# How did Taekwon-Do (1955) predating 1966 look like?



## Laplace_demon

The different schools of Kwans instructed by korean Karate masters all went under the umbrella term Taekwondo in 1955 onwards. Tang Soo Do remained independent for political reasons.

My question is as follows: Was there a difference entering a taekwondo school pre ITF, outside of patterns and sparring for competition? Were there still an emphasis on kicking over striking? They still wore the Karate Gi in Taekwondo back then, and used shotokan patterns from what I understand

Were there any new  fundamental techniques introduced in General Chois ITF, (outside of self defence techniques derived from Judo/jujitsu?)

I have trained several martial arts including ITF-TKD and Shotokan Karate, and only found the jumping backkicks and tornados to be missing from Shotokan. Basically it's the same art, technique wise.

Mae geri (front Kick)

Mawashi Geri (roundhouse) Knife hand strike (Shuto ).

Uke - (blocks),

Tsuki (closed fist strike). Everything from Shotokan. The "non sport" sparring/kumite is identical to Shotokan, as you you can see from 5:00 here: 




The exact same for my  three step sparring gradings in ITF.


----------



## Transk53

Nice first post. Welcome along.


----------



## Dirty Dog

First off, may I suggest that you consider heading over to the Meet & Greet forum and introducing yourself?



Laplace_demon said:


> The different schools of Kwans instructed by korean Karate masters all went under the umbrella term Taekwondo in 1955 onwards. Tang Soo Do remained independent for political reasons.


 
Well... not quite. Not all of the Kwans ("schools of kwans" is incorrect, since it means "schools of schools") joined the unification movement. And the Moo Duk Kwan didn't 'remain independent', it joined the unification effort and then split off (with a minority of the Kwans senior students).



Laplace_demon said:


> My question is as follows: Was there a difference entering a taekwondo school pre ITF, outside of patterns and sparring for competition? Were there still an emphasis on kicking over striking? They still wore the Karate Gi in Taekwondo back then, and used shotokan patterns from what I understand


 
You are mistaken in your belief that all the Kwans derived from Shotokan. They did not. The curriculum at each Kwan was different. One of the first challenges for the unification movement was developing a curriculum that would be accepted and taught by all the Kwans.



Laplace_demon said:


> Were there any new  fundamental techniques introduced in General Chois ITF, (outside of self defence techniques derived from Judo/jujitsu?)
> 
> I do not believe that there is any tradition of ITF techniques being derived from judo or jujutsu (note spelling). There are some hasinsool techniques thought to have been incorporated from hapkido, though.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Dirty Dog said:


> First off, may I suggest that you consider heading over to the Meet & Greet forum and introducing yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> Well... not quite. Not all of the Kwans ("schools of kwans" is incorrect, since it means "schools of schools") joined the unification movement. And the Moo Duk Kwan didn't 'remain independent', it joined the unification effort and then split off (with a minority of the Kwans senior students).
> 
> 
> 
> You are mistaken in your belief that all the Kwans derived from Shotokan. They did not. The curriculum at each Kwan was different. One of the first challenges for the unification movement was developing a curriculum that would be accepted and taught by all the Kwans.


¨
Ok. But Shotokan influences are what remains of the umbrella term Taekwondo. No chinese kung fu techniques what so ever in ITF. Even if some of the kwans incorporated such arts, it was completely extinct by 1966.  It is reported many, if not most of the kwans were shotokan masters, but not all.

This thread is about before 1966, though. I am curious why it took General Choi ten years to establish ITF, and their own patterns? What did he do in between?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Here are the 9 kwans joining the unification of Taekwondo : Nine Kwans - Taekwondo Wiki

Taekyon is, according to all reports, nowhere is to be seen in Taekwondo, nor is kung fu.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Laplace_demon said:


> ¨
> Ok. But Shotokan influences are what remains of the umbrella term Taekwondo. No chinese kung fu techniques what so ever in ITF. Even if some of the kwans incorporated such arts, it was completely extinct by 1966.  It is reported many, if not most of the kwans were shotokan masters, but not all.


 
The ITF is not an umbrella term. Taekwondo is an umbrella term that includes the ITF(s), as well as lots of other groups.
You specifically mentioned the Moo Duk Kwan in your OP. GM Hwang Kee specifically included the training he received in China as amoung the influences of the teaching of the Moo Duk Kwan. 



Laplace_demon said:


> ¨
> This thread is about before 1966, though. I am curious why it took General Choi ten years to establish ITF, and their own patterns? What did he do in between?


 
Well, to begin with, he was originally part of the unification movement, so there's no good reason to think he was developing seperate forms during that time period. After he split off and formed the ITF (and started developing his own forms), you sort of have to expect it to take some time to develop his own forms. It's not the sort of think that's going to spring, wholly formed, from ones forehead...


----------



## Laplace_demon

Dirty Dog said:


> The ITF is not an umbrella term. Taekwondo is an umbrella term that includes the ITF(s), as well as lots of other groups.
> You specifically mentioned the Moo Duk Kwan in your OP. GM Hwang Kee specifically included the training he received in China as amoung the influences of the teaching of the Moo Duk Kwan.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, to begin with, he was originally part of the unification movement, so there's no good reason to think he was developing seperate forms during that time period. After he split off and formed the ITF (and started developing his own forms), you sort of have to expect it to take some time to develop his own forms. It's not the sort of think that's going to spring, wholly formed, from ones forehead...



Tell me then, why no chinese movements are there and all techniques seen are from Shotokan.  What a coincidence! I know chinese influences are seen in Tang Soo Do schools predating Taekwondo, but I am only interested in 1955 under the name Taekwondo.



Dirty Dog said:


> Well, to begin with, he was originally part of the unification movement, so there's no good reason to think he was developing seperate forms during that time period. After he split off and formed the ITF (and started developing his own forms), you sort of have to expect it to take some time to develop his own forms. It's not the sort of think that's going to spring, wholly formed, from ones forehead...



Patterns are quite elementary, especially the beginner and intermediate ones. Not very advanced. Do you expect it to take 11 years to produce? I find that strange.

Do you happen to know if the style of Taekwondo changed with ITF, as opposed to before? I am interested for historic reasons, given that their karate gi changed.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Laplace_demon said:


> Tell me then, why no chinese movements are there and all techniques seen are from Shotokan.  What a coincidence! I know chinese influences are seen in Tang Soo Do schools predating Taekwondo, but I am only interested in 1955 under the name Taekwondo.


 
How is that you've determined that there were "no chinese movements" in the curriculum of all the Kwans of that time? How do you define a movement as "chinese" in the first place? Especially given that you (nor I) KNOW what the varied curriculums of the various Kwans were in 1955. You certainly can't make that determination by looking at the more modern forms taught today...



Laplace_demon said:


> Patterns are quite elementary, especially the beginner and intermediate ones. Not very advanced. Do you expect it to take 11 years to produce? I find that strange.


 
I don't think they're as "elementary" as you seem to. I think there's a lot more in forms than many people realise.
Was 11 years too long? I don't know. I suspect that the General had other things to do from day to day (like, say, being an Ambassador) that might possibly have kept him from devoting all his time to developing poomsae.



Laplace_demon said:


> Do you happen to know if the style of Taekwondo changed with ITF, as opposed to before? I am interested for historic reasons, given that their karate gi changed.


 
I don't think I understand the question, honestly. But it's clear that the various forms of TKD changed before the ITF, during the ITF, after the ITF, and continue to change today.

There are, incidentially, more than one style of dobak worn by various TKD systems.


----------



## andyjeffries

Laplace_demon said:


> Ok. But Shotokan influences are what remains of the umbrella term Taekwondo. No chinese kung fu techniques what so ever in ITF. Even if some of the kwans incorporated such arts, it was completely extinct by 1966.



I would completely disagree with you.  I'm from Changmookwan lineage and the founder of our school Grandmaster Yoon Byung-In learnt Kung-fu first and indeed spent his years learning Karate doing an exchange of skills with his Karate teacher Toyama Sensei; teaching Kung-fu and learning Karate.

The Chinese influences I would say are definitely prominent in the Kukkiwon Yudanja poomsae Cheonkwon (천권). If you watch this pattern (which is believed to have been developed as a nod to Changmookwan) you will see a lot more flowing movements than are normal in Taekwondo (and even less normal than Shotokan).

GM Yoon didn't even learn Shotokan, he learnt just "Karate" at the "Shudokan" dojo (Toyama Sensei always claimed that his form was not a style of Karate, it was just Karate.  Toyama Sensei was believed to be senior to Funakoshi Sensei who did do his thing and went on to found Shotokan).

I personally have always found ITF Taekwon-do's execution to be much closer to Karate-style than Kukkiwon Taekwondo is.  It feels to me like ITF is stuck in the 60s/70s in its execution/style whereas Kukkiwon Taekwondo has moved on since then. I would definitely also say that I agree with Dirty Dog that ITF isn't a good example of "umbrella Taekwondo", it's one very distinct style and as I state, one that doesn't seem to have moved on as much anyway.


----------



## Dirty Dog

andyjeffries said:


> The Chinese influences I would say are definitely prominent in the Kukkiwon Yudanja poomsae Cheonkwon (천권). If you watch this pattern (which is believed to have been developed as a nod to Changmookwan) you will see a lot more flowing movements than are normal in Taekwondo (and even less normal than Shotokan).


 
Another good example would be Plagwae 5. Tons of open hand techniques, very circular, very flowing. One of the definitions of the Gwae for Palgwae 5 is "Wind" and the student is encouraged to focus on flowing like wind.

Of course, both of these forms were developed after the unification of the Kwans. But those Chinese influences didn't just magically appear when the Palgwae forms were introduced (1967) or when the yudanja forms were introduced (I'd have to look that one up...).


----------



## RTKDCMB

It looked a bit like this:






And this:


----------



## Tez3

I did like that second video, I don't have sound so don't know if there was a commentary? Such a simple way to demonstrate, no frills or fancy bits. Gives a real sense of the style. Have things changed much or even at all?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Tez3 said:


> I did like that second video, I don't have sound so don't know if there was a commentary? Such a simple way to demonstrate, no frills or fancy bits. Gives a real sense of the style. Have things changed much or even at all?


There was commentary in the second video.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Laplace_demon said:


> ¨
> It is reported many, if not most of the kwans were shotokan masters, but not all.



Welcome to the board.  As pointed out by others, this is incorrect.  First, none were Shotokan masters.  You'll find that with one exception, none of the founders of the various Kwans held high Dan rank...if they had any Dan rank at all.  This isn't to say they were inexperienced, but generally they either had very low Dan ranking or none at all.  The one exception of which I'm aware was between 5th and 7th Dan in Shudokan.

Secondly, the founders of the various Kwans had a varied background.  Some were Shotokan, others Shudokan, Shito Ryu etc.  And a few had extensive Judo experience as well.

Thirdly, tracing it back we can see that most of the roads lead to Anko Itosu Sensei who taught Shuri Te which was the forerunner of Shotokan.  And Chinese influence was merged with Okinawan Te in and prior to that era.  So Shotokan of course has Chinese influence.  Different names and such, but it is there.



> My question is as follows: Was there a difference entering a taekwondo school pre ITF, outside of patterns and sparring for competition? Were there still an emphasis on kicking over striking? They still wore the Karate Gi in Taekwondo back then, and used shotokan patterns from what I understand



Of interesting note, some of this era also wore the diamond pattern top that is often associated with Hapkido.  Han Mu Kwan is an example.  The emphasis and kata differed from Kwan to Kwan.  Both similarities and differences existed.  One of the reasons for unification.  Even the names of the arts prior to unification differed.  Everything from Kong Soo Do to Kwon Bup to Tang Soo Do and so forth.


----------



## Laplace_demon

First of all, the pomsae


andyjeffries said:


> I
> The Chinese influences I would say are definitely prominent in the Kukkiwon Yudanja poomsae Cheonkwon (천권). If you watch this pattern (which is believed to have been developed as a nod to Changmookwan) you will see a lot more flowing movements than are normal in Taekwondo (and even less normal than Shotokan).
> .



WTF taekwondo and their pomsae, has nothing to do with Taekwondo before General Chois exile. WTF bares little resemblence to ITF, and encompasses different kicks and skill sets from ITF(precedors and off-shoot practioners of Taekwon-DO. It is not the same art.

The second video posted above is surely TKD from 1966---, given their Taekwondo Gis. The first one is indeed from the 50s. We have a winner!


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> I did like that second video, I don't have sound so don't know if there was a commentary? Such a simple way to demonstrate, no frills or fancy bits. Gives a real sense of the style. Have things changed much or even at all?



It is indeed the same as now. But how did 1955-1966 look, (throughly...)

/ITF martial artist.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Laplace_demon said:


> First of all, the pomsae
> 
> 
> WTF taekwondo and their pomsae, has nothing to do with Taekwondo before General Chois exile. WTF bares little resemblence to ITF, and encompasses different kicks and skill sets from ITF(precedors and off-shoot practioners of Taekwon-DO. It is not the same art.


 
Really? They're not the same art?
Wow... how did I earn Dan rankings in both ITF- and KKW-style Taekwondo (WTF is not a style, just FYI, it is a governing body for a sport) without noticing that?


----------



## andyjeffries

Laplace_demon said:


> WTF taekwondo and their pomsae, has nothing to do with Taekwondo before General Chois exile. WTF bares little resemblence to ITF, and encompasses different kicks and skill sets from ITF(precedors and off-shoot practioners of Taekwon-DO. It is not the same art.



I agree, but you've been typing "Taekwondo" not "Taekwon-do" and referring to "umbrella", so I assumed you weren't talking specifically about only ITF Taekwon-do.  You even said in your OP "The different schools of Kwans instructed by korean Karate masters all went under the umbrella term Taekwondo in 1955 onwards", referring to "Kwans" (meaning not just Ohdokwan), "umbrella" and "Taekwondo".

However, if you only want to discuss whether Chinese influences exist in any of the "ITF Taekwon-do" branches, then I'll leave you to have that debate with others as I've never practiced ITF Taekwon-do nor do I ever plan to.


----------



## andyjeffries

Kong Soo Do said:


> As pointed out by others, this is incorrect.  First, none were Shotokan masters.  You'll find that with one exception, none of the founders of the various Kwans held high Dan rank...if they had any Dan rank at all.  This isn't to say they were inexperienced, but generally they either had very low Dan ranking or none at all.  The one exception of which I'm aware was between 5th and 7th Dan in Shudokan.



I don't know if you're referring to GM Yoon of Changmookwan, but my recollecting from reading a lot about my kwan (without noting any references, so take this with a pinch of salt) was that he was 4th Dan in Shudokan.  At that time though 5th Dan was the highest Dan attainable, so a 4th Dan should certainly considered master rank.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Dirty Dog said:


> Really? They're not the same art?
> Wow... how did I earn Dan rankings in both ITF- and KKW-style Taekwondo (WTF is not a style, just FYI, it is a governing body for a sport) without noticing that?



It's by definition a different style, having different patterns, and a different art, not employing shared techniques ( some are, some not).

Tell me the commonalites then, besides both using their feet (in WTFs case rarely punching).

The dobok - not the same.

Turning kick/ roundhouse in WTF, is NOT a Mawashi geri as in ITF and it's precedors.

Stance is different.

Punches are virtually non existent, outside of the pomsae.

Grading is up to 10 dan, while ITF is up to 9

WTF does not recognize an ITF black belt, as a black belt of Taekwondo.

Etc.


----------



## Laplace_demon

andyjeffries said:


> I agree, but you've been typing "Taekwondo" not "Taekwon-do" and referring to "umbrella", so I assumed you weren't talking specifically about only ITF Taekwon-do.  You even said in your OP "The different schools of Kwans instructed by korean Karate masters all went under the umbrella term Taekwondo in 1955 onwards", referring to "Kwans" (meaning not just Ohdokwan), "umbrella" and "Taekwondo".
> .



Yes, but the question is if this unification erased the chinese influences right away, or if it had to wait until 1966s ITF? ITF is closely tied to Tae Kwon Do of the 50s and early 60s. There was no fundamental change in style, from what I understand. My question is if there was any change *at all, *before ITF, outside of General Chois patterns.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Laplace_demon said:


> It's by definition a different style, having different patterns, and a different art, not employing shared techniques ( some are, some not).


 
Make up your mind. First you said they're "not the same art" and now you're saying they're different styles. Different styles and different arts are not synonymous terms.

What they are, is different styles within the same art. Styles with far more shared traits than different.



Laplace_demon said:


> Tell me the commonalites then, besides both using their feet (in WTFs case rarely punching).


 
Again, there is no such thing as WTF-style. Perhaps if you ask a question that's not based on incorrect information and false assumptions, I can give you a better answer.



Laplace_demon said:


> The dobok - not the same.


 
I wear a different dobak than others in our dojang. Does that mean I'm not practicing the same art?
If I wear my black dobak, am I practicing a different art than when I wear my black pants and white-with-black-diamonds dobak, is that another art too?

Damn, I had no idea I knew so many different arts!



Laplace_demon said:


> Turning kick/ roundhouse in WTF, is NOT a Mawashi geri as in ITF and it's precedors.


 
The WTF, not being a style, doesn't define any techniques.
The KKW, on the other hand, does indeed have roudhouse kicks that are done quite precisely the same way as those done in the ITF.



Laplace_demon said:


> Stance is different.


 
If you think any of these systems of taekwondo only teach one stance, then perhaps I can begin to understand why you seem to have such a poor understanding of them.

Stances may have different names in different schools, but I do not believe you can show me any stance taught in the ITF that is not also taught in other systems of TJD.



Laplace_demon said:


> Punches are virtually non existent, outside of the pomsae.


 
Really? That's odd. Our students punch a lot. To the head, even. Perhaps you are confused by the difference between the very limited set of techniques allowed in Olympic competition and the much broader set of techniques taught in both KKW and ITF (and other) schools.



Laplace_demon said:


> Grading is up to 10 dan, while ITF is up to 9


 
As with so much else in your posts, you are confused.
The WTF, being nothing other than a governing body for a sport, does not issue rank, define curriculum, or perform gradings.
The KKW grades up to 9. There have been a (very) few HONORARY (and mostly posthumous) 10th Dans awarded.
The Moo Duk Kwan grades to 9.
I don't know about all the various orgs (there are far too many), but other than Rhee TKD, I can't think of any offhand that grade to 10th Dan. And in Rhee TKD, I think GM Rhee is the only 10th Dan, so it's more an indication of who the founder is than a graded rank.



Laplace_demon said:


> -
> WTF does not recognize an ITF black belt, as a black belt of Taekwondo.
> Etc.


 
No, the WTF did not allow ITF black belts to compete in WTF-sanctioned competitions, though this is no longer true and ITF Dan ranks are now allowed to compete in WTF-sanctioned events.
There has never been any claim that the ITF black belt is not a TKD Dan rank.
Quite the contrary. The KKW has long had a policy of offering crossover rank to dan holders from other systems of TKD. That would seem to indicate an explicit acknowledgment that these other systems ARE, in fact, TKD.


----------



## andyjeffries

Dirty Dog said:


> There has never been any claim that the ITF black belt is not a TKD Dan rank.
> Quite the contrary. The KKW has long had a policy of offering crossover rank to dan holders from other systems of TKD. That would seem to indicate an explicit acknowledgment that these other systems ARE, in fact, TKD.



Indeed, to help prove your point it's Article 2 and Article 18 of the Kukkiwon promotion regulations


----------



## Laplace_demon

Dirty Dog said:


> Make up your mind. First you said they're "not the same art" and now you're saying they're different styles. Different styles and different arts are not synonymous terms.



No. They are BOTH different styles  per definition, and are different arts because of the difference in delivering kicks. Not only the body mechanics, but also stances

WTFers wide array of aerail spinning kicks are not part of an offical ITF Taekwon-DO school. We don't master aerials beyond tornados and flying sidekicks, simply because they are not part of ITF/traditional Taekwondo.



Dirty Dog said:


> Really? That's odd. Our students punch a lot. To the head, even. Perhaps you are confused by the difference between the very limited set of techniques allowed in Olympic competition and the much broader set of techniques taught in both KKW and ITF (and other) schools.



You claimed yourself to be a Dan Rank in Both ITF and WTF. Why am I not surprised then your students are taught punches (to the head?). Irrelevant, being that you are a Dan Rank of both organisations.



Dirty Dog said:


> No, the WTF did not allow ITF black belts to compete in WTF-sanctioned competitions, though this is no longer true and ITF Dan ranks are now allowed to compete in WTF-sanctioned events.
> There has never been any claim that the ITF black belt is not a TKD Dan rank.
> Quite the contrary. The KKW has long had a policy of offering crossover rank to dan holders from other systems of TKD. That would seem to indicate an explicit acknowledgment that these other systems ARE, in fact, TKD.



And why did they not allow ITFers to compete, if it's the same martial art, and they are recognized as black belts of the same art Taekwondo?

They must have changed their minds!


----------



## andyjeffries

Laplace_demon said:


> ...they are not part of ITF/traditional Taekwondo.



I'd be very wary of saying "traditional Taekwondo" to mean ITF. 

a) You spell it the Kukkiwon/WTF way not the ITF way (according to the WTF magazine which specifically talks about how to write it and General Choi's own encyclopaedia which consistently spells it as Taekwon-do always, on how both organisations want it spelt - also see this ITF practitioner's blog post for more information)

b) The kwans that unified to form Kukki-Taekwondo under the KTA group pre-date the founding of the ITF, so therefore surely that organisation (and it's international representatives Kukkiwon and WTF) is the real "Traditional" Taekwondo.



Laplace_demon said:


> And why did they not allow ITFers to compete, if it's the same martial art, and they are recognized as black belts of the same art Taekwondo? They must have changed their minds!



Very simply because a requirement of WTF competition going back many decades is a 1st Dan Kukkiwon certificate.  This certification was open to ITF Taekwon-doin as per the Kukkiwon Rules link I posted above.  Recently there was a "change of mind" when the WTF and ITF signed a Memorandum of Understanding to allow ITF members (for a particular definition of "ITF") to compete in WTF competitions without obtaining Kukkiwon certification.

The reason was simply that before this point the WTF didn't recognise them as black belts of the same art, their rules states only Kukkiwon certification was acceptable.  The Kukkiwon stated they would assimilate anybody, so it was therefore always open that way.  Now it's just more open


----------



## Laplace_demon

Kukkiwon, WTF, call it whatever you want They do posses quite radically different skill sets in kicking from an ITF practitioner or equivalent. And their roundhouse kick is not Mawashi Geri.

ITF is based on the Taekwondo promoted by General Choi in the 50 and 60s. It doesn't get more traditional than that.


----------



## Laplace_demon

For the gentleman claiming WTF is not a style. Can you name me a WTF affiliated-school teaching Tull patterns, as opposed to Pomsae? Instructors WTF graded only (doesn't count if you are a master of both)

Or, an ITF school teaching Pomsae patterns.

Thanks.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Laplace_demon said:


> No. They are BOTH different styles  per definition, and are different arts because of the difference in delivering kicks. Not only the body mechanics, but also stances



You say this, but you have yet to provide an example of a stance that is used in Kukki-TKD or ITF-Taekwon-Do that is not used in the other. Nor any example of a kick that isn't used in both. Nor, well, ANY support for anything you've claimed.
Claiming that Taekwon-Do and Taekwondo are different arts is, frankly, idiotic.



Laplace_demon said:


> WTFers wide array of aerail spinning kicks are not part of an offical ITF Taekwon-DO school. We don't master aerials beyond tornados and flying sidekicks, simply because they are not part of ITF/traditional Taekwondo.



Funny, I did a lot more aerial and acrobatic kicks when I was a youngster in studying Taekwon-Do than I ever have training Taekwondo.



Laplace_demon said:


> You claimed yourself to be a Dan Rank in Both ITF and WTF. Why am I not surprised then your students are taught punches (to the head?). Irrelevant, being that you are a Dan Rank of both organisations.



Neither my Master nor our Kwanjangnim has ever had anything to do with the ITF. Our Kwanjangnim was, originally, a direct student of GM HWANG, Kee of the Moo Duk Kwan but chose to stay with GM LEE, Kang-Ik and the unification movement after GM HWANG split off.

They both teach punching. To the head. And they did so for lots of years before either ever met me.

Oooops...



Laplace_demon said:


> And why did they not allow ITFers to compete, if it's the same martial art, and they are recognized as black belts of the same art Taekwondo?
> They must have changed their minds!



For the same reason the NCAA doesn't allow schools that are not members of the NCAA to play in THEIR events. They certainly don't claim those other schools are playing different sports...



Laplace_demon said:


> Kukkiwon, WTF, call it whatever you want They do posses quite radically different skill sets in kicking from an ITF practitioner or equivalent. And their roundhouse kick is not Mawashi Geri.



Sure, call it whatever you want. There's no reason to be accurate, or correct, or anything crazy like that.



Laplace_demon said:


> ITF is based on the Taekwondo promoted by General Choi in the 50 and 60s. It doesn't get more traditional than that.



Kukki-TKD is based on the taekondo promoted by General Choi *before* the ITF ever existed. I guess that would make it more traditional, after all.



Laplace_demon said:


> For the gentleman claiming WTF is not a style. Can you name me a WTF affiliated-school, teaching Tull patterns, as opposed to Pomsae?



Of course not, because there ARE no WTF-affiliated schools. The WTF is a sanctioning body for a specific sort of competitive event following a specifc set of rules and based on a specific sub-set of taekwondo.



Laplace_demon said:


> Instructors are wtf graded only.



Show me an instructor who claims rank from the WTF, and I'll show you a fraud. The WTF does not issue rank.



Laplace_demon said:


> Or, an ITF school teaching Pomsae patterns.
> 
> Thanks.



You don't actually know what the words Tul, Poomsae or Hyung mean, do you?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Dirty Dog said:


> Neither my Master nor our Kwanjangnim has ever had anything to do with the ITF. Our Kwanjangnim was, originally, a direct student of GM HWANG, Kee of the Moo Duk Kwan but chose to stay with GM LEE, Kang-Ik and the unification movement after GM HWANG split off.



You were the one claiming in the thread, to be ITF Dan rank. If you don't like that description, pick something else.






Dirty Dog said:


> You don't actually know what the words Tul, Poomsae or Hyung mean, do you?



_"In the World Taekwondo Federation (WTF) patterns are usually referred to as Poomse. in International Taekwondo Federation (ITF) they are sometimes called tul"

Taekwondo Patterns

_


----------



## Laplace_demon

Dirty Dog said:


> Kukki-TKD is based on the taekondo promoted by General Choi *before* the ITF ever existed. I guess that would make it more traditional, after all.



Did you not know the ITF was founded in *1966*? he promoted his taekwondo in the 50 and early 60s, before establishing his organisation.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

andyjeffries said:


> I don't know if you're referring to GM Yoon of Changmookwan, but my recollecting from reading a lot about my kwan (without noting any references, so take this with a pinch of salt) was that he was 4th Dan in Shudokan.  At that time though 5th Dan was the highest Dan attainable, so a 4th Dan should certainly considered master rank.



You may be correct.  I've seen 4th, 5th and 7th depending upon the source material.  But yes, certainly he was at 'master' rank regardless of which is correct.


----------



## andyjeffries

Laplace_demon said:


> ITF is based on the Taekwondo promoted by General Choi in the 50 and 60s. It doesn't get more traditional than that.



Yes.  It does.

Chungdokwan - founded 1944
Jidokwan - founded 1946
Songmookwan - founded 1946
Changmookwan - founded 1946
Moodukkwan - founded unknown (after 1946)
Ohdokwan - founded in 1953 by General Choi

ITF Taekwon-doin definitely don't have the monopoly, let alone the best claim on "traditional" ;-)



Laplace_demon said:


> Did you not know the ITF was founded in *1966*? he promoted his taekwondo in the 50 and early 60s, before establishing his organisation.



I know the ITF was founded in 1966, I know the KTA was founded in 1959 and as I posted above, I know the Kwan founding dates before that (including schools founded before General Choi founded his).

I also know that in 1959 the person that signed General Choi's *honorary* 4th Dan Taekwondo certificate publicly revoked it in the national newspaper in Korea (translation from article reposted in A Modern History of Taekwondo by KANG Won Sik and LEE Kyong Myong, Bokyung Moonhwasa, ISBN 89-358-0124-0 - if you understand Korean I'm happy to post a scan of the pages in Korean):

_"NAM Tae Hi asked me to give a dan certificate to 29th Infantry Division commander CHOI Hong Hi, who had some experience in martial art (Sado), so we could use his military authority to spread the Chung Do Kwan. *To contribute to Taekwondo's development, I gave an Honorary 4th Dan certificate signed by myself, SON Duk Sung, to CHOI Hong Hi in front of the 3rd Army commander in 1955.*

In 1957, Choi insisted that I give him a 6th Dan and sent a certificate he prepared in my name for me to sign. Because Choi and I were sworn brothers, and because my younger brother had a 6th Dan, he wanted one also. I tore up the certificate he sent to me without
signing it. 

General Choi was also sending instructors (Sabums) to Vietnam, but he did that on his own authority and chose the number of instructors to send without consulting me. He also lied and stated that he had 24 years experience in martial arts practice (Sa Do Soo Ryun) and spread propaganda about himself. *Therefore, it was unavoidable that I had to cancel his Honorary 4th Dan certificate and Honorary Kwan Jang position.* "_

Funny how General Choi never mentions that the Dan certificate he had in Taekwondo was only an honorary one nor that it was revoked/cancelled...  Anyway, this goes to show there were other people more senior than him in Taekwondo (which even he obviously acknowledged at the time or he wouldn't have asked for higher Dan rank, he'd have just said "as the founder, I am considering myself X Dan from now").

Anyway, I'm happy to acknowledge General Choi's involvement in making Taekwondo as popular as it is today, however he only gets some of the credit, there are a lot of other people who also devoted their lives to developing and popularising our beloved art and I feel that they shouldn't be excluded just because General Choi had the loudest megaphone (and arguably ego).


----------



## andyjeffries

Kong Soo Do said:


> You may be correct. I've seen 4th, 5th and 7th depending upon the source material. But yes, certainly he was at 'master' rank regardless of which is correct.



That's cool, I am just less aware of other kwan's founders than my own kwan so I didn't know if there was more Shudokwan kwanjangs.  Maybe the higher ranks were a conversion to "modern money", as people tend to do when discussing in article (e.g. "that would be worth X in modern money").


----------



## Dirty Dog

Laplace_demon said:


> You were the one claiming in the thread, to be ITF Dan rank. If you don't like that description, pick something else.



(Where's that facepalm emoji???)
I also mentioned that I have Dan rank in Kukki-TKD and teach at a Moo Duk Kwan school. Is that too complicated for you to understand?

So will you be providing an example of a stance that's used in Taekwon-Do that is not also used in Taekwondo? I suspect not. Basically, because you can't.

Here's a picture of an ITF practitioner in a front stance I grabbed off the internet.





And here is a picture of one of our students in a front stance.
 

Identical... other than camera angles.



Laplace_demon said:


> _"In the World Taekwondo Federation (WTF) patterns are usually referred to as Poomse. in International Taekwondo Federation (ITF) they are sometimes called tul"
> 
> Taekwondo Patterns
> _



So, basically, that's a no. You do not know what the words poomsae, tul and hyung mean.
I'll give you a hint... The Korean language has synonyms, just as English does.



Laplace_demon said:


> Did you not know the ITF was founded in *1966*? he promoted his taekwondo in the 50 and early 60s, before establishing his organisation.



Did you not know that prior to forming the ITF, General Choi was a member of the unification movement and the KTA and, in fact, promoted the unified curriculum before establishing his own organization?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Pomsae signifies WTFs pattern, which are *completely* different from ITF patterns. And you will not find an ITF school using pomsae, and by that I mean the kukiwon-ones. That's why your claim that the organisations dont' denote changes of styles, is false. If the organisation had nothing to do with the practice, they could teach the patterns from whatever style they wanted. But WTF have their way, and ITF has their own way. I hope I made my point clearer by now. The stance in WTF patterns are not even remotely similiar to ITF.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Laplace_demon said:


> Pomsae signifies WTFs pattern, which are *completely* different from ITF patterns.



That is *completely* incorrect. Poomsae, hyung and tul are synonyms. The terms may be used interchangeably.



Laplace_demon said:


> And you will not find an ITF school using pomsae,



Yes you will. Every single one uses poomsae, although the convention at ITF schools is to use the term tul instead. A rose by any other name...



Laplace_demon said:


> and by that I mean the kukiwon-ones. That's why your claim that the organisations dont' denote changes of styles, is false.



At this point, you're just being intentionally obtuse. *YOU* have claimed that taekwondo and taekwon-do are not the same ART. I never made any such ridiculous claim. They are different orgs, both of which teach taekwondo.



Laplace_demon said:


> If the organisation had nothing to do with the practice, they could teach the patterns from whatever style they wanted. But WTF have their way, and ITF has their own way.



Instructors can, in fact, teach whatever poomsae/hyung/tul they want. I practice (and teach) Palgwae, Taegeuk and Chang Hon forms. There are literally uncountable numbers of schools that teach forms from more than one flavor of TKD.



Laplace_demon said:


> I hope I made my point clearer by now.



Sorry, but from what I've seen, you don't actually *have* a point. You have a lot of incorrect information and false assumptions, but that's pretty much it.



Laplace_demon said:


> The stance in WTF patterns are not even remotely similiar to ITF.



You keep asserting this, but offer no reason to believe you. I just posted photos of ITF and MDK/KKW students in identical (and correctly done) stances.

At this point it is painfully obvious that you haven't a clue what you're talking about, are unable to provide the slightest bit of support for your claims (your already disproven assertions do no count as support), and are even incapable of remembering which silly claims you've made.

Have a nice life.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Laplace_demon said:


> Everything from Shotokan. The "non sport" sparring/kumite is identical to Shotokan, as you you can see from 5:00 here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The exact same for my  three step sparring gradings in ITF.



It's interesting to note that, from an ITF perspective, the distancing between the two practitioners in their demonstration of 5 step sparring and 3 step sparring is too far. Also, in ITF 3 step sparring all attacks are to the same area whereas in the video you posted they were varied. That would make it very odd if you were doing 3 step sparring like the video for your testings if you were an ITF student (although your instructor could have simply varied things on his own).

The ITF has in its syllabus 3 step, 2 step, and 1 step sparring. I am under the impression that Shotokan has 5 step, 3 step and 1 step sparring.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

Laplace_demon said:


> ¨This thread is about before 1966, though. I am curious why it took General Choi ten years to establish ITF, and their own patterns? What did he do in between?



He had developed his patterns before 1966 (at least 20 of the 24). Besides that he was organizing the first Korea Taekwon-Do Association, organizing some international demonstration tours, and was the South Korean ambassador to Malaysia.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

andyjeffries said:


> I personally have always found ITF Taekwon-do's execution to be much closer to Karate-style than Kukkiwon Taekwondo is.  It feels to me like ITF is stuck in the 60s/70s in its execution/style whereas Kukkiwon Taekwondo has moved on since then.



Whereas when I trained in KKW Taekwondo after training in ITF Taekwon-Do for some years I found the exact opposite sentiment to be true, as does a friend of mine who is ranked as a 5th dan by both the ITF and KKW  

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

andyjeffries said:


> I don't know if you're referring to GM Yoon of Changmookwan, but my recollecting from reading a lot about my kwan (without noting any references, so take this with a pinch of salt) was that he was 4th Dan in Shudokan.  At that time though 5th Dan was the highest Dan attainable, so a 4th Dan should certainly considered master rank.



As far as I can tell GM Yoon was probably the highest formally ranked Kwan founder. Many people will point out that GM Lee, Won Kuk founded the first Kwan (if you ignore GM Rho founding the Song Moo Kwan and then closing it for  period of time) and so say he's senior. But rank wise, I think GM Yoon was higher.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

andyjeffries said:


> I also know that in 1959 the person that signed General Choi's *honorary* 4th Dan Taekwondo certificate publicly revoked it in the national newspaper in Korea (translation from article reposted in A Modern History of Taekwondo by KANG Won Sik and LEE Kyong Myong, Bokyung Moonhwasa, ISBN 89-358-0124-0 - if you understand Korean I'm happy to post a scan of the pages in Korean):



Come on, Andy, if you're going to bring up this story then you have to also point out that GM Son, Duk Sun had already been removed as Kwan Jang of the Chung Do Kwan when he supposedly "revoked" Gen. Choi's 4th dan. He also, in the same newspaper add expelled Nam, Tae Hi; Hyun, Jong Myun; and Uhm, Woon Kyu from the Chung Do Kwan. If you are going to put any weight whatsoever in what GM Son did you're going to have to accept those "expulsions," too. But NO ONE does. And GM Uhm succeeded GM Son as Chung DO Kwan Kwan Jang. How does that work if what GM Son did had any validity? 

_



			General Choi was also sending instructors (Sabums) to Vietnam, but he did that on his own authority and chose the number of instructors to send without consulting me.
		
Click to expand...

_
And Gen. Choi was the head of the Oh Do Kwan so why would he need GM Sons input on sending out his own instructors? Frankly, given the fact that Gen. Choi told GM Son he couldn't come along on the international demonstration tours since the members were all military Taekwon-Doin it seems like a lot of GM Son's reaction to Gen. Choi is based on some hard feelings. YMMV, of course.



> Funny how General Choi never mentions that the Dan certificate he had in Taekwondo was only an honorary one nor that it was revoked/cancelled...  Anyway, this goes to show there were other people more senior than him in Taekwondo (which even he obviously acknowledged at the time or he wouldn't have asked for higher Dan rank, he'd have just said "as the founder, I am considering myself X Dan from now").



Meh, all the Kwan founders ended up promoting themselves to higher rank after returning to Korea. As founders of their individual Kwans they were free to do as they wanted in the rank department, after all. 

As for Gen. Choi getting a dan certificate in Taekwon-Do, this blow up all occurred in 1959. The Chung Do Kwan was teaching Taekwon-Do only because Gen. Choi was the honorary Kwan Jang, at GM Lee, Won Kuk's request, and basically made them use the name. The Oh Do Kwan had been using "Taekwon-Do" for years at that point.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

Dirty Dog said:


> Here's a picture of an ITF practitioner in a front stance I grabbed off the internet.
> View attachment 19061



That's a walking stance in ITF terminology.  Except it's too long to be a walking stance. And that's not an ITF dobok.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Dirty Dog

chrispillertkd said:


> That's a walking stance in ITF terminology.  Except it's too long to be a walking stance. And that's not an ITF dobok.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



Shhhhh... don't help the guy... I was trying to give him a chance to show his in depth knowledge. He didn't, so I'm pretty much done. If he insists on wallowing in ignorance and misinformation, I'm happy to let him.


----------



## Archtkd

Laplace_demon said:


> It's by definition a different style, having different patterns, and a different art, not employing shared techniques ( some are, some not).
> 
> Tell me the commonalites then, besides both using their feet (in WTFs case rarely punching).
> 
> The dobok - not the same.
> 
> Turning kick/ roundhouse in WTF, is NOT a Mawashi geri as in ITF and it's precedors.
> 
> Stance is different.
> 
> Punches are virtually non existent, outside of the pomsae.
> 
> Grading is up to 10 dan, while ITF is up to 9
> 
> WTF does not recognize an ITF black belt, as a black belt of Taekwondo.
> 
> Etc.



This is a dead donkey we are beating, but here we go:

1. The World Taekwondo Federation (WTF) is  an international sports organization, whose member national associations select and recognize whoever they want in their own countries -- even those with no blackbelts -- for international sport taekwondo competition. Essentially only taekwondoin who compete internationally should be concerned with the WTF. Put another way, 99.5 percent of the millions of Kukkiwon taekwondo practioners worldwide will never have any dealings with the WTF.

2. The WTF does not issue dan certification of any kind.

3. Lots of punching exists in Kukkiwon style taekwondo in and outside the WTF style competition arena. A large part of Kukkiwon style taekwondo self defense training is centered on close quarter hand techniques. 

4. The majority of the very few 10 dans issued by the Kukkiwon are awarded to dead folk, who've made major contributions to the art. Others are purely honorary awards.

5. The roundhouse kick in Kukkiwon style taekwondo can be thrown using the ball of the feet or the instep.

6. All the stances in Kukkiwon style taekwondo are found in ITF style taekwondo, albeit with minor differences. Specifically: the back stance, horse riding stance, fighting stance, cat/tiger stance are almost identiical. The biggest difference could be the Kukkiwon style long stance -- which lacks the wide width and sweep in some styles of ITF taekwondo.


----------



## andyjeffries

chrispillertkd said:


> Come on, Andy, if you're going to bring up this story then you have to also point out that GM Son, Duk Sun had already been removed as Kwan Jang of the Chung Do Kwan when he supposedly "revoked" Gen. Choi's 4th dan. He also, in the same newspaper add expelled Nam, Tae Hi; Hyun, Jong Myun; and Uhm, Woon Kyu from the Chung Do Kwan. If you are going to put any weight whatsoever in what GM Son did you're going to have to accept those "expulsions," too. But NO ONE does. And GM Uhm succeeded GM Son as Chung DO Kwan Kwan Jang. How does that work if what GM Son did had any validity?



I accept all that and it's all debatable, particularly from a point of view where we are after the fact.  However, the point I have never heard any argument about (and the reason I quoted it) is that he had an "honorary dan certificate" in Taekwondo.  Why would the founder of a martial art a)have needed an honorary certificate rather than a real/tested on and b)have needed to ask anyone else for rank when surely he's the most senior martial artist in his own martial art?

I'd also wonder whether GM Son had the ability to revoke a dan certificate when he was no longer legally the kwanjangnim.  I am in two minds - on one hand it's a CDK certificate and he was no longer the CDK head, on the other hand he could say "it's my signature on the cert, as far as I'm concerned it should be ripped up, if you want another one, ask the current CDK head for one with his signature".  Both are valid points of view and I'm not sure on any given moment which I agree with.

However, there has been no real debate around the "honorary" and "asking for" points of view.

Remember this was posted in response to Laplace_Demon saying that "ITF is based on the Taekwondo promoted by General Choi in the 50 and 60s. It doesn't get more traditional than that" and also that General Choi was promoting his Taekwondo in the 1950/60s when as discussed above, at that point he was still asking for rank from his seniors.


----------



## Laplace_demon

They all semantically mean pattern, but different styles have *their own* patterns. I made the claim it's a different martial art, but for the sake of the discussion I will go by your opinion that it's the same martial art.


The chang hon forms are patterns from General Choi and ITF. Pomsae  does not refer to the patterns created by General Choi, and no ITF school would ever use them. Only hybrids - that is to say instructors from both organisations will teach it. And yes  I stand by schools being organisation-influenced. The students wear different doboks, spar differently,etc.

These are the patterns MOST WTF schools (dobok, competition, sparring) use:






These are not even remotely similiar to the Chang hon forms and it's no accident ITF-schools refuses to employ them. ITF recognizes General choi as the founder of Taekwondo, WTF does not.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Archtkd said:


> 5. The roundhouse kick in Kukkiwon style taekwondo can be thrown using the ball of the feet or the instep.
> .



I am not talking about the ball of the feet or the instep. My claim is much bigger than that. Modern Taekwondo/kukkiwon, does not employ the roundhouse kick from karate, known as as Mawashi Geri, which however ITF practitioners learn.


----------



## RTKDCMB

andyjeffries said:


> I'd be very wary of saying "traditional Taekwondo" to mean ITF.
> 
> b) The kwans that unified to form Kukki-Taekwondo under the KTA group pre-date the founding of the ITF, so therefore surely that organisation (and it's international representatives Kukkiwon and WTF) is the real "Traditional" Taekwondo.





Laplace_demon said:


> ITF is based on the Taekwondo promoted by General Choi in the 50 and 60s. It doesn't get more traditional than that.



You might both be wrong:

TaeKwon-Do was originally designed as a martial art of self defence. Rhee Tae Kwon Do Australia has two of the original twelve masters who were sent out to officially spread the art across the world. Rhee Tae Kwon Do Australia  is also based on the original Taekwondo promoted by General Choi in the 50 and 60s. Now both ITF and WTF/Kukkiwon have added sporting elements and ITF has added the sinewave whilst Rhee Tae Kwon Do Australia has kept pretty much to the original format. So we could say that it does not get more traditional than that


It all depends on your perspective and what you would define as traditional.


----------



## andyjeffries

RTKDCMB said:


> TaeKwon-Do was originally designed as a martial art of self defence. Rhee Tae Kwon Do Australia has two of the original twelve masters who were sent out to officially spread the art across the world. Rhee Tae Kwon Do Australia is also based on the original Taekwondo promoted by General Choi in the 50 and 60s. Now both ITF and WTF/Kukkiwon have added sporting elements and ITF has added the sinewave whilst Rhee Tae Kwon Do Australia has kept pretty much to the original format. So we could say that it does not get more traditional than that



As you brought it up (and although I generally like debating points, the below is written with a smile on my face and I had fun looking up the facts/details and not in any ill spirit)...

GM C. C. Rhee founded Rhee Taekwondo Australia in approximately 1965 (according to an interview with him, it was "established here for almost 20 years (as at 1985)" *1).  No one has disputed his claim to be the Father of Australian Taekwondo, so we can assume it's fact. Even if not, General Choi sent instructors abroad to Vietnam (as the first place) in December 1962.

On November 11, 1962 the Korea Taesoodo Association (as it was known then) held it's first unified Dan test and as part of the documented rules "3) The size of the competition area is 8 x 8 meters; 4) The length of the competition was one round of three minutes.", therefore in November 1962 there was already a definition for "competition" and sparring rules *2.

That's the earliest reference I can find to "sporting elements" in Taekwondo, I'm sure there were earlier occurrences (the Jidokwan has always been very sparring focused), but I couldn't find a reference to it.  However, it certainly disputes that because RTA hasn't added sporting elements it's more traditional - Taekwondo has had sparring/competition as the very basis of it's tradition.


*1 Master Rhee Interview
*2 (translation of) A Modern History of Taekwondo, by KANG Won Sik and LEE Kyong Myong, published March 1999 by Bokyung Moonhwasa, ISBN 89-358-0124-0.


----------



## RTKDCMB

andyjeffries said:


> As you brought it up (and although I generally like debating points, the below is written with a smile on my face and I had fun looking up the facts/details and not in any ill spirit)...
> 
> GM C. C. Rhee founded Rhee Taekwondo Australia in approximately 1965 (according to an interview with him, it was "established here for almost 20 years (as at 1985)" *1).  No one has disputed his claim to be the Father of Australian Taekwondo, so we can assume it's fact. Even if not, General Choi sent instructors abroad to Vietnam (as the first place) in December 1962.
> 
> On November 11, 1962 the Korea Taesoodo Association (as it was known then) held it's first unified Dan test and as part of the documented rules "3) The size of the competition area is 8 x 8 meters; 4) The length of the competition was one round of three minutes.", therefore in November 1962 there was already a definition for "competition" and sparring rules *2.
> 
> That's the earliest reference I can find to "sporting elements" in Taekwondo, I'm sure there were earlier occurrences (the Jidokwan has always been very sparring focused), but I couldn't find a reference to it.  However, it certainly disputes that because RTA hasn't added sporting elements it's more traditional - Taekwondo has had sparring/competition as the very basis of it's tradition.
> 
> 
> *1 Master Rhee Interview
> *2 (translation of) A Modern History of Taekwondo, by KANG Won Sik and LEE Kyong Myong, published March 1999 by Bokyung Moonhwasa, ISBN 89-358-0124-0.




Here's some info on our other Rhee (not part of original 12):

http://www.rheetaekwondosydney.biz/index.php?p=1_5


----------



## chrispillertkd

Archtkd said:


> This is a dead donkey we are beating, but here we go:
> 
> 1. The World Taekwondo Federation (WTF) is  an international sports organization, whose member national associations select and recognize whoever they want in their own countries -- even those with no blackbelts -- for international sport taekwondo competition. Essentially only taekwondoin who compete internationally should be concerned with the WTF. Put another way, 99.5 percent of the millions of Kukkiwon taekwondo practioners worldwide will never have any dealings with the WTF.
> 
> 2. The WTF does not issue dan certification of any kind.
> 
> 3. Lots of punching exists in Kukkiwon style taekwondo in and outside the WTF style competition arena. A large part of Kukkiwon style taekwondo self defense training is centered on close quarter hand techniques.
> 
> 4. The majority of the very few 10 dans issued by the Kukkiwon are awarded to dead folk, who've made major contributions to the art. Others are purely honorary awards.
> 
> 5. The roundhouse kick in Kukkiwon style taekwondo can be thrown using the ball of the feet or the instep.



All of this is true and bears repeating from time to time, given the nature of internet bulletin boards (i.e. turn over of old members and the addition of new members).

But if you're going to be a stickler for correct terminology about the WTF and KKW you should probably not have written this:



> 6. All the stances in Kukkiwon style taekwondo are found in *ITF style taekwondo*, albeit with minor differences. Specifically: the back stance, horse riding stance, fighting stance, cat/tiger stance are almost identiical. The biggest difference could be the Kukkiwon style long stance -- which lacks the wide width and sweep in *some styles of ITF taekwondo*.



I've used "ITF Taekwon-Do" as a moniker before but, strictly speaking, it would be more accurate to call it Chang Hun Taekwon-Do. Like people referring to "WTF Taekwondo" when they mean KKW TKD people often use "ITF Taekwon-Do" when they mean Chang Hun Taekwon-Do. But what would definitely be incorrect, however, would be to refer to "some styleS of ITF Taekwon-Do" (you might be OK with referring to multiple styles of WTF/KKW TKD but that's a different matter). The whole point of the ITF was to standardize people's practice to be in line with what Gen. Choi wanted for his style. And he was very successful with the people who are actual members of the ITF.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

andyjeffries said:


> I accept all that and it's all debatable, particularly from a point of view where we are after the fact.  However, the point I have never heard any argument about (and the reason I quoted it) is that he had an "honorary dan certificate" in Taekwondo.  Why would the founder of a martial art a)have needed an honorary certificate rather than a real/tested on and b)have needed to ask anyone else for rank when surely he's the most senior martial artist in his own martial art?



