How do you believe that forms should be interpreted?

My thoughts are that while you can interpret different moves in various ways ie. reaction hand as a grab/pulling/off balancing technique but the pattern and the techniques should look pretty much the same. As I said in my book, the individual pieces should fit the jig-saw puuzzle (that is TKD patterns) easily - if they have to be forced to fit, then they arnt good from a training perspective.

Sure, a move such a moving forwards can be interpreted as a kick, but students do not raise the leg high enough when stepping in patterns, therefore are not even visulizing it, therefore the piece doesnt fit rightly and for me, as afterall, arnt we meant to be making the practice of patterns 'more' than the sum of their parts, as opposed to 'different from the sum of their parts' - at least thats how I feel.

Stuart

Oh, and the technique IMO does count, not just the motion, as if thats the case - every time the arm is moved forwards that can be interpreted as punch, grab, gouge etc etc ad infinite - but then why have so many different techniques that work in similar motions as others!

Stuart

Ah. but how literal can you be in a system that was not put together with bunkai in mind? that wanted to make its forms unique and different from the Okinawan/Japanese and wanted to showcase high kicks which aren't practical in combat situations?Sometimes when I try to interpret bunk from poomse and come across a kick that not only doesn't fit but in fact interupts the flow of the application I have to say to myself, "well it is TKD" and they do throw those kicks in there seemingly just for show.

Another example is the method of doing double knife hand strikes from a chamber with both arms extended off to one side then striking to the other. I can see this as a throw but litle else. In Okinowan forms the chambers for knife hands are in front of the body and there are lots of applications. and ... What is the meaning of the double, double knife-hand in Pyongwon- high then low? swooping from the high to low in a clockwise rotation. One might be able to imagine something to fit but my bottom line criteria for effective bunkai is; why would I use that particular technique, how effective is it and how devastating is it? If it is too complicated, esoteric that I have to bend my mind to imagine it and it does not flow and would not take out an opponent then it's just a mind game.

So I'm back to my question of how literal can one take TKD poomse in the pursuit of practical applications?

Hello everyone, and Happy Chinese New year

I have been a fan of Iain for years but this is my first post,

I think when we are looking on the application of the TKD patterns we run across a few problems. I am mainly talking about the ITF patterns here, I don’t have a lot of knowledge of WTF forms

If you look at the ITF patterns and compare then to karate kata which form the root of them you can see many kata represented in one patterns, or at least parts of many kata. This isn’t to say that the patterns were made by the General to represent all of karate in one go but rather that the General seems to have taken all the kata he knew, broken them up, and then put them together in a different order. For example the opening sequence to the TKD pattern Won Hyo is the same as the opening to pinan shodan, but then changes to movement that can be found in other forms To my knowledge the General has never gone in to detail as to why he did this

So how does this affect pattern interpretation?

To me if the patterns were put together in different sections as they seem to have been we need to look at them in those different sections that needn’t have a very strong relation to each other, but in doing that find the common principles in the applications and work from that. For this reason it becomes important what tools we are using and the position of our hands at any point in the movement. To look pattern just from the point of view of movement is a good starting place but it only goes as far as looking at your own body and how to move it, not to how to move it in relation to another person. To interpret the patterns, the relation of you to the other person through the whole sequence of movements is vitally important

We can see this if we look at the opening of 2 different patterns: Dan gun and Do San. Both open with what is often interpreted as a block and counter punch, but there are huge differences in the two movements, why in do San do we turn our hand out and expose a very sensitive part of our arm and remain in the same stance, while in Dan gun we block/connect with our knife hand and then move forward to punch. The are of course argument for power generation but usually I find them lacking, to me do san is dealing with an opponent that is much closer, and what is seen as a block is actually a hair grab which needs us to turn our hand out, we don’t need to step forward as the opponent is already only an arms length away

I know that many of you will already know what I have posted, but it is only my first time and I hope you will forgive me for going over old ground

In Do San one application that I use is that the opening is used against a punch, grab, reverse punch, etc. etc.  I generally use it against an attack coming from the side that I turn towards with the forearm block.

