# Facts, Fiction, Lies and actual accounts



## terryl965

TKD has had more of everything I listed above, but let's examine this a little further shall we.

First off what is truely a fact and a fiction on the actual accounts of TKD in the world?

Lies who really started all these lies about the time of TKD and why?

Actual accounts: to me this is our biggest fraud those people that say this is what my Master - GrandMaster says so it os the truth.

First off TKD got it name in the Fifties if I am not mistaken so Korea could never have an TKD art or sport prior to that it was called Korean Karate. So TKD is only about 60 years old and the sport is probaly more like 40 -45 years old.

What happens when 25 senior Koreans get together but none of there story connect which one to believe? For me and alot of us it would be our instructors, since we have been with them for a long time training and believeing.

Since most Korean instructor refuse to believe most Korean instructor how do we the general public believe each other?

I know alot of question with very little answers so I will see where this goes and for how long. I will chime in everyday at some point to give my two cents worth but most will not believe.


----------



## StudentCarl

In _Candide_, Voltaire mocks European nobility of the middle ages. In the first chapter, Voltaire describes Candide as someone "...whom this young lady would never marry because he could only prove seventy-one quarterings (generations), and the rest of his genealogical tree was lost, owing to the injuries of time."

Voltaire ridiculed lineage as a measure of class, and I'm with him. Long history doesn't guarantee quality.

Time distorts history just as it slowly bends, distorts, and breaks our bodies and our memories. 

I listen with interest to the stories, but believe that very little claimed history is without some spin or distortion. History has always been a tool of marketing and persuasion, despite the best efforts of those who seek truth. The truth is that even if you were there, not everyone who was there with you saw what you saw and interpreted it the same way.

There is a relationship aspect to this that matters. If you have a long-standing relationship with an instructor you respect and trust, you are more likely to accept and repeat the history they teach you. It's not right or wrong, but it's how people are.


----------



## Earl Weiss

I think we need to understand different perspectives. Adoption of the name is well documented.  A good question would be why was a name neccessary.  We know the various Kwans were practicing different types of japanese or Okinawa systems. Why was a single name needed? Was the plan to do what Knao or Funakoshi did? Create not just a name but a single system with well defined parameters or something else?  Having a single name encompass a variety of system is not unusual. We say systems from various Ryus referred to as Ju Jitsu. We saw various Okinawan and Japanese systems referred to as Karate.  So, if the name Ju Jitsu or Karate did not exist, then did the things they referred to which pre dated the name make them incapable of being called Karate or Ju Jitsu?

Some say that the art was developed in part to bring something to the International stage for the purpose of familiarizing the world with Korea. 

 General Choi's 1965 Book is the first book in English I know of and i believe it was a translation of a prior Korean language edition. 


Yet it states (Page 173)  "Most of the patterns have been created and developed by the famous TKD masters in the course of many centuries.. They are classified into 3 main groups: the Sorim School, Soryong School, and Chang Hon School.  It is my understnading that Sorim and Soryong were the Korean terms for the Okinawan Shorin and Shorei systems. 

So, it can be seen that the term TKD was used in a somewhat generic fashion referring not only to the then relatively new Chang Hon System but other sytemns generally viewed only as roots or predecessors. 

Perhaps it is a cultural issue, but then again that issue would seem to spread to the terms Karate or Ju Jitsu as well.


----------



## Gorilla

This was what we were told by our original GM.  That Korea has a long history in the Martial Arts.  That was supresssed by the Japanese during the occupation during WW2. That the originator of our Kwan (Song Moo Kwan) got his BB in Japan while in college from a famous Shotokan Master Funakoshi.  After the WW2 he started his school (Kwan). Several other who got BB is Japan also did the same thing.  These were the original Kwans.  The Kwan's came together in the 50's and 60's and formed TKD.  TKD is influenced by Karate and the long history of Martial Arts in Korea.


----------



## chrispillertkd

terryl965 said:


> Actual accounts: to me this is our biggest fraud those people that say this is what my Master - GrandMaster says so it os the truth.



Terry, I agree that if you're looking to find out the actual history of the development of Taekwon-Do then this is something important you'll have to deal with. Not everything you hear from your instructor will be a fiction, of course. But the problem will be with how one goes about verifying the claims one hears. Are there written sources with references available covering not only the founding of Taekwon-Do but also Korean history during the period leading up to and including the founding so people can get a feel for the actual cultural and political climate of the time to better understand the motivations and behaviors of the people involved? Are the main players still alive and willing to talk, in as unbiased a manner as possible, about what happened? 

And, if you're really looking for verifiable facts then people making claims about what they have been told by any of these historical figures should themselves be subject to scrutiny, no? Otherwise it's no different than believing something because your instructor said so. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

terryl965 said:


> First off TKD got it name in the Fifties if I am not mistaken so Korea could never have an TKD art or sport prior to that it was called Korean Karate. So TKD is only about 60 years old and the sport is probaly more like 40 -45 years old.


I won't comment on the rest, as that has been pretty well addressed both here and in other threads.

Regarding the name being applied to prewar KMA, it would not be the first time that a modern term was retrofitted to encompass older systems.  We call lots of things 'boxing,' when they bear little resemblance to western boxing.  But boxing is a term that we're familiar with and so we apply it to unarmed fighting.  

Korea did this with the term 'taekwondo' to connect modern TKD with Korea's martial history.  Not what I would have done, but the fact that they did it doesn't bother me.  

I like taekwondo.  I assume that others who are responding do to.  Let's practice it and be happy.  I think that the state of taekwondo today is much more important, and I don't feel that taekwondo's connection or lack of connection to prewar KMA has any bearing on the state of the art today.


----------



## granfire

Maybe you guys need to hang out in Germany for a while:
There is that institution called 'Stammtisch' (like sh, not like in school)

it is a reserved table at the local pub where the towns people meet, the pub's regulars.
Most often it is on a Sunday morning. most conversation is lighthearted. But on occasion the yarn is spun. 
Oh another feature of the stammtisch: A bell.
When the yarn is being spun, every member of the round has the right to challenge the yarn spinner for proof of the truth to his story by ringing the bell.
here is the deal:
When the yarn is found to be untrue, the story teller (AKA liar) will buy the next round.
If however the story is true, the bell ringer will be the one buying.

I read the history of TKD in Tuttles martial arts. 
It sounded like a bunch of guys with big egos got together and at first could not find it in them to relinquish any of their authority or ego.
Only when the man with the means arrived on the scene things changed.

It's 'Stammtisch' material, really. Knock back a few cold ones, nod or ring the bell if you must. 

A hindrance in finding proof - for or against the yarn - in this case is that in the first half of the 20th century Koreans were not at liberty to do (and say) as they pleased. 
Not bad for he mystique of the art/sport though.
And still we find evidence that a great many 'TKD' masters learned much of their craft in Japan.
(BTW, i find that amazing. I read about it, but found no explanation as to why they went there and learned Karate, or were allowed to)


----------



## chrispillertkd

granfire said:


> And still we find evidence that a great many 'TKD' masters learned much of their craft in Japan.
> (BTW, i find that amazing. I read about it, but found no explanation as to why they went there and learned Karate, or were allowed to)



"Finding evidence" for early Kwan founders studying karate in Japan is pretty easy since they all talk about doing so. Gen. Choi, for example, mentioned it in every book he published. Most, if not all, of the Kwan founders who trained in karate in Japan were there for educational reasons. Japan had invaded Korea and occupied it. Korea was considered a Japanese protectorate pre-WW II.Gen. Choi, Byung In Yoon, Chun Sang Sup, and others went to Japan to get a college education. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## granfire

chrispillertkd said:


> "Finding evidence" for early Kwan founders studying karate in Japan is pretty easy since they all talk about doing so. Gen. Choi, for example, mentioned it in every book he published. Most, if not all, of the Kwan founders who trained in karate in Japan were there for educational reasons. Japan had invaded Korea and occupied it. Korea was considered a Japanese protectorate pre-WW II.Gen. Choi, Byung In Yoon, Chun Sang Sup, and others went to Japan to get a college education.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



Yes, I read that, too. But that does not explain a thing. 

After all, it seemed that japan was out to quelch much of anything Korean. Why educate some of them? Hoping they become the leaders in their newly Japanified Korea?


That, to me, is more interesting as to which monk supposedly saw the praying mantis first....


(plus you completely missed the point on the story telling)


----------



## Kong Soo Do

I think it would be of benefit to most to simply look at the bottom line as far as TKD:


TKD is not a 2000 year old, indigenous Korean martial art.  It is Japanese/Okinawan Karate with a few other things mixed in from various sources.  That's okay. 
With the exception of a few Koreans (I can only think of one off the top of my head who was 5th or 7th Dan depending on the source you wish to believe) most 'seniors' originally were low or no rank practitioners in mainly Karate. 
TKD was created to shed the Japanese influence and recreate a national martial art. 
Originally, TKD wasn't sport.  That was added later. 
A lot of seniors did have giant egos which is why so many organizations blew up or imploded.  It still happens today.  And of course, it isn't limited to TKD (but they sure do have a lion's share). 
TKD history has been rewritten.  Attempts have been made to sanitize it and make it into something it isn't. 
If you wish to discover its true history...good luck.  My advice is to get as many sources as possible, realizing none of them are going to be fully spot on accurate.  I don't care who wrote what or when.  It is influenced by the views and/or agenda of the author(s).  Simply choose one...but don't you dare argue, fuss or whine on internet boards if someone else comes along and disagrees.  They just might be a 'little' more right than you, but still not spot on.  They may claim to know seniors, have autographed books from them, slept on their floor, used their toothbrush or whatever.  The bottom line is that they've made a choice of who to believe but it may not have been the right choice.  Or it might be partially correct but laced with that particular 'seniors' agenda. 
And last but not least, despite the false information, despite the giant egos, despite the 'founders' really had very little experience for the most part (certainly not equal to their seniors in Japan/Okinawa at that time)...train in TKD (or whatever) for what it means to you personally and get the most out of it.


----------



## Gorilla

Kong Soo Do....how accurate is your post...it seems very biased and a bit pompous....kinda reminds me of some other folks...thanks for your opinion...giant egos...yep...I glad that you are able to judge with out agenda...you post is fair and balanced...funny...


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Gorilla said:


> Kong Soo Do....how accurate is your post...it seems very biased and a bit pompous....kinda reminds me of some other folks...thanks for your opinion...giant egos...yep...I glad that you are able to judge with out agenda...you post is fair and balanced...funny...



Interesting.  What you describe as pompous others have seen value in as being on the dot accurate.  I even got additional rep points for that post (and my thanks to everyone for that).  

If you don't think the post is accurate...why?  What part?  What are your counter-points?

Pompous?  To just take it to the bottom line for what it is?  

Agenda?  What is my agenda?  For people to accept it for what it is and simply look past any downside and get the most out of the experience?


----------



## Gorilla

Self awareness is a gift...your post is somewhat accurate...Tkd has the lions share...your opinion...your post has some truth colored with your opinion...I think you are pompous...still enjoy your posts..

You come off as Kong Soo Do has spoken!!!


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> TKD is not a 2000 year old, indigenous Korean martial art.  It is Japanese/Okinawan Karate with a few other things mixed in from various sources.  That's okay.


TKD is a roughly sixty year old art, though saying that it is Japanese/Okinawan karate with a few other things mixed in from various sources is an oversimplification.



Kong Soo Do said:


> With the exception of a few Koreans (I can only think of one off the top of my head who was 5th or 7th Dan depending on the source you wish to believe) most 'seniors' originally were low or no rank practitioners in mainly Karate.


Given that Funakoshi was himself only a fifth dan, that is not surprising.



Kong Soo Do said:


> TKD was created to shed the Japanese influence and recreate a national martial art.


Yes.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Originally, TKD wasn't sport.  That was added later.


The Olympic sport that we see today did come later.  But I disagree that sport was 'added' later.  I'd say that it was there all along in some form or another.



Kong Soo Do said:


> A lot of seniors did have giant egos which is why so many organizations blew up or imploded.  It still happens today.  And of course, it isn't limited to TKD (but they sure do have a lion's share).


I wouldn't say that they have a lion's share.  I think that when you have a kind of top-down unification effort, those issues tend to come to the forefront more, as unification goes against individual ego.



Kong Soo Do said:


> TKD history has been rewritten.  Attempts have been made to sanitize it and make it into something it isn't.
> 
> If you wish to discover its true history...good luck.  My advice is to get as many sources as possible, realizing none of them are going to be fully spot on accurate.  I don't care who wrote what or when.  It is influenced by the views and/or agenda of the author(s).  Simply choose one...but don't you dare argue, fuss or whine on internet boards if someone else comes along and disagrees.  They just might be a 'little' more right than you, but still not spot on.  They may claim to know seniors, have autographed books from them, slept on their floor, used their toothbrush or whatever.  The bottom line is that they've made a choice of who to believe but it may not have been the right choice.  Or it might be partially correct but laced with that particular 'seniors' agenda.


I think that if you want a working history of taekwondo, what is available is fine.  If you style yourself as a TKD historian, you've got your work cut out for you.



Kong Soo Do said:


> And last but not least, despite the false information, despite the giant egos, despite the 'founders' really had very little experience for the most part (certainly not equal to their seniors in Japan/Okinawa at that time)...train in TKD (or whatever) for what it means to you personally and get the most out of it.


Little experience or little rank?  I think that on an individual basis, they had a great deal of experience.  By experience, I mean training hours and actual practice.  Particularly by the mid fifties.  I won't get into comparing them to Japanese or Okinawan seniors because the comparison is moot; they were developing a new art.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Gorilla said:


> Self awareness is a gift...your post is somewhat accurate...Tkd has the lions share...your opinion...your post has some truth colored with your opinion...I think you are pompous...still enjoy your posts..
> 
> You come off as Kong Soo Do has spoken!!!



I'm not responsible for the way you perceive my post(s). I speak plainly and to the point.  That seems to upset certain people.  But I would suggest that perhaps they should look at the root of why they get upset, rather than getting upset at the messenger.

I think your perception is clouded by something quite different though based upon your recent postings.  

Anyway, glad you enjoy my posts.


----------



## Gorilla

Kong Soo do thanks for you post....the BBS might get interesting again...yes I am pompous, biased and sometimes arrogant.  JUst like you...


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Daniel Sullivan said:


> TKD is a roughly sixty year old art, though saying that it is Japanese/Okinawan karate with a few other things mixed in from various sources is an oversimplification.



No, it isn't.  And that's the point.


> Given that Funakoshi was himself only a fifth dan, that is not surprising.



He basically was the focal point for the adoption of the Dan/Kyu system into modern Karate.  Perhaps it would be interesting to compare his total time in the arts, as well as his instructors to get a better picture of total experience and then use that as your measuring stick.


> The Olympic sport that we see today did come later.  But I disagree that  sport was 'added' later.  I'd say that it was there all along in some  form or another.



And I disagree.  But in the end, it really doesn't matter.  The two venues exist.



> Little experience or little rank?



Generally speaking, both.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

At least, thanks to the internet, the basic facts are out there.  (TKD is roughly 60 years old and derived originally from Japanese/Okinawan karate.)

Besides the stories of TKD history going back hundreds or thousands of years, I remember 25 years ago being told by a TKD black belt that "karate is just bastardized Americanized Tae Kwon Do."  I'm sure he was just repeating what his instructor told him and in those days he wouldn't have had so many sources to tell his otherwise.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> No, it isn't.  And that's the point.


I'm sorry, but you're essentially rebutting with 'is not.'  

Just to clarify, are you saying that taekwondo *is* just Okinawan/Japanese karate with a little bit mixed in from other sources?  

Or are you talking about what taekwondo *was *in the late forties/early fifties?

If the latter, I am inclined to agree with you.  If the former, then you are oversimplifying.  Kukki taekwondo has evolved significantly from what it was prior to the start of unification efforts (five kwan era) and is notably different, has different forms, forms that are not simply reworked karate forms, might I add.  

I'll let Masters Weis and Spillers comment regarding ITF/Chang Hon (I'm not familiar  enough with it make a case), but regarding KKW/WTF taekwondo, you are making an oversimplification.



Kong Soo Do said:


> He basically was the focal point for the adoption of the Dan/Kyu system into modern Karate.  Perhaps it would be interesting to compare his total time in the arts, as well as his instructors to get a better picture of total experience and then use that as your measuring stick.


Arguably, the taekwondo pioneers were the focal point of the kyu/dan system being adopted by postwar KMA.  A better yardstick would likely be how much total experience Funakosh had in the art at the point when Shotokan became a fully realized and distinct style (not an expert, but I suspect that it was a process and did not occur overnight) as compared with time in training that the TKD pioneers had by the time taekwondo had become a fully realized and distinct system.  

I would suspect that Funakoshi had considerably more at that point, but my comment was more to emphasize that rank doesn't necessarily equate to experience in the art.



Kong Soo Do said:


> And I disagree.  But in the end, it really doesn't matter.  The two venues exist.


If you have people competing in any form, performing demonstrations, and practicing for enjoyment, you have sport.  All three of those elements were there very early on.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Generally speaking, both.


While they may not have had the same amount of experience in Okinawan or Japanese karate, I would not say they had 'little experience.'  They certainly had enough meaningful experience to accomplish what they accomplished.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Gorilla said:


> Kong Soo do thanks for you post....the BBS might get interesting again...yes I am pompous, biased and sometimes arrogant.  JUst like you...



Although you may describe yourself as 'pompous, biased or arrogant', I don't believe that I have taken that tact with you.  Seems like you have taken this tact with me several times however, not limited to this thread.  It isn't needed, constructive or appreciated.  This BBS can be 'interesting' without you being insulting.  

Back to the topic please, it is interesting.


----------



## chrispillertkd

granfire said:


> Yes, I read that, too. But that does not explain a thing.
> 
> After all, it seemed that japan was out to quelch much of anything Korean. Why educate some of them? Hoping they become the leaders in their newly Japanified Korea?
> 
> 
> That, to me, is more interesting as to which monk supposedly saw the praying mantis first....



More like trying to assimilate them to become more "Japanese," most likely. If you want people to think a certain way a very effect means of doing so is to control their education. This can be counteracted by influence from a child's parents, of course, but not necessarily easily. 



> (plus you completely missed the point on the story telling)



No, I didn't I just didn't think it applied to the topic of why the Kwan founders studied karate in Japan since that's a matter of public record.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I'm sorry, but you're essentially rebutting with 'is not.'



No, I'm standing by what I stated.



> Just to clarify, are you saying that taekwondo *is* just Okinawan/Japanese karate with a little bit mixed in from other sources?
> 
> Or are you talking about what taekwondo *was *in the late forties/early fifties?
> 
> If the latter, I am inclined to agree with you.



My point from my original post would be along the lines of 'was' (Karate/other) and not a 2000 yr old indigenous KMA.  What it is today is a distinct art.  From my personal, and professional perspective (read SD), it was far more effective then than it is now.  Modern TKD, from a SD perspective is watered down and generally ineffective.  I repeat, from a SD perspective.  Sport on the other hand is a different animal and is not within the scope of my statement.


> Kukki taekwondo has evolved significantly from what it was prior to the  start of unification efforts (five kwan era) and is notably different,  has different forms, forms that are not simply reworked karate forms,  might I add.



I will strongly disagree, with respect Daniel, about your comment on forms.  Again, in my opinion (personal and professional) they are reworked karate forms.  I do NOT feel those that put them together, generally speaking, knew exactly the information they could/should contain or the true value of the form.  Or, at least felt that that knowledge wasn't needed for the agenda they wished to pursue.  

How many 'modern' practitioners (of any art that uses forms) sees those forms as a waste of time?  A class-filler?  Something that really doesn't apply to actual training?  I'd say the majority.  And that is a shame, because proper knowledge of forms is the depth of the art itself.  Does TKD (and Karate) have joint locks, throws, balance displacement, cavity pressing, misplacing the bone/tendon etc?  It does with a proper knowledge of the forms in my opinion.  And it is something that has been lost for the most part in most schools.  True, if you only want sport it isn't needed or useful, but it is very relevant to those in the arts for SD.



> I would suspect that Funakoshi had more at that point, but my comment  was more to emphasize that rank doesn't necessarily equate to time in  grade.



Yes, Funakoshi had more at this point.  And we agree that rank and experience (time in training) aren't necessarily the same thing.


> While they may not have had the same amount of experience in Okinawan or  Japanese karate, I would not say they had 'little experience.'



I disagree, with respect.  I feel that forms training is a prime example of that lack of experience/deeper knowledge of the art.  Had the majority possessed this insight, TKD 'might' look different today.  Be that good or bad is to the opinion of the beholder.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Gorilla said:


> Self awareness is a gift...your post is somewhat accurate...Tkd has the lions share...your opinion...your post has some truth colored with your opinion...I think you are pompous...still enjoy your posts..
> 
> You come off as Kong Soo Do has spoken!!!


No offense, Gorilla, but that pretty much applies to anyone making a definitive statement on a BBS.  

Thus spake Daniel Sullivan


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> My point from my original post would be along the lines of 'was' (Karate/other) and not a 2000 yr old indigenous KMA.  What it is today is a distinct art.  From my personal, and professional perspective (read SD), it was far more effective then than it is now.  Modern TKD, from a SD perspective is watered down and generally ineffective.  I repeat, from a SD perspective.  Sport on the other hand is a different animal and is not within the scope of my statement.


The problem here is that you are making a distinction between parts of the same art.  If you're comparing the arts, you cannot simply lop off a major portion of the art in order to make your point.  



Kong Soo Do said:


> I will strongly disagree, with respect Daniel, about your comment on forms.  Again, in my opinion (personal and professional) they are reworked karate forms.  I do NOT feel those that put them together, generally speaking, knew exactly the information they could/should contain or the true value of the form.  Or, at least felt that that knowledge wasn't needed for the agenda they wished to pursue.


This is entirely your opinion.  I am familiar enough with Shotokan (though it has been a very long time since I have practiced it) to say that you are incorrect.  You might have been able to make that case for Palgwe pumse, but those were only practiced for a brief period of time.  Perhaps you can make that case for Chang Hon tul; I'm not saying that you can, but I am not familiar enough with them to say one way or the other.  



Kong Soo Do said:


> How many 'modern' practitioners (of any art that uses forms) sees those forms as a waste of time?  A class-filler?  Something that really doesn't apply to actual training?  I'd say the majority.


Couldn't tell you; that has not been my experience at the specific schools where I have trained.



Kong Soo Do said:


> And that is a shame, because proper knowledge of forms is the depth of the art itself.


On that we can agree! 



Kong Soo Do said:


> Does TKD (and Karate) have joint locks, throws, balance displacement, cavity pressing, misplacing the bone/tendon etc?  It does with a proper knowledge of the forms in my opinion.


Probably; I'm not familiar with enough of the hundreds of karate ryu to speak to 'karate' as a whole.



Kong Soo Do said:


> It does with a proper knowledge of the forms in my opinion.  And it is something that has been lost for the most part in most schools.


Again, I couldn't speak to that, as my personal experience has been otherwise.



Kong Soo Do said:


> True, if you only want sport it isn't needed or useful, but it is very relevant to those in the arts for SD.


In my opinion, you're either learning the art or you're not.  Some people only want sport, usually because they are younger and still in a competitive mindset.  People who stay with the art longer generally want a more balanced curriculum.

Honestly, I don't see sport as the issue.  I see the focus on belts as being the main issue; people learning a form just to get a belt, then forgetting about it until they have to test for black belt, then reviewing it enough to pass a belt test, get their black belt, and then quit.  Unfortunately, instructors are complicit in this (and that I have seen first hand) in order to keep their school running.



Kong Soo Do said:


> I disagree, with respect.  I feel that forms training is a prime example of that lack of experience/deeper knowledge of the art.  Had the majority possessed this insight, TKD 'might' look different today.  Be that good or bad is to the opinion of the beholder.


How familiar are you with Taegeuk pumse?


----------



## dancingalone

Regarding the idea that the KKW poomsae are or aren't reworked karate kata...What would make a poomsae 'reworked'?  

I think it is true enough on a physical technique level.  Having gone through the poomsae up through Taebaek, there's certainly not any stances, blocks, strikes that aren't also present within karate kata.  You could perform the KKW forms with a Japanese karate mindset (take your pick which style) and you can definitely see the roots of Shuri te are still present in TKD, even within the Kukkiwon flavor.

If someone wants to make the argument that the *intent* within KKW poomsae departs in a large way from karate kata, I think that is potentially a much stronger case to build.  That or the philosophical meaning which has been written about a good deal on MT in recent months.

As to TKD schools lacking depth or rigor in their forms training... I've never come across a TKD dojang in person that studies forms in the same way that *some *karate dojo do with layers of meaning to the same movement or sequences of movements such that a simple blocking motion is transmuted into a hold or lock or takedown.  And that's fine.  Given the connection TKD has to Japanese karate where such things are largely nonexistent as well I would expect as much.

This doesn't mean that TKD stylists don't know the overt meaning of each move in their forms.  I think that most yudanja indeed do know it.  It'd be hard to perform a poomsae well without this knowledge I think and we know there are many excellent poomsae practitioners in the TKD world.

For myself, I think there is an excellent opportunity to retrofit some karate bunkai into the KKW poomsae, given the broad similarity of discrete techniques within them compared to the Itosu-line karate kata.  Whether that is something the designers of these forms would want I cannot say, but the path is open for those that don't mind a closer relationship with their karate roots.


----------



## punisher73

Earl Weiss said:


> I think we need to understand different perspectives. Adoption of the name is well documented. A good question would be why was a name neccessary. We know the various Kwans were practicing different types of japanese or Okinawa systems. Why was a single name needed? Was the plan to do what Knao or Funakoshi did? Create not just a name but a single system with well defined parameters or something else? Having a single name encompass a variety of system is not unusual. We say systems from various Ryus referred to as Ju Jitsu. We saw various Okinawan and Japanese systems referred to as Karate. So, if the name Ju Jitsu or Karate did not exist, then did the things they referred to which pre dated the name make them incapable of being called Karate or Ju Jitsu?
> 
> Some say that the art was developed in part to bring something to the International stage for the purpose of familiarizing the world with Korea.
> 
> General Choi's 1965 Book is the first book in English I know of and i believe it was a translation of a prior Korean language edition.
> 
> 
> Yet it states (Page 173) "Most of the patterns have been created and developed by the famous TKD masters in the course of many centuries.. They are classified into 3 main groups: the Sorim School, Soryong School, and Chang Hon School. It is my understnading that Sorim and Soryong were the Korean terms for the Okinawan Shorin and Shorei systems.
> 
> So, it can be seen that the term TKD was used in a somewhat generic fashion referring not only to the then relatively new Chang Hon System but other sytemns generally viewed only as roots or predecessors.
> 
> Perhaps it is a cultural issue, but then again that issue would seem to spread to the terms Karate or Ju Jitsu as well.



What's interesting is that when the book was translated and newer editions came out, material such as that quote was added.  I know a well known instructor who studied in Korea and achieved Dan ranking while there in the 60's.  He has a first edition copy of that book in Korean and the quote about the patterns is that they were Japanese in nature and the applications were not known.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

dancingalone said:


> Regarding the idea that the KKW poomsae are or aren't reworked karate kata...What would make a poomsae 'reworked'?
> 
> I think it is true enough on a physical technique level.  Having gone through the poomsae up through Taebaek, there's certainly not any stances, blocks, strikes that aren't also present within karate kata.  You could perform the KKW forms with a Japanese karate mindset (take your pick which style) and you can definitely see the roots of Shuri te are still present in TKD, even within the Kukkiwon flavor.


Just to be clear, when I said that the Taegeuk pumse are not reworked karate kata, I meant that they didn't take existing kata and alter them in ways to make them just different enough; the pumse are original forms, not simply permutations of karate kata.

Regarding strikes, blocks, and stances, I would expect commonality.


