Self defense from forms

[bluewaveschool]

Piggy backing off ATC's Name that Poomse thread, how many of you do form breakdown as a regular part of your class or testing? For us, from purple onward all self defense movements for a test are applications of movements from the students current form. For 1st and 2nd purple it's 5 movements per form, 1st and 2nd brown it's an application of every movement in their current form, and black it's testing panels choice of which form they breakdown. And no, black belts aren't given any advanced notice of what form they will be doing.

 

[seasoned]

Makes sense to me. Just the way it was intended............

 

[bluewaveschool]

Yet I've been places that have never done it.

 

[seasoned]

Yet I've been places that have never done it.

When kata is done separate from training, then it is just a workout device used for promotions. When it is embraced, it becomes a very intricate part of the whole system. Every sport has certain drills that play into the sport being played. These drills hold the key to certain moves called principles. Even more important with an art of self defense. Schools that don't consider this are missing out, just my feelings along with many many others...............that feel the same way.

 

[sopraisso]

This is just what I've thinking and reading about lately, and sounds like pure reason to me. But sadly I'd say forms breakdown has never been done in my gym since I joined them, and applications to techniques is something almost never mentioned (I basically study this by myself). I could probably say this is an almost unknown subject in the place where I live, no matter the taekwondo school, and it seems in other places and countries the same thing happens often (in my country this is probably the rule).
I believe this subject is as important as the forms themselves, but it's just frequently ignored. Taking self-defense from forms, breaking them down, finding applications -- as seasoned said: just the way it was intended. But I feel that even some respected people around here disagree that it was intended like that. I also feel that there's not an agreement about what the forms are for -- I don't think they have only one function, but I believe there are concrete and definite objectives for the use of forms in martial arts.
I hope I haven't talked too much, and I preffer to wait and see what other people can say.

 

[Marcy Shoberg]

I fear this answer may be unpopular, but it is my opinion at this time that if forms do actually contain any moves that are useful is self-defense, forms are still not the best way to give a student the ability to use these moves in self defense. Practice with actual things to strike or grab does a better job of this.

Also, maybe I'm missing something, but it's been my experience that forms contain mostly blocks and blocks are not as useful in self-defense as it at first seems to someone studying a martial art. I am one of those people who believe it's time for forms to stop trying to be self-defense training and just be performance art. But, I do think understanding the "theoretical" applications of moves in forms can help one give a better performance, so I teach them to my students.

One of my favorite ways to do this is have the student do the form while I run around them with two paddle targets using the paddle targets to hit them when they are supposed to block or as something for them to aim at when they are supposed to strike. It's good exercise for my body and brain to try to have the targets in the right place quickly enough that the student can do the form at their usual pace. I've never actually mangage to do it, but its fun to try.

 

[Cyriacus]

I fear this answer may be unpopular, but it is my opinion at this time that if forms do actually contain any moves that are useful is self-defense, forms are still not the best way to give a student the ability to use these moves in self defense. Practice with actual things to strike or grab does a better job of this.

It isnt unpopular - Its missing one thing. Forms arent meant to be the one thing that teach You the application. They are more like Books, but made of Movement. They record methodologies and principles. Which are supposed to be practiced separately.

Also, maybe I'm missing something, but it's been my experience that forms contain mostly blocks and blocks are not as useful in self-defense as it at first seems to someone studying a martial art. I am one of those people who believe it's time for forms to stop trying to be self-defense training and just be performance art. But, I do think understanding the "theoretical" applications of moves in forms can help one give a better performance, so I teach them to my students.

1: Often the 'Blocks' are in fact Strikes, or Grabs. Or possibly just ways to angle Your body with a movement attached.
2: Forms are not intended to be a sole means of SD Training. Forms can however be used to record the idealogy of the method of SD in question.

One of my favorite ways to do this is have the student do the form while I run around them with two paddle targets using the paddle targets to hit them when they are supposed to block or as something for them to aim at when they are supposed to strike. It's good exercise for my body and brain to try to have the targets in the right place quickly enough that the student can do the form at their usual pace. I've never actually mangage to do it, but its fun to try.

And when the 'Blocks' are not in fact blocks, but are only used as such because forms are done solo?
A better way might perhaps be to break down one small capsulised part of the form which is intended to be used, and work out how it was intended to be applied. Or read into the 'findings' of others.
Another example is when certain forearm blocks are meant to 'catch' or grab strikes in a sort of jointlocky way.

