Keumgang Poomsae

[skribs]

Now this part in particular, I actually agree with that.

When teaching/learning patterns, often there will be an example simple application given - "this is to block a punch/kick" or "this is attack to this area" - which is a visualisation aid.

So when someone has a high block that's too low, you can say something like "that's to block a punch coming at your face, your block is too low".

I can't see much value in teaching someone a pattern with the sort of thing like "move left arm outward and stop it here" - maybe that really is how you've been taught though.

But, concentrating too hard on that single application isn't great either, it's a starting point for that move.

I never go through performing a pattern thinking "I'm doing X because Y".

What I do find happens a lot however is that I'll use a move, or a transition, from a pattern in free sparring without thinking about it until afterwards. Because of doing it in the pattern it's become part of my catalogue of body movements and while it may not be exactly as the description would suggest, it's the same move.

For example, I wouldn't be there thinking "here comes a fist, I'll do move 19 from the fifth pattern".

After the fact, especially if it's filmed, I'll identify that's actually what it was though.

I only get stuck on a single application if it doesn't make sense.

How often do you find that you used one of the more advanced or intricate moves of the form?

 

[skribs]

Actually, that's not strictly true.

It's very very common that a golfer will drill their swing without a ball in sight, likewise a putt.

Same with a tennisser as well - they'll often practice a serve, or a backhand, or a type of step, without a ball.

Also often, the practice they do does look different to how they go and apply it if the applied version is analysed in slow-mo side by side.

And look very closely at a boxer against a pad and against an opponent - there are often differences in technique that only come to light in application, which are sometimes then worked on with further practice.



Firstly, I'd have to look up what those moves are, because if they're present in my curriculum (highly likely) then they'll have different names.

Thing is though, why the insistence on the application being exactly as done in the form?

Stances for instance - in a form (and a pattern) they're treated like a pose, you assume it and freeze for a variable time for that snapshot. You can't apply it like that, a stance is a transitory thing - it happens and is gone, but there's value and importance in understanding how to get into and out of them.

Doing a technique in that stance doesn't mean you can only do those things in combination - it's commonly practiced that we'll do a bending stance (apparently pretty much what you call a crane stance) in conjunction with a block that is held. You'd never use it exactly like that though because it's a preparatory position that is moved fluidly through in application.


To be completely honest, I'm coming to think that what you actually want is something that doesn't exist - in any art.

The KKW forms are in youtube, as well as documented in image form elsewhere. You can look up keumgang and hopefully pick up contextually which techniques I am referring to. Of course, 70% of the form is artsy techniques.

What you describe about the forms being snapshots and poses is exactly the problem I'm talking about. There isn't any discussion on how to accurately use these techniques or how to use them in combination. They're chosen for how good the poses look, and your training in the form is how to make the poses look better.

 

[pdg]

I only get stuck on a single application if it doesn't make sense.

How often do you find that you used one of the more advanced or intricate moves of the form?

It varies (obviously). I don't use all the moves all the time and I don't always use them with the 'introductory' application (I've never heard of anyone saying a rising block is designed to be used against an axe kick, but it's entertainingly effective and they tend to not try an axe kick again for a while), but they're there and they get used.

With one notable exception, I quite honestly can't think of a single move (or exceedingly close derivative thereof) in any of the patterns up to my level (and a good few contained in patterns above) that I haven't used in either free sparring or improvisational step sparring that didn't feel forced, at least not after a bit of work on timing and the like. I usually have to force things a couple of times until I find the flow, but then they're generally pretty repeatable, more or less.

I have to say at this point that I've had multiple 3rd+ Dan grades say that they like sparring with me, but hate it at the same time - because they never know what I'm going to do either in defence or attack (or combination) - they're so used to almost everyone sticking with side kick / turning kick / side block and very little else and then along comes me with my ridiculous combinations of moves that "never work" and then I'm helping them back to their feet... Most comedy comment: "why can't I kick you???"

It's not that I'm better than them as such, it's that I'm unpredictable and allegedly very difficult to lead or feint.

The KKW forms are in youtube, as well as documented in image form elsewhere. You can look up keumgang and hopefully pick up contextually which techniques I am referring to. Of course, 70% of the form is artsy techniques.

