# True Tae Kwon Do



## terryl965 (Jan 25, 2011)

I know we have had some decussion about what is original TKD but I would like to put a different spin by asking what do each of you to believe is true TKD. Forget about the general or the ATA or the WTF or even the ITF, this about what your beliefs are and what makes your version true TKD?

*Remember folks please do not turn this into a decussion like other threads, this is simply a question about what you believe is true TKD and not what you have heard or seen in a book. *


----------



## KarateMomUSA (Jan 26, 2011)

True TKD is truly an individual thing. True TKD to me is TKD, a Korean martial art of self defence that makes you, the individual better. Better in many ways, physically, discipline, sport, SD, manners, focus, hard work, etc.
In essence TKD is a great vehicle to improving one's life, entire life, physically & mentally. If TKD does that for you, then to me, that would be TRUE TKD!

It has little, if anything to do with an organization, but more to do with your teacher, fellow students, how you fit in with them & grow with them, under the guidance of your True TKD Teacher, with the support of your fellow students!


----------



## Manny (Jan 26, 2011)

KarateMomUSA said:


> True TKD is truly an individual thing. True TKD to me is TKD, a Korean martial art of self defence that makes you, the individual better. Better in many ways, physically, discipline, sport, SD, manners, focus, hard work, etc.
> In essence TKD is a great vehicle to improving one's life, entire life, physically & mentally. If TKD does that for you, then to me, that would be TRUE TKD!
> 
> It has little, if anything to do with an organization, but more to do with your teacher, fellow students, how you fit in with them & grow with them, under the guidance of your True TKD Teacher, with the support of your fellow students!


 

KarateMon thank you very much! I agree with you. That's why TKD has grow su much worldwide.

Manny


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 26, 2011)

Taekwondo is a Korean fighting system characterized by a common set of techniques, cultural aspects, and history. 

If I put on a vee neck dobok, use all Korean terminology and start practicing kenpo, it doesn't matter if I'm an 8th dan; it still isn't taekwondo. It may be very good, but it isn't taekwondo.

Taekwondo has a common set of stances, blocks, and strikes executed in a similar fashion across all styles of taekwondo due to the fact that all styles of taekwondo ultimately trace themselves back to one of the five original kwans.

Taekwondo is also notable for eschewing of weapons.  I believe that the ATA may have incorporated weapons into its system, but taekwondo was, from the beginning of it actually being called taekwondo, taught without weapons.  I am aware that some schools have a weapons curriculum, but that curriculum is culled from systems outside of taekwondo.

If you are performing a striking art that looks markedly different from what is being done by most other taekwondoin and remarkably similar to another martial art, usually Shotokan karate, then you're either stuck in a time warp or you are practicing taekwondo that has a heavy Shotokan influence. Which would be non-compliant or incorrect by the textbooks of the various taekwondo organizations.

The idea of being independent and setting your own standards of what is and what is not taekwondo is out of place in taekwondo. Not because it is 'bad' but because taekwondo has been an organized art with a curriculum meticulously developed by one organization, and later by two other organizations.

Taekwondo has three distinct yu: Kukki, Chang Hon, and Songam, which are overseen by the Kukkiwon, the ITF, and the ATA respectively, with some smaller organizations or independent schools teaching those yu. I know that the ITA has their Ho Am taekwondo, so I suppose you could say four distinct yu. All of these can trace themsevles directly back to the five original kwans.

Taekwondo is not like hapkido that has no strong central organization or organizations. Some are larger, some are smaller, but hapkido is not as defined as taekwondo is. Some have more kicks than taekwondo, some hardly any at all, but are both considered hapkido. You cannot remove all kicks from taekwondo and still call it taekwondo. Well, you could, but nobody would take you seriously.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 26, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> The idea of being independent and setting your own standards of what is and what is not taekwondo is out of place in taekwondo. Not because it is 'bad' but because taekwondo has been an organized art with a curriculum meticulously developed by one organization, and later by two other organizations.


 
I don't agree.  TKD has never been a fully 'unified' art ever.  From the kwan period with Hwang Kee's ultimate rejection of the TKD movement to the various ITF splints and to now with the dozens and dozens of TKD orgs out there outside of the ITF or KKW umbrella, we seen a persistent history of independent paths taken by various masters.

Is Jhoon Rhee's system still tae kwon do?  I would argue yes, yet his brand of TKD is noticeably different than ITF or KKW TKD with his own forms and western boxing influenced stances, guards, and punches.  He has created his own tae kwon do and more power to him for it.

And Mr. Rhee doesn't have to be the only example.  Anyone can set his own standards on what comprises his own system of tae kwon do.  I believe KarateMom has mentioned she believes the independents greatly outnumber everyone else put together.  If that is an accurate ratio, then any idea of orthodoxy cannot stand, regardless of any attempts from any group to codify a standard curriculum.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 26, 2011)

And to answer the topic question, true tae kwon do is whatever individuals choose to make of it.  Wheel chair players might not be able to execute any kicks at all, removing them totally from their practice, but I still think what they do is tae kwon do and a true expression of it at that.  If you practice a striking-based art that descends someone from one of the countless branches of TKD (kwan era, ITF,KKW, whatever), you are doing true tae kwon do even if it is visibly different from what another TKDist practices himself.   So a wheelchair guy is still a TKDist.  A guy who quits at yellow belt but still knows and practices a front kick along with a reverse punch is still a TKDist.  A chodan who switches to MMA but still practices his TKD kicks for the ring is still a TKDist.

In the end, it's about the individual and what he chooses or is able to focus upon.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 26, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I don't agree. TKD has never been a fully 'unified' art ever. From the kwan period with Hwang Kee's ultimate rejection of the TKD movement to the various ITF splints and to now with the dozens and dozens of TKD orgs out there outside of the ITF or KKW umbrella, we seen a persistent history of independent paths taken by various masters.
> 
> Is Jhoon Rhee's system still tae kwon do? I would argue yes, yet his brand of TKD is noticeably different than ITF or KKW TKD with his own forms and western boxing influenced stances, guards, and punches. He has created his own tae kwon do and more power to him for it.
> 
> And Mr. Rhee doesn't have to be the only example. Anyone can set his own standards on what comprises his own system of tae kwon do. I believe KarateMom has mentioned she believes the independents greatly outnumber everyone else put together. If that is an accurate ratio, then any idea of orthodoxy cannot stand, regardless of any attempts from any group to codify a standard curriculum.


I never said that taekwondo was unified or that those who go indie and set their own curriculums are 'not taekwondo'; I said that doing so is out of place.

Jhoon Rhee got his system going about the same time that the Kukkiwon was established I believe (correct me if I am wrong on this).  He started his own organization and established standards.  The ATA did essentially the same thing.  Though each is unique, each still shares common characteristics that mark them as taekwondo.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 26, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I never said that taekwondo was unified or that those who go indie and set their own curriculums are 'not taekwondo'; I said that doing so is *out of place.*



I would ask what does 'out of place' mean?  There is no trademark on the name 'tae kwon do' nor is it a holy word with an exclusive definition to it.  It just means the art of the hand and foot.  