----------



## dancingalone

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Just to be clear, when I said that the Taegeuk pumse are not reworked karate kata, I meant that they didn't take existing kata and alter them in ways to make them just different enough; the pumse are original forms, not simply permutations of karate kata.
> 
> Regarding strikes, blocks, and stances, I would expect commonality.



Indeed.  It's fair to say the KKW poomsae are more original than the Palgwe or the Chang Hon patterns.  The Chang Hon geup hyung are especially plagiaristic when you compare them side-by-side with the Heian kata.  

Still, karate-ka, of the former or current variety, running through the KKW poomsae will conjure feelings of deja vu from time to time.  I think it is also fair to say that the committee members who invented the Taegeuk & yudanja poomsae knew their karate kata very well and some influence was bound to bleed through at times.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

dancingalone said:


> Indeed.  It's fair to say the *Taegeuk* poomsae are more original than the Palgwe or the Chang Hon patterns.  The Chang Hon geup hyung are especially plagiaristic when you compare them side-by-side with the Heian kata.


I changed 'KKW' to 'Taegeuk, as the Palgwe are also KKW pumse.



dancingalone said:


> Still, karate-ka, of the former or current variety, running through the KKW poomsae will conjure feelings of deja vu from time to time.  I think it is also fair to say that the committee members who invented the Taegeuk & yudanja poomsae knew their karate kata very well and some influence was bound to bleed through at times.


I'd say that that pretty much sums it up.


----------



## leadleg

How many 'modern' practitioners (of any art that uses forms) sees those forms as a waste of time?  A class-filler?  Something that really doesn't apply to actual training?  I'd say the majority. 
I am sure you are wrong on this aspect, as a TKD guy with many TKD friends all over the world this statement is eroneous at best. Kong do, you are simply stating things you have heard nothing you have experienced. Most of your posts are semi- trolling, and if called out you start whining and repping.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

leadleg said:


> Kong Soo Do said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many 'modern' practitioners (of any art that uses forms) sees those forms as a waste of time?  A class-filler?  Something that really doesn't apply to actual training?  I'd say the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you are wrong on this aspect, as a TKD guy with many TKD friends all over the world this statement is eroneous at best. Kong do, you are simply stating things you have heard nothing you have experienced. Most of your posts are semi- trolling, and if called out you start whining and repping.
Click to expand...

I fixed this; at first, I thought you were restating KSD's post because you didn't use the quote function; it just blended in with your rebuttal.


----------



## Gorilla

Daniel Sullivan said:


> No offense, Gorilla, but that pretty much applies to anyone making a definitive statement on a BBS.
> 
> Thus spake Daniel Sullivan



yep...some make allot more definitive statements than others


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Gorilla said:


> yep...some make allot more definitive statements than others



Yes, but all of mine are correct!

Thus spake Daniel Sullivan


----------



## granfire

chrispillertkd said:


> No, I didn't I just didn't think it applied to the topic of why the Kwan founders studied karate in Japan since that's a matter of public record.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



that it is, but the topic also is the abundance of stories and lore (not to cal it myths and lies )


----------



## Gorilla

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Yes, but all of mine are correct!
> 
> Thus spake Daniel Sullivan



Thanks Daniel for doing the heavy lifting on this one...great posts!!!!  this is a interesting topic since we are Tkd and Shotokan .  Allot of similar techs in both...we love both...


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Gorilla said:


> Thanks Daniel for doing the heavy lifting on this one...great posts!!!!


No real heavy lifting; just first hand experience.  Most of what I have posted is readily available to anyone who is interested in such things anyway.  



Gorilla said:


> this is a interesting topic since we are Tkd and Shotokan .  Allot of similar techs in both...we love both...


Indeed.  I loved Shotokan back when I did it in high school.  Once I graduated, I went to a 'karate' school hoping to keep training and found that their' karate was different.  And that's because it was Taekwondo, which I had always associated with Jhoon Rhee (that is where I had taken it prior to high school).


----------



## Kong Soo Do

leadleg said:


> How many 'modern' practitioners (of any art that uses forms) sees those forms as a waste of time? A class-filler? Something that really doesn't apply to actual training? I'd say the majority.
> I am sure you are wrong on this aspect, as a TKD guy with many TKD friends all over the world this statement is eroneous at best. Kong do, you are simply stating things you have heard nothing you have experienced. Most of your posts are semi- trolling, and if called out you start whining and repping.



I'm sure that you are only commenting upon your personal experience and what you've heard.  I have done the same.  No difference.  

BTW, I don't know what 'repping' is and I'd like to see where I've 'whined'?  I have an opinion, I back up those opinions with personal/professional experience(s) and I comment on them.  If they don't agree with your opinion then we obviously haven't had the same experiences.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Gorilla said:


> yep...some make allot more definitive statements than others



Some of us have quite a bit more experience than others :uhyeah:

Opps...that sounded 'arrogant'.  :ultracool


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> I'm sure that you are only commenting upon your personal experience and what you've heard.  I have done the same.  No difference.


And there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself.  

Speaking generally however, there are times when personal experience, no matter how lengthy, does not equip us with knowledge of specific areas that may fall either outside of our experience or in which our lengthy experience only touches on. 

And what we've heard is never a good basis for definitive statements unless the only thing one is definitive about is that they have heard it.  Particularly when making statements of a technical nature.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Daniel Sullivan said:


> And there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself.
> 
> Speaking generally however, there are times when personal experience, no matter how lengthy, does not equip us with knowledge of specific areas that may fall either outside of our experience or in which our lengthy experience only touches on.
> 
> And what we've heard is never a good basis for definitive statements unless the only thing one is definitive about is that they have heard it. Particularly when making statements of a technical nature.



Agree 100%.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Daniel Sullivan said:


> [B said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kong Soo Do[/B];1487609] 				 				My point from my original post would be along  the lines of 'was' (Karate/other) and not a 2000 yr old indigenous KMA.   What it is today is a distinct art.  From my personal, and professional  perspective (read SD), it was far more effective then than it is now.   Modern TKD, from a SD perspective is watered down and generally  ineffective.  I repeat, from a SD perspective.  Sport on the other hand  is a different animal and is not within the scope of my statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem here is that you are making a distinction between parts of the same art.  If you're comparing the arts, you cannot simply lop off a major portion of the art in order to make your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [B said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kong Soo Do[/B];1487609] 				 				 I will strongly disagree, with respect Daniel,  about your comment on forms.  Again, in my opinion (personal and  professional) they are reworked karate forms.  I do NOT feel those that  put them together, generally speaking, knew exactly the information they  could/should contain or the true value of the form.  Or, at least felt  that that knowledge wasn't needed for the agenda they wished to pursue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is entirely your opinion.  I am familiar enough with Shotokan (though it has been a very long time since I have practiced it) to say that you are incorrect.  You might have been able to make that case for Palgwe pumse, but those were only practiced for a brief period of time.  Perhaps you can make that case for Chang Hon tul; I'm not saying that you can, but I am not familiar enough with them to say one way or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [B said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kong Soo Do[/B];1487609]How many 'modern' practitioners (of any art  that uses forms) sees those forms as a waste of time?  A class-filler?   Something that really doesn't apply to actual training?  I'd say the  majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Couldn't tell you; that has not been my experience at the specific schools where I have trained.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [B said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kong Soo Do[/B];1487609]And that is a shame, because proper knowledge of forms is the depth of the art itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On that we can agree!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [B said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kong Soo Do[/B];1487609]Does TKD (and Karate) have joint locks, throws,  balance displacement, cavity pressing, misplacing the bone/tendon etc?   It does with a proper knowledge of the forms in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably; I'm not familiar with enough of the hundreds of karate ryu to speak to 'karate' as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [B said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kong Soo Do[/B];1487609]It does with a proper knowledge of the forms in  my opinion.  And it is something that has been lost for the most part  in most schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I couldn't speak to that, as my personal experience has been otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> [B said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kong Soo Do[/B];1487609]True, if you only want sport it isn't needed or useful, but it is very relevant to those in the arts for SD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my opinion, you're either learning the art or you're not.  Some people only want sport, usually because they are younger and still in a competitive mindset.  People who stay with the art longer generally want a more balanced curriculum.
> 
> Honestly, I don't see sport as the issue.  I see the focus on belts as being the main issue; people learning a form just to get a belt, then forgetting about it until they have to test for black belt, then reviewing it enough to pass a belt test, get their black belt, and then quit.  Unfortunately, instructors are complicit in this (and that I have seen first hand) in order to keep their school running.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [B said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kong Soo Do[/B];1487609]I disagree, with respect.  I feel that forms  training is a prime example of that lack of experience/deeper knowledge  of the art.  Had the majority possessed this insight, TKD 'might' look  different today.  Be that good or bad is to the opinion of the beholder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How familiar are you with Taegeuk pumse?
Click to expand...

Just to bring this discussion back on topic, do you have a response to this?  I figure that this is on topic. 

 For those who want to take jabs at one another, take it to PM.


----------



## Gorilla

In my post #4 I stated what I have been told.  Although very simplistic.  The research that I have done has shown this to be on target. Thoughts?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Gorilla said:


> In my post #4 I stated what I have been told.   Although very simplistic.  The research that I have done has shown this  to be on target. Thoughts?


Quoted below for convenience.



Gorilla said:


> This was what we were told by our original GM.  That Korea has a long history in the Martial Arts.  That was supresssed by the Japanese during the occupation during WW2. That the originator of our Kwan (Song Moo Kwan) got his BB in Japan while in college from a famous Shotokan Master Funakoshi.  After the WW2 he started his school (Kwan). Several other who got BB is Japan also did the same thing.  These were the original Kwans.  The Kwan's came together in the 50's and 60's and formed TKD.  TKD is influenced by Karate and the long history of Martial Arts in Korea.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Gorilla said:


> In my post #4 I stated what I have been told.  Although very simplistic.  The research that I have done has shown this to be on target. Thoughts?


Only two Ro Byung Jick (SMK) and Chun Sang Sup (YMK/JDK) of the original five had Shotokan black belts to my knowledge.  

Hwang Kee (MDK) claimed to have learned shotokan it from a book, which precludes him holding any actual rank, and to have learned takkyeon (I think) through watching demonstrations.  Again, this precludes him from holding any title.

Lee Won Kyuk (CDK) studied Taekkyeon, Kung fu, and Okinawan karate; no clue as to what rank, if any, he attained. 

Yoon Byung In (CMK) had a Chuan fa background and worked out at a karate cluib in Japan; no grade to my knowledge, and he called his art kwon beop, which from what I understand, was CMA based, not karate based. 

My research is hardly scholarly and consists of a lot of internet searching and correspondence with people on BBS like MT.  Take it for what its worth.


----------



## sopraisso

Again I show up late, but I always can learn from what has been said. 



Gorilla said:


> [...]  this is a interesting topic since we are Tkd and Shotokan .  Allot of similar techs in both...we love both...



My first serious contact with martial arts was with karate (shotokan). Then I moved to taekwondo by force of circumstances. I was shocked with the similarity between both arts. Today I love both and, while I accept taekwondo as my adopted style (it was hard in the beginning), I still plan to go back to karate, to learn more from where it largely came from, as I believe. It's nice to see people here have knowledge of both and are able to conciliate them, at least generally.

I believe it's important to notice discussions like this are meant to clarify -- not to denigrate any of the martial arts. As I started to know better the links between karate and taekwondo, I felt more peaceful about what I was practicing then. I believe many problems being faced today by one are happening to the other, too, and such issues are not related with the nature of those arts, but with the way they are sometimes teached and/or practiced.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> And there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself.
> 
> Speaking generally however, there are times when personal experience, no matter how lengthy, does not equip us with knowledge of specific areas that may fall either outside of our experience or in which our lengthy experience only touches on.
> 
> And what we've heard is never a good basis for definitive statements unless the only thing one is definitive about is that they have heard it.  Particularly when making statements of a technical nature.



This is a general lesson of great value. Sometimes our experience, and many times the strong impressions left by our experience, make us have a particular and mistaken view of the general picture, and it's not always easy to perceive that the outside can be very different of what we've seen.


----------



## dancingalone

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Only two Ro Byung Jick (SMK) and Chun Sang Sup (YMK/JDK) of the original five had Shotokan black belts to my knowledge.  Hwang Kee (MDK) claimed to have learned shotokan it from a book, which precludes him holding any actual rank, and to have learned takkyeon (I think) through watching demonstrations.  Again, this precludes him from holding any title.Lee Won Kyuk (CDK) studied Taekkyeon, Kung fu, and Okinawan karate; no clue as to what rank, if any, he attained.


HWANG Kee was awarded a green belt by LEE Won Kuk in what I presume was CDK karate.  I am sure his abilities well exceeded that rank however.





Daniel Sullivan said:


> Yoon Byung In (CMK) had a Chuan fa background and worked out at a karate cluib in Japan; no grade to my knowledge, and he called his art kwon beop, which from what I understand, was CMA based, not karate based. My research is hardly scholarly and consists of a lot of internet searching and correspondence with people on BBS like MT.  Take it for what its worth.


GM Yoon was one of the two Koreans acknowledged by TOYAMA Kanken, founder of the Shudokan, as shihan in his school.  Whatever dan rank that corresponds to (if at all) at the time, it's still a master level rank in karate.


----------



## dancingalone

Can't edit my post above, but there is also anecdotal history that General Choi had a dan in Shotokan (I've seen accounts that state nidan).  No documentation that I know of has survived to verify this account though, but then similar circumstances exist for some of the other senior TKD people.


----------



## SahBumNimRush

dancingalone said:


> Ki Whang KIM being the other.


----------



## dancingalone

SahBumNimRush said:


> Ki Whang KIM being the other.


I know GM Kim also trained at the Shudokan.  I thought the second Korean shihan was YON Kwai Byung though.  I can never remember this gentleman's name, so excuse me for any misspelling here.


----------



## SahBumNimRush

Thanks for that, you are absolutely correct, YON Kwai Byung was also a BB holder at the Shudokan.  I do not remember right off hand what ranks the three gentlemen earned, but I'm fairly certain all three of them were black belts through the Shudokan.


----------



## SahBumNimRush

Not that Wikipedia is an incredibly reliable source, but it supports your statement of both YOON Byung In and YON Kwai Byeong being listed as Shihan through the Shudokan, and KIM Ki Whang being listed as a 3rd Dan (although I've seen other sources list his rank as 4th Dan).


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

dancingalone said:


> GM Yoon was one of the two Koreans acknowledged by TOYAMA Kanken,  founder of the Shudokan, as shihan in his school.  Whatever dan rank  that corresponds to (if at all) at the time, it's still a master level  rank in karate.


While shihan doesn't represent a specific rank, I think there is a minimum rank of like fourth to sixth dan, depending on the art.  I know that shihan in Korean is sabeom, which is generally at least fourth dan. 



dancingalone said:


> Can't edit my post above, but there is also anecdotal history that General Choi had a dan in Shotokan (I've seen accounts that state nidan).  No documentation that I know of has survived to verify this account though, but then similar circumstances exist for some of the other senior TKD people.


I had thought that he claimed to have a nidan.  I could be mistaken, but either way, I have heard this as well.


----------



## andyjeffries

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Lee Won Kyuk (CDK) studied Taekkyeon, Kung fu, and Okinawan karate; no clue as to what rank, if any, he attained.
> 
> Take it for what its worth.



Likewise, but:

http://www.arenakarate.co.uk/about/shuri_te

Lee started his martial arts training during his college years at the Central University law school in Japan. There he studied, what is now known as Shoto-kan Karate-do, under Gichin Funakoshi. "As a young man, I visited martial arts centers including the birthplace of Karate in Okinawa, Kung Fu centers in Henan and Shanghai China, and other places. I studied Karate with Sensei Hunagoshi, founder of Goju-ryu Karate and a Japanese national hero."(Lee)

A while after achieving his black belt under Grandmaster Funakoshi, Lee returned to his home of Korea so that he could show his people the beauty of the martial arts. "I practiced Tang Soo Do and came to realize this type of skill was very important to have. I became aware that our Korean national history and legacy of martial arts were being kept from us. I felt very bad about this." (Lee)​


----------



## dancingalone

andyjeffries said:


> Likewise, but:http://www.arenakarate.co.uk/about/shuri_teI studied Karate with Sensei Hunagoshi, founder of Goju-ryu Karate and a Japanese national hero."(Lee)​


That's a rather bizarre quotation by the way.  (I know you didn't write it, Andy.)  Who is Hunagoshi?  The founder of Okinawan Goju-ryu karate was MIYAGI Chojun.  YAMAGUICHI Gogen later popularized Goju-ryu in Japan.


----------



## andyjeffries

dancingalone said:


> That's a rather bizarre quotation by the way.  (I know you didn't write it, Andy.)  Who is Hunagoshi?  The founder of Okinawan Goju-ryu karate was MIYAGI Chojun.  YAMAGUICHI Gogen later popularized Goju-ryu in Japan.



The only think I can think of is that he meant Funakoshi?  g/k is fairly similar in Korean and there is no "F" in Korean, so maybe he pronounced it Hunagoshi as that was as close as he could get with his Korean accent.  The quote is attributed to him, so maybe it came from a recorded interview and was just written as said.

I don't know of the Goju-ryu/Shotokan confusion though.

As you say, it's not my quote but those are my guesses...


----------



## Kong Soo Do

dancingalone said:


> GM Yoon was one of the two Koreans acknowledged by TOYAMA Kanken, founder of the Shudokan, as shihan in his school. Whatever dan rank that corresponds to (if at all) at the time, it's still a master level rank in karate.



I've seen him listed as either 4th Dan or 7th Dan depending on the source.  He seemed to be very well respected in both Japan and Korea.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kongsoodo,

Before it gets buried again, I asked some questions to you and gave you some responses regarding your statements on Kukkiwon pumse.  I'm not sure if you've seen them; the original was on page two and I reposted it on page three.  I don't know if you've just missed them, but I am interested in your response. 

Thank you,


----------



## Gorilla

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Only two Ro Byung Jick (SMK) and Chun Sang Sup (YMK/JDK) of the original five had Shotokan black belts.
> 
> 
> Ro Byung Jick is the founder of our Kwan.  That would appear to be correct.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Only two Ro Byung Jick (SMK) and Chun Sang Sup (YMK/JDK) of the original five had Shotokan black belts to my knowledge.
> 
> >snip<
> 
> Lee Won Kyuk (CDK) studied Taekkyeon, Kung fu, and Okinawan karate; no clue as to what rank, if any, he attained.



Lee Won Kuk studied at the Shotokan and received a black belt (3rd dan I have heard, but I've never gotten a concrete answer).

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Gorilla

I would like to restate what we have said here.  Please add I did not get everything!

Major influence of TKD is Karate.  Shotokan is probably the major one but other styles came into play.
That founders of the major kwans trained in Karate rising to different ranks. We believe based on Internet research that at least 2 achieved Dan rank under Funakoshi.

That TKD was established post WW2.  I think that it is fair to say that it has also been influenced by Korean martial arts culture which predates the Japanese occupation.  To what extent is debatable but to say that it had no influence would be unfair.

Can we all agree that this is some what accurate?


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Gorilla said:


> I would like to restate what we have said here. Please add I did not get everything!
> 
> Major influence of TKD is Karate. Shotokan is probably the major one but other styles came into play.
> That founders of the major kwans trained in Karate rising to different ranks. We believe based on Internet research that at least 2 achieved Dan rank under Funakoshi.
> 
> That TKD was established post WW2. I think that it is fair to say that it has also been influenced by Korean martial arts culture which predates the Japanese occupation. To what extent is debatable but to say that it had no influence would be unfair.
> 
> Can we all agree that this is some what accurate?



Generally speaking, what you've listed is fine.  I'd put Shotokan as a major player but also add Shudokan and Shito Ryu to the list as far as GM Yoon is concerned.

It was called by various names in the mid-to-late 40's and early 50's.  Kong Soo Do, Kwon Bup, Tang Soo Do etc.  Pre-WWII Korean arts may have had an influence, but as you mention, it is debatable as to the extent.  I would say that any influence it may have had in no way, shape or form gives credence to TKD being an 2000 year old indigenous KMA.  That is marketing.


----------



## Gorilla

Kong Soo Do....for the record I have nerver heard a Korean Grand Master state that TKD is 2000 years old...my statements on TKD in this thread largely agree with our GM taught...

That is not to say that others have not said it...but that is not my experience.  

It is funny our Shotokan Sensei admires TKD as sport.  He is fascinated by the adaptations that Korean culture has given to Shotokan. 

When you train in both it is amazing how alike they are.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Gorilla said:


> Kong Soo Do....for the record I have nerver heard a Korean Grand Master state that TKD is 2000 years old...



Unfortunately I have.  And it isn't limited to TKD, I've also seen this in TSD.  I've still got the flyer around somewhere from the local TSD school (now closed) that offered this up as a historical fact for TSD.  

As I've said before, TKD (and TSD) is about 60 years old...and there is nothing wrong with that.  That fact should be proudly stated without any thought of embellishment.  If some wish to include a Taekyon influence then fine, they just don't need to say that 1 + B = orange.  They need to be happy for what it is, and build upon that.


----------



## granfire

Kong Soo Do said:


> Unfortunately I have.  And it isn't limited to TKD, I've also seen this in TSD.  I've still got the flyer around somewhere from the local TSD school (now closed) that offered this up as a historical fact for TSD.
> 
> As I've said before, TKD (and TSD) is about 60 years old...and there is nothing wrong with that.  That fact should be proudly stated without any thought of embellishment.  If some wish to include a Taekyon influence then fine, they just don't need to say that 1 + B = orange.  They need to be happy for what it is, and build upon that.



Shucks, I have seen 4000....


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Kongsoodo,
> 
> Before it gets buried again, I asked some questions to you and gave you some responses regarding your statements on Kukkiwon pumse.  I'm not sure if you've seen them; the original was on page two and I reposted it on page three.  I don't know if you've just missed them, but I am interested in your response.
> 
> Thank you,


We've gone three pages and you still have not responded.  Since you frequently appeal to personal experience and first hand knowledge, am I to assume that in this case you have none?  

You took a swipe at the pioneers of an art that I have practiced for almost forty years.  Which is fine; this is the internet and people do that.  But if you're going to do that, then please have the courtesy to respond the questions that I asked you on the topic.  

First and foremost, what firsthand, if any, experience do you have with the forms that you say are just reworked karate kata?


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Daniel Sullivan said:


> We've gone three pages and you still have not responded. Since you frequently appeal to personal experience and first hand knowledge, am I to assume that in this case you have none?



You may make whatever assumption you'd like. I was involved in other threads yesterday and didn't follow this one very closely. 




> You took a swipe at the pioneers of an art that I have practiced for almost forty years. Which is fine; this is the internet and people do that. But if you're going to do that, then please have the courtesy to respond the questions that I asked you on the topic.



To begin with, you keep using that phrase, 'took a swipe'. No, I made an assestment based upon my perception that doesn't always agree with your perception. It isn't always going to be favorable to 'seniors and pioneers' as I don't choose to venerate them as some have chosen to do. I see the positive they've done (in whatever art) as well as the negatives, political in-fighting, lying, cheating etc. Btw, I'd have a respectful, but straight-forward discussion with any of them FTF. And I have.




> First and foremost, what firsthand, if any, experience do you have with the forms that you say are just reworked karate kata?




Yes, I do. As well as forms from other arts. That is exactly why I take the position I've taken. In my opinion, and based upon my experience, they are 'childrens' karate forms. In otherwords, they have taken, what I refer to as childrens karate, and put together a set of forms based upon that limited perspective. And these forms have suffered further by attempts to disregard what information they contain and make them even flashier. For example, you may see in competitions someone performing a very high kick, when the form called for a mid-level kick. Why? Well cause it 'looks' better of course and may impress the judges. Regardless of the fact that a very high kick is generally a very low % in terms of effectiveness and the mid-level kick would have been effective due to the set up that preceded it. 

More so, I always make a point to ask (for any art that uses forms) what a particular movement means. What it's practical combative purpose is suppose to be. The general response is a blank stare. But if I get lucky enough, occassionally I get someone that can explain, in their experience, what a movement is suppose to be. 99.9% of the time though it is what I call a 'childrens karate' answer. 'Oh, that's a high block' or 'that's a low block to defend against a kick' etc. Really? You don't see the shoulder lock takedown in that movement or the balance displacement principle it is explaining? How about the movement that is suppose to block my incoming kick with your forearm? Do you really want to pit the radial bone, the smallest in the forearm against my shin bone? Does that sound like a fair trade-off? Wouldn't that movement perhaps be a little more condusive to perhaps a hammer fist strike to the attacker's lower body from a grappling position?

That is why I catagorically state that TKD kata 'can' effectively show the principles of locks, throws, ground-fighting, balance displacement etc etc etc etc. But the majority of TKD practitioners don't know its there. They don't know its there becasue their instructors don't know the information is there. The instructors don't know it's there because in my opinion, most of the seniors/pioneers didn't know it was there...though some did. But that type of stuff isn't as easily taught, particuarly to children who quite frankly don't really need to know how to choke someone out or rip the muscle off the bone. So it isn't commercially viable. 

If someone is into TKD for sport, fellowship, social networking, discipline or a hobby then they really wouldn't be interested in the 'deeper' stuff. But for those that are, TKD can be virtually the same as 'practical' Karate, Jujutsu, Hapkido etc. 

That's my perspective of the forms. Bottom line is that there is much more to them than just a boring, cookie-cutter, class-filler requirement to get the next colored belt.


----------



## Sukerkin

Interesting points, *KSD*.  

To term TKD as being founded on 'childrens karate' is not something I have heard before but does gel with what I have read on the real history of the art i.e. that it is a 20th century adaptation of a Japanese art rather than some mythical 1st Century art.

It's an unfortunate way to phrase it tho, as I am sure that almost all TKD students would take exception to their art being called that and thus will shut their ears (or eyes in this case ) to the valid point you are making.


----------



## dancingalone

The influence of the Pinan/Heian kata created by ITOSU "Anko" has been profound throughout taekwondo.  However, these forms WERE intentionally created by him to be children's forms.  Not necessarily Tiny Tigers stuff, but definitely for primary school - junior high age minors where Itosu didn't believe the more dangerous applications should be taught.

The Pinan kata were created from older, supposedly more serious forms like Kusanku or possibly Channan, a now lost kata.  They were supposed to be freshly made without history to them, but anyone with knowledge from the older form would be able to translate many of the same dangerous techniques back into the Pinan forms and practice or teach them at the higher level.

And I think that is the point Kong Soo Do is making.  The Pinan kata and their progeny don't have to be practiced at the base level.  But by and large that is the case now, though it's not necessarily a phenomenon limited to TKD only.  Japanese karate suffers from the same issues.  Frankly so does Okinawan karate when it is taught and practiced at a hobbyist level, which is unfortunately most often the case.

Such is the state of things, but I don't see this as a permanent condition necessarily.  We can all grow and evolve over time.  If anyone within TKD is interested in the older knowledge it's out there to search into.  Places like MT serve as seeding hoards, almost like how the US Department of Agriculture stores older varieties of plant seeds so that their genetic diversity is not lost, displaced by modern hybrid varieties of plants.  People can read about such things in MT and if it pricks their interest, they know the next steps to take if they want.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> You may make whatever assumption you'd like. I was involved in other threads yesterday and didn't follow this one very closely.


My conclusion goes beyond your lack of answering.  Your posting content also indicates that you have little or no actual experience *with these particular forms* and probably little to none with actual Kukkiwon taekwondo.  



Kong Soo Do said:


> To begin with, you keep using that phrase, 'took a swipe'. No, I made an assestment based upon my perception that doesn't always agree with your perception. It isn't always going to be favorable to 'seniors and pioneers' as I don't choose to venerate them as some have chosen to do. I see the positive they've done (in whatever art) as well as the negatives, political in-fighting, lying, cheating etc. Btw, I'd have a respectful, but straight-forward discussion with any of them FTF. And I have.


