Application of TKD poomsae in SD

[Errant108]

So again, please accept my humble apology.

My brother was USMC during GWII. My father USAF during Vietnam. My grandfather USAAC during WWII. I have the highest respect for you & your service. I grew up a brat, seeing places of the world that most my age can't even pronounce. I had intended to sign up for the USMC after high school, but deformities in my ankles and feet prevented that. I have no regrets on that count, because it led me to where I am today, but the fraternity I was never able to join will always be one that I hold in deepest regard.

You owe me no apology, and I will not accept any. We both have the same goals, if differing methodologies. Though differing traditions, I would be honored to consider you a senior.

 

[Makalakumu]

Interesting thread with a lot of salient points that I agree with. Many I do not. In regards to applications of TKD poomsae, I have an interesting and provacative question.

If you know that there were misunderstandings and missing peices in the way the art was transmitted, if you really feel that the combat effectiveness of the forms were lost when they were changed/altered/created, if you've seen people actually try to perform what you think is flawed in a real fight and get owned, then why continue to practice it?

IMHO, its this kind of mentality that passes along all of the gaps, misunderstanding, and flat out rediculous techniques in the first place.

If you know its garbage, then throw it away. Find something that isn't garbage.

Or if you are convinced, like I am with my own art, that there is something shiny under the muck, try cleaning it off and finding it.

One of the things that really gets under my skin is the "talk" surrounding these topics. At some point the "talk" needs to stop and become "do" or the conversation ceases to have any meaning.

"Become the change you want in the world."

I think Ghandi said something like that and I really think this applies to discussions like this.

Traverse the gap between "If only we did it like this" to "I do it like this".

 

[newGuy12]

I despair that there will be no resolution here. I myself take no offense at these arguments. But for one reason or another, there are big fights when we have some discussion.

User 'Exile' has brought up very good points for discussion. He has laid these things out with the expertise of an academic. There is no offense intended. This is just research methods -- you can pose a question, and consider it, in an objective way, not to take offense, one way or the other way, but to consider it, removing yourself and your personality.

But, this does not happen. I know that TKD people sometimes get really mad, really quick. I have seen this myself at tournaments some years ago. For some reason, this is the way that it is.

I know to my own satisfaction that you can learn to defend yourself quite well, thank you very much, without any study of the boon-hae. Understanding can be given with the hool-sin-sool very explicitly. I know this, because I have seen examples of it.

But I do not fuss. I try to keep an open mind, because I am interested in things that are said here. I know that if I continue to practice, my power will increase -- not as in my youth, of course, but will increase nonetheless.

I think this thread is hosed, because it has been thrashed, this way and that way. And, here, we have no resolution. I'm not trying to be a dick. I have great respect here for all of you, you help me to gain better understanding.

I suppose that even if we are in the same room in physical space, I doubt that there could be some resolution. This is astounding to me, this propensity to argue in a heated way. It is nothing new, and I have seen it in real life with HIGH RANKING MASTERS. It surprised me the first time, but I suppose that I am getting used to it. People would rather fuss than to keep focused onto the point and pursue it.

That sounds like I am talking down to everyone, but that is not the case. As far as I know, I am lacking some kind of understanding and missing the whole point.

I have to go to the gymnasium now and lift those weights. Things will be better in my mind after that is done.




Much Respect to All!

Robert

 

[Errant108]

I despair that there will be no resolution here. I myself take no offense at these arguments. But for one reason or another, there are big fights when we have some discussion.

Is there ever any resolution to anything? Especially on discussion boards? There are better places to go if you're looking for resolution, and just because there is none, does not mean that all sides benefit from the discussion.

But, this does not happen. I know that TKD people sometimes get really mad, really quick. I have seen this myself at tournaments some years ago. For some reason, this is the way that it is.

Don't despair, I think this has less to do with TKD than just people in general. Other arts have the same problem. Not necessarily over the same issues, but they have the same problems.