Daniel Sullivan said:


> Jhoon Rhee got his system going about the same time that the Kukkiwon was established I believe (correct me if I am wrong on this).  He started his own organization and established standards.  The ATA did essentially the same thing.  Though each is unique, each still shares common characteristics that mark them as taekwondo.



It doesn't matter about the timeline.

There are people like Benjamin's GM who may have formed their own groups during the same time frame.  Or those who did so afterwards like Kim Soo or He Il Cho.  It matters not.  They set their own curricula and their own standards and they still use the name of tae kwon do.   I would not call what they did out of place.


----------



## puunui (Jan 26, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> Is Jhoon Rhee's system still tae kwon do?  I would argue yes, yet his brand of TKD is noticeably different than ITF or KKW TKD with his own forms and western boxing influenced stances, guards, and punches.  He has created his own tae kwon do and more power to him for it.



As an aside, GM Rhee wasn't the first to incorporate boxing into Taekwondo. There were two main schools that did that. One was Moo Duk Kwan GM OH Jae Joon, who taught at the Seoul YMCA for many years. He incorporated boxing, including the stance and hand positions into his sparring. Also the Han Kuk Che Yuk Kwan (Seoul Jidokwan HQ) had a boxing program. The Han Che people, notably GM LEE Byung Ro (first Taekwondoin to receive Kukkiwon 10th Dan) studied boxing and used that to create the steps and sparring strategies that are used even today. 




dancingalone said:


> I believe KarateMom has mentioned she believes the independents greatly outnumber everyone else put together.  If that is an accurate ratio, then any idea of orthodoxy cannot stand, regardless of any attempts from any group to codify a standard curriculum.




It might be true in the US, maybe, but I do not believe that it is true worldwide.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 26, 2011)

puunui said:


> As an aside, GM Rhee wasn't the first to incorporate boxing into Taekwondo. There were two main schools that did that. One was Moo Duk Kwan GM OH Jae Joon, who taught at the Seoul YMCA for many years. He incorporated boxing, including the stance and hand positions into his sparring. Also the Han Kuk Che Yuk Kwan (Seoul Jidokwan HQ) had a boxing program. The Han Che people, notably GM LEE Byung Ro (first Taekwondoin to receive Kukkiwon 10th Dan) studied boxing and used that to create the steps and sparring strategies that are used even today.



If you look at Jhoon Rhee's hyung creations, you can see that boxing permeates the basics of his system.  Not so much the case if you view the KKW poomsae or the ITF tuls.


----------



## puunui (Jan 26, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> If you look at Jhoon Rhee's hyung creations, you can see that boxing permeates the basics of his system.  Not so much the case if you view the KKW poomsae or the ITF tuls.



The boxing incorporation in Taekwondo was more in the sparring, since boxing is a sparring based activity, and is not forms oriented. As an aside, I have been watching this show on FX I think it is, Lights Out. Last night's episode was about a guy who didn't keep his hands up and ended up getting knocked out.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 26, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I would ask what does 'out of place' mean? There is no trademark on the name 'tae kwon do' nor is it a holy word with an exclusive definition to it. It just means the art of the hand and foot.


Out of place, as in unusual, not normative.  

Nor is there are trademark on the name 'way of the empty hand' but there are certain things that are normative within karate.  Eschew enough of them and add in elements that are clearly idendifiable as being from another or other arts, then the question must be asked if it is still karate.  For example, if you're doing mostly boxing with the occasional kick and shuto, then really, you're teaching boxing with a couple of add ons.



dancingalone said:


> It doesn't matter about the timeline.
> 
> There are people like Benjamin's GM who may have formed their own groups during the same time frame. Or those who did so afterwards like Kim Soo or He Il Cho. It matters not. They set their own curricula and their own standards and they still use the name of tae kwon do. I would not call what they did out of place.


The time line wasn't the point.  The point is that their systems, while different, share the common characteristics that make taekwondo taekwondo and not, say, kenpo.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 26, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Out of place, as in unusual, not normative.
> 
> Nor is there are trademark on the name 'way of the empty hand' but there are certain things that are normative within karate.  Eschew enough of them and add in elements that are clearly idendifiable as being from another or other arts, then the question must be asked if it is still karate.  For example, if you're doing mostly boxing with the occasional kick and shuto, then really, you're teaching boxing with a couple of add ons.



Actually, you can compare to Uechi-ryu karate to Shotokan karate and see little in common between the two.  Nonetheless they are both karate systems.

And I would say 'out of place' is a phrase used only when there is a certain standard or more established already.  So belching at my dinner table is out of place, yet it would not be in certain Asian circles.  The same applies to this discussion.  

Another point I would make on this is what makes Songahm ATA 'in place' instead of 'out of place'?  They are a former ITF group that left and then ultimately formed their own curriculum and standards, and this sounds like a lot of other groups out there, albeit on a smaller scale.  




Daniel Sullivan said:


> The time line wasn't the point.  The point is that their systems, while different, share the common characteristics that make taekwondo taekwondo and not, say, kenpo.



Look at the Jhoon Rhee forms on youtube and compare them to KKW and ITF forms.  To my eye, they are VERY different, even if they all use a reverse punch and a variation of the front stance like say JKA Shotokan, something which I would hope that no one would call TKD.

What exactly makes them all TKD?  The use of yop chagi?  Mr. Weiss has mentioned several times that the ITF has many specifications about the various usages of yop chagi unique to ITF...

In other words, I don't necessarily believe there needs to be any common technical link for the term 'tae kwon do' to apply.  It's more of a cultural, lineal, or historical term.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 26, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> Actually, you can compare to Uechi-ryu karate to Shotokan karate and see little in common between the two. Nonetheless they are both karate systems.


I'll take your word for it, as I am not overly familiar with karate styles outside of Shotokan and Kyokushin, and of the two, I have only practiced one.



dancingalone said:


> Look at the Jhoon Rhee forms on youtube and compare them to KKW and ITF forms. To my eye, they are VERY different, even if they all use a reverse punch and a variation of the front stance like say JKA Shotokan, something which I would hope that no one would call TKD.
> 
> What exactly makes them all TKD? The use of yop chagi? Mr. Weiss has mentioned several times that the ITF has many specifications about the various usages of yop chagi unique to ITF....


The various usages of yop chagi exist in Kukki taekwondo but I don't believe that they are broken down with specific names. I'd have to look at the Kukki textbook again to be sure, however. I would consider commonality of techniques, even if practiced differently, to be enough of a technical link when combined with other factors.



dancingalone said:


> In other words, I don't necessarily believe there needs to be any common technical link for the term 'tae kwon do' to apply. It's more of a cultural, lineal, or historical term.


