Was Karate in Korea before the Japanese occupation?

[isshinryuronin4 4]

It is called the "Taegeuk Cipher" by Simon John O'Neil. He "reverse engineers" the motions found in the Taegeuk's and uses Okinwan/Japanese karate bunkai for the same motions and applies it to them.

In the beginning there was an attack situation and a technique/combo to counter it. This is bunkai. String a bunch of these together and you have kata. The problem is that when the bunkai is lost/forgotten there is nothing to keep the kata technique from drifting, to keep it anchored to its original purpose. The kata technique is then free to randomly change, further losing its meaning.

To rediscover the bunkai one must turn to reverse engineering to fit an application to the current kata movement. This can result in restoring the original meaning if one is lucky, or a different application that makes sense with the given movement. The original intent of the creator is lost in this latter case, but at least it works and may be the best result we can hope for.

If one is interested in the original intent of the creator, an older version of the kata with less drift can be looked at to find how a given technique that resembles the one in the current kata is employed. One can then slightly change the movement better reflecting the intended bunkai. (Of course, some kata have purposely eliminated certain bunkai as Funakoshi/Itosu did when teaching school kids for safety or to stress form over function in the interests of physical culture.)

This process is made more difficult as during the time Okinawan karate was kept secret some bunkai was disguised by making the movement ambiguous to observers, or to look like a simple block or strike. To decipher the coded true meaning, one must have the key. These keys were taught by Miyagi and others: "A cross stance and pivot is indicative of a joint lock or takedown, grabbing one's own hand/arm represents
grabbing that of the opponent's," etc. Such knowledge can help understand the true kata

I have come across some VERY bad examples of this. For example, somone saying that the crossover step from Naihanchi kata is REALLY a triangle choke when done on the ground.,

Some have overactive imagination, try to appear to be some kind of master, are just uneducated in karate, or all of these. Rather than butcher an existing kata, they should just create one in their own image and name it after themselves.
.

 

[Same Trick59 10]

Tang soo do = China(Tang dynasty) hand way, same as the original meaning of Karate-do. Okinawan ”To-de” = Tang(China) hand

 

[Earl Weiss110 10]

I'm not TKD, but I have come across an interesting book you may like.

It is called the "Taegeuk Cipher" by Simon John O'Neil. He "reverse engineers" the motions found in the Taegeuk's and uses Okinwan/Japanese karate bunkai for the same motions and applies it to them.

There was a time I focused on "THE" application. My thinking has since changed. I now use any stated application as a tool to help understand concepts and train how to move, powerfully , efficiently and well balanced. (All of which may be circumstance dependent). Once you learn the concept and how to move this way you can morph the technique in a manner so that it suits whatever purpose / application. The morphing is again circumstance dependent and limited only by your imagination and effectiveness of the application. 2 of my favorite sayings
- If I teach you 100 techniques you may understand 1 concept, but if I teach you 1 concept you may understand 100 techniques
- (To paraphrase Picasso) "Learn Concepts like a scholar, but learn to use them like an artist."

 

[skribs113 134]

There was a time I focused on "THE" application. My thinking has since changed. I now use any stated application as a tool to help understand concepts and train how to move, powerfully , efficiently and well balanced. (All of which may be circumstance dependent). Once you learn the concept and how to move this way you can morph the technique in a manner so that it suits whatever purpose / application. The morphing is again circumstance dependent and limited only by your imagination and effectiveness of the application. 2 of my favorite sayings

My philosophy is this (and please note that I'm using the metaphorical "you" and not the literal you):

• If your claim is that the forms are directly teaching application, then it MUST work based on "THE" application.
• If your claim is that the forms are exercises from which different applications can arise, then it's fine if they don't have "THE" application or if the direct application is not necessarily sound.

I've gone over this in the past. My attitude is if you're saying the Taegeuk forms are the bible for Taekwondo and you are learning how to fight purely by learning the Taegeuk forms, then the Taegeuks must teach proper fighting technique (as done in the form) and proper tactics (as choreographed in the form), or you're falling short on your claim. For example,

• If you are teaching a scissor block as a technique to block both a kick and a punch at the same time, I have doubts about that application. There are much better ways of avoiding at least one (if not both) of those techniques than to be in between two fighters throwing two blocks at the same time. And there isn't a likely situation against a single fighter where both techniques are coming at the same time.
• If you are saying that it's not actually a block, but it's something else that you need to add on other ideas and concepts to make the motion work, and adjust the application to fit (such as turning it into a joint lock, or pulling into a backfist, or something else), then the technique fails as prescribed in the form, and the form is not teaching proper fighting technique or tactics.

