# WTF clubs that credits General Choi as founder and/or developer of TaeKwonDo



## Axiom

A Swedish Taekwondo club writes the following (excerpts):

_"We train WTF TaeKwondo..."

"Taekwondo is a Korean art of self defence founded over 2000 years ago and developed by General Choi"
_
Chae Taekwondo Malmö

General Choi had nothing to do with the Taeguk forms these people practise.... How common is it that TKD styles he had nothing to do with still credits him?


----------



## andyjeffries

Very rare I'd say.

Most Kukkiwon/WTF/WT/Kwan dojangs are more integration focused and credit a group of people for coming together, putting aside differences and forming a unified martial art.

However, I guess some instructors have read somewhere that he was the founder, see that as fact and like to credit him. While dan rank isn't everything the head instructor of that dojang is only a 4th Dan, so maybe he hasn't read up as much on history as others have. Or maybe he has and still believes in the Choi propaganda that he was the founder. Who knows...


----------



## Tez3

andyjeffries said:


> Who knows...



who cares? Most people are too busy training to worry what others do, think or believe.


----------



## Axiom

andyjeffries said:


> Very rare I'd say.
> 
> Most Kukkiwon/WTF/WT/Kwan dojangs are more integration focused and credit a group of people for coming together, putting aside differences and forming a unified martial art.
> 
> However, I guess some instructors have read somewhere that he was the founder, see that as fact and like to credit him. While dan rank isn't everything the head instructor of that dojang is only a 4th Dan, so maybe he hasn't read up as much on history as others have. Or maybe he has and still believes in the Choi propaganda that he was the founder. Who knows...



Their head supervisor is Guinness World Record holder in breaking and KKW 7th Dan Ali Chehade. I thought he was famous in WTF circles?


----------



## Tez3

Axiom said:


> Their head supervisor is Guinness World Record holder in breaking and KKW 7th Dan Ali Chehade. I thought he was famous in WTF circles?



Only one breaking record in Guinness world Records and that's a lady. Sport and Strength Records


----------



## Tez3

This however is fascinating. 
Fastest time to crush three watermelons with the thighs


----------



## Axiom

Tez3 said:


> Only one breaking record in Guinness world Records and that's a lady. Sport and Strength Records



His was old, set in 2005, for breaking 64 cement blocks in 17 seconds.

 It's shown at 1:44


----------



## Tez3

World Records for Board Breaking and Brick Breaking (Karate       Power Breaking)

According to the quotes Guinness don't do a  record for board breaking because of the difficulties mentioned.


----------



## andyjeffries

Axiom said:


> Their head supervisor is Guinness World Record holder in breaking and KKW 7th Dan Ali Chehade. I thought he was famous in WTF circles?



He may be famous in some circles, but I've never heard of him. Still, whether General Choi is "the founder" of Taekwondo is debatable (and often is debated) - so although it's highly unusual for a WTF/WT/Kukkiwon/Kwan instructor to consider him so, I guess there may be a rare few out there.


----------



## Axiom

andyjeffries said:


> He may be famous in some circles, but I've never heard of him. Still, whether General Choi is "the founder" of Taekwondo is debatable (and often is debated) - so although it's highly unusual for a WTF/WT/Kukkiwon/Kwan instructor to consider him so, I guess there may be a rare few out there.



I have always taken it to mean that Choi was the founder of the Chang Hon school that the particular students learn. But this is of course problematic since Taekwondo is an umbrella term for several styles, and to disregard the rest is unwarranted.


----------



## Axiom

One could argue that since a large portion of the KKW instructors in 1973 were former Chang Hon disciples forced to abandon their style, it cemented Chois influence even in his rival nemesis.


----------



## andyjeffries

Axiom said:


> One could argue that since a large portion of the KKW instructors in 1973 were former Chang Hon disciples forced to abandon their style, it cemented Chois influence even in his rival nemesis.



Really, what makes you believe that a large portion of KKW instructors in 1973 were former Chang Hon stylists?


----------



## Axiom

andyjeffries said:


> Really, what makes you believe that a large portion of KKW instructors in 1973 were former Chang Hon stylists?



They would have to be by default, since the Chang Hon style was banned in South Korea. Some" cheated" in training yet still gave out KKW certifikates because of their affection for the Chang Hon forms, while others never looked back, to this day.


----------



## Axiom

And yes, influental future KKW instructors included.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> One could argue that since a large portion of the KKW instructors in 1973 were former Chang Hon disciples forced to abandon their style, it cemented Chois influence even in his rival nemesis.


Source? 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> They would have to be by default, since the Chang Hon style was banned in South Korea. Some" cheated" in training yet still gave out KKW certifikates because of their affection for the Chang Hon forms, while others never looked back, to this day.


Salsa? 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> And yes, influental future KKW instructors included.


Though watching you lecture Andy is entertaining due to the sheer absurdity of it, it would be great if you actually sourced your information. It doesn't corroborate with my findings well at all.

I'll reiterate Andy's question: what makes you think those instructors (and which specific instructors and when) were practicing / teaching those forms?



Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## andyjeffries

Axiom said:


> They would have to be by default, since the Chang Hon style was banned in South Korea. Some" cheated" in training yet still gave out KKW certifikates because of their affection for the Chang Hon forms, while others never looked back, to this day.



I don't follow the logic. By "Kukkiwon instructors" I don't know which you mean out of:

official instructors, with a paid salary or per-day-rate from the Kukkiwon
instructors that are Kukkiwon-educated and licensed (I don't know when the Korean instructor course began)
instructors that teach Kukkiwon-style Taekwondo
In case 1, what would "Chang Hon being banned from South Korea" have to do with them being former Chang Hon stylists? Most likely the paid instructors at Kukkiwon would be regular Kukkiwon stylists, from one of the major kwans, likely one of the "big three" (Chungdokwan, Jidokwan and Changmookwan).

In case 2, assuming the instructor course was in existence then, what makes you think the majority of attendees of that course were Chang Hon stylists (which is only early Ohdokwan) over the other 8 kwans (ignoring the administrative kwan)?

The most likely, case 3, again though is the same as case 2. Ohdokwan wasn't the largest kwan, so let's go with some estimate numbers - 60% of practitioners were from the big three kwans, and the remaining 40% were split amongst the other 6 (let's assume fairly equally). This means that early Ohdokwan (Chang Hon) had about 7% of Taekwondo practitioners. If they abandoned their Chang Hon roots, that's still not a "large portion".

Finally, I'd like to talk about "Chang Hon was banned in South Korea". Is there any proof of this? General Choi Hong-hi was exiled from South Korea, and as far as I know there was no official ITF presence in South Korea until 2004, but the Chang Hon style was banned? Who banned it? The Korean government banned a style of movement?

Ohdokwan definitely still has a presence in South Korea and has maintained that throughout, but they practice Kukkiwon style (the most famous current Ohdokwan practitioner is probably, IMHO, GM Hwang, In-sik - one of the Kukkiwon's senior instructors and chairman of the poomsae committee for KTA, KKW and WT).

So I'd like to reiterate Gnarlie's point - "Source?". Currently, I think your point is highly unlikely and currently illogical and unsubstantiated.


----------



## Tez3

I doubt the OP is taking any of this in but I am finding this educational, so thank you for that. I've done a little TKD and know people who train in it so it's nice to have some more background. No knowledge is ever wasted I think.


----------



## andyjeffries

Thanks Tez. I have a personality trait towards accuracy (inaccuracies really rub me up the wrong way - kinda like OCD I guess), and it shows through in wanting to know everything I can about the history of Taekwondo and exactly how the movements/poomsae should be performed. I guess it's useful at times like this. I don't claim to be perfect, just that I'm always aiming to improve towards that goal ;-)


----------



## Axiom

andyjeffries said:


> Finally, I'd like to talk about "Chang Hon was banned in South Korea". Is there any proof of this? General Choi Hong-hi was exiled from South Korea, and as far as I know there was no official ITF presence in South Korea until 2004, but the Chang Hon style was banned? Who banned it? The Korean government banned a style of movement?



_"After the trip to North Korea and while the ITF instructors(mostly former non-commissioned Officer Drill Instructors) were training students in North Korea, instructors started leaving ITF because faith was lost in General Choi. *The more pressing issue was that, the instructors did not want to be blacklisted by the South Korean government by associating with General Choi and risk becoming a  North Korean/communist sympathizer *"

Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy Section 2
_


----------



## Axiom

andyjeffries said:


> Ohdokwan definitely still has a presence in South Korea and has maintained that throughout, .



That's *today.* You do know that the politics in South Korea changed? 
_

"in the city of Seoul, home to over ten million Koreans, and probably thousands of WTF dojangs, *there is one, and only one, ITF dojang.*" Training with the ITF in Korea._


----------



## Tez3

Axiom said:


> _"After the trip to North Korea and while the ITF instructors(mostly former non-commissioned Officer Drill Instructors) were training students in North Korea, instructors started leaving ITF because faith was lost in General Choi. *The more pressing issue was that, the instructors did not want to be blacklisted by the South Korean government by associating with General Choi and risk becoming a  North Korean/communist sympathizer *"
> 
> Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy Section 2_



Is there a reason you post articles from Rayners Lane Academy? Is it because you know the chief instructor is a poster here?


----------



## Tez3

Axiom said:


> That's *today.* You do know that the politics in South Korea changed?
> _
> 
> "in the city of Seoul, home to over ten million Koreans, and probably thousands of WTF dojangs, *there is one, and only one, ITF dojang.*" Training with the ITF in Korea._



You know that's a opinion piece? It even starts 'welcome to my mind'.


----------



## Axiom

Tez3 said:


> You know that's a opinion piece? It even starts 'welcome to my mind'.



It was not an opinion that there is *one* ITF school located in Seol (at least at the time of writing). To call that "a presence" is pretty optimistic.


----------



## Axiom

Tez3 said:


> Is there a reason you post articles from Rayners Lane Academy? Is it because you know the chief instructor is a poster here?



I see no reason not to. To communicate with North Korea back in the day was punishable by death, and to support such a person by teaching his system is trouble in the water. General Choi founded the Chang Hon school and communicated with North Korea. This is very simple logic even for the layperson. No need to take formal classes like I did.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> _"After the trip to North Korea and while the ITF instructors(mostly former non-commissioned Officer Drill Instructors) were training students in North Korea, instructors started leaving ITF because faith was lost in General Choi. *The more pressing issue was that, the instructors did not want to be blacklisted by the South Korean government by associating with General Choi and risk becoming a  North Korean/communist sympathizer *"
> 
> Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy Section 2
> _





Axiom said:


> That's *today.* You do know that the politics in South Korea changed?
> _
> 
> "in the city of Seoul, home to over ten million Koreans, and probably thousands of WTF dojangs, *there is one, and only one, ITF dojang.*" Training with the ITF in Korea._





Axiom said:


> It was not an opinion that there is *one* ITF school located in Seol (at least at the time of writing). To call that "a presence" is pretty optimistic.


None of these posts support your claim that Chang Hon was banned.

Neither do they contradict Andy's assertion that Oh Do Kwan has had a presence throughout. You understand that there is a difference between Oh Do Kwan and ITF, right?

So, source? 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Gnarlie said:


> None of these posts support your claim that Chang Hon was banned.
> 
> Neither do they contradict Andy's assertion that Oh Do Kwan has had a presence throughout. You understand that there is a difference between Oh Do Kwan and ITF, right?
> 
> So, source?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



To be blacklisted is functionally equivalent to having ones art banned, unless you have a masochistic side to your personality. And to call ITF/Chang Hon a "presence" in South Korea with one ITF school operating in Seol could only be uttered by a KKW That's why I'm here.


----------



## andyjeffries

Axiom said:


> I see no reason not to. To communicate with North Korea back in the day was punishable by death, and to support such a person by teaching his system is trouble in the water. General Choi founded the Chang Hon school and communicated with North Korea. This is very simple logic even for the layperson. No need to take formal classes like I did.



You took a formal class in what? Debating? Logic?

