or randoori.

 

[foot2face]

There's a sizable body of informed opinion which takes the karate-based arts to have originated as civilian fighting system, designed to protect people on the streets of their towns and villages. Look at the 'family' CMA systems, for example; these weren't designed for military conditions.

This is true, but as I’ve mentioned before, the TKD I was taught traces it roots back to the merging of the Kwans that began in the military. The experience gained in the military had a significant impact on the system. Strong ties between MA and the military was not unheard of in the region. Many JMAs, the various Jujutsu styles for instance, were definitely geared towards militaristic applications and had many techniques that dealt with skilled attacker, such as weapon disarming on the battlefield. Now I’m not fond of typing so I strive to be succinct with my post. Unfortunately I’m not always successful and in my brevity I often loose clarity. I shouldn’t have given the impression that the expectation of meeting a skilled adversary on the battlefield was the only factor that led to many of the applications of our forms being geared toward use against trained attackers. It was one of several. It also wasn’t a day one change to the system, rather it was an understanding that was developed over the years. One of the other factors that led to this approach to boon hae was exposure to different systems and methods. While serving in the military MAist were first exposed to the skills of the various Kwans, later they were exposed to the combative systems employed by foreign soldiers, for example while training with American G.I.s they came across boxing, wrestling and Judo(which was already popular in Korea and had influenced TKD particularly through JidoKwan which in its early days had students who also trained in Judo, giving them insight on how to apply their striking system against grapplers). Early TKDist understood the difficulty that can be posed by facing some trained in a different systems. It was this that led to the belief that if TKD was going to be a complete system it had to take into account various techniques and tactics of other styles might use against it. My master use to tell us that “if your TKD only worked against other TKDist(a shortcoming common to many traditionally inspired MAs) then it is useless”, there was a huge emphasis on being able deal with any adversary that came our way, be they untrained or highly skilled.

But the work of Burdick and others who have studied the history of TKD in the Korean War era suggest strongly that the North Koreans were not nearly as adept, or interested in, martial arts as the South Koreans, for ideological reasons among others. Nor were the North Vietnamese or Viet Cong in the Vietnam War; the latter feared the ROK troops precisely because they had little in the way of close-quarters empty-hand combat experience to counter the well-trained Korean forces with.

It is my understanding that the South Koreans made many of their early military preparations on facing a military similar to the Japanese. While not every Japanese soldier was a skilled MAist, many could be found within their ranks, especially among the officer corp. The Koreans new that if the Japanese attempted to occupied their country again at least some of the invading force would be well versed in H2H combat. The North Koreans may not have been as adept or interested in MAs as the South Koreans during the time of the Korean War but they certainly have become so since then, and the South Korean military has long been aware of the H2H prowess of the DPRK troops. I’m not so sure about the claims made about the NVA and Viet Cong. I’ve herd many accounts of them being tough, scrappy SOBs, and particularly skilled with knives. I’ve also come across accounts that they may have had Chinese H2H instructors similar to how the South Vietnamese had some South Korean instructors. The NVA and Viet Cong aggressively employed a tactic of close-in engagement in order to mitigate American artillery and air power. This “up close and personal” fighting actually spurred interest in our own military to increase the H2H training of our troops. It stands to reason that since the NVA relied heavily on close-in combat and were regrettably quite effective with it, that they had ability and training beyond just shooting their AK47s.

…but the methods such people employ, and your random street bully, are distinctly different from what you are going to get from a trained MAist.

Yes, exactly! Which is why it behooves a serious MAist to know how to apply their skill against a random street bully as well as another trained MAist.

But I have never been threatened, or attacked, by a martial artists. My relatively few encounters with street violence, in the rather violent New York City of the 1960s and after, were with street punks. I think you could actually do some interesting research polling members of MT about situations in which they had to defend themselves, and how often it was the case that they were attacked out of the blue by punks using sequences recognizable from kumite or randoori.

Then consider yourself lucky. Not every baddy is a skilled MAist, but their has been a huge explosion in the practice of MAs over the past few decades and sports like wrestling and boxing have always been popular. It has gotten even more dangerous with the rise MMA. School are opening all over the place offering training in a full contact spot that incorporates Boxing, MT, wrestling and BJJ(a dangerous mix). I’ve come across a few MMA (as well other styles) thugs in my time. Its been my experience that thugs with training are among the first to step up and cause trouble, wanting to prove that their a real badass. I agree, it would be interesting to poll MartialTalk members.

