# "True Taekwondo"



## Last Fearner (May 19, 2006)

This thread is in response to questions posed by upnorthkyosa in another thread, however, anyone else is welcome to join this discussion!

Ok . . . the topic is *True Taekwondo*. What do I mean by this? More importantly, how do I articulate this without writing a book here!  I'll give it a shot. To understand what True Taekwondo is, you must first understand what the term Taekwondo represents. In general terms, Taekwondo is another name for Korean Martial Art. It should not be confused with the hyphenated term "Taekwon-do" which became synonymous with General Choi's Oh Do Kwan, and later, the ITF. General Choi Hong Hi submitted the name to a committee in 1955, and it was approved by the Korean Government for one specific purpose, naming their National Martial Art. General Choi continued to use the term for his own teaching of what he had learned about ancient Taekyon and Japanese Shotokan Karate.

However, before we discuss Taekwondo, I should clarify what my interpretation of the Martial Art is. First of all, Martial Art training is a combination of physical skills, mental knowledge and philosophy, and walking a path of spiritual enlightenment. I define the "Martial Art" as a singular body of knowledge; not the commonly used plural term, "Martial Arts," which implies that there is more than one. There are many drops of water in the ocean, but when a drop is placed back in the ocean, it blends in with the rest of the drops, and you can no longer distinguish it from the whole. All the water of the Earth can be divided and called multiple names, but when you consider the *truth*, it is all the same water, shared, moved around, and consisting of the same components: H2O.

Water exists in three states of matter: liquid, solid, and gas. Humans exist in three states: body, mind, and spirit. Physical self defense has three aspects: Avoidance, redirecting, and counter techniques. Counter techniques includes: Striking, Holding, and Throwing. Grappling is a means to an end. You grapple to escape, to manage your opponent, or defeat your opponent by holding, injuring by pressure, or finishing with a throw.

It has been taught to me, that the ancient practice of Korean Subak, utilized wrestling and grappling skills. Taekyon was noted for using foot techniques, but hand strikes were prevalent as well. The Hwarang youth group practiced each of these with other military skills, and weapons. If we fuse all of this together, and continue to improve on the core knowledge as research, improved understanding, and modern application dictates, we have a complete Martial Art system native to Korea. If any techniques resemble those used in other countries, consider that the water they drink in each country is all H2O. Remove any pollutants, and you have pure water, which did not originate in any one country.

If the concept of a wheel is discovered in Korea, Japan, and China, they are all likely to look very similar (circular). Don't think that the similarities between Martial Art techniques indicates that one came from the other, but that they all evolved from the same laws of nature. However, mutual influences over time are inevitable. The presentation of modern Korean Martial Art was indeed influenced by the Japanese, but this is the vessel by which we contain, transport, and dispense the water. If drawn from a well in Korea, I can call it Korean water regardless of where the design for the cup from which I am drinking originated. 

My use of the term True Taekwondo implies that there is something that is not True Taekwondo. Many of us know that there are a lot of so-called Taekwondo schools that focus on one or two aspects, and neglect other important aspects (particularly, focusing on sports or exercise, and neglecting effective self defense, philosophy, and proper attitude). True Karate, true kung-fu, true anything of a Martial Art name is that which focuses on the positive aspects of life, contains a well balanced curriculum of body mind and spirit, contains a well balanced curriculum of striking, holding, and throwing, and can effectively be used for self defense. If it includes all of this, and is taught based on the historical elements of Korean Martial Art, then this is what I refer to as True Taekwondo.

All replies are welcome!
CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## Last Fearner (May 20, 2006)

This particular post is to specifically answer some questions that upnorthkyosa asked in another thread:



			
				upnorthkyosa - from another thread said:
			
		

> In Tang Soo Do, all of the traditional hyung have effective striking, blocking, locking, and throwing techniques. They are the common thread for us (unbeknownst to many Tangsoodoin unfortunately). From an educational perspective, having this common underlying thread tying everything together, is important. It shows a mature, well thought, and efficiently learned curriculum.
> 
> How is this done with the TKD that you have described as true TKD?


