# "The" ITF



## puunui (Dec 11, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> The ITF teaches one to exhale from the abdomen while executing a technique.




Which ITF are you talking about? There are so many organizations at this point claiming to be "the" ITF. I haven't been really following what each group is doing, but I would think that "the" ITF would be the one led by the person General Choi endorsed as the next ITF President, which is Mr. Chang Ung and North Korea.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 12, 2010)

puunui said:


> Which ITF are you talking about? There are so many organizations at this point claiming to be "the" ITF. I haven't been really following what each group is doing, but I would think that "the" ITF would be the one led by the person General Choi endorsed as the next ITF President, which is Mr. Chang Ung and North Korea.


 
FWIW General Choi "endorsed" different people at different times. This included naming a senior VP who was elected and who would take the place of the President in the event of his disability.  That was in the beginning of 2000, and in 2001 at an IIC in Newfoundland he was endorsing his son.   Then in NK in whatever medical condition he purportedly endorsed someone else. There was an something posted on the net, purportedly something written by an ITF Senior (Who later resigned from ITF N) that he later felt the person next to General Choi on his deathbed, a person from NK had liedabout what General Choi said . (I know, hard to believe they might lie.)  Unfortunately i have been unable to locate that item again. 

So, Glenn, you and I will agree to disagree as to whether any claim of an endoresement or actual endoresment would or should supersede characteristics of who comprises "The" ITF. 

Now, as far as technical differences between the  largest groups (NK, Son, Original/Vienna, General Choi BD followers. ) go, they are there, but still nominal (IMO).


----------



## puunui (Dec 12, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> FWIW General Choi "endorsed" different people at different times. This included naming a senior VP who was elected and who would take the place of the President in the event of his disability.  That was in the beginning of 2000, and in 2001 at an IIC in Newfoundland he was endorsing his son.   Then in NK in whatever medical condition he purportedly endorsed someone else. There was an something posted on the net, purportedly something written by an ITF Senior (Who later resigned from ITF N) that he later felt the person next to General Choi on his deathbed, a person from NK had liedabout what General Choi said . (I know, hard to believe they might lie.)  Unfortunately i have been unable to locate that item again.



So three groups with claims, the Senior VP, the Son, and North Korea. Which one was the last endorsement, and were any of these in writing? 




Earl Weiss said:


> So, Glenn, you and I will agree to disagree as to whether any claim of an endoresement or actual endoresment would or should supersede characteristics of who comprises "The" ITF.



I don't have any strong feeling or opinion about the issue, so I wouldn't go so far as to say we disagree. I am just trying to understand and used my thoughts as a starting point of the discussion. I would think that some sort of declaratory action or arbitration proceeding would be helpful in clearing this up. Has there been any moves towards having a legal determination as to which organization is in fact the ITF? 

I remember some discussion about this a long time ago, wherein the ITF bylaws favored the Senior VP. However, there was other discussion that implied that General Choi's wishes superceded the bylaws, sort of a probate type approach, like the ITF was an estate asset since it was effectively his private organization which he owned and derived all of the profits from. 




Earl Weiss said:


> Now, as far as technical differences between the  largest groups (NK, Son, Original/Vienna, General Choi BD followers. ) go, they are there, but still nominal (IMO).



So the different groups sort of just ignore each other and coexist? Which group do you belong to, and why?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 13, 2010)

puunui said:


> So three groups with claims, the Senior VP, the Son, and North Korea. Which one was the last endorsement, and were any of these in writing?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
The only "written endorsement" was what was memorialized at a "Special Congress" in Vienna in 2001. That was only an "If the president was unable to serve thing." I do not know of any other writings. There were many public endorsements of his son. As far as i knew the NK guy was a surprise to anyone outside NK. 

There have neen lots of messy legal wranglings. I believe the ITF V has won some. Not sure where it stands. 

I am not in a position to know how much they acknowledge or ignore each other. 

I was withe the ITF since 1974 and an instructor plaqueholder continuously since 1991, in 2003 renewing my dues with ITF V and maintaining them thru 2009. 
In 2010 they refused to accept my dues and process any more dan applications. The ITF V stated that there were new by laws prohibiting ITF membership by anyone belonging to another non ITF TKD org. As a result USTF members were no longer eligible to be ITF members and since I was a USTF member that I would have to choose between the two. I chose the USTF.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Dec 13, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> The ITF V stated that there were new by laws prohibiting ITF membership by anyone belonging to another non ITF TKD org.



Very unfortunate that.  What if you were also an instructor in WTF/KKW TKD?


----------



## miguksaram (Dec 13, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> The only "written endorsement" was what was memorialized at a "Special Congress" in Vienna in 2001. That was only an "If the president was unable to serve thing." I do not know of any other writings.


 
I am curious.  Did ITF, while Choi was around, have elections to determine the President of the organization?


----------



## chrispillertkd (Dec 13, 2010)

miguksaram said:


> I am curious. Did ITF, while Choi was around, have elections to determine the President of the organization?


 
GM Choi, Jung Hwa was elected in 2001 in Rimini, Italy while Gen. Choi was still alive. I wasn't there but, IIRC, he said he wouldn't run against his father and was only elected after Gen. Choi retired. Gen. Choi agreed to serve an additional two years and then his son would take over (this was also voted on and the then legal consul of the ITF stated it was within the bounds of the ITF constitution due to parlimentarian procedure).

Shortly after being elected GM Choi told the North Koreans that he welcomed them as a member nation of the ITF but that they would weild no undue political influence over the organization. Some people weren't too happy about this. Lots of pressure brought to bear on other people.

Gen. Choi then states that because of an impending ITF-WTF merger he would stay on as head of the ITF for a full six year term. GM Choi publicizes a communique from the Secretary General of the WTF saying there were no unification talks between the two organizations. This understandably irritates people to no end. GM Choi (and several of his supporters) are unceremoniously expelled from the ITF. GM Choi points out that this expulsion didn't follow the ITF's constitutonal procedure and so sets up a parallel executive in Canada as Acting President.

Meanwhile, Gen. Choi's health continues to deteriorate die to stomach cancer. He petitions both NK and SK to be allowed to enter the country basically to die. SK refuses, NK accepts. He goes to Pyongyang and enters a hospital. Several of his supporters witness him appointing Prof. Chang Ung, a NK IOC member, as next ITF President. Some supporters who were there have come out and said Gen. Choi was speaking very quietly and a NK interpreter was telling them what he said but none of them have disputed this appointment.

100 days after Gen. Choi's death there is a memorial service for the General. The ITF representatives who go to the memorial find themselves suddenlly the members of a "Special Congress" that is called to elect Prof. Chang Ung. There are disputes about whether or not there are enough members present for a legitimate quorum. There was certainly no advanced notice such as is called for in the ITF constitution. There are also people who have said that the election consisted of GM Rhee, Ki Ha intriducing Prof. Ung and the ITF members clapping as he was introduced and that was taken as unanimous consent of his election. Understandably, this iritates some people, so...

The ITF delegates return home and many of them decide that since this "Special Congress" wasn't in following with the ITF constitution they would have their own election at the World Championships that were to soon follow (though it should be pointed out that they were quite willing to accept the expulsion of GM Choi even though it didn't follow the procedures set out in the ITF constitution). In the interim Senior VP Russell MacClellan served as Acting President. At the WC a few months later GM Tran, Trieu Quan is elected the President of this group. 

The rest is, as they say, history.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## miguksaram (Dec 13, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> GM Choi, Jung Hwa was elected in 2001 in Rimini, Italy while Gen. Choi was still alive.


Sorry, I should have been more specific.  I meang Gen. Choi.  Was he continually elected?  Did any other members challenge his position for President of ITF?


----------



## chrispillertkd (Dec 13, 2010)

miguksaram said:


> Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meang Gen. Choi. Was he continually elected? Did any other members challenge his position for President of ITF?


 
I am unaware of anyone who ran against him while he was alive. But even if they had I can't imagine him not winning in a landslide anyway 

I will say this, in his autobiography, Gen. Choi specifies several different people who was considering as his successor as ITF President at different points. The only one that got the final nod who was mentioned in the book was GM Choi, Jung Hwa. 

Prof. Chang Ung may have been known to the General but his appointment came as a real surprise to pretty much everyone, as far as I can see. I seem to recall Chang Ung posting an internet notice to the effect that he would only hold one term in office but is now on his second term (and the message to that effect is no longer on the ITF-NK web site). 