I think this is where that one notable exception above comes in - as far as I can make out mountain block = w shaped block (your arms form the shape of a w in line with shoulders either side of your head)?

If that's the correct parallel move, then it's the only one I know (so far) where any practical application utterly escapes me...

The given application is something like "blocking two attacks from opposite directions".

Now, I can make the outward traveling block work just fine - ditto the inward traveling one.

Doing both just because it's a move but against one attack?

No.

Actually using against two separate attacks?

No. (Maybe if the timing of the two attacks was absolutely perfect and I was pretty much expecting it, but 'live'? Nope)


Other techniques that come with the "two attacks" tag, those I do use but it'll be one block with whichever is secondary used as a primer for a counter.


The rest of the form - yeah, used pretty much all of it. Including the "crane stance and twin block", but as I hinted at that would be a flowing move (blocking against a lowish turning kick while going through that stance into a side kick).

I'd put maybe 10% of the form as "artsy" myself.

 

[skribs]

It varies (obviously). I don't use all the moves all the time and I don't always use them with the 'introductory' application (I've never heard of anyone saying a rising block is designed to be used against an axe kick, but it's entertainingly effective and they tend to not try an axe kick again for a while), but they're there and they get used.

With one notable exception, I quite honestly can't think of a single move (or exceedingly close derivative thereof) in any of the patterns up to my level (and a good few contained in patterns above) that I haven't used in either free sparring or improvisational step sparring that didn't feel forced, at least not after a bit of work on timing and the like. I usually have to force things a couple of times until I find the flow, but then they're generally pretty repeatable, more or less.

I have to say at this point that I've had multiple 3rd+ Dan grades say that they like sparring with me, but hate it at the same time - because they never know what I'm going to do either in defence or attack (or combination) - they're so used to almost everyone sticking with side kick / turning kick / side block and very little else and then along comes me with my ridiculous combinations of moves that "never work" and then I'm helping them back to their feet... Most comedy comment: "why can't I kick you???"

It's not that I'm better than them as such, it's that I'm unpredictable and allegedly very difficult to lead or feint.



I think this is where that one notable exception above comes in - as far as I can make out mountain block = w shaped block (your arms form the shape of a w in line with shoulders either side of your head)?

If that's the correct parallel move, then it's the only one I know (so far) where any practical application utterly escapes me...

The given application is something like "blocking two attacks from opposite directions".

Now, I can make the outward traveling block work just fine - ditto the inward traveling one.

Doing both just because it's a move but against one attack?

No.

Actually using against two separate attacks?

No. (Maybe if the timing of the two attacks was absolutely perfect and I was pretty much expecting it, but 'live'? Nope)


Other techniques that come with the "two attacks" tag, those I do use but it'll be one block with whichever is secondary used as a primer for a counter.


The rest of the form - yeah, used pretty much all of it. Including the "crane stance and twin block", but as I hinted at that would be a flowing move (blocking against a lowish turning kick while going through that stance into a side kick).

I'd put maybe 10% of the form as "artsy" myself.

Yeah, that's the block.

Your attitude toward that block is my attitude towards most of the techniques. Even where you say it might be a block and counter, well then why not teach it that way?!?!

In the flowing block, why would your other hand be back over your head instead of between you and your opponent?

 

[pdg]

What you describe about the forms being snapshots and poses is exactly the problem I'm talking about. There isn't any discussion on how to accurately use these techniques or how to use them in combination. They're chosen for how good the poses look, and your training in the form is how to make the poses look better.

If that really is how it's done throughout kkw tkd then I would agree it can be construed as an issue.

As a comparison (and this is something I may have said before) we do the patterns for the sake of doing the patterns. We'll analyse the snapshot moments and work on improving how we look at each point compared to the model of that 'pose'. The training of the pattern is to get better at that pattern

The subsequent stages are what you seem to lack though.

We then also go through the pattern against pads or an opponent offering attacks.

And, we break down sections of the patterns, working those sections against an opponent.

And, we take smaller combinations or individual moves and put them against an opponent in various drills.

And, we'll bundle sections or moves from one pattern with bits of another to work on the available transitions between moves - sometimes combining so that there's actually no discernible transition.