 

[YoungMan]

Exactly. In fact, I just finished writing a paper for a class I am taking that deals with TMA and at-risk populations. One of the things I mention is a study that shows that styles like boxing and MMA are very dangerous for delinquents to study because of the fact that they do not include philosophy, meditation, etiquette, and the responsibility that comes with being a trained fighter. They train to dominate and win, and as such look at fighting as a means to an end (victory). Certainly not what you would want someone who already has rage and aggression issues to learn.

 

[exile]

There's a sizable body of informed opinion which takes the karate-based arts to have originated as civilian fighting system, designed to protect people on the streets of their towns and villages. Look at the 'family' CMA systems, for example; these weren't designed for military conditions.

...While serving in the military MAist were first exposed to the skills of the various Kwans, later they were exposed to the combative systems employed by foreign soldiers, for example while training with American G.I.s they came across boxing, wrestling and Judo(which was already popular in Korea and had influenced TKD particularly through JidoKwan which in its early days had students who also trained in Judo, giving them insight on how to apply their striking system against grapplers). Early TKDist understood the difficulty that can be posed by facing some trained in a different systems. It was this that led to the belief that if TKD was going to be a complete system it had to take into account various techniques and tactics of other styles might use against it. My master use to tell us that “if your TKD only worked against other TKDist(a shortcoming common to many traditionally inspired MAs) then it is useless”, there was a huge emphasis on being able deal with any adversary that came our way, be they untrained or highly skilled.

I understand this, but the question is the relationship between the kinds of training in H2H combat soldiers receive who anticipate that they may need to do that kind of fighting, as vs. what you can expect to encounter in a barfight or a random assault on the street. I'm aware this is a question of fact. But it has been studied in considerable detail, using a variety of data sources, as I suggested in my earlier post. There is a solid body of evidence that the most common attacks, the `habitual acts of physical violence' as McCarthy has labelled them, have been fairly stable in type over the past several decades, as far back as the data allow you to go, and that they consist of a half dozen or so methods of attack which are not what a trained MAist would deliver. I've provided the sources for this work; its documentation is readily available.. what more can I do? The nature of the evidence is wide-ranging and yields consistent findings, and I find it plausible. I don't know what else I can add...

But the work of Burdick and others who have studied the history of TKD in the Korean War era suggest strongly that the North Koreans were not nearly as adept, or interested in, martial arts as the South Koreans, for ideological reasons among others. Nor were the North Vietnamese or Viet Cong in the Vietnam War; the latter feared the ROK troops precisely because they had little in the way of close-quarters empty-hand combat experience to counter the well-trained Korean forces with.

It is my understanding that the South Koreans made many of their early military preparations on facing a military similar to the Japanese. While not every Japanese soldier was a skilled MAist, many could be found within their ranks, especially among the officer corp. The Koreans new that if the Japanese attempted to occupied their country again at least some of the invading force would be well versed in H2H combat. The North Koreans may not have been as adept or interested in MAs as the South Koreans during the time of the Korean War but they certainly have become so since then, and the South Korean military has long been aware of the H2H prowess of the DPRK troops.

I've no doubt that that's true. But the 'military' phase of the development of TKD for public access was at the time of the Korean War, no? That was what Gen. Choi taught and promoted (in part via the Chang Hon tuls), in opposition to the sport initiative which was gaining traction during the following decade. Afterwards, the time you're talking about, is the time during which the official Korean government agenda—as expressed via the 'official' curricula of the KKW and the heavy promotion of the WTF vision of Olympic sparring—was anything but favorable to hardcore combat use of TKD. Just how widely has the TKD you're talking about been disseminated outside of the Korean military? Do you know what it consists of in detail? Is there any actual documentation for it? I'm not asking these as rhetorical questions; I'm very much interested in the answers.

But regardless of the answer, the issue is what you are likely to facing on the street. More on this below...

