What Makes a TKD Pattern/Tul/Form Such?

[Earl Weiss]

See now that is the closest to a objective measure/definition for why it isn't considered a pattern and the others are.




unless i misread/understood, dont you attack/block with both sides? that might have just been how i was taught it and could not be the standard.

There is a Saju "Right" and a Saju "Left" However they are 2 separate exercises (Not 2 parts of a whole.)

 

[pdg]

I wonder if that's a local thing. I've never heard of Hoover being the colloquial replacement for a vacuum. Is it kind of like "Xerox" for copies?

In England, yes. Not in the States. We call it a vacuum. We vacuum the floor.

Yes, it's a British thing.

And we would never call a photocopier a Xerox, because the Xerox company had almost zero market penetration over here so it would make no sense - so they're simply photocopiers.

 

[skribs]

Also for notation, my argument is listed at the top of this thread, to which i gave a valid argument as to why they should be called forms. (to which valid has no refrence to if i am right or not, it just denotes i have made the argument correctly.)

But that argument is not yours to make. To my knowledge, that argument is not for anyone on this forum to make. That argument is to be made by the authority in the art. Anyone else is not giving you their opinion, they are giving you their understanding of the art, as it has been passed down through the masters and their instructors that are qualified in the art.

The people who are telling you the correct terminology, are the ones who have trained in the art for an extensive period of time, and have used the same terminology for that time. They have probably used the wrong words in the past and been corrected. They are simply passing on their experience, which can't be argued with.

You're trying to create an argument where none can exist.

 

[Earl Weiss]

So this is a semi breakaway from another thread about 4 directional blocking/punching being/not being a pattern. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I will post my argument for why 4 directional is a Pattern now:

,

Seems the waters are getting muddier. A post above states: "Also for notation, my argument is listed at the top of this thread, to which i gave a valid argument as to why they should be called forms."
So are we calling the series of movements the Chang Hon system uses "Patterns" or "Forms"? In a a generic sense you can apply terms any which way.
But if you call a tale leg, how many legs does a dog have? It still has 4 because a tale doesn't become a leg because that is what someone chooses to call it.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Seems the waters are getting muddier. A post above states: "Also for notation, my argument is listed at the top of this thread, to which i gave a valid argument as to why they should be called forms."
So are we calling the series of movements the Chang Hon system uses "Patterns" or "Forms"? In a a generic sense you can apply terms any which way.
But if you call a tale leg, how many legs does a dog have? It still has 4 because a tale doesn't become a leg because that is what someone chooses to call it.

I will semi agree it is getting muddy. But, my point isn't i am calling a leg a tail, it is all 4 legs meet the definition of being a leg therefor are legs, yet someone is stating one doesn't because they don't. The term leg and tail both have clear definitions/criteria for what makes one, one and the other, the other.

As far as i got, the only reason 4D's are excluded in TKD is because thats the whim of the creator of it despite them meeting the criteria for being a pattern, now that can be all good and dandy, but i would expect more substance than the creator whimmed it that way. Because if they meet the criteria for being a pattern, they are a pattern. And points 4 & 5 for what i quoted on your previous point, are pretty good as they would define patterns as needing something 4D's don't have but all others do. But is that the definition of a pattern?


Also i will concede my previous point about "i reserve the right to call it.." as that came out slightly wrong and ambiguous, it was more, if 4D's an be disconnected from the rest while meeting the criteria then i can include them for just as much reason as they were disconnected.

 

[pdg]

@Rat - seriously, why is it so hard for you to accept it's just a naming convention and get on with it?

Quite simply, the absolute base requirement for something to be considered a pattern is that it's designated as such.

This arguing the point is just making you look stupid in all honesty.

4D's an be disconnected from the rest while meeting the criteria then i can include them for just as much reason as they were disconnected.

Well, you can for yourself, but everyone else will point and laugh until you cry and run home.

 

[skribs]

I will semi agree it is getting muddy. But, my point isn't i am calling a leg a tail, it is all 4 legs meet the definition of being a leg therefor are legs, yet someone is stating one doesn't because they don't. The term leg and tail both have clear definitions/criteria for what makes one, one and the other, the other.