All the while, we'll be doing the pattern for the sake of doing the pattern without actively thinking X because Y - that should become a subconscious aspect.

 

[dvcochran]

You'll have to see if they can actually back up what they claim. I've found plenty of videos, even books that describe the application of the forms. But they invariably fail in at least one of these categories:

1. The application presented is garbage
2. The application presented does not actually use the technique in the form, and has to heavily modify it to make it actually work in any scenario. If there's one point in the technique that looks like the one in the form, or if you've got a limb or two moving in vaguely the same direction, it gets called an application of the technique, and that's setting a low bar of success.
3. The application presented uses one technique from the form, and a bunch of techniques that are not in the form (it would be like teaching someone how to sift flour and then saying that lesson taught them how to bake a cake)

I don't remember who it was, but in another one of these threads someone posted a link to KKW stating that there is self-defense taught in the forms. But as far as I could tell, that was empty rhetoric for the sake of advertisement, which is not backed up by the KKW curriculum.



My position is to be realistic about what the forms teach me. That I wasted my time searching for an application when there was none to be found. So I found what the forms do well, and I apply my forms training to that. They're good for memorization, attention to detail, and dexterity.



That's great. It's also and ITF school with ITF forms.



I did. I looked to Karate for a lot of the similar moves. I didn't get very far there on the more complicated moves, either.



Spent 5 years doing that. That's how I came to my conclusion.



Where have I ever said "that's not what my master teaches"? That's a phrase that got put into my mouth a long time ago by someone who couldn't read my posts properly, and for some reason has stuck as a stigma against me ever since. I've repeatedly stated that my source for my opinion is from several articles, multiple masters that I have trained under, videos I have seen, books, and replies to the questions I've asked on multiple forums. And yet, people keep getting stuck on "well that's not what my master teaches."

No.

If you're going to criticize me, please criticize me, and not some made-up version of me that someone who couldn't even read came up with.

To further illustrate this point, my position (as has been made very clear in this thread) is that I recognized that disconnect between #1 and #2, and I have made the adjustment. The adjustment just doesn't sit well with the people on this forum, because the adjustment is to see that disconnect and stop looking for the application. Now, the reason I'm here in this thread is because I was specifically mentioned by name by @dvcochran . He was literally asking for my opinion on the subject. So I came to offer it. If you're searching for application in the Keumgang Poomsae, you're not going to find it. Those moves are chosen for artistic purposes and have no place in actual combat without heavy modification. Then he took offense with my opinion, because my opinion is in violation of his claims that there is an application there. One which, when I asked what it was, he simply said "yes" and failed to actually provide it.

So no, I haven't come in here to ask those questions. I don't ask those questions any more. I've got my answer. When someone asks for opinions on the forms, I provide my opinions. If people can prove me wrong, then by all means do so. But so far, the only proof I've had meets a very low bar for success, a bar which I have set higher with a simple standard: if a form is going to teach applicable technique, then the technique taught in the form must be directly applicable. It's a simple standard, and honestly not a very high bar to set if the forms are designed to teach application.

And I'm not going to lower my bar to alleviate the risk of alienating people. That's not a compromise I'm willing to make. I'd rather keep my standards than capitulate to someone who settled.

This summation is on you and you alone. It is Not the general consensus.

 

[pdg]

Yeah, that's the block.

Your attitude toward that block is my attitude towards most of the techniques. Even where you say it might be a block and counter, well then why not teach it that way?!?!

Currently, with my level of understanding where it is, I consider that particular block to be the only technique that is actually unteachable from an application perspective.

I've asked about it a few times, and asked for the application to be demonstrated and it's turned out that it's either an inward or outward block with the other hand in a completely impractical and unusable position, or it's failed completely.

Maybe one day I'll actually stumble across a way to really use it (holding someone horizontally above my head and spinning them to throw them? ) but apart from fantasy I honestly doubt it.

The other moves that have the superficial "two direction block" but are actually more sensible as a block and counter or block and setup - we're free to do that and some are also taught as such.

In the flowing block, why would your other hand be back over your head instead of between you and your opponent?