GM Tran was not mentioned in the autobiography but was elected by those ITF members who didn't agree with Chang Ung's appointment but were OK with GM Choi's expulsion. I am unaware of him actually running against anyone in his election, however (I believe Mr. MacClellan stepped down at the election.)

Master Weiss, do you know of anyone who ever ran against Gen. Choi while he was alive?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 13, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Master Weiss, do you know of anyone who ever ran against Gen. Choi while he was alive?
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


 
Every two years at the world Champs there was a congress and General Choi was elected. As far as I know he was always unopposed. I was in Rimini and spoke with people who were at the congress. 

Info I rec'd was that someone nominated the son to run against the father which made for an uncomfortable situation. This situation was purportedly resolved by electing General Choi for a two year term and electing the son to succeed him at the end of the two years which was something not provided for by the constitution but it would have at least set the stage for an prrderly transition. 

The spit hit the fan soon after.


----------



## miguksaram (Dec 13, 2010)

Did any of the American schools keep their ties with ITF-NK or did everyone pretty much Stay with ITF-Vienna or just stay with Sereff's USTF?


----------



## chrispillertkd (Dec 13, 2010)

I don't know exact numbers but I would say that ITF-NK got the smallest number of school after the fall out. Literally a handfull.

Most likely, the USTF had the most due to many members simply retaining their membership, followed by ITF-V and then ITF-C.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui (Dec 13, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> The ITF V stated that there were new by laws prohibiting ITF membership by anyone belonging to another non ITF TKD org. As a result USTF members were no longer eligible to be ITF members and since I was a USTF member that I would have to choose between the two. I chose the USTF.



I thought the USTF went independent and wasn't a part of any of the organizations that call themselves the ITF. I want to say I read something from GM Sereff to the effect that he wasn't going to be a part of the North Korean ITF. But I am thinking that USTF allowed you to join one of the ITFs if you wanted to. Is that correct? Are you look to any of the other ITFs to join for dan promotion purposes? 

I saw a dan certificate signed by GM CHOI Jung Hwa and his signature looked incredibly similar to General Choi's. I don't know if his signature always looked like that, or if he made it like that to look like his father's.


----------



## puunui (Dec 13, 2010)

miguksaram said:


> I am curious.  Did ITF, while Choi was around, have elections to determine the President of the organization?




I would think that any elections while General Choi was alive would be a mere formality. It was, after all, his organization and he could do whatever he wanted with it. 

Sometimes those things can backfire though. GM HWANG Kee for example, set up the Moo Duk Kwan as a democratic organization, where a board of directors voted on policy matters. In the beginning, everyone pretty much followed GM Hwang's lead; however, during the 1960's, when Taekwondo was attempting to unify under the KTA, GM Hwang held great hostility towards General Choi and did not want to participate in anything that General Choi was a part of. So the Moo Duk Kwan board of directors voted to go forward with the unification without GM Hwang. This caused the infamous split between the Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan and the Taekwondo Moo Duk Kwan. At that point, I think GM Hwang felt that the Moo Duk Kwan was his and they had to follow him. But it was too late at that point.


----------



## puunui (Dec 13, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> The ITF representatives who go to the memorial find themselves suddenlly the members of a "Special Congress" that is called to elect Prof. Chang Ung. There are disputes about whether or not there are enough members present for a legitimate quorum. There was certainly no advanced notice such as is called for in the ITF constitution. There are also people who have said that the election consisted of GM Rhee, Ki Ha intriducing Prof. Ung and the ITF members clapping as he was introduced and that was taken as unanimous consent of his election. Understandably, this iritates some people, so...




I believe Mr. CHANG Ung's last name is Chang, not Ung.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 13, 2010)

puunui said:


> I thought the USTF went independent and wasn't a part of any of the organizations that call themselves the ITF. .......
> 
> But I am thinking that USTF allowed you to join one of the ITFs if you wanted to. Is that correct? ........................
> 
> ...


 
True.

Correct. So long as all requirements of the USTF were adhred to. 

No.


----------



## bluewaveschool (Dec 13, 2010)

So USTF does the original Choi forms?  Hmmm....


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 14, 2010)

bluewaveschool said:


> So USTF does the original Choi forms? Hmmm....


 
I am not sure if this is a rhetorical or real question. 

If real, please elaborate and I will attempt to answer. If not, forgive my naivete.


----------



## terryl965 (Dec 14, 2010)

I am confused a litlle here, I was told we needed to stop seperateing TKD and keep it all under one umbella, I dis-agree of course and yet here we are seperateing them. I was told all TKD is basically the same, I know it is not but I find it funny that one would tell me this and then post on a thread about it being different, double standards maybe.


----------



## bluewaveschool (Dec 14, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> I am not sure if this is a rhetorical or real question.
> 
> If real, please elaborate and I will attempt to answer. If not, forgive my naivete.




I did not realize that the USTF used the same form set that I know/practice.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I've put on hold my search for a 'home org', I did find someone to work out with but physically I'm farther out than I thought I was.  I may ask you down the road for some info, but it's not something I'll need in the forseeable future.


----------



## dancingalone (Dec 14, 2010)

bluewaveschool said:


> I did not realize that the USTF used the same form set that I know/practice.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I've put on hold my search for a 'home org', I did find someone to work out with but physically I'm farther out than I thought I was.  I may ask you down the road for some info, but it's not something I'll need in the forseeable future.



The USTF has direct ITF lineage, meaning they likely follow General  Choi's teachings closely if Mr. Weiss is any gauge.      

If you have an ATA-linked background as I  believe you do, you probably will find their expression of TKD very  different from your own in terms of vocabulary, culture, even some  mechanics.

That is not a bad thing at all.  But if you're looking to stay in your  comfort zone, I'd look for one of the numerous ATA splinter groups to  join instead.  I recently took in two students that come from your neck  of the woods.  They were members of a organization called the Choong Sil TKD Federation.  They exhibit technique that is almost identical to what my niece and nephew practice in the ATA, except they still use the Choi forms, albeit practiced in a non-ITF fashion.  :uhyeah:


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 14, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> . I recently took in two students that come from your neck of the woods. They were members of a organization called the Choong Sil TKD Federation. They exhibit technique that is almost identical to what my niece and nephew practice in the ATA, except they still use the Choi forms, albeit practiced in a non-ITF fashion. :uhyeah:


 
The Choong Sil federation is headed by GM Hardin
http://www.choongsil.com/

Nice gentleman who says he was an ITF 6th Dan. He had a student here running a club and we became friendly. When GM Hardin came to town about 12 years ago I attended his class. 
He acknowledged making changes to the Chang Hon patterns. I asked if the changes were written down. He said "No, my students no what they are. " I have found this to be problematic. Not making changes, but not writing stuff down. As a famous man once said, "the shortest pencil is better than the longest memory"  I'd tell you who said it, but I forgot and didn't write it down.


----------



## KarateMomUSA (Dec 26, 2010)

miguksaram said:


> I am curious. Did ITF, while Choi was around, have elections to determine the President of the organization?


Gen Choi stood for election every time his term was up. However no one ran against him. Those that coaxed him to step aside because of his politics (Korean), were soon gone from the ITF. 
I understand that Dr. Kim operated in a somewhat similiar fashion, but for all 3 presidencies he held, KTA, KKW & WTF.


----------



## KarateMomUSA (Dec 26, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> Every two years at the world Champs there was a congress and General Choi was elected. As far as I know he was always unopposed. I was in Rimini and spoke with people who were at the congress.
> 
> Info I rec'd was that someone nominated the son to run against the father which made for an uncomfortable situation. This situation was purportedly resolved by electing General Choi for a two year term and electing the son to succeed him at the end of the two years which was something not provided for by the constitution but it would have at least set the stage for an prrderly transition.
> 
> The spit hit the fan soon after.


I think the presidental term was for 6 years. The ITF under GM Tratenburg shortened it to 4 years


----------



## KarateMomUSA (Dec 26, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> GM Choi, Jung Hwa was elected in 2001 in Rimini, Italy while Gen. Choi was still alive. I wasn't there but, IIRC, he said he wouldn't run against his father and was only elected after Gen. Choi retired. Gen. Choi agreed to serve an additional two years and then his son would take over (this was also voted on and the then legal consul of the ITF stated it was within the bounds of the ITF constitution due to parlimentarian procedure).
> 
> Shortly after being elected GM Choi told the North Koreans that he welcomed them as a member nation of the ITF but that they would weild no undue political influence over the organization. Some people weren't too happy about this. Lots of pressure brought to bear on other people.
> 
> ...


This is a fairly good account. However the election was pre-planned in Italy, 2001. A coup orchestrated that caught Gen Choi & the others by surprise.

