Applications To Poomse

Discussion in 'Tae Kwon Do' started by StuartA, Jan 7, 2014.

  1. StuartA

    StuartA Guardian of real TKD :-)

    Thanks, SeeDarkly - that was nice to read.

    Much appreciated.

    Stuart
     
  2. Matt F

    Matt F Valued Member

    Double post
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2014
  3. Matt F

    Matt F Valued Member

    Double post
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2014
  4. Matt F

    Matt F Valued Member

    Stuart, you or anyone can get in touch with anyone I have named and simply ask. If you want to go off magazines or books or mainstream opinions that's fine.

    In terms of doing anything for enjoyment....of course anyone can do anything they enjoy. I have not said otherwise.
    In terms of being interested in apps......I am as interested as anyone.
    Anyone who thinks otherwise because my understanding or view different they can go and jump.

    I bet lots of people can't see or apply apps at high intensity and hAve so called experts telling them they are not doing it right, or not training enough. Etc etc.
    It has to contemplated That it might be that the app is nonsense or that the essential skills to make it work are missing .
    That some of these experts also learnt to fight in styles like boxing, wrestling,judo, MT and other competitive styles can not be overlooked.
    Its so obvious it's ridiculous....this kind of training is what makes them effective and they then use that knowledge either to find what the app was likely to have been...and I think some do that genuinely....or use that knowledge to manipulate the app to have been that all along. Some with genuine intentions and some I think know full well.

    It should be about what works full stop. Not who says it works. And it should work at high intensity and against skilled people. It shouldn't be just because its there in a pattern it just has got to be something. That's where the nonsense comes in.

    There's also what's true. Like I said, some stuff is nonsense and its come about after the advent of MMA. Some Traditional martial arts were shown up, and its there for all to see....myths were broken. Then what happened is people start claiming all the effective elements and training methods that showed the trad styles up, were in there all along.
    There is some truth in that but also not to the degree some claim.
    Because there are some truths it makes the rest of the nonsense seem plausible.

    Where is the line drawn? Does it matter?
    This is where I guess opinions vary.
    Let's say it's nonsense that the app you show was ever meant to be that app....it was simply a back elbow thrust of some kind not a lock. There's nothing wrong with that. You don't have to go into l stance or slide or anything...It's just saying elbow someone behind you if you have to. To get that to work in a high intensity situation still has to be trained somehow , not just done in a pattern.

    Now you say it's a lock like is found in judo because it has resemblance to that move as its done in the pattern. If it's true or not I guess some will say it doesn't matter because the student is doing a lock and finding a use in the pattern.
    It's not that simple though as what if it's just not true and you have made it up...not deliberately ..but it's just made up. Is that right? Views will vary.

    But also to do that lock with competence needs training of that lock in a realistic context with the details that make it work. I think lots from Tkd will not bother with that and just pass it on and if anyone tries it they will get their heads caved in. It's not clear enough that proper training of that lock is needed. The impression is, that there's the move....there's the app....Oh arnt we good we have locks just like those effective martial arts in TKD.

    There's not much more to say as, like has been said, it's going round in circles. I think people would be better served learning to fight so they can have their own way to analyse or determine what's what. If something is in the pattern it can be Seen and is fairly obvious, if it's not then that move can be dropped and just done as a pattern move. There's no need to waist time on it or make things up about it.
     
  5. Thomas

    Thomas Combat Hapkido/Taekwondo

    I think I represent a pretty good example of someone who appreciates the work that guys like Stuart do as far as presenting 'applications' for Taekwondo patterns.

    I've trained in Taekwondo for quite a while (17 years or so) and hold a 5th dan in KKW style TKD (my 5th dan rank from KKW is being processed, but I have been promoted already to 5th dan under another group). In my opinion, the sparring side of TKD is good - I like kicking/punching other people in conditions up to full contact (albeit with limited targets). The standup skills of TKD have served me well in competition and in self defense.

    After a couple of years in Taekwondo, I didn't feel as impressed with the self defense that was shown and so turned to Hapkido and later Combat Hapkido (earning a 2nd dan and a 5th dan respectively). With the influx of MMA, I felt I needed to further supplement my self defense and have cross trained beyond those arts, doing a bit of grappling, weapons, RBSD and so on. Again, so far in life, my self defense skills have served me well in those instances where they were needed. I continue to train and cross train though.

