# Is it disrespectful to ask your (ITF) master to teach you the old way of TKD punching (Karate)



## Axiom (Sep 12, 2017)

I would love to be taught in detail the striking mechanics that originally were part of General Chois system for 25 years, until sine wave came along. That is Chang Hon/ITF striking pre 1980, which had the same punching mechanics as Shotokan (according to my instructor, although stances are higher in TKD).

My question is: Would it be bad manners of me to ask the instructor who has been training since 1966 to teach me their original method of delivery, in depth? Is their Karate origin a sensitive subject to a dedicated master or how would he respond, you think?

You might say do Karate instead.. Well no, I prefer TaeKwonDos stances and overall training. And don't want to join a KKW school at the present moment.


----------



## Axiom (Sep 12, 2017)

How would master Earl Weiss respond? Would you be willing to teach it if the student seeks to learn both ways of punching?


----------



## JR 137 (Sep 12, 2017)

It would depend on how you asked and the teacher's personal beliefs. And if he/she was willing to teach it.

This isn't much different than asking my CI to teach me a kata I already know, but teach it the way it was done before changes.  Kata get changed, but most often the changes are subtle; things like hand position, where your eyes focus, perhaps a change like cat stance vs backward leaning stance, 45 degree turn instead of 90, etc. (although the last few aren't as subtle as the first few).  My CI has been in our organization for about 45 years, so it's safe to say he's seen quite a few changes.  Funny thing is he says whenever something gets changed, we usually go back to the original way within a few months anyway, so he really hates changing things unless his teacher explicitly tells him so.  

If I asked my CI outside of class and not in front of everyone in a way that implied I think the new way sucks and we should go back to the old way, I don't think he'd have a problem showing me.  I think he'd have a problem with it if I was doing the old stuff during class while everyone else was doing the current stuff though.  I don't think he'd care at all if I was practicing the old stuff on my own time and not getting everyone else to do it.

I could see a teacher being hesitant about showing stuff that's been changed. He might think you'll do it in class and others (especially lower ranks) will copy you while thinking it's right, then he'd have to go around and undo your influence.  I could also see him not wanting to teach it because he thinks the current way is better and why start to ingrain bad/less effective habits.

Asked the right way to the right teacher, I don't think it would be a problem.  Asked the wrong way and/or the wrong time, I'd foresee getting an answer of no.


----------



## Axiom (Sep 12, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I
> I could see a teacher being hesitant about showing stuff that's been changed. He might think you'll do it in class and others (especially lower ranks) will copy you while thinking it's right, then he'd have to go around and undo your influence.  I could also see him not wanting to teach it because he thinks the current way is better and why start to ingrain bad/less effective habits.
> 
> Asked the right way to the right teacher, I don't think it would be a problem.  Asked the wrong way and/or the wrong time, I'd foresee getting an answer of no.



I was thinking about asking after class when I'm a black belt, if he has less of a problem with it then since I've already been taught the fundamentals of the modern way of doing it. I have been training for 4 years and will recieve my black belt next year.


----------



## Axiom (Sep 12, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> Eugh I hate when people say that "you will recieve your black belt next year" well how do you know you will you may fail the test I just can't stand it when people say that like they know they're going to be given no matter what



Maybe because he gives me the thumbs up whenever I sidekick a mitts?  Has openly stated that I'm good, says I'm a great jumper. To hear that from a 9th dan who is a perfectionist is very gratefying. But my  journey has of course only begun.


