# What are some differences between Karate and Taekwondo?



## NinjaChristian

So this is kind of a general question. I practice Chung Do Kwan Taekwondo, but I don't know much about Karate and the styles it encompasses. Recently there has been a Karate brown belt (I don't know what style) going to classes, and he mentioned something about a different blocking system used in Karate. I always assumed that Karate and Taekwondo were pretty similar, but are they?


----------



## Tez3

How long have you got lol? Karate is a generic name for a variety of styles rather than a style itself. Every style has it's differences, Shotokan has longer stances than Wado Ryu, the latter has a fair bit of Juijutsu in it, in Wado we 'do' knife hands and rising blocks a different way from Shotkan. that's just a couple of very basic differences, there's a lot more if you compare all the other styles with each other never mind TKD.

I do think TKD is very different from my style of Wado, it's a different way of moving, a different way of approaching  techniques. this is a long watch but includes video of our Founder. Hopefully you can see differences? 




This should be a very interesting discussion thread though, I don't know the difference between many of the karate styles though I believe Shotokan is the closest to TKD, not sure but I am sure someone will put me right.


----------



## MAfreak

yes shotokan and teakwondo are very close related. tkd founder was shotokan karateka before.
one can say that tkd even is a karate style but koreans wouldn't ever admit it, because of  the japanese-korean past i guess.
forearm blocks and strikes are just the same. kicks also (snapping kicks for example) but tkd focuses more on kicks and puts a lot of spins in.


----------



## Jaeimseu

60-70 years ago Taekwondo was, essentially, Shotokan. Now they are quite different, though they share many techniques (like most striking styles). 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Earl Weiss

Jaeimseu said:


> 60-70 years ago Taekwondo was, essentially, Shotokan. Now they are quite different, though they share many techniques (like most striking styles).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


  TKD started in 1955 so it could not have been anything 61+ years ago.


----------



## Earl Weiss

NinjaChristian said:


> ...................... I practice Chung Do Kwan Taekwondo, ........



What are the names of some patterns you practice?


----------



## Jaeimseu

Earl Weiss said:


> TKD started in 1955 so it could not have been anything 61+ years ago.


Obviously, this is technically correct, though I'd say my original statement is still fairly accurate. I'd wager the name change was more abrupt than the stylistic changes that have since occurred. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Earl Weiss said:


> TKD started in 1955 so it could not have been anything 61+ years ago.



Thank you for making me feel old  Knowing I am older than TKD doesn't make me feel good lol.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

In practical terms, the differences I have noted between the style I practice (Isshin Ryu karate) and any form of TKD are these:

1) When we spar, we don't hop up and down.
2) We generally do not kick above the waist.
3) We use our hands to block, parry, intercept, redirect, trap, and punch.

There are some powerful TKD techniques and I admire the style as well as many of the practitioners, so I am not trying to put down TKD.


----------



## NinjaChristian

Tez3 said:


> How long have you got lol? Karate is a generic name for a variety of styles rather than a style itself. Every style has it's differences, Shotokan has longer stances than Wado Ryu, the latter has a fair bit of Juijutsu in it, in Wado we 'do' knife hands and rising blocks a different way from Shotkan. that's just a couple of very basic differences, there's a lot more if you compare all the other styles with each other never mind TKD.
> 
> I do think TKD is very different from my style of Wado, it's a different way of moving, a different way of approaching  techniques. this is a long watch but includes video of our Founder. Hopefully you can see differences?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This should be a very interesting discussion thread though, I don't know the difference between many of the karate styles though I believe Shotokan is the closest to TKD, not sure but I am sure someone will put me right.



That is a long video! I watched some of the "Two man kata" and some sparring. It seems that in Wado there is a much greater emphasis on hand strikes and grappling, where in TKD both are included but not emphasized as much as kicks. Definitely big difference in movement, and how an opponent is approached. Thanks for your input! I hope others will post information on there styles.


----------



## NinjaChristian

Earl Weiss said:


> What are the names of some patterns you practice?


 So far I know Chon-ji, Dan-Gun, Do-San, And Won-Hyo.


----------



## Tez3

NinjaChristian said:


> That is a long video! I watched some of the "Two man kata" and some sparring. It seems that in Wado there is a much greater emphasis on hand strikes and grappling, where in TKD both are included but not emphasized as much as kicks. Definitely big difference in movement, and how an opponent is approached. Thanks for your input! I hope others will post information on there styles.