Actually the letter faxed from the WTF stated that there were never merger talks between the ITF & WTF, which is completely false, as there was a signed merger agreement in the early 1980s that the 2 groups worked out with the help of the Korean Consulate in Vancover BC Canada. It was actually signed by the 2 Secty Genls, but was never implemented by Dr Kim. There is some specualtion that he just used the paperto appease IOC members. But what is important to know, is that the 1st summitt ever between the 2 Koreas resulted in 10 points to be worked on, with #8 being TKD merger of north & south Korea, which means ITF & WTF, along with the exchange of demo teams which also took place. So there were most definately merger talks at even a higher level that the WTF.

I also do not think that Master Choi (son) was expelled from the ITF. He was removed from the Secty Genl position & the election results were illegally over turned. Master Choi then resigned from the ITF, which in hindsight was a mistake, as he would have thenbee the next president in 2003, as decided, thereby negating the need for any other elections in 2003. 

I also think that some wrongly think that his dying wish was a last minute whisper. It doesn't appear that this was the case. It happened over a period of time, with several people weighing in on it & discussing it. It also is pretty apparent that his exact wishes & instructions were no followed, other than Prof Chag Ung succeeding him.

A lot of this was hashed out in the courts, with GM Tratenburgh's ITF winning cases against Master Choi's ITF in Canadian courts of different levels. They have also won several cases, including the last one in Vienna Austria, home of the ITF since 1985, against the ITF led by IOC Member Mr Chang, PhD. The latest court ruled that the ITF Congress in Poland (2003) was the official Congress, not the improper one in Pyongyang (2002) or the one that they moved without authorization to Greece in 2003.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 26, 2010)

KarateMomUSA said:


> I also do not think that Master Choi (son) was expelled from the ITF. He was removed from the Secty Genl position & the election results were illegally over turned. Master Choi then resigned from the ITF, which in hindsight was a mistake, as he would have thenbee the next president in 2003, as decided, thereby negating the need for any other elections in 2003.
> 
> .


 
This is partly opinion and partly just wrong. 

A special congress was properly called and action taken to remove the son. This was not an "Illegal" overturning of the election process.  People might argue which delegations were properly seated or recognized. 

I may have papers somewhere about expulsions. I will have to check. 

Hindsight is always 20/20


----------



## KarateMomUSA (Dec 26, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> This is partly opinion and partly just wrong.
> 
> A special congress was properly called and action taken to remove the son. This was not an "Illegal" overturning of the election process. People might argue which delegations were properly seated or recognized.
> 
> ...


Definately partly opionion & hindsight is always 20-20. I know, sort of like monday morning quarterbacking. But I thought that not enough notice was given for the meeting & that the required quorum or not enough members showed up to make it a proper meeting?
Then of course, members, actual heads of NGBs, were not allowed in to what was suppossed to be an official ITF meeting. These were naturally members that were loyal to Master Choi. Additionally, Master Choi, the current Secty Genl of the ITF was not allowed in. How was that a proper meeting?
Are there not provisions in the constitution that must be followed for a procedure to be considered proper or "by the book"?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 26, 2010)

KarateMomUSA said:


> Definately partly opionion & hindsight is always 20-20. I know, sort of like monday morning quarterbacking. But I thought that not enough notice was given for the meeting & that the required quorum or not enough members showed up to make it a proper meeting?
> Then of course, members, actual heads of NGBs, were not allowed in to what was suppossed to be an official ITF meeting. These were naturally members that were loyal to Master Choi. Additionally, Master Choi, the current Secty Genl of the ITF was not allowed in. How was that a proper meeting?
> Are there not provisions in the constitution that must be followed for a procedure to be considered proper or "by the book"?


 
1. Proper notice was given. I rec'd a copy. (As I expect did all plaqueholders)
2. NGBs send delegates, not neccessarily the head of the NGB, The issue was which delegates were recognized. 
3. Master Choi was allowed in, and was in which actualy lead to an infamous incident with him and then master Tom McCallum. Info I rec'd was he then left with his group to meet in another room naturlay being unhappy with the action taken. 
4. There was reportedly a quaorum present.  

That is how it was a proper meeting.


----------



## KarateMomUSA (Dec 26, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> 1. Proper notice was given. I rec'd a copy. (As I expect did all plaqueholders)
> 2. NGBs send delegates, not neccessarily the head of the NGB, The issue was which delegates were recognized.
> 3. Master Choi was allowed in, and was in which actualy lead to an infamous incident with him and then master Tom McCallum. Info I rec'd was he then left with his group to meet in another room naturlay being unhappy with the action taken.
> 4. There was reportedly a quaorum present.
> ...


Thanks for this. But was the written notice sent out with the required advanced notice?
I did here claims that the total quorom was not met, but I appreciate that input, as it helps me peice things together better, thank you


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 26, 2010)

KarateMomUSA said:


> Thanks for this. But was the written notice sent out with the required advanced notice?
> I did here claims that the total quorom was not met, but I appreciate that input, as it helps me peice things together better, thank you


 
I am fairly certain it was but would have to review the old constitution and date of notice to be certain. As I recall it was more than one month in advance.  I also believe quorum numbers were met.  The argument from the Junior Choi group vis a vis quorum was with regard to who the Congress chose to recognize as NGB reps. I always felt the lack of notice issue was a non starter since if I rec'd the notice I expected all other plaqueholders did as well. 

 It's all somewhat academic. Since an election was held at the next regular congress in 2003 anyway. If Master Choi was to take office at that time, he still could have and seen if the congress would ratify or overturn the 2001 action. He chose not to and the Congress held a regular election. 

The rest shall we say is history.


----------



## puunui (Dec 26, 2010)

So has any court anywhere in the world made a determination as to which ITF is "the" ITF?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 27, 2010)

puunui said:


> So has any court anywhere in the world made a determination as to which ITF is "the" ITF?


 
Here is a link about a couple of battles being won by ITF V. 

http://www.tkd-itf.org/pub_web/ver_eng/PMTTQ18092007.html

I am not aware of any being won by the other 2 groups.


----------



## puunui (Dec 27, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> Here is a link about a couple of battles being won by ITF V.
> 
> http://www.tkd-itf.org/pub_web/ver_eng/PMTTQ18092007.html
> 
> I am not aware of any being won by the other 2 groups.



Is that the organization that told you you couldn't belong to any other group like USTF?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 27, 2010)

puunui said:


> Is that the organization that told you you couldn't belong to any other group like USTF?


 
Yes, Things changed radicaly after GM / Pres. Tran  died.


----------



## puunui (Dec 27, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> Yes, Things changed radicaly after GM / Pres. Tran  died.



Sorry to hear that. You might think about getting Kukkiwon certified.


----------



## KarateMomUSA (Dec 27, 2010)

puunui said:


> So has any court anywhere in the world made a determination as to which ITF is "the" ITF?


The ITF led by Master Choi (son) lost 2 cases in Canada in 2 different court levels. The ITF led by IOC Member from NK, Prof Chang Ung has been on the losing end in Vienna Austria, but they are appealing the last decision, which did say that the official congress was the regular scheduled one held in Poland back in 2003. As such, the decision said that the elections that took place there was the ITF legal board. However no court to date has forced the Prof Chang group to vacate the ITF building or pay back money from the ITF bank accounts. I guess that all this will be decided once the final court decision is rendered.
None of this should really matter much to the diehards that follow an ITF because of whatever reason they hold on to, such as bloodline = Gen Choi's son, democratic election = the late Grandmaster Tran or their teacher's (Gen Choi) wishes = IOC Member Prof Chang Ung.
2 of these ITFs (Tran & Chang) did try to discuss merging, but the Tran ITF voted down further talks.
When it comes to merging with SK TKD or the TKD in SK led by the WTF & KKW, it is primarily motivated by unification efforts with NK. So those talks will continue with the Chang ITF if the political situation changes. Of course the south Korean govt can weaken the Chang ITF by saying that the court decided that they are not the real ITF. They may have already started to weaken their hand already by allowing Master Choi (son) to return to south Korea, where he faced prosecutors and the NIS (formerly known as the KCIA) for his involvement in a plot to kill south Korean dictator Chun Do Hwan, for which he served time in a Canadian federal prison. These merger moves can not be fully understood without a clear grasp on the complex political situation of the Koreas.


----------



## KarateMomUSA (Dec 27, 2010)

puunui said:


> Sorry to hear that. You might think about getting Kukkiwon certified.