This isn't a question of veneration.  If you're going to make a negative assessment of the experience of established people you are taking a swipe.  Which, as I said, is fine (really); this is the internet.  People do that on the internet.

But if you're going to do that, don't be cagey about your own experience.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Yes, I do.


And that experience would be?  I asked you _what_ experience you had, not if you had any. 



Kong Soo Do said:


> As well as forms from other arts. That is exactly why I take the position I've taken. In my opinion, and based upon my experience, they are 'childrens' karate forms. In otherwords, they have taken, what I refer to as childrens karate, and put together a set of forms based upon that limited perspective. And these forms have suffered further by attempts to disregard what information they contain and make them even flashier. For example, you may see in competitions someone performing a very high kick, when the form called for a mid-level kick. Why? Well cause it 'looks' better of course and may impress the judges. Regardless of the fact that a very high kick is generally a very low % in terms of effectiveness and the mid-level kick would have been effective due to the set up that preceded it.
> 
> More so, I always make a point to ask (for any art that uses forms) what a particular movement means. What it's practical combative purpose is suppose to be. The general response is a blank stare. But if I get lucky enough, occassionally I get someone that can explain, in their experience, what a movement is suppose to be. 99.9% of the time though it is what I call a 'childrens karate' answer. 'Oh, that's a high block' or 'that's a low block to defend against a kick' etc. Really? You don't see the shoulder lock takedown in that movement or the balance displacement principle it is explaining? How about the movement that is suppose to block my incoming kick with your forearm? Do you really want to pit the radial bone, the smallest in the forearm against my shin bone? Does that sound like a fair trade-off? Wouldn't that movement perhaps be a little more condusive to perhaps a hammer fist strike to the attacker's lower body from a grappling position?
> 
> That is why I catagorically state that TKD kata 'can' effectively show the principles of locks, throws, ground-fighting, balance displacement etc etc etc etc. But the majority of TKD practitioners don't know its there. They don't know its there becasue their instructors don't know the information is there. The instructors don't know it's there because in my opinion, most of the seniors/pioneers didn't know it was there...though some did. But that type of stuff isn't as easily taught, particuarly to children who quite frankly don't really need to know how to choke someone out or rip the muscle off the bone. So it isn't commercially viable.
> 
> If someone is into TKD for sport, fellowship, social networking, discipline or a hobby then they really wouldn't be interested in the 'deeper' stuff. But for those that are, TKD can be virtually the same as 'practical' Karate, Jujutsu, Hapkido etc.
> 
> That's my perspective of the forms. Bottom line is that there is much more to them than just a boring, cookie-cutter, class-filler requirement to get the next colored belt.



Thus far, none of your posts, including the one above, indicate that you actually have any first hand experience with these particular forms.  In fact, this posts reinforces that.  

Some of the things that you say, such as comments about the radial bone of the forearm being used to strike an opponent's shin bone is an example of this.  

While your assessment of small bone vs. large bone is accurate on its own, I was never taught to use any of the blocks in the pumse in such a manner by any of my instructors.

I'm not going to go through your response any further than I have, as you have yet to directly answer my question and what answers you have given tell me that while you are experienc*ed*, your experience lies outside of Kukkiwon taekwondo.

Incidentally, I could go though Youtube videos and watch ATA Songahm forms and then go pose questions to ATA practitioners of unstated rank and probably get the same results that you did.  Since I don't actually train in Songahm taekwondo or have any of their training material, those results would be meaningless.

If I asked an ATA instructor what a particular movement in their forms 'means' I'm probably going to get a basic answer.  I'm not their student and they have no reason to go into detailed answers about permutations of or alternate uses of a particular movement.  

They are not obligated to educate me when I am not a part of their school nor practice their particular art, and am probably just picking their brain for my own reasons and not out of any genuine interest in the art.


----------



## d1jinx

Daniel, consider your source.  I think you could find your answers you were looking for here:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?98993-Who-is-David-Schultz&highlight=david+shultz

If you really dont feel like looking through the tons of BS, you would be safe in coming to the same conclusion I have, no merit and irrelevent.


----------



## dancingalone

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Thus far, none of your posts, including the one above, indicate that you actually have any first hand experience with these particular forms.  In fact, this posts reinforces that.



I'm not really taking sides in this spat, but I am curious about this line of contention on a certain level.  Does it matter if KSD knows the KKW poomsae or not, pertinent to his discussion here?  He only says that the level of forms study with TKD as it currently exists does not include (for the most part) thinks like bone and tendon displacement, grappling, or weapon to target tactical considerations.  With a surface glance, that seems like a true enough statement - this is not an area of strength for TKD, though it could be if the right people in positions of leadership made it an area for emphasis.


----------



## d1jinx

Sukerkin said:


> Interesting points, *KSD*.
> 
> To term TKD as being founded on 'childrens karate' is not something I have heard before but does gel with what I have read on the real history of the art i.e. that it is a 20th century adaptation of a Japanese art rather than some mythical 1st Century art.
> 
> It's an unfortunate way to phrase it tho, as I am sure that almost all TKD students would take exception to their art being called that and thus will shut their ears (or eyes in this case ) to the valid point you are making.



I'm sure there are some ROK Marines from the Veitnam War out there who would beg to differ about it being "childrens karate".   The NVA would spread flyers saying 

Captured Viet Cong orders now stipulate that contact 
with the Koreans is to be avoided at
all costs unless a Viet Cong victory is 
100% certain. Never defy Korean soldiers without
discrimination, even when 
are not armed, for they all well trained with Taekwondo. 
An excerpt from an 
enemy directive seized. - July 22, 1966 Time -


----------



## dancingalone

d1jinx said:


> I'm sure there are some ROK Marines from the Veitnam War out there who would beg to differ about it being "childrens karate".   The NVA would spread flyers saying "avoid ROK Marines at all cost".



"Children's karate" can still be deadly.  A knife hand to the throat, simple as it is, can still kill.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Gorilla said:


> Kong Soo Do....for the record I have nerver heard a Korean Grand Master state that TKD is 2000 years old...my statements on TKD in this thread largely agree with our GM taught...
> 
> That is not to say that others have not said it...but that is not my experience.


Until the internet, I had never heard the claim that modern TKD was older than about fifty years.  After the internet.... well it's pretty amazing some of the assertions made on school websites.



Gorilla said:


> It is funny our Shotokan Sensei admires TKD as sport.  He is fascinated by the adaptations that Korean culture has given to Shotokan.
> 
> When you train in both it is amazing how alike they are.


There is definitely similarity between the two, though also a lot of difference.  Structurally, Shotokan was definitely a strong influence.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Sukerkin said:


> Interesting points, *KSD*.
> 
> To term TKD as being founded on 'childrens karate' is not something I have heard before but does gel with what I have read on the real history of the art i.e. that it is a 20th century adaptation of a Japanese art rather than some mythical 1st Century art.
> 
> It's an unfortunate way to phrase it tho, as I am sure that almost all TKD students would take exception to their art being called that and thus will shut their ears (or eyes in this case ) to the valid point you are making.



Thank you and I understand what you're saying. I just don't know another way to put it. I know it is going to raise some ire, sometimes the truth hurts. However, as a clarification, though I phrased it as being based (in general) upon Itosu's 'childrens' version of Karate, and I stand by that statement, it wasn't meant to demean the TKD practitioner or say that 'they' are children. But they aren't training in the full scope of what TKD actually is/could be either from the ignorance of their instructors or by design of some of the pioneers that did know the difference. And by 'ignorance' I'm not suggesting 'stupidity', there is a difference in the terms. Some will automatically disregard my posts, and respond with snide comments (and already have), but some will perhaps look a little deeper. When they do, their going to have their minds blown at what the art can and does have in it for the taking. In otherwords, the majority of TKD practitioners (and 'modern Karate to some extent) are spendig 100% of their time training 5% of what the art can offer. They don't have anyone to show them (or wants to show them) the other 95%. And again, if they're just into TKD for sport, socialization or whatever (something other than SD) then the other 95% would hold little value for them. 

Daniel & D1jinx, feel free to dismiss the point I'm trying to convey. Minimize it, twist it into a 'swipe' at TKD or whatever else you'd like to do, dismiss it as irrelevent or of no merit. No one is forcing you to do anything you're not comfortable with doing. But while some look at a form as a boring, cookie-cutter class-filler (as I've already mentioned)...I see a form as a plethora of practical, focused movements that go well beyond simple block/punch/kick. Not every situation calls for b/p/k. Having a wider response inventory is always a plus.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

dancingalone said:


> I'm not really taking sides in this spat, but I am curious about this line of contention on a certain level.  Does it matter if KSD knows the KKW poomsae or not, pertinent to his discussion here?  He only says that the level of forms study with TKD as it currently exists does not include (for the most part) thinks like bone and tendon displacement, grappling, or weapon to target tactical considerations.  With a surface glance, that seems like a true enough statement - this is not an area of strength for TKD, though it could be if the right people in positions of leadership made it an area for emphasis.


Hardly a spat, but the reason that I asked the question was completely unrelated to anything that you mentioned; I asked because he said that the Taegeuk pumse were just 'reworked karate kata.'  Presumably Shotokan.  If you don't have any familiarity with the forms, then you have no basis to make the statement.

When these debates have come up about Chang Hon and Shotokan forms, I see people discussing things about similarities in specific parts of the forms.  While I'm not going to make any statements about ITF forms being reworked Shotokan forms, it is obvious that the people making these statements are familiar with both sets of forms.  I'm not getting that vibe here.

Now, had he said that the forms were strongly influenced by Shotokan forms, which I think would have some validity, we'd be having a different discussion.  But his statement implies a level of plagiarism.  Perhaps that was not his intent, but that is the logical conclusion of the statement.  

Regarding some of his comments about not being able to get answers about the meaning of specific elements of the pumse, since he obviously isn't trained in them (otherwise, he wouldn't be asking people the question), he again, has no basis to make the observations about what the forms may or may not contain. 

I have no doubt that he is an experienced practitioner of some kind of karate.  I also have no doubt that he has learned a good amount of joint locks, throws, and takedowns, and other techniques common to hapkido and jujutsu.   

But regarding Kukkiwon taekwondo, and taekwondo in general, his posts indicate an outside-looking-in perspective, which is not a good perspective from which to make definitive statements about another art.


----------



## d1jinx

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Until the internet, I had never heard the claim that modern TKD was older than about fifty years.  After the internet.... well it's pretty amazing some of the assertions made on school websites.
> 
> 
> There is definitely similarity between the two, though also a lot of difference.  Structurally, Shotokan was definitely a strong influence.



every tkd book i have gives history accounts of the roots of tkd, and its evolution over time to what it is today.  And every book, says the date that the name Taekwondo was given, the merging of the kwans and the founding of the Kukkiwon.

all other accounts are either stories told to students due to lack of knowledge (ie. MADE UP) or lack of translation (ie Korean master who cant fully articulate the whole story or want to) or Lack of desire to take the time to tell a story in which 85% of students DONT CARE.

Any "official" book from the TKD Academy does NOT say TKD is 40000000000000000000000000000000000 years old. 


Ask any American to recount the history of our country and you will get many answers that vary from the truth.  However its all documented.  so does that mean our histiry is made up because the majority of citizens do not know it yet walk around and live as Americans evey day????

Daniel, these comment werent directed at you, only to add to your statement.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> Daniel & D1jinx, feel free to dismiss the point I'm trying to convey.  Minimize it, twist it into a 'swipe' at TKD or whatever else you'd like to do, dismiss it as irrelevent or of no merit.  No one is forcing you to do anything you're not comfortable with doing.  But while some look at a form as a boring, cookie-cutter class-filler (as I've already mentioned)...I see a form as a plethora of practical, focused movements that go well beyond simple block/punch/kick.  Not every situation calls for b/p/k.  Having a wider response inventory is always a plus.


This is, to quote you, 'pure crap.' Implying that we don't see forms as anything but class filler is disingenuous.  Anyone who reads my posts know that this is incorrect.


----------



## d1jinx

Kong Soo Do said:


> Daniel & D1jinx, feel free to dismiss the point I'm trying to convey. Minimize it, twist it into a 'swipe' at TKD or whatever else you'd like to do, dismiss it as irrelevent or of no merit. No one is forcing you to do anything you're not comfortable with doing. But while some look at a form as a boring, cookie-cutter class-filler (as I've already mentioned)...I see a form as a plethora of practical, focused movements that go well beyond simple block/punch/kick. Not every situation calls for b/p/k. Having a wider response inventory is always a plus.



If you truly see Poomse as a way to learn how to defend yourself then you truly have never studied TKD from a real master.  Poomse in TKD werent designed to teach you how to defend yourself and rather than give and explaination and contribute to your "learning of TKD", I would prefer you find a TKD master and take a few decades of classes to learn the real meaning behind them.  But it might be in a book somewhere to save you some time.

It shows how much peole dont know and understand TKD when the look at the poomse and say "those aren't real practical forms".  your right.  they arent.  Doesn't stop them from having a purpose and meaning.


----------



## d1jinx

Daniel Sullivan said:


> But regarding Kukkiwon taekwondo, and taekwondo in general, his posts indicate an outside-looking-in perspective, which is not a good perspective from which to make definitive statements about another art.



AMEN, and to any TKD reader, it shows.


----------



## dancingalone

d1jinx said:


> If you truly see Poomse as a way to learn how to defend yourself then you truly have never studied TKD from a real master.  *Poomse in TKD werent designed to teach you how to defend yourself* and rather than give and explaination and contribute to your "learning of TKD", I would prefer you find a TKD master and take a few decades of classes to learn the real meaning behind them.  But it might be in a book somewhere to save you some time.
> 
> It shows how much peole dont know and understand TKD *when the look at the poomse and say "those aren't real practical forms"*.  your right.  they arent.  Doesn't stop them from having a purpose and meaning.



But they could be.  That's my perspective anyway and I am learning the KKW style now so I hope I don't speak as a total outsider.


----------



## Sukerkin

Gentlemen, I would strongly advise that you cool your blood before this 'discussion' reaches a pitch where we'll have to sling it into the Great Debate where no one will ever read it again.  It's not there yet but please take care to stop it going that far.

It always seems to be TKD (with the various 'neo-Ninja' schools a short step behind) that stirs up this kind of mud.  

I can only say that it is not a good advert for either the arts or those that practise it that any discussion can turn down the same somewhat distasteful alley at the drop of a hat.

Mark A. Beardmore
MT Mentor

{Nearly put "Moderator" then; old habits die hard }


----------



## jks9199

ATTENTION ALL USERS

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Jks9199
Assistant Administrator 

Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Kong Soo Do

d1jinx said:


> If you truly see Poomse as a way to learn how to defend yourself then you truly have never studied TKD from a real master. Poomse in TKD werent designed to teach you how to defend yourself and rather than give and explaination and contribute to your "learning of TKD", I would prefer you find a TKD master and take a few decades of classes to learn the real meaning behind them. But it might be in a book somewhere to save you some time.



You may or may not accept what I'm saying, however, I'll use your statement(s) for others to consider. They may then disregard what I offer or they may look into it for themselves and then make an informed decision. To begin with, your first statement;



> If you truly see Poomse as a way to learn how to defend yourself then you truly have never studied TKD from a real master.



This is incorrect. Additionally, I know and have talked with several TKD BB's and masters that share this position on forms. If you don't see them as such, it is because you were not instructed in this venue. A person can only teach what they themselves have learned or researched. Do the majority accept this position? No. Perhaps because they feel it isn't as financially lucurative as the venue they now teach. Perhaps they have no need for the venue that they teach. Perhaps it is lack of interest and it can even be arrogance or ego. Note that I'm not assigning any of those things to anyone in particular. General statements of observations. TKD caters in large part to children. Children can keep the doors open. You're not going to teach children techniques that are...a bit more on the brutal side.



> Poomse in TKD werent designed to teach you how to defend yourself...



Generally speaking, this is correct. But only because the creators of the Poomse (in general) didn't have an understanding of what they really had their hands on, for the most part. From a b/p/k perspective the forms are fair, but not good. What needs to be understood, if you're following me this far, is that they are based upon movements learned from TKD's parent art i.e. Karate. Karate kata are well done and contain a plethora of information, well beyond the b/p/k perception. For example, the opening movements of Pinan Shodan can be demonstrated as a very effective shoulder lock & takedown. Taking the balance displacement principle it demonstrates further, if can be used from a standing or ground position with equal effectiveness. However, some will only see it as some sort of block, that I would contend isn't all that effective. Poomse take many of the movements of Karate kata and transfer them to TKD Poomse. The order of movements may be altered and the flow changed to meet the needs of the form from a b/p/k perspective. In essense, while many of the Karate 'letters' are present in TKD Poomse, some content can be lost in translation as many form creators, apparently, didn't always form complete sentences from the letters. Though there is enough content present from the cross-over to be able to effectively flesh out the form. In otherwords, Karate kata contain a complete novel of principles, strategies and tactics. TKD Poomse contain a somewhat abridge version, but the information is still there. A 'high block' that is used in a Karate kata is also present in a TKD Poomse. The flow of the principle may, or may not be as 'precise' due to what has been added to or taken away from the surrounding movements, but it can still be demonstrated as an effective locking principle.

As an example, I can meet with a TKD practitioner and, if he/she is interested, take one of their forms and show some of the things that are in it. When I'm FTF with someone, it is always a 'light bulb' moment for them. The normal response is along the lines of, 'wow...I've never seen it presented that way. This opens it up into all sorts of training possibilities'. And it does. Even a 'simple' form such as Il Jang can contain months or even years worth of material to train including practical locks, balance displacement etc. This type of understanding could take TKD and bring it to an entirely new level, if one wanted to do so. Many don't want to, or don't need to as their satisfied with what they have and it works for them personally. And that's fine. But it IS there for those that want to take TKD beyond b/p/k. 

With respect.


----------



## Gorilla

We have always been taught the practical usage of the techs in forms and Kata.  I don't buy that the TKD pioneers are lesser martial artists.  I believe that is what Kong Soo Do is implying


----------



## Archtkd

Kong Soo Do said:


> I think it would be of benefit to most to simply look at the bottom line as far as TKD:
> 
> 
> TKD is not a 2000 year old, indigenous Korean martial art.  It is Japanese/Okinawan Karate with a few other things mixed in from various sources.  That's okay.
> With the exception of a few Koreans (I can only think of one off the top of my head who was 5th or 7th Dan depending on the source you wish to believe) most 'seniors' originally were low or no rank practitioners in mainly Karate.
> TKD was created to shed the Japanese influence and recreate a national martial art.
> Originally, TKD wasn't sport.  That was added later.


I think most serious Kukkiwon taekwondo practitioners know that. Here are excerpts taken straight from the Kukkiwon Taekwondo Instructor textbook.


 ... The best place to start the story of the modern development of Taekwondo is just after Korea&#8217;s liberation from Japanese colonization at the end of World War II in 1945. In the period between 1944 and 1947, the five main schools that would later combine to become Taekwondo were opened ... At that time, these schools used various names to describe what the were teaching .... As can be seen  from this names not much at that time was given to foot techniques ....

... In the 1950s, taekwondo sparring still resembled the system used by Japanese Karate: the entire body was considered a target and not (sic) a contact was allowed. That reflected the belief that Taekwondo was first and foremost a method of self-defense where the entire body was a weapon and that contract (sic) between opponents would result in serious injury. 

... In the early 1960s, however, some Taekwondo leaders started to experiment with a radical system that would result in the development of a new martial sport different from anything ever seen before. This new martial sport would bear some important similarities to the tradional Korean game, taekkyon ....


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Gorilla said:


> We have always been taught the practical usage of the techs in forms and Kata. I don't buy that the TKD pioneers are lesser martial artists. I believe that is what Kong Soo Do is implying



Not precisely, I think they've done an excellent job with what they knew.  But no, I don't think that many of them were at the level of their counter-parts in Okinawa.  I know that may sound like a put-down, and it isn't meant to be, but I don't know how else to frame my position.  I think some Korean pioneers (read GM YOON) probably had an extensive understanding of what his arts contained.  But many pioneers were lower Dan grade when they returned to Korea.  No slam, no disrespect intented but this is how I view this topic.  I clearly see things in the forms that aren't generally taught or accepted.  To me, it is somewhat frustrating at times.  But also I view the arts from a SD perspective and have to remind myself that some don't.


----------



## ralphmcpherson

Regarding poomsae applications for self defence, I have to agree with Kong soo do. My GM's teacher played a part in developing the palgwe forms and my GM says they were definetly designed for self defence purposes, but then my GM will tell you everything in tkd is for self defence. As my instructor says "if you want sport, go play tennis, if you want fun and fitness go join an aerobics class".


----------



## chrispillertkd

Archtkd said:


> I think most serious Kukkiwon taekwondo practitioners know that. Here are excerpts taken straight from the Kukkiwon Taekwondo Instructor textbook.
> 
> 
> ... The best place to start the story of the modern development of Taekwondo is just after Korea&#8217;s liberation from Japanese colonization at the end of World War II in 1945. In the period between 1944 and 1947, the five main schools that would later combine to become Taekwondo were opened ... At that time, these schools used various names to describe what the were teaching .... As can be seen from this names not much at that time was given to foot techniques ....
> 
> ... In the 1950s, taekwondo sparring still resembled the system used by Japanese Karate: the entire body was considered a target and not (sic) a contact was allowed. That reflected the belief that Taekwondo was first and foremost a method of self-defense where the entire body was a weapon and that contract (sic) between opponents would result in serious injury.
> 
> ... In the early 1960s, however, some Taekwondo leaders started to experiment with a radical system that would result in the development of a new martial sport different from anything ever seen before. This new martial sport would bear some important similarities to the tradional Korean game, taekkyon ....



Interesting post. Thanks for the excerpt from the KKW book. I'm not a KKW Taekwon-Doin so it's nice to hear a different view on the development of Taekwon-Do, sometimes. 

One question for you, and this isn't a "gotcha" type of inquiry. The excerpt you quoted says, "The best place to start the story of the *modern* development of Taekwondo..." Is there anything in the textbook about the "ancient" development of TKD? I ask because in the material I've seen that covers the development of KMA in general, and Taekwon-Do in particular, it isn't uncommon to see a "History of Taekwon-Do" section start in the Three Kingdoms Period and then fast forward to 1973 with the founding of the Kukkiwon. Little if any mention of the Kwans, Taekwon-Do being taught to troops in Viet Nam, etc. 

Just curious.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

ralphmcpherson said:


> Regarding poomsae applications for self defence, I have to agree with Kong soo do. My GM's teacher played a part in developing the palgwe forms and my GM says they were definetly designed for self defence purposes, but then my GM will tell you everything in tkd is for self defence.



 Ralph, by any chance do you know the name of your GM's instructor? Is it Hyun, Jong Myun by any chance? 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Archtkd

chrispillertkd said:


> Interesting post. Thanks for the excerpt from the KKW book. I'm not a KKW Taekwon-Doin so it's nice to hear a different view on the development of Taekwon-Do, sometimes.
> 
> One question for you, and this isn't a "gotcha" type of inquiry. The excerpt you quoted says, "The best place to start the story of the *modern* development of Taekwondo..." Is there anything in the textbook about the "ancient" development of TKD? I ask because in the material I've seen that covers the development of KMA in general, and Taekwon-Do in particular, it isn't uncommon to see a "History of Taekwon-Do" section start in the Three Kingdoms Period and then fast forward to 1973 with the founding of the Kukkiwon. Little if any mention of the Kwans, Taekwon-Do being taught to troops in Viet Nam, etc.
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


 The Kukkiwon Kukkiwon Instructor Texbook, provided by the Kukkiwon 's World Taekwondo Academy, to all participants of the master instructor courses, touches briefly on the early history of Korean fighting/martial arts in the introduction, more as a primer to understanding Korean history and culture. The text does not directly tie those early fightin to the creation of taekwondo, the way that so many people assume, think or have misinterpreted from what some teachers have said. The text does state,  as you read in the earlier excerpts I posted, that the revised kicking methods being developed in the 60s did have strong roots in Taekyyon. The text does not mention the use of modern taekwondo in modern combat .i.e Vietnam or the Korean War.  

Part of that introduction in the text book reads thus: 

"The history of subak and taekkyon is a good illustration of one of the Korean people's like of spirited martial arts. Further, the development for subak, which emphasized hand techniques, to taekkyon, which emphasized foot techniques show the traditional preference in Korean culture for sports or activities which use the feet. Perhaps even more important to the later development of taekwondo is the tendency of Korean martial arts to value difficult skills over easier and simpler ones. This aspect of Korean culture was to play an important role in developing Taekwondo into the highly sophisticated martial sport as it is today."


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

dancingalone said:


> But they could be.  That's my perspective anyway and I am learning the KKW style now so I hope I don't speak as a total outsider.


They certainly can, and applications of the pumse are actually detailed in the textbooks.  

One thing that most people are unaware of is that the Kukkiwon curriculum is meant to serve as the common ground between the different kwans.  Thus unique teachings of each kwan (boonhae, additional forms, etc.) were not supposed to just be scrapped in favor of this new curriculum.

My TKD GM taught applications to the forms and had a fairly well developed hoshinsul in his curriculum.  He is also an IHF yukdan and former ROK hapkido instructor, so I know where it all came from.  

The point is that the Kukkiwon curriculum is not meant to be a self contained whole, but the foundation upon which a unified, but diverse art can exist.  Something that I would think many would welcome.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> I clearly see things in the forms that aren't generally taught or accepted.  To me, it is somewhat frustrating at times.  But also I view the arts from a SD perspective and have to remind myself that some don't.


Except that you really don't know what is generally taught or accepted.  You don't practice the art.  I do practice the art and much of your characterization of the forms is simply incorrect.  

The perspective that you view the art from is irrelevant, since you don't have the necessary knowledge to render an evaluation.  That is very clear from your posts in this thread.

The fact that you're frustrated by how you think Kukki taekwondo is taught should tell you that you aren't spending enough time in your own Kong soo do, or whatever it is that you actually practice.  

I have enough on my plate practicing TKD, HKD and Kendo without evaluating and critiquing other styles, styles that I don't know enough about to evaluate and critique anyway.


----------



## dancingalone

Daniel Sullivan said:


> They certainly can, and applications of the pumse are actually detailed in the textbooks.



Which textbooks do you refer to in specific?  The ones I am familiar with do NOT detail applications beyond the block, kick, punch level.  Which is fine and all, but we've been discussing about forms being repositories for more higher order information.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> One thing that most people are unaware of is that the Kukkiwon curriculum is meant to serve as the common ground between the different kwans.  Thus unique teachings of each kwan (boonhae, additional forms, etc.) were not supposed to just be scrapped in favor of this new curriculum.



Honestly I got the opposite impression from reading some of the posts written by puunui and mastercole.  The new curriculum created by the kwans coming together is supposed to be the latest, greatest information and taekwondoin should endeavor to update to current standards asap.  Maintaining older information, while certainly the case with many under the KKW umbrella, represents a state of noncompliance though puunui was always consistent in maintaining that everyone is noncompliant on some level.  

I didn't get the feeling that either gentleman felt there was much value to keeping old kwan material like the karate kata, etc.  Modernize or die.  And there's a certain logic to that line of reasoning when you think about it.

If I am wrong about my perception of their position, perhaps either or both could do me the favor of returning and clarifying what they think for me.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> The point is that the Kukkiwon curriculum is not meant to be a self contained whole, but the foundation upon which a unified, but diverse art can exist.  Something that I would think many would welcome.



Honestly I'd rather see the KKW create and endorse a curriculum that could provide consistent technique and standards across the whole of the art, including SD, weapons, grappling, etc.  I think that is something many would be interested in, instead of working with hodge-podge buckets from here and there.


