Sharing the Introduction from The Study of Sam-Il

The following is the Introduction from my first E-book, The Study of Sam-Il. I thought it was a good encapsulation of the motivation and procedure of analyzing patterns for self-defense. There is a much longer introduction to Chon-Ji, Dan-Gun, and Do-San, but that is focused more on taekwondo's history and some additional musings about patterns.

Introduction

An important aspect of Ch’ang Hon (ITF) style Taekwondo training is the tul; also called patterns, forms, or hyungs. According to the Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do  

Patterns are various fundamental movements, most of which represent either attack or defense techniques, set to a logical sequence. The student systematically deals with imaginary opponents under various assumptions.  

The 25 Ch’ang Hon patterns were commissioned by General Hong Hi Choi, but the actual work of creating the movements may have gone to Choi’s commanders, with often multiple commanders working on a single pattern. The first three patterns – Hwa-Rang, Choong-Moo, and Ul-Ji – were made in the mid-1950s by Lt. Nam Tae Hi and Sgt. Han Cha Kyo. The fourth pattern – Sam-Il – is credited to Sgt. Park Won Ha.  

Despite the amount of time spent on learning and performing patterns, there is a dearth of information on the practical applications of the movements. The purpose of this eBook is to delineate the applications for one pattern: Sam-Il. You will not only learn applications for all 33 of Sam-Il’s movements, plus the ready position, but also the underlying logic that ties the pattern together.   

By applications I am not referring to the pure block-strike applications shown in Gen. Choi’s Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do. Many of these applications – such as using the palm upward block to raise a punch or the double arc-hand block to stop a flying kick – are of dubious practicality. Students quickly learn that these movements do not work in sparring. Even the basic blocks and strikes appear to have impractical elements, such as punching from the hip or folding the arms before a block, that have led many to regard patterns as useless for actual self-defense.   

But there are reasons to suspect that the “applications” Choi provides are mnemonic tools and not the intended meaning of the movements. Consider the following elements of Sam-Il:  

Odd Instructions  

For the back stance low block (move 28) we are instructed to pull the reaction hand under the armpit, rather than down at the hip as usual. If the reaction hand is merely meant to “provide power”, then why change its location? Similarly, for the high knifehand block (move 3) we are instructed to place our left palm on our right forearm.  

Angles of Attack  

The twisting kick (move 4) is instructed to be at a 90-degree angle, despite the preceding and succeeding moves being performed straight ahead. Similarly, the X-fist pressing block (move 21) is performed at a 45-degree angle. The standard explanation for these angles is that you are fighting multiple opponents attacking from different directions, but there are more realistic explanations we will explore.     

Directional Changes  

Like many taekwondo patterns, Sam-Il contains directional changes that make little sense under a pure blockstrike context. For move 20, we step forward and turn 90-degrees clockwise before performing a rear elbow strike. But this means we would have to step through our theoretical opponent before striking them! For another example: why do we low punch to the side with both fists (move 10) after performing a reverse knifehand wedging block directly in front of us (move 9)?  

Strange “Blocking” Tools  

The reverse knifehand is used as a blocking tool three times in Sam-Il. Why use this over a more common tool? Also present in the pattern is the palm upward block, U-shaped block, and high double arc hand block, motions that have dubious use as defenses against strikes.  

The benefit of the “deeper” applications is they explain all of these features, as well as other details such as the reaction hand and set-ups for the blocks.   

Analysis of Patterns  

Analyzing patterns is in practice subjective. Five different instructors can come to five different opinions on the same set. The applications presented in this study are a result of the following assumptions.  

Blocks Are Not “Blocks”  

What we call a “block” is a defensive movement that can be applied in a number of ways. A low block could be used to stop an attack. But it could also be used as a hammerfist strike to the groin, to create a lock, or as part of a throw. Similarly, “strikes” can have alternate uses beyond their primary purpose. Patterns use these basic movements as building blocks to construct more complex applications.  

One Opponent  

You are not facing multiple opponents attacking from different directions. You only face one opponent for each set, and they are in front of you. Sometimes a set will contain a defense for a grapple from behind, such as a bear hug, but this is rare. Changing direction in a pattern represents changing direction relative to your current opponent.  This also means that there is no such thing as a “double block” against two separate opponents. Double blocks represent either grappling techniques or simultaneously blocking and striking.  

No Dead Hand  

A common criticism of traditional patterns is that they teach one to drop the secondary hand, leaving one’s head unprotected. Most movements require that the secondary hand to be pulled down to the hip, while others (such as the guarding block) require it to be held near the chest. In deeper applications, however, the secondary hand is rarely dead. Pulling the reaction fist to your hip may be used to grab and pull in your opponent as you strike. A chest level hand may be used to control an opponent’s arm.   This isn’t always the case. Sometimes a block really is just a block. But this is the exception rather than the rule: for the majority of techniques in patterns, both hands have a purpose.  

Utilizing Set-ups  

The set-ups for basic techniques, also called the “folds” or “chambers”, are often explained as teaching full range of motion. In actuality, the set-ups themselves often serve as blocks or parries to incoming attacks, while the motion we call the “block” is the counter to such an attack.   

Ending Sets in Takedowns

  A common formula for sets is: 

• Defend an attack 
• Counter with a strike to a vital point
• Perform a takedown

For the purpose of self-defense, a takedown allows you to flee the situation. Joint locks are also present in patterns, but the purpose of a lock is rarely to submit an opponent. Rather, locks are used to either position the opponent for a vital strike or perform a takedown. Again, there are exceptions to this formula, but if you study patterns you will find that they are replete in takedowns. These include sweeps, hip throws, leg grabs, lock-based takedowns, and others.  

Taking the Opponent’s Response into Account  

Opponents rarely stand in place waiting for you to complete your technique. Instead, patterns are designed with the opponent’s likely response in mind. A common design feature of patterns is contingency or what-if? scenarios. If a movement appearing after a takedown in a pattern has no clear stand-alone function, it may be intended to be used only if the previous technique failed. Several examples of this are explored in Sam-Il.  

Ready Positions  

Of the 24 canonical ITF patterns, 17 have a special ready position. A ready position always has an intended application, but not necessarily at the start of the pattern! The intended application is equally likely to be at the end of the pattern instead. (The possible exception to this rule is Juche, the ready position of which is an homage to Kim Il-Sung, and thus may have no application.)   

It is my hope that this eBook will allow the reader to see the patterns in a new light. I have tried to draw everything in such a way that the technique can be understood visually, but the applications are also explained in the text. Also described are differences between the 1965 and 1983 versions of the pattern, and the likely reasons for the changes. Finally, in the afterword I provide some more thoughts on the Ch’ang Hon patterns and resources for further reading.