Because he was the _honorary_ head of the Kwan in question. If you're head of the Oh Do Kwan you can give yourself whatever Oh Do Kwan rank you want. If you're honorary head of the Chung Do Kwan it wouldn't be unheard of to actually have an honorary rank from that Kwan, IMNSHO. I honestly never got why this subject was such a puzzler for some people (OK, actually, I have a suspicion of why it is, but still it's not like this is rocket surgery or anything). 



> I'd also wonder whether GM Son had the ability to revoke a dan certificate when he was no longer legally the kwanjangnim.  I am in two minds - on one hand it's a CDK certificate and he was no longer the CDK head, on the other hand he could say "it's my signature on the cert, as far as I'm concerned it should be ripped up, if you want another one, ask the current CDK head for one with his signature".  Both are valid points of view and I'm not sure on any given moment which I agree with.



GM Son could do whatever he wanted. His expulsion of Nam, Tae Hi; Um, Woon Kyu; and Hyun Jong Myung certainly demonstrate that. People's reaction to his actions also tell us how much weight they carried, viz. none. Honestly, the reaction to GM Son's add seems to be, "Well, that's interesting." I see no reason to have a different one, myself.



> However, there has been no real debate around the "honorary" and "asking for" points of view.



Maybe, but if Gen. Choi asked for a 6th dan and already had an honorary 4th dan there's reason to think he wouldn't have received another honorary rank, especially since he was already claiming a 6th dan for himself in the adds for the international demonstration team he was leading with the members of the Oh Do Kwan (the one on which he denied GM Son a place).



> Remember this was posted in response to Laplace_Demon saying that "ITF is based on the Taekwondo promoted by General Choi in the 50 and 60s. It doesn't get more traditional than that" and also that General Choi was promoting his Taekwondo in the 1950/60s when as discussed above, at that point he was still asking for rank from his seniors.



Sure, but that doesn't mean we should omit some of the facts. If you're going to bring up GM Son's actions towards Gen Choi as having some sort of weight we should examine them in the context of other things he did. They were as relevant or irrelevant as the rest of what he tried to do when he was no longer Kwan Jang.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Archtkd

chrispillertkd said:


> All of this is true and bears repeating from time to time, given the nature of internet bulletin boards (i.e. turn over of old members and the addition of new members).
> 
> But if you're going to be a stickler for correct terminology about the WTF and KKW you should probably not have written this:
> 
> 
> 
> I've used "ITF Taekwon-Do" as a moniker before but, strictly speaking, it would be more accurate to call it Chang Hun Taekwon-Do. Like people referring to "WTF Taekwondo" when they mean KKW TKD people often use "ITF Taekwon-Do" when they mean Chang Hun Taekwon-Do. But what would definitely be incorrect, however, would be to refer to "some styleS of ITF Taekwon-Do" (you might be OK with referring to multiple styles of WTF/KKW TKD but that's a different matter). The whole point of the ITF was to standardize people's practice to be in line with what Gen. Choi wanted for his style. And he was very successful with the people who are actual members of the ITF.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris




Chris: Thanks a lot for pointing that out. I've always wondered about the correct way of classifying Chang Hun Taekwon-Do systems in general.


----------



## Dirty Dog

chrispillertkd said:


> I've used "ITF Taekwon-Do" as a moniker before but, strictly speaking, it would be more accurate to call it Chang Hun Taekwon-Do. Like people referring to "WTF Taekwondo" when they mean KKW TKD people often use "ITF Taekwon-Do" when they mean Chang Hun Taekwon-Do. But what would definitely be incorrect, however, would be to refer to "some styleS of ITF Taekwon-Do" (you might be OK with referring to multiple styles of WTF/KKW TKD but that's a different matter). The whole point of the ITF was to standardize people's practice to be in line with what Gen. Choi wanted for his style. And he was very successful with the people who are actual members of the ITF.



I don't really disagree, and this probably falls into the category of splitting fairly small hairs, but given that there are currently at least three different ITFs, it's not entirely inaccurate to refer to "styleS" of ITF", especially as this would inherently include all those who still consider themselves ITF (of whichever flavor) while excluding those who use the Chang Hon poomsae but do not consider themselves to be ITF practitioners.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't really disagree, and this probably falls into the category of splitting fairly small hairs, but given that there are currently at least three different ITFs, it's not entirely inaccurate to refer to "styleS" of ITF", especially as this would inherently include all those who still consider themselves ITF (of whichever flavor) while excluding those who use the Chang Hon poomsae but do not consider themselves to be ITF practitioners.



It is innacurate to claim there are three styles of ITF, given that their techniqual arsenal and practice are as similiar/dissimilar, as between schools of the same martial art. That is to say very little. But of course, you also claim WTF schools don't own a monopoly on KKW style TKD. And argues the reason for this is that some instructors, certified in both styles Chang Hun and KK TKD, teach both in their school.

 It goes without saying that they would offer both flavors of TKD, but this completely escapes you.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't really disagree, and this probably falls into the category of splitting fairly small hairs, but given that there are currently at least three different ITFs, it's not entirely inaccurate to refer to "styleS" of ITF", especially as this would inherently include all those who still consider themselves ITF (of whichever flavor) while excluding those who use the Chang Hon poomsae but do not consider themselves to be ITF practitioners.



Well, a "style" generally refers to a branch of a specific martial art system (for example, the various branches of Shorin Ryu) or it can refer to a specific martial art itself ("Judo" as a style of martial art). IMNSHO, neither of these would apply to what the various ITF groups teach. For it to qualify under the first aspect you'd have to see some major differences in the way techniques are performed between the groups and for it to qualify under the second there would have to be one or more differences that were so obvious you were no longer talking about Gen. Choi's Taekwon-Do.

Also, weren't you the one giving another poster a hard time about the differences between tul, hyung, and poomsae? And then you refer to ITF poomsae. Come on! LOL

If you have specific examples of changes made by one or more of the ITF groups I'd be interested in hearing about them, however. I know of a couple made by two of the three groups but they are so minor that most people wouldn't even recognize.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Dirty Dog

chrispillertkd said:


> Well, a "style" generally refers to a branch of a specific martial art system (for example, the various branches of Shorin Ryu) or it can refer to a specific martial art itself ("Judo" as a style of martial art). IMNSHO, neither of these would apply to what the various ITF groups teach. For it to qualify under the first aspect you'd have to see some major differences in the way techniques are performed between the groups and for it to qualify under the second there would have to be one or more differences that were so obvious you were no longer talking about Gen. Choi's Taekwon-Do.



How big a difference? You don't think there are differences between how the various ITF-groups do things, or just that these differences are not sufficient to make them a different style? How about groups like the GTF? AIMAA? They're Chang Hon systems, but do not consider themselves ITF. Personally, I'm happy to consider each org as a separate style. I'd say if they didn't consider themselves a different style, they wouldn't be part of a different org.



chrispillertkd said:


> Also, weren't you the one giving another poster a hard time about the differences between tul, hyung, and poomsae? And then you refer to ITF poomsae. Come on! LOL



That's the point. My understanding of the terms(and flat out asking GM Kim, since he's both Korean born and was a direct student of the founder) indicates that it really doesn't matter which term you use. The *convention* in the ITF is to use tul, just as it is most common in KKW schools to use poomsae. Not following the convention doesn't make the other terms incorrect, though.
Feel free to refer to Palgwae or Taegeuk Tul, if you like. 



chrispillertkd said:


> If you have specific examples of changes made by one or more of the ITF groups I'd be interested in hearing about them, however. I know of a couple made by two of the three groups but they are so minor that most people wouldn't even recognize.



That's my point. Unless you're an expert in the tiny details of the curriculum in each and every one of these groups, you won't really know how different they are. So for simplicity, each org is their own style, so far as I am concerned.

Realistically, do you think that a non-taekwondoin could watch one of your students and one of mine spar and be able to tell which org they trained with? Do you think most taekwondoin could tell?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Dirty Dog said:


> How big a difference? You don't think there are differences between how the various ITF-groups do things, or just that these differences are not sufficient to make them a different style? How about groups like the GTF? AIMAA? They're Chang Hon systems, but do not consider themselves ITF.



That would make sense, given that they are not ITF affiliated. It doesn't affect styles by creating off-shoots. It could still label ITF-style, for clarity.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Dirty Dog said:


> How big a difference? You don't think there are differences between how the various ITF-groups do things, or just that these differences are not sufficient to make them a different style?



The differences I have noticed are so small as to be hardly noticeable to an ITF practitioner. They are minor but there. They are also not numerous. IMNSHO, there are less differences between the three ITF groups than there are between the majority of KKW Taekwondoin I've seen. 



> How about groups like the GTF? AIMAA? They're Chang Hon systems, but do not consider themselves ITF. Personally, I'm happy to consider each org as a separate style. I'd say if they didn't consider themselves a different style, they wouldn't be part of a different org.



I honestly don't know if the GTF considers itself as teaching Chang Hun Taekwon-Do or not. GM Park, Jung Tae was purposefully developing new patterns when he died and the body mechanics for some techniques in the GTF are somewhat different. I'd leave it to them to say whether they are Chang Hun or not.

As for the AIMAA I've only seen them on video and have no opinion as to whether or not what they do would be considered Chang Hun Taekwon-Do. I know some people who say that anyone who does Gen. Choi's patterns is a Chang Hun stylist. That might work for some but I tend to equate it with more than just the pattern set. Some karate styles use the same kata but the body mechanic are so different that they are different ryu. That's closer to my opinion on the subject.



> That's the point. My understanding of the terms(and flat out asking GM Kim, since he's both Korean born and was a direct student of the founder) indicates that it really doesn't matter which term you use. The *convention* in the ITF is to use tul, just as it is most common in KKW schools to use poomsae. Not following the convention doesn't make the other terms incorrect, though.
> Feel free to refer to Palgwae or Taegeuk Tul, if you like.



I'm not sure why you were asking the other poster about what terms to use then. Personally, I'd not refer to any pattern set developed by the KKW as "tul" because the term is specifically used to refer to patterns developed by Gen. Choi.



> That's my point. Unless you're an expert in the tiny details of the curriculum in each and every one of these groups, you won't really know how different they are. So for simplicity, each org is their own style, so far as I am concerned.



But in the specific case that you raised (the three competing ITF groups) the differences are so small that there really is very little difference. Claiming that each ITF therefore really teaches a different style simply isn't true. Which is why equating a style with each individual organization is problematic in this case. There were some differences in how certain Grand Masters taught even prior to Gen. Choi's death. Some personal variation _within_ a style is inevitable.



> Realistically, do you think that a non-taekwondoin could watch one of your students and one of mine spar and be able to tell which org they trained with? Do you think most taekwondoin could tell?



Of course a non-Taekwon-Doin couldn't tell which organization each person belonged to simply because they wouldn't know the choices, but I'm pretty sure they could see the differences in how they sparred (granting the match wasn't constrained by one set of rules and each was free to spar how they had been taught). If they were familiar at all with martial arts in general they would most likely realize they studied different styles. Perhaps even different arts depending on the degree of difference.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Dirty Dog

chrispillertkd said:


> The differences I have noticed are so small as to be hardly noticeable to an ITF practitioner. They are minor but there. They are also not numerous. IMNSHO, there are less differences between the three ITF groups than there are between the majority of KKW Taekwondoin I've seen.
> 
> That is why I asked "how much difference" is needed before you consider it a separate style.
> 
> 
> 
> chrispillertkd said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you were asking the other poster about what terms to use then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was not. I was pointing out that it's wrong to say "one uses poomsae and the other uses tul" as a way to define a separate style, simply because the words are interchangeable. His (incorrect) usage showed quite clearly that he hadn't a clue what the words actually mean.
> 
> 
> 
> chrispillertkd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I'd not refer to any pattern set developed by the KKW as "tul" because the term is specifically used to refer to patterns developed by Gen. Choi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is not true. It is a *convention*, but that does not change the meaning of the word. Tul mean "patterns". Poomsae means "patterns". Hyung means "patterns". None of them mean "patterns developed/used by [insert person/group here]".
> Or at least, so I am informed by a man who was born and raised in Korea, and who was a student in the Moo Duk Kwan prior to the unification movement.
> By the same token, many groups use "kwanjangnim" for the rank of GrandMaster, even though that isn't what it means. It means "Headmaster". As in, the leader of a school.
> There is nothing whatsoever wrong with following the conventions of your system. But that doesn't mean those conventions have any meaning outside that system.
> 
> 
> 
> chrispillertkd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course a non-Taekwon-Doin couldn't tell which organization each person belonged to simply because they wouldn't know the choices, but I'm pretty sure they could see the differences in how they sparred (granting the match wasn't constrained by one set of rules and each was free to spar how they had been taught). If they were familiar at all with martial arts in general they would most likely realize they studied different styles. Perhaps even different arts depending on the degree of difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so let's propose a ruleset for this match. Let's put them in headgear, mouth guards, gloves and feet. Let's allow whatever kicks and punches they choose to use. Let's allow sweeps, throws and takedowns (to make it possible to use as much of their training as possible). Since both are strikers, let's say that they have, say, 2 seconds to follow up after a takedown or throw and then they're reset (to keep it a striking match).
> 
> Do you think the average taekwondoin watching this match would be able to tell which student studied which style of TKD?
> I doubt it, personally.
> Forms are stylized, and it's not difficult to recognize which form set is being used. Applying those techniques in a sparring match is not.
Click to expand...


----------



## chrispillertkd

Not sure what the deal is with the quoting function but your last post seems to not be wanting to cooperate. Hope this works.



Dirty Dog said:


> That is why I asked "how much difference" is needed before you consider it a separate style.



As I said in a previous reply to you: "Well, a "style" generally refers to a branch of a specific martial art system (for example, the various branches of Shorin Ryu) or it can refer to a specific martial art itself ("Judo" as a style of martial art). IMNSHO, neither of these would apply to what the various ITF groups teach. *For it to qualify under the first aspect you'd have to see some major differences in the way techniques are performed* between the groups *and for it to qualify under the second there would have to be one or more differences that were so obvious you were no longer talking about Gen. Choi's Taekwon-Do.*"

Neither of the bolded sections apply to the differences I've seen between the groups. What's more, the number of differences are quite small. If you have personally seen major differences between the ITF groups I'd be interested in hearing about them (what they were, how many there were, which groups were doing which variations) because in my experience they are mall in number and slight in degree.



> But that is not true. It is a *convention*, but that does not change the meaning of the word. Tul mean "patterns". Poomsae means "patterns". Hyung means "patterns". None of them mean "patterns developed/used by [insert person/group here]".
> Or at least, so I am informed by a man who was born and raised in Korea, and who was a student in the Moo Duk Kwan prior to the unification movement.



Sure, but if you reread my answer you'll see that I was saying what I personally would or would not do specifically in answer to you saying it was OK to refer to any of the KKW pattern sets as "tul." I don't care what other people do. I wouldn't exactly because everyone knows "tul" was a term Gen. Choi used to refer to the patterns he developed whereas poomsae is not. There's nothing wrong with following convention, after all, and in this case not doing so could possibly just add to confusion.



> By the same token, many groups use "kwanjangnim" for the rank of GrandMaster, even though that isn't what it means. It means "Headmaster". As in, the leader of a school.
> There is nothing whatsoever wrong with following the conventions of your system. But that doesn't mean those conventions have any meaning outside that system.



Well, you're kind of comparing two different things since "pattern" is a translation of "tul" and "Grand Master" is *not* a translation of "Kwan Jang." That being said, conventions of a system are usually adopted specifically because the meaning they had outside the system relate in some way to the meaning they have within the system.



> OK, so let's propose a ruleset for this match. Let's put them in headgear, mouth guards, gloves and feet. Let's allow whatever kicks and punches they choose to use. Let's allow sweeps, throws and takedowns (to make it possible to use as much of their training as possible). Since both are strikers, let's say that they have, say, 2 seconds to follow up after a takedown or throw and then they're reset (to keep it a striking match).
> Do you think the average taekwondoin watching this match would be able to tell which student studied which style of TKD?
> I doubt it, personally.



We'll agree to disagree then since both would undoubtedly fall back on the training they already received, neither of which allows for sweeps, throws, or takedowns. Even with the increased option the majority of the match would most likely be executed closely to how they were used to fighting in the first place.



> Forms are stylized, and it's not difficult to recognize which form set is being used. Applying those techniques in a sparring match is not.



Applying techniques from a pattern in sparring is another can of worms (especially since sparring matches aren't self defense). But how an ITF fighter spars and how a WTF fighter spars is noticeably different and the first time I saw a WTF match my reaction was, basically, "What in the world are they doing?" I have little doubt a WTF fighter seeing an ITF match the first time would think any differently.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Dirty Dog

chrispillertkd said:


> Not sure what the deal is with the quoting function but your last post seems to not be wanting to cooperate. Hope this works.



We will fumble through. 



chrispillertkd said:


> As I said in a previous reply to you: "Well, a "style" generally refers to a branch of a specific martial art system (for example, the various branches of Shorin Ryu) or it can refer to a specific martial art itself ("Judo" as a style of martial art). IMNSHO, neither of these would apply to what the various ITF groups teach. *For it to qualify under the first aspect you'd have to see some major differences in the way techniques are performed* between the groups *and for it to qualify under the second there would have to be one or more differences that were so obvious you were no longer talking about Gen. Choi's Taekwon-Do.*"



That's why I keep asking "how much difference"... the three TKD systems I am most familiar with - ITF, Kukkiwon and Moo Duk Kwan - have far far more commonalities than they do differences. And yet we agree they're different styles.



chrispillertkd said:


> Sure, but if you reread my answer you'll see that I was saying what I personally would or would not do specifically in answer to you saying it was OK to refer to any of the KKW pattern sets as "tul." I don't care what other people do. I wouldn't exactly because everyone knows "tul" was a term Gen. Choi used to refer to the patterns he developed whereas poomsae is not. There's nothing wrong with following convention, after all, and in this case not doing so could possibly just add to confusion.



I don't disagree, and for the most part I do stick with conventions. The only issue here arose because the silly person thought that "poomsae" vs "tul" was what determined that Kukki-TKD and ITF were different styles, when clearly the terms are irrelevant.



chrispillertkd said:


> Well, you're kind of comparing two different things since "pattern" is a translation of "tul" and "Grand Master" is *not* a translation of "Kwan Jang." That being said, conventions of a system are usually adopted specifically because the meaning they had outside the system relate in some way to the meaning they have within the system.



Actually, I think it's because the Korean heads referred to themselves as "kwanjang" meaning "head of the school" and Americans decided that it was a rank. I am not aware that Korean even *has* a literal translation of the title Grandmaster.



chrispillertkd said:


> We'll agree to disagree then since both would undoubtedly fall back on the training they already received, neither of which allows for sweeps, throws, or takedowns. Even with the increased option the majority of the match would most likely be executed closely to how they were used to fighting in the first place.



Well... we do teach sweeps, throws and takedowns, and when I trained with ITF instructors (admittedly a long time ago) they were taught there, too. And allowed in some competition. Are these techniques no longer a part of the ITF curriculum? Or were my instructors adding extra stuff? But I'm happy to leave them out for our theoretical match up.

So, basically, there will be two people in the ring, relying primarily on powerful kicks, but with hand techniques being used when the opportunity presents itself.

So how is the spectator supposed to be able to tell which of our schools they're from?



chrispillertkd said:


> Applying techniques from a pattern in sparring is another can of worms (especially since sparring matches aren't self defense). But how an ITF fighter spars and how a WTF fighter spars is noticeably different and the first time I saw a WTF match my reaction was, basically, "What in the world are they doing?" I have little doubt a WTF fighter seeing an ITF match the first time would think any differently.



We're not a sport-oriented school, as I've always tried to make clear. So why would you expect my student to fight like an Olympic-style competitor?


----------



## Laplace_demon

If the moderator is seriously suggesting I was saying WTF has patterns, while ITF has patterns, then he's an idiot. I already knew they all meant patterns, and also know pomsae explicitly refer to WTF/KK-TDK patterns, and schools following General Choi does refer to *their* *separate* patterns as tul. This convention is so common that any other usage is confusing to the readers and intellectually dishonest.

My ITF school does not teach any throws, only joint manipulations, though this article:Soo Shim Kwan What s the Difference Between Taekwon-Do and Hapkido indicates that techniques from Judo were incorporated to ITF. Our school however, follows the teachings of General Choi, but no Judo, so I am not sure where this notion came from.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Dirty Dog said:


> We will fumble through.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I keep asking "how much difference"... the three TKD systems I am most familiar with - *ITF*, Kukkiwon and Moo Duk Kwan - have far far more commonalities than they do differences. And yet we agree they're different styles.



The three styles, hmm... I though you were the one claiming organisations did not denote styles - yet you mention ITF (which you previously claimed was just an organisation, and not a style), Kukkiwon, and Moo Duk Kwan as styles/systems. You don't know what your saying from day to day.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> The three styles, hmm... I though you were the one claiming organisations did not denote styles - yet you mention ITF (which you previously claimed was just an organisation, and not a style), Kukkiwon, and Moo Duk Kwan as styles/systems. You don't know what your saying from day to day.




I've been following this with interest, not much knowledge but a fair bit of interest. However even as an outsider I know the difference between 'systems' and 'styles' so I think you are throwing accusations when none are needed.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> I've been following this with interest, not much knowledge but a fair bit of interest. However even as an outsider I know the difference between 'systems' and 'styles' so I think you are throwing accusations when none are needed.



*"And yet we agree their different styles."*


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> *"And yet we agree their different styles."*




Sigh.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> Sigh.




Indeed.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> *"And yet we agree their different styles."*



That wasn't the post I quoted and was commenting on. I was talking about one, quite specific post.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> That wasn't the post I quoted and was commenting on. I was talking about one, quite specific post.



It's the post I was adressing, which contradicts his statement of organisations not (capable) of being styles. In the Tae Kwon Do world it is a fact.


----------



## Tez3

I did understand what is being said by _everyone_ here you know, including the abusing of a mod.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> I did understand what is being said by _everyone_ here you know, including the abusing of a mod.



Your dear moderator was intentionally trying to make me look like a fool. Knowing full well no ITF organisation refers to their patterns as Pomsae, only WTF/KK students do. I persisted, and he ridiculed me for doing so. Trying to make it seem as if I don't understand their semantic meaning, which is an entirely different subject matter.

You be the judge.


----------



## Tez3

Okay, walking away shaking my head.....................


----------



## chrispillertkd

Dirty Dog said:


> That's why I keep asking "how much difference"... the three TKD systems I am most familiar with - ITF, Kukkiwon and Moo Duk Kwan - have far far more commonalities than they do differences. And yet we agree they're different styles.



I can't speak to the MDK style of TKD but I have personal experience in KKW TKD, albeit only for a couple of years. It was very different from Taekwon-Do. I have stated this elsewhere but the differences between the two (Chang Hun Taekwon-Do and KKW Taekwondo) include, but are not limited to, chambering for blocks, execution of the major kicks, stances, ending positions of some of the techniques relative to the body of the person executing them, differences in how many hand techniques are performed (including low outer forearm blocks, low knife-hand guarding blocks, inward knife-hand strikes, and more), and differences in how power is generated using body mechanics. This last point is the most fundamental difference, IMNSHO, and the most important although the other differences I noted also serve to differentiate the two styles.

The different pattern sets used by the ITF and the KKW are tangential to how the styles are actually performed. I have seen many WTF Taekwondoin who say they also know "ITF Taekwon-Do" but it becomes obvious after seeing them do patterns that what they mean is they know both the KKW patterns and the ITF patterns because they perform both sets identically. Nothing wrong with that, it's just not the same thing as knowing both styles and performing them like they're supposed to be performed. I have seen people actually do both styles, not just both pattern sets, but not a great number of them.

This is all a long winded way of clarifying my comments about the very minor differences between the three ITF groups. None of the differences I have seen have been of the same degree as what I've mentioned above. They simply aren't in the same ballpark. There's nothing wrong with having differences between ITF and KKW TKD, but many of them are not just differences in magnitude but of kind.

Honestly, I don't even really agree that ITF and KKW TKD are "different styles" if by that we mean different styles of the same martial art. The differences between the two have developed over time such that I would simply call them different arts at this point.



> Well... we do teach sweeps, throws and takedowns, and when I trained with ITF instructors (admittedly a long time ago) they were taught there, too. And allowed in some competition. Are these techniques no longer a part of the ITF curriculum? Or were my instructors adding extra stuff? But I'm happy to leave them out for our theoretical match up.



Oh, yes, we have those techniques but they aren't allowed in free sparring. My point was that even if you say "OK, you can now use these techniques in a free sparring situation" it's less likely to happen since they aren't regularly used in such a context (although I have used them before myself  ).



> So, basically, there will be two people in the ring, relying primarily on powerful kicks, but with hand techniques being used when the opportunity presents itself.
> 
> So how is the spectator supposed to be able to tell which of our schools they're from?



Body mechanics, how the techniques are executed, differences in strategy and tactics, differences in which techniques are primarily used, and differences in where they are directed to.



> We're not a sport-oriented school, as I've always tried to make clear. So why would you expect my student to fight like an Olympic-style competitor?



Because you've mentioned that you do both ITF and WTF TKD. Since it was a question of being able to tell which organization each person belonged to and one would be an ITF practitioner I figured you'd be asking about being able to tell the difference between Chang Hun Taekwon-Do and KKW Taekwondo. If you are interested in the differences between Chang Hun Taekwon-Do and a school which teaches an amalgam of three distinct styles, such as yours does, then I can't say since I've never seen your students spar and so can't offer any actual observation.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Laplace_demon

I agree entirely with Chris. Different philosophy, historical accounts (General Choi is all but forgotten), techniques, body mechanics, patterns, etc

Just about everything in the book of what you would label a different martial art. Nothing wrong with that, besides creating unfortunate confusion.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Laplace_demon said:


> My ITF school does not teach any throws, only joint manipulations, though this article:Soo Shim Kwan What s the Difference Between Taekwon-Do and Hapkido indicates that techniques from Judo were incorporated to ITF. Our school however, follows the teachings of General Choi, but no Judo, so I am not sure where this notion came from.



There's an old ITF training tape (old 8mm film, really) floating around that is narrated by both Gen. Choi and Mr. Robert Walson which demonstrates several Ho Sin Sul techniques. While many of the techniques have an obvious Hapkido flavor to them some look more judo-ish and Mr. Walson points out that the gentleman demonstrating, Yang Dong Ja, is not only an ITF 6th dan but also holds a (IIRC) 5th dan in judo ("Yudo, Korean judo," as Mr. Walson puts it).

There have been joint locks, throws, and sweeps in all of Gen. Choi's books, to varying degrees.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

Laplace_demon said:


> I agree entirely with Chris. Different philosophy, historical accounts (General Choi is all but forgotten), techniques, body mechanics, patterns, etc
> 
> Just about everything in the book of what you would label a different martial art. Nothing wrong with that, besides creating unfortunate confusion.



Sometimes I think it would have been better if Gen. Choi had not changed the name of the Korea Tae Soo Do Association back to the Korean Taekwon-Do Association after they had changed it. Would have been simpler.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Laplace_demon

Indeed. Are you referring to these throws: from 23:10 forward....






We are not taught  throwing follow ups.. Only joint manipulations. 3 situations, involving wrist grabbing, and in a pretty friendly manner


----------



## chrispillertkd

Laplace_demon said:


> Indeed. Are you referring to these throws: from 23:10 forward....



Yes, but there are others, too. The video from about 22:48 to 25:50 is part of the video I mentioned above. I don't think it's the whole thing, though, and it's missing the audio commentary by Gen. Choi and Mr. Walson.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Dirty Dog

chrispillertkd said:


> The different pattern sets used by the ITF and the KKW are tangential to how the styles are actually performed. I have seen many WTF Taekwondoin who say they also know "ITF Taekwon-Do" but it becomes obvious after seeing them do patterns that what they mean is they know both the KKW patterns and the ITF patterns because they perform both sets identically. Nothing wrong with that, it's just not the same thing as knowing both styles and performing them like they're supposed to be performed. I have seen people actually do both styles, not just both pattern sets, but not a great number of them.



Then you probably wouldn't like the way I do Chang Hon forms. I don't do the sine wave stuff. Primarily because that was introduced well after I learned the forms, and I've always preferred the non-sine wave versions. According to some, that would make me 'more traditional'. I just consider it a personal preference. And, frankly, I disagree with the suggestion that sine wave has any benefit.



chrispillertkd said:


> Oh, yes, we have those techniques but they aren't allowed in free sparring. My point was that even if you say "OK, you can now use these techniques in a free sparring situation" it's less likely to happen since they aren't regularly used in such a context (although I have used them before myself  ).



Fair enough. How well do you think the average student is really learning them if they're never allowed to practice them in free sparring?



chrispillertkd said:


> Because you've mentioned that you do both ITF and WTF TKD.



No, I've been very clear that there is no such thing as WTF TKD. I trained ITF in my youth. Now I am with a school that is primarily a Moo Duk Kwan school but also offers Kukkiwon certification to those who want it.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Dirty Dog said:


> Then you probably wouldn't like the way I do Chang Hon forms. I don't do the sine wave stuff. Primarily because that was introduced well after I learned the forms, and I've always preferred the non-sine wave versions. According to some, that would make me 'more traditional'. I just consider it a personal preference. And, frankly, I disagree with the suggestion that sine wave has any benefit.



Well, frankly, I was of the same mind set as you about sine wave when I first saw it. (Although according to GM Lee, Yoo Sun sine wave was around since the late 1960s, albeit referred to as simply "knee spring"; he was there so I figure he'd know.)  

I don't care one way of the other about how people do their patterns. I've got other things to worry about. 



> Fair enough. How well do you think the average student is really learning them if they're never allowed to practice them in free sparring?



Depends on the person and depends on how they train those techniques.



> No, I've been very clear that there is no such thing as WTF TKD. I trained ITF in my youth. Now I am with a school that is primarily a Moo Duk Kwan school but also offers Kukkiwon certification to those who want it.



I'm just not as pedantic as  you, I guess. "Kwan Jang" isn't "Grand Master" either. Like I mentioned previously "WTF Taekwondo" and "ITF Taekwon-Do" are both technically incorrect, but people use them and know what they mean.

As for your school, since you said it offered KKW certificates I figured it also did WTF sparring since most of the ones I've seen do.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Dirty Dog

chrispillertkd said:


> Well, frankly, I was of the same mind set as you about sine wave when I first saw it. (Although according to GM Lee, Yoo Sun sine wave was around since the late 1960s, albeit referred to as simply "knee spring"; he was there so I figure he'd know.)



Like most changes especially in the pre-internet days, it took a while to spread. I wasn't introduced to sine wave in forms until the mid- to late-70's.



chrispillertkd said:


> Depends on the person and depends on how they train those techniques.



Fair enough. How do you train those techniques?



chrispillertkd said:


> I'm just not as pedantic as  you, I guess.



You say pedantic, I say accurate. 



chrispillertkd said:


> "Kwan Jang" isn't "Grand Master" either.



I may have said the same thing once or twice. Any good pedant would...

I use KJN correctly, to refer to the head of our school, GM KIM, Wang (Bobby).



chrispillertkd said:


> As for your school, since you said it offered KKW certificates I figured it also did WTF sparring since most of the ones I've seen do.



We do, if someone has decided to go play in a WTF-style tourney, but it's not our primary sparring system.


----------



## reeskm

I'm a "traditional" MDK TSD practioner. I have no experience in ITF or WTF TKD other than an ITF class I tried out last week. It was worlds apart from what I do in terms of body mechanics. Also, the warmup was very different than ours. Otherwise, I felt pretty much at home.

I think a lot has been said, but to the OP, please start researching the following topics:
- Jing Wu Athletic Association and the Guoshu movement that followed it
- The history of martial arts in China since the Boxer Rebellion
- The early Okinawan and Japanese (main-land) Karate developments from approx 1900-1980
- Understand the politics of Korea post-WW2 independance, including the Korean independance movment, and the Syngman Rhee and Park Chung-Hee regimes
- All former back issues of _Black Belt_ are free online at books.google.com. Look here for what the Koreans have written about themselves. They give away many many interesting details, if you read between the lines
- Understand how Korean and Japanese is romanized into english, and how this has changed in the last 200 years
- Read the book "A Killing Art" by Alex Gillis (A Killing Art Home page of A Killing Art a book about Tae Kwon Do)
- The history of Korea, Japan, China, Manchukuo and Mongolia from 1895-present
- Read and research the South Manchurian Railway and the history of the railroad in Korea
- Read Eric Madis' series on the history of Taekwondo on Fightingarts.com
- Understand the history of zainichi koreans and their contribution to Karate and martial arts in Japan
- Read the (controversial) biography of Richard Kim
- Pay close attention to current research and information published by researchers like Pat McCarthy. Look for hidden gems in places you least expect.
- Get your hands on as many early copies of magazines and martial arts books from Korea and Japan

You probably are less than impressed at my way to answer your OP. The answer you are looking for is right in front of you, but you must open your mind and begin reading.


----------



## chrispillertkd

reeskm said:


> - Understand the politics of Korea post-WW2 independance, including the Korean independance movment, and the Syngman Rhee and Park Chul Hee regimes



Park, Chul Hee was one of the founders of the Kang Duk Won (along with Hong, Jung Pyo).

Park, CHUNG Hee was the President of SK from 1961-1979.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## reeskm

chrispillertkd said:


> Park, Chul Hee was one of the founders of the Kang Duk Won (along with Hong, Jung Pyo).
> 
> Park, CHUNG Hee was the President of SK from 1961-1979.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


Fixed! Thanks Chris.


----------



## reeskm

Also, a note: be careful what you belive. Don't trust a single thing you read - you need a while to build up a picture of what might have happened.

Example: I have a copy of Choi's memoirs. In it, he states he studied Karate in Kyoto while he was upgrading his high school so he could enter university in Tokyo. He claims he studied in Kyoto and that he trained in Shotokan Karate at that time. However, there are no known Shotokan karate school in Kyoto in this period. The only known schools of Karate at that time were Goju schools under the tutelage of Miyagi Chojun and Gogen Yamaguchi. Until I find evidence proving there was a Shotokan dojo in Kyoto from 1930-1942, I will find it hard to take Choi seriously on any topic. There are many other inconsistencies in his life's story. Pity, as the truth could be better than his less than accurate autobiography. Or maybe the truth wasn't as interesting...

So what was Tangsoodo like before "Taekwondo" was proposed by Choi as a name to replace it in 1955? That's a very very good question...


----------



## chrispillertkd

Dirty Dog said:


> Fair enough. How do you train those techniques?



We train sweeps, throws, and takedowns in pre-arranged sparring to some extent but also primarily in the partner drills we do in ho sin sul which starts out with minimal resistance and gradually increases as the person gets better at the technique. (I have heard so many people try a technique on a fully resisting opponent once, have it fail, and declare "This doesn't work!" They never seem to do that when a punch misses, though. Go figure.)

We also train our joint locks in a similar fashion, although less so with them in pre-arranged sparring.

It should be remembered that Sparring, both pre-arranged and free sparring, are only analogous to a soldier's field exercises while ho sin sul is analogous to actual combat, according to Gen. Choi. This doesn't mean you're going to go full bore the first time you train with a new ho sin sul technique. It also doesn't mean you're going to be equally proficient in every ho sin sul technique you have been taught. But you should eventually reach a level where you can execute them against a resisting opponent with speed and power.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

reeskm said:


> Fixed! Thanks Chris.



De nada.

I'd also point out that understanding the relationship between Gen. Choi and Park, Chung-Hee is important given that Park was court martialed and sentenced to death by a  military tribunal which included Gen. Choi.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## reeskm

Yes, that's key.
I've tried to find the criminal proceedings or at least list of accused in that trial and come up with nothing. If it's what I'm thinking you're thinking - you're referring their plot to sabotage Imperial Japanese Army plans and equipment with other Korean student soldiers forcibly drafted in 1943 or so.

I can't be sure this is the same incident, but here is some historical background from a non-martial arts source:
A 1944 Korean Rebellion Within the Japanese Army The Testimony of Lieutenant Cheon Sanghwa JapanFocus
It concerns the 1944 student soldiers plot against the Imperial Japanese Army in Heijyo (Pyongyang).

I know this might not seem to address the OP's questions. However, I would argue that it gives a picture of what was going on at the time - in the very early days. I doubt many Taekwondo practitioners care to study these details but they are directly related to the art they study, regardless of what association or what "style" they claim to belong to today.

In Choi's memoirs, he relates all his life's events directly to the martial arts, and speaks to how it influenced later decisions, relationships with other martial artists and his ITF.


----------



## chrispillertkd

I think you mean _Choi's_ memoirs 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## reeskm

chrispillertkd said:


> I think you mean _Choi's_ memoirs
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



I'm either having a bad day or I've suffered too many kicks to the head!


----------



## jks9199

All right, folks,  let's try to keep things friendly and on topic.  Anytime the history of a style (almost especially any version of TKD) comes up, people come out of the figurative wood pile to claim only their history is accurate and only their club's version is correct, and it gets pretty damn heated.  Maybe we can make this thread an exception....


----------



## RTKDCMB

jks9199 said:


> Maybe we can make this thread an exception....


Good luck with that.


----------



## andyjeffries

reeskm said:


> So what was Tangsoodo like before "Taekwondo" was proposed by Choi as a name to replace it in 1955? That's a very very good question...



Do you mean, what was *"Taesoodo"* like before "Taekwondo" was proposed by Choi as a name to replace it in 1955?  Taekwondo has never been entirely called Tangsoodo.  Most schools (MDK obviously aside) went from their founders learning Karatedo, to their own kwan names to unified Taekwondo naming, not going via Tangsoodo.


----------



## Laplace_demon

When were these types of kicks introduced: 




Does it date back to 1973, when the World Taekwondo Federation was established and Choi thrown out?

I think the kicks look great. Too bad competition rules (like ITF) are less than satisfying.


----------



## reeskm

Laplace_demon said:


> Does it date back to 1973, when the World Taekwondo Federation was established and Choi thrown out?
> 
> I think the kicks look great. Too bad competition rules (like ITF) are less than satisfying.



Ah, as I suspected, you are most familiar with "sport style" martial arts. It's not the only way!
To answer your question directly: I do not know exactly when these kicks were introduced. It's hard to say exactly.

Indirectly, this is a prime example of a sports-oriented kicking. Note how the leg leaves the ground and makes  a straight line diagonal to the target area. These types of kicks are famous in WTF style as they are the quickest (straight line) to the target. They are also appearing in sport karate (for example WKF). These types of kicks are nothing new, but I do not know when they were developed. You'll notice they are also very similar to the way a lot of MMA fighters and kick boxers kick.

Please don't misunderstand - I'm not implying all MMA or sport sytlists do it this way! But Muy Thai fighters do something similar, where they don't turn their hips over completely when kicking to the side of their opponents body.

My $0.10 on these kicks are that they are fantastic for sport where scoring a point is most important. However, in my dojang I never teach this kick, unless I am teaching point-sparring. These kicks are weak and can't match a traditional round kick where you put the whole body into it!


----------



## reeskm

andyjeffries said:


> Do you mean, what was *"Taesoodo"* like before "Taekwondo" was proposed by Choi as a name to replace it in 1955?  Taekwondo has never been entirely called Tangsoodo.  Most schools (MDK obviously aside) went from their founders learning Karatedo, to their own kwan names to unified Taekwondo naming, not going via Tangsoodo.



No, I meant what I said.

*Edit:* Yes, I agree with you basically, that many names were used and it was not direct.
I specifically used Tangsoodo as it was the most common name used before Taekwondo was adopted. Also, it was the reason "Korean Karate" was used extensively in the west by the Koreans.

Taesoodo was an interim name used for a very short period of time before Taekwondo was promoted as the Korean government "standard". Choi never liked the name, but I know his rival Hwang Kee and some others propsed Taesoodo as a compromise to win acceptance. I know the Jidokwan was involved because their HQ Dojang in Pusan actually had "Tae Soo Do" on their dojang sign outside their door in the 60's. The Taesoodo association broke apart due to the usual Kwan rivalries. You can find some of the meeting minutes online.

There were many committees and meetings of Kwan heads in the early days. Choi was a proponent of "Taekwondo" as a name to replace the other names floating around in Korea (as previously discussed) and 1955 is, to my knowledge, around the time he first proposed the name. By 1961 when President Park led his coup, Choi used his influence in the military and as a member of the Park-led coup to force more people to use Taekwondo. It was politically forced on others.

Eventually, Choi won-out and most people adopted his name-creation for Korean "karate". This can be seen on Page 1 of Duk Sang Son's 1969 edition of "Korean Karate", where in the first sentence he talks about "karate" and by the end of the page, uses the term Taekwondo. You can literally see the evolution by studying old books, magazine articles, words instructors used to promote their schools, etc.

TangSooDo was the most common name used, and has not been dropped. These days the current romanization in DangSooDo (see dangsoodo.kr as an example).


----------



## Laplace_demon

reeskm said:


> Ah, as I suspected, you are most familiar with "sport style" martial arts. It's not the only way!
> To answer your question directly: I do not know exactly when these kicks were introduced. It's hard to say exactly.
> 
> Indirectly, this is a prime example of a sports-oriented kicking. Note how the leg leaves the ground and makes  a straight line diagonal to the target area. These types of kicks are famous in WTF style as they are the quickest (straight line) to the target. They are also appearing in sport karate (for example WKF). These types of kicks are nothing new, but I do not know when they were developed. You'll notice they are also very similar to the way a lot of MMA fighters and kick boxers kick.
> 
> Please don't misunderstand - I'm not implying not all do it this way!
> 
> My $0.10 on these kicks are that they are fantastic for sport where scoring a point is most important. However, in my dojang I never teach this kick, unless I am teaching point-sparring. These kicks are weak and can't match a traditional round kick where you put the whole body into it!



Oh, yes, I am quite familiar with the ups and downs of these kicks. The ones above were my  first exposure to Taekwondo as a teenager.I had no idea there existed other radicially different, "karate type" styles of TKD at the time of training.

If you kick much faster, then logically you are more likely to make (relevant) impact. Speed also generates power. So, I don't quite believe in dismissing what some call sport kicks. WTF world champion Bren foster kicked the hardest in this scientific research, and I doubt an ITFer would have topped it. 




I am mostly curious about their origin - is it kukkikwon or WTF or both, and were they prevalent during the 70s? To say it's sport fighting is a bit missleading, given that ITF has just as much competition as the later founded WTF.


----------



## reeskm

Laplace_demon:
See this article as a reference to this discussion:
Why Barboza doesn t turn his hips over on his kicks... - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums

This type of kicking comes naturally during sport style competition. I am in no way saying that your mentioned technique or any other is "superior". I also disagree that faster kicks are *always* more powerful. Yes, I am aware of the physics involved. You also have to look at other factors, such as which pressure point or striking surface you are using, among others.

Let's see if anybody can find a very early instance of this type of speed kick? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it was used early on in the 50's. Competition in martial arts started to become very popular around that time all over the world.

There are pros and cons to everything


----------



## Laplace_demon

Yes, I actually reflected on Muay Thai roundhouses employing similar diagonal kicks. Is the only difference the point of foot making impact? If thats the case, WTF roundhouses are actuallythe same as in MT! Funnily enough.


----------



## reeskm

Laplace_demon said:


> Yes, I actually reflected on Muay Thai roundhouses employing similar diagonal kicks. Is the only difference the point of foot making impact? If thats the case, WTF roundhouses are actuallythe same as in MT! Funnily enough.



I stress that not all MT kicks are like that. Like the post on Sherdog mentioned, any MT instructor worth his salt will tell you to turn your hips over for more power. Also, any good instructor will explain that a ball of the foot round is different and is used differently depending on the effect you want to create.

You will find that martial arts styles draw on a very long and similar heritage. The more you look into it, the more similarities you will see.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Laplace_demon said:


> Yes, I actually reflected on Muay Thai roundhouses employing similar diagonal kicks. Is the only difference the point of foot making impact? If thats the case, WTF roundhouses are actuallythe same as in MT! Funnily enough.



In Muay Thai the round kick can be thrown either with or without the full hip turnover. I personally consider the full turnover version to be more fundamental, but that may just be the way I was taught. As noted, there is a trade-off between speed and power. Sometimes you want the extra power from getting the full turnover, sometimes you want the extra speed from just swinging the leg straight up. Even the diagonal version without the full rotation can have knockout power if it lands just right.

I've noted that the diagonal kick without full hip rotation is more common for kicks to the body. Leg kicks are more likely to use the full turnover. (This is partially to align the shin bones so they don't get broken if the opponent checks your kick.) Head kicks can go either way.

I have also noticed some similarities in the Olympic style TKD round kicks and the Muay Thai round kick - particularly the lack of chambering. The flavor of the kicks does seem a little different to me. I'm not sure if that's entirely due to the difference in the stances and the range (since Muay Thai hits with the shin, the kicks are thrown from closer in) or if there's more to it.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Laplace_demon said:


> When were these types of kicks introduced:
> 
> Does it date back to 1973, when the World Taekwondo Federation was established and Choi thrown out?
> 
> I think the kicks look great. Too bad competition rules (like ITF) are less than satisfying.



They were never "introduced". They evolved. People involved with competitive sparring, where speed to target often outweighs power production, learned that this modification of the round kick was faster. The tradeoff is that they limit the target area somewhat, as well as being less powerful. The angle at which the kick travels makes it much harder to strike the head.

And General Choi was never "thrown out" of the KTA. He chose to leave to pursue his own vision of TKD, long before the WTF was founded.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Laplace_demon said:


> Yes, I actually reflected on Muay Thai roundhouses employing similar diagonal kicks. Is the only difference the point of foot making impact? If thats the case, WTF roundhouses are actuallythe same as in MT! Funnily enough.



Once again, there is no such thing as WTF-TKD, nor a WTF roundhouse. Similarly, you've been told repeatedly that the Kukki-TKD roundhouse is thrown with either the top of the foot or the ball, with the hip turned over or without. Just like the ITF round kick.

You really need to work on being able to adjust your preconceived assumptions when they turn out to be incorrect.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Dirty Dog said:


> Once again, there is no such thing as WTF-TKD, nor a WTF roundhouse. .



Oh really? This instructor, with a background in both organisations disagree:

_*"The WTF roundhouse* end has several variations to remain more effective. Why raise your knee directly and turn completely over when you can actually cut your distance and time as a result of going diagonal. The kick has less power like this, but it bites your opponent much faster. The other plus is that this sets your adversary up for another activate which you may possibly turn your roundhouse kick entirely over. *Other stylists perspective this practice to be sloppy. WTF practitioners deem it as being effective"*

World Taekwondo Federation WTF Compared to International Taekwondo Federation ITF World Taekwondo Federation WTF Compared to Inter
_
You were saying?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Laplace_demon said:


> Oh really? This instructor, with a background in both organisations disagree:
> 
> _*"The WTF roundhouse* end has several variations to remain more effective. Why raise your knee directly and turn completely over when you can actually cut your distance and time as a result of going diagonal. The kick has less power like this, but it bites your opponent much faster. The other plus is that this sets your adversary up for another activate which you may possibly turn your roundhouse kick entirely over. *Other stylists perspective this practice to be sloppy. WTF practitioners deem it as being effective"*
> 
> World Taekwondo Federation WTF Compared to International Taekwondo Federation ITF World Taekwondo Federation WTF Compared to Inter
> _
> You were saying?



The WTF themselves disagree...


> *The World Taekwondo Federation is the International Federation (IF) governing the sport of Taekwondo and is a member of the Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF). The WTF recognizes national Taekwondo governing bodies recognized by the NOCs in the pertinent country as its members.*



and on the subject of rank:


> Dan Grading
> All matters about black belt Poom/Dan certification are dealt with by the Kukkiwon (World Taekwondo Headquarters). Dan/Poom promotion tests are conducted according to the Regulations for Promotion Tests of the Kukkiwon.



You can roam the WTF site as much as you like. You will never find anything to support your ridiculous claim that the WTF is a style of TKD. It is not. It never has been. It is exactly what is said above; a governing body to promote a sport.

You're wrong. Get over it.

Or are you seriously going to sit there and claim that *you* are better equipped to define what the WTF is than the WTF themselves?

You were saying?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Dirty Dog said:


> The WTF themselves disagree...
> 
> 
> and on the subject of rank:
> 
> 
> You can roam the WTF site as much as you like. You will never find anything to support your ridiculous claim that the WTF is a style of TKD. It is not. It never has been. It is exactly what is said above; a governing body to promote a sport.
> 
> You're wrong. Get over it.
> 
> Or are you seriously going to sit there and claim that *you* are better equipped to define what the WTF is than the WTF themselves?
> 
> You were saying?



Why attack me? The *instructor* made the claim there was such a thing as a WTF roundhouse. My opinion is not relevant. None of the information provided from the WTF website, exclude the possibility of those schools connected to WTF events, develop seperate techniques from schools having ITF-Taekwon-DO written labels on their dobok, and using General Chois patterns.