In that case, with no consensus on Taekwondo being an umbrella term for essentially any Korean MA with strikes, then it is only *true* taekwondo if it is practiced according to the Kukkiwon or the ITF and everything else is not taekwondo or taekwon-do, but suffers from misapplication of the term. That would include the ATA, Jhoon Rhee, and all the rest.

Had the question been 'what do you believe constitutes taekwondo in general?', my answer would have been "any Korean fighting system that is predominantly strikes that can trace its roots to the five original kwans." 

But because the question is 'what is *true* taekwondo?' I gave a more specific answer as to what I personally believe *true* taekwondo to be, which I will stand by.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 26, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> T
> 
> But because the question is 'what is *true* taekwondo?' I gave a more specific answer which I will stand by.
> 
> Daniel



Fair enough.  If this is an answer applicable personally to you, I can find no fault with that.  I thought you meant to state this on broader terms.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 26, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> Fair enough. If this is an answer applicable personally to you, I can find no fault with that. I thought you meant to state this on broader terms.


A bit of both.  That it is my personal belief is implicit in the OP"



terryl965 said:


> I know we have had some decussion about what is original TKD but I would like to put a different spin by asking what do each of you to believe is true TKD. Forget about the general or the ATA or the WTF or even the ITF, this about what your beliefs are


However, I that is my answer if I am being asked to define it in broader terms.  I have to stick with broader terms to an extent because Terry goes on to ask...


terryl965 said:


> and what makes your version true TKD?


...and I have no personal version of taekwondo.  Unless you considered what I learned, Kukki plus HKD Hoshinsul to be 'my version.'  Though technically, this is Master Kim's version, not mine.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 26, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> A bit of both.  That it is my personal belief is implicit in the OP"
> 
> 
> However, I that is my answer if I am being asked to define it in broader terms.  I have to stick with broader terms to an extent because Terry goes on to ask...
> ...



It is your own.  You practice it after all even if he taught it to you.  This speaks to my wheel chair example.  He is also practicing his own form of tae kwon do and it is as 'true' as any one else's.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 26, 2011)

puunui said:


> The boxing incorporation in Taekwondo was more in the sparring, since boxing is a sparring based activity, and is not forms oriented. As an aside, I have been watching this show on FX I think it is, Lights Out. Last night's episode was about a guy who didn't keep his hands up and ended up getting knocked out.



This is one of my primary criticisms of forms practice as generally done in TKD.  To me, I think they should be a more integrated activity with clear linkages into basics, sparring, and practical application.  

Students often look upon pattern practice as useless and a time filler and I don't fault them if they've never trained forms in a comprehensive, integrated fashion.


----------



## puunui (Jan 26, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> This is one of my primary criticisms of forms practice as generally done in TKD.  To me, I think they should be a more integrated activity with clear linkages into basics, sparring, and practical application.



I don't think I ever looked to forms for practical applications, even when I was studying Karate. Forms were just one of those things that you had to do, like memorizing the multiplication table or the periodic table of elements. 




dancingalone said:


> Students often look upon pattern practice as useless and a time filler and I don't fault them if they've never trained forms in a comprehensive, integrated fashion.



I used to think about forms like that, but I have since changed my opinion. I can appreciate forms now as a way to lengthen my life. I also try to think about the lessons embedded in the Kukkiwon Yudanja poomsae when I practice them.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 26, 2011)

puunui said:


> I don't think I ever looked to forms for practical applications, even when I was studying Karate. Forms were just one of those things that you had to do, like memorizing the multiplication table or the periodic table of elements.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I definitely lean more towards the practical usage side as a teacher and practitioner.  My thought is that if we want to practice forms as meditative forms of gentle exercise, I would suggest delving into yoga or possibly tai chi chuan instead.  Why?  Because these forms have certain manipulative health benefits through activating the chakras and meridian points.  In contrast, the karate kata were always more about transmitting information about how to damage another person's body instead, and I would suspect likewise the recently created TKD patterns are not intended to help physically heal and rejuvenate either.

As for fighting applications with forms, this is why I currently study and teach Okinawan karate as my primary art.  I intentionally sought out an art and teacher that has meaningful knowledge transmitted through the kata.  It's one of my goals to reintegrate some of this information back into the syllabus I teach my tae kwon do students.  This is not meant to be a dig at TKD in any way.  Each style has its own pluses and minuses, and on balance, IMO forms are one of the avenues in which TKD can grow.


----------



## puunui (Jan 26, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I definitely lean more towards the practical usage side as a teacher and practitioner.  My thought is that if we want to practice forms as meditative forms of gentle exercise, I would suggest delving into yoga or possibly tai chi chuan instead.  Why?  Because these forms have certain manipulative health benefits through activating the chakras and meridian points.



I did do yoga, Bikram or Hot Yoga. I really enjoyed it. I should start that up again.





dancingalone said:


> In contrast, the karate kata were always more about transmitting information about how to damage another person's body instead, and I would suspect likewise the recently created TKD patterns are not intended to help physically heal and rejuvenate either.



I disagree. I think forms, or any other aspect of the martial arts is what you want it to be. 




dancingalone said:


> As for fighting applications with forms, this is why I currently study and teach Okinawan karate as my primary art.  I intentionally sought out an art and teacher that has meaningful knowledge transmitted through the kata.  It's one of my goals to reintegrate some of this information back into the syllabus I teach my tae kwon do students.  This is not meant to be a dig at TKD in any way.  Each style has its own pluses and minuses, and on balance, IMO forms are one of the avenues in which TKD can grow.



I'm not into that. I have Hapkido for my self defense needs. I rather just practice the defenses directly.


----------



## leadleg (Jan 26, 2011)

puunui said:


> I did do yoga, Bikram or Hot Yoga. I really enjoyed it. I should start that up again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 26, 2011)

puunui said:


> I did do yoga, Bikram or Hot Yoga. I really enjoyed it. I should start that up again.



I do ashtanga yoga for the conditioning and health benefits.  I'm about to start weekly lessons in iyengar which is supposed to be more disciplined in proper positioning and depending on whom you talk to, 'deeper'.



puunui said:


> I disagree. I think forms, or any other aspect of the martial arts is what you want it to be.



Well, if you buy into the idea that certain specific movements properly done stimulate the organs and the circulatory system, then it follows that you must practice those exact movements.  I can say after studying yoga for almost 5 years now, that many asanas or poses are NOT found in any of the kata and hyung I have learned over the years.  Thus, if I want to practice these movements, it must be yoga practice, not karate.

Also the chakra activation movements are generally done in a smooth and slow fashion - quite unlike the violent muscular contractions I strive for in many of my kata.




puunui said:


> I'm not into that. I have Hapkido for my self defense needs. I rather just practice the defenses directly.



Cool.  As a kata enthusiast, application study is a big part of my practice.  The way I learned and teach applications is rather direct.  The form isn't meant to be obscure or cryptic.  There are partner drills that expose and teach the tactical ideas contained within kata, and once you've learned a handful of them, applications in future kata are rather easy to discover yourself.  I am sure if we ever compared notes, we would see that some of the things you practice directly in hapkido are similar to the kata applications I study.


