# Chang Hon forms questions



## bluewaveschool (Sep 25, 2010)

I have noticed some differences looking online at people performing the forms, and what I was taught.  If I go and train/test somewhere, will I be faulted for knowing the forms 'wrong'?  Somewhere along the way an instructor changed a few things.

Examples -

Dan Gun - Towards the end, the 4 rising blocks.  I was taught that each movement was a down block then rising.  From what I've seen, and from my form book by Hee Il Cho, the down block is only on the first move, the next three are strictly rising blocks.

Hwa Rang - I have seen the 3 reserve punches down at an angle, I was taught straight ahead.  The double elbow attack following I was taught as a riding stance, I've seen it a fighting stance looking backwards over the right shoulder.  I was also taught it begins with the Heaven Hands movement, which is apparent the start of Gwang Gae.

Also, explain to me the self defense purpose of the jump 360 spin in Chung Moo.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 25, 2010)

Never heard of doing any of that. 

http://www.comdo.com/patterns.html

Those are how I know 'em. 

One application of the 360 spin is to clear a strike to the shins from a staff.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Sep 25, 2010)

bluewaveschool said:


> I have noticed some differences looking online at people performing the forms, and what I was taught. If I go and train/test somewhere, will I be faulted for knowing the forms 'wrong'? Somewhere along the way an instructor changed a few things.
> 
> Examples -
> 
> ...


 
First, if you want to learn the forms according to the most widely accepted standard use General Choi's books. They teach the technical specifications for the moves as well as the mves in teh patterns.   He Il Cho is a great athlete and very knowledgeable but there are issues with his books. For instance would you buy a book of the alphabet containg all 20 letters.  There is also a definite deviation in Se Jong. It is unknown if this was an editing error or something else. 

Dan Gun - The low outer forearm block folowed by 3 rising blocks is correct. 

Hwa Rang -  stances are always "!/2 facing" the default position for the punch is to your center / solar plexus line, so therefore the punch is to the angle.  The elbow is in an L stance.
As stated the 360 Jumb allows for avoin=ding a staff attack to the legs and checking all around you to see what attackers may be doing.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Sep 25, 2010)

bluewaveschool said:


> I have noticed some differences looking online at people performing the forms, and what I was taught. If I go and train/test somewhere, will I be faulted for knowing the forms 'wrong'? Somewhere along the way an instructor changed a few things.


 
will you be faulted? Depends where you test. 

Your post is a sad but common story. 

Instructors purport to  teach the Chang Hon system. 

They change things and either don't tell people they change things and if they do, they never memeorialize the changes, sso the changes seem to change. 

They screw things up and don't know it and the screwups proliferate. 

There is an saying "The shortest pencil is better than the longest memory". 

It is much easier to have a written standard, and even better with the advent of video supplementation.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 25, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> will you be faulted? Depends where you test.
> 
> Your post is a sad but common story.
> 
> ...



Oh, I don't know that all or even most people who use the Choi forms purport to teach the Chang Hon system at all.  For that properly, you obviously have to look to the various ITF groups for that as they follow General Choi's last words on how his system should be taught.

I've mentioned many times here that my TKD black belt came from people who learned from Jhoon Rhee.  We used the Choi forms, but we certainly didn't do them to his final specifications, and this is knowingly so, with no disrespect intended to the General.  For our purposes the He Il Cho book (1st one, at least which has the hyung up to Toi Gye) works fine as do obviously Jhoon Rhee's line of books on the same forms.  Why so?  Because we're not Chang Hon TKDists and we haven't been part of the ITF for decades, and we're fine with our TKD being something distinctly different from what the ITF groups teach now.

So for Bluewave, it really depends on whom he is trying to affiliate with.  If he is trying to join an ITF, then yes, he needs to learn the forms from a source that can give him the exact currency required.  If not, then let's realize that plenty of smaller TKD orgs and independent schools in North America use some variation of General Choi's forms, and plenty of them likewise would happily admit they do not follow his curriculum as outlined in the Encyclopedia.

It's a lot like the Pinan forms used in karate which General Choi studied himself a form of.  There are many variations on them, even within Shorin-ryu karate ryu-ha before you even get into Shotokan or Wado or the Korean derivations.  It's all good so long as you have a reason for performing them the way you do, and if you have drills that make the pattern meaningful beyond conditioning and artistic merit.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 25, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> As stated the 360 Jumb allows for avoin=ding a staff attack to the legs and checking all around you to see what attackers may be doing.