At least a bit of this will probably come across as unreasonable, and it does sound that way until you manage to do it reliably - which I'm fine with.

Well, one example is as a distraction.

I've found that lifting one arm takes attention away from my legs - blocking a turning kick and lifting one arm has meant my leg lifting and going into a side kick goes completely unchallenged and unnoticed until contact is made.

I've also had it work the other way - I raised my arm as a distraction but they didn't notice because they saw my leg lift and went to counter a kick. At that point, a bit of a twist with putting my foot back down resulted in an unchallenged side fist (hammer fist?). This has also been the case when they landed from their blocked kick too close for me to side kick in return.

As I said, those explanations look silly in writing and take way longer to read than to actually do (which doesn't help matters) but I have had them work.

I've also had them fail - but there's no such thing as a 100% move or there'd be no need to learn anything else anyway

 

[pdg]

So, @dvcochran - this w shaped (/mountain) block...

Do you have any possible explanation of a sensible application for it?

 

[skribs]

If that really is how it's done throughout kkw tkd then I would agree it can be construed as an issue.

As a comparison (and this is something I may have said before) we do the patterns for the sake of doing the patterns. We'll analyse the snapshot moments and work on improving how we look at each point compared to the model of that 'pose'. The training of the pattern is to get better at that pattern

The subsequent stages are what you seem to lack though.

We then also go through the pattern against pads or an opponent offering attacks.

And, we break down sections of the patterns, working those sections against an opponent.

And, we take smaller combinations or individual moves and put them against an opponent in various drills.

And, we'll bundle sections or moves from one pattern with bits of another to work on the available transitions between moves - sometimes combining so that there's actually no discernible transition.


All the while, we'll be doing the pattern for the sake of doing the pattern without actively thinking X because Y - that should become a subconscious aspect.

This has not been my experience at either KKW school, nor has it been common according to the research I have done.

We do the things you talk about - just not with the stuff in the forms. For example, our red belt test includes things like turning a palm block into a v-lock (not in the forms), grabbing a side kick, sweeping the leg, and then doing a leg lock (not in the forms), and defending a rear body grab with a pick sweep (also not in the forms). We train the application...just not from the forms.

At least a bit of this will probably come across as unreasonable, and it does sound that way until you manage to do it reliably - which I'm fine with.

Well, one example is as a distraction.

I've found that lifting one arm takes attention away from my legs - blocking a turning kick and lifting one arm has meant my leg lifting and going into a side kick goes completely unchallenged and unnoticed until contact is made.

I've also had it work the other way - I raised my arm as a distraction but they didn't notice because they saw my leg lift and went to counter a kick. At that point, a bit of a twist with putting my foot back down resulted in an unchallenged side fist (hammer fist?). This has also been the case when they landed from their blocked kick too close for me to side kick in return.

As I said, those explanations look silly in writing and take way longer to read than to actually do (which doesn't help matters) but I have had them work.

I've also had them fail - but there's no such thing as a 100% move or there'd be no need to learn anything else anyway

I could see that, except with your body turned the way it is, the hand is out of the way.

This summation is on you and you alone. It is Not the general consensus.

It's not just me. Lots of people have noticed the disconnect between the forms and the other aspects of Taekwondo.
Abandoning poomse. : taekwondo

The general consensus here (from many posters) is that Poomsae is a technical and artistic exercise, and not a way to teach application.

[Book review] Taekwondo: From a martial art to a martial sport : taekwondo

This post is a book review from someone who came to the same conclusion as me. In particular...
"In short, one of Moenig's central arguments is that taekwondo today is a mashup of incoherent contradictions and mutually incompatible ideas. It's a Japanese/Korean hybrid art that insists on its Korean purity by clinging desperately (and paradoxically) to its most Japanese elements: kata/poomsae. At the same time, modern sport taekwondo is arguably the only true indigenous Korean taekwondo. But even so, the majority of WT schools today fail to embrace that realization and instead rely on a muddled soup of forms/one-step self defense/sparring where the techniques and philosophy taught during one part of a class have absolutely nothing to do with what students might be doing 5 minutes later (Chapter 8 documents the fundamental incompatibilities in stance, technique, and execution during taekwondo forms and taekwondo sparring). And the lessons from MMA have shown that the traditional ideas about self defense are obsolete anyway. The reason why things persist like this is pretty apparent: making taekwondo "all things to all people" is the easiest/cheapest way for instructors to pay the bills."