 
From my experience in Taekwondo, the progression of skills from basics to advanced, and the ability to defend yourself goes in stages. Each aspect of training does not necessarily provide technical self defense skills, but either conditions the body to be stronger with better reflexes, or conditions the mind for the type of techniques that could be used. Poomsae, in Taekwondo, are generally considered to be the first stage of simulated street defense. In themselves, they are not replicas of a street scenario, but individual skills contained in them would be extracted by the mind and utilized in self defense. The Poomsae are just one step in the direction of being proficient at self defense.

One-step sparring is viewed as the second stage. Here again, you learn certain skills (timing, distancing, accuracy, etc.) that will move you further in the direction of real-life self defense, but they do not recreate it exactly. 

Free Sparring (not tournament sparring, but self defense type sparring) is considered the third phase of simulated street defense. The final phase is, of course, actually fighting in the street, and learning from first-hand experience. However, since students are not encouraged to do this, phase three of Free Sparring must evolve to different levels of intensity, realism, and use of heavy pads to protect the attacker. Every kind of real-life scenario (including weapons, multiple attackers, and challenging environments) must be utilized. This is where many non-authentic schools fail.





			
				upnorthkyosa - from another thread said:
			
		

> In the last 20 years, I've had the opportunity to train with a number of TKD people. Here are a few things that I've observed...
> 
> 1. For the most part, TKD was generally viewed as a striking art.


 
The typical viewpoint in Taekwondo is that effective striking will end a conflict quicker, and safer than holding skills, or throwing techniques. Grappling while standing or on the ground, generally takes more time, is dangerous, and makes it difficult to defend against multiple attackers. 

However, this is where many fail to see the benefit of training in holding or grappling and throwing skills. It is the preference of a Taekwondoist to strike from a distance, but this should not exclude extensive training in the other areas of Korean Martial Art skills. Taekwondoists must remember to be well rounded, and prepared for every type of attack and defense scenario! Those that fail to do so, are not studying "True Taekwondo" in my opinion.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 2. Ho Sin Shul (Self Defense) sets were often an additional part of the curriculum and they looked suspiciously like poorly understood Goshinjutsu Kata.


 
I have seen many Taekwondo Instructors, and organizations offer Hoshinsul, Yudo, and Hapkido as additional classes, outside of the realm of Taekwondo. I have had it suggested to me to do this; mostly for increased income to charge students more for each. I think this is a mistake. I include all of the training as one "Korean Martial Art," and that art is known by many names. In Korea, and in my dojang, it is called "Taekwondo."

As for those that you described as looking like poorly understood Goshinjutsu kata, I can only surmise that these instructors were not trained properly in Hoshinsul, and picked it up on the side. This is unfortunate, and I believe we need a network of Masters who can help instructors learn these things thoroughly, and accurately.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 3. Basics, Forms, and Fighting were divorced from each other in the sense that no one blocked or struck in fighting in the ways that they were practicing with the basics and the forms.


 
I would have to see this to make a judgment call as to what might be happening here, but what you describe sounds like the way things are taught in the beginning levels, but which should be modified as the student advances. Basics are rarely like actual self defense, but we all should learn them, in my opinion. Advanced skills should look more like real-life self defense.

However, in Taekwondo, there are times when finishing maneuvers, and power techniques are practiced to hone those skills, but you never see those in sparring sessions. In real-life self defense, the deep stances, and full power hand or foot strikes are used about once during an entire fight (depending on the number of attackers). Sparring teaches the maneuvering, forms and one-steps teaches the finishing techniques, and self defense training should fuse the two together. Many fail to fuse in realistic self defense training sessions.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 4. If other techniques were practiced as basics, kicking techniques dominated with them occupying up to 90% of practice time.