I know to my own satisfaction that you can learn to defend yourself quite well, thank you very much, without any study of the boon-hae. Understanding can be given with the hool-sin-sool very explicitly. I know this, because I have seen examples of it.

This is true. Some of those trying to "create" self-defense systems out of their pumsae would be better off crosstraining in BJJ & Muay Thai, or perhaps JKD.

The issue becomes though, for those invested in the system, wanting their system to be a legitimate self-defense system. If the forms do not provide that, if some meaning cannot be found in them, then what purpose are they for? As Upnorthkyosa said, just discard them.

I think this thread is hosed, because it has been thrashed, this way and that way. And, here, we have no resolution. I'm not trying to be a dick. I have great respect here for all of you, you help me to gain better understanding.

I'm sorry you feel that way, I'm not sure I understand why.

We spar in practice, right? We get hit, get thrown, get joints twisted in ways they aren't supposed to go. We learn from it (hopefully). Discussion should be nothing to be feared.

 

[matt.m]

One point in the last post that I wholeheartedly agree with is that it isn't just Tae Kwon Do. I will use Jet Li's Fearless for example........it was Family Wushu vs. Family Wushu right. In hapkido the infighting is 10x worse than tae kwon do. Judo/Yudo are very similiar as arts with exception to reason for application of technique. It is the same with Aikido and Hapkido although they share the same roots.

I am guilty myself and am no innocent, my convictions and opinions are indeed strong.......sometimes to the point of seeming to be overbearing.

However, not all discussions are "Polite" so to speak, and they wouldn't be a debate if they were meant to be. For this reason, I believe the word "Tact" should be more beneficial to the scenerio of this thread.

Just a thought.

 

[Errant108]

However, not all discussions are "Polite" so to speak, and they wouldn't be a debate if they were meant to be. For this reason, I believe the word "Tact" should be more beneficial to the scenerio of this thread.

Just a thought.

In the words of the great Bas Rutten, "Sometimes the best rebuttal...is a headbuttal."

 

[Brad Dunne]

Application of TKD poomsae in SD.......... If one wants to see if there are practical applications, all one has to do is look/follow the bio-machanics of the intended application of the given technique. As we are engaged against an imaginary opponent, we must understand what happens to the opponents body when we deliver whatever technique being used. Investigating with the concept, may afford a more open examination of forms and remove the cloak of mystery that some feel is associated within poomsae.

An offered example: we'll take the first TaeGuek form Il Jang. Opening movements are down block to the left-snapkick-step punch. A down block, one can assume, would be against an incoming kick. There have been discussions on what would happen to the arm in the event of using this block against a specific kick. Next we see a front snap kick. What do you feel the opponents body will do/position upon receiving said kick. The third sequenced move, the step punch. Upon knowing what happens with element #2, the front snap kick, decide for yourself the validity or lack of, for element #3 - step punch.

 

[terryl965]

Application of TKD poomsae in SD.......... If one wants to see if there are practical applications, all one has to do is look/follow the bio-machanics of the intended application of the given technique. As we are engaged against an imaginary opponent, we must understand what happens to the opponents body when we deliver whatever technique being used. Investigating with the concept, may afford a more open examination of forms and remove the cloak of mystery that some feel is associated within poomsae.

An offered example: we'll take the first TaeGuek form Il Jang. Opening movements are down block to the left-snapkick-step punch. A down block, one can assume, would be against an incoming kick. There have been discussions on what would happen to the arm in the event of using this block against a specific kick. Next we see a front snap kick. What do you feel the opponents body will do/position upon receiving said kick. The third sequenced move, the step punch. Upon knowing what happens with element #2, the front snap kick, decide for yourself the validity or lack of, for element #3 - step punch.

There really isn't any remember these are movement to program your body to re-act. For example of the down block you say against a kick well what f it is to be use against a stick and they are going after your knee's. The second part is the snap kick well lets say the kick is just to stop your opponet from coming forward then the step though punch would be the final blow, to say the least. Remember there is always more than one application to any givem movement.