----------



## jobo (Sep 12, 2017)

Axiom said:


> I would love to be taught in detail the striking mechanics that originally were part of General Chois system for 25 years, until sine wave came along. That is Chang Hon/ITF striking pre 1980, which had the same punching mechanics as Shotokan (according to my instructor, although stances are higher in TKD).
> 
> My question is: Would it be bad manners of me to ask the instructor who has been training since 1966 to teach me their original method of delivery, in depth? Is their Karate origin a sensitive subject to a dedicated master or how would he respond, you think?
> 
> You might say do Karate instead.. Well no, I prefer TaeKwonDos stances and overall training. And don't want to join a KKW school at the present moment.


i don't,see any disrespect in asking, well not to the instructor anyway, but my time on here has,shown me there are some odd people teaching ma, by that i don't mean my fellow posters, most of whom are quite normal.

but in the way that some might take that as a disrespectful,comment to the,art as instructed and there to themselves as the instructor, only you know the culture of the place


----------



## Axiom (Sep 12, 2017)

jobo said:


> i don't,see any disrespect in asking, well not to the instructor anyway, but my time on here has,shown me there are some odd people teaching ma, by that i don't mean my fellow posters, most of whom are quite normal.
> 
> but in the way that some might take that as a disrespectful,comment to the,art as instructed and there to themselves as the instructor, only you know the culture of the place



Yes, they do seem to carry themselves with greater pride than say a boxing coach, which is fine, but that's why I asked here.


----------



## Axiom (Sep 12, 2017)

Not that it is at all comparable in quality, but I wouldn't hesitate asking a boxing coach to teach me old school bare knuckled boxing mechanics.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 13, 2017)

Folks, get it back on topic... this isn't a thread about sidekicks or promotions...


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 13, 2017)

You should be able to ask your instructor about any aspect of your training without anyone being offended. They may or may not provide you with the specific training you're asking for, depending on how they view the sine-wave vs non-sine-wave techniques. But discussing the differences should never offend anyone.


----------



## Archtkd (Sep 13, 2017)

Axiom said:


> I would love to be taught in detail the striking mechanics that originally were part of General Chois system for 25 years, until sine wave came along. That is Chang Hon/ITF striking pre 1980, which had the same punching mechanics as Shotokan (according to my instructor, although stances are higher in TKD).


Have you mastered your teacher's methods before thinking asking him to teach you stuff that does not exist in his current curriculum? There's a reason your teacher is not teaching you what you think "was part of General Choi's system for 25 years."


----------



## Axiom (Sep 13, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> You should be able to ask your instructor about any aspect of your training without anyone being offended. They may or may not provide you with the specific training you're asking for, depending on how they view the sine-wave vs non-sine-wave techniques. But discussing the differences should never offend anyone.



We have talked and he has demonstrated to me how they used to throw punches. But what I seek is private lessons in it.


----------



## Axiom (Sep 13, 2017)

Archtkd said:


> Have you mastered your teacher's methods before thinking asking him to teach you stuff that does not exist in his current curriculum?



I don't know, and I don't know if that's a condition either to be taught the old school way in private.


----------



## Gnarlie (Sep 13, 2017)

Axiom said:


> I don't know, and I don't know if that's a condition either to be taught the old school way in private.


Here's a hint: you haven't, and it is. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 13, 2017)

Axiom said:


> I would love to be taught in detail the striking mechanics that originally were part of General Chois system for 25 years, until sine wave came along. That is Chang Hon/ITF striking pre 1980, which had the same punching mechanics as Shotokan (according to my instructor, although stances are higher in TKD).
> 
> My question is: Would it be bad manners of me to ask the instructor who has been training since 1966 to teach me their original method of delivery, in depth? Is their Karate origin a sensitive subject to a dedicated master or how would he respond, you think?
> 
> You might say do Karate instead.. Well no, I prefer TaeKwonDos stances and overall training. And don't want to join a KKW school at the present moment.


I wouldn't consider it rude, if it was asked the right way. In fact, I deal with this regularly. I changed some of the classical forms for my curriculum. Sometimes students ask me to show them the mainline versions, as I learned them. I always say yes, and try to point out the key differences, and what I like best about each approach.

Others may have different thoughts, including your instructor.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> by that i don't mean my fellow posters, most of whom are quite normal.


