# Our style in Korean or English?



## MBuzzy (Mar 16, 2008)

I realize that we've had discussions along these lines before (here and here).  I'd like to expand on that a bit.  

UpNorthKyosa mentioned in another post:



upnorthkyosa said:


> I throw my hands up in the air when it comes to cross organization terminology. Everyone had their Korean so screwed up that I wish that people would just stop pretending and speak english. It would be a lot more honest.


 
I think this is an excellent point.  We use the Korean names for most things in an attempt to "maintain the culture" and stay true to the Korean roots.  Also, it gives us a common terminology all over the World.  Tang Soo Do, as so many other styles (Tae Kwon Do included of course) is practiced all over the world and everyone speaking Korean gives us common footing.

But it is true, everyone's pronunciation is completely different.  Depending mainly on who your instructor was and how they had heard their instructor speaking.  Eventually it can be traced back to Koreans, but how far down the line does this telephone game go?  Depending on where your instructor was from in Korea, their pronunciation and dialect will be very different, just as in the US.  A Korean from the South and a Korean from the North will be able to understand eachother, but it is like a southerner talking to someone from Boston, the accents can get a little hairy.  Now translate that into English and add ANOTHER layer of accents - Northeastern, Southern, etc....

My pronunciation is nowhere near perfect, but after spending a year in Korea, I know some of the basics.  Most importantly, I know what sounds exist in Korean and which do not.  I have had a very hard time trying to understand what many Americans are saying when they are speaking Korean and some think that my pronunciation is laughable.  So is it best to carry on in this way?  With everyone pronouncing things differently?  Are we doingourselves a disservice by speaking in Korea and not in English?  Afterall, people probably have different English names for some moves as well.  And if we are to carry on in this way, how do we address the problem?  Standardizing pronunciation is almost impossible.....especially when some can't even make the proper sounds or can't hear the differences.  I'm curious what everyone else's feelings on the matter are....for the most part, mine if frustration.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 16, 2008)

Personally, I'm ready to drop the Korean.  I've met enough Koreans to get embarassed when I ask simple questions, so I know just how "off" my pronunciation is.  One thing that I think would help is that if people decide to keep using Korean, it may really be beneficial to take some classes in Korean.  Make sure you can read hangul.  Know what sounds exist and which ones don't.  If you aren't doing that and you are still trying to speak, you don't really know what you are trying to say, so it becomes a giant game of pretend...IMHO.


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 16, 2008)

I'm really an advocate of requiring basic Korean language and writing as part of higher rank tests.  How many people can't even write the name of their style in its native language....and yet continue to put it on shirts and logos.  It is on certificates and on the walls of Dojangs, but seldom can a single student identify what is written.  Basically, it is just there to make the place look more "asian."  

Hangul is very possibly the easiest written language to learn.  Learning the speak Korean takes YEARS and a lot of effort, but learning the basic sounds only takes a few hours.

Perfect example, within the federation, it is taught that Annyeong Hashimnika is how you say hello basically.  Although it is used on many contexts where it doesn't fit.  And on top of that, the specific phrase is reserved only for the highest positions.  For example, you would say Annyeong Hashimnika to the President or the founder of your style, to another student, you would probably only say Annyeong Hasseyo.  You MAY say something like Annyeong Hashyipshyeo to your instructor....but if you go around saying annyeong hashimnika to everyone in korea, you will probably be laughed at.  

With that said....why we do it is perfectly understandable.  You teach to the worst possible condition.  If a student were to meet the Kwan Jang Nim and say Annyeong Hasseyo, it would be very insulting to him, as he is deserving of more respect than that - and this is only based on my EXTREMELY limited understanding of honorifics in Korean


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 16, 2008)

I am with you Mbuzzy, I wish we could all just get along. :rofl:


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 16, 2008)

hehe, good point, Terry!

So how much Korean do you use in your school?  Do most TKD schools stay or Korean or English?  The TKD classes in my Haidong Gumdo Dojang speak mostly English for movements.


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 16, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> hehe, good point, Terry!
> 
> So how much Korean do you use in your school? Do most TKD schools stay or Korean or English? The TKD classes in my Haidong Gumdo Dojang speak mostly English for movements.


 
We try and use all the basic terms this way they know what to expect at tournaments that we do since they always call everything in Korean.


----------



## JT_the_Ninja (Mar 17, 2008)

We're required to know a lot of Korean terminology (spoken by us and to us) as part of pre-tests, dan tests, and dan recertifications in the ITF. Personally, I just take my cue from how Master Kim pronounces it -- he is from Korea, after all. I'm not going to say my pronunciation is perfect, but at least I have a good reference point close to home.

Tang Soo!


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 17, 2008)

JT_the_Ninja said:


> We're required to know a lot of Korean terminology (spoken by us and to us) as part of pre-tests, dan tests, and dan recertifications in the ITF. Personally, I just take my cue from how Master Kim pronounces it -- he is from Korea, after all. I'm not going to say my pronunciation is perfect, but at least I have a good reference point close to home.
> 
> Tang Soo!


 
That's a good point - if you have a reference like that as close as you do, it is a great way to go.  I've learned to be a bit careful of that though, I run into a lot of people who say "Well that's how Master Kim says it" or "That's how [insert Korean here] says it."  And while I'm sure that the person HEARD it that way, I can guarantee that it was not actually SAID that way.  Things can be lost in translation.  When I was learning to speak it there, people who tell me a word and I would repeat it EXACTLY as I heard it and they'd say "nope."  Even after trying many times, I couldn't get certain words right, even though it sounded to me like I was dead on.  We just can't hear a lot of the subtle differences between vowels in their language.


----------



## JT_the_Ninja (Mar 17, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> That's a good point - if you have a reference like that as close as you do, it is a great way to go.  I've learned to be a bit careful of that though, I run into a lot of people who say "Well that's how Master Kim says it" or "That's how [insert Korean here] says it."  And while I'm sure that the person HEARD it that way, I can guarantee that it was not actually SAID that way.  Things can be lost in translation.  When I was learning to speak it there, people who tell me a word and I would repeat it EXACTLY as I heard it and they'd say "nope."  Even after trying many times, I couldn't get certain words right, even though it sounded to me like I was dead on.  We just can't hear a lot of the subtle differences between vowels in their language.



Always true, which is why I'm glad I'm a linguist  

I still can't say I'm in favor of abandoning Korean terminology; maybe just a greater focus on correct pronunciation. That's part of the aim of the ITF, keeping things traditional and striving for uniform standards.


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 17, 2008)

Agreed - personal opinion is that we SHOULD be speaking Korean primarily.  But we should be speaking it correctly.  I just htink that it is either one or the other, not some english and some bad korean and mixing up the technique names.


----------



## Lynne (Mar 18, 2008)

Add to the commands being in Korean that most of the time classes are very loud.  I swear that I cannot distinguish yup chagi from ahp chagi.  Or the instructor might say rear leg tolio chagi and all I hear is something chagi.  But English would present the same problem in a loud environment I suppose.  Still, different instructors pronounce their Korean differently and that can be very confusing, especially for new students.