_"One does not exclude the other" 
_


----------



## Laplace_demon

One more :

Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy

_"WTF assessment of* ITF stylists*:Outdated and limited kicking techniques taught by old masters that have no practical application & imagination for WTF sparring. Non contact or light contact  pussy footers -because one is conditioned to fight non-contact or light contact,  they get blown away in  real  hard full contact sparring situations. Impractical sparring moves-eg. blocking instead of dodging. Moves are too slow for practicality and vulnerable"_


----------



## Dirty Dog

Laplace_demon said:


> Why attack me? The *instructor* made the claim there was such a thing as a WTF roundhouse.



Well, no, *you* have made the claim repeatedly that WTF-TKD exists, and tried to use this other persons (equally erroneous) statements to support your claim. Despite the fact that the WTF themselves disagree with you.



Laplace_demon said:


> My opinion is not relevant.



That is correct, because this isn't a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. And the facts, despite your refusal to accept them, prove you wrong.



Laplace_demon said:


> None of the information provided from the WTF website, exclude the possibility of those schools connected to WTF events, develop seperate techniques from schools having ITF-Taekwon-DO written labels on their dobok, and using General Chois patterns.
> 
> _"One does not exclude the other" _



So, clearly, you didn't bother to educate yourself despite the resources provided. There are no WTF schools. The WTF is not a style. The only members of the WTF are national governing bodies whose job is... wait for it... to govern and promote a sport.

Feel free to stuff your head further under the sand. That doesn't change the facts.

You can't educate those who refuse to learn...


----------



## Laplace_demon

Dirty Dog said:


> Well, no, *you* have made the claim repeatedly that WTF-TKD exists, and tried to use this other persons (equally erroneous) statements to support your claim. Despite the fact that the WTF themselves disagree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct, because this isn't a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. And the facts, despite your refusal to accept them, prove you wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> So, clearly, you didn't bother to educate yourself despite the resources provided. There are no WTF schools. The WTF is not a style. The only members of the WTF are national governing bodies whose job is... wait for it... to govern and promote a sport.
> 
> Feel free to stuff your head further under the sand. That doesn't change the facts.
> 
> You can't educate those who refuse to learn...



I did educate myself. My 8th Dan instructor in Taekwon-Do, informed me in our first encounter that my previous school was "WTF"", explaining ITF and WTF are different organisations, styles, he added. Are you by any chance an 8th degree in TKD?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Laplace_demon said:


> I did educate myself. My 8th Dan instructor in Taekwon-Do, informed me in our first encounter that my previous school was "WTF"", explaining ITF and WTF are different organisations, styles, he added. Are you by any chance an 8th degree in TKD?



So you're actually going to sit there and insist that you know more about what the WTF is than the WTF itself.

Have a nice life. There's no fix for willful ignorance.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Why are there no prominent south korean schools employing General Chois patterns and wearing ITF-doboks? Is it a coincidence?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Also, WTF organises Pomsae patterns competitions, which are kukkiwons, NOT Chang Hon forms.

= Style.

There I solved it for you


----------



## Archtkd

Laplace_demon said:


> I did educate myself. My 8th Dan instructor in Taekwon-Do, informed me in our first encounter that my previous school was "WTF"", explaining ITF and WTF are different organisations, styles, he added. Are you by any chance an 8th degree in TKD?



Your teacher may have been speaking in generalities, particulalry because you were a new student who might  have been too green to understand specifics. You are in the big city now: learn something new.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Laplace_demon said:


> Oh really? This instructor, with a background in both organisations disagree:


Did you at all consider that the instructor might me, I don't know, Wrong?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Laplace_demon said:


> One more :
> 
> Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy
> 
> _"WTF assessment of* ITF stylists*:Outdated and limited kicking techniques taught by old masters that have no practical application & imagination for WTF sparring. Non contact or light contact  pussy footers -because one is conditioned to fight non-contact or light contact,  they get blown away in  real  hard full contact sparring situations. Impractical sparring moves-eg. blocking instead of dodging. Moves are too slow for practicality and vulnerable"_



And here is the entire quote in it's original context, the bolded section represents their actual viewpoint:

"*(what is commonly said about each other & the real difference).*

ITF assessment of  WTF stylists:
All they do is fancy foot and legwork with a lot of sound. No real power. Everything is geared to competition and tournaments. No spiritual arts, and a lot of good foot techniques such as twisting front kick(a kick that springs up from a standing position both feet facing forward, foot is twisted inwards and kicked up towards the opponents nosebridge at an angle)are lost, and everything is competition oriented. The practicality of the martial arts is lost for speed and points in tournaments. Upper body and hand movements are not emphasized nor does it call for hitting/striking the face/head as in real fighting, or close range when someone is tackled.  Thus the students are only skilled in playing  tag points . No real practical value in actual fighting. The head of WTF is not a TKD practitioner but a bureaucratic figurehead which is why WTF certificates are signed Dr. Un Young Kim. He has neither demonstrated nor taught TKD.  The WTF patterns are of no aesthetic value, it is just a breakdown mix and match of ITF forms. No beauty in forms. Taekwondo?  Gaekwondo  is more like it.(Note:  Gae  is dog in Korean, loosely translated, it means  dog pawing ).

WTF assessment of ITF stylists:Outdated and limited kicking techniques taught by old masters that have no practical application & imagination for WTF sparring. Non contact or light contact  pussy footers -because one is conditioned to fight non-contact or light contact,  they get blown away in  real  hard full contact sparring situations. Impractical sparring moves-eg. blocking instead of dodging. Moves are too slow for practicality and vulnerable. (e.g. plain wheel kick, where the heel is turned in an arc towards the opponent s head by turning back without hooking at the knee ).  Too low and wide stances that slows down each movement and telegraphs your move. No power nor speed in moves. No efficient aerial kick techniques that require high skill which can be devastating,. No innovations or development in their moves. Thus the students have limited skills.  ITF TKD? Gimme a break.

Rules of WTF(simplified terms).
WTF sparring is tournament oriented.

1. Hits must be on the certain target areas above the waist line for points.
2. No punches allowed to the face. If punch is done to the body, one must hit to the body with a  forcible impact to the opponent.
3. Kicks to the head allowed.
4. No grabbing or holding the opponent.
5. No points for hitting in the back.
6. No sweeps or take downs.
7. Protective gear (including forearm, shin, head, chest, and groin protection )and now doboks must be sanctioned by WTF

Rules of ITF(simple terms).

ITF is traditional training oriented. Tournament Rules
(Again, this is general and varies in each splintered ITF-style group).

1. Protective gear required(the level of protection depends on the instructor).
2. Light padding on shins, knees, foot, and arms.
3. Light head gear.
4. Timed sparring.
5. Points for certain targets including hand techniques. Stopped for points(in some).
6. Non, light, or medium contact. (Full contact is rare, but is allowed in some tournaments).
7. Chest protector(depends on instructor).

The real difference between ITF and WTFITF being traditional adheres to an  equal emphasis  on patterns, breaking, sparring, & self-defense techniques. WTF has  more emphasis  on sparring aspect than patterns and self-defense. That is not to say WTF does not have patterns or self-defense. Breaking in WTF however, is not much emphasized as breaking in ITF.

Which is better?  In my opinion, the objectives of ITF and WTF are different. ITF(traditional martial art TKD) and WTF(tournament geared TKD) are two different systems that has diverged from the same origin.  *The best answer would be the better TKD stylist. The question is more like who is the better player? Comparing the better squash player vs. the better racquet ball player IMHO does not do justify who is better, even though the  game may be similar.*


----------



## RTKDCMB

Laplace_demon said:


> If you kick much faster, then logically you are more likely to make (relevant) impact. Speed also generates power. So, I don't quite believe in dismissing what some call sport kicks. WTF world champion Bren foster kicked the hardest in this scientific research, and I doubt an ITFer would have topped it.



As someone who is a scientist I would like to point out the limitations of this scientific research.


There is only a very small sample size considering the complexity and variety of martial arts and and it's practitioners.
There was only a limited number of arts represented.

They do not take into account the size (although they were all similar in size) and strength and relative experience of the individual subjects..
There are only a very limited number of trials.
The only thing that that experiment determined was that Bren Foster kicked harder than the other subjects at that particular time under those particular conditions.


How hard a person can kick is dependent on a lot more factors than just speed. Also speed and velocity are different things. You can increase the speed of the kick simply by reducing the distance traveled without necessarily increasing the amount of force you kick with.


----------



## Laplace_demon

RTKDCMB said:


> As someone who is a scientist I would like to point out the limitations of this scientific research.
> 
> 
> There is only a very small sample size considering the complexity and variety of martial arts and and it's practitioners.
> There was only a limited number of arts represented.
> 
> They do not take into account the size (although they were all similar in size) and strength and relative experience of the individual subjects..
> There are only a very limited number of trials.
> The only thing that that experiment determined was that Bren Foster kicked harder than the other subjects at that particular time under those particular conditions.
> 
> 
> How hard a person can kick is dependent on a lot more factors than just speed. Also speed and velocity are different things. You can increase the speed of the kick simply by reducing the distance traveled without necessarily increasing the amount of force you kick with.



Foster generated a ton of force. This is a fact, regardless if he had faced  30000 different styles or not. The claim that these types of roundhouse kicks are fundamentally "weak" is disproven. I am not advocating he kicks the hardest, only that they are indeed just as potentially powerful, and not the way old school advocates likes to portray them.


----------



## Laplace_demon

RTKDCMB said:


> Did you at all consider that the instructor might me, I don't know, Wrong?



He is simplifying the matter. The WTF set up sparring rules, which schools adapted to in their techniques taught, as well as the WTF openly promoting pomsae/KK-TKD compeititon, completely neglecting the rest.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Laplace_demon said:


> Foster generated a ton of force. This is a fact, regardless if he had faced  30000 different styles or not. The claim that these types of roundhouse kicks are fundamentally "weak" is disproven. I am not advocating he kicks the hardest, only that they are indeed just as potentially powerful, and not the way old school advocates likes to portray them.



A couple of points.

No one is claiming they are fundamentally weak, only that they are less powerful. Bren Foster also has black belts in Hapkido and Hwarangdo, those two arts are also a factor in how much power he produced.

Here is the roundhouse kick that is usually seen in such places as the Olympics, these are the ones that are less powerful :






The one Bren Foster did in the Fight Science video is not the same kick, it was about the same technique as the Muay Thai fighter's kick so it does not actually prove anything.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Laplace_demon said:


> Foster generated a ton of force. This is a fact, regardless if he had faced  30000 different styles or not. The claim that these types of roundhouse kicks are fundamentally "weak" is disproven. I am not advocating he kicks the hardest, only that they are indeed just as potentially powerful, and not the way old school advocates likes to portray them.



Foster had the good sense to turn his hip over. That IS the more powerful version.



Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.


----------



## Metal

First I gotta say that following or believing whatever somebody says, just because that person is holding a high rank is stupid. 

There's a reason why people talk about WTF-Taekwondo and why people talk about Taekwondo being 2000 years old. It's the instructors, masters and grandmasters who pass this on to those who train under them. Those who're lucky to find instructors who would go more into detail or those people who do some research will get to learn about the role of WTF, Kukkiwon, KTA and other national member organizations.

I don't really see a problem wih people talking about WTF Taekwondo being their style of Taekwondo since WTF and Kukkiwon used to be and still are pretty close. In the early days of the Kukkiwon the WTF secretariat was located in the Kukkiwon. Plus Dr. Kim Un-Yong was president of the WTF, Kukkiwon and KTA.







Whenever somebody would ask me what style of TKD I train I'd always say Kukkiwon though. ;-)

And while the WTF is just the governing body that's taking care of the sport-side of Taekwondo they issued Poomsae books in the past though:








This doesn't help to identify the style of Taekwondo that somebody's practising as Kukkiwon Taekwondo, either.


And then on top of that a lot of the national member organisations of the WTF issue their own Dan certifications and even called the Kukkiwon Dan "WTF Dan" for many years. Actually some may still call it WTF Dan.


----------



## Laplace_demon

RTKDCMB said:


> A couple of points.
> 
> No one is claiming they are fundamentally weak, only that they are less powerful. Bren Foster also has black belts in Hapkido and Hwarangdo, those two arts are also a factor in how much power he produced.



Foster performed a TKD kick, and his black belt in Hapkido has nothing to do with it. Pure speculation on your part, probably because your a hapkido performer.

And to your claim that nobody said these kicks are "weak"




reeskm said:


> My $0.10 on these kicks are that they are fantastic for sport where scoring a point is most important. However, in my dojang I never teach this kick, unless I am teaching point-sparring. *These kicks are weak and can't match a traditional round kick where you put the whole body into it*!


----------



## Laplace_demon

Metal said:


> First I gotta say that following or believing whatever somebody says, just because that person is holding a high rank is stupid.
> 
> There's a reason why people talk about WTF-Taekwondo and why people talk about Taekwondo being 2000 years old. It's the instructors, masters and grandmasters who pass this on to those who train under them. Those who're lucky to find instructors who would go more into detail or those people who do some research will get to learn about the role of WTF, Kukkiwon, KTA and other national member organizations.
> 
> I don't really see a problem wih people talking about WTF Taekwondo being their style of Taekwondo since WTF and Kukkiwon used to be and still are pretty close. In the early days of the Kukkiwon the WTF secretariat was located in the Kukkiwon. Plus Dr. Kim Un-Yong was president of the WTF, Kukkiwon and KTA.
> 
> View attachment 19073
> 
> 
> Whenever somebody would ask me what style of TKD I train I'd always say Kukkiwon though. ;-)
> 
> And while the WTF is just the governing body that's taking care of the sport-side of Taekwondo they issued Poomsae books in the past though:
> 
> View attachment 19074
> View attachment 19075
> 
> This doesn't help to identify the style of Taekwondo that somebody's practising as Kukkiwon Taekwondo, either.
> 
> 
> And then on top of that a lot of the national member organisations of the WTF issue their own Dan certifications and even called the Kukkiwon Dan "WTF Dan" for many years. Actually some may still call it WTF Dan.



Whenever my instructor or anybody else, refers to olympic taekwondo students, they always say WTF. The problem with having the name of Taekwondo on both of these systems, is that someone, such as myself, who excels and takes great pleasure at developing aerial kicks, and rejects old school roundhuse kicks (which almost nobody uses in the ring), are quite disappointed to find that the most aerial kicking trained here, is a simple fly kick....... And I like my master and don't want to betray him, but still I would have so much more fun with more advanced kicks.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Dirty Dog said:


> Foster had the good sense to turn his hip over. That IS the more powerful version.



As does the Taekwondo guys. It's all a matter of degree. You are splitting hairs at this point.

Edit: The kick in the pomsae book looked awfully familiar!


----------



## RTKDCMB

Laplace_demon said:


> Foster performed a TKD kick, and his black belt in Hapkido has nothing to do with it.



I assume you are referring to me as you have not quoted me specifically but are responding to something I said.



Laplace_demon said:


> Pure speculation on your part, probably because your a *hapkido performer.*



 Since some information on my profile seems to be missing so I will just state my experience here. I would not call myself a performer but I studied Hapkido for a total of 14 months in the 18 months I was not studying Rhee Tae Kwon Do, which I have been studying since 1987. And Hapkido has the same kick by the way, at least the one that I was in did anyway.



Laplace_demon said:


> And to your claim that nobody said these kicks are "weak"



Well he must be nobody then.


----------



## Archtkd

Metal said:


> There's a reason why people talk about WTF-Taekwondo and why people talk about Taekwondo being 2000 years old. It's the instructors, masters and grandmasters who pass this on to those who train under them. Those who're lucky to find instructors who would go more into detail or those people who do some research will get to learn about the role of WTF, Kukkiwon, KTA and other national member organizations.
> 
> I don't really see a problem wih people talking about WTF Taekwondo being their style of Taekwondo since WTF and Kukkiwon used to be and still are pretty close. In the early days of the Kukkiwon the WTF secretariat was located in the Kukkiwon. Plus Dr. Kim Un-Yong was president of the WTF, Kukkiwon and KTA. .



Very good points. I think for the general public, and to lots of beginniners in taekwondo the details of style don't matter. When one comes on MT, though, and makes bold blanket statements, which he or she claims to be fact, we can hold them to a higher standard and expect them to argue from a positition of knowledge.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Archtkd said:


> Since some information on my profile seems to be missing so I will just state my experience here. I would not call myself a performer but I studied Hapkido for a total of 14 months in the 18 months I was not studying Rhee Tae Kwon Do, which I have been studying since 1987. And Hapkido has the same kick by the way, at least the one that I was in did anyway.



I got dissed pretty badly for employing it. I presumed a 4th dan assistent instructor would know by now....

However, my main instructor (Yeo) never corrected me for going diagonally. Confusing!


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> ¨
> 
> 
> This thread is about before 1966, though. I am curious why it took General Choi ten years to establish ITF, and their own patterns? What did he do in between?



This statements is factualy incorrect. It did not take 10 years to establish patterns.

Have you posted in other groups as "ITF-Taekwon-Do" You seem to have similar misinformation.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Earl Weiss said:


> This statements is factualy incorrect. It did not take 10 years to establish patterns.
> 
> Have you posted in other groups as "ITF-Taekwon-Do" You seem to have similar misinformation.



Not if you go by Chois bio, and his own accounts. He worked on finishing specific patterns in the 60s. This can only mean the 24 patterns were not completed by then.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Earl Weiss said:


> This statements is factualy incorrect. It did not take 10 years to establish patterns.
> 
> Have you posted in other groups as "ITF-Taekwon-Do" You seem to have similar misinformation.


 


Laplace_demon said:


> Not if you go by Chois bio, and his own accounts. He worked on finishing specific patterns in the 60s. This can only mean the 24 patterns were not completed by then.


 
Let me guess... you're unaware that you're talking to a Taekwon-Do VIII Dan who was tested by Gen Choi, right?

Where's that facepalm emoticon?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Dirty Dog said:


> Let me guess... you're unaware that you're talking to a Taekwon-Do VIII Dan who was tested by Gen Choi, right?
> 
> Where's that facepalm emoticon?



The *24* Chang Hon patterns were not in existence in the 50s. Do you suddenly wish to dispute this?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Laplace_demon said:


> The *24* Chang Hon patterns were not in existence in the 50s. Do you suddenly wish to dispute this?


 
Do you actually read the things that are said to you? Do you have some reading comprehension problem?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Dirty Dog said:


> Do you actually read the things that are said to you? Do you have some reading comprehension problem?



It took _around_ 10 years for the 24 forms to be completed. If Earl wants to dispute the time involved was 9 or 8 years, fine. Who cares. It's still long after Taekwondo (1955).


----------



## Buka

As to the questions in the OP - I'm not sure, I wasn't there. 
As to questions in TKD as it is now, I'm not sure, I'm not there.
But as to my time while I was in TKD - I hope you guys are enjoying it as much as I did. And I hope it unites you, rather than separates you on a forum.


----------



## Metal

Laplace_demon said:


> Not if you go by Chois bio, and his own accounts. He worked on finishing specific patterns in the 60s. This can only mean the 24 patterns were not completed by then.



This is actually quite easy to check. 

All you need to do is check the first English edition of Choi's "Taekwon-Do - The Art of Self-Defence", published in 1965. There you'll find 20 of the Chan Hong forms plus Karate forms of the Sho-Rin and Sho-Rei Schools. 

Four more Chang Hon patterns were added after 1965.


The 1965 version of the book is out there as a PDF.

I would be interested in later versions if anybody has them in digital format.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Buka said:


> As to the questions in the OP - I'm not sure, I wasn't there.
> As to questions in TKD as it is now, I'm not sure, I'm not there.
> But as to my time while I was in TKD - I hope you guys are enjoying it as much as I did. And I hope it unites you, rather than separates you on a forum.



Then why comment?


Metal said:


> This is actually quite easy to check.
> 
> All you need to do is check the first English edition of Choi's "Taekwon-Do - The Art of Self-Defence", published in 1965. There you'll find 20 of the Chan Hong forms plus Karate forms of the Sho-Rin and Sho-Rei Schools.
> 
> Four more Chang Hon patterns were added after 1965.
> 
> 
> The 1965 version of the book is out there as a PDF.
> 
> I would be interested in later versions if anybody has them in digital format.



Exactly. So how am I incorrect in saying it took around 10 years, going from 1955 - 1966 (ITF)?


----------



## Earl Weiss

Dirty Dog said:


> Let me guess... you're unaware that you're talking to a Taekwon-Do VIII Dan who was tested by Gen Choi, right?
> QUOTE]
> 
> Thank you , but so as not to mislead anyone.  General Choi was never on a test board when I tested.  I did test at an IIC in 2002 that he was at.  Perhaps I and the other person who tested were the  last to test for VII in the ITF during his life.   Was nice to hear him call me "Master" following the test.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Dirty Dog said:


> Do you actually read the things that are said to you? Do you have some reading comprehension problem?




I am wondering if he reads what he writes.   "
*New*
↑
¨


This thread is about before 1966, though. I am curious why it took General Choi ten years to establish ITF, and their own patterns? What did he do in between?
"

First he references "any patterns", then he references all 24.   He also cannot seem to diferentiate when a pattern is created and a time lag from creation to the first english publication date.  However, in todays world of immediacy it can be understood how  a younger person could not grasp the time involved to type something on a manual typewriter assemble photos, submit for publication and then get it published over 50 years ago.

As an aside, asked several people  under 30 what a "33 1/3  LP was" Try it.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Earl Weiss said:


> I am wondering if he reads what he writes.


 
A valid question.


----------



## Buka

Laplace_demon said:


> Then why comment?



Several reasons. 
Spent some hard time in the Art being discussed and really enjoyed it.
It's a discussion.
And I have a really big mouth.


----------



## Tez3

Buka said:


> Several reasons.
> Spent some hard time in the Art being discussed and really enjoyed it.
> It's a discussion.
> And I have a really big mouth.




That's two of us then


----------



## Laplace_demon

Earl Weiss said:


> First he references "any patterns", then he references all 24.   He also cannot seem to diferentiate when a pattern is created and a time lag from creation to the first english publication date.  However, in todays world of immediacy it can be understood how  a younger person could not grasp the time involved to type something on a manual typewriter assemble photos, submit for publication and then get it published over 50 years ago.
> .



In 1955 one pattern was created. Are you saying 23 other ones were already in existence, but not yet published?

In 1965, there were still missing 4 forms. Are you saying they existed, yet lacked publication?


To another point in the ITF vs WTF "philosophy". I was told ITF schools are "real taekwondo" not just sport driven, as the majority of the Kukkikwon schools geared towards sparring competition for WTF tournaments are.


Bare in mind, everything I do technique wise is within the premisse that I and other students will compete in ITF. It's as we wouldn't be there, if the objectives weren't entering ITF tournaments.  "You need to learn this for competition"", this is good for competition", etc. etc."

Never once did it occur to them that I only wish to learn the martial art, and don't care what's so ever about the sport aspect.

A bit contradictory.....


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> In 1955 one pattern was created. Are you saying 23 other ones were already in existence, but not yet published?
> 
> In 1965, there were still missing 4 forms. Are you saying they existed, yet lacked publication?
> 
> 
> To another point in the ITF vs WTF "philosophy". I was told ITF schools are "real taekwondo" not just sport driven, as the majority of the Kukkikwon schools geared towards sparring competition for WTF tournaments are.
> 
> 
> *Bare in mind, everything I do technique wise is within the premisse that I and other students will compete in ITF. It's as we wouldn't be there, if the objectives weren't entering ITF tournaments.  "You need to learn this for competition"", this is good for competition", etc. etc."*
> 
> *Never once did it occur to them that I only wish to learn the martial art, and don't care what's so ever about the sport aspect.*
> 
> A bit contradictory.....



To be honest that is easy enough to sort, any martial artist from any style can tell you the answer to that one which is _if you don't like or aren't happy in what you are training in, stop and go find something that suits what you want._


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> To be honest that is easy enough to sort, any martial artist from any style can tell you the answer to that one which is _if you don't like or aren't happy in what you are training in, stop and go find something that suits what you want._



I never said I was unhappy with this, just that I have not been to or read of many ITF schools not being geared toward sport. Doesn't matter if it's WTF competitors or ITF. That's a myth.

There are Tang Soo Do and Karate organisations without competition - these can legitimately claim to be "art first". WTF or ITF -  for the majority of cases are not.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Dirty Dog said:


> A valid question.



Look whos talking. Mr "ITF style"


----------



## Laplace_demon

Buka said:


> Several reasons.
> Spent some hard time in the Art being discussed and really enjoyed it.
> It's a discussion.
> And I have a really big mouth.



I must admit your: "let's all get along and be united" philosophy does not appeal to me. I don't want' to end up with a helmet and protective body gear like WTF rules are now. Their sparring is unwatchable. Not saying anything about the performers, who are quite good.


----------



## Tez3

I spent a while with a TKD club, I went because a colleague of mine was the instructor and he needed to motivate the females in the class so I agreed to go along as I was a black belt in karate ( before you jump on that we are in a rural area and so limited as to what instructors there are). I trained with the adults which was fun and none of their training was for Olympic style competition, they did have a bigger emphasis on kicks than I did but they sparred much the same way I did. I even did a couple of gradings with them.
In many styles head guards and protective body gear are worn, they don't necessarily compete but most people want to go as full on as they can when sparring but we have to remember they aren't full time athletes, they need to be able to go to work the next morning! Disparaging anyone because they wear protective gear is a bit silly.
Olympic sparring isn't my thing but a good many people enjoy doing it and watching it, that doesn't make it 'unwatchable' ... it makes it 'not my thing'.
What I don't see is where you are coming from about the history of TKD when your main beef appears to be that you are training in a way you aren't happy with, and yes you've intimated that a few times now.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> I spent a while with a TKD club, I went because a colleague of mine was the instructor and he needed to motivate the females in the class so I agreed to go along as I was a black belt in karate ( before you jump on that we are in a rural area and so limited as to what instructors there are). I trained with the adults which was fun and none of their training was for Olympic style competition, they did have a bigger emphasis on kicks than I did but they sparred much the same way I did. I even did a couple of gradings with them.
> In many styles head guards and protective body gear are worn, they don't necessarily compete but most people want to go as full on as they can when sparring but we have to remember they aren't full time athletes, they need to be able to go to work the next morning! Disparaging anyone because they wear protective gear is a bit silly.
> Olympic sparring isn't my thing but a good many people enjoy doing it and watching it, that doesn't make it 'unwatchable' ... it makes it 'not my thing'.
> What I don't see is where you are coming from about the history of TKD when your main beef appears to be that you are training in a way you aren't happy with, and yes you've intimated that a few times now.



I am curious as to the historical background of this art to give me a greater understanding of what's happening today.

Now, there are two main objections against the WTF:

*1*. Turning a martial art into a sport, with their globalization. ITF is also "sporty" but not to the same extent.

*2*. Adopting a sparring format which most pundits outside of the "WTF world" agree is unwatchable.

I challenge you to conduct any polling on this. WTF TKD is the most hated martial art (or as they would call it: "Sport") in the entire  world.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> I am curious as to the historical background of this art to give me a greater understanding of what's happening today.
> 
> Now, there are two main objections against the WTF:
> 
> *1*. Turning a martial art into a sport, with their globalization. ITF is also "sporty" but not to the same extent.
> 
> *2*. Adopting a sparring format which most pundits outside of the "WTF world" agree is unwatchable.
> 
> I challenge you to conduct any polling on this. WTF TKD is the most hated martial art (or as they would call it: "Sport") in the entire  world.



The first sentence, yes I can accept that as I'm sure most people will, even though while be curious you still manage to argue with people about what id, didn't happen and who did or didn't do what. However the second paragraph is frankly style bashing. I don't have a dog in this fight, it's all just TKD to me  but if I wrote what you just did about a style I would be rightly shouted down. As for doing a poll...really?
I don't actually think there is any martial art that is _hated in the entire_ _world_, let alone _most hated_ that just sounds like silliness.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Laplace_demon said:


> I challenge you to conduct any polling on this. WTF TKD is the most hated martial art (or as they would call it: "Sport") in the entire  world.


Maybe you should ask this question on Bulshido? They like that kind of thing.


----------



## Transk53

Actually, I would say as an outsider, TKD is quite attractive. I have personally seen some of those magical kicks (in a way) and I think you are being very harsh. Just one outsiders view.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Here's World Taekwondo Federation competition of the 80s: 




It looks worlds apart from today..


----------



## Tez3

You don't honestly expect us to sit through nearly an hour of video do you? To what purpose? A lot of things change over time, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse but the bottom line is if you don't like it, do something about it. Join them and work for change, leave them and look for something else, anything to be honest, rather than whinge and complain.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> You don't honestly expect us to sit through nearly an hour of video do you? To what purpose? A lot of things change over time, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse but the bottom line is if you don't like it, do something about it. Join them and work for change, leave them and look for something else, anything to be honest, rather than whinge and complain.



You can always fast foward.
 For those asserting I bash styles, I tried to be a little bit constructive and replied to a unification appeal, which I strongly object to at this present moment. I wouldn't say the same if it looked like the 80s.


----------



## Buka

Laplace_demon said:


> I must admit your: "let's all get along and be united" philosophy does not appeal to me. I don't want' to end up with a helmet and protective body gear like WTF rules are now. Their sparring is unwatchable. Not saying anything about the performers, who are quite good.



I don't want to wear a helmet and protective gear, either. Their particular type of sparring doesn't appeal to me. But I'll train with any of them if invited, or watch, or gladly discuss any and all things that have to do with it.

What doesn't appeal to you about all getting along? (just curious)


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> In 1955 one pattern was created. Are you saying 23 other ones were already in existence, but not yet published?
> 
> In 1965, there were still missing 4 forms. Are you saying they existed, yet lacked publication?




What I am saying wa your comment....

>>I am curious why it took General Choi ten years to establish ITF, and their own patterns? , <<
Was factually incorrect.

It is still incorrect.

Your current comments are so inaccurate it's hard to responf but I will try.

>>In 1955 one pattern was created. Are you saying 23 other ones were already in existence, but not yet published?<<

No, they were being formulated and codified as  the first 20   ultimately appeared in the 1965 English text.  I believe that may have been pre dated by a Korean text but I am not sure.  Perjhaps someone has the timeline and creation handy I do not. 

>>In 1965, there were still missing 4 forms. Are you saying they existed, yet lacked publication?<<

Agaim, I do not have the timeline as to when they were formulated but since they were codified and published in 1972, they must have existed beofre that date.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Mr. La Place Demon. Still curious if you used the screen name ITF-Taekwondo  on a forum? 

Please answer.


----------



## Transk53

Laplace_demon said:


> You can always fast foward.
> For those asserting I bash styles, I tried to be a little bit constructive and replied to a unification appeal, which I strongly object to at this present moment. I wouldn't say the same if it looked like the 80s.



Look I somewhat perplexed here. Why do you have a beef against the current day curriculum? Why does it matter, just close yourself off from it. I may be way off here in how I am reading this thread, I just don't see the point in being argumentative. I think you are trying to prove a point that cannot be substantiated how you yourself see it. As I said, no personal beef against you,this just how I am perceiving it.


----------



## Archtkd

Laplace_demon said:


> Here's World Taekwondo Federation competition of the 80s:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks worlds apart from today..



You know very very little about WTF taekwondo competition, Kukkiwon taekwondo and possibly even ITF taekwondo, but you keep making hyperbolic statements about those systems with hardly any basis of fact. What looks "world's apart," in that video?  Gear? The fact that it's a promotional demo video?

What are you going to show us next? John L. Sullivan's last bare knuckle fight -- the 72 rounds monster bout with Jake Kilrain on July 8, 1889? You will then probably tell us how wonderful those bare knuckle fights were, especially when fought under the London Prize Ring Rules, which combined boxing and wrestling. Under those rules, which Sullivan and Kilrain observed, a round did not have a time limit, but instead ended when a fighter was thrown to the ground or knocked down with a punch. Also there was no specific number of rounds. The Sullivan - Kilrain rumble lasted two hours, 16 minutes and 25 seconds.

To come back to topic, there are some commenting on this board who were practicing and competing in taekwondo in what you think are the distant 1980s. Other here have been teaching and going to local and international tournament for years. Not much has changed from what you see in that video save for that taekwondoin have become faster, stronger, more athletic and better in all ways, because they use better training methods.

I'd really encourage you to spend a lot of time studying and doing real basic research before posting on the MT boards. Bettter yet, get your passport and buy youself a plane tickeet to attend a conference like this one coming up in January: International Academic Conference for Taekwondo martial art martial sport


----------



## RTKDCMB

Laplace_demon said:


> Here's World Taekwondo Federation competition of the 80s:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks worlds apart from today..


How so (besides no head gear)?


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> Not if you go by Chois bio, and his own accounts. He worked on finishing specific patterns in the 60s. This can only mean the 24 patterns were not completed by then.



You seem to have missed page 428 when he talks about creation of the first 2 patterns. Exact date not given but other events on the pages around that one were 1955 or so. Other patterns followed. Did not take 10 years as you suggest.


----------



## Laplace_demon

There are detectors on their chest nowdays to register impact, which wasn't prevalent in the 80s.  It's just point fighting, with very few going for the kill (head shots). Doesn't resemble any martial art of this day. ITF however is similiar to lighter kickboxing. While ITF pro is full contact.



Archtkd said:


> . Not much has changed from what you see in that video save for that* taekwondoin have become faster, stronger, more athletic and better in all ways, because they use better training methods.*



I guess we will find out. North Koreans will most likely be able to compete in the 2016 Olympics, under WTF rules. I have not seen WTF guys move better than their best guys, even back in the 90s. Not a chance.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Earl Weiss said:


> You seem to have missed page 428 when he talks about creation of the first 2 patterns. Exact date not given but other events on the pages around that one were 1955 or so. Other patterns followed. Did not take 10 years as you suggest.



Basic arithmetic informs me there's missing publication of 22 patterns. It took 10 years for all of his 24 forms to be completed =established, in either 1965 or 1966.

Why are you so persistent in this hopeless quest? Is it because Taekwon-Do boils down to Karate, without it's forms?


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> Basic arithmetic informs me there's missing publication of 22 patterns. It took 10 years for all of his 24 forms to be completed =established, in either 1965 or 1966.
> 
> Why are you so persistent in this hopeless quest? Is it because Taekwon-Do boils down to Karate, without it's forms?



No, it's because people need to know:
A. You have no idea what you are talking about, and 
B. You mis cite sources to support erroneous statements. 
Examples:

LAPLACE_DEMON SAID: 

>>This thread is about before 1966, though. I am curious why it took General Choi ten years to establish ITF, and their own patterns? What did he do in between?<<

This statements is factualy incorrect. It did not take 10 years to establish patterns.

Have you posted in other groups as "ITF-Taekwon-Do" You seem to have similar misinformation.

EARL WEISS SAID: ?
This statements is factually incorrect. It did not take 10 years to establish patterns.

Have you posted in other groups as "ITF-Taekwon-Do" You seem to have similar misinformation.


Not if you go by Chois bio, and his own accounts. He worked on finishing specific patterns in the 60s. This can only mean the 24 patterns were not completed by then.<<
You also mkissed the part in his Bio about completing work in 1958 and getting it published in 1959 although TBH I am not sure what patterns were in the 1959 Publication. 

So, you erroneously conclude that since the 1965 Book was the first date of Publication of a book in english that nothing happened before then and you miss cite the bio which contains cotrary information to what you claim. 

finaly, you nnever answered the question which seems your real forte. 

did you use the Monker ITF-Taekwondo on another board or this board? 

Trying to figure out if you are a troll extroardinaire, badly uniformed or worse.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Earl Weiss said:


> You also mkissed the part in his Bio about completing work in 1958 and getting it published in 1959 although TBH I am not sure what patterns were in the 1959 Publication.
> 
> So, you erroneously conclude that since the 1965 Book was the first date of Publication of a book in english that nothing happened before then and you miss cite the bio which contains cotrary information to what you claim.



Even if the completion predates 1965, and I would be wrong in my 10 years claim, I would still suppose the 24 forms (or even close to that) were not in existence during the TKD schools back in 1955. And 1955 was the point of my question - how did those schools operate, which patterns (apart from one or two from Choi) did the students practice and recieve gradings in?


----------



## Archtkd

Laplace_demon said:


> There are detectors on their chest nowdays to register impact, which wasn't prevalent in the 80s.  It's just point fighting, with very few going for the kill (head shots). Doesn't resemble any martial art of this day. ITF however is similiar to lighter kickboxing. While ITF pro is full contact.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we will find out. North Koreans will most likely be able to compete in the 2016 Olympics, under WTF rules. I have not seen WTF guys move better than their best guys, even back in the 90s. Not a chance.



One of the things I have tried to do on MT boards since late 2009 is to remain civil, have an open mind and respect those I disagree with so long as they make simple efforts to argue with some logic, from a position of knowledge. Unfortunately your posts fall way below the baseline of what I would consider to be common sense. You ignorance, sir, is so deep that I fear making any further commentary on your posts will do nothing more than expose you to more scorn and ridicule.


----------



## Tez3

Archtkd said:


> One of the things I have tried to do on MT boards since late 2009 is to remain civil, have an open mind and respect those I disagree with so long as they make simple efforts to argue with some logic, from a position of knowledge. Unfortunately your posts fall way below the baseline of what I would consider to be common sense. You ignorance, sir, is so deep that I fear making any further commentary on your posts will do nothing more than expose you to more scorn and ridicule.




Well said, I clicked on this thread because of the title. I'm interested in all martial arts and I love to learn more about them, looking at the title I thought it was going to be about historical TKD, something I know little about. I sat back to read and learn but what it actually seems to have been posted for was to bash one particular 'style/type/movement' of TKD and bash it rudely as well as bash those who do it.  I'm disappointed quite frankly in the OP, it's not necessary to bash and disrespect other posters. I assume, because those that say the OP is wrong are respected posters here that the OP _is_ wrong, to be honest with his attitude I wouldn't have believed him even if he had been right!


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> Even if the completion predates 1965, and I would be wrong in my 10 years claim, I would still suppose the 24 forms (or even close to that) were not in existence during the TKD schools back in 1955. And 1955 was the point of my question - how did those schools operate, which patterns (apart from one or two from Choi) did the students practice and recieve gradings in?



Since the name Tae Kwon Do  was first officialy adopted in 1955 there weren't many schools using the name that year.  There are accounts that with the exception of CDK students those entering the Oh Do Kwan (ODK) or other TKD gyms had to re grade whic was another element that really P O'd  many people.   Since the ODK contained luminaires from several Kwans it is likely reps from the respective Kwans did the grading.  It seems to have not been unlike the  KKW where dans were issued to people doing any number of systems. The KKW has no moved to a  single pattern system for Dan Issuance. I will let a KKW person address when this occurred.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Starting which year did schools adopt the name of Taek Kwon Do? 1956?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Also, some dispute Choi came up with the name Tae Kwon Do. He did however suggest it. 

Why did General Choi convince Jhoon Rhee, amongst others, to start using the name Tae Kwon Do instead? It's just semantics. The effort was clearly to differentiate their art from Karate, due to nationalistic purposes.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> Also, some dispute Choi came up with the name Tae Kwon Do. He did however suggest it.
> 
> Why did General Choi convince Jhoon Rhee, amongst others, to start using the name Tae Kwon Do instead? It's just semantics. The effort was clearly to differentiate their art from Karate, due to nationalistic purposes.




I'm not being rude here but do you often answer your own questions?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> I'm not being rude here but do you often answer your own questions?



No. I offered my uncontroversial answer to the question. Maybe theirs is different, but they will have something to play with in response.

As to your complaints; I can dismiss which every art or style I want. It just so happens that I didn't, but instead rejected a specific sparring format,


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> No. I offered my uncontroversial answer to the question. Maybe theirs is different, but they will have something to play with in response.
> 
> As to your complaints; I can dismiss which every art or style I want. It just so happens that I didn't, but instead rejected a specific sparring format,




1. My comments weren't complaints rather that you misled us over the content of your thread.
2. Actually on MT you cannot dismiss any style or art, it's against the rules here. You cannot bash anything especially in the way you are rude to posters.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> 1. My comments weren't complaints rather that you misled us over the content of your thread.
> 2. Actually on MT you cannot dismiss any style or art, it's against the rules here. You cannot bash anything especially in the way you are rude to posters.



You don't think the meaningless post you *praised* from poster archtkd, was rude?

I am free of all charges as to bashing, since I do both styles of Taekwondo, and I love it.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> You don't think the meaingless post you *praised* from poster archtkd, was not rude?
> 
> I am free of all charges as to bashing, since I do both styles of Taekwondo, and I love it.



Really? 'meaningless' ?  no, of course that's not bashing anyone is it roflmao. I will give you marks for your arrogance though and as you say you do both styles of TKD also your hypocrisy.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> Really? 'meaningless' ?  no, of course that's not bashing anyone is it roflmao. I will give you marks for your arrogance though and as you say you do both styles of TKD also your hypocrisy.



He equated me with ignorance and you don't find that rude? I wouldn't want to know your friends.

The post was meaningless since it lacked any substance; It did not offer a single response to my view points. 

Call it hypocrisy if you like. I can have an objective viewpoint on my martial art, not being brain washed by it's founding fathers, and still taking pleasure from it's various training methods.


----------



## Transk53

Laplace_demon said:


> I am free of all charges as to bashing, since I do both styles of Taekwondo, and I love it.



Kind of formed the impression that you were anti WTF. Oh well I'll go and be confused elsewhere.


----------



## Tez3

Transk53 said:


> Kind of formed the impression that you were anti WTF. Oh well I'll go and be confused elsewhere.



You and me both mate. I've been insulted by better


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> You and me both mate. I've been insulted by better



Tempted to quote a certain Michael Crawford TV sitcom, guess that would be an insult though


----------



## Archtkd

Laplace_demon said:


> Even if the completion predates 1965, and I would be wrong in my 10 years claim, I would still suppose the 24 forms (or even close to that) were not in existence during the TKD schools back in 1955. And 1955 was the point of my question - how did those schools operate, which patterns (apart from one or two from Choi) did the students practice and recieve gradings in?





Laplace_demon said:


> You don't think the meaningless post you *praised* from poster archtkd, was rude?
> 
> I am free of all charges as to bashing, since I do both styles of Taekwondo, and I love it.[/QUO
> 
> 
> Earl Weiss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the name Tae Kwon Do  was first officialy adopted in 1955 there weren't many schools using the name that year.  There are accounts that with the exception of CDK students those entering the Oh Do Kwan (ODK) or other TKD gyms had to re grade whic was another element that really P O'd  many people.   Since the ODK contained luminaires from several Kwans it is likely reps from the respective Kwans did the grading.  It seems to have not been unlike the  KKW where dans were issued to people doing any number of systems. The KKW has no moved to a  single pattern system for Dan Issuance. I will let a KKW person address when this occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first unified
Click to expand...




Laplace_demon said:


> He equated me with ignorance and you don't find that rude? I wouldn't want to know your friends.
> 
> The post was meaningless since it lacked any substance; It did not offer a single response to my view points.
> 
> Call it hypocrisy if you like. I can have an objective viewpoint on my martial art, not being brain washed by it's founding fathers, and still taking pleasure from it's various training methods.



English can be a very difficult language. I didn't equate. I stated a fact, which does not mean the same thing as rude.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> Starting which year did schools adopt the name of Taek Kwon Do? 1956?



As stated in the Bio following adoption of the Name the Dang Soo Do sign was removed from the Oh Do Kwan and replaced with a TKD sign.   After that it was an on going process. It happened over the tyears with some never adopting the name and some perhaps only after the KKW / WTF creation.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> Also, some dispute Choi came up with the name Tae Kwon Do. He did however suggest it.
> 
> Why did General Choi convince Jhoon Rhee, amongst others, to start using the name Tae Kwon Do instead? It's just semantics. The effort was clearly to differentiate their art from Karate, due to nationalistic purposes.



I agree the purpose was to create a new art and one identifiably as Korean. But it is an oversimplification to think only the name was adoprted. Jhoon Rhee and many others also adopted the new system.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Earl Weiss said:


> I agree the purpose was to create a new art and one identifiably as Korean. But it is an oversimplification to think only the name was adoprted. Jhoon Rhee and many others also adopted the new system.



Jhon Rhee was not particularly loyal to Chois ITF ( he was of course free to do what ever he wants) and split quickly to form his own organisation.


----------



## Transk53

Archtkd said:


> English can be a very difficult language. I didn't equate. I stated a fact, which does not mean the same thing as rude.



Cool


----------



## Transk53

Transk53 said:


> Kind of formed the impression that you were anti WTF. Oh well I'll go and be confused elsewhere.



Just kind of wondering if you are shy of answering my question. Rather than skirt it, could you pretty please answer  , I'm confused.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Transk53 said:


> Just kind of wondering if you are shy of answering my question. Rather than skirt it, could you pretty please answer  , I'm confused.



I dislike the current state of affairs regarding WTF, but things might change.... ITF and WTF are cooperating for the olympics, and WTF are interested to incorporate higher punching for future contests and more collabration with ITF. Perhaps the punching rules will never change, who knows. Here's hoping it will - Taekwondo is not Tae Kyon.


----------



## Transk53

Laplace_demon said:


> I dislike the current state of affairs regarding WTF, but things might change.... ITF and WTF are cooperating for the olympics, and WTF are interested to incorporate higher punching for future contests and more collabration with ITF. Perhaps the punching rules will never change, who knows. Here's hoping it will - Taekwondo is not Tae Kyon.



That does not answer the question, that is political. I am asking you for you're own feelings on this. Obviously what you posted has some resonance, but I think you are still being slightly evasive. Hey look, I am know WTF expert or with TKD, but something does not smell right.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Transk53 said:


> That does not answer the question, that is political. I am asking you for you're own feelings on this. Obviously what you posted has some resonance, but I think you are still being slightly evasive. Hey look, I am know WTF expert or with TKD, but something does not smell right.



WTF is politics and you asked about WTF. It's in your interest to specificy If you seek a more elaborate answer.


----------



## Transk53

Laplace_demon said:


> WTF is politics and you asked about WTF. It's in your interest to specificy If you seek a more elaborate answer.



Quite. I want you're personal feelings on this. Hey, you are still being evasive.. Yeah I know diddly squat about MA, but I think you are being a bit arrogant. Just answer my question please


----------



## Laplace_demon

Transk53 said:


> Quite. I want you're personal feelings on this. Hey, you are still being evasive.. Yeah I know diddly squat about MA, but I think you are being a bit arrogant. Just answer my question please



There was no  question posed.  This is what you wrote: _Kind of formed the impression that you were anti WTF. Oh well I'll go and be confused elsewhere.
_
Tell me where the question mark is. I am not being evasive. I am straight forward, not arrogant.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> There was no  question posed.  This is what you wrote: _Kind of formed the impression that you were anti WTF. Oh well I'll go and be confused elsewhere.
> _
> Tell me where the question mark is. I am not being evasive. I am straight forward, not arrogant.




Politician's answer


----------



## Transk53

Hey look, when in front of a mirror, what do you see? May add some context. Basically I could not do TKD, but that does mean I do not enjoy TKD. You know what I am going to end it here, you have issues that I could not care less about, I love watching TKD competition, and yes that that Tornado kick is magical to me! ITF or WTF, I like what I see already  Hey look I am no martial artist, I just don't see what is the beef.


----------



## Earl Weiss

[QUOTE="Laplace_demon, post: _.
_
Tell me where the question mark is. I am not being evasive. I am straight forward, not arrogant.[/QUOTE]

Here is a question. Note the question mark.

Have you also been note on the internet as a poster using the name ITF-Taekwondo?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Earl Weiss said:


> [QUOTE="
> 
> Have you also been note on the internet as a poster using the name ITF-Taekwondo?



No. How about the various Tae Kwon Do  styles not adopting Chois patterns/system? How does that fit into this manufactored rewritting of history?


----------



## Transk53

Laplace_demon said:


> manufactored rewritting of history?



The human race has been doing that from year dot. History is only good as the moment, then it moves on to be reinterpreted. Does that not fit here?


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> Jhon Rhee was not particularly loyal to Chois ITF ( he was of course free to do what ever he wants) and split quickly to form his own organisation.



Just a point of clarification:  My understanding is that Jhoon Rhee first started teaching pre-ITF taekwondo, then later switched to teaching ITF-taekwondo at Choi's urging, then later switched again to a style that Rhee developed himself. So...not disagreeing with what you said, just elaborating upon it.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> No. How about the various Tae Kwon Do  styles not adopting Chois patterns/system? How does that fit into this manufactored rewritting of history?



Your question needs to be more specific. Exactly what manufactured re writing of history do you refer to?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Earl Weiss said:


> Your question needs to be more specific. Exactly what manufactured re writing of history do you refer to?



That Tae Kwon Do (1955) is historically a korean martial art. It is not. General Chois patterns, which I like, are not what signifies Tae Kwon Do, since many TKD stylists don't and never have adhered to his 24 forms. So that can't be what makes it uniquely Korean. If it was, one could make a case for TKDs legitimacy and independence. But these forms are just as triviallly part of one particular style of TKD, as Goju Ryu kata is from Shotokan in Karate.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> That Tae Kwon Do (1955) is historically a korean martial art. It is not. General Chois patterns, which I like, are not what signifies Tae Kwon Do, since many TKD stylists don't and never have adhered to his 24 forms. So that can't be what makes it uniquely Korean. If it was, one could make a case for TKDs legitimacy and independence. But these forms *are just as triviallly part* of one particular style of TKD, as Goju Ryu kata is from Shotokan in Karate.



Sorry but that doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Laplace_demon

TKDs technical independence from its Okinawa Karate roots cannot be sustained by the virtue of Chois 24 forms.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Another point of interest - Chuck Norris learned Tang Soo Do (Karate forms) in the South Korean base, not Tae Kwon Do, because he says it wasn't yet called that. I am surprised TSD was by 1958 still bigger than TKD. Wasn't the official martal art korean soliders trained in Tae Kwon Do, and not Tang Soo Do or did that come later?