I’m not so sure about the claims made about the NVA and Viet Cong. I’ve herd many accounts of them being tough, scrappy SOBs, and particularly skilled with knives. I’ve also come across accounts that they may have had Chinese H2H instructors similar to how the South Vietnamese had some South Korean instructors. The NVA and Viet Cong aggressively employed a tactic of close-in engagement in order to mitigate American artillery and air power. This “up close and personal” fighting actually spurred interest in our own military to increase the H2H training of our troops. It stands to reason that since the NVA relied heavily on close-in combat and were regrettably quite effective with it, that they had ability and training beyond just shooting their AK47s.

Well, here's what I know about the VC/NVA response to the ROK troop's CQ unarmed combat skills. In July of 1966, a VC field command directive was captured by US troops which contained the instructions: Contact with Koreans is to be avoided at all costs unless a Viet Cong victory is 100% certain. Never defy Korean soldiers without discrimination, even when unarmed, for they are all well trained with Taekwondo. (Anslow, Taekwon-do Hae Sul: Real Applications to the ITF Patterns, 2006: Diggory Press, UK, xvii.) To me, that says pretty much everything that needs saying about how the VC viewed their own empty-hand competence relative to that of the Korean infantry. And at the Battle of Tra Binh Dong in 1967, in ferocious hand-to-hand fighting in which rifles and bayonets were not usable under the trench warfare conditions of the battle, the fifteen-to-one mortality rate among the NVA relative to the ROK Marine defenders makes it pretty clear who held the hex cards on whom—especially given that the South Korean troops were seriously outnumbered. Again, Anslow's book contains descriptions of the battle and the crucial role of ROK H2H superiority from several of the officers who served there, and reprints a detailed account of the fighting in the U.S. Marine Corps Gazette. I've yet to see any indication, even a hint, that either the VC or the NV were remotely in the same league as the ROK in that War (any more than the North had been, a decade and a half earlier).

The relevance of this is that, clearly, the South Koreans were training a very high-intensity destructive, killing version of TKD; but I don't see any evidence that they were training in the expectation that they were going to be meeting comparably trained MA-savvy enemies. What they were training for was close-quarter combat against an enemy with weapons, where they themselves were out of ammo or separated from their weapons—the worst case, from a soldier's point of view. Obviously, under those circumstances, they had better be able to kill an enemy soldier as fast as possible, but that's not at all the same thing as training to fight a comparably trained empty-hand expert fighter on the battlefield!

…but the methods such people employ, and your random street bully, are distinctly different from what you are going to get from a trained MAist.

Yes, exactly! Which is why it behooves a serious MAist to know how to apply their skill against a random street bully as well as another trained MAist.

But... that's exactly what I've been saying, f2f. When I refer to an untrained attacker, that's who I'm talking about—the 'random street bully' who is still, statistically, much more likely to be a violent thug than a technically adept MAist, judging by the work I cited earlier by people who actually study patterns of street attacks and civil violence.

But I have never been threatened, or attacked, by a martial artists. My relatively few encounters with street violence, in the rather violent New York City of the 1960s and after, were with street punks. I think you could actually do some interesting research polling members of MT about situations in which they had to defend themselves, and how often it was the case that they were attacked out of the blue by punks using sequences recognizable from kumite or randoori.

Then consider yourself lucky. Not every baddy is a skilled MAist, but their has been a huge explosion in the practice of MAs over the past few decades and sports like wrestling and boxing have always been popular. It has gotten even more dangerous with the rise MMA. School are opening all over the place offering training in a full contact spot that incorporates Boxing, MT, wrestling and BJJ(a dangerous mix).

I'm lucky, yes, f2f, but not for that reason. When I was an undergraduate in university the common attack pattern was for a couple of guys to go after someone, snap off a car radio antennæ, and slice his face into ribbons. I travelled armed with all manner of weapon and sometimes had to use them, but I was never dealing with anything as innocent as a low roundhouse to the side of my knee joint or a spearing elbow strike to my face. These guys carried K-55s and I did too. These people meant business, and they were all over the place in NY in those days.

I’ve come across a few MMA (as well other styles) thugs in my time. Its been my experience that thugs with training are among the first to step up and cause trouble, wanting to prove that their a real badass. I agree, it would be interesting to poll MartialTalk members.