And this is from people who LIKE Taekwondo. If you ask people who are part of what I call the MMA cult (guys who think all TMAs are rubbish), they'll cite our unrealistic and impractical forms as one of the reasons why people should avoid TKD. Their attitude towards TKD black belts can be summed up as "whooptie-freakin doo, you did some dances and got a belt." Now, I don't personally hold this opinion (that all a black belt did is some dances). But I certainly see the disconnect between poomsae and application.

You are trying to say I'm the only person who thinks this way, so that you can just completely dismiss me. It is not just me. You are ignoring entire communities if you think it's just me. Get your head out of the sand. Deal with the arguments presented instead of just trying to handwave them away, or find a way to agree to disagree. But don't sit there and tell me I'm the only person who thinks this way, because I clearly am not.

I like Taekwondo. I still train forms. I see the benefits of forms. But if I try and tell people lies about what the forms teach, and they talk to someone who trains another art without forms, the other person is going to see through my bullcrap and tell the other person not to train at my dojang. If I tell people honestly what the forms teach and the benefits of them, then people can still have their negative opinions, but at least they can't honestly call me a liar.

 

[pdg]

I could see that, except with your body turned the way it is, the hand is out of the way.

That's where the twist comes into play.

That raised leg in front goes down behind, and that hand out of the way behind your head is then in position to strike diagonally downward and forward.

It's also a possible counterweight to aid balance...

I like Taekwondo. I still train forms. I see the benefits of forms. But if I try and tell people lies about what the forms teach, and they talk to someone who trains another art without forms, the other person is going to see through my bullcrap and tell the other person not to train at my dojang. If I tell people honestly what the forms teach and the benefits of them, then people can still have their negative opinions, but at least they can't honestly call me a liar.

Given that there is so much crossover between the actual techniques contained in kkw forms and ITF patterns, telling people they can be applied is only a lie if you don't understand the application and can't demonstrate how that application can work.

You definitely have some of the benefits on board (balance, movement, etc.) but that's not all there is to it.

If, based on how the forms have been relayed to you, you believe there is nothing applicable that is taught by forms then I wouldn't call you a liar, but I would call you underinformed.

You're not lying about the potential of forms, but you're not exploiting all the benefits and therefore neither are the students you teach.

If anyone was to say that just doing forms by themselves will teach you all you need to handle any altercation, then that would indeed be a lie imo (possibly not an intentional lie, it's entirely possible that in the same way you were taught no application that they were taught that opinion as fact, believed it and transmitted it to others).

Maybe that's another highlight-able difference - ITF sparring looks nothing like kkw sparring in almost all cases, so maybe (again) it could actually be seen as beneficial that ITF hasn't moved it's competition sparring rules so far that it's not recognisable as the same art. Certainly as an outsider, watching a kkw sparring match and watching a kkw form even I wouldn't consider it as being derived from the same curriculum.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I don't remember which graduate degree it was but I had to take a psychology class and read a Carl Rogers book, the one about the 3 core conditions if I recall correctly. I could not connect with much of it but I still remember where he talks about changing you own self to meet goals; I really aligned with that part. The other logic just rings very loudly of making compromise for lack of not being willing to put in the work.
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." Thomas Edison

I'm not reading through this whole thread, because honestly I have little interest in it. But I was skimming and wanted to comment on this. My apologies if this was already addressed. Also probably going on a huge tangent.

Both parts are equally important. If your goal is x, then you theoretically should be changing yourself to fit those goals. But when that becomes impossible, or detrimental, then you need to change the goals as well. I'll use basketball as an example. I love basketball, and love playing it. Let's say that I want my goal to become in the NBA. I can spend all my time focusing on it, but I may just not be talented enough for it, especially starting at 26 and being 5'7". So I can change my goals to something that's possible.