----------



## dancingalone

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I do practice the art and much of your characterization of the forms is simply incorrect.



Which of KSD's characterizations out of curiosity (aside from the reworked thing which we've already addressed)?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

dancingalone said:


> Which textbooks do you refer to in specific?  The ones I am familiar with do NOT detail applications beyond the block, kick, punch level.  Which is fine and all, but we've been discussing about forms being repositories for more higher order information.


The current one.  I have the softbound two volume version.  The applications are not overly elaborate, but they do mitigate against some of the things that KSD said about the forms.



dancingalone said:


> Honestly I got the opposite impression from reading some of the posts written by puunui and mastercole.  The new curriculum created by the kwans coming together is supposed to be the latest, greatest information and taekwondoin should endeavor to update to current standards asap.  Maintaining older information, while certainly the case with many under the KKW umbrella, represents a state of noncompliance though puunui was always consistent in maintaining that everyone is noncompliant on some level.


I have always been under the impression that if one was teaching the old and not the new, that they were out of compliance.  I'm not saying that the KKW was trying to endorse adding all the new curriculum to the old, but that it is meant to be the foundation, and if they wanted to teach the old, then they were not prohibited from doing so.



dancingalone said:


> I didn't get the feeling that either gentleman felt there was much value to keeping old kwan material like the karate kata, etc.  Modernize or die.  And there's a certain logic to that line of reasoning when you think about it.
> 
> If I am wrong about my perception of their position, perhaps either or both could do me the favor of returning and clarifying what they think for me.


Wasn't where I was going with it.  I view it more as the taegeuk pumse replacing whatever forms were used before, but things such as boonhae and hoshinsul, or whatever was taught in addition to the pumse.  



dancingalone said:


> Honestly I'd rather see the KKW create and endorse a curriculum that could provide consistent technique and standards across the whole of the art, including SD, weapons, grappling, etc.  I think that is something many would be interested in, instead of working with hodge-podge buckets from here and there.


While I agree, if they did that, then the same people that complain about the curriculum not being thorough enough would simply whine that the KKW was telling them how to run their school.  They're successful as they are, so why change to satisfy people who are simply going to find excuses to criticize them regardless of what they do?


----------



## dancingalone

Daniel Sullivan said:


> The current one.  I have the softbound two volume version.  The applications are not overly elaborate, but they do mitigate against some of the things that KSD said about the forms.



Hmm, I own those but someone seems to have 'borrowed' them at the school.  To be frank, I don't think they do much for me in the way of applications, but I will recheck at the earliest opportunity.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> I have always been under the impression that if one was teaching the old and not the new, that they were out of compliance.  I'm not saying that the KKW was trying to endorse adding all the new curriculum to the old, but that it is meant to be the foundation, and if they wanted to teach the old, then they were not prohibited from doing so.
> 
> Wasn't where I was going with it. I view it more as the taegeuk pumse replacing whatever forms were used before, but things such as boonhae and hoshinsul, or whatever was taught in addition to the pumse.



With regard to forms, there's definitely been a certain feeling expressed here that there's not much value for a modern KKW taekwondoin to practice the Palgwe, much less the Chang Hon or the karate kata.

And while your grandmaster may have taught 'good' applications beyond the b-k-p variety, I do believe he would be in the < 1% range that do.  My honest opinion formed from lots of traveling and experience back when I was spending my trust fund and not doing much else other than training MA.  I've darkened the doorway of many different MA schools, some run by very highly ranked and respected teachers.  Just the truth as I see it - no disparagement intended to anyone or any art.    



Daniel Sullivan said:


> While I agree, if they did that, then the same people that complain about the curriculum not being thorough enough would simply whine that the KKW was telling them how to run their school.  They're successful as they are, so why change to satisfy people who are simply going to find excuses to criticize them regardless of what they do?



Because it would be a genuine service to taekwondoin worldwide.  It would address many of the shortcomings, real or perceived, existing in their curriculum.  As a school owner, I would see it as a positive asset for KKW affiliated dojang and I sincerely hope it is something that will happen eventually.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

dancingalone said:


> Which of KSD's characterizations out of curiosity (aside from the reworked thing which we've already addressed)?


There's that.  Then there's the whole 'shin bone vs. radial bone' thing, something that I have never been taught to do in over thirty years.  By anyone.  That was the point of mentioning the applications in the textbook.  

Each form in the textbook has a set of photos to demonstrate the applications, none of which involve using the small bone of the forearm to block against the shin bone of the attacker.  The application for blocks against kicks all involve striking the side of the lower leg, which would be a deflection, not a block.  The closes thing in any of the pumse to a forearm versus shin block is the otkeoro arae makki ("X" block) in taegeuk chiljang (page 304) against an apchagi, and that really doesn't fit what he described.  

Grabbing and pulling is detailed to some extent as well.  Page 255 in discussing taegeuk sajang, for example.

Pages 37-52 detail all manner of hand/arm attacks, none of which are sport related, and some of which also appear in the forms.  Also, all of Kukki taekwondo's techniques are not contained in the taegeuk pumse.  There are another eight forms after black belt, starting with Koryu.

Then there's the whole issue of what each pumse represents; each one is a different palgwe (bagua) and the philosophical elements that go with them.


----------



## ralphmcpherson

chrispillertkd said:


> Ralph, by any chance do you know the name of your GM's instructor? Is it Hyun, Jong Myun by any chance?
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


I will try and find out. It was my instructor who originally told me, the name you quote does ring a bell.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

dancingalone said:


> Hmm, I own those but someone seems to have 'borrowed' them at the school.  To be frank, I don't think they do much for me in the way of applications, but I will recheck at the earliest opportunity.
> 
> With regard to forms, there's definitely been a certain feeling expressed here that there's not much value for a modern KKW taekwondoin to practice the Palgwe, much less the Chang Hon or the karate kata.
> 
> And while your grandmaster may have taught 'good' applications beyond the b-k-p variety, I do believe he would be in the < 1% range that do.  My honest opinion formed from lots of traveling and experience back when I was spending my trust fund and not doing much else other than training MA.  I've darkened the doorway of many different MA schools, some run by very highly ranked and respected teachers.  Just the truth as I see it - no disparagement intended to anyone or any art.


Just to be clear, I'm not implying that you're going to see all kinds of hidden jujutsu in the Taegeuk pumse.  Only that applications are in the textbook and they verify that the way that I was taught the forms wasn't radically different then the way the Kukkiwon intends them to be taught.

My GM did not do elaborate classes on the applications of the forms specifically.  What he did was to teach hoshinsul that made use of the techniques in the forms.  He would occasionally say something along the lines of, 'you know, like when you do Taegeuk samjang...'

The hoshinsul that he had involved defenses against grabs and such, and that was all culled from hapkido, and was part of self defense classes (we had a forms night, a self defense night, a sparring night, and an applications night, not necessarily in that order).  It was a very holistic class.  Once he started teaching hapkido as a separate curriculum, the class became less holistic and I ended up in the hapkido classes because I wanted more of those elements.



dancingalone said:


> Because it would be a genuine service to taekwondoin worldwide.  It would address many of the shortcomings, real or perceived, existing in their curriculum.  As a school owner, I would see it as a positive asset for KKW affiliated dojang and I sincerely hope it is something that will happen eventually.


As I said before, I agree.  But as it is now, they have little incentive to do so.  Aside from what I'd said earlier, I don't think that the individual school owners are asking for such a course of action in meaningful numbers.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Except that you really don't know what is generally taught or accepted.



Your assumption is incorrect Daniel.  In addition to my own training, I've trained with and taught those that were very proficient in KKW TKD.  You may not agree with me, but don't tell me what I know, what I've trained in or the training of those I've worked with.


> The application for blocks against kicks all involve striking the side  of the lower leg, which would be a deflection, not a block.



No, they don't.  Not every angle of kick is going to allow you to get close to the side of the lower leg.  And since your reaction is going to be slower than their action, you'll will have to take what you can get as far as a block.  Claiming that you are going to be able to strike the side of the lower leg, with any degree of accuracy in a chaotic fight, with a determined attacker, as a response under duress is fallacy.  You might get lucky once, depending upon the type of kick and the attackers level of skill, but it isn't something to build a sound strategy around.  That is why it isn't a block or deflection movement.  It is a close in strike from grappling range.  Has nothing at all to do with a block/deflection of an incoming kick.

Take a look at Il Jang for an example.  I've seen the down block in this form most often performed by performing the 'block/deflection' without first turning the head to the side towards the incoming threat.  This means that the individual is relying upon peripheral vision to turn, execute a downward block/deflection as a reaction response to an attack that has already been launched by an attacker from the side.  If the attacker is said to be attacking from the front, then you've turned your side to him while he's still in the front with a block/deflection that isn't going to take a full grown man to the side, yet the follow up is a straight punch to the side...and he isn't going to be there.  A much better interpretation is you and the attacker are at grappling range, such as a clinch i.e. you've been jumped.  You turn your body into him while striking with a hammer fist into his groin followed by the punch where he is going to be hunched over.  It is difficult to put the movements into words and much easier to show the form and then show this interpretation live.  This is not the only interpretation, I've also seen it used to demonstrate a knife hand strike and balance displacement throw.  Either one demonstrates a valid principle that is a much higher % defensive movement that that of the b/p/k explanation.  

This is not to say that the b/p/k interpretation for some movements are incorrect.  Many are fine as presented.  I prefer to look for principles of both as it provides the most meat for the student to train with.  More bang for the buck.  Do I expect everyone to accept my position?  No, I do not.  And trying to put into words what is a dynamic continuous motion isn't easy so I'll accept the blame if what I'm saying isn't coming across.  I've had interpretations explained in writing to me that don't make sense but then see the demonstration and it all clicks.  

With respect.


----------



## Archtkd

Kong Soo Do said:


> Take a look at Il Jang for an example.  I've seen the down block in this form most often performed by performing the 'block/deflection' without first turning the head to the side towards the incoming threat.  This means that the individual is relying upon peripheral vision to turn, execute a downward block/deflection as a reaction response to an attack that has already been launched by an attacker from the side.  If the attacker is said to be attacking from the front, then you've turned your side to him while he's still in the front with a block/deflection that isn't going to take a full grown man to the side, yet the follow up is a straight punch to the side...and he isn't going to be there.



I'm a little lost. Could you elaborate on this further. I can't figure out if what you are describing is how you learned Taeguk Il Jang, teach or understand it. 

This is ( 



 ) is the official Kukkiwon version of taeguk Il Jang, including an example of how it might be applied. It's performed by LEE Chong-Kwan, 8th Dan, general manager of the Academic Department of the Kukkiwon, vice president of Poomsae Special Committee of the WTF.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> Your assumption is incorrect Daniel.  In addition to my own training, I've trained with and taught those that were very proficient in KKW TKD.  You may not agree with me, but don't tell me what I know, what I've trained in or the training of those I've worked with.


I don't have to tell you what you've trained in.  Frankly, I don't care.  I base my assessment on what you post.  I am very familiar with KKW taekwondo and I can tell that you are not by what you post.  



Kong Soo Do said:


> No, they don't.  Not every angle of kick is going to allow you to get close to the side of the lower leg.  And since your reaction is going to be slower than their action, you'll will have to take what you can get as far as a block.  Claiming that you are going to be able to strike the side of the lower leg, with any degree of accuracy in a chaotic fight, with a determined attacker, as a response under duress is fallacy.  You might get lucky once, depending upon the type of kick and the attackers level of skill, but it isn't something to build a sound strategy around.  That is why it isn't a block or deflection movement.  It is a close in strike from grappling range.  Has nothing at all to do with a block/deflection of an incoming kick.


I made no claims about guarantees of what one can or cannot do in a fight.  Don't change the subject.  You made a specific statement about a specific technique that you claim is taught in the pumse.  It isn't taught in the pumse. 



Kong Soo Do said:


> Take a look at Il Jang for an example. * I've seen the down block in this form most often performed by performing the 'block/deflection' without first turning the head to the side towards the incoming threat.*  This means that the individual is relying upon peripheral vision to turn, execute a downward block/deflection as a reaction response to an attack that has already been launched by an attacker from the side.  If the attacker is said to be attacking from the front, then you've turned your side to him while he's still in the front with a block/deflection that isn't going to take a full grown man to the side, yet the follow up is a straight punch to the side...and he isn't going to be there.  A much better interpretation is you and the attacker are at grappling range, such as a clinch i.e. you've been jumped.  You turn your body into him while striking with a hammer fist into his groin followed by the punch where he is going to be hunched over.  It is difficult to put the movements into words and much easier to show the form and then show this interpretation live.  This is not the only interpretation, I've also seen it used to demonstrate a knife hand strike and balance displacement throw.  Either one demonstrates a valid principle that is a much higher % defensive movement that that of the b/p/k explanation.


Except that that isn't how the pumse is taught.  And not just by my instructors over the course of thirty years.  You're simply making a straw man to knock down and then pontificating about it.



Kong Soo Do said:


> This is not to say that the b/p/k interpretation for some movements are incorrect.  Many are fine as presented.  I prefer to look for principles of both as it provides the most meat for the student to train with.  More bang for the buck.  Do I expect everyone to accept my position?  No, I do not.  And trying to put into words what is a dynamic continuous motion isn't easy so I'll accept the blame if what I'm saying isn't coming across.  I've had interpretations explained in writing to me that don't make sense but then see the demonstration and it all clicks.


Again, this has nothing to do with your position.  Your position about forms in general is fine, as it is your position to have.  

You have, however, made statements about the taegeuk pumse which are simply not correct, which is unrelated to your position.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Archtkd said:


> I'm a little lost. Could you elaborate on this further. I can't figure out if what you are describing is how you learned Taeguk Il Jang, teach or understand it.
> 
> This is (
> 
> 
> 
> ) is the official Kukkiwon version of taeguk Il Jang, including an example of how it might be applied. It's performed by LEE Chong-Kwan, 8th Dan, general manager of the Academic Department of the Kukkiwon, vice president of Poomsae Special Committee of the WTF.


You're lost because what he's describing isn't there.  

What he's claiming is that the pumse is taught with the person turning their body without first turning their head to face an attacker from the side, executing arae makki.  Notice that the head begins to turn, prior to the body beginning to  turn; this is exactly what he claims isn't happening.  Obviously, it is  happening.

And his comment about the block and a full grown man and straight punches to the side is inaccurate as well.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Archtkd said:


> I'm a little lost. Could you elaborate on this further. I can't figure out if what you are describing is how you learned Taeguk Il Jang, teach or understand it.
> 
> This is (
> 
> 
> 
> ) is the official Kukkiwon version of taeguk Il Jang, including an example of how it might be applied. It's performed by LEE Chong-Kwan, 8th Dan, general manager of the Academic Department of the Kukkiwon, vice president of Poomsae Special Committee of the WTF.



Thank you for the video link.  This is a great example of what I'm talking about.  In the form, he is facing 'us' at the beginning.  He then makes a 90 degree turn to what would be his left.  That is where the down block is executed as well as the straight punch.  However, in the application portion at the end of the video he is blocking/deflecting a straight kick from the front and then punching.  Where is the 90 degree turn before the down block and strike?  It isn't there.  So why would it be in the form?  I submit it isn't there for looks, that it has a purpose.  A purpose that hasn't been accounted for or included in the application.  Now, let me stop for just a moment and address the application as presented in the video.  It looks great!  Might even work....as long as it is a straight kick that isn't followed up with any other form of attack.  In otherwords, if the attacker straight kicks you with no thought to follow up or forward momentum then you've got a great movement.  However, if he does any other type of kick, such as turning his hip so that the kick is coming in, shin first, from the side to plow into your knee, common peronial, hip or floating ribs then or if he's coming in hard with momentum (read:  actual attack) and a follow up attack then this movement is going to get the you hurt.  It won't defend against that type of kick, nor does it take into account momentum of follow up attacks.  So this movement is a one trick pony.  And you (general you) will have to determine, under duress, as a reaction to his already committed action what type of kick he has already launched and whether or not their is a follow up with his hands and/or weapon to then decide if this is the proper movement to consider using.  In otherwords, it is a low % movement, dependent upon a certain form of attack.

This may very well, and of course is the type of interpretation that is offered in the majority of schools when a 'front' attack is considered.  I've seen it from the 'side' as well which considers the 90 degree turn prior to the block.  Either way I would not do this in a chaotic fight, nor would I ever teach a student to do this.  

Thus I submit that it has an alternate interpretation/application.  Not one put forth by 'official' sources.  I don't believe they consider it either due to simply not knowing it or not wanting to acknowledge it as it isn't the direction they wish the art to go, or a combination.  And they are free to offer any application they wish, but I submit that this is 'more show and no go' as far as a real fight based upon what I've tried to explain.  I submit that this type of movement can be found in Karate kata i.e. down block and straight punch.  Therefore I submit that if it has an alternate non-b/p/k application in Karate kata then it will have the same/similar application in Korean forms whether they form originator designed it that way or not.  I submit that the application may not be as 'clean' in a Korean form as in the Karate kata because somethings are lost in the carry-over.  But I also submit that a Korean form can be viewed objectively and that information extracted and used to form principles, tactics and strategy that isn't normally associated with a typical TKD school curriculum.  

For this particular movement I've already tried to describe on application and state their is another application.  And let me tell you, it isn't easy to describe a dynamic set of movements for a chaotic set of events!  But I submit that one alternate application for this opening movement is as I describe in my above post up the page.  It takes into account the 90 degree turn the form clearly shows, but that the b/p/k application doesn't.  It demonstrates a more realistic application for the down block, which is actually a very effective hammer fist to a vulnerable portion of the attacker's anatomy.  It demonstrates the effectiveness of the follow up straight punch, again a high % strike in this circumstance.  It takes into account the body position of the attacker coming in from the side in a realistic attack.  

The alternate application I've seen, as presented by Simon O'Neill is also highly effective in a chaotic fight and demonstrates an effective balance displacement technique.  Consider this;  right now Il Jang is a required form to reach the next colored belt.  That's fine for children.  But for adults, why not make it something more than a cookie-cutter requirement for the next colored belt.  This form can be fleshed out with a plethora of gross motor skill movement applications that would expand the students knowledge base a hundred-fold over what it is currently.  Movement applications that are much higher % movements in a fight.  This is a viable teaching method even if the student isn't SD focused.  And for those that are more inclined to SD in their training, it turns TKD more into something akin to Hapkido/Jujutsu just as Karate that is focused on SD is more akin to Jujutsu and not just b/p/k.  Look at the writings of Karate pioneers.  See what they say about 'blocks'.  You'll find information in some resources from pioneers stating that blocks are actually strikes.  I'd suggest taking a look at what people like Iain Abernethy, Geoff Thompson, Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neill offer and then see if it is of any interest to you (general you).  If not, simply discard the information and you're no worse for the wear.  But then, like me, you might see kata/forms in a whole new light that takes your training to an entirely new level.  Rather than taking Il Jang and using it for a month or two to get to the next students colored belt, you could take it and have a year or more worth of training beyond the b/p/k methodology.

Peace


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> Thank you for the video link.  This is a  great example of what I'm talking about.  In the form, he is facing 'us'  at the beginning.  He then makes a 90 degree turn to what would be his  left.  That is where the down block is executed as well as the straight  punch.  However, in the application portion at the end of the video he  is blocking/deflecting a straight kick from the front and then punching.   Where is the 90 degree turn before the down block and strike?  It  isn't there.  So why would it be in the form?  I submit it isn't there  for looks, that it has a purpose.  A purpose that hasn't been accounted  for or included in the application.  Now, let me stop for just a moment  and address the application as presented in the video.  It looks great!   Might even work....as long as it is a straight kick that isn't followed  up with any other form of attack.  In otherwords, if the attacker  straight kicks you with no thought to follow up or forward momentum then  you've got a great movement.  However, if he does any other type of  kick, such as turning his hip so that the kick is coming in, shin first,  from the side to plow into your knee, common peronial, hip or floating  ribs then or if he's coming in hard with momentum (read:  actual attack)  and a follow up attack then this movement is going to get the you hurt.   It won't defend against that type of kick, nor does it take into  account momentum of follow up attacks.  So this movement is a one trick  pony.  And you (general you) will have to determine, under duress, as a  reaction to his already committed action what type of kick he has  already launched and whether or not their is a follow up with his hands  and/or weapon to then decide if this is the proper movement to consider  using.  In otherwords, it is a low % movement, dependent upon a certain  form of attack.
> 
> This may very well, and of course is the type of interpretation that is  offered in the majority of schools when a 'front' attack is considered.   I've seen it from the 'side' as well which considers the 90 degree turn  prior to the block.  Either way I would not do this in a chaotic fight,  nor would I ever teach a student to do this.
> 
> Thus I submit that it has an alternate interpretation/application.  Not  one put forth by 'official' sources.  I don't believe they consider it  either due to simply not knowing it or not wanting to acknowledge it as  it isn't the direction they wish the art to go, or a combination.  And  they are free to offer any application they wish, but I submit that this  is 'more show and no go' as far as a real fight based upon what I've  tried to explain.  I submit that this type of movement can be found in  Karate kata i.e. down block and straight punch.  Therefore I submit that  if it has an alternate non-b/p/k application in Karate kata then it  will have the same/similar application in Korean forms whether they form  originator designed it that way or not.  I submit that the application  may not be as 'clean' in a Korean form as in the Karate kata because  somethings are lost in the carry-over.  But I also submit that a Korean  form can be viewed objectively and that information extracted and used  to form principles, tactics and strategy that isn't normally associated  with a typical TKD school curriculum.
> 
> For this particular movement I've already tried to describe on  application and state their is another application.  And let me tell  you, it isn't easy to describe a dynamic set of movements for a chaotic  set of events!  But I submit that one alternate application for this  opening movement is as I describe in my above post up the page.  It  takes into account the 90 degree turn the form clearly shows, but that  the b/p/k application doesn't.  It demonstrates a more realistic  application for the down block, which is actually a very effective  hammer fist to a vulnerable portion of the attacker's anatomy.  It  demonstrates the effectiveness of the follow up straight punch, again a  high % strike in this circumstance.  It takes into account the body  position of the attacker coming in from the side in a realistic attack.
> 
> The alternate application I've seen, as presented by Simon O'Neill is  also highly effective in a chaotic fight and demonstrates an effective  balance displacement technique.  Consider this;  right now Il Jang is a  required form to reach the next colored belt.  That's fine for children.   But for adults, why not make it something more than a cookie-cutter  requirement for the next colored belt.  This form can be fleshed out  with a plethora of gross motor skill movement applications that would  expand the students knowledge base a hundred-fold over what it is  currently.  Movement applications that are much higher % movements in a  fight.  This is a viable teaching method even if the student isn't SD  focused.  And for those that are more inclined to SD in their training,  it turns TKD more into something akin to Hapkido/Jujutsu just as Karate  that is focused on SD is more akin to Jujutsu and not just b/p/k.  Look  at the writings of Karate pioneers.  See what they say about 'blocks'.   You'll find information in some resources from pioneers stating that  blocks are actually strikes.  I'd suggest taking a look at what people  like Iain Abernethy, Geoff Thompson, Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neill  offer and then see if it is of any interest to you (general you).  If  not, simply discard the information and you're no worse for the wear.   But then, like me, you might see kata/forms in a whole new light that  takes your training to an entirely new level.  Rather than taking Il  Jang and using it for a month or two to get to the next students colored  belt, you could take it and have a year or more worth of training  beyond the b/p/k methodology.
> 
> Peace



Even with the video, you are incapable of rendering a coherent evaluation of this pumse.  Again, your posts betray your lack of knowledge.


----------



## miguksaram

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I have enough on my plate practicing TKD, HKD and Kendo without evaluating and critiquing other styles, styles that I don't know enough about to evaluate and critique anyway.


I have an undying urge to give you a guy hug right now.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Even with the video, you are incapable of rendering a coherent evaluation of this pumse.  Again, your posts betray your lack of knowledge.



What a well thought out reply.  I don't think you're seeing what I have to offer for the same reason a thief doesn't see a policeman...he isn't really looking.  Your loss Daniel.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> What a well thought out reply.  I don't think you're seeing what I have to offer for the same reason a thief doesn't see a policeman...he isn't really looking.  Your loss Daniel.


Sorry David, you don't know what you're looking at.  You're grasping at straws trying to maintain your carefully invented persona.  But this isn't larping.  The man's head clearly turns prior to his body turning.  And that doesn't change no matter how many paragraphs of nonsense you choose to post.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Whatever Daniel.  You may not understand the point(s) I've made, but despite your trying to paint a negative picture of me to cover the weakness of your argument, somebody will objectively look at what I'm saying and look into it for themselves and then make an informed decision for themselves.  It was for them that I'm willing to take the flak from those that don't want to peek outside their comfort zone.

I'm stepping out of this thread now Daniel.  I've stated what I intended to state for others consideration.  Feel free to zing me all you wish.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> Whatever Daniel.  You may not understand the point(s) I've made, but despite your trying to paint a negative picture of me to cover the weakness of your argument, somebody will objectively look at what I'm saying and look into it for themselves and then make an informed decision for themselves.  It was for them that I'm willing to take the flak from those that don't want to peek outside their comfort zone.


Uh huh.  Sorry Mr. Shultz, but it is your argument that is lacking.  You're just pouting because you've been found out.



Kong Soo Do said:


> I'm stepping out of this thread now Daniel.  I've stated what I intended to state for others consideration.  Feel free to zing me all you wish.


No interest in zinging you, Mr. Schultz.  You've done that to yourself.  If you are truly stepping out of this thread, then the topic will move on.  I have already responded to your TKD fiction and lies with facts.


----------



## dancingalone

It seems to me that the two of you are simply talking about different things from different perspectives.  Bah, enough said.


----------



## d1jinx

dancingalone said:


> It seems to me that the two of you are simply talking about different things from different perspectives. Bah, enough said.



but only 1 of them is right and is making sure to tell us that and profess his knowledge of all that is KKW TKD, when he himself is not.


----------



## Archtkd

Kong Soo Do said:


> Thank you for the video link. This is a great example of what I'm talking about. In the form, he is facing 'us' at the beginning. He then makes a 90 degree turn to what would be his left. That is where the down block is executed as well as the straight punch. However, in the application portion at the end of the video he is blocking/deflecting a straight kick from the front and then punching. Where is the 90 degree turn before the down block and strike? It isn't there. So why would it be in the form? I submit it isn't there for looks, that it has a purpose. A purpose that hasn't been accounted for or included in the application. Now, let me stop for just a moment and address the application as presented in the video. It looks great! Might even work....as long as it is a straight kick that isn't followed up with any other form of attack. In otherwords, if the attacker straight kicks you with no thought to follow up or forward momentum then you've got a great movement. However, if he does any other type of kick, such as turning his hip so that the kick is coming in, shin first, from the side to plow into your knee, common peronial, hip or floating ribs then or if he's coming in hard with momentum (read: actual attack) and a follow up attack then this movement is going to get the you hurt. It won't defend against that type of kick, nor does it take into account momentum of follow up attacks. So this movement is a one trick pony. And you (general you) will have to determine, under duress, as a reaction to his already committed action what type of kick he has already launched and whether or not their is a follow up with his hands and/or weapon to then decide if this is the proper movement to consider using. In otherwords, it is a low % movement, dependent upon a certain form of attack.



Someone who's wise recently told me something about us Americans that I thought was very enlightening: We can walk into the best sushi restaurant in the world -- in Tokyo -- and when we are served with the mouth watering offerings that the establishmenthas has to offer we will wonder why the waitress forgot to provide us with ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, barbeque source, cayenne, or some other bizzare condiment that we are accustomed to splattering on our pink slime laden hamburgers. Some of us might get so miffed from the bitter experience at the Tokyo hole-in-the wall that when we get back home we decide o open up our own "sushi grills." In those grills we can serve charcoal-smoked and flame-seared "sushi" smothered in Louisiana hot sauce and hog oil, "the way it was suppossed to be done," by the chefs in Japan.