----------



## andyjeffries

Laplace_demon said:


> Another point of interest - Chuck Norris learned Tang Soo Do (Karate forms) in the South Korean base, not Tae Kwon Do, because he says it wasn't yet called that. I am surprised TSD was by 1958 still bigger than TKD.



There's nothing to say that Taekwondo wasn't a more popular term than Tangsoodo, it's just at that time, in that dojang they used Tangsoodo.  If I make up a style called Andyjeffriesdo and have some future-to-be-famous person train in it, later rename it back to Taekwondo, it doesn't mean that at that time Andyjeffriesdo was bigger than Taekwondo.



Laplace_demon said:


> Wasn't the official martal art korean soliders trained in Tae Kwon Do, and not Tang Soo Do or did that come later?



Again, he said has always said that he trained on the base, not necessarily that he did the official martial arts instruction that the Korean soldiers were getting.  It could well be that he trained at a dojang that happened to be on the base (and a lot of soldiers may have done it, but it wasn't the official martial art that they were made to do as part of their official training).


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> That Tae Kwon Do (1955) is historically a korean martial art. .




AFAIAC this is another straw man premise. I don't know where you find the statement that "TKD is historicaly a Korean MA"  Most now agree the 2000 year old thing is BS.  The Shorin and Shorei roots are explicitly set out in General Choi's book.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> Another point of interest - Chuck Norris learned Tang Soo Do (Karate forms) in the South Korean base, not Tae Kwon Do, because he says it wasn't yet called that. I am surprised TSD was by 1958 still bigger than TKD. Wasn't the official martal art korean soliders trained in Tae Kwon Do, and not Tang Soo Do or did that come later?



There was no magical instant overnight transformation.  Most everyone was practicing TSD when the name was adopted in 1955. Depending on your perspective if you practiced an MA before 1955 it could not have been TKD. So, after adoption of the name in 1955 and the changing of the sign at the Oh Do Kwan it's not like there was a magical transformation to a new system, That is surprising because?


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> TKDs technical independence from its Okinawa Karate roots cannot be sustained by the virtue of Chois 24 forms.



Do you feel the same about "Technical independance" (whatever that means ) of Shotokan and the Shorin and Shorei systems?

How about the throws and groundwork of Kodokan Judo and those of the Ju Jitsu Ryus that preceeded it?

If not, why not?


----------



## Earl Weiss

andyjeffries said:


> There's nothing to say that Taekwondo wasn't a more popular term than Tangsoodo, it's just at that time, in that dojang they used Tangsoodo.  If I make up a style called Andyjeffriesdo and have some future-to-be-famous person train in it, later rename it back to Taekwondo, it doesn't mean that at that time Andyjeffriesdo was bigger than Taekwondo.
> 
> Again, he said has always said that he trained on the base, not necessarily that he did the official martial arts instruction that the Korean soldiers were getting.  It could well be that he trained at a dojang that happened to be on the base (and a lot of soldiers may have done it, but it wasn't the official martial art that they were made to do as part of their official training).



It also doesn't mean that when the sign was changed at the ODK in April of 1955 every sign at every base gym and name instantly changed.  Looking at history they the lens of modern travel and communication will always lead to a lot of "Why" questions.


----------



## andyjeffries

Earl Weiss said:


> It also doesn't mean that when the sign was changed at the ODK in April of 1955 every sign at every base gym and name instantly changed.  Looking at history they the lens of modern travel and communication will always lead to a lot of "Why" questions.



Why didn't they just put the notice on Facebook, then everyone would have known faster and could have changed over immediately...






;-)


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> Another point of interest - Chuck Norris learned Tang Soo Do (Karate forms) in the South Korean base, not Tae Kwon Do, because he says it wasn't yet called that. I am surprised TSD was by 1958 still bigger than TKD. Wasn't the official martial art korean soldiers trained in Tae Kwon Do, and not Tang Soo Do or did that come later?



I find it difficult to get a good timeline on a lot of these things. As others have pointed out, just because Day 1 something changed names doesn't necessarily mean that on Day 2 everybody is using the new name. To address this question specifically, my understanding is this:

1952 - General Choi has his military team demonstrate martial arts to President Syngman Rhee; Rhee calls the martial art Taeykyon, a name that Choi prefers not to use
1955 - Many of the leaders of the Nine Kwans start leaning toward use of the name Tae Soo Do, during their early meetings about possible unification
1957 - General Choi begins lobbying for use of the name Tae Kwon Do
1958 - Chuck Norris is learning martial arts while based in South Korea
1960 - General Choi sends the Original Masters on their worldwide tour, where the name Tae Kwon Do is used for the tour

So my understanding is that Chuck Norris would have been studying martial arts in South Korea during a time where the name was very much still in flux.

Here's a timeline, but I'm not sure it's entirely accurate: Timeline of Taekwondo - Taekwondo Wiki . One of these days I should take a real crack at solidifying some of those dates.


----------



## TrueJim

Earl Weiss said:


> AFAIAC this is another straw man premise. I don't know where you find the statement that "TKD is historicaly a Korean MA"  Most now agree the 2000 year old thing is BS.  The Shorin and Shorei roots are explicitly set out in General Choi's book.



I agree of course that the 2000 year old thing is simply not true, but I'm still sympathetic to the people who like to make this claim. As I mentioned a while back in another thread:  Imagine if Christmas were outlawed for 35 years (especially before the Internet age), and then finally we were allowed to resume celebrating Christmas...except, nobody has sung Christmas songs or even printed the sheet music for 35 years; not only has nobody decorated any Christmas trees for 35 years, but nobody has even operated any Christmas tree farms for 35 years; not only has nobody hung ornaments, but all the ornament factories have been closed for 35 years -- how would we reconstitute Christmas? When we finally resumed celebrating Christmas, would it even still be recognizable as traditional Christmas? Maybe not, but for nostalgia's sake I suspect we'd like to still think there was some thread connecting us to the old Christmas traditions.

So even though it's BS, I think it's an understandable BS. After the atrocities of the occupation by Imperial Japan, I'm willing to forgive a little wishful thinking. That having been said...yah, it's just not true.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Earl Weiss said:


> Depending on your perspective if you practiced an MA before 1955 it could not have been TKD. So, after adoption of the name in 1955 and the changing of the sign at the Oh Do Kwan it's not like there was a magical transformation to a new system, That is surprising because?



Because the hole point of name unification was that it would actually be followed. Why else lobby and club for the change. Tang Soo Do incorporates direct chinese kung fu elements which no Tae Kwon Do(at least under General Chois philosophy) followed. Perhaps training method and emphasis also shifted with the name Tae Kwon Do. But at any rate, I ask again; What's the point of unification, if nobody abides by it?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Earl Weiss said:


> AFAIAC this is another straw man premise. I don't know where you find the statement that "TKD is historicaly a Korean MA"  Most now agree the 2000 year old thing is BS.  The Shorin and Shorei roots are explicitly set out in General Choi's book.



I never said anything about 2000 years old. You are the one commiting a straw man. If you disagree that Choi concidered Tae Kwon Do a korean martial art, you really haven't payed attention.


----------



## Jaeimseu

Laplace_demon said:


> Because the hole point of name unification was that it would actually be followed. Why else lobby and club for the change. Tang Soo Do incorporates direct chinese kung fu elements which no Tae Kwon Do(at least under General Chois philosophy) followed. Perhaps training method and emphasis also shifted with the name Tae Kwon Do. But at any rate, I ask again; What's the point of unification, if nobody abides by it?



Unification is a process. Globally, it's still an ongoing process. In Korea, Taekwondo is pretty well unified.


----------



## Laplace_demon

I am talking about the late 50s, not today. The goal is achieved nowdays with TKD.


----------



## Jaeimseu

Laplace_demon said:


> I am talking about the late 50s, not today. The goal is achieved nowdays with TKD.


Are you talking about the term taekwondo or the forms and technical aspects of the art?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Jaeimseu said:


> Are you talking about the term taekwondo or the forms and technical aspects of the art?


  The term. I am quite sure though chucks training would have differed if it had been named TKD instead. The reasons mentioned above


----------



## Chrisoro

My question is as follows: Was there a difference entering a taekwondo school pre ITF, outside of patterns and sparring for competition? Were there still an emphasis on kicking over striking? They still wore the Karate Gi in Taekwondo back then, and used shotokan patterns from what I understand

Were there any new fundamental techniques introduced in General Chois ITF, (outside of self defence techniques derived from Judo/jujitsu?)​
I haven't read the whole tread yet, but in regards to OP's questions in the first post, and his distinction of TaeKwonDo pre and post ITF, I feel that an clarification is on order.

The Korean TaeKwonDo Association(formed in 1959) predates the ITF(formed in 1966), and was the first TaeKwonDo organization. General Choi's Oh Do Kwan was only one of five original kwans forming this organization. It was the remaining kwans of this organization which later created the Kukkiwon(1972) and WTF, and ITF was formed only when General Choi's Oh Do Kwan left the KTA for political reasons in 1966.

As the KTA(which is still aligned with Kukkiwon/WTF today) was formed on the basis of a lot of different kwans with different backgrounds, they did not have any kind of standard way of doing things during this time and neither did all the different schools of the KTA use the same forms, even though General Choi tried hard to have the other schools of the KTA adopt the forms he created.

The first real and collaborative attempt at standardization of forms in the KTA by the original kwans didn't happen until the Palgwe poomsae were created in 1965-1968 (which were later replaced by the Taegeuk forms in 1971/1972), but even today, there are still schools aligned with Kukkiwon/WTF which trains both the Palgwe forms and the even earlier (mostly) karate-derived hyungs such as the _Pyung Ahn _set(corresponds to the Pinan/Heian karate kata), _Pal-sek (_Bassai/Passai), _Chul-Gi(Neihanchi), etc. 

Edit: Wrongly included the Chung Do Kwan in the ITF/KTA split. _


----------



## andyjeffries

Chrisoro said:


> ITF was formed only when General Choi's Oh Do Kwan left the KTA for political reasons in 1966. I believe Chung Do Kwan also joined the ITF at this point.



Are you sure?  The current kwanjangnim of Chungdokwan is GM Uhm Woon Kyu was appointed in 1959, he has been active throughout the decades in KTA/Kukkiwon business, e.g. in 1971 he was a Vice-President of the KTA Executive Committee, in 1978 he was the official signatory on behalf on Chungdokwan to the Kwan Unification Proclamation, in 2004 he became President of the Kukkiwon.

So, what made you think that Chungdokwan was ever part of the ITF?  I can post a link to the translation of the Modern History of Taekwondo book that has the above details in it (or the ISBN to the original book in Korean if it helps)


----------



## Chrisoro

I checked my sources, and you are right. I'm probably confused because of Chois earlier connection with Chung Do Kwan, and some representatives from it or a similar named kwan who chose to follow Gen. Choi when he formed the ITF.  In either case, It's been a while since I read about this, and I stand corrected.  Thanks. 

edit: I have edited my post above on the basis of your correction.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> But at any rate, I ask again; What's the point of unification, if nobody abides by it?



Well, I ask if "Nobody abides by it" then how is it that in all likelyhood (with the exception perhaps of people in China) The 2 largest systems practiced in the world  Kukki and Chang Hon use the name "TKD".

Now, again the need for a unified system that could be taught and trained on a large scale, internationaly was seen by Funakoshi, Kano, Ueshiba and others. beofre it was done by General Choi. The point  is that a person trained in a system can step on the floor of a Do Jang anywhere in the world and fit right in.  Instructors could be and were dispatched throughout the world to teach a system, and if needed could easily be replaced by another instructor of the system without disturbing continuity for the system.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> I never said anything about 2000 years old. You are the one commiting a straw man. If you disagree that Choi concidered Tae Kwon Do a korean martial art, you really haven't payed attention.





You use an indefinite statement : ""TKD is historicaly a Korean MA"   without agreeing on what you mean by that any discussion is futile.   Perhaps you would provide a quote or precise source for the premise you now care to debunk. I thought it referred to the 200 year old thing. apparently not.

So what did you refer to?


----------



## Earl Weiss

La Place, I have to concede that you are most likely 100% correct.   When the name TKD was formaly adopted on 4-11-1955, if you looked at schools using the monikor  during the next, days, weeks, or even months there was no magical transformation.

Some pioneers retained vestiges decades later.   When I hosted Nam Tae Hi in the late 1990's he still used a Japanese term or two to teach certain techniques.  I don't know that he ever taught the last 4 patterns, and I know Han Cha Kyo did not.


----------



## reeskm

I'm glad I stayed out of this for a while. This thread is getting heated!

TSD MDK is my specialty, so I'll try to help in this area:



TrueJim said:


> I find it difficult to get a good timeline on a lot of these things. As others have pointed out, just because Day 1 something changed names doesn't necessarily mean that on Day 2 everybody is using the new name.



Timelines in KMA are fraught with past mistakes, inconsistencies, and errors. Some deliberate, some not. I 100% agree that the name changes in the art were not done over night. If you look at Rhee and Henry S Cho, you can see a perfect case example. They were still calling their art Tangsoodo up until 1961 in the USA, at which point they decided to change the name of their art to Taekwondo but still teach exactly the same curriculum. Then, to varying degrees, they changed their curriculum as they felt like. You can see this change happening on page 1 in Duk San Son's 1969 book "Korean Karate". It's a written time machine into this change of name.


----------



## reeskm

This is my area!



TrueJim said:


> I find it difficult to get a good timeline on a lot of these things. As others have pointed out, just because Day 1 something changed names doesn't necessarily mean that on Day 2 everybody is using the new name.



Correct. There are tons of factual inconsistencies out there. It's difficult! And the name change happened over a very long period of time. While Choi changed his sign almost overnight, it took him a very long time to convince, pressure, threaten and torture others into coming over to his side.

Case example: Jhoon Rhee and Henry S. Cho continued to call their art Tangsoodo until around 1961, and both had opened their dojangs around 1958 or so in the USA. They did not adopt the name or curriculum of TKD overnight.

I have heard stories that Choi would send you directly to the front in Vietnam if you were a black belt in Tangsoodo and you refused to adopt his new style or curriculum at his military bases. He had the power of life and death over new recruits in his army bases that he controlled.



TrueJim said:


> 1958 - Chuck Norris is learning martial arts while based in South Korea
> 
> So my understanding is that Chuck Norris would have been studying martial arts in South Korea during a time where the name was very much still in flux.



This is 100% correct. Chuck Norris' martial arts history is well known. He tells it himself. He started in Korean Yudo and when he suffered a very bad injury he switched to Moodukkwan Tangsoodo at Osan AFB.

To give you a little known insight: Osan AFB was in a sense, an extension of the United States of America and did not have to comply with any Korean government regulations. US veterans could possibly confirm or elaborate?

Anyway, inadvertently Norris walked straight into this martial arts political minefield. The only reason the MooDukKwan was able to continue teaching Tangsoodo at Osan with complete freedom was because they were immune to Choi's influence and were able to survive the 1961 decree by President Park forcing all tangsoodo teachers to unify, or else.

Hwang Kee was later tortured and ordered to stop teaching by the government. He had to fight in court for the right to teach his martial art in South Korea. This is likely one of the major reasons the best of the best korean masters moved to the USA and Canada after 1961.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Earl Weiss said:


> La Place, I have to concede that you are most likely 100% correct.   When the name TKD was formaly adopted on 4-11-1955, if you looked at schools using the monikor  during the next, days, weeks, or even months there was no magical transformation.
> 
> Some pioneers retained vestiges decades later.   When I hosted Nam Tae Hi in the late 1990's he still used a Japanese term or two to teach certain techniques.  I don't know that he ever taught the last 4 patterns, and I know Han Cha Kyo did not.



Is it so difficult writing my username correctly? One can't help but wonder.  I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but yes, the TKD name unification clearly took  more than a few years.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Reading He Young Kim's recent history book. He recounts name adoption in 1955 but Korean TSD Assoc does not unify TSD and MDK and change name to Koreadn TKD assoc until 1959 under General Choi but this only lasts a year under his leadership and they change back until he returns in 1963 and he again pursues the TKD unified monikrer, so this can explain why Chuck Norris trained in TSD although in early books Norris refers to TSD in at least one later book he calls it TKD.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> Is it so difficult writing my username correctly? .



OOPS Sorry , but considering:

>>#211

Laplace_demon
“Because the hole point of...”<<

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."


----------



## oftheherd1

reeskm said:


> ...
> 
> 
> reeskm said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is 100% correct. Chuck Norris' martial arts history is well known. He tells it himself. He started in Korean Yudo and when he suffered a very bad injury he switched to Moodukkwan Tangsoodo at Osan AFB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had long heard he stated the art he studied in Korea was TangSooDo.  Never heard it called MDK-TSD, but then I never studied the history of all the arts either.  I know I studied Moo Duk Kwan briefly about 1965 or 66, and is contained elements unlike what Jhoon Goo Rhee was teaching.  I think the forms were different as well, but I could be wrong.  That was a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> reeskm said:
> 
> 
> 
> To give you a little known insight: Osan AFB was in a sense, an extension of the United States of America and did not have to comply with any Korean government regulations. US veterans could possibly confirm or elaborate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may indeed be a known insight for those who were never in the military in the far east in general, nor in Korea in particular.  However, the US always negotiated (or demanded) a favorable Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) for all its troops.  It was a treaty signed by both governments.  The Korean police and courts would have had no jurisdiction on a military installation concerning US Forces.  Off a military installation it was a little different.  They had a certain amount of time to assert the right to prosecute a military person, and could then do so.  It was a very uncommon practice on their part.  Anyone not covered by the SOFA might be untouchable while on the base, but had to leave sometime.  Civilians were seldom covered, nor were they usually given quarters or rations on a military installation.  Koreans who were hired to work on the base certainly would have lived off the installation and been subject to Korean law on or off the installation, except that they could not have been arrested on the installation without consent of the local JAG, accompanied by the local Provost Marshal (or their representatives).
> 
> 
> 
> reeskm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, inadvertently Norris walked straight into this martial arts political minefield. The only reason the MooDukKwan was able to continue teaching Tangsoodo at Osan with complete freedom was because they were immune to Choi's influence and were able to survive the 1961 decree by President Park forcing all tangsoodo teachers to unify, or else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds good, but again, neither Koreans nor Americans would have been living on an installation.  As soon as they walked out the gate they were fair game for any unfriendly Korean constabulary, civilian or military.  So would their families.
> 
> 
> 
> reeskm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hwang Kee was later tortured and ordered to stop teaching by the government. He had to fight in court for the right to teach his martial art in South Korea. This is likely one of the major reasons the best of the best korean masters moved to the USA and Canada after 1961.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't there to be able to say it did or didn't happen, but open opposition to President Pak was surely dangerous to anyone, no less the courts.  That eased as time went by, and some dissent was tolerated, at least by the time I was first there in 1974; one of our Korean National Criminal Investigators made no secret of the fact he did not like President Pak nor his government.
Click to expand...


----------



## Transk53

This thread still going. Wow.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy .*The Differences Between Karate`s "Roundhouse Kick" & Taekwon-do`s "Turning Kick"! *

This interesting article shed some light on the matter of Karate vs Taekwon-Do roundhouse kicks. I don't accept however that the later modified roundouse kick by the General Choi team of ITF, actually became universal for ITF, even. My instructor does not throw his roundhouses as in the picture from Lenny Ludlam, although some of his IV dan students do. I have also seen KKW guys throw kicks like Chois ITF proponents, as well as Tang Soo Do adherents.


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy .*The Differences Between Karate`s "Roundhouse Kick" & Taekwon-do`s "Turning Kick"! *
> 
> This interesting article shed some light on the matter of Karate vs Taekwon-Do roundhouse kicks. I don't accept however that the later modified roundouse kick by the General Choi team of ITF, actually became universal for ITF, even. My instructor does not throw his roundhouses as in the picture from Lenny Ludlam, although some of his IV dan students do. I have also seen KKW guys throw kicks like Chois ITF proponents, as well as Tang Soo Do adherents.



We use the High knee chamber, but we've changed little from how Hwang Kee taught my KJN the tech

I will say that #4 really has nothing to do with style so it gives me a bad feeling about the article.

Ive never seen a TKD, Karate, Boxing, MT, or even joe can do, style not teach to drive or "snap"(as one of our instrcutors explains) through a target.

Outside of controlled sparring that is


----------



## Gnarlie

Proficient kickers are generally familiar with several variants of each type of kick, regardless of their organisation - I have practiced all of these at various points! I find that how each individual approaches this kick is largely determined by what their flexibility allows them to get away with.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Gnarlie said:


> Proficient kickers are generally familiar with several variants of each type of kick, regardless of their organisation - I have practiced all of these at various points! I find that how each individual approaches this kick is largely determined by what their flexibility allows them to get away with.



It's missleading when I see Tang Soo Do practitioners, who have no relation to the General Choi lineage, practise his teams supposed "scientific" roundhouse kick. I do accept that Karateka practitioners don't shift their body as much in the turning kick. However, this downside in power can be compensated by less telegraphing and (possibly) higher speed. Also speed increases mass, so a TKD/TSD turning kick is not neccesarily more powerful, if the practitioners can't get enough acceleration/speed.  Some IV dan grades hit's the  turning kick" excellently, but with no speed. They would actually hit less hard then the newer version, which is supposedly less powerful.


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> It's missleading when I see Tang Soo Do practitioners, who have no relation to the General Choi lineage, practise his teams supposed "scientific" roundhouse kick. I do accept that Karateka practitioners don't shift their body as much in the turning kick. However, this downside in power can be compensated by less telegraphing and (possibly) higher speed. Also speed increases mass, so a TKD/TSD turning kick is not neccesarily more powerful, if the practitioners can't get enough acceleration/speed.  Some IV dan grades hit's the  turning kick" excellently, but with no speed. They would actually hit less hard then the newer version, which is supposedly less powerful.



Its important to note that the differences between the two techs are prety minor, the big one being emphasis on waist with ball pivot vs emphasis on pivot with some waist.

Striking areas, leaning, etc vary more the person that the style and shouldnt really be attributed to the latter


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> It's missleading when I see Tang Soo Do practitioners, who have no relation to the General Choi lineage, practise his teams supposed "scientific" roundhouse kick. I do accept that Karateka practitioners don't shift their body as much in the turning kick. However, this downside in power can be compensated by less telegraphing and (possibly) higher speed. Also speed increases mass, so a TKD/TSD turning kick is not neccesarily more powerful, if the practitioners can't get enough acceleration/speed.  Some IV dan grades hit's the  turning kick" excellently, but with no speed. They would actually hit less hard then the newer version, which is supposedly less powerful.



I think it comes down to what suits the individual best, but this 

speed increases mass

Is not true. Is that what you meant to say?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Gnarlie said:


> I think it comes down to what suits the individual best, but this
> 
> speed increases mass
> 
> Is not true. Is that what you meant to say?



But things hits you harder depending on how fast you are moving towards it, or the other way around. Speed is related to impact. I haven't read physics, but even at the speed of light the mass is apparently constant.


----------



## Gnarlie

I think you mean Force = mass x acceleration. The acceleration in the case of a kick is actually a deceleration as it hits the target. The faster it is travelling when it meets the target, the greater the acceleration as the kick slows to zero.

Speed and mass applied to a kick are both within the control of the kicker, but speed is somewhat easier to add than mass, especially beyond a certain percentage of body mass.


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> But things hits you harder depending on how fast you are moving towards it, or the other way around. Speed is related to impact. I haven't read physics, but even at the speed of light the mass is apparently constant.



While phsycially speaking you are correct, the equation is something like:

Force = mass x velocity^2, 

Making speed an important factor

You mean speed increases FORCE,

Not speed increases MASS.

Mass is size after all, so to speak,


----------



## elder999

*How did Taekwon-Do (1955) predating 1966 look like?*

Like a lot of Korean gentlemen doing Shotokan karate.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Gnarlie said:


> I think you mean Force = mass x acceleration. The acceleration in the case of a kick is actually a deceleration as it hits the target. The faster it is travelling when it meets the target, the greater the acceleration as the kick slows to zero.
> 
> Speed and mass applied to a kick are both within the control of the kicker, but speed is somewhat easier to add than mass, especially beyond a certain percentage of body mass.



Yes, that's what I mean. So the Choi/ITF kick(I will call it that for purposes of clarity) will not hit harder than the later olympic sport TKD kick, if the latters speed is superior, which it will be with alot of practitioners.


----------



## Gnarlie

Force is mass multiplied by acceleration

Kinetic energy is 1/2mass multiplied by square of velocity

The kicker is what makes the difference.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Gnarlie said:


> Force is mass multiplied by acceleration
> 
> Kinetic energy is 1/2mass multiplied by square of velocity
> 
> The kicker is what makes the difference.



If one technique slows down the acceleration, then it doesn't matter if he puts more body behind it, it will not hit the target harder, than the olympic kick. Suppose it's the same guy performing both kicks.


----------



## Gnarlie

At first sight, you would think so. But the physics is complex beyond the realms of those formulae. Lot of variables.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Gnarlie said:


> At first sight, you would think so. But the physics is complex beyond the realms of those formulae. Lot of variables.



I promise you this will be true. The Choi "science team" did not take this into concideration. Olympic TKD kicks traveling at tremendous acceleration will outperform their kick in power.


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> I promise you this will be true. The Choi "science team" did not take this into concideration. Olympic TKD kicks traveling at tremendous acceleration will outperform their kick in power.



Both kicks have their advantages and disadvantages. For example, kicking with the ball of the foot transfers the available force through a much smaller surface area...

I wouldn't rule anything out just yet.


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> If one technique slows down the acceleration, then it doesn't matter if he puts more body behind it, it will not hit the target harder, than the olympic kick. Suppose it's the same guy performing both kicks.



Specific Technique has very little to do with a persons execution speed, so it really _cant _slow down acceleration.

Think reverse punch vs boxing jab/straight. You can find videos easily of both having similar speeds.



Laplace_demon said:


> I promise you this will be true. The Choi "science team" did not take this into concideration. Olympic TKD kicks traveling at tremendous acceleration will outperform their kick in power.



You promise?
That sounds very certain from a guy who had to have mass x velocity explained.

In theory, because our  high knee raise we should kick slower than styles who dont. But most people at our school arent. Theyre the swme speed youll see in am kickboxing, or karate, and TKD tourneys.

Execution Speed depends almost entirely on the person.

So the "kukki kicks harder cause faster" argument doesnt really hold.


Not to mention there are matches and videos where "Kukki-kickers" so to speak, are kicking faster, but arent ceating the same impact as other TKD style of kicking.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Drose427 said:


> Not to mention there are matches and videos where "Kukki-kickers" so to speak, are kicking faster, but arent ceating the same impact as other TKD style of kicking.



Because their acceleration isn't superior enough. However, from an idealistic perspective, having both optimized, then it's still generally accepted that the old school kick can not hit the target as fast (still fast) as the the later olympic TKD one. If it however can hit it just as fast, then the old school kick wins by definition. I very much doubt that though, because of the body mechanics involved.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> However, from an idealistic perspective, having both optimized, then it's still generally accepted that the old school kick can not hit the target as fast (still fast) as the the later olympic TKD one.



Are you sure about this because on the Anderson Silva thread you stated that TKD hadn't progressed. 

here we go.

Drose427 said: ↑
"For further explanation (cause i feel demon will need it) competition standard and skill of fighters have both been increasing for a long time now, so a video from 10 years ago is hardly representative"
You said...
"No evidence of that. If there is: show it."


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> Because their acceleration isn't superior enough. However, from an idealistic perspective, having both optimized, then it's still generally accepted that the old school kick can not hit the target as fast (still fast) as the the later olympic TKD one. If it however can hit it just as fast, then the old school kick wins by definition. I very much doubt that though, because of the body mechanics involved.



I dont think its "generally accepted" from anyone within TKD. You may like to think that, but Ive never heard anyone within TKD that one way is inherently faster or nore powerful

That sounds a lot like the Guys who train Muay thai 2 days a week and think they kick faster and harder than the Karate or TKD who trains 4-7 days a week. 

It isnt more powerful or faster just because you think it is. 

Again, a reverse punch is different mechanically, but you can easily find boxers whose jabs/sttaights are slower and softer than a tkdoers reverse punch

And again, you can see equal speed and power with with both knee raise and kukkistyle techs(or any similar straight legged style for that matter)


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> Are you sure about this because on the Anderson Silva thread you stated that TKD hadn't progressed.



This was already prevalent in the early 90s and 80s, possibly 70s too. But we refer to it as the Olympic TKD kick. If I train both like a nut, and perform them both optimally, then I will dispute General Chois contention, yes. The olympic kick will be both faster and harder. Thus superior in all respects in terms of power and speed.

For all intents and purposes, his old school kick will still hit harder, because most performers can't reach the acceleration difference which the Olympic versions strives to achieve


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> This was already prevalent in the early 90s and 80s, possibly 70s too. But we refer to it as the Olympic TKD kick. If I train both like a nut, and perform them both optimally, then I will dispute General Chois contention, yes. The olympic kick will be both faster and harder. Thus superior in all respects in terms of power and speed.
> 
> For all intents and purposes, his old school kick will still hit harder, because most performers can't reach the acceleration difference which the Olympic versions strives to achieve




no, you said in the Anderson Silva thread that TKD hadn't progressed yet here you are saying that it has progressed because the later kick is better than the previous one so which is it?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> no, you said in the Anderson Silva thread that TKD hadn't progressed yet here you are saying that it has progressed because the later kick is better than the previous one so which is it?



Where did I say TKD has not progressed?


----------



## Drose427

Tez3 said:


> no, you said in the Anderson Silva thread that TKD hadn't progressed yet here you are saying that it has progressed because the later kick is better than the previous one so which is it?



Im pretty sure his answer depends entirely on what we tell/explain to him and what he reads online.

Hes doing same, "this is better because i heard it is, or think it is" i hear from guys who think they know MMA, and still argue when corrected by the coaches at the gym


Laplace_demon said:


> Were did I say TKD has not progressed?


In a post or two above she quoted the exact post.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Drose claimed that the fighter have gotten better, quite seperate from if major changes have been made (which can be useless or good, completely independent).

 The kick I refer to was already prevalent for the WTF when the korean got trashed against Paul Doumbia.


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> Where did I say TKD has not progressed?



Do make an effort to read peoples posts. See post 248 in this thread.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Drose427 said:


> Hes doing same, "this is better because i heard it is, or think it is" i hear from guys who think they know MMA, and still argue when corrected by the coaches at the gym



No, I argue on the basis of acceleration. The old school kick cannot (realistically) reach the same potential as the olympic kick.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> Where did I say TKD has not progressed?




Post 45 on the Anderson Silva thread, posted on 22nd April 2015 at 1042 BST.


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> Drose claimed that the fighter have gotten better, quite seperate from if major changes have been made (which can be useless or good, completely independent).
> 
> The kick I refer to was already prevalent for the WTF when the korean got trashed against Paul Doumbia.



Funny that there are no other details of that match around other than that sketchy video. I find it disappointing that the Korean's name is not mentioned although he was supposedly a then WTF champion (a not the because weight categories). If we had a name we could verify...suspect.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> Post 45 on the Anderson Silva thread, posted on 22nd April 2015 at 1042 BST.



Fighters progressing and TKD as an art progressing is not the same thing.


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> No, I argue on the basis of acceleration. The old school kick cannot (realistically) reach the same potential as the olympic kick.



How not? 

The knee raise cuts back on overall distance traveled during the execution of the kick to the point of contact.

Which affects the time spent in overall acceleration, allowing the overall power and speed to be equalized between techs.

My instructor used to regularly fight Mark Lopez at the state and National level in the 90s, and his knee raise kick was every bit as fast and as hard. 


This how you can find clips of guys kicking as hard and fast as Kukki TKD and even outside styles such as MT and Karate.

You can try and ponder and theorize all you want, But it will never be the same as reality.

Youre just creating a lot of misonceptions for yourself


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> Fighters progressing and TKD as an art progressing is not the same thing.



No but you said TKD was not progressing in direct reply to discussing its sparring and how its gotten "softer".

...unless youre trying tk change the answer now...


----------



## Laplace_demon

Drose427 said:


> How not?



_The old style:

1.  Pivots 180 degrees 
2.  Leans the whole body into the kick
3.  Uses the ball of the foot to strike
4.  Whip-cracking motion at the target 
5.  Speed acceleration via torque from slight twisting from opposite side in the beginning
6.  Target-High, Middle, Low sections
7.  Powerful
8.  *Most common complaint is the speed, but I notice this varies individually*
9.  Trained with suspended bags_
_
Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy_


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> _The old style:
> 
> 1.  Pivots 180 degrees
> 2.  Leans the whole body into the kick
> 3.  Uses the ball of the foot to strike
> 4.  Whip-cracking motion at the target
> 5.  Speed acceleration via torque from slight twisting from opposite side in the beginning
> 6.  Target-High, Middle, Low sections
> 7.  Powerful
> 8.  *Most common complaint is the speed, but I notice this varies individually*
> 9.  Trained with suspended bags
> 
> Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy_



One article?

Which again said, "VARIES INDIVIDUALLY"

I literally just explained the physics and mechanics behind equalization.....read it and try again


----------



## Laplace_demon

Drose427 said:


> No but you said TKD was not progressing in direct reply to discussing its sparring and how its gotten "softer".
> 
> ...unless youre trying tk change the answer now...



I don't recall writing that. The sparring has gotten softer for sure. I wrote that sparring rules are not intrinsic to TKD or any other martial art.  Anyway, this has nothing to do with the thread.


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> I don't recall writing that. The sparring has gotten softer for sure. I wrote that sparring rules are not intrinsic to TKD or any other martial art.  Anyway, this has nothing to do with the thread.




Sure,

So whats your response to your other point?

In the rogan thread you believed ITF to be superior, but after this article you believe Kukki kocks to be superior based on a difference in tech.

Even though your own article of evidence goes against the "style v style" point youre trying to make, and we explained the equalizing physics behind the differing techs.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Drose427 said:


> One article?
> 
> Which again said, "VARIES INDIVIDUALLY"



Varies individually, but still realistically slower - worse acceleration, than the never version. This is my contention. I could be wrong.


----------



## Laplace_demon

In summary then: *God bless WTF* (think I am gonna be sick..)


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> Fighters progressing and TKD as an art progressing is not the same thing.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> View attachment 19273



It is *not* the same thing. Do you seriously wish to challenge a philosophy undergraduate in verbal comprehension? Have you ever concidered the possibility of the talent pool being weaker? or the progression being irrelevant stuff? Progression carries with it different connotations.


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> It is *not* the same thing. Do you seriously wish to challenge a philosophy undergraduate in verbal comprehension? Have you ever concidered the possibility of the talent pool being weaker? or the progression being irrelevant stuff? Progression carries with it different connotations.




was that your dad too?

And yes, they can carry different connotations. But you said that in direct repsonse to discussing sparring. You cant go back and act like you meant something else now


----------



## Laplace_demon

Drose427 said:


> was that your dad too?
> 
> And yes, they can carry different connotations. But you said that in direct repsonse to discussing sparring. You cant go back and act like you meant something else now



The fact that WTFers today can do things differently technically does not mean that A) those things are of any use, B) That those practitioners are stronger than they were in the 90s. You point to one guy - Lopez, and base your hole contention that because of him, most of the talent pool is surely stronger, and surely employ superior techniques.


...


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> The fact that WTFers today can do things differently technically does not mean that A) those things are of any use B) That those practitioners are stronger than they were in the 90s. You point to one guy( Lopez,) and base your hole contention that because of him, most of the talent pool is surely stronger, and surely employ superior techniques.
> 
> 
> ...



I used lopez because his family is very well known.

My instrcutor qualified and competed in the 97 jr. Olympics, he kept up and outspeed MANY other kukki guys to get there.

Not to mention the other guys in our association at the time who were also competing, my boo sah bum nim was briefly the state champ of wv for a time, for example.

And no, youre the only guy pointing fingers in any direction of one styles twch being surperior. 

We've been giving examples and the physics behind the exact opposite.

And the kukki guys ARENT doing things differently, their techs are the same. Tje people have grown thus allowing competition to grow.

Not to mention the example i gave wasnt meant as an example of all the growth within kukki tkd,  in another thread we showed other videos and links for that. My example was specificall and blatantly to show no specific execution is superior. We had many successful competitiors at the time, my instrcutor just went the farthest fighting the "old way"


----------



## Laplace_demon

Drose427 said:


> I used lopez because his family is very well known.
> 
> My instrcutor qualified and competed in the 97 jr. Olympics, he kept up and outspeed MANY other kukki guys to get there.
> 
> Not to mention the other guys in our association at the time who were also competing, my boo sah bum nim was briefly the state champ of wv for a time, for example.
> 
> And no, youre the only guy pointing fingers in any direction of one styles twch being surperior.
> 
> We've been giving examples and the physics behind the exact opposite.
> 
> And the kukki guys ARENT doing things differently, their techs are the same. Tje people have grown thus allowing competition to grow.
> 
> Not to mention the example i gave wasnt meant as an example of all the growth within kukki tkd,  in another thread we showed other videos and links for that. My example was specificall and blatantly to show no specific execution is superior. We had many successful competitiors at the time, my instrcutor just went the farthest fighting the "old way"



You can't have it both ways.  You specifically claimed that they (WTFers) were worse fighters 10 years ago, but now retract it by saying that the've "grown". LOL.


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> You can't have it both ways. The WTFers 10 years ago are either better or worse than today. You specifically claimed that they were worse, but now retract it by saying that the've "grown". LOL.



.......yes the competition in kukki HAS grown over 10 years.....they were worse 10 years ago. Literallt the the same statemenr with different wording,i  havent retracted anything.

The individuals and level of competition have grown, but the TECHNIQUES are the same as 10 years ago. 


Ive seen many current Kukki kickers who are out kicked other styles who kick differently. Its not hard to find for those who actually go out and train. You realize real quick there isnt some superior tech

Not to mention the ITF guys who are now performing on WTF, 

So even if your argument is my examples are dated and flawed, you can find power and speed from old style kickers from other associations equatable modern  Kukki kickers, even on youtube.

So, no,  my point still stands,  

because you see when you grow, youre better now than you before and worse back then than you are now.

You seem to have this inner desire to prove either WTF or ITF is better than the other and its just not.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Drose427 said:


> .
> You seem to have this inner desire to prove either WTF or ITF is better than the other and its just not.



You are the one hung up on that. I am simply discussing a kick. I have never claimed ITF is superior to KKW. You made that up in your mind somehow.


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> You are the one hung up on that. I am simply discussing a kick. I have never claimed ITF is superior to KKW. You made that up in your mind somehow.



I suggest you go back and look over some of your posts in other threads.

Not assuming you will, you've already been flippy floppy in this thread...

Just a suggestion


----------



## Laplace_demon

Drose427 said:


> I suggest you go back and look over some of your posts in other threads.
> 
> Not assuming you will, you've already been flippy floppy in this thread...
> 
> Just a suggestion



Show the quote were I said ITF is superior to KKW. I challenge you to find it.


----------



## Jaeimseu

Laplace_demon said:


> Yes, that's what I mean. So the Choi/ITF kick(I will call it that for purposes of clarity) will not hit harder than the later olympic sport TKD kick, if the latters speed is superior, which it will be with alot of practitioners.


It's important to remember that the speed in the equation is not related to the time it takes to throw the kick, but how fast the object is moving upon impact. When we talk about how fast a kick is it can be deceiving.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Jaeimseu said:


> It's important to remember that the speed in the equation is not related to the time it takes to throw the kick, but how fast the object is moving upon impact. When we talk about how fast a kick is it can be deceiving.



Yes. However, the time it takes to throw the kick affects (many would argue) the acceleration upon impact. I happen to be able to accelerate it pretty fast, but it still doesn't seem to be a very economical kick, especially if I am out of the dojo, in jeans. I still like it, though.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Laplace_demon said:


> Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy .*The Differences Between Karate`s "Roundhouse Kick" & Taekwon-do`s "Turning Kick"! *
> 
> This interesting article shed some light on the matter of Karate vs Taekwon-Do roundhouse kicks. I don't accept however that the later modified roundouse kick by the General Choi team of ITF, actually became universal for ITF, even. My instructor does not throw his roundhouses as in the picture from Lenny Ludlam, although some of his IV dan students do. I have also seen KKW guys throw kicks like Chois ITF proponents, as well as Tang Soo Do adherents.



I read through the article and there are some inaccuracies in it. First, the rotation of the base (supporting) foot is not 180 degrees. There is no documented evidence in Gen. Choi's 1965 or 1972 textbooks or in the later _Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do_ that the base foot pivots 180 degrees. No such directions are given in the 1965 text. The 1972 text states that the base foot should point almost completely forward. This is in relation to the body; the kick is actually being thrown at an angle to the "side front" (approximately 45 degrees from the front). The encyclopedia states that "the toes of the stationary foot should point 45 degrees outward at the moment of impact." That's a greater angle than keeping the toes almost completely forward as the 1972 text states, but nowhere near 180 degrees.

As for what attacking tool is used, turning kicks used the ball of the foot but also the knee as early as the 1965 textbook. In the 1972 textbook the attacking tools are listed as ball of the foot, knee, instep, and toes (if shoes are worn).

There might also be some confusion about the KKW/WTF "bit chagi." I am under the impression that the 45 degree angle this kick is often referred to as being delivered at is in relation to the rotation of the hip/leg. So instead of rotating completely over the hip only partially rotates so the bit chagi is delivered as kind of a cross between a front kick and a turning kick so the kick travels slightly upwards into the target hitting with the instep instead of coming straight across. But in the article the bit chagi is compared to the turning kick in Choong-Moo tul, which is delivered at a 45 degree angle from where the kicker stands (if you're facing 12 o'clock your kick is aimed at between 1 and 2 o'clock) not a 45 degree rotation of the hip/leg. Maybe a KKW Taekwondoin can speak to this?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Laplace_demon

Another thing ; How often do you see this traditional, ultra, move-your-body-behind turning kick in competition. Not even ITF guys, in ITF tournaments ever use it.

Shouldn't this tell us something about it's effectiveness, power non withstanding?


----------



## elder999

*How did Taekwon-Do (1955) predating 1966 look like?*

An awful lot like a bunch of Korean gentleman doing Shotokan karate.


----------



## TrueJim

elder999 said:


> An awful lot like a bunch of Korean gentleman doing Shotokan karate.



 Funny.

On a more serious note though...

For the longest time I've heard Shotokan mentioned as the primary karate influence on taekwondo. But then I was doing some reading recently and I noticed this:

Choi Hong-Hi, of course, is said to have studied Shotokan
Likewise Lee Won-Kuk (Chung Do Kwan)
Likewise Ro Byung-Jick (Song Moo Kwan)
But Yoon Byung-In (YMCA Kwon Bop Bu) is said to have studied Shūdōkan karate under Kanken Toyoma
And Yoon Kwe-Byung (Jido Kwan) is said to have studied Shitō-ryū karate.
Do I have all that right?

So my question is this...why do we so often reference Shotokan when discussing the origins of taekwondo, but not Shūdōkan and Shitō-ryū ?  In terms of karate influences, does Shotokan get too much of the credit?


----------



## Gnarlie

Interesting Chris. The 'bit chagi' is I believe as you describe it, but both the term and the mechanic of that kick have changed over the last 10 years or so. The term means 'angled kick', referring to the path it takes into the target, somewhere between apchagi and dollyo.

The term 'dollyo chagi' now seems to be in wider use within Kukki TKD, at least based on my experience.

The mechanic has become more of a knee up chamber similar to apchagi, no longer taking a 45 degree tilted path, and now turning the hip in only at the very end of the kick and carrying that rotation along the axis of the leg to transfer power into the target. The hip can be turned over fully or just to 45 degrees depending on the target and desired next step. This is deceptive (several kinds of kick with the same chamber path), fast due to the chambered knee bend, does not telegraph from the same wide angle as bit chagi, and facilitates hip switch kicking. It also does not compromise power to achieve those advantages.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> It is *not* the same thing. *Do you seriously wish to challenge a philosophy* *undergraduate in verbal comprehension?* Have you ever concidered the possibility of the talent pool being weaker? or the progression being irrelevant stuff? Progression carries with it different connotations.



Go fetch them, bring them on here and I will, as a graduate in English I'm up for anything..


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> Another thing ; How often do you see this traditional, ultra, move-your-body-behind turning kick in competition. Not even ITF guys, in ITF tournaments ever use it.
> 
> Shouldn't this tell us something about it's effectiveness, power non withstanding?


It should tell us about its effectiveness in the context of competition against a trained opponent. Not much else.


----------



## RTKDCMB

OK, time for a physics lesson.



Laplace_demon said:


> Also speed increases mass



Although I am sure you meant something else, that statement is actually correct. This effect is part of General Relativity and is negligible except for velocities approaching the speed of light.



Laplace_demon said:


> but even at the speed of light the mass is apparently constant



Refer to previous point. Also nothing that has mass (except if it has infinite mass) can travel at the speed of light



Laplace_demon said:


> Yes, that's what I mean. So the Choi/ITF kick(I will call it that for purposes of clarity) will not hit harder than the later olympic sport TKD kick, if the latters speed is superior, which it will be with alot of practitioners.



However if the formers speed is superior it may and probably will hit harder.



Laplace_demon said:


> If one technique slows down the acceleration, then it doesn't matter if he puts more body behind it, it will not hit the target harder, than the olympic kick



There is more to hitting the target hard than just speed. F = ma. The decrease in acceleration will decrease the force as will the decrease in mass being accelerated to the target. The relative magnitudes of the decrease of the mass or acceleration will determine which factor will decrease the applied force to the greater extent. You can kick with as much force as you want but if you do not transfer that force to your target sufficiently you will not kick the target hard enough.



Laplace_demon said:


> Olympic TKD kicks traveling at tremendous acceleration will outperform their kick in power.



See previous point.



Laplace_demon said:


> I promise you this will be true. The Choi "science team" did not take this into concideration.



They also got the formula for power wrong (they gave the formula for kinetic energy).



Laplace_demon said:


> Thus superior in all respects in terms of power and speed.



I beg to differ, the turning kicks used by TKD fighters in the Olympics only really put half of their hips behind it. Also when you bring your knee straight in front of you, you have already wasted half of your hip turning movement just getting to the chamber, making it intrinsically less powerful, even if it is faster.








Jaeimseu said:


> It's important to remember that the speed in the equation is not related to the time it takes to throw the kick, but how fast the object is moving upon impact. When we talk about how fast a kick is it can be deceiving.



Speed is distance divided by time (how long it takes to get from point A to point B), velocity is how fast you are going at any given moment.If two objects are covering the same distance in the same time and one is traveling at a constant velocity and the other is accelerating and decelerating they will both have the same speed even though their velocities may be different at all points in the journey except at least one.



Laplace_demon said:


> Another thing ; How often do you see this traditional, ultra, move-your-body-behind turning kick in competition. Not even ITF guys, in ITF tournaments ever use it.
> 
> Shouldn't this tell us something about it's effectiveness, power non withstanding?



The only thing that tells you is that competition TKD wants a kick that gets to the target faster in order to score points so its effectiveness for that task (not overall effectiveness) is the focus of the kick.If I was going to use a turning kick to defend myself you can bet Benders shiny metal a$$ I would put my entire body behind it.


----------



## elder999

TrueJim said:


> Funny.
> 
> On a more serious note though...
> 
> For the longest time I've heard Shotokan mentioned as the primary karate influence on taekwondo. But then I was doing some reading recently and I noticed this:
> 
> Choi Hong-Hi, of course, is said to have studied Shotokan
> Likewise Lee Won-Kuk (Chung Do Kwan)
> Likewise Ro Byung-Jick (Song Moo Kwan)
> But Yoon Byung-In (YMCA Kwon Bop Bu) is said to have studied Shūdōkan karate under Kanken Toyoma
> And Yoon Kwe-Byung (Jido Kwan) is said to have studied Shitō-ryū karate.
> Do I have all that right?
> 
> So my question is this...why do we so often reference Shotokan when discussing the origins of taekwondo, but not Shūdōkan and Shitō-ryū ?  In terms of karate influences, does Shotokan get too much of the credit?



So, about me-I studied tae kwon do under Duk Sung Son and Kyokushin under Oyama Shigeru......_at the same time._ That came about with both teachers consent because I was attending boarding school, *and because I had noted that both sets of kata were almost the same.* There were some differences, and some kata in each that had no counterpart in the other, but they were mostly the same. At 15, this was a puzzlement, what with both teachers pretty much saying they didn't know why (when, in fact, they likely *did*), but 40 years later, it is not at all.

The short answer is _Anko Itosu_

Toyama studied under Anko Itosu before founding Shudokan.

Kenwa Mabuni studied under Anko Itosu before founding Shito Ryu

Funakoshi studied under Anko Itosu before founding Shotokan.

Anko Itosu *invented *the Pinan kata.


Pinan Shodan from Shito Ryu:





_Heian_Shodan from Shotokan:





Pinan Shodan from Shudokan:





Pinan Shodan from Tang Soo Do:





Pinan Shodan from Chung Do Kwan/Tae Kwon Do/whatever else you wanna call it:





So, what did tae kwon do in the 50's and 60's (and 70's, sometimes 80's, and in some places like Texas today?) look like?

_An awful *lot* like some Korean gentlemen doing Shotokan karate._





(Or, at least, an awful lot like some Korean gentlemen doing Pinan kata....)


