# Standard KKW hip rotation for down block?



## sopraisso (May 25, 2013)

Hello everyone.
Today I took some time to watch a few Kukkiwon taekwondo vids and something seemed different from the way we perform at my school (that teaches Kukkiwon style). It was the hip position at the end of a few movements like down block (are makki) in front stance (ap keubi) - for example, as seen in the 5th movement of taegeuk il hang.

In the school where I practice we perform the hip rotation in that movement in the same direction following the arm that goes down (e.g. if I perform right down block, my hips turn clockwise seen from above). As a result, we finish the movement having the torso completely centered (instead of slighted tilted to the side as it more usually happens to shotokan karate). But in the vid I saw the performer seemed to always finish the position slightly off the center, more like it is usually seen in shotokan.

It wouldn't be the first time in my school the teachings were different from Kukkiwon standard, and now I want to know what's the standard for the movement from what I previously described. Should we finish with the torso completely centered or slightly turned outside?

Also, I'd like to ask about the hip rotation itself. In shotokan I learned it was possible to turn the hip (for a same movement like down block) both "with the block" (jun kaiten) or "against the block" (gyaku kaiten), but in taekwondo I've only seen the first case. So is that right or in Kukkiwon style it is also accepted to perform in both manners?

Please consider for my question techniques like down block, rising block (olgul makki) and outside block (montong bakkat makki), as all of them seem to work in a similar way regarding to the hip rotation.

Also note that my concern is with the standard for the style, not which one would be better or in which situations.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## SJON (May 25, 2013)

Muito bom dia, Sopraisso.

I'm not certain what is standard right now, as I've lost track of all the little details of standard KKW technique that have changed over the years. I was always taught to have the hips completely "square", i.e. torso centred, at the end of movements in ap sogi and ap kubi.

I don't recall offhand seeing the "opposite hip twist" in any movement other than han sonnal olgul bituro makki as in Taegeuk Youk Jang, but there may be other examples.

It would probably get me failed in a grading nowadays, but my performance of these movements always includes (a) the hip twist preceding the arm movement and (b) a slight movement in the direction of the technique, so the hip twist of an are makki includes a slight drop and the hip twist of an olgul makki is tilted slightly upwards.

Best regards,

Simon


----------



## sopraisso (May 25, 2013)

My concern is exactly about the changes of standards - or better, the change of organizations that happened years ago in most schools in my country (from Kwan/ITF- related to Kukkiwon, but without the necessary technical update, that came only lately and in bits). So I recently found out that a few technical details in my school (and probably in most of Brazil's schools) were still being teached "the old way" (kwan standards mainly). That's not a problem to me as I don't reject those ways (I even prefer most of them), but I only want to know the official Kukkiwon standard now - that's even more important since I started having students of my own.

Obrigado e forte abraço! (I realize that's quite a Brazilian way of finishing a message) 

Enviado de meu GT-I9300 usando o Tapatalk 2


----------



## ATC (May 25, 2013)

30 degrees turn and angle (hip and shoulders) when finished. This is the stance requirement for everything not just the low block but all blocks and punches when in long stance, walking stance, cat stance, except for back stance where the finished turn angle is 45 degrees. It is not the block or strike but the stance that requires the turn or angle. You should not be centered as you do not go into or thru your target. turning the hips and shoulders 30 degrees will put your punch beyond your target ensuring that you hit with max force. As I stated only the back stance is at a 45 degree angle as it allows for a better and stronger blocking angle in this stance, it also allows your to be quicker when transitioning into the next stance as well. It has always been this way if practicing KKW TKD.


----------



## SJON (May 25, 2013)

ATC said:


> 30 degrees turn and angle (hip and shoulders) when finished. This is the stance requirement for everything not just the low block but all blocks and punches when in long stance, walking stance, cat stance, except for back stance where the finished turn angle is 45 degrees.



I'll bow to ATC's more current knowledge as to the standard, although I'm not so sure it's always been that way. I've seen these things change over the last 20 years. On the other hand, perhaps it _has _always been this way and my early teachers, who were very much "Kwan-based", did not observe KKW standards; this is entirely possible.



ATC said:


> You should not be centered as you do not go into or thru your  target. turning the hips and shoulders 30 degrees will put your punch  beyond your target ensuring that you hit with max force.



Well, that rather depends on whether you consider that going beyond or "through" your target is optimum, where along the trajectory of the "textbook" technique you wish to deliver that peak force and indeed how much you rely on hip and shoulder rotation to generate power.

Sopraisso, outro para você. Sorry about going off topic!


----------



## msmitht (May 25, 2013)

SJON said:


> Muito bom dia, Sopraisso.
> 
> I'm not certain what is standard right now, as I've lost track of all the little details of standard KKW technique that have changed over the years. I was always taught to have the hips completely "square", i.e. torso centred, at the end of movements in ap sogi and ap kubi.
> 
> ...



I always laugh when someone talks about the changes that the kkw makes. Guess what? They have never made a change except to stop using palgwe pomsae. Any sabum or kwang jang that talks about "changes" the kkw has made or is making is just making excuses for their poor technique. You could also call them liars.


----------



## ACJ (May 26, 2013)

msmitht said:


> I always laugh when someone talks about the changes that the kkw makes. Guess what? They have never made a change except to stop using palgwe pomsae. Any sabum or kwang jang that talks about "changes" the kkw has made or is making is just making excuses for their poor technique. You could also call them liars.



That's entirely over the top. The "changes" made by the Kukkiwon are a colloquial way of referring to the clarifications in technique that get passed along and passed down that often have slight innacuracies in terms of interpretation (most of the seminars delivered as clarifications/updates aren't given in extreme technical detail) and in terms of details lost by degrees of seperation from the source.

As to it being an excuse or a lie to cover bad technique, then why are international technical judges getting and changing because of the updates?


----------



## SJON (May 26, 2013)

msmitht said:


> I always laugh when someone talks about the changes that the kkw makes. Guess what? They have never made a change except to stop using palgwe pomsae. Any sabum or kwang jang that talks about "changes" the kkw has made or is making is just making excuses for their poor technique. You could also call them liars.



And I have to laugh about how confrontational people can be on internet forums. As far as I'm concerned, we're having a cordial exchange of impressions. My recollection of what I've been taught at various stages is not a product of my imagination, I can assure you, nor is it a product of poor technique or lies on the part of those who taught me. I found that last bit particularly amusing.

As I indicated in a previous post, my early instructors were very Kwan-based, i.e. they were 2nd or 3rd generation CDK or ODK masters, though they were KKW-affiliated, so they naturally retained certain technical characteristics of their Kwan styles.

Subsequently I spent a number of years with several "non-Kwan" masters who were very much concerned with correct standard technique. They would occasionally return from an official national KKW-affiliated governing body seminar or receive a circular from said NGB and inform us of "the new way" of doing such-and-such a technique. Several times I was told that for Dan gradings the new version of a particular movement or stance was the official one, but that the earlier version would be accepted if it met certain criteria, at least for older candidates who had grown up with the earlier version or versions.

I currently collaborate with some KKW-affiliated MDK and CDK masters whose personal technique is also at variance with the current KKW standard. They teach the latest NGB standard to their grading students, and discuss the Kwan versions with people like me.

How about we look at something specific? Can you confirm, for example, that the width, length and rear foot angle of ap sogi and ap kubi have remained constant ever since the KKW established a standard for this? When was that standard established?


----------



## Gnarlie (May 26, 2013)

The stance accompanying movement 2 of Oh Jang has been changed more than once. It's currently L stance, but it has been parallel stance before that, and L stance again before that. I've even correlated this change with students from other countries along the same timescale.

Sometimes what is taught at the latest seminars isn't what's in the latest textbook, either.

Gnarlie


----------



## msmitht (May 26, 2013)

This is a sore subject for me. I have had students that came from other schools that were so far off of the standard I couldn't believe that they were kkw certified. Their instructors assured them that their techniquewas "pure" and up to date. Well iI've been to Korea, trained with kkw masters Hwang, In Sik and Park, Jeom bom(spelled wrong). The majority of what I have seen in usat/ustu is wrong. In the past few years corrections have been made and students are improving. Call the inaccuracies suttle differences or whatever you will to justify them; they are mistakes. Sad thing is that when they are pointed out the answer usually is"well, that's not how gm taught me". 
I was not attacking anyone verbally. If you have mistakes in your technique then correct them and be happy. If someone taught you wrong you should let them know that you were corrected and ask them why their techniques differ....or you could continue to be sheep.
If a math teacher told me 2+2=8 I would correct them. If they continued to insist I would tell them they were  a poor teacher, a liar, and then leave. Ignorance is no excuse if you are teaching others. Get it right or stop teaching things you don't know.


----------



## msmitht (May 26, 2013)

Ap kubi, ap seogi and beom seogi all have the same angle to their rear foot. The width of Ap kubi/ap seogi is one fist, as it was in the first printed kkw manual(2-24-73/updated 11-30-87). Updates to referees are being done for 2 reasons:  Many learned them with inaccurate details and there is a difference between kkw standards and wtf competition rules. Take the double side kick in poomsae korryo for example. Kkw standard says kick no higher than the head. Wtf champions are kicking vertically.