I object to that kind of name-calling!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 13, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> You should be able to ask your instructor about any aspect of your training without anyone being offended. They may or may not provide you with the specific training you're asking for, depending on how they view the sine-wave vs non-sine-wave techniques. But discussing the differences should never offend anyone.


DD, I've heard this "sine wave" mentioned before, in this context. What is it?


----------



## Axiom (Sep 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> DD, I've heard this "sine wave" mentioned before, in this context. What is it?



Rejection of hip twist in favor of a down, up, down motion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 13, 2017)

Gnarlie said:


> Here's a hint: you haven't, and it is.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


How can you assert that it's a requirement for learning the older way? That's a decision for his instructor.


----------



## Gnarlie (Sep 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> How can you assert that it's a requirement for learning the older way? That's a decision for his instructor.


Maybe, but I think it unlikely that an instructor would be willing to teach something off-syllabus when the on-syllabus variant has not been mastered. It would be didactically poor practice. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 13, 2017)

Gnarlie said:


> Maybe, but I think it unlikely that an instructor would be willing to teach something off-syllabus when the on-syllabus variant has not been mastered. It would be didactically poor practice.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


Unless there's something useful to be gained by understanding the other way, too. Or, at least, nothing harmful about learning it.


----------



## Axiom (Sep 13, 2017)

Gnarlie said:


> Maybe, but I think it unlikely that an instructor would be willing to teach something off-syllabus when the on-syllabus variant has not been mastered. It would be didactically poor practice.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



I don't see how since it's not part of a formal class if I ask him to give me private instruction. And he does have some time over after class, and usually don't mind instructing some more. TaeKwondo is not his occupation, it's his life. That sort of guy.


----------



## Axiom (Sep 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Unless there's something useful to be gained by understanding the other way, too. Or, at least, nothing harmful about learning it.



The paradox is that he does emphasis a karate like hip-twist in some of the pads practise. But in forms it's sine wave. I would like to learn it in forms, in-depth.


----------



## Axiom (Sep 13, 2017)

Sorry, *boxing*-like hip-twist. not Karate. using your entire body when punching pads..


----------



## Axiom (Sep 14, 2017)

Double post.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 14, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> DD, I've heard this "sine wave" mentioned before, in this context. What is it?



It's using an up & down bouncing motion to develop power, rather than twisting.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 14, 2017)

Off topic posts split off.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 14, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> It's using an up & down bouncing motion to develop power, rather than twisting.


When was the change made? And what drove it?


----------



## Axiom (Sep 14, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Off topic posts split off.



Thank you


----------



## Axiom (Sep 14, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> When was the change made? And what drove it?



In a nutshell, to differentiate itself from Karate. Introduced in a seminar in 1980.

Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy

This is of particular interest:

_*Sitting Stance Punch*_
Both subject’s punches with one hand were harder using the sine wave and their punches with the other were weaker using it.  However the differences in power generated were small, as low as 0.25% in one case. On average, the difference in power generated using the sitting stance punch with and without sine wave was negligible.

_*Walking Stance Reverse Punch*_
One subject punched harder with one hand using sine wave and harder with the other without it. The other punched harder without sine wave with both hands. On average, *the force generated from a reserve punch in walking stance without using the sine wave was 4% higher than the same technique using sine wave.*


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 14, 2017)

Axiom said:


> In a nutshell, to differentiate itself from Karate. Introduced in a seminar in 1980.
> 
> Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy
> 
> ...




Mmm. An interesting choice of article.


----------



## Axiom (Sep 14, 2017)

This was also interesting but not surprising:
_*
Boxing style punch*
Subjects were required to assume a regular boxing style stance and punch from their back hand using standard boxing technique (i.e. hands up, chin down, turning shoulder into the punch etc). *On average, this type of punch was found to be 30% more powerful than the traditional punches*_

Although my cousin who's a top 15 pro boxer, and has sparred Wladimir Klitchko, still concider Karate punches better bare knuckled in a street fight, although he never trained Karate. Because the hands will break easier with boxings haymakers.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 14, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> When was the change made? And what drove it?