You committed the following logical fallacies - you say because General Choi founded Chang Hon and he was (effectively) banned, therefore anyone following his style of movement (regardless of political beliefs) would be - so the style was banned. There's no proof of this that you've posted, just your own logical chain that has a missing link.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> I see no reason why not. To communicate with North Korea back in the day was punishable by death, and to support such a person by teaching his system is trouble in the water. General Choi founded the Chang Hon school and communicated with North Korea. This is very simple logic even for the layperson. No need to take formal classes like I did.


It's more likely that instructors who were not in Choi's ITF never used the Chang Hon set but rather earlier forms such as Balsek and the Pyong Ahn series. 

Those who left the ITF at that time would have either chosen to revert to those older forms, or continued to train Chang Hon both up to and possibly after the foundation of the KKW and introduction of the Palgwe and Yudanja set. This would depend on their own personal preferences and the Kwan they belonged to.

This is certainly borne out by the presence of so-called traditional taekwondo in Europe - that is to say non-ITF Chang Hon taught by some of the early Korean pioneers who never joined KKW because they left around the time it was founded. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## andyjeffries

Axiom said:


> To be blacklisted is functionally equivalent to having ones art banned, unless you have a masochistic side to your personality. And to call ITF/Chang Hon a "presence" in South Korea with one ITF school operating in Seol could only be uttered by a KKW That's why I'm here.



Again, you're confusing Ohdokwan/ITF.

The two are VERY separate things.

General Choi founded Ohdokwan, but left it alone after he founded the ITF. It doesn't change that the ITF was originally General Choi's baby (he was the first kwanjang, but not the last, even while he was alive) nor that the Ohdokwan is alive and well in Korea, with more than one school headed up by an Ohdokwan-background instructor.


----------



## Axiom

andyjeffries said:


> You committed the following logical fallacies - you say because General Choi founded Chang Hon and he was (effectively) banned, therefore anyone following his style of movement (regardless of political beliefs) would be - so the style was banned. There's no proof of this that you've posted, just your own logical chain that has a missing link.



Yes, that is my inference. In a dictatorship, I'd say that's not much of a stretch. Could you elaborate more about Chang Hon  TKDs presence in South Korea? I'm very intrigued given one school in Seol. Why are KKWS so misinformed?


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> To be blacklisted is functionally equivalent to having ones art banned, unless you have a masochistic side to your personality.


Read your source again. It says blacklisted for associating with Choi / NK. Not for practicing or teaching his forms. 


Axiom said:


> And to call ITF/Chang Hon a "presence" in South Korea with one ITF school operating in Seol could only be uttered by a KKW



Nobody said that, you are arguing against yourself. Read it again. Chang Hon is not just ITF. Oh Do Kwan is not just ITF, nor is it just Chang Hon. We are dealing in facts here; nothing to do with taking sides KKW or ITF. That's for underdeveloped minds. 



Axiom said:


> That's why I'm here.



Oh, as resident expert, yeah? Pfft.


----------



## Axiom

Gnarlie said:


> Chang Hon is not just ITF. Oh Do Kwan is not just ITF, nor is it just Chang Hon. We are dealing in facts here; nothing to do with taking sides KKW or ITF. That's for underdeveloped minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



Why would a reporter looking for traditional TaeKwonDo (as he calls it) negate non ITF-affiliations? If there is only one ITF school, that naturally means there is only one Chang Hon one, or else someone should let the word out that IT'S THE SAME ART minus Sine Wave.  I will not even take into concideration that he passed by Chang Hon schools and only looked for ITF logos. That would be a Homer Simpson moment.


----------



## andyjeffries

Axiom said:


> That's *today.* You do know that the politics in South Korea changed?



Hahahaha. Yes, as a student of Taekwondo for just over 30 years, with three years of Korean language learning and having been to South Korea five times, I'm aware that it's not the same place it was in the 70s. Out of interest, how much have you invested in learning about South Korea?



Axiom said:


> "in the city of Seoul, home to over ten million Koreans, and probably thousands of WTF dojangs, *there is one, and only one, ITF dojang.*" Training with the ITF in Korea.



Just to be pedantic, there are at least two that a quick google search could come up with (and I'm only searching in English).

Training with the ITF in Korea. - Kim, Hoon
Visit to Korea ITF Seoul Training Centre - Cho, Yeong-deok

Different guys, both teaching in Seoul. I'm sure there are many more (but the official website http://itfkorea.com seems horribly broken to me), but two was enough to prove your assertion/"proof" incorrect.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> Yes, that is my inference. In a dictatorship, I'd say that's not much of a stretch.


Presence of Korean pioneers in Germany, what they teach, and the dates that they arrived out of SK prove you wrong. Take a look around. 


Axiom said:


> Could you elaborate more about Chang Hon  TKDs presence in South Korea? I'm very intrigued given one school in Seol.
> 
> Why are KKWS so misinformed?



See above for evidence that exists if you want to find it. I won't do your research for you. 

You can't differentiate Chang Hon, Ohdokwan, and ITF, and that means KKW practitioners are misinformed. Nice leap, maybe you should try joining a demo team with jumping skills like those. 

Can someone ban this troll for reopening a THIRD account on this site after two previous bans please? I'm sick of reading this garbage. 


Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

andyjeffries said:


> Just to be pedantic, there are at least two that a quick google search could come up with (and I'm only searching in English).
> 
> Training with the ITF in Korea. - Kim, Hoon
> Visit to Korea ITF Seoul Training Centre - Cho, Yeong-deok
> 
> Different guys, both teaching in Seoul. I'm sure there are many more (but the official website http://itfkorea.com seems horribly broken to me), but two was enough to prove your assertion/"proof" incorrect.



Oh, so there's at least two? Well that changes everything then. A handfull compared to thousands of KKW schools (or whatever the number is in Seol).


----------



## andyjeffries

So are you shocked? Kukkiwon Taekwondo is much bigger in Seoul. The heads of the kwans (technically) gave up their individual dojangs/groups to form Taekwondo, started the KTA, built the Kukkiwon and yet you're surprised that one splinter group that didn't want any part of it is underrepresented in the very country where all that unification happened?


----------



## Axiom

Gnarlie said:


> You can't differentiate Chang Hon, Ohdokwan, and ITF,
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



I can differentiate the three. A person in Seol looking for Chang Hon forms will get it in either one, and will not reject it simply because it is not ITF affiliated.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> Why would a reporter looking for traditional TaeKwonDo (as he calls it) negate non ITF-affiliations?



Unbalanced reporting? Reporting with an agenda? Ignorance? Don't believe everything you read online. Go to Korea. Learn. 




Axiom said:


> If there is only one ITF school, that naturally means there is only one Chang Hon one, or else someone should let the word out that IT'S THE SAME ART minus Sine Wave.



Nope, that's a logical fallacy because Chang Hon exists outside of the ITF and has since that time.



Axiom said:


> I will not even take into concideration that he passed by Chang Hon schools and only looked for ITF logos. That would be a Homer Simpson moment.



Oh you won't even consider that something you read online might not be correct? Sounds like a sound basis for critical thinking. 



Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> I can differentiate the three. A person in Seol looking for Chang Hon forms will get it in either one, and will not reject it simply because it is not ITF affiliated.


Your argument does not bear out that you understand the difference. You are making a fool of yourself again. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## andyjeffries

Axiom said:


> I can differentiate the three. A person in Seol looking for Chang Hon forms will get it in either one, and will not reject it simply because it is not ITF affiliated.



Without wishing to resort to ad-hominum attacks, you don't seem to be able to.

I said "Ohdokwan definitely still has a presence in South Korea", you replied with "It was not an opinion that there is *one* ITF school located in Seol [sic] (at least at the time of writing). To call that "a presence" is pretty optimistic."

Ohdokwan and ITF are very different organisations - if you even consider the ITF one organisation, even though it's now splintered into 3-4 groups - that's funny in itself. Taekwondo was a vehicle of unification for 9-10 kwans, ITF wanted it's own way so set off doing its thing, then while the rest of Taekwondo is unified, ITF has now splintered into different groups, all claiming legitimacy. Reeks of irony!


----------



## andyjeffries

Just to post the facts, the Kukkiwon currently has 1,459 registered dojangs in Seoul. I don't know how many "thousands" were, but still it's certainly a big number. The source is a great friend of mine (student of GM Hwang - that I mentioned earlier) and Ohdokwan member ;-)


----------



## Axiom

Gnarlie said:


> Nope, that's a logical fallacy because Chang Hon exists outside of the ITF and has since that time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



It is not a logical fallacy if one were to assume that the reporter (or whatever he is) actually knows what forms/curriculum he is looking to practise. If you want to believe that he passed on hundreds of Chang Hon schools out of ignorance and only concretated on ITF affiliations,then fine. That would however run counter to his desire to learn traditional TKD, since Sine Wave is a modern addition to Chang Hon forms.


----------



## andyjeffries

Also Axiom, you keep saying Seol, that's the incorrect spelling. Seol would be written in Korean as 설 but the correct spelling Seoul is 서울 - completely different words/names.

As a potentially slightly interesting aside, there's a Korean female grandmaster called Seol, Seong-ran who is ex-world poomsae champion and absolutely exceptional as a teacher (and funny to boot!). If any KKW Taekwondoin get the chance to train with her, grab it!


----------



## Axiom

andyjeffries said:


> I said "Ohdokwan definitely still has a presence in South Korea", you replied with "It was not an opinion that there is *one* ITF school located in Seol [sic] (at least at the time of writing). To call that "a presence" is pretty optimistic."



I want to believe in his rationality enough to conclude that he only found one school practicising the Chang Hons style of TKD in Seoul, at the time of writing, and that it was an ITF one. There's  a dude from a foreign, non ITF affiliation, who had no trouble finding our ITF school. Was he a genius?


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> It is not a logical fallacy if one were to assume that the reporter (or whatever he is) actually knows what forms/curriculum he is looking to practise. If you want to believe that he passed on hundreds of Chang Hon schools out of ignorance and only concretated on ITF affiliations,then fine. That would however run counter to his desire to learn traditional TKD, since Sine Wave is a modern addition to Chang Hon forms.


There's no way to know what he looked for, but if his Dojang in DE was ITF, he probably looked for ITF.

A lot of hobby TKD sorts don't even know the name Chang Hon. They use Tul or Hyeong. Look for those in SK, and you'll get very few results - firstly because most instructors chose to unify with KKW, and second because many of those who did not had already left SK to spread TKD to Europe and other areas. There are, however, some independent masters who remained - outside of both KKW and the ITF, they train Pyong Ahn and some earlier black belt forms, or some version of the Chang Hon set. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Gnarlie said:


> There's no way to know what he looked for, but if his Dojang in DE was ITF, he probably looked for ITF.
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



He found an ITF school and concidered this a match for *traditional TKD*. That means he was looking for Chang Hon TKD forms/curriculum.


----------



## Tez3

Gnarlie said:


> they train Pyong Ahn



Is this related to Tang Soo Do? That's my other, less preferred style.


----------



## Axiom

BTW, he doesn't even need to go into the schools (neccesarily). If the practitioners wear ITF or old Karate doboks, chances are that they are doing Chang Hon patterns.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> He found an ITF school and concidered this a match for *traditional TKD*. That means he was looking for Chang Hon TKD forms/curriculum.


Not necessarily. Were you there? Are you him? No? Then you don't know what he looked for. Either way, his search was somewhat limited if Google shows 2 and I am aware of some others (non-ITF independents) in the backwaters through friends of friends. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gnarlie

Tez3 said:


> Is this related to Tang Soo Do? That's my other, less preferred style.


Yes, these forms among others are practiced in some Tang Soo Do schools. They are the Korean rendering of the Pinan forms. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Tez3 said:


> Is this related to Tang Soo Do? That's my other, less preferred style.



Tang Soo Do is the precursor to the TKD style being discussed. If you know Tang Soo Do you do in fact know traditional TKD without knowing it. The only difference is that you learned Shotokan forms and few other ones. and that your stances were lower.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> BTW, he doesn't even need to go into the schools (neccesarily). If the practitioners wear ITF or old Karate doboks, chances are that they are doing Chang Hon patterns.