----------



## Gnarlie (May 26, 2013)

That's one of the frustrating things about being a person who likes to make sure they are up to date and ahead of the curve. You're always dealing with people who haven't caught up. But that doesn't change the fact that Kukkiwon certified trainers out there are also only human, and small errors are and have been transmitted from time to time. It doesn't make anyone a liar.

I understand what you mean about some instructors being way off the mark, and that's really down to them not understanding the need to update. They teach what they were taught, and as far as they are concerned, if nothing has changed since they were taught it, why would they need to attend a seminar? It doesn't make anyone a liar.

Some instructors continue to teach what they learned even though they know it is different from the Kukkiwon standard. This could be an old Kwan-style thing or it could just be a detail, a way of an instructor placing his personal style signature on his students. Again, it doesn't make anyone a liar, and those who still adhere to old Kwan variances don't really have problems at testing time.

I think it would be nice if we all worked to the same standard, but unless there's an incentive (rather than a cost) to do so, that's not going to happen.


----------



## chrispillertkd (May 26, 2013)

msmitht said:


> This is a sore subject for me. I have had students that came from other schools that were so far off of the standard I couldn't believe that they were kkw certified.



This is one of the strengths/selling points of the KKW according to many people, however.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## SJON (May 27, 2013)

There are several issues here that I think are worth separating.

  One is the question of whether there has been a constant KKW standard over time, and it seems that there has. Thank you for the specific information. I was unaware that the following was not a relatively new development.



msmitht said:


> Ap kubi, ap seogi and beom seogi all have the same angle to their rear foot. The width of Ap kubi/ap seogi is one fist, as it was in the first printed kkw manual(2-24-73/updated 11-30-87).


 
  Another is the matter of the KKW purporting to be on the one hand an inclusive organisation willing to accommodate a wide range of variations and on the other hand having an agenda of standardisation. I would venture that this is a contradiction and is motivated primarily by a desire for money and power. In fact, I would suggest that the KKW isnt really very concerned at all about standardisation as long as the money is rolling in.
  To illustrate my point, let me tell you how things worked out in Spain. TKD was introduced here in, I think, 1968, so pre-KKW, mainly by CDK and MDK masters who taught the Chang Hon hyungs (yes, the ITF ones). The Palgwe set was never introduced in Spain. The Taegeuk set was introduced in 1978 or 1979. The norm for ap sogi and ap kubi was shoulder width, feet parallel for the former, rear foot turned out 30º for the latter, body square. I think I have somewhere a BB grading manual from the early 2000s from the KKW-affiliated Spanish TKD Federation indicating this. It was only in the mid-2000s, when people stopped bothering to pay to have their NGB dan grades convalidated by the KKW amidst news of embezzlement scandals and non-receipt of KKW certificates that the stance standards you describe above were promoted here.
  Can we see a pattern here?



msmitht said:


> This is a sore subject for me. I have had students that came from other schools that were so far off of the standard I couldn't believe that they were kkw certified. Their instructors assured them that their techniquewas "pure" and up to date. Well iI've been to Korea, trained with kkw masters Hwang, In Sik and Park, Jeom bom(spelled wrong). The majority of what I have seen in usat/ustu is wrong. In the past few years corrections have been made and students are improving.


 
  Next issue: the assumption that the KKW standard is right and therefore better than the more Kwan-influenced versions. I dispute this. I think that  apart from the KTA pattern sets, which of course were the work of a particular KTA committee formed by Kwan masters, not of the KKW as an org, and which I happen to think are rather good  a significant number of what I refer to as KKW changes are for primarily aesthetic reasons and to differentiate Kukki TKD from whatever happened to be its biggest competitor at a given time (ITF, Karate, whatever). Sure, Ive heard the argument that they afford greater mobility, are more natural for fighting, etc., etc., but to my mind thats  whats the word?  Master Ken uses it a lot in reference to rival arts  come on, folks, help me out here.
I find the Kwan-influenced methods to be superior in a practical sense. I could go into great detail on this, but I'll refrain from doing so here.



msmitht said:


> If you have mistakes in your technique then correct them and be happy  If someone taught you wrong you should let them know that you were corrected and ask them why their techniques differ ... or you could continue to be sheep.


 
  Theres a wealth of ideological parallels to be drawn there, but Ill limit it to this: what is more sheep-like, blindly conforming to an imposed standard or encouraging critical evaluation and individuality?



msmitht said:


> Get it right or stop teaching things you don't know  Ignorance is no excuse if you are teaching others.


 
  Well, I dont claim to represent the KKW, but thats beside the point. My point is that ignorance of KKW standards is because the KKW has been lax (or not particularly zealous) about enforcing those standards. The fact remains that all those people who have been taught in a non-standard fashion have been certified by the KKW or by KKW-affiliated NGBs regardless. And then there are a lot of people who, when the changes or corrections have finally filtered down, have decided upon consideration that they are not of value and ignore them.



msmitht said:


> I was not attacking anyone verbally  mistakes  wrong  sheep  poor technique  liars  ignorance


 
  Of course you werent, you old charmer, you.


----------



## msmitht (May 27, 2013)

Points taken. Again, it is a sore subject for me and I get an little emotional over it. Apologies if I offended anyone. Gonna go roll and practice tapping now.
When I said that you could call them "liars" I was referring to those who know about the differences and continue to teach their way while telling their students that they are right and everyone else isn't.


----------



## andyjeffries (May 27, 2013)

SJON said:


> Next issue: the assumption that the KKW standard is &#8220;right&#8221; and therefore better than the more Kwan-influenced versions. I dispute this. I think that &#8211; apart from the KTA pattern sets, which of course were the work of a particular KTA committee formed by Kwan masters, not of the KKW as an org, and which I happen to think are rather good &#8211; a significant number of what I refer to as KKW &#8220;changes&#8221; are for primarily aesthetic reasons and to differentiate Kukki TKD from whatever happened to be its biggest competitor at a given time (ITF, Karate, whatever). Sure, I&#8217;ve heard the argument that they afford greater mobility, are more natural for fighting, etc., etc., but to my mind that&#8217;s &#8230; what&#8217;s the word? &#8230; Master Ken uses it a lot in reference to rival arts &#8230; come on, folks, help me out here.
> I find the Kwan-influenced methods to be superior in a practical sense. I could go into great detail on this, but I'll refrain from doing so here.



I would just add a simple point to the discussion - remember, all the kwans in Korea actively support the Kukkiwon and its standards.  For example, I'm a Changmookwan member and our current Kwanjang is GM Kim, Joong-Young.  GM Kim is also on the 9th Dan promotion panel for the Kukkiwon.  GM Lee, Chong-Kwan is also Changmookwan and is one of the main instructors on the Kukkiwon Instructor Courses, teaching Kukkiwon standards...

So, when saying "kwan-influenced" methods/versions and things like that, remember that you are talking about historically different versions and the current kwan practices are exactly the same as the Kukkiwon practices.


----------



## andyjeffries (May 27, 2013)

SJON said:


> Another is the matter of the KKW purporting to be on the one hand an &#8220;inclusive&#8221; organisation willing to accommodate a wide range of variations and on the other hand having an agenda of standardisation.



I wouldn't phrase it as having an agenda, I would say that yes they would like all Taekwondoin to be a)a part of the same family and b)speak exactly the same language (Kukki-Taekwondo standards).  I don't think I'd describe that as an agenda (which has negative connotations of hidden scheming).



SJON said:


> I would venture that this is a contradiction and is motivated primarily by a desire for money and power. In fact, I would suggest that the KKW isn&#8217;t really very concerned at all about standardisation as long as the money is rolling in.



I *completely* disagree with this!

Last year I was invited to the World Taekwondo Leaders Forum by the Kukkiwon.  Bear in mind that I'm a small club owner and not an MNA president or anything.  I had to pay for my own flights, but then the Kukkiwon paid for my accommodation at the Grand Hilton in Seoul, spent three days showing me Korean culture, training with grandmasters in Taekwondo and discussing things related to the future of Taekwondo, all while feeding me (and on one evening taking about 10 of us out for more than enough beer and soju!).  There was no cost for attending the forum at all (aside from travel)!

This year I'm going to the Foreign Instructor Course, where I'm going to be taught by experts from the Kukkiwon for 5 days, 8+ hours per day - for the total cost of $200.

They seem to actively go out of the way to make things as affordable as they can.

I would question whether you've been to the Kukkiwon, met/talked with its staff?  They were very friendly and helpful to me (including meeting both Kukkiwon and WTF presidents, speaking for a few minutes with the Kukkiwon VP) and were not at all about controlling, money or any agenda.  I would recommend visiting (with an open mind) before casting aspersions on a group of people who are trying to do their genuine best for our art...


----------



## msmitht (May 27, 2013)

I did 2 FIC in the USA and one in Korea. Well worth the trip and inexpensive compared to similar events in the USA.


----------



## sopraisso (May 27, 2013)

ATC said:


> 30 degrees turn and angle (hip and shoulders) when finished. This is the stance requirement for everything not just the low block but all blocks and punches when in long stance, walking stance, cat stance, except for back stance where the finished turn angle is 45 degrees. It is not the block or strike but the stance that requires the turn or angle. You should not be centered as you do not go into or thru your target. turning the hips and shoulders 30 degrees will put your punch beyond your target ensuring that you hit with max force. As I stated only the back stance is at a 45 degree angle as it allows for a better and stronger blocking angle in this stance, it also allows your to be quicker when transitioning into the next stance as well. It has always been this way if practicing KKW TKD.


