Tkd Throws

Discussion in 'Taekwondo Patterns' started by John McNally, Mar 12, 2013.

  1. John McNally

    John McNally Active Member

    Just for fun, i ask you, do you know which is the first Tul in ITF style that you learn to throw a person in ?
  2. bowlie

    bowlie Well-Known Member

    Four directional punch with the low block
  3. bowlie

    bowlie Well-Known Member

  4. UK-Student

    UK-Student Active Member

    Hey, I'm pro Bunkai but does anyone know for sure? Also, that would be "could" learn to throw someone. Most people don't learn these skills in patterns, including the founders of Taekwondo.

    BTW, four directional punch is not a tul. :)

    Love the video you posted, Bowlie. Actually Iain was not the first guy I saw post this sequence - I saw a video from a guy who didn't even speak english but showed essentially the same sequence starting from a push hands exercise. It's a great sequence.

    Depends on what you call a "throw" too. Lots of things are takedowns or control positions that can be used for takedowns but I tend to think of something as a throw when it completely lifts someone from their feet, rather than just dragging them to the ground through unbalancing. If this definition applies, then I would say Won-Hyo, specifically the straight thrust and turn. If this definition applies, it's a more complex movement so probably there aren't many throws of this kind throughout all of the patterns and certainly not many in the basic set of patterns.
    John McNally likes this.
  5. bowlie

    bowlie Well-Known Member

    There are three videos Iain posted from that day and they are all really great. I asked that question on his forum just a few days ago. My basic argument was that if a patterns main reason is to tell us what the art consists of, but is open to interpretation, aren't we just filling in the blanks with our favorite techniques. From there the patter ceases to show a record of the past masters arts and becomes a record of ours, making it useless. His answer was
    So no, noone knows for sure, but if we can prove it works, fits with what we know e.c.t. then its good enough to work from and should be taught as a certainty to avoid confusion. In answer to that, I asked him if maybe a move in a pattern could represent an idea, or a principal covering a few similar moves instead of an individual move, but he hasnt gotten back to me.

    Is is not a tul? how come? Well, I presume the first tull has a low block, so whatever that is :p
  6. John McNally

    John McNally Active Member

    In the Tuls the actual first throw of a physical throw is in Do San after the thrust. the first throw for attacker body throw off target thus leaving an opening is in Chon Ji.
    Tuls show you all the basic movements but if the movements are not clarified for you to understand then your not getting full information.
    All Tuls teach you to evolve in a set sequence, but remember all set sequences can be combined from one Tul to another, thus giving you many more skills than you realize as long as again the instructor explains this to you.

    Sajo Jirugi or Sajo Makgi are basic exercises, as the video explains quit well are movements for the beginner to start to learn to move better also to get used to body shifting, stretching etc.

    Tuls are drills, if not explained then they can never be understood, reading a book alone is not full explanation, a book is a basic guide.
    UK-Student likes this.
  7. John McNally

    John McNally Active Member

    Hechyio Makgi to Annero sang Sonkal Taerigi or so on.
  8. bowlie

    bowlie Well-Known Member

    So do you regulary do throws in your class? and tul based drills?
  9. John McNally

    John McNally Active Member

    To a degree we use throws, mostly so the Jeja learning the Tul understands many options of that move, also Tul Based drills are done in many different aspects, line work and also attacking students from different angles etc, as the students advance i get them to combine moves from different Tuls so they get used to the varying applications.

    This helps give them more understanding of what they are learning.
    Melody likes this.
  10. Nightwing

    Nightwing Member

    Bowlie, I find nothing wrong with what Ian said but surely there is an actual "original" purpose to the movements. Most of the old styles of Karate are family styles like Uechi-ryu Karate (one of the big 5 traditional schools of Karate in Okinawa) and have been passed down from one generation to the next. I'm actually in Okinawa right now and work with the Soke of Uechi-ryu, as insane as that sounds lol. (I really need to ask him about all of this)
  11. bowlie

    bowlie Well-Known Member

    Not quite sure what your asking, sorry. The origional purpouse of the patterns was to record techniques. If you asking the origional purpous of each individual move, I guess we will never truly know because they are open to interpritation. What we can do is choose the interpritation we think is most likely to be the origional, based on the information we have. If each pattern is a record of a fighting style, then each move could have an original purpous as a move, or as an example of a range of moves. What I mean is that taekwondo , for example has thousands of moves, so to record them all in a pattern would be insane, because the pattern would be huge. What we could do is say 'in taekwondo we do several standing arm locks' and then put in a movement that sybolizes a standing arm lock. That might not be the case, but its a possibility so thats why I asked

