More on taekwondo patterns vs karate kata

I don't watch many application videos nowadays, but when it do it's not uncommon to (still) read a comment that says taekwondo patterns don't really have applications, and are just random assortments of karate movements. It's true that TKD hyung do sample sets from kata, because the taekwondo pioneers studied kata and took what they thought was useful. But it doesn't make sense to conclude that hyung do not have applications because of this.

Let's look at the opening set of Pinan Shodan/Heian Nidan, which is sampled in four taekwondo patterns (five if you count the original version of Hwa-Rang). But in each case changes were made.

Pattern	1st Move	2nd Move*	3rd Move
Pinan Shodan	Twin block with half-turned front fist	Inward block with forearm	Outward hammerfist strike, standing up
Hwa-Rang (1965)	Twin block with half-turned front fist	Outward block with forearm	Punch, shifting into fixed back stance
Won-Hyo (1965)	Twin block with front palm forward	Inward strike with knifehand	Punch, shifting into fixed back stance
Hwa-Rang (1983)	Twin block with half-turned front fist and crossed-arm chamber	Upward punch	Punch, sliding forward
Palgwe 4	Twin block with front palm up	Upward punch	Outward knifehand strike, standing up
Taebaek	Twin block with front palm up	Upward punch	Punch

*2nd move always made with back arm, pulling front fist towards back shoulder

In no case is the original set used, and this isn't because the correct version of Heian Nidan was unknown. The kata is recorded in Gen Choi's 1965 book. Should we conclude that these changes were made randomly? No, what you should conclude is that the original application to Pinan Shodan/Heian Nidan was (and is still) unknown and so the pioneers of taekwondo came up with their own applications and changed the set as appropriate.

Take the second movement, the inward block, which is the most mysterious of the set. It's clear this was usually interpreted as a strike, but why strike in such a way? The most common change was to make it an upward punch (aka uppercut), but in Won-Hyo it is instead changed to an inward knifehand strike.

Another application which Nam Tae Hi may have hit on was a shoulder lock, specifically ude garami. Iain Abernethy also discovered this application, which he details here. I've included his pictures below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

But if this is a shoulder lock, why use an inward block? Shouldn't an outward block pushing the opponent's forearm be more appropriate? (Notice how Iain has to let go of the opponent's forearm in image 4 to make the movement an inward block). This is exactly the change made in 1965 Hwa-Rang.

Then you have the twin block. Why is the front fist half-turned? Which arm is supposed to be blocking? It appears that kukki-taekwondo (and some karate styles) interpreted the move as a simultaneously block and strike; hence the front fist was reoriented to be an uppercut. In contrast, ITF taekwondo may have interpreted the front fist as a grab, hence reorienting the front arm outward for Won-Hyo. You then pull in the opponent as you strike their neck with the inward knifehand.

Finally, there is the third movement. It is usually changed into a punch, and this might be a result of mis-teaching because some Shotokan schools do teach it this way. But in Palgwe 4 an outward knifehand strike is used instead, with the same standing up as in the original Pinan Shodan (presumably for range). In 1983 Hwa-Rang a slide was added to the punch, which makes the movement useful as a knockdown.

All of these interpretations are my own, but you can find them if you search for Pinan Shodan Oyo or Bunkai. This one looks like Won-Hyo, for example. The point here is that Korean students of karate looked for applications in their kata just like modern students of karate do, based on bunkai manuals that were in print at the time such as Kenwa Mabuni's Karate Do Nyumon. And the changes you see in hyung are indicative of that.