# Tae-Kwon-Do America ?



## DBZ (May 11, 2013)

Anybody heard of Tae-kwon-do America? There is a school in Sunbury Ohio my wife and I thought about looking into. I have never heard of them before. I stopped in to talk to them but a kids class was going so I did not get to talk to them much. There not WTF/Kukkiwon but there not full blown ITF or ATA either. Just wanted to make sure there not a fly by night Org. My wife and I are just looking to get back into MA, we have been out of it for about 4 years and just moved back to the area.


----------



## harlan (May 11, 2013)

Wonder what the difference between 'TA', the organization you refer to, and 'ATA' (many threads on that....).

http://www.taekwondoamerica.org/


----------



## DBZ (May 11, 2013)

Not sure, I found there website as well. I was just wondering if anybody on here practiced with them or new anybody that did?


----------



## msmitht (May 12, 2013)

Looks fishy...


----------



## chrispillertkd (May 12, 2013)

Never heard of them before. I checked out some of their videos. Their take on the patterns designed by Gen. Choi are ... interesting.


----------



## KingDiesel (May 13, 2013)

OK so here is how it basically breaks down ATA spun off ITA and TA because they were once all ATA and a few people had a problem with how the organization was being ran and left to form the ITA then when the ITA came about a few people didnt like the direction they were headed and they broke off to form TA is how i understood it when it was told to me


----------



## Instructor (May 13, 2013)

OP,

No harm in giving them a try.  You are closer to them than us and in a better position to form an opinion.  Let us know how it goes.

Jon


----------



## granfire (May 13, 2013)

Try them out. A couple of instructors split from the ITA before they went nuts with their changes. One moved on from there, the other one is still affiliated with them as far as I know. Both were good instructors (but we had a few so-so ones in the ITA as well...) 

I am not familiar with the organization, but from what I gather they left some of the nuttiness of A- and ITA behind.

But I could be wrong.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 13, 2013)

Since their lineage harkens back thru the ATA and HU Lee it's not surprising to see they do Chang Hon forms with a Chung Do Kwan influence, but their version of Ju Che as shown on the You tube video is really wacky.  They must have reinvented it for some reason.


----------



## granfire (May 13, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> Since their lineage harkens back thru the ATA and HU Lee it's not surprising to see they do Chang Hon forms with a Chung Do Kwan influence, but their version of Ju Che as shown on the You tube video is really wacky.  They must have reinvented it for some reason.



Probably copyright....it was the rumored reason for the ITA changing things up.


----------



## dancingalone (May 14, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> Since their lineage harkens back thru the ATA and HU Lee it's not surprising to see they do Chang Hon forms with a Chung Do Kwan influence, but their version of Ju Che as shown on the You tube video is really wacky.  They must have reinvented it for some reason.



I heard some gossip about a new TKD org that formed under similar circumstances.  Faced with a sudden need for new forms, they went 'back' to the General Choi forms and largely learned them from books and other publications.  No surprise that differences may have been introduced as a result.

I believe I have expressed my opinion on similar topics before.  It is inevitable that form variances creep in if there is no organizational control to mandate continuing orthodoxy to an outlined standard.  At this point there are as many different ways of running the Chang Hon forms as there are of running the Pinan kata.  Who is 'right' depends on whom you ask.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 14, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> .  Who is 'right' depends on whom you ask.


Uhm, Kinda sorta. In the olden days stuff was word of mouth, lots of room for disagreement unless you were training directly with the founder and even then no one's recall is perfect.  Then stuff was written down and there was less room for Interpretation.  Next came photos so interpretation issues lessened.  Then came forms of video, some directly authorized by the founder along with video of competition. This lessened any issues with what was correct and what was not.  In the case of the Chang Hon system we are left with 15 volumes setting the technical parameters, as well as CD ROM and DVD's he authorized and many people who spent dozens if not hundreds of classroom hours with him which might address remaining issues. So, whom you ask is important. Ask someone who is not well versed with what the founder did and what he wanted and there is the potential for huge errors.


----------



## chrispillertkd (May 14, 2013)

granfire said:


> Probably copyright....it was the rumored reason for the ITA changing things up.



I don't think so. That would apply to ATA patterns, maybe (which I have heard are protected by copyright) but not for the Chang Hun tul. Gen. Choi published many, many editions of his book and encyclopedia for public consumption so people would have easy access to his patterns. I imagine the changes they made were due to wanting to add more kicking techniques since all the patterns I viewed have additional kicks in them. Some of the turning, stepping, and general techniques used in the patterns are simply incorrect, however.


----------



## dancingalone (May 14, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> Uhm, Kinda sorta. In the olden days stuff was word of mouth, lots of room for disagreement unless you were training directly with the founder and even then no one's recall is perfect.  Then stuff was written down and there was less room for Interpretation.  Next came photos so interpretation issues lessened.  Then came forms of video, some directly authorized by the founder along with video of competition. This lessened any issues with what was correct and what was not.  In the case of the Chang Hon system we are left with 15 volumes setting the technical parameters, as well as CD ROM and DVD's he authorized and many people who spent dozens if not hundreds of classroom hours with him which might address remaining issues. So, whom you ask is important. Ask someone who is not well versed with what the founder did and what he wanted and there is the potential for huge errors.



We've been over this before.   I don't think either side will yield.  For the sake of discussion though since the board is very slow right now, I'll offer the following bits again.

From my perspective (as someone who practiced the Chang Hon forms though certainly not to General Choi's latest and fullest specifications), the technical parameters General Choi left are largely irrelevant to me as a practitioner though certainly I value them as intrinsic pieces of TKD history and scholarship.  This is because I sprouted from a lineage that did things their own way from the very start with a strong grandmaster independent to General Choi.  We weren't members of the ITF - our rank and recognition didn't come from General Choi and in fact when we encountered current branches of General Choi's family tree back in the eighties, we were bemused by how unlike they performed their patterns compared to us.

This doesn't mean that General Choi's works are devoid of value.  Of course not.  They can be very important sources of information for people who are closely aligned to his brand of TKD.  For others, even if they nominally run the Chang Hon patterns, not so much.  Again, it depends on whom you ask whom is right.  

I'll use the Pinan forms example again.  If we accept someone like Gichin Funakoshi as the starting point for discussion, we know that his Karate-do Kyohan outlines closely the 'correct' way to perform the Pinan (Heian kata) among others.  Yet it is no difficulty at all to find examples on Youtube of where these kata by people who sprang from Funakoshi's lineage ultimately who perform these in sometimes very different fashion.

Why?  There's a reference tome to refer back to, after all.  Because people move on.  People find things they would rather emphasize and they intentionally or unintentionally change things up to match.  I don't think it's a big deal.  Forms practice is supposed to be organic to the individual.  If we want to do things a certain way for organizational conformity, that's fine, but the reality is that the Chang Hon patterns (Pinan too) have been 'open sourced'.  If I'm ever at a tournament in my neck of the woods and some green belt is running Do San or Won Hyo, I fully expect to see it run any number of ways.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 15, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> >>>.  This is because I sprouted from a lineage that did things their own way from the very start with a strong grandmaster independent to General Choi.  We weren't members of the ITF - our rank and recognition didn't come from General Choi and in fact when we encountered current branches of General Choi's family tree back in the eighties, we were bemused by how unlike they performed their patterns compared to us.<<<
> 
> 
> 
> >>>  Forms practice is supposed to be organic to the individual.  If we want to do things a certain way for organizational conformity, that's fine, but the reality is that the Chang Hon patterns (Pinan too) have been 'open sourced'.<<<  If I'm ever at a tournament in my neck of the woods and some green belt is running Do San or Won Hyo, I fully expect to see it run any number of ways.



I have trained with any number of people whose lineage was more or less removed from General Choi as well as directly with General Choi. Here are the issues. General Choi had reasons for doing most of what he did a certain way. reasonable minds can differ as to whether they agreed with those reasons or whether their was a better reason do to things differently. However, if I asked why someone did something differently , most often they had no idea whether there was a specific parameter for the technique, and / or had no reason for following certain specifications.  They only reason they had for a doing something different than what the founder intended was that they were clueless, or perhaps "Did what the instructor told them to do"We will agree to disagree with regard to pattern practice being organic to the individual.  AFAIAC the technical specifics for a pattern serve as a metric to determine whether the student knows how the technique is supposed to be performed, and whether they can perform it that way. . For open competition judging these things are left to an educated guess.  When I see radical departures from how the patterns were designed I am sometimes bemused, but mostly saddened because I have little doubt that the performers  are clueless as to what they are doing.


----------



## granfire (May 15, 2013)

chrispillertkd said:


> I don't think so. That would apply to ATA patterns, maybe (which I have heard are protected by copyright) but not for the Chang Hun tul. Gen. Choi published many, many editions of his book and encyclopedia for public consumption so people would have easy access to his patterns. I imagine the changes they made were due to wanting to add more kicking techniques since all the patterns I viewed have additional kicks in them. Some of the turning, stepping, and general techniques used in the patterns are simply incorrect, however.



well, it's not a matter of using public domain material, but creating material (with minute changes) you can cash in on.

That means, while I can use the 'original' forms to my heart's content, I cannot claim profit from it. If I change it a little bit around, it's mine and I can charge (thus the hint on the organization formerly known)


----------



## dancingalone (May 15, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> "Did what the instructor told them to do"



Well, yes, that's precisely what I'm getting at.  Not everyone running Chon-Ji begins with the same assumptions.  Nor does the genesis of their Chon-Ji flow back to General Choi's ultimate grand design - the one that culminated in the final set of publications and recordings he authorized.  From what I gather, my original TKD GM learned them out of a field manual after being asked by General Choi to switch over to the Chang Hon sets from the Chung Do Kwan kata.   So instead of practicing the forms perhaps like General Choi would have liked (perhaps, perhaps not - I'm not convinced that what we see NOW as the final testament on how these forms should be run is what the standard ALWAYS was), we practiced them with the basic underlying assumptions our GM imparted.  What is right?  Obviously, follow what your teacher says.  Decades later, the answer is the same.  What is right is what your teacher says it is.  And if you don't like what your teacher says, you are always free to find another.  Regardless, it still remains that there are plenty of interpretations on how to do these forms and the right way depends on your lineage and your history of how these forms made it down to you.