If the punch, shoulder grab, reverse punch etc. etc is  with the Left hand then the forearm block passes the hand towards the side off balancing the person.  Blending a grab with that hand and pulling it towards your hip helps to off balance the person more and many times opens up the ribs for the reverse punch.

By turning towards the side and stepping correctly it adds power to the technique where a smaller person can dislodge a bigger person's hand from their shoulder.  I use this to teach my younger students why they need to step correctly in the kata because they can see the instant results.  If they step with their feet in line with one another (which they are my prone to do) they don't have the power needed to defeat the bigger person's advantage.  This helps them (my younger students) learn the proper footwork for the technique.  Adding in the retrun hand pulling the person further off balance and punching to the person's rib cage helps them to visualize the need for blocking hard and punching hard.

Hi everyone. I thought I should try to add a little to this discussion:)

tcdc52 wrote:

Ah. but how literal can you be in a system that was not put together with bunkai in mind? that wanted to make its forms unique and different from the Okinawan/Japanese and wanted to showcase high kicks which aren't practical in combat situations?Sometimes when I try to interpret bunk from poomse and come across a kick that not only doesn't fit but in fact interupts the flow of the application I have to say to myself, "well it is TKD" and they do throw those kicks in there seemingly just for show. 

I hope not to open up a can of worms here but I disagree to some of the points here. Yes they wanted to make their forms unique and different from Karate, but the Kukkiwon Poomsae does such an awfull job of displaying and showcasing kicks that I can not see how anyone can make the claim that the kicks were incerted to showcase them.

I can only speak from a Kukkiwon perspective and not for the ITF patterns though. In Kukki Taekwondo the kick used in 90% of the times are the basic front kick. This kick is perhaps the most easiest kick to employ during adrenaline rush and if you kick low instead of high in bunkai/self defence training you will have a kick that at least in my view compliments the bunkai and makes it easier to employ on a live oponent.

I will refer you to the "Taegeuk Cipher" by Simon O`Neil if you have not already read it. He makes a strong case that there might be more to the Kukki Taekwondo patterns than what meets the eyes. He has the best researched applications to the Taegeuk form set that I have seen so far. I would also recomend Stuart Anslows book on the subject from an ITF side of things. 

But to make a looooong answer a managable lenght I will suffice to say that the founders of what was to become Taekwondo trained under the Karate pioneers, and that their training was very different from what we think of today. We do not take into consideration the evolution that the Karate styles has gone trough since the time when the founders of Taekwondo studdied them. In some cases the founders of Taekwondo got very high rankings. If we take shotokan for instance we have learned that in the writings of Gichin Funakoshi he reveals the reasoning for the reatreating hand. We have discussed this in the "Ben Son" the pulling hand thread that can be found under Korean forms in this forum. He also shows throws and joint locks and says we have to study them according to Kata. In some instances he gives names throws and writes from which Kata they can be found. Note in the eddition from the 50s the references to where the throws can be found is omitted. Since he writes about this I also think it is not far fetched that he also told his students. Also joint locks, throws, techniques who made good use of the pulling hand, to some point also the teaching of vital points was a part of training. All this has almost dissapeared today in the modern Karate (and modern Taekwondo) but it was a bigger part of training in the early 1900s than today. The background of the founders of Taekwondo and the study of applications in the patterns themselves are the strongest indications that there are more than what meets the eyes when it comes to kukkiwon patterns.

When that is said I do have a few poomsae that contains kicks that seemingly does not makes sence: Koryo the modern version (I am talking about the double side kicks in the beginning), Pyongwon (the front kick, turning side kick combo.) but here I think it is an rising elbow strike to the jaw, a low front kick to take out the oponents balance, and then a throw (the side kick is here not a side kick but part of the throw. I will search youtube but I have seen this throw used a lot in Judo). Then you have to go all the way to Chonkwon to find a 360 jumping kick that seemingly does not make sence (I have yet to find an application that is logical), and then all the way to Illyo which is the last pattern of Kukki Taekwondo with its front kick jumping side kick combo. In the Taegeuk forms there are only two kicks performed with a jump and that is jumping front kick.