----------



## puunui (Jan 26, 2011)

leadleg said:


> I don't know that this fits this thread but ....I have had a few fights in my time and have almost exclusivley used hand techniques and foot techniques to end those fights. Don't get me wrong I love all the various locks and holds, takedowns and throws, I like falling and rolling too. I have used some HKD locks to move some inebriates and once took down a jealous boyfriend with an arm bar, offensivly.sp? But to say that learning to kick and strike is not good self defense would be ludicrous( I don;t think that is what you are saying




Hapkido has lots of strikes, from all different angles, with all different levels of pain. Here is one example: With your hands down, you lift your fist palm down right to the opponent's chin, complete the motion, and from there you can follow with a straight punch to his head. Works very effectively if someone is punking you and sticking their chin out at you, which is how a majority of fights start where I live. They never see it coming because your hands are down. Over the years, I modified it to a slap with an open hand sort of diagonal to their adam's apple. They get the same blunt harsh message (You are screwing with the wrong person) but nothing is broken and I don't leave any mark on them. If need be, follow up with some leg kicks, and now you have two techniques that they cannot and did not block. That usually is enough to drain the fighting spirit out from them. I call these two part of my "face saving" techniques, because you let them save their face and the embarrassment of having to explain black eyes, broken teeth, nose or jaw.


----------



## puunui (Jan 26, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I do ashtanga yoga for the conditioning and health benefits.  I'm about to start weekly lessons in iyengar which is supposed to be more disciplined in proper positioning and depending on whom you talk to, 'deeper'.



I am interested in iyengar because there are so many schools here. Funny story but when I was in college and got really serious about martial arts, I went to every dance and yoga place I could find and would watch the classes. I wanted to design an efficient stretching program to get maximum flexibility in the shortest amount of time. Then a couple of years ago, I poked my head in this yoga class and was surprised to find an older lady who was saying the exact same things that I say, and did a very similar routine to what I do. She had been teaching since before I went to college and I have come to the conclusion that "my" stretching routine for which I am so proud, actually came substantially from her. How we fool ourselves into thinking all this came from me, when in fact, it did not. 

I have a theory that the martial arts evolved from yoga. The story is that Daruma went to the Shaolin Temple and saw that the monks were in poor physical shape, so he taught them 18 exercises which eventually turned into the Shaolin Martial Arts. 




dancingalone said:


> Well, if you buy into the idea that certain specific movements properly done stimulate the organs and the circulatory system, then it follows that you must practice those exact movements.  I can say after studying yoga for almost 5 years now, that many asanas or poses are NOT found in any of the kata and hyung I have learned over the years.  Thus, if I want to practice these movements, it must be yoga practice, not karate.



At the same time, I can see a lot of poses that are part of the martial arts. Maybe not done in the same way, or with the same application, but still there. 




dancingalone said:


> Also the chakra activation movements are generally done in a smooth and slow fashion - quite unlike the violent muscular contractions I strive for in many of my kata.



I'm not into violent muscular contractions in forms at all. I save that for work on pads, hogu, bags and paddles. 




dancingalone said:


> Cool.  As a kata enthusiast, application study is a big part of my practice.  The way I learned and teach applications is rather direct.  The form isn't meant to be obscure or cryptic.  There are partner drills that expose and teach the tactical ideas contained within kata, and once you've learned a handful of them, applications in future kata are rather easy to discover yourself.  I am sure if we ever compared notes, we would see that some of the things you practice directly in hapkido are similar to the kata applications I study.



I have some George Dillman and Rick Clark books and I can see that they use many techniques that are part of the Hapkido curriculum. 

But I guess too much Bruce Lee growing up because for the longest time, I had a distinct hatred for forms. I didn't want to waste my time with the "classical mess" and only did forms minimally for promotion purposes. But now I can appreciate poomsae in a way that I never could when I was younger. It is kind of cool actually for me to enjoy poomsae, and very surprising for me. I'm just glad that I can participate in the poomsae world, because it does make me feel more rounded and whole as a martial artist, especially as a Taekwondoin.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 27, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> It is your own. You practice it after all even if he taught it to you. This speaks to my wheel chair example. He is also practicing his own form of tae kwon do and it is as 'true' as any one else's.


I suppose that it depends on how you define 'your version' of something.  I would consider it my version if I made changes to the curriculum in some way.  If I am practicing it as I was taught, it may be my expression of what I was taught, but it is still what I was taught.

For example, if I expand on the hapkido hoshinsul that was originally a part of my TKD class, introduce an additional sparring element to pressure test students on that aspect of the curriculum, and then add kumdo as a requirement for dan grade students, then I have made 'my' version.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 27, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I suppose that it depends on how you define 'your version' of something.  I would consider it my version if I made changes to the curriculum in some way.  If I am practicing it as I was taught, it may be my expression of what I was taught, but it is still what I was taught.



The way I look at it is that change is inevitable from teacher to student, no matter how hard we try to learn, apply, and teach technique and information the same way.  We have different bodies, minds, personalities after all.

I can have a written curriculum for all my students to follow and eventually teach from themselves, but it is certain that they and their students in turn will all understand and apply the curriculum differently from myself.  So technique changes.  

What hopefully does not change are the principles behind the technique, and I believe those are actually universal across all martial arts, even if they are not explained or trained the same way.


----------



## puunui (Jan 27, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> The way I look at it is that change is inevitable from teacher to student, no matter how hard we try to learn, apply, and teach technique and information the same way.  We have different bodies, minds, personalities after all.




I can see it in the difference between my martial arts classmates and I have evolved and also in my students, who are all different from each other. We focus on different things and we therefore grow differently. GM JI Han Jae uses the example of your hand -- the fingers are yours, but which one looks exactly like any other? Or look at your own children. They all came from you but which one is exactly like the other? Even twins are different.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 27, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> The way I look at it is that change is inevitable from teacher to student, no matter how hard we try to learn, apply, and teach technique and information the same way. We have different bodies, minds, personalities after all.
> 
> I can have a written curriculum for all my students to follow and eventually teach from themselves, but it is certain that they and their students in turn will all understand and apply the curriculum differently from myself. So technique changes.


What you describe I would consider interpretation within a version or within a standard.  Within Kukki TKD, I view what is 'true' as being Kukki and Kukki+ being an acceptable _version_. 

The issue that I see with this discussion is that taekwondo essentially was a movement comprised of a group of pioneers, each of whom were leaders of or highly respected within their kwans, who, with encouragement from the government, unified to create taekwondo.  Taekwondo was submitted as a name for a unified art, not as merely a descriptor.  Some of those pioneers broke off and went their own way (Gen. Choi, Hwang Kee), and in some cases, retaining the name 'taekwondo' with a prefix of some kind (Chang Hon, Jhoon Rhee, etc.).  

Thus you have a "true" art with multiple versions which are 'true' to the core Kukkiwon curriculum.

Due to the break off of various pioneers to form separate organizations, I included these in my original answer.