Earl Weiss said:


> We will agree to disagree with regard to pattern practice being organic to the individual.



OK.  This is an idea from karate, so YMMV.



Earl Weiss said:


> AFAIAC the technical specifics for a pattern serve as a metric to determine whether the student knows how the technique is supposed to be performed, and whether they can perform it that way. . For open competition judging these things are left to an educated guess.  When I see radical departures from how the patterns were designed I am sometimes bemused, but mostly saddened because I have little doubt that the performers  are clueless as to what they are doing.



And this is where I will disagree with you about being 'clueless'.  I think there are plenty of people who use the Chang Hon forms and perform them well even if the same underlying assumptions General Choi gave in his writings are not part of what they study.  They know their own versions very well and could doubtlessly answer any level of detailed questioning about them.  It may not be the same answers you might give - but hey, here we are.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 16, 2013)

>>>Not everyone running Chon-Ji begins with the same assumptions.  Nor does the genesis of their Chon-Ji flow back to General Choi's ultimate grand design<<   If it doesn't flow back to his design to whom or what does it originate with? 

>>From what I gather, my original TKD GM learned them out of a field manual after being asked by General Choi to switch over to the Chang Hon sets from the Chung Do Kwan <<<  Who do you think wrote the field manual?  The lineage explains how Chung Do Kwan habits influenced an instructor's performance and progeny.                  >>>>Obviously, follow what your teacher says.<<<  Decades later, the answer is the same.<<<  What is right is what your teacher says it is.  And if you don't like what your teacher says, you are always free to find another.<<<                             How do you develop the knowledge to determine if you like what your instructor says or if he was correct?  Jim Jones had his minions drink Cool aid.   Throughout history students have done that, learning that the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth.   >>Regardless, it still remains that there are plenty of interpretations on how to do these forms and the right way depends on your lineage and your history of how these forms made it down to you.<<Would you tell Mozart that the right way to perform his song was how some instructor told you to perform it as opposed to how he wanted it performed and designed it to be performed?


----------



## dancingalone (May 16, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> If it doesn't flow back to his design to whom or what does it originate with?



You misunderstand me - let me expand on what I mean.  

Chon-Ji is indeed General Choi's invention (or one of his lieutenant's anyway). But the moment the form is learned and taught by someone else with considerable knowledge and experience himself, part of him inevitably bleeds into the instruction and becomes part of the transmission itself.  This is inavoidably so, particularly if the method of instruction in the first place was something like a book or manual and the reader WILL fill any gaps with his own pre-existing knowledge, intentionally so or not.



Earl Weiss said:


> Who do you think wrote the field manual?  The lineage explains how Chung Do Kwan habits influenced an instructor's performance and progeny.



My educated guess, not having a copy myself, is that General Choi was the attributed author.  As for Chung Do Kwan habits, sure.  You are what you are.  If you practice a certain method and then later convert to another set of forms, it's likely that your new forms will show evidence of your prior training.  This actually solidifies what I said above about people coming into the Chang Hon patterns with different assumptions because they stem from different lineages.



Earl Weiss said:


> How do you develop the knowledge to determine if you like what your instructor says or if he was correct?  Jim Jones had his minions drink Cool aid.   Throughout history students have done that, learning that the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth.



Most people obviously won't advance to the level of mastery enough that they KNOW what is correct or not for themselves, much less for 'most' other people.  But a small number will.  To link it back to a more concrete example, rather than talking about Jim Jones, I'll point out that I think how Jhoon Rhee taught the Chang Hon patterns is perfectly acceptable though it deviates from what is written in the Encyclopedia.  I'll go ahead and say the same for little groups here and there, ATA off-shoots or not, that also use the Chang Hon patterns.  It's fine enough if they know the weapon, the target, and intended outcome for each section of *THEIR* forms as that level of understanding is broadly accepted as necessary for BB level.



Earl Weiss said:


> Would you tell Mozart that the right way to perform his song was how some instructor told you to perform it as opposed to how he wanted it performed and designed it to be performed?



People make remixes all the time, Mr. Weiss.  Or they add their own spin on things.  See the Star Spangled Banner for example.  Andrew Lloyd Webber became a very successful modern composer just by changing around some of the classics and then working with a team of lyricists for his productions.

I'll go back to older martial arts than TKD as well.  Sets are modified and adjusted all the time there.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 16, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> But a small number will.  To link it back to a more concrete example, rather than talking about Jim Jones, I'll point out that I think how Jhoon Rhee taught the Chang Hon patterns is perfectly acceptable though it deviates from what is written in the Encyclopedia.  I'll go ahead and say the same for little groups here and there, ATA off-shoots or not, that also use the Chang Hon patterns.
> 
> 
> 
> .



1. Please teach me how to split a post in a reply. 2. HU Lee was also a Chung Do Kwan guy so his time with the Chang Hun forms and his progeny from that time show the CDK influence


----------



## jks9199 (May 16, 2013)

Tech question:

I'm going to use {} in place of square brackets so that you can see; the actual commands are in [].

{/quote} closes the word bubble.  {quote} opens a new one.

So, I can generate 





> these words


 in a bubble, and then again 





> put these words into one


.

So, if you use the Reply with quote button, then insert {/quote}, it'll break the balloon.  You can start it again with {quote}.  (reminder -- [] not {} for actual commands)


----------



## dancingalone (May 17, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> 1. Please teach me how to split a post in a reply. 2. HU Lee was also a Chung Do Kwan guy so his time with the Chang Hun forms and his progeny from that time show the CDK influence




JKS pretty much covered it.  If you hit the reply button, you'll see the quoted text embedded within tags like {QUOTE=Earl Weiss;1574612} except the curly braces will be brackets instead (we had to change it to get it show up).  Every time I want to reply in reference to something you wrote, I just need to make sure my added text is below yours and not contained within these bracketed quote line of {QUOTE=Earl Weiss;1574612} and then ending {/QUOTE}.  I usually wind up having to copy and paste the {QUOTE=Earl Weiss;1574612} and {/QUOTE} around several times to break things up in a readable way.

Hope that helps.


----------



## jks9199 (May 17, 2013)

One more tech note:  If you just want to wrap a quote bubble around something, like if you're copying a news article and want to distinguish your comments from the text of the article, it's easy.  There are two ways:  either highlight what you want to be in the bubble, and click on the button that looks like a cartoon word balloon in the reply window, or click it first, then paste the material in the middle.


----------



## TKDTony2179 (May 21, 2013)

This was the first organization I was with before my instructor left with other instructors to create their own organization. 

TA is an american martial art that teaches Taekwondo. It is good organization that has very talented martial artist. They have good curriclum that allow you to learn the martial art. They have plenty of tournaments a year plus national tournaments. 

The down fall in it is that they are not part of WTF/kukkiwon or ITF so larger org won't reconize them. It is american tkd so it is sport orieanted. 

I was 2 degree when we left that org. Largely part of the school owners losing money to the chairman wanting more money. As far as they cheating customer I don't think that goes on at all. 

Try them out. Every instructor is different and that instructor may be a very good one.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 21, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> People make remixes all the time, Mr. Weiss.  Or they add their own spin on things.  See the Star Spangled Banner for example.  Andrew Lloyd Webber became a very successful modern composer just by changing around some of the classics and then working with a team of lyricists for his productions.
> 
> .


Well, I guess that is my point. Someone does a remix or ads something to a song and that is how it's represented.  A remix, a sample, something added. They do not represent it to be the correct way of performing the song.  The bigger issue would be for someone to learn and perform the remix having no clue that it was something which might be a little or a lot different than the intended standard.  Then, one day they dgo out into the real world and are not happy to learn that what tey are doing was something far different than the largely accepted standard.


----------



## dancingalone (May 21, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> Well, I guess that is my point. Someone does a remix or ads something to a song and that is how it's represented.  A remix, a sample, something added. They do not represent it to be the correct way of performing the song.  The bigger issue would be for someone to learn and perform the remix having no clue that it was something which might be a little or a lot different than the intended standard.  Then, one day they dgo out into the real world and are not happy to learn that what tey are doing was something far different than the largely accepted standard.



I dispute "largely accepted standard".  I've traveled a lot throughout North America  and I have visited literally hundreds of dojo, dojang, kwoon in my time.  Anecdotally, I've actually seen more dojang run the Chang Hon patterns unlike the ITF standard than like it, if the Suska vids on Youtube are any indication.

I don't dispute that what is described in General Choi's writings is how he wanted them performed in the last part of his life.  It is apparent however that he encouraged MANY instructors to use his patterns and they did not all change with the times to adhere to his latest and greatest requirements as they evolved.  And as a result there are equally MANY ways of running the Chang Hon patterns - such is reality when you bring in (or try to anyway) a bunch of strong personalities that had extensive prior experience elsewhere.  We should note that this is not a phenomenon limited to North America.  The way the TAGB runs these patterns is starkly alike to the American 'rebels' too.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 21, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> I dispute "largely accepted standard".  I've traveled a lot throughout North America  and I have visited literally hundreds of dojo, dojang, kwoon in my time.  Anecdotally, I've actually seen more dojang run the Chang Hon patterns unlike the ITF standard than like it, if the Suska vids on Youtube are any indication.
> is not a phenomenon limited to North America.  The way the TAGB runs these patterns is starkly alike to the American 'rebels' too.