Perhaps if we compare where you feel that the kick does not fit with the bunkai that we can exchange ideas and see if we can make it fit? In my view the kicks are often there either to set up the hand techniques or to support them in other ways. The kicks themselves are not that important in my applications but they do help to support the hand techniques. The thing to remember is to keep them low when analysing the patterns.

I will again point out that I speak strictly from a Kukkiwon/WTF standpoint.

Best regards from Oerjan.

Oerjan Nilsen wrote:

Hi everyone. I thought I should try to add a little to this discussion:)

tcdc52 wrote:

Ah. but how literal can you be in a system that was not put together with bunkai in mind? that wanted to make its forms unique and different from the Okinawan/Japanese and wanted to showcase high kicks which aren't practical in combat situations?Sometimes when I try to interpret bunk from poomse and come across a kick that not only doesn't fit but in fact interupts the flow of the application I have to say to myself, "well it is TKD" and they do throw those kicks in there seemingly just for show. 

I hope not to open up a can of worms here but I disagree to some of the points here. Yes they wanted to make their forms unique and different from Karate, but the Kukkiwon Poomsae does such an awfull job of displaying and showcasing kicks that I can not see how anyone can make the claim that the kicks were incerted to showcase them.

Oerjan.

Thanks for the post, I broke it up to address some of what you posted.  I believe the poster was referring to the older ITF patterns.  Gen Choi did want to differenciate his art and the art of the Koreans apart from karate.  Remember Japan occupied Korea, so as a form of national pride it was important to distance itself from the Japanese orgins.

This is a larger issue that I believe people give it credit for, that is fabricating something to make it your own.  Japan occupies Korea and to promote a Korean martial Art a whole history was fabricated to legitimize the art.  I just got done reading a book about the martial arts of the Philippines (which I also study) where the same thing has happened in regards to the so called Kali (the mother of all FMAs) myth.  People do strange things to promote themselves in order to make a living or to promote a national heritage.

Oerjan Nilsen wrote:

   I can only speak from a Kukkiwon perspective and not for the ITF patterns though. In Kukki Taekwondo the kick used in 90% of the times are the basic front kick. This kick is perhaps the most easiest kick to employ during adrenaline rush and if you kick low instead of high in bunkai/self defence training you will have a kick that at least in my view compliments the bunkai and makes it easier to employ on a live oponent.

I will refer you to the "Taegeuk Cipher" by Simon O`Neil if you have not already read it. He makes a strong case that there might be more to the Kukki Taekwondo patterns than what meets the eyes. He has the best researched applications to the Taegeuk form set that I have seen so far. I would also recomend Stuart Anslows book on the subject from an ITF side of things.

I have Stuart's book as well and I also recommend it. 

Oerjan Nilsen wrote:

But to make a looooong answer a managable lenght I will suffice to say that the founders of what was to become Taekwondo trained under the Karate pioneers, and that their training was very different from what we think of today. We do not take into consideration the evolution that the Karate styles has gone trough since the time when the founders of Taekwondo studdied them.

Anyway I believe a person needs to look at the founders of TKD who trained under the Japanese and also take a good look at what the training was like where they were training.  I believe that many of the founders of TKD were training in university type dojos (Funakoshi taught at one if not more).  These dojos/clubs moved away from self defense type applications into more of training for sparring.  But not the sparring or games of tag we have with safety equipment today but without gear and these were knock down events.  With the emphasis going to live dueling (sparring) matches those type of techniques came to the fore front, so I believe that karate changed with the times and went with what people/students wanted and that was fighting/dueling.  Remember the university's already had clubs for Kendo, Judo etc. etc. where participants engaged in matches against one another.  Competing for participants against these other clubs there could have been pressure to move to the sparring emphasis since the students were already accustomed to this type of sports.

Self defense came as an off shoot or as a way to spread the art to the mass public, but it wasn't learning a form over three years and all of the bunkai rather it was simple releases/escapes from common everyday type situations and the marjority of time was spent for sparring applications.

Oerjan Nilsen wrote:

In some cases the founders of Taekwondo got very high rankings.