We do have one instructor taking Korean.  I remember when he said Keemah Jaseh (horse stance) very fast.  It was unlike anything I'd heard before.  I only knew he'd said Keemah Jaseh when he went into the horse stance.


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 19, 2008)

Alot of that has to do with accent or lack thereof - a lot of the things that I say in what I know to be correct Korean pronunciation are unrecognizable to other students...


----------



## JoelD (Mar 19, 2008)

All I know is that I have no idea what Sa Bom Nim Hanke said when he first came into the tournament hall on the day of Gup competition a couple weeks ago, Craig. Almost everyone responded and i was like, "huh?".

I'm with JT on this one though, i think that the language is an important part of the history of the art and should never be dropped. 5 Moo Do Values and all... History, its the first one. Anyways, Proper pronunciation is important for sure but the problem remains, not everyone has a good point of reference to go from i.e. Craig's time in Korea, JT hearing Grandmaster Kim speak his native tongue, etc. Now, my Sa Bom has known Kwang Jang Nim HC Hwang for a good many years so perhaps some of her pronunciation comes from what she hears him say. She also spent a bit of time in Korea as well. Again, as Craig pointed out before, even though she may repeat exactly what she hears there could be certain nuances of the language that are missing. For us in the Moo Duk Kwan there has been alot of stress lately on the 5 Moo Do Values and as i mentioned above, History is the first, and perhaps the most important. So to that end i dont think it would be right to get rid of the use of the Korean language, particularily from the perspective of a SBD practitioner.


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 19, 2008)

JoelD said:


> All I know is that I have no idea what Sa Bom Nim Hanke said when he first came into the tournament hall on the day of Gup competition a couple weeks ago, Craig. Almost everyone responded and i was like, "huh?".
> 
> I'm with JT on this one though, i think that the language is an important part of the history of the art and should never be dropped. 5 Moo Do Values and all... History, its the first one. Anyways, Proper pronunciation is important for sure but the problem remains, not everyone has a good point of reference to go from i.e. Craig's time in Korea, JT hearing Grandmaster Kim speak his native tongue, etc. Now, my Sa Bom has known Kwang Jang Nim HC Hwang for a good many years so perhaps some of her pronunciation comes from what she hears him say. She also spent a bit of time in Korea as well. Again, as Craig pointed out before, even though she may repeat exactly what she hears there could be certain nuances of the language that are missing. For us in the Moo Duk Kwan there has been alot of stress lately on the 5 Moo Do Values and as i mentioned above, History is the first, and perhaps the most important. So to that end i dont think it would be right to get rid of the use of the Korean language, particularily from the perspective of a SBD practitioner.


 
I remember having a hard time understanding some of what he said, but getting it.  So there's a perfect example....Master Hanke was the 10th Dan in the US and has spent a lot of his career around BOTH Kwan Jang Nims.  I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't speak Korean - and yet most of the room has a hard time understanding him.

I couldn't have said the rest better.


----------



## JT_the_Ninja (Mar 19, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> I remember having a hard time understanding some of what he said, but getting it.  So there's a perfect example....Master Hanke was the 10th Dan in the US and has spent a lot of his career around BOTH Kwan Jang Nims.  I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't speak Korean - and yet most of the room has a hard time understanding him.
> 
> I couldn't have said the rest better.



10th dan? When did he die?


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 19, 2008)

Oops!!  didn't come off correctly.  His rank is not 10th Dan.  He was the 10th American to receive Dan ranking in the US.  He's a Pal Dan.


----------



## e ship yuk (Mar 19, 2008)

JT_the_Ninja said:


> 10th dan? When did he die?


 
I think he meant "10th person in the U.S. to receive dan."

I'm a proponent of teaching in the language of your students.  The Okinawans taught in Okinawan, not Chinese.  Funakoshi taught in Japanese, not Okinawan (mostly a dialectical difference, but they can be very different from each other).  The kwan founders taught in Korean, not Japanese.  Why don't we teach in English?


----------



## JT_the_Ninja (Mar 19, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> Oops!!  didn't come off correctly.  His rank is not 10th Dan.  He was the 10th American to receive Dan ranking in the US.  He's a Pal Dan.



Okay, that's a bit clearer. So 8th dan, but the 10th to be awarded dan level in the US. Cool.


----------



## TallAdam85 (Mar 23, 2008)

Coming up in the Ranks I had to learn Basic Words, Strikes in Korean as well blocks and kicks. 3 Years ago I joined the fed I am with now  and we all have the same feeling on teaching korean words to people if they want to learn them well teach them words like Chow down mak Key (spelt something like that) but we feel it is more important for someone to know how to defend them self then learn korean. I use all English words and it makes it easier for the kid who is 6 with add to follow along in class.

 just my 2 cents with alot of spelling errors.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 23, 2008)

The Okinawans took Chinese terms and pronounced them in their own language.

The Japanese took Okinawan terms and pronounced them in their own language.

The Koreans took Japanese terms and pronounced them in their own language.

Where are you from?


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 28, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> The Okinawans took Chinese terms and pronounced them in their own language.
> 
> The Japanese took Okinawan terms and pronounced them in their own language.
> 
> ...


 
So in your opinion, what is the solution - or at least preferred scenario?  I don't see a way to completely eliminate a culture's influence on pronunciation and the language, but personally, I think we should try a little harder to say it right.  But then....which one is right?  How far back do you go?


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 29, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> So in your opinion, what is the solution - or at least preferred scenario?  I don't see a way to completely eliminate a culture's influence on pronunciation and the language, but personally, I think we should try a little harder to say it right.  But then....which one is right?  How far back do you go?



Don't halfass anything.  Either go English, or go Korean.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 29, 2008)

The ironic part of this discussion, IMHO, is that half of the techniques that we butcher the korean pronounciation on are not even labeled correctly in the first place.  A low block is not a low block.  I high block is not a high block.  That doesn't change whether you use english, japanese, korean or klingon.


----------



## DMcHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

I teach both English & Korean.  I feel it's just a part of the overall KMA education.  If you then ever go to Korea to train or are around Korean Masters, there will be a common lingo.  I also like learning what I can about the Korean language and culture.

Mac


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 29, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> The ironic part of this discussion, IMHO, is that half of the techniques that we butcher the korean pronounciation on are not even labeled correctly in the first place.  A low block is not a low block.  I high block is not a high block.  That doesn't change whether you use english, japanese, korean or klingon.




Bingo. &#21463; is not &#47561;&#44592;. &#24341;&#25163; is not chambering.


----------



## DMcHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

You have to agree to call it something.  If our Korean instructors told us that's what they are called, then no problems calling it that for me. Sure you can use the techniques for more than a "low block" or "high block", but they can also be used as a block.