 
It is typical among Taekwondo practictioners to spend a great deal of time on kicks. The philosophy is that the legs are longer and stronger than the arms, and make for a better weapon in self defense. Most people have natural coordination with their hands, thus teaching a person to punch or hand strike is not that difficult. It takes years of hard work to gain the skill associated with deadly accurate, and fast kicks. More time will naturally be spent on kicks, but I believe you may have observed those who have gone too far on the balance and might be neglecting other aspects such as being able to use hands without kicks, or joint locks and pressure points, or throws and ground fighting skills. 

Balance is the key. You can have a preference to kick before you hand strike, hand strike before you control with holds, or control before you move in close for a throw, or go to the ground. However, if you don't do enough training in each area, you will be vulnerable to those who prefer grappling, or ground fighting. Taekwondo *can* be stronger in Kicking, but *must* be sufficiently strong in all areas.

I hope this helps to answer your questions, upnorthkyosa! :asian: 
CM D. J. Eisenhart


----------



## Makalakumu (May 20, 2006)

Last Fearner said:
			
		

> This thread is in response to questions posed by upnorthkyosa in another thread, however, anyone else is welcome to join this discussion!
> 
> Ok . . . the topic is *True Taekwondo*. What do I mean by this? More importantly, how do I articulate this without writing a book here!  I'll give it a shot. To understand what True Taekwondo is, you must first understand what the term Taekwondo represents. In general terms, Taekwondo is another name for Korean Martial Art. It should not be confused with the hyphenated term "Taekwon-do" which became synonymous with General Choi's Oh Do Kwan, and later, the ITF. General Choi Hong Hi submitted the name to a committee in 1955, and it was approved by the Korean Government for one specific purpose, naming their National Martial Art. General Choi continued to use the term for his own teaching of what he had learned about ancient Taekyon and Japanese Shotokan Karate.
> 
> ...


 
Master Eisenhart

Thank you for your well thought out and philosophically sound explanation.  Your view of MA is almost exactly what Hwang Kee wrote in his books.  It's _Ryupa_.  In fact, I have to ask the question...were you influenced in any way by our late Kwan Jang?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (May 20, 2006)

First of all, I've never seen your school or true taekwondo, so I'm forced to make a few general assumptions.  I mean no disrespect by it and I am not trying to throw that blanket over every one.

:asian: 



			
				Last Fearner said:
			
		

> From my experience in Taekwondo, the progression of skills from basics to advanced, and the ability to defend yourself goes in stages. Each aspect of training does not necessarily provide technical self defense skills, but either conditions the body to be stronger with better reflexes, or conditions the mind for the type of techniques that could be used. Poomsae, in Taekwondo, are generally considered to be the first stage of simulated street defense. In themselves, they are not replicas of a street scenario, but individual skills contained in them would be extracted by the mind and utilized in self defense. The Poomsae are just one step in the direction of being proficient at self defense.
> 
> One-step sparring is viewed as the second stage. Here again, you learn certain skills (timing, distancing, accuracy, etc.) that will move you further in the direction of real-life self defense, but they do not recreate it exactly.
> 
> Free Sparring (not tournament sparring, but self defense type sparring) is considered the third phase of simulated street defense. The final phase is, of course, actually fighting in the street, and learning from first-hand experience. However, since students are not encouraged to do this, phase three of Free Sparring must evolve to different levels of intensity, realism, and use of heavy pads to protect the attacker. Every kind of real-life scenario (including weapons, multiple attackers, and challenging environments) must be utilized. This is where many non-authentic schools fail.


 
I'm not sure how this looks in your school and I have no idea what the poomse in the true taekwondo you are describing look like.  I have seen some of the most common TKD poomse and I've seen some of the one-steps that are practiced.  There seems to be a good connection between the techniques in the poomse and the one-steps.  I've got to give TKD props for this.  This, IMO, is how one-steps should be.  Often schools that use the "traditional hyung" (Pyung Ahns, Bassai, Naihanchi, Chinto, Rohai, etc...) have one-steps that in no way resemble the forms being practiced.  