Not so much an emphasis on hand strikes I think, we have a far wider range of kicks than I know TKD has. The basis I think for Wado is more body centric rather than limb centric, there's more an economy of movement I find that perhaps other styles have.We have 'smaller' movements more as you would find in Aikido and Kendo. Unnecessary movements shouldn't be performed which can make doing them more difficult but they are very effective. I love the Wado katas for this. They are a joy to do.


----------



## Dirty Dog

MAfreak said:


> tkd founder was shotokan karateka before.



What TKD founder? There is no such person. TKD was developed by a cooperative effort of a lot of people who had varying backgrounds. Certainly Shotokan was a major (probably THE major) background source, but it certainly was not the only art from which the founders of TKD drew.



Bill Mattocks said:


> In practical terms, the differences I have noted between the style I practice (Isshin Ryu karate) and any form of TKD are these:
> 
> 1) When we spar, we don't hop up and down.



Neither do we. This is primarily a trait seen in sport-oriented schools.



Bill Mattocks said:


> 2) We generally do not kick above the waist.



We do.



Bill Mattocks said:


> 3) We use our hands to block, parry, intercept, redirect, trap, and punch.



So do we.

One out of three "differences" is real.


----------



## NinjaChristian

Tez3 said:


> ....we have a far wider range of kicks than I know TKD has....


Could you give some examples of kicks that are not found in Taekwondo, but are in Wado?


----------



## Tez3

NinjaChristian said:


> Could you give some examples of kicks that are not found in Taekwondo, but are in Wado?



All kicks, by the way, are done off both legs and also in both rear and forward stance.

I'll give a list and you can tick off what you know/do lol.
Maegeri        Front kick
Mawashigeri   round kick
Yokogeri  side
Ushirogeri  back
Kingeri   groin
Fumikomi  stamping kick
Hizageri  knee kick
ushiro Kingei  backward groin kick
Soto Mawashigeri  outward groin kick
Mikazukigeri  crescent kick
Soto Mikazukigeri   outward crescent kick
Ushiro Mawashigeri  back round kick
Otoshigeri   dropping kick

We also do an inverse crescent kick which is like a figure four, I can't describe it very well though, I find showing much easier.

Tobigeri are jumping kicks, all of the above can be done jumping, some can also be done in jumping scissors style too. sidekick can be done jumping or 'flying. Kicks are often combined with hand/arm strikes.


----------



## TrueJim

MAfreak said:


> tkd founder was shotokan karate before...



It's funny that people keep saying this.

Shotokon - Won Kuk Lee, Byung Jick Ro, Choi Hong Hi
Shūdōkan - Byung In Yoon

Shitō-ryū - Kwe Byung Yoon
Even if you ignore the influence of Chinese martial arts, there's at least *three different styles of karate* alone that were represented in early taekwondo.


----------



## dancingalone

NinjaChristian said:


> So this is kind of a general question. I practice Chung Do Kwan Taekwondo, but I don't know much about Karate and the styles it encompasses. Recently there has been a Karate brown belt (I don't know what style) going to classes, and he mentioned something about a different blocking system used in Karate. I always assumed that Karate and Taekwondo were pretty similar, but are they?



I hold instructor level dan ranks in both TKD (KKW, though I am also ranked in Jhoon Rhee TKD, an outgrowth from a Chung Do Kwan early graduate) and Goju-ryu karate.  The primary difference in blocking from my perspective stems from the extensive use of mawashi-uke in Goju, though really it's more of an entry and grappling technique IMO even if beginner students don't realize that at first.  

Otherwise, the same usual stuff like low, high, and middle 'blocks' are present in both styles as are the esoteric crane beak blocks and such.  I will say that more people in Goju are aware and recognize that their system is actually a close range fighting style.  TKD arguably has changed or evolved from that, depending on whom you speak to, and IMO the traditional blocks are artifacts from an earlier time that really don't make a lot of sense without the accompanying context that has been left out intentionally or not.


----------



## dancingalone

TrueJim said:


> It's funny that people keep saying this.
> 
> Shotokon - Won Kuk Lee, Byung Jick Ro, Choi Hong Hi
> Shūdōkan - Byung In Yoon
> 
> Shitō-ryū - Kwe Byung Yoon



Part of the reason for that is that none of the recognizable components from Shudokan or Shito-ryu remain in my opinion if you look at mainline TKD (which is KKW - also in my opinion).  Really, Shotokan too for KKW style taekwondo.   However if you look at splinter Moo Duk Kwan/Tang Soo Do and Chung Do Kwan schools which kept apart from the unification, I think I can argue it's easier to see the Shotokan link there.

