# New Tae Kwon Do Book



## dortiz (Jun 1, 2009)

Hi Guys my teacher B. K. Cho has put together a book detailing Tae Kwon Do and both the Chang On and Kukkiwon forms. Its awesome! Stuart, Simon and anyone else, I would love ideas on where to place it to help him sell them.
Here is my Facebook link with some pics.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=438210&id=1324279200&ref=mf

Thanks,
Dave O.


----------



## Miles (Jun 1, 2009)

David, will this be sold on Amazon?  From photos, it looks very cool!

BTW, is GM Cho out of Illinois or Wisconsin?  The name is familiar but I can't recall exactly where or how.


----------



## SJON (Jun 2, 2009)

Looks great, Dave.

Is it just a step-by-step manual for technique and pattern performance, or does it go into other stuff like applications?

I'd suggest the author submitting the book for review, offering interviews, etc. _Totally Tae Kwon Do_ might be a good place to start.

Cheers,

Simon


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Jun 2, 2009)

Looks very good.


----------



## terryl965 (Jun 2, 2009)

Dies this have application as well and if so, what are the thought behinf those application?


----------



## dortiz (Jun 2, 2009)

"BTW, is GM Cho out of Illinois or Wisconsin? The name is familiar but I can't recall exactly where or how."

Wisconsin. I know he was there a long time. Only came out here recently. It been tough as it has not been the best of times to be a new player in any market right now. The pics in the office reflect a rather large group out there.

I am constantly impressed to see a 9th Dan in uniform and on the mat every day though and feel that time and his book are really a treasure. One that we dont have many years left to enjoy.

Simon, good idea. I need to read it front to back. I think I will set up to mail it to Stuart and maybe have him forward my copy then to you. 

As I get through it I will post more on the content as well.

Thanks,

Dave O.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 2, 2009)

Dave, do you think you can put up an informational page outside of Facebook?  Let's face it, not everyone uses Facebook (especially old guys like me), and they won't let you view a page without being a member.  I understand the whole Web 2.0 marketing plan means you have to use sites like Facebook and LinkedIn and whatever else, but let's not forget the good old regular business web site...


----------



## dortiz (Jun 2, 2009)

I can try. I just used that to host the pics. I will need to figure out a way to host them with better access. Any free photo sites that folks know of. I can certainly take more as well then.

Dave O.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 2, 2009)

I can post them up for you on my hosting account if you want.  Just email it to me:  leopardfist @ gmail .com.  Remove the spaces.

Otherwise flickr.com is free as is googlepages.com.


----------



## dortiz (Jun 2, 2009)

My project for tomorrow night then. Today is work, TKD and HKD.

: )

Dave O.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 2, 2009)

dortiz said:


> Hi Guys my teacher B. K. Cho has put together a book detailing Tae Kwon Do and both the Chang On and Kukkiwon forms. Its awesome! Stuart, Simon and anyone else, I would love ideas on where to place it to help him sell them.
> Here is my Facebook link with some pics.
> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=438210&id=1324279200&ref=mf
> 
> ...


 
Sorry, you struck a nerve with me. First it's Chang Hon, or Chang Hun. 

Second, I am sure you hasve a great instructor, just as Jhoon Rhee. He Il Cho, Keith Yates etc. have many great qualities. 

I do not understand why anyone, except for personal students of a particular instructor,  would want to buy a book  to first learn a knock off version of the original especialy when the original is the most widely accepted international standard.  Perhaps once the original is learned, then other interpretations may be of interest.  From what your facebook page shows of Won Hyo, it really ads nothing of consequence except confusion with regard to terminolgy and technical parameters.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 2, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> I do not understand why anyone, except for personal students of a particular instructor,  would want to buy a book  to first learn a knock off version of the original especialy when the original is the most widely accepted international standard.



Which bible is the best?  The King James?  The Living Bible?  The Revised Standard version?  The answer depends on which denomination of Christianity one is.

It's the same for TKD forms books.  I don't even believe General Choi's Encyclopedia is the most widely accepted standard any longer.  Anecdotally I was told that He Il Cho's books actually have more copies printed.

In my part of the country, there are no ITF (any flavor) schools at all.  If you were determined to teach yourself some Chang Hon forms, realizing that you'll just acquiring the shell of the form, ANY of the books out there would do just as good.  Given the relative expense of General Choi's books, it's no mystery why someone would choose Mr. Yates' book or Mr. Cho's or Mr. Kwang's.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 2, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> Which bible is the best? The King James? The Living Bible? The Revised Standard version? The answer depends on which denomination of Christianity one is.
> 
> It's the same for TKD forms books. I don't even believe General Choi's Encyclopedia is the most widely accepted standard any longer. Anecdotally I was told that He Il Cho's books actually have more copies printed.
> 
> In my part of the country, there are no ITF (any flavor) schools at all. If you were determined to teach yourself some Chang Hon forms, realizing that you'll just acquiring the shell of the form, ANY of the books out there would do just as good. Given the relative expense of General Choi's books, it's no mystery why someone would choose Mr. Yates' book or Mr. Cho's or Mr. Kwang's.


 
Sorry, your analogy Fails. When it comes to the bible there is much educated debate over who wrote what and even who chose what was to be included. When it comes to the Chang Hon Patterns there is no debate. While many pioneers assisted in the creation of certain forms there was a single authority as to technical parameters. Yes, some parameters could be open to intepretation, but these were relativley minor especialy when there was much opportuinity to train with the creator of the patterns. 

Cost is certainly an issue. You can always save money and sacrifice quality. 

However, you can get the 15 Volume encyclopedia on CD Rom including Shipping  for $65.00 or the 15 Volume set with video of patterns viewable from 4 directions for $111.00 including Shipping. 

Compared to what you get for the $ , how much are you really going to save?


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 2, 2009)

Well, I'll confess I don't own all the books, just about 8 or 9 volumes from the version printed in the nineties.  I'm glad there's an electronic version available that is more affordable.

That said, I do recall that I own the volume that contains Won-Hyo within it.  Could you share what exactly makes General Choi's book so valuable other than the fact that his name is on it?  My recollection from reading it so long ago are that the pages he devotes to forms are pretty dry with static posed pictures.  Really no better than Mr. Cho's books if one were association-agnostic and one wanted to try to puzzle together a Chang Hon form.

I understand this is the authoritative source if you're an ITF guy, but...


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Jun 3, 2009)

I agree with dancingalone on this one.

General Choi wasn't above "knocking off" other peoples forms/work either, if that's how you want to put it.

I don't see how you can say that this sacrificing quality without reading the whole book either.  

The best books I have seen on Taeguek poomse are Kim Jeong Rok's series, and these are hard to come by now.  A book like that could be worth recommending.  Footwork diagrams would be good though.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 3, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> Well, I'll confess I don't own all the books, just about 8 or 9 volumes from the version printed in the nineties. I'm glad there's an electronic version available that is more affordable.
> 
> That said, I do recall that I own the volume that contains Won-Hyo within it. Could you share what exactly makes General Choi's book so valuable other than the fact that his name is on it? My recollection from reading it so long ago are that the pages he devotes to forms are pretty dry with static posed pictures. Really no better than Mr. Cho's books if one were association-agnostic and one wanted to try to puzzle together a Chang Hon form.
> 
> I understand this is the authoritative source if you're an ITF guy, but...


 
A few examples. Note: I only could read the scanned page from the book posted on the facebook site. 
1. Terminology and explanation of technique. If a stance has a name such as "Fixed Stance" in a pattern, you can go to the volume containing stances and get a detailed explanation of the technical parameters of that stance. Go anywhere in the world and people who are up to date will know the terminology and parameter. This book calls it a "Long L Stance" no apparent explanation of paramaters and differentiation from L Stance.  Uses terminology not universaly known or described. 
2. For any other technique, Stance, Kick, punch, or block, again, from the term in the pattern book you can access the technique in the appropriate volume and get all the parameters. 
3. Each pattern is preceded with "New techniques for the pattern" and has illustrations of the techniques as well as addittional applications. 
4. Each new technique for a patttern, as the pattern progresses  has examples of applications. Some repeated from earlier patterns have examples as well. This facilitates learning distance,  direction and method of execution, particularly with regard to previous or next positio
5. Foot diagrams show previous foot placment and new foot placement often with lines showing how the foot travels to get there. 
6. FWIW  IMNSHO the direction designation in both books while understandable could have been better if either compass or clock dial directions were used.  However, General Choi's direction designation is universaly used. 
7. General Choi's book is comprehensive. Some claim to have "All the Patterns" - 20 of them. Would you want a book that conmtained "All of the Alphabet" all 20 letters, or the entire english dictionarly, letters A-V? 

Just off the top of my head


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Jun 3, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> Some claim to have "All the Patterns" - 20 of them. Would you want a book that conmtained "All of the Alphabet" all 20 letters, or the entire english dictionarly, letters A-V?