Thank you so much!
This is great and surprising news to me. It is  hard to decribe the feeling now that I see one more important thing  that we've been taught in my school that is not KKW-standard, despite the fact that we are a KKW school. It is  probably a technical heritage from my instructor's kwan period that has not been properly adressed. Now I'm thinking whether I  should or not talk to him about these issues (it would be a very delicate talk, and I'm not sure how he'd react). The bad part actually is that I have myself taught my own students to keep a centered hip (when they tended to naturally stand in the correct position!), and now I'll have to make them change their stance -- at least better soon than after the mistake is more ingrained in their technique -- I'm glad I found out about this relatively soon. Things would be a little harder if I had to correct other instructors' students, fortunately I only need to correct the few ones of my own.

Hey, people, no-one needs to stop the debate, feel free to use the thread at will. 

*IMPORTANT EDIT:* Hey, I just noticed there's one more thing regarding this subject, as important as the previous, or more, that is specifically regarding the down block (as I mentioned in the OP) and other blocks like rising block. That is the very direction of the hip rotation.
So I've been taught to perform a right down block (for example) twisting the hip from the side to the center (that means clockwise if seen from above). I've just learned now that the end position of the hip -- as it happens generally in ap keubi -- is not completely centered. But what about the direction of the hip twist? Should it be really from side to center or should it be "reverse", from center to the side, like the more typical way of shotokan karate? Or even, could it be that both kinds of hip rotation are technically correct depending on the circumstances (as it happens to shotokan -- _jun kaiten_ and _gyaku kaiten_). And, being both correct, is there a prevalence of one of them when practicing forms and/or basics?

I saw the vid below and now I have such doubts *(down block starts at 2min3s)*. In the vid the performer seems to use a "reverse twist" (for down block), but the strange  thing is he twists the hips before the down block -- that is thrown  from an almost stationary position. *Please, I would very welcome anyone's help on KKW standard about this.*


----------



## chrispillertkd (May 27, 2013)

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see _any_ hip twist with regards to the down blocks at the time you mentioned (2:03 and following). Can you p

Truthfully, I see very little if any hip twist anywhere in that video. The closest I see to a "reverse twist" is around 6:20 or so where he is doing knife hand guarding blocks. But that motion doesn't look like it's intentional so much as just an odd shaking of the body from the exertion of blocking itself. In a certain light it looks as if that motion would actually detract from the power you were trying to generate since it looks like it's more of a jiggling of the stomach back and forth than a jerking of the hip into the technique. YMMV, but that is what it looks like to my non-KKW eye.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## WaterGal (May 28, 2013)

sopraisso said:


> Hello everyone.
> Today I took some time to watch a few Kukkiwon taekwondo vids and something seemed different from the way we perform at my school (that teaches Kukkiwon style). It was the hip position at the end of a few movements like down block (are makki) in front stance (ap keubi) - for example, as seen in the 5th movement of taegeuk il hang.
> 
> In the school where I practice we perform the hip rotation in that movement in the same direction following the arm that goes down (e.g. if I perform right down block, my hips turn clockwise seen from above). As a result, we finish the movement having the torso completely centered (instead of slighted tilted to the side as it more usually happens to shotokan karate). But in the vid I saw the performer seemed to always finish the position slightly off the center, more like it is usually seen in shotokan.



The way I learned it was that front stance low block usually ends with your torso still somewhat turned, and in Taegeuk 1 you then turn your hips with the punch and end the movement with your shoulders square. 

 I just checked the KKW video for the form and it looks like that's how it is there, only the guy turns his hips even a little farther than square for the punch.  It's a little hard to tell though, because of the camera angle.


----------



## SJON (May 28, 2013)

sopraisso said:


> Hey, people, no-one needs to stop the debate, feel free to use the thread at will.


 
  Thanks. I was just about to apologise again for hijacking the thread.



msmitht said:


> Points taken. Again, it is a sore subject for me and I get an little emotional over it. Apologies if I offended anyone.


 
 No offence taken. I enjoy a bit of lively debate, as you may have noticed.



msmitht said:


> When I said that you could call them "liars" I was referring to those who know about the differences and continue to teach their way while telling their students that they are right and everyone else isn't.


 
  To be fair, I dont ever recall seeing this. Even the most staunchly old-school masters Ive trained with in the last few years (i.e. since the corrections weve discussed have been introduced in Spain) have taught their grading students the new standard while griping to their peers about how they prefer their old ways.



andyjeffries said:


> I would just add a simple point to the discussion - remember, all the kwans in Korea actively support the Kukkiwon and its standards. For example, I'm a Changmookwan member and our current Kwanjang is GM Kim, Joong-Young. GM Kim is also on the 9th Dan promotion panel for the Kukkiwon. GM Lee, Chong-Kwan is also Changmookwan and is one of the main instructors on the Kukkiwon Instructor Courses, teaching Kukkiwon standards...
> 
> So, when saying "kwan-influenced" methods/versions and things like that, remember that you are talking about historically different versions and the current kwan practices are exactly the same as the Kukkiwon practices.


 
  True, of course. But I would suggest that the degree of integration varies greatly even within a Kwan, not least because that it is no longer a Kwan in the literal sense but a kind of diaspora of people descended from that physical Kwan. It stands to reason that the visible leaders of groups that support KKW standardisation should  be seen to support KKW standardisation (that was elegantly phrased, eh?). What Ive seen in the UK and Spain over the last 20 years, though, is (a) the process weve discussed whereby the corrections take a long time to filter down, and (b) individual Kwan-lineage masters being less enthusiatic about the KKW standard.



andyjeffries said:


> I wouldn't phrase it as having an agenda, I would say that yes they would like all Taekwondoin to be a)a part of the same family and b)speak exactly the same language (Kukki-Taekwondo standards). I don't think I'd describe that as an agenda (which has negative connotations of hidden scheming).



Well have to agree to disagree there. I think historically there has been a very definite agenda, with all the negative connotations of the word, even if things have been cleaned up a bit now.



andyjeffries said:


> I _*completely*_ disagree with this!
> 
> Last year I was invited to the World Taekwondo Leaders Forum by the Kukkiwon. Bear in mind that I'm a small club owner and not an MNA president or anything. I had to pay for my own flights, but then the Kukkiwon paid for my accommodation at the Grand Hilton in Seoul, spent three days showing me Korean culture, training with grandmasters in Taekwondo and discussing things related to the future of Taekwondo, all while feeding me (and on one evening taking about 10 of us out for more than enough beer and soju!). There was no cost for attending the forum at all (aside from travel)!
> 
> ...


 
  Fair enough. Thats your experience. Mine involves seeing people paying to be certified by an organisation that hasnt examined their ability first hand, has been lax about defining its technical standards and has not been averse to a bit of scandal over the years.

  No, I havent visited the KKW, but I have visited Korea several times in a business context. I would say that the hospitality you experienced is by no means out of the ordinary.

  By the way, have you read this?
http://www.lulu.com/es/es/shop/zoe-...orea-and-beyond/paperback/product-299556.html
  Among other things it portrays KKW BB grading  _at the KKW_  pretty much as a joke in terms of quality.

  Lets see. Putting aside issues of quality, transparency, commercialism or whatever, I do actually think the idea of an internation org like the KKW is a good idea in the sense of uniting TKD practitioners and providing some kind of standards and certification. What I dont see is how this is incompatible with individuality.
  As Ive said, I think the emphasis on technical standardisation is a mistake. I think the emphasis should be on technical _quality_ within a broad set of guidelines. But wouldnt this be chaos, with everyone doing their own thing? I dont think so. It's not really that difficult to sort out who's who, which lineages can be considered TKD and which can't (start with the 9 Kwans, for example). It wouldn't really be that difficult to establish a set of guidelines encompassing any of the 3 or 4 pattern sets used since the Kwan era, the 2 or 3 variations on stances, the 2 or 3 variations on how you do an inward palm block, etc.
  But this hasnt been the case. The approach has been for everyone to abandon what they knew/did/believed before and embrace a new way, of inferior quality in the minds of many, and to be encouraged to pay for a rubber-stamp certificate.

  Does the current model mean I can walk into a KKW-affiliated dojang anywhere in the world and fit right in? Sure it does. Do I need that luxury and that degree of spoon-feeding to the detriment of good TKD? No, I certainly dont. Does the formula [everyone must "speak exactly the same language"] + [strong implication that your "language" is not legitimate if you don't] + [paying for certification in that "language" whether you can speak it or not] not sound at best like a strongly business-oriented model and at worst like a cult?

Best regards,

Simon


----------



## Gnarlie (May 28, 2013)

I'd say the video in this thread isn't the clearest example I've ever seen. The issue is clouded by the fact that the demonstrator is stepping backward into the Apkubi, which changes the dynamic of the footwork - waist twist relationship slightly.