You've never been to Seoul, have you haha

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Gnarlie said:


> You've never been to Seoul, have you haha
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



If they wear those godawful Adidas/KKW doboks, he doesn't need to bother. Although some schools teach several systems.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> If they wear those godawful Adidas/KKW doboks, he doesn't need to bother. Although some schools teach several systems.


My pyjamas are better than your pyjamas now is it?

You honestly thing every dojang in Seoul has a web page or a street facing shop window?

Pfft. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Axiom said:


> Tang Soo Do is the precursor to the TKD style being discussed. If you know Tang Soo Do you do in fact know traditional TKD without knowing it. The only difference is that you learned Shotokan forms and few other ones. and that your stances were lower.



My main style is Wado Ryu which uses Pinan kata, which Shotokan shares of course as Heien. Stances and techniques aren't quite the same though. The reason I'm not hugely keen on TSD is that it seems a very simplified form of Wado, I like the more complex movements plus the takedowns and ground work in Wado. I prefer the shorter higher stances of Wado as well.


----------



## Axiom

Tez3 said:


> My main style is Wado Ryu which uses Pinan kata, which Shotokan shares of course. Stances and techniques aren't quite the same though. The reason I'm not hugely keen on TSD is that it seems a very simplified form of Wado, I like the more complex movements plus the takedowns and ground work in Wado. I prefer the shorter higher stances of Wado as well.



Any Tang Soo Do instructor worth his salt should have taught you some more elaborate kicking (compared to Karate), and that is TKD you learned.


----------



## Axiom

Gnarlie said:


> My pyjamas are better than your pyjamas now is it?
> 
> You honestly thing every dojang in Seoul has a web page or a street facing shop window?
> 
> Pfft.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



How much polyester is in those doboks? Not saying NEW ITF ones are clear of charges, but I've have had students come up to me feeling suffocated after sweating in very WTF-like doboks, and could only offer my condolences.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> Any Tang Soo Do instructor worth his salt should have taught you some more elaborate kicking (compared to Karate), and that is TKD you learned.


Trained TSD have you?

Here's a picture I took in Seoul. Feel free to circle all the dojangs where they don't wear Adidas. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Also, wearing an Adidas sponsored Dobok is not exactly traditional


----------



## Tez3

Axiom said:


> Any Tang Soo Do instructor worth his salt should have taught you some more elaborate kicking (compared to Karate), and that is TKD you learned.



No, Wado Ryu has an impressive amount of kicks ( all effective, whether they are 'elaborate' or not I have no idea, it's not something I think about) in it's curriculum and I've very happy with them thank you. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I meant elaborate kicks when I said TSD is a simpler form of Wado. The hyungs in TSD are far simpler than the katas of Wado and Shotokan, many moves are left out in TSD ( or added in Wado and Shotokan, whichever ). Simpler doesn't mean necessarily wrong but that it's not to my liking.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> How much polyester is in those doboks? Not saying NEW ITF ones are clear of charges, but I've have had students come up to me feeling suffocated after sweating in very WTF-like doboks, and could only offer my condolences.


Depends what the practitioner chooses to buy. Sparring doboks are high polyester to reduce weight. Poomsae doboks less so. Good quality all purpose doboks vary from 20 to 60%

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Tez3 said:


> No, Wado Ryu has an impressive amount of kicks ( all effective, whether they are 'elaborate' or not I have no idea, it's not something I think about) in it's curriculum and I've very happy with them thank you. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I meant elaborate kicks when I said TSD is a simpler form of Wado. The hyungs in TSD are far simpler than the katas of Wado and Shotokan, many moves are left out in TSD ( or added in Wado and Shotokan, whichever ). Simpler doesn't mean necessarily wrong but that it's not to my liking.



By elaborate I mean jumping spinning kicks. You weren't taught any of that that in Tang Soo Do? I don't know about Wado Ryu but Shotokan is very grounded...


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> Also, wearing an Adidas sponsored Dobok is not exactly traditional


There are plenty of brand sponsored ITF doboks, including Adidas. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Gnarlie said:


> Trained TSD have you?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



I can enter a Tang Soo Do dojang and not adjust any kicking techniques from what I learned in Chang Hon/ITF. That's how similiar (identical) they are in pure kicking.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> I can enter a Tang Soo Do dojang and not adjust any kicking techniques from what I learned in Chang Hon/ITF. That's how similiar (identical) they are in pure kicking.


So, no, then. Then what do you know about TSD instructors 'worth their salt'? Hmm? 

I'm sure they'll just grade you and your 80% Polyester Adidas ITF pyjamas right up to 1st dan. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

This is EXACTLY the same kicking mechanics as taught in the Chang Hon system of TaeKwonDo.


----------



## Tez3

Axiom said:


> By elaborate I mean jumping spinning kicks. You weren't taught any of that that in Tang Soo Do? I don't know about Wado Ryu but Shotokan is very grounded...



I've done jumping spinning kicks in both styles. You aren't getting what I mean are you? this is because I don't think you know what the TSD hyungs or the Pian/Heian katas are so can't actually compare them.

What do you mean by 'grounded'?


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> This is EXACTLY the same kicking mechanics as taught in the Chang Hon system of TaeKwonDo.


And? How many TSD instructors do you know? How many have you trained with. Oops, zero. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Axiom said:


> I can enter a Tang Soo Do dojang and not adjust any kicking techniques from what I learned in Chang Hon/ITF. That's how similiar (identical) they are in pure kicking.



You could also go into karate dojos and do the same.


----------



## Axiom

Tez3 said:


> I've done jumping spinning kicks in both styles. You aren't getting what I mean are you? this is because I don't think you know what the TSD hyungs or the Pian/Heian katas are so can't actually compare them.
> 
> What do you mean by 'grounded'?



I don't know anything about Wado Ryu. If you've been taught advanced aerial kicking in that style , then I won't argue. These might include, jumping scissor kick (Juche pattern), jumping,spinning hook kicks, etc. 

Ring a bell in Tang Soo Do or Wado?


----------



## Axiom

Tez3 said:


> You could also go into karate dojos and do the same.



NO. Shotokan kicks don't look the same as TSD/ITF, if done by the book. They chamber leaning their body forward, Traditional TKD uses more leverage,leans more back/to the side, and more hip rotation (excessive if you ask A shotokan stylist).


----------



## Axiom

Chang Hon TKD/ITF has been so effectively exterminated it's near impossible to find an instructional video for a traditional, TaewonDo turning kick. But here is ONE. He demonstrates with the instep.


----------



## andyjeffries

Gnarlie said:


> You honestly thing every dojang in Seoul has a web page or a street facing shop window?



I spent about 20 minutes in 2013 walking around and around one area of Seoul looking for Grandmaster Kang, Ik-pil's dojang (the author of the Kukki-Taekwondo bible!). Eventually I gave up and called him, and he kindly sent two of his students to exactly where I was - and no word of a lie, they walked me maybe 20 yards to a little door, and went upstairs to the dojang.

I'd never have found it, and this is the full-time dojang of a Taekwondo poomsae World Champion, Kukkiwon instructor (he often teaches masters on the Master Instructor Course) and published author.


----------



## andyjeffries

Gnarlie said:


> There are plenty of brand sponsored ITF doboks, including Adidas.



Indeed - Adidas ITF CLUB Dobok - Size 110 (ADITITF01/110)


----------



## Gnarlie

andyjeffries said:


> I spent about 20 minutes in 2013 walking around and around one area of Seoul looking for Grandmaster Kang, Ik-pil's dojang (the author of the Kukki-Taekwondo bible!). Eventually I gave up and called him, and he kindly sent two of his students to exactly where I was - and no word of a lie, they walked me maybe 20 yards to a little door, and went upstairs to the dojang.
> 
> I'd never have found it, and this is the full-time dojang of a Taekwondo poomsae World Champion, Kukkiwon instructor (he often teaches masters on the Master Instructor Course) and published author.


Exactly. It's easy to find a 노래방, but not so much for Dojangs. They tend to be tucked away in the cheaper side streets, and not at street level, with very little signage. Websites also seem to be the exception rather than the  norm. You'd be lucky to find one by chance, and it's a needle in a million haystacks to find Chang Hon by chance. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Axiom said:


> NO. Shotokan kicks don't look the same as TSD/ITF, if done by the book. They chamber leaning their body forward, Traditional TKD uses more leverage,leans more back/to the side, and more hip rotation (excessive if you ask A shotokan stylist).



Mmm so they always lean forward then, on all kicks. How odd. I'd like to see how you think they do a sidekick 'leaning their body forward'. 

You seem to not actually read anything but rather already have an 'answer' to post, which makes having conversations with you somewhat surreal.


----------



## Axiom

Tez3 said:


> Mmm so they always lean forward then, on all kicks. How odd. I'd like to see how you think they do a sidekick 'leaning their body forward'.
> 
> You seem to not actually read anything but rather already have an 'answer' to post, which makes having conversations with you somewhat surreal.



I was referring to the mawashi geri. Their sidekicks also appear to be more "restrained" as it relates to leverage


----------



## Axiom

andyjeffries said:


> Indeed - Adidas ITF CLUB Dobok - Size 110 (ADITITF01/110)



Well, I don't consider any ITF with Sine-wave to be traditional TKD anyway. So I disagree with the reporter. And since most ITF affiliation teach SW, I don't care what they wear


----------



## Dirty Dog

andyjeffries said:


> Without wishing to resort to ad-hominum attacks, you don't seem to be able to.
> 
> I said "Ohdokwan definitely still has a presence in South Korea", you replied with "It was not an opinion that there is *one* ITF school located in Seol [sic] (at least at the time of writing). To call that "a presence" is pretty optimistic."
> 
> Ohdokwan and ITF are very different organisations - if you even consider the ITF one organisation, even though it's now splintered into 3-4 groups - that's funny in itself. Taekwondo was a vehicle of unification for 9-10 kwans, ITF wanted it's own way so set off doing its thing, then while the rest of Taekwondo is unified, ITF has now splintered into different groups, all claiming legitimacy. Reeks of irony!



While I agree with your assessment of the OPs argument, it's a fallacy to claim that "the rest of Taekwondo is unified" since there are plenty of Tae Kwon Do associations that are neither KKW nor (any flavor of) ITF. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirty Dog

Axiom said:


> BTW, he doesn't even need to go into the schools (neccesarily). If the practitioners wear ITF or old Karate doboks, chances are that they are doing Chang Hon patterns.



Bollocks. The Tae Kwon Do world is full of people wearing all manner of uniform. Do I suddenly change our curriculum based on what dobak I wear to class?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Dirty Dog said:


> Bollocks. The Tae Kwon Do world is full of people wearing all manner of uniform. Do I suddenly change our curriculum based on what dobak I wear to class?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I'm making a probabalistic claim. The KKW adopted a different dobok, with a black collar. But I am aware that some instructors (especially in Tang Soo Soo Do!) like to complicate matters


----------



## Dirty Dog

Axiom said:


> I'm making a probabalistic claim. The KKW adopted a different dobok, with a black collar. But I am aware that some instructors (especially in TangSoo Do!) like to complicate matters



I don't think "probabilistic" is quite the word most people with significant amounts of actual knowledge and experience would choose to describe your claims...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't think "probabilistic" is quite the word most people with significant amounts of actual knowledge and experience would choose to describe your claims...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



So you dispute that the KKW uses a characteristic black collar dobok? Did I get that right?


----------



## TrueJim

Axiom said:


> _"in the city of Seoul, home to over ten million Koreans, and probably thousands of WTF dojangs, *there is one, and only one, ITF dojang.*" Training with the ITF in Korea._



I don't know how many ITF dojangs there are in Seoul, but one of the ITF splinters is headquartered there. Reference: 국제태권도연맹 ITF 공식사이트


----------



## Axiom

Now,  you might be surprised (or not) to learn that the respective ITFs reject each other. I was discouraged to compete in a rival ITF tournament ( I asked). They also sued each other for using the ITF logo. And these guys used to be united and friends when General Choi was alive


----------



## andyjeffries

Dirty Dog said:


> While I agree with your assessment of the OPs argument, it's a fallacy to claim that "the rest of Taekwondo is unified" since there are plenty of Tae Kwon Do associations that are neither KKW nor (any flavor of) ITF.



