Poomsae are a bit weird to a karateka, Help?

[Daniel Sullivan]

My sabumnim is somewhat dismissive of the idea. He says that's what hapkido is for.

<shrugs> I am fond of form applications but because of their seemingly "contraband" status in KKW-land, I have confined my extensions upon Korean forms to the Chang Hon set.

I don't consider them contraband and have no criticism of the idea in and of itself. I do, however, take issue with people who teach that way and imply that those who don't are somehow teaching a lesser art or are deficient in their knowledge of the forms.

 

[dancingalone]

I don't consider them contraband and have no criticism of the idea in and of itself. I do, however, take issue with people who teach that way and imply that those who don't are somehow teaching a lesser art or are deficient in their knowledge of the forms.

I call them contraband because more than one KKW high ranker (my SBN for example is a 6th dan which is certainly a high rank to a relative plebe like me) has expressed the same feelings to me. And of course I've been reading and discussing the same topics on MT for a number of years now.

Mr. O'Neil's book to the contrary, there's just really not a lot of form application exploration out there connected to poomsae. And though the KKW has not officially said anything one way or another to my knowledge, plenty of KKW ranked instructors have indicated a level of personal antipathy towards form applications both here and elsewhere.

 

[Jaeimseu]

I call them contraband because more than one KKW high ranker (my SBN for example is a 6th dan which is certainly a high rank to a relative plebe like me) has expressed the same feelings to me. And of course I've been reading and discussing the same topics on MT for a number of years now.

Mr. O'Neil's book to the contrary, there's just really not a lot of form application exploration out there connected to poomsae. And though the KKW has not officially said anything one way or another to my knowledge, plenty of KKW ranked instructors have indicated a level of personal antipathy towards form applications both here and elsewhere.

I recently attended the Kukkiwon Foreign Instructor Course. Poomsae applications were not part of our course curriculum. Our history lecturer did bring up the original kwan heads' previous trainibg, particularly karate. Basically, he explained that while they studied karate in Japan, they did so for a relatively short time, and further development of Taekwondo was done in Korea over time. I take that to mean that while many things look similar, they may well be superficial similarities, and while related, the two arts are not the same.


Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk 2

 

[dancingalone]

This is a pretty good question. I think most of the answers to your questions go back to Taekwondo's history. As far as the rhythm of poomsae, I would say you are generally correct in that they tend to follow a specific rhythm (I am speaking specifically about Kukki TKD). This is mostly due to the fact that the Korean masters who created Taekwondo poomsae did so based on their knowledge of the Pinan Kata they learned from Japanese Karate. The Pinan Kata also follow a general rhythm, although there are times when the speeds and rhythm of the forms do vary, just like in the Palgwe and Taegeuk poomsae. But overall, the rhythms of Taekwondo poomsae are based off of the rhythms of the Pinan Kata.

Just to offer some counter-discussion....

When I learned the Pinan sets in my Matsubayashi-ryu days, we actually didn't have an textbook rhythm though of course beginners tend to be robotic with a metronomic beat in their performance. When we ran the forms as a group, it was common for people to display different senses of timing, finishing at different intervals and showing varying speeds at different sequences along with varying breath points. This was a definite change from my first days in tae kwon do where there was definitely a specified itinerary to run the hyung with.

My theory is that this comes from training in groups extensively. If you have large classes, it's definitely easier to keep everyone moving at the same pacing, whereas if you practice solo or in small pairings, the practicality of being homogeneous is lessened. There's also the Shotokan influence to think about which may stem from the same group class phenomenon. Funakoshi Sensei does give a rhythm to follow in his Karate-do Kyohan.

 

[Rumy73]

I recently attended the Kukkiwon Foreign Instructor Course. Poomsae applications were not part of our course curriculum. Our history lecturer did bring up the original kwan heads' previous trainibg, particularly karate. Basically, he explained that while they studied karate in Japan, they did so for a relatively short time, and further development of Taekwondo was done in Korea over time. I take that to mean that while many things look similar, they may well be superficial similarities, and while related, the two arts are not the same.


Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk 2

Tkd and karate are totally different, just like Serbian and Croation.

 

[SJON]

Tkd and karate are totally different, just like Serbian and Croation.

Hi Rumy.

Not meaning to get on your case, but my understanding is that Serbian and Croatian (language, I assume) can in no way be considered "totally different". Are you being ironic?

 

[Flying Crane]

Poomsae are generally just fundamental techniques strung together that include more advanced techniques and sequences as you progress though the forms. You are right, they aren't really made to be "studied" like kata are. They are just used to teach proper body mechanics and execution of techniques, stances, balance, movement, etc.

Is this not worthy of deep study? All of what you say here, but particularly the bolded portion. Really getting the mechanics right can make all the difference in the world. Complicated techniques, fancy stuff, that's not advanced and it's not important. That's nonsense. Advanced stuff is just really solid basics. The simple, straightforward stuff is what works, that's what's important. So getting the mechanics perfect is what makes that stuff work, it can be the difference between a weak technique and a devastating technique, the same technique done with poor mechanics vs. done with excellent mechanics.