I don't see any Tomari or Naha karate in TKD today.  Do you?


----------



## MAfreak

Dirty Dog said:


> What TKD founder? There is no such person. TKD was developed by a cooperative effort of a lot of people who had varying backgrounds. Certainly Shotokan was a major (probably THE major) background source, but it certainly was not the only art from which the founders of TKD drew.


Choi Hong Hi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and that it wasn't the only source is exactly what i said.


----------



## dancingalone

MAfreak said:


> Choi Hong Hi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> and that it wasn't the only source is exactly what i said.




While I am inclined to believe General Choi had some karate training, that Wikipedia entry seems a little too enthusiastic, claiming that he studied directly with Funakoshi Sensei.


----------



## Dirty Dog

MAfreak said:


> Choi Hong Hi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



General Choi was not the founder of TKD. He was the founder of the Oh Do Kwan and the ITF. Not Taekwondo.


----------



## MAfreak

german wiki says he gave the name taekwondo. and people should stop believing that arts like karate or taekwondo are thousands of years old. their ancestors, mostly chinese martial arts, surely are.

whatever to get the point if the OP takes a look on the biggest federations and their free fighting style, itf and wtf (or whatever they are called now) taekwondo and wkf karate, he will see more similarities than differences.
whyle itf closer to wkf than the "olympic style" wtf.

wtf






itf






wkf





except of the fact tkd does full contact.
the general training like forms will be even more similar.
i think the karate styles have more differences to each other than tkd has to shotokan.


----------



## IcemanSK

*The date on the Chung Do Kwan piece bellow is incorrect. Chung Do Kwan was opened in 1944, not 1945.  Gen. Choi was a student of Grandmaster Won Kuk LEE. This makes it appear as if they were contemporaries. That was not their relationship. They were master & student.*






TrueJim said:


> It's funny that people keep saying this.
> 
> Shotokon - Won Kuk Lee, Byung Jick Ro, Choi Hong Hi
> Shūdōkan - Byung In Yoon
> 
> Shitō-ryū - Kwe Byung Yoon
> Even if you ignore the influence of Chinese martial arts, there's at least *three different styles of karate* alone that were represented in early taekwondo.


----------



## dancingalone

MAfreak said:


> german wiki says he gave the name taekwondo. and people should stop believing that arts like karate or taekwondo are thousands of years old. their ancestors, mostly chinese martial arts, surely are.



The farthest any karate-ka can claim a fully direct inheritance towards old training methods received through their lineage is probably somewhere in the last half of the 1800s.  Most in fact probably use training drills and conventions born immediately before and after WWII.

The same can be said for the Chinese styles.  Somewhere in the 1800s at best.  Beyond that we're talking legends (not necessarily a bad thing).




MAfreak said:


> whatever to get the point if the OP takes a look on the biggest federations and their free fighting style, itf and wtf (or whatever they are called now) taekwondo and wkf karate, he will see more similarities than differences.
> whyle itf closer to wkf than the "olympic style" wtf.



You really need to stop referring to karate and taekwondo as monolithic entities if you want to be absolutely accurate.  The drills used in traditional Okinawan Goju-ryu karate bear a closer resemblance to practices in Feeding Crane gong-fu than they do to those in KKW taekwondo.  Now if you want to compare WKF karate competition to WTF Olympic competition, sure that's another discussion too.


----------



## Tez3

MAfreak said:


> and people should stop believing that arts like karate or taekwondo are thousands of years old. their ancestors, mostly chinese martial arts, surely are.



I don't think many people do think these arts are thousands of years old lol. The founder of Wado Ryu only died in the 1980 for example and the founder of Shotokan died in the 1950s. We aren't fooling ourselves you know!


----------



## MAfreak

i referred to shotokan here. wkf kumite is based on that.
i know the difference to goju. thats why i said, differences between karate styles are bigger than tkd to shotokan.


----------



## Tez3

MAfreak said:


> i referred to shotokan here. wkf kumite is based on that.
> i know the difference to goju. thats why i said, differences between karate styles are bigger than tkd to shotokan.



When I first saw TKD and dabbled in it, it didn't strike me as being like Shotokan or even generic karate, it had it's own flavour. However when I trained TSD that is very much like Shotokan.


----------



## Buka

I like to focus on the similarities, at  least those I've experienced in both TKD and Karate training.