As far as i got, the only reason 4D's are excluded in TKD is because thats the whim of the creator of it despite them meeting the criteria for being a pattern, now that can be all good and dandy, but i would expect more substance than the creator whimmed it that way. Because if they meet the criteria for being a pattern, they are a pattern. And points 4 & 5 for what i quoted on your previous point, are pretty good as they would define patterns as needing something 4D's don't have but all others do. But is that the definition of a pattern?


Also i will concede my previous point about "i reserve the right to call it.." as that came out slightly wrong and ambiguous, it was more, if 4D's an be disconnected from the rest while meeting the criteria then i can include them for just as much reason as they were disconnected.

What is and isn't called a pattern has been decided by someone high up in the federation a long time ago. If you say "pattern", and you refer to what everyone else in ITF calls a pattern, you can have a conversation. If you say "pattern" and you refer to what you think is a pattern, you won't be able to effectively communicate. You will come across as someone who hasn't trained and doesn't have much of an informed opinion on the subject matter. (Which is how you come off in the majority of your posts).

In most of your posts, I can tell you're trying to analyze a lot of data. This goes back to your first post about the types of punches, but in lots of your posts I get the sense that you like martial arts. You like reading about them, you like watching them, you like theorizing about them, and you want to do them...but for some reason, training them is missed. It's like the stereotypical college graduate with no job experience, who walks into their first job and is trying to tell people with 20 years of experience everything they're doing wrong, when they have no clue how the real world works.

Let me give you a story, something that happened to me at work (not martial arts related). Because this story seems to be your approach to martial arts. We were building a fax server. The server wasn't able to talk to our router. We went over the possible scenarios of what could be the problem, and quickly determined we would need a network admin to take a look at it. The rest of the team then spent literally 45 minutes going over all of the possibilities of what it could be. When I finally convinced them to stop theorizing and just call the network admin, it took only a few minutes to fix the issue.

You're sitting there, trying to categorize things and trying to make sense of it all in your head, but you don't have the experience to reference it. This is true in the very first thread you posted about the different types of punches, this is true in this thread as well. When you have a solid foundational framework, then a lot of stuff makes more sense. And there's a lot of questions you won't even need to ask or analyze, because you'll know it through experience. Later on, you can do that analysis through the lens of your experience, and it will be a whole lot easier.

Trying to analyze the patterns and argue for what is and isn't a pattern, is a less important venture than actually learning the patterns themselves.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

But that argument is not yours to make. To my knowledge, that argument is not for anyone on this forum to make. That argument is to be made by the authority in the art. Anyone else is not giving you their opinion, they are giving you their understanding of the art, as it has been passed down through the masters and their instructors that are qualified in the art.

The people who are telling you the correct terminology, are the ones who have trained in the art for an extensive period of time, and have used the same terminology for that time. They have probably used the wrong words in the past and been corrected. They are simply passing on their experience, which can't be argued with.

You're trying to create an argument where none can exist.

Anyone can argue anyone so long as they can argue correctly and civilly. Authority does not put you above critique or argument, nor does it make you correct by itself. I would expect authorty on the subject to argue it clearly and validly as to why it is the case and not fall back on authority as to the reason why.

That may be the case they are giving me as best to the reasons why this is done the way it is done in their art, but if a painter told me blue was green, i couldn't care how long or as much experience they have in painting, in the English language both are two distinctly different colours and have separate words to denote them. Likewise if they said blue and green are separate colours, they would be correct but not by merit of their painting experience.

I will get back to a reply for the other replies at a later date.

 

[pdg]

From the dictionary definition the 3 sets of 4 direction exercises constitute a pattern of moves.

If you do jab, cross, hook - that's also a pattern of moves.

But if you want to discuss the Chang Hon patterns with a practitioner then what defines something being a pattern is what is contained in the list of 24 patterns - nothing else counts.

Once you start talking about the pattern set, you move away from the dictionary definition and into terminology.

 

[skribs]

Anyone can argue anyone so long as they can argue correctly and civilly. Authority does not put you above critique or argument, nor does it make you correct by itself. I would expect authorty on the subject to argue it clearly and validly as to why it is the case and not fall back on authority as to the reason why.

That may be the case they are giving me as best to the reasons why this is done the way it is done in their art, but if a painter told me blue was green, i couldn't care how long or as much experience they have in painting, in the English language both are two distinctly different colours and have separate words to denote them. Likewise if they said blue and green are separate colours, they would be correct but not by merit of their painting experience.

I will get back to a reply for the other replies at a later date.