Marginal said:


> One application of the 360 spin is to clear a strike to the shins from a staff.



Do you believe this is a realistic application?  I would prefer another explanation.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 25, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Do you believe this is a realistic application?  I would prefer another explanation.



Realistic? It's just a basic application. It helps folks get up to a decent height at least. It's also good for strengthening the legs. 

If you wanted to come up with a combat application, it works better in conjunction with the preceding move IMO. 

18. Lower the left foot to the right foot and then move the right foot to C forming a right fixed stance toward C while executing a U-shape block toward C.​
Weapon disarm. 

19. Jump and spin around counter clockwise, landing on the same spot to form a left L-stance toward C while executing a middle guarding block to C with a knife-hand.​
Could be an evasion and counter strike with the stolen weapon.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 25, 2010)

Marginal said:


> Realistic? It's just a basic application. It helps folks get up to a decent height at least. It's also good for strengthening the legs.



Explaining it as a conditioning/strengthening move is fair enough.  Even invoking artistic license would be OK imo.   However, jumping with both legs high up in the air at 360 degrees would have to be one of the most unsound actions you could take against someone wielding a staff.  Not sure how this found its way into TKD, but I've heard the same explanation for the Shotokan kata Empi which has a similar move in it.  This explanation is equally unlikely there.



Marginal said:


> If you wanted to come up with a combat application, it works better in conjunction with the preceding move IMO. 18. Lower the left foot to the right foot and then move the right foot to C forming a right fixed stance toward C while executing a U-shape block toward C.​Weapon disarm.
> 19. Jump and spin around counter clockwise, landing on the  same spot to form a left L-stance toward C while executing a middle  guarding block to C with a knife-hand.​Could be an evasion and counter strike with the stolen weapon.



Ugh.  That sounds like something cribbed from the [bad] bunkai used to explain certain hand movements in the Shotokan kata Jitte (Sip Soo to our Tang Soo Do friends).  You are not going to disarm someone wielding a staff barehanded, even if that person only has a moderate level of competence.  Just won't happen... I have extensive kobudo experience and that's my opinion.  

No offense intended with this by the way.  I am passionate about pattern applications and I am saddened to see their immature nature in TKD.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 26, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Explaining it as a conditioning/strengthening move is fair enough.  Even invoking artistic license would be OK imo.


Conditioning is more the intent.  



> Ugh.  That sounds like something cribbed from the [bad] bunkai used to explain certain hand movements in the Shotokan kata Jitte (Sip Soo to our Tang Soo Do friends).  You are not going to disarm someone wielding a staff barehanded, even if that person only has a moderate level of competence.  Just won't happen... I have extensive kobudo experience and that's my opinion.



Heh. Idle thought on my part. 

The U shaped block is supposed to be stopping a staff strike though. (The idea being that you're checking it before the attacker gets the staff up to speed.)


----------



## bribrius (Sep 26, 2010)

Marginal said:


> Conditioning is more the intent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

so to clarify. Are you two saying that you CAN'T stop a staff?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Sep 26, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Oh, I don't know that all or even most people who use the Choi forms purport to teach the Chang Hon system at all..


 
The set of forms Chon Ji Dan Gun, etc. are the "Chang Hon ' Pattern system. 

So, if you teach those forms and claim not to teach that system then what the heck are you teaching?  Chang Hon light?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Sep 26, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Do you believe this is a realistic application? I would prefer another explanation.


 
Lets just say it would not be among my top ten favorite things to do. Patterns are not strictly about realism.  There is "Art" development of athleticism, learning body mechanics and more. 

Now, if you want to talk about "Realistic" applications, we can start with bringing the opposite hand to the hip when punching.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 26, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> The set of forms Chon Ji Dan Gun, etc. are the "Chang Hon ' Pattern system.
> 
> So, if you teach those forms and claim not to teach that system then what the heck are you teaching?  Chang Hon light?



I may be entirely wrong, but from my perspective I don't believe the bulk of General Choi's system is imparted strictly through the patterns.  What about self defense or the fanciful kicks?  They are taught outside of the pattern framework in stand alone drills are they not?

If so, then it's hardly an accurate claim to say the patterns in of themselves are the system.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 26, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> Lets just say it would not be among my top ten favorite things to do. Patterns are not strictly about realism.  There is "Art" development of athleticism, learning body mechanics and more.
> 
> Now, if you want to talk about "Realistic" applications, we can start with bringing the opposite hand to the hip when punching.