Let's pretend for a second that I do have enough talent to become an NBA player, with enough hard work. That might involve me quitting my job to train more often, with the hope that I will get drafted, or to join the gleague. The amount that I practice might also ruin my relationship with my fiancee because I'm not around as much. Or I might end up using steroids to achieve my goal. With these, I might get my goal, but the amount I lost might not be worth it.

Now, having thought that through, my new goal is to be on an intramural team with some friends, and we win the championship. I still have something that I'm striving for, I'm keeping up my relationships/not losing my job over it, and it's actually possible. My mental health is a lot better because of that, and I'm still achieving something.

 

[dvcochran]

I'm not reading through this whole thread, because honestly I have little interest in it. But I was skimming and wanted to comment on this. My apologies if this was already addressed. Also probably going on a huge tangent.

Both parts are equally important. If your goal is x, then you theoretically should be changing yourself to fit those goals. But when that becomes impossible, or detrimental, then you need to change the goals as well. I'll use basketball as an example. I love basketball, and love playing it. Let's say that I want my goal to become in the NBA. I can spend all my time focusing on it, but I may just not be talented enough for it, especially starting at 26 and being 5'7". So I can change my goals to something that's possible.

Let's pretend for a second that I do have enough talent to become an NBA player, with enough hard work. That might involve me quitting my job to train more often, with the hope that I will get drafted, or to join the gleague. The amount that I practice might also ruin my relationship with my fiancee because I'm not around as much. Or I might end up using steroids to achieve my goal. With these, I might get my goal, but the amount I lost might not be worth it.

Now, having thought that through, my new goal is to be on an intramural team with some friends, and we win the championship. I still have something that I'm striving for, I'm keeping up my relationships/not losing my job over it, and it's actually possible. My mental health is a lot better because of that, and I'm still achieving something.

I think I get your point. But to be fair, there is a lot of 'I' and 'my' in your thread. So what you see as (self) sacrifice others may not. As an example, someone may have known from a young age that the NBA was their dream. So most all of their life would align around the goal First. Everything else would have been secondary to the goal instead of deciding the NBA was the goal After a lot of other life circumstances were already in place.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I think I get your point. But to be fair, there is a lot of 'I' and 'my' in your thread. So what you see as (self) sacrifice others may not. As an example, someone may have known from a young age that the NBA was their dream. So most all of their life would align around the goal First. Everything else would have been secondary to the goal instead of deciding the NBA was the goal After a lot of other life circumstances were already in place.

Absolutely. The I and my is part of the point though. For me, where I am in my life, that's an unrealistic goal that would be detrimental to pursue. For James Wiseman, probably not. If he came to me for career advice I'd tell him to train his *** off and keep doing what he's doing. Hell, even if I decided at 8 or 9 years old that's what i want to do, it might have been a good goal. But that's why part of it is evaluating your own ideal self and how realistic it is for you.

 

[dvcochran]

This has not been my experience at either KKW school, nor has it been common according to the research I have done.

We do the things you talk about - just not with the stuff in the forms. For example, our red belt test includes things like turning a palm block into a v-lock (not in the forms), grabbing a side kick, sweeping the leg, and then doing a leg lock (not in the forms), and defending a rear body grab with a pick sweep (also not in the forms). We train the application...just not from the forms.



I could see that, except with your body turned the way it is, the hand is out of the way.



It's not just me. Lots of people have noticed the disconnect between the forms and the other aspects of Taekwondo.
Abandoning poomse. : taekwondo

The general consensus here (from many posters) is that Poomsae is a technical and artistic exercise, and not a way to teach application.

[Book review] Taekwondo: From a martial art to a martial sport : taekwondo

This post is a book review from someone who came to the same conclusion as me. In particular...
"In short, one of Moenig's central arguments is that taekwondo today is a mashup of incoherent contradictions and mutually incompatible ideas. It's a Japanese/Korean hybrid art that insists on its Korean purity by clinging desperately (and paradoxically) to its most Japanese elements: kata/poomsae. At the same time, modern sport taekwondo is arguably the only true indigenous Korean taekwondo. But even so, the majority of WT schools today fail to embrace that realization and instead rely on a muddled soup of forms/one-step self defense/sparring where the techniques and philosophy taught during one part of a class have absolutely nothing to do with what students might be doing 5 minutes later (Chapter 8 documents the fundamental incompatibilities in stance, technique, and execution during taekwondo forms and taekwondo sparring). And the lessons from MMA have shown that the traditional ideas about self defense are obsolete anyway. The reason why things persist like this is pretty apparent: making taekwondo "all things to all people" is the easiest/cheapest way for instructors to pay the bills."