----------



## punisher73

http://www.amazon.com/Taegeuk-Ciphe...6026/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336413705&sr=8-1

Since the book was referenced, Mr. O'Neill's book the "Taegeuk Cipher" talks about how these forms were based on the japanese kata and since many of the sequences were the same had the same applications.  What is interesting, is the assumption that the applications were not known or ever shown.

As to Itosu's Pinan katas being for "children", I think that is another fallacy when really looked at.  Itosu did alter some things to make karate more accessible.  He created the Pinan kata series for ALL his students.  The adults learned these kata as well, and we know that they were based on other existing kata.  I would say that the Pinan's are just a more distilled version of his complete system and the study of the other kata fleshed out things highlighted in the Pinan.  Then we move to Funakoshi and how he changed karate for children when teaching in Japan.  What did that mean?  I don't think it meant the techniques themselves in all cases.  When Funakoshi was teaching in Japan, they were building their imperial army, so teaching children meant teaching them the military way.  Look at how Japanese karate is trained and it is pure military style.

I think the pendelum on TKD history is swinging back the other way.  When it was first used when Gen. Choi promoted it, we know that they were honest that it was mainly japanese karate, then the push that it was taekyon and that TKD was suddenly an ancient martial art.  Now, with the advent of better research and more connection between countries and schools, people are again looking at it's history differently.  So depending on who/how you were taught this might not be anything new, or you may wonder why they made up their history.


----------



## SahBumNimRush

dancingalone said:


> It seems to me that the two of you are simply talking about different things from different perspectives.  Bah, enough said.



To call what anyone else is doing "wrong" is simply lack of perspective IMHO.  It either works or it doesn't work, and an art would have no use for something if it did not work.  I am not a KKW practitioner, although I will admit I have had increasing interest since my short time here on MT, but I would not dare to say anything a KKW practitioner did was wrong.  Arts and styles have different focuses and different intentions for things, so what?  

Can I glean a different focus or intent by watching or learning what other arts/styles do with a similar technique?  ABSOLUTELY!  But I wouldn't dare attempt to tell them that their intent/focus/purpose is wrong.  

I greatly appreciate everyone's perspectives.  I try to keep my mind more open than my proverbial mouth on here, so I may not post as much, but I get a great deal of knowledge from everyone on here (yes, especially those who have chosen to leave recently).  

75 Down blocks? or just one?  That is entirely up to you, your style/art, your instructor.  I teach many applications in my self defense and 1 step sparring that come directly from _movements_ found in our forms, and I refer to them as such.  But when I teach the form, it is basically taught as a "down block."  I know many on here that teach from both extremes (one basic application - many, many, many applications) and from somewhere in between.  My instructor never taught that a down block was anything other than a down block when it came to forms, others do.  I do my best to introduce Boonhae with my students for each of their new forms, but I introduce it in SD and 1 step, not in the form itself.  Just my particular way of doing things, and I don't think how anyone else does it is wrong or right (really it is none of my business).  

The application at the end of the KKW Taeguk Il Jang works, what's wrong with that?  Are their others?  SURE.

This one is _similar_ (not quite the same, but the closest thing I found on YT) in nature to one that I teach, that deals with the turning movement, as found in the first movement of a form:






Anyway, MY point is, I appreciate everyone's POV on here, and I'd hate to see more of my MTer's go the way of Puunui and Mastercole because of heated debates.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Thank you.  I would offer this link http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/articles

Specifically the Pinan/Heian series and the Basics of Bunkai series for anyone wishing to research additional information.  I agree with his premise.  I would also recommend the Pinan/Heia DVD as well.  One can then make a more informed decision to either look into it further or disregard it completely as they see fit.  Stuart Anslow also has a book on it (I forget the name sorry) as well as the Totally TKD e-magazine.  He is a member here and can be contacted in several places.  They do a much better job than I do of explaining this line of thought.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

punisher73 said:


> http://www.amazon.com/Taegeuk-Ciphe...6026/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336413705&sr=8-1
> 
> Since the book was referenced, Mr. O'Neill's book the "Taegeuk Cipher" talks about how these forms were based on the japanese kata and since many of the sequences were the same had the same applications.  What is interesting, is the assumption that the applications were not known or ever shown.


It should be noted that there isn't any debate on this thread (so far) about whether or not taekwondo has its roots in karate.  We all pretty much agree.  

Nor is there any debate that taekwondo is not overly strong with regards to applications to the forms.  The forms simply are not taught in that way.  I've trained in more than one taekwondo school and I have never seen the forms consistently broken down the way that they are in karate bunkai.

Schools where I have trained have relied a lot on one steps to teach those applications.  Not a question of better or worse; simply a different way of teaching it.

I do not agree, however, that the Taegeuk pumse are just 'reworked karate kata.'  

Regarding the Taegeuk cipher, I have heard nothing but praise for the content, though I have heard that the photography is not best in class.


----------



## Archtkd

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Nor is there any debate that taekwondo is not overly strong with regards to applications to the forms.  The forms simply are not taught in that way.  I've trained in more than one taekwondo school and I have never seen the forms consistently broken down the way that they are in karate bunkai.



It's for that reason that Kukkiwon taekwondo training under many good teachers is always broken up into five key and distinct elements: basics (kibon dongjak); forms (poomsae); sparring (kyorugi), breaking (kyupka)  and self defense (hoshinsul).


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Nor is there any debate that taekwondo is not overly strong with regards to applications to the forms.  The forms simply are not taught in that way.



Yes, this is what I'm trying to convey.



> I have never seen the forms consistently broken down the way that they are in karate bunkai.



Again yes, this is what I'm trying to convey.


> I do not agree, however, that the Taegeuk pumse are just 'reworked karate kata.'



Then we are in disagreement on this point.  But I'd ask how much research you've done on 'the other side' if any.



> Regarding the Taegeuk cipher, I have heard nothing but praise for the  content, though I have heard that the photography is not best in class.



I consider Simon a good friend and an excellent TKDin.  He was a regular contributor on my board for a long time.  He was kind enough to mention me (and others) in his book based upon my contributions and our talks.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> Then we are in disagreement on this point.  But I'd ask how much research you've done on 'the other side' if any.


I've answered previously, but I will restate.  

About eight months or so of Tangsudo at the recreational department through TKA and about four years during the school year only; totals out to about three, of Shotokan in high school by one of the teachers there.  No dan grade.   Aside from that reading up on the subject.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I've answered previously, but I will restate.
> 
> About eight months or so of Tangsudo at the recreational department through TKA and about four years during the school year only; totals out to about three, of Shotokan in high school by one of the teachers there.  No dan grade.   Aside from that reading up on the subject.



Have you read any books or articles from Mr. O'Neill, Master Anslow or Master Abernethy?  Have you seen any of the DVD presentations or attended a seminar that addresses what I've been discussing?

To touch on Mr. O'Neill's book, page 68 looks at the opening movement of Il Jang.  From his perspective, it is an effective forearm strike to the upper torso of an attacker, followed by a balance displacement technique to off-balance the attacker and a forearm strike to the back of the attacker's head.  This is not the only interpretation of this movement, I have described my own in this thread.  I do not claim mine is the only or best.  But I will state my opinion that it, as well as Mr. O'Neill's interpretation is a much higher % movement against a determined attacker than what is offered in the above link to the form video i.e. down block against a front kick and straight punch.  That is _an_ interpretation, I do not feel it is the _best_ interpretation.  I do not say, again, that my interpretation or Mr. O'Neill's is what the TKD pioneers had in mind.  As I stated, and this isn't a shot at them, they did the best they could with the training they had at the time of the forms development.  This does not negate the principles that are held within the form that can be linked to similar movements with Karate kata.  

Il Jang for those not interested in SD can simply stand 'as is'.  For those interested in SD, Il Jang like Pinan Shodan can contain a wealth of information.  I could easil spend six months with a student on just this form and at the end they will have learned defenses from both typical arms length fighting distance and grappling distance.  They would have learned CQC, balance displacement, throws, locks and numerous other principles of value to a SD practitioner.  Il Jang would not be a 'beginners' form to quickly learn for the next colored belt.  It would be a catalog of valuable principles, tactics and strategies upon which they can build.  I agree with much of what Masters Abernethy and Anslow as well as Mr. O'Neill propose.  

That is my viewpoint, that is how I teach.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Heian shodan: 



Taegeuk Iljang: 




While I would say that the latter was certainly influenced by the former, I would not say that it is a reworked version of the former.

Heian Sandan: 



Taegeuk Samjang: 




I would say that there is really no similarity between the two.  

Heian Godan: 



Taegeuk Ohjang: 




No similarity here either.

Regardless of which kata you prefer, think superior, or whatever, I fail to see how anyone can watch these back to back and say that the latter are reworked versions of the former.  

If anything, I'd say that the Taegeuk pumse are fairly bare bones by comparison to the Shotokan Heian kata.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> Have you read any books or articles from Mr. O'Neill, Master Anslow or Master Abernethy?  Have you seen any of the DVD presentations or attended a seminar that addresses what I've been discussing?
> 
> To touch on Mr. O'Neill's book, page 68 looks at the opening movement of Il Jang.  From his perspective, it is an effective forearm strike to the upper torso of an attacker, followed by a balance displacement technique to off-balance the attacker and a forearm strike to the back of the attacker's head.  This is not the only interpretation of this movement, I have described my own in this thread.  I do not claim mine is the only or best.  But I will state my opinion that it, as well as Mr. O'Neill's interpretation is a much higher % movement against a determined attacker than what is offered in the above link to the form video i.e. down block against a front kick and straight punch.  That is _an_ interpretation, I do not feel it is the _best_ interpretation.  I do not say, again, that my interpretation or Mr. O'Neill's is what the TKD pioneers had in mind.  As I stated, and this isn't a shot at them, they did the best they could with the training they had at the time of the forms development.  This does not negate the principles that are held within the form that can be linked to similar movements with Karate kata.
> 
> Il Jang for those not interested in SD can simply stand 'as is'.  For those interested in SD, Il Jang like Pinan Shodan can contain a wealth of information.  I could easil spend six months with a student on just this form and at the end they will have learned defenses from both typical arms length fighting distance and grappling distance.  They would have learned CQC, balance displacement, throws, locks and numerous other principles of value to a SD practitioner.  Il Jang would not be a 'beginners' form to quickly learn for the next colored belt.  It would be a catalog of valuable principles, tactics and strategies upon which they can build.  I agree with much of what Masters Abernethy and Anslow as well as Mr. O'Neill propose.
> 
> That is my viewpoint, that is how I teach.


I have not expressed any opinion of your comments about how self defense applications can be brought forth from forms.  No offense, but I've known about that long before there was an internet to discuss things on.

What I have disagreed with you about is your statements about the Taegeuk pumse being reworked 'karate kata,' presumably shotokan, and about your descriptions of usage of arae makki against the shin bone being found in Taegeuk Iljang (or any of the Taegeuk pumse) when it simply is not there.  That and your evaluation of the head turning.  

And yes, I have questioned your knowledge of the system and your answers have not been at all compelling in this regard and indicate a peripheral knowledge of Kukki taekwondo.

And yes, I consider my own knowledge of Shotokan to be peripheral.  Which is why I don't go posting authoritatively in the karate section.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Heian shodan:
> 
> 
> 
> Taegeuk Iljang:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I would say that the latter was certainly influenced by the former, I would not say that it is a reworked version of the former.
> 
> Heian Sandan:
> 
> 
> 
> Taegeuk Samjang:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that there is really no similarity between the two.
> 
> Heian Godan:
> 
> 
> 
> Taegeuk Ohjang:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No similarity here either.
> 
> Regardless of which kata you prefer, think superior, or whatever, I fail to see how anyone can watch these back to back and say that the latter are reworked versions of the former.
> 
> If anything, I'd say that the Taegeuk pumse are fairly bare bones by comparison to the Shotokan Heian kata.



I did not say that Il Jang was a reworked Pinan Shodan.  I mentioned Pinan Shodan as an example of the opening movement having an alternate interpretation that what is commonly presented in Shotokan or arts that use the kata.  I compared this to the opening movements of Il Jang having alternate interpretations.  Again, I did not say they were one in the same.


----------



## dancingalone

punisher73 said:


> As to Itosu's Pinan katas being for "children", I think that is another fallacy when really looked at.  Itosu did alter some things to make karate more accessible.  He created the Pinan kata series for ALL his students.  The adults learned these kata as well, and we know that they were based on other existing kata.



Do we know the exact timeline of the creation of the Pinan kata as well as which students started as adults and learned the Pinan as their primary formative kata?  I ask because all the sources I've read state that Itosu did in fact intend the Pinan to be an introductory vehicle for youth.  The adults at the time already had the Naihanchi kata to serve the same purpose.

Funakoshi would have been well into his thirties before I think the Pinan were taught.  Chibana and Mabuni would have been in their teens I believe relative to the same event.

In any case, I don't doubt the Pinan eventually evolved to be goods for the adults too.   That is the current reality with the forms taught in many different karate ryu.  This was a natural consequence over time as the children that learned them grew up and begin teaching themselves.  But if you can point me to any source material about Itosu's original intentions towards adults with the Pinan, I'd appreciate the cite.



punisher73 said:


> I think the pendelum on TKD history is swinging back the other way.  When it was first used when Gen. Choi promoted it, we know that they were honest that it was mainly japanese karate, then the push that it was taekyon and that TKD was suddenly an ancient martial art.  Now, with the advent of better research and more connection between countries and schools, people are again looking at it's history differently.  So depending on who/how you were taught this might not be anything new, or you may wonder why they made up their history.



I agree!


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> I did not say that Il Jang was a reworked  Pinan Shodan.  I mentioned Pinan Shodan as an example of the opening  movement having an alternate interpretation that what is commonly  presented in Shotokan or arts that use the kata.  I compared this to the  opening movements of Il Jang having alternate interpretations.  Again, I  did not say they were one in the same.


Please see your own post below.

This is what started this whole thing:



Kong Soo Do said:


> I will strongly disagree, with respect Daniel, about your comment on forms.  Again, in my opinion (personal and professional) *they are reworked karate forms*.



 And this is what prompted me to say that you were 'taking a swipe.'


Kong Soo Do said:


> I do NOT feel those that put them together, generally speaking, knew exactly the information they could/should contain or the true value of the form.  Or, at least felt that that knowledge wasn't needed for the agenda they wished to pursue.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I have not expressed any opinion of your comments about how self defense applications can be brought forth from forms.  No offense, but I've known about that long before there was an internet to discuss things on.
> 
> What I have disagreed with you about is your statements about the Taegeuk pumse being reworked 'karate kata,' presumably shotokan, and about your descriptions of usage of arae makki against the shin bone being found in Taegeuk Iljang (or any of the Taegeuk pumse) when it simply is not there.  That and your evaluation of the head turning.
> 
> And yes, I have questioned your knowledge of the system and your answers have not been at all compelling in this regard and indicate a peripheral knowledge of Kukki taekwondo.
> 
> And yes, I consider my own knowledge of Shotokan to be peripheral.  Which is why I don't go posting authoritatively in the karate section.



Then we are going to have to agree to disagree.  I don't feel you have the qualifications currently to properly understand what I've presented.  That, and you're not reading what I'm posting correctly.  As I mentioned above, I didn't say the opening movements of Pinan Shodan and Il Jang were the same.  I simple stated that the opening movements of both have alternate interpretations.  Same with the second set of movements and so forth.  Same with your links of Heian Sandan and Samjang....I never mentioned either one of them or compared them to each other.  You're either putting into the conversation something that isn't there, or you're not fully understanding what I've posted.

I've posted already what I mean by 'reworked kata' and it is not what you have interpreted it to mean.  I feel I was sufficiently clear in that explanation.  If not, ask me and I'll try to clarify it further.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Please see your own post below.



This is what started this whole thing:



Kong Soo Do said:


> I will strongly disagree, with respect Daniel, about your comment on forms.  Again, in my opinion (personal and professional) *they are reworked karate forms*.
> 
> And this is what prompted me to say that you were 'taking a swipe.'



And I stand by what I stated.  No where in that statement did I say Pinan Shodan was the same as Il Jang.  I spent a considerable amount of time explaining what I meant as well.


----------



## dancingalone

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Regardless of which kata you prefer, think superior, or whatever, I fail to see how anyone can watch these back to back and say that the latter are reworked versions of the former.



The overall argument of reworked or not is unimportant to me, but I would add that taking the pro side (i.e. yes they are reworked) does not necessarily mean you have to map Heian 1 to Taegeuk 1 or Heian 5 to Taegeuk 5.  The relationships can be more eclectic than that, juxtaposing and transposing elements from one to many or many to one or many to many.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> Then we are going to have to agree to disagree.  I don't feel you have the qualifications currently to properly understand what I've presented.  That, and you're not reading what I'm posting correctly.  As I mentioned above, I didn't say the opening movements of Pinan Shodan and Il Jang were the same.  I simple stated that the opening movements of both have alternate interpretations.  Same with the second set of movements and so forth.  Same with your links of Heian Sandan and Samjang....I never mentioned either one of them or compared them to each other.  You're either putting into the conversation something that isn't there, or you're not fully understanding what I've posted.


You have posted nothing that is particularly complex or advanced.  If you think that you're posting esoteric or difficult to understand material, then you are deluding yourself.



Kong Soo Do said:


> I've posted already what I mean by 'reworked kata' and it is not what you have interpreted it to mean.  I feel I was sufficiently clear in that explanation.  If not, ask me and I'll try to clarify it further.


If you have, please quote it.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Daniel Sullivan said:


> You have posted nothing that is particularly complex or advanced.  If you think that you're posting esoteric or difficult to understand material, then you are deluding yourself.



I never claimed to post something complex or advanced.  In fact, I mentioned several time about simple, gross motor skills.  True SD principles are never complex, complexity is the antithesis of SD.  Your inability to understand what I've posted is not my responsibility.  On this very page you've demonstrated your lack of understanding of what I've posted by stating Il Jang is = to Pinan Shodan and Samjang = Heian Sandan.  I certainly didn't say anything of the kind and never mentioned Samjang/Heian Sandan at all.  



> If you have, please quote it.



No, you take a breath, put your offense on hold and reread my posts with some objectivity with an eye towards comprehension.  And instead of the little juvenile zingers as a retort, if you have a question then ask for a clarification before you get your feathers ruffled.  I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you, in-depth if you can leave out the emotion.

For now, I'm going out for pizza with my son.  Peace out.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> I never claimed to post something complex or advanced.  In fact, I mentioned several time about simple, gross motor skills.  True SD principles are never complex, complexity is the antithesis of SD.  Your inability to understand what I've posted is not my responsibility.  On this very page you've demonstrated your lack of understanding of what I've posted by stating Il Jang is = to Pinan Shodan and Samjang = Heian Sandan.  I certainly didn't say anything of the kind and never mentioned Samjang/Heian Sandan at all.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you take a breath, put your offense on hold and reread my posts with some objectivity with an eye towards comprehension.  And instead of the little juvenile zingers as a retort, if you have a question then ask for a clarification before you get your feathers ruffled.  I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you, in-depth if you can leave out the emotion.
> 
> For now, I'm going out for pizza with my son.  Peace out.


Take your own advice.  We've already been back and forth over the same territory and neither one of us is going to budge.  I've read your posts, and as I said previously, there is nothing compelling in what you have to say.  

I really have no further comment for you or see any need for further conversation.  

Enjoy your pizza and your time with your son.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

dancingalone said:


> The overall argument of reworked or not is unimportant to me, but I would add that taking the pro side (i.e. yes they are reworked) does not necessarily mean you have to map Heian 1 to Taegeuk 1 or Heian 5 to Taegeuk 5.  The relationships can be more eclectic than that, juxtaposing and transposing elements from one to many or many to one or many to many.


I'd say that at that point, you've gone beyond reworking but are still well within 'influenced by.'


----------



## d1jinx

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Please see your own post below.
> 
> This is what started this whole thing:
> 
> Originally Posted by *Kong Soo Do*
> 
> I will strongly disagree, with respect Daniel, about your comment on forms.  Again, in my opinion (personal and professional) *they are reworked karate forms*.
> 
> 
> And this is what prompted me to say that you were 'taking a swipe.
> 
> Originally Posted by *Kong Soo Do*
> 
> I do NOT feel those that put them together, generally speaking, knew exactly the information they could/should contain or the true value of the form.  Or, at least felt that that knowledge wasn't needed for the agenda they wished to pursue.'



Daniel, we must be working from the same brain. there were a few other comments that added to my frustration and enough for me to comment.  



Kong Soo Do said:


> I think it would be of benefit to most to simply look at the bottom line as far as TKD:
> 
> TKD history has been rewritten.  Attempts have been made to sanitize it and make it into something it isn't.
> If you wish to discover its true history...good luck.  My advice is to get as many sources as possible, realizing none of them are going to be fully spot on accurate.  I don't care who wrote what or when.  It is influenced by the views and/or agenda of the author(s).  Simply choose one...but don't you dare argue, fuss or whine on internet boards if someone else comes along and disagrees.  They just might be a 'little' more right than you, but still not spot on.  They may claim to know seniors, have autographed books from them, slept on their floor, used their toothbrush or whatever.  The bottom line is that they've made a choice of who to believe but it may not have been the right choice.  Or it might be partially correct but laced with that particular 'seniors' agenda.
> And last but not least, despite the false information, despite the giant egos, despite the 'founders' really had very little experience for the most part (certainly not equal to their seniors in Japan/Okinawa at that time)...



this is his opinion that he is passing off as "WHAT IT IS" and then goes to tell you and I the meanings behind the KKW poomse and how thier application is not practical and just an overall atitude that taekwondo is Inferior to "HIS' true art that he founded, created... what ever.  All this "opinions" from his Interpretation of an art he does not practice, but only reads american translated tkd history books that are biased toward the view and agenda of the author.

so if the Koreans took peices form various styles and mainly JAPANESE KARATE to make up their own watered down karate, then why would any art made up be expected to be more superier when it is based off of "books", a few seminars, taking a weekend course etc etc etc.

its almost like guessing a Math question.  You can blurt out numbers and will usually get atleast 1 digit right, but eventually through shear statistics you may get it correct, eventually, once and a while.


----------



## Archtkd

Kong Soo Do said:


> To touch on Mr. O'Neill's book, page 68 looks at the opening movement of Il Jang.  From his perspective, it is an effective forearm strike to the upper torso of an attacker, followed by a balance displacement technique to off-balance the attacker and a forearm strike to the back of the attacker's head.  This is not the only interpretation of this movement, I have described my own in this thread.  I do not claim mine is the only or best.  But I will state my opinion that it, as well as Mr. O'Neill's interpretation is a much higher % movement against a determined attacker than what is offered in the above link to the form video i.e. down block against a front kick and straight punch.  That is _an_ interpretation, I do not feel it is the _best_ interpretation.  I do not say, again, that my interpretation or Mr. O'Neill's is what the TKD pioneers had in mind.



Your interpretation is based on the wrong premise that the forearm proper is used in Taeguk Il Jang or any basic Kukkiwon taekwondo block. Serious taekwondoin with basic knowledge of Kukkiwon taekwondo know that the wrist (palmok) -- no more that 1 1/2 inches down from the wrist joint --  or the hand blade (sonnal) are the primary parts used in blocking in Taeguk poomsae, self defense and sparring (not the hand blade). Kukkiwon texts and all teachers I've known make specific warning about blocking with the forearm because it can be easily  broken.

Of course one can use any part of their  body to do anything they want, but it would be misleading for them to say they are applying or teaching a technique based on  a Kukkiwon style form or technique that they misunderstood or rewrote. Were you taught to block with your forearm in Taekwondo or you learned it in other martial arts?


----------



## d1jinx

Archtkd said:


> Your interpretation is based on the wrong premise that the forearm proper is used in Taeguk Il Jang or any basic Kukkiwon taekwondo block. Serious taekwondoin with basic knowledge of Kukkiwon taekwondo know that the wrist (palmok) -- no more that 1 1/2 inches down from the wrist joint -- or the hand blade (sonnal) are the primary parts used in blocking in Taeguk poomsae, self defense and sparring (not the hand blade). Kukkiwon texts and all teachers I've known make specific warning about blocking with the forearm because it can be easily broken.
> 
> Of course one can use any part of their body to do anything they want, but it would be misleading for them to say they are applying or teaching a technique based on a Kukkiwon style form or technique that they misunderstood or rewrote. Were you taught to block with your forearm in Taekwondo or you learned it in other martial arts?




It would be too easy to refer to the Official Kukkiwon textbooks and teachings than read others interpretations and base your own opinion but some choose not to do that.  And there seems to be the same continuity from the kukkiwon textbook published in 1973 and the kukkiwon textbook published today.

Yet people still choose to read Americans interpretations and base opinions solely off of that.  Not saying theres anything wrong with another persons interpretations.  But when you begin to argue a point against whats actually in print from the source... well these 'debates' happen.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

> Originally Posted by *Kong Soo Do*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To touch on Mr. O'Neill's book, page 68 looks at the opening movement of  Il Jang.  From his perspective, it is an effective forearm strike to  the upper torso of an attacker, followed by a balance displacement  technique to off-balance the attacker and a forearm strike to the back  of the attacker's head.  This is not the only interpretation of this  movement, I have described my own in this thread.  I do not claim mine  is the only or best.  But I will state my opinion that it, as well as  Mr. O'Neill's interpretation is a much higher % movement against a  determined attacker than what is offered in the above link to the form  video i.e. down block against a front kick and straight punch.  That is _an_ interpretation, I do not feel it is the _best_ interpretation.  I do not say, again, that my interpretation or Mr. O'Neill's is what the TKD pioneers had in mind.





Archtkd said:


> Your interpretation...



Why are you calling this my interpretation?  I clearly stated that this interpretation is from Mr. O'Neill's book and provided the page number where it can be found.  It is a sound interpretation however.  Have you read the book?


----------



## Gnarlie

I've read the book.  I found it an interesting viewpoint, and it's certainly added a few new tactics and strategies to my SD arsenal.  In my view, it sits quite comfortably with the KKW curriculum.  I guess it just depends how you look at movements.  

To my mind, Mr O'Neill wasn't suggesting anything so radically different to what we were already doing with our applications of poomsae in our classes.  Just because it's called a block, doesn't mean that's all it has to be.  For example, I've been using momtong bakkat makki as a brachial stun, and momtong an makki as a press to the rubbing point behind the elbow during an arm lock, for a long long time and have never been questioned by any master on it.  

The application in the KKW textbook is one of many possible - the same textbook recommends exploration and selection of techniques and applications that work for the individual.

You make what you want to make of it.  That's the beauty of Poomsae.


----------



## punisher73

dancingalone said:


> Do we know the exact timeline of the creation of the Pinan kata as well as which students started as adults and learned the Pinan as their primary formative kata? I ask because all the sources I've read state that Itosu did in fact intend the Pinan to be an introductory vehicle for youth. The adults at the time already had the Naihanchi kata to serve the same purpose.
> 
> Funakoshi would have been well into his thirties before I think the Pinan were taught. Chibana and Mabuni would have been in their teens I believe relative to the same event.
> 
> In any case, I don't doubt the Pinan eventually evolved to be goods for the adults too. That is the current reality with the forms taught in many different karate ryu. This was a natural consequence over time as the children that learned them grew up and begin teaching themselves. But if you can point me to any source material about Itosu's original intentions towards adults with the Pinan, I'd appreciate the cite.