Patterns should be primarily about realistic usage, otherwise we are just dancing and we might as well drop the time used in their practice in favor of something else.  This was one of my frustrations with the TKD I learned that ultimately led to a different path and now in my own TKD class I AM using the Choi patterns as a vehicle to teach fighting concepts and applications.  (But I don't claim at all to be teaching Chang Hon.   )

Regarding the return of the opposite hand to the hip, surely I don't need to define the 'hikite' arm.  It's one of the keys to making sure any pattern has martial meaning.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 26, 2010)

Marginal said:


> Heh. Idle thought on my part.
> 
> The U shaped block is supposed to be stopping a staff strike though. (The idea being that you're checking it before the attacker gets the staff up to speed.)



<shrugs>  Gotta go with what your teacher tells you, I suppose.

How often do you practice trying to disarm someone with a bo/jo using a u-shaped 'block'?  My guess is seldom if at all, otherwise it wouldn't even be brought up as a possible application. 

In Okinawan karate or Gung Fu, it's generally translated as a two level 'punch' or better yet a combination block/punch or a reaching, pulling motion.  I would argue a grappling application is a far better explanation for this motion and when my TKD students reach a sufficient level to be taught this 'block', this will be the application given and DRILLED.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 26, 2010)

bribrius said:


> so to clarify. Are you two saying that you CAN'T stop a staff?


I certainly wouldn't want to try to stop a staff swung with any real intent with any of the techniques described...  Might work, but seems like a high risk of injury to yourself, no?  As to the jump-360...  both functional explanations offered seem unlikely.  You're jumping and spinning; how much can you really see as you go around?  And what are you going to do if you do see an attacker while airborne?  The explanation of conditioning is better... 

We have a 360 degree jump step.  It's an evasion technique for attacks at the lower body and allows you to deliver a powerful strike as you land.  You could also use it to attack, a la spinning back kick or spinning hook kick.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 26, 2010)

Well for me any variation from General Choi's way would be couinted against any tester in front of me.

As far as the 360 degree spin, I would never try and stop a blow by a staff doing that tech. maybe to avoid a attack to the lower body but that would be it.


----------



## rlobrecht (Sep 26, 2010)

We've often joked with our Kyosanim about breaking your thumbs off if you really tried using a U-shaped block to block a staff.

While we're on the subject of not terribly useful moves, what about the W-shaped blocks in Toi Gye?  I read somewhere they are to block two simultaneous jump side kicks to the head.  Blocking multiple punches is more likely.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 26, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> <shrugs>  Gotta go with what your teacher tells you, I suppose.
> 
> How often do you practice trying to disarm someone with a bo/jo using a u-shaped 'block'?



About as often as we practice the rifle disarm... 



> In Okinawan karate or Gung Fu, it's generally translated as a two level 'punch' or better yet a combination block/punch or a reaching, pulling motion.  I would argue a grappling application is a far better explanation for this motion and when my TKD students reach a sufficient level to be taught this 'block', this will be the application given and DRILLED.



Someone ought to get Stuart Anslow in here. He probably has a few more ideas.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 26, 2010)

terryl965 said:


> Well for me any variation from General Choi's way would be couinted against any tester in front of me.


 
??? You do the Tae Geuks, right?


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 26, 2010)

rlobrecht said:


> While we're on the subject of not terribly useful moves, what about the W-shaped blocks in Toi Gye?  I read somewhere they are to block two simultaneous jump side kicks to the head.  Blocking multiple punches is more likely.



Yama uke could possibly be interpreted as an arm bar or as a variety of throwing motions, including the fireman's carriage from wrestling or judo.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 26, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> ??? You do the Tae Geuks, right?



Open tournaments.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 26, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> ??? You do the Tae Geuks, right?


 
I was doing the Chon Ji long before Tae Gueks. Before the Tae Gueks was also the palgwes, remember I have been doing this a longtime as well.

Beside we only do the Tae Gueks at USAT events, like AAU we do the Chon-ji sets because they score higher against the Tae Guek. All my boys learned the Chon-ji set first and then the Tae Gueks. Hell Michael my youngest prefers Gae Bek over Koryo anytime.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Sep 26, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I may be entirely wrong, but from my perspective I don't believe the bulk of General Choi's system is imparted strictly through the patterns. What about self defense or the fanciful kicks? They are taught outside of the pattern framework in stand alone drills are they not?
> 
> If so, then it's hardly an accurate claim to say the patterns in of themselves are the system.


 

Sorry, the pattern system is the Chang Hon Pattern system. It is entirely accurate to say the patterns are the Chang Hon system. Now, if you want to say Gneral Choi's system contains more than just the patterns, than that would be accurate as well. 