Maybe times have indeed changed and the majority of street attackers have MA experience—though the various databases on patterns of street violence that I've referred to several times already make me very doubtful. Sure, you need to know how to deal with someone who's going to shoot in to take you down, but that's always been one of the main attack initiators. Still, my guess—and I suspect that this is the main point of disagreement between us—is that the main thing that you still have to worry about, statistically, is the sucker punch, the grab-and-roundhouse, maybe the grab-pull-headbutt in some places, and a few other classics—at least in 1-on-1s. You're still much more likely to be looking at these than at a trained (or even semi-trained) technically oriented MAists, is my guess. And the original point is what the bunkai themselves are preparing you for. Again, my guess is that its the techs I've mentioned, rather than the profile you alluded to above.

This might be worth starting a new thread about, definitely...

Exactly. In fact, I just finished writing a paper for a class I am taking that deals with TMA and at-risk populations. One of the things I mention is a study that shows that styles like boxing and MMA are very dangerous for delinquents to study because of the fact that they do not include philosophy, meditation, etiquette, and the responsibility that comes with being a trained fighter. They train to dominate and win, and as such look at fighting as a means to an end (victory). Certainly not what you would want someone who already has rage and aggression issues to learn.

Sure, we don't want thugs and sociopaths to be MA adepts. The question is, just how likely is that, compared with the likelihood of thugs and sociopaths attacking you who aren't MA adepts? You have a streetfight situation, reported in some detail in your local newspaper. Cover up the story with your hand and guess: was the attacker using MMA, boxing, wrestling, judo/jiujustsu or other techs of the sort you mention? Or did he do a shove/groin kick or grab-and-swing? What, in other words, is the relative likelihood of what kind of attack?

As I mentioned in my reply to f2f, the people who worried me the most when I lived in NYC in the '60s didn't train anything; they just did a lot of the most brutal violence you can imagine outside of war conditions. Their descendents are with us still, and from the evidence I've seen cited, the great majority of them are not trained in MA technique sets. They're plenty dangerous even without that.

 

[foot2face]

Again Exile, I fear you are misunderstanding me. My system doesn't train with the sole expectation of encountering a trained attacker. Recall how I wrote that many of the boon hae to my poomse are geared towards countering techniques and tactics used by practitioners of different styles but that our "fighting" skill, not our SD/anti-smothering/anti-grappling techniques found in the forms, is considered to be the more determinative of the two aspects of H2H and is much more emphasized. Our "fighting" skill addresses many of the concerns you wrote of and would be used to deal with the type of attacker you described. Our understanding of an attacker is very similar to yours but in addition to that we also take into account common methods used by skilled practitioners of different systems.

 

[exile]

Again Exile, I fear you are misunderstanding me. My system doesn't train with the sole expectation of encountering a trained attacker.

Well, maybe part of the problem is that the discussion has been at a very general level so far. I had the impression, from your initial reaction to my post about boon hae aimed at non-MA-trained attackers, and the emphasis you were putting on what sounded MMA-type training amongst street nasties, that this was the major problem.

Maybe we could make the discussion more concrete....

Recall how I wrote that many of the boon hae to my poomse are geared towards countering techniques and tactics used by practitioners of different styles but that our "fighting" skill, not our SD/anti-smothering/anti-grappling techniques found in the forms, is considered to be the more determinative of the two aspects of H2H and is much more emphasized. Our "fighting" skill addresses many of the concerns you wrote of and would be used to deal with the type of attacker you described. Our understanding of an attacker is very similar to yours but in addition to that we also take into account common methods used by skilled practitioners of different systems.[/B[

This is where an instance of the kind of extended boon hae you're referring to would be very good to have. If you pick a TKD form out of the air that I happen to know, I could probably come up with some applications for at least a couple of the subsequences in it, after a bit of thinking, at least something to experiment with with a training partner. But the applications would all be in response to the kind of attacks I alluded to; I'd probably have a hard time thinking of applications in response to a trained MAists attacks, because while I have a fair idea of how another TKDist will approach me in a sparring situation, I can't really picture what they would do if they were planning to attack me with the same intent as a mugger, or just a violent defenctive. Can you walk me through an example of the kind of case you're talking about?