Sir Master Earl Weiss is a senior master of ITF TKD with an 8th Dan BB. he is a long time talented & experienced martial artist that has trained since the 1960s. How could he get an equivalent degree with the KKW that would correctly reflect his long time accomplishments?
Don't you think the systems are too different from each other?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 28, 2010)

KarateMomUSA said:


> Sir Master Earl Weiss.....................................has trained since the 1960s........


 
Thank you for the accolades. Just for the record. MA training started with Judo in 1970 and TK-D in 1972. Couldn't be the 1960's since I'm only 39


----------



## puunui (Dec 28, 2010)

KarateMomUSA said:


> Sir Master Earl Weiss is a senior master of ITF TKD with an 8th Dan BB. he is a long time talented & experienced martial artist that has trained since the 1960s. How could he get an equivalent degree with the KKW that would correctly reflect his long time accomplishments? Don't you think the systems are too different from each other?




I don't know about 8th Dan, maybe. It depends on who else from his organization comes with him. But anything is possible. If it were up to me, I would reopen the Kukkiwon's ITF dan assimilation program and give all ITF member Kukkiwon rank equivalent to their current ITF rank. And no, I don't think the systems are too different, and even if it were, so what. We are all one Taekwondo family and we should welcome all Taekwondoin, regardless of their current or prior affiliations. Taekwondo was meant to be inclusive, not exclusive.


----------



## bluewaveschool (Dec 28, 2010)

8th Dan?  Really?  I applaud your dedication sir.


----------



## KarateMomUSA (Dec 29, 2010)

puunui said:


> I don't know about 8th Dan, maybe. It depends on who else from his organization comes with him. But anything is possible. If it were up to me, I would reopen the Kukkiwon's ITF dan assimilation program and give all ITF member Kukkiwon rank equivalent to their current ITF rank. And no, I don't think the systems are too different, and even if it were, so what. We are all one Taekwondo family and we should welcome all Taekwondoin, regardless of their current or prior affiliations. Taekwondo was meant to be inclusive, not exclusive.


Please Sir do not take this the wrong way. I do come from a different perspective, thinking that current up to date ITF standard really does not allow a transfer Dan rank like that. Now of course Gen Choi did of course give out rank to non-ITF & even in some cases to non-TKD people. But that was more of an attempt to grow the ITF or acknowledge their accomplishments. But our system is so standardized (also not a claim to be better), that it would not work & only cause resentment, like it did when Gen Choi gave an 8th Dan to GM Chuck Norris. Now nothing against Mr Norris, but Mr Weiss has worked so hard within the ITF to become a senior master of our Art. There is simply no way that GM Norris knows the ITF way like Master Weiss. 
Truth be told that when someone comes into the ITF from outside, the higher they are the more oversight that they are supposed to have from a qualified ITF mentor, but that rarely happens. It also seems that once they got their certificate that they sought out & value, they leave, never really learning or embracing the system. Which to me, ironically devalues the certificate so highly sought by many. So since they left, the promise of their students joining & following the system never happened to any extent. The net result was some hard feelings by those within the system who always tried to do the right thing, only to see some get the real fast shortcut


----------



## andyjeffries (Dec 29, 2010)

puunui said:


> I don't know about 8th Dan, maybe. It depends on who else from his organization comes with him. But anything is possible. If it were up to me, I would reopen the Kukkiwon's ITF dan assimilation program and give all ITF member Kukkiwon rank equivalent to their current ITF rank. And no, I don't think the systems are too different, and even if it were, so what. We are all one Taekwondo family and we should welcome all Taekwondoin, regardless of their current or prior affiliations. Taekwondo was meant to be inclusive, not exclusive.



I agree that Taekwondo was meant to be inclusive, but I consider Taekwondo and Taekwon-do to be two related martial arts not a single one.  I liken it to Rugby Union and Rugby League (actually a bit more different to those two, but not as different as Football and American Football).

I also agree with KarateMomUSA in that I wouldn't reopen the Dan assimilation program.  I think when it was last open the two arts were a lot closer in style compared to how they are now.  I know Kukki-Taekwondo has really moved on over the past 20 years and I can see from recent videos that ITF Taekwon-do has changed compared to how I remember it.  I think the two (similarly named) arts have diverged.


----------



## puunui (Dec 29, 2010)

KarateMomUSA said:


> Truth be told that when someone comes into the ITF from outside, the higher they are the more oversight that they are supposed to have from a qualified ITF mentor, but that rarely happens. It also seems that once they got their certificate that they sought out & value, they leave, never really learning or embracing the system. Which to me, ironically devalues the certificate so highly sought by many. So since they left, the promise of their students joining & following the system never happened to any extent. The net result was some hard feelings by those within the system who always tried to do the right thing, only to see some get the real fast shortcut




That is one point of difference with the way the pioneers think and how others think. The pioneers strove to include everyone, and saw everyone as Taekwondoin. When they look at a Taekwondoin, even one from ITF or Soobahkdo or whereever else, they see someone with common roots and a common background, a member of the family. They look to the things that bind us together, not differences that divide us and drive us apart. 

I choose to think like the pioneers, because it always leaves me with an uplifted spirit and attitude. Sure, the person who receives Kukkiwon certification may choose not to do anything with it and instead may continue to do exactly what they have been doing all along. But that is there choice. From the pioneer's perspective, the pioneer did their part and kept their part of the bargain, and did everything that they could within their power to make everyone feel welcome. 

It is unfortunate that this would be the cause of bitterness and resentment within the Taekwondo family. 

There was a senior Korean born instructor here who only had ITF certification. I introduced him to GM PARK Hae Man during one of his visits here, and this Korean born instructor spent the whole time asking about Kukkiwon promotion, which sort of upset GM Park because he had just met this person. 

After GM Park went back to Korea, I wrote him a letter explaining this instructor's situation, that he had many students who were active in the USTU who needed Kukkiwon rank so that they could participate fully. I said that this particular instructor needed help and therefore I was recommending him to Kukkiwon rank that was higher than mine at the time, that as Chung Do Kwan regional director it was my duty and obligation to help as many Taekwondoin that I could. A month or two later, I received a letter from GM Park asking me to give a sealed envelope to this Korean born instructor. I never asked what was in the sealed envelope and did as GM Park asked. The Korean born instructor never thanked me or mentioned the envelope ever, publicly or privately. 

Several months later, at a nationals, I want to say in Virginia, but it could have been in Portland, one of the Korean born students came up to me and happily and proudly told me that he recently received his Kukkiwon 3rd Dan. His face was beaming so I congratulated him. He later became our state president and promotes all his students through the Kukkiwon, and has taken the time to learn the Kukkiwon poomsae, even though his Korean born instructor continues to teach using the Chang Hon tul. 

We cannot only look at the individual practitioner in deciding whether or not to extend our hand of friendship to one of our family members. To tell you the truth, I did not really get along all that well with this Korean born instructor, at least back in those days. But my personal feelings aside, I am glad that we got him and his students squared away with the Kukkiwon stuff, and I would do it again if given the opportunity. 

We can fight about this or that and disagree about a lot of things, but one thing that we should never argue about is Kukkiwon certification. The pioneers sacrificed their own personal and financial stake so that Taekwondo could have a unified certification, and it should therefore be given to everyone, regardless of political or technical affiliation, or how we feel about the individual personally. These are the kinds of lessons that I learn from the pioneers, and these are the policies that I try to carry out when attempting to do my small part for Taekwondo.


----------



## dancingalone (Dec 29, 2010)

puunui said:


> We can fight about this or that and disagree about a lot of things, but one thing that we should never argue about is Kukkiwon certification. The pioneers sacrificed their own personal and financial stake so that Taekwondo could have a unified certification, and it should therefore be given to everyone, regardless of political or technical affiliation, or how we feel about the individual personally. These are the kinds of lessons that I learn from the pioneers, and these are the policies that I try to carry out when attempting to do my small part for Taekwondo.



That's a very generous and inclusive viewpoint.  Yet, your post leaves me with the thought that KKW certification isn't a statement of your technical knowledge at all.  It's more like a membership in a church parish or country club, which admittedly can be a good thing in of itself.

Is it fair to say that yours is a minority opinion, even if some (many?) of the seniors in KKW TKD share it?