Ask any of my students - is a 'low block' a block, strike, take down, joint lock, wrist release, etc. their answer would be a simple "yes".  As long as you understand that, no problems, but you have to put a term to that technique.  If you follow in the footsteps of the founder and flow from his lineage, then a low block *is* called a "ha-dan mahkee".  The rest is semantics.  A block is a block if you use it as such.  If I use the high block motion as a choking technique or a forearm strike, then it's no longer a "high block".  But I may still call it a sang-dan mahkee in Korean.

Mac


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 29, 2008)

DMcHenry said:


> You have to agree to call it something.  If our Korean instructors told us that's what they are called, then no problems calling it that for me. Sure you can use the techniques for more than a "low block" or "high block", but they can also be used as a block.
> 
> Ask any of my students - is a 'low block' a block, strike, take down, joint lock, wrist release, etc. their answer would be a simple "yes".  As long as you understand that, no problems, but you have to put a term to that technique.  If you follow in the footsteps of the founder and flow from his lineage, then a low block *is* called a "ha-dan mahkee".  The rest is semantics.  A block is a block if you use it as such.  If I use the high block motion as a choking technique or a forearm strike, then it's no longer a "high block".  But I may still call it a sang-dan mahkee in Korean.
> 
> Mac



If the founder was wrong, because he 1) didn't have the complete understanding of what the technique was, and 2) didn't know the original term anyway, why does a modern practitioner have to continue the misunderstanding?


----------



## DMcHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

> If the founder was wrong, because he 1) didn't have the complete understanding of what the technique was, and 2) didn't know the original term anyway, why does a modern practitioner have to continue the misunderstanding?


 
If you believe that, then don't follow the style.  Personally, I agree and teach my students to look beyond the obvious terms and interpratations.  I haven't trained in only one style or just one instructor, so I have a very open view on things.  It's good that you question - too many don't.  I tell my students to not believe (blindly) anything I say at all, but to look it up and research it themselves.  I would hate to create a bunch of robots or little "mini-me's" who can't think for themselves.

What would you call that technique that everyone can understand what technique you are talking about if not "down block" for example?  In all the Korean and Japanese arts I've trained in, *everyone* called it the same, down block in English.  How you can apply that techniqe can be very different and is what makes study of the arts so interesting, but it's called that term and we all know what you mean.

If you start to change the basic techniques, terms, etc. of the art then you no longer have TSD, but something else.  Since my way is pretty standard but I have my own view/interpratation/flavor and ideas on ways things should be done, I came up with my own school name (Sungshil Kwan TangSooDo) to represent my way.  I just see it as a name to put with a particular technique, how it is used is what I work on with my students.  I can't change what those before me pretty universally decided on what label to put with each technique, but I can help my students past the most base understanding of them.

BTW, what do you call your "down/low section block" if not down block or hadan mahkee?

Mac


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 29, 2008)

DMcHenry said:


> If you believe that, then don't follow the style.



Why?



DMcHenry said:


> What would you call that technique that everyone can understand what technique you are talking about if not "down block" for example?



I don't talk about down block.



DMcHenry said:


> In all the Korean and Japanese arts I've trained in, *everyone* called it the same, down block in English.



That doesn't mean they were right, or knew what they were talking about as far as the linguistic implications of the terms they were using.  The original term for that motion does not mean "low block", and was mistranslated as "low block".  This has lead to an improper, and limited understanding of the art.



DMcHenry said:


> How you can apply that techniqe can be very different and is what makes study of the arts so interesting, but it's called that term and we all know what you mean.



It's a term that promotes an incorrect and limited understanding of the technique.



DMcHenry said:


> If you start to change the basic techniques, terms, etc. of the art then you no longer have TSD, but something else.



I completely reject that mentality, and view it as part of the problem, not the solution, and if anything, researching linguistics and history has taught me that much of what is taught today as Dangsudo is not Dangsudo, or at least, is only the surface level of Dangsudo, and in order to penetrate to the real heart of Dangsudo, you have to let go of those things that keep you from a complete view of Dangsudo.  Improper terminology, brought about by misunderstandings and mistranslation, is one of those things.

Dangsudo is not some accumulation of external "flavors".



DMcHenry said:


> BTW, what do you call your "down/low section block" if not down block or hadan mahkee?
> 
> Mac



There's no such thing as low block in my system.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 29, 2008)

Yeah, I guess that really reframes the question doesn't it?  Low blocks are not low blocks.  High blocks are not high blocks.  I've got a real problem with this terminology because I really feel that even using perpetrates a misunderstanding of what is actually being done.  Think of a beginning student, the first impression they get of a technique is the name they hear.  If its incorrect, the teacher just did a disservice to that student.  They put up a block towards understanding.  

I really feel that we need to let go of this terminology.  That we need to let go of the way we practice the terminology.  It's one in the same and I don't think they can ever be totally separated.  

I, personally, had a hard time discarding this because I didn't know what to call certain moves any more.  I just started saying, "here, do this," and the student was like, "whats that?" and then I showed them a couple of things it could be and my student was like, "oh yeah, that makes sense."

The end result is that I think we all gained a clearer understanding of what Tang Soo Do was all about.  It was hard at first, but we figured it out and now it works great!


----------



## DMcHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

I take it you are not a TangSooDo/DangSuDo practitioner?

&#8220;It's only called that term by roundeyes who can't read Hanja.&#8221;

That&#8217;s an interesting point of view, and one I&#8217;m sure all the non &#8221;roundeyes&#8221; would find interesting.

Hadansu makes sense.   I&#8217;ve thought about updating terms myself before, but the accepted ones are already in wide use and understanding.  Being a roundeye and no able to read Hanja, I&#8217;ll stick with the traditional misused terms.  

Mac


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 29, 2008)

DMcHenry said:


> I take it you are not a TangSooDo/DangSuDo practitioner?



Why would you say that?


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 29, 2008)

The biggest problem is that we have to have something to call it - at least in the traditional style of practicing and learning TSD in a class setting.  Unless you reformulate how you do basics completely....But then, that leads to a whole new question of what really are basics and if we are doing them correctly to begin with.

So if we do have to call them something...what do we use?  If even the Korean is a mistranslation, how far back do you go - and then does is it still a KMA?

I do agree with Errant that it should be one or the other, Korean or English.  Although when you try to go all Korean, students will WANT the translation and it eventually comes back to the same problem.  Also if you go solely Korean, you run into the pronunciation issues and differences in American pronunciations from Korean, so you hit another wall and you're back to where we are now.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 29, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> So if we do have to call them something...what do we use? If even the Korean is a mistranslation, how far back do you go - and then does is it still a KMA?



The problem is not mistranslation.  It's mis-naming.

Allow me to explain.

Imagine you were learning boxing.  But you never actually got in the ring and boxed. You learn that boxing is a method of grabbing and wrestling.   Your teacher gave you sets of combos.  There's one motion that he calls "front hand grab and push".  You practice this motion over and over and over again.  Then you get with your partner, and you grab his shoulder and push.  It kind of works, but not really.  Those guys who practice wrestling seem to do it a bit better than you, but you know you're doing it right, because your teacher taught you "front hand grab and push",  like his teacher taught him "front hand grab and push", like the founder of your system of boxing named it.  He learned it from those foreigners, who learned it from another nation they had conquered.