Give me a bit.  In an issue of Classical Fighting Arts (I believe #21), they had an interview with Pat Nakata (who was a student of Chibana Sensei).  In that interview he states that Itosu created the first Pinan kata to be a "kihon kata" for younger students.  According to Nakata as told to him by Chibana, Itosu then created the other Pinan with a different intent to be inclusive of the other katas and a complete structure.  Nakata also talks about the application/bunkai and the three levels taught.  The first level was the simple block/punch/kick applications and the second level was the joint locks/throws etc.  The third level was not taught openly, but took level two up a couple notches so the throws instead of being grabs to clothing were now grabbing the groin/throat etc. to do a throw (example given).  This is going off of memory, so I will look when I am home and be able to give more specifics.

So, if we go back to Gen. Choi's first book in Korean he states that the forms were japanese karate and that he didn't know the applications.  Later, this edition was reprinted and that was taken out.  I don't think that Gen. Choi meant that he didn't know any applications, I think he was referring to what Nakata Sensei would call levels 2&3.  As to the Korean forms being "reworked", again the definition is everything.  I think that Gen. Choi used sequences found in the japanese katas with added touches of what he was refining and creating with his vision of TKD, when he created the Taeguk series.  But, I don't think that they are a move for move rendering.  If by "reworked" we mean that they are the same, just scrambled around in a different order I would disagree with that statement.  If by "reworked" we mean that they are influenced by and find many sequences the same and someone looking at it would recognize it as Kata X, then I think we would say that they were "reworked".

To use a non-TKD example, here is what I would consider a "reworked kata".

Seibukan Seisan (very close to what Chotoku Kyan taught)






Shotokan Hangetsu 






And finally, Tatsuo Shimabuku's Seisan (taken from Kyan's lineage)






So, I don't think that the Korean forms are just "reworked".  I do however feel that they were based on their japanese counterparts and have lots of sequences the same, but not the overall strategy/concept that the base kata had.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Gnarlie said:


> I've read the book.  I found it an interesting viewpoint, and it's certainly added a few new tactics and strategies to my SD arsenal.  In my view, it sits quite comfortably with the KKW curriculum.  I guess it just depends how you look at movements.
> 
> To my mind, Mr O'Neill wasn't suggesting anything so radically different to what we were already doing with our applications of poomsae in our classes.  Just because it's called a block, doesn't mean that's all it has to be.  For example, I've been using momtong bakkat makki as a brachial stun, and momtong an makki as a press to the rubbing point behind the elbow during an arm lock, for a long long time and have never been questioned by any master on it.
> 
> The application in the KKW textbook is one of many possible - the same textbook recommends exploration and selection of techniques and applications that work for the individual.
> 
> You make what you want to make of it.  That's the beauty of Poomsae.


What you say above is essentially what Archtkd said below:



Archtkd said:


> Of course one can use any part of their  body to do anything they want,  but it would be misleading for them to say they are applying or teaching  a technique based on  a Kukkiwon style form or technique that they  misunderstood or rewrote. Were you taught to block with your forearm in  Taekwondo or you learned it in other martial arts?


However, that does not negate what he said regarding the way that blocks are taught in Kukkiwon taekwondo:



Archtkd said:


> Serious taekwondoin with basic knowledge of Kukkiwon  taekwondo know that the wrist (palmok) -- no more that 1 1/2 inches down  from the wrist joint --  or the hand blade (sonnal) are the primary  parts used in blocking in Taeguk poomsae, self defense and sparring (not  the hand blade). Kukkiwon texts and all teachers I've known make  specific warning about blocking with the forearm because it can be  easily  broken.



So yes, you can pull many more applications from arae makki than what is in the KKW textbook, but if you are using arae makki in a way that differs from how it is taught by the KKW, then while it may be a valid technique in the generic sense, it is not KKW.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

punisher73 said:


> Give me a bit.  In an issue of Classical Fighting Arts (I believe #21), they had an interview with Pat Nakata (who was a student of Chibana Sensei).  In that interview he states that Itosu created the first Pinan kata to be a "kihon kata" for younger students.  According to Nakata as told to him by Chibana, Itosu then created the other Pinan with a different intent to be inclusive of the other katas and a complete structure.  Nakata also talks about the application/bunkai and the three levels taught.  The first level was the simple block/punch/kick applications and the second level was the joint locks/throws etc.  The third level was not taught openly, but took level two up a couple notches so the throws instead of being grabs to clothing were now grabbing the groin/throat etc. to do a throw (example given).  This is going off of memory, so I will look when I am home and be able to give more specifics.
> 
> So, if we go back to Gen. Choi's first book in Korean he states that the forms were japanese karate and that he didn't know the applications.  Later, this edition was reprinted and that was taken out.  I don't think that Gen. Choi meant that he didn't know any applications, I think he was referring to what Nakata Sensei would call levels 2&3.  As to the Korean forms being "reworked", again the definition is everything. * I think that Gen. Choi used sequences found in the japanese katas with added touches of what he was refining and creating with his vision of TKD, when he created the Taeguk series.*  But, I don't think that they are a move for move rendering.  If by "reworked" we mean that they are the same, just scrambled around in a different order I would disagree with that statement.  If by "reworked" we mean that they are influenced by and find many sequences the same and someone looking at it would recognize it as Kata X, then I think we would say that they were "reworked".
> 
> To use a non-TKD example, here is what I would consider a "reworked kata".
> 
> Seibukan Seisan (very close to what Chotoku Kyan taught)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shotokan Hangetsu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And finally, Tatsuo Shimabuku's Seisan (taken from Kyan's lineage)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I don't think that the Korean forms are just "reworked".  I do however feel that they were based on their japanese counterparts and have lots of sequences the same, but not the overall strategy/concept that the base kata had.


It should be noted that General Choi's forms are the Chang Hon tul, not the Taegeuk pumse used in the Kukkiwon, and which have been at issue for a portion of this thread, nor did he create them.


----------



## chrispillertkd

punisher73 said:


> So, if we go back to Gen. Choi's first book in Korean he states that the forms were japanese karate and that he didn't know the applications. Later, this edition was reprinted and that was taken out. I don't think that Gen. Choi meant that he didn't know any applications, I think he was referring to what Nakata Sensei would call levels 2&3.



 Interesting. I have the 1965 book but don't recall seeing that statement in there. I'll have to reread the pattern section. Do you know if it was in the 1965 version or the earlier 1959 book (which was only published in Korean)?

The interesting thing about the 1965 book is that it specifies there are, IIRC, 365 pressure point or vital spots on a person's body that can attacked. So, I don't know if I'd say he didn't know know higher applications (maybe level 2 but I tend to doubt level 3 for several reasons, not the least of which are I don't know if Shotokan was teaching advanced applications at the time and he was a Korean in Japan at a time where a lot of discrimination existed). I think it also needs to be remembered that once Gen. Choi started teaching in the mililtary his emphasis shifted to teaching large groups of soldiers instead of a smaller group of students. The emphasis on power generation instead of hitting small pressure points and grappling might be better understood given this fact. 

That isn't too say Taekwon-Do patterns can't be made to "work," so to speak. But if Shotokan doesn't emphasize higher level bunkai is it really a surprise that Taekwon-Do doesn't? If you look at his later books and read Gen. Choi's explanation about what patterns are for I think it will be pretty enlightening. Taekwon-Do is still quite effective for self-defense (and Gen. Choi even added a sizeable component of joint locks, throws, etc. in his 1972 book). But judging one art on the norms of another art isn't going to be exactly helpful, I think.  



> As to the Korean forms being "reworked", again the definition is everything. I think that Gen. Choi used sequences found in the japanese katas with added touches of what he was refining and creating with his vision of TKD, when he created the Taeguk series. But, I don't think that they are a move for move rendering.



 Exactly. The most common example people pull out when they talk abotu this is Won-Hyo which is _very_ similar to one of the Shotokan patterns (I can't remember off hand which one), but you can see some techniques from kata in Yoo-Sin, too. I'm sure there are others. But the same does hold true for KKW poomsae (I'm thinking her specifically of one of the black belt poomsae, maybe Chonkwon, IIRC). But I would argue there's a diffrence between taking techniques from one pattern and putting them in another pattern and simply rearranging a pattern into a "new" one. And for some reason no one mentions patterns like Ge-Baek, Eui-Am, Kwang-Gae, Hwa-Rang, Moon-Moo, Yon-Gae, Sam-Il, etc. when this topic comes up  It's quite apparent, I think, that as time went on Gen. Choi got farther from his SHotokan roots.

The only thing I'd point out is that Gen. Choi didn't make the Taeguks. Those were done by the Kukkiwon folks after Gen. Choi left Korea.

Great post.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## SahBumNimRush

Daniel Sullivan said:


> So yes, you can pull many more applications from arae makki than what is in the KKW textbook, but if you are using arae makki in a way that differs from how it is taught by the KKW, then while it may be a valid technique in the generic sense, it is not KKW.


  So, the KKW text itself (which I do not own nor have read) "recommends exploration and selection of techniques and applications that work for the individual," but *rejects *said techniques as NOT KKW.  Is this akin to what Punisher talked about above with levels 1,2, and 3, and that the KKW only teaches and endorses a level one explanation but encourages individual exploration of levels 2 and 3?  

I only ask, because as a non-KKW TKD guy with interest in learning more about the KKW, I'm still a bit confused on all this.  I have heard on here that both A). the KKW curriculum is loose curricular standard that can be built upon without restriction (I like this idea, btw) and B).  The KKW standard is THE standard and all older parts of TKD should be left behind (while I can see the point, I would not be interested in doing so).  

So, to put it another way, if "A" is the case, am I correct in stating that while a level 2 or level 3 technique would not be considered KKW (because it is not the basic standard), said practice is still encouraged and supported by the KKW?


----------



## Kong Soo Do

> Originally Posted by *Daniel Sullivan*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So yes, you can pull many more applications from arae makki than what is  in the KKW textbook, but if you are using arae makki in a way that  differs from how it is taught by the KKW, then while it may be a valid  technique in the generic sense, it is not KKW.





SahBumNimRush said:


> So, the KKW text itself (which I do not own nor have read) "recommends exploration and selection of techniques and applications that work for the individual," but denounces said techniques as NOT KKW.  Is this akin to what Punisher talked about above with levels 1,2, and 3, and that the KKW only teaches and endorses a level one explanation but encourages individual exploration of levels 2 and 3?



Good point Master Rush.  Daniel, I'm pretty sure I was clear that what I offered, as well as others like Master Anslow and Mr. O'Neill was not KKW.  And that is the entire point, or one of them to this point in the thread.  It doesn't have to be KKW.  Alternate interpretations exist if one chooses to use them.  No one is required to use them, but they are there if they wish to use them.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

The forearm strike, as mentioned in Mr. O'Neill's book is valid.  It does not 'make sense' if it is viewed as a down block, it does make sense if you view the movement as something other than a down block.  One is free to view it either way.  One would need to seriously, and thoughtfully examine the material offered in order to make an informed decision IF they are interested in looking into alternate interpretations that are tactically sound for combat.  If they aren't interested in putting in that research/training time then that is fine.  But I'm going to *politely* suggest they refrain from negatively commenting on the position or training experience of those that have invested the time.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

SahBumNimRush said:


> So, the KKW text itself (which I do not own nor have read) "recommends exploration and selection of techniques and applications that work for the individual," *but denounces said techniques as NOT KKW.  *Is this akin to what Punisher talked about above with levels 1,2, and 3, and that the KKW only teaches and endorses a level one explanation but encourages individual exploration of levels 2 and 3?


See what I bolded.  I never said that or anything even remotely similar to that.



SahBumNimRush said:


> I only ask, because as a non-KKW TKD guy with interest in learning more about the KKW, I'm still a bit confused on all this.  I have heard on here that both A). the KKW curriculum is loose curricular standard that can be built upon without restriction (I like this idea, btw) and B).  The KKW standard is THE standard and all older parts of TKD should be left behind (while I can see the point, I would not be interested in doing so).
> 
> So, to put it another way, if "A" is the case, am I correct in stating that while a level 2 or level 3 technique would not be considered KKW (because it is not the basic standard), said practice is still encouraged and supported by the KKW?


The KKW text does not 'denounce' anything.  But if you're pulling things out of the forms that are not in the textbook, then they simply aren't KKW sourced.  

That doesn't make them good or bad, or denounced by the organization, but you shouldn't declare them as being something that the KKW teaches.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> Daniel, I'm pretty sure I was clear that what I offered, as well as others like Master Anslow and Mr. O'Neill was not KKW.


I wasn't responding to you.


----------



## SahBumNimRush

Denounce was not the appropriate word for what I am trying to get at, sorry.  Reject may be a more appropriate word.  What I mean is, since the KKW text apparently recommends exploration and selection of techniques and applications that  work for the individual," but *rejects* said techniques as NOT KKW, could someone explain to me the purpose or intent of said recommendation?  

I apologize Daniel if my lack of proper wording added to any flames here.  I am, however, genuinely interested in your thoughts on this.  Is it that the KKW is just the foundation and practitioners are encouraged to build upon it?  Or is the "recommendation" eluding to something else in your opinion?


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I wasn't responding to you.



But I was responding to you, hopefully to clarify the point.  You mentioned that the interpretations weren't KKW.  This seemed to be a point of concern/contention for you.  I wanted to clarify that no one, to my knowledge, either here in the thread or in research material had claimed that it was KKW.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

SahBumNimRush said:


> Denounce was not the appropriate word for what I am trying to get at, sorry.  Reject may be a more appropriate word.  What I mean is, since the KKW text apparently recommends exploration and selection of techniques and applications that  work for the individual," but *rejects* said techniques as NOT KKW, could someone explain to me the purpose or intent of said recommendation?


I would even call reject too strong a word.  Kukkiwon TKD is what it is.  ITF TKD is what it is.  Shotokan is what it is.  Hapkido is what it is.  If you're mixing and matching applications from different sources, or even figuring things out on your own, if it isn't part of the KKW curriculum, then it is an add on.  

I don't have any personal objection to people adding on and there is no place in the KKW textbook that I recall where adding on in your personal development is discouraged.  I'm simply saying that if your add on isn't in the curriculum, then it has been sourced from elsewhere.  



SahBumNimRush said:


> I apologize Daniel if my lack of proper wording added to any flames here.  I am, however, genuinely interested in your thoughts on this.  *Is it that the KKW is just the foundation and practitioners are encouraged to build upon it?  *Or is the "recommendation" eluding to something else in your opinion?


No apology necessary; I didn't take offense to it at all.   The bolded is how I view it.  Others may disagree, and they may be correct.  

In a technical discussion, however, I do feel that it is important to separate what is and is-not part of the core curriculum.  So if someone states that 'the Kukkiwon teaches thus and so...' but it isn't in the core curriculum or the official training manuals, then it is incorrect to say that the Kukkiwon teaches it.  The same holds true when discussing any other art or organization.  

Really, the only places where add-ons or alterations would be rejected would be at pumse competition or a grading.  

In sparring, as long as it falls within the rules (correct body part striking a valid target), then nobody cares.  In other words, if you use sine wave in your techniques in sparring and score valid points, the points are not invalidated just because you executed them 'ITF.'


----------



## SahBumNimRush

Thank you Daniel for your response.  Much of my question stems from my training and the future of my training.  My MDK background is from a very much "outdated" TKD curriculum:  Shotokan/Shudokan form sets, level 1 explanation of forms, level 2 and 3 explanation of movements in forms through 1 step sparring and SD training.  I do not wish to abandon this, but after my KJN passes, I'm not sure where my journey may take me.  KKW is one of these paths, but I do not wish for that to conflict with my material.  I know many MDK members assimilated with the KKW, but I see great value in the older curriculum.  I am interested to know if any one teaches both the old and the modern curricula simultaneously, and if so, what are the pros and cons?


----------



## dancingalone

SahBumNimRush said:


> Thank you Daniel for your response.  Much of my question stems from my training and the future of my training.  My MDK background is from a very much "outdated" TKD curriculum:  Shotokan/Shudokan form sets, level 1 explanation of forms, level 2 and 3 explanation of movements in forms through 1 step sparring and SD training.  I do not wish to abandon this, but after my KJN passes, I'm not sure where my journey may take me.  KKW is one of these paths, but I do not wish for that to conflict with my material.  I know many MDK members assimilated with the KKW, but I see great value in the older curriculum.  I am interested to know if any one teaches both the old and the modern curricula simultaneously, and if so, what are the pros and cons?



If you take this path, perhaps we can correspond on a more meaningful basis on the boards and through other channels.  I think we could trade quite a bit of information to mutual benefit.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

SahBumNimRush said:


> Thank you Daniel for your response.  Much of my question stems from my training and the future of my training.  My MDK background is from a very much "outdated" TKD curriculum:  Shotokan/Shudokan form sets, level 1 explanation of forms, level 2 and 3 explanation of movements in forms through 1 step sparring and SD training.  I do not wish to abandon this, but after my KJN passes, I'm not sure where my journey may take me.  KKW is one of these paths, but I do not wish for that to conflict with my material.  I know many MDK members assimilated with the KKW, but I see great value in the older curriculum.  I am interested to know if any one teaches both the old and the modern curricula simultaneously, and if so, what are the pros and cons?


I don't really see any cons whatsoever, so long as you can maintain the nuances specific to each form set.  Is your MDK the MDK that unified with the Kukkiwon or from the MDK TSD that went with GM Hwang Kee?  If TSD, does Tangsudo also include both form sets?

I know based on correspondence that there are schools that do teach form sets in addition to the Taegeuk pumse.


----------



## terryl965

SahBumNimRush said:


> Thank you Daniel for your response. Much of my question stems from my training and the future of my training. My MDK background is from a very much "outdated" TKD curriculum: Shotokan/Shudokan form sets, level 1 explanation of forms, level 2 and 3 explanation of movements in forms through 1 step sparring and SD training. I do not wish to abandon this, but after my KJN passes, I'm not sure where my journey may take me. KKW is one of these paths, but I do not wish for that to conflict with my material. I know many MDK members assimilated with the KKW, but I see great value in the older curriculum. I am interested to know if any one teaches both the old and the modern curricula simultaneously, and if so, what are the pros and cons?




I can say there is no con what so ever, mixing the old with new the new only makes sense. Tkd is a evolving art that needs the old to embrace all the new over the last ten years. The sport has given TKD an avenue to promote the Korean way of life though TKD. The old give us the substance to have a solid foundation to keep building the art and sport. I believe alot of good has come from this thread.


----------



## punisher73

Daniel Sullivan said:


> It should be noted that General Choi's forms are the Chang Hon tul, not the Taegeuk pumse used in the Kukkiwon, and which have been at issue for a portion of this thread, nor did he create them.



Yep, you're right.  Misspoke myself.  Thanks for the correction!


----------



## punisher73

chrispillertkd said:


> Interesting. I have the 1965 book but don't recall seeing that statement in there. I'll have to reread the pattern section. Do you know if it was in the 1965 version or the earlier 1959 book (which was only published in Korean)?
> 
> The interesting thing about the 1965 book is that it specifies there are, IIRC, 365 pressure point or vital spots on a person's body that can attacked. So, I don't know if I'd say he didn't know know higher applications (maybe level 2 but I tend to doubt level 3 for several reasons, not the least of which are I don't know if Shotokan was teaching advanced applications at the time and he was a Korean in Japan at a time where a lot of discrimination existed). I think it also needs to be remembered that once Gen. Choi started teaching in the mililtary his emphasis shifted to teaching large groups of soldiers instead of a smaller group of students. The emphasis on power generation instead of hitting small pressure points and grappling might be better understood given this fact.
> 
> That isn't too say Taekwon-Do patterns can't be made to "work," so to speak. But if Shotokan doesn't emphasize higher level bunkai is it really a surprise that Taekwon-Do doesn't? If you look at his later books and read Gen. Choi's explanation about what patterns are for I think it will be pretty enlightening. Taekwon-Do is still quite effective for self-defense (and Gen. Choi even added a sizeable component of joint locks, throws, etc. in his 1972 book). But judging one art on the norms of another art isn't going to be exactly helpful, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. The most common example people pull out when they talk abotu this is Won-Hyo which is _very_ similar to one of the Shotokan patterns (I can't remember off hand which one), but you can see some techniques from kata in Yoo-Sin, too. I'm sure there are others. But the same does hold true for KKW poomsae (I'm thinking her specifically of one of the black belt poomsae, maybe Chonkwon, IIRC). But I would argue there's a diffrence between taking techniques from one pattern and putting them in another pattern and simply rearranging a pattern into a "new" one. And for some reason no one mentions patterns like Ge-Baek, Eui-Am, Kwang-Gae, Hwa-Rang, Moon-Moo, Yon-Gae, Sam-Il, etc. when this topic comes up  It's quite apparent, I think, that as time went on Gen. Choi got farther from his SHotokan roots.
> 
> The only thing I'd point out is that Gen. Choi didn't make the Taeguks. Those were done by the Kukkiwon folks after Gen. Choi left Korea.
> 
> Great post.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



It was the 1959 version in Korean that he referenced.  It was in a talk about how martial arts history has been changed and how knowledge has been lost or not communicated in some cases.  He also gave examples of other arts as well where this happened.


----------



## SahBumNimRush

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I don't really see any cons whatsoever, so long as you can maintain the nuances specific to each form set.  Is your MDK the MDK that unified with the Kukkiwon or from the MDK TSD that went with GM Hwang Kee?  If TSD, does Tangsudo also include both form sets?
> 
> I know based on correspondence that there are schools that do teach form sets in addition to the Taegeuk pumse.



Somewhere in between.  We use the term Taekwondo, not Tang Soo Do, and although my KJN has his early dan certifications through Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan, his later rankings are through the Korean Taekwondo Association, and KKW.  However, he has only ever issued in house certificates.  We have never practiced the KKW standard form sets outside of back in 80's and 90's when we were involved in USTU competitions (My KJN was past VP of USTU).  

I am only guessing, but I would say my lineage aligned with the KTA during the unification but did not adopt the newer curriculum.  For those of you who own Kang Uk Lee's Tang Soo Do book, my KJN is listed toward the top right hand side of the MDK family tree in the back (beside Ki Whang KIM and Kyong Won AHN).  AHN went with the unification and was a close childhood friend of my KJN, whereas Ki Whang KIM sided with HWANG Kee, for the most part, and kept the old curriculum.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

SahBumNimRush said:


> Somewhere in between.  We use the term Taekwondo, not Tang Soo Do, and although my KJN has his early dan certifications through Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan, his later rankings are through the Korean Taekwondo Association, and KKW.  However, he has only ever issued in house certificates.  We have never practiced the KKW standard form sets outside of back in 80's and 90's when we were involved in USTU competitions (My KJN was past VP of USTU).
> 
> I am only guessing, but I would say my lineage aligned with the KTA during the unification but did not adopt the newer curriculum.  For those of you who own Kang Uk Lee's Tang Soo Do book, my KJN is listed toward the top right hand side of the MDK family tree in the back (beside Ki Whang KIM and Kyong Won AHN).  AHN went with the unification and was a close childhood friend of my KJN, whereas Ki Whang KIM sided with HWANG Kee, for the most part, and kept the old curriculum.



Sounds like your KJN went with the unification but did not ever change his curriculum.  Nothing wrong with that, but since he's not issuing KKW certs, it means that after he passes, unless he has some high ranking subordinates who are also KKW ranked, his students' link to the Kukkiwon will be effectively severed.  

Again, if nobody cares and is happy going on with what they're doing, then there's nothing wrong with that.

I think that it was Puunui and yourself that had a discussion about this in a previous thread.


----------



## chrispillertkd

punisher73 said:


> It was the 1959 version in Korean that he referenced. It was in a talk about how martial arts history has been changed and how knowledge has been lost or not communicated in some cases. He also gave examples of other arts as well where this happened.



Nice! Where in the world did you get a copy of that thing?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## d1jinx

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Sounds like your KJN went with the unification but did not ever change his curriculum. Nothing wrong with that, but since he's not issuing KKW certs, it means that after he passes, unless he has some high ranking subordinates who are also KKW ranked, his students' link to the Kukkiwon will be effectively severed. .



this is actually pretty common.  alot of Koreans came over before and during the Unification of the kwans and didnt take to the change.  Again, like you said, nothing wrong with it and it doesn't discredit anyone.  and this didnt prevent any of them from having successful TKD schools and Orgs.  Look at GM Joon Rhee and the Lee's of ATA.  they didnt align with KKW and made out quite alright.


----------



## SahBumNimRush

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Sounds like your KJN went with the unification but did not ever change his curriculum.  Nothing wrong with that, but since he's not issuing KKW certs, it means that after he passes, unless he has some high ranking subordinates who are also KKW ranked, his students' link to the Kukkiwon will be effectively severed.
> 
> Again, if nobody cares and is happy going on with what they're doing, then there's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> I think that it was Puunui and yourself that had a discussion about this in a previous thread.



Yeah, it was, and I'm still not sure what is the best way to address my KJN about it (I know nothing much any of you here could offer me on the matter either).  I don't want to wait until it is too late, but at the same time I do not wish to come across as disloyal or disrespectful either.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

SahBumNimRush said:


> Yeah, it was, and I'm still not sure what is the best way to address my KJN about it (I know nothing much any of you here could offer me on the matter either).  I don't want to wait until it is too late, but at the same time I do not wish to come across as disloyal or disrespectful either.


You could approach him about KKW certification.  I'm not sure how it would work with an ohdan, but I wouldn't think he'd find it disrespectful, given that he himself has that certification.  If it is simply a matter of him processing skip dan paper work, you could take your time and bring yourself up to speed on the Taegeuk pumse.  Really, there isn't going to be anything revolutionary or radically different in the rest of the material, so I suspect you would be easily able to add the set to your repertoire.  

There is a lot of KKW reference material available.  I get my TKD reference material from www.dynamicsworld.com.  They sent me their printed catalog, and unless they've changed, the catalog actually has much more in it than is on the website.  Seems to me that it should be the reverse, but to each their own.  Good customer service there as well.


----------



## Archtkd

Kong Soo Do said:


> Why are you calling this my interpretation?  I clearly stated that this interpretation is from Mr. O'Neill's book and provided the page number where it can be found.  It is a sound interpretation however.  Have you read the book?



 Sorry, I should have been more careful in the attribution.My thinking, though, is that you agree with Mr. O'Neill's interpretation, and you also put Kukkiwon taekwondo in the mix the minute you cited Taeguk Il Jang as a point of reference.

If your understanding of Mr. O'Neill's interpretation of Taeguk IL Jang is accurate , I will re-state that it's still based on a misunderstanding or rewriting of Kukkiwon poomsae. That issue had been argued extensively on MT threads in the past: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?67936-The-Taeguek-Cipher-Book-Review


----------



## punisher73

chrispillertkd said:


> Nice! Where in the world did you get a copy of that thing?
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



I don't have it.  It is an instructor I know of that got the book while he studied TKD in Korea in the late 50's while stationed there as a translator for the Army.  He is also a history/book buff and has a HUGE library.  TKD is not his main art and has gone on to rank in another art, in which he teaches now.  He made reference to it in a seminar he did on pressure points and joint locks etc.  It made mention of how if you look at Ueshiba's book "Budo" it shows pressure point striking techniques in it, but how most schools do NOT hav that training anymore and how in the book Ueshiba states that before you throw them, hit them on a pressure point (atemi strike).  It also referenced a book on jujitsu, that was reprinted and in the new edition has a preface saying that a certain chapter was removed on pressure point striking because it was "not needed in today's society".  I have looked at both of those books and the information is correct.  I have no reason to doubt it on the Gen. Choi book, but since I have not personally seen the copy in rea life and can't read Korean, I can't verify that with 100% accuracy.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Archtkd said:


> Sorry, I should have been more careful in the attribution.My thinking, though, is that you agree with Mr. O'Neill's interpretation, and you also put Kukkiwon taekwondo in the mix the minute you cited Taeguk Il Jang as a point of reference.
> 
> If your understanding of Mr. O'Neill's interpretation of Taeguk IL Jang is accurate , I will re-state that it's still based on a misunderstanding or rewriting of Kukkiwon poomsae. That issue had been argued extensively on MT threads in the past: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?67936-The-Taeguek-Cipher-Book-Review



I feel that there are more than one correct interpretation for many movements in a form, thus I agree with any interpretation that is tactically sound.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> I feel that there are more than one correct interpretation for many movements in a form, thus I agree with any interpretation that is tactically sound.