In many cases, the appeal to authority is the correct form of debate. This is true of terminology, law, programming, and many other detail-oriented professions. The decision has been made, and everyone else has to follow along with it. You're trying to undermine the vocabulary of a world-wide organization, just because you think you have a better understanding of how the words work than the people who actually train them.

And that's what gets me. You are, by far, the most arrogant person on this forum. I say that as someone who has been accused in quite a few threads of being arrogant, and having butted heads with plenty of others that are just as arrogant. But all of us have one thing that you admittedly lack: experience. When I butt heads with the others, it's because of differences in our training, and differences in what we've learned throughout the years. It's from where we've personally experienced success and failure, where we've seen others in our school experience the same. We're all trying to get the most out of our training.

On the other hand, you come here, without having ever learned a pattern, and are trying to re-define for the entire ITF organization what a pattern is. Because you, having never learned a single ITF pattern (only being shown one of them once or twice), think you know more than all of the Masters and Grandmasters about what a pattern is.

To use your analogy, this would be like if a painter were to identify what is blue and green. And I were to say "they all use blue paint in the mix, so they're all blue."

 

[skribs]

That is a trimmed down version of it, cutting away the filler, consider this a restart for a new thread dedicated to the topic. If anyone can provide me a clear cut reason why 4D isn't a pattern yet the rest are, that would be appreciated. Or the finer working of what makes one a pattern and the other not, as thats another way to word it.

You know, at the start of this thread, I had hopes that this line was the beginning of you beginning to humble yourself. As I've mentioned earlier, I can tell that you have a passion for martial arts. You just need to get up and get to the dojang, and trust in the Master for at least 3-5 years or so, instead of trying to point out everything you think you know better than them.

But based on your responses in this thread, and after re-reading your OP, I realize that's not the case. You're just back here to tell everyone why you're right, why everyone in ITF is wrong, and why nobody should correct you on your understanding of martial arts. The answer has been provided several times, that it was decided by those with the experience and authority to do so, and it has been in use by the ITF and is the standard by which everyone communicates. You are trying to change the world of ITF and how they view patterns, and you haven't even learned one of the patterns.

I had hopes when this thread started that you were starting to turn a corner and mature. Those hopes are quickly being dashed by your refusal to listen to anyone with more experience than you.

 

[Earl Weiss]

When it comes to the Chang Hon System, terminology was obviously first developed in Korean and then first translated to English, or "American" if you prefer. Terminology in English is pretty good but not always perfect. To discuss the system one needs to simply know how terms are defined. One could claim whatever is a "Side Kick" or "What makes a side kick a side kick?" But for the Chang Hon system such a discussion would be pointless because there is no "Side Kick." There are multiple kicks using the words "Side" and "Kick" in the name but all have differentiating Characteristics.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Just to rekindle this slightly and clear up some things.

ou know, at the start of this thread, I had hopes that this line was the beginning of you beginning to humble yourself.

It has nothing to do with the criteria you stated, it is a argument. The purpose of which is to argue my point. Also my original reply was meant to relay that authority doesn't de facto give you a pass card and not require a sound/valid argument, likewise how if you aren't a authority and give a sound/valid argument, you don't get a instant denial card on said basis. That i believe is enough stated on the subject

Now onto the main point and to clear up some things.

First: I never restricted this to ITF, or any one TKD organization, nor made it about one TKD organization. So from that basis, maybe they are just excluded by tradition in ITF. (or which ever ones were cited as doing such)

Second: It might be a naming convention but that doesn't exclude it from being silly/not making sense. i would expect more than, because it isnt considered one out of tradition or something like that rather than it defying the definition. and its not a good naming convention if there is not a clear and precise definition.

Third: There are TKD organizations/schools which dont differ on a day to day running about 4D's being patterns, they call them such etc, and i imagine they only do it officially pending how prissy the parent TKD organization is.


So ultimately what i got from this was more, the 4D's do meet the criteria for being patterns in the TKD system, but are just specially excluded for [insert reasons here], if the TKD organization doesn't consider them patterns. So its basically, no clear cut stance on them being or not being as some places consider them patterns others don't. (which is just what will be the case to annoy me )

To discuss the system one needs to simply know how terms are defined

then lets restart with, how is it defined? If there isn't a strong definition, then there is the issue of it being included by some and not others under the basis it can fit or not fit. to which we come to the conclusion it is a pattern but not at the same time. (which is to be honest, is the case as some places deem it one and others don't apparently)

How ever i will yield that translating from languages often doesn't work out well and not all of them translate as well as others into different languages. So that might be a big factor in this.