We may be having a semantic issue. There are, collectively,  probably more people doing some variation of the Chang Hon Patterns than those following the ITF standard.  However I submit that among those doing variations, the variations are hardly uniform or practiced in any single large quantity standard approaching the number of ITF practitioners following a single standard. To further elaborate. Lets say that over the last 15 years each ITF world cup had about 200 different competitors. (There were many more competitors but many competed at more than one championship.)  Lets conservatively state that they represented 1% of the ITF population at the time.  As world class competitors they were following one standard. That would be at least 20,000 people following a single standard.  Do you know of another Chang Hon group of 20,000 that follows a single standard? Now, to show you how conservative the 20,000 figure is, before the breakup of the ITF, there had been over 10,000 ITF First Dan certificates (over 40 years) issued in in the USA.


----------



## dancingalone (May 21, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> Do you know of another Chang Hon group of 20,000 that follows a single standard? Now, to show you how conservative the 20,000 figure is, before the breakup of the ITF, there had been over 10,000 ITF First Dan certificates (over 40 years) issued in in the USA.



If you count the ATA prior to their switchover to their own Songahm patterns, they would be one.  The TAGB in the UK claims over 20,000 members.  (http://www.tagb.biz/)  Add up the Jhoon Rhee folks who were very numerous at one point who all still do some of the Chang Hon patterns in their own way as well.  Those are probably the largest non-ITF groups using these forms (that I know of anyway).


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 22, 2013)

First and foremost I have foundd most groups exagerate their numbers. If you added them all up you would exceed the population of the earth.  Secondly, the groups you list are generaly limited to a single country.  I have followed ITF USA Dan numbers for almost 40 years in the USA s they progressed sequentilay. So, the 10,000 through 2002 in just the USA is accurate.  (That is just those who make it to first Dan)  Canada, Argentina and the UK likely had as many each.  So, the ATA who were originaly Chang Hun, and the Jhoon Rhee numbers pale in comparison.


----------



## dancingalone (May 22, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> First and foremost I have foundd most groups exagerate their numbers. If you added them all up you would exceed the population of the earth.  Secondly, the groups you list are generaly limited to a single country.  I have followed ITF USA Dan numbers for almost 40 years in the USA s they progressed sequentilay. So, the 10,000 through 2002 in just the USA is accurate.  (That is just those who make it to first Dan)  Canada, Argentina and the UK likely had as many each.  So, the ATA who were originaly Chang Hun, and the Jhoon Rhee numbers pale in comparison.



All you asked was for a 20,000 member threshold.  I'm fairly confident each of those groups totaled a minimum of 20,000 dan and geup holders at one point.  I'd be shocked if the total of ATA members now (yeah, they have moved on from Chang Hon) didn't exceed all current ITF ranks in the USA.

In any case, the actual number isn't too germane to the idea that there are many ways to perform the Chang Hon patterns and again what is right is in the eye of the beholder.  Sorry, but this is no different than the same 'one, true way' arguments of orthodoxy found in any other martial art like karate or hung gar, etc.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 22, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> All you asked was for a 20,000 member threshold.  I'm fairly confident each of those groups totaled a minimum of 20,000 dan and geup holders at one point.  I'd be shocked if the total of ATA members now (yeah, they have moved on from Chang Hon) didn't exceed all current ITF ranks in the USA.
> .



The number was germane to the issue you took with my claim that one day people doing a remix or some variation would go out into the real world and learn that what they were doing was not the most widely accepted standard.   You took issue wth the claim of most widfely accepted standard.  20, 000 as noted was a ugely low number. Literaly 10's of thousands following this standard throughout the world, there is no other standard or group that comes anywhere close. Case in point a gentlemen from the east coast who does Chang Hon came to train during a visit. At one point I had him watch a group perform a pattern. I then had them say where they learned the pattern. Their answers were; Poland, Siberia, The Czech Republic, Canada and Connecticut.  Due to the uniformity in their performance he said he thought they had all learned it from me.  Over the years I have had ITF visitors from many states and also other  countries like the Netherlands, Slovakia, Argentina, and Russia.  All fit right in. Differences existed but they were nominal.   Like you, I have seen many Chang Hon Variations. All had their own ideas. They were all blips on the radar in comparison.


----------



## dancingalone (May 23, 2013)

I'm willing to concede you may be right from a world-wide perspective.  That said, I don't know that it is terribly important unless we find international tournaments to be of high value.  For the broad majority of people, TKD is very much a personal affair largely confined to their individual dojang.  So long as their internal standard produces power, fluidity, and some fighting capacity along with the usual physical benefits, that is more than adequate.  And depending on one's area, a non-ITF perspective might actually be the prevailing one within large tracts of territory - like mine for example.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 23, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> .  For the broad majority of people, TKD is very much a personal affair largely confined to their individual dojang. .


. 

I think this applies to many martial arts practitioners.  Some stay primarily within their own little universe for a lifetime.  Some by choice venture out for a variety of things (Seminars, competitions etc) and some are forced to venture out when they relocate or their school evaporates for any number of reasons. .


----------



## dancingalone (May 23, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> .
> 
> I think this applies to many martial arts practitioners.  Some stay primarily within their own little universe for a lifetime.  Some by choice venture out for a variety of things (Seminars, competitions etc) and some are forced to venture out when they relocate or their school evaporates for any number of reasons. .



Absolutely.  So if 'portability' of standard is our highest criterion, it seems like it would be best to choose the most widely practiced martial art with the most universal set of standards in the world.  I dunno what that is, maybe boxing?  That of course illustrates what a fruitless thing universality really is.


----------



## chrispillertkd (May 23, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> I'm willing to concede you may be right from a world-wide perspective. That said, I don't know that it is terribly important unless we find international tournaments to be of high value.



Just an observation, here. You started out by doubting that Gen. Choi's standard was, if not the widest spread standard of practice for his patterns, a wide-spread one. When Master Weiss demonstrated that it was you simply conceded the point but say that isn't important. It seems a bit disingenuous to me (although maybe I'm mistaken). Part of the idea of having "styles" is standardizing practices across practitioners. Whether it's important or not might be another question. Maybe. It certainly is important in the sense that set standards are part of what makes up a style/system/whatever you want to call it. As time goes on styles can develop separate branches, some of which become so different from the original that they not only are no longer considered a branch of the first style but a new style all together. 

Standardization is important in more venues than just tournaments. I have been at a training camp where over 300 people from the U.S., Canada, England, Ireland, New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and other countries were in attendance. We all were there to train in the same style, which meant we were all there to train under the same technical standard. And we did. Without the standardization we wouldn't have been able to all come together to train in the way that we did, or would have spent a lot of valuable time having to get everyone on the same page. There is a time and a place for  that, and I have been to seminars and courses of different arts which have been very enjoyable. But those are different.



> For the broad majority of people, TKD is very much a personal affair largely confined to their individual dojang. So long as their internal standard produces power, fluidity, and some fighting capacity along with the usual physical benefits, that is more than adequate. And depending on one's area, a non-ITF perspective might actually be the prevailing one within large tracts of territory - like mine for example.



Of course, all martial arts become very personal for people. The longer you practice the more personal they become. But that, IMNSHO, has nothing to do with having a widespread technical standard. I've _never_ found there to be a conflict between following the standard of my style and having my own expression of that style. It's like calligraphy, painting, or any other art. You have to have a good grasp of the fundamentals and their underlying principles in order to express yourself in the first place.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## dancingalone (May 23, 2013)

chrispillertkd said:


> Just an observation, here. You started out by doubting that Gen. Choi's standard was, if not the widest spread standard of practice for his patterns, a wide-spread one. When Master Weiss demonstrated that it was you simply conceded the point but say that isn't important. It seems a bit disingenuous to me (although maybe I'm mistaken).



I said "_I dispute "largely accepted standard". I've traveled a lot throughout North America and I have visited literally hundreds of dojo, dojang, kwoon in my time. Anecdotally, I've actually seen more dojang run the Chang Hon patterns unlike the ITF standard than like it, if the Suska vids on Youtube are any indication._"  I could have explained myself better, and at this point I certainly don't want to argue this much further, but those sentences seem clear enough, right?  I don't think General Choi's final standard is by any means the "largely accepted standard" in North America.  I AM willing to concede Mr. Weiss is probably correct if we look at it from a world wide view and I have said as much.

I don't think is is being disingenuous.  What I said seems rather black and white to me even when I go back to re-read it.



chrispillertkd said:


> Part of the idea of having "styles" is standardizing practices across practitioners. Whether it's important or not might be another question. Maybe. It certainly is important in the sense that set standards are part of what makes up a style/system/whatever you want to call it. As time goes on styles can develop separate branches, some of which become so different from the original that they not only are no longer considered a branch of the first style but a new style all together.



I agree.  And there are many styles of TKD that use the Chang Hon forms, correct?  I briefly alluded to this idea when I mentioned the Pinan forms used by many karate styles.  They all do them differently, sometimes greatly so.  This is no different than with the Chang Hon forms which is a statement I make time and again.  



chrispillertkd said:


> Standardization is important in more venues than just tournaments. I have been at a training camp where over 300 people from the U.S., Canada, England, Ireland, New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and other countries were in attendance. We all were there to train in the same style, which meant we were all there to train under the same technical standard. And we did. Without the standardization we wouldn't have been able to all come together to train in the way that we did, or would have spent a lot of valuable time having to get everyone on the same page. There is a time and a place for  that, and I have been to seminars and courses of different arts which have been very enjoyable. But those are different.