It's a fair point, but I was just intending to refer to Korea - where I would say independent Taekwondo dojangs are even rarer than ITF ones ;-)


----------



## andyjeffries

Axiom said:


> Now,  you might be surprised (or not) to learn that the respective ITFs reject each other. I was discouraged to compete in a rival ITF tournament ( I asked). They also sued each other for using the ITF logo. And these guys used to be united and friends when General Choi was alive



Yeah, I don't think any of us are surprised by that or even find it news. It's been discussed ad nauseum since Choi's death. To be fair though, it was fair predictable. When you run an organisation by dictatorship, with one person wanting sole credit for everything and all the power; when they pass away there's bound to a)be a power vacuum and b)no shortage of people that want to grab it.


----------



## Axiom

andyjeffries said:


> It's a fair point, but I was just intending to refer to Korea - where I would say independent Taekwondo dojangs are even rarer than ITF ones ;-)



Ah, so you agree then that locating one ITF dojang (in 2011)in the capital is indicative of the number of independently run Chang Hon schools operation in South Korea?


----------



## TrueJim

andyjeffries said:


> ...let's go with some estimate numbers - 60% of practitioners were from the big three kwans, and the remaining 40% were split amongst the other 6 (let's assume fairly equally). This means that early Ohdokwan (Chang Hon) had about 7% of Taekwondo practitioners. If they abandoned their Chang Hon roots, that's still not a "large portion".



The Axiom part of this discussion is boring, but this is interesting. I was under the impression that Ohdokwan was larger because I think I recall reading that a lot of civilians were drawn to the idea of practicing the "army's" martial art. But for the sake of discussion let's agree that Ohdokwan is in the 7%-ish ballpark. 

I reckon that means that when the Palgwae forms came along, some 93% of taekwondo instructors in South Korea who wanted to "retool" to the new style had to convert from using using karate-based forms, and 7% had to convert from using Chang Hon forms. 

My question: I wonder how many of those 7% made the transition? They had other options: emigrate, retire, etc. I wonder if the actual number of transitions is only a "little" smaller than 7% or a "lot" smaller than 7%? I suppose there's no way to know.


----------



## Axiom

TrueJim said:


> The Axiom part of this discussion is boring, but this is interesting. I was under the impression that Ohdokwan was larger because I think I recall reading that a lot of civilians were drawn to the idea of practicing the "army's" martial art. But for the sake of discussion let's agree that Ohdokwan is in the 7%-ish ballpark.
> 
> I reckon that means that when the Palgwae forms came along, some 93% of taekwondo instructors in South Korea who wanted to "retool" to the new style had to convert from using using karate-based forms, and 7% had to convert from using Chang Hon forms.
> 
> My question: I wonder how many of those 7% made the transition? They had other options: emigrate, retire, etc. I wonder if the actual number of transitions is only a "little" smaller than 7% or a "lot" smaller than 7%? I suppose there's no way to know.



Some Chang Hon pioneers moved to Canada and other places. But the ones staying were pretty much stuck with the new forms.


----------



## TrueJim

Axiom said:


> Now,  you might be surprised (or not) to learn that the respective ITFs reject each other. I was discouraged to compete in a rival ITF tournament ( I asked). They also sued each other for using the ITF logo. And these guys used to be united and friends when General Choi was alive



We had a very extensive discussion on this topic here on MartialTalk not too long ago. It's a complicated story but I attempted to summarize it to the best of my ability. ITF split (history)


----------



## TrueJim

andyjeffries said:


> Finally, I'd like to talk about "Chang Hon was banned in South Korea".



Maybe I'm comparing apples to oranges here, but as I recall...in 1971 the  South Korean Ministry of Education required "private school permits" for taekwondo dojangs, which reportedly outraged many of the remaining school owners in Korea. For example, of the 350 dojangs in Seoul, only 79 met the Ministry of Education requirements. This further caused some taekwondo teachers to  emigrate from South Korea to teach overseas, contributing to the perception that those wishing to learn non-Kukki-style could only do so outside Korea.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't think "probabilistic" is quite the word most people with significant amounts of actual knowledge and experience would choose to describe your claims...


I bet I know what the word is.


----------



## Axiom

TrueJim said:


> We had a very extensive discussion on this topic here on MartialTalk not too long ago. It's a complicated story but I attempted to summarize it to the best of my ability. ITF split (history)



Interesting. I heard in my school that the start of the disagreement between Choi and his son was when Chois son corrected a technique instructed by his father to a student during the same seminar. Choi the elder was told of this and all hell broke loose from there.


----------



## TrueJim

RTKDCMB said:


> I bet I know what the word is.



I think it's a question of intent. I and others participate in MartialTalk to learn. Axiom participates to lecture. If you've already decided that you know more than everybody else, you're not going to wear your listening ears.


----------



## Axiom

To clear things up: The ITF Seoul article was written in 2011 and I made it perfectly clear : that at the time of writing:  "Only one was in existence"

It may very well be that the ITF/Chang Hon schools had an explosive rise in popularity in Seoul since 2011, but I somehow find that unlikely.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> Well, I don't consider any ITF with Sine-wave to be traditional TKD anyway. So I disagree with the reporter. And since most ITF affiliation teach SW, I don't care what they wear


Then why did you bring it up?? 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Gnarlie said:


> Then why did you bring it up??
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



Because it's irrelevant to the discussion. He was searching for Chang Hon/ITF schools first and foremost, and concluded that only one was in existence in Seoul in 2011. The only part I disagree with (supposing they teach Sine Wave) is his label "traditional". The ITF was Sine Wave free in the 60s and most parts of the world in the 70s.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> Because it's irrelevant to the discussion. He was searching for Chang Hon/ITF schools first and foremost, and concluded that only one was in existence in Seoul in 2011. The only part I disagree with (supposing they teach Sine Wave) is his label "traditional". The ITF was Sine Wave free in the 60s and most parts of the world in the 70s.


I completely agree, it is IRRELEVANT. So why bring it up in the first place, troll? 

Here's a Chang Hon place in Seoul. Not that hard to find. There are four others just on the first page of Google if you search the Hangul. Some ITF, some not. 

건국대 창헌태권도



Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Gnarlie said:


> I completely agree, it is IRRELEVANT. So why bring it up in the first place, troll?
> 
> Here's a Chang Hon place in Seoul. Not that hard to find. There are four others just on the first page of Google if you search the Hangul. Some ITF, some not.
> 
> 건국대 창헌태권도
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



So they were either not in existence in 2011, or he was ignorant. Because an ITF-free Chang Hon school is traditional in the right sense of the word IMO


----------



## andyjeffries

TrueJim said:


> Maybe I'm comparing apples to oranges here, but as I recall...in 1971 the  South Korean Ministry of Education required "private school permits" for taekwondo dojangs, which reportedly outraged many of the remaining school owners in Korea. For example, of the 350 dojangs in Seoul, only 79 met the Ministry of Education requirements. This further caused some taekwondo teachers to  emigrate from South Korea to teach overseas, contributing to the perception that those wishing to learn non-Kukki-style could only do so outside Korea.



What were those requirements though? Was this along the lines of "you must follow Kukkiwon syllabus" or "you must have correct insurance, safety procedures, building maintenance, etc"? I agree though, they may have left because they couldn't meet the requirements, leaving some people to think "they left Korea, therefore it's logical to assume it's because their style was banned".


----------



## TrueJim

Axiom said:


> So, they were either not in existence in 2011, or he was ignorant. Because an ITF-free Chang Hon school is traditional in the right sense of the word IMO



Unless one defines the word "traditional" to mean pre-ITF, as some people do.

To me, it seems arbitrary to use Sine Wave as the distinction between traditional and modern. Sine Wave is a comparatively minor change to a pre-existing style that was already using "knee spring" in its teaching.

On the other hand, the development of the ITF style itself seems like a much more significant historical marker.


----------



## Axiom

TrueJim said:


> Unless one defines the word "traditional" to mean pre-ITF, as some people do.
> 
> To me, it seems arbitrary to use Sine Wave as the distinction between traditional and modern. Sine Wave is a comparatively minor change to a pre-existing style that was already using "knee spring" in its teaching.
> 
> On the other hand, the development of the ITF style itself seems like a much more significant historical marker.



Removing/downplaying hip-twist and replacing it with an up and down bounce is a fundamental change to body mechanics when punching. I don't know what other changes the ITF brought that altered the Chang Hon style fundamentaly.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> So they were either not in existence in 2011, or he was ignorant.


I would say the latter is more likely, they have been around for a while in some universities. Probably searched in English expecting a shop front in English and big flashing arrows saying "tourists welcome". 


Axiom said:


> Because an ITF-free Chang Hon school is traditional in the right sense of the word IMO



No such thing as traditional IMO


----------



## TrueJim

andyjeffries said:


> What were those requirements though? Was this along the lines of "you must follow Kukkiwon syllabus" or "you must have correct insurance, safety procedures, building maintenance, etc"? I agree though, they may have left because they couldn't meet the requirements, leaving some people to think "they left Korea, therefore it's logical to assume it's because their style was banned".



For what it's worth, here's the article I was referring to: FightingArts.com - Storming the Fortress:  A History of Taekwondo  Part Five (Continued):  Political Forces Shape the Evolution of Karate Into South Koreas National Sport

"In February 1971, the Korean Ministry of Education issued a requirement that all taekwondo schools have private school permits, thereby subjecting them to government regulation (Kang and Lee, 1999: Chapter 3, Section 5). This allowed recalcitrant kwan leaders to be punished for retaining karate-based art names and traditions, and for refusing to comply with government policies.  Punishment ranged from media blacklists, suppression of school publications, the inability to renew teaching contracts at public educational institutions (particularly military and police academies), problems obtaining passports, threats of imprisonment, and even assassination attempts (Hwang, 1995: 45-50; Gillis, 76-85, 103-110; Kim, 2000). This move marginalized many Korean karate and taekwondo pioneers, such as Choi Hong-hi (moved to Canada), Yun Kwei-byung (whose death in 2000 was virtually unnoticed by the taekwondo community), and Hwang Kee, Ro Byung-jik and Son Duk-sung, all three of whom moved their organizations to the US."


----------



## TrueJim

andyjeffries said:


> What were those requirements though? Was this along the lines of "you must follow Kukkiwon syllabus" or "you must have correct insurance, safety procedures, building maintenance, etc"? I agree though, they may have left because they couldn't meet the requirements, leaving some people to think "they left Korea, therefore it's logical to assume it's because their style was banned".



The reference that FightingArts.com is using is this: http://web.stanford.edu/group/Taekwondo/documents/tkd_history.pdf

"In February 1971, the Ministry of Education required "Private School" permits for Taekwondo dojangs, which subjected Taekwondo dojangs to government regulations. There were 350 dojang in Seoul and 80% or 270 dojang did not meet the new Ministry of Education size, suitability and usage regulations required for a permit.

According to the Korea Taekwondo Association, only 79 dojang in Seoul could comply with the new Ministry of Education regulations, and the others either could not or did not obtain the necessary permit. The Seoul branch of the Ministry of Education required Taekwondo dojangs to have a certain level of financial ability, such as minimum size and equipment requirements, and many Taekwondo dojang had a hard time to fulfill these. KIM Wan Soo, who was the head official (Samujang) of the Seoul branch of the Ministry of Education, said: "The Seoul Ministry of Education required all Taekwondo dojang to comply with Private School regulations, but there were no cases of dojang going bankrupt or closing as a result of these new regulations. However, there were many conflicts between the Sabums because there were so many dojangs within a close distance of each other and it was very competitive." "


----------



## Axiom

Some of the original pioneers  who migrated were so disgusted by Chois North Korean dealings that they actually departed from ITF despite still teaching the forms and created their own federerations to simply get out of the politics. And not be tied down to that mans commands...