Then one day, someone comes along and says that in the original language of the conquered people "front hand grab and push" is actually called a "jab". Jab means you slam your front fist into someone's body, and combo it up with other movements.  

But you'd rather call it "front hand grab and push", because that's what your style is.  That what you learned in your flow.  After all, if you changed it, it would be like your teacher's, or like his "ethnicity", or like the ethnicity of the people who practiced it before that, or those before that.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 29, 2008)

Mistranslation and misnaming, it's all wrapped up in the same mess and I think that MBuzzy really illustrated the point that I have been trying to make.  The way we practice basics is wrong.  And the lexicon we use to describe basics is wrong.  You can't practice basics right and use the old lexicon and vice versa.  It's all gotta change or it never will make any sense.  The boxing analogy is brilliant.


----------



## JWLuiza (Mar 30, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> The problem is not mistranslation.  It's mis-naming.
> 
> Allow me to explain.
> 
> ...


 
I see what you did there.


----------



## JT_the_Ninja (Mar 30, 2008)

As a linguistics major, may I step in here on the semantics note? 

My personal belief, and here I draw from both John Stuart Mill and Ferdiand de Saussure, is that a name is just a placeholder, for the most part. We encounter an object, or an event, or any other thing your English grammar teacher would have you classify as a noun, and we come up with a name for it. At first, it may be very much a description of the thing (onomatopoeia is helpful), or it may just be general (anyone know why a horse is called a horse?). We connect a certain sequence of sound vibrations with an idea, and now that sound sequence, which may eventually become a visual phenomenon known as a written word, can call up that concept in our minds whenever we encounter it or use it. Eventually, it must be said that it is not the nature of the sign that makes it have meaning for us, but rather the connection we make between it and the concept we mean it to represent. 

I like the example of the perplexed boxing student and his "front hand grab and push" (although the idea's a bit of a stretch, because jabbing is fairly natural - it's part of the curriculum at my school), but let me offer you another story, one that is oft repeated among language philosophers but one which I can, for that very reason, adapt for purposes here:

The ancient Greeks knew of two particular stars, Hesperos and Phosphoros. Hesperos, when it appeared, was always the sky with the setting sun, and Phosphoros always appeared just before the sun rose in the morning - hence the names Evening Star and Morning Star (a few may know where I'm going already). The Babylonians, centuries before, had this crazy idea that the two were the same, but the Greeks didn't care about ancient ideas. For them, they were two different things. Of course, nowadays, we know that Hesperos is the planet Venus, and we know that Phosphoros is...the planet Venus. They're the same thing. So the Greeks had two names for the same thing? Weird. But they didn't think of it that way. They had two concepts in their mind, and they came up with names for them. 

Now replace Hesperos with "front hand grab and push" and Phosphoros with "jab." 

So, when we refer to Venus, we're referring to what, to those ever-wise Greeks, were two different concepts. When I refer to hadan mahkee, I'm referring to what, given different circumstances, might actualize as a number of different painful experiences for my opponent. 

Which is why we call it hadan mahkee. See my point about why I like a standardized vocabulary upon which we can all agree? When I learned that move, I didn't learn to call it low block first. The first words out of my instructor's mouth were "hadan mahkee," and then he showed me how to do the move. He told me that the English was "low block," so I'd have a handy frame of reference (a basic, surface interpretation of the move is a deflecting block that goes low), but as I learned more,  I found out the various other ways that same technique could be applied. (This is why we don't tell orange belts that now they know how to kick someone's butt.)

So really, saying that it creates a "stumbling block" to learning is doing a disservice. The instructor has a responsibility to impart what he knows, and the student has a responsibility to take that and grasp it, learn it, internalize it, and use it to enhance his or her own learning -- and to wait until the teacher says he's ready to take the next step on his own. This is the kind of thing that separates the good student from the not-so-good. Those who want to know will seek after that knowledge. Piling it on only gives you a student who knows (or thinks he knows) more than he can use.

Anyway, just had to get that out. You bring up semantics around a linguist, prepare for a lesson 

Tang Soo!


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 30, 2008)

JT_the_Ninja said:


> As a linguistics major, may I step in here on the semantics note?



Certainly.  Though the issue is hardly just semantics.

We are not dealing with the same "event".  See the early discussions of "chambering" versus "hikite".  We are dealing with an event that one group has no understanding of, and so when they name it, they continue to pass on their ignorance.



JT_the_Ninja said:


> Eventually, it must be said that it is not the nature of the sign that makes it have meaning for us, but rather the connection we make between it and the concept we mean it to represent.



Leave the Hermanuetical Circle out of this.



JT_the_Ninja said:


> I like the example of the perplexed boxing student and his "front hand grab and push" (although the idea's a bit of a stretch, because jabbing is fairly natural - it's part of the curriculum at my school),



The idea is hardly a stretch, because it is the essence of this conversation.

The people who call that motion a low block, or call a given motion chambering do not understand what that motion actually is.  They are practicing "front grab and push" and not jabbing.



JT_the_Ninja said:


> The ancient Greeks knew of two particular stars, Hesperos and Phosphoros. Hesperos, when it appeared, was always the sky with the setting sun, and Phosphoros always appeared just before the sun rose in the morning - hence the names Evening Star and Morning Star (a few may know where I'm going already). The Babylonians, centuries before, had this crazy idea that the two were the same, but the Greeks didn't care about ancient ideas. For them, they were two different things. Of course, nowadays, we know that Hesperos is the planet Venus, and we know that Phosphoros is...the planet Venus. They're the same thing. So the Greeks had two names for the same thing? Weird. But they didn't think of it that way. They had two concepts in their mind, and they came up with names for them.



You just proved my point.

The Greeks were wrong.



JT_the_Ninja said:


> So, when we refer to Venus, we're referring to what, to those ever-wise Greeks, were two different concepts. When I refer to hadan mahkee, I'm referring to what, given different circumstances, might actualize as a number of different painful experiences for my opponent.



No, when you refer to hadan makgi, you using a Korean term for low block that in now way signifies multiple experiences.



JT_the_Ninja said:


> Which is why we call it hadan mahkee. See my point about why I like a standardized vocabulary upon which we can all agree?



Not standardized.

Wrong.

A standardized vocabulary already exists for these motions.  This vocabulary reflects the actual means and methodologies for these movements.  This vocabulary was not passed to the majority of Japanese karate practitioners, and was thus even more lost upon the Koreans, and then the Westerners found themselves removed even a step further.

To use your example, it is the difference between our concepts of "cup" and "door".  "Low block" & "hadan makgi" are trying to block a space with a drinking implement.  It doesn't matter what your concept may be.  You're not keeping anyone out of your house with that cup.