However, there is still, IMO a disconnect.  From what I have seen, the concepts that are practiced with the one-steps are superficially used when the students spar.  Often, the one-steps that I have seen use techniques like Hadan Mahkee or Sangdan Mahkee or Ahneso Pakuro Mahkee to "block" a strike.  These "techniques" are not used when sparring.  And if they are, they often put the user in poor position or worse.  

I had the unfortunate experience of breaking a TKDists arm at an open tournament.  I threw a hard front kick and my opponent attempted to "down block" it just like he was practicing it in his one-steps (I was able to ask him afterward why he tried to do that).  I'm not trying to brag or disparage TKD in any way, I felt bad about that when it happened.  However, I think the lesson is clear, real practical blocking looks nothing like what is presented in the "interpretation" of these classical moves.



> The typical viewpoint in Taekwondo is that effective striking will end a conflict quicker, and safer than holding skills, or throwing techniques. Grappling while standing or on the ground, generally takes more time, is dangerous, and makes it difficult to defend against multiple attackers.
> 
> However, this is where many fail to see the benefit of training in holding or grappling and throwing skills. It is the preference of a Taekwondoist to strike from a distance, but this should not exclude extensive training in the other areas of Korean Martial Art skills. Taekwondoists must remember to be well rounded, and prepared for every type of attack and defense scenario! Those that fail to do so, are not studying "True Taekwondo" in my opinion.


 
I wholeheartedly agree.  Time needs to be made for all types of training.  Sometimes at the expense of "traditional" curricula.



> I have seen many Taekwondo Instructors, and organizations offer Hoshinsul, Yudo, and Hapkido as additional classes, outside of the realm of Taekwondo. I have had it suggested to me to do this; mostly for increased income to charge students more for each. I think this is a mistake. I include all of the training as one "Korean Martial Art," and that art is known by many names. In Korea, and in my dojang, it is called "Taekwondo."
> 
> As for those that you described as looking like poorly understood Goshinjutsu kata, I can only surmise that these instructors were not trained properly in Hoshinsul, and picked it up on the side. This is unfortunate, and I believe we need a network of Masters who can help instructors learn these things thoroughly, and accurately.


 
OK.  Here is the crux of my questioning.  In TSD, we practice the "traditional hyungs".  These kata include atemi, kyusho, tuite, nagete if you know how to interpret them.  Many TSD practicioners (and I would wager that this includes a great many TKDists) do not understand that this stuff was already in the forms so they began to bring in stuff from other arts in the form of separate lists.  Goshinjutsu kata is a common template.  

Now, I can't say whether or not new poomse in TKD connect all of the stuff that is traditionally connected to kata.  And that is one of the things that I'm wondering about.  This connection, IMO, is very important.  Without it, I think that one is left with an art that is a collection of concepts that may or may not fit well together.  



> I would have to see this to make a judgment call as to what might be happening here, but what you describe sounds like the way things are taught in the beginning levels, but which should be modified as the student advances. Basics are rarely like actual self defense, but we all should learn them, in my opinion. Advanced skills should look more like real-life self defense.
> 
> However, in Taekwondo, there are times when finishing maneuvers, and power techniques are practiced to hone those skills, but you never see those in sparring sessions. In real-life self defense, the deep stances, and full power hand or foot strikes are used about once during an entire fight (depending on the number of attackers). Sparring teaches the maneuvering, forms and one-steps teaches the finishing techniques, and self defense training should fuse the two together. Many fail to fuse in realistic self defense training sessions.


 
From what I have seen, basics are typically practiced at every belt level up to chodan.  At upper levels, one sees different techniques like Heecho Mahkee or Mong Dongi.  Most often, practicing these basics takes the form of line drills.  The gradiation that you are talking about is not apparent.  I think that this is because the interpretation of these classical moves misunderstands the real purpose behind them.  This misunderstanding, IMO, was passed down by Japanese shotokan and inherited by most TKD (and TSD) that I've seen.  