----------



## chrispillertkd

TrueJim said:


> Funny.
> 
> On a more serious note though...
> 
> For the longest time I've heard Shotokan mentioned as the primary karate influence on taekwondo. But then I was doing some reading recently and I noticed this:
> 
> Choi Hong-Hi, of course, is said to have studied Shotokan
> Likewise Lee Won-Kuk (Chung Do Kwan)
> Likewise Ro Byung-Jick (Song Moo Kwan)
> But Yoon Byung-In (YMCA Kwon Bop Bu) is said to have studied Shūdōkan karate under Kanken Toyoma
> And Yoon Kwe-Byung (Jido Kwan) is said to have studied Shitō-ryū karate.
> Do I have all that right?



Yoon Kwe-Byung studied both Shito-Ryu and Shudokan. I don't know what rank he possessed in Shito-Ryu but he was ranked very highly in Shudokan.



> So my question is this...why do we so often reference Shotokan when discussing the origins of taekwondo, but not Shūdōkan and Shitō-ryū ?  In terms of karate influences, does Shotokan get too much of the credit?



Shotokan probably doesn't get too much credit for a few reasons. First of all, Gen. Choi's Oh Do Kwan was most likely the largest Kwan in terms of sheer numbers. The Chung Do Kwan was also very large. The Song Moo Kwan was much smaller but was the first Kwan to be founded (even though it temporarily closed shortly there after).

The Ji Do Kwan also may have had some Shotokan influence since Chun, Sang Sup who founded the Choson Yun Moo Kwan Kong Soo Do Bu - from which the Ji Do Kwan sprung - had studied Shotokan.

That being said I personally would be very interested in seeing a comparison of Shudokan (and maybe Shito-Ryu) to early Taekwon-Do. I mean not only which patterns each used (and Shito-Ryu is noted for having no shortage of kata comared to other styles) but also the body mechanics, stances, and techniques used in each. That would really be the best way to determine what other influences from karate Taekwon-Do had.

And after that we could do a little research on the influence of Chu'an Fa through Yoon, Byung-In 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Drose427

TrueJim said:


> Funny.
> 
> On a more serious note though...
> 
> For the longest time I've heard Shotokan mentioned as the primary karate influence on taekwondo. But then I was doing some reading recently and I noticed this:
> 
> Choi Hong-Hi, of course, is said to have studied Shotokan
> Likewise Lee Won-Kuk (Chung Do Kwan)
> Likewise Ro Byung-Jick (Song Moo Kwan)
> But Yoon Byung-In (YMCA Kwon Bop Bu) is said to have studied Shūdōkan karate under Kanken Toyoma
> And Yoon Kwe-Byung (Jido Kwan) is said to have studied Shitō-ryū karate.
> Do I have all that right?
> 
> So my question is this...why do we so often reference Shotokan when discussing the origins of taekwondo, but not Shūdōkan and Shitō-ryū ?  In terms of karate influences, does Shotokan get too much of the credit?



While I wouldnt say it specifically looked like koreans practicing shotokan(difference in techs, snap, key points, cadence erc.)

As elder said, it all comes from the same line.

Shuri-te.

We look more like our neighbor shorin school and other shorin schools ive seen than the shotokan schools i have. Although, its similar enough to tell we share an ancestor somewhere.

But again, we all come from the same line so theres gonna be many a similarity.

So while i wouldnt give the credit to Shotokan specifically, the credit does go to that line

Unless you can find kwans with influence from the Naha-Te and Temari-Te lines, which im not saying is impossible, but i havent seen it


----------



## Laplace_demon

RTKDCMB said:


> If I was going to use a turning kick to defend myself you can bet Benders shiny metal a$$ I would put my entire body behind it.



I would simply cut time by going diagonally (tournament kick) and kick the head. "Keep It Simple, Stupid".


----------



## elder999

chrispillertkd said:


> Yoon Kwe-Byung studied both Shito-Ryu and Shudokan. I don't know what rank he possessed in Shito-Ryu but he was ranked very highly in Shudokan.
> And after that we could do a little research on the influence of Chu'an Fa through Yoon, Byung-In
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



Yoon's chuan fa probably came from Toyama...though he did spend some years in Manchuria


Drose427 said:


> As elder said, it all comes from the same line.
> 
> Shuri-te.



Not just the same line....._the same *man*_, Anko Itosu..


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> I would simply cut time by going diagonally (tournament kick) and kick the head. "Keep It Simple, Stupid".


In tournaments, people stand sideways. In real life, they often do not. A diagonal kick to the head carries with it a high likelihood of meeting a shoulder on its travels to the target.

I would just not kick to the head (at least not while it was at head height) if my life depended on it. I have far higher percentage tactics in the toolbox.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Gnarlie said:


> In tournaments, people stand sideways. In real life, they often do not. A diagonal kick to the head carries with it a high likelihood of meeting a shoulder on its travels to the target.
> 
> I would just not kick to the head (at least not while it was at head height) if my life depended on it. I have far higher percentage tactics in the toolbox.



Let's for argument sake pretend you have to employ a roundhouse kick. Doesn't really matter if it's against the head.

Do you you think pulling of those  old school turning kicks is possible against a moving target? We almost never see it in kickboxing for a reason! These kicks lack applicability.


----------



## Gnarlie

They are totally applicable in the right circumstances. If they don't work, it is because the right set of circumstances has not been found or created.


----------



## Laplace_demon

RTKDCMB said:


> . Also when you bring your knee straight in front of you, you have already wasted half of your hip turning movement just getting to the chamber, making it intrinsically less powerful, even if it is faster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



The KKW dollyo chagi you linked to is not the one being discussed. And that was a demonstration video, taking it step by step. I have seen roundhouse toutorials which recommend a seperate roundhouse kick:

This: Is the WTF/KKW kick I am referring to:






Is this the one Rayners academy discussed?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Here is a KKW instructional with a radically different Dollyo Chagi (roundhouse kick), and this is the more practical one. Which of the two is the one most commonly taught in KKW schools, as the primary roundhouse kick?






At :1:35 - Roundhouse kick


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> Let's for argument sake pretend you have to employ a roundhouse kick. Doesn't really matter if it's against the head.
> 
> Do you you think pulling of those  old school turning kicks is possible against a moving target? We almost never see it in kickboxing for a reason! These kicks lack applicability.



The knee raise roundhouse exists in kickboxing....

Old and new, 

Youll see it in WKA and K1, its still a part of American Kickboxing gyms all over


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace, all those kicks in those three videos are the same. Slight modifications to the rechamber motion post kick in one video that shows a drill for developing power through a target, but they are all in principle the same.


----------



## chrispillertkd

elder999 said:


> Yoon's chuan fa probably came from Toyama...though he did spend some years in Manchuria



Interesting. I have only ever heard that Yoon, Byung-In already knew Chu'an-Fa when he met Toyama and had, in fact, used it in order to defend a fellow Korean who was being harassed by a group of Japanese students. I'd be very interested in any information you have on Toyama teaching Yoon Chu'an-Fa.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

Laplace_demon said:


> Let's for argument sake pretend you have to employ a roundhouse kick. Doesn't really matter if it's against the head.
> 
> Do you you think pulling of those  old school turning kicks is possible against a moving target? We almost never see it in kickboxing for a reason! These kicks lack applicability.



I can tell you from personal experience that turning kicks executed "traditionally" are applicable and can generate an immense amount of power. Especially against a moving target. 

Pax, 

Chris


----------



## Laplace_demon

1:06

Here you can hear General Choi openly bash WTF(KKW), saying that he does not concider it to be TKD, that they only borrowed the name, and that it's a poor mimic of Karate (Karate he says is much better).

Later in the 90s, when WTF were to be accepted into the olympics, Choi was very happy to hear this, because in the end it's all TKD. A complete contradiction of what he said before.

This demonstrates how  Choi only cared about (self deluded) publicity, without any principles. Choi contradicted himself within a few years, when WTF was up for the olympics.

The ironic thing is that ITF is arguably closer to Karate, than KKW/WTF.


----------



## elder999

chrispillertkd said:


> Interesting. I have only ever heard that Yoon, Byung-In already knew Chu'an-Fa when he met Toyama and had, in fact, used it in order to defend a fellow Korean who was being harassed by a group of Japanese students. I'd be very interested in any information you have on Toyama teaching Yoon Chu'an-Fa.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


I have no information, merely speculation.....the two exchanged info for years, but Toyama had already studied Chuan Fa......it's far more likely that Yoon got more info from Toyama sensei, then  vice versa.....


----------



## RTKDCMB

Laplace_demon said:


> Do you you think pulling of those old school turning kicks is possible against a moving target?


One of our instructors used two of them in a self defense situation, one to each attacker, it was not only possible it was effective.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Laplace_demon said:


> Here is a KKW instructional with a radically different Dollyo Chagi (roundhouse kick), and this is the more practical one. Which of the two is the one most commonly taught in KKW schools, as the primary roundhouse kick?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At :1:35 - Roundhouse kick


At 2:13 you can clearly see that it is the same kick as the video I had shown.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Laplace_demon said:


> The KKW dollyo chagi you linked to is not the one being discussed. And that was a demonstration video, taking it step by step. I have seen roundhouse toutorials which recommend a seperate roundhouse kick:
> 
> This: Is the WTF/KKW kick I am referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the one Rayners academy discussed?


That kick has a whole new set of problems, not the least of which is turning your back on the opponent after the kick has been thrown. If you are using the spin to add power (as in a spinning heel kick) that is different but spinning after the fact is like closing the gate after the horse has run away.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> Let's for argument sake pretend you have to employ a roundhouse kick. Doesn't really matter if it's against the head.
> 
> Do you you think pulling of those  old school turning kicks is possible against a moving target? We almost never see it in kickboxing for a reason! These kicks lack applicability.




I think you need to (a) watch more kick boxing  (b) actually listen to what widely experienced, mature TKDists are telling you and (c) learn that when you are in a hole stop digging.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Laplace_demon said:


> 1:06
> 
> Here you can hear General Choi openly bash WTF(KKW), saying that he does not concider it to be TKD, that they only borrowed the name, and that it's a poor mimic of Karate (Karate he says is much better).
> 
> Later in the 90s, when WTF were to be accepted into the olympics, Choi was very happy to hear this, because in the end it's all TKD. A complete contradiction of what he said before.
> 
> This demonstrates how  Choi only cared about (self deluded) publicity, without any principles. Choi contradicted himself within a few years, when WTF was up for the olympics.



So he is not allowed to change his opinion?



Laplace_demon said:


> The ironic thing is that ITF is arguably closer to Karate, than KKW/WTF.



Rhee Tae Kwon Do is closer to Karate than both of them yet it is still TKD. I am not sure what point you are trying to make here..


----------



## Gnarlie

RTKDCMB said:


> That kick has a whole new set of problems, not the least of which is turning your back on the opponent after the kick has been thrown. If you are using the spin to add power (as in a spinning heel kick) that is different but spinning after the fact is like closing the gate after the horse has run away.



The fact that Tuttle Press make tutorial DVDs and the use of two pads leads me to believe that this is a drill to develop power through the target in a normal turning kick, rather than a type of kick in itself.

A similar kick does exist where the foot is pulled through and down after contact, but that is a kick to the neck intended to take the opponents head down with it by pushing down against the brachial nerve, so back turning is less of an issue because the opponent is unbalanced. I find it an impractical kick though, and haven't seen it taught for a very long time now. They used to call it tiger kick I think.


----------



## Gnarlie

RTKDCMB said:


> Rhee Tae Kwon Do is closer to Karate than both of them yet it is still TKD. I am not sure what point you are trying to make here..



Me either


----------



## Laplace_demon

RTKDCMB said:


> So he is not allowed to change his opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> Rhee Tae Kwon Do is closer to Karate than both of them yet it is still TKD. I am not sure what point you are trying to make here..



He *ridiculed* WTF, only to say the complete opposite when it was turned into an olympic sport. If you seriously believe that he sincerely changed his opinion, then I have no words...


----------



## Laplace_demon

RTKDCMB said:


> Rhee Tae Kwon Do is closer to Karate than both of them yet it is still TKD. I am not sure what point you are trying to make here..



Rhee Tae Kwon Do is an ITF of shoot.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Laplace_demon said:


> then I have no words


That would be a welcome change.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Laplace_demon said:


> Rhee Tae Kwon Do is an ITF of shoot.


No kidding?
It was separated from the ITF a very long time ago (a bit before my time). It is distinctly different.


----------



## Laplace_demon

RTKDCMB said:


> That would be a welcome change.



Do you think his statements were respectful? Would he have been banned on MartialTalk? Are you all as confident that TKD is inclusive? This is the man ITFers look up to, and you guys think we are all one happy family. Right...


----------



## Tez3

"Do you think his statements were respectful? Would he have been banned on MartialTalk? Are you all as confident that TKD is inclusive? This is the man ITFers look up to, and you guys think we are all a happy family. Right..."


----------



## RTKDCMB

Laplace_demon said:


> Do you think his statements were respectful?



I think his statements were his opinion, which he was entitled to.



Laplace_demon said:


> Would he have been banned on MartialTalk?



No more than anyone else on here who has an opinion on another martial art



Laplace_demon said:


> Are you all as confident that TKD is inclusive?



Inclusive of what? Who?



Laplace_demon said:


> This is the man ITFers look up to,



Why shouldn't ITFers look up to the one who founded their art. I look up to the founder of my art even if I didn't agree with every single thing he says and does..



Laplace_demon said:


> and you guys think we are all one happy family. Right...



I have no idea which ITFers think that, especially since I am not an ITFer and have never been one.


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> Later in the 90s, when WTF were to be accepted into the olympics, Choi was very happy to hear this, because in the end it's all TKD. A complete contradiction of what he said before.
> 
> This demonstrates how  Choi only cared about (self deluded) publicity, without any principles. Choi contradicted himself within a few years, when WTF was up for the olympics.



I think it's easy to forget nowadays that up until 1988 South Korea was a dictatorship. It wasn't until 1988 that South Korea became the modern democracy that we all know and love today, home of K-Pop, K-Tigers and Gangnam Style.

Personally, I think Choi was stuck between a rock and a hard place in terms of trying to promote taekwondo: he had communism in the north, and a dictatorship in the south...and in that mess he had to find funding and political support for his life's passion: promoting a style of martial art that would definitely NOT be confused with Japanese martial arts.

So here's another way one could look at it...

If Choi had been motivated only by his own self-interest, he would have taken a much different path in life: he was already a general, and an ambassador...he could have played it safe, compromised more often, stayed on the good side of his government, and his career could have gone on indefinitely.

Instead, he kept poking his fingers in everybody's eyes because dammit he wanted his style of taekwondo to be globally loved! Even if it meant he had to be kicked out of his cushy government positions, split away from all his colleagues and friends, and even leave his homeland entirely. 

To me, that sounds like a man obsessed with a mission, not a man obsessed with himself. A man obsessed with himself would have taken the easy route. But that's just my opinion.

In any case, one could attribute Choi's change-of-heart about Kukkiwon/WTF-style taekwondo to it success on the world stage...or just as legitimately you could attribute it to the fact that the dictatorship he had hated to much had finally fallen and was no longer its primary advocate. I'm inclined to think it may have been more the latter than the former.

But what do I know, I'm no expert.


----------



## TrueJim

RTKDCMB said:


> No kidding?
> It was separated from the ITF a very long time ago (a bit before my time). It is distinctly different.



Are we talking about *Rhee* Taekwondo, or *Jhoon Rhee* Taekwondo? 

Jhoon Rhee Taekwondo - Taekwondo Wiki 

Rhee Taekwon-Do - Taekwondo Wiki

It's easy to confuse the two.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TrueJim said:


> Are we talking about *Rhee* Taekwondo, or *Jhoon Rhee* Taekwondo?
> 
> Jhoon Rhee Taekwondo - Taekwondo Wiki
> 
> Rhee Taekwon-Do - Taekwondo Wiki
> 
> It's easy to confuse the two.



This one:

Rhee Taekwon-Do - Taekwondo Wiki


----------



## RTKDCMB

TrueJim said:


> Gangnam Style


And we're all sorry for that one.


----------



## Laplace_demon

TrueJim said:


> I think it's easy to forget nowadays that up until 1988 South Korea was a dictatorship. It wasn't until 1988 that South Korea became the modern democracy that we all know and love today, home of K-Pop, K-Tigers and Gangnam Style.
> 
> Personally, I think Choi was stuck between a rock and a hard place in terms of trying to promote taekwondo: he had communism in the north, and a dictatorship in the south...and in that mess he had to find funding and political support for his life's passion: promoting a style of martial art that would definitely NOT be confused with Japanese martial arts.
> 
> So here's another way one could look at it...
> 
> If Choi had been motivated only by his own self-interest, he would have taken a much different path in life: he was already a general, and an ambassador...he could have played it safe, compromised more often, stayed on the good side of his government, and his career could have gone on indefinitely.
> 
> Instead, he kept poking his fingers in everybody's eyes because dammit he wanted his style of taekwondo to be globally loved! Even if it meant he had to be kicked out of his cushy government positions, split away from all his colleagues and friends, and even leave his homeland entirely.
> 
> To me, that sounds like a man obsessed with a mission, not a man obsessed with himself. A man obsessed with himself would have taken the easy route. But that's just my opinion.
> 
> In any case, one could attribute Choi's change-of-heart about Kukkiwon/WTF-style taekwondo to it success on the world stage...or just as legitimately you could attribute it to the fact that the dictatorship he had hated to much had finally fallen and was no longer its primary advocate. I'm inclined to think it may have been more the latter than the former.
> 
> But what do I know, I'm no expert.



He liked the publicity Taekwondo recieved as an olympic sport, which I believe was his own dream with ITF (correct me if I am wrong). Far from everyone accepts that he was the founder of TKD (he certainly founded ITF), yet he called himself taekwon-do (that's his second name, in case you didn't know). His opinions are not unique. I have already told you guys here that there have been representatives for ITF that have said the exact same thing about WTF. That is: ITF is *real TKD*.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Yet nobody listens...


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> He liked the publicity Taekwondo recieved as an olympic sport,



I don't know whether he did or not, I don't know enough for an opinion on this but if he did what's wrong with that? Having your sport included as an Olympic sport is quite an achievement and rightly anyone would be pleased. Don't turn it into an accusation.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Laplace_demon said:


> Yet nobody listens...


If you want people to listen you have to say things worth listening to.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> I don't know whether he did or not, I don't know enough for an opinion on this but if he did what's wrong with that? Having your sport included as an Olympic sport is quite an achievement and rightly anyone would be pleased. Don't turn it into an accusation.



I guess you didn't listen to the clip. Btw, he also bashed your dear Karate, claiming that TKD was an improvement (surpassed) Karate, as if this was a fact by the time his encyclopedia was written. Silly beyond belief.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> Yet nobody listens...



Ohdearhowsadnevermind.





Laplace_demon said:


> I guess you didn't listen to the clip. Btw, he also bashed your dear Karate, claiming that TKD was an improvement on Karate, as if this was a fact by the time his encyclopedia was written. Silly beyond belief.



So? he's entitled to his opinion as much as any of us, he may have genuinely believed it and why shouldn't he? Everyone should be proud of something they either created or helped create. Did you think he would say 'well actually TKD is rubbish and karate so much better'? Did you think I would cry? Silly boy.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> Ohdearhowsadnevermind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So? he's entitled to his opinion as much as any of us, he may have genuinely believed it and why shouldn't he? Everyone should be proud of something they either created or helped create. Did you think he would say 'well actually TKD is rubbish and karate so much better'? Did you think I would cry? Silly boy.



So don't tell me I can't say TKD has better spinning back kicks and get all worked up and cry: "Style basher!". General Chois opinions of WTF makes me look soft. He also flattly stated that Karate has been surpassed by TKD. That's a blow on Karate too. I find it all hilarious.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> So don't tell me I can't say TKD has better spinning back kicks and get all worked up and cry: "Style basher!". General Chois opinions of WTF makes me look soft. He also flattly stated that Karate has been surpassed by TKD. That's a blow on Karate too. I find it all hilarious.



Er, I don't know how to tell you this, but you are the only one who is 'worked up'

To me General Chois is a historical figure, what he said has to be taken in context.

'Blow on karate' now that is funny, I think you mean blow *for* karate, only it's not is it cos no one cares...but you


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> So don't tell me I can't say TKD has better spinning back kicks and get all worked up and cry: "Style basher!". General Chois opinions of WTF makes me look soft. He also flattly stated that Karate has been surpassed by TKD. That's a blow on Karate too. I find it all hilarious.



Ok.....ignoring the fact that you just compared yourself (someones whose been proven incorrect and fairly unknowledgable time and again) to someone who helped found TKD.....

Choi is not the first korean GM to hold those opinions, and he wont be the last. But its still style bashing. Its also massively opinion and not nearly as provable as being able to show you clips and facts correctng points youve tried to make. 

Youre trying to justify your opinion with someone elses......While we all respect Choi, anyone with an actual Instructor will tell you that being a GM or instructor doesnt just make one right....if you feel it does, you have a whole separate issue regarding training there bud. 

As for the change of heart? I can almost promise you its because he knew how good itd be for TKD in general. Lots if folks still despise separate orgs now in TKD, but they suck it up, smile, and send theyre students to those events to help spread


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> 'Blow on karate' now that is funny, I think you mean blow *for* karate, only it's not is it cos no one cares...but you



There is a blow *on* something - Karate.



Tez3 said:


> To me General Chois is a historical figure, what he said has to be taken in context.



And what I say has to be taken into the context of highest IQ in the room.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> There is a blow *on* something - Karate
> 
> 
> 
> And what I say has to be taken into the context of highest IQ in the room.



Lol, now that's chutzpah, trying to tell a native English speaker how to speak English!

And that sentence makes no sense whatsoever, what are you trying to actually say?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> Lol, now that's chutzpah, trying to tell a native English speaker how to speak English!
> 
> And that sentence makes no sense whatsoever, what are you trying to actually say?



You have to view my comments in the context of a highly gifted individual, who can put two and two together. This is complete nonsense from General Choi, later asserting"it's all TKD" when WTF was accepted into the olympics. You heard the man.


----------



## Gnarlie

I have deja vu here. Haven't we done the deluded philosophy undergraduate thing before?


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> You have to view my comments in the context of a highly gifted individual, who can put two and two together. This is complete nonsense from General Choi, later asserting"it's all TKD" when WTF was accepted into the olympics. You heard the man.




Are you going to get this highly gifted person to sign up to MT talk then?


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> You have to view my comments in the context of a highly gifted individual, who can put two and two together. This is complete nonsense from General Choi, later asserting"it's all TKD" when WTF was accepted into the olympics. You heard the man.



For someome "highly gifted" you seem to have misread all the times we explained that..


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> You have to view my comments in the context of a highly gifted individual, who can put two and two together. This is complete nonsense from General Choi, later asserting"it's all TKD" when WTF was accepted into the olympics. You heard the man.



Dude, you are not gifted. At least not in the context of discussion. Delusions of grandeur, or what?


----------



## Tez3

Gnarlie said:


> I have deja vu here. Haven't we done the deluded philosophy undergraduate thing before?




He didn't tell us who the philosophy undergrad was though, thought he'd introduce us so we could have had a good debate.


----------



## Gnarlie

I thought Alex was making a comeback.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Laplace_demon said:


> And what I say has to be taken into the context of highest IQ in the room.


You are in a room all by yourself then.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Laplace_demon said:


> You have to view my comments in the context of a highly gifted individual, who can put two and two together.


Someone giving you things does not make you gifted.


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> Btw, he also bashed your dear Karate, claiming that TKD was an improvement (surpassed) Karate, as if this was a fact by the time his encyclopedia was written. Silly beyond belief.



I don't think you're looking at this in the right way. I believe you have to think about Choi in the context of all the stuff that was happening in that era.

For Korean people of Choi's generation, it was very difficult to like anything Japanese. For 35 years Imperial Japan occupied Korea, and the occupation was particularly cruel. Korean men -- often just teenagers -- were drafted into the Japanese army and forced to fight for the Japanese; by World War II the Japanese army was drafting 300,000 Korean men _per year_ into the Japanese army, forcing these men to fight for their oppressors. Nobody even knows how many young Korean girls were taken from their families by the Japanese and forced into sexual slavery for the Japanese army, but some estimates place it as high as 400,000 girls. That's 400,000 daughters and sisters forced into sexual slavery. Can you imagine! Families weren't just torn apart, they were destroyed outright. Choi himself had been a prisoner of the Japanese.

If Choi had any unflattering remarks to make about Japanese martial arts, I think you have to remember the context of the times. At that time, I think it was difficulty for anybody Korean to have anything flattering to say about anything Japanese.

Korea under Japanese rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Comfort women - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Laplace_demon

TrueJim said:


> I don't think you're looking at this in the right way. I believe you have to think about Choi in the context of all the stuff that was happening in that era.
> 
> For Korean people of Choi's generation, it was very difficult to like anything Japanese. For 35 years Imperial Japan occupied Korea, and the occupation was particularly cruel. Korean men -- often just teenagers -- were drafted into the Japanese army and forced to fight for the Japanese; by World War II the Japanese army was drafting 300,000 Korean men _per year_ into the Japanese army, forcing these men to fight for their oppressors. Nobody even knows how many young Korean girls were taken from their families by the Japanese and forced into sexual slavery for the Japanese army, but some estimates place it as high as 400,000 girls. That's 400,000 daughters and sisters forced into sexual slavery. Can you imagine! Families weren't just torn apart, they were destroyed outright. Choi himself had been a prisoner of the Japanese.
> 
> If Choi had any unflattering remarks to make about Japanese martial arts, I think you have to remember the context of the times. At that time, I think it was difficulty for anybody Korean to have anything flattering to say about anything Japanese.
> 
> Korea under Japanese rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Comfort women - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



I understand psychology very well. He can convince himself that he created his own unique korean art, despite the fact that the WTF (the biggest TKD organisation in the world) don't accept him as the founder. That his second name is TKD, and so forth.

That doesn't however excuse his 180 on WTF TKD once it gained the spotlight for Taekwondo in the Olympics. Suddenly then Choi was quick to grab the credit for his art, and that he was very happy that it had been accepted into the olympics, when he had been very clear before that he did not concider WTF to be Taekwondo, it was taekwondo by name only, borrowed and a weak copy of Karate. Later pretending to be flattered how much his art had accomplished.

When his dream (olympics) was realised for WTF, Choi suddenly took credit for their Taekwondo as well, and asserted it's all TKD.


----------



## Tez3

In the UK we still have many British ex Japanese prisoners of war, (men, women and children) who cannot forgive what was done to them. Like the Koreans, the fact that Japan has never made any formal apology for happened has rankled them deeply.

I'm not sure what the OP wanted when he started this thread, I came to it because although I don't train TKD I find it interesting and would be keen to know more about it. However the flawed reasoning and illogical arguments that he has put forward _seem_ to indicate that the purpose is to denigrate certain parts of TKD rather than have any genuine interest in learning what TKD was like in that time. The trouble is there is no coherent argument from the OP making any specific points, it's rambling, disjointed and some posts are written in such poor English as to either mean something other than intended or mean nothing at all. I will put my hands up and say I actually have no idea what he is talking about most of the time. He may contend that is my fault but I'm afraid it's not. His arguments do not only _not_ hold water they are inconsistent showing muddled thinking, even more muddled knowledge and a lack of respect for those he is discoursing with. I will give him marks for persistence though it is the persistence of a child determined to be heard long after he's been told to go to bed.

I'm sure he won't take this critique personally as he is keen to impress on us what a good student he is. He will take it philosophically and in the spirit of academia that it is offered.


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> General Chois opinions of WTF makes me look soft. He also flattly stated that Karate has been surpassed by TKD. That's a blow on Karate too. I find it all hilarious.



I think it's more saddening than hilarious. You mentioned previously that some ITF folks claim that ITF is the only real Taekwon-do, and that may be true. But I don't think that's necessarily representative of _most_ ITF practitioners. You can always find some small minority of people who like to bash this or bash that. There's no shortage of jerks in the world.

I think though that the various schisms in taekwondo are the result of a lot of real human suffering. Like real, tragic stuff that actually happened...actually happened to real living-breathing people. 

For example, I think if the Japanese occupation of Korea had never happened, or had at least been less cruel, the martial artists in Korea who were practicing karate in the 20th Century might have been perfectly happy to just call it _Korean karate_. But given the fact that so many of their brothers and sisters, sons and daughters had been victims of Imperial Japan, that just wasn't palatable. 

Likewise, if Korea hadn't become an ideological battleground between communism and the West, the original 5 Kwans might have been able to find common-ground sooner. If the South Korean dictatorships that followed World War II and the Korean War hadn't been so ruthless and mercenary, a lot of the traditional taekwondo schools in South Korea would have been able to remain in South Korea, as traditional taekwondo schools. 

The Japanese occupation, World War II, the Korean War, communism, dictatorships...together those are the things that split taekwondo from karate, and helped split taekwondo into different factions, rather than just different styles. If it hadn't been for those things, would we still have different styles of taekwondo? Yah, probably...there's no guarantee that the 5 original kwans would have been able to come together. But I do think, sincerely believe, that without all that _political_ mess, and all that human suffering, the different styles of taekwondo that we have today would be more like the different styles of karate: just different _styles_, all equal, nobody feeling the need to bash this or bash that.


----------



## Drose427

TrueJim said:


> I think it's more saddening than hilarious. You mentioned previously that some ITF folks claim that ITF is the only real Taekwon-do, and that may be true. But I don't think that's necessarily representative of _most_ ITF practitioners. You can always find some small minority of people who like to bash this or bash that. There's no shortage of jerks in the world.
> 
> I think though that the various schisms in taekwondo are the result of a lot of real human suffering. Like real, tragic stuff that actually happened...actually happened to real living-breathing people.
> 
> For example, I think if the Japanese occupation of Korea had never happened, or had at least been less cruel, the martial artists in Korea who were practicing karate in the 20th Century might have been perfectly happy to just call it _Korean karate_. But given the fact that so many of their brothers and sisters, sons and daughters had been victims of Imperial Japan, that just wasn't palatable.
> 
> Likewise, if Korea hadn't become an ideological battleground between communism and the West, the original 5 Kwans might have been able to find common-ground sooner. If the South Korean dictatorships that followed World War II and the Korean War hadn't been so ruthless and mercenary, a lot of the traditional taekwondo schools in South Korea would have been able to remain in South Korea, as traditional taekwondo schools.
> 
> The Japanese occupation, World War II, the Korean War, communism, dictatorships...together those are the things that split taekwondo from karate, and helped split taekwondo into different factions, rather than just different styles. If it hadn't been for those things, would we still have different styles of taekwondo? Yah, probably...there's no guarantee that the 5 original kwans would have been able to come together. But I do think, sincerely believe, that without all that _political_ mess, and all that human suffering, the different styles of taekwondo that we have today would be more like the different styles of karate: just different _styles_, all equal, nobody feeling the need to bash this or bash that.



One thing Ive always been interested about is to think about where Korean martial arts would be and whatd they look like if they didnt have the years of Japanese Martial Arts influence from the time of occupation.

I think it coulda been a cool dichotomy


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> In the UK we still have many British ex Japanese prisoners of war, (men, women and children) who cannot forgive what was done to them. Like the Koreans, the fact that Japan has never made any formal apology for happened has rankled them deeply.
> 
> I'm not sure what the OP wanted when he started this thread, I came to it because although I don't train TKD I find it interesting and would be keen to know more about it. However the flawed reasoning and illogical arguments that he has put forward _seem_ to indicate that the purpose is to denigrate certain parts of TKD rather than have any genuine interest in learning what TKD was like in that time. The trouble is there is no coherent argument from the OP making any specific points, it's rambling, disjointed and some posts are written in such poor English as to either mean something other than intended or mean nothing at all. I will put my hands up and say I actually have no idea what he is talking about most of the time. He may contend that is my fault but I'm afraid it's not. His arguments do not only _not_ hold water they are inconsistent showing muddled thinking, even more muddled knowledge and a lack of respect for those he is discoursing with. I will give him marks for persistence though it is the persistence of a child determined to be heard long after he's been told to go to bed.
> 
> I'm sure he won't take this critique personally as he is keen to impress on us what a good student he is. He will take it philosophically and in the spirit of academia that it is offered.



You don't know anything about the subject, so why comment. I happen to know the full story very well. My english far exceeds yours. I write very quickly here. You can pretend to yourself that as a native speaker it's greater than mine, despite the fact that both brits and americans butcher their own language at a regular basis.



TrueJim said:


> I think it's more saddening than hilarious. You mentioned previously that some ITF folks claim that ITF is the only real Taekwon-do, and that may be true. But I don't think that's necessarily representative of _most_ ITF practitioners. You can always find some small minority of people who like to bash this or bash that. There's no shortage of jerks in the world.
> .



You would have to include former ITF president (and founder) Choi in the list of jerks then.  He did not offer particularly kind words about the rival style KKW/WTF.  If he can speak that way, I promise you instructors in ITF can as well. I don't think there is anything wrong with bashing, I would only appreciate a certain level of consistency.


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> You don't know anything about the subject, so why comment. I happen to know the full story very well. My english far exceeds yours. I write very quickly here. You can pretend to yourself that as a native speaker it's greater than mine, despite the fact that both brits and americans butcher their own language at a regular basis.
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to include former ITF president Choi in the list of jerks then.  He did not offer particularly kind words about the rival style KKW/WTF.  If he can speak that way, I promise you instructors in ITF can as well. I don't think there is anything wrong with bashing, I would only appreciate a certain level of consistency.



For someone who knows the full story so well, i seem recall several TKDers in another thread having to correct your history on both ITF and WTF....


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> That doesn't however excuse his 180 on WTF TKD...



I'm still not understanding what you mean by the word "excuse."  Are you saying that if somebody changes their mind on a topic, they've committed some sort of wrongful act?

I don't think anybody here is disagreeing that Choi appears to have changed his mind. As to _why_ he changed his mind, only Choi himself will ever know that.

Maybe it is, as you say, just Choi grabbing glory
Or, just as possibly, maybe now that the South Korean dictatorship that Choi despised so much -- and that had promoted Kukkiwon-style taekwondo -- had been replaced by a modern democracy, maybe now Choi felt comfortable giving kudos to something that he had really been okay with all along (but that he never would have admitted to as long as the dictatorship was in power)
Or, just as possibly, maybe now that Choi was older and had a broader perspective on life, maybe he simply just changed his mind
Or, just as possibly, maybe Choi felt that some of his own work and philosophy had indeed found itself into Kukkiwon-style, and so he did take pride in his own contributions
The bottom line is, we can never know _why_ somebody says or does what they do or say. We can speculate, but that's all it is, just speculation. And that's all you're doing Laplace, you're just speculating. You're saying, "I think he changed his mind to grab glory!" That's a perfectly reasonable guess, but it's just a guess. I mean, you never even met the guy. How can you claim to be inside his head?

But really my larger point is this: I don't think we can say to somebody, "How DARE you change your mind! How DARE you! There's no way you can EXCUSE such horrible behavior, as to actually _change your mind!_" That just doesn't make any sense. Changing one's mind isn't a bad thing.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Drose427 said:


> For someone who knows the full story so well, i seem recall several TKDers in another thread having to correct your history on both ITF and WTF....



The story of General Choi and WTF - the politics involved. I know the background.


----------



## Laplace_demon

TrueJim said:


> I grab glory!" That's a perfectly reasonable guess, but it's just a guess. I mean, you never even met the guy. How can you claim to be inside his head?
> 
> .



Because he just so happened to "change his mind" when WTF TKD got the olympics. Don't you get it?


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> The story of General Choi and WTF - the politics involved. I know the background.



Just like you knew that knee raise kicks didnt exist in kickboxing?

Or knew that Silva cast aside TKD when his ability and statements said otherwise?

Or how you know Karate so well because your father has accomplishments?

Or how you knew Joe was a decorated, phenomenal TKD guy?

If you knew half of what you think you did, nobody would be having these conversations with you


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> You don't know anything about the subject, so why comment. I happen to know the full story very well. My english far exceeds yours. I write very quickly here. You can pretend to yourself that as a native speaker it's greater than mine, despite the fact that both brits and americans butcher their own language at a regular basis.
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to include former ITF president (and founder) Choi in the list of jerks then.  He did not offer particularly kind words about the rival style KKW/WTF.  If he can speak that way, I promise you instructors in ITF can as well. I don't think there is anything wrong with bashing, I would only appreciate a certain level of consistency.



Actually, my English Degree says my English is better than yours. .


----------



## Drose427

Tez3 said:


> Actually, my English Degree says my English is better than yours. .



And your lack of consistent spelling errors....


----------



## elder999

Laplace_demon said:


> And what I say has to be taken into the context of highest IQ in the room.



Dude-_*seriously?*_


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> He did not offer particularly kind words about the rival style KKW/WTF.



Yes, but you have to remember:

Choi _hated_ the South Korean dictatorship. Hated it. I really do believe Choi was a very patriotic person, and he hated to see his Korea controlled by a dictator.


The government of the dictatorship was vehemently promoting Kukki-style taekwondo to the exclusion of all other styles. They were literally shutting-down any school that didn't fall into line with what the dictatorship wanted. That's one reason why so many of the early taekwondo masters emigrated to other countries: so that they could continue to teach their own style in peace.
At that time, in Korea, a lot of people who had been involved in the early development of taekwondo had harsh words for what was happening with the Kukki-style. Some people even referred to it as a "mafia". As just one example: in 1971 the Ministry of Education made up a new rule requiring dojangs to obtain "permits" to operate, but of the 350 dojangs in Seoul, the Ministry decided that only 79 dojangs met the requirements. The government shut-down 270 dojangs...just in Seoul alone!

If I had been the head of a martial arts school in Korea during that era...I might have had some harsh words too!

Laplace, I think this might help you to understand the context better:

Timeline of Taekwondo - Taekwondo Wiki



Laplace_demon said:


> I don't think there is anything wrong with bashing, I would only appreciate a certain level of consistency.



You don't mind style-bashing, as long as it's consistent. ;-)


----------



## Tez3

Tez3 said:


> Actually, my English Degree says my English is better than yours. .




Oh did I mention it's a BA(hons)?   seeing as we are doing the 'my dad is bigger than your dad thing here'


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> You don't know anything about the subject, so why comment.



That's a question. It needs a question mark. And whoever wants to comment here can comment. At the moment, I'm finding Tez3's comments are actually adding more to the thread than yours. 



Laplace_demon said:


> I happen to know the full story very well. My english far exceeds yours. I write very quickly here.



No, it really doesn't. I am a teacher of advanced English, and I can tell you that your English abilities often interfere with your ability to communicate. It is only by the grace of the native speakers here helping you that you have the opportunity to clarify. If you are gifted in any way, it is evidently with a prodigious lack of self-awareness. 


Laplace_demon said:


> You can pretend to yourself that as a native speaker it's greater than mine, despite the fact that both brits and americans butcher their own language at a regular basis.


Better, not greater. Brits. Americans. On. On a regular basis. 


Laplace_demon said:


> You would have to include former ITF president (and founder) Choi in the list of jerks then.  He did not offer particularly kind words about the rival style KKW/WTF.  If he can speak that way, I promise you instructors in ITF can as well. I don't think there is anything wrong with bashing, I would only appreciate a certain level of consistency.



Funny, but all of the people I have met in person, regardless of org, have been more concerned with where Taekwondo is going than where it came from.

It feels like you are deliberately trying to stir something up between the Kukki and ITF practitioners here, but there are TKDin of every ilk on this board, and nobody's biting. I wonder why that might be. 

Bash whatever you like. But not here.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Laplace_demon said:


> I don't think there is anything wrong with bashing,



Regardless of what you personally think about another martial art it never hurts to show a modicum of respect because showing respect for other martial arts says more about you than it does them.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> You don't know anything about the subject, so why comment.



Why comment?

As I have already said, I'm interested in martial arts, all martial arts. I like to learn as much as I can about martial arts as well as anything else that takes my fancy, I have an enquiring mind ( though many say I'm just nosy), I realise there is so much to learn and so little time to learn it all but I'm doing my best.
What do I know about TKD? Answer... a lot more than I did because of the knowledgeable posters on here ( thank you to them) who even when they don't agree are respectful of each other. There's food for thought on this thread, sadly none of it cooked by you.


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> Because he just so happened to "change his mind" when WTF TKD got the olympics. Don't you get it?



I can't tell if you're intentionally not looking at the timing of this, or if there's just so much going on in the thread that you keep accidentally missing the date amidst all the chatter:

In 1988, the South Korean dictatorship fell
In 1988, taekwondo was an exhibition sport at the Seoul Olympic games
They both happened in the same year. 

It's possible that Choi's change-of-heart coincided with the Olympics, but it's just as likely that it coincided with the fall of the dictatorship. They both happened in the same year. Or it could even have been a combination of the two factors. We'll never know. Any guess we make is just speculation.


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> And what I say has to be taken into the context of highest IQ in the room.



When I go to parties, here's my party-trick for finding the smartest people in the room: Look around at all the conversations going on. Make note of who is doing all the talking, and which people are listening attentively. The smartest people in the room are almost always the ones who are listening attentively.

In my experience, the smarter a person is, the less they talk, the more they listen. It's the really quiet ones you gotta keep your eyes on.


----------



## elder999

TrueJim said:


> When I go to parties, here's my party-trick for finding the smartest people in the room: Look around at all the conversations going on. Make note of who is doing all the talking, and which people are listening attentively. The smartest people in the room are almost always the ones who are listening attentively.
> 
> In my experience, the smarter a person is, the less they talk, the more they listen. It's the really quiet ones you gotta keep your eyes on.



I'd just add (because so many of them *do* like to hear themselves talk) that I've worked with some of the smartest people *in the world.* 

They very seldom declare themselves as such, though-not even "smartest in town," or "smartest in the building," or "smartest in the room." 

The person who can make any legitimate claim of that sort, usually does not do so.


----------



## Tez3

elder999 said:


> The person who can make any legitimate claim of that sort, usually does not do so



And any woman who has to tell you she's a lady, isn't.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Laplace_demon said:


> Do you think his statements were respectful? Would he have been banned on MartialTalk?



If General Choi were still alive and wanted to participate in MartialTalk but refused to follow the guidelines in conversations here, then he would indeed have been banned.

Because this forum was created for the purpose of allowing practitioners of different arts to have friendly conversation, we have rules to discourage style-bashing. In the outside world no such rules exist. Plenty of historically important martial artists have been happy to promote their arts by running down others. They can do that elsewhere, but not here. (As a BJJ practitioner, I have to admit that Helio Gracie in his prime would probably have gotten himself banned from MartialTalk very quickly.)



Laplace_demon said:


> My english far exceeds yours. I write very quickly here. You can pretend to yourself that as a native speaker it's greater than mine, despite the fact that both brits and americans butcher their own language at a regular basis.



You should probably look up the Dunning-Kruger effect and consider it carefully.


----------



## TrueJim

Drose427 said:


> One thing Ive always been interested about is to think about where Korean martial arts would be and whatd they look like if they didnt have the years of Japanese Martial Arts influence from the time of occupation.



I agree. This...I think...is a much more interesting question to speculate on.

One thing I've never been able to figure out is the _extent_ to which indigenous Korean martial arts had already died-out before the occupation. Like, I've read that taekyon wasn't practiced that much any more, but what does "that much" mean? Does that mean there were only dozens of schools left, or only hundreds? Did only one style of taekyon survive up to the occupation, or many?


How many different styles of taekyon were there in all? Like, I've heard about one style called Bang Soo Do, but and I've read that there were different styles...but, how many different styles in total? What were they called?


What exactly is the relationship between Soobak and Taeykon? Some authors seem to refer to Taekyon as one style of Soobak, others seem to refer to Soobak as one style of Taekyon. It's very confusing.


Regarding the thing we still call taekyon today, which style was that?  How much is modern taekyon really like traditional taekyon?


Boolkyo Mu Sool...the martial arts practiced in Korea in Buddhist temples...how much was that like the arts practiced in China? Was it still practiced in Korea before the Japanese occupation, or had it already died out?


People seem to use the term Gwon Beop (Kwon Bop) in so many different ways. Was Gwon Beop a style, or just a generic term for unarmed combat?  Or both (like the way we use the word Kleenex).


Is modern Kung Jung Mu Sul (royal-court martial arts) really anything like ancient Kung Jung Mu Sul? Or is that just marketing?


What was T'ang Su?  For that matter, what the heck is Chabi?
I've read a lot of different sources, and I get contradictory answers to a lot of these questions.

Korean martial arts - Taekwondo Wiki

If lots of Korean martial arts were still being practiced in Korea before the occupation, would karate have made the inroads it did in Korea?

Or would these other martial arts have just incorporated karate traditions (the way karate adopted so many traditions from judo)? 

From what I can tell from English-language sources, it seems that not that much is really known about pre-occupation martial arts. Or does it just seem that way because all the really useful sources have never been translated from Korean?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Tez3 said:


> And any woman who has to tell you she's a lady, isn't.


And never trust someone who says "trust me".


----------



## Laplace_demon

TrueJim said:


> I can't tell if you're intentionally not looking at the timing of this, or if there's just so much going on in the thread that you keep accidentally missing the date amidst all the chatter:
> 
> In 1988, the South Korean dictatorship fell
> In 1988, taekwondo was an exhibition sport at the Seoul Olympic games
> They both happened in the same year.
> 
> It's possible that Choi's change-of-heart coincided with the Olympics, but it's just as likely that it coincided with the fall of the dictatorship. They both happened in the same year. Or it could even have been a combination of the two factors. We'll never know. Any guess we make is just speculation.



I am referring to 1999-2000, when Taekwondo became an olympic sport. Before that, Choi badmouthed and discredited WTF earlier in the 90s. The clip was posted. He is an opportunist.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> He *is *an opportunist.



He may _have_ been but you do realise he _isn't now_ due to being dead?

So when did you meet him and have this heart to heart which enables you to tell us so precisely his thoughts, motives and feelings? I'm betting his family didn't know him as well as you claim to.


----------



## Drose427

TrueJim said:


> I agree. This...I think...is a much more interesting question to speculate on.
> 
> One thing I've never been able to figure out is the _extent_ to which indigenous Korean martial arts had already died-out before the occupation. Like, I've read that taekyon wasn't practiced that much any more, but what does "that much" mean? Does that mean there were only dozens of schools left, or only hundreds? Did only one style of taekyon survive up to the occupation, or many?
> 
> 
> How many different styles of taekyon were there in all? Like, I've heard about one style called Bang Soo Do, but and I've read that there were different styles...but, how many different styles in total? What were they called?
> 
> 
> What exactly is the relationship between Soobak and Taeykon? Some authors seem to refer to Taekyon as one style of Soobak, others seem to refer to Soobak as one style of Taekyon. It's very confusing.
> 
> 
> Regarding the thing we still call taekyon today, which style was that?  How much is modern taekyon really like traditional taekyon?
> 
> 
> Boolkyo Mu Sool...the martial arts practiced in Korea in Buddhist temples...how much was that like the arts practiced in China? Was it still practiced in Korea before the Japanese occupation, or had it already died out?
> 
> 
> People seem to use the term Gwon Beop (Kwon Bop) in so many different ways. Was Gwon Beop a style, or just a generic term for unarmed combat?  Or both (like the way we use the word Kleenex).
> 
> 
> Is modern Kung Jung Mu Sul (royal-court martial arts) really anything like ancient Kung Jung Mu Sul? Or is that just marketing?
> 
> 
> What was T'ang Su?  For that matter, what the heck is Chabi?
> I've read a lot of different sources, and I get contradictory answers to a lot of these questions.
> 
> Korean martial arts - Taekwondo Wiki
> 
> If lots of Korean martial arts were still being practiced in Korea before the occupation, would karate have made the inroads it did in Korea?
> 
> Or would these other martial arts have just incorporated karate traditions (the way karate adopted so many traditions from judo)?
> 
> From what I can tell from English-language sources, it seems that not that much is really known about pre-occupation martial arts. Or does it just seem that way because all the really useful sources have never been translated from Korean?



Youre far more knowledgable overall  than I am, so as far as i can speculate for now (ill look more into the stuff you brought up like kung jung mu sul)

I personally considered Taekyyon uncommon, but something one could find if they looked. But without living in Korea at the time, who knows? It could have been 5 guys traveling around trying to teach it 

Ive heard a myriad of conflicting things about taekyyon and how it ties into soo bak. I first read somewhere that soobak was taekyuons predeccessor, then a different style, etc. Its all so confusing that I wish there was more on it!

As for taekyyon, i personally think its fairly safe to say its modern revivals are fairly different from tge traditional versions. It just make sense that people would throw in mixes of modern TKD to help fill in the holes.

A couple things ive always wondered about Koream Martial Arts;

Ssireum has always been popular in Korea, without Japanese influence, would we have seen a "Korean Jiu Jitsu?" Would the Korean Martial arts have expanded down the grappling road instead of striking?

As for the Hwarang, why havent more of the combat systems they learned survived? Or at least had more documentation? From what ive read, they were essentially koreas version of European Knights or Japanese Samurai, both of which people have peen able to recreate the fighting arts of. 

But, ultimately Japan spent years doing whatever they could to oppress and  eradicate Korean culture and hurt the Korean People. Who knows how much history could have been lost during that time?

Or It could have been like you said, maybe we're just ill informed because these things havent been translated that much


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> Here you can hear General Choi openly bash WTF(KKW), saying that he does not concider it to be TKD, that they only borrowed the name, and that it's a poor mimic of Karate (Karate he says is much better).
> 
> *Later in the 90s,* when WTF were to be accepted into the olympics...



Ahhhhh, now I understand.....I thought you were referring to the 1990s as a whole when you wrote "later in the 90s" in the above. Taekwondo was an exhibition sport at the 1988, 1992, and 1996 Olympics. 

In the year 2000, the IOC announced that taekwondo would be a regular sport in the 2004 Olympics.