However, if the claim is never made that they are directly teaching application, but rather that the forms are an exercise designed to build muscle memory for various movements which can be applied in different ways, then the various explanations of a scissor block in the form can make sense. In other words:

• If you tell people, "This form will teach you how to fight, it is the curriculum of the art", and then you say, "Well...actually you wouldn't do what we said in the form or how it's done in the form, but the application kinda looks like this move if you are in a different situation", then I feel you're doing mental gymnastics to make the forms feel worthwhile.
• If you tell people, "This form is a great way to practice various motions by yourself, and we can take these exercises and put them into different applications when we get to that part of class", I feel it's a much more honest approach.

And if you look at several posts I made years and years ago on the subject, you'll see I had a ton of problems with folks who come in with the attitude that the forms are sacred because of how important they are to learning Taekwondo. To the point where (even though I had no problem learning them, was usually the fastest to learn them at my school and was winning golds in forms competitions when I competed), I didn't really understand or connect with them. But having changed my philosophy from: these MUST teach you EXACTLY how to fight, to "these are nice exercises with a lot of benefits, and we can develop fast-twitch muscle in a variety of ways that we can then use in the self-defense portion of class", I've actually grown much fonder of the forms.

My personal position on what forms are has changed, but my evaluation methodology has not. My evaluation method is simple: "Does the form do what it is advertised to do?"

 

[MetalBoar61 4]

Just to throw out an anecdote you might find interesting. I had a friend in high school (in the '80s) who's family had fled North Korea and who'd been studying TSD at a well respected local school since he'd come to the US. He told me that his grandfather taught him TSD too, and that it was nothing like the stuff being taught in the local school. He loved the local school but definitely felt it was a completely different art. I had done very little training with martial arts at the time so unfortunately I didn't really get the differences when he tried to explain it, but I did get that it was a lot more than just different forms and drills.

 

[isshinryuronin4 4]

My personal position on what forms are has changed, but my evaluation methodology has not. My evaluation method is simple: "Does the form do what it is advertised to do?"

In terms of honesty, this is a good way to evaluate the form but doesn't necessarily mean it's good in MA terms. Forms may be advertised as a way to practice moves that look good and powerful or to simply defend against kicks and punches. In the first case the moves may not be very effective in practical self-defense, in the second case much of the form's true potential is lost. Both cases can be seen in much of modern karate.

Overall, your post brings up some very good points. Most of all, you are digging into the nature of forms and taking a multi-faceted look at them. IMO, this is important to advance oneself in TMA.

There was a time I focused on "THE" application. My thinking has since changed. I now use any stated application as a tool to help understand concepts and train how to move, powerfully , efficiently and well balanced. (All of which may be circumstance dependent). Once you learn the concept and how to move this way you can morph the technique in a manner so that it suits whatever purpose / application. The morphing is again circumstance dependent and limited only by your imagination and effectiveness of the application.

• If your claim is that the forms are directly teaching application, then it MUST work based on "THE" application.
• If your claim is that the forms are exercises from which different applications can arise, then it's fine if they don't have "THE" application or if the direct application is not necessarily sound.

Both the above quotes bring up "THE application" vs "exercises from which different applications can arise." I think they are not mutually exclusive. I think form techniques were originally designed with a specific (THE) situational application in mind. But as in many things, something can have multiple uses. And the masters did encourage their students to explore the form for other applications. This exploration can be of the actual specific technique being repurposed to deal with a different attack or of using the more general tactical and biophysical concepts illustrated by the form to deal with a variety of situations.

If you tell people, "This form will teach you how to fight, it is the curriculum of the art", and then you say, "Well...actually you wouldn't do what we said in the form or how it's done in the form, but the application kinda looks like this move if you are in a different situation", then I feel you're doing mental gymnastics

This has been common in many TMA systems though there's been a trend over the past 20 yrs. to get away from this as more historical info has been brought to light in the West.

