RTDCMB and Th0mas, I've enjoyed your discussion and the whole threads discussion on this block. I'd like to propose another alternative view point, and I don't mean to side track the discussion at all nor make it out like I have the secret answer, more knowledge etc. etc. My primary art was/is an Americanized version of TKD in that we do the ITF forms (Chungi onward), and yet for a couple of years I studied Wado ryu, which was actually more like a bastardized version of Shotokan (my instructor studied Shotokan first, then Wado, so it wasn't pure Wado, which is why I said bastardized I mean no disrespect for either Shotokan nor Wado) so neither my TKD nor the Karate I studied came from "pure" instructors as in Japanese or Korean.
I had an interest in the kata practiced by both systems because there were undeniable similarities between them. Yet much of the written material at that time (1980's) suggested that TKD was an old art and developed independently of karate. Over time I've read enough and collected enough to get a basic understanding of how karate was developed in Okinawa, brought to Japan, then to Korea, then to the world through these three main arts. (I'm speaking in a large general sense.) So they share a common bond so to speak especially in kata.
You have some good points but there are some misconceptions you seem to have that I will now clear up. For one thing the twin forearm block is not the most common of techniques, you are more likely to use the two blocks that make up the block separately but a simultaneous attack by two people (however unlikely) is an application nonetheless:
.
View attachment 20101View attachment 20102
You are talking in terms of Karate, the OP studies TKD and although there are many common elements there are also significant differences.
And point or order; the OP was asking for applications, not how likely or realistic those applications were. Blocking two simultaneous attacks (which is an application his instructor told him) is still more likely than having to block a flying double leg scissor kick.
"For one thing the twin forearm block is not the most common of techniques, you are more likely to use the two blocks that make up the block separately......."
I believe that there is a logical application for the moves that I believe predates the way the movements as they are practiced now which makes the applications more realistic, more likely to happen, and useful.
You are talking in terms of Karate, the OP studies TKD and although there are many common elements there are also significant differences.
True but the moves and the sequences came from the kata the Okinawans created, that were brought to Japan and modified and then later taught to the Koreans who then created TKD. The differences between the two (well three arts) can be very different, but the applications of the movements that are being discussed in the context of the kata are similar because the following movements are similar.
".........but a simultaneous attack by two people (however unlikely) is an application nonetheless:"
"(which is an application his instructor told him)"
No offense but this is part of the problem, a possible lack of understanding of the original application and execution of the moves being passed down to students, and instructors trying to come up with possible applications to kata.
Ok, I accept your advice about the commonality, or lack thereof, of the twin forearm block with regard to TKD. I also accept that TKD practitioners may use the blocks separately, however it is very unlikely that the simultaneous block interpretation of the application bares any resemblance to the original intent of the motion.
I agree, I don't think it bares any resemblance to the original intent of the motion. I also think the motion or the way the block was performed changed when it went to Japan. But I believe the two person attack application came from Japanese sources not the Koreans, although I searched my book collection for examples and could only find it in the TKD books, not the karate books (at least my older books). However I believe I have seen you tube video of bunkai footage of this move in the kata (pinan 1 and 4) and I've seen the two person attack.
I Know the OP was not discussing Forms in particular, however In terms of karate, the "square block" is a cornerstone application (meaning the rest of the kata hinges off this initial move) in two of the first 5 kata taught (Heian Nedan/Pinan shodan and Heian/Pinan yondan). Which means it is far from uncommon, particular in the context of dealing with close range self protection tactics.
I would also argue that in terms of understanding the application of this movement (as the OP requested), taking a lead from how karate practitioners apply the motion provides a good basis in which to start the discussion. The reality of this approach and subsequent considerations, may not fit neatly into the long-range emphasis of TKD, but that is hardly the fault of the original creators of the kata (in the case of the Heians/Pinans that would arguably be Itosu in the late 19th Century), the same kata that are the basis of the modern TKD forms taught today and where the "square block" is represented.
BTW The attached images look like demonstration footage.. not an example of a real application.
Yes it is a bad example, however even the idea that you are practising a technique to simultaneous block two attacks from two opponents from different directions is also very unrealistic.