    RTKDCMB Active Member

    There is another interpretation of the turn and block in Chon Ji in the bit where he mentioned Spiderman. You block a front kick from the first guy. step forward and punch. Then turn your head to see where the other guy is and learn he is about to kick you and then turn your body around and block. Whenever you make a turn in a pattern you always turn your head and look first. Interesting application though.
    John McNally likes this.
  13. bowlie

    bowlie Well-Known Member

    In karate the pattern moves are all against one person. The angles are to show that you should try and get an angle on your opponent. In taekwondo the founders either didnt understand that point, or chose to disregard it, so it mentions in the encylocpedia they are against multiple opponents.

    I think though, seeing as the people who created the taekwondo patterns have demonstrated time and time again they didnt really understand what they were copying from karate, we should use the karate kata to determine the applications for our patterns.
    UK-Student likes this.
  14. UK-Student

    UK-Student Active Member

    Good post from Bowlie. Where Iain says the following:

    ....he's talking about his own students. This does leave us with two groups of people who do have to involve themselves in reverse engineering, namely people who have an instructor who teaches bunkai but has an unrealistic approach to self defence (as with all the people who suddenly became Kung Fu masters when Bruce Lee films came out, every other intstructor now has a Bunkai syllabus, many of them pretty woeful) and secondly TKD people like us who don't work from Kata and have to filter everything full our own patterns.

    I disagree with Iain that it isn't important to find the "original" technique. I think it is important (otherwise bin the kata)....but as it is unlikely we'll ever know for sure the most "real" application that fits is the best one. I agree with what Nightwing said in general but I don't believe there is a surviving "bunkai" tradition, unfortunately I think the tradition died out with Funikoshi and his contemporaries.

    Iain's argument is that he is a pragmatic martial artist who investigated the kata and happened to find great movements that fit perfectly. He then says he doesn't really care what the original application is because he's not a historian, though he does use historical sources when trying to understand the kata. If scholars tomorrow unearthed a version of the Bubishi that showed every application for Naihanchi, I think it's obvious we would switch to teaching those applications as long as they were realistic. To say, "no, I'll teach what I have" is nonsensical approach and would lead to the logical result that the kata is not needed.

    In answer to your second question, I would say that patterns and kata are absolutely not needed but if they didn't exist, the would need to be replaced by something else. Teaching through kata is a style of teaching and if your style instead was to make a list of techniques and teach those from a list, I think that would work equally well (my understanding is that this is the approach in BJJ, which has no forms). Essentially we don't need patterns at all, but teaching through them doesn't harm us in any way and is just a style of teaching in line with our traditions. Also, in this context, the fact that the patterns are almost useless in teaching sparring techniques reminds us of the true core of TKD for self defence in terms of close range striking and clinching and that this is a realm in which fancy kicking is secondary. That's pretty much what Iain said as well but for some reason I felt the need to put it in my own words, :).

    Officially Chon Gi is the first pattern or Tul. Saju Makgi is apparently just an exercise.

    However, it's a bit tongue in cheek as it obviously is exactly like a pattern except in name. Many people say that Choi made Saju into "not a pattern" in order to fix the number of patterns at 24 so they could be like number of hours in a day. If the three "Sajus" in the encyclopedia were included, I believe there would be 27 patterns. It's just a naming thing I guess.

    I agree with your opinion on 4 directional punch though. The sweeping back leg is likely taken from kata and if it didn't orginally represent a reaping throw, I don't know what else it could be!

    You are right. I said Won Hyo but I was thinking Do San. I swear....:)

    Wedging block to inward twin knife hand strike? I don't understand. Please explain.

    This is the standard application. People who follow a theory of bunkai tend to disregard this application as unrealistic for the following reasons:

