|
Post by oerjan on Apr 4, 2013 6:16:03 GMT
I sendt my article about Korean terminology for lost concepts to a friend who is a lot more qualified than me in the Korean language to see if what I had written really was correct. Unfortunatly he was in Korea at the time and did not get the chance to look over it until this easter. Unlike me he liked the original term for "muchimi" or rice cake arms/body while I thought it was too culture specific for people from outside Asia to understand (but if you have eaten your share of rice cakes "Ddock" as I have then you understand right away). He did not say anything about the term I came up with "sticky arms" in korean so I guess you can use that one too:-)
BUT there was also ONE error and that was variation. The term I came up with was correct and correctly written in Hangul, BUT I transcribed it incorrectly to our writing. It is not Byonhae but byonhwa/byeonhwa/byunhwa! I am extremly sorry for that mistake but I thought that I should share this here so people do not start using an incorrect term. The Hangul I provided was correct so if you can read Hangul then use the Hangul;)
Again: Sorry for that mistake everyone.
|
|
|
Post by oerjan on Jun 25, 2012 11:30:46 GMT
I will "kick" things off (pun intended:p ) My favorite MA movie is original drunken master (1978) with Jackie Chan. I love the movie because it contains great quotes throughout (in the english dubbed version), legendary training scenes and awsome fight scenes.
|
|
|
Post by oerjan on Jun 25, 2012 11:28:47 GMT
Hi there. I was just wondering which movie you think is THE BEST MA film of all time? I we get enough answers maybe we can make this into a poll an declare the ultimate martial arts movie of all time?
|
|
|
Post by oerjan on Jun 25, 2012 7:59:24 GMT
Hi Kyosa. Just curious about how your students cope being taught in both modern korean terminology and old terminology as you write that you teach using both (allthough the older more often than the new)?
|
|
|
Post by oerjan on Jun 25, 2012 7:55:18 GMT
Hi everyone. Someone asked me if I thought that it would be a good thing if Karate were included in the Olympic games. It made me think a little wether it really is a good thing that Taekwondo is in the Olympics as well.
I wonder what other peoples opinion regarding Taekwondo being in the Olympics are. Has it been a good thing for the Martial Art? If so in what respect has it been a good thing. Has it been detrminental for the Martial Art? If so in what respect has it been bad?
And lastly if it was up to you: Would you pull Taekwondo out of the Olympics or would you let it continue being there? If yes or no to that question; Why would you do it?
Looking forward to hearing your answers:)
|
|
|
Post by oerjan on Apr 17, 2012 9:10:40 GMT
I have checked around and Ja Won Hyung = Jion Kata seems to be the most probable explanation. Jion Kata does show up in a future part of the series so either way Jion will be explored in the series:) All though I want to think the Ja Won Hyung is Ja Un or Jion Kata it would be even better if we saw the form in actual use or a book where it was written that way so we could see if this was the case. I did make an educated guess if you can call it that with Balhan Dae so I will certainly include the probability of Ja Won Hyung = Jion Kata in the series.
I thank you both for your contribution (and Master Weiss in another thread for his comment on Hwarang Hyung ). It is very motivating to see that the magazine and the forum can work together so the sharing of knowledge gets better and better.
|
|
|
Post by oerjan on Apr 11, 2012 10:04:19 GMT
Hi and thank you very much for your contribution David Just curious: What reference material are you referring to?
|
|
|
Post by oerjan on Apr 4, 2012 10:12:16 GMT
Thanks for the input. I had to go according to my sources on this one, and my sources is staded at the end of the article Han Cha Kyo will make his presence known In part two however
|
|
|
Post by oerjan on Feb 22, 2012 7:39:04 GMT
I would say that in the case of the punch 9 times out of ten it is a punch.. Sometimes it can be an unbalancing technique or a grab, but the punch is a punch in my view.
Blocks on the other hand can be just about anything from a strike, to lock, to well anything:-) In my view it depends on the level of understanding of the practitioner and it also depends on what he is seeking in his training.
Someone only interested in "hard style Taekwondo" (kick block punch) will see only those things in his forms, someone doing them for "moving meditation" will see what his instructor teaches him or maybe nothing at all because he is "meditating". Someone trying to make sense of all his training and searching for "hidden applications" will find what he is searching for.
The wast majority today sees kick block punch or face value applications because their instructors teach them that way. BUT their instructor teaches the forms that way because they were taught the names of the techniques as "low block", "face block", etc. As I wrote in my first post in this thread the names of the techniques were invented in newer times when much knowledge was all ready lost.
If I ask someone to picture the usage of the "low block" and show them the motion they will see a usage of something that blocks an attack delivered to the low section. It is not strange that they do that considering the label I put on the technique. But if I just show them the motion with no label (and they have not been exposed to labels) and ask them to see if they can see any usages for the moves then maybe some will say a hammer strike to the groin etc.
Personally I use the labels as a name for the movements, not a label of the application. There is a book called "75 down block" by Rick Clark. He proposes 75 different usages against different attacks such as pushes, punches, wrist holds and even against sticks. I do not agree with all his applications, but I highly recommend it because it really helps fight "label disease" (you can only see what the labels tells you). Can you imagine having to come up with 75 different names for the same movement?