As I said earlier, if I am asked the simple question of what constitutes taekwondo with no prefix of 'true' then my answer is different.  

Also note, that I do not equate 'true' with better; I don't view arts as superior or inferior, better or worse.  



dancingalone said:


> What hopefully does not change are the principles behind the technique, and I believe those are actually universal across all martial arts, even if they are not explained or trained the same way.


Indeed.

I think that how one answers the question as to what constitutes true taekwondo depends greatly upon how one views the term.  Is it an officially approved name to christen a unified Korean Taekwondo or is it an umbrella term to categorize Korean striking styles that have a good number of techniques in common?

Daniel


----------



## puunui (Jan 27, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I think that how one answers the question as to what constitutes true taekwondo depends greatly upon how one views the term.  Is it an officially approved name to christen a unified Korean Taekwondo or is it an umbrella term to categorize Korean striking styles that have a good number of techniques in common?




We started with definition #2, and we are moving towards definition #1. Whenever you are trying to get a diverse group together, it is always best to look for commonality first. The differences will naturally come out later. But I believe it is best to first focus on the things that bind us, and then hopefully over time we have more and more things in common.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 27, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Thus you have a "true" art with multiple versions which are 'true' to the core Kukkiwon curriculum.
> 
> Due to the break off of various pioneers to form separate organizations, I included these in my original answer.
> 
> ...



Perhaps I am being obtuse, but I really don't understand how you are using the word 'true' above.  What am I missing?  If you define KKW TKD as true TKD, then other variants like ITF or ATA TKD cannot be, unless you subscribe to puunui's view of increasing 'compliance' with the KKW standard where some TKD-in are more 'compliant' than others.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 27, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> Perhaps I am being obtuse, but I really don't understand how you are using the word 'true' above. What am I missing?


I'm using it within the context of the thread title, "True Tae Kwon Do" and the question posed by Terry as to what makes one's version 'true' or not.

True implies 'one true ___________,' whatever that ___________ may be, or true to an agreed upon set of attributes, be they technical, historical, nationalistic, or a combination thereof.

Frankly, I find the topic itself to be problematic, as there is apparently little to no consensus regarding what is and is not taekwondo. Being an analytical person by nature, I feel that terms need clear definition, either on a technical level or on a consensus level. 



dancingalone said:


> If you define KKW TKD as true TKD, then other variants like ITF or ATA TKD cannot be, unless you subscribe to puunui's view of increasing 'compliance' with the KKW standard where some TKD-in are more 'compliant' than others.


If I have to define 'true taekwondo' then I would go with the former, though I prefer the latter.

Personally, I'd be happy with saying that a yu descended from one of the five original kwans is true taekwondo and leave it at that.

Daniel


----------



## Kacey (Jan 27, 2011)

Taekwon-Do is a living, breathing art, and as such, will continue to evolve.  The question then becomes, at what point has a variant evolved to the point that it is no longer Taekwon-Do?  The same question could be asked about all martial arts, I think, as well as a variety of other activities.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 27, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I'm using it within the context of the thread title, "True Tae Kwon Do" and the question posed by Terry as to what makes one's version 'true' or not.
> 
> True implies 'one true ___________,' whatever that ___________ may be, or true to an agreed upon set of attributes, be they technical, historical, nationalistic, or a combination thereof.
> 
> ...



I'm trying to understand your perspective, which I am still baffled about.  

You seem to be saying that KKW TKD is the true one in your opinion (which is fine), but then in a previous post you mentioned the idea of it being out of place individually to hold private standards of what TKD is.  Yet then you mentioned KKW, Chang Hon, and Songahm TKD as groups with their own organized curricula.  The two ideas seem incongruous to me.  What makes the ITF or the ATA 'in place' to you?



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Personally, I'd be happy with saying that a yu descended from one of the  five original kwans is true taekwondo and leave it at that.



That would be closer to my belief.


----------



## puunui (Jan 27, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> Perhaps I am being obtuse, but I really don't understand how you are using the word 'true' above.  What am I missing?  If you define KKW TKD as true TKD, then other variants like ITF or ATA TKD cannot be, unless you subscribe to puunui's view of increasing 'compliance' with the KKW standard where some TKD-in are more 'compliant' than others.




I don't know if the word "true" is the most fitting. What I will say is that Kukki Taekwondo and Kukkiwon certification is dominant worldwide, by far and that the "variants" are moving more towards that than Kukki Taekwondoin are moving towards the variants. I don't see for example, practitioners with instructor level Kukkiwon dan switching to ITF or ATA, although I do see it working in opposite, the ITF and ATA members wanting to convert or assimilate in by learning the Kukkiwon curriculum and obtaining Kukkiwon certification for themselves and their students.


----------



## KarateMomUSA (Jan 27, 2011)

puunui said:


> We started with definition #2, and we are moving towards definition #1. Whenever you are trying to get a diverse group together, it is always best to look for commonality first. The differences will naturally come out later. But I believe it is best to first focus on the things that bind us, and then hopefully over time we have more and more things in common.


Absolutely


----------



## puunui (Jan 27, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> you subscribe to puunui's view of increasing 'compliance' with the KKW standard where some TKD-in are more 'compliant' than others.




I think all styles and organizations are like this especially a style as large as Taekwondo. The Kukkiwon has issued poom and dan certificates to 7 million practitioners. I don't think there are too many systems or styles that have that many members much less that many dan holders. Everyone is in a state of non-compliance in one form or another. For example, the  instructors at the Kukkiwon, they are great with poomsae, but they called in the Samsung S1 coach and his team to teach the kyorugi part of the course when I attended. 

When you think about it, being in a state of non-compliance is what the martial arts and life is all about. If we were all perfect, and in compliance, then we wouldn't be here, because there would be nothing left to learn.


----------



## puunui (Jan 27, 2011)

Kacey said:


> The question then becomes, at what point has a variant evolved to the point that it is no longer Taekwon-Do?




A better question is, who gets to decide what is or isn't Taekwondo? Let's start off with the the english spelling of Taekwondo. Which is correct, Taekwondo, Tae Kwon Do, Tae-Kwon-Do, or Taekwon-Do?


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 27, 2011)

puunui said:


> When you think about it, being in a state of non-compliance is what the martial arts and life is all about. If we were all perfect, and in compliance, then we wouldn't be here, because there would be nothing left to learn.



I don't disagree with you when it comes to people in the KKW circles.  However, it does seem a bit much to me to talk about non-KKW people being out of compliance with KKW standards, considering it's not a standard they've ever signed up for.


----------



## Kacey (Jan 27, 2011)

puunui said:


> A better question is, who gets to decide what is or isn't Taekwondo? Let's start off with the the english spelling of Taekwondo. Which is correct, Taekwondo, Tae Kwon Do, Tae-Kwon-Do, or Taekwon-Do?