JT_the_Ninja said:


> So really, saying that it creates a "stumbling block" to learning is doing a disservice. The instructor has a responsibility to impart what he knows, and the student has a responsibility to take that and grasp it, learn it, internalize it, and use it to enhance his or her own learning -- and to wait until the teacher says he's ready to take the next step on his own. This is the kind of thing that separates the good student from the not-so-good. Those who want to know will seek after that knowledge. Piling it on only gives you a student who knows (or thinks he knows) more than he can use.



It does create a stumbling block, or in actuality, a stumbling mountain.  As you said, the instructor has a responsibility to impart what he knows, and if he only knows a miscommunication, he will only pass that on and amplify it, like the whisper game.



JT_the_Ninja said:


> Anyway, just had to get that out. You bring up semantics around a linguist, prepare for a lesson



Bring up John Stuart Mill around a philosophy major, and see what happens.


----------



## JT_the_Ninja (Mar 31, 2008)

You're missing my point here, and making claims about the way I use terms that you're not licensed to make.

When I say I use the term hadan mahkee to mean what I say I mean....I do. Terms are constantly being redefined. Again, don't debate word meanings with a linguist. 

I agree that there are schools out there that don't understand what a hadan mahkee really does, because their concept of it doesn't include all that mine does (I'm sounding like Locke here, I know, but there it is). But that doesn't include mine, as I've pointed out to you. At least, not as concerns the students who really ask questions, and certainly not for me.

I'm not going to play the quote-pick-apart game with you, so I'll just answer your claims directly. 

You are making broad claims about everyone who uses a term, when what you call it doesn't matter. It's what you know it as that matters for your understanding. You're assuming that any student of TSD is inherently wrong, because of some miscommunication. You're missing the point that TSD is an effective system, and that maybe, just maybe, there are people who study it who know what they're doing, and they're doing things right. You're assuming that nobody can look at something, say "hey, you know this would also work that way," and incorporate those ideas into the same concept they connect with a certain word. 

You assume too much. TSD is not for people who assume.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 31, 2008)

JT_the_Ninja said:


> You're missing my point here, and making claims about the way I use terms that you're not licensed to make.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JT_the_Ninja (Mar 31, 2008)

As amusing as negated identity tautologies are...you're still missing my point.

The fact that I don't speak Korean apart from counting to 59, various anatomical terms, technique/form names, and various concepts related to TSD means nothing. Remember; the verbal sign is just a sign. 

And btw, your third point (looks so nice and simple when you pick apart quotes, doesn't it?) really defends me. Instead of pointing out that there are some people who don't understand, why not further the point of this forum and help to create more awareness? 

Honestly people. If you're going to come to the TSD forum and do nothing but talk about how everything people do in TSD is either "wrong" or "a miscommunication," then you're not being productive. 

I will say this bluntly. If you're not at TSD practitioner, and you only want to come here to bash us...leave. Now. You don't belong here.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 31, 2008)

You assume too much, JT.  Madmonk108 is ranked in TSD, he can share it with you if you wish.  Also, it shouldn't matter if he studies it or not.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion and if that opinion is well presented with obvious background knowledge and research, then you are entitled to consider it.  That's the flip side of the coin.

Now, it just so happens to be that I agree with what Madmonk108 has been saying.  You know my background and you've known what I've written in the past about this.  I re-examined everything that I did in TSD because I know that what I was doing was not being correctly taught and understood.

If you don't have the ability to do this or you don't agree that this is neccessary, just consider the idea for a while.  No need to bash the messenger.

The bottom line is this...IMHO, there will be a day of reckoning when it comes to TSD.  A day when no body is practicing this other then children.  Adults on the outside looking in are already looking at what is being done there isn't any relationship to what happens in a real fight, that its not useful for self defense.  And, in all honestly, this is what they should see.  Itosu Sensei created the system FOR children.  

We have to change.  We all do.  If TSD is going to be taken seriously as a martial art and not something that only kids do to build character, the whole nature of the system has to change.  

We have the keys to do this, now we need the courage.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 31, 2008)

JT_the_Ninja said:


> The fact that I don't speak Korean apart from counting to 59, various anatomical terms, technique/form names, and various concepts related to TSD means nothing. Remember; the verbal sign is just a sign.



The verbal sign is more than a verbal sign to the ignorant.  Again, reference those putting a cup in the doorway, which is the majority of Dangsudo practitioners.  It promotes ignorance of technique and methodology.



JT_the_Ninja said:


> And btw, your third point (looks so nice and simple when you pick apart quotes, doesn't it?) really defends me. Instead of pointing out that there are some people who don't understand, why not further the point of this forum and help to create more awareness?



That's kind of what I'm doing here.  Making you aware of how much has been lost in translation, on a literal and figurative level.  Correct terminology is intimately tied to correct application.



JT_the_Ninja said:


> Honestly people. If you're going to come to the TSD forum and do nothing but talk about how everything people do in TSD is either "wrong" or "a miscommunication," then you're not being productive.



I realize that many of the things being discussed are controversial, but that's not my fault.  I am not the only one discussing them here, and the conversation is taking place between people with a great deal of experience in Dangsudo.  There is a growing group of people on this and other venues who are not content with what they have been taught, especially after having been exposed to things that were obscured in their system, either deliberately or through ignorance.  These people do not want to move on to other systems, but rather, develop their Dangsudo.  This discussion is part and parcel to that.



JT_the_Ninja said:


> I will say this bluntly. If you're not at TSD practitioner, and you only want to come here to bash us...leave. Now. You don't belong here.



I'll leave it to the MODs to tell me where I can and cannot go.  Controversy, criticism, and logic are not bashing.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 31, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Madmonk108 is ranked in TSD, he can share it with you if you wish....Now, it just so happens to be that I agree with what Madmonk108 has been saying...



I think you're confusing me with someone else


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 31, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> I realize that many of the things being discussed are controversial, but that's not my fault. I am not the only one discussing them here, and the conversation is taking place between people with a great deal of experience in Dangsudo. There is a growing group of people on this and other venues who are not content with what they have been taught, especially after having been exposed to things that were obscured in their system, either deliberately or through ignorance. These people do not want to move on to other systems, but rather, develop their Dangsudo. This discussion is part and parcel to that.


 
This can't be stressed enough.  There is a growing number of people, myself included, who do not want to change arts, we want to grow our arts.  For whatever reason, I'm not exactly sure myself, I don't want to quit.  I want to make what I'm doing better.  

Maybe its because I see TSD as an open venue.  I see it as generic where lineage is a flimsy argument for continuing to do stupid things.  To use a modern analogy, TSD is like open source software.  You have the general idea and then you draw from the base of people around you to make it better.

Now, back to the topic at hand...

Lexicon



> 1.a wordbook or dictionary, esp. of Greek, Latin, or Hebrew. 2.the vocabulary of a particular language, field, social class, person, etc. 3.inventory or record: _unparalleled in the lexicon of human relations. _4._Linguistics_. a.the total inventory of morphemes in a given language. b.the inventory of base morphemes plus their combinations with derivational morphemes.