> It is typical among Taekwondo practictioners to spend a great deal of time on kicks. The philosophy is that the legs are longer and stronger than the arms, and make for a better weapon in self defense. Most people have natural coordination with their hands, thus teaching a person to punch or hand strike is not that difficult. It takes years of hard work to gain the skill associated with deadly accurate, and fast kicks. More time will naturally be spent on kicks, but I believe you may have observed those who have gone too far on the balance and might be neglecting other aspects such as being able to use hands without kicks, or joint locks and pressure points, or throws and ground fighting skills.


 
I think you are probably right.  I've seen alot of TKDist spend an inordanate amount of time on practicing very acrobatic arial kicks that are absolutely worthless in a self defense situation.  I imagine that true taekwondo discards them in order to practice things that are much more practical.  



> Balance is the key. You can have a preference to kick before you hand strike, hand strike before you control with holds, or control before you move in close for a throw, or go to the ground. However, if you don't do enough training in each area, you will be vulnerable to those who prefer grappling, or ground fighting. Taekwondo *can* be stronger in Kicking, but *must* be sufficiently strong in all areas.


 
Absolutely.  I'm very curious as to what this curriculum actually looks like on paper.  I think that alot of my questions as to how everything ties together would be answered by that.


----------



## Gemini (May 20, 2006)

Subscribing. opcorn:

Sorry for the enemic post, but sometimes it's time to post, sometimes it's time to listen. I'm listenintg.


----------



## bluemtn (May 20, 2006)

I'm subscribing...  This is very interesting!


----------



## Kacey (May 20, 2006)

As a Ch'ang H'on TKD practitioner (formerly ITF) I can see what you are both saying about segments of self-defense being lost - some was lost in translation (literally), some was dropped because it affected teaching time and methods (it wasn't popular, the time required to cover everything wasn't available in the class schedule, etc.), and some was not passed on - sometimes because the instructor had not learned it prior to emigrating to another country to teach.  

Regardless of the reason that various things were omitted, that led to students who, as they attained higher ranks, were not aware that those techniques had ever been a part of TKD.  Some of those students remain unaware to this day (and therefore their students don't learn them), some cross-trained in other arts, learned the 'missing' parts of the art, and 'imported' them (not realizing they had been there before), and some find ways to learn the omitted material as it originally existed; the latter two then pass those skills on to their own students.

However, while I can certainly see that many of the variations on TKD are not complete, I am not sure I consider them to not be *True Taekwondo* - pieces are missing, but how much has to be missing before it becomes something other than *True Taekwondo*?  What about those instructors who found a source for the parts that were lost (however it occurred), and added them from, say, Hapkido or Judo, never realizing that similar techniques had been there before - are they teaching something other than *True Taekwondo*?  Many of them _think_ they are... even if they aren't.  And what about the people who learned from their instructors pieces of the art from one of the original Kwans, and are not aware that there are missing pieces, who think that they are teaching *True Taekwondo*?  What about those instructors who use pieces of TKD and pieces of other arts to teach MMA?  How much variance and/or loss is enough to move away from *True Taekwondo*?  The loss of a single technique?  The loss of several?  20?  50?  A set of techniques (say, jump kicking)?  Or does it require the loss of an entire area - such as grappling, which is often absent?

I look forward to your responses and continued discussion on this thread.:asian:


----------



## Last Fearner (May 21, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> However, while I can certainly see that many of the variations on TKD are not complete, I am not sure I consider them to not be &#8220;True Taekwondo&#8221; - pieces are missing, but how much has to be missing before it becomes something other than &#8220;True Taekwondo&#8221;?


 
Kacey, you raise some excellent points. I would agree with you that there is a difference between that which is "incomplete" Taekwondo training, and that which I would consider to not be "True Taekwondo." Another reason that many westerners do not know the complete, and True Art of Taekwondo, is because many Koreans back then, and to this day, do not wish to share everything they know with "outsiders" (non-Koreans). Thus, many instructors are clueless of the fact that they are clueless - through little fault of their own. Now comes the part of the question you raised as to what point do I distinguish between "incomplete," and "not true Taekwondo."