From what I've seen, regardless of the system, most people don't have solid basics. But the problem is, everyone THINKS they do. So it is definitely worthy of deep study, in my opinion. Moreso than anything else. Without it, everything else is inferior.

In my Chinese martial art, my belief is that this is what is most important when we practice our forms. However you may interpret application from a movement only has value IF your fundamentals and mechanics are solid.

 

[MAist25]

I couldn't agree more. I never said I did not believe basic and fundamental techniques were important. I believe they are in fact the most important things in training. What I was trying to say is that poomsae are not meant to be studied in the same fashion as kata are. But that does not mean they are not to be studied or require less practice or attention. They just need to be looked at in a different way then kata.

 

[Rumy73]

Hi Rumy.

Not meaning to get on your case, but my understanding is that Serbian and Croatian (language, I assume) can in no way be considered "totally different". Are you being ironic?

Yes, I was being sarcastic. It is interesting how things with much in common try to deny it.

 

[SJON]

In that case, :rofl:. I love the analogy.

 

[Jaeimseu]

Yes, I was being sarcastic. It is interesting how things with much in common try to deny it.

Who is denying that they have many things in common?

Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk 2

 

[Rumy73]

Is this not worthy of deep study? All of what you say here, but particularly the bolded portion. Really getting the mechanics right can make all the difference in the world. Complicated techniques, fancy stuff, that's not advanced and it's not important. That's nonsense. Advanced stuff is just really solid basics. The simple, straightforward stuff is what works, that's what's important. So getting the mechanics perfect is what makes that stuff work, it can be the difference between a weak technique and a devastating technique, the same technique done with poor mechanics vs. done with excellent mechanics.

From what I've seen, regardless of the system, most people don't have solid basics. But the problem is, everyone THINKS they do. So it is definitely worthy of deep study, in my opinion. Moreso than anything else. Without it, everything else is inferior.

In my Chinese martial art, my belief is that this is what is most important when we practice our forms. However you may interpret application from a movement only has value IF your fundamentals and mechanics are solid.

When I studied Soo Bahk Do, the emphasis on basics was strong. All gups and dans would spend at least 20 minutes or more reviewing basic blocks, strikes and kicks.

 

[Flying Crane]

When I studied Soo Bahk Do, the emphasis on basics was strong. All gups and dans would spend at least 20 minutes or more reviewing basic blocks, strikes and kicks.

I think that's more important than anything else. If the basics are not strong, nothing else will be either. If the basics are strong, everything else has a chance to be strong too.

Personally, I think it's entirely reasonable to spend 50%-70% of your training time on the basics. If you do that, then everything else will be stronger, even tho you are spending less time on the other stuff.

Kata, Poomsae, Forms, whatever you call them, I think people tend to see them as a product. They want to learn the form so that they HAVE the form. It's like the form is a complete dance, and knowing that dance is what matters. But that's not the right way to look at it. The form is simply a tool used to help you develop certain skills. The form helps you practice and drill these skills, and the form as a product, as a performance, are not what is important. It's the skills that the form helps you develop that matters.

It's kind of a subtle difference in how one looks at it, but I think it makes a big difference, puts things in the proper perspective.

 

[Jackthekarateguy]

Okay so as far as I can tell, Kata and what I shall now refer to as 'Taekwondo patterns' to avoid confusion are so different (at least in Okinawan styles) is because they are for different things. Based on what Flying Crane has said, TKD patterns are about practicing the techniques themselves, whereas in karate the purpose lies in the analysis and application of the kata. This certainly seems to make a certain amount of sense. Thanks to all who replied for feeding my insatiable curiosity!

 

[Earl Weiss]

Okay so as far as I can tell, Kata and what I shall now refer to as 'Taekwondo patterns' to avoid confusion are so different (at least in Okinawan styles) is because they are for different things. Based on what Flying Crane has said, TKD patterns are about practicing the techniques themselves, whereas in karate the purpose lies in the analysis and application of the kata. This certainly seems to make a certain amount of sense. Thanks to all who replied for feeding my insatiable curiosity!

To a hammer everyting looks like a nail. IMNSHO if you think the purpose lies in THE application, you can't see the forest for the trees. For the first couple of decades of my training I felt this way as well. My perspective has changed. A specified application is but a tool to assist with understanding concepts of how to move. By that I mean it helps you anderstand distance, direction, angles, moving with speed, efficiency, power and balance. (I had an article on this published in totally TKD) If you know a hundred applications you may understand a single concept. However, if you understand a single concept you will know a hundred applications.
let's tak a an example a low outer forearm block. Certianly it can be used to block an attack to the lower abdomen. The attack may be a kick or hadndtechnique > the efficacy will depend on the angle and direction of the attack.
However, the same motion can effect a release from a same side grab targeting the attackers radial nerve. This same release will cause a reaction in the attacker which by no small coincedence sets up a counter that just happens to be the next move in the pattern.

this is not a new concept. Post is already long, but think of the Karate Kid movei. First Daniel San was taught how to move. "Wac on Wax Off". Then he was taught one way to apply the move.