This definition, IMHO, is very important, because it frames the discussion we are having.  How much does the correct pronounciation of the Korean matter when the techniques are misnamed in the first place?  I think that we all agree that the techniques are misnamed...or at least their name doesn't encompass every aspect.  Yet some people would wish to hold on to the names, at the very least, in favor of tradition.

My argument references the definition above because a name is not just a label that allows us to semotically define something.  A NAME belongs to a lexicon, a system.  There are ideas attached to names by the _system_.  You cannot escape these because this is how humans talk to each other.  Names are semiotic structures that we use to order our social lives.  When a name is _designed_, there is a particular purpose that is attached to that name.  If we keep using the same name, that purpose floods into our thinking unbidden.  It doesn't matter what language you speak.

The simple fact of the matter is this...Itosu sensei specifically designed _this_ lexicon in order to obfuscate what was really happening.  Over time, the katas began to change in order to reflect this _purpose_.  For us TSD people, if we really want to see how this system was originally supposed to be, we need to be like archeaologists.  We need to peal back _that_ layer of purpose and do some comparitive studies in order to make any sense of this thing.  

This all starts with discarding Itosu Sensei's lexicon.


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 31, 2008)

I really think that the entire nomenclature comes from our teaching the style backwards.  We teach a beginner a "low block" and it gives them the wrong idea.  It is true that it may just be a label, but to a beginner, it is their entire understanding and in most cases, they go through much of their training believing that this is it.  Its a low block.  Then - when they are higher ranked and people introduce the idea that it might be something else, it is too entrenched to change.  And THIS is how our style has perpetuated.  

We teach backwards....we teach the beginners this very watered down version with no depth....just breadth.  Teach all of these techniques, then when they get higher ranked, they can learn the depth of each technique.  Unfortunately, it gets too entrenched and they get these blinders to the point that they don't want to hear about the depth.  Wheras, if we taught the other way.....teach EVERYTHING about what we call a low block, so that a student has an intimate understanding.  Then when you move on to "high block" or whatever you want to call it....it is easier to learn.  You already have the building blocks.  THEN, when they are higher ranked, teaching a new technique is easy, because they already have this basis of how to break down a technique and see what else is there.

What I keep coming back to on the naming question is...What is the alternative?  I mean, we have this system of naming now - VERY entrenched.  So what is the alternative?  Rename everything?  And if so, what do you call them?  How can you encompass such a deep and complex idea with a simple name?


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 31, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> What I keep coming back to on the naming question is...What is the alternative?  I mean, we have this system of naming now - VERY entrenched.  So what is the alternative?  Rename everything?  And if so, what do you call them?  How can you encompass such a deep and complex idea with a simple name?



I think the alternative comes with the very issue that Upnorthkyosa is wrestling with...an entire curriculum restructuring is necessary.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 31, 2008)

I hate to keep posting this for fear of vanity, but I think this is a pretty good alternative.  I put a lot of thought into this, a lot of research, and a lot of myself banging around with a group of like minded guys.  It doesn't have all of the answers, but its my best attempt thus far.


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 31, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> I think the alternative comes with the very issue that Upnorthkyosa is wrestling with...an entire curriculum restructuring is necessary.


 
I agree with you, but eventually we get back to the idea of nomenclature - you have to have a name for something.....


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 31, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> I agree with you, but eventually we get back to the idea of nomenclature - you have to have a name for something.....


 
Yes you do, but that requires that you rethink your conception of basic techniques.  I had this same converation with Master Penfil.  If a "hadanmahke" is a parry, a strike, a take down, a throw, a grap/release, etc, then each of those things can be named as such.  There's no point in calling the movement what it was called because that wasn't what it really was.  

Drop the old lexicon and practice the peices of these movements as they really need to be used in combat.  Allow the old movements in the kata to teach you how to put those movements into use.  The footwork and the hand motions are all there.  Fitting and Unbalancing are there too with hikite...grapple to your hearts content.

If you try to hold on to the old terminology, the purpose of the old lexicon creeps in and poisons your understanding.  Look at the seminar we went to.  A "low block" was ten other things, but nobody got better at those things because everyone was hung up on the name.  Everyone was like, "how can we practice this "thing" better to get better at these ten other things?"  

That's the exact opposite way to handle it, IMHO.


----------



## JT_the_Ninja (Apr 2, 2008)

Nomenclaturism is a very silly idea, but I agree that a lot of people might be led astray by it. That's why I said that when I learned "hadan mahkee," I learned "hadan mahkee." Of course the first application I was shown was the low block version of it, but the more I learn, the more I'm shown different uses for moves that were enigmas to me before. 

And I agree with MBuzzy about your proposed revised system, upnorth; it has a name for everything...and mostly, from what I can tell, in Japanese. So you're substituting one foreign language for another? I think you have a lot of good ideas, but that's always been a bit of a sticking point between us.

Look, I'm not saying there aren't schools out there that need to get in gear and start teaching right. I see it all the time. But you know what, that's not a problem with TSD. That's a problem with the people teaching it. The system, as it is, has the potential to teach very effective methods of self-defense. A large part of the focus in my dojang in particular is making things effective for fighting by understanding what you're doing and understanding how things fit together. 

I'm gonna be the first one to speak against, if not ridicule, some schools who don't teach anything beyond "kick and punch." But I'm not gonna extend that to my art. TSD has a very solid foundation, because, while it has a bit of a mixed background, where a lot of misinformation was present at first, TSD is not just "kick and punch." It is not a sport. It is a philosophy. And when you have that philosophy, you will go after the things that will make those techniques better. 

Now, as to why I think that it's a good idea to introduce things to students slowly...I don't want my school to become a McDojang. My belt means something. It means I've put in years of effort and dedication to TSD. There's a saying that once you become a cho dan, you become a beginner. You're ready to start to learn. Everything before that is the preliminaries. Until you learn how to move, you can't crawl. Until you learn how to crawl, you can't learn how to walk. When you learn how to walk, then you can learn how to fight. I'm glad that I was trained via "I don't care how you want to do a block, do it the right way!" I learned that my instructor was right, because now I'm learning the applications behind various techniques beyond anything I ever imagined at the gup levels. 

When you're ready to learn, then you can start to learn. 

And as to my harsh comments, I stand by them. I came to this forum expecting to join in a great discussion of TSD practitioners "talking shop" and benefiting from mutual experience. What I see is an overwhelming flood of people talking about how TSD does so many things wrong, and TSD really can't stand without understanding Okinawan Karate, and TSD instructors really don't know what they're teaching...all by TSD people, who seem to encourage others to come in and join in the bashing. As a TSD student, that offends me deeply. I agree a little offense is useful now and again, but all you are so willing to capitulate and self-berate that it disgusts me sometimes. I respect all the masters and higher ranks a lot, and that just makes it worse. 

Tang Soo!


----------



## Master K (Apr 2, 2008)

I would ask the following question: 

If "gedan barai" is translated to mean down block or lower level block, then are we to draw the conclusion that those that practice Okinawan/Japanese karate suffer with the same issues that MDKTSD folks suffer with "hadan mahkee"???