If you tell people, "This form is a great way to practice various motions by yourself, and we can take these exercises and put them into different applications when we get to that part of class", I feel it's a much more honest approach.

"If one practices kata correctly, it will serve as a foundation for performing any of the infinite number of variations" (Kenwa Mabuni). "Perform kata exactly" (Itosu Anko). "Kata should never be changed" (Shoshin Nagamine).

I think it's important to take the path of the exact form to stay true to the historical nature of one's system and equally important (for advanced students) to travel the path of reflection and exploration to be able to apply that to various situations.

 

[skribs113 134]

I think it's important to take the path of the exact form to stay true to the historical nature of one's system and equally important (for advanced students) to travel the path of reflection and exploration to be able to apply that to various situations.

I don't think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. I think the exactness of the forms is a good practice in and of themselves, even if exactness doesn't happen in the chaos of a real fight. It's a good way to build certain skills that will help you build the foundations for other skills (such as attention-to-detail and continuous improvement).

The issue I have is when you (again, the proverbial you) say the exactness of that form is correctness of fighting technique. The two are not one and the same.

 

[isshinryuronin4 4]

The issue I have is when you (again, the proverbial you) say the exactness of that form is correctness of fighting technique. The two are not one and the same.

Sometimes they are to varying degrees - depends on the system and how they view forms. Even in TKD many techniques in the forms are directly applicable to combat (though may lack nuances that increase offensive or defensive effectiveness or grappling opportunities).

While some flexibility in execution should always be kept in mind, exactness of form provides some benefits:

1. Staying true to the style's historical origins and goals (which may differ from style to style - some do not stress fighting applications, favoring other benefits forms provide).

2. To preserve the effectiveness of the intended technique application.

3. Sets a standard to strive for in seeking perfection of physical movement and self-discipline.

4. As I think we all agree, form techniques can have multiple applications and have some allowance for the unpredictability in combat. I think of these as sideroads off the main avenue ("templet" as Choki Motobu said - he's known as the top karate fighter of the first half of the 20th century and acknowledged the value of forms). But when the "exactness" of the form is tampered with, some of those sideroads become inaccessible due to changes in angle, flow or position. (see Mabuni's quote in my previous post)

Different styles and schools are free to view forms as they like. There are always some benefits no matter how one practices TMA. I post according to my viewpoint as a traditional Okinawan stylist but hopefully has some value to others. If not, it at least helps me crystalize my own lurking thoughts.

 

[J. Pickard]

There really isn't a direct link to China as Lee claims.

This may be true with modern TKD/TSD but the Muye Dobo Tongi (records as far back as the 1300s I believe) talks about how Korea and China often exchanged martial culture, not necessarily in a peaceful manor, and a system of martial arts from China, Chuan fua, was adopted and modified in korea as gwonbop as were several weapons systems. This is why I wonder if Lee mispoke and actually meant that and not karate or if he mixed the two up (given His age at the time of the interview). OR was there a time pre annexation that jorea did cultural trade with okinawa that records of have been lost/destroyed.

 

[isshinryuronin4 4]

OR was there a time pre annexation that jorea did cultural trade with okinawa that records of have been lost/destroyed.

Yes. King Sato of Chuzan (the middle of the original three kingdoms of Ryukyu (Okinawa) established trade agreements with the early Korean Joseon Dynasty in the 1390's (and about the same time, with China and Siam as well). Okinawa was a major trade hub for Asia and maintained friendly relations with those countries for centuries.

Japan was not well liked by its neighbors, especially at the end of the 16th century when Japan invaded Korea and threatened China. (Ryukyu did not support the invasion, a fact that plays into the Satsuma clan later getting control of the Island.) Aside from trade delegations, I don't know if cultural and military delegations were established as they were with China, although there was a bit of mutual immigration with Korea.

All this does not imply an exchange of unarmed combat knowledge, but I suppose there might have been a little bit, but not significantly so. I don't think there is any documented or anecdotal evidence of it.

 

[Earl Weiss110 10]

"Both the above quotes bring up "THE application" vs "exercises from which different applications can arise." I think they are not mutually exclusive. "


Agreed.