What years is that video from? That might shed some light on this. If it's from 1999, I believe taekwondo hadn't yet made it into the Olympics as a regular sport? But I would imagine that by that time, there were probably strong indications among those in-the-know that it would make it.


----------



## TrueJim

Drose427 said:


> As for the Hwarang, why havent more of the combat systems they learned survived? Or at least *had more documentation*?



It's a good question. Two things to keep in mind:

Korea didn't have its own writing system (Hangul) until 1443 C.E. As I understand it, before that, Koreans who wish to read or write had to use Chinese characters (Hanja), which meant very few people read or wrote, so there really wasn't a whole lot of documentation about _anything_, as compared to other cultures which had already had their own indigenous writing systems for many centuries.


Even if there had been tons of great Hanja documentation about the Hwarang, most of it would have been destroyed by the Mongol invasion of 1231 C.E. anyway, when the Mongols basically burned the bulk of all written records in Korea. ("John Green - queue the Mongoltage!")
Silla had its heyday from about 400 C.E. until about 900 C.E.? So presumably that would have been the heyday of the Hwarang as well? If so, who knows...maybe there were whole encyclopedias devoted to the Hwarang, but they were all destroyed by the Mongols. Darn you Mongols!


----------



## Laplace_demon

TrueJim said:


> Ahhhhh, now I understand.....I thought you were referring to the 1990s as a whole when you wrote "later in the 90s" in the above. Taekwondo was an exhibition sport at the 1988, 1992, and 1996 Olympics.
> 
> In the year 2000, the IOC announced that taekwondo would be a regular sport in the 2004 Olympics.
> 
> What years is that video from? That might shed some light on this. If it's from 1999, I believe taekwondo hadn't yet made it into the Olympics as a regular sport? But I would imagine that by that time, there were probably strong indications among those in-the-know that it would make it.



I don't know, but my guess is that the video I posted is perhaps 5 years before 1999 - when there were serious talks of adding TKD as an olympic sport (which was ultimately realised in 2000, and Choi was suddenly of a very different opinion about the ITF and WTF difference)


----------



## Laplace_demon

Actually, the UFC was new (Choi was asked about it), so the video is probably from 1993.


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> Actually, the UFC was new (Choi was asked about it), so the video is probably from 1993.



I have to be honest then...knowing now that the video was probably from 1993, and knowing that it would still be a solid decade before taekwondo was competed as a regular sport in the Olympics, I think that lends even more credence to the possibility that Choi was at least as happy about Kukki-style's disassociation from the pre-1998 dictatorship as he was about Kukki-style's growing possibility as an Olympic sport.

You have to remember, back then, Kukki-style was almost a "bad word" among some Koreans, because of it's association with the dictatorship. And since it was still being called "taekwondo" -- a name that Choi had so strongly advocated for -- I bet that really bothered Choi, given how much he hated the dictatorship. 

It would be like...imagine if you made up a new sport called Laplace-ball, and it became really popular among modern-day terrorists. How happy would YOU be when those terrorists were finally caught, and Laplace-ball suddenly became popular with the Olympic-committee instead!  I don't know about you, but I'd be dancing a jig!  That wouldn't be an example of me "changing my mind" so much as me "finally relieved that the sport I helped invent was out of the hands of somebody I despise."


----------



## Laplace_demon

TrueJim said:


> I have to be honest then...knowing now that the video was probably from 1993, and knowing that it would still be a solid decade before taekwondo was competed as a regular sport in the Olympics, I think that lends even more credence to the possibility that Choi was at least as happy about Kukki-style's disassociation from the pre-1998 dictatorship as he was about Kukki-style's growing possibility as an Olympic sport.
> 
> You have to remember, back then, Kukki-style was almost a "bad word" among some Koreans, because of it's association with the dictatorship. And since it was still being called "taekwondo" -- a name that Choi had so strongly advocated for -- I bet that really bothered Choi, given how much he hated the dictatorship.
> 
> It would be like...imagine if you made up a new sport called Laplace-ball, and it became really popular among modern-day terrorists. How happy would YOU be when those terrorists were finally caught, and Laplace-ball suddenly became popular with the Olympic-committee instead!  I don't know about you, but I'd be dancing a jig!  That wouldn't be an example of me "changing my mind" so much as me "finally relieved that the sport I helped invent was out of the hands of somebody I despise."



Perhaps. Chois bashing was not politics, though. He went into great details about their forms and techniques and did not concider them to be legitimate TKD stylists. In fact, Choi went as far as saying that there is only *one* TKD, which he himself "invented". Pretty straight forward statements, politics notwithstanding. It's not as if he discredited them on philosophical/spiritual grounds.


----------



## Gnarlie

From a certain perspective, I agree with Choi; there is only one 'Do'. 

There are however an infinite number of ways to experience and perceive it, even just within the realm of 'Taekwon'. General Choi found one of them, and every other Taekwondoin finds their own.

Nobody owns or invented 'Do', and nobody can stake a claim to it. It just is. Trying to claim ownership of a mode of experiencing existence is like trying to register a patent for breathing, and then criticising other breathers because only the way of breathing that you have patented is the right way.

I guess how people see this would depend on whether they just want to learn someone else's system, or they go beyond that and make it their own journey.

I do think though that back at the time of the naming of Taekwondo, there were a lot of Koreans doing a lot of different martial arts with a lot of different influences. Giving something a name does not change its essence, and claiming ownership of something does not make one its owner.

I would acknowledge Choi as a highly influential figure in the development of Taekwon-Do both in the 50s and as we know it today. The flip side of that is that many other people with many other influences were involved at the point of the unification of Kwans, and  their experience prior to the unification as an influence upon what Taekwondo has become should not IMO be ignored.

Either way, we are left with an awesome and diverse technical and philosophical legacy, and personally, I'll take what I can get from all sources to help me on my journey.


----------



## Laplace_demon

People did not understand my Karate comment. It's ironic of General Choi to labell the KKW as Karate copycats, when his own formed ITF is a much bigger copycat of (Shotokan) Karate than KKW.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> People did not understand my Karate comment. It's ironic of General Choi to labell the KKW as Karate copycats, when his own formed ITF is a much bigger copycat of (Shotokan) Karate than KKW.




Which comment?


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> People did not understand my Karate comment. It's ironic of General Choi to labell the KKW as Karate copycats, when his own formed ITF is a much bigger copycat of (Shotokan) Karate than KKW.


I think both departed from the Shotokan influence fairly early on. Some of the combinations and end positions of movements may be the same, but both the way of moving and what is behind the movements are very different and have been for a long time.


----------



## Laplace_demon

For an example: The sinewave bounce in patterns - one of the desperate attemps to differentiate ITF from Shotokan, is not universally practised by ITF or equivalent. Some even outright hate it. There is no substantial diversion from Karate, however hard he may have tried.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> For an example: The sinewave bounce in patterns - one of the desperate attemps to differentiate ITF from Shotokan, is not universally practised by ITF or equivalent. Some even outright hate it. There is no substantial diversion from Karate, however hard he may have tried.



LaPlace,

Being  young  (I am guessing under 30), you do not realize how old this unfounded critique is. It is older than you.  Not only as far as TKD and MA is concerned, but other venues as well, The same guy who wrote the Steve Jobs Bio, has another book called "innovators" (Mainly based on electronics and computers) and addresses how as things are  developed there are few quantum leaps, and more incremental changes.

He also addresses how some histories refer only to collaborative efforts as opposed to individual developments (Do you  an anology to TKD?)

The same applies to "Modern" MA systems. You critique General Choi for basing his system on Shotokan, when in fact he readily acknowledges the strong links to the same Shorin and Shorei roots.  Yet you refuse to critique other notables such as Ueshiba, Kano, and Funakoshi who developed systems yet differentiated them from their roots as well.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Earl Weiss said:


> LaPlace,
> 
> Being  young  (I am guessing under 30), you do not realize how old this unfounded critique is. It is older than you.  Not only as far as TKD and MA is concerned, but other venues as well, The same guy who wrote the Steve Jobs Bio, has another book called "innovators" (Mainly based on electronics and computers) and addresses how as things are  developed there are few quantum leaps, and more incremental changes.
> 
> He also addresses how some histories refer only to collaborative efforts as opposed to individual developments (Do you  an anology to TKD?)
> 
> The same applies to "Modern" MA systems. You critique General Choi for basing his system on Shotokan, when in fact he readily acknowledges the strong links to the same Shorin and Shorei roots.  Yet you refuse to critique other notables such as Ueshiba, Kano, and Funakoshi who developed systems yet differentiated them from their roots as well.



Everybody knows ITFs origin. The question is which substantial improvements Choi brought to the table, demonstrating the supposed korean spirit, or whatever he called it. The biggest difference is the curriculum, and I don't think that was the intention. I can critique Ueshiba and the rest too, but this thread is about Taekwon-Do.


----------



## Laplace_demon

The psychology involved when accusing someone/thing of representing something you are yourself doing is called projection. That is what General Choi did in his bashing of WTF as Karate mimic.


----------



## Jaeimseu

Laplace_demon said:


> Everybody knows ITFs origin. The question is which substantial improvements Choi brought to the table, demonstrating the supposed korean spirit, or whatever he called it. The biggest difference is the curriculum, and I don't think that was the intention. I can critique Ueshiba and the rest too, but this thread is about Taekwon-Do.


I'm just curious, and I'm not intending to make something out of nothing, but why do you capitalize Taekwondo-Do and not Korean?


----------



## Tez3

Jaeimseu said:


> I'm just curious, and I'm not intending to make something out of nothing, but why do you capitalize Taekwondo-Do and not Korean?



He is not a native English speaker and despite what he will tell you his English, while good, is not always what it should be.


----------



## Jaeimseu

Tez3 said:


> He is not a native English speaker and despite what he will tell you his English, while good, is not always what it should be.


He's clearly not a native speaker, but I wasn't trying to slam him on his English. The only word he didn't capitalize that he should have was "Korean" so I was just curious if it was an oversight or if it was done with intent.


----------



## Tez3

Jaeimseu said:


> He's clearly not a native speaker, but I wasn't trying to slam him on his English. The only word he didn't capitalize that he should have was "Korean" so I was just curious if it was an oversight or if it was done with intent.




He has however 'slammed' all the poster's English on here and stated he is the most highly intelligent person posting so I imagine he is doing it 'with intent'.


----------



## Jaeimseu

Tez3 said:


> He has however 'slammed' all the poster's English on here and stated he is the most highly intelligent person posting so I imagine he is doing it 'with intent'.


I looked back a couple of pages and found one more example. He didn't capitalize the words English, Americans, or Brits. Perhaps he doesn't realize that these things should be capitalized or perhaps he is being subtly aggressive.


----------



## TrueJim

Earl Weiss said:


> ...The same applies to "Modern" MA systems. You critique General Choi for basing his system on Shotokan, when in fact he readily acknowledges the strong links to the same Shorin and Shorei roots.  Yet you refuse to critique other notables such as Ueshiba, Kano, and Funakoshi who developed systems yet differentiated them from their roots as well.



...or for people who would like a more recent example, Chuck Norris's *Chun Kuk Do*. As I understand it, it's not _that_ different from _Tang Soo Do:_

For his Kicho Hyeong, instead of having forms "1, 2, 3" Norris basically adds two half-way forms: "1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3" ...where 1.5 is just like 1, but with some extra kicks, and 2.5 is just like 2, but with some extra combinations.

Actually, I think that's not a bad innovation. A beginner learns his first basic form, and then his second basic form is exactly the same, just with some extra kicks. If you think about it, that probably does a really nice job of making the beginning feel like they're learning something fresh at their second form, while forcing the beginning to continue to reiterate on the basics. Nice. Clever. But it doesn't really differentiate this from Tang Soo Do that much.


Then Norris _cherry-picks_ from the common Tang Soo Do forms to teach the ones he likes: just the Pyong Ahn forms, Bassai, and Kong Sang Koon, and Jion.

So, again, not really _different_ from Tang Soo Do. Arguably, just a _subset_ of Tang Soo Do, presumably teaching the techniques and combinations that Norris cares about most.


Then Norris makes up 3 new forms: two advanced unarmed forms, and one bo-staff form.
Voila! That's a recipe for Chun Kuk Do. Not _that_ different from Tang Soo Do. But the fact that it's so much like Tang Soo Do doesn't *de-legitimize* Chun Kuk Do.

Or...if it does...*I'm not going to be the one to tell Chuck Norris!*


----------



## Tez3

Jaeimseu said:


> I looked back a couple of pages and found one more example. He didn't capitalize the words English, Americans, or Brits. Perhaps he doesn't realize that these things should be capitalized or perhaps he is being subtly aggressive.




Probably doesn't realise, his aggression isn't subtle.


----------



## Laplace_demon

I did capitalize Korean, before I changed it. Mixed things up between languages. My spoken english (vocabulary) is stronger than my swedish. SAT scores reflect this. I can ace the english word knowledge, while my swedish test scoring is only around 50%. I have not read much litterature in swedish. The formal rules of a language is a seperate matter, including spelling. I can get very rusty in that department.


----------



## Tez3

TrueJim said:


> Voila! That's a recipe for Chun Kuk Do. Not _that_ different from Tang Soo Do. But the fact that it's so much like Tang Soo Do doesn't *de-legitimize* Chun Kuk Do



Tang So Do is itself very like Wado Ryu and by definition Shotokan. All these styles are now very separate and _legitimate_ styles. I think if we try to untangle styles from each other and declare only the very first one we can find as the 'winner ie the original' we'd probably spend more time researching than training. Much better to accept that they are what they are and enjoy training in which we do.


----------



## TrueJim

Jaeimseu said:


> I looked back a couple of pages and found one more example. He didn't capitalize the words English, Americans, or Brits. Perhaps he doesn't realize that these things should be capitalized or perhaps he is being subtly aggressive.



Sometimes in business meetings, if nobody has any ideas, I'll toss-out a bad idea so that people can criticize it. That's a good trick for getting people to think of good ideas: the act of critiquing often fosters creativity.

By analogy, maybe this is how Laplace likes to learn? He says simplistic things to see what response they elicit. If he wants more detail, he advocates even stronger for the simplistic idea, to elicit even more detail. In terms of being an effective learning strategy, it's amazingly effective, isn't it? This thread has been going on for 20 pages while we all try to summon-up more and more detail, provide more and more examples. It's brilliant!

So among the possibilities, we have these:

He's actually executing perfectly on a brilliant learning strategy.
He's just an internet troll.
He's actually not that bright, and he's clinging desperately to overly-simplistic world-views.
Personally I believe that everybody on MartialTalk is inherently brilliant, so I'm going with Theory #1.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Oh,  and while I am at it. Philosophers have the highest scoring on word knowledge out of all intended graduates (beating out English, haha)

GRE Scores by Intended Graduate Major

IQ Estimates by College Major Statistic Brain


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> I did capitalize Korean, before I changed it. Mixed things up between languages. My spoken english (vocabulary) is stronger than my swedish. SAT scores reflect this. I can ace the english word knowledge, while my swedish test scoring is only around 50%. I have not read much litterature in swedish. The formal rules of a language is a seperate matter, including spelling. I can get very rusty in that department.




As a Swede I would have thought that would worry you because your English isn't as good as you think. Normally that wouldn't be a problem because posters here are more than tolerant of non native English speakers, they are very helpful but you alienated most with your boasting of having a higher intellect and telling us your English was better than the British and Americans. Coupled with your aggression when people disagreed with you, this has made this thread quite unpleasant at times. The willingness to try and dissect your writing to find out what you mean is palling, your English word knowledge is limited, grammar knowledge poor and syntax lacking. However it is the disrespect shown to experienced and knowledgeable  TKDists who are being very patient with you that is the worst sin I think.
This is my opinion it is not a personal attack.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> Oh,  and while I am at it. Philosophers have the highest scoring on word knowledge out of all intended graduates (beating out English, haha)
> 
> GRE Scores by Intended Graduate Major
> 
> IQ Estimates by College Major Statistic Brain




Quod erat demonstrandum


----------



## chrispillertkd

Laplace_demon said:


> For an example: The sinewave bounce in patterns - one of the desperate attemps to differentiate ITF from Shotokan, is not universally practised by ITF or equivalent. Some even outright hate it. There is no substantial diversion from Karate, however hard he may have tried.



Very interesting. Which of the groups that consider themselves to be the ITF do not practice sine wave? 

Also, how long have you practiced Taekwon-Do in the ITF and which one? 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## elder999

Here's some video, "Tae Kwon Do" in the 50's:




Start this next one at about the 11 minute mark, unless you want to watch a bunch of very Japanese-looking makiwara training.....(interesting, but it gets even more interesting at 10-11 minutes in....)




Here's some "ITF tae kwon do" from the 60's...note the lack of "bouncing" or "sine wave," and how they sink into their punches properly...


----------



## Gnarlie

chrispillertkd said:


> Very interesting. Which of the groups that consider themselves to be the ITF do not practice sine wave?
> 
> Also, how long have you practiced Taekwon-Do in the ITF and which one?
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


Laplace doesn't answer questions regarding his own experience in Taekwondo, Taekwon-Do, or Shotokan, because he doesn't seem to actually have any to speak of. He will gladly tell you about his father's experience though.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Tez3 said:


> He is not a native English speaker and despite what he will tell you his English, while good, is not always what it should be.


Personally I tend not to say too much about someone else's English as my spelling and grammar suck, thankfully I make productive use of the spellchecker.


----------



## Tez3

RTKDCMB said:


> Personally I tend not to say too much about someone else's English as my spelling and grammar suck, thankfully I make productive use of the spellchecker.




I and the others wouldn't have said anything either until he started telling us he was more intelligent than us and his English was far better than ours!


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> I and the others wouldn't have said anything either until he started telling us he was more intelligent than us and his English was far better than ours!



Rather than talk about how smart he isn't, let's take a look at keeping the thread on topic.....it's an interesting topic, while I find posts about Mr. LaPlace decidedly......_uninteresting._



elder999 said:


> Here's some video, "Tae Kwon Do" in the 50's:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Start this next one at about the 11 minute mark, unless you want to watch a bunch of very Japanese-looking makiwara training.....(interesting, but it gets even more interesting at 10-11 minutes in....)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some "ITF tae kwon do" from the 60's...note the lack of "bouncing" or "sine wave," and how they sink into their punches properly...


----------



## Laplace_demon

from _Tang Soo Do:_

For his ong, instead of having forms "1, 2, 3" Norris basically adds two half-way forms: "1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3" ...where 1.5 is just like 1, but with some extra kicks, and 2.5 is just like 2, but with some extra combinations.

Actually, I think that's not a bad innovation. A beginner learns his first basic form, and then his second basic form is exactly the same, just with some extra kicks. If you think about it, that probably does a really nice job of making the beginning feel like they're learning something fresh at their second form, while forcing the beginning to continue to reiterate on the basics. Nice. Clever. But it doesn't really differentiate this from Tang Soo Do that much.


Then Norris _cherry-picks_ from the common Tang Soo Do forms to teach the ones he likes: just the Pyong Ahn forms, Bassai, and Kong Sang Koon, and Jion.

So, again, not really _different_ from Tang Soo Do. Arguably, just a _subset_ of Tang Soo Do, presumably teaching the techniques and combinations that Norris cares about most.


Then Norris makes up 3 new forms: two advanced unarmed forms, and one bo-staff form.
Voila! That's a recipe for Chun Kuk Do. Not _that_ different from Tang Soo Do. But the fact that it's so much like Tang Soo Do doesn't *de-legitimize* Chun Kuk Do.

Or...if it does...*I'm not going to be the one to tell Chuck Norris!* [/QUOTE]

Chuck Norris does not make grandiose claims about his art. He has been very up front about the mixture. Unlike General Choi, who claimed to have single handidly invented TKD, when he in fact encouraged practitioners of Tang Soo Do to change it's name to Taekwon-Do. Wow, he must have really been inventing their martial art, a name change! 




chrispillertkd said:


> Very interesting. Which of the groups that consider themselves to be the ITF do not practice sine wave?
> 
> Also, how long have you practiced Taekwon-Do in the ITF and which one?
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris




_"After the 1973 split, Choi Hong Hi continued to develop and refine the style, ultimately publishing his work in his 1987 Encyclopedia of Taekwondo. Among the refinements incorporated into this new sub-style is the "sine wave"; one of Choi Hong Hi's later principles of taekwondo is that the body's center of gravity should be raised-and-lowered throughout a movement._
_ 
*Some ITF schools adopt the sine wave style, while others do not*. Essentially all ITF schools do, however, use the patterns (teul) defined in the Encyclopedia, with some exceptions related to the forms Juche and Ko-Dang."Taekwondo - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia_

I can at least name ITF style schools with no sine wave, but I don't see the point. I am up for green belt in ITF


----------



## Drose427

elder999 said:


> Rather than talk about how smart he isn't, let's take a look at keeping the thread on topic.....it's an interesting topic, while I find Mr. LaPlace decidedly......_uninteresting._



One thing i think is important to remember about TKD at that time is how there really wasnt one set standard yet. People like Choi were trying, but many schools calling themselves Taekwondo were still doing thing very differwntly

I mean many places just changed their school name to TKD and tried to fall in with major orgs. So it would be plausible tohat we would have seen "ITF" schools at that time that look a bit different from the "ITF" schools that had direct ties to Choi. Although, i should say that I do not know when Choi brought in the Sine wave. We have no real affiliation to choi or ITF so i simply dont know


----------



## Tez3

elder999 said:


> Rather than talk about how smart he isn't, let's take a look at keeping the thread on topic.....it's an interesting topic, while I find posts about Mr. LaPlace decidedly......_uninteresting._




Ah clever that, setting yourself up for his interest....


----------



## Gnarlie

1st Ever Taekwon-Do Book The History of Taekwon-Do people also need to see this...

And this

https://historyoftaekwondo.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/1959_tkddemoprogram.pdf

Two bits of history made available very recently.


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> Ah clever that, setting yourself up for his interest....



Nah. I meant every word, even though his post was the OP, and it is a subject of more than a little interest to me, given my history, and one that he(?) and I have a fair amount of agreement on....otherwise,he,  his posts, and , most especially, posts about him are generally not very interesting.


----------



## TrueJim

Drose427 said:


> Although, i should say that I do not know when Choi brought in the Sine wave...



According to "A Killing Art", the Sine Wave was developed in the early 1980s.

If I'm not mistaken then, the timing goes something like this:

1965 - Choi publishes his first reference, Tae Kwon Do - Art of Self Defense
1967 - Choi publishes his first edition of The Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do
1980 - Choi introduces taekwon-do to North Korea
1980s (early) - Choi introduces the form Juche and the Sine Wave into taekwon-do
1984 - Choi publishes an updated and expanded version of The Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do (the first version to include Juche and the Sine Wave)
1999 - The last edition of The Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do with which Choi is directly involved is published


----------



## chrispillertkd

Laplace_demon said:


> "After the 1973 split, Choi Hong Hi continued to develop and refine the style, ultimately publishing his work in his 1987 Encyclopedia of Taekwondo. Among the refinements incorporated into this new sub-style is the "sine wave"; one of Choi Hong Hi's later principles of taekwondo is that the body's center of gravity should be raised-and-lowered throughout a movement.
> _
> *Some ITF schools adopt the sine wave style, while others do not*. Essentially all ITF schools do, however, use the patterns (teul) defined in the Encyclopedia, with some exceptions related to the forms Juche and Ko-Dang."Taekwondo - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia_
> 
> I can at least name ITF style schools with no sine wave, but I don't see the point.



That's interesting. I cannot name any schools that belong to any of the ITF's - and I know people that being to all three ITF organizations - that do not practice sine wave. Even the schools I know of that have joined one of the ITF organizations have in short order adopted sine wave. I suppose if you want to get pedantic you could say that at one point those school weren't practicing sine wave but if you join the ITF you adopt sine wave. Period. That's much different that you saying sine wave isn't a universal practice in the ITF or Wikipedia, an online source I could go and edit right now to say something else if I wanted to, saying that some ITF schools adopt sine wave while others don't as if it's just an option. You might as well say some Isshin Ryu schools use a vertical fist when punching and some don't or some Wing Chun school use chain punching while others don't. You know, whatever they want to do. 

As for when sine wave was introduced, GM Kim, Yong Soo, who was the ITF chief instructor at one point, said in an interview in 2005  that it was introduced in the late 1960's. I'm going to take his word on it over Wikipedia's. You can make up your own mind on the matter, of course.



> I am up for green belt in ITF



Well, that's a long time. I'm sure you have a pretty good handle on the nuances of the art and its history at this point.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

TrueJim said:


> According to "A Killing Art", the Sine Wave was developed in the early 1980s.



No, that's just when Gen Choi coined the term to describe what he had already been teaching.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## elder999

chrispillertkd said:


> That's interesting. I cannot name any schools that belong to any of the ITF's - and I know people that being to all three ITF organizations - that do not practice sine wave.



I'm sure there are schools in the U.S. practiciing the Chang Hon forms without the sine wave. You yourself have said as much in the past:



chrispillertkd said:


> Dancingalone already touched on this, but I'd say there are probably more people who practice Gen. Choi's patterns without sine wave than there are who practice them with sine wave. Of course, within this group of non-sine-wavers you have a variety of practices. You get people who are basically doing Shotokan techniques but performing the Chang Hun tuls, you have people who are using a degree of "knee spring" when performing techniques but don't refer to it as sine wave, you have people who are between those two points, etc.







chrispillertkd said:


> Well, that's a long time. I'm sure you have a pretty good handle on the nuances of the art and its history at this point.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



a rollingeyes  smiley might have helped a little there......


----------



## Gnarlie

TrueJim said:


> According to "A Killing Art", the Sine Wave was developed in the early 1980s.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken then, the timing goes something like this:
> 
> 1965 - Choi publishes his first reference, Tae Kwon Do - Art of Self Defense
> 1967 - Choi publishes his first edition of The Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do
> 1980 - Choi introduces taekwon-do to North Korea
> 1980s (early) - Choi introduces the form Juche and the Sine Wave into taekwon-do
> 1984 - Choi publishes an updated and expanded version of The Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do (the first version to include Juche and the Sine Wave)
> 1999 - The last edition of The Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do with which Choi is directly involved is published



Hey Jim.

I posted a link earlier to Chois first book about Taekwondo from 1959, not 1965. Thought you might like to add it to the wiki, it covers a lot of technical information and contains photos. The main text is in Korean, but even the pictures probably answer some of he questions in the OP.

I also included a link to the program to the first Taekwondo Demo in South East, again 1959, which lists which master did what in English and what patterns were performed.

These documents were recently made public to celebrate 60 years of Taekwondo.


----------



## chrispillertkd

elder999 said:


> I'm sure there are schools in the U.S. practiciing the Chang Hon forms without the sine wave. You yourself have said as much in the past:



Of course, but that isn't the issue as Laplace_Demon's post and my reply made clear. He claimed that there were ITF groups that didn't practice sine wave and then that there were individual schools that belonged to the ITF that don't. People can and do practice the Chang Hun tul without being a member of the ITF. They can do whatever they want and I have no problem with that (more power to them, in fact). 

What I have a problem with is twofold: 

1) making an untenable assertion (sine wave "is not universally practised by ITF" [sic]), and 

2) moving the goal posts ("I can at least name ITF style schools with no sine wave"). You'd think an undergrad in philosophy would be able to spot that logical fallacy coming a mile away (or a kilometer away since he's from Europe).

Note in the original comment, to which I was replying, the claim was that sine wave isn't universally practiced by the ITF. I'm still waiting to see any sort of evidence to back that up, including hearing which ITF group Laplace belongs to Maybe that's the one that has made it optional. I'd like to know for no other reason that I haven't seen this before (excepting those schools which are in the process of joining the ITF and changing over to its syllabus, as I mentioned earlier). 

Every ITF Grand Master and Master I have had the opportunity to train with (including Gen. Choi, GM Hwang, Kwang Sung, GM Chuck Sereff, and GM Choi, Jung Hwa) have all covered sine wave and discussed its purpose and how to utilize it. So I'd just like to know which ITF has made it an optional practice, that's all. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> Everybody knows ITFs origin. The question is which substantial improvements Choi brought to the table,.



Well, my response initialy is how anyone would: A. Quantify what is an "Improvement" let alone a substantial improvement; and B. What would be the answer for the same question asked about Kano, Funakoshi, Ueshiba, or the KKW.

With regard to General Choi, things he did:

1. Changged from only relying on being "Deeply Rooted" so popular with Shotokan, to having a more mobile system, even while airborne;
2. Unify and codify a system from Fragments as practiced in Korea so it could be taught uniformly on a wide scale, setting forth technical parameters for attacking tools, how to use them against which vital spots, stances and purpose for the stance.
3. Develop instructors  and dispatch them throughout the world to demonstrate and teach
4. Recruit instructors practicing the root systems and have them come on board to spread the art on  a unified scale.

With regard to #2 above, having trained with old time Korean isntructors the lessons were "Like this" or "Not like this" . Seldom was there an explanation. General Choi gave reasons for his methodologies, which was unusual, which is not to say that reasoneable minds would not differ about whether they agrred with him, but at least he gave reasons.  He also welcomed "Good" questions whereas in other schools asking questions was often considered disrepsectful.   He also employed the socratic method when teaching.  

Examples: Low outer forearm Block.  Block stops with thumb knucle even with center line.   Other systems had it stop over the front leg. His reason was the abdomen is exposed if the arm moves further out. Leaving it there continues the protection.

Walking  Stance. Lead loower leg angles rearword so kneecap is over heel. Other systems, lower leg is vertical. His makes it much easier for lead leg kiscking withou as large a weight shift.

Since his extensive text contains 15 volumes the above is certainly not meant to be exhaustive.


----------



## elder999

Gnarlie said:


> Hey Jim.
> 
> I posted a link earlier to Chois first book about Taekwondo from 1959, not 1965. Thought you might like to add it to the wiki, it covers a lot of technical information and contains photos. The main text is in Korean, but even the pictures probably answer some of he questions in the OP.
> 
> I also included a link to the program to the first Taekwondo Demo in South East, again 1959, which lists which master did what in English and what patterns were performed.
> 
> These documents were recently made public to celebrate 60 years of Taekwondo.



And I posted some pre-sine wave ITF tae kwon do upthread as well...then, of course, there's this resounding demonstration of what I think is a complete misunderstanding of physics and basic body mechanics:


----------



## Gnarlie

elder999 said:


> And I posted some pre-sine wave ITF tae kwon do upthread as well...then, of course, there's this resounding demonstration of what I think is a complete misunderstanding of physics and basic body mechanics:



That video is puzzling. Is he saying that they should never twist their waist or that they ARE never twisting their waist?

And is he saying that power can be added into that second forward punch by essentially falling backward away from it as part of the sine wave drop? Sounds iffy...


----------



## Gnarlie

There are loads of places in Germany that practice the Chang Hon set and do not use the sine wave. They call themselves 'Traditional Taekwondo', but I am fairly sure they have no link to the ITF.  I wonder if this is the case in Sweden.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Gnarlie said:


> That video is puzzling. Is he saying that they should never twist their waist or that they ARE never twisting their waist?



Sometimes you have to know the system in the first place in order to understand what you're being taught. One of Gen. Choi's "Basic Principles" for stepping is: "The body must always become half facing the opponent when stepping backwards and forwards."

This not only reduces the potential that you are hit because you don't present as open of a target as you could but it also makes utilizing your hip quite natural with no need for an over exaggerated twisting. (This all assumes one is familiar with the concept of full, half, and side facing in the first place, of course.) 

What is being shown in the video, however, is not technically stepping it's moving from a kick into two punches. After executing the front snap kick one is already full facing. If you were to try to get into a half facing position before executing the first punch you would have to rotate the hip and torso backwards first, thus diminishing any momentum you had after the kick. When moving from a full facing position (after the kick) directly into another full facing position (the punch) you stay full facing. Hence Gen. Choi telling him not to twist his body and making sire his torso stays full facing during both punches.



> And is he saying that power can be added into that second forward punch by essentially falling backward away from it as part of the sine wave drop? Sounds iffy...



IMO the person demonstrating is doing a poor job there. The backwards motion should be negated by engaging the knee of the front leg. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## TrueJim

chrispillertkd said:


> No, that's just when Gen Choi coined the term to describe what he had already been teaching [Sine Wave].



Yah, "A Killing Art" _kind of_ alludes to that fact. That book claims (for what it's worth) that Choi had already been teaching and up-and-down motion, but he hadn't named it "Sine Wave" yet, and that in 1980 Choi did two things:

Gave the motion a name, but also
Exaggerated the motion
So I'm not sure what date I'd set as the "start" of the Sine Wave.


----------



## TrueJim

Gnarlie said:


> I posted a link earlier to Chois first book about Taekwondo from 1959, not 1965. Thought you might like to add it to the wiki...



Done.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Earl Weiss said:


> Well, my response initialy is how anyone would: A. Quantify what is an "Improvement" let alone a substantial improvement; and B. What would be the answer for the same question asked about Kano, Funakoshi, Ueshiba, or the KKW.
> 
> With regard to General Choi, things he did:
> 
> 1. Changged from only relying on being "Deeply Rooted" so popular with Shotokan, to having a more mobile system, even while airborne;
> 2. Unify and codify a system from Fragments as practiced in Korea so it could be taught uniformly on a wide scale, setting forth technical parameters for attacking tools, how to use them against which vital spots, stances and purpose for the stance.
> 3. Develop instructors  and dispatch them throughout the world to demonstrate and teach
> 4. Recruit instructors practicing the root systems and have them come on board to spread the art on  a unified scale.
> 
> With regard to #2 above, having trained with old time Korean isntructors the lessons were "Like this" or "Not like this" . Seldom was there an explanation. General Choi gave reasons for his methodologies, which was unusual, which is not to say that reasoneable minds would not differ about whether they agrred with him, but at least he gave reasons.  He also welcomed "Good" questions whereas in other schools asking questions was often considered disrepsectful.   He also employed the socratic method when teaching.
> 
> Examples: Low outer forearm Block.  Block stops with thumb knucle even with center line.   Other systems had it stop over the front leg. His reason was the abdomen is exposed if the arm moves further out. Leaving it there continues the protection.
> 
> Walking  Stance. Lead loower leg angles rearword so kneecap is over heel. Other systems, lower leg is vertical. His makes it much easier for lead leg kiscking withou as large a weight shift.
> 
> Since his extensive text contains 15 volumes the above is certainly not meant to be exhaustive.



The more mobile stance compared to Shotokan has always been highly controversial. It's at best a trade off, not improvement. Choi asserted that TKD had surpassed Karate. He was the one attempting to improve Karate, later claiming to have done so. I am not impressed.


----------



## TrueJim

Gnarlie said:


> There are loads of places in Germany that practice the Chang Hon set and do not use the sine wave. They call themselves 'Traditional Taekwondo', but I am fairly sure they have no link to the ITF.



That has been my observation as well. Some Chang Hon-style schools that don't adopt the Sine Wave refer to themselves as "traditional" taekwondo.

But then, the school my son and I attend is a Kukkiwon-style school, and right there on the website of the school, they call themselves "traditional" taekwondo as well!  It just goes to show you, one man's _new-fangled_-style is another man's "traditional."


----------



## TrueJim

Earl Weiss said:


> 1. Changed from only relying on being "Deeply Rooted" so popular with Shotokan, to having a more mobile system, even while airborne;



For me, this seems like a really big change from karate. When I first joined a "taekwondo" club in North Carolina in the late 1970s, the instructor called it _taekwondo_, but it was much more karate-like. The stances were wide and...as you say...rooted.

Then when I started Kukkiwon-style with my son a couple years ago, I had to learn to narrow my stances. I couldn't figure out why...why would anybody want *narrow* stances?  Then I read it was because taekwondo emphasizes agility and a variety of spinning kicks, and a light-bulb went off over my head.


----------



## TrueJim

While we're on the topic of Encyclopedias and ITF _canon_...

The *wikia* software system doesn't give me a lot of insight into who is reading what...but it does give me a _little_. The wiki gets about 800 page-views per day on average. What's interesting to me though is: the most-read pages are almost invariably the ones about Chang Hon style. I've puzzled over this for quite a while. Websites like Blue Cottage are pretty darn good...I wonder why the wiki gets so much ITF-related traffic, when there are great alternatives...including even the freely-downloadable Encyclopedia itself in PDF form.


----------



## elder999

chrispillertkd said:


> Sometimes you have to know the system in the first place in order to understand what you're being taught. One of Gen. Choi's "Basic Principles" for stepping is: "The body must always become half facing the opponent when stepping backwards and forwards."
> 
> This not only reduces the potential that you are hit because you don't present as open of a target as you could but it also makes utilizing your hip quite natural with no need for an over exaggerated twisting. (This all assumes one is familiar with the concept of full, half, and side facing in the first place, of course.)
> 
> What is being shown in the video, however, is not technically stepping it's moving from a kick into two punches. After executing the front snap kick one is already full facing. If you were to try to get into a half facing position before executing the first punch you would have to rotate the hip and torso backwards first, thus diminishing any momentum you had after the kick. When moving from a full facing position (after the kick) directly into another full facing position (the punch) you stay full facing. Hence Gen. Choi telling him not to twist his body and making sire his torso stays full facing during both punches.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO the person demonstrating is doing a poor job there. The backwards motion should be negated by engaging the knee of the front leg.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

It was pretty straight forward. Sorry you couldn't understand out. 

Pax, 

Chris


----------



## Jaeimseu

Earl Weiss said:


> With regard to General Choi, things he did:
> 
> 2. Unify and codify a system from Fragments as practiced in Korea so it could be taught uniformly on a wide scale, setting forth technical parameters for attacking tools, how to use them against which vital spots, stances and purpose for
> 
> With regard to #2 above, having trained with old time Korean isntructors the lessons were "Like this" or "Not like this" . Seldom was there an explanation. General Choi gave reasons for his methodologies, which was unusual, which is not to say that reasoneable minds would not differ about whether they agrred with him, but at least he gave reasons.  He also welcomed "Good" questions whereas in other schools asking questions was often considered disrepsectful.



I would guess that this was necessary for General Choi to do this once he left Korea and began teaching more Westerners. Culturally, the teaching style in Korea (probably all of Asia, as well, though I only have first hand experience in Korea) and in Canada or America is incredibly different.


----------



## TrueJim

Jaeimseu said:


> Culturally, the teaching style in Korea (probably all of Asia, as well, though I only have first hand experience in Korea) and in Canada or America is incredibly different...



Years ago at work I had to coordinate Six Sigma ("process improvement") training for offices in the U.S. and UK. The training included a deck of a few hundred (!) PowerPoint slides. My UK point-of-contact looked me in the eyes and with a straight face said, "Only a Yank would think anybody learns anything by looking at slides." I couldn't disagree with him. 

The "Like this" or "Not like this" approach would probably be a big improvement over a lot of teaching methods that I see.


----------



## Laplace_demon

chrispillertkd said:


> That's interesting. I cannot name any schools that belong to any of the ITF's - and I know people that being to all three ITF organizations - that do not practice sine wave. Even the schools I know of that have joined one of the ITF organizations have in short order adopted sine wave. I suppose if you want to get pedantic you could say that at one point those school weren't practicing sine wave but if you join the ITF you adopt sine wave. Period. That's much different that you saying sine wave isn't a universal practice in the ITF or Wikipedia, an online source I could go and edit right now to say something else if I wanted to, saying that some ITF schools adopt sine wave while others don't as if it's just an option. You might as well say some Isshin Ryu schools use a vertical fist when punching and some don't or some Wing Chun school use chain punching while others don't. You know, whatever they want to do.
> 
> As for when sine wave was introduced, GM Kim, Yong Soo, who was the ITF chief instructor at one point, said in an interview in 2005  that it was introduced in the late 1960's. I'm going to take his word on it over Wikipedia's. You can make up your own mind on the matter, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's a long time. I'm sure you have a pretty good handle on the nuances of the art and its history at this point.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



I would assume in any case that a _truly_ traditional ITF school, not geared towards ITF competition (in which sine wave is mandatory) could teach it either way. I at any rate don't concider sine wave a defining characteristic of ITF Taekwon-Do. Something which only gained prominence in the 80s, as a direct result of an overly ambitious, brain storming General Choi. My school is geared towards competition and teaches sine wave.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Laplace_demon said:


> I would assume in any case that a _truly_ traditional ITF school, not geared towards ITF competition (in which sine wave is mandatory) could teach it either way.



This is debatable since a truly tradition ITF school would be a member of the ITF and follow the ITF syllabus. Tradition comes from a Latin word meaning "to hand on" (tradere).If you're a traditional ITF school you're teaching what has been handed on by Gen. Choi. Do instructors vary things sometimes? Sure. I know many instructors who have different ho sin sul techniques that they teach, or different free sparring drills. But I don't know any ITF instructors who do not teach sine wave.

Your previous posts said you knew some. I'd be very interested in knowing who they are, as well as knowing which of the ITF groups you belong to so I can know which organization has made sine wave an optional  requirement. 



> I at any rate don't concider sine wave a defining characteristic of ITF Taekwon-Do. Something which only gained prominence in the 80s...



You obviously know more about this than I do so I would only ask upon what you're basing this belief. It certainly can't be that it only gained prominence in the 80's because it existed even in the 1960's, according to the then-ITF Chief Instructor. I've also heard Gen. Choi as well as three of his highest ranking and longest lasting students all talk about the importance of sine wave to Gen. Choi's system. But I would appreciate any light you could shed on this for me.



> ...as a direct result of an overly ambitious, brain storming General Choi.



You know, of course, that this statement kind of undercuts your pervious one about sine wave not being a defining characteristic of Taekwon-Do.



> My school is geared towards competition and teaches sine wave.



My school is not geared towards competition and also teaches sine wave.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## RTKDCMB

Gnarlie said:


> That video is puzzling. Is he saying that they should never twist their waist or that they ARE never twisting their waist?


I would guess the former as he says 'That is sine wave, don't twist".


----------



## RTKDCMB

Gnarlie said:


> There are loads of places in Germany that practice the Chang Hon set and do not use the sine wave. They call themselves 'Traditional Taekwondo', but I am fairly sure they have no link to the ITF.  I wonder if this is the case in Sweden.


It is the case in Australia with at least two major organizations.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TrueJim said:


> Years ago at work I had to coordinate Six Sigma ("process improvement") training for offices in the U.S. and UK.


Like TKD Six Sigma also has black belts.


----------



## elder999

chrispillertkd said:


> It was pretty straight forward. Sorry you couldn't understand out.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris




Interesting...



chrispillertkd said:


> Sometimes you have to know the system in the first place in order to understand what you're being taught. One of Gen. Choi's "Basic Principles" for stepping is: "The body must always become half facing the opponent when stepping backwards and forwards."



True or not (*not*), what's that got to do with rising before sinking into a strike?




chrispillertkd said:


> This not only reduces the potential that you are hit because you don't present as open of a target as you could but it also makes utilizing your hip quite natural with no need for an over exaggerated twisting. (This all assumes one is familiar with the concept of full, half, and side facing in the first place, of course.)



What-in the name of the Buddha's beard-has  that got to do with rising before sinking into a strike?



chrispillertkd said:


> What is being shown in the video, however, is not technically stepping it's moving from a kick into two punches. After executing the front snap kick one is already full facing. If you were to try to get into a half facing position before executing the first punch you would have to rotate the hip and torso backwards first, thus diminishing any momentum you had after the kick. When moving from a full facing position (after the kick) directly into another full facing position (the punch) you stay full facing. Hence Gen. Choi telling him not to twist his body and making sire his torso stays full facing during both punches.



We'll deal with the illogic of this later (move from full facing into full facing, when, well, you could turn?), but what, in the name of the Buddha's beard and *almighty Zeus's butthole* has this to do with rising before sinking into a strike?





chrispillertkd said:


> IMO the person demonstrating is doing a poor job there.



Yeah, that's because......I dunno...._sine wave_



chrispillertkd said:


> The backwards motion should be negated by engaging the knee of the front leg.



And now we're right back where we started:


----------



## Gnarlie

RTKDCMB said:


> Like TKD Six Sigma also has black belts.


Useless in a street fight though.


----------



## Gnarlie

chrispillertkd said:


> Sometimes you have to know the system in the first place in order to understand what you're being taught. One of Gen. Choi's "Basic Principles" for stepping is: "The body must always become half facing the opponent when stepping backwards and forwards."
> 
> This not only reduces the potential that you are hit because you don't present as open of a target as you could but it also makes utilizing your hip quite natural with no need for an over exaggerated twisting. (This all assumes one is familiar with the concept of full, half, and side facing in the first place, of course.)
> 
> What is being shown in the video, however, is not technically stepping it's moving from a kick into two punches. After executing the front snap kick one is already full facing. If you were to try to get into a half facing position before executing the first punch you would have to rotate the hip and torso backwards first, thus diminishing any momentum you had after the kick. When moving from a full facing position (after the kick) directly into another full facing position (the punch) you stay full facing. Hence Gen. Choi telling him not to twist his body and making sire his torso stays full facing during both punches.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO the person demonstrating is doing a poor job there. The backwards motion should be negated by engaging the knee of the front leg.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


But it looks like the General is letting him fall back even at the points where the General has control...and perhaps there is something here that I don't understand about sine wave, but even if that back leg negates the backward motion, you still only have a vertical up-down motion with no vector contributing to the punch. 

I understand the use of sine wave for motions where there is a step forward, adding gravity as an assistive force. But on the spot as it is here, or in a stationary horse stance, I can't get my head round what it actually adds.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Gnarlie said:


> But it looks like the General is letting him fall back even at the points where the General has control...



It's hard to tell exactly what's going on from the video. All I can say is when I have asked about this I've been personally told there must be no backwards motion by some people in the ITF with rank that can only be described as stratospheric. In the video it looks _to me_ like Gen. Choi is holding his back straight and not letting him twist from side to side because that is the thing he is concentrating on teaching at that time. I've seen plenty of people teach and only focus on one or two things instead of everything that needs to be fixed. I do it myself at times. It's just a question of priorities.



> and perhaps there is something here that I don't understand about sine wave, but even if that back leg negates the backward motion, you still only have a vertical up-down motion with no vector contributing to the punch.



I think you may have made a typo here as before I mentioned you negate the backwards motion by unbending the _front_ knee. As a note, this shouldn't result in the front leg becoming completely straight. The front knee should remain flexed slightly. But as you straighten it the body lifts and then drops without the backwards motion seen in this video, which results in the settling down of the weight into the punch with no backwards motion taking power away from the technique.



> I understand the use of sine wave for motions where there is a step forward, adding gravity as an assistive force. But on the spot as it is here, or in a stationary horse stance, I can't get my head round what it actually adds.



Much like a sitting stance itself (a "horse stance") which has it's primary use as training the legs to get stronger, IMHO using sine wave _while stationary_ is a training tool to get the students used to raising and dropping their weight. While a sitting stance does have other uses standing in one and throwing front punches is likely less directly applicable than the strengthening of the legs that is going on at the same time. Similarly, shuffling the weight in a stationary position does help you sink your mass into the technique, but it seems to be more important as a learning method so the student can easier generalize what's happening when actually stepping.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

elder999 said:


> True or not (*not*), what's that got to do with rising before sinking into a strike?



My comment was made in response to Gnarlie's question about Gen. Choi saying the student should not twist his body when punching. The topic of sinking one's weight wasn't at issue.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Earl Weiss

elder999 said:


> And I posted some pre-sine wave ITF tae kwon do upthread as well...then, of course, there's this resounding demonstration of what I think is a complete misunderstanding of physics and basic body mechanics:



Watch General Choi's rear leg when he demonstrates, the bending of the knee and lifting of the heel. Then do a search for "Kinetic Linking" "Closed Chain Linking" and the Fight science video. (post #448 Below) It's the same thing.   Agreed that the student has excessive forward and backward motion.

This video and comment about "Don't Twist your body" is a classic example of taxing an excerpt of something he said and thinking it was meant to be exhaustive, exclusive and all encompassing when instead he would say something to make a point and that is not how he meant it. How do I know? Because at the very same courses he would address using the hips and abdomen to generate power.

   AFAIAC he was making a point about excessive twisting for this student.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Gnarlie said:


> That video is puzzling. Is he saying that they should never twist their waist or that they ARE never twisting their waist?
> 
> And is he saying that power can be added into that second forward punch by essentially falling backward away from it as part of the sine wave drop? Sounds iffy...



See my prior post  #440


----------



## Gnarlie

chrispillertkd said:


> It's hard to tell exactly what's going on from the video. All I can say is when I have asked about this I've been personally told there must be no backwards motion by some people in the ITF with rank that can only be described as stratospheric. In the video it looks _to me_ like Gen. Choi is holding his back straight and not letting him twist from side to side because that is the thing he is concentrating on teaching at that time. I've seen plenty of people teach and only focus on one or two things instead of everything that needs to be fixed. I do it myself at times. It's just a question of priorities.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you may have made a typo here as before I mentioned you negate the backwards motion by unbending the _front_ knee. As a note, this shouldn't result in the front leg becoming completely straight. The front knee should remain flexed slightly. But as you straighten it the body lifts and then drops without the backwards motion seen in this video, which results in the settling down of the weight into the punch with no backwards motion taking power away from the technique.
> 
> 
> 
> Much like a sitting stance itself (a "horse stance") which has it's primary use as training the legs to get stronger, IMHO using sine wave _while stationary_ is a training tool to get the students used to raising and dropping their weight. While a sitting stance does have other uses standing in one and throwing front punches is likely less directly applicable than the strengthening of the legs that is going on at the same time. Similarly, shuffling the weight in a stationary position does help you sink your mass into the technique, but it seems to be more important as a learning method so the student can easier generalize what's happening when actually stepping.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


Thank you Chris, that makes sense, and yes, it was a typo. 