Any thoughts?


----------



## MBuzzy (Apr 3, 2008)

Master K said:


> I would ask the following question:
> 
> If "gedan barai" is translated to mean down block or lower level block, then are we to draw the conclusion that those that practice Okinawan/Japanese karate suffer with the same issues that MDKTSD folks suffer with "hadan mahkee"???
> 
> Any thoughts?


 
I really think that this depends completely on the teaching style.  IMHO, if taught correctly, the name is nothing more than a label and doesn't matter as much.  Just like, when you get high enough and start to realize the depth of techniques, you start to build your own internal definition of "hadan mahkee."  TO YOU, it is no longer simply low block, but you will still refer to it as that, because the actual technique has trenscended into more than just the label.  If students are started with the depth and application, they can more quickly get beyond the label and naming.  

If you get to a certain point in your training, you could call "hadan mahkee" anything....and it would be the same technique, because you've built your own tacit understanding of the actual usage of the technique.

So - if other styles are teaching in the way we are discussing, I believe they will run into the same problem.


----------



## jehja43679 (Apr 8, 2008)

If you're really hung up on this, why not just describe the action with the name that is appropriate for the particular application you are illustrating or teaching in that particular section of your lesson?

If the intention is to deflect an oncoming strike, call it a Ha Dan Mahkee.

If the intention is to strike the groin, call it a Ha Dan Kwon Do Kong Kyuk to the Kowan...

If you want to use your motion to perform an arm bar, call it a Ha Dan Hwaltong Pal Kodong Ki Sool... (Lowering action arm pain technique)

Just a few examples.

Another point you could argue is that every technique we teach is Mahkee... considering the only reason we'd perform any movement to inflict damage or simply deflect a person's oncoming energy is to keep them from inflicting damage upon us, then a punch to the nose is just a preemptive defense.


----------



## Errant108 (Apr 13, 2008)

JT_the_Ninja said:


> That's why I said that when I learned "hadan mahkee," I learned "hadan mahkee." Of course the first application I was shown was the low block version of it, but the more I learn, the more I'm shown different uses for moves that were enigmas to me before.



The question is, why continue to train this way?

If a given motion is a standing armbar, a shoulder throw, a wrist release, and a reverse hip toss, it is much more effective to develop a curriculum training those moves, rather than an esoteric  "hadan makgi" based curriculum.



JT_the_Ninja said:


> And I agree with MBuzzy about your proposed revised system, upnorth; it has a name for everything...and mostly, from what I can tell, in Japanese. So you're substituting one foreign language for another? I think you have a lot of good ideas, but that's always been a bit of a sticking point between us.



Dangsudo comes from Japanese karate, and the majority of Korean terms in that are are either transliterations or substitutions of the Japanese terms.  If Upnorthkyosa wishes, I could easily provide him with the Korean equivalents of the Japanese terms he is using.

Would that alleviate your contention?



JT_the_Ninja said:


> The system, as it is, has the potential to teach very effective methods of self-defense.



No one is arguing that it isn't.

What we are saying is that it can be more effective in combat.  Some things have been lost, others misconstrued, others not developed upon.



JT_the_Ninja said:


> It is a philosophy. And when you have that philosophy, you will go after the things that will make those techniques better.



Dangsudo is not a philosophy in any way, shape, or form.



JT_the_Ninja said:


> Now, as to why I think that it's a good idea to introduce things to students slowly...I don't want my school to become a McDojang. My belt means something. It means I've put in years of effort and dedication to TSD. There's a saying that once you become a cho dan, you become a beginner. You're ready to start to learn. Everything before that is the preliminaries. Until you learn how to move, you can't crawl. Until you learn how to crawl, you can't learn how to walk. When you learn how to walk, then you can learn how to fight. I'm glad that I was trained via "I don't care how you want to do a block, do it the right way!" I learned that my instructor was right, because now I'm learning the applications behind various techniques beyond anything I ever imagined at the gup levels.



Teaching effective techniques from day one does not turn your school into a McDojang.  If anything, it lessens the chance of being a McDojang, because you have now integrated the rigid rod of reality into your training.  Instead of spending months learning hadan makgi in order to learn how to perform a shoulder throw, you begin drilling and learning how to perform a shoulder throw.  You can very quickly learn how to apply it statically, and then, through alive training, spend months perfecting your ability to apply it in sparring.



JT_the_Ninja said:


> When you're ready to learn, then you can start to learn.



You're ready to learn from day one, you may just have to build some preliminaries.  That stage is not as long as many say.



JT_the_Ninja said:


> And as to my harsh comments, I stand by them. I came to this forum expecting to join in a great discussion of TSD practitioners "talking shop" and benefiting from mutual experience. What I see is an overwhelming flood of people talking about how TSD does so many things wrong, and TSD really can't stand without understanding Okinawan Karate, and TSD instructors really don't know what they're teaching...all by TSD people, who seem to encourage others to come in and join in the bashing. As a TSD student, that offends me deeply. I agree a little offense is useful now and again, but all you are so willing to capitulate and self-berate that it disgusts me sometimes. I respect all the masters and higher ranks a lot, and that just makes it worse.



If you respect all the masters and higher ranks a lot, then do you not respect it when masters and higher ranks, who have more experience than you, seek to think critically about their training methodology?


----------



## Errant108 (Apr 13, 2008)

Master K said:


> I would ask the following question:
> 
> If "gedan barai" is translated to mean down block or lower level block, then are we to draw the conclusion that those that practice Okinawan/Japanese karate suffer with the same issues that MDKTSD folks suffer with "hadan mahkee"???
> 
> Any thoughts?




Gedan barai,&#19979;&#27573;&#25173;, means lower sweep, not block.  The alternate term,&#19979;&#27573;&#21463;, gedan uke, means lower reception.  Thus, when I say there is no such thing as a block, that the concept of blocking does not exist, I mean  that to be literally the case.

In answer to your question, yes many that practice Okinawan and Japanese karate suffer from the same issues, because they are focused on the "elementary school" adaptation of karate that was fostered by Itosu and those who followed after him.


----------



## JT_the_Ninja (Apr 14, 2008)

Errant: I'm going to institute a policy of ignoring people who use the quote-pick-apart method from now on, because I've realized that, even when I use it, it's just to take things out of context and distort whatever the person was saying. That's why I'm not even quoting you here.

Anyway, Tang Soo Do _is_ a philosophy, as I train in it. Do you train in the same style I do, then? Ask yourself that.

And as to why I'm okay with first learning only the block interpretation of hadan mahkee (eventually we'll need another standard move example; this one is getting old), if you ever bothered to pay attention to what I said, you'd know I already answered that. It's because you have to learn to move before you learn to crawl before you learn to walk. I started at age 13, which is unusual; most students start at age 5. Even then, I didn't have the instinctual knowledge of how the body moves that I aspire to gain through training (Perhaps you forget being a 10th gup; perhaps you just choose to ignore that fact). Learning that it was a downward blocking motion helped me grasp the way I should move. I was shown the move, shown how it should go, and had it drilled into me until I got it right. You don't question the teacher when she tells you how you're supposed to make your letters, do you? It's only later that you learn to write creatively. Same story here. The gup levels are about learning how to move. Like I said before, everything before cho dan is preliminaries; cho dan means "beginner" (pragmatically! I don't care for a literal gloss from Korean with an explanation of what shodan means in Japanese). 

