57: A point about interpreting symmetric forms (plus some Taegeuk applications)

When interpreting the original 20 ITF forms, the symmetric sets follow a similar structure. You perform the initial defense against either a left or right-handed attack. You perform the defense on the other side, so against the opponent's other hand. Then the second set is performed against the same side you just did to show the connection. This means the form is constructed like so:

Or if the form begins defending against a right-handed attack:

To use Toi-Gye as an example: we can use the initial inner-forearm block as a down-parry, grab, then backfist strike against a left-hand punch. Then in step 4 we do the same defense against a right-hand punch. 

In step 7 we turn towards the front to perform the low X-block followed by the twin vertical punch. We do this if the opponent parries our right backfist strike, meaning we are continuing the defense against a right-hand punch. Forms usually contain the most detail against a right-handed attack because most people are right-handed.

Because forms have more than two sets, a highly symmetric form may be structured as follows:

All the symmetric ITF forms I've analyzed appear to follow this basic rule, although there may be an exception here and there in the middle of some forms. But it may not be a universal feature across styles.

The case of the Pinan/Heian kata

Recently I was playing around with the Pinan/Heian kata. There's a lot of application info online for these kata, plus a lot of it is sampled in the ITF forms. The conclusion I personally came to when studying these forms is that they usually follow the L1-R1-R2-L2 rule, like the ITF patterns, but not always. Some sections seem to make more sense when you interpret them as:

or alternatively

 

 

This means that if you are removing symmetry to find the underlying set, sometimes you need to play around to see which version makes more sense. Which structure gives you the most straightforward and practical technique?

The case of the Taegeuk poomsae

I thought this might explain why I find sections of the Taegeuks hard to interpret. I'm not well-versed in these poomsae, but I was playing around with the opening movements of each.

The opening of Taegeuk 1 seems to follow the L1-R1-R2 pattern. So starting with Step 3, you may 

1. Low parry-pass against a right-handed attack
   
2. Step in and punch
3. Use the turn into the front stance low block as a reverse head throw.

Taegeuk performance images from Professional Taekwondo
Source for bottom left images: Traditional Taekwondo Ramblings

Simple enough. But Taegeuk 2 does not seem to follow that rule. I was confused why you turn left into a reverse inward block after the front stance punch. What if we interpret this sequence as L1-R1-L2-R2? Then the application, starting at step 1, works as so:

1. Parry-pass against the opponent's left arm (step 1)
2. Pull the arm while punching the opponent. We do this in front stance to stretch out their arm (step 2)
3. Since their arm is extended, turn to your left and use the reverse inward block as a standing strike to the outer-elbow (step 5)

Bottom right image source: Tadashi Ryu Karate Do

For a final example, see the opening of Taegeuk 5, a poomsae I like the flow of. Once I interpreted it as L1-R1-L2, it made more sense.

1. Grab and pull down the opponent's shoulder while forcing their wrist behind them (front stance low block)
2. Downward hammerfist to the back of their head as they stand back up
3. If you can't pull down their shoulder, switch strategies and strike into their inner-elbow with the inward block, turning towards the front. This may be enough to throw the opponent
   
4. If we can't throw, use the reverse inward block as a strike to the neck or to hammerlock the arm
   

Bottom right image source: ByungSeok Lee

So with this rule we have a couple simple applications for the openings of Taegeuks 2 and 5.

 

Striking into the inner-elbow may be enough to throw the opponent. Demonstration by Dan Djurdjevic

 

Why would the Taegeuks not strictly follow a L1-R1-R2-L2 design like the ITF forms seem to? Probably because the Taegeuks were made to all have the same floor pattern and so there is a design constraint on the movements. The ITF forms, in contrast, all have different floor patterns without special meaning assigned to them; the only requirement is that the forms start and end in the same place.