Transliteration from a language that uses a different alphabet is always problematic - look, for example, at the variant spellings of &#1495;&#1458;&#1504;&#1467;&#1499;&#1464;&#1468;&#1492;, including Chanukah, Hanukah, Chanuka, Hanuka... all used interchangeably by people, news shows, card companies, and so on.  As long as everyone knows what you're talking about, how much does it really matter, when there are so many other, more important issues to worry about?


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jan 27, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I don't disagree with you when it comes to people in the KKW circles.  However, it does seem a bit much to me to talk about non-KKW people being out of compliance with KKW standards, considering it's not a standard they've ever signed up for.


Absolutely spot on. I was talking to my old instructor today (6th dan) about us not complying to the kukkiwon standards, and he said the exact same thing. He said - how can we not be complying with something that we never have said we are a part of anyway. We dont sell our club as teaching kukki tkd so how can we be non compliant?


----------



## puunui (Jan 28, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I don't disagree with you when it comes to people in the KKW circles.  However, it does seem a bit much to me to talk about non-KKW people being out of compliance with KKW standards, considering it's not a standard they've ever signed up for.



And you have General Choi to thank for that.


----------



## puunui (Jan 28, 2011)

ralphmcpherson said:


> Absolutely spot on. I was talking to my old instructor today (6th dan) about us not complying to the kukkiwon standards, and he said the exact same thing. He said - how can we not be complying with something that we never have said we are a part of anyway. We dont sell our club as teaching kukki tkd so how can we be non compliant?



But you are within the Kukkiwon circle, dancingalone's comment doesn't apply to you. You practice Kukkiwon poomsae and your instructor has Kukkiwon certification and issues Kukkiwon certification to his students.  It doesn't matter what you sell your club as.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jan 28, 2011)

puunui said:


> But you are within the Kukkiwon circle, dancingalone's comment doesn't apply to you. You practice Kukkiwon poomsae and your instructor has Kukkiwon certification and issues Kukkiwon certification to his students.  It doesn't matter what you sell your club as.


I suppose you can say we practice the kukki poomsae if you call palgwe kukki forms even though little or no kukki clubs do them anymore. Our GM hasnt had anyone request a kukki cert for about 15 years (from my understanding) so technically yes, he CAN give them out but doesnt unless requested which never happens anyway. My instructor is a 7th dan and hasnt requested a kukki cert since 2nd dan, so as far as the kukki are concerned he is a 2nd dan even though he has trained for 36 years and holds a 7th dan in our club. He is the highest ranked in our club other than the GM. So I suppose you could say we are in the kukki circle but really its been years and years since we have actually had anything to do with them. I must stress too that I have nothing against the kukki, Im not one of those people who go around knocking them and bagging them out, Im just not a part of it.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 28, 2011)

puunui said:


> And you have General Choi to thank for that.



To be fair, General Choi AND Jhoon Rhee.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 28, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I'm trying to understand your perspective, which I am still baffled about.
> 
> You seem to be saying that KKW TKD is the true one in your opinion (which is fine), but then in a previous post you mentioned the idea of it being out of place individually to hold private standards of what TKD is. Yet then you mentioned KKW, Chang Hon, and Songahm TKD as groups with their own organized curricula. The two ideas seem incongruous to me. What makes the ITF or the ATA 'in place' to you?


I initially included these, but you stated that there is no real technical similarities between these and KKW. So if the same body of techniques practiced in different ways does not qualify as enough technical simlarity, then KKW wins the tiara of Miss True Taekwondo, with ITF and ATA being runners up and Jhoon Rhee being Miss Congeniality.

In my opinion, all of this is academic anyway. Taekwondo has ceased to be unified, due to the proliferation of different organizations and independents, all of whom do things differently. 

Thus my statement, "a yu descended from one of the five original kwans is true taekwondo" is my personal feeling on the subject, to which you responded, 



dancingalone said:


> That would be closer to my belief.


So essentially, we're on the same page essentially. My own opinion is that KKW is the primary or main taekwondo, while the others, while taekwondo, are essentially splinter groups. 

Once again, this is not in a context of better or worse with regards to quality of the curriculum or of instruction, much of which comes down to personal preferrence and individual instructors respectively.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 28, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I initially included these, but you stated that there is no real technical similarities between these and KKW. So if the same body of techniques practiced in different ways does not qualify as enough technical simlarity, then KKW wins the tiara of Miss True Taekwondo, with ITF and ATA being runners up and Jhoon Rhee being Miss Congeniality.



Not that it really matters, but IMO it's rather debatable that KKW TKD is THE TRUE TAEKWONDO.  What makes it the true one?  It's the descendant of several concurrent lines of martial arts whose leaders elected to join together.  How is it any truer than any other option that came from the gene pool?  

Mere size?  I would hope not.    

Innovation?  Arguably others have made progress in their areas of interest as well.

The Olympics?  Again, I hope not.

I see KKW TKD as one of the many facets of taekwondo.  All are equally true, and this also goes down to the granular level for individual practitioners who may be 'compliant' in varying degree to their own defined systemic teachings.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> In my opinion, all of this is academic anyway. Taekwondo has ceased to be unified, due to the proliferation of different organizations and independents, all of whom do things differently.



Yes.  Which is why I tend to stay away from adjectives like 'true' when discussing taekwondo.  I realize Terry worded the topic as such however.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Thus my statement, "a yu descended from one of the five original kwans  is true taekwondo" is my personal feeling on the subject, to which you  responded,



A side thought, but I believe the Tang Soo Do/Soo Bahk Do people came out of the Moo Duk Kwan can also fall under the TKD umbrella if they wish to.  



Daniel Sullivan said:


> So essentially, we're on the same page essentially. My own opinion is that KKW is the primary or main taekwondo, while the others, while taekwondo, are essentially splinter groups.



It's probably accurate to state that KKW TKD is the largest single group by membership in the world.  Yet I am not convinced they hold anything close to a majority share when you count every single TKD school along with their students.

I would also argue that the words primary and main carry more connotation to them than just size, so these too would be words I personally stay away from with regard to taekwondo.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Once again, this is not in a context of better or worse with regards to quality of the curriculum or of instruction, much of which comes down to personal preferrence and individual instructors respectively.



Perhaps.  Yet when we use words like true or primary, we lead others to believe we mean more contextually and that there is a value judgement to be made, no?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 28, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> Not that it really matters, but IMO it's rather debatable that KKW TKD is THE TRUE TAEKWONDO. What makes it the true one? It's the descendant of several concurrent lines of martial arts whose leaders elected to join together. How is it any truer than any other option that came from the gene pool?
> 
> Mere size? I would hope not.
> 
> ...


Its 'true'-ness is in that it is the the original kwans united to become the kukkiwon.  Thus, because the original kwans are viewed by all involved as the start of taekwondo, the Kukkiwon has the most legitimate heritage.



dancingalone said:


> I see KKW TKD as one of the many facets of taekwondo. All are equally true, and this also goes down to the granular level for individual practitioners who may be 'compliant' in varying degree to their own defined systemic teachings.