Birds of the same feather.  The vast majority of practitioners have no concern about international gatherings whether for seminars or tournaments or politics either.  So, again if we think we need portability/universality/standardization for any of these reasons, fine.  Throw in the rank recognition/portability thing too if you want.  None of them change the essential fact that any method or standard for forms that produces power, fluidity, and a modicum of fighting skills is perfectly adequate in of itself.  So doing the Chang Hon forms with a CDK flavor is likewise fine - and there's an awful lot of people who do just exactly that and who would reject as I do that they must conform to some final testament of General Choi's unless they be left out or left behind.



chrispillertkd said:


> Of course, all martial arts become very personal for people. The longer you practice the more personal they become. But that, IMNSHO, has nothing to do with having a widespread technical standard. I've _never_ found there to be a conflict between following the standard of my style and having my own expression of that style. It's like calligraphy, painting, or any other art. You have to have a good grasp of the fundamentals and their underlying principles in order to express yourself in the first place.



Chris, the main argument Mr. Weiss and I have been having is that there is loss on the part of the people who DON'T follow General Choi's last word on the subject.  I say there is no loss, while clearly Mr. Weiss thinks there is a 'correct' way of running the forms.  I understand where he is coming from - I just don't agree at all, not surprisingly so considering my own lineage and how the forms were transmitted to us.  As I said, right is in the eyes of the beholder.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 23, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> I
> 
> 
> 
> Chris, the main argument Mr. Weiss and I have been having is that there is loss on the part of the people who DON'T follow General Choi's last word on the subject.  I say there is no loss, while clearly Mr. Weiss thinks there is a 'correct' way of running the forms.  I understand where he is coming from - I just don't agree at all, not surprisingly so considering my own lineage and how the forms were transmitted to us.  As I said, right is in the eyes of the beholder.


. 
Your experiences have lead you to believe that those following the non ITF standard suffer no loss. My experience is different. If I asj\k why they do something a certain way, it's not that I have an issue because their reasons are different than mine, it's because often they have no reason other than "That is what my instructor did." To be fair, I have run into ITF people  who were taught or learned this way as well, but that is not the fault of the system. Reasons are spelled out most of the time.  Reasoneable minds can disagree as to whether the reasons make sense. I have issues with some of the rationale. But it least it's there to consider.  Other issues are loss of detail. An example might be: No idea what the diffferences are between a Side - Piercing, Pushing, Thrusting, Checking, kick all of which is contained in the patterns. Not having these differences dilutes the art.


----------



## chrispillertkd (May 23, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> Chris, the main argument Mr. Weiss and I have been having is that there is loss on the part of the people who DON'T follow General Choi's last word on the subject.  I say there is no loss, while clearly Mr. Weiss thinks there is a 'correct' way of running the forms.  I understand where he is coming from - I just don't agree at all, not surprisingly so considering my own lineage and how the forms were transmitted to us.  As I said, right is in the eyes of the beholder.



Well, yes there is a loss. There is simply the loss of knowing what the original intent of the patterns was, what the original technical principles were, etc. that you are now deviating from when you change things. Whether it's an important loss is another matter. IMHO, yes it's important because if you're changing something it's generally a good idea to know what you're changing from and why you're doing so. Others may have a different view but there you go. If you don't know where you are coming from it's hard to tell where you're going.


----------



## granfire (May 23, 2013)

chrispillertkd said:


> Well, yes there is a loss. There is simply the loss of knowing what the original intent of the patterns was, what the original technical principles were, etc. that you are now deviating from when you change things. Whether it's an important loss is another matter. IMHO, yes it's important because if you're changing something it's generally a good idea to know what you're changing from and why you're doing so. Others may have a different view but there you go. If you don't know where you are coming from it's hard to tell where you're going.



Oh well. Considering that the good General was building on a few centuries of Martial Arts, I think it is safe to assume the forms were never carved in stone.

And I am speaking about the whole of the craft, from China to Okinawa, to Japan and Korea and then some. 

Or we would all be doing the same stuff.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 24, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> Absolutely.  So if 'portability' of standard is our highest criterion, it seems like it would be best to choose the most widely practiced martial art with the most universal set of standards in the world.  I dunno what that is, maybe boxing?  That of course illustrates what a fruitless thing universality really is.


Universality - For some fruitless, for some not.  Lets face it the entire MA universe is small. Each segment certainly much smaller. I have heard the entire MA Supply business has gross receipts of less than a single Walmart store.  Still, we live in an increasing mobile society.  So, for many being able to find a "home" elsewhere is a real plus.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 24, 2013)

chrispillertkd said:


> .... Whether it's an important loss is another matter. IMHO, yes it's important because if you're changing something it's generally a good idea to know what you're changing from and why you're doing so. Others may have a different view but there you go. If you don't know where you are coming from it's hard to tell where you're going.


Good point. Many offshoots don't know what was changed, what wasn't why things were a certain way or why they are a certain way now.


----------



## dancingalone (May 24, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> .
> Your experiences have lead you to believe that those following the non ITF standard suffer no loss. My experience is different. If I asj\k why they do something a certain way, it's not that I have an issue because their reasons are different than mine, it's because often they have no reason other than "That is what my instructor did." To be fair, I have run into ITF people  who were taught or learned this way as well, but that is not the fault of the system. Reasons are spelled out most of the time.  Reasoneable minds can disagree as to whether the reasons make sense. I have issues with some of the rationale. But it least it's there to consider.  Other issues are loss of detail. An example might be: No idea what the diffferences are between a Side - Piercing, Pushing, Thrusting, Checking, kick all of which is contained in the patterns. Not having these differences dilutes the art.




Lots of things to consider here and I'm not able to write too long of a response right now so please forgive me before hand.  

Consider the following ideas:



That people using these forms may have added to their understanding of the forms from sources outside of General Choi such as kickboxing and karate and maybe even some of the good George Dillman material.  I've seen all three happen before with my own eyes.  There are other influences too.
That even if your premise is true about a "loss" of information this is not necessarily a net deficit in of itself.  We've all heard the phrase that Less is More, that frequently it is better to practice less material and become extremely proficient at it.  I do not practice Muay Thai myself, but some practitioners I know tell me that is one of their perceived strengths.  They are excellent at the twelve or so strikes that they do use and they spend the rest of the time on conditioning, padwork, and sparring.  Say someone has only snapping kicks in their forms.  This in of itself does not mean their expression of TKD is less effective or less useful.  Less information dense, yes, but qualitatively not necessarily so.
That there can be no loss of information if it was never there in the first place.  The crux of it which we haven't really talked about in this thread.  My original TKD GM learned these forms from a manual!  Obviously a manual cannot have every single bit of information possible within it, and indeed at the time Mr. Jhoon Rhee learned these forms, I don't believe that first, General Choi had finalized his latest additions to his system, and second, much of General Choi's publications in fact came out years if not decades after this point.  Jhoon Rhee was a Chung Do Kwan man as has been mentioned before.  He would have added his own prior existing knowledge as he performed and taught these forms, and the result would not have been a bad one.  Different from General Choi (which phase by the way?), but not necessarily bad.


----------



## dancingalone (May 24, 2013)

chrispillertkd said:


> Well, yes there is a loss. There is simply the loss of knowing what the original intent of the patterns was, what the original technical principles were, etc. that you are now deviating from when you change things. Whether it's an important loss is another matter. IMHO, yes it's important because if you're changing something it's generally a good idea to know what you're changing from and why you're doing so. Others may have a different view but there you go. If you don't know where you are coming from it's hard to tell where you're going.



You are arguing that General Choi's intent regarding these patterns was always the same.  I've had this discussion more than a few times over the years with people senior to me in my lineage and other related lineages.  There is an undercurrent of feeling from our side that General Choi's standard actually changed over time - we just did not change with him, preferring to follow our own path.  If that is the case and I doubt anyone who is still talking will really give the factual events behind it, there can be no discussion of original technical principles and deviation that is not speculation at its core.


----------



## dancingalone (May 24, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> Universality - For some fruitless, for some not.  Lets face it the entire MA universe is small. Each segment certainly much smaller. I have heard the entire MA Supply business has gross receipts of less than a single Walmart store.  Still, we live in an increasing mobile society.  So, for many being able to find a "home" elsewhere is a real plus.



No offense intended, Mr. Weiss, but if you take that to its ultimate end, we should all switch to KKW TKD if we haven't already.  It is the market dominant style of TKD.  Or we should all switch to whatever the most popular, most universal martial art there is, whatever that may be.


----------



## dancingalone (May 24, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> Good point. Many offshoots don't know what was changed, what wasn't why things were a certain way or why they are a certain way now.



Changed or never was there in the first place? Consider that.  A lot of people learned these forms a long, long time ago.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 24, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> .
> Your experiences have lead you to believe that those following the non ITF standard suffer no loss. My experience is different. If I asj\k why they do something a certain way, it's not that I have an issue because their reasons are different than mine, it's because often they have no reason other than "That is what my instructor did." _*To be fair, I have run into ITF people who were taught or learned this way as well, but that is not the fault of the system.*_ Reasons are spelled out most of the time. Reasoneable minds can disagree as to whether the reasons make sense. I have issues with some of the rationale. But it least it's there to consider. Other issues are loss of detail. An example might be: No idea what the diffferences are between a Side - Piercing, Pushing, Thrusting, Checking, kick all of which is contained in the patterns. Not having these differences dilutes the art.



It's not the fault of the non-ITF systems either. Some people just don't care to dig into the finer points of forms.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 24, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> You are arguing that General Choi's intent regarding these patterns was always the same.  I've had this discussion more than a few times over the years with people senior to me in my lineage and other related lineages.  There is an undercurrent of feeling from our side that General Choi's standard actually changed over time - we just did not change with him, preferring to follow our own path..