 

[Errant108]

As we are engaged against an imaginary opponent,

Problem #1: Imaginary opponent.

Don't engage with imaginary opponents. Don't theorize what you think an application. You're still swimming on dry land.

Engage with live opponents.

There have been discussions on what would happen to the arm in the event of using this block against a specific kick.

The only mention in this thread was a low block against a round kick, not a front kick. A scooping parry against a front kick, especially when combined with evasive footwork, is a valid tactic found in many full contact kicking arts, such as Muay Thai, Kyokushin, and Taegyeon. None of them advocate a low block against the round kick, as mentioned above. Empirical evidence, ie. actually sparring trying that technique, will bear this out. Small forearm bones meet big shin bone? Doesn't take a degree in biomechanics to figure that out.

Next we see a front snap kick. What do you feel the opponents body will do/position upon receiving said kick.

We haven't even gotten there yet. What happens when you deflect that front kick with your lower parry? Did you parry and stay inside, or did you parry outside? Was the front kick a rear leg kick, or a front leg kick?

All of these considerations are why you need to actually spar with these techniques and not just arm chair theorize.

Also, in all three of these techniques, you have neglected transitional movements, so-called "chambering", etc...unless you advocate fighting with your fists at your waist.

 

[Makalakumu]

Also, in all three of these techniques, you have neglected transitional movements, so-called "chambering", etc...unless you advocate fighting with your fists at your waist.

This, IMHO, is the red headed step child of TKD, TSD, and Itosu lineage Karate. As soon as you address it, the entire basis of the art is questioned. If karate based KMAists are going to be intellectually honest and really question this aspect with realistic inquiry, the whole edifice will come tumbling down.

All of the skeletons will come tumbling out of the closet.

 

[Errant108]

This, IMHO, is the red headed step child of TKD, TSD, and Itosu lineage Karate. As soon as you address it, the entire basis of the art is questioned. If karate based KMAists are going to be intellectually honest and really question this aspect with realistic inquiry, the whole edifice will come tumbling down.

All of the skeletons will come tumbling out of the closet.

I think there's a middle ground between Exile & foot2face.

If we take all factors of Gukgi Taegwondo as one holistic art, then it does not resemble Okinawan bunkai. However, including that piece of it, through the pumsae, as well as the unique alive environment and progressive, adaptive technique developed in gyorugi, you end up with a modern, truly Korean art.

 

[Brad Dunne]

There really isn't any remember these are movement to program your body to re-act. For example of the down block you say against a kick well what f it is to be use against a stick and they are going after your knee's. The second part is the snap kick well lets say the kick is just to stop your opponet from coming forward then the step though punch would be the final blow, to say the least. Remember there is always more than one application to any givem movement.

First you say there isn't any and then you proceed to qualify the movements and give their SD uses......???????

Don't engage with imaginary opponents. Don't theorize what you think an application. You're still swimming on dry land.

I've seen some really stupid responses on these threads, but congradulations, this one takes the top prize. What is the purpose of forms, other than to practice given techniques and applications. That's what the original intent of this dissussion was about.

The only mention in this thread was a low block against a round kick, not a front kick. A scooping parry against a front kick, especially when combined with evasive footwork, is a valid tactic found in many full contact kicking arts, such as Muay Thai, Kyokushin, and Taegyeon. None of them advocate a low block against the round kick, as mentioned above. Empirical evidence, ie. actually sparring trying that technique, will bear this out. Small forearm bones meet big shin bone? Doesn't take a degree in biomechanics to figure that out.

There was no mention of which thread had that discussion, only that a discussion had been made. Again, some form of going off on a tangent is occuring. The example form was just that, an example. Now using this example, the movements are what they are, a simple down block in a straight line stance. There is no intent or mention of evasive footwork or what particular kick is forthcoming. We are addressing the basic form as it's given. This is where folks get all disjointed. They want to look for something other than what is presented. Anyone can invision what they think should be happening, but what is actually happening is what you are dealing with and that is the crux of looking at the applications of a form.