Therefore...you teach the pre-beginners how to move for four years, and then, when their bodies are ready, you show them what they can do with what they've been taught and had drilled into their heads. This is why I'm constantly correcting my juniors on the basic moves, crossing, pulling back your fist to your ribs, blocking correctly, paying attention to hit targets, and even basic things like walking correctly and basic stances. When I got my cho dan rank, almost four years ago, it was with the understanding that now all of that was supposed to be internalized, automatic.  I can now learn Tang Soo Do. 

If you don't prepare, you can't learn properly. If you think the stage isn't as long as I say, you haven't seen some of the kids I have to correct repeatedly - kids need more instruction than that, and it's largely kids that make up the gup levels. I work with adults and even teens at gup levels with more higher-level stuff, like the different ways a move can be used, but kids? You're not a teacher if you don't know what kids can and can't do when they only show up to maybe two classes a week.


----------



## Errant108 (Apr 14, 2008)

JT, 

I use quick quote because it allows me to directly address the points you make and stay on topic, rather than drift.  If you feel I've taken you out of context somewhere, please point it out and I'll try to rectify that.  It also helps make sure that I get to everything in a discussion.  You missed a couple of my questions in the previous post.

Remember when you asked us not to talk about linguistics, because that was your speciality?  I have a degree in philosophy and am currently engaged in a live-in study in a Zen monastery.  Dangsudo is not a philosophy, unless you are using the most liberal definition of the term.

Your following comments make me think you don't quite understand what I've been saying.  My fault, so let me try and elaborate.

My problem is not with teaching the "low block" of hadan makgi first, or learning to crawl before walking, etc.  It's the way the curriculum is constructed.  Let me try and walk you through an example of a lesson plan that will hopefully explain what I'm getting at.  Let's look at the idea of a low block or sweep. (I concur, it does get tedious to talk about just this one, but it's the easiest.)

Not "hadan makgi" in a general sense, but that literal movement of using your hand to sweep a lower attack.  Your arm sweeps across your body, normally to prevent an linear attack to your midsection.  For the sake of this example, your students have already learned how to throw a front kick.  Demonstrate with one of the other instructors or a senior student, how to sweep aside a front kick, possibly combined with evasive footwork based on the relation of size with you and your opponent.  Have them partner up, one person throws controlled front kicks, the other practices sweeping them aside.  Rotate through the students several times so they learn how to apply it against different types of opponents.  Put the sparring gear on and liven things up a little bit.  Have the attackers use random rhythm and greater intensity.  In addition to learning a basic movement, how to sweep aside a linear attack toward their trunk, they're also learning distancing and timing, since they need to guage how close they are to the incoming attack, as well as training their reactions to handle the time it takes to react to the spontaneous attack.  They learn balance as they are forced to move back and forth, side to side as they and their partner trade kicks. It won't take very many training sessions for this lower sweep to become ingrained, especially since they are now able to use it against an alive opponent.

What was completely skipped was "hadan makgi".  Teaching a "form", an idealized, perfect motion learned in isolation.

Children very quickly latch onto this alive training, because they are able to see results very quickly.  Their creativity is triggered as they try to see how they can mix up and apply what they know.  True, some learn at a slower curve than others, myself being one of them, but the benefit of alive training means that you have constant positive reinforcement.  You see exactly where you are lacking, what you are missing, and what you need to work on.  You are involved in the learning process, rather than just repeating a movement by rote.

It doesn't take four years to develop the foundation for future learning, but it takes a lifetime to keep striving for perfection.  If Do means path, then you start down the path of Dangsudo from your first lesson, you don't have to wait four years to be ready.  However, you learn that it is a path that takes a lifetime to walk.


----------



## JT_the_Ninja (Apr 15, 2008)

If I missed any points, it was because I'd already addressed them, or simply didn't see them.

TSD is a philosophy in that it teaches a set of principles, beyond how to fight, toward how to approach life. At least, my style does. We have ten Articles of Faith, as well as a whole list of other aspects of training that extend into the philosophical. It may not be your definition of a philosophy, a theory with well-defined terms and logical structures, but I'd hardly call it the "loosest" definition of a philosophy. 

Anyway, we do have sparring practice, you know. I'm not saying you only teach forms. That would be ludicrous, especially because so much of the forms is encoded information that isn't necessarily taken literally, at surface value. I agree completely with the idea of that kind of exercise. This whole argument was about _what to call techniques_, remember. Look at the thread title if you've forgotten. 

I also think you're giving the average student a bit too much credit. Remember what I said about the majority of gup belts being kids under age ten? Yeah. And they come, on average, two nights a week. And a good third of them confuse left and right, back and front, even midway through the gup levels. But beyond the gaining of movement knowledge, it takes four years to become a cho dan because that means you've earned the right to begin. I agree that a dedicated student, maybe around the age I was when I started (13), could get the basics of movement in a month of classes. But remember what I said about it being a philosophy? You can't teach that in a month of classes, or even a year of classes. I'm still working on that, even as an e dan. Patience, dedication, discipline: that is why it takes four years to be able to test to become a beginner. 

So...now that we have that out of the way, should we turn the discussion back to language choice, or have we debated the issue _ad nauseam_?


----------



## Master K (Apr 18, 2008)

Errant108,

I do not have the char set on this computer, so I cannot comment on the characters you put up there.  When you translated the characters, what language did you translate them from?  The reason I ask, is that several native Japanese speakers I know would argue that the term I posted is translated correctly from my post.  This doesn't necessarily mean I am correct.  I am just posting my opinion based on my experience.

The issue shouldn't be with Itosu and those that followed after him.  The issue is with the instruction (how it's taught) and the student.  For instance, if the instructor only teaches the student the standard low block application of blocking a kick and never any other interpretations of the movement, then shame on the instructor. 

The student is responsible for keeping an open mind and expanding his/her knowledge.  If the student doesn't keep an open mind, then the student is no better than the instructor.

I find that many 1st thru 3rd degree black belts only understand the basic applications.  As you progress as a martial artist your understanding of the techniques should progress as well.  For instance, low block evolves from blocking a kick to parrying and striking or whatever other interpretation the instructor has shown.

  It is my humble opinion that the system isn't the issue, but rather the instructors and students.  It is the responsibility of the instructor to teach the many applications of the techniques so that the student may progress.  If not then the student walks away with a watered down understanding of the techniques.  The student has the responsibility of being open-minded.  This matter is further complicated by the fact that most instructors encourage their black belt students between 1st and 3rd to go out and open their own school/program and teach.  But that is a whole other issue entirely.


----------