----------



## TrueJim

Axiom said:


> Removing/downplaying hip-twist and replacing it with an up and down bounce is a fundamental change to body mechanics when punching. I don't know what other changes the ITF brought that altered the Chang Hon style fundamentaly.



I think you're saying that the codification of Sine Wave was a more significant change to body mechanics than the change from pre-ITF martial arts to ITF-style. That's a remarkable claim.


----------



## KabutoKouji

never ceases to amaze me how intense TKD debates get


----------



## Axiom

TrueJim said:


> I think you're saying that the codification of Sine Wave was a more significant change to body mechanics than the change from pre-ITF martial arts to ITF-style. That's a remarkable claim.



As it relates to the Oh Do Kwan, yes....But what do I know with a student from the pre ITF-lineage


----------



## Axiom

KabutoKouji said:


> never ceases to amaze me how intense TKD debates get



Love it. What's even more absurd is how much resentment there is not only between rival TKD styles, but even rival federations teaching the EXACT same curriculum.

I promise you that they embrace Karate students more than rival TKD styles /federations.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Axiom said:


> It was not an opinion that there is *one* ITF school located in Seol (at least at the time of writing). To call that "a presence" is pretty optimistic.


Actually, to call that "a presence" is accurate. It might be overstating the case to call it "a significant presence", but I don't think that or any similar statement was made.


----------



## Axiom

Although my Shihan father in Shotokan has pretty low opinions of some prominent JKA  guys (despite being a JKA fighter in the 70s.)

I asked him which he prefered between Kanazawa and a random TKD exponent, and he picked the TKD guy.


----------



## TrueJim

Axiom said:


> Love it. What's even more absurd is how much resentment there is not only between rival TKD styles, but even rival federations teaching the EXACT same curriculum.



This hasn't been my experience in the U.S. at all. The local Kukkiwon-style and ITF-style people all get along just fine, and have a lot of mutual respect for each other. 

It's those gawdawful bastards from the ATA/Songahm style that we hate. 

KIDDING!  We love everybody. We see each other at festivals and stuff and admire each other's accomplishments. I only have my own experience to draw upon, but I haven't at all seen the kind of resentment that you're describing. I'm not saying they don't exist elsewhere, just that they may not be as widespread as you believe.


----------



## Axiom

TrueJim said:


> This hasn't been my experience in the U.S. at all. The local Kukkiwon-style and ITF-style people all get along just fine, and have a lot of mutual respect for each other.
> .



Does the ITF even exist in the US? 

I'm joking, but only half...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

andyjeffries said:


> Without wishing to resort to ad-hominum attacks, you don't seem to be able to.
> 
> I said "Ohdokwan definitely still has a presence in South Korea", you replied with "It was not an opinion that there is *one* ITF school located in Seol [sic] (at least at the time of writing). To call that "a presence" is pretty optimistic."
> 
> Ohdokwan and ITF are very different organisations - if you even consider the ITF one organisation, even though it's now splintered into 3-4 groups - that's funny in itself. Taekwondo was a vehicle of unification for 9-10 kwans, ITF wanted it's own way so set off doing its thing, then while the rest of Taekwondo is unified, ITF has now splintered into different groups, all claiming legitimacy. Reeks of irony!


As a side note, there's nothing _ad hominem _in that, Andy. You discussed grasp of the topic at hand, which is a valid argument based upon the evidence you cite.


----------



## TrueJim

Axiom said:


> Does the ITF even exist in the US?



This is easily Google-able.

Google Maps


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Axiom said:


> It is not a logical fallacy if one were to assume that the reporter (or whatever he is) actually knows what forms/curriculum he is looking to practise. If you want to believe that he passed on hundreds of Chang Hon schools out of ignorance and only concretated on ITF affiliations,then fine. That would however run counter to his desire to learn traditional TKD, since Sine Wave is a modern addition to Chang Hon forms.


An assumption is not evidence, nor is an appeal to common sense.


----------



## KabutoKouji

Even before the General died the group I trained under split from the I think 'official' ITF body in the UK (TAGB), to set up UTAW, and I think there was a lot of bad blood even just within that. What I mean to say is that even within TMA, which do seem to be full of politics and skullduggery, Korean stuff seems to be the most intense that way.


----------



## Axiom

TrueJim said:


> This is easily Google-able.
> 
> Google Maps



We are told over here in Sweden that those capitalists over there create their own federations and that there's barely any ITF worth mentioning. I would love to visit an ITF school if I ever travel to the US again.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Axiom said:


> BTW, he doesn't even need to go into the schools (neccesarily). If the practitioners wear ITF or old Karate doboks, chances are that they are doing Chang Hon patterns.


How much difference is there between the Chang Hon patterns and the newer versions? How much does that tend to affect the overall approach to the art?


----------



## KabutoKouji

I am confused (sorry) - does Chang Hon patterns mean the same 'Chon-ji' based patterns that are/were in ITF, but done pre SW or are they a completely different pattern set?


----------



## Axiom

KabutoKouji said:


> I am confused (sorry) - does Chang Hon patterns mean the same 'Chon-ji' based patterns that are/were in ITF, but done pre SW or are they a completely different pattern set?



Yes. It refers to both with or without SW. That is up to whether you are affiliated with ITF and want your students to compete in ITF competitions (forms) which demands Sine Wave to be able to win..


----------



## TrueJim

KabutoKouji said:


> I am confused (sorry) - does Chang Hon patterns mean the same 'Chon-ji' based patterns that are/were in ITF, but done pre SW or are they a completely different pattern set?



I have heard some people refer to the Chang Hon patterns as the Chon-Ji patterns. What does pre-SW mean?

Edit. Oh, Sine Wave. Got it.


----------



## Axiom

Here you can see it referred to as the *Chang Hon School*,even in 1968.


----------



## Axiom

TrueJim said:


> I have heard some people refer to the Chang Hon patterns as the Chon-Ji patterns. .



All patterns in the ITF are Chang Hon..from yellow belt to the highest grade. But one was taken out (Kodang) and replaced by Juche, in ITF schools in the 80s.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

andyjeffries said:


> I spent about 20 minutes in 2013 walking around and around one area of Seoul looking for Grandmaster Kang, Ik-pil's dojang (the author of the Kukki-Taekwondo bible!). Eventually I gave up and called him, and he kindly sent two of his students to exactly where I was - and no word of a lie, they walked me maybe 20 yards to a little door, and went upstairs to the dojang.
> 
> I'd never have found it, and this is the full-time dojang of a Taekwondo poomsae World Champion, Kukkiwon instructor (he often teaches masters on the Master Instructor Course) and published author.


Does he work for CONTROL?


----------



## TrueJim

Axiom said:


> All patterns in the ITF are Chang Hon..from yellow belt to the highest grade. But one was taken out (Kodang) and replaced by Juche, in ITF schools in the 80s.



Don't forget U-Nam. U-Nam


----------



## TrueJim

gpseymour said:


> Does he work for CONTROL?



Missed it by THAT much!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Axiom said:


> So they were either not in existence in 2011, or he was ignorant. Because an ITF-free Chang Hon school is traditional in the right sense of the word IMO


This highlights a problem in your earlier arguments. You state here that there's a possibility the author of that article was ignorant, yet you used him as a sole, authoritative source for most of this thread.


----------



## Axiom

Fun fact: In the original Chang Hon forms, pre ITF, the downward block in Chon ji was performed the same as in Shotokan with the wrist straight.. Later Choii changed it to a bent wrist. Some independent Chang Hon school kept the Shotokan downwards block to this day, as I learned from a former student. Probably because their instructor left before Choi had changed it.


----------



## Axiom

You can see in the old footage I linked from 68, that the demonstrater still uses the Shotokan downard block in the first pattern performed. So he was either being naughty or Choi had still not changed it..


----------



## Axiom

gpseymour said:


> This highlights a problem in your earlier arguments. You state here that there's a possibility the author of that article was ignorant, yet you used him as a sole, authoritative source for most of this thread.



Not at all. I just didn't see the point of using more sources when the largest federation (ITF) for the Chang Hon forms/system was in single digits in the capital of South Korea Post dictatorship


----------



## Tez3

Axiom said:


> I was referring to the mawashi geri. Their sidekicks also appear to be more "restrained" as it relates to leverage



The kicks are still very  effective and can KO you. That's all that matters...that it works.



Axiom said:


> I'm making a probabalistic claim.



  making up words doesn't help you



Gnarlie said:


> I completely agree, it is IRRELEVANT. So why bring it up in the first place, troll?



I thought that when I read it, basically 'I brought it up because it was irrelevant'. ok.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Axiom said:


> So you dispute that the KKW uses a characteristic black collar dobok? Did I get that right?



Yes. The KKW endorses a specific dobak for use by a minority of its students when in competition (most people know, though you may not, that Dan holders are very much a minority). 

But more pertinent to your ridiculous claim, I dispute that you can tell what poomsae are taught based on what dobak is worn. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Tez3 said:


> The kicks are still very  effective and can KO you. .



Changing the goal post. The kicks are not the same, although they may appear to be in the eyes of a layman.


----------



## KabutoKouji

one thing I always wondered when I saw it in Shotokan (I think) diagrams - was the 'twin forearm block' in ITF patterns a modified form of the 'C shaped block'?

having said that maybe not as there are similar movements in Longfist (and I'm sure other arts)


----------



## Axiom

Dirty Dog said:


> Yes. The KKW endorses a specific dobak for use by a minority of its students when in competition (most people know, though you may not, that Dan holders are very much a minority).
> 
> But more pertinent to your ridiculous claim, I dispute that you can tell what poomsae are taught based on what dobak is worn.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I did not wear the same dobok as a coloured belt in KKW compared to a coloured belt in ITF.


----------



## KabutoKouji

I have to say I don't really see that much of a problem with the Sine Wave, as long as it's not too high, (where you would be way too un-rooted at the transitional stage). I kinda liked the way it got you used to being ready to come up from a stance into a high kick easily (as in you were used to coming up from a lower stance).

What does confuse me is that when I first heard Sine Wave in TaijJiJuan classes or White Crane it of course meant a very different thing (from the heels to the spine out to the chest bow etc.).


----------



## KabutoKouji

Axiom said:


> I did not wear the same dobok as a coloured belt in KKW compared to a coloured belt in ITF.



North Korean produced grey/blue dobok is best dobok


----------



## Tez3

Axiom said:


> Changing the goal post. The kicks are not the same, although they may appear to be in the eyes of a layman.



Sweetie, you didn't read the post did you? or you didn't understand it. I didn't say the kicks were the same, though they aren't radically different just a little bit.


----------



## KabutoKouji

the video of the Irish TSD guys seemed to have much less chambering of the sidekick than we practiced, was the 'try to bring your knee as close to the opposite shoulder during chamber as you can' thing something brought in under Choi?


----------



## Axiom

KabutoKouji said:


> I have to say I don't really see that much of a problem with the Sine Wave, as long as it's not too high, (where you would be way too un-rooted at the transitional stage). I kinda liked the way it got you used to being ready to come up from a stance into a high kick easily (as in you were used to coming up from a lower stance).
> 
> What does confuse me is that when I first heard Sine Wave in TaijJiJuan classes or White Crane it of course meant a very different thing (from the heels to the spine out to the chest bow etc.).



Was your ITF off-shoot Sine Wave free?


----------



## KabutoKouji

Axiom said:


> Was your ITF off-shoot Sine Wave free?



no we did definitely do it in patterns, not so much in set sparring I think, and definitely not in sparring (of course).


----------



## KabutoKouji

as an aside and I don't want to stir anything here, but someone very high in the organisation I was in said they once asked the General to explain something to him (probably a bunkai/explanation of part of a form) and he refused


----------



## Axiom

KabutoKouji said:


> the video of the Irish TSD guys seemed to have much less chambering of the sidekick than we practiced, was the 'try to bring your knee as close to the opposite shoulder during chamber as you can' thing something brought in under Choi?



It's the exact same sidekick chamber as in the Chang Hon form. You can see it executed in slow motion in the pattern Won Hyo.