"The reality of this approach and subsequent considerations, may not fit neatly into the long-range emphasis of TKD, but that is hardly the fault of the original creators of the kata (in the case of the Heians/Pinans that would arguably be Itosu in the late 19th Century), the same kata that are the basis of the modern TKD forms taught today and where the "square block" is represented."
I agree but the long range application approach I think started with Japan and was adopted by the Koreans and then later still modified, in that the later forms have gone back to a more upright stance as opposed to the older Japanese influenced kata of Tang Soo Do, and the ITF kata.
In the book "The Essence of Okinawan Karate-Do" by Shoshin Nagamine on page 73 there is a picture of Wari-uke-zuki (split bock punch) done in a forward stance, on page 117 it shows the opening moves of Pinan Shodan with the same structure as the previous picture but in a back stance, the picture on pg 135 shows the same structure to the move but with open hands and in a back stance. The split block punch is described as an upper block with a punch (like an upper cut).
To see the picture it makes sense, that instead of having the hips in line with the front heel so the rear hand faces towards the opponent, in this application the hips align with the rear heel so that the rear hand faces in the same direction as the rear heel. So if the attack is say a front punch coming at you and you are facing your opponent you would upper block with your rear hand while striking him with the front. Likewise this works if a circular strike is coming from your side and you block with the rear hand. If you were in close and someone reached to grab your lapel or shoulder this could knock the hand away and counter attack at the same time.
The way I learned the block in Wado had the motion of the arms raise up in a circular motion in front of the body, this motion could block two attacks from two directions one from the front and one from the side, and be used as two separate blocks, but that seems a backward way of doing things. I mean why not teach it as those blocks are taught throughout the rest of the kata group as separate blocks if that was the main goal. Why the change for the opening move of the kata? And why the opening move of the first kata that was to be taught to school kids? To me that doesn't make sense nor really fit historically.
In regards to the upper block blocking high kicks etc.etc. I don't think that was the intent either, because the movement was created for kata that was to be taught in schools with self defense type situations in mind not sparring. We look at things from today's perspective where sparring and sporting applications are generally the main focus, likewise I don't think that attacks from two people from different directions would be the opening move from a kata meant to teach school kids.
The open hand movement in the kata (pinan 4), was taught to me to mean "mind like water" as in being reflective as I check both of my sides for any attackers, it's funny that I didn't see the guy in front of me, as I checked both sides. In fact we did the move very slowly with tension breathing, I thought it was probably to scare the guy in front till he finally just said "oh hell he has no clue" and attacked.
I'm kidding of course, my point to this is that instructors will come up with all sorts of interpretations when asked for explanation of moves.
I have read where sensei Funakoshi changed karate when he brought it to Japan; over time the study of one kata over years, changed to learning many kata, bunkai was de-emphasized, and in time as it spread to universities then the sparring emphasis took priority. Which would change things as well. Is it possible that the emphasis on sparring took karate from a self defense view point to more of a dueling view point (two people engaged in mutual combat). So then, perhaps the twin forearm block became more of a posture (as it was taught) instead of a "technique". For instance in the famous fight between Choki Motobu and the Boxer; the drawing depicting the fight, that was published in a Japanese magazine, shows (I believe) Motobu (drawn as Funokoshi) in I believe this open handed (mind like water) position as he looks to be circling the boxer.
It's to far back in history to know if Funokoshi (for example) changed it, or maybe Shoshin Nagamine did, or if Itosu taught it differently to different students (which he did when teaching karate), or if sparring changed it etc. etc. However I do think that if we look to history we can find an easy application that works and that gives us more to think about how things might have came about and the development of karate/TKD
I do think we need to question what is the purpose of this move or that, ask our instructors, ask others, do research and work it out. However we can come up with a multitude of different applications (from all these different sources) that seem to go with the technique but don't really fit because of how it is executed. For instance the way I was taught the block in my TKD was that the hands come up in a narrow line across my body "as if I was pulling the covers over my head at night", so the force is going more forward instead of circular in front of my body. In this case the block is more towards the front and the rear hand is used to set up the next strike (as in a chop), but it doesn't really work for blocking a circular attack from the side like the Wado method. However looking at a picture you wouldn't know how or the way the block is performed just the end result, the finish so to speak.
So the way the block is performed really helps set context to how the technique or the intent behind the technique is to be used. So for the OP maybe a description of how you do the block would help in proper suggestions on how to apply it.