I was introduced to it in the mid-'70's. Gen Choi believed it to be a superior method of power generation, although I've never found that to be true.

As an instructor, I'm always happy to work with students on different ways to perform a technique. I honestly cannot imagine one of our students being afraid to ask me a question about anything we teach for fear of offending me.


----------



## Axiom (Sep 14, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> I was introduced to it in the mid-'70's. Gen Choi believed it to be a superior method of power generation, although I've never found that to be true.
> 
> As an instructor, I'm always happy to work with students on different ways to perform a technique. I honestly cannot imagine one of our students being afraid to ask me a question about anything we teach for fear of offending me.



I never had it explained to me why we perform it in forms only, if it is indeed a more powerful/superior method. Any ideas?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 14, 2017)

Axiom said:


> I never had it explained to me why we perform it in forms only, if it is indeed a more powerful/superior method. Any ideas?



The principles taught by learning poomsae should carry over to all aspects of your MA training. If they're not, then I'd say you're not learning the principles correctly (as has been mentioned by several people, poomsae is a LOT more than just memorizing movements), or that the principles are flawed. 
Personally, I've never found sine-wave to be a superior method of generating power. I neither practice it routinely nor teach it, as a rule, although I've had the occasional student ask about it (usually after watching YouTube videos) and I'm happy to show them how it works.
Having said that, I will also say that while I do not care for sine-wave in general, there are certainly specific techniques (downward hammerfists or elbows, for example) which will certainly benefit from this method of power generation.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 14, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> I was introduced to it in the mid-'70's. Gen Choi believed it to be a superior method of power generation, although I've never found that to be true.



Is StuartA still around, he's still a member I think though haven't seen him on here for a long time. The ideal person to explain if he is.


----------



## Axiom (Sep 14, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> The principles taught by learning poomsae should carry over to all aspects of your MA training. If they're not, then I'd say you're not learning the principles correctly (as has been mentioned by several people, poomsae is a LOT more than just memorizing movements), or that the principles are flawed..



Nah, the instructor states explicitly that "patterns are sine wave, "mitts/pad practise we twist our hip (although more boxing-like mechanics than Karate). And I don't for the life of me understand why. That's not even mentioning sparring where of course sine wave is nowhere to be found.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 14, 2017)

Axiom said:


> Nah, the instructor states explicitly that "patterns are sine wave, "mitts/pad practise we twist our hip (although more boxing-like mechanics than Karate). And I don't for the life of me understand why. That's not even mentioning sparring where of course sine wave is nowhere to be found.



I think you just proved my point. Thanks.


----------



## Axiom (Sep 14, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> I think you just proved my point. Thanks.



That my TKD is disjointed mess?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 14, 2017)

Axiom said:


> That my TKD is disjointed mess?



Apparently, judging only by what you say. Whether that is a problem with the teaching or the student cannot be determined with certainty in this forum.


----------



## Axiom (Sep 14, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Apparently, judging only by what you say. Whether that is a problem with the teaching or the student cannot be determined with certainty in this forum.



I'm not sure what my part plays in the instructions I just quoted. Perhaps it's a structural problem within the ITF? How was your experience learning the art?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 14, 2017)

Axiom said:


> I'm not sure what my part plays in the instructions I just quoted. Perhaps it's a structural problem within the ITF? How was your experience learning the art?


I think his point is that we can only see this through your eyes, so if you misunderstood something, we wouldn't be able to see that.


----------



## Axiom (Sep 14, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think his point is that we can only see this through your eyes, so if you misunderstood something, we wouldn't be able to see that.



I think the quotes I gave speak for themselves


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 14, 2017)

Axiom said:


> I'm not sure what my part plays in the instructions I just quoted. Perhaps it's a structural problem within the ITF? How was your experience learning the art?