And this is from people who LIKE Taekwondo. If you ask people who are part of what I call the MMA cult (guys who think all TMAs are rubbish), they'll cite our unrealistic and impractical forms as one of the reasons why people should avoid TKD. Their attitude towards TKD black belts can be summed up as "whooptie-freakin doo, you did some dances and got a belt." Now, I don't personally hold this opinion (that all a black belt did is some dances). But I certainly see the disconnect between poomsae and application.

You are trying to say I'm the only person who thinks this way, so that you can just completely dismiss me. It is not just me. You are ignoring entire communities if you think it's just me. Get your head out of the sand. Deal with the arguments presented instead of just trying to handwave them away, or find a way to agree to disagree. But don't sit there and tell me I'm the only person who thinks this way, because I clearly am not.

I like Taekwondo. I still train forms. I see the benefits of forms. But if I try and tell people lies about what the forms teach, and they talk to someone who trains another art without forms, the other person is going to see through my bullcrap and tell the other person not to train at my dojang. If I tell people honestly what the forms teach and the benefits of them, then people can still have their negative opinions, but at least they can't honestly call me a liar.

Where has anyone said you were the only one with that opinion?
You dumbfound most of us because you consistently argue against yourself. Who ever said ALL of TKD training is in forms which is what you always imply with this tilted point of view? Hopefully no one else.
There are far more writings that support application in forms than that do not. There will always be outliers (like yourself).

I sincerely hope you figure some of this out soon rather than later. You are too high in rank to have the narrow view you have about training.

 

[dvcochran]

So, @dvcochran - this w shaped (/mountain) block...

Do you have any possible explanation of a sensible application for it?

Yeah, that one can be a stretch at face value. It has a lot of representation in regards to the Keumgang mountain chain. Obviously is can be two high outside blocks for two attacker at the same time. Yes, a stretch. Some schools teach it as a twisting inside and outside blocking motion; the inside motion can also be an attack. Still directed at two attackers. In everyday society it is hard (hopefully) for most people to wrap their head around the idea of one attacker, let alone two.
Keumgang is one of the first forms where hands/arm are doing the same (or different) movements in the same fluid motion. So a lot more coordination is involved in the form than what is apparent at face value. I think this is a big, big reason it is the 2nd Dan form. All too often new BB's want to do a more 'exciting' for like Koryo or even Taebaek. I can tell right away if a person has good stances when watching them do Keumgang. It can really teach patience and footwork.

Does Every move in every form have direct application in them? Yes. It is sometimes hard to see in a direct application. What is direct is how every motion I have ever done in a form helps me somewhere in learning application.

The 'I want it and I want it now' generation has a hard time with this.

 

[skribs]

Where has anyone said you were the only one with that opinion?
You dumbfound most of us because you consistently argue against yourself. Who ever said ALL of TKD training is in forms which is what you always imply with this tilted point of view? Hopefully no one else.
There are far more writings that support application in forms than that do not. There will always be outliers (like yourself).

I sincerely hope you figure some of this out soon rather than later. You are too high in rank to have the narrow view you have about training.

This summation is on you and you alone. It is Not the general consensus.

You said it. In the post I was replying to.

And I never said all of TKD training is in forms. When have I ever said that?

Your argument doesn't even seem grounded in reality anymore. You're denying things you've said, and you're saying I've said things that I have not.

 

[skribs]

Yeah, that one can be a stretch at face value. It has a lot of representation in regards to the Keumgang mountain chain. Obviously is can be two high outside blocks for two attacker at the same time. Yes, a stretch. Some schools teach it as a twisting inside and outside blocking motion; the inside motion can also be an attack. Still directed at two attackers. In everyday society it is hard (hopefully) for most people to wrap their head around the idea of one attacker, let alone two.
Keumgang is one of the first forms where hands/arm are doing the same (or different) movements in the same fluid motion. So a lot more coordination is involved in the form than what is apparent at face value. I think this is a big, big reason it is the 2nd Dan form. All too often new BB's want to do a more 'exciting' for like Koryo or even Taebaek. I can tell right away if a person has good stances when watching them do Keumgang. It can really teach patience and footwork.