Sorry for the long rant yet again Ky0sa but this is a subject I care for:-) In short yes I guess that today a punch can be just about anything you like as long as it stays close to the form and it is combativly sound. Does that make any sense?
|
|
|
Post by oerjan on Feb 16, 2012 9:23:39 GMT
I have not encountered the punch being interpreted as a lock before, but in my experience blocks are rarely if ever blocks as commonly thought. Even in 1965 (or 68??) Henry Cho wrote "Secrets of Korean Karate" and showed different usages for the blocks. For instance low block was shown in one example as smashing away your opponents guard and opening him up for a strike. This is a long way from the common "block a front kick" application most commonly taught today (he did include the modern common usages too). If we go back in time a little we have strong evidence that early Taekwondo came largely from Karate ( jungdokwan-taekwondo.blogspot.com/2011/09/taekwondos-karate-roots.html )and Karate came from a blending of many different martial arts of south east Asia one of the most primary influences was Chinese martial arts (all though Siamese martial arts also seemed to have a role to play). This is backed up by research of the likes of Patric McCarthy (not sure on the spelling). In old school Te, or Tote/Tode (old name for Karate) pronounced Tang Soo in Korean (early name for Taekwondo) they did not have any names for most of the techniques. Kenwa Mabuni and other pioneers of Karate state this in their writings. Kenwa Mabuni invented many of the common names in use in Karate today in the 1920s-40s. So in the Karate link they did not have names for most of the techniques in the "old days" but what about the Chinese martial arts? They had names for their techniques but they were almost never literal names, but rather poetic descriptions of the mind set needed to execute the application of technique or a poetic description of the technique itself. For example in one description in Muye Dobo Tongji you can read: "Strike at your opponent like an ox roaring at the sky". This is hardly a literal description of technique. So in Karate (the Taekwondo building blocks) the motions did not have names or at best they had very vague poetic names/descriptions but what about the techniques in Kata were they all kick block punch like it is taught today (and arguably taught to the first Taekwondo pioneers)? Again if you read the works of Funakoshi, Motobu, Myiagi, Mabuni etc you will see that it was not as simple. The earlier works of Funakoshi for instance demonstrates throws and states flat out that they are to be found in Kata. Even in the newer editions of his works you see statements like "always envision grasping and pulling your opponent when drawing your hand back to your hip" (Karate Do Kyohan) etc. He also states that arm lock and throws are in Kata (Karate Do Kyohan). For those out there practicing the original Taekwondo Hyung (Pyungahn, Chulgi, Bal Saek, Kongsookoon etc) how many are taught applications like throws and arm locks in your hyung? Today most Taekwondo practitioners does not practise the old Hyung but rather the newer inventions like Chang Hon, Taegeuk, Pal Gwe patterns instead. They are different than their predecessors, but they are still made from the same building blocks namely basic technique. Some minor modifications has been made, but when you change your movements you lose some applications, but you often gain others. So if the newer patterns were made with the "face value" applications you describe then there will be additional applications to the movements (maybe not intentional but still) because of the history of the movements themselves. Many people who reverse engineer applications (Iain Abernethy might be the best known in the west) state that each movement has multiple applications. With this in mind you could arguably find effective applications for any number of sequences of techniques in our patterns even if the makers of the form did not intend to have more than face value applications there in the first place:-) This goes a far way to explain that yes it is possible to find/Extract practical applications from our patterns no matter what was put into them in the first place because they used the same (or almost the same) movements as the older forms used. That said, I personally think that the pioneers meant for the patterns to contain effective combat applications and all though they were not taught as such they were taught as Ho Sin Sul or self defense techniques. The linking of the ho sin sul back to their patterns were up to the students, maybe some made the link, and maybe others did not, or maybe there was never meant to be a link at all:-) If you want effective applications I urge you to look up Stuart Anslows book (if you want effective applications to Chang Hon patterns) or Simon John O`Neil book. They are frequently advertised in the Totally Taekwondo Magazine. Come to think of it buy both no matter what patterns you practise. They both contain fascinating insights and history sections that actually contribute something new instead of rehashing the same old things that "all books on Taekwondo" states. I do apologize for the long rant folksO:-)
|
|
|
Post by oerjan on Jan 30, 2012 11:45:44 GMT
Hi Simon:-)
I doubt you will find one ending being agreed cross organisations as being the "best". If there was would it not be just the one "best" ending in use across the organisations?
And also the best ending for what? Most practical sparring applications ending? Most practical realistic application ending? Most beautifull to watch ending? Best bodycontrol training ending? etc. Patterns has different meanings to different people. To know what would be the best ending we need to define the best ending for what cause?
|
|
|
Post by oerjan on Jan 30, 2012 6:42:25 GMT
Thanks for good replies:-) Keep em comming. Did you remember to vote Richard?:-)
|
|
|
Post by oerjan on Jan 24, 2012 13:17:14 GMT
As it is difficult to answer this with one form, I have made it so you can answer 3 forms on the list:-) It would also be great if you wrote your reasons for selecting thoose 3 forms in a post as well:-)
|
|
|
Post by oerjan on Jan 24, 2012 13:12:15 GMT
Hi. I have read every issue of Totally Taekwondo Magazine and I have noticed that there are a few who writes about practical applications for the Kukkiwon forms. I was just wondering if any member of this board researches their forms and how they go about extracting their applications?
|
|
|
Post by oerjan on Jan 24, 2012 13:02:31 GMT
The interview I am refering to is in the January issue of 2012:-)
|
|