 I will tell you that people who feel their were major changes are uninformed or misinformed.  I  started in the Chang Hon system in 1972. Got his 1972 Book a couple of years later. Foruneately I had an American instructor who was a professional educator although his instructor at that time was one of the ITF  pioneers. When we saw that the book had something different than what we were doing, we conformed to the book.  (It wasn't until much later that I got the 1965 book.) There were refinements in terminology  and more thorough descriptions in the 1972 book. Few changes. Most of the differences related to making stuff morre clear. Then I went to my first course with General Choi in 1990. I had trained with several of the top ITF USA peple before that.  Often General Choi would say something and a voice in my head would say "that's wrong", or "that's new"  Then I would check the book and see that either I had been taught wrong, or I could see how, like the common "Telephone Game" how information got altered as it was passed from person to person, and in some cases how something could be misinterpreted. (I had no idea what the "Pick Shape" Kick or Defensive Hook kick was until it was shown and explained in person due to the inadequacies of the 2 dimensional printed page in showing and explaining things that happen in 3 dimensions - Yes this was before videos)   At that course I wrote down about 150 things I needed to fix.  From 1990 to 2002 he was amazingly consistent. I would say the inconsistencies of less than 1% were often rrealted to communication issue or simply a human foible.  With all due respect to Seniors, all students should be able to surpass their instructor because each successive generation sould have an instructor that was better than the instructor before them.   Many Seniors , including the pioneers brought certain habits to the system.  They passed those habits to their progeny. That does not mean that the habits were correct for the Cahng Hon system   A simple example. Many system chamber the rising / high outer forearm block with the Blocking hand underneath. The Chang Hon system Chambers it on top.  The reaon is not monumental  (I know because I asked him) The reason is all outer forearm blocks are chambered on top in the system. Now while this provides plenty of fodder for the alternate application afficianados just because someone from a Kwan did the Chamber under thing does not mean General Choi Changed the way he did it.   Using many people from different Kwans to develop a system neccessarily lead to choices.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 24, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> It's not the fault of the non-ITF systems either. Some people just don't care to dig into the finer points of forms.



Well, that depends.  If the system has it but it is not learned, then it is not the fault of the system. However, the offshoots often don't have it.   Trained with a group that was an ITF offshoot. The top guy was telling me how they changed certain things.  I s\asked if the changes were written down somewhere. He said no, his students just know it.   Having trained with other offshoots after the top guy(An ITF Pioneer) died I know that there had to be meetings to try and figure out what the standard would be since different people recalled things differently and were perhaps taught differently at different times. The shortes pencil is better than the longest memeory.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 24, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> No offense intended, Mr. Weiss, but if you take that to its ultimate end, we should all switch to KKW TKD if we haven't already.  It is the market dominant style of TKD.  Or we should all switch to whatever the most popular, most universal martial art there is, whatever that may be.


Offense not taken The KKW example is valid to an extent, but in the ice cream store of the MA there are still flavors you like and flavors you don't . You don't eat what you don't like because everyone else does.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 24, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> _*I will tell you that people who feel their were major changes are uninformed or misinformed.*_ I started in the Chang Hon system in 1972. Got his 1972 Book a couple of years later. Foruneately I had an American instructor who was a professional educator although his instructor at that time was one of the ITF pioneers. When we saw that the book had something different than what we were doing, we conformed to the book. (It wasn't until much later that I got the 1965 book.) There were refinements in terminology and more thorough descriptions in the 1972 book. Few changes. Most of the differences related to making stuff morre clear. Then I went to my first course with General Choi in 1990. I had trained with several of the top ITF USA peple before that. Often General Choi would say something and a voice in my head would say "that's wrong", or "that's new" Then I would check the book and see that either I had been taught wrong, or I could see how, like the common "Telephone Game" how information got altered as it was passed from person to person, and in some cases how something could be misinterpreted. (I had no idea what the "Pick Shape" Kick or Defensive Hook kick was until it was shown and explained in person due to the inadequacies of the 2 dimensional printed page in showing and explaining things that happen in 3 dimensions - Yes this was before videos) At that course I wrote down about 150 things I needed to fix. From 1990 to 2002 he was amazingly consistent. I would say the inconsistencies of less than 1% were often rrealted to communication issue or simply a human foible. With all due respect to Seniors, all students should be able to surpass their instructor because each successive generation sould have an instructor that was better than the instructor before them. Many Seniors , including the pioneers brought certain habits to the system. They passed those habits to their progeny. That does not mean that the habits were correct for the Cahng Hon system A simple example. Many system chamber the rising / high outer forearm block with the Blocking hand underneath. The Chang Hon system Chambers it on top. The reaon is not monumental (I know because I asked him) The reason is all outer forearm blocks are chambered on top in the system. Now while this provides plenty of fodder for the alternate application afficianados just because someone from a Kwan did the Chamber under thing does not mean General Choi Changed the way he did it. Using many people from different Kwans to develop a system neccessarily lead to choices.



I think that's a very subjective opinion. I started in the Chang Hon system in 1968 (but didn't stay with it my entire life). I considered the whole sine wave thing a pretty major change. I still don't care for it, and I still don't practice forms with it.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 24, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> That people using these forms may have added to their understanding of the forms from sources outside of General Choi such as kickboxing and karate and maybe even some of the good George Dillman material.  I've seen all three happen before with my own eyes.  There are other influences too.



I actualy am an alternate application officianado, and had an article published in Totaly TKD about the ultimate paradigm of patterns.  I submit that knowing the most widely accepted standard and adding to understaning from other sources are not mutualy exclusive.  I have trained at several sessions with GDilman (Although he sent me a note telling me not to come back) some of his progeny, Vince Morris and Oyata.  Enjoyed them all.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 24, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> Well, that depends. If the system has it but it is not learned, then it is not the fault of the system. However, the offshoots often don't have it.



I'm not sure what you mean here. I ready this as implying that some offshoots don't have anybody in the system who knows all the ins and outs of why their forms and techniques are done the way they are, other than "because". If that's what you're saying, I honestly can't agree. In our school, there are an awful lot of students who can't (yet) talk about why we do things in a given way. That doesn't mean I can't. Or if I can't, that my Master can't (And if I can't, you can bet my next step will be to ask him...).
I suspect the same is true in the offshoots you're talking about.



Earl Weiss said:


> Trained with a group that was an ITF offshoot. The top guy was telling me how they changed certain things. I s\asked if the changes were written down somewhere. He said no, his students just know it. Having trained with other offshoots after the top guy(An ITF Pioneer) died I know that there had to be meetings to try and figure out what the standard would be since different people recalled things differently and were perhaps taught differently at different times. The shortes pencil is better than the longest memeory.



I agree that a standard is a good thing, and that there ought to be reasons other than "because I said so". And unless you document both the standard AND the reasoning behind that standard, you should expect it to change over time, and that the more time passes, the greater both the likelihood and degree of change.

Though it would have been better had it been documented, I am confident that the gentleman you mentioned had both a standard and solid reasoning behind those changes.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 24, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> I actualy am an alternate application officianado, and had an article published in Totaly TKD about the ultimate paradigm of patterns. I submit that knowing the most widely accepted standard and adding to understaning from other sources are not mutualy exclusive._* I have trained at several sessions with GDilman (Although he sent me a note telling me not to come back)*_ some of his progeny, Vince Morris and Oyata. Enjoyed them all.



I have a feeling there might be an entertaining story lurking in the wings...


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 25, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> I think that's a very subjective opinion. I started in the Chang Hon system in 1968 (but didn't stay with it my entire life). I considered the whole sine wave thing a pretty major change. I still don't care for it, and I still don't practice forms with it.



In the early 1970's we called the knee flexing "Spring Style"  the kne flexing is referred to in the 1972 Book.   Who was your instructor in 1968?


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 25, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> I'm not sure what you mean here. I ready this as implying that some offshoots don't have anybody in the system who knows all the ins and outs of why their forms and techniques are done the way they are, other than "because". If that's what you're saying, I honestly can't agree..............
> .
> 
> 
> ...



On the one hand it says you can't agree yet you seem to feel documenting the standard and reason are important, yet few offshoots can point to much, if any documentation except perhaps those who simply follow a He Il Cho or Jhoon Rhee book which may have a nominal standard and an occasional reason. Lots of people say lots f stuff.   Again, some in the ITF may not learn it, but the documented standard is there in books ranging from  a 15 volume set as well as CD ROM and DVD.   I trained with a couple of the Pioneers who infrequeently expressed any reason for what they did, and the atmosphere was generaly "Don't ask questions" . General Choi was the polar opposite of this.


----------



## dancingalone (May 25, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> I will tell you that people who feel their were major changes are uninformed or misinformed.  I  started in the Chang Hon system in 1972. Got his 1972 Book a couple of years later. Foruneately I had an American instructor who was a professional educator although his instructor at that time was one of the ITF  pioneers. When we saw that the book had something different than what we were doing, we conformed to the book.  (It wasn't until much later that I got the 1965 book.) There were refinements in terminology  and more thorough descriptions in the 1972 book. Few changes. ...



This is a prime illustration of what I have talking about where there cannot be loss if it was never there in the first place.  Jhoon Rhee arrived in the USA in the fifties.  He began teaching almost immediately and what he passed to his students would have almost certainly have been pure CDK.  Later on (not sure of the exact date) he learned the Chang Hon from a manual and begin teaching those forms.  So he never received General Choi's standards such as those may be.  And there is indeed argument about how transitory those were over the years, though I understand you state your side of it above.



Earl Weiss said:


> Many Seniors , including the pioneers brought certain habits to the system.  They passed those habits to their progeny. That does not mean that the habits were correct for the Cahng Hon system   A simple example. Many system chamber the rising / high outer forearm block with the Blocking hand underneath. The Chang Hon system Chambers it on top.  The reaon is not monumental  (I know because I asked him) The reason is all outer forearm blocks are chambered on top in the system. Now while this provides plenty of fodder for the alternate application afficianados just because someone from a Kwan did the Chamber under thing does not mean General Choi Changed the way he did it.   Using many people from different Kwans to develop a system neccessarily lead to choices.