All that said, Im not a fan of Forms.

 

[Gnarlie]

I believe forms achieve and end: they encourage us to question things. Questioning things in a logical way makes for good strategy development and martial methods. It teaches critical thinking, and assists greatly in the learning process.

In many traditional arts, we have been given this wonderful gift of forms containing movements the origins of which seem to be lost. We can choose to look at them as we see fit; as pure art, as self defence or as a way of transmitting principles, cultural concepts and values.

My view is that the thought process of analysing forms and the resulting 'light-bulb-clicks-on-I've-just-realised-something' moments are to some extent more important than the patterns themselves.

If it makes you ask questions, good. If it makes you think about what a pure movement might be able to do, then also good. If you put those theories to the test, then even better. If you can't find an application for a movement, maybe you will find out the meaning is symbolic or illustrates a principle, and further investigation will reveal a wealth of new information and concepts.

Whichever approaches you choose to take, study of forms will make you a better martial artist.

What I'm not sure that I agree with is people saying that movement definitively is one thing or another. That path closes the questioning process without the added value of debate. Debate and analysis is where the real gold is - it's the process of discovery that forces us to learn.



Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

 

[oftheherd1]

...

Also, maybe I'm missing something, but it's been my experience that forms contain mostly blocks and blocks are not as useful in self-defense as it at first seems to someone studying a martial art. I am one of those people who believe it's time for forms to stop trying to be self-defense training and just be performance art. But, I do think understanding the "theoretical" applications of moves in forms can help one give a better performance, so I teach them to my students.

...

I wonder if there isn't a lot of techniques hidden as "art" already? And why would you want art, as in aesthetics, rather than useful techniques, in a martial art? See below.

...

In many traditional arts, we have been given this wonderful gift of forms containing movements the origins of which seem to be lost. We can choose to look at them as we see fit; as pure art, as self defence or as a way of transmitting principles, cultural concepts and values.

My view is that the thought process of analysing forms and the resulting 'light-bulb-clicks-on-I've-just-realised-something' moments are to some extent more important than the patterns themselves.

...

I had a 4th Dan Tae Kwon Do student as a student who was learning Hapkido from me. There were a number of times I would show him a technique and he would get a funny look in his eye and when I asked, he would tell me about a portion of a form that he had never understood, and usually just been told it was for "art." If fact, he realized that it was the technique I had just showed, him, but changed a little, apparently as its meaning had been lost. I sometimes see movements in forms that I don't know what they are for, but look suspiciously like some part of a defense technique I know. Is it always? I don't know, but based on my student's experience, there are indeed some that have been lost.

 

[Earl Weiss]

In the Chang Hon System there is a "Cycle" of TKD. Each element in the cycle has a purpose yet no element should be viewed in isolation . It is a system made up of parts. As such part of the system is to use the fundamental techniques in forms and also in pre arranged step sparring which is a formal exercise but with an "oponent' as opposed to forms which have no opponent present. The techniques are modified for free sparring.

Practicing the fundamental techniques in Patterns, pre arranged Sparring, and Step sparring help focus on the application for "Self Defense".

 

[oftheherd1]

Sounds good. I have wondered, and in fact come to the conclusion, that forms are also a way of teaching multiple attacker defense. Do you think that is so as well?

 

[bluewaveschool]

I don't believe that there are blocks in forms. As in, the true meaning of the movement is never a block. If nothing else, it makes figuring out forms fun.

 

[Gnarlie]

I don't believe that there are blocks in forms. As in, the true meaning of the movement is never a block. If nothing else, it makes figuring out forms fun.

Could I please ask what brought you to that viewpoint?

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Gnarlie]

I wonder if there isn't a lot of techniques hidden as "art" already? And why would you want art, as in aesthetics, rather than useful techniques, in a martial art? See below.



I had a 4th Dan Tae Kwon Do student as a student who was learning Hapkido from me. There were a number of times I would show him a technique and he would get a funny look in his eye and when I asked, he would tell me about a portion of a form that he had never understood, and usually just been told it was for "art." If fact, he realized that it was the technique I had just showed, him, but changed a little, apparently as its meaning had been lost. I sometimes see movements in forms that I don't know what they are for, but look suspiciously like some part of a defense technique I know. Is it always? I don't know, but based on my student's experience, there are indeed some that have been lost.