You did pose an interesting question vis a vis "Bulk of the techniques."  I don't have an answer as to what number or percentage of techniques in the system are not found in the patterns.  Certainly there are some, but I would venture to say that few if any not found in the patterns are more than a variation of what is found in a pattern.

IMNSHO the biggest delineation of a system are the patterns.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Sep 26, 2010)

rlobrecht said:


> We've often joked with our Kyosanim about breaking your thumbs off if you really tried using a U-shaped block to block a staff.
> 
> While we're on the subject of not terribly useful moves, what about the W-shaped blocks in Toi Gye? I read somewhere they are to block two simultaneous jump side kicks to the head. Blocking multiple punches is more likely.


 
I am sorry, but the above shows that someone has not "read the book".  The blocking surface of the U Shape block is the "Reverse Knifehand" although the shape of the hand does not resemble the reverse knifehand. It is often misunderstood to be the "U" or webbing between the thumb and index finger and that is a recipe for disaster. Knowing the proper surface menas the direction of th hand motion is more from side to side than from close in to away from the body serving as more of a deflection to the side.  It is not specified as to why the thumbs are out but an analogy can be made from oher open versus closed hand applications where the text says this facilitates a grab. 

While not stated having the thumbs out would continue deflection away from something coming toward you. Sorry, all the above is easier to show than describe. 

Do San W shape block with outer forearm is designated to be a block with only one forearm, the one that is on the lead side when stepping.  (There are other W Shape blocks meant for 2 defenses but they don't step the same way which makes a second or double block impractical) 

Even so, still not in my 10 favorite practical things to do. But, if you ever catch Jackie Chan in Shanghai nights watch where he is tied to a railing and breaks it free. Or, icture an agrarian society where you carry stuff with a pole across your shoulders and are attacked.....


----------



## bluewaveschool (Sep 26, 2010)

One of my instructors said the U shape block was supposed to be a staff block.  Then he said that explanation was stupid.  He proceeded to grab someone by the throat and groin using it.


Terry and Earl, the W shape blocks, cresent kicks or foot stomps?


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 26, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> Sorry, the pattern system is the Chang Hon Pattern system. It is entirely accurate to say the patterns are the Chang Hon system. Now, if you want to say Gneral Choi's system contains more than just the patterns, than that would be accurate as well.



I can accept that is how you feel and I am certainly not out to change your mind since this is your style. 

That said, I offer this thought for other people out there:  what comprises a system exactly?  Is it just the rote forms?  If all you practice is the form itself, are you still doing Chang Hon or Shotokan or Silat or whatever else?

What about the supplementary drills which in the case of TKD IMO are actually the bulk of the fighting system itself such as the self-defense, one steps, sparring, and basics.  While forms are a key part of TKD, they are not fully integrated into rest of the art.  It's been mentioned a time or two to my recollection that General Choi brought in a Hapkido master to create the hoshinsul that (some, most, all?) in the ITF teach.  Would this be necessary if the Chang Hon forms already served as the dictionary or guiding book for practical self-defense?  My opinion is no, and that likewise would lead me to conclude that the practice of the forms themselves does not equal to learning all of the key parts of the Chang Hon system.

In contrast some other fighting systems are more integrated such that the 'promise kumite' and free flowing drills and pattern applications actually are tied in directly to the kata/hyung itself, so that you could make the argument that kata/hyung = the system.  This is not meant to be a statement of which is better on a practical level.  Good training is good training regardless of how 'neat' the organization of the pedagogy is.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 26, 2010)

terryl965 said:


> I was doing the Chon Ji long before Tae Gueks. Before the Tae Gueks was also the palgwes, remember I have been doing this a longtime as well.
> 
> Beside we only do the Tae Gueks at USAT events, like AAU we do the Chon-ji sets because they score higher against the Tae Guek. All my boys learned the Chon-ji set first and then the Tae Gueks. Hell Michael my youngest prefers Gae Bek over Koryo anytime.



Cool.  I much prefer the Choi forms over the Tae Geuks myself.  Do you  do them according to the last directions General Choi left with sine wave and all?

I use the Chon-Ji pattern set in my TKD class, but I certainly don't teach or perform them in the fashion done by the ITFs today.  Chon-Ji for example is executed with with a slant in hanmi similar to what is done in Shotokan or Shito-ryu karate with regard to Heian Shodan (Shoto) Pinan Nidan (Shito).  So you see, I would be uncomfortable in saying I teach Chang Hon, since I obviously do not.