I don't disagree with much of what you say here.  From what I have heard from people older than me is that General Choi refined his system in the intervening years and our side of TKD just kept going with our own ways.  We never received his refinements (original instructions if you prefer from your side of the aisle) and we were more than content.  Now decades later, such is the state of things.  The divergence of the patterns whomever we want to lay the blame upon makes any rapprochement unlikely with any of the current ITF groups.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 25, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> In the early 1970's we called the knee flexing "Spring Style" the kne flexing is referred to in the 1972 Book. Who was your instructor in 1968?



I was 7 years old. I really do not remember. It was on an Air Force base in California.



Earl Weiss said:


> On the one hand it says you can't agree yet you seem to feel documenting the standard and reason are important, yet few offshoots can point to much, if any documentation except perhaps those who simply follow a He Il Cho or Jhoon Rhee book which may have a nominal standard and an occasional reason. Lots of people say lots f stuff. Again, some in the ITF may not learn it, but the documented standard is there in books ranging from a 15 volume set as well as CD ROM and DVD. I trained with a couple of the Pioneers who infrequeently expressed any reason for what they did, and the atmosphere was generaly "Don't ask questions" . General Choi was the polar opposite of this.



You seem to be misunderstanding me. I'll try to be clear. If you're saying that these groups HAVE no standard and that there is nobody who can explain why things are done a certain way, that is what I have a hard time believing. I think a documented standard is good, unless (as I said...) you're sticking with a VERY small group, in which case you should expect to see that standard drift somewhat.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 26, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> You seem to be misunderstanding me. I'll try to be clear. If you're saying that these groups HAVE no standard and that there is nobody who can explain why things are done a certain way, that is what I have a hard time believing..


Being near Chicago I get a fair amount of visitors.   I also have had rerlationships with Han Cha Kyo and their progeny as well as some others..   If they are receptive we discuss reasons for doing things a certain way. Obvioulsy I do not question every person in every group.    My experience has been that few can articulate a reason for a standard and in some cases their eyes get wide like saucers if I explain the standard and reasons set out in the text.  In other cases the application they believe is the reason is virtualy impossible to accomplish and easily demonstrated. Now, of course I cannot say that these individuals were the most learned in their group and I for one would hate to be judged by my worst student on their best day or even my best student on their worst day. In fact, my seniors know my standard line to use if some senior from outside sees them screwup and asks who their instructor is they should lie and say someone iother than me.  So, I readily accept how generalizations can be misleading.


----------



## chrispillertkd (May 26, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> You are arguing that General Choi's intent regarding these patterns was always the same.



Yes, I do think Gen. Choi's _intent_ remained the same over he years, even with some of the technical refinements he made both in his system and in some of the patterns themselves (I don't mean changing a middle kick to a high kick, but rather changing actual techniques themselves). I don't think his intention ever changed because of what he said the intention behind patterns was in the first place. 



> I've had this discussion more than a few times over the years with people senior to me in my lineage and other related lineages. There is an undercurrent of feeling from our side that General Choi's standard actually changed over time - we just did not change with him, preferring to follow our own path. If that is the case and *I doubt anyone who is still talking will really give the factual events behind it, there can be no discussion of original technical principles and deviation that is not speculation at its core*.



You've just made it so you never need to change your position even when faced with evidence contrary to your own (if you have any besides the "undercurrent of feeling" you mentioned). I'd be very interested in hearing who you've talked to about the factual events behind the changes in Gen. Choi's standard and what their relationship is to Gen. Choi in the first place in order to reach this conclusion.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## dancingalone (May 26, 2013)

chrispillertkd said:


> Yes, I do think Gen. Choi's _intent_ remained the same over he years, even with some of the technical refinements he made both in his system and in some of the patterns themselves (I don't mean changing a middle kick to a high kick, but rather changing actual techniques themselves). I don't think his intention ever changed because of what he said the intention behind patterns was in the first place.



I understand that you *think* that is the case, just as I think there's a great chance it might be otherwise.  I normally wouldn't bother saying as much, but you did call me out on evidence a bit later down. And I think reasonable people know full well in martial arts, it is unlikely that anyone can prove unchanged intent in virtually anything, unless a full chronological journal or monograph is available from the beginning to the end of the subject, and that just doesn't exist for the Chang Hon patterns to my knowledge.




chrispillertkd said:


> You've just made it so you never need to change your position even when faced with evidence contrary to your own (if you have any besides the "undercurrent of feeling" you mentioned). I'd be very interested in hearing who you've talked to about the factual events behind the changes in Gen. Choi's standard and what their relationship is to Gen. Choi in the first place in order to reach this conclusion.



Well, I would be interested in seeing your bibliography that gives a full history beginning to finish of the Chang Hon patterns, showing how they have never changed in intent nor execution at all.  Such a thing might meet the definition of 'evidence' as I understand it.  I don't believe it exists but certainly if you've got it, I'd like to see it.  

I'll readily admit I don't have anything myself that I would be comfortable denoting as evidence.  All I have are informal discussions I had in person with some first, second, and third generation students of Jhoon Rhee and Haeng Ung Lee hence why I use the phrase "undercurrent of feeling".  I can cite a few of them by PM after I get their permission if you would find their names interesting.  I would suspect you would not, but hey I've got them.


----------



## chrispillertkd (May 26, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> I understand that you *think* that is the case, just as I think there's a great chance it might be otherwise. I normally wouldn't bother saying as much, but you did call me out on evidence a bit later down. And I think reasonable people know full well in martial arts, it is unlikely that anyone can prove unchanged intent in virtually anything, unless a full chronological journal or monograph is available from the beginning to the end of the subject, and that just doesn't exist for the Chang Hon patterns to my knowledge.



The intent behind the tul have been the same since at least 1965. You can check the texts like I have (1965 and 1972 textbooks and the 1983 and 1993 encyclopedias). If you familiarize yourself with what Gen. Choi says about patterns it becomes quite apparent that the intent has remained the same over the years, even with the technical changes that have occurred. 



> Well, I would be interested in seeing your bibliography that gives a full history beginning to finish of the Chang Hon patterns, showing how they have never changed in intent nor execution at all. Such a thing might meet the definition of 'evidence' as I understand it. I don't believe it exists but certainly if you've got it, I'd like to see it.



Why so defensive? I never said anything about the tul not changing in execution. Frankly, I can think of three of them off the top of my head that have changed in execution in the sense that some of the techniques in them were changed over time. But, again, if you know what Gen. Choi says about the purpose of the tul you'll see that the intent has remained the same.

As for my bibliography it's the 1965 textbook, 1972 textbook, 1983 encyclopedia, and 1993 encyclopedia. They were all written by Gen. Choi. I don't know why he would lie about what his intent about the patterns were, though.  



> I'll readily admit I don't have anything myself that I would be comfortable denoting as evidence. All I have are informal discussions I had in person with some first, second, and third generation students of Jhoon Rhee and Haeng Ung Lee hence why I use the phrase "undercurrent of feeling". I can cite a few of them by PM after I get their permission if you would find their names interesting. I would suspect you would not, but hey I've got them.



Sure, I'd be interested in hearing who they are and what they say. Why wouldn't I be? Post them up here in the thread if you want or send their names and what they said about Gen. Choi's intention to me as a PM. Have you had any discussions with people who studied with Gen. Choi or discussed this topic with him? I've been able to discuss tul with Master Parm Rai, who accompanied Gen. Choi as an assistant for his seminars, and Master Robert Wheatley, who was able to train with Gen. Choi many times while he was training in Ireland. Grand Master Choi, Jung Hwa has mentioned some interesting faccts about how some of the tul developed and changed over time, too.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## dancingalone (May 26, 2013)

chrispillertkd said:


> The intent behind the tul have been the same since at least 1965. You can check the texts like I have (1965 and 1972 textbooks and the 1983 and 1993 encyclopedias). If you familiarize yourself with what Gen. Choi says about patterns it becomes quite apparent that the intent has remained the same over the years, even with the technical changes that have occurred.



Chris, c'mon man, you know that when you throw around words like evidence, you probably need a stronger standard than that.  If you want to prove unchangeable intent, you need something definitely expository from conception to end.  So, we need General Choi's notes, drafts, etc, from at least sometime in the fifties going forward.  The whole kaboodle, maybe some old video of the General running the forms with sine wave too, ala Mr. Suska.  Maybe even a written statement somewhere where General Choi attests nothing has ever changed about the forms from design, meaning, and execution from its genesis onwards.



chrispillertkd said:


> Why so defensive? I never said anything about the tul not changing in execution. Frankly, I can think of three of them off the top of my head that have changed in execution in the sense that some of the techniques in them were changed over time. But, again, if you know what Gen. Choi says about the purpose of the tul you'll see that the intent has remained the same.



Ah.  I guess I understand now why you emphasized intent.  I was conflating execution and intent in my mind and as I can have no issue with what you say above, I frankly don't have much else to say on the matter.



chrispillertkd said:


> As for my bibliography it's the 1965 textbook, 1972 textbook, 1983 encyclopedia, and 1993 encyclopedia. They were all written by Gen. Choi. I don't know why he would lie about what his intent about the patterns were, though.



See above.




chrispillertkd said:


> Sure, I'd be interested in hearing who they are and what they say. Why wouldn't I be?



Most are non-famous and their names would mean little to anyone not in their circles of influence.  



chrispillertkd said:


> Post them up here in the thread if you want or send their names and what they said about Gen. Choi's intention to me as a PM.



I'll share a couple right now that I am sure would not mind:  Jee Ho Lee and Jerry Kilbourne.  The rest would have to come later after I get permission.



chrispillertkd said:


> Have you had any discussions with people who studied with Gen. Choi or discussed this topic with him?