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 3, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> 1. Terminology and explanation of technique. If a stance has a name such as "Fixed Stance" in a pattern, you can go to the volume containing stances and get a detailed explanation of the technical parameters of that stance. Go anywhere in the world and people who are up to date will know the terminology and parameter. This book calls it a "Long L Stance" no apparent explanation of paramaters and differentiation from L Stance.  Uses terminology not universaly known or described.
> 2. For any other technique, Stance, Kick, punch, or block, again, from the term in the pattern book you can access the technique in the appropriate volume and get all the parameters.



Terminology and technique are school/association specific.  Not everyone in TKD uses the same terms, and that's still true even if you had a native Korean as your instructor.



Earl Weiss said:


> 3. Each pattern is preceded with "New techniques for the pattern" and has illustrations of the techniques as well as addittional applications.
> 4. Each new technique for a patttern, as the pattern progresses  has examples of applications. Some repeated from earlier patterns have examples as well. This facilitates learning distance,  direction and method of execution, particularly with regard to previous or next positio



Well, I consulted a few pages from my books to confirm my recollections.  The applications given as IMO rather basic, confined to the punch kick variety.  I suppose a New Techniques for the pattern section is useful in some part as it provides a path for lineal progression of difficulty.



Earl Weiss said:


> 5. Foot diagrams show previous foot placment and new foot placement often with lines showing how the foot travels to get there.
> 6. FWIW  IMNSHO the direction designation in both books while understandable could have been better if either compass or clock dial directions were used.  However, General Choi's direction designation is universaly used.



Is this so revolutionary from what any kata/hyung book provides?  Mr. Yates' book has these for sure, and I think Mr. Rhee's books do too.  Mr. Cho's does not, but arguably his pictures are shot in a more clear fashion that the Encyclopedia.



Earl Weiss said:


> 7. General Choi's book is comprehensive. Some claim to have "All the Patterns" - 20 of them. Would you want a book that conmtained "All of the Alphabet" all 20 letters, or the entire english dictionarly, letters A-V?


 
That may be an advantage if you own all the volumes in the set or if you bought the DVD version.  I never progressed far enough in TKD to learn all the black belt forms, but I recall there being a hyung called Juche(?) that was changed or replaced at some point due to politics.  Does the Encyclopedia include both the old and new form?

Mr. Yates' book is a nicely focused book that is light and easy to transport.  He also includes some Japanese forms, so his aims are different.  Not sure how many forms Mr. Cho has in his three, but they surely have the vast majority of the Chang Hon forms.   

I respect your position.  In the end however, I just don't see the huge deal if you're not specifically an ITF student.  You can certainly pick up the outer shell of say Do-San or Won-Hyo from any of these books.  Obviously you need to visit your teacher for correction and fine tuning.


----------



## terryl965 (Jun 3, 2009)

Poomsae's, Tuls, Kata or forms are so wide range from teacher to teacher that it is not funny. I have been involved in TKD for over thirty years and it still amazes me how vast of termonology there is withen the same Art. Application are simple and direct most books never look to what can really be done with certain movements. I for one wish we as a whole could see other people views and accept what might be a new way. I am not saying his book does or not because I do not belong to Facebook but I am sure there must be something in there can could and may help someone.


----------



## dortiz (Jun 3, 2009)

"Sorry, you struck a nerve with me. First it's Chang Hon, or Chang Hun. 

Second, I am sure you hasve a great instructor, just as Jhoon Rhee. He Il Cho, Keith Yates etc. have many great qualities. 

I do not understand why anyone, except for personal students of a particular instructor, would want to buy a book to first learn a knock off version of the original especialy when the original is the most widely accepted international standard. Perhaps once the original is learned, then other interpretations may be of interest. From what your facebook page shows of Won Hyo, it really ads nothing of consequence except confusion with regard to terminolgy and technical parameters. "

I apologize for not correctly using the americanized forms name. Often I jump on at work or on my Ipod and admit I type a bit short handed. That and if you look at some of my posts you may catch a bit of dyslexia even with a proof read or two. Please dont take that as insult in any way. Its more of my attempt to convey message with a need for improving content.
As for the book and its role I would say its clearly not for you. You are happy with your one set and thats great.
In my case and often times I find forum type folks who search out more info, like to have lots o books from different folks. Wether its the Encyclopedia or Dr Kimms, Chun and Choi etc. I like to have all of them for reference, pride, info and fun. 
If nothing else having a summary of a 9th Dan Master to me is a treasure, my teacher or not. I would buy any stylists work if it was by their top Master to enjoy looking at. I am sure I would find something in it.
Is that everybody... no. But just like turning the channel on a show you dont have to watch, dont buy it and dont ask about it. Its easy eh?

Cheers,
Dave O.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 3, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> Terminology and technique are school/association specific. Not everyone in TKD uses the same terms, and that's still true even if you had a native Korean as your instructor.
> 
> 
> 
> .


 
You have put a bright light on the problem, and see the solution as having no worth. That is your privilege. 

Why did Funakoshi create Shotokan? Why did Kano create Judo?  To a large extent they toook fragmented systems and codified them so thy could be taught on a large consistent scale internationaly. People doing that system could travel anywhere in the world and and find a home learning the system. General Choi did the same. 

If you are content with operating in your own little corner of the universe, and never intend to leave, and intend the same for your students, and really don't care that outsiders who may relocate to your area having trained in the system you purport to teach will be uncomfortable with the home gron changes then doing only what an isolated instructor teaches is fine.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 3, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> Well, I consulted a few pages from my books to confirm my recollections. The applications given as IMO rather basic, confined to the punch kick variety. I suppose a New Techniques for the pattern section is useful in some part as it provides a path for lineal progression of difficulty.
> 
> quote]
> 
> Actualy it reflects a fundamental teaching concept emphasized by General Choi. Specificaly that a student must have a thorough understanding of new fundamental techniques of a pattern and be able to properly execute the techniques before learning the pattern.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 3, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> Is this so revolutionary from what any kata/hyung book provides? Mr. Yates' book has these for sure, and I think Mr. Rhee's books do too. Mr. Cho's does not, but arguably his pictures are shot in a more clear fashion that the Encyclopedia.


 
In referring to foot diagrams, I did not mean to indicate, nor did I think that your inquiry targeted why a single element of General Choi's books made it better.   As with anything you need to consider the totality of the elements.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 3, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> You have put a bright light on the problem, and see the solution as having no worth. That is your privilege.
> 
> Why did Funakoshi create Shotokan? Why did Kano create Judo?  To a large extent they toook fragmented systems and codified them so thy could be taught on a large consistent scale internationaly. People doing that system could travel anywhere in the world and and find a home learning the system. General Choi did the same.
> 
> If you are content with operating in your own little corner of the universe, and never intend to leave, and intend the same for your students, and really don't care that outsiders who may relocate to your area having trained in the system you purport to teach will be uncomfortable with the home gron changes then doing only what an isolated instructor teaches is fine.



Well, I think that's the issue at hand, Mr. Weiss.  I personally don't hold General Choi's work or teachings highest in my pantheon as you do.  My training in tae kwon do (not Taekwon-Do, not taekwondo) was in Jhoon Rhee's system that he originally taught in Texas when he emigrated.  Mr. Rhee eventually adopted General Choi's Chang Hon forms, but in his earliest days he taught the original Chung Do Kwan hyung, which were the Japanese Shotokan kata.  General Choi should be respected as a pioneer in the creation of tae kwon do, but there are others who deserve the same level of respect like Lee Won Kuk or even Hwang Kee for all his 'apostasy'.

I think the ship has sailed on standardization, and truthfully if an ITF student moved to my part of the country, he would find himself adapting to the local standard, rather than the other way around.  There are NO effective worldwide standards, regardless of the efforts of various organizations like the ITF (whatever flavor) and the Kukkiwon, because each group has failed to make their spin on TKD universal.  

Portability has nothing to do with whether you follow the information within General Choi's books or not; portability occurs when you find another school that follows the same syllabus you did in your prior school, whether that was the Choi syllabus or not.  It's a subtle difference in wording, but I think it delineates clearly the chasm between your perspective and mine.

Again for the record, you should obviously buy General Choi's materials if you are ITF-affiliated.  For the rest (I daresay majority) of us who learned the Chang Hon patterns from non-ITF teachers, your mileage may vary.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 3, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> I never progressed far enough in TKD to learn all the black belt forms, but I recall there being a hyung called Juche(?) that was changed or replaced at some point due to politics. Does the Encyclopedia include both the old and new form?
> 
> Mr. Yates' book is a nicely focused book that is light and easy to transport.
> 
> I respect your position. In the end however, I just don't see the huge deal if you're not specifically an ITF student. You can certainly pick up the outer shell of say Do-San or Won-Hyo from any of these books. Obviously you need to visit your teacher for correction and fine tuning.