Before I address that, let me say that from time to time, mention of various organizations and Grandmasters come up in these discussions. In particular, I find there is usually the need to clarify what has been accepted as the National Martial Art of "Taekwondo" in Korea, and the "Taekwon-do" that General Choi Hong Hi taught in his Oh Do Kwan. In no way do I ever wish to give the impression that I am implying that General Choi was less of a Martial Artist, or that his International Taekwondo Federation, or any of its students or instructors are of less quality or not as legitimate as anyone else. Every student, instructor, dojang within any organization needs to be assessed based on their own dedication, education, and performance.

I respect what General Choi did in his lifetime, and applaud his efforts to be innovative, teach his methods, and share it with the world. I know that many have called him the "Father of Taekwon-do," however, I believe this legendary title is a bit misleading. In the past, he has been referred to as the "Father of *Modern* Taekwon-do," but many simply shortened the title. "*Modern* Taekwon-do" refers to the modifications that he made when he created his "Ch'ang Hon" patterns, wrote his books, and structured his rank promotion criteria.  Since the term "Taekwondo" is also used by the Korean Government, and other Kwans to represent the ancient skills of Korea, it would be rediculous to assume that General Choi was the "Father" of all of this knowledge since it was in use long before he was born.

Furthermore, since a great deal of his influence was based in Shotokan Karate, and actually very limited in ancient Korean Martial Art (at least in the beginning), his teachings did not match with the other Kwans, and did not reflect the historical heritage that the Korean Government was looking for when they asked for a new name for their National Art. In any event, General Choi accomplished many wonderful things, and many of his followers are doing their best to represent "Taekwon-do" in his honor, and perhaps seek more from the ancient knowledge of Korean Martial Art.

Now, as far as how I differentiate between "incomplete Taekwondo," and what I believe is not "True Taekwondo," I would begin by saying that missing techniques is merely "incomplete" Taekwondo. Missing an *entire* category of skill sets, such as omitting throwing entirely, or having absolutely no ground fighting skills, or no pressure points or joint locking, would be more than just incomplete, it would *not* be "*True* Taekwondo" because of the loss of balance in abilities. Regardless of the reason why the whole set is missing, if it is not there at all, then the instructor needs to be taught "True Taekwondo."

I am never really concerned as to where they instructor seeks the missing parts, so long as they get it, I believe it becomes "complete Taekwondo." Ideally it would be nice if it came from any Korean Martial Art source. The concepts that I despise is so-called "cross-training," "mixed martial art," and the dreaded "eclectic marital art." I am more for gathering all of the parts to make the whole, and calling it what it really is *"Complete, and True Taekwondo."*

If an instructor were to remove forms (poomsae) completely (because they did not like it) or take out one-step sparring, or they decided not to do free sparring at all (this is a tough call, but...), I would say that this is "incomplete Taekwondo training," yet it does not mean that it is not "True Taekwondo." The elements of self defense (striking, holding, and throwing), must be there to be "True Taekwondo" regardless of how you convey the information. In recent times, new Poomsae, ever changing one-steps, and a variety of free sparring rules have been the preferred, and standard tools for conveying the knowledge of self defense, however, in my opinion, this is not what makes the Art "True."

A student must have the right attitude, manners, and respect. They must maintain the proper relationship with their instructor, and they must never misuse their Martial Art skills. However, equally important to all of these, is that they must be able to effectively defend themselves in a variety of situations, *AND*, if called upon to do so, be able to pass along the entire body of Taekwondo knowledge and skill, perfectly preserved, perhaps even enhanced, to the next generation. They must be able to teach the next generation how to do the same for a third generation perpetually. The inability of anyone to be able to do this, breaks the chain, and diminishes the Art. The Art must survive personal preferences, and individual shortcomings. This is "True Taekwondo."

CM D. J. Eisenhart


----------



## Last Fearner (May 21, 2006)

By the way....

I don't mean to lecture anyone in my posts, and I hope no one is offended by my cander.  I realize that there are others here, and around the world who have many years experience in Korean Martial Art, and their opinions might differ from mine - - I respect that!