Your understanding (or lack thereof) of what you're taught is not something we can really judge, since we only see what you have to say about it. Based only on what you say, I'd be inclined to think the problem lies in your understanding, but that's only an inclination, not a certainty by any means.

I've not trained with the ITF in many years, and I only trained through them to 3rd Dan. I started prior to sine-wave (1969) and some ITF schools I trained at never did adopt it. However, I can say that I've never personally trained in any school (ITF, KKW or MDK) that said "do this only in poomsae, not in sparring" about anything. Specific movements used in poomsae will need to be modified by circumstances during actual use, but the underlying principles taught through poomsae are still valid. Assuming you've understood them in the first place. As I think I said, based solely on what you've written here, you seem to lack understanding of these principles (i.e. your statement that you just need to memorize movements of a poomsae).
Of course, I never trained anyplace that handed out Dan ranks as participation awards, either.


----------



## Archtkd (Sep 14, 2017)

Axiom said:


> We have talked and he has demonstrated to me how they used to throw punches. But what I seek is private lessons in it.


So you will pay for regular classes and pay extra for personal classes to learn the things that he doesn't teach? That's not a bad business proposition -- and in many place here in the U.S, we'd be talking $75-$100 an hour. I'm often amazed at the lengths students will go to corrupt the best of teachers.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 14, 2017)

Archtkd said:


> So you will pay for regular classes and pay extra for personal classes to learn the things that he doesn't teach? That's not a bad business proposition -- and in many place here in the U.S, we'd be talking $75-$100 an hour. I'm often amazed at the lengths students will go to corrupt the best of teachers.


How are private lessons corrupting the teacher?


----------



## TrueJim (Sep 15, 2017)

It doesn't happen often, but we do have parents ask for some private lessons for their children. We don't push private lessons, but we'll oblige when asked -- of course, there's a fee for a private lesson. Like, maybe a student has been stuck on some topic for a long time, and the parent is willing to pay for a 1-on-1 hour to help the student get over the hump. I didn't realize we were being corrupted though.


----------



## kmorrisonnyc (Sep 15, 2017)

FWIW, I see this as similar to the debate around being taught the 'lost' or 'forgotten' patterns - I think they were Ko-dang and/or U-nam - per the book titled the '16th volume' of the ITF encyclopedia. Personally - and not to take this off on a tangent - I don't believe they were ever 'lost'. There was a conscious decision to stop doing them and they are no longer part of the syllabus.

Now I have no issue with someone wanting to learn them and understand the history. However, the way that I look at it is that I have so much to learn that I don't have the time to spend any real amount of time perfecting it.

Another perspective - I hold Dan grades in both ITF-Style TaeKwon-Do and from the Kukkiwon. At one point I tried to do both styles simultaneously and I personally could not - the styles were too different and I started to incorporate part of the other into the other style.

So basically I do not think it is disrespectful to ask the question or to understand what came before - far from it - however I'd be more focused on understanding the why versus spending any real time on perfecting the performance of it.


----------



## kmorrisonnyc (Sep 15, 2017)

I should add - incorporating things from different arts is not a bad thing. But I'm talking about the fundamentals in my post above.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 15, 2017)

kmorrisonnyc said:


> FWIW, I see this as similar to the debate around being taught the 'lost' or 'forgotten' patterns - I think they were Ko-dang and/or U-nam - per the book titled the '16th volume' of the ITF encyclopedia. Personally - and not to take this off on a tangent - I don't believe they were ever 'lost'. There was a conscious decision to stop doing them and they are no longer part of the syllabus.
> 
> Now I have no issue with someone wanting to learn them and understand the history. However, the way that I look at it is that I have so much to learn that I don't have the time to spend any real amount of time perfecting it.
> 
> ...