 
Ju Che has replaced Ko Dang since I believe 1980. Publications since that time only contain Ju Che. 

For ease of transport some groups such as the USTF have small books containing the exact text from Gnmeral Choi's books. It is a training tool and sionce terminology is uniform cross reference is easy. 

Here is the huge deal. Wherever I go in the world I can fit right in at an ITF gym or function. Similarly since I am near O'Hare airport I frequently get visitors, students who have transferred, and business people who transferred. 

On one day I had an ITF Stylist from the east coast visit and I had 5 students perform a pattern for him. After they were done I had them say where they learned the Pattern. One was from the east coast. One from Poland. One from Siberia, One from Canada, and one from my school.  He said he would have never known that they learned it from different places. 

That is the beauty of the system.  (BTW, my origins pre date when books were widely available. It made us crazy when different instructors told us different things. )


----------



## CDKJudoka (Jun 3, 2009)

I'm looking forward to it Dave.


----------



## dortiz (Jun 3, 2009)

Here is my plan. I am going to have some folks I deem experts take a look at it and review it. Then maybe formulate some questions which I can tackle with G.M. as an interview. 
Hopefully this will provide a good piece for general reading and an introduction to the book. I think all of the discussions above show why different sources solve different aspects. 

Cheers,

Dave O.

p.s. I will still try to move photos to flicker.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 3, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> I think the ship has sailed on standardization, and truthfully if an ITF student moved to my part of the country, he would find himself adapting to the local standard, rather than the other way around. There are NO effective worldwide standards, regardless of the efforts of various organizations like the ITF (whatever flavor) and the Kukkiwon, because each group has failed to make their spin on TKD universal.
> .


 
I would like to know the state and largest city in your vicinity. Your profile does not provide info. 

I disagree with your claim that there are NO effective worldwide standards. The Kukkiwon seems hard at work with instructor courses to standardize their system. 

Having been to several ITF international competitions and events I have seen the standardization at work. 

The sad part is when you encounter people who do the Chang Hon System and do not follow ITF standards is that they often (But not always) are unaware that what they are doing does not follow a largely accepted standard and sometimes are in for a rude awakening.  I have had some of these who were "Orphaned students" of 20+ years sometimes embrace the fact that they found me and can become part of a larger picture. 

Others were shocked to learn that what they did was only accepted in a small corner of a small universe. Sadder yet was when I explained what the ITF standard was along with the rationale, and asked what the rationale was for their methodology was that they had none.  At least if they had a rationale  reasoneable minds could agree to disagree. 

If you choose not to appreciate Gneral Choi's work, that's fine. As Patrick Swaze said in Roadhouse "Opinions Vary" .  What is hypocritical is to perform General Choi's patterns and ignore his technical parameters.  Why not just follow the patterns of someone whose teachings you respect? 

Sadder, are those who perform General Choi's patterns yet are ignorant of  who created them and how that creator intended that they be preformed. Can the original poster please advise if the cited book on the Chang Hon patterns gives credit to their designer?


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 3, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> I would like to know the state and largest city in your vicinity. Your profile does not provide info.



I'm in the Austin, Texas area.  Texas is a big state, surely no need to go to Dallas or Houston (both of which are 3 hours away by car) to find a full ITF affiliate?



Earl Weiss said:


> I disagree with your claim that there are NO effective worldwide standards. The Kukkiwon seems hard at work with instructor courses to standardize their system.
> 
> Having been to several ITF international competitions and events I have seen the standardization at work.



You only have to look at the huge collection of martial arts that falls under the umbrella of the "tae kwon do" name to know I'm right.  There are ITF standards for ITF people.  There are KKW standards for KKW people.  And then of course the many splinter orgs as well as independent schools exist.

Mr. Weiss, your standards are only applicable within your own circles.  The same holds true for any effort the KKW is making and judging by the discussion on this board, it appears they themselves have issues with regional variation.  




Earl Weiss said:


> The sad part is when you encounter people who do the Chang Hon System and do not follow ITF standards is that they often (But not always) are unaware that what they are doing does not follow a largely accepted standard and sometimes are in for a rude awakening.  I have had some of these who were "Orphaned students" of 20+ years sometimes embrace the fact that they found me and can become part of a larger picture.



I'd like to see auditable membership numbers for all three of the ITF orgs.  I suspect their enrollment is lower than the KKW numbers combined, and is smaller still than all non-ITF/non-KKW tae kwon do people in the USA alone.  It's doubtful any substantive figures could ever emerge however, given the political climate we're in.  I suppose the NK group could report anything, given the lack of transparency under Kim Jong Il's regime.

Anyway, I fully dispute that there is any largely accepted standard.  I'd be willing to bet if it could ever be verified that more US tae kwon do students DON'T do sine wave than do.  Certainly that's the case from my anecdotal experience.



Earl Weiss said:


> Others were shocked to learn that what they did was only accepted in a small corner of a small universe. Sadder yet was when I explained what the ITF standard was along with the rationale, and asked what the rationale was for their methodology was that they had none.  At least if they had a rationale  reasoneable minds could agree to disagree.



Not everyone is fully cognizant of WHY they do things the way they do.  That kind of person is probably 1 out of 100, a master of his art.  I'm not surprised if you had some people coming to you for training that they might not have all the pieces yet.



Earl Weiss said:


> If you choose not to appreciate Gneral Choi's work, that's fine. As Patrick Swaze said in Roadhouse "Opinions Vary" .  What is hypocritical is to perform General Choi's patterns and ignore his technical parameters.  Why not just follow the patterns of someone whose teachings you respect?



Come now, I did say I respect General Choi.  However, I don't elevate him above men like Lee Won Kuk or other comparable masters.  When I practiced the Chang Hon patterns I performed them to the standard of my instructors who learned from Mr. Allen Steen who learned from Mr. Jhoon Rhee.  I see no problem with that.  General Choi is not in my family tree.  Why then the expectation for me to hang onto his every word or every writing?  



Earl Weiss said:


> Sadder, are those who perform General Choi's patterns yet are ignorant of  who created them and how that creator intended that they be preformed.



Well, following that line of thinking, perhaps we should consult Funakoshi's Karate Kyohan for pointers on how to perform the Chang Hon set?  

I respect where you are coming from, Mr. Weiss, but likewise I believe you should give a bit more understanding to others not in your circles.  Not every taekwondoist fell from the Choi tree, you know, and it's simply not logical to expect everyone in tae kwon do to conform to your expectations on what the art of tae kwon do is or not.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Jun 4, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> What is hypocritical is to perform General Choi's patterns and ignore his technical parameters.



On that, what are your thoughts on sine wave?



Earl Weiss said:


> Sadder, are those who perform General Choi's patterns yet are ignorant of  who created them and how that creator intended that they be preformed. Can the original poster please advise if the cited book on the Chang Hon patterns gives credit to their designer?



Bok Man Kim you mean?  I am very sorry to say I cannot remember the name of the other master involved.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 4, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> I'm in the Austin, Texas area. Texas is a big state, surely no need to go to Dallas or Houston (both of which are 3 hours away by car) to find a full ITF affiliate?
> 
> 
> .


 
Where is Cedar Park in relation to Austin?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 4, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> You only have to look at the huge collection of martial arts that falls under the umbrella of the "tae kwon do" name to know I'm right. There are ITF standards for ITF people. There are KKW standards for KKW people. And then of course the many splinter orgs as well as independent schools exist.
> 
> Mr. Weiss, your standards are only applicable within your own circles. The same holds true for any effort the KKW is making and judging by the discussion on this board, it appears they themselves have issues with regional variation.
> 
> ...


 
First you need to accept that any orean that is Kicking and punching, or any of their progeny are doing TKD. 

Second you need to accept that anyone can create their own standards and thats OK no matter how isolated it makes the student. As I quoted, Opinions vary. 

Next, just because Kukkiwon has issues with variations which they acknowledge as a problem needing correction as shown by a recent testing in the USA where not everyone passed an was told to work some more and try again does not mean they accept the second premise outlined above. 

I have no issues with people who simply say "I do what my instructor says". The issue is when they so so blindly or sadly unaware that what their instructor says may simply be an error or misinterpretation of what their instructor learned from their instructor.   

In fact if the theory is "Do what your instructor teaches" then a logical extension would be that the instructor should be doing what their instructor teaches.  
By that logic, if you do the Chang Hon patterns you should do what General Choi teaches since the instructional lineage is traced back to him for those patterns.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 4, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> I'd like to see auditable membership numbers for all three of the ITF orgs. I suspect their enrollment is lower than the KKW numbers combined, and is smaller still than all non-ITF/non-KKW tae kwon do people in the USA alone. It's doubtful any substantive figures could ever emerge however, given the political climate we're in. I suppose the NK group could report anything, given the lack of transparency under Kim Jong Il's regime.
> 
> Anyway, I fully dispute that there is any largely accepted standard. I'd be willing to bet if it could ever be verified that more US tae kwon do students DON'T do sine wave than do. Certainly that's the case from my anecdotal experience.
> 
> ...