 

[pdg]

First:

Only organisations using the Chang Hon set officially call them tul or patterns - other organisations have different names and different criteria for such.

And I also tentatively think that it's only these organisations that use these specific exercises.

By that, you have restricted two thirds of the title of this thread to effectively the ITF and derivatives.

I believe kkw universally call theirs poomse or forms, and may or may not have varying degrees of the 'correctness' of the use of said terms. So the final third is something I can't answer.

Second:

The pattern set is the pattern set. That's basically all there is to consider. Anyone can come up with what reasoning there is for any definition but if it's not included in the set it doesn't get the name.

You can even make up your own amalgamation of moves, but it won't be officially valid to refer to it as a pattern.

I don't understand what's not precise and clear about this.

Third:

From observation, the exercises are often referred to as patterns to and among the lowest grades and the kids - I believe this is done for convenience when the class is directed to practice a pattern. It saves the inevitable questioning about not having a pattern to practice...



I firmly believe this whole subject came about because you think you know more than you actually do and are unwilling to accept that you actually know less than you think, so you are trying to make an argument so that you can demonstrate how you consider yourself to actually know better than people who actually practice an art.

Seriously, if you just admitted that you have very little actual knowledge and put half as much effort into practicing an art - any art - as you put into dissecting them you might find you get on quite well.

But hey, that would take effort and commitment to bettering yourself, which is probably way too much like hard work for you.

 

[skribs]

Just to rekindle this slightly and clear up some things.



It has nothing to do with the criteria you stated, it is a argument. The purpose of which is to argue my point. Also my original reply was meant to relay that authority doesn't de facto give you a pass card and not require a sound/valid argument, likewise how if you aren't a authority and give a sound/valid argument, you don't get a instant denial card on said basis. That i believe is enough stated on the subject

Now onto the main point and to clear up some things.

First: I never restricted this to ITF, or any one TKD organization, nor made it about one TKD organization. So from that basis, maybe they are just excluded by tradition in ITF. (or which ever ones were cited as doing such)

Second: It might be a naming convention but that doesn't exclude it from being silly/not making sense. i would expect more than, because it isnt considered one out of tradition or something like that rather than it defying the definition. and its not a good naming convention if there is not a clear and precise definition.

Third: There are TKD organizations/schools which dont differ on a day to day running about 4D's being patterns, they call them such etc, and i imagine they only do it officially pending how prissy the parent TKD organization is.


So ultimately what i got from this was more, the 4D's do meet the criteria for being patterns in the TKD system, but are just specially excluded for [insert reasons here], if the TKD organization doesn't consider them patterns. So its basically, no clear cut stance on them being or not being as some places consider them patterns others don't. (which is just what will be the case to annoy me )




then lets restart with, how is it defined? If there isn't a strong definition, then there is the issue of it being included by some and not others under the basis it can fit or not fit. to which we come to the conclusion it is a pattern but not at the same time. (which is to be honest, is the case as some places deem it one and others don't apparently)

How ever i will yield that translating from languages often doesn't work out well and not all of them translate as well as others into different languages. So that might be a big factor in this.

None of this is really what's going on here. You want to prove that you are smarter than trained martial artists. You want validation for yourself that your training method of combining YouTube-Jitsu with Google Fu and Forum Kwan Do is a superior training method than actually going to class. You want to be proven right, that you can attain martial knowledge without actually training.

You're sitting here making arguments about things you cannot change. Nobody is even taking your argument seriously, because you have no legs to stand on. No matter how much logic, reason, or whatever you think you may have, you are just an outsider trying to tell an organization that they're wrong about their naming convention. The fact that you do not realize how utterly ridiculous your claims are, is more absurd to me than the claims themselves.

If you want to argue something, you can feel free to argue whatever you want. Stand on a soapbox on the street corner and scream it to the mountains to your heart's content. But if you want to be taken seriously, then you need to have some sort of credential by which to make your claims. You have none. Zero. Nada.