----------



## bluewaveschool (Sep 26, 2010)

terryl965 said:


> Well for me any variation from General Choi's way would be couinted against any tester in front of me.
> 
> As far as the 360 degree spin, I would never try and stop a blow by a staff doing that tech. maybe to avoid a attack to the lower body but that would be it.




This is what is going to hurt me, I think.  One of my BB and I have been discussing going ahead and changing the forms, or waiting until we find someone who would consider testing us and joining their org and see what they say.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 26, 2010)

bluewaveschool said:


> This is what is going to hurt me, I think. One of my BB and I have been discussing going ahead and changing the forms, or waiting until we find someone who would consider testing us and joining their org and see what they say.


 

All you can do is talk and explain your circumstances and hopefully the people you decide to join with will help you though everything. If I was to take you on we would work on everything to insure your training would be the very best that it coul;d be.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Sep 27, 2010)

bluewaveschool said:


> One of my instructors said the U shape block was supposed to be a staff block. Then he said that explanation was stupid. He proceeded to grab someone by the throat and groin using it.
> 
> 
> Terry and Earl, the W shape blocks, cresent kicks or foot stomps?


 
First we need to acknowledge that as far as applications for movements are used, they are not meant to be exhaustive in General Choi's books. When he would teach, often using the socratic method he would often go thru a scenario as to the purpose / application of a technique.  He would then use the example where someone said something different than was in the book, and say "He doesn't care what the book says, how do we solve this problem?"  The answer he was looking for was that so long as the suggested application seemed to have a practical application, then it was a good application irrespective of what the book showed as an example. 

That being said and acknowledging that numerous practical applications may exist for the above, and that some may runn contrary to what is said in the text, I offer the following: 

W. Shape Block - Outer forearm as in Toi Gye. Only the forearm in the lead is used.  Other than the agrarian example carrying a pole across your shoulders, not one of my favorite applications.  I like some alternate applications. 

Stamping motion with W shape block is not intended to be a foot stomp. It is only to "Accentuate motion and facilitate power." As with other ways of moving it is but one more way to generate power in certain techniques. 

Crescent kick is a  kick with the reverse footsword (inside edge of the foot) used to interceppt an incoming attack. This can be extremely useful. One scenariowould be to use it to kick the hand holding a knife.  Recently had a guy do it to me successfuly in a knife defense class. 

I think sometimes techniques can be viewed as a mechanics toolbox.  Having the right tool makes the job go easier. You can use a wrench to pound on something and it may work, but a hammer works better. 

You may only use 20% of the tools 80% of the time. Some you may only need 1% of the time.  But, when that 1% arises it sure makes the job easier if you have the right tool.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 27, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> First we need to acknowledge that as far as applications for movements are used, they are not meant to be exhaustive in General Choi's books. When he would teach, often using the socratic method he would often go thru a scenario as to the purpose / application of a technique.  He would then use the example where someone said something different than was in the book, and say "He doesn't care what the book says, how do we solve this problem?"  The answer he was looking for was that so long as the suggested application seemed to have a practical application, then it was a good application irrespective of what the book showed as an example.



I generally agree although you and I have differences about the efficacy of the crescent kick knife defense.

My primary complaint with form applications is that they should make sense even if they are 1) basic or 2) it should be understood that they are not exhaustive.  In other words, shed ourselves of the ones like jumping 360 degrees to avoid a blow from a staff.  There are ample basic explanations that are far more credible.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Sep 27, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> That said, I offer this thought for other people out there: what comprises a system exactly? Is it just the rote forms? If all you practice is the form itself, are you still doing Chang Hon or Shotokan or Silat or whatever else?
> 
> quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 27, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> All the pre arranged sparrings use the same techniques mostly fopund in the patterns. *Self defense has grappling techniques not found in patterns* , and Free sparring has fundamental techniques *highly modified* from fundamental techniques.
> 
> So, Free sparring, grappling self defense, and Dallyon have little distinguishing characteristics as opposed to the fundamental techniques and how they are arranged in patterns.



The text I highlighted seems inconsistent with your contention in the final paragraph.  Systems which have a high level of integration among its training components should have grappling or close range techniques specifically codified in their solo as well as dual pattern practice.  