Does Every move in every form have direct application in them? Yes. It is sometimes hard to see in a direct application. What is direct is how every motion I have ever done in a form helps me somewhere in learning application.

The 'I want it and I want it now' generation has a hard time with this.

There are a TON of techniques in forms as early as Taegeuk Sa Jang where both hands are doing the motions?

I've never seen this attitude towards Keumgang by a black belt. Our black belts do all of the forms with similar gusto.

 

[pdg]

Yeah, that one can be a stretch at face value. It has a lot of representation in regards to the Keumgang mountain chain. Obviously is can be two high outside blocks for two attacker at the same time. Yes, a stretch. Some schools teach it as a twisting inside and outside blocking motion; the inside motion can also be an attack. Still directed at two attackers. In everyday society it is hard (hopefully) for most people to wrap their head around the idea of one attacker, let alone two

The only time I can that particular block being of any practical value is if it was a common event for a pair of attackers to coordinate simultaneous attacks.

Without near perfect timing from those two assailants though, it fails - but who knows, maybe a pincer type move from a pair of muggers or something was a popular method of assault.

If something like that is even remotely possibly the case (and having just thought about that, I'm actually willing to consider it may have been a method used in say narrow alleys which would negate side escape) then y'know, I'm not against keeping it and practicing it - I'm still unlikely to use it outside of a demo though because it's no longer really relevant except in that very low likelihood event.

I still think it's probably the lowest value move

Keumgang is one of the first forms where hands/arm are doing the same (or different) movements in the same fluid motion. So a lot more coordination is involved in the form than what is apparent at face value. I think this is a big, big reason it is the 2nd Dan form

This block under discussion is introduced in the pattern Toi Gye, the one learned at 3rd kup - but for us is not the first pattern to introduce double or twin arm moves (some you call assisted or augmented blocks?) - we also have at least a few moves in the colour belt patterns where the arms and legs are doing different, but complementary, actions (notably, a grab/pull into a side kick).

I'll have to have a sit and watch of the list of poomse again at some point, I can't recall the vast majority of any of them...

 

[dvcochran]

The only time I can that particular block being of any practical value is if it was a common event for a pair of attackers to coordinate simultaneous attacks.

Without near perfect timing from those two assailants though, it fails - but who knows, maybe a pincer type move from a pair of muggers or something was a popular method of assault.

If something like that is even remotely possibly the case (and having just thought about that, I'm actually willing to consider it may have been a method used in say narrow alleys which would negate side escape) then y'know, I'm not against keeping it and practicing it - I'm still unlikely to use it outside of a demo though because it's no longer really relevant except in that very low likelihood event.

I still think it's probably the lowest value move



This block under discussion is introduced in the pattern Toi Gye, the one learned at 3rd kup - but for us is not the first pattern to introduce double or twin arm moves (some you call assisted or augmented blocks?) - we also have at least a few moves in the colour belt patterns where the arms and legs are doing different, but complementary, actions (notably, a grab/pull into a side kick).

I'll have to have a sit and watch of the list of poomse again at some point, I can't recall the vast majority of any of them...

Yes, that is a good point that there are complementary or supplemented moves like the augmented blocks you mention in lower forms. Check me, but I think Keumgang is one of the first forms where each hand/arm is doing its own thing, largely independent of each other.
Thinking about it, there are several exceptions in Pinan form set. I cannot think of any in the Palgwae or Taeguek sets but entirely possible.

 

[dvcochran]

There are a TON of techniques in forms as early as Taegeuk Sa Jang where both hands are doing the motions?

I've never seen this attitude towards Keumgang by a black belt. Our black belts do all of the forms with similar gusto.

I am not sure to what motions you are referring to in Taeguek 4.

The augmented spearhands in the beginning? As described, this is done With the spear hand as supplement.

The double blocks at the end? These moves are done in Sequence, not at the same time.

What are you referring to?