 
I don't think there is any need for numbers about ITF vs. KKW. ITF memebership, even all 3 combined is a small percentage of Kukkiwon.  


Don't misunderstand me. 
Lets not mix apples and oranges.  If you compare the number of people accepting either the ITF or KKW standard versus all independant factions who are clueless as to those standards and doing any number of different things, the multitude of factions probably outweigh the  unified standards group. However the multitude of factions all do different stuff. 

So lets compare groups that adhere to a single standard. There are those who properly follow The  KKW whether formal members or not,  Those who follow the ITF whether still formal members of the big 3 or not,  The ATA may be anoter large one, and then  a huge number of tiny factions all happily doing their own stuff. 

Accepting your argument would be like saying it's OK to screw up the way you play Mozart because most people do, and they do it in any number of ways. So what if Mozart would say it's wrong. Heck, your teacher likes it better and that's OK. If your happy, blissfully ignorant or not, thats all that matters. heck, sometimes it might sound even better than Mozart intended, according to some people. No need to worry about how it was intended to sound.  Most people don't do it that way.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 4, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> Come now, I did say I respect General Choi. However, I don't elevate him above men like Lee Won Kuk or other comparable masters. When I practiced the Chang Hon patterns I performed them to the standard of my instructors who learned from Mr. Allen Steen who learned from Mr. Jhoon Rhee. I see no problem with that. General Choi is not in my family tree. Why then the expectation for me to hang onto his every word or every writing?
> 
> 
> 
> .


 
1. I said appreciate, which is different than respect. 
2. Interesting. General Choi not in your family tree?   When it comes to the Chang Hon patterns, your instructors learned from Allen Steen who learned them from Jhoon Rhee who learned them from ..........?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 4, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> Well, following that line of thinking, perhaps we should consult Funakoshi's Karate Kyohan for pointers on how to perform the Chang Hon set?
> 
> I respect where you are coming from, Mr. Weiss, but likewise I believe you should give a bit more understanding to others not in your circles. Not every taekwondoist fell from the Choi tree, you know, and it's simply not logical to expect everyone in tae kwon do to conform to your expectations on what the art of tae kwon do is or not.


<<

Sorry, Aanlogy fails or you would need to go to the Shorin and Shorei systems to learn Funakoshi's stuff, or perhaps even Shaolin to learn the Shorin stuff. 

Each person, Funikoshi, Kano and General Choi codified systems based on other systems.  To perform their system you follow their parameters. 

If you perform the Chang Hon patterns and think you did not fall from the General Choi tree at least for thos epatterns, than whose tree did you fall from?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 4, 2009)

FieldDiscipline said:


> On that, what are your thoughts on sine wave?
> 
> 
> 
> Bok Man Kim you mean? I am very sorry to say I cannot remember the name of the other master involved.


 
Sine wave. Is a way to describe the way the body moves when you flex your knees (as part of the bodiy's motion) to generate power in hand techniques. It is a basic description in the nature of an anology or metaphor. The descriptive term while being unique to General Choi describes something that is not unique to the system.  Examples can be found in Bruce Lee's description of the one and 2 inch punch. Other descriptions are found in examples of physical motion described as Kinetic inking or closed Chain movement. (There are other examples as well). You can also see it when a boxer flexes their knees as they punch. 


Kim Bok Man, Nam Tae Hi, Han Cha Kyo and others all had input into the Chang Hon system. (Reference my article with GMNam published in TKD Times on my website. )  However, as far as I know they all acknowledge that General Choi was the final authority on the finished product.


----------



## dortiz (Jun 4, 2009)

Hi Earl,
In the book, the page before the forms start clearly gives proper credit and acknowledgement to General Choi. 
I apologize that I had some camera/3 year old child issues last night but I will make sure to snap a photo and email it you. 

Very fair question, thanks.

Dave O.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 4, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> Where is Cedar Park in relation to Austin?



It's a suburb of Austin, about 30 minutes from downtown.  If there's an official school there that's news to me.  The only site I found quickly with google is this one: http://www.hk-tkd.com/Site/Welcome_to.html, and they seem to be aligned with the WTF.  Within the Austin metro area, there's probably at least 20 tae kwon do studios, over half are ATA or ITA, a couple are Jhoon Rhee tae kwon do, and only two KKW/WTF I know of, one run by a KKW 6th dan.  There's a couple of clubs at the University of Texas also, one that seems to train for Olympic comps. 



> First you need to accept that any orean that is Kicking and punching, or any of their progeny are doing TKD.
> 
> Second you need to accept that anyone can create their own standards and thats OK no matter how isolated it makes the student. As I quoted, Opinions vary.


That's precisely my point.  There is a plethora of fighting styles and even systems that use the "tae kwon do" name.  The ITF does not have a monopoly on it, probably hence why your group prefers the term "Taekwon-Do".  Heck, there's people still doing the Japanese forms using the tae kwon do name.  ITF = 1 style of tae kwon do.  NOT all of it.



> Next, just because Kukkiwon has issues with variations which they acknowledge as a problem needing correction as shown by a recent testing in the USA where not everyone passed an was told to work some more and try again does not mean they accept the second premise outlined above.


Yes, they are working on standards for KKW members.  I would hope they recognize likewise that different interpretations exist of tae kwon do that do not fall under their purvey.



> I have no issues with people who simply say "I do what my instructor says". The issue is when they so so blindly or sadly unaware that what their instructor says may simply be an error or misinterpretation of what their instructor learned from their instructor.
> 
> In fact if the theory is "Do what your instructor teaches" then a logical extension would be that the instructor should be doing what their instructor teaches.
> By that logic, if you do the Chang Hon patterns you should do what General Choi teaches since the instructional lineage is traced back to him for those patterns.
> ...


General Choi's inspiration from the beginning Shotokan forms are clear.  In understanding anything, it's useful to go back to the roots, and it's a reasonable line of inquiry to consult Funakoshi's work since it is 1) documented and 2) the immediate predecessor with clear linkage.  Going back to the shorin-ryu grandfather would be difficult since the art drift is much greater given the many modifications Funakoshi and his students made.  (By the way, it's doubtful that Shotokan as explained in books like the Karate Kyohan or Dynamic Karate) contains much if any Naha-te influence, and Funakoshi even misclassifies a few kata in his writing.)  This is a really a side discussion however.

To address your claim that my line of tae kwon do flows from General Choi:  Only organizationally and only for a time as Jhoon Rhee eventually left the ITF.  As I understand it, Mr. Jhoon Rhee does not consider General Choi to be his instructor.  I was taught that his instructor was the Chung Do Kwan kwang jang nim.  While Mr. Rhee was convinced by General Choi to adopt his patterns, and he may(?) even have learned the patterns from General Choi, it doesn't necessarily follow that General Choi should be considered his instructor.

What makes someone your teacher?  How many hours in the dojang did Mr. Rhee toil under General Choi's tutelage?  I believe the number is probably low to non-existant.        




> I don't think there is any need for numbers about ITF vs. KKW. ITF memebership, even all 3 combined is a small percentage of Kukkiwon.
> 
> Don't misunderstand me.
> Lets not mix apples and oranges. If you compare the number of people accepting either the ITF or KKW standard versus all independant factions who are clueless as to those standards and doing any number of different things, the multitude of factions probably outweigh the unified standards group. However the multitude of factions all do different stuff.
> ...


Well, I think you're puffing up your numbers too much when you claim that there is largely accepted standard, hence my point about ITF membership... define 'those who follow the ITF where still formal members of the big 3 or not'.  If your qualifier is simply that they practice the Chang Hon patterns, I'll argue you can't count them.  My point is that more people exist that DON'T follow ITF guidelines (key point: sine wave) than do, all while studying the Chang Hon forms.  So it follows that there are NO "largely accepted standards".



> Accepting your argument would be like saying it's OK to screw up the way you play Mozart because most people do, and they do it in any number of ways. So what if Mozart would say it's wrong. Heck, your teacher likes it better and that's OK. If your happy, blissfully ignorant or not, thats all that matters. heck, sometimes it might sound even better than Mozart intended, according to some people. No need to worry about how it was intended to sound. Most people don't do it that way.


Nope.  You seem to be arguing that General Choi always taught the same way throughout his career, and that might be the case from where you stand as probably a close associate of the General and the ITF.  To those of us in the hinterlands, we see it as the ITF increasingly diverged and changed from its previous body of knowledge under the General's guidance in his later years.

To use your Mozart analogy (not a great one, since the design of the forms was made by several people), we learned and practice the "Marriage of Figaro" in one fashion and we were pleased with it.  A few years later, the piece now changes with odd, unaesthetically pleasing syncopation super-imposed throughout.

Is it any wonder that those of us not longer part of ITF simply said, "No thanks?" 