TBH in the states at least it was generally marketing, these weren't rankings given by the Japanese, I think Gen Choi was a 2nd dan in Shotokan (?).  It was a joke in the 70s/80s that a Korean BB would gain BB degrees and World Titles on the plane ride over here.

Oerjan Nilsen wrote:

  If we take shotokan for instance we have learned that in the writings of Gichin Funakoshi he reveals the reasoning for the reatreating hand. We have discussed this in the "Ben Son" the pulling hand thread that can be found under Korean forms in this forum. He also shows throws and joint locks and says we have to study them according to Kata. In some instances he gives names throws and writes from which Kata they can be found. Note in the eddition from the 50s the references to where the throws can be found is omitted. Since he writes about this I also think it is not far fetched that he also told his students. Also joint locks, throws, techniques who made good use of the pulling hand, to some point also the teaching of vital points was a part of training. All this has almost dissapeared today in the modern Karate (and modern Taekwondo) but it was a bigger part of training in the early 1900s than today.

Again I believe the founders of TKD all trained in karate in Japan in the 1930's and early 40's but not at the turn of the century.  In Okinawa the emphasis I believe was on self defense and studying a kata for three years to learn the bunkai is an effective way of learning self defense.  But not a effective way to learn fighting/sparring.  I believe that as Funokoshi came to Japan it struggled for a while and then started hitting it's stride in the mid 30's through the university clubs.  This in turn led to the development of sparring techniques and the stances became longer, the emphasis and the need to defend yourself became much more urgent and how to block that kick or that punch.  This also lead to the development of advanced kicking skills.  What better way to show that your art is superior and different than to defeat an opponent through a sporting match.

The background of the founders of Taekwondo and the study of applications in the patterns themselves are the strongest indications that there are more than what meets the eyes when it comes to kukkiwon patterns.[/quote]

The kukkiwon are the newer patterns so there might be more to the eye, I don't know them.  However the older Chang Hon patterns I don't believe there is more to them other than what people pull out of them now.   I edited out part of your post about the kicking techniques, however think of them in a sparring mode.

In Hwa Rang there is the twin rear leg roundhouse combintation  Your sparring and miss with the first one so you launch a second one.  IN Chug Mu you have an elevated jump side kick, now we could try and say (as some of my students from former instructors have said) this was to kick a person off of a horse.  Why not in sparring trying to get a jump on a competitor?  Sure it sounds better to kick a guy off of a horse and to give people that fanasty but come on.

Submitted with respect to all arts

Mark

Hi mlynn (and others:-) ) I just wanted to clarify a few points:

mlynn wrote:

Oerjan Nilsen wrote:

But to make a looooong answer a managable lenght I will suffice to say that the founders of what was to become Taekwondo trained under the Karate pioneers, and that their training was very different from what we think of today. We do not take into consideration the evolution that the Karate styles has gone trough since the time when the founders of Taekwondo studdied them.

Anyway I believe a person needs to look at the founders of TKD who trained under the Japanese and also take a good look at what the training was like where they were training.  I believe that many of the founders of TKD were training in university type dojos (Funakoshi taught at one if not more).  These dojos/clubs moved away from self defense type applications into more of training for sparring.  But not the sparring or games of tag we have with safety equipment today but without gear and these were knock down events.  With the emphasis going to live dueling (sparring) matches those type of techniques came to the fore front, so I believe that karate changed with the times and went with what people/students wanted and that was fighting/dueling.  Remember the university's already had clubs for Kendo, Judo etc. etc. where participants engaged in matches against one another.  Competing for participants against these other clubs there could have been pressure to move to the sparring emphasis since the students were already accustomed to this type of sports.

Self defense came as an off shoot or as a way to spread the art to the mass public, but it wasn't learning a form over three years and all of the bunkai rather it was simple releases/escapes from common everyday type situations and the marjority of time was spent for sparring applications.