 

[Flying Crane]

Okay so as far as I can tell, Kata and what I shall now refer to as 'Taekwondo patterns' to avoid confusion are so different (at least in Okinawan styles) is because they are for different things. Based on what Flying Crane has said, TKD patterns are about practicing the techniques themselves, whereas in karate the purpose lies in the analysis and application of the kata. This certainly seems to make a certain amount of sense. Thanks to all who replied for feeding my insatiable curiosity!

I better add some clarity here. I am not a TKD guy, I'm in the Chinese traditional martial arts. My comments are from that source and point of view. And from the training and instruction that I have received, practicing the techniques simply for themselves is not what is primarily important, but rather because they embody the deeper principles that teach you true skill. Within the context of the form, getting every individual technique right, is important, as contrasted with simply reciting the complete choreography of the form without paying attention to getting the techniques truly 'right'.

 

[dancingalone]

More food for thought: Duk Sung Son, the second Chung Do Kwan head, stated,

"Tae Kwon Do forms are stylized sequences of attacks and blocks of varying degrees of difficulty. Forms contain from twenty to nearly fifty positions, each of which involves either an attack or a block, or a combination of attacks and blocks. Each position is specific: there is only one right way to do it."
​

If you take the bolded text literally, you have to conclude that GM Son would have left most if not all of the "hidden" form applications on the cutting floor to use the film metaphor. What you see is what you get, and so certainly in this respect TKD is not karate.

 

[punisher73]

Okay so as far as I can tell, Kata and what I shall now refer to as 'Taekwondo patterns' to avoid confusion are so different (at least in Okinawan styles) is because they are for different things. Based on what Flying Crane has said, TKD patterns are about practicing the techniques themselves, whereas in karate the purpose lies in the analysis and application of the kata. This certainly seems to make a certain amount of sense. Thanks to all who replied for feeding my insatiable curiosity!

Everything must be understood culturally. Okinawan karate practiced applications/bunkai in their kata. When Funakoshi brought it over to Japan, he changed ALOT of stuff. Taking out whole movements that change whole applications (For example; Wansu into Empi--The throw taught in Wansu is replaced by a jumping technique in Empi). What Funakoshi taught eventually morphed in to a farther distance of engagement so the applications from their Shorin-Ryu roots got lost in translation because you weren't up close and personal like you were in Okinawan karate. MANY early Japanese instructors in the Shotokan lineage viewed kata as just another way to string basics together and emphasized their kihon and kumite with the kata only being used to train the kihon. Applications were not drawn out of the kata, again, due to expanding the distance between partners to a sport sparring distance (a la kendo) and practiced it all that way.

Now, fast forward to the early founders of TKD that trained in Japanese karate. The early TKD katas were the japanese kata and consisted of only block/punch/kick applications. Also, the Okinawans taught through small classes and individualized training. In Japan, the push was for karate to develop good soldiers as part of their physical education. Kata started being done "by the number" so everyone would have the same cadence and rhythm when performing it in large numbers. Even today, look at how most TKD classes are run and you can still see the Imperial Military influence of Japan on it.

As far as applications go, most of what I have seen it what Shotokan has done to find what the moves mean. They use the Okinawan bunkai/applications that are still being taught for similar movements. You will find the same sequences and parts of sequences in Okinawan karate, Japanese karate and TKD, but this does not mean that this was the intentions of the person who created them. IMO if the founder of ITF or WTF says that the movements are for "X", then this is what they are for and any other interpretation (no matter how applicable) is just coincidence.

 

[Earl Weiss]

More food for thought: Duk Sung Son, the second Chung Do Kwan head, stated,

"Tae Kwon Do forms are stylized sequences of attacks and blocks of varying degrees of difficulty. Forms contain from twenty to nearly fifty positions, each of which involves either an attack or a block, or a combination of attacks and blocks. Each position is specific: there is only one right way to do it."
​

If you take the bolded text literally, you have to conclude that GM Son would have left most if not all of the "hidden" form applications on the cutting floor to use the film metaphor. What you see is what you get, and so certainly in this respect TKD is not karate.

You can take the quote literaly and keep it in context, and not accept your conclusion. Within each form, since the attacker is absent, you have only one way to do it. You need to have a way for the student to target a certain standard and for the observer to see if the standard is known and acheived. Yet, one form may have the technique as "Middle" and one form may have it as "High" so it is clear that the technique was not meant to be done only one way. Also note the "stylized" qualifier as it applies to forms.

 

[dancingalone]

You can take the quote literaly and keep it in context, and not accept your conclusion. Within each form, since the attacker is absent, you have only one way to do it. You need to have a way for the student to target a certain standard and for the observer to see if the standard is known and acheived. Yet, one form may have the technique as "Middle" and one form may have it as "High" so it is clear that the technique was not meant to be done only one way. Also note the "stylized" qualifier as it applies to forms.

I understand the point you are making - it's very consistent with your views on forms that I've enjoyed reading for a number of years now. However I don't believe your position is what GM Son meant either.