At this point, there are multiple ways of executing the Chang Hon forms, depending on which era you or your instructors learned them in.  I fully concede that ITF members received the last word on how they should be done from General Choi.  At the same time are any of the other interpretations wrong?  No way.  General Choi's place in tae kwon do history is secure, but his Encyclopedia is hardly the authoritative source of knowledge for EVERYONE in tae kwon do.  There's nothing wrong with using or consulting a book or dvd from someone not named Choi Hong Hi.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 4, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> It's a suburb of Austin, about 30 minutes from downtown. If there's an official school there that's news to me. quote]
> 
> Fabian Nunez, ITF 8th Dan lists an address in Cedar Park. http://www.nuneztkd.com/home.html  He hosted an ITF International Instructor Course in Ausstin in MArch of 2008.
> 
> So, I guess there is an ITF presence in you area.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 4, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> The ITF does not have a monopoly on it, probably hence why your group prefers the term "Taekwon-Do". Hong Hi.


 
FYI Originaly Tae Kwon Do, 3 seperate words to aid in pronunciation changed to combine the physical yet show it's link to the "Do".


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 4, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> To address your claim that my line of tae kwon do flows from General Choi: Only organizationally and only for a time as Jhoon Rhee eventually left the ITF. As I understand it, Mr. Jhoon Rhee does not consider General Choi to be his instructor. I was taught that his instructor was the Chung Do Kwan kwang jang nim. While Mr. Rhee was convinced by General Choi to adopt his patterns, and he may(?) even have learned the patterns from General Choi, it doesn't necessarily follow that General Choi should be considered his instructor.
> 
> quote]
> 
> That is not what you stated, and that is not what I said. Referring to someone as an instructor has meanings on many levels. You said Gneral Choi was not in your lineage or family. Now you seek to change the debate.  To the extent that anyone does the Chang Hon forms, it is disingenuous to claim that General Choi is not in your lineage. They are his forms. Anyone who does them traces their lineage to him, like it or not.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 4, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> That is not what you stated, and that is not what I said. Referring to someone as an instructor has meanings on many levels. You said Gneral Choi was not in your lineage or family. Now you seek to change the debate. To the extent that anyone does the Chang Hon forms, it is disingenuous to claim that General Choi is not in your lineage. They are his forms. Anyone who does them traces their lineage to him, like it or not.


 
I don't see the discrepancy, sorry.  General Choi is NOT in my family tree nor in my lineage.  One MUST be in the instructorship chain somewhere, else the concept of a family tree would be far too overarching and general.  I suppose I might as well claim Gichin Funakoshi or Nam Tae Hi or anyone else who had a role directly or indirectly in creating the Chang Hon patterns into my lineage.  Now THAT would not only *disingenuous* but *laughable *too.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 4, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> dancingalone said:
> 
> 
> > It's a suburb of Austin, about 30 minutes from downtown. If there's an official school there that's news to me. quote]
> ...


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 4, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> Well, I think you're puffing up your numbers too much when you claim that there is largely accepted standard, hence my point about ITF membership... define 'those who follow the ITF where still formal members of the big 3 or not'. If your qualifier is simply that they practice the Chang Hon patterns, I'll argue you can't count them. My point is that more people exist that DON'T follow ITF guidelines (key point: sine wave) than do, all while studying the Chang Hon forms. So it follows that there are NO "largely accepted standards".
> 
> .


  I can't help but wonder if you really do not get my point. 

I agree that there are more fragments out there doing any number of things than those who follow ITF standards whether officialy members or not.  The point is that each of those fragments alone cannot be considered as following any single standard because they don't.  If you consider any single group following a particular standard as to the ITF forms, by far the largest is the ITF standard, whether officialy a member or imitating what is on the CD ROMs. 


An example was gentleman who came to me from another school. I am friendly with the instructor whose lteacher was Han Cha Kyo, an ITF pioneer and Chung Do Kwan Luminary.   As with many pioneers, including Jhoon Rhee and He Il Cho, their execution of the Chang Hon System techniques had a strong Chung Do Kwan Flavor. I also noticed those who trained with ATA pioneer HU Lee had the same flavor to a lot of their techniques. (When I had GM Nam Tae Hi teach at my school he still used some Japanese terms.)

Anyway, this gentleman who knew little about me remarked "You do the patterns like General Choi teaches."  I asked how he knew, and his response was that he had the CD ROMs.  Justy an example of non ITF people acknowledging the standard. 

So to say what I think you are saing) there is a greater population  of people but fragment following all sorts of local standards versus  a smaller  but  single large international population following a single standard is not a comparison of groups following a single standard.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 4, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> Nope. You seem to be arguing that General Choi always taught the same way throughout his career, and that might be the case from where you stand as probably a close associate of the General and the ITF. To those of us in the hinterlands, we see it as the ITF increasingly diverged and changed from its previous body of knowledge under the General's guidance in his later years.
> 
> quote]
> 
> First you need to define the time frame.  My first course with him was in 1990, and my last in 2002. I would say he was 95+% consistant, and out of that 5% some may have been communication issues.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 4, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> At this point, there are multiple ways of executing the Chang Hon forms, depending on which era you or your instructors learned them in. I fully concede that ITF members received the last word on how they should be done from General Choi. At the same time are any of the other interpretations wrong? No way. General Choi's place in tae kwon do history is secure, but his Encyclopedia is hardly the authoritative source of knowledge for EVERYONE in tae kwon do. There's nothing wrong with using or consulting a book or dvd from someone not named Choi Hong Hi.


 
The era of learning was a factor. Bigger factors were how much tiome was spent learning and the existing habits of many as I related earlier in my "Chung Do Kwan Flavor" comment. 

I have no problems with interpretations when represented as such. 

I do not generalize with regard to the encyclopedia being the definitive text for all who choose to do what they call TKD. It is however the definitive text for the Chang Hon patterns. 

If you disagree with this statement: "General Choi's Encyclopedia is the definitive text on the technical parameters of the  Chang Hon pattern system" then we will agree to disagree. 

There are ancilary works out there Like Tae Kwon Do Hae Sul, showing alternate applications for the pattern moves, but it is just that, an ancilary text, and a good one at that.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 4, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> I can't help but wonder if you really do not get my point.
> 
> I agree that there are more fragments out there doing any number of things than those who follow ITF standards whether officialy members or not.  The point is that each of those fragments alone cannot be considered as following any single standard because they don't.  If you consider any single group following a particular standard as to the ITF forms, by far the largest is the ITF standard, whether officialy a member or imitating what is on the CD ROMs.



No, I understand.  You want to separate the huge bucket of people who do non-ITF syllabus Chang Hon into hundreds of groupings since they are not identical to one another in day-to-day practice and because they are not aligned organizationally.  Since we're talking forms however,  I would say they're actually a majority group linked by their collective non-practice of sine wave theory.  More people don't do sine wave than do -> a lack of largely accepted standards.




> Anyway, this gentleman who knew little about me remarked "You do the patterns like General Choi teaches."  I asked how he knew, and his response was that he had the CD ROMs.  Justy an example of non ITF people acknowledging the standard.



I've never disputed that an ITF standard exists.  Just that it is largely accepted when you consider the entire population of taekwondoists that use the Chang Hon forms but would likely be considered technically incorrect by your criteria.



> So to say what I think you are saing) there is a greater population  of people but fragment following all sorts of local standards versus  a smaller  but  single large international population following a single standard is not a comparison of groups following a single standard.



I'm afraid my little peabrain blew a fuse trying to follow that one.  

Anyway, what really matters is that there's a multitude of tae kwon do styles, some using the Chang Hon patterns, some not, some with sine wave and more that don't.  In the end, it's all tae kwon do, and they're just different paths of reaching the same point.  Given that perspective, it's certainly fine for multiple media options to exist for one to learn or study the Chang Hon patterns.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 4, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> I do not generalize with regard to the encyclopedia being the definitive text for all who choose to do what they call TKD. It is however the definitive text for the Chang Hon patterns.
> 
> If you disagree with this statement: "General Choi's Encyclopedia is the definitive text on the technical parameters of the  Chang Hon pattern system" then we will agree to disagree.



I would add a few small (to me) qualifiers to that statement, so we undoubtedly would have to agree to disagree.  I did enjoy the conversation, though.  Thank you.


----------



## dortiz (Jun 4, 2009)

"There are ancilary works out there Like Tae Kwon Do Hae Sul, showing alternate applications for the pattern moves, but it is just that, an ancilary text, and a good one at that. "

Lol,
That and Simons book are on my desk here at work as I read.

Dave O.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 4, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> No, I understand. You want to separate the huge bucket of people who do non-ITF syllabus Chang Hon into hundreds of groupings since they are not identical to one another in day-to-day practice and because they are not aligned organizationally. Since we're talking forms however, I would say they're actually a majority group linked by their collective non-practice of sine wave theory. More people don't do sine wave than do -> a lack of largely accepted standards.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Well, I am confused as to how a bunch of disconected groups who do not share any standards are considered collectively as one group sharing no standard and are therfeore the larges group with a standard. I guess it is the standard of no standard?