I can see how there might be some conflict, trying to learn both at once, or even trying to continue one while learning the other. I see this when I get a student who has other training, especially if they are maintaining that previous training.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 15, 2017)

Axiom said:


> Nah, the instructor states explicitly that "patterns are sine wave, "mitts/pad practise we twist our hip (although more boxing-like mechanics than Karate). And I don't for the life of me understand why. That's not even mentioning sparring where of course sine wave is nowhere to be found.





Axiom said:


> That my TKD is disjointed mess?



I have visited more than one TKD school where the forms used one set of body mechanics, sparring used a different set, and the "self-defense" curriculum used something entirely different. Doesn't seem to be the most effective approach to teaching, in my opinion.

However it's been over 30 years since I attended any TKD classes, so I couldn't say how widespread the issue is these days or if it's more prevalent in one organization than another.


----------



## Axiom (Sep 15, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I have visited more than one TKD school where the forms used one set of body mechanics, sparring used a different set, and the "self-defense" curriculum used something entirely different. Doesn't seem to be the most effective approach to teaching, in my opinion.
> .



Agreed, and probably my main issue... So while you get good at specific things, you aren't *systematically* trained like a boxer where everything is interrelated to each other in the training. Boxers rarely do things that have no bearing on their fighting. 

But, Taekwondo has some effective techniques, you get a good sweat, and it's fun.


----------



## Archtkd (Sep 16, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> How are private lessons corrupting the teacher?



It’s tongue in cheek. I was implying the OP might be giving his teacher new ideas to generate more cash by teaching old and discarded stuff to a select and chosen few.

Without derailing this thread further, but more seriously though, we know there are teachers out there who structure regular curriculum to boost a more lucrative private classes line of business. There’s nothing wrong with making more money – after all the majority of martial arts school in the US are for-profit enterprises – but there could be ethical concerns when said teachers tweak curriculum for the sole purpose of boosting profit, unbeknownst to students who think they are learning cool, advanced or necessary stuff, in the best way.

I recall attending a taekwondo seminar a few years ago along with a large number of other taekwondoin, some of who are/were members of Martialtalk, and we were all stunned as one “grandmaster” boastfully explained his main rationale for teaching poomsae in quarterly sessions and his plans to buy a Bentley. I.e members of his dojang might only learn Taeuguk Il Jang – Sam Jang – in the first quarter of the year; Oh Jang – Chil Jang in the second quarter, etc. When we asked him how he accommodated students enrolling in mid session or student who already knew a set for poomsae and wanted to learn other poomsae, he answered with a big grin, “private classes.” That was in front of some parents of students the “GM” had brought to the seminar as a demo team.

I’ve not answered OP's question with the above, but I am saying that his teacher may not completely care for the old stuff or think it’s useful, but will teach it if offered money to do so. I also think the OP may be better served by learning his grandmaster’s current curriculum in detail and allowing his grandmaster over time to teach him how that curriculum evolved from the old, at no extra cost.


----------



## Gnarlie (Sep 17, 2017)

I find it odd that philosophically the Do of Taekwondo is about living in the present moment and yet so many practitioners are concerned with what was rather than what is.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 17, 2017)

Axiom said:


> So while you get good at specific things, you aren't *systematically* trained like a boxer where everything is interrelated to each other in the training. Boxers rarely do things that have no bearing on their fighting.



There's many a bad boxing coach who is doing it for the money. What you are complaining about is human nature not a style of martial arts.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Sep 28, 2017)

Axiom said:


> Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy


I have read that article. The study was very limited and inconclusive.


----------



## TrueJim (Sep 29, 2017)

Gnarlie said:


> ...so many practitioners are concerned with what was rather than what is....



...and so upset about what's happening at the dojang down the street.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 12, 2017)

Axiom said:


> Rejection of hip twist in favor of a down, up, down motion.