This goes back to what people said in your thread about concussions. This is a meaningless quest you're on. You want to try and dictate what is and isn't called a pattern. YOU DON'T EVEN TRAIN PATTERNS. You want to argue about things you don't even do. You don't train patterns. You've stated in the past that they're completely useless. Why is this even important to you? The name itself is important as it's used in communication, but outside of that, not so much. It's not important to the imparting of knowledge whether it's called a Pattern or a Kata or a Didabrilladngo. It's even less important to you, since you quit TKD and have no respect for the way it is taught (based on previous threads).

Instead of posting questions like this, you could be training. And if you train for a couple years, you'll realize why the questions you pose and the arguments you make are ludicrous. When you first started on this forum looking for a quick answer to learning martial arts, I was hoping that you would at least train something. But you wanted to be smarter than everyone. You want to come up with your own theories without experience, want to use your own ideas instead of listen to someone else. Your threads are getting more and more ridiculous, and you're not taking the advice of anyone.

I can tell you have a passion for martial arts and like the idea of them. But you've got to suck up your ego and be humble enough to actually learn from someone, and respectful enough of a training system to actually see it through. Otherwise, all you're going to do is sit in your computer chair, gaining 0 experience, 0 training, and 0 feedback, and in a few years you'll still have 0 credentials to make these arguments.

 

[skribs]

I firmly believe this whole subject came about because you think you know more than you actually do and are unwilling to accept that you actually know less than you think, so you are trying to make an argument so that you can demonstrate how you consider yourself to actually know better than people who actually practice an art.

Seriously, if you just admitted that you have very little actual knowledge and put half as much effort into practicing an art - any art - as you put into dissecting them you might find you get on quite well.

But hey, that would take effort and commitment to bettering yourself, which is probably way too much like hard work for you.

Ding ding ding! Winner winner, chicken dinner!

 

[skribs]

You can even make up your own amalgamation of moves, but it won't be officially valid to refer to it as a pattern.

I would say this is true in ITF, since patterns are rigidly defined.

He could make the RTF (Rat Taekwondo Federation) and string together any combination of moves and call it a pattern, because then he would be the authority of that art.

 

[Gnarlie]

Many forms of TKD have fundamental basic exercises similar to Saju. Basic 1 (Kibon IL) and 2 for example. They are called Kihon in Japanese. These exercises are Yeonhap Kibon Dongjak (summarised basic techniques), used as an absolute foundation to the core motions of the art. Some masters even design their own, based on their view of what is most important to the art.

Patterns / Forms / Poomsae / Tul go beyond that. All basic technique is practised in order to be able to perform the patterns correctly. The patterns have philosophical significance; the Yeonhap Kibon Dongjak do not - they are a tool used to reach a level where the form can begin to be learned.



Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Earl Weiss]

Just to rekindle this slightly and clear up some things.




Second: It might be a naming convention but that doesn't exclude it from being silly/not making sense. i would expect more than, because it isnt considered one out of tradition or something like that rather than it defying the definition. and its not a good naming convention if there is not a clear and precise definition.

.

In general terms there likely is not a "precise " definition" just as "Tornado" kick may be defined differently in different systems or not at all. In the Chang Hon System the criteria for patterns are set out or common and Saju does not meet some of them. Among these.: A. The system has 24 patterns named and listed and these 6 exercises (Counting left and right as 2) are not listed. B. The pattern names have a meaning of some importance that should be understood by the Student. C. Patterns have at least 2 different stances. D. Patterns practice technique (somewhat) equally with both sides. Right and left being separate exercises. (Not strictly adhered to.) - Those are off the top of my head.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So this is a semi breakaway from another thread about 4 directional blocking/punching being/not being a pattern. All are welcome to hope in as always, the title may have been a little off, but the fundamental question is the same.

I will post my argument for why 4 directional is a Pattern now:

"It has no demonstrable difference to what is listed as a pattern, it is a sequence of movement for apparently the same purposes as the rest of them exist for fundamentally. "

That is a trimmed down version of it, cutting away the filler, consider this a restart for a new thread dedicated to the topic. If anyone can provide me a clear cut reason why 4D isn't a pattern yet the rest are, that would be appreciated. Or the finer working of what makes one a pattern and the other not, as thats another way to word it.

Addendum: if Pattern, Tul & form aren't synonymy can someone edit them out of the title for me?

You're purely arguing semantics. In certain associations, "pattern" has a specific meaning, and only applies as it is understood within that association. Elsewhere, it has different meanings.

I'm not sure it matters, even a little bit, whether any of the rest of us agree with their usage (and non-usage) of the term.