 

[foot2face]

This is where an instance of the kind of extended boon hae you're referring to would be very good to have. If you pick a TKD form out of the air that I happen to know, I could probably come up with some applications for at least a couple of the subsequences in it, after a bit of thinking, at least something to experiment with with a training partner. But the applications would all be in response to the kind of attacks I alluded to; I'd probably have a hard time thinking of applications in response to a trained MAists attacks, because while I have a fair idea of how another TKDist will approach me in a sparring situation, I can't really picture what they would do if they were planning to attack me with the same intent as a mugger, or just a violent defenctive. Can you walk me through an example of the kind of case you're talking about?

I’m short on time right now and can’t offer you post the attention it deserves but here are a few excerpts from several other post I have written, hopefully they will provided at least some of the information you are requesting.

My master used to tell us that if our TKD only worked on other TKDist then it was useless. He also held BBs in Hapkido and Judo and would incorporate their techniques into our training, not to also make us proficient grapplers but to challenge our TKD skills. We learned how to use our TKD against someone who was trying to throw, lock or take us down. Long after I left my school I continued training like this, frequently sparring with practitioners of other styles, not to learn their techniques but to gain better understanding of my own. I've often felt that one of the most common shortcomings of MA training is that one usually only gains experience in dealing with a practitioner of the same system.

We relied on our boon hae to counter techniques or tactics that would hinder our “instinctive and spontaneous eruption of aggression”. They were generally geared towards anti-smothering/anti-grappling and once executed would allow us to commence with our striking. For example, while defending myself the average punch or kick directed towards me would be instinctively blocked or evaded, and have little to no effect on my ability to attack, however if I am smothered or grabbed my ability to effectively strike is significantly reduced. Some of these techniques or tactics may completely neutralize my striking, forcing me to immediately counter it or fall victim to my attacker. Lets say I’m attacked, I immediately land a kick to my attackers low region. They lurch forward, exposing the back of their head, as I deliver the blow they lunge forward and grab hold evading the strike and locking me with double under-hooks(a very common response from a skilled grappler). This is a bad position, at this proximity my striking is virtually ineffective and if I don’t counter this technique quickly I’m likely to be jostled to the ground and put on my back. An extremely bad position, at least for me. There are applications from my poomse that can counter this technique, breaking the hold and repelling my attacker, allowing me to continue to strike if they are not already incapacitated.

For example, lets say an inside-striker (think Wing Tsun) gets the drop on you, they square you of and take your center, then proceed to drive you back with a vicious barrage of chain punches. You’re in their “kill box” and your “fighting” skills are of little to no use. The kicking, striking, blocking and evasive footwork you normally relay on to dominate you adversary are of little help to you because of the proximity of your attacker, your vulnerable position and the fact that you are being driven backwards. This is the time to use one of the appropriate boon hae from our poomse.

Also, did you happen to read the tread I started a while ago entitled My Understanding of the Tae Geuk Poomse. In it I describe several simple applications of the forms, perhaps it will help you to begin to understand my approach.

Well, maybe part of the problem is that the discussion has been at a very general level so far. …Maybe we could make the discussion more concrete.…

Yes. We definitely need to start a new thread focusing on this discussion.
Until then,
Be Well -F2F

 

[exile]

I’m short on time right now and can’t offer you post the attention it deserves but here are a few excerpts from several other post I have written, hopefully they will provided at least some of the information you are requesting.

Thanks, f2f, that's much appreciated!

Also, did you happen to read the tread I started a while ago entitled My Understanding of the Tae Geuk Poomse. In it I describe several simple applications of the forms, perhaps it will help you to begin to understand my approach.

I did read that thread, but since we do the Palgwes in my school, not the Taegeuks, it was involved a bit of a stretch to visualize the applications, given that I don't have 'muscle feel' for the moves. I'll revisit it from this angle...

Yes. We definitely need to start a new thread focusing on this discussion.
Until then,
Be Well -F2F

And you too, f2f!

 

[Laurentkd]

Bump!

So has anyone heard anything else about these forms? Are the actually being implemented on some level or did we all just get worked up over nothing?

 

[scstover]

This form is remarkably flowing and nonsymetrically