Everything you are addressing is being taken out of context because you are not looking at the basic given technique of the form and dealing with that. Again, the function of forms is self training and hopefully those that thought up the form weren't dealing theory, but this aspect is also involved in what this tread is about, application of TKD forms in SD.

 

[Jade Tigress]

ATTENTION ALL USES

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator

 

[Kacey]

Also, in all three of these techniques, you have neglected transitional movements, so-called "chambering", etc...unless you advocate fighting with your fists at your waist.

Chambering - that is, performing whatever preliminary or preparatory movement your art teaches - is intended to teach proper body mechanics. Chambering is seen in line drills and patterns - not in free sparring. Practicing techniques with chambering - with a full, extended preliminary, included, as stated, bringing the opposite fist to the waist, starting blocks with the wrists crossed (if that's how you do it), etc. - is a method of training muscle memory, intended to ensure that, when you really need to strike or block, enough of it happens that the technique works. It is a method of overtraining, just like a boxer overtrains when hitting a heavy bag 50 or more times at a stretch, harder than would be needed to knock and opponent out - no one needs to do that in a real fight, but the boxer is training his muscles to be able to perform that technique by doing it over and over, until it happens automatically.

Now, I know people who say "but why train more movement than you need" - and there are valid arguments on both sides. Some styles teach larger chambering and damp the movement down as the student begins to understand how the movement works - so that by the time the student needs to apply movements, they understand what they're doing and can therefore apply the movements more appropriately, and more minimally, which makes them less visible, so they're not keying their motions. Others teach only the minimal movement from the beginning - and this can work as well. It all depends on whether the instructor understands, and can explain, how to use the movement properly to students; if the instructor can do that, then the end result is the same. Different methods work for different people, styles, etc., and can be equally effective. The key is understanding how the techniques work and being able to apply them properly; how to teach that will depend on how a particular person was trained, how much the person understands, and how well that person can pass that knowledge and understanding on to others.

And then, too, some issues - including chambering - are based on differing philosophies. Each art has an underlying philosophy that will change how it is interpreted, understood, and taught, which must be understood to be properly transmitted - too many people learn by rote whatever they need for their next testing. That's why all of my students have to help teach their juniors - it's much harder to teach something than to do it, and you must understand what you're doing if you're going to explain it to someone else.

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm not trying to be deliberately inflamatory, Kacey, but IMHO, I think the explanation you gave for chambering (the explanation that is given in most dojangs) is pretty flimsy.

It's not done in sparring and its not done in self defense situations, or at least those that are envisioned by most karate based KMAists.

The simple fact of the matter, and I see that you addressed this, is that chambering the hand leaves you horribly exposed.

"Chambering" the hand only makes sense when you understand hiki-te. The retracting hand is drawing something back with it. As soon as you incorporate this into your art, it changes the entire way in which it is practiced.

The interesting thing regarding TSD and TKD is that have all of these old karate relics floating around in them. "Chambering" is one of them. And all dojangs have this or that story to explain them. Heck, I've seen some masters get into long winded arguments about this or that...and the real explanation is simple. No body in that lineage knows what the original purpose was.

It's just something to think about. I do know this...hiki-te makes the most sense out of all the things that I have heard.

 

[Kacey]

I'm not trying to be deliberately inflamatory, Kacey, but IMHO, I think the explanation you gave for chambering (the explanation that is given in most dojangs) is pretty flimsy.

It's not done in sparring and its not done in self defense situations, or at least those that are envisioned by most karate based KMAists.

The simple fact of the matter, and I see that you addressed this, is that chambering the hand leaves you horribly exposed.