----------



## KarateMomUSA (Dec 29, 2010)

Quote:Originally Posted by *puunui* 

 
_We can fight about this or that and  disagree about a lot of things, but one thing that we should never  argue about is Kukkiwon certification. The pioneers sacrificed their own  personal and financial stake so that Taekwondo could have a unified  certification, and it should therefore be given to everyone, regardless  of political or technical affiliation, or how we feel about the  individual personally. These are the kinds of lessons that I learn from  the pioneers, and these are the policies that I try to carry out when  attempting to do my small part for Taekwondo._


dancingalone said:


> That's a very generous and inclusive viewpoint.  Yet, your post leaves me with the thought that KKW certification isn't a statement of your technical knowledge at all.  It's more like a membership in a church parish or country club, which admittedly can be a good thing in of itself.
> Is it fair to say that yours is a minority opinion, even if some (many?) of the seniors in KKW TKD share it?


Agreed & it is a great viewpoint in my estimation. But Dancingalone makes some good points


----------



## KarateMomUSA (Dec 29, 2010)

puunui said:


> That is one point of difference with the way the pioneers think and how others think. The pioneers strove to include everyone, and saw everyone as Taekwondoin. When they look at a Taekwondoin, even one from ITF or Soobahkdo or whereever else, they see someone with common roots and a common background, a member of the family. They look to the things that bind us together, not differences that divide us and drive us apart.
> I choose to think like the pioneers, because it always leaves me with an uplifted spirit and attitude. Sure, the person who receives Kukkiwon certification may choose not to do anything with it and instead may continue to do exactly what they have been doing all along. But that is there choice. From the pioneer's perspective, the pioneer did their part and kept their part of the bargain, and did everything that they could within their power to make everyone feel welcome.
> It is unfortunate that this would be the cause of bitterness and resentment within the Taekwondo family.
> There was a senior Korean born instructor here who only had ITF certification. I introduced him to GM PARK Hae Man during one of his visits here, and this Korean born instructor spent the whole time asking about Kukkiwon promotion, which sort of upset GM Park because he had just met this person.
> ...


Great post & wondeful story, most deserving in repeating. I think this also shows the attitude that all TKDin should have. We should all work together & when we do we will find that we share more in common then what separates us. We also then would benefit from the additional sharing of techniques, talents, knowledge & experience. This is the way of the martial arts


----------



## puunui (Dec 30, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> That's a very generous and inclusive viewpoint.  Yet, your post leaves me with the thought that KKW certification isn't a statement of your technical knowledge at all.  It's more like a membership in a church parish or country club, which admittedly can be a good thing in of itself. Is it fair to say that yours is a minority opinion, even if some (many?) of the seniors in KKW TKD share it?




I guess you missed my post about phases of inclusion. There were three stages of inclusiveness for Taekwondo. First phase was to agree on a unifed name. Next was to give everyone the unified certification, which is Kukkiwon certification. Third phase is to give everyone a unified curriculum. This is the pioneer's way. 

The students of the pioneers had a different perspective, the ones that learned in the 50's and 60's. They thought more selfishly. They did not give Kukkiwon certification to their students because if they did, someday their students to screw them over and open a dojang across the street. They did not want to learn new forms because that took work and they did not feel any need to change. They happily took the certificates, and called their art taekwondo, but stopped before making it to stage three. Those that did make it to stage three did stage three in their own way, which was the japanese karate long wide stances. These instructors generally learned the new curriculum from one instructor course and a book. You can clearly see where they got their stuff. 

The students of these types of instructors followed their instructor loyally and did not question. They have six or seven dan dojang certificates, and now that their instructor is retiring or near retirement, they find themselves isolated, and messed up, because they do not have kukkkiwon certification. They see the USAT special dan test and think they will breeze through the course and test, only to learn that what they have is weak and out of compliance. So they slink back to their dojang even more dejected and defensive. 

the generation after the pioneers, especially in the United States, really screwed things up for Americans. Whenever I hear these types of "martial art" vs. "sport" arguments or traditional vs. sport, or kukkiwon vs. dojang certificates, I can hear the korean borns speaking to their students. This generation of instructor also created a whole of lot of angry students, bitter and resentful by the way they were treated. many students of these instructors began believing in their minds that all Korean born instructor were like that and they networked and bonded with similarly abused students. they then turned their attention to the USTU, and brought that organization down. 

We can trace a lot of the ill will and negative hostile attitudes from that generation of practitioner. But getting back to your question, am I in the minority? I guess it depends. 

My purpose in posting on this message board is not to convince everyone that my viewpoint is superior or that I am right. What I want to do is reach the thousands or millions out there who believe that Taekwondo is a special thing, but perhaps they could not put into words why it is so special. I want to help those practitioner who are searching for answers beyond their own little small pond and get uplifted by the thoughts of the pioneers, in the same way that I myself have been uplifted. You don't have to accept crappy answers that don't fit and don't make sense. there are others that think like you. Those are the ones I am targeting my posts to, not the belligerent ones who sit at their computer with their arms crossed thinking I am a jerk for challenging everything that they were taught and everything that they believe. 

These last ten years have really been negative for Taekwondo. I just want to show people that it doesn't have to be that way that that isn't what taekwondo is about, at all.


----------



## KarateMomUSA (Dec 30, 2010)

puunui said:


> My purpose in posting on this message board is not to convince everyone that my viewpoint is superior or that I am right. What I want to do is reach the thousands or millions out there who believe that Taekwondo is a special thing, but perhaps they could not put into words why it is so special. I want to help those practitioner who are searching for answers beyond their own little small pond and get uplifted by the thoughts of the pioneers, in the same way that I myself have been uplifted. You don't have to accept crappy answers that don't fit and don't make sense. there are others that think like you. Those are the ones I am targeting my posts to, not the belligerent ones who sit at their computer with their arms crossed thinking I am a jerk for challenging everything that they were taught and everything that they believe.
> 
> These last ten years have really been negative for Taekwondo. I just want to show people that it doesn't have to be that way that that isn't what taekwondo is about, at all.


I applaud you for your efforts & what you are trying to do. I appreciate it tremendously & have benefited from our exchanges & what you have written. While I am not in 100% total agreement with everything you write, I think you are on the money!


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 30, 2010)

puunui said:


> I guess you missed my post about phases of inclusion. There were three stages of inclusiveness for Taekwondo. First phase was to agree on a unifed name. Next was to give everyone the unified certification, which is Kukkiwon certification. Third phase is to give everyone a unified curriculum. This is the pioneer's way.
> 
> The students of the pioneers had a different perspective, the ones that learned in the 50's and 60's. They thought more selfishly. They did not give Kukkiwon certification to their students because if they did, someday their students to screw them over and open a dojang across the street. They did not want to learn new forms because that took work and they did not feel any need to change. They happily took the certificates, and called their art taekwondo, but stopped before making it to stage three. Those that did make it to stage three did stage three in their own way, which was the japanese karate long wide stances. These instructors generally learned the new curriculum from one instructor course and a book. You can clearly see where they got their stuff.
> 
> ...


 
Holy cow. I think I could have just about made the idenitical post made above substituting "ITF" for KKW vis a vis stages and those who did / do the Chang Hon style adopted by instructors from a prior lineage who never really conformed and did so without question and find themselves in "non- Compliance" etc.


----------



## puunui (Dec 30, 2010)

Earl Weiss said:


> Holy cow. I think I could have just about made the idenitical post made above substituting "ITF" for KKW vis a vis stages and those who did / do the Chang Hon style adopted by instructors from a prior lineage who never really conformed and did so without question and find themselves in "non- Compliance" etc.




One of the reasons why I sought out the pioneers was because it was frustrating attempting to get information of the later generation practitioners. The pioneers are almost completely different. Theones who I found who thought like the pioneers were the USTU pioneers who were attempting to build the organization. They had a similar big picture mindset, and worked closely with the pioneers to build Taekwondo from the ground up, so their perspective was similar.


----------



## dancingalone (Dec 31, 2010)

puunui said:


> We can trace a lot of the ill will and negative hostile attitudes from that generation of practitioner. But getting back to your question, am I in the minority? I guess it depends.
> 
> My purpose in posting on this message board is not to convince everyone that my viewpoint is superior or that I am right. What I want to do is reach the thousands or millions out there who believe that Taekwondo is a special thing, but perhaps they could not put into words why it is so special. I want to help those practitioner who are searching for answers beyond their own little small pond and get uplifted by the thoughts of the pioneers, in the same way that I myself have been uplifted. You don't have to accept crappy answers that don't fit and don't make sense. there are others that think like you. Those are the ones I am targeting my posts to, not the belligerent ones who sit at their computer with their arms crossed thinking I am a jerk for challenging everything that they were taught and everything that they believe.
> 
> These last ten years have really been negative for Taekwondo. I just want to show people that it doesn't have to be that way that that isn't what taekwondo is about, at all.