 

[Earl Weiss110 10]

. I think the exactness of the forms is a good practice in and of themselves, even if exactness doesn't happen in the chaos of a real fight.

Exactness serves an important purpose. It gives the performer a standard to understand and strive for. It gives the instructor / observer a metric to bserve and determine if the known standard is achieved.

If I take you p the pistol range with bulls eye targets we both know you are trying to hit the center and can determine how you did. If it is a silhouette target and I see you did center of mass shots and say great that is what you should aim for - but then you tell me you were trying for head shots, you did not know what you should aim at and did not achieve what you were aiming at and I had no idea of either.

 

[skribs113 134]

Exactness serves an important purpose. It gives the performer a standard to understand and strive for. It gives the instructor / observer a metric to bserve and determine if the known standard is achieved.

If I take you p the pistol range with bulls eye targets we both know you are trying to hit the center and can determine how you did. If it is a silhouette target and I see you did center of mass shots and say great that is what you should aim for - but then you tell me you were trying for head shots, you did not know what you should aim at and did not achieve what you were aiming at and I had no idea of either.

While this is true, you also can have many parameters that can be considered a "win" in which you would be aiming for exactness. For example, in TKD, you can win by:

• Your opponent being DQ'd
• Knocking out your opponent (in an appropriate bracket)
• Scoring more points than your opponent

Scoring more points than your opponent can be done by:

• Doing more scoring techniques (i.e. kicking them more often than them, being aggressive)
• Counter-kicking with higher-value kicks to score more points per exchange (give up 2 points to score 3)
• Avoiding your opponent's kicks to prevent them from scoring at all

Is success in this case based on their ability to score points, or not be scored on? How do you rank one over the other?

 

[Earl Weiss110 10]

While this is true, you also can have many parameters that can be considered a "win" in which you would be aiming for exactness. For example, in TKD, you can win by:

• Your opponent being DQ'd
• Knocking out your opponent (in an appropriate bracket)
• Scoring more points than your opponent

Scoring more points than your opponent can be done by:

• Doing more scoring techniques (i.e. kicking them more often than them, being aggressive)
• Counter-kicking with higher-value kicks to score more points per exchange (give up 2 points to score 3)
• Avoiding your opponent's kicks to prevent them from scoring at all

Is success in this case based on their ability to score points, or not be scored on? How do you rank one over the other?

Suffice it to say the discussion of "Exactness" had to do with Solo / Form practice. This is different than "Parameters" for sport sparring which which have an area or range as opposed to exactness. I understand this is an issue of semantics.

 

[skribs113 134]

Suffice it to say the discussion of "Exactness" had to do with Solo / Form practice. This is different than "Parameters" for sport sparring which which have an area or range as opposed to exactness. I understand this is an issue of semantics.

My point was that it only really applies to solo/form practice.

 

[Earl Weiss110 10]

My point was that it only really applies to solo/form practice.

I would hope no one would think otherwise. I tell students if you do this technique in combat and it doesn't fit the technical parameters the Pattern Police aren't going ton jump out of the bushes and say "You did it wrong" (Well maybe if it didn't work and it was caught on video and posted on the net.)

 

[isshinryuronin4 4]

Suffice it to say the discussion of "Exactness" had to do with Solo / Form practice. This is different than "Parameters" for sport sparring which which have an area or range as opposed to exactness. I understand this is an issue of semantics.

"Perform kata exactly; actual combat is another matter." (Itosu Anko 1831-1915))

Exactness in kata IMO is important for four reasons:
1. Develops precision of movement and control
2. Allows the bunkai to work
3. Allows transitions to variations of application
4. To please the judges/instructor

I agree parameters are different (I don't think it's just semantics). In sport sparring those are the rules and what works to score points. In actual self-defense there is no exactness as Itosu said. Too many variables and everchanging specific situations. And nobody cares how it looks; no "pattern police" to please. The parameters, as far as technique goes, are those things that allow sufficient speed, power, balance, defen se, etc. to defeat the opponent.

I practice kata for exactness, but I'll also do them more "freestyle" (still adhering to its form) as if in actual combat, not worrying too much about exact angles and posture, but within the parameters of combat effectiveness. Doing kata both ways helps each way improve IMO.