"Chambering" the hand only makes sense when you understand hiki-te. The retracting hand is drawing something back with it. As soon as you incorporate this into your art, it changes the entire way in which it is practiced.

The interesting thing regarding TSD and TKD is that have all of these old karate relics floating around in them. "Chambering" is one of them. And all dojangs have this or that story to explain them. Heck, I've seen some masters get into long winded arguments about this or that...and the real explanation is simple. No body in that lineage knows what the original purpose was.

It's just something to think about. I do know this...hiki-te makes the most sense out of all the things that I have heard.

Honestly, I didn't go into detail about where the chambering hand was going because it is, as you say, an inflammatory discussion. Yes, I think the chambering hand is doing something - sometimes it is being pulled out of a grab; sometimes it is jabbing the elbow into another attacker, etc. There are far too many possibilities, depending on the situation, than I could possibly get into in this discussion... and since the original discussion was about poomsae, I had stayed out of it deliberately, because I don't practice poomsae; I practice tuls. The theory is, nonetheless, the same.

And as I said, for white belts, I teach them to do what I say because I said it; it's hard enough for white belts to coordinate moving hands and feet in different directions at the same time, and breathing, and looking, and landing in the right spot, without adding additional information that distracts their attention even further from what they're doing right now, even if it helps to explain the movement. I save such explanations for later, as the movements become more fluid and natural. In addition, if I give the student too much - if I say this is "the way", I prevent the student from discovering applications for themselves. Too many applications are passed on blindly, without understanding - and like the old kids' game of telephone, where you whisper a sentence in your neighbor's ear around a circle, until the original message is distorted beyond recognition - too many applications are distorted as they are passed on, until they are performed "because sahbum said so", without understanding or meaningful applications. Better, IMHO, to not understand at the beginning, than to be given an incorrect explanation, or one that the student is not yet ready to understand.

There is a tendency, when teaching, to attempt to pass on everything you knew in one massive exhalation of information - and it's hard to not do that. Nonetheless, I have found that, for most (not all) students, it is better to parcel out information in small, regulated sequences, so that the information builds on itself; otherwise, it causes information overload in a way that is detrimental to the student.

 

[YoungMan]

As was explained to me, chambering is done to teach your body how to make maximum power in the beginning when you don't know how to do this.
What do I mean by this? Power is a result of waist action, torque, speed etc. As a color belt student, your body does not know how to make power, and needs to make these exaggerated motions initially to develop power. There is a reason why color belt students seem uncoordinated and prone to exaggerated action. Because they have not learned how to make maximum power with minimum motion. That will come later. I have seen my Instructor almost break people's arm with basic technique that seem to come out of nowhere-almost imperceptible windup.
Now, there are instructors who teach "practice it now as you'd do it later". The problem with this is that that's like teaching advanced math with all its shortcuts to elementary students. Color belts need to practice these huge actions to train their bodies to make power. Eventually, they won't need to, and you won't have to make those actions in a real situation. Your kicking, punching, and blocking will become so smooth with time and practice that the windup and cjambering will become almost imperceptible.
That is a difference between beginning and advanced students.

 

[exile]

My own angle on chambering movements is based on a general principle (which applies to much more than just the MAs) that you start from the strongest premise and see how far you can go in defending it, rather than a weaker premise. In the case of form interpretation, the strongest premise is that all movements have combat application (typically, several different ones, depending on how the preceding and following moves are interpreted). The reason this is the strongest premise is that it's compatible with a much narrower range of facts than the premise that not all combat moves are combat-effective (i.e., some are decorative, or are for training, or are expressive of some spiritual/philosophical/cosmological principle, or...). The stronger position is the one that's most easily shown to be mistaken, i.e. It's the same idea as when you see two critics arguing about the interpretation of a certain passage in an Elizabethan play: one says, well, it's hard to make sense of this bit, so let's just assume it's a textual error; the other says, no, it's just what the playwright intended, but you have to understand the play in a different way, and then the question is, is there independent evidence that supports that different understanding? In the case of chambering, my assumption is that the chamber is often the 'business end' of the technique revealed in the form, so then you have to decide just what that technique is.