----------



## KabutoKouji

Axiom said:


> It' the exact same sidekick chamber as in the Chang Hon form. You can see it executed in slow motion  in the pattern Won Hyo.



oh ok we obviously exaggerated it or something though, it was a very powerful sidekick technique, but obv took a long time to be able to do it both correct AND fast (and I'm not saying I got anywhere near that level).

we would basically almost turn full back on, try to bring the right knee to the left shoulder, while still having the closed fist form of the knifehand guarding block above the knee, then as the kick went out, the guarding block was to go up and behind our heads in the block chamber position, locking out into (hopefully) a T like shape.

actually thinking about it, there is a similar thing in Longfist sidecut kick in that as you come up from the chamber already side on both hands 'open up' with the back hand going out at the same time in the opposite direction of the kick.


----------



## Axiom

KabutoKouji said:


> oh ok we obviously exaggerated it or something though, it was a very powerful sidekick technique, but obv took a long time to be able to do it both correct AND fast (and I'm not saying I got anywhere near that level).
> 
> we would basically almost turn full back on, try to bring the right knee to the left shoulder, while still having the closed fist form of the knifehand guarding block above the knee, then as the kick went out, the guarding block was to go up and behind our heads in the block chamber position, locking out into (hopefully) a T like shape.



What TKD style did you train?


----------



## KabutoKouji

Axiom said:


> What TKD style did you train?



well it was definitely of ITF originally (TAGB) but I think Sabum Sparkes did change it a bit, our patterns were all the ITF ones as in the TAGB book etc. though


----------



## Axiom

Instructors can also be wrong you know.. I can refute my grandmaster right here and now with an alternative knife hand with the fingers held straight, from a promotional video produced by General Choi..  My instructor is apparently not aware of this, since he claims in every single class that knife hand is always with slighly bent fingers. WRONG


----------



## KabutoKouji

I like that SImon Scher guys videos of his kicks, and I think he is ITF and he does seem to chamber sidekicks similarly to how we did (or tried)


----------



## Dirty Dog

Axiom said:


> I did not wear the same dobok as a coloured belt in KKW compared to a coloured belt in ITF.



So what?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KabutoKouji

Axiom said:


> Instructors can also be wrong you know.. I can refute my grandmaster right here and now with an alternative knife hand with the fingers held straight, from a promotional video produced by General Choi..  My instructor is apparently not aware of this, since he claims in every single class that knife hand is always with slighly bent fingers. WRONG



slightly bent as in one bent back for Opun Sonkut Tulgi, or just all bent?


----------



## Axiom

KabutoKouji said:


> slightly bent as in one bent back for Opun Sonkut Tulgi, or just all bent?



All fingers bent, always he claims (knife hand strike) . That is one variation of a knife hand in Chang hon TaeKwondo, but not the only one . He also claims that L stance MUST have the rear foot  pointing 25 degrees, when the encyklopedia clearly states *Preferrably* 25 degrees. And I have corrected him on this but he refuses to aknowledge it.


----------



## KabutoKouji

That's interesting as tbh I was always almost 90 degrees with the rear foot, but at 25 degrees it becomes very similar to a Longfist stance


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Axiom said:


> Instructors can also be wrong you know.. I can refute my grandmaster right here and now with an alternative knife hand with the fingers held straight, from a promotional video produced by General Choi..  My instructor is apparently not aware of this, since he claims in every single class that knife hand is always with slighly bent fingers. WRONG


Not "wrong" - he teaches a different method. He wants people to learn that method, because that's what he can optimize for them.


----------



## KabutoKouji

yes my TKD Master definitely 'considered' things for a long time before he implemented them I believe


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Axiom said:


> All fingers bent, always he claims (knife hand strike) . That is one variation of a knife hand in Chang hon TaeKwondo, but not the only one . He also claims that L stance MUST have the rear foot  pointing 25 degrees, when the encyklopedia clearly states *Preferrably* 25 degrees. And I have corrected him on this but he refuses to aknowledge it.


You are correcting your instructor, based upon something in a book? Who is the instructor, again?


----------



## Axiom

gpseymour said:


> Not "wrong" - he teaches a different method. He wants people to learn that method, because that's what he can optimize for them.



No,  he is by his own admission teaching General Chois system (we are ITF) , and is occasionally inacurrate despite his GM rank.


----------



## Axiom

gpseymour said:


> You are correcting your instructor, based upon something in a book? Who is the instructor, again?



A book written by the founder of our system,  General Choi. Encyklopedia of TaeKwonDo.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Axiom said:


> A book written by the founder of our system,  General Choi. Encyklopedia of TaeKwonDo.


You don't get the problem, do you?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Axiom said:


> My instructor is apparently not aware of this, since he claims in every single class that knife hand is always with slighly bent fingers. WRONG


The fingers in a knife hand should be slightly bent. If you have completely straight fingers then you are not  getting the required tension in the hand at the end of the strike.


----------



## Axiom

RTKDCMB said:


> The fingers in a knife hand should be slightly bent. If you have completely straight fingers then you are not  getting the required tension in the hand at the end of the strike.



I don't mind him arguing that point. It's the l-stance 25 degrees rear leg that buggs me, but he claims to be correct, even when I reference the encyklopedia, which he himself endorses, as a follower of General Choi.

That being said, I suggest you look at his fingers at

02:58 for this alternative  knifehand strike.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Axiom said:


> I don't mind him arguing that point. It's the l-stance 25 degrees rear leg that buggs me, but he claims to be correct, even when I reference the encyklopedia, which he himself endorses, as a follower of General Choi.
> 
> That being said, I suggest you look at his fingers at
> 
> 02:58 for this alternative  knifehand strike.


That's not a knife hand strike at 2:58 - the voice says it's "similar to a knife hand" (I'd call it a "ridge hand" - don't know if that's a common name). Is there an actual knife hand demonstrated in that video?


----------



## KabutoKouji

the sidekick in that instructional video is hardly chambered - it's more like a front snap kick that turns into a sidekick at the end, (IMO)


----------



## Axiom

gpseymour said:


> That's not a knife hand strike at 2:58 - the voice says it's "similar to a knife hand" (I'd call it a "ridge hand" - don't know if that's a common name). Is there an actual knife hand demonstrated in that video?



Yes the one before it, with the fingers classicaly bent.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Axiom said:


> I don't mind him arguing that point. It's the l-stance 25 degrees rear leg that buggs me, but he claims to be correct, even when I reference the encyklopedia, which he himself endorses, as a follower of General Choi.
> 
> That being said, I suggest you look at his fingers at
> 
> 02:58 for this alternative  knifehand strike.



That's not a knife hand, it's a ridge hand. 
This is one reason why it's generally a mistake for kids to correct those with actual knowledge.
Your instructors standards are his own business, but I can promise you that no student displaying your combination of ignorance and arrogance would be testing for Dan rank in our system.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> That's not a knife hand strike at 2:58 - the voice says it's "similar to a knife hand" (I'd call it a "ridge hand" - don't know if that's a common name). Is there an actual knife hand demonstrated in that video?



It's a ridge hand for sure, Haito Uchi. One of my favourites.


----------



## Axiom

Dirty Dog said:


> That's not a knife hand, it's a ridge hand.
> This is one reason why it's generally a mistake for kids to correct those with actual knowledge.
> Your instructors standards are his own business, but I can promise you that no student displaying your combination of ignorance and arrogance would be testing for Dan rank in our system.



I don't care if it's listed under a seperate name, it is a similiar technique that he completey disregards and claims that fingers must always be bent. Just like he claims that the rear leg MUST be pointing 25 degrees in the L-stance which I can refute in 10 seconds. Yet he insists on correcting me each time....


----------



## Tez3

Axiom said:


> I don't care if it's listed under a seperate name, it is a similiar technique that he completey disregards and claims that fingers must always be bent. Just like he claims that the rear leg must be pointing 25 degrees in the L-stance which I can refute in 10 seconds. Yet he insists on correcting me each time....



if you don't like what he teaches leave.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Axiom said:


> I don't care if it's listed under a seperate name, it is a similiar technique that he completey disregards and claims that fingers must always be bent. Just like he claims that the rear leg must be pointing 25 degrees in the L-stance which, I can refute in 10 seconds. Yet he insists on correcting it each time....



So basically you don't care that you're completely wrong, you're just going to continue spouting nonsense. Got it.
I'm going to revise my statement. Not only would you not be tested for Dan rank, you'd be encouraged to go elsewhere.


----------



## Axiom

Dirty Dog said:


> So basically you don't care that you're completely wrong, you're just going to continue spouting nonsense. Got it.
> I'm going to revise my statement. Not only would you not be tested for Dan rank, you'd be encouraged to go elsewhere.


¨
Am I completely wrong about the L-stance? Which I am not allowed to perform they way I sees fit for my body? Which I have informed him is perfectly correct by the book


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> I did not wear the same dobok as a coloured belt in KKW compared to a coloured belt in ITF.


Therefore the same is true for everyone else? Is that what you are saying? 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Or the fact that I said an *alternative version* of a knifehand. The commentator says similiar to the knife hand, I am content with _alternative_.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Axiom said:


> ¨
> Am I completely wrong about the L-stance? Which I am not allowed to perform they way I sees fit for my body? Which I have informed him is perfectly correct by the book



Yes, you are completely wrong. If you want to do your own  thing, fine. Declare yourself the 25th Dan Soke of Douche-Ryu and be done with it.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Axiom said:


> Or the fact that I said an *alternative version* of a knifehand. The commentator says similiar to the knife hand, I am content with _alternative_.



It's not an alternative version. It uses totally different body mechanics to strike with the opposite side of the hand. That's not an alternative version. It's a completely different technique. I would expect even a 9th geup to understand this.


----------



## Axiom

Dirty Dog said:


> Yes, you are completely wrong. If you want to do your own  thing, fine. Declare yourself the 25th Dan Soke of Douche-Ryu and be done with it.



Okey, so in summary then: My terminology for the ridge hand - "Alternative knife hand - perfectly compatible with the instructional video, is *completely* wrong. Such a technique does not exist in the ITF, apparently, because striking with straight fingers is always wrong according to the GM. You will break them. End of dogmatic sentence. Nevermind the video or the parent technique that is never shown in class.

And my stance on the L-stance is also wrong, despite the encyklopedia backing me 100%.

Good to know.


----------



## Gnarlie

gpseymour said:


> That's not a knife hand strike at 2:58 - the voice says it's "similar to a knife hand" (I'd call it a "ridge hand" - don't know if that's a common name). Is there an actual knife hand demonstrated in that video?


Yeah, that's ridge hand not knife hand. Yok sudo in Trad TKD terminology.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Axiom said:


> Or the fact that I said an *alternative version* of a knifehand. The commentator says similiar to the knife hand, I am content with _alternative_.



It's not an alternative version of a knife hand though, it's a different technique. 




Dirty Dog said:


> It's not an alternative version. It uses totally different body mechanics to strike with the opposite side of the hand. That's not an alternative version. It's a completely different technique. I would expect even a 9th geup to understand this.



Just about to post when I saw you getting there before me. This boy is a real shmendrik.


----------



## Axiom

Dirty Dog said:


> It's a completely different technique.



Yet the instructional states: This is *similiar* to the knife hand except for the thumb tucked in (and fingers straight).


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> Or the fact that I said an *alternative version* of a knifehand. The commentator says similiar to the knife hand, I am content with _alternative_.


Not a knife hand in that the striking surface and mechanics of the motion are very different, requiring a totally different hand form. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gnarlie

Dirty Dog said:


> Yes, you are completely wrong. If you want to do your own  thing, fine. Declare yourself the 25th Dan Soke of Douche-Ryu and be done with it.


Odd that that's the word that's been on the tip of my tongue for the majority of my interaction with Axiom here. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirty Dog

Axiom said:


> Okey, so in summary then: My terminology for the ridge hand - "Alternative knife hand - perfectly compatible with the instructional video, is *completely* wrong.



You are completely incorrect. Yes. I'm glad you're finally starting to recognize this.



> Such a technique does not exist in the ITF, apparently, because striking with straight fingers is always wrong according to the GM. You will break them.