    As far as I was concerned, patterns were only good to memorize for the purpose of looking good at your next test and passing. They were also handy for working on breathing, footwork, basic techniques, and for competition (poomsae competition). As a TKDin, you have to do them to keep advancing.

    When Stuart first brought out his applications book, I called "BS" on it and grilled him over where the ideas were from/were they legitimate or made up, and so on. Once I dug into them, I saw that many of them were very good ideas. I felt that some would work and some wouldn't. Most of all, the idea of questioning the patterns and applying ideas (even if reverse engineering ideas) made for a very good way of getting students to think through these things and see if it could work (followed by trying it out under pressure).

    For many TKD students, they don't often get the chance to explore the art in that way; many students don't (want to) go beyond the basic competition aspect of it. So, even a limited foray into this line of thinking can open up a lot of ideas concerning just how effective your self defense is. It also opens the door to try something under pressure and call it BS or not... which is vital for critical thinking. Having references like Stuart's books gives a great place to start and for things to try. I think it is a big step up from what has been passed along as 'self defense' in TKD (look at some of the stuff in the ITF encyclopedia sometime). It also opens the door to critical thinking for TKDists to really dig into the art... as long as you have partners and instructors who are willing to call a BS application 'BS' and to praise and work good applications.

    Personally, I don't care where the ideas come from, so long as they work. One thing I notice is that often at a seminar or workshop in another style, I will see moves that fit right in with certain patterns moves... it makes for a fun exercise to think it through and try it out in class.

    To me, looking at potential patterns application in TKD is just another way to drill and try out techniques, under more and more pressure, to see if things work. It appeals to the more self defense oriented students and it is fun for competition focused students (in lesser amounts). It also opens up students' minds to the possibility of cross training and thinking outside of a narrow definition.

    Patterns applications shouldn't be looked at a lock-step set of things you have to do, but rather as yet another process/drill/technique that can be used to engage students in applying the skills/processes they have in new ways (and in questioning what works and doesn't... a very necessary skill if your cross train)
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2014
  6. Earl Weiss

    Earl Weiss Valued Member

    I think cross training in Ju Jitsu and Some Judo going back to the 1970's I noticed later similarities in some TKD pattern motions. Later interest in some pressure point work lead me to seminars with Dilman, some of his progeny and his books, leading me to "Bubishi" (Book) and Oyata (person) as the foundation for Dilman's Stuff as well as Vince Morris Seminar and books. The mtoion similaritues were undeniable.

    Like most probably... pattern work, in the initial stages involves sensory overload as far as recalling the basic textbook stuff and being able to perform it well. Over time the llaternatives acan be explored. Knowing the alternatives will not make bad technique good. It will provide more options for good technique.
     
  7. StuartA

    StuartA Guardian of real TKD :-)

    [
    Sorry, what is it I`m meant to ask them? The whole point was, if I recall, that I was talking about what was readily available from early on in regards to research material and like I said, the only stuff I came across pre-2005 was in magazines (the odd article), rarely if ever connected to TKD (until master Lim's one), I read articles by Gary Spiers, but they were SD based more than kata based, Terry O'Neills stuff in the mags was cool, but still P/K/B from what i remember - neither, AFAIA had any books out on the subject! I didnt really look into the Goju guys TBH, as most in my area of research follow the kata path to Shotokan.. but looking it up on Amazon, Four Shades of Black didn't come out til 2008, so book wise, AFAIA it was Iain Abernethys first book in 2003 and then Bill Burgers in 2003 that set the trend and gave decent (and more importantly readily available) areas for research into TKD patterns. Remember, it wasnt like it is now, with YouTube etc. and many many web sites - they didnt exist until later (in the form they are now), so there was no watching video clips on youTube, there was on 'Newsgroups' and Bulletin Boards and these were text based and most would be on the ones related to their arts (in my case TKD). Could any of those people had done kata application research - sure, was the info freely available and easy to get hold of.. nope!