If you drop your hands in either - you're getting smacked upside the head.


----------



## Dirty Dog

MAfreak said:


> german wiki says he gave the name taekwondo.



They can say that Elvis is alive and well, and helping aliens abduct bored housewives in Ohio for anal probing on the mothership. That won't make it true.
The name "taekwondo" was supported by a majority of the people working towards unification. The records do not show who actually suggested the name (or even if it was suggested by a single person). 
And even if this unproven claim were true, being the person to suggest a name which is eventually selected by a committee is a long way from being "the founder."


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Dirty Dog said:


> Neither do we. This is primarily a trait seen in sport-oriented schools.



This is primarily the interface I have had with TKD practitioners.  I hope I did make it clear that this is only based on my direct experiences.




> One out of three "differences" is real.



I don't doubt that.  I have to be careful to restrict my observations to what I have seen and directly experienced, and to make it clear that I am in no way an authority on what TKD is or is not.  My experience is simply that when I have gone to open tournaments, the TKD guys bounce around, don't use their hands unless their bouncing and kicking happens to bring them in close to their opponents, and they tend to be headhunters.  That's all.

Hey, I get it.  Many people have told me that Isshin Ryu is all about things that it is not; they are basing their suppositions on what they have either seen or heard about.  I get more misconceptions from Isshin Ryu students who quit at green belt than anything else; they think we fight with our hands at our waists because that's as far as they got.


----------



## WaterGal

Tez3 said:


> All kicks, by the way, are done off both legs and also in both rear and forward stance.
> 
> I'll give a list and you can tick off what you know/do lol.
> Maegeri        Front kick
> Mawashigeri   round kick
> Yokogeri  side
> Ushirogeri  back
> Kingeri   groin
> Fumikomi  stamping kick
> Hizageri  knee kick
> ushiro Kingei  backward groin kick
> Soto Mawashigeri  outward groin kick
> Mikazukigeri  crescent kick
> Soto Mikazukigeri   outward crescent kick
> Ushiro Mawashigeri  back round kick
> Otoshigeri   dropping kick
> 
> We also do an inverse crescent kick which is like a figure four, I can't describe it very well though, I find showing much easier.
> 
> Tobigeri are jumping kicks, all of the above can be done jumping, some can also be done in jumping scissors style too. sidekick can be done jumping or 'flying. Kicks are often combined with hand/arm strikes.



I had to youtube the list since I don't know the Japanese names, and the only ones that I've not seen in (KKW/WTF) TKD is the backward groin kick and the outward groin kick.  However, we do have a hook kick, an outside variant of the ax/dropping kick, scissor kick, split kick, and a body-level version of the turning heel/back hook/back round kick.

Definitely a lot of similarities.


----------



## Tez3

MAfreak said:


> Choi Hong Hi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> and that it wasn't the only source is exactly what i said.



Wikipedia can be edited very easily so it's not the best source to cite.
The OP is only asking for the differences between TKD and karate, he doesn't want either a history lesson or an argument over which style is best. I think like many people, he's curious about other styles and just wants to explore the differences which are very interesting...when not accompanied by the politics.
We can only do so many moves with our bodies, that different styles can do very different things with those movements is fascinating. So...rather than discuss politics can we discuss what those differences are...perhaps.


----------



## dancingalone

WaterGal said:


> I had to youtube the list, and the only ones that I've not seen in (KKW/WTF) TKD is the backward groin kick and the outward groin kick.  However, we do have a hook kick, an outside variant of the ax/dropping kick, scissor kick, split kick, and a body-level version of the turning heel/back hook/back round kick.




Don't you also do hapkido?  Some lineages of hapkido have an outsized catalog of kicks... literally numbering in the hundreds with all the front/back leg, jumping, and spinning variations.

Don't think any style can compete with that in terms of pure volume outside of the odd northern Chinese style.


----------



## Tez3

WaterGal said:


> I had to youtube the list since I don't know the Japanese names, and the only ones that I've not seen in (KKW/WTF) TKD is the backward groin kick and the outward groin kick.  However, we do have a hook kick, an outside variant of the ax/dropping kick, scissor kick, split kick, and a body-level version of the turning heel/back hook/back round kick.
> 
> Definitely a lot of similarities.