Yes this is true but if you look into the early writings of Funakoshi you will see that many of the modern "missing pieces" like grapling, throwing, realistic use of the pulling hand and a great deal more is there. However the newest edition of Karate Do Kyohan replaced a lot of this (description of the realistic usage of the pulling hand is still there along with demonstration of throws etc) with three step sparring and one step sparring etc. While it is difficult to say how the training the pioners of Taekwondo received was, the impression you get after reading the Funakoshis earlier books is very different from what you would associate with modern mainstream Shotokan training today. Even if the training they received was only sparring and similar to the training modern mainstream shotokan students do today the writings of Funakoshi was readily available for the pioners of Taekwondo and it is difficult to imagine that they all missed the writings of Funakoshi?

mlynn wrote:

Oerjan Nilsen wrote:

In some cases the founders of Taekwondo got very high rankings.

TBH in the states at least it was generally marketing, these weren't rankings given by the Japanese, I think Gen Choi was a 2nd dan in Shotokan (?).  It was a joke in the 70s/80s that a Korean BB would gain BB degrees and World Titles on the plane ride over here.

Maybe so, but some also got very high rankings. Remember that Funakoshi never awarded anyone higher than 5th Dan himself so a 2nd Dan is somewhat higher in those days than now. Also the whole Dan-Kyu ranking system was relatively new in Karate in the 30s-40s. Taekwondo did not arise from one school only, there were several different Kwan (schools) that were founded in the 40s-50s that would later form Taekwondo. Even Oh Do Kwan had influences from all the schools because Choi Hong Hi did not himself invent what was later to become the ITF. The first patterns were made by different Oh Do Kwan pioners (Nam Tae Hi for example made Hwarang Hyung/Tul). These pioners came from different Kwan (Nam Tae Hi for instance came from the oldest Kwan; Chong Do Kwan). Later all the schools were unified into Kukkiwon (including representatives from the Oh Do Kwan). If we look at the different schools, their founders and what they practise plus what rank they got you will see that in some cases they got very high ranks:
 

Chung Do Kwan: Founder Lee Won Kuk, 3rd Dan (in a style were the founder never awarded higher than 5th Dan). He studied Shotokan directly under Funakoshi.

Song Moo Kwan: Founder Ro Byong Jik, 1st Dan Shotokan (in a style were the founder never awarded higher than 5th Dan). Again he studied directly under Funakoshi.

Moo Duk Kwan: Hwang Kee. No formal rank in any style. Studied Chinese martials but his patterns and much of the legacy of Moo Duk Kwan was very simular to hard style Karate. Hwang Kee is one exception:-) 

Chang Moo Kwan: Founder: Yon Byong In. 4th Dan in Shudokan Karate. Studied directly under Toyama Kanken. He had previously studied Chinese martial arts and mastered it to such degree that Toyama Kanken wanted to learn the Chinese martial art from him in excahange for learning Karate from Toyama.

Ji Do Kwan: Founder: Yun Kwae Byong. 4th Dan in Shudokan Karate studied directly under Toyama Kanken, also he studied Shito Ryu directly under Kenwa Mabuni and received 7th Dan from him.

Oh Do Kwan: Founder: Choi Hong Hi and Nam Tae Hi. Choi had 2nd Dan in Shotokan Karate and Nam Tae Hi was one of Lee Won Kuk`s top students.

mlynn wrote:

 

IN Chug Mu you have an elevated jump side kick, now we could try and say (as some of my students from former instructors have said) this was to kick a person off of a horse.  Why not in sparring trying to get a jump on a competitor?  Sure it sounds better to kick a guy off of a horse and to give people that fanasty but come on.

I have also heard this myth and I agree, it is very entertaining, but it is much more likely to get a jump on a competior in a sportive setting than kicking a man off a horse. I have seen a few of the Chang Hon forms on youtube and they do have a lot more "flashy" kicks in them than their Kukkiwon counterparts. Finding a practical no nonsense self defense application to the flying twisting kick (is that what it is called?) in Juche for instance would be very challenging:-p That being said most of the sequences not containing "flashy" kicks are based on Karate movements. Many have been slightly altered but if you accept that the Karate movements in their original forms were practical, and if you at the same time accept that each movement has multiple intrepretations then many "new" practical sequences can be made by "accident" as it is just a matter of finding a practical meaning for the moves that fit in with the sequence. Rick Clark wrote a book called 75 low blocks. 75 different ways to use one movement.