I also agree with Chrispillertkd, there's not much waist twist to be seen there. The demonstrator is a high grade master, and I know from personal experience that these guys can generate a whopping amount of power from the waist without it being particularly visible. It's like we as learners have to exaggerate the motion to get the same effect, but once it's mastered, the movement necessary to achieve the same effect is much smaller and less obvious.

My experiences with Kukkiwon trainers are that for the most part, the waist twist is prepared by winding up with the chamber motion (to the right for a left hand low block), then unwinding in the direction of the block, simultaneously blocking with the arms. Recent seminars have stressed that the shoulders don't have to be fully square but should be slightly angled, around 5-10 degrees, both for blocking and punching. For both, the shoulders should be down at the same height, with a good straight spine posture.

It's going to be pretty hard to find a video of a high grade master where the waist twist is clearly visible - mainly because we concentrate on physical skills in the early Dan grades, after which the waist twist is fully ingrained and doesn't need as big a movement to reach the same goal. I remember asking my current instructor about this as I couldn't see his waist twist, and he demonstrated how much power is in his momtong makgi against a pad for me - way more than I'm getting with the full twisting motion.

There's also the issue that the video is demonstrating basics only, presumably with a target audience of Kup grades who are seeing the techniques for the first time. Their focus is on the shape of the arm motion and stance rather than power generation, which comes later.


----------



## sopraisso (May 28, 2013)

WaterGal said:


> The way I learned it was that front stance low  block usually ends with your torso still somewhat turned, and *in Taegeuk  1 you then turn your hips with the punch [would it be with the block instead?] and end the movement with your  shoulders square*. [...]





Gnarlie said:


> [...] My experiences with Kukkiwon trainers are that for the most part, *the waist twist is prepared by winding up with the chamber motion (to the right for a left hand low block), then unwinding in the direction of the block, simultaneously blocking with the arms*. Recent seminars have stressed that the shoulders don't have to be fully square but should be slightly angled, around 5-10 degrees, both for blocking and punching. For both, the shoulders should be down at the same height, with a good straight spine posture. [...]


[Emphasis mine in both quotes]

I think the highlighted parts do provide answers to what I asked about this technical standard on the down block (also applicable to rising block, I believe). But I'm still not sure if I made it clear what my question is about for everyone, so I'm trying to make it simpler now, as following:

*When I perform down block with left arm, when seen from above, my hip should twist:*
a) Counter-clockwise -- i.e., what I'd call a "normal twist" or twisting "with the block" (_jun kaiten_ in karate terms). In this case, the hip would start from turned position and finish square _or almost square_;
or
b) Clockwise -- i.e., what I called a "reverse twist" or twisting "against the block" (_gyaku kaiten_ in karate terms). In this case, the hip would start from square _(or almost square)_ position and would end twisted;
or further
c) One direction or another, depending on the situation. If that's the case, which form would be more usual (mainly for basics and forms training)?

*From the answers given and quoted above, I believe the standard KKW method is the first one. Does anyone disagree?* Does anyone practice differently in their schools? Actually I would also enjoy knowing if there are different methods in different styles, like in Chang Hon system.

Thank you everyone who already answered and thanks in advance for further clarification. I hope I'm not being very annoying, this is just a very important subject to me and that's why I'm asking like that. Everyone else is invited to answer just "method a)", "b)" or "c)" if they will.


----------



## sopraisso (May 28, 2013)

chrispillertkd said:


> Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see _any_ hip twist with regards to the down blocks at the time you mentioned (2:03 and following). Can you p
> 
> Truthfully, I see very little if any hip twist anywhere in that video. The closest I see to a "reverse twist" is around 6:20 or so where he is doing knife hand guarding blocks. But that motion doesn't look like it's intentional so much as just an odd shaking of the body from the exertion of blocking itself. In a certain light it looks as if that motion would actually detract from the power you were trying to generate since it looks like it's more of a jiggling of the stomach back and forth than a jerking of the hip into the technique. YMMV, but that is what it looks like to my non-KKW eye.
> 
> ...



I think you're both right, Chris and Gnarlie. I agree that we hardly see any twist at all, so when I said "reverse twist" at 2:03 I took into consideration only the twist done _before_ the actual block (something like a chambering backwards), which is far more visible than any kind of twist at the same time of the block. At a certain point I even believe to see a "normal" twist after this chambering, but I'm not sure.

I believe I have my questions answered already, but I explained what I mean more clearly (I think so) in my latest post, so if there's something wrong with what I pointed out you could tell me.

Chris, once you're not a KKW practitioner, it would even be very interesting to know if there is any difference in ITF also. Thank you very much.


----------



## Gnarlie (May 28, 2013)

sopraisso said:


> [Emphasis mine in both quotes]
> 
> I think the highlighted parts do provide answers to what I asked about this technical standard on the down block (also applicable to rising block, I believe). But I'm still not sure if I made it clear what my question is about for everyone, so I'm trying to make it simpler now, as following:
> 
> ...



It's mostly winding up against the block and unwinding with the block, so the first one. There are some exceptions, particularly where 2 hands are involved. How do you twist for kawi makgi, wesanteul makgi, biteureo makgi, keumgang makgi, otgoreo makgi, momtong jecho jireugi and chetdari jireugi? You have to experiment and find out for yourself where the power is. There is no explicit KKW specified standard that I am aware of, but certain principles of waist twist make themselves apparent through basics and poomsae, which are then applied to more advanced two handed techniques.

Gnarlie


----------



## chrispillertkd (May 28, 2013)

sopraisso said:


> I think you're both right, Chris and Gnarlie. I agree that we hardly see any twist at all, so when I said "reverse twist" at 2:03 I took into consideration only the twist done _before_ the actual block (something like a chambering backwards), which is far more visible than any kind of twist at the same time of the block. At a certain point I even believe to see a "normal" twist after this chambering, but I'm not sure.
> 
> I believe I have my questions answered already, but I explained what I mean more clearly (I think so) in my latest post, so if there's something wrong with what I pointed out you could tell me.
> 
> Chris, once you're not a KKW practitioner, it would even be very interesting to know if there is any difference in ITF also. Thank you very much.



Well, I'll do my best. I reviewed the video clip again and actually see quite a few differences between it and how we would perform a comparable technique. There are at least a few differences simply in the execution of the block but I'll concentrate solely on the use of the hip. 

Your post clarified what you mean by "reverse twist." I thought you might have meant twisting the hips in the reverse direction as you execute the block, not as you "wind up" for it. We do the same thing, rotating in the opposite direction as we chamber our arms for the block and then rotating the hips in the direction of the block as it's executed. There is no technique in ITF Taekwon-Do which has the hips twisting in the opposite direction of the technique as it's delivered.

One of the general principles in Taekwon-Do when stepping, including when stepping backwards to execute a low block, is that "the body must always be half facing the opponent when stepping backward or forward." Half facing can be defined as when the shoulders and hips are not square on to the opponent, nor side-on to him. It shouldn't be thought of as being, for example, simply at a 45 degree angle as the side facing in an L-Stance is at a different angle than in a Walking Stance. That's all a long wind-up to say that staying half facing while stepping still allows you to get in the needed hip-twist as the block is executed without over-rotating into a complete sideways facing posture first. You could twist to about 45 degrees and then rotate back to, say, 30 degrees or so as the block is execute and get a ton of force into the technique. 

There are plenty of technicians who can get a lot of power out of a slight hip twist. My instructor, for example, has demonstrated blocks while jerking his hip maybe two inches and they still packed a wallop. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## WaterGal (May 29, 2013)

That is clearer.  Just to be sure I understood what you meant by "reverse twist", I found a youtube video demostrating "gyaku kaiten", and yeah, you don't see that much with a low block in KKW TKD.  You do it some with a middle block, like in Taegeuk 6.


----------



## sopraisso (Jun 9, 2013)

chrispillertkd said:


> [...] Your post clarified what you mean by "reverse twist." I thought you might have meant twisting the hips in the reverse direction as you execute the block, not as you "wind up" for it. We do the same thing, rotating in the opposite direction as we chamber our arms for the block and then rotating the hips in the direction of the block as it's executed. There is no technique in ITF Taekwon-Do which has the hips twisting in the opposite direction of the technique as it's delivered.
> [...] Pax,
> 
> Chris





Gnarlie said:


> It's mostly winding up against the block and unwinding with the block, so the first one. There are some exceptions, particularly where 2 hands are involved. How do you twist for kawi makgi, wesanteul makgi, biteureo makgi, keumgang makgi, otgoreo makgi, momtong jecho jireugi and chetdari jireugi? You have to experiment and find out for yourself where the power is. There is no explicit KKW specified standard that I am aware of, but certain principles of waist twist make themselves apparent through basics and poomsae, which are then applied to more advanced two handed techniques.
> 
> Gnarlie





WaterGal said:


> That is clearer. Just to be sure I understood what you meant by "reverse twist", I found a youtube video demostrating "gyaku kaiten", and yeah, you don't see that much with a low block in KKW TKD. You do it some with a middle block, like in Taegeuk 6.



Thank you everyone for the answers! Now I'm confident about that technical detail on KKW style, and also I become aware of ITF method, too, that seems to work in exactly the same way. This was a subject I've been willing to clarify for quite some time and now I can help my own students understand how it works (according to KKW) better than in the time I was taught.