Not sure how this became so focused on sine wave.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 4, 2009)

Quote:
So to say what I think you are saing) there is a greater population of people but fragment following all sorts of local standards versus a smaller but single large international population following a single standard is not a comparison of groups following a single standard. 
I'm afraid my little peabrain blew a fuse trying to follow that one. 

Anyway, what really matters is that there's a multitude of tae kwon do styles, some using the Chang Hon patterns, some not, some with sine wave and more that don't. In the end, it's all tae kwon do, and they're just different paths of reaching the same point. Given that perspective, it's certainly fine for multiple media options to exist for one to learn or study the Chang Hon patterns. 

Per my prior post. You seem to consider the non standards irrespective of any cohesion or lack of uniformity as being the largest group when they share little or nothing in the way of standard technical parameters. 
Your next statement ... "it's all tae kwon do ..." gives better insight into an all inclusive perspective. 

It is a different topic and one that has been explored but IMNSHO never resolved. That is "What is TKD? "   Extremes seem to range from being syllabus specific KKW, ITF. ATA, any old or new Kwan, any Korean Kicking and punching or their progeny, or none of the above.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 4, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> Well, I am confused as to how a bunch of disconected groups who do not share any standards are considered collectively as one group sharing no standard and are therfeore the larges group with a standard. I guess it is the standard of no standard?
> 
> Not sure how this became so focused on sine wave.
> 
> ...



As I stated, the common thing they share is a lack of sine wave movement despite still using Chang Hon hyung.  Since this discussion centers on the various Chang Hon pattern book(s), there should be no doubt why sine wave is a big topic.  

The most outwardly distinguishing quality of ITF people is your characteristic sine wave motion; ironically it may be your worst form of negative publicity, as it seems to raise the hackles of many tae kwon do people who might otherwise be favorably disposed to the ITF3.  In my opinion, General Choi's syllabus without the sine wave would be attractive to many disenchanted with the sports focus many KKW-affiliated schools have.



> "What is TKD? "



Yes, I am an inclusionist.  Essentially any art with a historical link back to the KTA unification talks can and should be able to call themselves tae kwon do.

tae kwon do Moo Duk Kwan guys who use the Shotokan forms = tae kwon do
ITF Taekwon-Do = tae kwon do
KKW taekwondo = tae kwon do
ATA Songahm tae kwon do = tae kwon do
independents that had links to the ITF at one point = tae kwon do
And so on.


----------



## StuartA (Jun 7, 2009)

dortiz said:


> Hi Guys my teacher B. K. Cho has put together a book detailing Tae Kwon Do and both the Chang On and Kukkiwon forms. Its awesome! Stuart, Simon and anyone else, I would love ideas on where to place it to help him sell them.
> Here is my Facebook link with some pics.
> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=438210&id=1324279200&ref=mf
> 
> ...


 
Hi Dave,

First of all apologies for replying to this issue so late. I believe Simon O'Neill has already suggested that you send it to TotallyTKD for an 'Honest John's" review.

Now, before you decide, I shoudl warn you that we have a small group of reviewers, totally anonymous, both ITF/WTF/indendant based. The book will be judged on its merits, not its affliation, but how well it will serve the whole of the TKD world.. obviosuly if a book has say a WTF slant, than this will be stated etc. The reviewers point out both good and bad points and leave the reader to decide if its a worthy purchase for them.

I say this not to put you off sending it, but to because obviously the author has a personal connection to you, which is a bit like singing in front of your family s opposed to Americas Got talent.. Mum says its fantatsic.. Simon Cowell may or may not! - I hope you see my point.

This thread has generated lots of discussion, and TBH, some of it may reflect in the review, not the posts here, but some of the trains of thoughts some have posted.. such as is the Ch'ang hon stuff the same as ITF standards, as they are valid questions a reviewer will be asking.. that said, there are many non-ITF people that do the Ch'ang hon form anyway, so I could say whether it would be a big issue with the reviewer or not, as I cannot speak for them anyway. Sucuringa review in TKDTimes or Black belt mag may help, but get them to commit to a review before sending it, as from what i heard.. big bucks speak the loudest there and not everything gets a big review.. mine didnt, despite sending them a copy from the UK!

Okay, Totally TKD aside.. ensure there is a web site to purchase the book from if it hasnt got an ISBN number.. if it has, get it on Amazon quick smart.. contact the publisher and get them to do it!

Regards,

Stuart

Ps. If the book is decent, people will buy it, whether ITF/WTF or not... its that simple really  However, they need to know about it first!


----------



## dortiz (Jun 8, 2009)

Thanks Stuart,
thats all helpfull. I know there will be some good and maybe lots bad. I already talked to him about the history. He went with the usual 3 kingdoms to Taekyon shazamo modern tae Kwon Do bit. I explained what folks really know already and the understanding of cultural pride. He said he is open to make changes in future runs. I am sure in the end there will be much more feedback.
I would buy it in minute for the tae Geuk break down and detail. Without a doubt save for the DVDs its a s good a documnetd and explained lay out as I have found. For ITF I worry. No Sine wave and I dont think as detailed. I will wait for your opinions though. I still find plenty to like and ans as most books see about half that works for me and half to make the shelf look fuller  : )
Its being mailed off and I will pursue the Amazon avenue.

Thanks for the input from you and everyone. I think it sparked good thoughts.

Dave O.


----------



## StuartA (Jun 8, 2009)

Dave,

I wouldnt worry about the ITF bit.. if its not aimed at ITF guys then that will probibly just be stated.. there are millions who do the Ch'ang Hon patterns that arnt in the ITF or follow their more recent changes.

Stuart


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 10, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> I'm in the Austin, Texas area. Texas is a big state, surely no need to go to Dallas or Houston (both of which are 3 hours away by car) to find a full ITF affiliate?
> 
> 
> 
> .


 

ITF Instructor Travis Young (I think) is still at the University of Texas at Austin TKD club. Came across a January 2009 article mentioning him there.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 10, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> ITF Instructor Travis Young (I think) is still at the University of Texas at Austin TKD club. Came across a January 2009 article mentioning him there.



Thanks.  I'm not familiar with Mr. Young, being well out of my university years.  The clubs are for students and faculty only; that's unfortunate because some of the people involved with these clubs and classes are world class.  

Years ago, I took 2 semesters of TKD at UT with the late Dr. Daeshik Kim, a KKW 9th dan.


----------



## tkd1964 (Jun 14, 2009)

I think what is being forgotten is that the Patterns are Taekwon-do techniques put in different sequences. These techniques are the Taekwon-do techniques as developed by Gen. Choi Hong Hi. You may be doing the sequences but if you are not doing the techniques as set down by Gen. Choi, you are not doing Taekwon-Do. You may be doing Tang Soo Do techniques or Chung Do Kwan( tang Soo). If a person did the patterns but used his Kung fu techniques, he would not be doing Chang Hun Taekwon-do. Just because you are not ITF does not mean you shouldn't be doing the Patterns ( Taekwon-Do techniqurs) as Gen. Choi developed them. There are many non ITF groups still doing the Techniques as Gen. Choi wanted them. In the states you have the USTF,Yom Chi, Chi TKD, etc. Taekwon-do patterns are more then just movements, it is the embodyment of the ART.

Taekwon!!

Mike


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 15, 2009)

tkd1964 said:


> I think what is being forgotten is that the Patterns are Taekwon-do techniques put in different sequences. These techniques are the Taekwon-do techniques as developed by Gen. Choi Hong Hi. You may be doing the sequences but if you are not doing the techniques as set down by Gen. Choi, you are not doing Taekwon-Do. You may be doing Tang Soo Do techniques or Chung Do Kwan( tang Soo). If a person did the patterns but used his Kung fu techniques, he would not be doing Chang Hun Taekwon-do. Just because you are not ITF does not mean you shouldn't be doing the Patterns ( Taekwon-Do techniqurs) as Gen. Choi developed them. There are many non ITF groups still doing the Techniques as Gen. Choi wanted them. In the states you have the USTF,Yom Chi, Chi TKD, etc. Taekwon-do patterns are more then just movements, it is the embodyment of the ART.
> 
> Taekwon!!
> 
> Mike




Mike, you're ignoring all the people who learned the Chang Hon patterns in General Choi's org sans sine wave.  They left the ITF and continued to practice and  teach the way they learned.  Later, General Choi chose to emphasize sine wave movement and those connected with him in this last phase of his life perform the patterns in the style you describe.

The older type movement may not be "Taekwon-Do", but it certainly is tae kwon do.