This is akin to saying that the FIK represents on of the many facets of kendo, when in fact, they are the primary international organization from which others have split.

Before the Kukkiwon was the Kukkiwon, it was still essentially the same body of people from whom General Choi and others split.



dancingalone said:


> Yes. Which is why I tend to stay away from adjectives like 'true' when discussing taekwondo. I realize Terry worded the topic as such however.


And that is the context in which this discussion is taking place.



dancingalone said:


> A side thought, but I believe the Tang Soo Do/Soo Bahk Do people came out of the Moo Duk Kwan can also fall under the TKD umbrella if they wish to.


I do not know on that. 



dancingalone said:


> It's probably accurate to state that KKW TKD is the largest single group by membership in the world. Yet I am not convinced they hold anything close to a majority share when you count every single TKD school along with their students.


I agree with you there.



dancingalone said:


> I would also argue that the words primary and main carry more connotation to them than just size, so these too would be words I personally stay away from with regard to taekwondo.


Primary and main do carry connotations other than size, but I am not disinclined to use them.  See below.



dancingalone said:


> Perhaps. Yet when we use words like true or primary, we lead others to believe we mean more contextually and that there is a value judgement to be made, no?


Primary and main are much more appropriate to the Kukkiwon.  I avoid true because it has different connotations to different people.  

True can mean authetic or actual (what he is doing is truly taekwondo, while what he is doing is something that he made up after hours of watching Youtube and his certificate is bogus). 

True can mean one group is the 'one true' taekwondo and others are pretenders.

True can mean that there is a set of standards and characteristics, which an art needs to conform to in order to be 'true' taekwondo.

Primary and/or main means just that: primary or main.  Kukki taekwondo is the primary taekwondo due to lineage international presence, and size.  When people think of taekwondo, they *primarily* think of what is Kukki taekwondo.  Which is what makes it primary.  Being the largest single organization with IOC recognition and backing of the nation from which the art originates makes it main.

Main doesn't mean better.  Plenty of people avoid mainstream and go for alternative or niche.  

In a musical analogy, Kukkiwon is rock and roll.  ITF is classic rock.  The ATA is pop rock.  Jhoon Rhee is alt rock.  AIMAA is heavy metal.  Independent schools and breakaway orgs like the ITA or NPTA are indie rock.

'Rock and Roll' includes all of these expressions, which makes it the main category.  The others are subcategories.  They're all rock and roll.  But not all rock and roll is classic, alt, metal, indie or pop.  

The rock and roll hall of fame contains artists of each of these styles and then some.  But an alt rock hall of fame would only have alt rockers.  A classic rock hall of fame would only have classic rockers.  And so on.

Hope that clarifies, as my post is kind of rambling.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 28, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Its 'true'-ness is in that it is the the original kwans united to become the kukkiwon.  Thus, because the original kwans are viewed by all involved as the start of taekwondo, the Kukkiwon has the most legitimate heritage.



So, merely being the largest aggregate of kwans makes the KKW the most legitimate?  I do not believe that.  The extension of that argument means you must likewise assert that a Chung Do Kwan luminary like Jhoon Rhee who has never been part of the KKW has LESS legitimate heritage than a newly minted KKW chodan.  



Daniel Sullivan said:


> This is akin to saying that the FIK represents on of the many facets of kendo, when in fact, they are the primary international organization from which others have split.
> 
> Before the Kukkiwon was the Kukkiwon, it was still essentially the same body of people from whom General Choi and others split.



I also don't believe this personally.  The Kukkiwon has been an evolving institution with conceivably even more change on the back end (Olympics, TaeGeuk poomsae, etc.).  Even if the same pool of people leading the KKW now were also active during the kwan era, it does not follow that the two are the same.  Far from it actually in my opinion.





Daniel Sullivan said:


> Primary and/or main means just that: primary or main.  Kukki taekwondo is the primary taekwondo due to lineage international presence, and size.  _When people think of taekwondo, they *primarily* think of what is Kukki taekwondo._  Which is what makes it primary.  Being the largest single organization with IOC recognition and backing of the nation from which the art originates makes it main.



I will also contest the italicized thought.  I don't think that's true.  People think of kicking when they hear taekwondo.  They do not automatically jump into imagery of the Olympics (most probably have no idea TKD can be an Olympic sport) not do they think of the Kukkiwon (most people say 'who'? just like they would if asked about the ITF or any other alphabet org).




Daniel Sullivan said:


> Main doesn't mean better.  Plenty of people avoid mainstream and go for alternative or niche.



Splinter, alternative, niche can all have negative thoughts attached to them.  Saying something is mainstream or primary has much more of a, forgive me, 'main street' connotation to it, and by extension undercutting the groups not mainstream nor primary.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 28, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> So, merely being the largest aggregate of kwans makes the KKW the most legitimate? I do not believe that. The extension of that argument means you must likewise assert that a Chung Do Kwan luminary like Jhoon Rhee who has never been part of the KKW has LESS legitimate heritage than a newly minted KKW chodan.


No. Legitimacy only applies if we're trying to pick a winner in the contest of true. Outside of that, I consider them equally valid. 

And outside of academic discussion, the only winner is the school with the best instruction, regardless of organization or yu.



dancingalone said:


> I also don't believe this personally. The Kukkiwon has been an evolving institution with conceivably even more change on the back end (Olympics, TaeGeuk poomsae, etc.). Even if the same pool of people leading the KKW now were also active during the kwan era, it does not follow that the two are the same. Far from it actually in my opinion.


Saying that they are the primary group does not imply a lack of evolution. Kendo evolved considerably between being called gekkiken and modern kendo.



dancingalone said:


> I will also contest the italicized thought. I don't think that's true. People think of kicking when they hear taekwondo. They do not automatically jump into imagery of the Olympics (most probably have no idea TKD can be an Olympic sport) not do they think of the Kukkiwon (most people say 'who'? just like they would if asked about the ITF or any other alphabet org).


No, but they do jump to what they see the most of or most frequently. The Kukkiwon/WTF presents a much more unified front on a much broader level than any of the other organizations. To be fair, you are correct on people not knowing 'who' the Kukkiwon is. Most just it the WTF.



dancingalone said:


> Splinter, alternative, niche can all have negative thoughts attached to them. Saying something is mainstream or primary has much more of a, forgive me, 'main street' connotation to it, and by extension undercutting the groups not mainstream nor primary.


I see what you're saying, but mainstream also has negative connotations. Mainstream=homogeneous=watered down. Probably depends on perspective. I don't view main street or mainstream as necesarilly good (or bad). In general, though I do tend to favor the niche, alternative, or micro, or independent, so when I hear main or mainstream, or primary, it has no meaning of superiority, nor does it undercut others simply by being called that. But again, that is a perception difference between us.

One thing that I have noticed is that in many TKD discussions, people are more likely to rail _against_ primary or mainstream, or at least go out of their way to separate themselves from it.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 28, 2011)

Daniel, we're starting to get a little circular so I will end it here with a reassertion of my beliefs.  