I agree about the stationary use of horse stance.

If sine wave is intended to add the assistance of gravity to a stepped technique, then it makes sense. I would even go so far as to say that a similar principle is at play with KKW stepping, although the knee bending is not pronounced, and no up down motion of the head is visible. There is an element of dropping weight into stances though.


----------



## Earl Weiss

chrispillertkd said:


> IMO the person demonstrating is doing a poor job there. The backwards motion should be negated by engaging the knee of the front leg.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



Agreed, though sadly it seems to be an all too common error also caused in part by raising the rear heel without bending  the rear knee as you see General Choi do in the video.


----------



## Gnarlie

Earl Weiss said:


> Watch General Choi's rear leg when he demonstrates, the bending of the knee and lifting of the heel. Then do a search for "Kinetic Linking" "Closed Chain Linking" and the Fight science video. It's the same thing.   Agreed that the student has excessive forward and backward motion.
> 
> This video and comment about "Don't Twist your body" is a classic example of taxing an excerpt of something he said and thinking it was meant to be exhaustive, exclusive and all encompassing when instead he would say something to make a point and that is not how he meant it. How do I know? Because at the very same courses he would address using the hips and abdomen to generate power.
> 
> AFAIAC he was making a point about excessive twisting for this student.


Thank you. I didn't want to take it out of context, my issue was it didn't fit with the context of anything else I understood about ITF mechanics.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I agree that the General does move differently to the student.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> I would assume in any case that a _truly_ traditional ITF school, not geared towards ITF competition (in which sine wave is mandatory) could teach it either way. I at any rate don't concider sine wave a defining characteristic of ITF Taekwon-Do. Something which only gained prominence in the 80s, as a direct result of an overly ambitious, brain storming General Choi. My school is geared towards competition and teaches sine wave.



And above we have a succinct case of another rash generalization based on limited observations.
First and foremeost you "Assime" what a "truly Traditional" ITF school would do.   Generalizatuion #1:  seems that you confuse the organizations with a style.  ITF demotes organizations and "tradititional" is impossible to identify. Suffice it to say, as already pointed out that the orgs use what has been called "Sine Wave" since the 1980's.

Generalization #2 as to when Sine wave gained prominence.   I can't speak for the entire world. In the USA the knee flexing was referred to as Spring Style and was prominent since the early 1970's.   Flexing the knee is referred to in the 1972 text.  I would have to re check the 1965 text.


----------



## Earl Weiss

[QUOTE="

The "Like this" or "Not like this" approach would probably be a big improvement over a lot of teaching methods that I see. [/QUOTE]

Except that at times it is difficult or impossible for the student to discern the difference.   So much so that it is a running koke with an instructor posting identical pictures on the wall with different captions one saying "Like This" and the other saying "Not like this".


----------



## Gnarlie

Earl Weiss said:


> [QUOTE="
> 
> The "Like this" or "Not like this" approach would probably be a big improvement over a lot of teaching methods that I see.



Except that at times it is difficult or impossible for the student to discern the difference.   So much so that it is a running koke with an instructor posting identical pictures on the wall with different captions one saying "Like This" and the other saying "Not like this".[/QUOTE]
Sounds familar [emoji14]


----------



## Earl Weiss

Gnarlie said:


> I understand the use of sine wave for motions where there is a step forward, adding gravity as an assistive force. But on the spot as it is here, or in a stationary horse stance, I can't get my head round what it actually adds.




See the following starting at 1:15


----------



## Gnarlie

Earl Weiss said:


> See the following starting at 1:15


Blocked in Germany on copyright grounds :/

I think I have seen the clip though.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Gnarlie said:


> Blocked in Germany on copyright grounds :/
> 
> I think I have seen the clip though.


And in Australia.


----------



## TrueJim

RTKDCMB said:


> And in Australia.



Populated with criminals. We can't let those Aussies pirate our taekwondo videos!


----------



## RTKDCMB

TrueJim said:


> Populated with criminals. We can't let those Aussies pirate our taekwondo videos!


All of our criminals originally came from overseas.


----------



## Tez3

It's blocked in UK as well 
We used to send the wayward sons to Oz too if they made too many maidservants pregnant or lost too much money at the gaming tables.


----------



## Earl Weiss

If a video is "Blocked" as part of a post, is it also blocked if you provide a link?


----------



## Tez3

I went to You Tube and got the same blocked message.


----------



## elder999

Earl Weiss said:


> Watch General Choi's rear leg when he demonstrates, the bending of the knee and lifting of the heel. Then do a search for "Kinetic Linking" "Closed Chain Linking" and the Fight science video. (post #448 Below) It's the same thing.   Agreed that the student has excessive forward and backward motion.
> 
> This video and comment about "Don't Twist your body" is a classic example of taxing an excerpt of something he said and thinking it was meant to be exhaustive, exclusive and all encompassing when instead he would say something to make a point and that is not how he meant it. How do I know? Because at the very same courses he would address using the hips and abdomen to generate power.
> 
> AFAIAC he was making a point about excessive twisting for this student.



So he's not saying "don't twist," but maybe more, "don't twist _so much?_"


----------



## TrueJim

Earl Weiss said:


> If a video is "Blocked" as part of a post, is it also blocked if you provide a link?



As I understand it, yes. When you travel from country to country, different parts of YouTube get blocked, depending on the copyright law in that country. So even providing the link won't fix the problem, the content will still be blocked.

Example: Like a lot of kids, my son and I recreated our _dojang_ in Minecraft. Then later we started using that Minecraft world to make YouTube videos. Then still later, I used that Minecraft world to advertise our school's upcoming Open House. I used the spooky theme from Halloween as the background music. YouTube is really clever though: they scan uploaded content for copyrighted materials using 'bots, and then block depending on copyright law by country. So for example when I uploaded this video (with the copyrighted Halloween theme), I got an automatic notification that the video could not be viewed in Germany due to copyright. 




We also made a Minecraft Demo Team video using the music of Choi So-ri, and that didn't get blocked, not even in Germany. So the 'bots are smart enough apparently to know what materials are permissible where. It's actually pretty sophisticated, and pretty cool.


----------



## Gnarlie

And easily circumvented using Anonymox, the Firefox VPN tunneling extension, effectively rendering all that cool technology down to something largely pointless and annoying. But that would be naughty.


----------



## Earl Weiss

elder999 said:


> So he's not saying "don't twist," but maybe more, "don't twist _so much?_"



IMO - Yes. 

There seemd to be an issue where if he said something was good some condiered more of the same better.   This lea to excessive hip twist and excessive "down" of the down up down motion later termed "Sine Wave".


----------



## Laplace_demon

chrispillertkd said:


> You obviously know more about this than I do so I would only ask upon what you're basing this belief. It certainly can't be that it only gained prominence in the 80's because it existed even in the 1960's, according to the then-ITF Chief Instructor. I've also heard Gen. Choi as well as three of his highest ranking and longest lasting students all talk about the importance of sine wave to Gen. Choi's system. But I would appreciate any light you could shed on this for me.



You clearly don't understand the meaning of *gaining prominence*. The fact that Choi may have pondered/theorised on this concept in the late 60, does not make it exist, let alone prominent. If it was truly materialised in the late 60s, then it sure took a long time for the word to get out:


_"So now we get into the controversial area of the sine-wave. As a note of interest sine-wave was introduced at a seminar in Derby by the General in *1983"

Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy
*_
My instructor, Master Chin-Yuat Yeo (8 dan), who  has trained in ITF since 1966, graded by General Choi, said the 80s too, regarding sine wave.


----------



## Tez3

Derby in the UK?


----------



## Gnarlie

TrueJim said:


> That has been my observation as well. Some Chang Hon-style schools that don't adopt the Sine Wave refer to themselves as "traditional" taekwondo.
> 
> But then, the school my son and I attend is a Kukkiwon-style school, and right there on the website of the school, they call themselves "traditional" taekwondo as well!  It just goes to show you, one man's _new-fangled_-style is another man's "traditional."


I really find the use if the word traditional in respect to anything Taekwondo somewhat strange, especially in some of the contexts it gets used. How traditional can it be? My folks were born in the fifties. Does that make them traditional?


----------



## Drose427

Gnarlie said:


> I really find the use if the word traditional in respect to anything Taekwondo somewhat strange, especially in some of the contexts it gets used. How traditional can it be? My folks were born in the fifties. Does that make them traditional?



If theyre doing the same things theyre parents were!


----------



## Laplace_demon

_"Another instructor I know, whom is native Korean & has trained under no less than four of General Choi`s original, 1st generation pioneering instructors, had this to say: "The sine wave is not accepted by all factions of ITF stylists. It came somewhere around the
90s. It is a recent thing. Not accepted by all Grandmasters. "

Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy
_


----------



## Laplace_demon

Just to rub it in...


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> _"Another instructor I know, whom is native Korean & has trained under no less than four of General Choi`s original, 1st generation pioneering instructors, had this to say: "The sine wave is not accepted by all factions of ITF stylists. It came somewhere around the
> 90s. It is a recent thing. Not accepted by all Grandmasters. "
> 
> Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy_




Interesting that you choose Rayners Lane to quote.......


----------



## Gnarlie

Tez3 said:


> Interesting that you choose Rayners Lane to quote.......


I thought that too.


----------



## Tez3

Gnarlie said:


> I thought that too.



got the popcorn......


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> Interesting that you choose Rayners Lane to quote.......



'Quoting Rayners Academy quoting someone. Was that too hard for you?


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> 'Quoting Rayners Academy quoting someone. Was that too hard for you?



"Daaaaa bears" 

- Barack Obama


Thats basically what you did.....


----------



## chrispillertkd

Laplace_demon said:


> You clearly don't understand the meaning of *gaining prominence*.



No, I understand the concept.

You said you didn't consider sine wave a defining characteristic of Taekwon-Do, apparently because it only "gained prominence" in the 1980's. This despite GM Kim, Yong Soo, who was there and working extremely closely with Gen. Choi, saying otherwise and despite Master Weiss pointing out that the use of knee spring - which is what sine  wave is - was around since at least Gen. Choi's 1972 textbook and that sine wave is simply a term coined to describe what was already being done.

Given that Gen. Choi was founding a style and trying to unite many people who were already practicing different styles of martial arts it's hardly surprising that some of them didn't adopt his new style wholesale. While there were instructors who worked with Gen. Choi very closely and learned his system directly from his there were other instructors who never learned the whole thing, including the fine points and didn't even learn all of the patterns before leaving his organization. If they didn't learn the style in depth it should hardly be surprising that they didn't learn one of its defining characteristics. 

Your position also puts you directly at odds with Gen. Choi, who was quite adamant that sine wave was a hallmark of his style when I had the opportunity to attend a seminar with him.



> The fact that Choi may have pondered/theorised on this concept in the late 60, does not make it exist, let alone prominent.



I am surprised an undergraduate in philosophy would say such a thing. I am sure you're familiar with the concept of potential and act. If you theorize about something it exists _in act_ in your mind and _in potentia_ as a physical action. If you then begin practicing the technique you were pondering it then exists as a physical action _in act_.



> If it was truly materialised in the late 60s, then it sure took a long time for the word to get out:



It depends on your view point of "a long time." Gen. Choi founded Taekwon-Do in 1955. Sine wave was developed in the late 1960s and being practiced by the early 1970s under the appellation of "knee spring." That's not very long at all in the grand scheme of things.



> _"So now we get into the controversial area of the sine-wave. As a note of interest sine-wave was introduced at a seminar in Derby by the General in *1983"
> 
> Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy
> *_



That is the website that had published the article with inaccurate information about turning kicks. I am familiar with the gentleman whose school that is. He has an unconventional view of the history of sine wave, despite all evidence to the contrary.



> My instructor, Master Chin-Yuat Yeo (8 dan), who  has trained in ITF since 1966, graded by General Choi, said the 80s too, regarding sine wave.



Interesting. He is a member of the North Korean led ITF. Is your assertion that sine wave isn't a universal aspect of Taekwon-Do as the ITF teaches it something Master Yeo told you? Is this the position of the North Korean led ITF as a whole? The Norht Koreans seemed to be pretty much on the sine wave band wagon last I knew.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

Laplace_demon said:


> _"Another instructor I know, whom is native Korean & has trained under no less than four of General Choi`s original, 1st generation pioneering instructors, had this to say: "The sine wave is not accepted by all factions of ITF stylists. It came somewhere around the
> 90s. It is a recent thing. Not accepted by all Grandmasters. "
> 
> Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy_



Since I was doing sine wave in the 1980s and other people were doing it earlier than that this is demonstrably false.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## TrueJim

Gnarlie said:


> My folks were born in the fifties. Does that make them traditional?



No, but it does make them the average age of Martial Talk contributors. 

*ducking* I kid, I kid!


----------



## Dirty Dog

Laplace_demon said:


> _"Another instructor I know, whom is native Korean & has trained under no less than four of General Choi`s original, 1st generation pioneering instructors, had this to say: "The sine wave is not accepted by all factions of ITF stylists. It came somewhere around the
> 90s. It is a recent thing. Not accepted by all Grandmasters. "
> 
> Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy_



That's a pretty silly claim to make, since it (like so much of what you post) is demonstrably false.
I was introduced to sine wave in the mid- to late-70's. I freely admit that I have never really cared for it, and to this day I don't generally incorporate it into my practice of the Chang Hon forms. But it was certainly being introduced long before the 90's.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Dirty Dog said:


> That's a pretty silly claim to make, since it (like so much of what you post) is demonstrably false.
> I was introduced to sine wave in the mid- to late-70's. I freely admit that I have never really cared for it, and to this day I don't generally incorporate it into my practice of the Chang Hon forms. But it was certainly being introduced long before the 90's.



You are not representive of the global ITF curriculum as a hole. You also focused on the wrong part of the quote. The stament regarding acceptance of sine wave among GMs was what I found interesting. Yet nobody wants to comment that.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> _"Another instructor I know, whom is native Korean & has trained under no less than four of General Choi`s original, 1st generation pioneering instructors, had this to say: "The sine wave is not accepted by all factions of ITF stylists. It came somewhere around the
> 90s. It is a recent thing. Not accepted by all Grandmasters. "
> 
> Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy_



Several points:
1. Mr. Anslow and I are well acquainted since he's published at least 20 of my articles in  his magazine.  We have agreed to disagree on several things.   Obviously the above is false with regard to the 1990's statement because "Sine Wave" as a term appears in the 1980 Text.   Certainly there may have been some people out of the loop for 10 years  I have a video of an IIC by Park Jung Tae from 1987 where the motion is shown and addressed.
2. I don't know which Pioneers he refers to but using them as examples is a bad choice.; A few cases in Point.   A. I hosted Nam Tae Hi.  He still used a Japanese term or two for techniques.  B. I was well acquainted with Han Cha Kyo. Was on the floor with him at his school once. He only taught 20 patterns and did something unusual for for Hwa Rang which he developed.  C. He Il Cho and Jhoon Rhee's texts, one of which is named the Complete text, only have 20 patterns in them. D.  ATA progeny of HU Lee who do the Chang Hon system as do progeny of Han Cha Kyo have a "Chung Do Kwan Flavor" to their techniques including lack of knee flexion.  So "not accepted by grandmasters" means little more than not wanting to change or learn something different.
3.  "Factions" of ITF stylists" is a key phrase which again shows your confusion with regard to what the ITFsn use as a standard for the organizations and using the name ITF for a style.  (A mistake Mr. Anslow is not making by using the term "Stylists".


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> *You are not representive of the global ITF curriculum as a hole*. You also focused on the wrong part of the quote. The stament regarding acceptance of sine wave among GMs was what I found interesting. Yet nobody wants to comment that.




I don't think DD is a hole. 

Interesting discussion from everyone else though.


----------



## Earl Weiss

[


Laplace_demon said:


> You are not representive of the global ITF curriculum as a hole. QUOTE]
> .



Here is my experience vis a vis ITF Curriculum as a whole. 6 Full (Hosted One) and One partial IIC by General Choi plus seminars, in the USA, Canada, Jamaica, Russia, Italy, as well has Having judged World Cup and International Championships in 3 countries. 2 More ITF V IICs after General Choi's death.

If you feel that is not enough of a representation as to what the ITF curriculum is then we will agree to disagree.


----------



## TrueJim

Earl Weiss said:


> [
> Here is my experience vis a vis ITF Curriculum as a whole. 6 Full (Hosted One) and One partial IIC by General Choi plus seminars, in the USA, Canada, Jamaica, Russia, Italy, as well has Having judged World Cup and International Championships in 3 countries. 2 More ITF V IICs after General Choi's death.
> 
> If you feel that is not enough of a representation as to what the ITF curriculum is then we will agree to disagree.



Yes, but you're not a *philosophy major*.


----------



## Laplace_demon

The point is this: One of Chois major departures from Karate (sine wave) was a fiasco. Evidence of this is the number of splinter groups that kept his pattern, but rejected Sine Wave. It is not universally accepted among ITF stylists. I know for a fact that groups practising his system without sine wave, do so because they did/do not like it, not because of politics.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Earl Weiss said:


> [
> 
> 
> Here is my experience vis a vis ITF Curriculum as a whole. 6 Full (Hosted One) and One partial IIC by General Choi plus seminars, in the USA, Canada, Jamaica, Russia, Italy, as well has Having judged World Cup and International Championships in 3 countries. 2 More ITF V IICs after General Choi's death.
> 
> If you feel that is not enough of a representation as to what the ITF curriculum is then we will agree to disagree.



You did that all in the mid 70s?


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> The point is this: One of Chois major departures from Karate (sine wave) was a fiasco. Evidence of this is the number of splinter groups that kept his patterns, but rejected Sine Wave. It is not universally accepted among ITF stylist. I know for a fact that groups practising his system without sine wave, does so because they simply did/do not like it, not because of politics.




I don't know what 'sine wave' is but I'm not learning anything from your posts to enlighten me, what are YOUR reason's for disliking it? Can you explain why it doesn't work for you, why you think it's impractical? What is it about sine wave you don't like or can't make work? At the moment all we are getting is a repetitive diatribe about one person.

You see, those that actually train TKD will be able to give their _practical_ reasons why they like or dislike sine wave, not just rubbish it because they have a beef about Gen Choi. They will be able to explain why they do it or why they don't so that a non TKD person like myself can understand, politics I suspect has nothing to do with whether they do it or not, more that they don't think it adds to their skill or that it does.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> I don't know what 'sine wave' is but I'm not learning anything from your posts to enlighten me, what are YOUR reason's for disliking it? Can you explain why it doesn't work for you, why you think it's impractical? What is it about sine wave you don't like or can't make work? At the moment all we are getting is a repetitive diatribe about one person.
> 
> You see, those that actually train TKD will be able to give their _practical_ reasons why they like or dislike sine wave, not just rubbish it because they have a beef about Gen Choi. They will be able to explain why they do it or why they don't so that a non TKD person like myself can understand, politics I suspect has nothing to do with whether they do it or not, more that they don't think it adds to their skill or that it does.



The thread is not about ME. It's about Taekwondo-Do of the 50s and 60s, and it's eventual evolution.


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> The thread is not about ME. It's about Taekwondo-Do of the 50s and 60s, and it's eventual evolution.



If that is the case, you would do better to stick to actual, verifiable facts rather than stating your opinion as fact, which is what you have done for most of the thread.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> The thread is not about ME. It's about Taekwondo-Do of the 50s and 60s, and it's eventual evolution.[/QUOTE
> 
> In your title to this thread  you asked a question, you have not however taken on board any of the answers given by people who know the answers to your question. You've used the thread to give your opinion and in your opinion, your opinion is the only opinion that counts or matters.
> I assume you are ducking and deflecting my question because you do not know the answer and can't tell me.


----------



## TrueJim

Tez3 said:


> I don't know what 'sine wave' is...



Just as an aside, I don't think the wiki's Sine Wave article is terribly good. If anybody wants to take a crack at improving it...

Taekwondo Sine Wave - Taekwondo Wiki


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> The point is this: One of Chois major departures from Karate (sine wave) was a *fiasco*...



Hey, I'm not trying to defend the Sine Wave, but I will defend the English language.  Fiasco? FIASCO?

The Sine Wave is practiced by literally millions of students studying under thousands of masters at thousands of schools in hundreds of countries in at least three major Federations. 

Saying that the Sine Wave is a fiasco is like saying that McDonald's Chicken McNuggets are a fiasco because some people prefer Big Macs.

And while I'm perfectly content to sit here and let you insult taekwondo, Choi Hong Hi, the ITF, and the Sine Wave, *I cannot in good conscience remain quiet while you insult Chicken McNuggets!





*


----------



## Tez3

TrueJim said:


> Just as an aside, I don't think the wiki's Sine Wave article is terribly good. If anybody wants to take a crack at improving it...
> 
> Taekwondo Sine Wave - Taekwondo Wiki



Wiki really cannot be relied on when looking for a good source to cite can it? A Tory politician is in trouble here at the moment for 'editing' rival politician's Wiki pages, not to their credit I needn't add.


----------



## TrueJim

Tez3 said:


> Wiki really cannot be relied on when looking for a good source to cite can it?



I agree. Wikis are often a good starting-point for learning something, but you have to go to the cited references to find _reliable_ sources.

That having been said, I check the taekwondo wiki every day for vandalism or egregious misinformation. Thankfully, there is almost no vandalism, and the only egregious misinformation is what I myself add.


----------



## Tez3

TrueJim said:


> I agree. Wikis are often a good starting-point for learning something, but you have to go to the cited references to find _reliable_ sources.
> 
> That having been said, I check the taekwondo wiki every day for vandalism or egregious misinformation. Thankfully, there is almost no vandalism, and the only egregious misinformation is what I myself add.




Thank you for the info anyway, I'm going to have to have a bit of a try out!


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> In your title to this thread you asked a question, you have not however taken on board any of the answers given by people who know the answers to your question. You've used the thread to give your opinion and in your opinion, your opinion is the only opinion that counts or matters.
> I assume you are ducking and deflecting my question because you do not know the answer and can't tell me.



Sigh.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> Sigh.




ROFLMAO, oh my dear boy you are funny.


----------



## elder999

In the interest of staying on topic, and away from Mr.. LaPlace's character....or *lack* thereof, and away from matters of the sine wave, which I admittedly do not care for, or care to try to understand. It's not the _"down_" part that bothers me; it's the *excessive* _"up,"_ and, in any case, has not been presented by anyone as "how tae kwon do predating 1966 would look," let me reiterate:


The short answer is _Anko Itosu_


So, what did tae kwon do in the 50's and 60's (and 70's, sometimes 80's, and in some places like Texas today?) look like?

_An awful *lot* like some Korean gentlemen doing Shotokan karate._




(Or, at least, an awful lot like some Korean gentlemen doing Pinan kata....)

and here they are, those Korean gentlemen doing Shotokan karate.


----------



## Laplace_demon

elder999 said:


> In the interest of staying on topic, and away from Mr.. LaPlace's character....or *lack* thereof, and away from matters of the sine wave, which I admittedly do not care for, or care to try to understand. It's not the _"down_" part that bothers me; it's the *excessive* _"up,"_ and, in any case, has not been presented by anyone as "how tae kwon do predating 1966 would look," let me reiterate:
> 
> 
> The short answer is _Anko Itosu_
> 
> 
> So, what did tae kwon do in the 50's and 60's (and 70's, sometimes 80's, and in some places like Texas today?) look like?
> 
> _An awful *lot* like some Korean gentlemen doing Shotokan karate._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Or, at least, an awful lot like some Korean gentlemen doing Pinan kata....)
> 
> and here they are, those Korean gentlemen doing Shotokan karate.



You have written the same one liner now at least three times..... As for sine wave: it's not up down.. It's low, high, low

General Choi will explain for you:


----------



## elder999

Laplace_demon said:


> You have written the same one liner now at least three times..... As for sine wave: it's not up down.. It's low, high, low
> 
> General Choi will explain for you:



Yeah, but that's not "what pre-1966 tae kwon do looked like," now is it?


----------



## Laplace_demon

elder999 said:


> Yeah, but that's not "what pre-1966 tae kwon do looked like," now is it?


That's not how 1966 Taekwon-do looked either.
But Choi had to mess up his elegant patterns. Gishin Funakoshi, General Chois Sensei, would have been proud the way it was originally. They weren't Shotokan level (near perfection!) but for TKD standards in patterns pretty great, IMO


----------



## elder999

Laplace_demon said:


> They weren't Shotokan level (near perfection!) but for TKD standards in patterns pretty great, IMO


Oh, my...

_"near perfection!"_
 ?

You do know that there are what some would call deliberate errors in Shotokan-that at the very least they deviated from their Okinawan origins with a decidedly Japanese emphasis? I mean, that's another thread, and another discussion as well.......


----------



## Drose427

elder999 said:


> Oh, my...
> 
> _"near perfection!"_
> ?
> 
> You do know that there are what some would call deliberate errors in Shotokan-that at the very least they deviated from their Okinawan origins with a decidedly Japanese emphasis? I mean, that's another thread, and another discussion as well.......



Not to mention how much Shotokan and its techs and training would would change for accessibility of all people of all ages.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> You did that all in the mid 70s?


I never said that.

If that is what was referred to in your post it certainly was not clear. I thought it was in regard to your claim that Sine Wave was not universaly accepted by ITF orgs., vis a vis  a poster not being representative of the ITF curriculum.


----------



## Earl Weiss

elder999 said:


> In the interest of staying on topic, and away from Mr.. LaPlace's character....or *lack* thereof, and away from matters of the sine wave, which I admittedly do not care for, or care to try to understand. It's not the _"down_" part that bothers me; it's the *excessive* _"up,"_ and, in any case, has not been presented by anyone as "how tae kwon do predating 1966 would look," let me reiterate:
> 
> 
> T.



Concerning your "excessive" comment, I have to agree. In fact someone did a comparison of patterns performed on the DVDs under the supervision of General Choi and later videos a s currently practiced by some and found some current versions had much more pronounced  down / up / down motions.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Earl Weiss said:


> I never said that.
> 
> If that is what was referred to in your post it certainly was not clear. I thought it was in regard to your claim that Sine Wave was not universaly accepted by ITF orgs., vis a vis  a poster not being representative of the ITF curriculum.



I highly doubt that it was a permanent part of ITF in the mid 70s, as some here would have led one to believe.


----------



## TrueJim

Earl Weiss said:


> I never said that.



Earl, you provided a tidbit of information about the 70s, and then subsequently listed a whole bunch of things you've accomplished _since_ then. If you were a philosophy major you would understand that logically, this implies that you did all those things *in the 70s*.







(Actually...no, it doesn't imply that at all.)


----------



## TrueJim

Earl Weiss said:


> In fact someone did a comparison of patterns performed on the DVDs under the supervision of General Choi and later videos a s currently practiced by some and found some current versions had much more pronounced  down / up / down motions.



I've always assumed that the exaggeration in videos is for illustrative purposes. Like...it's hard to see _slight_ down-up-down motions in a video, so you have to exaggerate the motion if you want to explain it.


----------



## Laplace_demon

I wrote: *Which only gained prominence in the 80s*. The Korean quoted from Rayners claimed (incorrectly) the 90s. Dirty Dog replied how soon it was for him (as if it had any relevance from a worldwide perspective). Mr Weiss, seemingly, backed him up.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> I highly doubt that it was a permanent part of ITF in the mid 70s, as some here would have led one to believe.



Doubt all you like. It's easy for you snce you were not there.

  I was there. We flexed the knees. We called it "Spring Style".    Some of the people I trained with competed at the ITF Championships in I am pretty sure the year was 1974 In Canada.


----------



## Earl Weiss

TrueJim said:


> I've always assumed that the exaggeration in videos is for illustrative purposes. Like...it's hard to see _slight_ down-up-down motions in a video, so you have to exaggerate the motion if you want to explain it.



The videos studied were of the same type. Showing what purported to be the standard performance.

However, I would agree that exageration in patterns has a purpose.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Earl Weiss said:


> Doubt all you like. It's easy for you snce you were not there.
> 
> I was there. We flexed the knees. We called it "Spring Style".    Some of the people I trained with competed at the ITF Championships in I am pretty sure the year was 1974 In Canada.



Was the motion as pronounced like the later coined "Sine Wave"? My instructor must have clearly missed out on the rest of the world, then. I will have to re check and ask him, if his students were taught the exact equivalent of sine wave in the 70s.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> I wrote: *Which only gained prominence in the 80s*. The Korean quoted from Rayners claimed (incorrectly) the 90s. Dirty Dog replied how soon it was for him (as if it had any relevance from a worldwide perspective). Mr Weiss, seemingly, backed him up.



At this point I have to say there is some truth here.   People who competed on an international stage, have remarked how technique became much more uniform during the 1980's and this was due to an increase in the number of IICs throughout the world taught during the decade by Park Jung Tae.   Tools like books, video and later the internet, made this easier. .  Some younger folks may find it hard to believe that video capability for the average consumer was really not available before 1980 or so.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> Was the motion as pronounced like the later coined "Sine Wave"? My instructor must have clearly missed out on the rest of the world, then. I will have to re check and ask him, if his students were taught the exact equivalent of sine wave in the 70s.



As I stated the motions in some newer videos are much more pronounced even than those done in the late 1990's.   Many motions were different for any number of reasons. From the 2 dimensional page it's tough to tell what the motion is supposed to be.

 Examples for us included the Defensive hook Kick found in Ko Dang and later Ju Che, and the pick shape kick. Until you saw it performed we were really confused. Once you saw it, it was easy to understand.

   Even with direct exposure to General Choi teaching it took a little while to understand what he wanted especialy since he initialy explained it as "Up / Down" and  at later occasions as "Down / Up / Down ". I went so far as to fly someone in to my school to help with it because he was physicaly more talented than I and able to assimilate it better, but that is a story for another day.


----------



## Laplace_demon

*Original ITF Taekwon-Do Inception, 1966 and (Steve Cheah ?) 1972*






Still no knee spring or SW here. Original, true Taekwon-Do


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> No knee spring or SW here. Original, true Taekwon-Do



It's interesting when you go to YouTube to watch that video, and you read the comments section on YouTube. People arguing over what constitutes "true" taekwondo. For myself, I don't see the point in those kinds of arguments. It's like arguing about what constitutes "true" karate or "true" judo. There's a lot of ignorance in YouTube's comments section too. 

If you don't like somebody else's martial arts style, I have the perfect solution: don't practice it.


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> *Original ITF Taekwon-Do Inception, 1966 and (Steve Cheah ?) 1972*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No knee spring or SW here. Original, true Taekwon-Do[/QUOT





TrueJim said:


> It's interesting when you go to YouTube to watch that video, and you read the comments section on YouTube. People arguing over what constitutes "true" taekwondo. For myself, I don't see the point in those kinds of arguments. It's like arguing about what constitutes "true" karate or "true" judo. There's a lot of ignorance in YouTube's comments section too.
> 
> If you don't like somebody else's martial arts style, I have the perfect solution: don't practice it.



Really, anyone who thinks there just one "true" TKD is just being elitist.

For heavens sake, the 9 kwans(by defi-flipping-nition original TKD) didn't even do the same things. Nor did all the schools that would immediately change their MA name to TKD.


----------



## Laplace_demon

TrueJim said:


> It's interesting when you go to YouTube to watch that video, and you read the comments section on YouTube. People arguing over what constitutes "true" taekwondo. For myself, I don't see the point in those kinds of arguments. It's like arguing about what constitutes "true" karate or "true" judo. There's a lot of ignorance in YouTube's comments section too.
> 
> If you don't like somebody else's martial arts style, I have the perfect solution: don't practice it.



If I don't like it, I should stop doing it? What a brilliant comment. Never thought of that. Shotokan training is boring as hell. I know, since my father is chief instructor. TKD training is much more fun.

 I put a smiley there for a reason.


----------



## elder999

Laplace_demon said:


> *Original ITF Taekwon-Do Inception, 1966 and (Steve Cheah ?) 1972*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no knee spring or SW here. Original, true Taekwon-Do



Nah, there's "knee spring," (though I'd likely call it "flex,") just as there is in Japanese/Okinawan karate, Chinese gung fu, boxing and........_golf_. It's just not the exaggerated motion that's come to be called the "sine wave."

In fact, even with the quality of that video, the flex is clearly there.....big time. 



Laplace_demon said:


> If I don't like it, I should stop doing it? What a brilliant comment. Never thought of that. Shotokan training is boring as hell. I know, since my father is chief instructor. TKD training is much more fun.



Eh.......not so much, really......when you get right down to it, most martial arts training is, by its very nature, monotonous......if you prefer, "boring as hell." Shotokan? Sure. Tae kwon do? Just as much....fun is where you find it, and a matter of taste....."chief instructor?".....your dad is Okazaki Teruyuki? _Really???!!_ That's *awesome!*

Or did  you mean Masaaki  Ueki? _Probably not...._




Laplace_demon said:


> I put a smiley there for a reason.



I can see that.


----------



## Laplace_demon

elder999 said:


> Nah, there's "knee spring," (though I'd likely call it "flex,") just as there is in Japanese/Okinawan karate, Chinese gung fu, boxing and........_golf_. It's just not the exaggerated motion that's come to be called the "sine wave."
> 
> In fact, even with the quality of that video, the flex is clearly there.....big time.



Well now. IF that's what they mean by "we had sine wave already in the mid 70s", we called it knee spring", type of comments, then the defenders of the system are simply being dishonest.


----------



## elder999

Laplace_demon said:


> Well now. IF that's what they mean by "we had sine wave already in the mid 70s", we called it knee spring", type of comments, then the defenders of the system are simply being dishonest.



Which has little to do with your original question, and a great deal to do with how I think you should have worded it:

*How did Taekwon-Do (1955) predating 1966 FEEL like?*


----------



## Laplace_demon

elder999 said:


> Nah, there's "knee spring," (though I'd likely call it "flex,") just as there is in Japanese/Okinawan karate, Chinese gung fu, boxing and........_golf_. It's just not the exaggerated motion that's come to be called the "sine wave."
> 
> In fact, even with the quality of that video, the flex is clearly there.....big time.
> 
> 
> 
> Eh.......not so much, really......when you get right down to it, most martial arts training is, by its very nature, monotonous......if you prefer, "boring as hell." Shotokan? Sure. Tae kwon do? Just as much....fun is where you find it, and a matter of taste....."chief instructor?".....your dad is Okazaki Teruyuki? _Really???!!_ That's *awesome!*
> 
> Or did  you mean Masaaki  Ueki? _Probably not...._



My father is chief instructor. I meant every word of it. And no, my TKD training is quite varied. Traditional Shotokan is kata, kata, bunkai, and some more Kata...


----------



## elder999

Laplace_demon said:


> My father is chief instructor.I meant every word of it.



Then  a name might be the "every word" that's in order, otherwise, I'm calling it B.S. (and missing the "raise the B.S. flag smiley" ).........a Japanese name would be nice, but a reference to the "chief instructor" of the Swedish JKA or ISKF would be nice.....

Is your dad Hirozoku Kanazawa? _Cool!_ 



Laplace_demon said:


> And no, my TKD training is quite varied. Traditional Shotokan is kata, kata, bunkai, and some more Kata...


Shotokan training has plenty of sparring, three step, one step and free sparring....it's all kind of monotonous.......


----------



## Laplace_demon

elder999 said:


> Shotokan training has plenty of sparring, three step, one step and free sparring....it's all kind of monotonous.......



Eh, that type of sparring is not exactly what I would call "fun".


----------



## Laplace_demon

No free sparring. And no competitions. It's *traditional* Shotokan


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> No free sparring. And no competitions. It's *traditional* Shotokan



Traditional shotokan HAS free sparring.....

I have absolutely not idea where you pulled that idea...


----------



## Laplace_demon

Drose427 said:


> Traditional shotokan HAS free sparring.....
> 
> I have absolutely not idea where you pulled that idea...



Well, he has litte to *no* free sparring. It's 99% theory. He might include on occasion some type of sparring to train distancing, but really no sparring to speak of. Pretty boooring.


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> Well, he has litte to *no* free sparring. It's 99% theory. He might include on occasion some type of sparring to train distancing, but really no sparring to speak of. Pretty boooring.



Yeah.

That's your "world champion GM Dad"

Not Traditional Shotokan...


----------



## elder999

Laplace_demon said:


> No free sparring. And no competitions. It's *traditional* Shotokan



I've seen lots of *traditional* Shotokan over the last 44 years.....some of it even in Japan, in *traditional* Shotokan dojo....some of it elsewhere...in *traditional* Shotokan dojo.....they all practiced _jiyu kumite_....free sparring....and, in fact, they sponsor the All Japan Karate Championship, and the  Funakoshi  Gichin Cup World Karate Championship...both of which, since you've never heard of them, are _tournaments_, you know.....*competitions?*.......so, what are you talking about? I really don't know, and, apparently, *neither do you.*.....again........


----------



## Laplace_demon

elder999 said:


> I've seen lots of *traditional* Shotokan over the last 44 years.....some of it even in Japan, in *traditional* Shotokan dojo....some of it elsewhere...in *traditional* Shotokan dojo.....they all practiced _jiyu kumite_....free sparring....and, in fact, they sponsor the All Japan Karate Championship, and the  Funakoshi  Gichin Cup World Karate Championship...both of which, since you've never heard of them, are _tournaments_, you know.....*competitions?*.......so, what are you talking about? I really don't know, and, apparently, *neither do you.*.....again........



_"Funakoshi had many students at the university clubs and outside dojos, who continued to teach karate after his death in 1957. However, internal disagreements (*in particular the notion that competition is contrary to the essence of karate*) led to the creation of different organizations"_


----------



## elder999

Laplace_demon said:


> _"Funakoshi had many students at the university clubs and outside dojos, who continued to teach karate after his death in 1957. However, internal disagreements (*in particular the notion that competition is contrary to the essence of karate*) led to the creation of different organizations"_




Yeah, okay-which of those "different organizations" does your mythical champion in non-competitive Shotokan "Chief Instructor" dad belong to, Mr. LaPlace?


----------



## Laplace_demon

elder999 said:


> Yeah, okay-which of those "different organizations" does your mythical champion in non-competitive Shotokan "Chief Instructor" dad belong to?



What has that got to do with it? Do you still contend that I don't know what I am talking about? Please, go on.


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> _"Funakoshi had many students at the university clubs and outside dojos, who continued to teach karate after his death in 1957. However, internal disagreements (*in particular the notion that competition is contrary to the essence of karate*) led to the creation of different organizations"_





Laplace_demon said:


> What has that got to do with it? Do you still contend that I don't know what I am talking about? Please, go on.



Funakoshi may have agreed that COMPETITIONS were contrarybto Karate,

But he advocated Kumite.

So your assertion that Laplace that Free Sparring was not apart of Traditional Shotokan is still wrong. At this point you're just arguing to be less wrong


----------



## Laplace_demon

Drose427 said:


> Funakoshi may have agreed that COMPETITIONS were contrarybto Karate,
> 
> But he advocated Kumite.
> 
> So your assertion that Laplace that Free Sparring was not apart of Traditional Shotokan is still wrong. At this point you're just arguing to be less wrong



I don't know why there is little to no free sparring in a supposed traditional Shotokan curriculum.  I am reasonably happy with my TKD training as it is and don't care.


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> If I don't like it, I should stop doing it? What a brilliant comment. Never thought of that. Shotokan training is boring as hell. I know, since my father is chief instructor. TKD training is much more fun.



I'm not sure I follow?  I talked about all the YouTube commenters who were saying that this style or that style was not the "true" taekwondo style.  I then said, if you don't like somebody else's style, here's the solution...don't practice it.

How did you get from there, to...you should stop doing Shotokan?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Btw, the Choi press conference in Chile (about WTF) appears to be from 1997. He asked the instructor if he had been teaching since 5 years (1992). I don't know why the Chile press concidered UFC "new".


----------



## Laplace_demon

So he changed his mind over night, basically, from saying he never concidered WTF TKD, to it's all TKD. If you can believe that, you can believe anything.


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> So he changed his mind over night, basically, from saying he never concidered WTF TKD, to it's all TKD. If you can believe that, you can believe anything.



Is there such a thing as a change-of-mind that _doesn't_ happen pretty-much overnight?

I mean, a person holds one opinion one day. Maybe over a span of time they mull-over their opinion, they get new information, or their worldview just slowly evolves...and then one day they decide their opinion has changed. I didn't used to like broccoli, until one day I did. It's not like one typically spends a year in some sort of intermediate opinionless limbo.

I'm trying to think of an example of where any person I know has had one opinion one day, and their change of opinion didn't occur on the next day. As opposed to: they had one opinion one year, another opinion a year later, and no opinion during the year in-between.

And also, even if the year-long-opinion-change scenario were common, why would it be so hard to believe that in this instance a person's opinion changed overnight? You say, "If you can believe that, you can believe anything"....as if believing that a person's opinion has changed overnight is like believing in unicorns. "Somebody's opinion changed overnight? Whoa! That never happens!"

And even if...even if for some crazy reason...one does believe that most opinions don't normally change pretty-much overnight, even if one does believe that the year-long-opinion-change scenario is common...why is it a *bad* thing for a person's opinion to change from one day to the next? It's not a bad thing for a person's opinion to change. If anything, it's usually a good thing. 

We're back to the scenario: "How dare he! How DARE he change his opinion!", as if that's a bad thing. But now we've added, "And you're crazy for thinking that such a thing is possible!" I'm not seeing it.


----------



## Laplace_demon

TrueJim said:


> Is there such a thing as a change-of-mind that _doesn't_ happen pretty-much overnight?
> 
> I mean, a person holds one opinion one day. Maybe over a span of time they mull-over their opinion, they get new information, or their worldview just slowly evolves...and then one day they decide their opinion has changed. I didn't used to like broccoli, until one day I did. It's not like one typically spends a year in some sort of intermediate opinionless limbo.
> 
> I'm trying to think of an example of where any person I know has had one opinion one day, and their change of opinion didn't occur on the next day. As opposed to: they had one opinion one year, another opinion a year later, and no opinion during the year in-between.
> 
> And also, even if the year-long-opinion-change scenario were common, why would it be so hard to believe that in this instance a person's opinion changed overnight? You say, "If you can believe that, you can believe anything"....as if believing that a person's opinion has changed overnight is like believing in unicorns. "Somebody's opinion changed overnight? Whoa! That never happens!"
> 
> And even if...even if for some crazy reason...one does believe that most opinions don't normally change pretty-much overnight, even if one does believe that the year-long-opinion-change scenario is common...why is it a *bad* thing for a person's opinion to change from one day to the next? It's not a bad thing for a person's opinion to change. If anything, it's usually a good thing.
> 
> We're back to the scenario: "How dare he! How DARE he change his opinion!", as if that's a bad thing. But now we've added, "And you're crazy for thinking that such a thing is possible!" I'm not seeing it.



He says that he *never* concidered WTF TKD. This is a man in his late 70s. Approximately a year or two later, WTF Taekwondo is in the talks of becoming an olympic sport, not yet finalised, Choi comments "it's all TKD."

Where have you gotten the notion that I am saying "how dare he?". I am simply pointing to his character. You can draw your own conclusions. But to think that he changed his opinion is quite unlikely, given such a categorical statement, held all his life well into his 70s.


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> Where have you gotten the notion that I am saying "how dare he?". I am *simply pointing to his character*.



*Yes! That's it! Exactly! *You're calling his character into question because he changed his mind. I'm just not seeing it. Why question somebody's character based on the fact that they've changed their mind? People are allowed to change their opinions on things. People do it all the time. It's not even a big deal. It seems like you're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. "Choi used to think only his taekwondo was real taekwondo, but later in life he said it was all taekwondo!" As if that has some large, duplicitous significance.



> But to think that he changed his opinion is quite unlikely, given such a categorical statement, held all his life well into his 70s.



You think it's - in your own words - *quite unlikely* that Choi changed his mind, based merely on the fact that one day he said his opinion was one thing, and then another day he said his opinion was a different thing?

I mean...what more does a person have to do to convince you Laplace that they've changed their mind, other than to explicitly articulate a different opinion than the one they previously held? That's like saying you think it's quite unlikely that somebody has changed their mind about something, because their only evidence is that they told you they had. What more evidence are you looking for?


----------



## Laplace_demon

TrueJim said:


> I mean...what more does a person have to do to convince you Laplace that they've changed their mind, other than to explicitly articulate a different opinion than the one they previously held? That's like saying you think it's quite unlikely that somebody has changed their mind about something, because their only evidence is that they told you they had. What more evidence are you looking for?



It would depend entirely on the circumstances. In this case, like I wrote earlier, the circumstances are suspect given that it's with WTF Taekwondo becoming an olympic sport. If he simply changed his mind, then I would be baffled (given his age), but not as suspicious. You see, it all relates to context, yet this somehow completely escapes you. 

What if everybody want's to be your friend once your rich? Would you take it as sincere? Did they simply change their minds? *Context.*


----------



## TrueJim

I feel like I'm in an episode of the X-Files. Like...Mulder is espousing some conspiracy theory, and Scully is saying, "You know, the simpler explanation is that everything actually is as it seems."


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> In this case, like I wrote earlier, the circumstances are suspect given that it's with WTF Taekwondo becoming an olympic sport.



But Mulder, we already trod this ground, in this very thread. The timing you propose doesn't even make sense. There's a multi-year gap between when his opinion changed, and when it became an Olympic sport. 



> If he simply changed his mind, then I would be baffled (given his age)...



Because...REASONS!  That, and the fact that *old people* do not change their minds.  Or maybe the fact that you're easily baffled.  I can't decide. There are too many good jokes here to pick just one.



> What if everybody want's to be your friend once your rich?



Everybody already wants to be my friend. I'm very charming. And devilishly handsome.



> Would you take it as sincere?



If it happened like...five years before I became rich, yah, I'd think they were sincere. Or even five years after.

But let's just say Mulder, for the sake of argument, that the only reason Choi changed his mind is because Kukkiwon-style became an Olympic sport. I know you want to believe Mulder, you want to believe those aliens are real! So let's suppose the aliens are real. Let's suppose one morning Choi woke up and realized overnight that he'd been wrong all those years, because competing styles of taekwondo were gaining in popularity. Even then, it's a big SO WHAT. That still doesn't say anything particularly good or bad about the man's character. 


Honestly Laplace, you want to believe this thing so badly, this thing that isn't even interesting even if it could be proven true, this thing that could never be proven true in any case because it's all just conjecture based on the inner workings of another man's mind, a conjecture that doesn't even have the merit of _ringing_ true in the first place based on the scant evidence of timing alone...

Wait, you know what? You've convinced me. See there? It's midnight here, and I've changed my mind...overnight! It does happen! Laplace is right. Choi was just a glory-grabbing hound-dog who only pretended to like other styles of taekwondo because they were becoming popular. The proof is in the timing. His claim to appreciate the other styles was nothing but a cold, calculating lie.


----------



## Laplace_demon

_ I have never, ever, concidered him my son. Never! He is not my son_.._I did not give birth to him_. I_ only had one son, and it wasn't *Laplace*, it was Andy_. _There is only one son from me, don't be lead astray....
_
Fast forward--- Laplace winning the Olympics_ ----_ _There's my son!_

Go figure...


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> _ I have never, ever, concidered him my son. Never! He is not my son_.._I did not give birth to him_. I_ only had one son, and it wasn't *Laplace*, it was Andy_. _There is only one son from me, don't be lead astray....
> _
> Fast forward--- Laplace winning the Olympics_ ----_ _There's my son!_



We've already been over this, in this very thread. The correct analogy would be:

1980s: Laplace is hanging out with assholes, he's no son to me.
1988: Laplace stops hanging out with assholes. (The assholes in this case being the South Korean dictatorship.)
1990s: You know, Laplace is my son after all.
2004: Hey my son won the Olympics!


----------



## elder999

Laplace_demon said:


> What has that got to do with it? Do you still contend that I don't know what I am talking about? Please, go on.



I don't _contend_ anything....as for your not knowing what you're talking about, you've amply demonstrated that entirely on your own.....
.
...as for Shotokan, competition, and Funakoshi, well, no sooner had Funakoshi died, than the JKA started the All Japan Championship, in 1957...most of the splintering of the JKA into the various alphabet soups occurred in the 70's, or, notably, in the 90's, long after Nakayama Masatoshi had  initiated more scientific and competitive methods in Shotokan and taken over the JKA -he had, in fact, been running it from the start, and Funakoshi didn't agree with many of his methods.Most of the splinter groups (all I've ever heard of that meant anything, anyway) have or participate in some form of competition......so, no, once more I don't know what you're talking about, _and, *apparently*, neither do you....._





(kinda like that guy who keeps arguing that there's no striking in aikido....or judo....or whatevers.....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)

Meanwhile, though, that 1955-1966 Tae Kwon Do still looks suspiciously Japanese-_ish_......question asked and answered?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Laplace_demon said:


> What has that got to do with it? Do you still contend that I don't know what I am talking about? Please, go on.



What it has to "do with it" is that you make a lot of ridiculous claims about your mythical father, who, despite his legendary status, declined to train you. People see these claims as BS. 
And there's really no need to "contend" that you don't know what you're talking about; it's been abundantly clear for quite some time now. 


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.


----------



## elder999

Laplace_demon said:


> No free sparring. And no competitions. It's *traditional* Shotokan






Do you mean, then, that your father is a _Shotokai_ practitioner, following the lineage of  Egami Shigeru?

Is your dad Hirada Mitsuke? _Cool!_


----------



## Jaeimseu

TrueJim said:


> We've already been over this, in this very thread. The correct analogy would be:
> 
> 1980s: Laplace is hanging out with assholes, he's no son to me.
> 1988: Laplace stops hanging out with assholes. (The assholes in this case being the South Korean dictatorship.)
> 1990s: You know, Laplace is my son after all.
> 2004: Hey my son won the Olympics!