Okinawan karate has two man sets which is meant to explain the base level of what each kata means.  As you progress deeper into the system, more and more close range fighting methods are exposed either formally through more sets or on a case by case basis where the teacher will show a possible application directly.  It is understood that the kata does contain all of the system, so long as your teacher knows them and he is willing to teach them to you.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Sep 27, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> . Systems which have a high level of integration among its training components should have grappling or close range techniques specifically codified in their solo as well as dual pattern practice.
> 
> .


 
There is no "Dual Pattern Practice" in the Chang Hon system.  There are certainly 2 person exercises in the form of step sparring. There are examples in the text, but no set of prescribed practice vis a vis certain attacks and defenses by rank, although certin types of  sparring are specified by rank.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Sep 27, 2010)

Originally Posted by *Earl Weiss* 

 
_
All the pre arranged sparrings use the same techniques mostly fopund in the patterns. *Self defense has grappling techniques not found in patterns* , and Free sparring has fundamental techniques *highly modified* from fundamental techniques. 

So, Free sparring, grappling self defense, and Dallyon have little distinguishing characteristics as opposed to the fundamental techniques and how they are arranged in patterns_



dancingalone said:


> The text I highlighted seems inconsistent with your contention in the final paragraph. .


 
I don't understand your point. 

I will concede that alternate application afficianodos, of which I am one, can certainly find grappling applications in the patterns.  Free sparring is sport, so techniques are modified and even banned.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 27, 2010)

I'm going back to the item of contention of whether the Chang Hon forms = the ITF system.  Do you prefer to reserve the Blue Cottage name to refer strictly to the patterns themselves rather than the entire body of training/knowledge as set out by General Choi?  If so, that might be the source of my confusion with your initial posts on the thread.


----------



## bluewaveschool (Sep 28, 2010)

How about this - Is ITF a mashing together of the 9 original kwans using Chang Hon forms, or is ITF Oh Do Kwan, Choi's school?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Sep 28, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I'm going back to the item of contention of whether the Chang Hon forms = the ITF system. Do you prefer to reserve the Blue Cottage name to refer strictly to the patterns themselves rather than the entire body of training/knowledge as set out by General Choi? If so, that might be the source of my confusion with your initial posts on the thread.


 

Perhaps this will be clear. Chang Hon refers to the pattern system developed by General Choi (With input and help from others.) 

 ITF is an organization. It has adopted a system set out to a large extent by General Choi. See, the simplest questions do not have the simplest answers. 

For instance, the ITF uses a certain rule set for sparring competitions. I do not believe this rule set is contained anywhere in General Choi's works.  As set forth above, General Cho'is system has elements beside the Chang Hon pattern system, however the bulk of the distibguishing  characteristic which make up General Choi's system is the pattern system.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 28, 2010)

Ah.  That explains why you said earlier that practice of the patterns is practice of Chang Hon.  Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 21, 2013)

Dan Gun, the only version I have ever known has a low section then a high section block on the first move only the pattern has 24 movements, adding 3 more low section blocks would bring the total to 27.

Hwa Rang - I was taught to punch straight and only 1 elbow with the other arm just coming back to the hip. The pattern started from the C stance with both hands crossed over in knife hands.

The 360 jump can be for either a leg attack with a staff or a double sweep with the legs. The pattern as a whole does not necessarily represent an entire attack sequence it can represent a series of smaller attack sequences strung together to form the pattern. The U-shaped block is more of a snatch the staff out of the hands of the attacker kind of thing. The 360 jump spin may represent the start of the next sub-sequence where you swing your front leg out of the way and then see the second leg sweep, say a spinning heel sweep, and jump off the standing leg. Because your first leg is turning away from your attacker landing straight down may cause you to land side on so you continue your momentum by spinning around and landing in a knife hand guarding block in a left back stance. You are not spinning around in mid air to see what the other guys are up to as you should already be aware of them with your peripheral vision.

I hope this answers your questions.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 21, 2013)

Just one point, kicking a knife out of someones hand is never a good idea, it is a good way to get your foot sliced open, especially on the inside edge  of the foot where there is a lot of meat and blood vescles. Kicking with the outside edge of the foot is a bit safer because it is all skin and bones but still highly dangerous. Kicking a blunt object out of his hand with a crescent kick is good though. I have always used the stamping motion as a foot stomp (toes or instep) if they are punching you with their foot close enough to you you might as well stomp on it.