We already know that the labels that are attached to KMA and JMA striking arts aren't to be taken literally: Itosu in his own writings was explicit about that, and made it clear that describing things as blocks and punches—a description tradition which he appears to have started, in order to make karate acceptable to the overeers of the Okinawan school system—was intended for teaching karate to children; that the actual techs behind the form of the kata were much nastier than those simple kihon moves. So when we look at a movement, it's an open question what the intended move is. Where the teaching transmission has lost the original intention, the intention that shaped the form of the combat sequence in which the movment appears, we have to try to recover it from considerations of practicality (with respect to our understanding of how actual fights develop) and effectiveness (does it work to minimize the length of time the defender is in danger?). Stances, chambering movements, so-called blocks, so-called punches... all are subject to the same kind of scrutiny.

With chambering movements, there are a number of very natural interpretations in which the chamber is a crucial component of the technique. In the 'down block', for example, the retraction chambering, taken to be a wrist grip/twist pulling the attacker's grabbing arm toward the defender's hip, in conjunction with a rotation of the defender's body, helps set up a second trapping movement where the defender's forearm, slammed into the attacker's extended arm just above the elbow, creates a pin which forces the attacker's head lower the more weight you project into the pin (by a so-called front stance movement). The defender's pinning arm, if it's released quickly and raised high to the defender's opposite side, looks as though it's 'chambering', but the hard, fast 'down block' that creates a hammerfist strike to the attacker's temple, carotid sinus, collarbone or etc. isn't exactly a simple 'preparation' move, expecially since, it can be broken down further into a sequence rising-elbow-strike (to one side of attacker's head)—downward-spearing-elbow-strike (to attacker's face)—downward-hammer-fist (into attacker's temple, throat, etc.) So what look like a retraction chamber of one fist and a set-up chamber for a simple down block winds up having plausible, effective interpretations (in, e.g., Palgwe Sam Jang) as pinning/trapping movements and multiple strikes to vulnerable points on the attacker's lowered upper body. In the Abernethy discussion I cited earlier, the use of the rear hand chamber as a crucial component of a deflection, letting the defende go inside and deliver the forward knifehand 'block' to the attacker's throat again illustrates the way in which the chambering part of a movement can in fact be seen realistically as a component of a decisive combat application.

My feeling is, if some movement , whether a chamber or anything else, doesn't have some effective application, it's going to show: the interpretation of the sequences in which that movement, interpreted as a particular move, is embedded will grow more and more baroque and unrealistic, and at one point it'll be clear that the point of the movement was something else than a specific element in fighting tactics. But it seems to me to be a good idea in general to start from the assumption that there's combat utility in a chambering movement, and see how that holds up in thinking about each subsequence of a form. After a certain amount of experimentation, you may well decide that the intention behind the move was not directly relevant to operations in a fight, and if that's the case, so be it.

 

[newGuy12]

Also, it is the rear elbow strike of course.

 

[YoungMan]

When I see black belts doing form, whether it's color belt or black belt poomsae, I would say 75% of the time at least it is obvious they have little to no idea why they are doing what they are doing, other than because their instructor told them to do form. I doubt their instructor knows why certain motions are the way they are. It is frightening to me how many black belts are clueless about form other than knowing what comes next.
Keep in mind, many motions in form are not strictly for self defense. If that were the case, Keumgang and other forms and their techniques would not exist. Certain techniques teach grace, slow/hard, balance, isometric power, speed etc. It is not just about pins, joint locks, vital spots. But knowing the principles behind these other techniques is just as important and separates the good instructors and students from the so-so or bad.
As I told one of our grandmasters, I believe every Instructor has an obligation to his/her students to know and understand why we do techniques a certain way. Otherwise, the art will surely degrade.