----------



## Napitenkah (Jul 2, 2013)

There was a point my Gwanjangnim said, for Taegeuk Pal Jung, On the first move, which apparently was to step forward to a forward stance, double block. He said Kukkiwon had changed it to where you step back into a forward stance, double block.
I told him that he had actually already showed me it as stepping back.

After that there is a front snap kick on the right, followed by a jumping front snap kick on the left.

From what I have seen, some schools or books just have the Jumping front snap kick by itself.

With Arae Makki, I was shown to snap the wrist just before the contact moment.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jul 2, 2013)

Napitenkah said:


> There was a point my Gwanjangnim said, for Taegeuk Pal Jung, On the first move, which apparently was to step forward to a forward stance, double block. He said Kukkiwon had changed it to where you step back into a forward stance, double block.
> I told him that he had actually already showed me it as stepping back.
> 
> After that there is a front snap kick on the right, followed by a jumping front snap kick on the left.
> ...



Shortly after design of the Taegeuk forms by the KTA Committee, the documentation of the forms began. In the first versions of this documentation, some mistakes were made, which led to confusion over some motions and sequences in the forms.

However, Kukkiwon has changed very little in the forms since they were designed. Where changes have happened, it's mostly been clarification of smaller details that already existed (e.g. the path that the hands take to reach the end position, which is rarely documented in a picture book sequence). I am not aware of any actual changes to stances or stepping directions originating from Kukkiwon. I am certainly not aware of any version of Pal Jang where the first step is a _forward_ Apkubi stance, regardless of stepping forward or back. To my knowledge the Kukkiwon version of Pal Jang has always been a step _forward_ to a Dwikubi _back_ stance with Kodeureo Bakkat Palmok Momtong Bakkat Makki, a twin middle block.

The first set of kicks are _doobal dangsong_, Momtong Apchagi and Eolgul Apchagi in a single jump, moving forward. Both kicks should be done as part of the jump (i.e. body weight already travelling upwards as the first kick reaches its target). This is in deliberate contrast to the 2 kicks on the way back, which are an Apchagi on the ground in place, followed by a Jumping Apchagi in place.

It's my view that schools and books with one snap kick or one jumping snap kick have misinterpreted the form, possibly as a result of early mistakes made in the documentation process, possibly because of not seeing that first kick because it's so quick.

In this age of technology and relative ease in finding authentic tuition, it surprises me that people still haven't caught up to the standard, or don't want to. I think it might be a case of 'well we do it like this because we always have', or NIH syndrome (Not Invented Here).


----------



## Napitenkah (Jul 2, 2013)

Yes, when I wrote Forward stance, it didn't feel right, but when I do the moves, I do a back stance, double block, it is when you do the punch after, which I also left out of the explanation, that the back stance turns to a front stance.
Then a front snap kick with the right leg, chamber it, but leave it up, and do a jumping front snap kick for the left leg.
Then do a _ahn palmahk mahki, Inner forearm block, double punch, Ki-up...and continue.
_
The part he said had changed at that time, a few years ago, was the very first stepping back, to a back stance. It was step forward into a back stance before.

He was a 6th Dan Kukkiwon certified, I even checked his number with Kukkiwon. So bets are on he was right.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jul 3, 2013)

Napitenkah said:


> Yes, when I wrote Forward stance, it didn't feel right, but when I do the moves, I do a back stance, double block, it is when you do the punch after, which I also left out of the explanation, that the back stance turns to a front stance.
> Then a front snap kick with the right leg, chamber it, but leave it up, and do a jumping front snap kick for the left leg.
> Then do a _ahn palmahk mahki, Inner forearm block, double punch, Ki-up...and continue.
> _
> ...



Nope, it has always been a step forward. A step back puts one off the start point at the end of the form. A dan grade doesn't make one infallible. The higher you go up the dan grades, the more you realise how true that is.

I am assuming you mean the first step of the form.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jul 3, 2013)

Commented on this before the downtime but it didn't bump... 

Gnarlie


----------



## andyjeffries (Jul 3, 2013)

Napitenkah said:


> The part he said had changed at that time, a few years ago, was the very first stepping back, to a back stance. It was step forward into a back stance before.
> 
> He was a 6th Dan Kukkiwon certified, I even checked his number with Kukkiwon. So bets are on he was right.



I wouldn't rely on someone being Kukkiwon certified as knowing what the standards are or ever were.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Kukkiwon certified 5th Dan, I was appointed a Regular Member of the Kukkiwon World Taekwondo Leaders Forum last year in Seoul and I'm attending the Kukkiwon Foreign Instructors Course in just under 2 weeks in Korea.  I'm not saying all that to brag, but to show that I'm not a Kukkiwon-basher, far from it.

My point is that just because someone has a Kukkiwon Dan it doesn't mean that the person who promoted them to it knew what the standard is or ever was, it doesn't mean that the Kukkiwon or its representatives have ever seen the dan-holder perform.  It doesn't mean they attended the instructor course to learn from the Kukkiwon instructors what the standard is.

Let's go further though. For arguments' sake, let's assume he promoted to 6th Dan on the Kukkiwon floor in front of a panel of Kukkiwon 9th Dans.  Let's also assume he was the only person on the floor and therefore had the entire panel's attention 100%. He still could have done that first move incorrectly (but with good skill/focus/etc) and have got over 60% on the poomsae part overall and therefore passed.  He may even have taken that as implicit approval that he'd done it correctly (but he'd be wrong and most likely the examiners would have marked him down for it but assumed it was a mistake in the moment rather than an intentional fact).

I've never heard of the first movement going backwards for pal jang and I have books from the 70s and 80s.


----------



## Napitenkah (Jul 4, 2013)

I understand that and it makes a good point.
But for this guy, it doesn't fit.
This is not a situation of comparing this to what is in a book from twenty to thirty years ago.
This was a change made in the last 3 or 4 years.
He was born in South Korea. He is Korean. English is a second language for him, and not a very close second.
He was on the WTF kukkiwon olympic team, and his Dan testings were all done at Kukkiwon.
He apparently would check with Kukkiwon on any updates to the art.
When I was at the school he had, Black belt instructors who owned schools in the area, would come to him there to receive training in various things. I know, I would be there practicing, and they would come in and ask him, so apparently he had a reputation as someone that knew his stuff.
I would see these people come in, and I was glad that I had not gone to one of their schools, they seemed to be the more american taekwondo, filtered down.
I had also done ITF style in my early twenties, though at the time, and for years after, I did not know it, or the difference between ITF and WTF kukkiwon.
But I am happy that both the main instructors were korean. This may sound racist, but I feel I have a better chance with a Korean in taekwondo, then an american.
He started teaching us the Korean language, to prep us for if we ever decided to go to Kukkiwon to test.
So still, my bet is on that he was right.
I don't expect anyone to take my word for it though, and find out for yourself. Contact Kukkiwon.
And, just for my own preference, stepping back feels more natural and effective.
If someone is coming at you, stepping back and blocking, then punch and kicks, would likely work better than stepping into their fists, which would smash against your arms, and maybe get through.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jul 4, 2013)

Napi, are you saying that this change is how it is now, that we should be stepping back now? Or are you saying that it changed 4 years ago and changed back again, and we are now stepping forward? 

Either way I remain unconvinced as I have been training with high dan Kukkiwon representatives and Korean University representatives pretty much continuously for most of the last decade, and this idea has never been part of any of that except in practical application of the form. It also changes the line of the form on the ground, meaning that it no longer fits the kwae, so is highly unlikely to be or have been adopted into the pattern. 

What is likely is that in a practical interpretation of the pattern sequence a step back would be demonstrated. Could this be the case if there was a language barrier between you? Or did you actually practice the form stepping back? 

Gnarlie


----------



## andyjeffries (Jul 4, 2013)

Napitenkah said:


> I understand that and it makes a good point.
> But for this guy, it doesn't fit.
> This is not a situation of comparing this to what is in a book from twenty to thirty years ago.
> This was a change made in the last 3 or 4 years.



Your guy's bonafides aside - this is simply not fact.  You can watch the official Kukkiwon DVDs released in 2008 (5 years ago) and see that it was a step forward.  A pal jang snippet starring GM KANG Ik Pil of the DVD is here : 




You can also see the official Kukkiwon DVD released in the mid 90s and see that back then it was a step forward.  A pal jang snippet starring GM LEE Chong Kwan of that DVD is here : 




There's been no change in the last 3 to 4 years, this is just plain wrong.  To be honest, I'm 99% sure it's never changed, but I can prove with the snippets above (which I certify are the same as the legal DVDs that I own) that it hasn't changed in the last 3-4 years



Napitenkah said:


> So still, my bet is on that he was right.
> I don't expect anyone to take my word for it though, and find out for yourself. Contact Kukkiwon.



Given that I have given evidence above that it's not true, maybe it should be for you to contact Kukkiwon?

I trained with a Kukkiwon instructor GM HWANG In Sik last September at Kukkiwon organised event in Seoul and the whole room full of international masters, not one of them stepped backwards (and some of them were doing some really weird old-style stuff).