This is quite laudable and I mean it.  I am not patronizing you.

The reason why I wonder if yours is a minority view is because I have never had the impression that the KKW was interested in enfranchising the masses, so to speak by the extending the 'Roman citizenship' to all.  Otherwise, why not actively solicit transfers/conversions/articulations through publications like Black Belt magazine, etc.

If the KKW really wanted to do this, I'd imagine you'd have quite a few people interested in coming in.


----------



## puunui (Dec 31, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> The reason why I wonder if yours is a minority view is because I have never had the impression that the KKW was interested in enfranchising the masses, so to speak by the extending the 'Roman citizenship' to all.  Otherwise, why not actively solicit transfers/conversions/articulations through publications like Black Belt magazine, etc. If the KKW really wanted to do this, I'd imagine you'd have quite a few people interested in coming in.




That isn't how the Kukkiwon operates, advertising in Black Belt Magazine. Think about that for a moment. I think that the United States has the most diversity, as far as dan certification goes. I think the Kukkiwon people find it difficult to understand, given our history of uniting behind a common cause, and the fact that the name of our country begins with a word that some Americans find does not apply to Taekwondo. 

I think it depends on who is in a leadership position. I know that President Seung Wan LEE was very serious about bringing in as many Taekwondoin into the Kukkiwon family as possible. I don't know if President KANG Won Sik feels the same way. Nobody knows what his agenda is, other than to make the Kukkiwon subservient to the WTF, when actually it is supposed to be the other way around. Kukkiwon sets the standard, and WTF follows that standard.


----------



## KarateMomUSA (Dec 31, 2010)

puunui said:


> That isn't how the Kukkiwon operates, advertising in Black Belt Magazine. Think about that for a moment. I think that the United States has the most diversity, as far as dan certification goes. I think the Kukkiwon people find it difficult to understand, given our history of uniting behind a common cause, and the fact that the name of our country begins with a word that some Americans find does not apply to Taekwondo.


Yes but I would think that those in America that runs schools for profit may find it more profitable to make & issue their own certificates


puunui said:


> I think it depends on who is in a leadership position. I know that President Seung Wan LEE was very serious about bringing in as many Taekwondoin into the Kukkiwon family as possible. I don't know if President KANG Won Sik feels the same way. Nobody knows what his agenda is, other than to make the Kukkiwon subservient to the WTF, when actually it is supposed to be the other way around. Kukkiwon sets the standard, and WTF follows that standard.


I think I agree from a technical standpoint. However I am sure that the south Korean govt is more concerned about TKD from an Olympic standpoint. As such, maybe they think it is better to have the IF for the IOC run TKD, with the KKW doing what the WTF thinks needs to be done for the Olympics. Just a thought


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 1, 2011)

puunui said:


> That isn't how the Kukkiwon operates, advertising in Black Belt Magazine. Think about that for a moment. I think that the United States has the most diversity, as far as dan certification goes. I think the Kukkiwon people find it difficult to understand, given our history of uniting behind a common cause, and the fact that the name of our country begins with a word that some Americans find does not apply to Taekwondo.



I don't know how the KKW operates.  But I do know how to get a message across in an expedient a fashion as possible.  If I were in a charge of a KKW 'unification' campaign in the US, I would take out ads in Black Belt as well as any other martial arts publications like Inside Kung Fu, etc.  And major newspapers like the NYT or the Dallas Morning News or USA Today,  too.  Give out a general message that an invitation is made for all to 'come home' and then give contact information where interested prospects can talk with a welcoming liason to get more details about the logistics.

I honestly think you'd get more leads than you know what to do with.  After all, there's a reason why those smaller TKD federations continue to run their ads in Black Belt month after month.  They must be getting a reasonable return for their dollars.

That's me however.  KKW people who live on the other side of the world might have different ideas or goals entirely.



puunui said:


> I think it depends on who is in a leadership position. I know that President Seung Wan LEE was very serious about bringing in as many Taekwondoin into the Kukkiwon family as possible. I don't know if President KANG Won Sik feels the same way. Nobody knows what his agenda is, other than to make the Kukkiwon subservient to the WTF, when actually it is supposed to be the other way around. Kukkiwon sets the standard, and WTF follows that standard.



For what it's worth, I think the rank-and-file KKW members are content with the way things are.  The local KKW 6th dan told me in a recent conversation something to the gist of 'You want be part of Kukkiwon, you do things Kukkiwon way' when we had a conversation about the story you related about Lee, H.U. negotiating to obtain KKW recognition for his people.  He wasn't familiar with the effort understandably, but he did feel any conversion made should be genuine with the new arrivals learning and following KKW technique.


----------



## puunui (Jan 2, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> If I were in a charge of a KKW 'unification' campaign in the US, I would take out ads in Black Belt as well as any other martial arts publications like Inside Kung Fu, etc.



There was a plan in place on the assimilating non-Kukkiwon practitioners. We didn't want to do the shotgun approach, given how that method failed miserably at the US Open special kukkiwon test. 




dancingalone said:


> For what it's worth, I think the rank-and-file KKW members are content with the way things are.  The local KKW 6th dan told me in a recent conversation something to the gist of 'You want be part of Kukkiwon, you do things Kukkiwon way' when we had a conversation about the story you related about Lee, H.U. negotiating to obtain KKW recognition for his people.  He wasn't familiar with the effort understandably, but he did feel any conversion made should be genuine with the new arrivals learning and following KKW technique.




Yes, many non-pioneer types and their students have highly critical and judgmental attitudes regarding who should and should not receive Kukkiwon promotions, attitudes that the pioneers who created the Kukkiwon do not share.


----------



## leadleg (Jan 2, 2011)

Puunui,who would not qualify for KKW promotion then,if requirements are not necessary. Will you sign off on anyone who comes looking for KKW regardless of their knowledge.


----------



## puunui (Jan 2, 2011)

leadleg said:


> Puunui,who would not qualify for KKW promotion then,if requirements are not necessary. Will you sign off on anyone who comes looking for KKW regardless of their knowledge.




I decline people who have disrespectful attitudes towards their seniors, including but not limited to the pioneers. I find that most, or all, of the problems that we have in Taekwondo today is because of disrespect from juniors to seniors. That type of practitioner can die on the vine as far as I am concerned.


----------



## bluewaveschool (Jan 2, 2011)

puunui said:


> I decline people who have disrespectful attitudes towards their seniors, including but not limited to the pioneers. I find that most, or all, of the problems that we have in Taekwondo today is because of disrespect from juniors to seniors. That type of practitioner can die on the vine as far as I am concerned.




What if the seniors have proven themselves unworthy of respect?  I know of 3 3rd Dans of my school, people that in theory I could learn something from, that have been banned from stepping foot inside the dojang by 2 2nd Dan.  Bans that I will uphold should I ever see any of those men try to come into my class.  Those men showed up randomly a few times and tried to force the people that had been teaching the class, whose names were on the books at the Y as the instructors, to hand things over because they were higher rank.  Mind you, these guys hadn't been around but maybe once a year at best, and were poorly thought of by my own instructors.  But they were our seniors.


----------



## KarateMomUSA (Jan 3, 2011)

puunui said:


> There was a plan in place on the assimilating non-Kukkiwon practitioners. We didn't want to do the shotgun approach, given how that method failed miserably at the US Open special kukkiwon test.


Sir in your valued view, why did this event fall short? 
What if anything could have made it better?


----------



## puunui (Jan 3, 2011)

bluewaveschool said:


> What if the seniors have proven themselves unworthy of respect?




It's not for the junior to determine whether a senior is worthy of respect or not, especially within the same school.


----------



## puunui (Jan 3, 2011)

KarateMomUSA said:


> Sir in your valued view, why did this event fall short?
> What if anything could have made it better?




New president came in with his own ideas. But there are things in the works that I can't really talk about.


----------



## KarateMomUSA (Jan 3, 2011)

puunui said:


> New president came in with his own ideas. But there are things in the works that I can't really talk about.


That is fair enough & something that I can respect.
If & when possible, please share with readers of this forum, as I am sure many, myself included would love to know more. Thank you again.


----------



## Marginal (Jan 4, 2011)

puunui said:


> It's not for the junior to determine whether a senior is worthy of respect or not, especially within the same school.



The obligation is a two way street.


----------



## bluewaveschool (Jan 4, 2011)

puunui said:


> It's not for the junior to determine whether a senior is worthy of respect or not, especially within the same school.