----------



## RobinTKD (Jan 21, 2013)

This is a good thread necro! There are a lot of differences between how I've been taught the patterns on how the 'british standard' supposedly is. The TAGB is considered the biggest ITF org in the UK, and Dave Ellis has made hundreds of changes to the patterns (some are unrecognisable to me) seemingly on a whim. Having met GM Ki Ha Rhee though, he assured me that the movements I had been taught were correct.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jan 21, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> >>Dan Gun, the only version I have ever known has a low section then a high section block on the first move only the pattern has 24 movements, adding 3 more low section blocks would bring the total to 27.<<<
> 
> >>>Hwa Rang - I was taught to punch straight and only 1 elbow with the other arm just coming back to the hip. The pattern started from the C stance with both hands crossed over in knife hands.<<
> 
> ...


Not sure why this post appears in this thread, but as far as questions go: Dan Gun has 21 moves not 24. Do San has 24.The name of the ready stance for Hwa Rang is "Close ready stance C". There is no 360 degree jump in Hwa Rang.  It appears in Choong Moo. You do not land in a left back stance, you land in a right fixed stance. Last time I checked the peripheral vision of most humans did not go much if at all past 180 degrees. Blocks and attacks are properly referred to as High, Middle, Low and the term section which denotes a range rather than specific level is not used unless you are working off the 1965 book. Any questions?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jan 21, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> Just one point, kicking a knife out of someones hand is never a good idea,.


How about a scissors with boots on?      http://www.mandatory.com/2013/01/08...rid10|htmlws-sb-bb|dl44|sec1_lnk3&pLid=254243


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 21, 2013)

With scissors the blades are on the inside so it is not so bad unless they are open. Scissors ususlly do not cut as efficiently as a knife.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 21, 2013)

It was a bit distracted when I wrote 24, which is To San I meant 21. I know its a closed stance, in our class we usually just say C stance. I did not say that the 360 jump appears in Wha Rang I was answering the  question he had in his last paragraph. Unless you do a different version of Choong Moo you do land in a left back stance because the next move is in a left forward stance upset spear finger thrust. You can not see behind you but you can see someone moving out of your field of vision and follow them. Section refers to the section of the body, you obviously have a different interpretation which is fine. I do not work from any book only by what I was taught by one of the 12 original masters of Tae Kwon Do. We used to call it a high section block but we now call it a raising block, I used the term high section block because it may be a more familiar term to others


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jan 21, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> >>Unless you do a different version of Choong Moo you do land in a left back stance because the next move is in a left forward stance upset spear finger thrust. <<>>>>Section refers to the section of the body, you obviously have a different interpretation which is fine.<<< I do not work from any book only by what I was taught by one of the 12 original masters of Tae Kwon Do. We used to call it a high section block but we now call it a raising block, I used the term high section block because it may be a more familiar term to others



Actualy I don't do a version of Choong Moo, I do Choong Moo although admittedly imperfectly, in fact I  see I made an error.  #19 Jump and Spin.... and form a Left L stance. (Not Fixed stance as I erroneously wrote, that is the previous stance.)

You are correct, "section" refers to a section of the body. High = Shoulders and above, Middle = Shoulders to umbilicus, Low = Below umbilicus. Attacking and blocking levels as stipulated for patterns do not have a range or section they are very specific. . Generaly with exceptions High = Eye, Middle = Shoulder, and Low = Umbilicus. 

Based upon your history, I can see how your terminolgy (back Stance and "Section") conforms to the 1965 edition of General Choi's book. The terminolgy was refined beginning wit the 1972 book.  I don't have "A different Interpretation" I have the most current and correct interpretation. 

You refer to one of the 12 original Masters. Who is that person?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 22, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> You refer to one of the 12 original Masters. Who is that person?



Master Chong Chul Rhee, whom I see every 3 months.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jan 22, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> Master Chong Chul Rhee, whom I see every 3 months.



Are you in Australia? New Zealand?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 22, 2013)

Australia.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jan 22, 2013)

Checked out the Rhee TKD site. reminded me of the days in the early 1970's when we were affiliated with Han Cha Kyo and did the non contact sparring. Do you happen to know what Kwan or group Master CC Rhee was with before he was with the Chang Hon system? Could not find anything on the web. Lots of times  some of the pioneers  did / do things that can be traced to habits from their early training. For instance, when I hosted GM Nam Tae Hi, he still used Japanese names for some techniques.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 22, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> Checked out the Rhee TKD site. reminded me of the days in the early 1970's when we were affiliated with Han Cha Kyo and did the non contact sparring. Do you happen to know what Kwan or group Master CC Rhee was with before he was with the Chang Hon system? Could not find anything on the web. Lots of times  some of the pioneers  did / do things that can be traced to habits from their early training. For instance, when I hosted GM Nam Tae Hi, he still used Japanese names for some techniques.