Neither the knife hand nor the (totally different) ridge hand involve striking with the fingers. Striking with the fingers is a spearhand. And your instructor is correct. A spearhand done with straight fingers is quite likely to result in one or more broken fingers. A properly performed spearhand involves bending the fingers such that the tips of the 2nd-4th fingers strike at the same time and lend rigidity to each other.

Apparently the problem is that you're too ignorant/foolish/unteachable to understand that these are three totally different techniques.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Axiom said:


> Yet the instructional states: This is *similiar* to the knife hand except for the thumb tucked in (and fingers straight).



The description is of the position of the fingers relative to each other. The techniques are totally different.


----------



## Axiom

Gnarlie said:


> Not a knife hand in that the striking surface and mechanics of the motion are very different, requiring a totally different hand form.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



As I recall (just watching it 10 minutes ago) it is was the same striking motions performed in the video. Either way the technique has not been made of aware of in class, so I don't know why you blame ME for that.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> Yet the instructional states: This is *similiar* to the knife hand except for the thumb tucked in (and fingers straight).


And the different striking surface, targets, and body mechanics required. So, completely different. The similarity lies only in the face that it uses an edge of the hand. There is no need for bent fingers with this technique because of the different mechanic. Come one dude, this is simple. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Dirty Dog said:


> Neither the knife hand nor the (totally different) ridge hand involve striking with the fingers.



I didn't say striking with the fingers as the point of impact with either technique, I said striking *with the fingers being straight. *


----------



## Dirty Dog

Axiom said:


> As I recall (just watching it 10 minutes ago) it is was the same striking motions performed in the video. Either way the technique has not been made of aware of in class, so I don't know why you blame ME for that.



The striking motions for a knifehand vs ridgehand vs spearhand are completely and totally different.
Your instructor may be holding off on introducing the other techniques simply because he is aware of your limited understanding and doesn't want to confuse you more than you already are.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> As I recall (just watching it 10 minutes ago) it is was the same striking motions performed in the video. Either way the technique has not been made of aware of in class, so I don't know why you blame ME for that.


Hang on, I thought you were the one correcting your 9th dan instructor? Doesn't that mean you know best? Now that you DON'T know about something, you want to push it onto your 9th dan again? Sounds fishy to me. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gnarlie

Dirty Dog said:


> The striking motions for a knifehand vs ridgehand vs spearhand are completely and totally different.
> Your instructor may be holding off on introducing the other techniques simply because he is aware of your limited understanding and doesn't want to confuse you more than you already are.


This is highly likely to be the case. I think he's probably noticed the douchey aura. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Dirty Dog said:


> The striking motions for a knifehand vs ridgehand vs spearhand are completely and totally different..



I see the difference between striking with a back swing as a typical knifehand, compared to a vertical trajectory with the ridgehand, but I still don't concider them completely different. In my book they are both knifehands-types of strikes due to the open hand and nature of the strike.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Axiom said:


> I don't care if it's listed under a seperate name, it is a similiar technique that he completey disregards and claims that fingers must always be bent. Just like he claims that the rear leg MUST be pointing 25 degrees in the L-stance which I can refute in 10 seconds. Yet he insists on correcting me each time....


The fingers being bent has a specific purpose in a knife-hand strike. That purpose is irrelevant when striking with the other side of the hand (ridge-hand). There's nothing in that ridge-hand strike to suggest straight fingers in a knife-hand strike. That's like saying a foot position for a front kick should/can be used for a back kick. It's a _non sequitur_.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Axiom said:


> I see the difference between striking with a back swing as a typical knifehand, compared to a vertical trajectory with the ridgehand, but I still don't concider them completely different. In my book they are both knifehands-types of strikes due to the open hand and nature of the strike.



Apparently you do NOT, since the trajectory of a ridgehand is virtually always horizontal. It certainly was so in the video you posted.
Your book, by the way, is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Axiom said:


> ¨
> Am I completely wrong about the L-stance? Which I am not allowed to perform they way I sees fit for my body? Which I have informed him is perfectly correct by the book


Okay, let's see if I can help you at all. First, the book is old. Sometimes, things are learned to be better one way than another. Second, there may be a VERY good reason he's requiring that specific angle. At 4 years of training, you're not experienced enough to pick up some of the nuances of why one position is better than another.

If you really think you know this better than him, it's time to leave the school. You will refuse to learn from him, and that's a problem (for you) regardless of whether you are right or not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Axiom said:


> Or the fact that I said an *alternative version* of a knifehand. The commentator says similiar to the knife hand, I am content with _alternative_.


Except that it's not an alternative version of the knife-hand. It is similar to it in a rough sense, but it is not a version of a knife-hand, at all.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Axiom said:


> Okey, so in summary then: My terminology for the ridge hand - "Alternative knife hand - perfectly compatible with the instructional video, is *completely* wrong. Such a technique does not exist in the ITF, apparently, because striking with straight fingers is always wrong according to the GM. You will break them. End of dogmatic sentence. Nevermind the video or the parent technique that is never shown in class.
> 
> And my stance on the L-stance is also wrong, despite the encyklopedia backing me 100%.
> 
> Good to know.


Your use of "alternative knife hand" is NOT consistent nor compatible with the video. He says it is "similar to". Not even close to the same thing. Striking WITH THE KNIFE HAND with the fingers straight is in error (for your style - I can't speak to all). Pointing out that they can be straight in a completely different strike is irrelevant to the question.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Axiom said:


> Yet the instructional states: This is *similiar* to the knife hand except for the thumb tucked in (and fingers straight).


Yeah it says "this form is similar to the knife hand" (I think I've quoted that correctly), and then it shows, quite clearly, that the striking surface isn't the same. It is visually similar, but not a similar technique. None of the mechanics are even close.


----------



## Axiom

Dirty Dog said:


> Apparently you do NOT, since the trajectory of a ridgehand is virtually always horizontal. It certainly was so in the video you posted.
> .



What difference does trajectory make to what you label it as? The point of impact is different parts of the open hand, but that does not warrant a new terminology in *my book*. The hand formation is waaay too similiar and both resembling knifes in hand forms.

Just like a turning kick with the instep and a vertical trajectory path is just as much of a turning kick as when it's horizontal and striking with the ball off the foot.


----------



## Dirty Dog

gpseymour said:


> Except that it's not an alternative version of the knife-hand. It is similar to it in a rough sense, but it is not a version of a knife-hand, at all.



Exactly. He might as well call it a punch. After all, it uses the hand.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Axiom said:


> I see the difference between striking with a back swing as a typical knifehand, compared to a vertical trajectory with the ridgehand, but I still don't concider them completely different. In my book they are both knifehands-types of strikes due to the open hand and nature of the strike.


If you don't see the core difference between these, there's a problem.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Axiom said:


> What difference does trajectory make to what you label it as? The point of impact is different parts of the open hand, but that does not warrant a new terminology in *my book*. The hand formation is waaay too similiar and both resembling knifes in hand forms.
> 
> Just like a turning kick with the instep and a vertical trajectory path is just as much of a turning kick as when it's horizontal and striking with the ball off the foot.


But not the same if you're doing an entirely different kick, using an entirely different part of the foot.


----------



## Axiom

gpseymour said:


> Yeah it says "this form is similar to the knife hand" (I think I've quoted that correctly), and then it shows, quite clearly, that the striking surface isn't the same. It is visually similar, but not a similar technique. None of the mechanics are even close.



Nor is a vertical vs horizontal turning kick with different parts of the foot as point of impacts.  We call them both turning kick, or in "american terms" roundhouse kicks.


----------



## Axiom

gpseymour said:


> But not the same if you're doing an entirely different kick, using an entirely different part of the foot.



So you don't think the instep compared to ball of the foot is equally an entirely different part of the foot as the different striking surface between a ridge hand and knifehand?

Really?


----------



## Gnarlie

There's a reason why you don't understand this strike and why it hasn't been taught to you (but has to others in your class much as you might disagree). 

It first appears in Choong Moo, and you are not there yet.

When you learn that form, your instructor will show you the fingers are straight. Or not, because not all people do it with fingers straight based on their own experiences with the strike. Some people splay the fingers, some bend them. The book says straight. But is is in now way an alternative knife hand. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Dirty Dog said:


> Exactly. He might as well call it a punch. After all, it uses the hand.



Sorry but I reject your offer. I call it an alternative knife hand due to the hand formation resembling a knife for both techniques. In fact, the ridge hand more resembles a knife than the actual knife hand.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> Sorry but I reject your offer. I call it an alternative knife hand due to the hand formation resembling a knife for both techniques. In fact, the ridge hand more resembles a knife than the actual knife hand.


Stubborn as well as arrogant and ignorant. We almost have a new set of tenets.

Check out movement 13 of Choong Moo for the correct terminology. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Gnarlie said:


> Stubborn as well as arrogant and ignorant. We almost have a new set of tenets.
> 
> Check out movement 13 of Choong Moo for the correct terminology.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



I have no quarrels with the exact terminology, but just so you know there are plenty of inaccurate terminologies.... The ITF apparently makes no distinction between a reverse turning kick and a spinning hook kick, when it's very clear that a spinning hook kick hooks with the foot (just like the normal hook kick), while the reverse turning kick has the foot planted on the target in a static foot formation.

So I am used to inappropriate terminology in the ITF.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> I have no quarrels with the exact terminology, but just so you know there are plenty of inaccurate terminologies.... The ITF apparently makes no distinction between a reverse turning kick and a spinning hook kick, when it's very clear that a spinning hook kick hooks with the foot (just like the normal hook kick), while the reverse turning kick has the foot planted on the target in a static foot formation.
> 
> So I am used to inappropriate terminology in the ITF.


The encyclopedia does however differentiate between sonnal/sonkal and sonnal/sonkal deung. Knife hand and reverse knife hand. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Actually, the ITF does have a reverse hook kick. So that one I will take back. General Choi said reverse turning kick when Jong Soo park did a spinning/reverse hook kick, so that's where my confusion stemmed from.


----------



## Tez3

Axiom said:


> So I am used to inappropriate terminology in the ITF.



I'm pretty sure the terminology isn't 'inappropriate', it could be inaccurate or false but I doubt it's inappropriate.  Unless there's some really sexy writing in it or pictures perhaps?


----------



## Axiom

Tez3 said:


> I'm pretty sure the terminology isn't 'inappropriate', it could be inaccurate or false but I doubt it's inappropriate.  Unless there's some really sexy writing in it or pictures perhaps?



I'm gonna vote to rename ridge hand "front knife hand strike". This will be my contribution to humanity.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Axiom said:


> I have no quarrels with the exact terminology, but just so you know there are plenty of inaccurate terminologies.... The ITF apparently makes no distinction between a reverse turning kick and a spinning hook kick, when it's very clear that a spinning hook kick hooks with the foot (just like the normal hook kick), while the reverse turning kick has the foot planted on the target in a static foot formation.
> 
> So I am used to inappropriate terminology in the ITF.



Terminology will vary somewhat due to difficulties in translation - much of the terminology in TKD does not translate directly. A common example is the term "reverse punch" which in Korea means a punch from the front hand, while in most of the rest of the world it means a punch from the rear hand.
But that's hardly the same as failing to recognize that a knifehand and a ridgehand are totally different techniques.


----------



## Axiom

Dirty Dog said:


> But that's hardly the same as failing to recognize that a knifehand and a ridgehand are totally different techniques.



I knew the difference between the techniques then just as I do now, and since the hand formation is roughly similiar, I stand by alternative knife hand even though the TKD dictionary disagrees.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Axiom said:


> I knew the difference between the techniques then just as I do now, and since the hand formation is roughly similiar, I stand by alternative knife hand even though the TKD dictionary disagrees.



You should look up the word "hubris" sometime...


----------



## Tez3

Axiom said:


> I'm gonna vote to rename ridge hand "front knife hand strike". This will be my contribution to humanity.


----------



## Gnarlie

Tez3 said:


> View attachment 21029


Is that another alternative knife hand tez? 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirty Dog

Gnarlie said:


> Is that another alternative knife hand tez?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



Well, it DOES use an open hand, and apparently all open hands are knifehands, so...