These are just my opinions, and viewpoints offered for your consideration. :asian: 

CM D. J. Eisenhart


----------



## terryl965 (May 21, 2006)

Last Fearner said:
			
		

> By the way....
> 
> I don't mean to lecture anyone in my posts, and I hope no one is offended by my cander. I realize that there are others here, and around the world who have many years experience in Korean Martial Art, and their opinions might differ from mine - - I respect that!
> 
> ...


 
CM Eisenhart keep on lecturing and when the time is right I'll jump on my bandwagon and give my take on true TKD the way I believe it to be. Very interesting thread so far and I for one is enjoying it.
Terry


----------



## Kacey (May 21, 2006)

Last Fearner said:
			
		

> A student must have the right attitude, manners, and respect. They must maintain the proper relationship with their instructor, and they must never misuse their Martial Art skills. However, equally important to all of these, is that they must be able to effectively defend themselves in a variety of situations, *AND*, if called upon to do so, be able to pass along the entire body of Taekwondo knowledge and skill, perfectly preserved, perhaps even enhanced, to the next generation. They must be able to teach the next generation how to do the same for a third generation perpetually. The inability of anyone to be able to do this, breaks the chain, and diminishes the Art. The Art must survive personal preferences, and individual shortcomings. This is "True Taekwondo."
> 
> CM D. J. Eisenhart



Sir -

Thank you for a complete and well-considered answer.  As an Ch'ang H'on practitioner (we left the ITF a few years ago... again... which is a long story off the topic of this thread), I have less experience with the other Kwans than many TKD practitioners on this board, although I have tried to find out how the other Kwans practice, compete, and so on.  The issue of technique aside, I appreciate and fully agree with your definition, given above, about what "True Taekwondo" really is, and thank you for sharing it.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 21, 2006)

It sounds like TKD is in the same quagmire the much of TSD is in.  I've been working dilligently to create what you are talking about in regards to TKD.  

See this thread for our requirement sheets...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34158

Just as Hwang Kee stated so long ago, the backbone of our art are the hyung.  Almost everything in our curriculum comes from them.  I'm very curious as to how TKD pulls it all together...especially considering the fact that soo many organizations have ditched the "traditional hyung" in favor of their own poomse.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 28, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It sounds like TKD is in the same quagmire the much of TSD is in. I've been working dilligently to create what you are talking about in regards to TKD.
> 
> See this thread for our requirement sheets...
> 
> ...


 
I was just wondering if there were anymore thoughts on this.  I'm very curious as to how "true TKD" may be structured.  In TSD, it is the classical hyung that link the strikes, blocks, locks, and throws.  How does TKD do it without those?


----------



## bluemtn (May 28, 2006)

In   the dojang I used to attend when I was a lot younger, they did them outside of forms- like self defense practice.  Where I'm at now, we still do the more traditional hyungs (pyong ahn...).


----------



## Makalakumu (May 29, 2006)

tkdgirl said:
			
		

> In the dojang I used to attend when I was a lot younger, they did them outside of forms- like self defense practice. Where I'm at now, we still do the more traditional hyungs (pyong ahn...).


 
This is the same separation that I've noticed.  And I think that this is an important distinction.  On one hand, you've got TKD as most people think, and on the other, without that common thread of the classical hyung, I believe you have a MMA.  

There is nothing wrong with adding all of these techniques to one's MA practice.  In fact, I think it is a good thing.  However, I think that it's a bit of a stretch to say that they are all "true TKD" without seeing how they intitially and originally were tied together in the curriculum.  

Maybe it is "true TKD" as it is imagined by the practicioner, but then we are redefining words and concepts.  Some people may even get upset about the lineage of such matters (I wouldn't).  The bottom line is that when you practice the traditional hyungs, all of that stuff is there.  They were designed with strikes, locks, blocks, throws, escapes, etc in mind.  If you know how to read a hyung, then you know how to see them.  

And that is one way to see if all of these techniques were originally part of an art.  There may be other ways, I don't know.  Perhaps "true TKD" does it another way.  That is what I would be curious to find out...


----------