We'll have to disagree on this then.  Those men showed up to puff up their own egos, they didn't care about the kids.  My instructors are on notice that if they were to show up again, the room is to be cleared of all students so there can be a nice 'chat'.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jan 4, 2011)

puunui said:


> It's not for the junior to determine whether a senior is worthy of respect or not, especially within the same school.


 
What a curious thought.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 4, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> What a curious thought.



Not so unusual in Asian culture.  I am Asian American.  I was brought up to respect my elders in all cases.  Their behavior had nothing to do with it and I frequently had to bite my tongue even when I disagreed with something some of my father's friends and associates said or did.

<shrugs>

I am sure my son will be pleased I choose to raise him as an American.  The old ways can be difficult to follow.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jan 4, 2011)

There is a difference between courtesy and respect, at least somewhat, I would say. You should certainly be courteous to everyone. I've seen some pretty senior people in Taekwon-Do treat others discourteously but the "junior" they belittled held a higher position than them in a non-martial arts context (a doctor, for instance). It would be so much simpler if people were just polite to one another.

The obligation to respect someone is a bit more complex. Certainly everyone deserves a certain level of respect simply because they are persons and human nature carries an inherent worth to it. So to say someone isn't obligated to respect another without some sort of qualification is, as I said before, a curious thought. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 4, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> Certainly everyone deserves a certain level of respect simply because they are persons and human nature carries an inherent worth to it. So to say someone isn't obligated to respect another without some sort of qualification is, as I said before, a curious thought.




And yet that was precisely the expectation my parents had for me.  Age trumped everything else.  This was pretty standard fare in the immigrant community we were a part of, and I've seen the same behavior across multiple Eastern nationalities.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jan 4, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> And yet that was precisely the expectation my parents had for me. Age trumped everything else. This was pretty standard fare in the immigrant community we were a part of, and I've seen the same behavior across multiple Eastern nationalities.


 
Oh, I'm not saying age, or seniority in an MA context, isn't important. But to say that it's not up to the junior to decide whether or not the senior deserves _respect_ is odd, IMNSHO. 

I was able to have dinner with GM Choi, Jung Hwa about a year ago at a seminar and he pointed out that while it's right for the junior to show respect and courtesy to the senior the senior had the _obligation_ to look out for the interests of the junior. It was an interesting discussion, I thought, about something many seniors seem quite willing to overlook.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui (Jan 4, 2011)

bluewaveschool said:


> We'll have to disagree on this then.  Those men showed up to puff up their own egos, they didn't care about the kids.  My instructors are on notice that if they were to show up again, the room is to be cleared of all students so there can be a nice 'chat'.




I never said that what your seniors were doing was right. It is an art to handle seniors respectfully even when they do questionable things, an art that few Americans have bothered to learn. 

I'll give you an example of different approaches. President Sang Lee served as the US National Head Coach from 1977-88. He never protested a match, except for one time. If there was a questionable call, he generally would not say anything. I heard that there was one particular match where the decision obviously went the wrong way. President Lee got up from his chair, and bowed a very deep bow to all four corner judges and the Head Table and respectfully walked away.

Contrast Jean Lopez who throws water bottles across the ring when he disagrees, or David Askinas, who gets up and starts swearing and giving the finger to the judges at WTF International Events.


----------



## puunui (Jan 4, 2011)

Marginal said:


> The obligation is a two way street.



 I never said that it wasn't.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 4, 2011)

bluewaveschool said:


> What if the seniors have proven themselves unworthy of respect? I know of 3 3rd Dans of my school, people that in theory I could learn something from, that have been banned from stepping foot inside the dojang by 2 2nd Dan. Bans that I will uphold should I ever see any of those men try to come into my class. Those men showed up randomly a few times and tried to force the people that had been teaching the class, whose names were on the books at the Y as the instructors, to hand things over because they were higher rank. Mind you, these guys hadn't been around but maybe once a year at best, and were poorly thought of by my own instructors. But they were our seniors.


If they were banned from setting foot in the dojang, then it begs the question as to whether or not they are still considered to be your seniors. Why were they banned? 

Daniel


----------



## bluewaveschool (Jan 4, 2011)

Let's see...

Being dicks in general, taking advantage of various students over the years during 'friendly' training, flat out trying to walk in and take the class, bringing over their 'class' of MMA wanna be grown men and challenging our class full of kids to a night of sparring, humiliating a 16 yr old BB when the kid was the only instructor there (the guy that did that hadn't be around in TWO years), talking a lot of crap about how they should be running the class (again, hadn't been around in forever, why trust it to them).  When they did show up, they would stand together in the corner and try and look down on everyone else.  The last time they were seen was when they brought up their class for sparring, 3 of the BBs of my class invited them to spar the 3 of them... with the security cameras turned off.  

Same offer will be made next time they show up.  I preach avoid fighting, but these guys pretty much ask for a fight every time they show up.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 4, 2011)

bluewaveschool said:


> Let's see...
> 
> Being dicks in general, taking advantage of various students over the years during 'friendly' training, flat out trying to walk in and take the class, bringing over their 'class' of MMA wanna be grown men and challenging our class full of kids to a night of sparring, humiliating a 16 yr old BB when the kid was the only instructor there (the guy that did that hadn't be around in TWO years), talking a lot of crap about how they should be running the class (again, hadn't been around in forever, why trust it to them).  When they did show up, they would stand together in the corner and try and look down on everyone else.  The last time they were seen was when they brought up their class for sparring, 3 of the BBs of my class invited them to spar the 3 of them... with the security cameras turned off.
> 
> Same offer will be made next time they show up.  I preach avoid fighting, but these guys pretty much ask for a fight every time they show up.


If they are asking for it then deny them.  

If they are banned from the school then they are not seniors.  They are individuals who no longer are associated with the school.  If they have been banned from the grounds, then their presence is trespassing.  If they trespass and try to pick fights, call the police, as what they are doing is against the law.

As for the junior/senior thing, they are no longer your seniors, as they have been expelled from the school.  

Daniel


----------



## bluewaveschool (Jan 4, 2011)

I THINK two of them are on the 'unofficial' banned from the Y list, one for supposedly always having a handgun in his gym bad, and the other got sexual harassment claims brought to the board on him.  So they can't get passed the front desk anyways.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 4, 2011)

bluewaveschool said:


> I THINK two of them are on the 'unofficial' banned from the Y list, one for supposedly always having a handgun in his gym bad, and the other got sexual harassment claims brought to the board on him.  So they can't get passed the front desk anyways.


As I said, no longer your seniors.

Daniel


----------



## andyjeffries (Jan 5, 2011)

bluewaveschool said:


> humiliating a 16 yr old BB when the kid was the only instructor there



Whoah! Your school lets 16 year olds run the class without an adult supervising?  I know things are different in America, but in England I'm fairly sure you'd get most parents pulling their kids out of the class permanently if that happened...


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jan 5, 2011)

They're still your seniors if they outrank you. 

But they obviously have done nothing to earn your respect and, much to the contrary, have worked very hard at demonstrating why they don't deserve it. Be courteous as you tell them they are unwelcome and that their desire to have the school turned over to them is simply not going to happen (especially since they've been banned from the Y where you teach!). Repeated trespassing on Y property by people who have been banned could result in the police being called and charges being pressed.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 5, 2011)

andyjeffries said:


> Whoah! Your school lets 16 year olds run the class without an adult supervising? I know things are different in America, but in England I'm fairly sure you'd get most parents pulling their kids out of the class permanently if that happened...


I don't think that it was a case of the school allowing sixteen year olds to run the school so much as the sixteen year old being the only one left.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 5, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> Be courteous as you tell them they are unwelcome and that their desire to have the school turned over to them is simply not going to happen (especially since they've been banned from the Y where you teach!).


QFT!

Daniel


----------



## bluewaveschool (Jan 5, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I don't think that it was a case of the school allowing sixteen year olds to run the school so much as the sixteen year old being the only one left.
> 
> Daniel




Normally, a 16yr old BB, I wouldn't let teach without supervision.  But there are people that are exceptions to the rule, and that kid was one.  He had the respect of every kid and adult in the room, and had been in the school for about 8 years, wasn't like he was barely a BB.  Most technically proficient artist I've ever seen too.  He normally wasn't by himself, the main instructor that was supposed to be there that night couldn't make it for some reason.