I'd maybe say that the meanings have been lost in only some school and clubs. Certainly from my perspective there has always been a strong self defence thread in the clubs I have trained with. Even when that thread wasn't deliberately linked to the poomsae, it was never a massive leap of the imagination to realise what most of those movements in the patterns could represent.

That said, I have met people coming into our club who said that they had never trained anything like what we are doing. Just different focus I guess.



Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jaeimseu]

I don't believe that there are blocks in forms. As in, the true meaning of the movement is never a block. If nothing else, it makes figuring out forms fun.

I believe that this is incorrect, at least from a Taekwondo perspective. It can be argued that all the techniques contained in the forms came from Karate, and that the "original" intent of those techniques was not block, punch, kick, etc, but the creators of Taekwondo poomse named the techniques for a reason. A low block is a low block. You could use the same motion for another purpose, but in Taekwondo it's still a low block.

I'm not saying that you couldn't reverse engineer or figure out hundreds of different applications. Even if you do that, it doesn't mean that the low block isn't a low block. Like literature, it can be interpreted any number of ways, but only the author knows his true intent. Some people argue that the creators of Taekwondo poomse weren't aware of the "true" applications for whatever reason. Whether that is true or not, from a pure Taekwondo perspective I believe that a block is a block, a punch is a punch, and a kick is a kick.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I believe that this is incorrect, at least from a Taekwondo perspective. It can be argued that all the techniques contained in the forms came from Karate, and that the "original" intent of those techniques was not block, punch, kick, etc, but the creators of Taekwondo poomse named the techniques for a reason. A low block is a low block. You could use the same motion for another purpose, but in Taekwondo it's still a low block.

I'm not saying that you couldn't reverse engineer or figure out hundreds of different applications. Even if you do that, it doesn't mean that the low block isn't a low block. Like literature, it can be interpreted any number of ways, but only the author knows his true intent. Some people argue that the creators of Taekwondo poomse weren't aware of the "true" applications for whatever reason. Whether that is true or not, from a pure Taekwondo perspective I believe that a block is a block, a punch is a punch, and a kick is a kick.

This has come up from time to time. In the majority of TKD, you are correct in saying a low block is just a low block (as one example). However, not in the totality of TKD, just the majority. TKD, as most will acknowledge, comes from Okinawan Karate. Many TKD forms (and TSD) come from Karate kata. Some were designed later, but used the same principles. According the many Okinawan masters (read Itosu Sensei, Funakoshi Sensei and others) there are in-depth applications beyond block-punch-kick in kata (and Itosu Sensei did relabel the Pinan Katas for children's consuption thereby creating a sub-system i.e. children's karate). Therefore TKD forms based upon Okinawan kata will have the same principles. Additionally, TKD forms developed later (but still on the pattern or Okinawan kata) will also have in-depth applications, though not as pure. Thus, a TKD form can and does contain locks, throws, balance displacement, cavity pressing etc.

The question then becomes, how many Koreans knew these applications as opposed to just the block-punch-kick. I believe at least some knew, but the majority did not. Thus the creator of a particular Korean form likely did not know more in-depth applications. And since you can't teach what you don't know...it didn't get passed on. It doesn't invalidate the applications being present however despite any lack of ability to convey this knowledge. Remember, the majority of Korean 'seniors' were very low level Dans (or no Dans) with at least one exception.

And this is a shame really because it has limited TKD as a whole from what it could actually be (and what some of us teach it as). TKD could in many ways be a very close cousin of HKD because of the information that can be gleened from the forms.

Take what I'm saying as it is intended. In no way am I slamming TKD, or the seniors the founded it. Some had a deeper understanding of their base art (Karate or whatever) than others. And one can only put into the development of TKD what they themselves have received. However, it is worth noting that TKD is an easier art to teach as b-p-k. Particularly to children.

 

[chrispillertkd]

However, it is worth noting that TKD is an easier art to teach as b-p-k. Particularly to children.

Or those crazy little kiddies in the ROK army who joined the Oh Do Kwan and were some of the most feared fighters in Viet Nam.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Or those crazy little kiddies in the ROK army who joined the Oh Do Kwan and were some of the most feared fighters in Viet Nam.