This is not accurate although some of have to this conclusion based upon a single snippet from a Video where General Choi says "Don't twist your body".  (Note he does not say "Don't twist your hips". )  IMO he was trying to reduce excessive shoulder rotation in that particular instance. SW and Hip twist are not mutually exclusive and General Choi specifically taught employing muscles of the hip and abdomen when punching along with the knee flex that gave the resulting SW motion.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 12, 2017)

Axiom said:


> How would master Earl Weiss respond? Would you be willing to teach it if the student seeks to learn both ways of punching?


1. I can not speak to any instructor's potential reaction. 
2. It should take all of about 10 minutes to have  teach a student to  to eliminate the initial "Down" motion of SW and keep your head level as you punch by reducing your knee flex.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 12, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> When was the change made? And what drove it?



This is a topic of much debate. The term SW does not appear until the encyclopedia circa 1980 or so but prior to that the books mentioned knee spring and many of us did what was often referred to as "Spring Style" as early as 1972 . I can't speak to earlier times since that is when I started.  Genral choi recruited intructors with various roots who did not change their habits which proliferated thru their progeny for various lengths of time.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 12, 2017)

Axiom said:


> In a nutshell, to differentiate itself from Karate. Introduced in a seminar in 1980.
> 
> Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy
> 
> *.*


This may have been when the term was introduced, but not the methodology.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 12, 2017)

[QUOTE="Axiom, post: 1862166, member: . That's not even mentioning sparring where of course sine wave is nowhere to be found.[/QUOTE]
Depends how you spar. If you flex your knees while using your hands that is SW.  It is certainly less stylized than in patterns but so is punching.


----------



## skribs (Oct 31, 2017)

I would ask your instructor.  If he says no, I would take Karate and learn the intricacies of their punches that you seek, and then use them in combination with the Taekwondo stances.  I don't see any reason you can't learn multiple disciplines and combine them into what you want to do.


----------



## DanT (Nov 2, 2017)

I have no clue what "Sine Motion" is.

Can someone break down the differences and what was changed for me?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Nov 2, 2017)

DanT said:


> I have no clue what "Sine Motion" is.
> 
> Can someone break down the differences and what was changed for me?


I will try to give a brief description.   In many karate systems if you are doing sitting / horse stance punches your knees do not flex and your head remains level.   Similarly when Karateka step their head tends to remain level.    Prior to his 1980 Text General Choi used the term "Knee Spring"  to describe flexing the knees when you performed hand techniques.  
 In the 1980 15 Volume encyclopedia he used the term "Sine Wave" as a metaphor to describe how the head would move up and down in a smooth fashion describing a curved line if you were moving forward or backward and used the metaphor "Flat Wave" for no up and down as was noted for some Karate systems and "Saw tooth" wave as being a sharp angular up and down motion.  
In the early days although he verbalized  "Up / Down" to denote what he wanted there was a slight initial relaxation / down before he began the "Up" portion.  (My experience with him in 1990) A simple comparison would be to have someone stand up with knees somewhat relaxed and ask them to jump up.  They would most likely have a slight downward motion before they went up. 
When I next took a course with him in 1994 he would often verbalize it or explain it as down / up / down. 
There was recently a comparison someone did with recent ITF pattern performance versus the "Legacy" series of Video GCHH prodiced which note dho the sine wave motion seems to have become more exaggerated.


----------



## TrueJim (Nov 2, 2017)

DanT said:


> I have no clue what "Sine Motion" is.
> 
> Can someone break down the differences and what was changed for me?



Taekwondo Sine Wave


----------



## DanT (Nov 2, 2017)

I see. In Northern Shaolin Kung Fu we emphasize keeping the head level when punching and stepping. Thanks for the information.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 3, 2017)

DanT said:


> I see. In Northern Shaolin Kung Fu we emphasize keeping the head level when punching and stepping. Thanks for the information.


As do we in Nihon Goshin Aikido. I need to get together with my brother and have him teach me this "sine wave" approach (he holds rank in TKD), to see what I can glean from it.


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 4, 2017)

Hey look an axiom post that's not been locked yet


----------