I'm not sure the North Korean government was a step up.


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> No free sparring. And no competitions. It's *traditional* Shotokan



No sparring and no competitions? And yet you claim your father was in the top 3 in the world?

Something here doesn't add up...


----------



## RTKDCMB

TrueJim said:


> I feel like I'm in an episode of the X-Files. Like...Mulder is espousing some conspiracy theory, and Scully is saying, "You know, the simpler explanation is that everything actually is as it seems."


Mulder turned out to be correct though.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Laplace_demon said:


> He says that he *never* concidered WTF TKD. This is a man in his late 70s. Approximately a year or two later, WTF Taekwondo is in the talks of becoming an olympic sport, not yet finalised, Choi comments "it's all TKD."



That just suggests that he never considered it TKD up to that point, then he changed his mind.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Gnarlie said:


> No sparring and no competitions? And yet you claim your father was in the top 3 in the world?
> 
> Something here doesn't add up...



Yeah, I mean he couldn't possibly break away from JKA and form his own organisation, or someone else did, who he decided to follow? Nope, impossible...


----------



## Laplace_demon

elder999 said:


> View attachment 19283
> 
> Do you mean, then, that your father is a _Shotokai_ practitioner, following the lineage of  Egami Shigeru?
> 
> Is your dad Hirada Mitsuke? _Cool!_



I don't think his training makes sense whatsover. It's outdated by 30 years. Not that free sparring or any type of Kumite is fun for that matter, but it's better than next to nothing.


----------



## Laplace_demon

RTKDCMB said:


> That just suggests that he never considered it TKD up to that point, then he changed his mind.



Just like someone never concidered you a friend until you got rich. That just suggest that they changed their minds, by a fantastic coincidence.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Earl Weiss said:


> See the following starting at 1:15



Getting back on a track for those where the fight science video was blocked. - Post 448

The video addresses "Kinetic Linking" and how the Punch starts from the legs  and the  "Rear foot drives backward into the ground" Then describes how the force travels from the foot up the leg, thru the body and down the arm.

Now, if you watch the video at post 416, you'll note his rear leg where he raises the heel, flexes the knee and straightens the knee and sets the heel down .  Same ide described in the video.   Also if you again watch the video at post 416  Where he says "Don't twist your body" watch the exagerated motion he is trying to eliminate, however there is still some natural twist.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Given how extreme North Korea demo team executes their sine wave and Choi trained them, it would most likely mean that Choi himself advocated the extreme version of (the already extreme) sine wave.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Laplace_demon said:


> Yeah, I mean he couldn't possibly break away from JKA and form his own organisation, or someone else did, who he decided to follow? Nope, impossible...



Who<m> he followed. For those accusing me of not knowing proper English


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> Yeah, I mean he couldn't possibly break away from JKA and form his own organisation, or someone else did, who he decided to follow? Nope, impossible...



You mean he used to think that JKA and competition was where it was at, and then he, uh, _changed his mind_? Just at the time when someone else happened to be forming a new organisation where he would have a fancy title?


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> Given how extreme North Korea demo team executes their sine wave and Choi trained them, it would most likely mean that Choi himself advocated the extreme version of (the already extreme) sine wave.



This is erroneous on several counts;
1. General Choi did not train the NK Demo team. In fact he trained few if any from NK. Park Jung Tae was the primary  person sent to train the North Koreans.   Since that was 1980 or so  whoever was on the demo team 30+ years ago is not likely on it now. 
2. In the 1990's General Choi did an IIC in Miami and brought a video of some of the NK people doing stuff.   Several seniors discussed the contents with him and he acknowledged some stuff needed to be fixed. 

If you want to see ho GM Park Jung Tae would have demonstrated / taught in NK there are videos of him on you tube.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Gnarlie said:


> You mean he used to think that JKA and competition was where it was at, and then he, uh, _changed his mind_? Just at the time when someone else happened to be forming a new organisation where he would have a fancy title?



It's not about what he "thought". He was nr 1 in his home country and was thus selected. He was national champion in one of the strongest Karate nations in the world.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Earl Weiss said:


> This is erroneous on several counts;
> 1. General Choi did not train the NK Demo team. In fact he trained few if any from NK. Park Jung Tae was the primary  person sent to train the North Koreans.   Since that was 1980 or so  whoever was on the demo team 30+ years ago is not likely on it now.
> 2. In the 1990's General Choi did an IIC in Miami and brought a video of some of the NK people doing stuff.   Several seniors discussed the contents with him and he acknowledged some stuff needed to be fixed.
> 
> If you want to see ho GM Park Jung Tae would have demonstrated / taught in NK there are videos of him on you tube.



Why didn't General Choi personally train the NKs? Not even in the later parts of his life? He passed away in NK.


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> It's not about what he "thought". He was nr 1 in his home country and was thus selected. He was national champion in one of the strongest Karate nations in the world.



And then he suddenly changed his mind to move to a fledgling organisation that doesn't compete or spar, in return for a fancy title? Is that what we are saying?


----------



## elder999

Laplace_demon said:


> It's not about what he "thought". He was nr 1 in his home country and was thus selected. He was national champion in one of the strongest Karate nations in the world.



In an organization that you've said has no sparring or competition........._interesting._


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> Why didn't General Choi personally train the NKs? Not even in the later parts of his life? He passed away in NK.




First, here is the video of GM Park taken in NK. IS this what you think is exagerated?






I can only guess that General Choi did not personaly train the North Koreans for the same reason he trained few beginners from the time TKD began. He was busy traveling the world training instructors and seniors and refining their technique.  It was more efficient for him to train instructors and dispatch them to teach than start with white belts.   Since NK had no TKD Prior to 1980 he needed an instructor who could stay there for many months as well a a good prime physical specimen able to demonstrate the more strenuos moves.   When he traveled the world he would call upon various people in attendance to demonstrate and often travelled with assistants who could demonstrate.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Laplace_demon said:


> He was nr 1





Laplace_demon said:


> He was national champion



How was it determined that he was "nr 1" and "national champion", especially if he doesn't participate in sparring or competitions?



Laplace_demon said:


> in his home country





Laplace_demon said:


> in one of the strongest Karate nations in the world



Which country was that?



Laplace_demon said:


> and was thus selected



Selected by whom?


----------



## Tez3

elder999 said:


> In an organization that you've said has no sparring or competition........._interesting._




This is his dad DOLPH the ultimate guide


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tony Dismukes said:


> How was it determined that he was "nr 1" and "national champion", especially if he doesn't participate in sparring or competitions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which country was that?
> 
> 
> 
> Selected by whom?



He switched organisations. The previous one had plenty of sparring. The current one does not.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Jugoslavia.


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> This is his dad DOLPH the ultimate guide


Dolph has two daughters, no sons that we know of.

Maybe his dad''s this guy:Goran Lozo Former Yugoslavian Karate Champion in WUKO ITKF and JKA Federations


----------



## Tez3

elder999 said:


> Dolph has two daughters, no sons that we know of.
> 
> Maybe his dad''s this guy:Goran Lozo Former Yugoslavian Karate Champion in WUKO ITKF and JKA Federations




Well, there's nothing to say our friend is male........, did say they were Swedish though, in an earlier conversation but perhaps that was a misdirection.


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> Well, there's nothing to say our friend is male........, did say they were Swedish though, in an earlier conversation but perhaps that was a misdirection.




I know, he's very confusing.......

Generally, though, females aren't *dicks.*


----------



## Laplace_demon

Earl Weiss said:


> First, here is the video of GM Park taken in NK. IS this what you think is exagerated?



No. I have always thought that Gm Parks execution of patterns (at least back then) looked odd. Especially from a Sine Wave perspective.


----------



## Laplace_demon

elder999 said:


> Dolph has two daughters, no sons that we know of.
> 
> Maybe his dad''s this guy:Goran Lozo Former Yugoslavian Karate Champion in WUKO ITKF and JKA Federations



Nope. That guy didn't win any gold in European or World championships either.


----------



## elder999

Laplace_demon said:


> Nope. That guy didn't win any gold in European or World championships either.



Neither did your dad, I'll bet.


----------



## Laplace_demon

elder999 said:


> Neither did your dad, I'll bet.



He did.


----------



## elder999

Laplace_demon said:


> He did.


----------



## elder999

"Yeah, that's the ticket!"


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> He did.


Name:?
Year:?
NGB:?


----------



## elder999

Drose427 said:


> Name:?
> Year:?
> NGB:?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Drose427 said:


> Name:?
> Year:?
> NGB:?



How hard can it be? Yugoslavia won European championship gold in JKA Kumite in the late 70s, did they not? I believe it was 1978?? Taiji Kase was his sensei.


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> How hard can it be? Yugoslavia won European championship gold in JKA Kumite in the late 70s, did they not? I believe it was 1978?? Taiji Kase was his sensei.



You brought the assertion making it your job to produce evidence.


----------



## Laplace_demon

I just wrote 1978, JKA, Yugoslavia, European Championships. I may be off a year or two. So, verify the pathological liar and make a fool of yourselves... Or don't bother.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Or just google Taiji Kase, see his wikipedia page: Notable students: One of them is my father.

Taiji Kase - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Laplace_demon

I actually showed it to him on the computer Not like he didn't know it already..


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> I just wrote 1978, JKA, Yugoslavia, European Championships. I may be off a year or two. So, verify the pathological liar and make a fool of yourselves... Or don't bother.


How would verifying anything make a fool of anyone here? The only person making a fool of themselves here is the one claiming skill by association. You've still yet to reveal what you actual level of experience with Shotokan is.


----------



## elder999

Laplace_demon said:


> How hard can it be? Yugoslavia won European championship gold in JKA Kumite in the late 70s, did they not? I believe it was 1978?? Taiji Kase was his sensei.


Is your dad one of the Jorga brothers? Or Vebo Dimitrijevic?


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> I actually showed it to him on the computer Not like he didn't know it already..



I take it you didn't show him your posts on here though.


----------



## Laplace_demon

elder999 said:


> Is your dad one of the Jorga brothers? Or Vebo Dimitrijevic?



*Velibor Dimitrijevic *is featured in one of my fathers instructional books, in the Kumite section.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Opposite my father.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> I take it you didn't show him your posts on here though.



I don't agree with him or my mother on most subjects.


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> I don't agree with him or my mother on most subjects.


I wonder why, him with his wealth of experience and all?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Gnarlie said:


> I wonder why, him with his wealth of experience and all?



But it is in Karate and Shotokan alone. It is very difficult to have a broader martial arts discussion with such a person. He never took an interest in anything else.


----------



## Laplace_demon

One thing we do agree on is how the quality of Karate increased signficantly in the mid to late 70s, compared to the 60s. Did Bruce Lee have such a big influence, or were there other factors involved? I assume the same holds true for TKD as well.


----------



## Laplace_demon

The quality of the fighters in tournaments, that is.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> One thing we do agree on is how the quality of Karate increased signficantly in the mid to late 70s, compared to the 60s. Did Bruce Lee have such a big influence, or were there other factors involved? I assume the same holds true for TKD as well.



The broadening of exposure brought on due to factors like Bruce Lee movies and the Kung Fu TV Show created a boom in the MA Industry.   Many retail schools opened and instructors networked and shared knowledge.   Airplane travel became easier and cheaper,   And later videotapes became readily available.   The sharing of knowledge lead to better resources and learning for those who chose to take advantage of them.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Someone on Martialplanet forum claimed that Choi had openly stated that TKD is an incomple combat system for self defence without also mastering Hapkido(a Korean martial art! I am chocked...)
Did he in fact write that, if so why? I thought Hapkido techniques incorporated into TKD was for this reason alone.


----------



## oftheherd1

Laplace_demon said:


> But it is in Karate and Shotokan alone. It is very difficult to have a broader martial arts discussion with such a person. He never took an interest in anything else.



When I got back into MA about 1985, I chose Hapkido and never looked back.  I saw no reason to study anything else.  Apparently your father felt the same.  My GM however, besides being a GM in Hapkido, had a 5th dan in TKD, a 1st Dan in Kumdo, and didn't get one in Judo only because he broke his shoulder just before testing, and didn't go back to it.



Laplace_demon said:


> I don't agree with him or my mother on most subjects.



I'm curious, who is most to blame for that?



Laplace_demon said:


> Someone on Martialplanet forum claimed that Choi had openly stated that TKD is an incomple combat system for self defence without also mastering Hapkido(a Korean martial art! I am chocked...)
> *Did he in fact write that, if so why?* I thought Hapkido techniques incorporated into TKD was for this reason alone.





Laplace_demon said:


> One thing we do agree on is how the quality of Karate increased signficantly in the mid to late 70s, compared to the 60s. *Did Bruce Lee have such a big influence, or were there other factors involved?* I assume the same holds true for TKD as well.



I don't understand how you want us to think of you as an experienced and knowledgeable MA, and yet ask such questions as the two bolded ones above.  I can be a little slow sometimes, so if I have missed something, please enlighten me.


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't understand how you want us to think of you as an experienced and knowledgeable MA, and yet ask such questions as the two bolded ones above.  I can be a little slow sometimes, so if I have missed something, please enlighten me.


 
I do, actually: my son, for instance, was born in 1983, and, at 32, is a somewhat seasoned and knowledgeable martial artist. The martial arts boom of the 70's, though, is something he can only read or hear about......(though, having a dad who lived through it in *NY*,  probably helped his knowledge base a lot....Croatia or wherever? not so much, I think....

)


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> I do, actually: my son, for instance, was born in 1983, and, at 32, is a somewhat seasoned and knowledgeable martial artist. The martial arts boom of the 70's, though, is something he can only read or hear about......(though, having a dad who lived through it in *NY*,  probably helped his knowledge base a lot....Croatia or wherever? not so much, I think....
> 
> )



Yes, that does make sense up to a point.  Thanks.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> I am chocked...)



You have small wooden blocks under your tyres?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> You have small wooden blocks under your tyres?



"I have lived 60 decades"

- Tez


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> "I have lived 60 decades"
> 
> - Tez



and? I'm quite happy to say what I don't know, can't do, I don't boast about being a 'genius' , having a high IQ and superb English skills.

On the other hand trying to get you to understand anything makes most of us feel we've been living that long and if you lived that long you still wouldn't understand what you don't know.


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> and? I'm quite happy to say what I don't know, can't do, I don't boast about being a 'genius' , having a high IQ and superb English skills.


 
Hey, I resemble that remark!! 


And, seriously, there's nothing quite like pushing 60, and feeling it push back!




Tez3 said:


> On the other hand trying to get you to understand anything makes most of us feel we've been living that long and *if you lived that long you still wouldn't understand what you don't know*.


*QFT.*


----------



## Xue Sheng

Laplace_demon said:


> "I have lived 60 decades"
> 
> - Tez



huh!? .... not sure what that has to do with wooden blocks under your tires... or why you appear to have signed that as tez......but ok


----------



## Dirty Dog

Folks, is there any chance this thread could go back to something that remotely resembles the original topic?


----------



## elder999

Dirty Dog said:


> Folks, is there any chance this thread could go back to something that remotely resembles the original topic?


Sure. As I said in this post, *last month*:

So, about me-I studied tae kwon do under Duk Sung Son and Kyokushin under Oyama Shigeru......_at the same time._ That came about with both teachers consent because I was attending boarding school, *and because I had noted that both sets of kata were almost the same.* There were some differences, and some kata in each that had no counterpart in the other, but they were mostly the same. At 15, this was a puzzlement, what with both teachers pretty much saying they didn't know why (when, in fact, they likely *did*), but 40 years later, it is not at all.

The short answer is _Anko Itosu_

Toyama studied under Anko Itosu before founding Shudokan.

Kenwa Mabuni studied under Anko Itosu before founding Shito Ryu

Funakoshi studied under Anko Itosu before founding Shotokan.

Anko Itosu *invented *the Pinan kata.



So, what did tae kwon do in the 50's and 60's (and 70's, sometimes 80's, and in some places like Texas today?) look like?

_An awful *lot* like some Korean gentlemen doing Shotokan karate._





(Or, at least, an awful lot like some Korean gentlemen doing Pinan kata....)

EDIT: _I mean, that really is *the* answer. End of discussion. _


----------



## Laplace_demon

elder999 said:


> _An awful *lot* like some Korean gentlemen doing Shotokan karate._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Or, at least, an awful lot like some Korean gentlemen doing Pinan kata....)
> 
> EDIT: _I mean, that really is *the* answer. End of discussion. _



And what do you think it looks like today? You make it sound as if it's somehow radically different.


----------



## Drose427

Laplace_demon said:


> And what do you think it looks like today? You make it sound as if it's somehow radically different.



other than the fact aside from traditional styles (which tend to be more Tang Soo Do) that the WTF nor the ITF do Pinan Katas? 

Or even look like theyre doing any Shuri-Te branch forms?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Laplace_demon said:


> And what do you think it looks like today? You make it sound as if it's somehow radically different.



It does, in fact, look radically different. It might not be something a newbie to the arts would notice, but to the experienced eye, they do not look all that similar.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Dirty Dog said:


> It does, in fact, look radically different. It might not be something a newbie to the arts would notice, but to the experienced eye, they do not look all that similar.



Newbie? Didn't you reject that the WTF and KKW TKD are intertwined, that is one and the same? Yet the WTF headquarter is Kukkiwon. Kukkiwon - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nobody could possibly take you seriously in a study of comparisons.


----------



## Tez3

Dirty Dog said:


> Folks, is there any chance this thread could go back to something that remotely resembles the original topic?




Looking at post no 606, possibly not.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Laplace_demon said:


> Newbie?



Why yes, newbie. I think you'll find that pretty much everybody will agree that a yellow belt (that's 9th geup in our school, 8th in others) with a few months of training is what would be called a newbie.



Laplace_demon said:


> Didn't you reject that the WTF and KKW TKD are intertwined, that is one and the same?



Intertwined? I've never said otherwise. The historical record shows a fair bit of overlap between their administrative staff, and the WTF was specifically founded to promote and oversee a small specific area of KKW taekwondo. So there's no doubt that they're intertwined.
They're certainly NOT the same thing though, as anybody not too stupid to walk across the street without a guide can readily confirm.



Laplace_demon said:


> Yet the WTF headquarter is Kukkiwon. Kukkiwon - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



Well, no. Perhaps it's a reading comprehension problem? 
The Kukkiwon promotes itself as the Headquarters for all TKD anywhere in the world. This is in keeping with their Borg-like attitude. 
The WTF promotes itself as the group that promotes, organizes, and oversees a particular subset of the Art of TKD as it is used in a particular type of freesparring.

Here's a MAP showing the route from the Kukkiwon to the WTF headquarters. While both are in Seoul, the KKW is in Yeoksam-dong and the WTF is located in Samseong-dong. They are, roughly, an hour apart by car.

I'm sorry if this is difficult for you to understand, but it's really not that complicated.



Laplace_demon said:


> Nobody could possibly take you seriously in a study of comparisons.



Fortunately for my ability to sleep at night, your opinion on this subject would seem to be about as accurate and informed as your other opinions. Pretty much completely and totally wrong, in simple terms.


----------



## Laplace_demon

elder999 said:


> _An awful *lot* like some Korean gentlemen doing Shotokan karate._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Or, at least, an awful lot like some Korean gentlemen doing Pinan kata....)



Now how can you say that! Have you no shame... Don't you see the "Korean spirit"?


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> Newbie? Didn't you reject that the WTF and KKW TKD are intertwined, that is one and the same? Yet the WTF headquarter is Kukkiwon. Kukkiwon - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Nobody could possibly take you seriously in a study of comparisons.



The Kukkiwon is the World Taekwondo Headquarters. As in the technical, educational and administrative headquarters for Taekwondo around the world. 

The World Taekwondo Federation Headquarters, i. e. the headquarters of the governing body for sport Taekwondo, has a totally different address. 

And the world Headquarters always has an s. 

I'd take DD's opinion seriously any day of the week.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Dirty Dog said:


> It does, in fact, look radically different. It might not be something a newbie to the arts would notice, but to the experienced eye, they do not look all that similar.



Heck t looks different today than what it did when I trained it in the mid 70s. I don't see locks, I don't see takedowns, I don't see in close fight training, etc. I saw all that when I trained it.


----------



## Jaeimseu

Laplace_demon said:


> Newbie? Didn't you reject that the WTF and KKW TKD are intertwined, that is one and the same? Yet the WTF headquarter is Kukkiwon. Kukkiwon - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Nobody could possibly take you seriously in a study of comparisons.


At one time both offices were housed at Kukkiwon. At one time Kim Un Yong was the head of both organizations. This is no longer the case and hasn't been for some time.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Xue Sheng said:


> Heck t looks different today than what it did when I trained it in the mid 70s. I don't see locks, I don't see takedowns, I don't see in close fight training, etc. I saw all that when I trained it.



I can only speak for my club, but we`ve had at most very basic joint manipulations, briefly. It's up to the instructor of each TDK club if you get any training outside of striking. I have asked elder black belts and they have confirmed that this is all there is to it here. I am quite happy with a great deal of mitts practice though. Things where you can actually try out your techniques on targets is very important to me, given how restrictive the sparring rules are.



Jaeimseu said:


> At one time both offices were housed at Kukkiwon. At one time Kim Un Yong was the head of both organizations. This is no longer the case and hasn't been for some time.



Aha. That's why I got confused.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Xue Sheng said:


> Heck t looks different today than what it did when I trained it in the mid 70s. I don't see locks, I don't see takedowns, I don't see in close fight training, etc. I saw all that when I trained it.



Depends on the school. You see all of that in our school. It's not the primary focus, but all of that has always been a part of TJD.


----------



## Gnarlie

Xue Sheng said:


> Heck t looks different today than what it did when I trained it in the mid 70s. I don't see locks, I don't see takedowns, I don't see in close fight training, etc. I saw all that when I trained it.


I still see all of those things. I have had people join our classes after training mainly sport elsewhere, with the expectation of more of the same here. I love the look they get when we go to in-fighting and SD stuff.


----------



## oftheherd1

Dirty Dog said:


> ...
> Here's a MAP showing the route from the Kukkiwon to the WTF headquarters. While both are in Seoul, the KKW is in Yeoksam-dong and the WTF is located in Samseong-dong. They are, roughly, an hour apart by car.
> ...
> 
> .



A beltway around Seoul?  Who knew.


----------



## TrueJim

More "Fun with Maps"...

This Google Street View drives you onto the Kukkiwon campus. Click on it and drive straight ahead. (Sadly, the Google camera car didn't drive very far onto the campus.)

Google Maps


----------



## Laplace_demon

So Dirty Dog was wrong about the the past at least. Saying that they often overlapped is an understatement.

Why did some ITF black belts later do KKW as well? Supposing the training is fairly traditional, what point is there? I personally don't think like KKWs patterns at all, and would find it hard to see why anyone would prefer them over the Chang Hon ones. But leaving that aside, why make a switch at all?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Isn't it like switching between Toyota and Lexus? Not saying which is which


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> So Dirty Dog was wrong about the the past at least. Saying that they often overlapped is an understatement.



I don't know where you're getting that from. I don't see anything that anybody has said that negates Dirty Dog's statement. Historically there was a lot of overlap between the Kukkiwon and the WTF in terms of staffing and administration, for a while sharing even the same location. In other threads on this forum we've even discussed how for a while the WTF was issuing dan certificates! From what I've read, even to this day there's a lot of movement (and wrangling!) between the Kukkiwon, the WTF, and the KTA....which makes sense given the fact that they're all located in the same city.

Just as a matter of conjecture, it seems to me that if you're a person working at (say) the KTA (or the Kukkiwon or the WTF) and (say) want a different job, a promotion, or just a different commute, it stands to reason you'd look to one of the other organizations as an option. It makes sense that the same people working in the same industry in the same city are going to shuffle from one organization to the next. I don't think that's true for just taekwondo...it's pretty much true for _any_ industry.



> I personally don't think like KKWs patterns at all, and would find it hard to see why anyone would prefer them over the Chang Hon ones.



Personally, I think the Kukkiwon patterns are brilliant:

The footwork of each floor pattern spells out either a trigram from the I Ching, or a Chinese character
The poomsae tries to incorporate techniques that reflect the meaning of each trigram or character. My favorite example is the Low Cross Block in Taegeuk Chil Jang ("mountain"): stopping the kick, rather than deflecting it...yup, that's what a mountain would do, stop it! Unyielding.
At the same time, the poomsae build upon each other nicely, incorporating new techniques at each level.
I have tons of respect for General Choi and the Chang Hon style, but personally I like the layers of meaning -- like movie easter eggs -- buried in the Kukkiwon forms. It's obvious that a ton of thought went into those forms.


----------



## Laplace_demon

I don't like the way KKW patterns are executed. Further, the blocks don't look organic from such ridiciously high stances (not really a stance at all). The actual "choreography" of the patterns is less objectionable. Neither The ITF or KKWs patterns have anything to do with their sparring format. So they are pretty much tied in that negative respect.


----------



## Laplace_demon

ITF without Sine Wave (which they only incorporated because the General wanted it) is probably my favourite, although I haven't seen all TKD patterns.


----------



## Tez3

Drose427 said:


> other than the fact aside from traditional styles (which tend to be more Tang Soo Do) that the WTF nor the ITF do Pinan Katas?
> 
> Or even look like theyre doing any Shuri-Te branch forms?



I know the Pinan katas very well though in the Wado form (which actually is only very slightly different from the Shotokan ones). I've seen the patterns in TKD and they are not in the least alike. I also know the TSD hyungs very well and they are simpler versions ( to me) of the karate ones.
When I went along to my friends TKD class, he was the instructor, when his students did their patterns I did my katas, we had an interesting time looking at the differences, we all enjoyed exploring each others style of martial art. I'd recommend it, if you can do it without saying 'we do it better ' lol!


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> ...the blocks don't look organic from such ridiculously high stances...Neither The ITF or KKWs patterns have anything to do with their sparring format...



From what I've read, one reason high stances are emphasized in the first few Taegeuk forms is specifically to prepare the student for sparring earlier in their training. The predecessor forms (the Palgwae forms) used lower stances in their first few forms, which presumably were believed to not prepare students as well for sparring. It's a credible explanation too, since Ji Do Kwan was finally represented in the design of the Taegeuk forms (but Ji Do Kwan was not represented in the design of the Palgwae forms), and Ji Do Kwan was known for its outstanding sparring.

Taegeuk Poomsae - Taekwondo Wiki


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Xue Sheng said:


> huh!? .... not sure what that has to do with wooden blocks under your tires... or why you appear to have signed that as tez......but ok



He was quoting an earlier post from Tez where she made what I assume is a typo. (If it isn't, then she can tell us all about _really_ old traditional arts.  )


----------



## Tez3

Tony Dismukes said:


> He was quoting an earlier post from Tez where she made what I assume is a typo. (If it isn't, then she can tell us all about _really_ old traditional arts.  )



I'd like to say it was the computer that got it wrong but I cannot tell a lie, it was I. ( unless the computer was channelling how I felt reading some of the posts from a certain person on here!!)


----------



## chrispillertkd

Laplace_demon said:


> Someone on Martialplanet forum claimed that Choi had openly stated that TKD is an incomple combat system for self defence without also mastering Hapkido(a Korean martial art! I am chocked...)
> Did he in fact write that, if so why? I thought Hapkido techniques incorporated into TKD was for this reason alone.



I'd be very interested in seeing this post. Can you provide a link to it? Did the poster include any sort of citation (link, quote from a book, etc.) for what Gen. Choi supposedly said?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> So Dirty Dog was wrong about the the past at least. Saying that they often overlapped is an understatement.



Because it is not important that what you say is correct. It is important that everybody else is wrong. Apparently. 



Laplace_demon said:


> Why did some ITF black belts later do KKW as well? Supposing the training is fairly traditional, what point is there? I personally don't think like KKWs patterns at all, and would find it hard to see why anyone would prefer them over the Chang Hon ones. But leaving that aside, why make a switch at all?



Both great sets of patterns, both great martial arts in their own right. Why switch? Because there's always more to learn. 



TrueJim said:


> Personally, I think the Kukkiwon patterns are brilliant:
> 
> The footwork of each floor pattern spells out either a trigram from the I Ching, or a Chinese character
> The poomsae tries to incorporate techniques that reflect the meaning of each trigram or character. My favorite example is the Low Cross Block in Taegeuk Chil Jang ("mountain"): stopping the kick, rather than deflecting it...yup, that's what a mountain would do, stop it! Unyielding.
> At the same time, the poomsae build upon each other nicely, incorporating new techniques at each level.
> I have tons of respect for General Choi and the Chang Hon style, but personally I like the layers of meaning -- like movie easter eggs -- buried in the Kukkiwon forms. It's obvious that a ton of thought went into those forms.



Me too. On the topic of Chil Jang, high and narrow stances but with a low centre of gravity, and unyielding combinations like the backfist, target crescent, target elbow.  No mercy! Also the symbolism of bojumeok, haneul, tang and saram. The whole form focuses on moving the CoG forward, back, up and down to deliver power from seemingly unstable positions that with practice are solid as rock. Love that form. 



Laplace_demon said:


> I don't like the way KKW patterns are executed. Further, the blocks don't look organic from such ridiciously high stances (not really a stance at all). The actual "choreography" of the patterns is less objectionable. Neither The ITF or KKWs patterns have anything to do with their sparring format. So they are pretty much tied in that negative respect.



The word 'ridiculously' is rather emotive, don't you think? You walk around in the same stance all day. It is the one you are very probably going to be in during a real life conflict situation. It also allows for a huge amount of power generation when dropping out of it into other stances. Sort of a built in bonus if you like. 

If by 'organic' you mean natural, those blocks look and feel perfectly natural to me. Just like any other natural movement. 




Tez3 said:


> I'd recommend it, if you can do it without saying 'we do it better ' lol!



Only some people are capable of this kind of tolerance in my experience. They are the ones I try to keep around. 



TrueJim said:


> From what I've read, one reason high stances are emphasized in the first few Taegeuk forms is specifically to prepare the student for sparring earlier in their training. The predecessor forms (the Palgwae forms) used lower stances in their first few forms, which presumably were believed to not prepare students as well for sparring. It's a credible explanation too, since Ji Do Kwan was finally represented in the design of the Taegeuk forms (but Ji Do Kwan was not represented in the design of the Palgwae forms), and Ji Do Kwan was known for its outstanding sparring.
> 
> Taegeuk Poomsae - Taekwondo Wiki



I have heard that too, but I have also heard some other hypotheses.

Like using CoG drop and waist twist for power generation. Both of these occur together naturally with a low block between movements 4 and 5 of Taegeuk Il Jang, and again between 10 and 11 and again between 16 and 17. And many times in the patterns that follow with punches and other techniques. It is difficult to get the same power going apkubi-apkubi that you can get going apseogi-apkubi, especially with a 90 degree turn. 

I've also heard that the higher stances were included to make the forms easier to learn for an audience with a wider range of abilities - the consistent use of apseogi means that beginners can concentrate more on their upper body motion coordination before having to throw in mixed stances. 

The best theory IMO is that the three stances in the beginner forms and the transition between them are the basis of not only manipulating your own body weight, but also an opponent's. These stances are the ones used in self defence when controlling an opponent to the ground. So they are the ones to drill first.


----------



## Laplace_demon

[QUOTE="Gnarlie, post: 1705456, member: 27131"

If by 'organic' you mean natural, those blocks look and feel perfectly natural to me. Just like any other natural movement.


.[/QUOTE]

There is no stability in such a block. Nobody stands straight up, in that sloppy manner. The Chang Hon stance is also high, but not _that _high. I have the right to express my opinions, be it positive or negative. Just as I have over a movie I just saw. Doesn't mean that I offend the director by saying that his movie sucked. And If I do, so be it. I wil still speak my mind.


----------



## Laplace_demon

And anyone accusing me of being a troll or a lousy beginner (yellow belt). Send me a private message and come spar me full contact at my club.


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> There is no stability in such a block.


It is perfectly stable when I do it. Maybe you just don't know what you're doing. 


Laplace_demon said:


> Nobody stands straight up, in such a sloppy manner.


It's far from sloppy, if you believe it is sloppy then you definitely don't know what you are doing. And yes, people walk around straight all the time. 



Laplace_demon said:


> The Chang Hon stance is also high, but not _that _high.


... and? 


Laplace_demon said:


> I have the right to express my opinions, be it positive or negative.


Not if it is style bashing you don't. There are ways of being critical of something without being insulting towards it. You might want to steer clear of emotive language like 'ridiculously', for example. There's a difference between saying you don't know what you are talking about, and saying you are a ridiculously ill informed newbie, for example. I would never say something like that. 


Laplace_demon said:


> Just as I have over a movie I just saw. Doesn't mean that I offend the director by saying that the movie sucked. And If I do, so be it. I wil still speak my mind.



You are entitled to your opinion and the right to express it. But words like 'ridiculous' and 'sloppy' are totally subjective, and amount to bashing. 

You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts. And if your opinion is utter nonsense, then you can expect to be taken to task over it.


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> And anyone accusing me of being a troll or a lousy beginner (yellow belt). Send me a private message and come spar me full contact at my club.


This site has rules about challenge posts. 

Why don't you just give your posts some credibility by letting everyone know what your actual martial qualifications are? You have been asked a number of times, including by me, what your experience is within Shotokan, ITF, KKW, and other martial arts. You have systematically avoided answering these questions, which frankly combined with your posting style, attitude and lack of knowledge can only leave us to draw one conclusion: Newbie. I don't believe anyone has used such emotive language as 'lousy'.


----------



## Laplace_demon

There is no fighting stance in their beginners blocks in patterns. You don't walk around fighting. Thats why people walk around straight. Wheb they fight they switch.


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> There is no fighting stance in their beginning blocks. You don't walk around fighting. Thats why people walk around straight. Wheb they fight they switch.



Yes, but switch to what? Certainly nothing from ITF or Shotokan forms. The typical fighting stance we see for boxing, kickboxing, muay thai, MMA (to a lesser degree) is a similar relatively high stance with a fairly even weight distribution.

Apseogi isn't actually straight up, by the way. The weight is more over the front foot. It is a representation of a mobile fighting stance, and is certainly closer to the realistic starting point that many other TMA stances.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> a lousy beginner (yellow belt).



I'm a 'lousy beginner', a  yellow belt in TKD. I was also at one point a yellow belt in Wado Ryu karate and Tang Soo Do until I earned Dan grades in both. I wear a white belt in BJJ. Denigrating beginners is a very low thing to do.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Laplace_demon said:


> And anyone accusing me of being a troll or a lousy beginner (yellow belt). Send me a private message and come spar me full contact at my club.


Am I misremembering or did you state in an earlier post that you don't want to do full-contact sparring?

In ay case, challenge posts are not allowed on MartialTalk.

Calling you a yellow belt isn't an "accusation." That's what you told us your rank was. Folks are just taking you at your word. Being a beginner (which a yellow belt is) isn't a bad thing. All of us were beginners at some point.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> ITF without Sine Wave (which they only incorporated because the General wanted it) is probably my favourite, although I haven't seen all TKD patterns.



A good grasp of the obvious. Most everything in the ITF was the way General Choi wanted it.  Because.......wait for it..........this was his organization. 

Reading He Young Kim's TKD History book, he relates how GM Van Binh recalled training in Vietnam with General Choi, in 1968 and learning about sine wave at that time.


----------



## Laplace_demon

And I am sure there are flaws to be find for Chan Hon patterns as well. I don





Earl Weiss said:


> A good grasp of the obvious. Most everything in the ITF was the way General Choi wanted it.  Because.......wait for it..........this was his organization.
> .



And thats my point. They may later add stuff that they don't even like or find make any sense, simply to please the General. That is a bad thing, in case you guys didn't figure out where I was going with that.[


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tony Dismukes said:


> Am I misremembering or did you state in an earlier post that you don't want to do full-contact sparring?
> 
> In ay case, challenge posts are not allowed on MartialTalk.
> 
> Calling you a yellow belt isn't an "accusation." That's what you told us your rank was. Folks are just taking you at your word. Being a beginner (which a yellow belt is) isn't a bad thing. All of us were beginners at some point.



I am NOt a beginner by any reasonable definition. I have already stated repeatedly that there are black belts that cant kick. The fact that I can, doesnt mean I am good, compared to them, but in no way can I be concidered beginner level outside of mere technicalities related to belts.


----------



## TrueJim

Tony Dismukes said:


> In ay case, challenge posts are not allowed on MartialTalk.



Does that include dance-offs?


----------



## Laplace_demon

Gnarlie said:


> Yes, but switch to what? Certainly nothing from ITF or Shotokan forms. The typical fighting stance we see for boxing, kickboxing, muay thai, MMA (to a lesser degree) is a similar relatively high stance with a fairly even weight distribution.
> 
> Apseogi isn't actually straight up, by the way. The weight is more over the front foot. It is a representation of a mobile fighting stance, and is certainly closer to the realistic starting point that many other TMA stances.



Now why would you bring Sport Fighting into the discussion? Different sports have different stances and guards. I am talking about the real world of fighting an attacker.


----------



## Gnarlie

TrueJim said:


> Does that include dance-offs?



and handbags at dawn

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/1307337/purse-fight-o.gif


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> I am NOT a beginner by any reasonable definition. I have already stated repeatedly that there are black belts that cant kick. The fact that I can, doesnt mean I am good, compared to them, but in no way can I be considered beginner level outside of mere technicalities related to belts.



Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the _non_-physical aspects of martial arts?  Humility, courtesy, respect...the sort of thing most traditional martial arts say that high-level belts are supposed to exhibit?


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> Now why would you bring Sport Fighting into the discussion? Different sports have different stances and guards. I am talking about the real world of fighting an attacker.



So am I. The basic Apseogi is the stance to use if you want to line someone up for a preemptive right, without it being immediately obvious that you are doing so.

Anyway, how about telling us what you are rather than what you aren't? So you're not a beginner? What is your experience then? What are your qualifications? Because, up to now, to quote two words you used recently when addressing me, 'pathetic dodge'.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Do I need schooling of 5 years to be able to fight, to execute techniques. No. A great fighter is born, not created. That's why Anthony Pettis  can come from ATA and kick the crap out of guys in Rufus well regarded academy.


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> Do I need schooling of 5 years to be able to fight, to execute techniques. No. A great fighter is born, not created. That's why Anthony Pettis  can come from ATA and kick the crap out of guys in Rufus well regarded academy.


So you are claiming to be a great fighter? A natural talent? With your attitude? I don't think so...

(what you are really telling us is you don't have what it takes to see things through.) 

Even the greatest talents need coaching. To think that you were born complete is frankly absurd. I wish you luck in life. You are going to need it.


----------



## Laplace_demon

TrueJim said:


> Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the _non_-physical aspects of martial arts?  Humility, courtesy, respect...the sort of thing most traditional martial arts say that high-level belts are supposed to exhibit?



I don't like to be talked into how to act. I want to be myself. I view the martial art school as a place to get me fit. I don't worship my instructor.


----------



## Tez3

Gnarlie said:


> So am I. The basic Apseogi is the stance to use if you want to line someone up for a preemptive right, without it being immediately obvious that you are doing so.



We have a similar stance in Wado Ryu, Hidarishizentai, for exactly the same reason. It's the stance that makes many think the English phrase 'there is no first strike in karate' is not an accurate translation or that it doesn't mean what we think it does at first sight.


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> I don't like to be talked into how to act. I want to be myself. I view the martial art school as a place to get me fit. I don't worship my instructor.


You don't have to.

I don't worship anyone. Neither do I let people tell me how to act. But I do listen when people suggest that I reflect on my own behaviour. That is at the core of Taekwondo - SELF improvement, not copying someone by rote. 

Sounds like you think you're already perfect.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Plenty of stuff I don't perform at expert level of which 99% is probably irrelevant for fighting(at least for my fighting style). But I still train and enjoy it.


----------



## TrueJim

Laplace_demon said:


> I don't like to be talked into how to act. I want to be myself.



I would argue that without humility, courtesy, respect, etc. - regardless of technique - one is not a very good martial artist. Perhaps one can be an effective fighter though.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Also, I call it the way I see it, and in the case of these patterns, even KKW guys agree that they are highly suspect.


----------



## Tez3

To call something as you see it implies you have something to back up what you say. All we get from you is your opinion masquerading as fact, you never cite your sources or put anything down that can prove you correct. If you cannot prove your statements they remain merely opinions which don't carry any weight with those experts here. You are not an expert you are a beginner who believes he knows far more than he does, not a good place to be in. Empty your cup and you may yet become an expert, in other words wind your neck in until you learn enough to know what you don't know.


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> Also, I call it the way I see it, and in the case of these patterns, even KKW guys agree that they are highly suspect.



Which ones? Evidence please.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Gnarlie said:


> Which ones? Evidence please.



_"The stances are much higher to the point of not being much of a stance at all and movements bob up and down to the point of distraction. The punches are unconvincing and *the blocks just plain pitful*. Worse yet, nobody seems to even care. Out of 5 dojangs I visited I saw no perceivable difference in Poomse quality. *A multitude of youtube videos showed much the same from high ranking WTF instructors."*_

Karate vs. TaeKwonDo - Dysfunctional Parrot

I can show more,  from people much more experienced in TKD, how they rip apart the stance and blocks of KKW patterns.


----------



## TrueJim

Dysfunctional Parrot entertains with hyperbole. Among his articles:

5 Reasons Taekwondo is Awesome
5 Reasons Taekwondo is Useless
5 Reasons Karate is Useless
5 Reasons Karate is Not Useless
He enjoys debating both sides of an issue, and his style of writing is to exaggerate for humorous effect...think Dave Barry.


----------



## Gnarlie

Laplace_demon said:


> _"The stances are much higher to the point of not being much of a stance at all and movements bob up and down to the point of distraction. The punches are unconvincing and *the blocks just plain pitful*. Worse yet, nobody seems to even care. Out of 5 dojangs I visited I saw no perceivable difference in Poomse quality. *A multitude of youtube videos showed much the same from high ranking WTF instructors."*_
> 
> Karate vs. TaeKwonDo - Dysfunctional Parrot
> 
> I can show more,  from people much more experienced in TKD, how they rip apart the stance and blocks of KKW patterns.



That's not a credible source. I would ask him to provide evidence too, especially given that what he says is factually incorrect, just like a lot of what you say. And the fact that he is not a qualified KKW practitioner means this is not valid evidence to support your original point that even KKW practitioners find the forms suspect.

I am not asking you to provide other unfounded opinions. I am asking you to provide evidence of a credible, qualified practitioner of KKW TKD stating that they find the forms 'highly suspect'. 

At this point, I am going to cease responding to your posts, and put you on ignore, as nobody with any nous could possibly believe what you just posted to be evidence to support your original point. I have to therefore assume that you are one of or a combination of a) not very bright b) not very experienced and / or c) a very poor troll.

Whichever it is, there is nothing to be gained from further interaction with you, so, goodbye. I'm out!


----------



## TrueJim

Gnarlie said:


> I have to therefore assume that you are one of or a combination of a) not very bright b) not very experienced and / or c) a very poor troll...



...or possibly very young, pre-teen perhaps.

My takeaways so far from listening to Laplace have been:

General Choi was a self-aggrandizing attention-hound who shamefully changed his mind about...something...at some point, which is...disgraceful, or...something, because...reasons
Sine Wave-style Chang Hon is bad, because...reasons
Kukkiwon forms are bad, because...stances
Taekwondo is just thinly veiled shotokan
A lot of black belts aren't as good as Laplace when it comes to technique
We're all delusional for not seeing the truth of his claims
It's just style-bashing and people-bashing, on perpetual repeat.

On the other hand, I do learn a lot from reading posts by other folks here.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Laplace_demon said:


> I am NOt a beginner by any reasonable definition. I have already stated repeatedly that there are black belts that cant kick. The fact that I can, doesnt mean I am good, compared to them, but in no way can I be concidered beginner level outside of mere technicalities related to belts.



Let me see if I can summarize what we have learned so far from Laplace_demon ...

Despite being a yellow belt, he is more skilled than the black belts at his school. Nevertheless, he doesn't intend to find a new school where the senior students can actually execute the techniques being taught.

He is an undergraduate philosophy major, which makes him the smartest person in the conversation. This is in discussions which include members who have graduate degrees and even an actual nuclear physicist.

He knows more about the history of TKD and how it was practiced in the 60s and 70s than the people who were actually practicing it in the 60s and 70s.

Despite not actually training Kukkiwon TKD, he knows more about what is taught in WTF dojangs than instructors who actually teach in Kukkiwon dojangs.

Despite not being a native English speaker, his English is better than that of those who speak it natively.

Despite never having boxed, he knows that various boxing world champions are/were lacking in skill and technique.

Despite being a yellow belt with only a short amount of training he cannot be considered a beginner. This is because great fighters are born and not made - like Anthony Pettis, who is clearly a champion just because of natural talent and not because he has been training continuously for 23 years.

Originally I thought this might just be a case of the Dunning-Kruger effect, but it's starting to test my credulity. I think we may need a new version of Poe's Law. Something like: without knowledge of the speaker's intent, it is impossible to distinguish between an extreme case of the Dunning-Kruger effect and a troll faking such a case to rile up an audience. We can call it Laplace's Law.


----------



## elder999

Tony Dismukes said:


> ...... and even an actual nuclear physicist.



That guy? Only time he's "the smartest in the room" is when he goes to the bathroom...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







Tony Dismukes said:


> .
> I think we may need a new version of Poe's Law. Something like: without knowledge of the speaker's intent, it is impossible to distinguish between an extreme case of the Dunning-Kruger effect and a troll faking such a case to rile up an audience. We can call it Laplace's Law.



"Laplace's Law"...how *ironic*

Laplace's demon is a construct to articulate scientific or causal determinism, long made obsolete by the principles of irreversibility , quantum mechanics, chaos theory, and even the second law of thermodynamics...I like it, though-"Laplace's law..."


----------



## RTKDCMB

Laplace_demon said:


> And anyone accusing me of being a troll or a lousy beginner (yellow belt). Send me a private message and come spar me full contact at my club.


Will you pay for the international flight, accommodation and spending money?


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> . Neither The ITF or KKWs patterns have anything to do with their sparring format. So they are pretty much tied in that negative respect.


Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

However, since patterns are not intended to be "Tied to Sparring" to any great extent, why does it even matter. For the Chang Hon System the cycle  contains 5 elements of which Sparring and Patterns are each one of the 5.

Frankly, if all someone wants to do is hone sparring skills there is little point in pursuing a traditional martial art syllabus in it's entirety.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Gnarlie said:


> This site has rules about challenge posts.


He is very challenging.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> And I am sure there are flaws to be find for Chan Hon patterns as well. I don
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And thats my point. They may later add stuff that they don't even like or find make any sense, simply to please the General. That is a bad thing, in case you guys didn't figure out where I was going with that.[



Your point misses the bigger picture. A standard system is needed in order to teach things on a large scale so people can fit in anywhere in the world.   It might be wildly presumptive of me, but I assume there is no widely taught International system where everyone agrees that everything it contains is the optimal way of doing things.   However, as I have met and spoken with numerous ITF Seniors the overallconsensus is that Uniformity in the system is more imortant than unanimity when it comes to everyone agreeing on everything.   Now, for those, including myself who find some things to be less than optimal, I teach the "Standard" either as dictated by general Choi or refined by lter Senior directors, but I also explain my opinion.   That way my students can and do fit in anywhere using the system, and students from elsewhere can and do  can fit in easily at my gym.


----------



## RTKDCMB

elder999 said:


> "Laplace's Law"...how *ironic*


Maybe he might transform (Laplace transform) into someone with a bit of humility someday?


----------



## Earl Weiss

Laplace_demon said:


> . No. A great fighter is born, not created. That's why Anthony Pettis  can come from ATA and kick the crap out of guys in Rufus well regarded academy.



I think this brings any need to debat to a close.


----------



## Transk53

Laplace_demon said:


> I am talking about the real world of fighting an attacker.



Mmm, are you suggesting that you go around roundhousing dudes on the streets. Would that be in Mothercare by any chance


----------



## Archtkd

Earl Weiss said:


> I think this brings any need to debat to a close.


What took you so long to realize this?


----------



## msmitht

Laplace_demon said:


> The different schools of Kwans instructed by korean Karate masters all went under the umbrella term Taekwondo in 1955 onwards. Tang Soo Do remained independent for political reasons.
> 
> My question is as follows: Was there a difference entering a taekwondo school pre ITF, outside of patterns and sparring for competition? Were there still an emphasis on kicking over striking? They still wore the Karate Gi in Taekwondo back then, and used shotokan patterns from what I understand
> 
> Were there any new  fundamental techniques introduced in General Chois ITF, (outside of self defence techniques derived from Judo/jujitsu?)
> 
> I have trained several martial arts including ITF-TKD and Shotokan Karate, and only found the jumping backkicks and tornados to be missing from Shotokan. Basically it's the same art, technique wise.
> 
> Mae geri (front Kick)
> 
> Mawashi Geri (roundhouse) Knife hand strike (Shuto ).
> 
> Uke - (blocks),
> 
> Tsuki (closed fist strike). Everything from Shotokan. The "non sport" sparring/kumite is identical to Shotokan, as you you can see from 5:00 here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The exact same for my  three step sparring gradings in ITF.



I can only speak on what my late GM, who was along with his brothers a direct student of Hwang Kee, told me. He said that before the Korean war they practiced many movements that were from Chinese martial arts. After he and his surviving family ended up in south Korea, he joined with Choi , Hong Hi. He said after that it was like karate but with more kicks. He also said that the Kwan heads did not like the name Tang Soo Do due to the obvious reference of Chinese influence.


----------