    I wouldn’t know, I haven’t come across anyone like that myself (well, I’ve seen the Dillman tongue the wrong side of mouth clip lol).. but its like anything else, things need training - period.. why would that not apply to applications as well!

    Sure, I can agree with this (training in a particular area makes an application that’s the same/similar better), though I don't agree that its 'that' training that necessarily makes the application 'findable' - like the video clip I mentioned, I was shown that well after I had researched an identical application - I didn’t have a lightbulb moment from that clip - it just showed the move worked at the intensity you like.

    Guess you didn’t bother reading the interview I posted earlier then where he mentions Anko Itosu 10 Precepts and discusses one that's most relevant to this discussion!! His POV was quite different from yours!

    Wouldn’t know about the MMA stuff, I enjoyed the early UFC's but rarely watch it now (as its not shown on my TV channels anymore).. but I can tell you that I have never ever looked into MMA for a way of finding applications - nor did I get interested in this area of research cos the Gracies did their thing against Traditional styles.. Can’t say if others did or did not.

    Well, the elbow has a 180 degree spin to it (in the pattern), so you turn your back on them to elbow them – from a SD perspective, does that make sense? So actually, the bigger picture is, because of the turn, its actually less likely to be an elbow.. but something else.. perhaps an armlock! ;)

    It doesn’t matter – IMO, it’s a more beneficial application than the standard one offered and, as I said about, makes more sense (due to the turn your back thing)… whats more, it works, can be trained with partners as well as solo in the pattern if wanted, works in hosinsul, 1 step, SD, even fighting and gives the student an armlock to add to their arsenal. Whether they stop at the ‘show’ stage or train it more is down to them – as you say, views will vary.. so heck, if anyone wants to keep it as a ‘turn your back and elbow opponent’ that’s up to them. The fact that its also found in Judo (though that was just an example as I couldn’t find the video I wanted, so found that instead) is irrespective of it all!

    Sure, but I can force people to drill things – just like I cant stop someone buying a Muay thai book and claiming they know the deadly flying elbows, yet have only done it in their garden against thin air once! In my books I urge people to train applications outside of the patterns to make them better – in fact, all difficult techniques should be trained outside of ‘set’ patterns to make them better IMO.

    People can learn to fight as well!!! But also, students often believe all they are told, and the ‘myths’ handed down stick until the day they are proven not to work (and passed on and on) – IMO, looking at ‘patterns’ for better stuff is always a good thing and it shouldn’t be left to the ‘student’.

    No, not much more to say, but you didn’t say if you enjoyed the karate kid 3 clip ;)

    Stuart
     
  8. Matt F

    Matt F Valued Member

    Your original statement was that it was a new thing. That's what I was responding to.

    And your saying the most effective app for the move your talking about is the lock you show,because it shows passing resemblance to it. I'd say your miles off. One reason ,that a move could not be more than one thing. As I said before. It's la la land.
    And two, your dismissing of it actually , very simply,of just being an elbow.

    Two clips showing how that move was alot more likely meant to have been in its original format, but has been changed and made robotic and and formalised...

    At 2 mins 09 seconds

    http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=77eYVo8aQZc

    And here, a slight variation as its a lead version

    http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=zp-BEC-3LVY

    So much more likely than a lock or some other nonsense.
    And an example of the points I have been trying to make. Those guys learnt that through fighting and not doing patterns. If they were to create a pattern and put that in, and it passed through a few people who got it wrong or did not fight but just did the pattern, that move could change,like Chinese whispers, to be something less clear, more formalised and more robotic.
     
  9. StuartA

    StuartA Guardian of real TKD :-)

    And I still feel it is. Very few we even looking at alternative applications in TKD when I brought out my firs book in 2006 and as stated earlier.. Karate in the main, was only a few years prior to that. - still, we`ll have to agree to disagree I guess.

    Well, 1) unless we know what the original move was for exactly (which we don't), then it can be 'more than one thing' IMO - I don't see offering alternatives and variations as 'la la land', actually I find it la la to think that you should!. 2) I havnt dismissed it as an elbow.. in fact, in the same book, for the same move I show it as an elbow as well.. just a variation on how its done as a 'standard' turn your back type elbow in the tul.