----------



## Axiom

Wait a second, " you just wrote that TKD has a *reverse* knife hand strike... That is exactly the same trajectory path as ridge hand... Only difference being fingers slightly bent and thumb not tucked in???
So the motion is Not always different for a knife hand


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> Wait A second, " you just wrote that TKD has a *reverse* knife hand strike... That is exactly the same trajectory path as ridge hand... Only difference being fingers slightly bent and thumb not tucked in???
> So the motion is Not always different for a knife hand


It's the other side of the hand with different targets and multiple different possible paths, some of which are physically impossible with knife hand e.g. groin strike forwards.

Palm heel strike uses a flat hand, are you going to call that alternative knife hand too? What about a slap? 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Gnarlie said:


> It's the other side of the hand with different targets and multiple different possible paths, some of which are physically impossible with knife hand e.g. groin strike forwards.
> 
> Palm heel strike uses a flat hand, are you going to call that alternative knife hand too? What about a slap?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



The dude below hits with the same point of impact as in the black and White clip we discussed, using the same motion. How is the striking surface different??


----------



## Tez3

Gnarlie said:


> What about a slap?



Are you offering one? He certainly deserves a slap.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> The dude below hits with the same point of impact as in the black and White clip we discussed, using the same motion. How is the striking surface different??


It is the other side of the hand you muppet. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Gnarlie said:


> It is the other side of the hand you muppet.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



Thats my point. And you still label it knife hand so the part of the hand is irrelevant to whether its a knife hand


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> Thats my point. And you still label it knife hand so the part of the hand is irrelevant to whether its a knife hand


It is a poor translation. The names mean 'knife hand' and 'knife hand back side'. The technique for using those respective surfaces is different, their targets are different, and their paths are different. The name is incidental as the true name is Korean and cannot be directly and accurately translated. They are similar in hand form, but not in other ways. The finger positioning is important for each, but there's no reason for a 9th dan to teach you this as sonnal deung does not appear in the colour belt form syllabus. So, he's right, all knife hand techniques in your form syllabus so far are bent fingers. Accept it and move on. You'll learn this technique soon. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## RTKDCMB

Axiom said:


> So you don't think the instep compared to ball of the foot is equally an entirely different part of the foot as the different striking surface between a ridge hand and knifehand?


Apples and oranges. A knife hand and reverse knife hand strike travel in opposite directions and have entirely different body mechanics whereas the turning kick with the instep and ball of the foot travel in the same direction and have virtually the same body mechanics..


----------



## Dirty Dog

Axiom said:


> Thats my point. And you still label it knife hand so the part of the hand is irrelevant to whether its a knife hand









Hey look, he's doing a knifehand!
Since the contact point and actual striking technique are irrelevant, according to you...


----------



## Axiom

I can strike soft parts of the body such as the kneck with an "incorrect" knife hand strike configuration - fingers straight.. and they won't break. Or I can throw a ridge strike where fingers are meant to be straight. It doesn't matter which way the motion goes or which side of the hand I strike with. Fingers won't break either way.


----------



## Axiom

,


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Axiom said:


> Nor is a vertical vs horizontal turning kick with different parts of the foot as point of impacts.  We call them both turning kick, or in "american terms" roundhouse kicks.


Roundhouse kicks all use the same striking surface - at least all the roundhouse kicks I know. A spinning back kick is as unrelated as that ridge-hand.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Axiom said:


> So you don't think the instep compared to ball of the foot is equally an entirely different part of the foot as the different striking surface between a ridge hand and knifehand?
> 
> Really?


Yes, it is equally different. And the toe position for one is as equally unrelated as the finger position in question.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

gpseymour said:


> Roundhouse kicks all use the same striking surface - at least all the roundhouse kicks I know. A spinning back kick is as unrelated as that ridge-hand.



Roundhouse kicks can hit with the shin, the instep, the ball of the foot, or the point of the toe*, depending on the art and the specific variation. The change in striking surface can require some adjustments to the body dynamics, but it's still a roundhouse kick.

*(There's at least one karate style which conditions the feet so that you can do this barefoot, but I have no desire to try that. I only use the point of the toe when kicking with shoes, Savate style.)


----------



## Dirty Dog

gpseymour said:


> Roundhouse kicks all use the same striking surface - at least all the roundhouse kicks I know. A spinning back kick is as unrelated as that ridge-hand.



Not really. We teach the roundhouse striking with the instep, the shin, or the ball of the foot. We consider the instep as primarily a sparring kick, when your goal isn't to break anything. The shin and ball of the foot versions are for breaking, whether that means boards or ribs.

Now, the body mechanics for the kick are the same regardless of which surface strikes, unlike the knifehand vs ridgehand vs spearhand nonsense.

And of course, the various hook kicks are completely different to a roundhouse kick.


----------



## Axiom

Dirty Dog said:


> Not really. We teach the roundhouse striking with the instep, the shin, or the ball of the foot. We consider the instep as primarily a sparring kick, when your goal isn't to break anything. The shin and ball of the foot versions are for breaking, whether that means boards or ribs.
> 
> Now, the body mechanics for the kick are the same regardless of which surface strikes, unlike the knifehand vs ridgehand vs spearhand nonsense.
> 
> And of course, the various hook kicks are completely different to a roundhouse kick.



In Your school. In others they teach for the instep technique to chamber as a front kick before pivoting, unlike for the ball of the foot variation in which the chambering is semicircular.


----------



## Axiom

You guys did not concider reverse knife hand strike to be a knife hand technique.. Well guess what, I do and have always done, and completely agree with the English translation.

I  blanked on the proper term and kept labelling it alternative knife hand for some bizarre reason.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> In Your school. In others they teach for the instep technique to chamber as a front kick before pivoting, unlike for the ball of the foot variation in which the chambering is semicircular.



Not necessarily. There are ball of the foot variants with the front kick chamber. But still, these kicks have largely similar dynamics and directions, which the knife hand and ridge hand do not.

The slightly different striking angle when using ridge hand means the fingers do not need to be bent as they are already slightly offset from the angle of the strike. This is not the case with knife hand.

This might not be an issue with a soft target, but with hard targets for which these techniques are also suited, such as the temple, the finger positioning becomes important in reducing the risk of injury to the striker. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Gnarlie said:


> Not necessarily. There are ball of the foot variants with the front kick chamber.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



Even so, there is a semi circular chambering for the ball of the foot in the Kukkiwon textbook.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> Even so, there is a semi circular chambering for the ball of the foot in the Kukkiwon textbook.


There's also linear chambering for ball of the foot. See dollyo chagi in Taegeuk Yuk Jang for example. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> Roundhouse kicks can hit with the shin, the instep, the ball of the foot, or the point of the toe*, depending on the art and the specific variation. The change in striking surface can require some adjustments to the body dynamics, but it's still a roundhouse kick.
> 
> *(There's at least one karate style which conditions the feet so that you can do this barefoot, but I have no desire to try that. I only use the point of the toe when kicking with shoes, Savate style.)


Okay, instep/shin is a fairly minor variation to me. The ball of the foot we have a different name for (rib kick), so I wasn't counting that one. And toe of the foot I'd not seen - that's a new one for me. Seems there's some difference in terminology from what I'm used to.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Axiom said:


> You guys did not concider reverse knife hand strike to be a knife hand technique.


Only in the sense that it uses the edge of the hand (in this case the opposite of the knife hand, hence the name 'reverse knife hand').


----------



## KabutoKouji

I never saw a video of Taekyon sparring before - is that possibly where the Sinewave was influenced by?


----------



## TrueJim

KabutoKouji said:


> I never saw a video of Taekyon sparring before - is that possibly where the Sinewave was influenced by?


----------



## KabutoKouji

sorry I didn't phrase that sentence very well - what I meant to say was I had watched a video with Taekyon in it, and they were doing a form of soft contact sparring where they did a type of circle walk and were constantly circling their hands (as if they were going from White Crane Spreads Its Wings from one side to the other), in it they were constantly moving up and down as they moved stance, not as fast as the usual 'sparring'/kickboxing type movement either, so it did look quite sinewave-ish.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Axiom said:


> .......................Taekwondo is an umbrella term for several styles, and to disregard the rest is unwarranted.


That is an opinion held by some.


----------



## Earl Weiss

RTKDCMB said:


> Apples and oranges. A knife hand and reverse knife hand strike travel in opposite directions and have entirely different body mechanics whereas the turning kick with the instep and ball of the foot travel in the same direction and have virtually the same body mechanics..



Hmmm,   Inward Knifehand strike and front strike with reverse knifehand travel from the shoulder line toward the center line .   Knifehand and reverse knifehand can and are also both used for downward strikes / breaks.   So, while I will grant you that Knifehand mostly is used in an outward direction and reverse knifehand in an inward direction, they don't always travel in opposite directions.  

While not a perfect system the name of the "Tool" (surface0 and the reverse designation is used for items that are somewhat opposite i.e. Knifehand / reverse Knifehand. , footsword / revers footsword, turning kick / reverse turning kick.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Earl Weiss said:


> Hmmm,   Inward Knifehand strike and front strike with reverse knifehand travel from the shoulder line toward the center line .   Knifehand and reverse knifehand can and are also both used for downward strikes / breaks.   So, while I will grant you that Knifehand mostly is used in an outward direction and reverse knifehand in an inward direction, they don't always travel in opposite directions.
> 
> While not a perfect system the name of the "Tool" (surface0 and the reverse designation is used for items that are somewhat opposite i.e. Knifehand / reverse Knifehand. , footsword / revers footsword, turning kick / reverse turning kick.


I think the “opposite direction” was in relation to the hand, rather than absolute directions.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Earl Weiss said:


> Hmmm, Inward Knifehand strike and front strike with reverse knifehand travel from the shoulder line toward the center line .



Yes but the orientation of the hand is turned the opposite way up. The knife hands and their equivalent reverse hand strikes (palm up, arm bent and palm down, arm mostly straight) travel in opposite directions in each case.



Earl Weiss said:


> Knifehand and reverse knifehand can and are also both used for downward strikes / breaks.



Yes but they have different body mechanics and hand orientation. The downward reverse knife hand is very much like the outside to inside reverse knife hand and the downwards knife hand is also much like the outside to inside version of the knife hand, but both with the same situation as the above comment.


----------



## Earl Weiss

↑
Hmmm, Inward Knifehand strike and front strike with reverse knifehand travel from the shoulder line toward the center line .
Yes but the orientation of the hand is turned the opposite way up. The knife hands and their equivalent reverse hand strikes (palm up, arm bent and palm down, arm mostly straight) travel in opposite directions in each case.



RTKDCMB said:


> Yes but the orientation of the hand is turned the opposite way up. The knife hands and their equivalent reverse hand strikes (palm up, arm bent and palm down, arm mostly straight) travel in opposite directions in each case.
> .



You are of course correct that that on techniques moving from the shoulder line toward the center arm is somewhat bent at the elbow for KH which is palm up and arm is staright for RKH.    I do not understand how or why you think that thy "Travel in opposite directions " since they both travel from the shoulder line to the center line. Similarly downward strikes still go vertically from High to low.   What am I missing?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Earl Weiss said:


> I do not understand how or why you think that thy "Travel in opposite directions " since they both travel from the shoulder line to the center line.



KH with palm up and arm bent goes from outside to inside. RKH with palm up and arm bent goes from inside to outside, ie. opposite directions.

KH with palm down and arm straight goes from inside to outside. RKH with palm down and arm straight goes from outside to inside, ie. opposite directions.



Earl Weiss said:


> Similarly downward strikes still go vertically from High to low. What am I missing?



KH palm in, RKH palm out.


----------



## Earl Weiss

RTKDCMB said:


> KH with palm up and arm bent goes from outside to inside. RKH with palm up and arm bent goes from inside to outside, ie. opposite directions.
> 
> KH with palm down and arm straight goes from inside to outside. RKH with palm down and arm straight goes from outside to inside, ie. opposite directions.
> 
> 
> 
> KH palm in, RKH palm out.



Now, I get your point. Thank You.


----------