While there may be more than one application for a movement in a form, the only correct interpretation of the movements in the form is the one stated in the art's core curriculum, in the case of the Taegeuk pumse, as dictated in the KKW textbook.


----------



## Gnarlie

Daniel Sullivan said:


> While there may be more than one application for a movement in a form, the only correct interpretation of the movements in the form is the one stated in the art's core curriculum, in the case of the Taegeuk pumse, as dictated in the KKW textbook.



Do you believe that everything that the Kukkiwon masters know and teach is in that book? 

Seems to me that many of them know more,  even if they don't always teach it. 

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## miguksaram

Gnarlie said:


> Do you believe that everything that the Kukkiwon masters know and teach is in that book?
> 
> Seems to me that many of them know more,  even if they don't always teach it.


You are right that they may not always teach it, but then again if they documented every possible scenario from one specific move book would read like War & Peace.  They give a basic foundation on which the student can work with and then allow the student the freedom to take off from there.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Gnarlie said:


> Do you believe that everything that the Kukkiwon masters know and teach is in that book?
> 
> Seems to me that many of them know *more*,  even if they don't always teach it.
> 
> Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


More applications or more interpretations?  Not the same thing.  

The first movement in Taegeuk iljang is turning left and executing arae makki.  The block is very carefully detailed in both the text book and in every class I've ever been in.  The same goes for the rest of both that form and the rest of the Taegeuk pumse.  

If you're intimating that there are different _interpretations_ of what the movements of each form actually are, then you are incorrect.

If you are saying that there are _applications_ (bunhae/bunkai) for each form that are not listed in the textbook, such as throws, grabs, etc., then yes, I would certainly agree with you, though I would consider such things to be sourced from outside of the *core curriculum* of KKW taekwondo.  

Just to be clear, I don't dismiss such things as being of no value; I learned tons of cool stuff from my GM, and when I asked where he learned it, much of it was from either hapkido or from whatever SD he was doing in the ROK.  Some of it was just stuff that he came up with on the fly.

I also feel that this is an area where each school will be more individualized.  Lots of instructors will teach added 'stuff' but they won't all add the same stuff.

So, no, I don't believe that everything that they know is in the book.  But I do believe that what is in the book is detailed to an extent that it leaves little room for interpretation, such as what parts of the arm are used for arae makki.


----------



## punisher73

> Originally Posted by *dancingalone*
> 
> Do we know the exact timeline of the creation of the Pinan kata as well as which students started as adults and learned the Pinan as their primary formative kata? I ask because all the sources I've read state that Itosu did in fact intend the Pinan to be an introductory vehicle for youth. The adults at the time already had the Naihanchi kata to serve the same purpose.
> 
> Funakoshi would have been well into his thirties before I think the Pinan were taught. Chibana and Mabuni would have been in their teens I believe relative to the same event.
> 
> In any case, I don't doubt the Pinan eventually evolved to be goods for the adults too. That is the current reality with the forms taught in many different karate ryu. This was a natural consequence over time as the children that learned them grew up and begin teaching themselves. But if you can point me to any source material about Itosu's original intentions towards adults with the Pinan, I'd appreciate the cite.



Ok, here are the bits of the interview with Sensei Pat Nakata (long time student of Chibana Sensei).  The interview is taken from Classifcal Fighting Arts #21.

CFA: Where did Chibana learn from Itosu?  Where was Itosu teacing at that time?
Nakata: Chibana sensei started learning from Itosu Sensei about the time Itosu Sensei was introducing karate into public schools.  Since Chibana had dropped out of school to learn karate from Itosu (notice, while Nakata is speaking formal titles are used, for brevity in typing I will use last name only), his training was at the residence of Itosu.

CFA: How many days each week did Chibana train with Itosu
Nakata:  The training was 7 days a week.
CFA: How long would he train each day?
Nakata: Training was 8 to 10 hours a day.
CFA: How many years did Chibana train with Itosu?
Nakata: Chibana trained with Itosu until Itosu passed away, which was about 15 to 16 years.
CFA: Who were some of Itosu's other students?
Nakata: Itosu's two most senior students were Kentsu Yabu and Chomo Hanashiro.  Funakoshi could also be counted as one of Itosu's students, but he seemed to have been busy with other school activities.  There were about 10 others who trained with Itosu.

CFA: What kata did Itosu teach to his students
Nakata: Itosu taught numerous kata, but his core kata were: Naihanchi Shodan, Nidan, Sandan, Pinan Shodan thru Godan, Patsai, Kusanku Sho and Dai, Chinto etc. I believe that Itosu taught about 25 kata.

CFA: We all know that Itosu created the Pinan Shodan kata.  you have previously said that he created Pinan Shodan kata the first year that karate was taught in the okinawan school system.  The next year, since students already knew the first kata, he created Pinan nidan.  this went on until he created 5 kata.
Nakata: Yes, that is correct.

CFA: Do you know what the source material was for the Pinan kata?  Did Itosu draw from other kata?
Nakata: Itosu meant to create only one Pinan with the source being Kusanku (Dai) from Tudi Sakugawa and Sokon Matsumura.  The first kata was simply called Pinan, not Pinan Shodan.
CFA: Do the various Pinan kata draw from the same sources or do they differ?
Nakata: The various Pinan do draw from different sources.  It is my understanding that Itosu incorporated many old techniques from his early _ti _training in Shuri.
CFA: Did Itosu have different goals or objectives for the various Pinan kata?  For example, was he trying to teach different things in Pinan Shodan than Pinan Godan?
Nakata: As I understand it, after Itosu realized that he needed to make more Pinan kata, he tried to make the Pinan kata series into a complete fighting system.
CFA: I have always been struck by how difficult the Pinan kata are.  I cannot see how a school student who had not previously learned any kata, could start out with the Pinan.  Do you know if Itosu tuaght a curriculum of kihon first?
Nakata: Naihanchi Sho/Ni/Sandan were taught as kihon kata.  After the Naihanchi kata, they were taught Kusanku, which was too long and too difficult for the young students.  He created Pinan (Shodan) which was shorter, so it would be easier to learn.

CFA: When Itosu (and his senior students)began to teach in the okinawan school system, they were already training together privately.  How did the two forms of karate-the private training and the public school training differ?
Nakata: The kata performance in appearance did not seem to differ privately or publicly, but the application publicly was less dangerous, yet effective.  Privately, the application was for more deadly.

CFA: Can you please describe the three different application levels of each karate technique?
Nakata: There are three levels of application that were taught.  Level one was for beginners and the very young students, which was punch, strike, kick, block, and cocking-pulling the hand back to the side in the chambered position for the transitional moves.  Level two was for the intermediate and older students and emphasized body mechanics for more powerful punching, striking, kicking and blocking.  What originally appeared to be cocking, now became throws and/or locking techniques.  Level three as mentioned earlier was viscious and deadly.  The punch, strike, kick and block were now executed to destroy the opponent with a single technique.  The throws and locks were fatal if applied correctly.  Level three was only taught to trusted senior students.

There is alot more, but that is what is relevant to this discussion about the kata and applications.  The spaces between items designate break in the interview where other questions were being asked.  The interview itself was conducted by Mr. Walter Goodin.


----------



## stoneheart

That was interesting.  Thanks.


----------



## Archtkd

Kong Soo Do said:


> I feel that there are more than one correct interpretation for many movements in a form, thus I agree with any interpretation that is tactically sound.



Do you think or believe it's possible to correctly perform Taeguk Il Jang or any Kukki taekwondo poomsae, using any "tactically sound" interpretation that was not conceived by the creators or Kukkiwon teachers of the poomsae?


----------



## Gnarlie

Archtkd said:


> Do you think or believe it's possible to correctly perform Taeguk Il Jang or any Kukki taekwondo poomsae, using any "tactically sound" interpretation that was not conceived by the creators or Kukkiwon teachers of the poomsae?



Two points,  one for the above and one general. 

In regard to the above,  I use applications other than those stated in the Kukkiwon Textbook.  They come from my instructors, one of whom picked them up through experience of TKD since 1972, the other of whom is a Kukkiwon certified trainer and Yong-In graduate.  I know applications,  I use applications, bit that doesn't change the way I perform the patterns.   The poomsae are what they are. 

Secondly, pertaining to the thread: Kukkiwon literature says poomsae is the essence of TKD and that sparring is the application of poomsae.  We all spar in some form so we all practice applications.  Is all of our sparring punch, kick, block? 

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ralphmcpherson

Archtkd said:


> Do you think or believe it's possible to correctly perform Taeguk Il Jang or any Kukki taekwondo poomsae, using any "tactically sound" interpretation that was not conceived by the creators or Kukkiwon teachers of the poomsae?


I cant speak on behalf of the tegek forms as I dont know them, but we regularly break down the palgwe forms and find applications all through them.


----------



## Jaeimseu

Daniel Sullivan said:


> While there may be more than one application for a movement in a form, the only correct interpretation of the movements in the form is the one stated in the art's core curriculum, in the case of the Taegeuk pumse, as dictated in the KKW textbook.


I think I would agree with this. Poomse techniques, much like works of literature, can be interpreted in many ways. Some may appear more valid than others, but I would think that the "correct" interpretation would come from the source (creators of the poomse). Some people will argue that the actual source is somewhere else and that the "original" application was different, but I think the fact is that these types of statements are just opinions.


----------



## Gnarlie

Jaeimseu said:


> I think I would agree with this. Poomse techniques, much like works of literature, can be interpreted in many ways. Some may appear more valid than others, but I would think that the "correct" interpretation would come from the source (creators of the poomse). Some people will argue that the actual source is somewhere else and that the "original" application was different, but I think the fact is that these types of statements are just opinions.



I agree.  I would only ever consider applications as 'possibilities'.  It's up to the individual how they choose to employ a movement.   But the right way to perform the pattern comes from KKW. 

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Archtkd said:


> Do you think or believe it's possible to correctly perform Taeguk Il Jang or any Kukki taekwondo poomsae, using any "tactically sound" interpretation that was not conceived by the creators or Kukkiwon teachers of the poomsae?



Yes sir I do.  One of the longest running threads on Martial Warrior several years ago was about different applications in forms.  That discussion incuded several KKW TKD members with master rank.  If you look at the dedication of Mr. O'Neill's book you'll find many of us listed as a result of those discussion.  Master Anslow and I have talked briefly over the years on this as well.  I have a different application than Mr. O'Neill for the opening movements of Il Jang.  However, both use the same movements, both demonstrate different yet practical principles in in-fighting and both would work well in an altercation.  

While the KKW has an application assigned to the movement, it cannot be considered the only 'correct' one.  It is the one they've chosen to assign to the movement.  To clarify, it may be the official KKW application, but it doesn't mean that it is the only application or even the best.  It is the application they've assigned based upon the either the form designers experience and/or goal for the form.  Nothing wrong with that.  

As mentioned earlier in the thread, it would appear the KKW encourages exploration in the art.  I can applaud them for that stance.  Many in TKD, some of who are masters have done this and it has worked out well.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

ralphmcpherson said:


> I cant speak on behalf of the tegek forms as I dont know them, but we regularly break down the palgwe forms and find applications all through them.


Breaking them down to find applications is not the same as reinterpreting what movements are in the form.  

In other words, you finding a hip toss in one of the movements is not the same thing as saying that the movement, which is proscribed as arae makki is actually something else.

So in taegeuk iljang, arae makki will always be arae makki.  If you pull a grab of the foot out of it, segueing into some kind of leg lock take down (I'm sure that a grappler has a better technical term), then arae makki is still arae makki.

Thus the form is not reinterpreted, but a different application is found.  So if what Kongsoodo means is that the bunhae one can mine from the Taegeuk pumse are quantitatively greater than the bunhae found in the textbook, I agree with him. 

However, if somebody is reinterpreting the movements of the form to either be something other than what is in the form or to be executed in a way contrary to the way that the moves are taught in the system, be it Kukki taekwondo, Shotokan karate, or any other system that has a codified set of forms, then their understanding of the form is flawed.  

In other words, if you do your Taegeuk pumse 'Shotokan style' because you feel that it has some benefit, then you are performing the form incorrectly and likely do not have the foundation to understand why.... and should probably be at a Shotokan school if that is what you are after.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Gnarlie said:


> In regard to the above,  I use applications other than those stated in the Kukkiwon Textbook.  They come from my instructors, one of whom picked them up through experience of TKD since 1972, the other of whom is a Kukkiwon certified trainer and Yong-In graduate.  I know applications,  I use applications, bit that doesn't change the way I perform the patterns.   The poomsae are what they are.


This is what I have been saying.  The patterns are what the patterns are.  When you punch, you use a proscribed portion of your fist as the striking surface.  When you block, you use a proscribed portion of the arm/hand as the striking surface.  When you kick, you use a proscribed portion of the foot as the striking surface.  You take specific stances and move in a proscribed method. 

When you draw applications from or import applications from another art to the pumse, you are finding your own expression of the pumse.



Gnarlie said:


> Secondly, pertaining to the thread: Kukkiwon literature says poomsae is the essence of TKD and that sparring is the application of poomsae.  We all spar in some form so we all practice applications.  Is all of our sparring punch, kick, block?


It is the application of the pumse inasmuch as can be applied within that rule set.  There are some applications in the textbook (not many) that go beyond blocking, punching, and kicking.  Those cannot be applied in sparring because they do not fall within the WTF rule set.


----------



## Gnarlie

But there are quite a few other types of sparring within the KKW syllabus, where those techniques can be and are used. 

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## dancingalone

Daniel Sullivan said:


> So in taegeuk iljang, arae makki will always be arae makki.  If you pull a grab of the foot out of it, segueing into some kind of leg lock take down (*I'm sure that a grappler has a better technical term*), then arae makki is still arae makki.



I hope this isn't too big of a digression...  Ankle pick is the term I think you are looking for.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Gnarlie said:


> But there are quite a few other types of sparring within the KKW syllabus, where those techniques can be and are used.
> 
> Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


True.  But from *what I have seen*, most KKW schools pretty much stop at WTF sparring.  As I said, that is based on my personal observation; not based on any sort of hard data.


----------



## Gnarlie

Daniel Sullivan said:


> True.  But from *what I have seen*, most KKW schools pretty much stop at WTF sparring.  As I said, that is based on my personal observation; not based on any sort of hard data.



Understand your point but my experience is that 1 step,  3 step, freestyle SD sparring are very much alive and well in schools where the BBs are KKW certified.  I guess we just have different experiences then?

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## SahBumNimRush

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Breaking them down to find applications is not the same as reinterpreting what movements are in the form.
> 
> Thus the form is not reinterpreted, but a different application is found.
> 
> However, if somebody is reinterpreting the movements of the form to either be something other than what is in the form or to be executed in a way contrary to the way that the moves are taught in the system, be it Kukki taekwondo, Shotokan karate, or any other system that has a codified set of forms, then their understanding of the form is flawed.
> 
> In other words, if you do your Taegeuk pumse 'Shotokan style' because you feel that it has some benefit, then you are performing the form incorrectly and likely do not have the foundation to understand why.... and should probably be at a Shotokan school if that is what you are after.



That is a very good way to put it Daniel.  Unlike the older TKD form sets which are somewhat reinterpreted Karate forms (i.e. high kicks vs. lower kicks, which totally change the intent of the movement), modern TKD forms are unified in standard because we know who the creators of the form are and what their intent of movement is, a.k.a. the KKW standard.  

There are different 'flavors' of performing the older TKD forms, because, just as their Japanese and Okinawan counterparts, there is no one single unifying standard.  This is not the case, as I understand it, with the KKW.  

I have more freedom with intent, because I do practice the older forms, which as punisher pointed out, there are in fact layers of intent with the movements.  I would like to point out, that when teaching these "layers," it does not change how the movement is executed, only a different intent with the movement.  

Can you apply the same nature to a KKW form?  I don't know since I don't practice them, but I'm confident that you probably could.  The major difference being that, it sounds as though there was never multiple layers put in place by the creators of the form.  So it is what it is.  Like you put it, there is ONE, and only one, proper explanation to the movements in your forms.  If you try to say that it IS a different movement, then you are wrong.  IF, you practice other techniques that fit into the same movements found in your forms, then you may find some benefit for doing so, but that all depends on your focus of training.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Gnarlie said:


> Understand your point but my experience is that 1 step,  3 step, freestyle SD sparring are very much alive and well in schools where the BBs are KKW certified.  I guess we just have different experiences then?


I'd say that we all have different experiences. 

The school where I did the majority of my training in this century had hanbon and sambon gyorugi, freestyle, and WTF the first few years that I trained there.  Then Kim KJN began teaching hapkido as a separate course of study and freestyle migrated to hapkido and the hanbon and sambon gyorugi were kind of orphaned.  

The fact that he was running two schools forty miles apart and lived north of one of them I think really affected how he ran the classes; not to say that they were bad; just more streamlined.  I don't know what its like now, as I haven't been there in over a year.  The dojang that I have been associated with since then is also an HKD and TKD school, but Disney KJN (not making up the name!) seems to do more crossover between the two.  Of course, she isn't also teaching kendo.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

SahBumNimRush said:


> Can you apply the same nature to a KKW form?  I don't know since I don't practice them, but I'm confident that you probably could.  The major difference being that, it sounds as though there was never multiple layers put in place by the creators of the form.  So it is what it is.  Like you put it, there is ONE, and only one, proper explanation to the movements in your forms.  If you try to say that it IS a different movement, then you are wrong.  IF, you practice other techniques that fit into the same movements found in your forms, then you may find some benefit for doing so, but that all depends on your focus of training.


I think that you can, but if you don't have a foundation in Kukki taekwondo, you shouldn't.  In fact, I'd say that if you are below third dan you probably shouldn't because it takes that long to develop a thorough understanding of the forms and to perfect your practice of them correctly without any reinterpretations.

If you do decide to reinterpret the execution of the pumse at that point, then it is not because there are multiple interpretations of the form but that you are engaging in a training exercise of your own.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

You are certainly entitled to your opinion Daniel. I would simply suggest that there are many people who don't share that opinion. If you, or anyone is interested in some additional research then, in addition to the resources I'v already mentioned, I would offer the Totally TKD e-magazine put out by Master Anslow. It is free, back issues are available to download and is an incredibly rich cross-section of TKD material. I've written for the magazine as have several other MT members. And even if alternate applications in forms isn't of interest, as mentioned, they have a rich cross-section of interest to those in (and out) of TKD. Stuff for sports, SD, forms, conditioning etc.

Cheers


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> You are certainly entitled to your opinion Daniel. I would simply suggest that there are many people who don't share that opinion.


To what are you referring?  I've made several posts on this thread today.


----------



## Jaeimseu

Gnarlie said:


> Understand your point but my experience is that 1 step,  3 step, freestyle SD sparring are very much alive and well in schools where the BBs are KKW certified.  I guess we just have different experiences then?
> 
> Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2



I suspect that it may regional. The only time I've seen one step or three step sparring at the dojangs I've trained at here in Korea was when an instructor from the UK was teaching the class. Nearly all of our sparring related activities are basically done under WTF rules.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Jaeimseu said:


> I suspect that it may regional. The only time I've seen one step or three step sparring at the dojangs I've trained at here in Korea was when an instructor from the UK was teaching the class. Nearly all of our sparring related activities are basically done under WTF rules.


I think that a _*lot*_ of people's perceptions are based on regional norms.


----------



## chrispillertkd

SahBumNimRush said:


> That is a very good way to put it Daniel. Unlike the older TKD form sets which are somewhat reinterpreted Karate forms (i.e. high kicks vs. lower kicks, which totally change the intent of the movement), *modern TKD forms are unified in standard because we know who the creators of the form are* and what their intent of movement is, a.k.a. the KKW standard.



Out of curiosity, who did invent the KKW patterns? I mean who created each individual pattern? I know specifically who created two of them (and one of those is a Palgwe, not a Taeguk), but I'd love to know the names of each individual responsible for each Palgwe, each Taeguk, and each black belt form. Anyone have a list of people as they relate to each pattern? When I trained at a KKW school for a couple of years in college way back in the day getting information like this was like pulling teeth so I'd love any information you (or anyone else) could provide!

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

chrispillertkd said:


> Out of curiosity, who did invent the KKW patterns? I mean who created each individual pattern? I know specifically who created two of them (and one of those is a Palgwe, not a Taeguk), but I'd love to know the names of each individual responsible for each Palgwe, each Taeguk, and each black belt form. Anyone have a list of people as they relate to each pattern? When I trained at a KKW school for a couple of years in college way back in the day getting information like this was like pulling teeth so I'd love any information you (or anyone else) could provide!
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


I'll have to dig, but I'm pretty sure they were developed by a committee and not by any single person.


----------



## dancingalone

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I'll have to dig, but I'm pretty sure they were developed by a committee and not by any single person.



I hope senility is not setting in, but I seem to recall reading a discussion here about the process of creation of the poomsae.  Authorship of each separate form would have been a 2 person collaboration at the most, though the committee ultimately 'ratified' which poomsae were picked.  (Personally I think it would be interesting to see the rejected poomsae, but I am sure that opportunity has long passed us.)

If someone is able to correct me, I'm all ears.


----------



## chrispillertkd

I'd appreciate any information you could find because I was under the impression that each Kwan (or almost each) got a representative on the commmittee and then each rep did one poomsae. I could obviously be wrong, but I know there are two very well known Taekwon-Doin who are generally credited with being responsible for one poomsae each. 

Also, FWIW, I early said that you could see some "old" karate type techniques in one of the KKW  black belt poomsae (I think I said it in this thread, anyway) and mentioned Chonkwon. I meamt Pyongwon. Chonkwon has a bit of a Chinese feel to certain sections of it (which makes me wonder if it was designed by someone from the Chang Moo Kwan or possibly even the Kang Duk Won).

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Archtkd

Kong Soo Do said:


> Yes sir I do.  One of the longest running threads on Martial Warrior several years ago was about different applications in forms.  That discussion incuded several KKW TKD members with master rank.  If you look at the dedication of Mr. O'Neill's book you'll find many of us listed as a result of those discussion.  Master Anslow and I have talked briefly over the years on this as well.  I have a different application than Mr. O'Neill for the opening movements of Il Jang.  However, both use the same movements, both demonstrate different yet practical principles in in-fighting and both would work well in an altercation.
> 
> While the KKW has an application assigned to the movement, it cannot be considered the only 'correct' one.  It is the one they've chosen to assign to the movement.  To clarify, it may be the official KKW application, but it doesn't mean that it is the only application or even the best.  It is the application they've assigned based upon the either the form designers experience and/or goal for the form.  Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> As mentioned earlier in the thread, it would appear the KKW encourages exploration in the art.  I can applaud them for that stance.  Many in TKD, some of who are masters have done this and it has worked out well.



I'm not questioning the application. I think we are all now agree that one could do whatever they want with applying a technique they lifted, or thought they were lifting, from Kukki taekwondo poomsae. That application, adoption and interpretation/misinterpretation could be made by anybody, even those that have never studied Kukki taekwondo poomsae or any martial art for that matter. I occasionally sneak on my seven-and-half year old son doing a corrupted version of the ITF form Chon-ji with fake knifes, in a mortal battle with pirates. It actually looks good.  

My question is specific to the learning and performing of poomsae to the standard created by the creators and teachers at the Kukkiwon and as an extension to serious practitioners of Kukki taekwondo. 

If you were to apply "any tactically sound" interpretation to poomsae you will learn, perform and teach corrupted Kukki taekwondo poomsae or something resembling the same. That's the reason you see some folks doing all kinds of strange things in what they think is proper poomsae including standing on tip-toes, heaving, huffing and pufffng at the beginning of Koryo;  sharp turning of the head left before they begin taeguks Il Jang to Chil Jang; throwing hands at the ceiling -- in opposite direction -- before performing any double knife hand block; throwing elbows in when performing outside-inside middle blocks; jumping both feet in the air to finish taeguk Oh Jang, etc. That philosophy of misinterpretation has often led even many of us practicing  Kukki taekwondo to insult each other over imaginary "old" and "new" ways of doing poomsae created a mere 40 years ago.


----------



## Gnarlie

Yep,  I can only comment on the UK and Germany. 

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Archtkd

chrispillertkd said:


> Out of curiosity, who did invent the KKW patterns? I mean who created each individual pattern? I know specifically who created two of them (and one of those is a Palgwe, not a Taeguk), but I'd love to know the names of each individual responsible for each Palgwe, each Taeguk, and each black belt form. Anyone have a list of people as they relate to each pattern? When I trained at a KKW school for a couple of years in college way back in the day getting information like this was like pulling teeth so I'd love any information you (or anyone else) could provide!
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



There are people on this forum who know Kukkiwon poomsae practice, history or theory extremely well. I'm not one of them, and are in fact their distant junior, who learns a great deal from them on MT. You might want to PM them, because I get the feeling they don't want to be muddied up in this pig fight. Puunui and Mastercole, are already out, so try to get in touch with MSUTKD or Miles. There are others, who I can't think of right off the of me head.  A History of Modern Taekwondo ( http://tkd.stanford.edu/documents/tkd_history.pdf) authored by , KANG, Won Sik, and LEE Kyong Myong, has excellent info.  


LEE Kyong Myong


----------



## Archtkd

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I'll have to dig, but I'm pretty sure they were developed by a committee and not by any single person.



That's correct


----------



## SahBumNimRush

I was using a royal "we" as I assumed atleast some of our KKW Taekwondoin know who created their form sets, whereas the forms I practice are a bit more murky in history (with the exception of the Pyung Ahns).  I believe Hae Man Park (CDK) was one of the creators of the Taegeuk forms.  I would be interested to see if any of our KKW buffs on here could shed some light on the subject as well!


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

dancingalone said:


> I hope senility is not setting in, but I seem to recall reading a discussion here about the process of creation of the poomsae.  Authorship of each separate form would have been a 2 person collaboration at the most, though the committee ultimately 'ratified' which poomsae were picked.  (Personally I think it would be interesting to see the rejected poomsae, but I am sure that opportunity has long passed us.)
> 
> If someone is able to correct me, I'm all ears.


Beyond that there was a pumse committee, I don't know.  I suspect that what you describe is correct, but that it wasn't the same person or group of people on all eight pumse.  