Napitenkah said:


> And, just for my own preference, stepping back feels more natural and effective.
> If someone is coming at you, stepping back and blocking, then punch and kicks, would likely work better than stepping into their fists, which would smash against your arms, and maybe get through.



I don't disagree with this.  However, there are LOTS of cases in poomsae where you step in to a block (in fact pretty much 95% of the blocks done in Taekwondo poomsae are done stepping forward).  The fact that your stepping forward doesn't mean the block is ineffective you just need to time it better.  One-step sparring blocks are often done at the higher levels stepping in to the punch rather than backwards.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Jul 4, 2013)

For what it's worth. I live, teach, and train in Seoul, Korea (and have for nearly 7 years) and I've never seen Taegeuk 8 jang start with a step back. Two of our instructors are former Kukkiwon demonstration team members (one as recently as a year ago) and they don't teach it that way.

This could simply be a case of an instructor prefering to do the poomse a certain way and attributing it to a "change" from Kukkiwon. Telling the student body that changes have been made by a body in a foreign country that common students are not likely to have direct contact with has been fairly common practice, I suspect.

Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk 2


----------



## andyjeffries (Jul 4, 2013)

Jaeimseu said:


> This could simply be a case of an instructor prefering to do the poomse a certain way and attributing it to a "change" from Kukkiwon. Telling the student body that changes have been made by a body in a foreign country that common students are not likely to have direct contact with has been fairly common practice, I suspect.



This is a fair point.  Our previous instructor always said that we did things the way he was taught because the Kukkiwon way changed every few years when they got a new president and he was from a different kwan so they wanted it done it their way.

It took a LOT of convincing from me, showing him multiple books, DVDs, YouTube clips etc to show that Taekwondo in Korea really hasn't changed that much in the past 20 years and we should get on board with the standard.

In the end he agreed and over about a year we made more and more tweaks away from the way he was taught and are now really pretty close to standard.


----------



## Napitenkah (Jul 5, 2013)

It is, of course, possible he got mistaken information. The videos are not evidence, because he told me this after 2011, and he just found out.

He is Korean born, and he was on the Kukkiwon, wtf olympic team.

He had all his Dan testings at Kukkiwon, not at some other offshoot.

I feel it is the burden of all of us to find out if it is true, rather than to assume it is not, because we haven't heard anything.
Unless it isn't considered important.

It may have changed but it may take awhile for schools to find out.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 5, 2013)

Napitenkah said:


> It is, of course, possible he got mistaken information. The videos are not evidence, because he told me this after 2011, and he just found out.



So you're actually going to claim that the Official DVDs put out BY the Kukkiwon as Official Demonstrations of How It Is To Be Done, released both before and after the "change" you claim was made, and definitively proving that you're wrong 'don't count'?

I smell a troll.


----------



## sopraisso (Jul 6, 2013)

andyjeffries said:


> This is a fair point.  Our previous instructor always said that we did things the way he was taught because the Kukkiwon way changed every few years when they got a new president and he was from a different kwan so they wanted it done it their way.
> [...]



My instructor (7th dan certified Kukkiwon) always recurred to saying something like this to excuse his lack of updating to Kukkiwon standards. Funny thing is that he doesn't seem to notice that long ago I stopped believing it and started making my own research (with most good info learned here at MT) -- or he just doesn't care that I don't believe it (maybe a more likely hypothesis), as long as I don't question him openly about it.

This lack of updating from my instructor was the very reason that made me start this thread, and this is not the first one I have to start to have the correct standard. I'm sure that "Kukkiwon is changing things all the time" is a very common saying in many places. It may not be the case here, but sometimes many instructors could say that just repeating what they heard from one head instructor -- maybe I'd be one of them if I didn't care to check things later in different sources.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 6, 2013)

sopraisso said:


> My instructor (7th dan certified Kukkiwon) always recurred to saying something like this to excuse his lack of updating to Kukkiwon standards. Funny thing is that he doesn't seem to notice that long ago I stopped believing it and started making my own research (with most good info learned here at MT) -- or he just doesn't care that I don't believe it (maybe a more likely hypothesis), as long as I don't question him openly about it.
> 
> This lack of updating from my instructor was the very reason that made me start this thread, and this is not the first one I have to start to have the correct standard. I'm sure that "Kukkiwon is changing things all the time" is a very common saying in many places. It may not be the case here, but sometimes many instructors could say that just repeating what they heard from one head instructor -- maybe I'd be one of them if I didn't care to check things later in different sources.



I for one support your ability to see past your instructor.

Moving on, i suspect he may just not want to change the way hes doing it. The reason doesnt matter too much. The important thing is that he isnt inhibiting you. That being said, as with many things in life, sometimes having someone show you and help you to learn is better than learning in spite of someone. Just dont let yourself forget that these are things YOU are learning in ADDITION if ever the thought crosses your mind to change places. Ive seen too many people stay somewhere out of a sense of loyalty even though they want something else.


----------



## sopraisso (Jul 6, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> I for one support your ability to see past your instructor.
> 
> Moving on, i suspect he may just not want to change the way hes doing it. The reason doesnt matter too much. The important thing is that he isnt inhibiting you. That being said, as with many things in life, sometimes having someone show you and help you to learn is better than learning in spite of someone. Just dont let yourself forget that these are things YOU are learning in ADDITION if ever the thought crosses your mind to change places. Ive seen too many people stay somewhere out of a sense of loyalty even though they want something else.



Thank you very much for your support. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be unwillingly to change, he's just the kind that'd never recognize to be mistaken. He actually does changes things in class as he finds out about the differences between what he teaches and Kukkiwon standards - what normally happens after he goes to a seminar or a meeting with instructors from other regions of the country. The issue is that he comes to class and says that Kukkiwon has just changed it instead of honestly stating that he has just become aware of the difference, regardless of it being new or not. I've already seen instructors being that honest to their students and I highly approve that kind of attitude. I have to say that this is a minor problem, actually, I wouldn't be worried if that was the only. 
I understand your further advice and agree with it. Actually, I'm already setting things up for my inevitable departure. Off course I won't forget the good things I learned and almost all kinds of experience are welcome, the experience I took from his classes has had its value.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 6, 2013)

sopraisso said:


> Thank you very much for your support. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be unwillingly to change, he's just the kind that'd never recognize to be mistaken. He actually does changes things in class as he finds out about the differences between what he teaches and Kukkiwon standards - what normally happens after he goes to a seminar or a meeting with instructors from other regions of the country. The issue is that he comes to class and says that Kukkiwon has just changed it instead of honestly stating that he has just become aware of the difference, regardless of it being new or not. I've already seen instructors being that honest to their students and I highly approve that kind of attitude. I have to say that this is a minor problem, actually, I wouldn't be worried if that was the only.
> I understand your further advice and agree with it. Actually, I'm already setting things up for my inevitable departure. Off course I won't forget the good things I learned and almost all kinds of experience are welcome, the experience I took from his classes has had its value.



I hope it all works out for you 
Upwards and onwards!


----------



## andyjeffries (Jul 6, 2013)

Napitenkah said:


> He is Korean born, and he was on the Kukkiwon, wtf olympic team.
> 
> He had all his Dan testings at Kukkiwon, not at some other offshoot.
> 
> ...



OK, please clarify and phrase it simply exactly what you feel the situation was/is.  To the best of my knowledge Taegeuk 8 has never included a step backwards in the first move.  You are saying (if I understood correctly) that it used to be a step backwards on movement 1 but changed 3-4 years ago to be a step forwards.

In the interest of getting you a definitive answer - I happen to be going to Korea on Friday.  

On Saturday morning I have a private session with Grandmaster Kang Ik Pil.  He is one of the demonstrators and instructors at the Kukkiwon.  It happens that he's the person who demonstrates pal jang in the Kukkiwon DVDs. So he should be authoritative enough?

Then the following Monday I'm attending the Kukkiwon Foreign Instructor Course at the Kukkiwon.  I don't know who the instructor for Taegeuk poomsae will be yet, but I will happily ask whoever it is.

So, you should have two very high level sources from the Kukkiwon.  If they both say that it hasn't been a step backwards in the last twenty years, will that be enough.  I promise on my honour as a Taekwondo instructor to ask them both (i.e. not just to make up that I did and give you my answer), will you accept my answer as truth or do I need to video them saying it?

I understand loyalty to your instructor, and I understand your belief that he is highly skilled and is an authority on this.  I'm happy to ask from as high level sources as I am able to (and this is really good timing) if it helps put this to bed...


----------



## Gnarlie (Jul 6, 2013)

Would save me a couple of email enquiries. I think we all already know what the answer is going to be though.

Gnarlie


----------



## andyjeffries (Jul 8, 2013)

Napitenkah, is my word good enough or will you require video to put this to bed?

I'd rather get you an answer that you trust, it's a bit more embarrassing to ask my seniors to have their answer on video (because it shows that the person I'm asking on behalf of doesn't trust me), but I'm happy to do it if you won't believe it unless you see it with your own eyes.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jul 8, 2013)

andyjeffries said:


> Napitenkah, is my word good enough or will you require video to put this to bed?
> 
> I'd rather get you an answer that you trust, it's a bit more embarrassing to ask my seniors to have their answer on video (because it shows that the person I'm asking on behalf of doesn't trust me), but I'm happy to do it if you won't believe it unless you see it with your own eyes.