Maybe someone should start an ITF for non-sinewave pattern people.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 15, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> Mike, you're ignoring all the people who learned the Chang Hon patterns in General Choi's org sans sine wave. They left the ITF and continued to practice and teach the way they learned. Later, General Choi chose to emphasize sine wave movement and those connected with him in this last phase of his life perform the patterns in the style you describe.
> 
> The older type movement may not be "Taekwon-Do", but it certainly is tae kwon do.
> 
> Maybe someone should start an ITF for non-sinewave pattern people.


 
What I think you and others choose to ignore is that:
A. There are many  parameters in addittion to sine wave involved in the Chang Hon System which are omitted to any number of greater and lesser extent by many who think they do the system.  It would be one thing if they knew they did some variation, but usualy they are blissfully unaware. 
B. It is interesting to note that you feel those omitting any number of factors share a common bond simply because they have a single omoission in common. 
C. While the term "Sine Wave" did not appear until the 1980 encyclopedia the concept and execution appears in earier texts which refer to bending the knees.  In the 1970's we called it "Spring Style". 
D. Many of the Pioneers had strong roots in kwans which predated the Chang Hon system.  They developed habits which were characteristic of those systems such as the Karate / Shotokan / Chung Do Kwan keeping the head level when stepping and those habits carried thru to the students who learned the new system irrespective of whether the new system employed those habits. 


So, whether the old movement is "TKD" depends on whether you adopt the all inclusive definition. 

For purposes of most discussions it is unneccessary to answer this question since if you specify the Chang Hon system then you only need to address how it was intended to be performed. 

Coming from an early background of pioneers, having a single standard is a lot simpler than having various instructors all teaching differnt ways, especialy to lower ranks.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 15, 2009)

> What I think you and others choose to ignore is that:
> A. There are many parameters in addittion to sine wave involved in the Chang Hon System which are omitted to any number of greater and lesser extent by many who think they do the system. It would be one thing if they knew they did some variation, but usualy they are blissfully unaware.
> B. It is interesting to note that you feel those omitting any number of factors share a common bond simply because they have a single omoission in common.


I'd be interested in a few examples of what you describe in A, Mr. Weiss.  Functionally, I believe most striking styles, particularly the Korean systems that fall under the 'tae kwon do' umbrella are remarkably alike, when contrasted to so-called internal systems such as baquazhang.  Even the sine wave differences which have received so much attention in this thread is primarily cosmetic IMO, so I see no reason to differentiate so greatly between TKD styles.  I suppose it's in the eye of the beholder.  You might like ribeye and I might prefer tbone, but in the end both steaks are still beef.



> C. While the term "Sine Wave" did not appear until the 1980 encyclopedia the concept and execution appears in earier texts which refer to bending the knees. In the 1970's we called it "Spring Style".


Sure.  I even practice a version of the 'spring'.  Some styles call it grounding or even rooting when striking or blocking.  It's pretty widespread across striking systems.  Where I differ is with the exaggerated up and down movement seen in so many ITF videos today.  Some have explained that this exaggerated movement is actually a misunderstanding of General Choi's teachings, which is an entirely reasonable explanation.  As you've doubtlessly guessed, I'm not a fan.  

And whether you want to call it spring style or sine wave, the fact is that the large up-down movement did not manifest itself until the eighties or so, give or take 5 years.  This can be verified by comparing the pattern performance of TKD people according to when they or their instructor left the ITF.



> D. Many of the Pioneers had strong roots in kwans which predated the Chang Hon system. They developed habits which were characteristic of those systems such as the Karate / Shotokan / Chung Do Kwan keeping the head level when stepping and those habits carried thru to the students who learned the new system irrespective of whether the new system employed those habits.


I don't doubt this is the case.  Regardless, it doesn't address the fact that all these pioneers were card-carrying members of the ITF at one point and they were honored even as master instructors.  It seems a bit self-serving at this point to say they're not teaching TKD, just because they're not with the ITF anymore, no?



> So, whether the old movement is "TKD" depends on whether you adopt the all inclusive definition.
> 
> ...Chang Hon system then you only need to address how it was intended to be performed.



As I said above, tae kwon do is tae kwon do.  You may certainly use a more narrow term like 'Taekwon-Do' if you like and reserve it for your own use.  I have no interest in it.  However, as a Jhoon Rhee system dan holder, I certainly did learn the Chang Hon patterns and I certainly did practice tae kwon do.  If my hypothetical execution of the patterns suffer from a Chung Do Kwan taint, well then, perhaps the past leaders of ITF should be faulted for not making sure every single of their masters adhere to their standard.  A moving standard at that.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 15, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> I'd be interested in a few examples of what you describe in A, Mr. Weiss. .


 
Some quick examples: 

1. What are their specifications for stance lengths. 
2. Do they differentiate or classify most attacks as Piercing , striking and thrusting?
3. How do they classify levels of attacks for general parameters? Do they observe the same exceptions? 
4. How do they divide the body for vital spot differentiation such as high, middle or low. 
5. Do they follow General Choi's Tenets? (Yes I know they had roots in other things)
6. Do they follow points to be observed in the student / instructor relationship?
7. Do they use the same striking surfaces for techniques/ i.e outer edge of foot or bottom of the heel for side kick? 
8. Do they incorporate all of the techniques? For instance, just side kick, or Side -Piercing, Pushing, Checking, thrusting, checking, inward and outward pressing.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 15, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> I don't doubt this is the case. Regardless, it doesn't address the fact that all these pioneers were card-carrying members of the ITF at one point and they were honored even as master instructors. It seems a bit self-serving at this point to say they're not teaching TKD, just because they're not with the ITF anymore, no?
> 
> 
> 
> .


 
I can see how my post may have been misinterpreted to give such a broad based conclusion other than what I intended. 

First of all it has nothing to do with membership in any org. I have seen some independants more closely approximate what General Choi wanted than card carrying members. My post  was basicaly an acknowledgement as to how the various strains manifested themselves and how TKD was initialy spread.  

When I first started my instructor was under Chung Do Kwan luminary Han Cha Kyo. (There was also those  times when Nam Tae Hi accepted my invitation to teach at my school. ) So, when I later trained with some of his progeny or see those who trace their roots to the days when Jhoon Rhee or HU Lee were doing the Chang Hon system, I know very well where certain habits originated. 

At seminars / courses General Choi would see someone doing something a certain way. He would then ask who their instructor was. The response often met (not always) with an unflattering comment about the instructor. On one occasion the response was "Nam Tae HI'. General Choi's comment was "You have the right roots". 

As we all know "The roots" are only part of the process from which the plant grow. Part of it has to do with the fertilizer used. We all know where a lot of fertilizer comes from.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 15, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> I'd be interested in a few examples of what you describe in A, Mr. Weiss. Functionally, I believe most striking styles, particularly the Korean systems that fall under the 'tae kwon do' umbrella are remarkably alike, .


 
Well, to an an extent I agree that striking styles are remarkably alike.   All breeds of dogs are remarkeably alike yet some more different than others from each other. 

Now you get into a quantitative discussion as to how different is different? (OK, I know that really does not make a lot of sense, but I hope you get my meaning. )


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 15, 2009)

> 1. What are their specifications for stance lengths.
> 2. Do they differentiate or classify most attacks as Piercing , striking and thrusting?
> 3. How do they classify levels of attacks for general parameters? Do they observe the same exceptions?
> 4. How do they divide the body for vital spot differentiation such as high, middle or low.
> ...



Thank you.  Yes, I can tell you I learned some of this material but not all when I studied TKD.  Some of it can be attributed to my relatively junior rank of 2nd dan, some undoubtedly due to my instructor (a 5th dan) either not knowing or not teaching it.  There's little question that there are different styles of TKD.

In the end, does it matter though?  How many types of kicks do you have to know before you can be counted as a TKDist?  How must of General Choi's ideas or philosophy must you follow?  I'm really trying to understand what you are contending, Mr. Weiss.    

I've been very clear all along that I believe there are many different shades and styles of tae kwon do now, all with varying ideas and terminologies, both technically and philosphically.  Mike a few posts above was clear himself, saying you should follow the General's guidelines as you perform the Chang Hon patterns.  I disagree, having explained over and over again in this thread, the way you perform the patterns largely depends on whom your instructor was, and in my case, Mr. Jhoon Rhee was considered a master instructor by General Choi's ITF itself!  Nothing wrong with how I learned them...


----------



## tkd1964 (Jun 15, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> Mike, you're ignoring all the people who learned the Chang Hon patterns in General Choi's org sans sine wave. They left the ITF and continued to practice and teach the way they learned. Later, General Choi chose to emphasize sine wave movement and those connected with him in this last phase of his life perform the patterns in the style you describe.
> 
> The older type movement may not be "Taekwon-Do", but it certainly is tae kwon do.
> 
> Maybe someone should start an ITF for non-sinewave pattern people.