    Took me a while to work out how to view the links, as they seem to be something on your desktop, as opposed to a proper youtube link.. but I digress.. the links are cool, but whilst they can be seen as similar, they are actually less like the move than the lock I offer, which is exactly like the movement in the pattern.. I`m not sure why its 'more likely' to be the application you favour over the other - maybe cos it fits into your train of thought about it all, but that doesn't make what you have offered the 'most likely', just an 'alternative' - and even though the pattern says its 'an elbow' and you offer some 'elbow' applications, it doesn't make it so.. as it has long been known when researching applications that things are often not what they seem - plus, none of your video clips show the person actually turning around fully to execute it - whilst the pattern does!

    Sure... I can get that - though I don't feel this is the case here.. plus of course, people who employ locks also learn/know how to fight anyway! Furthermore, you have also previously stated in other threads, that (you feel) TKD doesnt employ 'cutting' type elbows - so how can it now be a similar move as the 'true' application!

    Stuart
     
  10. Matt F

    Matt F Valued Member

    Ooops, here are you the links

    At 2.09
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77eYVo8aQZc"]Devastating Elbows and Hands of Muay Thai - YouTube[/ame]

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-BEC-3LVY"]Anderson Silva - Elbow Uppercut Knockout? - YouTube[/ame]
     
  11. Matt F

    Matt F Valued Member

    It doesn't matter about its place in the pattern as they were randomly put together anyway with influence from shotokan forms . It's more about what each move was likely to have been as a stand alone element of fighting. That is the only thing within the context of fighting in real fight time that it could be, IMO.

    You saying it's a lock is totally made up based on its similarity which is fluke.

    I would love for to you explain on a physiological and biomechanical level how in an emergency you can ,having trained a few alternatives, make a split decision to choose the best one at that time, specificaly when one is a strike and one is a lock. I know you won't be able to because during an emergency, which a fight or SD situation is, certain things happen within the brain that shuts down alot of things like your ability to make decisions like that, and concentrates on basic functions and survival. That's one reason why complicated ,long winded movements don't work.
    So I would happily agree if you could explain how having a few alternatives to one move fits in with this, beyond saying it just has to be trained.

    Also the level of geniuses to manufacture a move or entire set of moves that could be many things is seriously high. Never say never but it aslot more unlikely than likely.

    It's not a cutting elbow. Sure it could cut but you would be looking for a knockout with that.
    And even if it was ,that thread has nothing to do with it as this is about what the original intention of moves were before Tkd existed and in that thread you were claiming Tkd has all the elbows found in MT, or something like that.
     
  12. StuartA

    StuartA Guardian of real TKD :-)

    Funnily enough, I was gonna mention that as well.. whilst on one hand you could see the tul as 'randomly put together', if it was just single moves at a time.. but many have whole sequences - so, with that being the case, with a sequence of moves ported over from a kata, where does the move before and after the elbow fit in with your videos? Strangely enough, they both fit in quite nicely with the application I offer!

    Actually, its based on research in kata, karate and other similar areas from where the patterns came from!

    You miss the point of offering alternatives to some of the moves/combinations - its not to suddenly select one when a conflict is underway (as that would create a logjam effect), but to have a choice of which one to train ie. which one suits you best or what one prefers.

    Offering alternatives to the moves simply goes back to the point that no records exist of what the totally original moves were for, so offering a few options seems fine to me. I think it would be worse to try to claim it was defiantly this or that, not knowing for sure that it was!

    I just found it odd, that a move you've pulled from MT, is suddenly an application (and influence) to a TKD move, when such moves are claimed not to exist in TKD - by you! Even going further back, did Thailand influence Okinawan systems much - I ask, as am genuinely not sure, as not heard much about that influence! Or maybe they (if your move is the one) just had similar thoughts about it, but then that doesnt explain a lot of things about the move, the move before, the move after, stances, movement (such as the slide) or even the way the elbow is used - you can claim its cos its been overly stylised , or it could possibly be because its not that application!