    1) Attacker attacks from the left, whereas it is more advisable to meet an opponent head on so the initial attack should come from the front, especially in the basics (i.e. move one of pattern one).
    2) The defender steps in to defend the kick, which if he aims to block at ankle level does not make sense as if he had stood still, the kick would not have reached him. If the block is amended to jam the leg further up, this makes more sense.
    3) When blocking the front kick, the hand by the waist is not protecting the head, leaving the head vulnerable to a follow-up punch.
    4) It's most important to learn to defend likely attacks such as punches, pushes, clinches and the like. A front kick is an unlikely attack and so would probably not be featured as the first thing to protect oneself from. Equally a front kick attack is probably better avoided through movement or deflection rather than a hard downward block.
    5) During the follow up punch, the other hand is kept too low and does not protect the head. Many people believe this hand must grab the opponent in some way for this very reason.
    6) It's inadvisable to turn your back on an opponent so if the defender knows there are two opponents, his first priority should be to move to a position where he can see both opponents. To turn to one opponent and attack, knowing the other is behind you is foolish, especially as one cannot guarentee a knock out with every punch. Also, if the attackers are in cahoots then why are they so far apart? Wouldn't it be better to practise fighting against two people who stand close together. Alternatively, if the defender does not know the second attacker is there, why does he know where to look to find the second opponent? If the second opponent approached from his rear right, he would not see him.
    7) If a defender needs to turn suddenly, the quickest way to do so is to turn on the spot, picking up the back leg and carrying it across to form a new stance. To pick up the front leg and rotate through 180 degrees does not serve a combat purpose and is slower than other forms of turning.
    8) The second attacker is further away than the first one was in point 2 as the front foot now has to travel 2xwalking stance lengths rather than just 1 so point 2 applies that evasion would work better than an advancing block at this range.

    Based on how unreal this application is (and again, it is not used in contact sparring or kickboxing where front kick attacks are common and would surely be used if it worked and would give a fighter an advantage) and based on historical evidence that men like Itosu changed the application of patterns from a realistic and brutal close range system into something that was appropriate for school children t learn, most people who follow the idea of Bunkai tend to discard this application. It's a shame as it is the application that the founders of TKD taught but unfortunately they either did not have the evidence that we have now regarding the original usage of patterns or wrongfully discarded this knowledge.
  15. UK-Student

    UK-Student Active Member

    Bowlie nailed it.
  16. bowlie

    bowlie Well-Known Member

    Yeah im with you here, in that Iains argument doesnt quite make sense. 'Kata are useful because they tell us what to teach.' then 'It doesnt matter what they tell us to teach because we should do the most applicable thing'. Kata and bunkai are clearly something Iain finds very interesting and like you said, its just a style of teaching that works well for him because he enjoys it. If I were to teach I would include patterns but only very minimally, and only from the standpoint that even if they dont really add anything, they dont take anything away from training if done well, and some people do enjoy them.

    You are correct about BJJ, and you can chuck boxing, kickboxing, muay thai to an extent (they did have kata, but have abandoned them) and alot of arts into that category too

    Why thankyou :)
    UK-Student likes this.
  17. Nightwing

    Nightwing Member

    What I'm saying is that due to the fact that karate styles have been handed down through the generations (Uechi Ryu is one instance) in there ORIGINAL forms; then YES the original interpretation/bunkai would or should still be known. I wonder if Ian asked people like the Uechi family or Mario Higaonna their thoughts on pattern interpretation or simply did all the work himself. Like I said though, I don't disagree with his interpretations or that you can look at a set of moves and arrive at different explanations of them, however, I still think that based on the fact that Okinawan Karate styles are, in most instances family arts, then surely there is someone who knows what the ORIGINAL meaning is.
  18. John McNally

    John McNally Active Member

    To be honest when i was taught Karate Wado Ryu, then also Shotokan both to First degree (approx 32 years ago)

    (Wado Ryu, which means Peaceful Way School. Wado Ryu is a combination of Okinawan karate and Japanese classical Bujutsu (in particular, Shindo Yoshinryu Jujitsu). It was 'invented' by a Japanese jujitsu master, Otsuka Hironori, who was impressed by the power of Funakoshi's Shotokan karate, but thought that much of its movements and striking were inefficient.)

    Both instructors and when i met the masters at the Temple in The UK, they all stated the same:

    "The sets are to master the basic understanding of self defence and retaliation to pre determined movements of attack or reaction, to repeat these often installs natural reaction to the attacker, it will take many hudreds of hours to understand this basic"

    This is how i have learnt and taught from my youngest days.
  19. bowlie

    bowlie Well-Known Member

    Ah ok. I couldnt say, but he is very thorough with this kind of thing. He regulary pays top translation companies to translate thing for him and seems to put alot of money and time into it.
  20. Nightwing

    Nightwing Member

    This statement is entirely ambiguous and doesn't answer the question of "original" purpose other than to say that the purpose is self-defense. Funakoshi (shotokan) never learned bunkai and that's why he followed "block here, punch there," as far as Wado Ryu is concerned, if it's based off observations of Shotokan it wouldn't have ever learned bunkai either (same boat as TKD).

Share This Page