 
Sine-Wave is only part of Taekwon-Do as a whole. There are those who were part of the ITF who followed Gen. Choi and his teachings and those who were ITF in name only. This can be seen in their teaching of the techniques of Taekwon-Do ( whether Sine-Wave or not ) as well as the Do. What hurt the ITF is that Gen. Choi tried to get as many under the ITF umbrella first and then teach the Chang Hun system later. many were brought on without knowing the system. This is why you have videos of people on youtube doing patterns that look like Shotokan. Others look like they took the Taekwon-do  Book and learned from that. 
I feel that Gen. Choi's exile from South Korea actually helped Taekwon-Do since he had a smaller group that could be shown the actual techniques of the Art. This could be seen at seminars in the later years where veriations in techniques were much fewer and less time had to be spent on corrections.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 16, 2009)

tkd1964 said:


> Sine-Wave is only part of Taekwon-Do as a whole. There are those who were part of the ITF who followed Gen. Choi and his teachings and those who were ITF in name only. This can be seen in their teaching of the techniques of Taekwon-Do ( whether Sine-Wave or not ) as well as the Do. What hurt the ITF is that Gen. Choi tried to get as many under the ITF umbrella first and then teach the Chang Hun system later. many were brought on without knowing the system. This is why you have videos of people on youtube doing patterns that look like Shotokan. Others look like they took the Taekwon-do Book and learned from that.
> I feel that Gen. Choi's exile from South Korea actually helped Taekwon-Do since he had a smaller group that could be shown the actual techniques of the Art. This could be seen at seminars in the later years where veriations in techniques were much fewer and less time had to be spent on corrections.


 
Well put. Points often not known or not understood. Gneral Choi had to make a choice. Spend what time he could developing instructors and then spreading TKD on a large scale by dispatching many instructors to teach the system and worry about the finer points later, or develop a finely tuned uniform system and not be able to spread the system quickly and widely. He chosse the first, apparently hoping to refine technique later. However, circumstances intervened. 

Yes, from a series of courses during the 1980's you could see a huge move to a single standard on an international basis. 

Dancing also made a good point about some motions being overly exagerated. This occurred with "Hip Twist" as well. Many thought that "If some is good, more is better". 

However, to an extent many pattern motions, irrespective of system are exagerated.  Esthetics aside, a possible purpose for this was made apparent at RMCAT Adrenal stress conditioning program where they explained (It is  n0n-Martial Art Specific training) that they practice good body mechanics in large, exagerated fashion because motions become smaller and less effective under adrenal stress, and by exagerating them they will still be large enough and powerful under the adrenal stress, While they are saying this, I am thinking patterns.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 16, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> Well put. Points often not known or not understood. Gneral Choi had to make a choice. Spend what time he could developing instructors and then spreading TKD on a large scale by dispatching many instructors to teach the system and worry about the finer points later, or develop a finely tuned uniform system and not be able to spread the system quickly and widely. He chosse the first, apparently hoping to refine technique later. However, circumstances intervened.
> 
> Yes, from a series of courses during the 1980's you could see a huge move to a single standard on an international basis.
> 
> ...



That's an interesting statement about General Choi's intentions regarding instruction within his organization.  It goes a far way to explain why member technique was so divergent.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 16, 2009)

tkd1964 said:


> I feel that Gen. Choi's exile from South Korea actually helped Taekwon-Do since he had a smaller group that could be shown the actual techniques of the Art. This could be seen at seminars in the later years where veriations in techniques were much fewer and less time had to be spent on corrections.



Yes, but now the ITF(s) is so greatly fragmented and eclipsed by the numbers both KKW-affiliated and independent.  And the way things stand now, sine wave can and will prevent ITF-style TKD from being an engine for reunification of TKD martial artists.  KKW probably is more poised to make that move if it ever comes.

I am content with the current landscape.  I like the variety.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 16, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> I'd Functionally, I believe most striking styles, particularly the Korean systems that fall under the 'tae kwon do' umbrella are remarkably alike,


 
Was watching a show on destruction of the Orangutan habitat and thinking about this when the narrator said Humans and Orangutan DNA is 97% identical (OK, so I need to get a life). 

Remarkably alike applies to many things, but that 3%.....


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 16, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> Was watching a show on destruction of the Orangutan habitat and thinking about this when the narrator said Humans and Orangutan DNA is 97% identical (OK, so I need to get a life).
> 
> Remarkably alike applies to many things, but that 3%.....



Depends on what you consider germane, I suppose.  Most tae kwon do instructors I have met, whatever their style, tend to teach their students to maintain a defensive range that will enable them to end the fight with a high impact strike, probably a kick.  And that's your 97-98% right there - the rest is just cosmetics.

This is undoubtedly a generalization, but there's always some truth in generalizations else they would not exist.


----------



## tkd1964 (Jun 16, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> Yes, but now the ITF(s) is so greatly fragmented and eclipsed by the numbers both KKW-affiliated and independent. And the way things stand now, sine wave can and will prevent ITF-style TKD from being an engine for reunification of TKD martial artists. KKW probably is more poised to make that move if it ever comes.
> 
> I am content with the current landscape. I like the variety.


 
I agree and would say that I would not like a Unification but a mutual existence with the KKW/WTF. Both camps can exist together and have co-existed for 36 plus years( although the early years were troublesome):whip:

Taekwon!!
Mike


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 17, 2009)

tkd1964 said:


> I agree and would say that I would not like a Unification but a mutual existence with the KKW/WTF. Both camps can exist together and have co-existed for 36 plus years( although the early years were troublesome):whip:
> 
> Taekwon!!
> Mike


 

OT but a concept I have thought about as well. You can have cooperation without unification. 
 I can forsee all sorts of issues. For example if cooperation were to be from a competition standpoint, aligning sparing rules, and then what happens when  one group's members seem to dominate?  There are already some apparent issues of "Tree Trimming" or something like that, and by virtue of shear numbers to draw from WTF / KKW members would likely dominate.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 17, 2009)

Coincidentaly I was teaching Won Hyo Mon. Night and a student asked a question. Now, I have been doing this form since 1974, and probably teaching it in one form or another since 1976. Still, to answer the question I had to refer to the text. This got me to wondering about the "Other Books " out there. 

In fairness I do not have them all and just referring to a pattern volume would not be a fair comparison, but I could not help but wonder if the other books, collectivley for each author, contained information about parameters of say move #2 in this pattern. 

NOTE: I am not questioning whether or not those parameters may agree with what General Choi stipulates, simply whether they exist at all. These parameters would include:

Stance - Length, weight distribution, angles of feet and knees, how to classify right / left, available facings - Half, side, full, Primary uses of the stance, Definitions of general parameters for level of technique, high, middle or low and whether this fits the General parameter or is an exception, whether the strike is "Inward" "Front" or "Side" and what the parameters for those terms are.

I note that the scanned volume does not address what I believe to be a widely accepted standard for move #2 in Won Hyo (ITF or offshoot) and that is to bring the opposite side fist to the shoulder.  Does the poriginal poster know if this group performs the technique with or without this motion?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 17, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> Depends on what you consider germane, I suppose. Most tae kwon do instructors I have met, whatever their style, tend to teach their students to maintain a defensive range that will enable them to end the fight with a high impact strike, probably a kick. And that's your 97-98% right there - the rest is just cosmetics.
> 
> This is undoubtedly a generalization, but there's always some truth in generalizations else they would not exist.


 
I believe that Funakoshi was a proponent of the "One Technique for Victory" goal, so it predates TKD.  So at leat that part is not a TKD characteristic, but one shared by many arts.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 17, 2009)

I imagine none of them will other than General Choi's books.  But as you mentioned the pattern books by other authors serve an entirely different purpose.  They're meant to illustrate the base choreography, and you have to consult your instructor to fill in the gaps.  

General Choi's books go farther, but you have to consult pages across multiple volumes do you not, to get complete information on how to form a proper stance, etc?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 17, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> General Choi's books go farther, but you have to consult pages across multiple volumes do you not, to get complete information on how to form a proper stance, etc?


 
Well, yes and no. The curriculum is established so that before you learn a pattern you are supposed to have a good understanding of the techniques in that pattern. So you would learn the stance and movement first using whatever volume(s) you needed. This is further emphasized by the intro section for each patern containing "New Moves" for the pattern with any new or specific parameters for the move in the pattern stipulated. After you learn those things, then you learn the pattern so you would or should not need to refer to other volumes as you learn the pattern. 

for instance, you learn that "Inward" is to the chest line. So for #2 in Won Hyo, High Inward Knifhand, you do not need to return to the hand technique volume to learn it is to the Chest line. You would also have learned that high attacks are to eye level as a default parameter. But new moves section specifies it as to the neck artery level. 

Unless, like me you are getting older and tend to forget or confuse the other stuff I should know.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 17, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> I imagine none of them will other than General Choi's books. But as you mentioned the pattern books by other authors serve an entirely different purpose. They're meant to illustrate the base choreography, and you have to consult your instructor to fill in the gaps.
> 
> quote]
> 
> ...


----------