I'm intrigued to find out, but I think Napitenkah might have left the building...I'd appreciate an update either way. Your word is good enough for me, obviously.


----------



## SJON (Jul 10, 2013)

Quoted from the "conditioning and stuff" thread:



Gnarlie said:


> On a slightly different tack, I'm not so sure that the Kukkiwon really changes things all that often, I mean if you watch video footage from the 1980's of forms (see Keumgang extracts and Chil Jang near the end), it's not that different. Perhaps some details regarding stance lengths / widths, and some chamber positions, but not that much change in 30 years. Certainly not enough to warrant so many instructors claiming that 'Kukkiwon have changed something' again.



I would contend that these "details" _are _major differences. It makes a big difference to the performance and effect of a technique if an ap kubi is shoulder width or narrow, if a tuit kubi is short or long, if a dung chumok ape chigui is chambered by the ear or by the ribs, if a batanson momtong makki is chambered high and wide or at the hip, if an okgorro are makki is chambered with one hand on each hip or both on the same hip. People have mentioned that this is either the result of "mistakes" made when recording the "correct" movements when they were first standardised (pretty sloppy work, no?), or the "correct" information taking time to filter down to the many NGB's.
I have spoken to several 6th and 7th Dan Spanish masters over the last couple of weeks, and they all coincide that there certainly have been changes, specifically since about 2005, that these changes were introduced to them at European TKD Union seminars given by Korean KKW masters. While acknowledging that many masters retained their own kwan-influenced technique in some cases - and pointing out that even on trips to Korea they were regularly shown what would now be called "non-standard" technique - they all reject (laughed at, actually) the idea that KKW standard has remained constant since 1972.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jul 10, 2013)

SJON said:


> Quoted from the "conditioning and stuff" thread:
> 
> 
> 
> I would contend that these "details" _are _major differences. It makes a big difference to the performance and effect of a technique if an ap kubi is shoulder width or narrow, if a tuit kubi is short or long, if a dung chumok ape chigui is chambered by the ear or by the ribs, if a batanson momtong makki is chambered high and wide or at the hip, if an okgorro are makki is chambered with one hand on each hip or both on the same hip.



That would be dependent if you look at techniques or principles. If, as you put forward in your book, you view Poomsae as a series of techniques to be literally and practically applied, then it's a problem. If you look at Poomsae as a collection of demonstrations of principles that can be modified and applied in whatever way that practitioner wishes, then these details are not all that important.

In my experience where changes have been mooted, both the old and new ways are functional, perhaps for different reasons. I retain both. 


SJON said:


> People have mentioned that this is either the result of "mistakes" made when recording the "correct" movements when they were first standardised (pretty sloppy work, no?), or the "correct" information taking time to filter down to the many NGB's.



Can't comment on the standard of work, I understand that the first round of documentation was done quickly and perhaps by someone not involved in the design process. Further problems may however be attributable to fairly limiting communication mediums prior to the advent of electronic media and the internet.



SJON said:


> I have spoken to several 6th and 7th Dan Spanish masters over the last couple of weeks, and they all coincide that there certainly have been changes, specifically since about 2005, that these changes were introduced to them at European TKD Union seminars given by Korean KKW masters. While acknowledging that many masters retained their own kwan-influenced technique in some cases - and pointing out that even on trips to Korea they were regularly shown what would now be called "non-standard" technique - they all reject (laughed at, actually) the idea that KKW standard has remained constant since 1972.



That's just the problem here. We can't know who is telling us the truth, because people who were teaching non-standard material tend not to admit it once they have updated, and a governing body in another country makes an easy scapegoat. But video evidence suggests there have been minor changes but the broad strokes have remained the same. 

Gnarlie


----------



## SJON (Jul 11, 2013)

Gnarlie said:


> That would be dependent if you look at techniques or principles. If, as you put forward in your book, you view Poomsae as a series of techniques to be literally and practically applied, then it's a problem. If you look at Poomsae as a collection of demonstrations of principles that can be modified and applied in whatever way that practitioner wishes, then these details are not all that important.


 
Not really. The techniques in the book are practical examples of principles, as mentioned at the beginning of each section. In many cases the application I favour now for a given sequence is different from what it was 5 years ago.

My own main gripe with the current standard is mainly with the short, narrow stances, which I find less efficient in terms of power generation, stability, rooting _and_ mobility. When I say mobility, I mean putting you where you need to be, and work under the assumption that a stance is a momentary position at the end of a technique, not a position you get into to launch a technique from. I really dont buy the high narrow stances are more mobile and more similar to real fighting explanation.



Gnarlie said:


> That's just the problem here. We can't know who is telling us the truth, because people who were teaching non-standard material tend not to admit it once they have updated, and a governing body in another country makes an easy scapegoat.


 
I honestly dont think thats been the case here. These are several people who have independently given me the same story. What they have in common is that they all started teaching the new standards around the same time, even if some of them (all of them, actually) disagree with some or many of the changes.

Cheers,

Simon


----------



## Gnarlie (Jul 11, 2013)

Here's my suggestion on what might have caused this issue:

The Taegeuk forms and the Kukkiwon syllabus were formed with representatives from each of the Kwans present, with the idea of producing a coherent unified syllabus and set of standards. As can happen when you do things by committee, people agree to things at the time, and then perhaps just go on doing their own thing when they get home to their Kwan. Or the Kwan members resist changes made by the committee, because they are Not Invented Here. So for years, each ex Kwan lineage continues to do things slightly differently. Then, at the time you mention, around 2005 or before (when incidentally I heard about a few *possibly new, possibly always there* things we needed to change too), the Kukkiwon has the stones to admit that they know people aren't following the standard that was agreed, and they push out a series of international seminars, courses at Kukkiwon, DVD and online material, a new Kukkiwon Taekwondo Textbook Edition (2006), and many other measures to promote the standard that was originally agreed in 1972.

Because of this push, and the availability of the information via new media, the new generation of instructors gets wind of the information, which they view as 'changes'. This view of the new information as 'changes' is supported when they question their masters about the new information, and not wanting to admit that they were still practising the old Kwan style (or perhaps not knowing), the Master claims that this is a change.

And everyone believes it, because the big bad international governing body changing what was agreed by committee in 1972, is far more pleasant to believe than believing that our seniors might not have been presenting us with the whole truth, knowingly or otherwise.

So when the Kukkiwon says the standard hasn't changed, and people you know *laugh* at the idea, there might be a reason for that.

However you look at it, there's more to the story than just 'changes' - that's over simplifying it.


----------



## SJON (Jul 11, 2013)

That sounds very plausible. Thanks for taking the time to write it out.

I still don't think those short narrow stances are much use, though ... :wink1:

Cheers,

Simon


----------



## Gnarlie (Jul 11, 2013)

SJON said:


> That sounds very plausible. Thanks for taking the time to write it out.
> 
> I still don't think those short narrow stances are much use, though ... :wink1:
> 
> ...



I think most people justifiably prefer whatever standard they have trained into their bodies over the decades.

I'm used to the KKW standard stances and find them just fine. It took a while to figure out how to stabilise the structures, but once they are habit they work just like longer, wider stances. You do really need to know where to step to get the best out of them.

Under application emphasis is on them being transitional, and power / stability being in very specific directions. If those directions are worked into the drill footwork, there is not a problem.

With practice, I find the higher stances do afford better mobility and I expend less energy moving into and out of them. Early problems I had with getting good hip rotation into techniques and balance issues under application are not problems anymore. I can do my self defence just as effectively as before and I don't miss my low, wide apkubi and longer dwikubi at all. Like anything else new, you have to work on it to make it work.

I think a lot of people write the mobility idea off, but it is true - less work against gravity.


----------



## andyjeffries (Jul 12, 2013)

Gnarlie said:


> I think most people justifiably prefer whatever standard they have trained into their bodies over the decades.



I disagree with this premise.  I don't think it's justified.  If someone makes a mistake in their movements, the fact that they have trained their body in to it over decades doesn't make it right and they should try to correct the mistake.  If they didn't know it was inaccurate (to now change from mistake to non-standard), the same applies - when they find out it's inaccurate they should try to change it.

Otherwise they are saying they know more about Taekwondo than the group of people who founded it and them/their students that are setting the standard.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jul 12, 2013)

andyjeffries said:


> I disagree with this premise.  I don't think it's justified.  If someone makes a mistake in their movements, the fact that they have trained their body in to it over decades doesn't make it right and they should try to correct the mistake.  If they didn't know it was inaccurate (to now change from mistake to non-standard), the same applies - when they find out it's inaccurate they should try to change it.
> 
> Otherwise they are saying they know more about Taekwondo than the group of people who founded it and them/their students that are setting the standard.



Yes, sorry, I wasn't being clear: with that sentence in my head I went on to say 'but that doesn't mean it is right or has more value'. 

It's justifiable to feel that your way is the right way. That doesn't mean it is right. 

Thanks for pointing it out. 

Gnarlie


----------



## SJON (Jul 12, 2013)

andyjeffries said:


> I disagree with this premise. I don't think it's justified. If someone makes a mistake in their movements, the fact that they have trained their body in to it over decades doesn't make it right and they should try to correct the mistake. If they didn't know it was inaccurate (to now change from mistake to non-standard), the same applies - when they find out it's inaccurate they should try to change it.