In the end I guess it is all up to the student. I mean if you are going to keep practising the forms of Taekwondo anyway and you want them to be as relevant to your (self defense)training as possible I personally think finding the best applications possible for each pattern is the best way to go. And if there are a few moves that just can not be intrepreted we should just accept that they might be in the form for other reasons than self defense applications and move on to another form, or sequence that can be intrepreted. I mean with 17 forms (in Kukkiwon) plus another 8 aditional patterns (the Pal Gwe) making a total of 25 forms in Kukkiwon today should give more than enough material for a self defense syllabus. The Chang Hon has also 25 forms today (if you count Ko Dang/Juche) and together there should also be more than enough material in there for self defense.

All the best:-)

tcdc52 wrote:

. ... What is the meaning of the double, double knife-hand in Pyongwon- high then low? swooping from the high to low in a clockwise rotation. One might be able to imagine something to fit but my bottom line criteria for effective bunkai is; why would I use that particular technique, how effective is it and how devastating is it?

Link to the poomsae in question:

Lets look at the whole sequence from the rising elbow strike: (This is only one application I have several each motion has a multitude of usages):

Rising elbow strike is in this case a triangle cover for a haymakerHook to the head. You preced with kicking a low front kick to the oponents legs to unbalance him and the side kick, turn as you land on your foot and knife hand block to the mid section is a throw (I do not remember the Judo name but I am sure any Judo practisioner can help with this). If the throw should fail the Poomsae teaches that a simple fail safe/follow up is a neck crank (this is the clockwise motion into a double knife hand low block. Bending the neck is a simple way to put someone down so you can flee. Be carefull when teaching this or using this in training and never do it in free sparring.

As I said this is just one intrepretation there are surely others too. 

tcdc52 wrote:

Another example is the method of doing double knife hand strikes from a chamber with both arms extended off to one side then striking to the other. I can see this as a throw but litle else. In Okinowan forms the chambers for knife hands are in front of the body and there are lots of applications.

The knife hand wich start from the side(or behind the practisioner) and then swung forward is the older Shotokan way of doing it. The other is a newer version (at least according to Bill Burgar author of five years one kata) in Shotokan. I see the throwing application you have, but it fits nicely with panic/flinch response to a hook, haymaker, swing at the head blocking with both hands (preperation for the block) and the seizing the attacking limb (hand that goes to solar plexus) an striking the opponents neck with the blocking hand fitts nicely too. Working with the adrenaline and flinch response is important when researching intrepretations of the moves. This one starts out as a "flinch" and flows from there into a more pragmatic solution.

Antother possibility is the same beginning and the natural thing for the attacker to do when his attacking limb is blocked and seized is to throw another punch wich is then blocked. I hate determening the "bunkai, bunseok, boonhae (or insert your favored term here) on the opponents actions but in this case it is natural that he will either throw another punch or b you strike him in the neck before he gets to punch you a second time.

Then you have removing obstacles aplications, remove the oponents "guard" or limb that gets in your way by brushing it of to the side and follow up with a knifehand strike. You can brush the oponents limb either outside or inside. This is simular to the applications often seen in Iain Abernethys bunkai movies.

This is just scratching the surface. There are probably a ton more uses to the movement. Note that the chamber for the double knife hand block is different from organisation to organisation and even from instructor to instructor. I have seen a great deal of different chambers for the block and not everyone lends itself to the applications above. But the way Kukkiwon teaches it today lends itself to all the applications above.

All the best

Imo the Bunkai (analysis if you like) is there to demonstrate the principles of the technique with a partner, lots to learn from doing that.

The Oyo (personal application) is your business! If it works it's good.

Granted crazy Bunkai just doesnt make sense if one is practicing a functional art, but Bunkai is far from the application in reality, it's a series of lessons that may, or may not occur dependant on the situation and whats needed to effect your responce.

The principles, your experience, attitude and attributes are where it's at.