    And for the record.. I didnt claim all MT elbows were in TKD AFAIA, but that 'cutting elbow' can be found - I even showed you an old video of it being used by me in training if I recall.

    Stuart
     
  13. Matt F

    Matt F Valued Member

    I would say your limiting that move then, if it has to be done in conjunction with those before and after to make one application as if and when those 3 moves appear again next to other moves, they would be stuck and not fit. It just doesn't make sense. It only makes sense if people are making it up as they go along, which some might say is fine.
    Plus ,just look at the confusion that's created. A student spends ages doing it as a strike but ,oh realy it's a lock, that now needs different training altogether to make work.

    Yea it would seem odd looking at it like that, but that's not what I have been saying and that seems lost on you. If you can't escape looking at it as this style or that style or get out of the TKD mindset then it will be lost.
    It's not about any style, it's just finding the most plausible intention of that move, based on fighting. I'm not saying it's a specific MT elbow and that MT influenced it . I used that as the best example I could find. It's unlikely it was even that sophisticated as that was a top modern Thai fighter.

    Thailand isn't the only country in that area that fights like that anyway....You have Laos, Cambodia, Burma, Vietnam ...all have a similar approach or feel but MT is the most sophisticated and basically the best developed. Burma,laos and Vietnam all borders China so it could very well be plausible that MT and its like is actually more akin to the original intention of some Chinese styles but without the baggage as all they do is fight under a ruleset that is the closest, in terms of stand up, to no rules ,that you will find. Or it could be the other round, with those styles influencing Chinese styles.
    I also don't know if there's any actual evidence of cross influences so I'm not saying it as gospel or as a statement.
    MT is a pretty good place to look though, not because its MT...just because it's pure stand up fighting.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2014
  14. StuartA

    StuartA Guardian of real TKD :-)

    No, you miss the point when I say the moves before & after flow with the one being discussed - sure they all connect nicely, but you don't have to use them that way, they work independently as well.. in fact the move after, is a redundancy type move (if used in conjunction with the elbow), as back up if the armlock doesn't work as intended. Funnily enough, while searching for the original clip I wanted, I came a cross a video clip of an MMA fight that uses a very similar motion to the 'move after' following an armlock, that again, does exactly what I have detailed in the book. I didn't post it as the armlock was slightly different to what I wanted to show, but the follow on works the same and results ina broken arm - this too is in an MMA fight btw!

    Well.. 1) no one that I`ve taught it to seems overly confused.. maybe thats just you! ;) 2) More importantly, if one is convinced the armlock application is best.. no one has to teach it as an elbow strike for ages.. as soon as they learn Hwa-Rang tul or Saju Tulgi they can teach it straight as an armlock if they wish. Its only the oldies like us who had to make the change, as we were taught that way and that was the only thing is is, like with most all TKD patterns techniques - but now we know better! Also, picking out single moves is fairly easy.. I like the challenge of connecting the dots for TKD folks.. no-one is forced to look at them that way if they feel the same as you, but I also work down similar lines of how I feel Okinawan kata were created and so feel, they had many connecting moves as well and a kata is/was a series of short drills.. made larger, as opposed to hundreds of '1 off' techniques.

    No.. I knew what you were saying, I was just yanking your chain lol :) Influences can come from many places... similar moves can be found in most arts etc. If I only looked at it from a TKD POV I`d still be saying it was an elbow that you turn your back to execute wouldnt I!!! I have researched lots of things to varying degrees, but with TKDs obvious links to Shotokan.. thats a big part of it.. others are lesser parts but still useful.. its ashame I dont have the time to research them all, so i just do what I can.

    Even a little tidbit would be interesting - have to be honest, in all my research along the lines of TKD (going back) MT has never popped up!

    Perhaps.. perhaps not, depending on what your looking for (re: single techniques Vs connecting) - BUT, like I said on a previous post.. you know MT well, and have some TKD experience in patterns, so you could see things I wouldnt - its all about exposure when researching this stuff and my exposure to MT is small compared to other stuff. But then there are certain guidelines we can follow, like Itosu and his belief that karate wasnt really designed for stand up match fights, but self defence of what he termed 'ruffians'!

    Stuart
     

Share This Page