I don't know if any studied with General Choi whether formally or through brief courses with him.  As I said these people are connected with Jhoon Rhee and H.U. Lee in some respect.


----------



## chrispillertkd (May 26, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> Chris, c'mon man, you know that when you throw around words like evidence, you probably need a stronger standard than that. If you want to prove unchangeable intent, you need something definitely expository from conception to end. So, we need General Choi's notes, drafts, etc, from at least sometime in the fifties going forward. The whole kaboodle, maybe some old video of the General running the forms with sine wave too, ala Mr. Suska. Maybe even a written statement somewhere where General Choi attests nothing has ever changed about the forms from design, meaning, and execution from its genesis onwards.



A stronger standard than multiple editions of Gen. Choi's written texts, with three out of the four that I mentioned being verbatim the same? No, I don't need a stronger standard than that and to suggest otherwise is befuddling to say the least. Your assertion borders on thinking there was and continues to be some deep, dark conspiracy that Gen. Choi secretly hid his true ideas while repeatedly writing books to promulgate his system. It beggars the imagination. Read the various editions of the books and you can see for yourself that what Gen. Choi says about the intent and purpose of the tul has remained the same.

Video of the tul being executed with knee-spring, which was the designation for sine wave in the 1960s, is online. I've even read an interview with GM Kim, Yong Soo, a very early ITF pioneer who later became involved with the WTF in which he is asked point blank about sine wave being present in the early days (in TKD and Korean Martial Arts). To wit:

TKD-KMA: "Did [Gen. Choi] teach or mention sine wave at this time (late 1960s)?"

Kim Yong soo: "Yes. But in the beginning many instructors resisted change. However, Gen. Choi explained sine wave to us this way: 'For a car to have speed it uses a suspension, which enables it to go faster.' This, he said, was the same movement as sine wave. In the beginning not many could understand this theory, but later many approved. Also, to execute an attack you needed a slight movement, but not to telegraph an attack - this slight movement came with moving the knee up and down (knee spring) this helped develop speed in the attack
"I had a lot of doubt and question at this time. Like everyone else my body and mind were somewhat conditioned to the earlier way of practice, but as I listened more and more, and followed Gen. Choi's advice I began to feel more comfortable with the movements and could see the scientific implications of his teachings."

As a personal aside, GM Kim is absolutely correct about the effect sine wave has on speed when performed correctly.



> Most are non-famous and their names would mean little to anyone not in their circles of influence.
> 
> I'll share a couple right now that I am sure would not mind: Jee Ho Lee and Jerry Kilbourne. The rest would have to come later after I get permission.
> 
> I don't know if any studied with General Choi whether formally or through brief courses with him. As I said these people are connected with Jhoon Rhee and H.U. Lee in some respect.



IIRC, Jee Ho Lee is one of H.U. Lee's brothers. Is that right? I am not aware of who Mr. Kilbourne is but I assume he's affiliated with Jhoon Rhee (or was at one point) since you mentioned both H.U. Lee and Jhoon Rhee in your last post. I'd be very interested, however, in hearing what they have to say about their thoughts on what Gen. Choi said and their training time with him.

While I know H.U. Lee did attend at least one course with Gen. Choi I don't know how extensive his training with him was or if any of his brothers had the chance to train with Gen. Choi. Nor do I know how much Jhoon Rhee actually trained with Gen. Choi. But if we're talking about knowing Gen. Choi's intent it would be helpful to get information from people who had a lot of training time in with him, as opposed to people who had little or none and relying on "feelings" about things. Otherwise we start sounding like the KKW folks who periodically argue about whether or not things have "changed" according to the KKW when, in fact, it was most likely their instructors who weren't in line with the KKW standard. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## granfire (May 26, 2013)

you guys do understand that your academic analysis of the merit and value of the different variations of the General's forms are not exactly helping in this matter?

I do believe it does not matter a thing how the General did his forms in the 50s when somebody is looking for instruction in the present.

Taekwondo America......


----------



## dancingalone (May 27, 2013)

chrispillertkd said:


> A stronger standard than multiple editions of Gen. Choi's written texts, with three out of the four that I mentioned being verbatim the same? No, I don't need a stronger standard than that and to suggest otherwise is befuddling to say the least.



Befuddling?  Not at all.  If you want to say *any* intent from *any* of the 25 forms has always been the same from inception until General Choi's death, I'd say that's a heavy burden that needs to be backed up with far more than just citing his books.  To back that up, you'd need to know General Choi's mind for the span of decades which is of course impossible.  In fact, I could make a decent argument that the transition from Ko Dang to Juche is sufficient exhibit all by itself that the general's intentions changed over time in at least one aspect of the forms.  What befuddles me is the certainty with which you declare your position on a subject that no one other than General Choi could rightly know the true answer.  

In any case, since you acknowledge that execution of the forms in general have changed, my main point of contention is satisfied since really that has been my objection about the view expressed about the forms, that General Choi's last set of instructions is the only correct way to perform them.



chrispillertkd said:


> Your assertion borders on thinking there was and continues to be some deep, dark conspiracy that Gen. Choi secretly hid his true ideas while repeatedly writing books to promulgate his system. It beggars the imagination. Read the various editions of the books and you can see for yourself that what Gen. Choi says about the intent and purpose of the tul has remained the same.



Rather than accuse me of thinking there is a conspiracy, just read my prior posts on this thread.  It's been pretty simple:  I state that Jhoon Rhee among others learned these forms and taught them a certain way, to an extent PRE-DATING all these books you cite later on.  So thus, he (and by extension his 'progeny') can't by definition miss something that perhaps didn't exist at the time, or at the most, existed only through direct transmission from General Choi or another trusted lieutenant.  So no, the current ITF standard for these forms do not apply to everyone, and no, people who follow another standard do not necessarily do them wrong, nor are they 'missing' anything.  They are simply practicing another style of TKD than your own, even if they nominally use the same forms.  So partially knowing the history of how these forms came into my lineage and having talked to multiple people from multiple cultural and lineal backgrounds ... sorry I'm not convinced that everything unfolded exactly according a unchanging master blueprint, perfect from conception with no need for modification and amendment over time.  Nah.  I've had a successful career in and outside of martial arts - I know how organizations and plans grow and transition to match new needs and even serendipity as they arise.  And I know how often things change just because...

I'll try to respond a bit more to the rest of your post in a day or two.  Too sleepy right to write any more.


----------



## dancingalone (May 27, 2013)

granfire said:


> you guys do understand that your academic analysis of the merit and value of the different variations of the General's forms are not exactly helping in this matter?
> 
> I do believe it does not matter a thing how the General did his forms in the 50s when somebody is looking for instruction in the present.
> 
> Taekwondo America......




<shrugs>  Never have been good at staying on topic.  I hope anyone that has lasted through all five pages of this thread found it interesting anyway, otherwise I would question why on earth are they doing reading it anyway.


----------



## granfire (May 27, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> <shrugs>  Never have been good at staying on topic.  I hope anyone that has lasted through all five pages of this thread found it interesting anyway, otherwise I would question why on earth are they doing reading it anyway.



I am sure somebody found it interesting....personally, my eyes glazed over after a rather short while and I skipped to the bottom. 

:angel:


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 27, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> Chris, c'mon man, you know that when you throw around words like evidence, you probably need a stronger standard than that.  If you want to prove unchangeable intent, you need something definitely expository from conception to end.  So, we need General Choi's notes, drafts, etc, from at least sometime in the fifties going forward.  The whole kaboodle, maybe some old video of the General running the forms with sine wave too, ala Mr. Suska.  Maybe even a written statement somewhere where General Choi attests nothing has ever changed about the forms from design, meaning, and execution from its genesis onwards.
> 
> 
> 
> .


Your kidding, right? If a book has a copyright / publication date of 1965 it was obviously started well before that.  The first 20 forms weren't even completed until the late 1950's. So, it is not really possible to go back much further. There was the manual from the 1950's, but have not seen it and from all reports the info was nominal.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 27, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> Chri
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if any studied with General Choi whether formally or through brief courses with him.  As I said these people are connected with Jhoon Rhee and H.U. Lee in some respect.



Explains a lot. Jhoon Rhee and HU Lee were both Chung Do Kwan guys and you can see how theri  their CDK habits altered the standard.  I can see this because my own lineage went back thru Han Cha Kyo and can see it in his progeny as well. Same with he Il Cho progeny.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 27, 2013)

granfire said:


> you guys do understand that your academic analysis of the merit and value of the different variations of the General's forms are not exactly helping in this matter?
> .....



I think the above misses the point of the discussion. "Merit" will vary with opinion and perhaps with the circumstances. The issue is about standard for a technique, and the merit of widely accepted standard.  (People are free to opine that there is no merit to a widely standard). Whether standards  exist in a system, and wheter they changed as some claim or whether people just screwed up and claimed that they did it the way it  was originaly taught by General Choi as an excuse for a mistake.   Case in Point.  A while back Twin Fist had a thread entilted something like "Friggin' Se Jong"   After noting the form turned in a direction un,ike any of General Choi's texts  he indicated it was like that in one of He Il Cho's books.   I asked Twin Fist if he ever asked any of the Seniors about this discrepancy (As we know books can and do have errors, even General Choi's which he confirmed)  Twin Fist took great offense to the suggestion that "He question his Seniors" . I for one felt that asking a question was not out of line if done respectfully.  I e-mailed He Il Cho and asked if the discrepancy was due to a chnage he made or some editing / publication error. I got a responce from "Jasmine Cho" who stated that the books reflected the patterns as originaly taught. I responded by pointing out that the books going back thru 1965 which pre dated GM Cho's books were all the same and asked again if she could determine if it were a change or editing / publication error. I did not get a response.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 27, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> Rather than accuse me of thinking there is a conspiracy, just read my prior posts on this thread.  It's been pretty simple:  I state that Jhoon Rhee among others learned these forms and taught them a certain way, to an extent PRE-DATING all these books you cite later on.  So thus, he (and by extension his 'progeny') can't by definition miss something that perhaps didn't exist at the time, or at the most, existed only through direct transmission from General Choi or another trusted lieutenant.  .