I'm not sure humiliating is the right word.  The guy came in and was very critical of everything he was teaching, mad because he didn't teach in Korean, generally making an *** of himself.  Kid was better than him, guy was just an rank snob, no one under him was good enough.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 5, 2011)

bluewaveschool said:


> Normally, a 16yr old BB, I wouldn't let teach without supervision. But there are people that are exceptions to the rule, and that kid was one. He had the respect of every kid and adult in the room, and had been in the school for about 8 years, wasn't like he was barely a BB. Most technically proficient artist I've ever seen too. He normally wasn't by himself, the main instructor that was supposed to be there that night couldn't make it for some reason.
> 
> I'm not sure humiliating is the right word. The guy came in and was very critical of everything he was teaching, mad because he didn't teach in Korean, generally making an *** of himself. Kid was better than him, guy was just an rank snob, no one under him was good enough.


In other words, we're not talking about a sixteen year old head instructor or 'running the school.'  We're talking about a sixteen year old assistant instructor with eight years of practice who ended up teaching alone once because the head instructor couldn't make it in that night for some reason.

Daniel


----------



## andyjeffries (Jan 5, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> In other words, we're not talking about a sixteen year old head instructor or 'running the school.'  We're talking about a sixteen year old assistant instructor with eight years of practice who ended up teaching alone once because the head instructor couldn't make it in that night for some reason.



I still don't think it would wash over here.  I understand it, but parents are particularly fussy in the UK (and so are the halls we hire - we have to be a UK registered instructor with an Enhanced Criminal Records Bureau check to teach classes with children in them) so leaving their children under the care of a 16 year old would legally dubious and they certainly wouldn't be happy.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 5, 2011)

andyjeffries said:


> I still don't think it would wash over here. I understand it, but parents are particularly fussy in the UK (and so are the halls we hire - we have to be a UK registered instructor with an Enhanced Criminal Records Bureau check to teach classes with children in them) so leaving their children under the care of a 16 year old would legally dubious and they certainly wouldn't be happy.


We don't have such registration requirements in the states, so that would not be an issue.

Since martial arts classes are not considered daycare (the parents are generally not asked to leave), the regulations that normally apply to daycare centers do not apply to MA schools.

Given that this was a one time incident apprently, it probably would not raise many eyebrows here, if any.  From what Bluewaveschool is saying, the sixteen year old is normally assisting an adult instructor, which again, should not be problematic.  

Daniel


----------



## andyjeffries (Jan 5, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> We don't have such registration requirements in the states, so that would not be an issue.



I must admit I'm surprised - our US cousins are often more litigious than us in the UK, so I'm surprised it's not "regulated-up" more than us to ensure you are following the lines.

To become a British Registered Instructor you have to go along a listen for a day on the legal ramifications of what we do and basically how to CYA.  You don't need to know a single Taekwondo movement to be able to do the course and pass.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Since martial arts classes are not considered daycare (the parents are generally not asked to leave), the regulations that normally apply to daycare centers do not apply to MA schools.



We don't generally ask parents to leave, but most do 



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Given that this was a one time incident apprently, it probably would not raise many eyebrows here, if any.  From what Bluewaveschool is saying, the sixteen year old is normally assisting an adult instructor, which again, should not be problematic.



I agree, I was assisting with teaching before 16 years old and have done so ever since.  This is not meant as a slight on the 16 year old in question, it was just meant as a discussion of how operating a school works differently between our two countries (and indeed any instructors from other countries, feel free to pip up with your thoughts).


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 5, 2011)

andyjeffries said:


> I must admit I'm surprised - our US cousins are often more litigious than us in the UK, so I'm surprised it's not "regulated-up" more than us to ensure you are following the lines.


Americans tend to be resistant to overregulation until either some disaster occurrs which forces it or special intererests push it through.  Some aspects of our nation are overregulated and other areas not regulated enough.  Some things are left to the individual states, so as a consequence, some things are heavilly regulated in certain parts of the country and hardly glanced at in others.



andyjeffries said:


> To become a British Registered Instructor you have to go along a listen for a day on the legal ramifications of what we do and basically how to CYA. You don't need to know a single Taekwondo movement to be able to do the course and pass.


Some states may require some kind of registration, but I don't think that any require a course.  There is no national requirement of that sort, however.




andyjeffries said:


> We don't generally ask parents to leave, but most do


Same at our school, though I haven't decided if that is a boon or a bane.




andyjeffries said:


> I agree, I was assisting with teaching before 16 years old and have done so ever since. This is not meant as a slight on the 16 year old in question, it was just meant as a discussion of how operating a school works differently between our two countries (and indeed any instructors from other countries, feel free to pip up with your thoughts).


It is always good insight to see how things are done outside of one's own homeland.  Definitely gives perspective. 

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 5, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> They're still your seniors if they outrank you.


Here's a question: do they still outrank him?  From what I understand, the school is independent, so rank is only valid within the school.  If they are no longer members of the school and have been banned from entry, is their rank still valid?

Note:  I do not mean time in practice or general skill, whatever it may be; that is independent of rank.

Daniel


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jan 5, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Here's a question: do they still outrank him? From what I understand, the school is independent, so rank is only valid within the school. If they are no longer members of the school and have been banned from entry, is their rank still valid?


 
IIRC, bluewaveschool said they were third dans and he is a second dan. Even if it's "only" a school certificate they'd still out rank him unless their rank was specifically stripped from them, IMO. If this isn't the case then I can't understand why they were showing up "demanding" anything in the first place. Even if they are senior to him their actions are pathetic and indicate a real lack of character. 

I don't know how common a practice that is across the Taekwon-Do world but in almost 25 years I know of only one person who was demoted in rank and one who was stripped of rank but different schools or organizations might do things differently.

The whole question of whether their rank is valid now that they no longer train is an interesting one and depends on what rank is an indicator of (stupid sentence ending proposition!). 



> Note: I do not mean time in practice or general skill, whatever it may be; that is independent of rank.
> 
> Daniel


 
Indeed.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 5, 2011)

lI figured I would break this off to its own thread here http://www.martialtalk.com//forum/showthread.php?t=92684, as it really is not related to the OP.

Daniel


----------



## puunui (Jan 5, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> Not so unusual in Asian culture.  I am Asian American.  I was brought up to respect my elders in all cases.  Their behavior had nothing to do with it and I frequently had to bite my tongue even when I disagreed with something some of my father's friends and associates said or did.




Not only in Asian culture but American culture as well. Older brothers give their younger brothers a hard time. Does that mean that the older brother is not worthy of the younger brother's respect? How about when seniors at a frathouse haze freshmen? Or when a drill sargeant "mistreats" a recruit in boot camp? What should the recruit do in that situation? You're convicted of a crime you didn't commit and the judge at your sentencing speaks very sternly to you in meting out your punishment. Should you start yelling and swearing at the judge, saying that the judge is not worthy of respect? You're at a tournament and a match that you feel you won goes to the other competitor. Is it ok to yell, swear, or give the finger to the referees and throw your water bottle across the ring because they "disrespected" you by not giving you something you felt you deserved? You ask for a promotion, and your instructor declines, saying you are not ready. Should you start posting on the internet about what a terrible person you instructor is?


----------



## andyjeffries (Jan 6, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Americans tend to be resistant to overregulation until either some disaster occurrs which forces it or special intererests push it through.  Some aspects of our nation are overregulated and other areas not regulated enough.  Some things are left to the individual states, so as a consequence, some things are heavilly regulated in certain parts of the country and hardly glanced at in others.



I often find it weird that you are treated internationally as one country but act internally like a collection of different states.  I remember last time we were in Florida my Brother-in-law was there as well from New York and he was saying about how some states have "right on red" rules regarding traffic lights.  That is weird, you can do something completely legal in one state, cross a boundary and do something completely normal that is illegal (while still being in the same country).

It's quirky, but I like it.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> It is always good insight to see how things are done outside of one's own homeland.  Definitely gives perspective.



Absolutely.  We have some parts I'm sure would seem weird to the outside-UK world too


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jan 6, 2011)

andyjeffries said:


> I often find it weird that you are treated internationally as one country but act internally like a collection of different states.


 
That's exactly what the U.S. is, a collection of states that form a federal body. The states don't exist because the federal government divied up the land, the federal government exists because the states united.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## andyjeffries (Jan 6, 2011)

chrispillertkd said:


> That's exactly what the U.S. is, a collection of states that form a federal body. The states don't exist because the federal government divied up the land, the federal government exists because the states united.



But internationally you are viewed as a single country and it's often easy to forget that you have different taxes and laws in different states.

We would say "I want to do more business in America" but would find it odd if we said "I want to do more business in Europe" because over here we know Europe is a bunch of countries with different laws and tax levels (and currencies and languages but that's different).

I love the diversity, but it's still weird


----------