Andy,

I realise that you are talking as a Kukki TKD instructor. I imagine you are assuming that I consider myself a Kukki TKD instructor  I do not  which would account for what could otherwise be construed as condescending choice of language.

_Your_ premise seems to be that the KKW standard is:

1.              the correct way of doing things if you consider yourself a KK-TKD instructor. Im fine with that, particularly in the light of Gnarlies excellent hypothesis of how things shaped up.
2.              the best way of doing things, what other groups who call themselves TKD should aspire to. I entirely disagree with this.

It rather depends on whether you consider TKD to be specifically what is prescribed by a particular group or individual, or a general term for the Karate-based arts which developed in Korea post WWII. Obviously I am in the latter camp.



andyjeffries said:


> Otherwise they are saying they know more about Taekwondo than the group of people who founded it and them/their students that are setting the standard.


 
Thats a red herring, but Ill take you up on it anyway. Who founded TKD? When? Who is claiming greater knowledge than whom?

Do you think that the members of the KTA committees that laid the groundwork for the KKW syllabus and technical standards had a deeper understanding of their arts (plural) than their own instructors, the Kwan founders? Which of the two groups founded TKD? Is it reasonable to believe that these committees work was really an improved version of what came before, with each representative objectively contributing or graciously accepting that another representatives contribution was better? Or was it just the best compromise they could come up with under the not entirely controversy-free circumstances of unification? Are these circumstances conducive to optimum results?

I am expressing an opinion that in my direct experience certain ways of moving are more efficient for power generation, stability, rooting and mobility than others, specifically in the context of fighting and self-defence. Nothing else.

Cheers,

Simon


----------



## andyjeffries (Jul 15, 2013)

Gnarlie said:


> I'm intrigued to find out, but I think Napitenkah might have left the building...I'd appreciate an update either way. Your word is good enough for me, obviously.



Ok, so I asked Grandmaster Kang, Ik-Pil on Sunday and his response was that the way Taegeuk Pal-Jang was originally defined it stepped backwards on the first movement, but it was changed really early on to be stepping forwards, maybe 1970-1973, somewhere around then.


----------



## andyjeffries (Jul 15, 2013)

SJON said:


> Andy,
> 
> I realise that you are talking as a Kukki TKD instructor. I imagine you are assuming that I consider myself a Kukki TKD instructor  I do not  which would account for what could otherwise be construed as condescending choice of language.
> 
> _Your_ premise seems to be that the KKW standard is:



Excuse me only replying in part, but I'm in Korea typing on my iPad and can't be bothered to type a long reply, so two quick points...

1) Sorry if my reply came across as condescending, it wasn't intended that way.

2) To state my premise more clearly, if you are practicing a style and are made aware at some point that you are non in accordance with that style's standards, then years of muscle memory is not a valid reason to not fix those imperfections.

For example, on Saturday Grandmaster Kang spent 3 hours with me correcting some of the fundamental ways I move and generate power. I'm not now going to say, well I've done that for over 20 years so that's my way now - I'm going to work hard in the dojang to try to overcome my muscle memory and build new memories of the correct way.

Does that explain better? ITF, kukkiwon, shot okay karate, all the same - if you aren't as accurate as you can be, fix it, don't claim muscle memory and live in denial.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 25, 2013)

SJON said:


> the assumption that the KKW standard is right and therefore better than the more Kwan-influenced versions.


Late on the thread, but I'd like to address this.  If you're practicing KKW taekwondo, the KKW standard is correct.  No value judgement as to whether it is better/more practical than anything else.  

I'm sure that there is a standard for how stances look in Jhoon Rhee, Chang Hon and Songahm taekwondo as well.  Whatever their standards are, they are correct or right within the context of their respective systems.


----------



## SJON (Jul 29, 2013)

Sure, but it's not quite so simple.

Many people over here have been involved in Kukki TKD since the mid-'70's and hold high KKW certification. They are professionals whose livelihood is TKD. They have been to the ETU-KKW seminars, been to Korea, studied with Korean masters. They feel aggrieved that the KKW has only made a real effort to "correct" them since about 2005. They wonder why the KKW saw fit to effectively give its senior masters abroad free rein to teach whichever Kwan style they liked in the name of KK-TKD for so many years. They prefer the ways they were taught all those years, but now find themselves obliged to teach something they are unconvinced of. Perhaps they should stop claiming to teach TKD, then, shun all KKW/WTF tournaments and gradings, close their gyms or put up a new sign saying "Independent Korean Karate". Or perhaps they should feel no obligation to flush away decades of hard work, good results and an honest job that has provided for their families.

For my part, I don't make a living from the martial arts, haven't been affiliated to any org for years now, and don't use the name TKD for what I teach, even though my peers and students are mostly TKD people and even though I acknowledge that what I do is based on what I thought at the time was KK-TKD.

Did I write a book about the patterns of KK-TKD? Yes. Do I consider these patterns valid and use many aspects of them in my own teaching? Yes. Do I claim to teach KK-TKD or the official versions of its patterns? No. Do I feel any obligation to perform the pattern movements using body mechanics that I objectively consider to be inferior to the older more Kwan-influenced body mechanics? Certainly not.

Cheers,

Simon


----------



## SJON (Jul 30, 2013)

SJON said:


> They feel aggrieved that the KKW has only made a real effort to "correct" them since about 2005. They wonder why the KKW saw fit to effectively give its senior masters abroad free rein to teach whichever Kwan style they liked in the name of KK-TKD for so many years.



I don't usually quote myself, but reading back I see what could pretty much sum it up for me. To all practical intents and purposes, for what I suspect are many millions of TKD practitioners, "unification" meant one thing until about 2005 and something different thereafter. Before, it meant "inclusion". Afterwards it meant "standardisation". This was probably unintentional on the KKW's part, but that's how it played out. I - and modern educational psychology, as luck would have it - far prefer the "inclusion" idea, i.e. embracing and encouraging diversity within a broad framework of shared criteria.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 30, 2013)

SJON said:


> Sure, but it's not quite so simple.
> 
> Many people over here have been involved in Kukki TKD since the mid-'70's and hold high KKW certification. They are professionals whose livelihood is TKD. They have been to the ETU-KKW seminars, been to Korea, studied with Korean masters. They feel aggrieved that the KKW has only made a real effort to "correct" them since about 2005. They wonder why the KKW saw fit to effectively give its senior masters abroad free rein to teach whichever Kwan style they liked in the name of KK-TKD for so many years. They prefer the ways they were taught all those years, but now find themselves obliged to teach something they are unconvinced of. Perhaps they should stop claiming to teach TKD, then, shun all KKW/WTF tournaments and gradings, close their gyms or put up a new sign saying "Independent Korean Karate". Or perhaps they should feel no obligation to flush away decades of hard work, good results and an honest job that has provided for their families.


I don't disagree with any of what you're saying.  At some point, apparently around 2005, the KKW decided to correct them after years of greater freedom which caused them to be aggrieved.  You're getting into organizational politics at this point.  

If they don't feel convinced of what they're teaching, then it is up to them to decide whether to continue teaching it anyway or to teach what they feel that they should be teaching.  If teaching what they feel that they should be teaching means breaking off from the KKW then in good conscience, perhaps they should.  I don't know.  It isn't my decision, and for them to do that may severely impact their livelihood, so I imagine that it isn't an easy decision to make.

Whatever the case, if the body of curriculum is labeled "Kukki Taekwondo" and the Kukkiwon has published standards regarding the technical requirements of Kukki Taekwondo, then those are the "correct" standards for that art.  There is a reason that it is called Kukki taekwondo rather than Song Mu Kwan, Chang Mu Kwan, Chung Do Kwan, Ji Do Kwan, or Mu Duk Won.  Though the KKW came out of the Kwans and though the technical body was signed off on by the kwan heads, it is not kwan era taekwondo (no value judgement).  If they were lax in issuing correction, that is a separate issue from what constitutes the KKW standard.



SJON said:


> For my part, I don't make a living from the martial arts, haven't been affiliated to any org for years now, and don't use the name TKD for what I teach, even though my peers and students are mostly TKD people and even though I acknowledge that what I do is based on what I thought at the time was KK-TKD.


What you do was passed to you by your instructor and in turn, you pass it to your students.  I see nothing wrong with that at all, regardless of what you call it.  The fact that you don't call it KKW TKD means that you're not in any way obligated to conform to their standard.



SJON said:


> Did I write a book about the patterns of KK-TKD? Yes. Do I consider these patterns valid and use many aspects of them in my own teaching? Yes. Do I claim to teach KK-TKD or the official versions of its patterns? No. Do I feel any obligation to perform the pattern movements using body mechanics that I objectively consider to be inferior to the older more Kwan-influenced body mechanics? Certainly not.


I see no reason for you to feel any obligation to perform the pattern movement using body mechanics that you objectively consider to be inferior to the older more Kwan-influenced body mechanics.  You should teach what you feel you should teach and be true to yourself and the art that was passed to you by your sabeom.  Names and organizations are superfluous to the quality of what one teaches.


----------