The most widely accepted story is that Jhoon Rhee spent a weekend in Texas learning the patterns. That was the early 1960's meaning he had been training about 10 years as a CDK guy.  I went to my first course with General Choi in 1990. I had been training 18 years and had already learned the 20 forms and had General Choi's book.  The course was a week long and I wrote down 150  things I needed to fix.   By the second course I only wroted down 125 things to fix.   So, I find it extremely unlikely Jhoon Ree learned everything and got everything down correctly, changing all his old habits  in a weekend.


----------



## dancingalone (May 27, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> Your kidding, right? If a book has a copyright / publication date of 1965 it was obviously started well before that.  The first 20 forms weren't even completed until the late 1950's. So, it is not really possible to go back much further. There was the manual from the 1950's, but have not seen it and from all reports the info was nominal.



If one wishes to argue that something has never changed from start to finish, it's reasonable to ask for supporting documentation from the same time span to substantiate the claim.  A publication date indicates a finished milestone of some type and not the germination or formulation phase which is conspicuously missing here.  It may be impossible to provide, but I've stated it is likewise impossible for anyone to know General Choi's complete longitudinal thought process on this other than himself.


----------



## dancingalone (May 27, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> The most widely accepted story is that Jhoon Rhee spent a weekend in Texas learning the patterns.



From a manual most likely at that.  



Earl Weiss said:


> That was the early 1960's meaning he had been training about 10 years as a CDK guy.



A little longer than 10 years if it is correct that he began training at age 13.



Earl Weiss said:


> I went to my first course with General Choi in 1990. I had been training 18 years and had already learned the 20 forms and had General Choi's book.  The course was a week long and I wrote down 150  things I needed to fix.   By the second course I only wroted down 125 things to fix.   So, I find it extremely unlikely Jhoon Ree learned everything and got everything down correctly, changing all his old habits  in a weekend.



Exactly.  Where we differ on this subject is whether or not the means Jhoon Rhee learned the forms even had any substantial part of what survives as the current ITF standard today.  Of course my contention is that you can't miss what you never had.  If you want to say that Jhoon Rhee TKD is an evolved expression of Chung Do Kwan karate/TKD, I'd have no issue with that.  Where I disagree is if someone takes it a further step and asserts that the Jhoon Rhee people are 'missing' anything.  No way.  They are simply practicing their own style.


----------



## dancingalone (May 27, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> Explains a lot. Jhoon Rhee and HU Lee were both Chung Do Kwan guys and you can see how theri  their CDK habits altered the standard.  I can see this because my own lineage went back thru Han Cha Kyo and can see it in his progeny as well. Same with he Il Cho progeny.



There's an awful lot of people in the same boat then.  The Chung Do Kwan supplied the bulk of the early TKD instructors and practitioners.


----------



## chrispillertkd (May 27, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> Befuddling? Not at all. If you want to say *any* intent from *any* of the 25 forms has always been the same from inception until General Choi's death, I'd say that's a heavy burden that needs to be backed up with far more than just citing his books. To back that up, you'd need to know General Choi's mind for the span of decades which is of course impossible. In fact, I could make a decent argument that the transition from Ko Dang to Juche is sufficient exhibit all by itself that the general's intentions changed over time in at least one aspect of the forms. What befuddles me is the certainty with which you declare your position on a subject that no one other than General Choi could rightly know the true answer.



It is absolutely befuddling. I've pointed out that all of the information we have from Gen. Choi on the subject is the same each time it is published (which was often). It changed slightly in wording between 1965 and 1972 and from 1972 until his death in 2002 was the same, verbatim, in every edition of his textbooks. 

The switch from Ko-Dang to Ju-Che doesn't effect the _intention_ Gen. Choi had for the tul at all. Your assertion that you could "make a decent argument" to the contrary simply means you don't know what his intentions were, despite apparently knowing the patterns themselves and perhaps having access to some or many of Gen. Choi's books wherein he lays out the information quite clearly. In light of the statements you've made about the "feeling" people on "your side" get about the change in intention I am not really surprised, however. I think it may be probable that neither you nor the instructors you mentioned familiarized yourself with Gen. Choi's teachings on the subject in the first place. I could be wrong about that but if you did you would certainly have seen that his position hasn't changed since the 1965 textbook. If you want to argue that it was different before then you could get a hold of a copy of the 1959 textbook, I suppose. But since that seems unlikely I really have to wonder why you're so adamant in the face of all the evidence, which is against you in every instance. In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that I know of which points to a change in the General's thinking here. Of you know of any please, by all means, produce it. I would be interested in seeing it if for no other reason than historical interest.



> In any case, since you acknowledge that execution of the forms in general have changed, my main point of contention is satisfied since really that has been my objection about the view expressed about the forms, that General Choi's last set of instructions is the only correct way to perform them.



But that's not really the same thing as the _intention_ behind the tul. FWIW, however, I'm pretty comfortable with saying that the man who designed the pattern has the last word on how they should be performed. In other words, of course there's one correct way to perform them. I'm also pretty comfortable saying if people don't perform them correctly it's no skin off my nose. Or theirs, unless they want to join the ITF. You could say, for instance, that there is, or was, an ATA method of performing the Chang Hun tul. But I'd be very hesitant in saying it was the correct way of doing so. But that's just me and doesn't really touch on the topic of intention.



> Rather than accuse me of thinking there is a conspiracy, just read my prior posts on this thread. It's been pretty simple: I state that Jhoon Rhee among others learned these forms and taught them a certain way, to an extent PRE-DATING all these books you cite later on. So thus, he (and by extension his 'progeny') can't by definition miss something that perhaps didn't exist at the time, or at the most, existed only through direct transmission from General Choi or another trusted lieutenant. So no, the current ITF standard for these forms do not apply to everyone, and no, people who follow another standard do not necessarily do them wrong, nor are they 'missing' anything. They are simply practicing another style of TKD than your own, even if they nominally use the same forms. So partially knowing the history of how these forms came into my lineage and having talked to multiple people from multiple cultural and lineal backgrounds ... sorry I'm not convinced that everything unfolded exactly according a unchanging master blueprint, perfect from conception with no need for modification and amendment over time. Nah. I've had a successful career in and outside of martial arts - I know how organizations and plans grow and transition to match new needs and even serendipity as they arise. And I know how often things change just because...



Oh, come on. Now you're just fooling with me. You're conflating two topics here.

Can you please produce some evidence, I won't even say proof - just evidence, that Jhoon Rhee and the others you mentioned knew what the intention behind Gen. Choi's patterns were when they learned them and that at some later date this intention was changed? Because every bit of evidence we have suggests it did not. If you have any evidence whatsoever that Gen. Choi changed what the intention behind the tul were please show it to me. Otherwise this is just an example of one person saying something has changed when it hasn't which is so common with you KKW types.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 27, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> If one wishes to argue that something has never changed from start to finish, it's reasonable to ask for supporting documentation from the same time span to substantiate the claim.  A publication date indicates a finished milestone of some type and not the germination or formulation phase which is conspicuously missing here.  It may be impossible to provide, but I've stated it is likewise impossible for anyone to know General Choi's complete longitudinal thought process on this other than himself.


That is like saying a painter or sculpture idea changes as he progresses thru his work. Only the completed work is the expression intended for mass consumption.  The printed materials show nominal changes.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 27, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> From a manual most likely at that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 27, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> A little longer than 10 years if it is correct that he began training at age 13.
> 
> 
> 
> .



The above post puts the year at 1959 (Sorry, I thought it was early 1960's)  since he was born in 1932 assuming he started at age 13 that would be 1945. So he had been training 14 years.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 27, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> Exactly.  Where we differ on this subject is whether or not the means Jhoon Rhee learned the forms even had any substantial part of what survives as the current ITF standard today.  Of course my contention is that you can't miss what you never had.  If you want to say that Jhoon Rhee TKD is an evolved expression of Chung Do Kwan karate/TKD, I'd have no issue with that.  Where I disagree is if someone takes it a further step and asserts that the Jhoon Rhee people are 'missing' anything.  No way.  They are simply practicing their own style.


No argument that Jhoon Rhee had his own style for performing the Chang Hon forms. You are incorrect in your contention that by and large the technical content has changed to any great degree.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 27, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> There's an awful lot of people in the same boat then.  The Chung Do Kwan supplied the bulk of the early TKD instructors and practitioners.


Well, that depends on whether those of CDK lineage chose to enhance their knowledge by continuing to learn the standard for the new system or simply took the new system and grafted it on to what they were doing.  Examples are Park Jong Soo being a CDK guy and the Father of TKD in Canada, continuing to learn the new system. Another is GM Van Binh (In Texas) who was a student in Viet Nam of CDK pioneers, and had his sturdents learn the proper standard.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 27, 2013)

Interesting find. Wikipedia says Jhoon Rhee born in 1932 started training at age 13 which would be 1945.   It also says Nam Tae Hi was his instructor, but that Nam started training in 1946.  Nam was a second dan in 1954 and definitely Senior to Jhoon Rhee. I don't see how Nam could have been his instructor if Jhoon Rhee started training sooner unless he started somewhere else.  Since I knew Nam's history starting in 1946 and Jhoon Rhee was his Junior circa 1950 was calculated to be Jhoon Rhees start date.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 28, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> I have a feeling there might be an entertaining story lurking in the wings...


New Thread started "Uninvited"


----------