Pax,

Chris

Chris,

That is an apples & oranges comparison. Nothing I posted could be construed as 'TKD is ineffective for SD'. That wasn't my point at all. First, b-p-k is easier to teach than locks, throws, balance displacement etc. Secondly, b-p-k is therefore easier for children to learn, which TKD does have a lion's share of the market. That isn't a jab at TKD, just stating fact. Thirdly, the ROK has a highly respected, and earned, reputation. And while much of that training can be in the b-p-k- venue, it can't quite be compared to what a child is learning in a typical TKD dojang.

My main point above is that one can legitimately state that TKD is b-p-k. But one can also state that TKD can contain many techniques/priciples one would normally think of as Hapkido. To me, that shows the rich diversity of the art of TKD. It doesn't mean one is 'better' than the other or that one 'sucks' and the other is superior. It all has to be taken within the scope and context of the focus of training. If one, for example, has a focus on sport-only training methodology then they don't really need in-depth applications to forms. Perhaps interesting, but not a necessity to the goal they're training for in-and-of-itself. On the otherhand, if one has more of a SD focus then the techniques/principles contained in forms can add tremendous depth and richness to the art. Just one form, taught with the contained techniques/principles beyond b-p-k could provide months if not years of hard core, indepth training. Again, this reflects well on the art of TKD and should be a highlight that is stressed. In otherwords it has something for everyone.

 

[chrispillertkd]

It's not an apples and oranges comparison, and I was saying you were implying Taekwon-Do is ineffective for self-defense. I was pointing out that despite being "basic" (which it's not) Taekwon-Do is extremely effective and good for people besides kids.

I've said it before, and I'm sure I will again. I've done "alterative applications" since nearly day one. It's hardly new. (But these topics, like many others, come up because the nature of online forums are cyclical.) I know several people who are much more into reverse engineering than I am. Some of them are very impressive with what they can do. Wish I had the training time to devote to it. Some of them are bad and can't handle a resisting opponent. Yet they will talk about how "ineffective" high kicks are. It's not the type of technique you use so much as the training you put into it. I'd take a ROK army soldier from the Oh Do Kwan back in the day over a guy working on reverse engineering Chon-Ji pretty much any day.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Kong Soo Do]

It's not an apples and oranges comparison, and I was saying you were implying Taekwon-Do is ineffective for self-defense.

I don't know what to tell you Chris, I've been pretty clear as to the point(s) I've stated. No where in either of my above posts did I say TKD is ineffective for SD. Now, too be clear, some venues of TKD i.e. sport training methodology TKD is generally VERY ineffective for SD. It is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole, it wasn't designed for it. But that wasn't anywhere in the point(s) I made above, and I believe I was very clear. My comments were strictly on the use of forms.

I was pointing out that despite being "basic" (which it's not) Taekwon-Do is extremely effective and good for people besides kids.

Within the context of the focus of training I never stated anything to the contrary.

I've said it before, and I'm sure I will again. I've done "alterative applications" since nearly day one. It's hardly new

.

It isnt' new at all, in fact, it goes back centuries for some forms. But this doesn't mean everyone is aware of alternate applications or even, as I pointed out above, has a use for alternate applications. They are simply there.

Yet they will talk about how "ineffective" high kicks are.

A bit off topic, but well worth commenting on. A high kick can certainly be effective...if it connects. But that begs the question; will it connect? Training to high kick someone, in a controlled environment, in loose fitting clothing, while warmed up/stretched out, on a dry, flat, level surface, in well-lit conditions, under pre-arranged rule sets is quite different than attempting to high kick someone in a chaotic fight, in street clothes, at a time that is very probably disadvantageous to you (read: you're not warmed up/stretched out/in a loose fitting Gi), in an environment that could be closed in (read: elevator, stairwell, alley, between parked cars, traffic, innocent by-standers), on a surface that could be sloping, wet, loose, probably in dim-light conditions where the attacker is under no obligations to allow you to pull off your favorite move. This doesn't even take into consideration an officer with a duty belt that weighs around 30lbs plus a vest or a soldier with the typical equipment they usually/often wear including holding a rifle.

With no offense intended, I would prefer someone versed in realistic fighting skills at a variety of ranges and proficent in gross-motor skills to someone trying to use a refined-motor skill movement designed for sport.