There IS NO taekwondo that is more legitimate or truer than another.  The student practicing wheelchair TKD with no kicks accompanied by music is in the same boat as someone practicing the most orthodox of Chang Hon or Kukki TKD.  While what we each do might not be to each other's taste, nonetheless it should be left at the idea of personal preference rather than promoting the idea of a TKD holy path to any degree.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 28, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> Daniel, we're starting to get a little circular so I will end it here with a reassertion of my beliefs.
> 
> There IS NO taekwondo that is more legitimate or truer than another. The student practicing wheelchair TKD with no kicks accompanied by music is in the same boat as someone practicing the most orthodox of Chang Hon or Kukki TKD. While what we each do might not be to each other's taste, nonetheless it should be left at the idea of personal preference rather than promoting the idea of a TKD holy path to any degree.


Though I'm still not sure that I'm making myself understood (an issue at my end most likely), I'll agree with that. 

I'm still disappointed that you didn't like my rock and roll analogy though.

Daniel


----------



## puunui (Jan 28, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> So, merely being the largest aggregate of kwans makes the KKW the most legitimate?  I do not believe that.



Actually the Kukkiwon was created and unification was achieved with ALL kwans, not the largest aggregate. 




dancingalone said:


> The extension of that argument means you must likewise assert that a Chung Do Kwan luminary like Jhoon Rhee who has never been part of the KKW has LESS legitimate heritage than a newly minted KKW chodan.



GM Rhee is an interesting gentleman. He could have taken a huge role in the unification efforts especially in the USA but instead chose to go his own way. I know several of the seniors have expressed disappointment with him in that regard. 




dancingalone said:


> I also don't believe this personally.  The Kukkiwon has been an evolving institution with conceivably even more change on the back end (Olympics, TaeGeuk poomsae, etc.).  Even if the same pool of people leading the KKW now were also active during the kwan era, it does not follow that the two are the same.  Far from it actually in my opinion.



The Kukkiwon is "evolving", especially under the current President. But before that, not so much. Olympics are WTF, not Kukkiwon, and the Taeguek poomsae was in motion before the Kukkiwon was built. The Taeguek poomsae, all the new poomsae are actually a product of the KTA's efforts, not Kukkiwon, although we now refer to them as Kukkiwon poomsae. 





dancingalone said:


> I will also contest the italicized thought.  I don't think that's true.  People think of kicking when they hear taekwondo.  They do not automatically jump into imagery of the Olympics (most probably have no idea TKD can be an Olympic sport) not do they think of the Kukkiwon (most people say 'who'? just like they would if asked about the ITF or any other alphabet org).



I think things are changing in these regards. I think more and more people associate Taekwondo with the Olympics, just like Judo is associated with the Olympics. I also think more and more Taekwondoin are becoming aware of the Kukkiwon. I do know that there are many out there that intensely hunger for Kukkiwon certification and will do almost anything to get it. I agree that the average person who is not involved in Taekwondo has a very high probability that they will not know what the Kukkiwon is.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 28, 2011)

puunui said:


> Actually the Kukkiwon was created and unification was achieved with ALL kwans, not the largest aggregate.
> 
> GM Rhee is an interesting gentleman. He could have taken a huge role in  the unification efforts especially in the USA but instead chose to go  his own way. I know several of the seniors have expressed disappointment  with him in that regard.



Yes, but does this change the basic argument about legitimacy?  I have a feeling you personally would say yes.  I would say no.  More kwans do not equate to more legitimacy.  Either you are legitimate or not in my book.    

And I've said this before... I don't think Mr. Rhee is losing any sleep over any disappointment he might have caused others by not affiliating with another organization - and neither are his students, likely.  What people care about is their daily training and practice, instead of some overarching Korean idea of TKD unity.



puunui said:


> The Kukkiwon is "evolving", especially under the current President. But before that, not so much. Olympics are WTF, not Kukkiwon, and the Taeguek poomsae was in motion before the Kukkiwon was built. The Taeguek poomsae, all the new poomsae are actually a product of the KTA's efforts, not Kukkiwon, although we now refer to them as Kukkiwon poomsae.



That's good to know about the KTA aspect with the Taegeuks.  

About the Olympics and WTF... well, we can't have it both ways.  Either the KKW and the WTF are the same animal under the covers ultimately or the very idea of TKD unity is dead on arrival.



puunui said:


> I think things are changing in these regards. I think more and more people associate Taekwondo with the Olympics, just like Judo is associated with the Olympics. I also think more and more Taekwondoin are becoming aware of the Kukkiwon. I do know that there are many out there that intensely hunger for Kukkiwon certification and will do almost anything to get it. I agree that the average person who is not involved in Taekwondo has a very high probability that they will not know what the Kukkiwon is.



Well I understand a lot of people place a premium on KKW certification.  Nothing wrong with that.  Where I object is when it is presented that KKW taekwondo should be the only acceptable path towards studying, teaching, or promoting taekwondo.


----------



## puunui (Jan 28, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> Yes, but does this change the basic argument about legitimacy?  I have a feeling you personally would say yes.  I would say no.  More kwans do not equate to more legitimacy.  Either you are legitimate or not in my book.



Personally, I don't think of that word "legitimate" when discussing Taekwondo, at least not in the way the discussion has been going. Legitimate comes up more for example if a Karate instructor with no Taekwondo experience or training suddenly started advertising that he taught Taekwondo. That would be a legitimacy issue for me. 




dancingalone said:


> And I've said this before... I don't think Mr. Rhee is losing any sleep over any disappointment he might have caused others by not affiliating with another organization - and neither are his students, likely.  What people care about is their daily training and practice, instead of some overarching Korean idea of TKD unity.



I don't know about his students so much but a part of me would like it if GM Rhee did care about unification, because it is on the minds of many Korean people. The country is divided and many families are separated because of that. I think Taekwondo unified in part because of that underlying Korean cultural desire for unification. The concept of unification has been around since the Three Kingdom period. 




dancingalone said:


> About the Olympics and WTF... well, we can't have it both ways.  Either the KKW and the WTF are the same animal under the covers ultimately or the very idea of TKD unity is dead on arrival.



The WTF and Kukkiwon are part of the same unified whole, but they serve completely different functions. 




dancingalone said:


> Well I understand a lot of people place a premium on KKW certification.  Nothing wrong with that.  Where I object is when it is presented that KKW taekwondo should be the only acceptable path towards studying, teaching, or promoting taekwondo.



Should and only are words that are too black and white for me, at least within this context, and doesn't foster that spirit of cooperation that is necessary in any unification effort. I generally don't present my case for the Kukkiwon in those kinds of terms. I do encourage everyone to unify and obtain Kukkiwon certification and hopefully learn the Kukkiwon curriculum, because that is the pioneer's vision, but they have to want to and cannot be forced with such terms as should and only. There is plenty of room for individuality within Kukkiwon family; it is not a rigid system, although some are attempting to make it so, as we speak.


----------