I do know that the unification process was completed after the creation of the Palgwe pumse, so the Taegeuk pumse were created to be representative of the input of all nine kwans.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Archtkd said:


> There are people on this forum who know Kukkiwon poomsae practice, history or theory extremely well. I'm not one of them, and are in fact their distant junior, who learns a great deal from them on MT. You might want to PM them, because I get the feeling they don't want to be muddied up in this pig fight. Puunui and Mastercole, are already out, so try to get in touch with MSUTKD or Miles. There are others, who I can't think of right off the of me head. A History of Modern Taekwondo ( http://tkd.stanford.edu/documents/tkd_history.pdf) authored by , KANG, Won Sik, and LEE Kyong Myong, has excellent info.
> 
> 
> LEE Kyong Myong



I read the Modern History book a few times. I don't recall it mentioning information as it pertains to what I'm asking. I'll have to look through it again.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Archtkd

chrispillertkd said:


> I read the Modern History book a few times. I don't recall it mentioning information as it pertains to what I'm asking. I'll have to look through it again.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



This is some good info Miles has posted here on MT, a while back.
"During the 1950's Korean martial artists were primarily performing Okinawan and Chinese forms. With the efforts to unify the various Kwans came an effort to standardize the material taught. To this end, the Korea Taekwondo Association had representatives from the various Kwans become members of the Poomsae Committee. The task of the Poomsae Committee was to create uniquely Korean Taekwondo poomsae. The members of the Committee and their Kwan affiliation were:

1) KWAK Kun Sik (Chung Do Kwan)2) LEE Yong Sup (Song Moo Kwan)3) PARK Hae Man (Chung Do Kwan)4) HYUN Jong Myung (Oh Do Kwan)5) KIM Soon Bae (Chang Moo Kwan)

These original members created the Palgwae poomsae and the Yudanja poomsae (Koryo through Ilyo). It is important to emphasize that the Oh Do Kwan, which were using the Chon Ji forms created by Gen. Choi, participated in the creation of the new KTA poomsae, and thus were an active part of the unification process. The Oh Do Kwan member who participated was GM HYUN Jong Myung, the Oh Do Kwan Jang at the time. The Palgwae poomsae were the first uniquely Korean Taekwondo poomsae. Unfortunately, they were created without the input of two of the original Kwans: the Jidokwan and the Moo Duk Kwan. The reason for this is that the Kwan Jangs of these Kwans: Dr. YOON, Kwe Byung and GM HWANG, Kee, respectively, had left theKorea Taekwondo Association and had a rival organization, the Korea Soo Bahk Do Association. Several years later, a majority of Jidokwan (under the leadership of GM LEE, chong Woo) and Moo Duk Kwan (lead by GM HONG, Chong Soo) members rejoined the Korea Taekwondo Association. At that time, it was felt that the input of these Kwans should be included, and new poomsae, the Tae Guek series was created. The additional members from the Jidokwan and Moo Duk Kwan were:

6) LEE Chong Woo (Jidokwan)7) BAE Young Ki (Jidokwan)8) HAN Yong Tae (Moo Duk Kwan)

(Names and Kwan affiliation of Poomsae Committee members comes to me courtesy of my friend and senior Glenn U. from his many conversations with Kwan founders and pioneers)."​


----------



## chrispillertkd

Already knew the members of the committee and the general history that you mentioned. It doesn't really cover the subject I'm primarily interested in. Thanks, though!

Pax,

Chris


----------



## dancingalone

chrispillertkd said:


> Already knew the members of the committee and the general history that you mentioned. It doesn't really cover the subject I'm primarily interested in. Thanks, though!
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



Chris,  do you know the exact author of each one of the tuls?  Or are they all attributed to General Choi?


----------



## chrispillertkd

A bit of both, really. I don't have my notes handy right now so I can't tell you specifics about who worked on what tul with Gen. Choi but, basically, he designed them and then got input from his top black belts (there might be a couple of exceptions to this, depending on how you take things, but even so Gen. Choi's "fingerprints" are all over each tul). I read an interview with GM Lee, Yoo Sun some time ago and he mentioned Gen. Choi reading tul movements to him (and other instructors) while they performed the movements while the tul were being developed.   

If you want names of who was involved with which tul let me know and I'll look through my notes and PM you tomorrow.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Archtkd

chrispillertkd said:


> Already knew the members of the committee and the general history that you mentioned. It doesn't really cover the subject I'm primarily interested in. Thanks, though!
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



Here's additional stuff that's more specific.:
*KTA Poomse Committee*​ _[FONT=&quot]
The following is a paraphrasing from Chapter 10 of the Korean language book, &#8220;A Modern History of Taekwondo&#8221;, on the development of the Poomsae[/FONT]_

  [FONT=&quot]The KTA Poomsae Committee was formed in 1965 and it took two years to create the new forms. On November 30, 1967, the KTA began educating Taekwondo practitioners on the new forms. It was very difficult in the beginning, but gradually the new forms were spread. The KTA Poomsae Committee was composed of the following members: KWAK Kun Sik (Chung Do Kwan and also a Captain at the Korean Military Academy), LEE Yong Sup (Song Moo Kwan), LEE Kyo Yun (Han Moo Kwan), PARK Hae Man (Chung Do Kwan), HYUN Jong Myun (Oh Do Kwan), and KIM Soon Bae (Chang Moo Kwan). By 1967, the Palgwe forms and Yudanja (Black Belt forms Koryo through Ilyo) were created, totaling 17 poomsae.[/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]Later, the Taeguek forms were created, and BAE Young Ki (Jidokwan) and HAN Yong Tae (Moo Duk Kwan) assisted the original committee members, with LEE Chong Woo supervising the efforts of the Committee. The Taeguek poomsae were finalized and revised by PARK Hae Man at the Chung Do Kwan dojang in Yong San over the course of 4 days. These revisions were later confirmed. IM Chang Soo (who now lives in the US) was the Administrative Assistant to GM Park during the Taeguek forms revisions, but he made many mistakes during the creation of the Poomsae Textbook (Taekwondo Kyobon) and this led to misunderstandings. For example, the poomsae should start with the left foot, but IM Chang Soo made it so the poomsae started with the right instead. This is an example of the type of mistakes that were made.[/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]After the mistakes were discovered, the KTA did not correct it because it was hard to reprint the Textbook, because everything had to be done by hand and there was no computer to assist in the editing like today. The Textbook was completed in 1972 with 25 Poomsae (8 Palgwe, 8 Taeguek and 9 Yudanja forms).[/FONT]


----------



## d1jinx

i think glen posted it here, but i didnt search yet.  it broke down each poomse in sets of 3 I believe, with 3 names to each set.each set was a member from each kwan..  Im on the fly here, so i reeally dont have the time to look it up, but it was definately discussed before.

question is though, why do you ask?  what is it you are looking for specifically?


----------



## d1jinx

Daniel Sullivan said:


> True.  But from *what I have seen*, most KKW schools pretty much stop at WTF sparring.  As I said, that is based on my personal observation; not based on any sort of hard data.



I too, am seeing more WTF sparring schools that are geared only toward sparring and only do the minumums set by KKW.  but those schools usually are obvious and schools like us, still do exist.


----------



## chrispillertkd

d1jinx said:


> i think glen posted it here, but i didnt search yet. it broke down each poomse in sets of 3 I believe, with 3 names to each set.each set was a member from each kwan.. Im on the fly here, so i reeally dont have the time to look it up, but it was definately discussed before.
> 
> question is though, why do you ask? what is it you are looking for specifically?



Was this question directed at me? I didn't know I needed a specific reason to ask a question other than curiosity. I was looking for, as I said, the names of who developed which forms (Palgues, Taeguks, and black belt forms).

Pax,

Chris


----------



## d1jinx

chrispillertkd said:


> Was this question directed at me? I didn't know I needed a specific reason to ask a question other than curiosity. I was looking for, as I said, the names of who developed which forms (Palgues, Taeguks, and black belt forms).
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



Yes the question was directed at you.  I asked so I could try to see if i could help find what you were looking for if there was more to it then just the names.  But since you seem defensive and ack as if I have no right to ask, then oh well.

try google.


----------



## chrispillertkd

d1jinx said:


> Yes the question was directed at you. I asked so I could try to see if i could help find what you were looking for if there was more to it then just the names. But since you seem defensive and ack as if I have no right to ask, then oh well.
> 
> try google.



How odd that you think I was being defensive as that was the exact impression that came off from your post. 

I would be interested in knowing, however, why you think "question is though, why do you ask?" I was under the assumption that people asked questions on a public BBS about topics in which they are interested. As for you "right" to ask why I asked the question in the first place, it was because I was curious.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## msmitht

My gm, rest his soul, came from the moo duk kwan origiinally. He and his brothers trained under a young hwang kee in what they called tang soo do(which he said was kung fu and karate blended together). When the korean war started they left home, north korea, and travelled south for safety. After the war he and his brothers joined choi, hong hi at the military compound in korea where they started tkd. He left hwang kee's group because choi offered him a ticket to america under the tkd banner.
This was the history I was taught. 
After a few glasses of soju he once told me, and my seniors, that many of the early practitioners were "bad guys" or "gangsters".


----------



## d1jinx

msmitht said:


> After a few glasses of soju he once told me, and my seniors, that many of the early practitioners were "bad guys" or "gangsters".



you know there must be some truth to that cause i heard something similiar along the same lines.  I had this 1 Korean teacher, who i became close to ( so i thought, another story for another time) he told me that his wifes parents didnt like him and didnt approve of thier daughter marrying him because he was a taekwondo instructor.  He said they viewed taekwondo instructors as bad guys and tough guys and didnt have much respect for them calling them thugs.  So much so that they got married and came to the US.  He was a military TKD instructor in Korea.  They prefered she married a business man.  I thought that was odd, because it was the first time i had ever heard such a thing.  A few years later, i heard another similiar story from someone totaly different.


----------



## Master Dan

It was interesting to her my GM who was Tang Soo before TKD also from the North mention his personal opinions on the Kwans which had more of a cast society issue to it like one were Railroad workers others more organized protection groups similar to what you are saying lik gangters


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

d1jinx said:


> you know there must be some truth to that cause i heard something similiar along the same lines.  I had this 1 Korean teacher, who i became close to ( so i thought, another story for another time) he told me that his wifes parents didnt like him and didnt approve of thier daughter marrying him because he was a taekwondo instructor.  He said they viewed taekwondo instructors as bad guys and tough guys and didnt have much respect for them calling them thugs.  So much so that they got married and came to the US.  He was a military TKD instructor in Korea.  They prefered she married a business man.  I thought that was odd, because it was the first time i had ever heard such a thing.  A few years later, i heard another similiar story from someone totaly different.


I have heard similar stories; not that the pioneers were thugs, but that unless one is a coach or a school owner, practicing marital arts in Korea is something that you do when you are young and then you move on to more respectable pursuits. 

Shouldn't be surprising.  Hypothetical: A couple have a daughter.  She is dating different young men.  One young man is going to law school and two other are athletes; one a boxer and one a football player.  All three are pleasant enough.  Which of the three young men do you think mom and dad are more enthused about?

Athletics in the US really isn't all that different when you think about it.  Most athletes do not pursue athletics after college.  Some do, but only a handful of athletes (comparatively) go on to make big money, and those are generally viewed as being less affluent than businessmen, doctors and lawyers.  

I think one of the issues is that regardless of how much an athlete makes, he or she is a commodity that is marketed by a team owner and cared for by coaches and trainers.  Essentially, a race horse.


----------



## punisher73

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I have heard similar stories; not that the pioneers were thugs, but that unless one is a coach or a school owner, practicing marital arts in Korea is something that you do when you are young and then you move on to more respectable pursuits.
> 
> Shouldn't be surprising. Hypothetical: A couple have a daughter. She is dating different young men. One young man is going to law school and two other are athletes; one a boxer and one a football player. All three are pleasant enough. Which of the three young men do you think mom and dad are more enthused about?
> 
> Athletics in the US really isn't all that different when you think about it. Most athletes do not pursue athletics after college. Some do, but only a handful of athletes (comparatively) go on to make big money, and those are generally viewed as being less affluent than businessmen, doctors and lawyers.
> 
> I think one of the issues is that regardless of how much an athlete makes, he or she is a commodity that is marketed by a team owner and cared for by coaches and trainers. Essentially, a race horse.



I think it is more than that, I think it is more along the lines of what d1jinx talked about.  In the book, The Killing Art, this was spelled out with citations of the criminal connections and some of the stuff that happened in the name of TKD and their political fighting.

That being said, I don't think that it is exclusive to TKD.  Many kung fu masters had ties to the triads and the "societies" and the training was for the gang members.


----------



## dancingalone

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Shouldn't be surprising.  Hypothetical: A couple have a daughter.  She is dating different young men.  One young man is going to law school and two other are athletes; one a boxer and one a football player.  All three are pleasant enough.  Which of the three young men do you think mom and dad are more enthused about?
> 
> Athletics in the US really isn't all that different when you think about it.  Most athletes do not pursue athletics after college.  Some do, but only a handful of athletes (comparatively) go on to make big money, and those are generally viewed as being less affluent than businessmen, doctors and lawyers.
> 
> I think one of the issues is that regardless of how much an athlete makes, he or she is a commodity that is marketed by a team owner and cared for by coaches and trainers.  Essentially, a race horse.



No, it's a different dynamic than that.  The majority of prep school athletes in the US have no illusions that they will ever make the pros.  But, they'll still play in rec league basketball, soccer, tennis, etc., even as they attend college, graduate, and then move on with their lives.  It's not unusual at all to see someone play tennis their whole life.  

I get the sense in my interaction with Koreans that there is more of complete divorce between taekwondo and 'adult life' even though TKD is their national sport.  Odd from my perspective.


----------



## Archtkd

dancingalone said:


> I get the sense in my interaction with Koreans that there is more of complete divorce between taekwondo and 'adult life' even though TKD is their national sport. Odd from my perspective.



I also think it's about status in life. Koreans tend to be very status concious and taekwondo teachers for the most part rank very low in many Koreans' eyes. I heard someone once say as low as burger flipper status. I remember meeting a Korean attorney attending Washington University in St Louis, and he seemed to be stunned when he learned I had a masters degree, worked as a journalist for many years, yet choose to quit from a good newspaper gig to open my own dojang. Every time I met him with other Koreans he would often introduce me as a writer/journalist (which I still do and teach on the side) and then mention I also teach taekwondo.


----------



## Archtkd

dancingalone said:


> I get the sense in my interaction with Koreans that there is more of complete divorce between taekwondo and 'adult life' even though TKD is their national sport. Odd from my perspective.



And to add. many other ethnicities and countries tend to view athletes and people involved with sports as folk of low status. Think of the jokes people make about ordinary gym teachers in this country. That despite the terrifying obesity we are witnessing.

In Kenya, my home country, long distance runners, until recently, were looked at as people with goat herder status. Depending on what Kenyan ethnic group you come from, running in general is not viewed as activity to be pursued by intelligent adulls.
People will actually laught at joggers on Nairobi streets. Money of course is rapidly changing that view as a number of Kenyans begin make million by winning international races


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Archtkd said:


> And to add. many other ethnicities and countries tend to view athletes and people involved with sports as folk of low status. Think of the jokes people make about ordinary gym teachers in this country. That despite the terrifying obesity we are witnessing.


I've heard this one many times.  '_Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.  Those who can't teach, teach gym_.'  One of my gym teachers taught non gym classes as well, in addition to coaching the football team.  He certainly proved the saying wrong.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

terryl965 said:


> First off TKD got it name in the Fifties if I am not mistaken so Korea could never have an TKD art or sport prior to that it was called Korean Karate. So TKD is only about 60 years old and the sport is probaly more like 40 -45 years old.


This is one that I would like to address: prior to that, it was called a number of things, depending on the kwan or what point in time it was between 1945 and 1955, but Korean karate was not one of them. 

It was not called 'Korean karate' until it came to the states, and that was mainly for marketing reasons; everyone knew what karate was but nobody had heard of taekwondo.


----------



## dancingalone

Daniel Sullivan said:


> This is one that I would like to address: prior to that, it was called a number of things, depending on the kwan or what point in time it was between 1945 and 1955, but Korean karate was not one of them.
> 
> It was not called 'Korean karate' until it came to the states, and that was mainly for marketing reasons; everyone knew what karate was but nobody had heard of taekwondo.



Well, yes and no in my opinion.  LEE Won Kuk reportedly used the name Tang Soo Do for a time, correct?  Isn't Tang Soo Do just a Korean way of saying 'Way of the Empty Hand', or karate in other words?


----------



## andyjeffries

dancingalone said:


> Well, yes and no in my opinion.  LEE Won Kuk reportedly used the name Tang Soo Do for a time, correct?  Isn't Tang Soo Do just a Korean way of saying 'Way of the Empty Hand', or karate in other words?



Tang Soo Do translates as Way of the China Hand (Kara means empty or China depending on the kanji used, originally it meant China and it was then changed to empty, but Tang definitely means China).

I still think it's a stretch going from GGM Lee calling it Tangsoodo to saying it was called "Korean Karate" prior to it being Taekwondo - as it was only really known in Korea at the time and it would have simply been labelled Tangsoodo rather than Korean anything and they would have used the word that GGM Lee used, not labelled it with it's Japanese name.


----------



## dancingalone

andyjeffries said:


> I still think it's a stretch going from GGM Lee calling it Tangsoodo to saying it was called "Korean Karate" prior to it being Taekwondo - as it was only really known in Korea at the time and it would have simply been labelled Tangsoodo rather than Korean anything and they would have used the word that GGM Lee used, not labelled it with it's Japanese name.



I think the acid test would be to ask what image a Korean would have when they hear 'Tang Soo Do'.  If they think of white gi and people screaming 'hi-yah!' I think it's likely that karate is an appropriate enough synonym for common parlance.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

dancingalone said:


> Well, yes and no in my opinion.  LEE Won Kuk reportedly used the name Tang Soo Do for a time, correct?  Isn't Tang Soo Do just a Korean way of saying 'Way of the Empty Hand', or karate in other words?


Andy beat me to it, but the Korean translation of the word, 'karate' is not the same thing as 'Korean karate.'  If it were formally called 'Korean karate' in Korea, then it would have been called Daehan Tangsudo, or something to that effect.


----------



## dancingalone

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Andy beat me to it, but the Korean translation of the word, 'karate' is not the same thing as 'Korean karate.'  If it were formally called 'Korean karate' in Korea, then it would have been called Daehan Tangsudo, or something to that effect.



Well, that's really not my point, though probably technically correct.  We are talking about an occurrence IN Korea, taught by a Korean IN Korean, so the Korean part of this seems to be a basic existing assumption in my opinion.

I think the more important connection is what LEE Won Kuk meant exactly when he began using the term of Tang Soo Do.  We all know he trained karate in Japan at the Shotokan and this was the art he took back to Korea and taught.  By GM Lee's time, the meaning of karate as "Empty Hand Way" had taken strong root.  If he choose to use the Tang character to link back to China, that seems to be a political decision, at least to me.  But nonetheless he was teaching Japanese karate at the time and I am curious if the term TSD was meant to be synonymous to karate or not.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

dancingalone said:


> Well, that's really not my point, though probably technically correct.  We are talking about an occurrence IN Korea, taught by a Korean IN Korean, so the Korean part of this seems to be a basic existing assumption in my opinion.


I was under the impression that Terry was referring specifically to the term, 'Korean karate,' rather than Karate in Korea.  I only say that because I've seen (though not all that recently) debate both here and in other places about that specific term.



dancingalone said:


> I think the more important connection is what LEE Won Kuk meant exactly when he began using the term of Tang Soo Do.  We all know he trained karate in Japan at the Shotokan and this was the art he took back to Korea and taught.  By GM Lee's time, the meaning of karate as "Empty Hand Way" had taken strong root.  If he choose to use the Tang character to link back to China, that seems to be a political decision, at least to me. * But nonetheless he was teaching Japanese karate at the time and I am curious if the term TSD was meant to be synonymous to karate or not.*


I would assume that it was.


----------



## miguksaram

Archtkd said:


> I also think it's about status in life. Koreans tend to be very status conscious and taekwondo teachers for the most part rank very low in many Koreans' eyes. I heard someone once say as low as burger flipper status.


I believe that is an old situation.  As things are today, I am not sure if I would say they were ranked extremely low.  I just don't believe they are ranked as high in Korean social eyes as they seem to be in our eyes.  For the most part TKD instructors in Korea run their own business and most likely own the space they teach in.  A lot also depends on how successful they are in their business.  If they have a large school and a lot of students, they have a higher status than someone who has just a few local kids coming in.  They are for the most part educated, with a bachelor's degree and some even more so.  There are a few, though rare, that work a day job and teach at night and even fewer that held professional positions but gave it up to teach taekwondo.


----------



## dancingalone

As a side note to this, why are the Koreans the 'DaeHan'?  'Big/Great Chinese'?


----------



## oftheherd1

msmitht said:


> My gm, rest his soul, came from the moo duk kwan origiinally. He and his brothers trained under a young hwang kee in what they called tang soo do(which he said was kung fu and karate blended together). When the korean war started they left home, north korea, and travelled south for safety. After the war he and his brothers joined choi, hong hi at the military compound in korea where they started tkd. He left hwang kee's group because choi offered him a ticket to america under the tkd banner.
> This was the history I was taught.
> *After a few glasses of soju he once told me, and my seniors, that many of the early practitioners were "bad guys" or "gangsters"*.



I hadn't heard that about TKD, or any 'Korean' martial art.  When I was over there, in the 70s and 80s, you would read in the Korean English language papers from time to time about Judo school dropouts.  That was a known euphemism for gangsters.  What was being described were persons who learned Judo (or perhaps other arts) to a high level, but never tested, at least for BB.  

As I understood it, BB in Korea, no matter which art, must carry their card at all times, and are held to a different standard regards fighting.  They are expected to try hard to avoid a fight, and if they get in one, to be ready to identify themselves to the police.  

I would not be surprised that some practitioners in Post WWII and the Korean War may have had to reduce themselves to enforcer status just to feed their families, but probably wasn't wide spread.  That may be where some of the bad feelings about MA teachers have come from.


----------



## dancingalone

oftheherd1 said:


> I hadn't heard that about TKD, or any 'Korean' martial art.



Have you read A Killing Art by Alex Gillis?  If we can rely on his book factually, the connection between martial artists in Korea and organized crime/spying activities/assassinations was there.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

dancingalone said:


> As a side note to this, why are the Koreans the 'DaeHan'?  'Big/Great Chinese'?


Great Han.  I believe that Hanguk (&#38867;&#22283;) means Han nation.  The Korean Kumdo Association calls 'kendo' Daehan kumdo to differentiate it from Haedong Gumdo.  The Korea Hapkido Federation calls itself Daehan Hapgido Hyeobhoe Presumably, 'Han' (&#38867;) means Korea.  

Beyond that, you'd have to ask a Korean.


----------



## Archtkd

miguksaram said:


> I believe that is an old situation.  As things are today, I am not sure if I would say they were ranked extremely low.  I just don't believe they are ranked as high in Korean social eyes as they seem to be in our eyes.  For the most part TKD instructors in Korea run their own business and most likely own the space they teach in.  A lot also depends on how successful they are in their business.  If they have a large school and a lot of students, they have a higher status than someone who has just a few local kids coming in.  They are for the most part educated, with a bachelor's degree and some even more so.  There are a few, though rare, that work a day job and teach at night and even fewer that held professional positions but gave it up to teach taekwondo.



Thanks for that clarification.


----------



## miguksaram

dancingalone said:


> As a side note to this, why are the Koreans the 'DaeHan'?  'Big/Great Chinese'?



Funny you should ask this, I was just reading about this in my history books last week.  Actually it is not referring to the Chinese Han.  Daehan refers to Han Empire.  It was adopted to represent the Samhan or the prequel, if you will, of what became the three kingdoms of Korea (Silla, Baekje, Gogoryeo).  Daehan Jeguk translates to Great Korean Empire.


----------



## dancingalone

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Beyond that, you'd have to ask a Korean.



I always that Han was a reference to the old Han kingdom in what is now China.  Looking on a Wiki map, it looks like the Han kingdom did include Koguryo and Weimo.  

<shrugs>


----------



## dancingalone

miguksaram said:


> Funny you should ask this, I was just reading about this in my history books last week.  Actually it is not referring to the Chinese Han.  Daehan refers to Han Empire.  It was adopted to represent the Samhan or the prequel, if you will, of what became the three kingdoms of Korea (Silla, Baekje, Gogoryeo).  Daehan Jeguk translates to Great Korean Empire.



Thanks.  Makes perfect sense.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

miguksaram said:


> Funny you should ask this, I was just reading about this in my history books last week.  Actually it is not referring to the Chinese Han.  Daehan refers to Han Empire.  It was adopted to represent the Samhan or the prequel, if you will, of what became the three kingdoms of Korea (Silla, Baekje, Gogoryeo).  Daehan Jeguk translates to Great Korean Empire.


So Han Solo was Korean?  Perhaps they should have gotten Phillip Rhee to Han Solo.  Star Wars would have been so much cooler! And... oh.... wrong Han.  Never mind.


----------



## miguksaram

Daniel Sullivan said:


> So Han Solo was Korean?  Perhaps they should have gotten Phillip Rhee to Han Solo.  Star Wars would have been so much cooler! And... oh.... wrong Han.  Never mind.


Daniel...there are plenty of decaffeinated coffees that taste just as good as the regular....I'm just sayin'.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

miguksaram said:


> Daniel...there are plenty of decaffeinated coffees that taste just as good as the regular....I'm just sayin'.


Blasphemy!!


----------



## miguksaram

Daniel Sullivan said:


> So Han Solo was Korean?  Perhaps they should have gotten Phillip Rhee to Han Solo.  Star Wars would have been so much cooler! And... oh.... wrong Han.  Never mind.



And no...Han Solo would not have been Korean...If so he would have been called Daehan Solo.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

miguksaram said:


> And no...Han Solo would not have been Korean...If so he would have been called Daehan Solo.


And he would have put Jabba and all of his goons, Boba Fett included, in their place, thereby shortening Return of the Jedi by about forty minutes.


----------



## andyjeffries

dancingalone said:


> I think the acid test would be to ask what image a Korean would have when they hear 'Tang Soo Do'.  If they think of white gi and people screaming 'hi-yah!' I think it's likely that karate is an appropriate enough synonym for common parlance.



The question really would be though - what would people have thought of in the 1950s when people heard "Tang Soo Do".  They might have thought it was a martial art, but I don't know how well known karate was in Korea at the time, so they may have thought it more akin to Kung Fu.


----------



## andyjeffries

oftheherd1 said:


> As I understood it, BB in Korea, no matter which art, must carry their card at all times, and are held to a different standard regards fighting.  They are expected to try hard to avoid a fight, and if they get in one, to be ready to identify themselves to the police.



I'd be interested to know if this is fact (as opposed to your understanding).  The reason is that I'd always heard the same thing as a youngster growing up (also sometimes having it added in that you had to register with the police as your hands/feet are weapons).  It was only as I grew up that I learnt it was all BS.


----------



## dancingalone

andyjeffries said:


> The question really would be though - what would people have thought of in the 1950s when people heard "Tang Soo Do".  They might have thought it was a martial art, but I don't know how well known karate was in Korea at the time, so they may have thought it more akin to Kung Fu.




Maybe.  Then perhaps it would be more important to know what the term meant to GM Lee and why he picked it as stated above.


----------



## terryl965

andyjeffries said:


> I'd be interested to know if this is fact (as opposed to your understanding).  The reason is that I'd always heard the same thing as a youngster growing up (also sometimes having it added in that you had to register with the police as your hands/feet are weapons).  It was only as I grew up that I learnt it was all BS.



Well as far as being held at a higher standerd very doubtful since TKD is thought in elementary school and all of them. Probaly every single Korean has a Black Belt in TKD since it is mandatory for them to take in school. I believe it to be false like the register of your hand and feet as weapons.


----------



## miguksaram

terryl965 said:


> Well as far as being held at a higher standerd very doubtful since TKD is thought in elementary school and all of them. Probaly every single Korean has a Black Belt in TKD since it is mandatory for them to take in school. I believe it to be false like the register of your hand and feet as weapons.


You would be correct sir.  Koreans BB's do not have to carry a card around nor are they held at a higher standard.  In cases of fights, be you a instigator or defender, you butt is going downtown.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

andyjeffries said:


> The question really would be though - what would people have thought of in the 1950s when people heard "Tang Soo Do".  They might have thought it was a martial art, but I don't know how well known karate was in Korea at the time, so they may have thought it more akin to Kung Fu.


So far as I know, the only martial arts the Japanese permitted to be taught in Korea during the occupation were judo and kendo.  Prior to the occupation, I would suspect that karate was known of, but it is unlikely that it was practiced either at all or on any broad ranging level.  The upper classes outside of the military were more inclined towards intellectual pursuits and the common folk already had taekkyeon and ssereum.

I do recall in the seventies, taekwondo was marketed in the US as Korean Karate.  I believe that Jhoon Rhee may have even written a book by that title.


----------