I wouldn't have a clue what Kwan he was with but we were briefly associated with the ITF at one stage. Grand Master Chong Yoon Rhee once trained under GM Nam Tae Hi in Vietnam before coming to Australia.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 23, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> I do not work from any book only by what I was taught by one of the 12 original masters of Tae Kwon Do. We used to call it a high section block but we now call it a raising block, I used the term high section block because it may be a more familiar term to others





RTKDCMB said:


> I wouldn't have a clue what Kwan he was with but we were briefly associated with the ITF at one stage. Grand Master Chong Yoon Rhee once trained under GM Nam Tae Hi in Vietnam before coming to Australia.



Call me crazy, but these two statements seem contradictory. How could one of the "12 original masters" train under someone who was a 2nd Dan when the unification efforts started and Taekwondo was born?

What do you mean by "12 original masters"? Personally, I'd think the "original masters" were the heads of the various Kwans that formed the KTA. And that wouldn't be 12, unless you add in those who joined in the second round of recruitments (by which time, some of the originals had left...).

Or are you speaking of the first 12 people to attain the rank of Master in the ITF?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jan 23, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> Call me crazy, but these two statements seem contradictory. How could one of the "12 original masters" train under someone who was a 2nd Dan when the unification efforts started and Taekwondo was born?
> 
> What do you mean by "12 original masters"? Personally, I'd think the "original masters" were the heads of the various Kwans that formed the KTA. And that wouldn't be 12, unless you add in those who joined in the second round of recruitments (by which time, some of the originals had left...).



See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_masters_of_taekwondo
*Original masters of taekwondo* is a group of twelve South Korean martial art masters assembled by the Korea Taekwon-Do Association (KTA) in the early 1960s to promote the newly-established art of taekwondo.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] In alphabetical order following Korean naming conventions, they are: Choi Chang Keun, Choi Kwang Jo, Han Cha Kyo, Kim Jong Chan, Kim Kwang Il, Kong Young Il, Park Jong Soo, Park Jung Tae, Park Sun Jae, Rhee Chong Chul, Rhee Chong Hyup, and Rhee Ki Ha.[SUP][

It seems this label was used by the KTA.  So if you disagree with it the quarrel is with that group   Further, noteably missing from the group are Nam Tae Hi and General Choi.  They are not really missing though because if you read on (use the link) that group was under the leadership of Choi Hong Hi and Nam Tae Hi. [/SUP]


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 23, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_masters_of_taekwondo
> *Original masters of taekwondo* is a group of twelve South Korean martial art masters assembled by the Korea Taekwon-Do Association (KTA) in the early 1960s to promote the newly-established art of taekwondo.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] In alphabetical order following Korean naming conventions, they are: Choi Chang Keun, Choi Kwang Jo, Han Cha Kyo, Kim Jong Chan, Kim Kwang Il, Kong Young Il, Park Jong Soo, Park Jung Tae, Park Sun Jae, Rhee Chong Chul, Rhee Chong Hyup, and Rhee Ki Ha.[SUP][
> 
> It seems this label was used by the KTA.  So if you disagree with it the quarrel is with that group   Further, noteably missing from the group are Nam Tae Hi and General Choi.  They are not really missing though because if you read on (use the link) that group was under the leadership of Choi Hong Hi and Nam Tae Hi. [/SUP]



No disagrement, just confusion. So it really has nothing to do with being "original", it's just another one of those invented titles. Seems as if the title might more accurately be "the first 12 people promoted to Master by other people who already had various ranks in various arts including but not limited to their newly self-group appointed ranks in the newly created art of taekwondo" but that sure would take a long time to type over and over.


P.S. Why were we whispering?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jan 24, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> No disagrement, just confusion. So it really has nothing to do with being "original", it's just another one of those invented titles. Seems as if the title might more accurately be "the first 12 people promoted to Master by other people who already had various ranks in various arts including but not limited to their newly self-group appointed ranks in the newly created art of taekwondo" but that sure would take a long time to type over and over.
> 
> 
> P.S. Why were we whispering?



The whisper was a function of the copy and paste inadvertently changing the font. 

Definition  issues of "Original" pale in comparison to definition issues of "TKD" 

You or anyone else are free to quible with the posters or quoted sources or add to the information.

Readers can determine which if any position they feel more comfortable with.


----------



## andyjeffries (Jan 24, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> You or anyone else are free to quible with the posters or quoted sources or add to the information.



I've added a paragraph to the Wikipedia entry to clarify it.


----------