I think the difference may be in the execution of them, sometimes too though the names may confuse. We have two types of front kick, a 'push' kick and a 'snap' kick. The 'axe' kick is a straight up and down kick ( the knee is up, bent, goes up then down, a clumsy description sorry)  whereas I believe TKD does it as a crescent kick type? the front kick for example too can be done as a straight kick either off the back or front leg, a straight up and down jump kick and as a scissors jump kick either on the spot or travelling. Most kicks can be spinning kicks too.
Do you have stamping kick because I haven't seen them in TKD though that doesn't mean a lot or the straight groin kick, instep kick to the testicles? ( no surprise you probably don't see that a lot lol)


----------



## TrueJim

IcemanSK said:


> The date on the Chung Do Kwan piece bellow is incorrect. Chung Do Kwan was opened in 1944, not 1945.



To be honest, I'm never sure how to handle starting-dates properly. From what I've read, Won-Kuk Lee returned to Korea in 1944 and was given permission to teach Shotokan karate _but only to Japanese nationals_. So should we start the Chung Do Kwan date from there? Is it fair to call it a Korean kwan when all the students must be Japanese?

Then later Lee was allowed to teach to Korean nationals at Yungshin School gymnasium in Seol, but only to select Koreans. So should we start the Chung Do Kwan date from when Lee was allowed to teach his martial art to Koreans?

Or should we start it after the end of World War II, when Lee was finally allowed to teach to whomever he liked?

There's similar dilemmas with other schools too. When Byung Rick Jo originally started teaching in Kaesong his school failed. So he relocated to Seoul and tried again, this time successfully. So which of these events counts as the start of his kwan?

Of course all kwan want to push their start dates as far into the past as possible, but the reality is a lot of the schools beginnings had "fuzzy" start dates. Like, "Oh, I'm just teaching my friends after work" to "Oh look, more people want my instruction! I guess we can call this a school now." When does a kwan become a kwan?



IcemanSK said:


> Gen. Choi was a student of Grandmaster Won Kuk LEE. This makes it appear as if they were contemporaries. That was not their relationship. They were master & student.



That's a fair point. While still fitting everything relevant to the early kwan on a single page (and keeping it legible), how would you re-diagram that?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tez3 said:


> I think the difference may be in the execution of them, sometimes too though the names may confuse. We have two types of front kick, a 'push' kick and a 'snap' kick.



We teach both, as well.


Tez3 said:


> The 'axe' kick is a straight up and down kick ( the knee is up, bent, goes up then down, a clumsy description sorry)  whereas I believe TKD does it as a crescent kick type?



We teach all three versions. All have their place...


Tez3 said:


> the front kick for example too can be done as a straight kick either off the back or front leg, a straight up and down jump kick and as a scissors jump kick either on the spot or travelling. Most kicks can be spinning kicks too.



Yup. Same as us.


Tez3 said:


> Do you have stamping kick because I haven't seen them in TKD though that doesn't mean a lot or the straight groin kick, instep kick to the testicles? ( no surprise you probably don't see that a lot lol)



Yes, we do. You don't see them used in competition, for obvious reasons, but they are certainly taught.


----------



## dancingalone

NinjaChristian said:


> So far I know Chon-ji, Dan-Gun, Do-San, And Won-Hyo.




By the way, it's interesting that your school identifies itself as Chung Do Kwan but practices the Blue Cottage hyung.  That's rare from my personal experience.  Most CDK people have been folded in the KKW and their individual lineages seldom come up.  The other set of CDK stragglers still stick to the karate forms (Pyung Ahn, Palsek, Chul Gi).


----------



## Tez3

Dirty Dog said:


> We teach both, as well.
> 
> 
> We teach all three versions. All have their place...
> 
> 
> Yup. Same as us.
> 
> 
> Yes, we do. You don't see them used in competition, for obvious reasons, but they are certainly taught.



As I said I think the execution is the difference, I'm not saying by the way, in case people are thinking I am, that we do them better or have more, just looking, as the OP asked, at the differences.


----------



## IcemanSK

TrueJim said:


> To be honest, I'm never sure how to handle starting-dates properly. From what I've read, Won-Kuk Lee returned to Korea in 1944 and was given permission to teach Shotokan karate _but only to Japanese nationals_. So should we start the Chung Do Kwan date from there? Is it fair to call it a Korean kwan when all the students must be Japanese?
> 
> Then later Lee was allowed to teach to Korean nationals at Yungshin School gymnasium in Seol, but only to select Koreans. So should we start the Chung Do Kwan date from when Lee was allowed to teach his martial art to Koreans?
> 
> Or should we start it after the end of World War II, when Lee was finally allowed to teach to whomever he liked?
> 
> There's similar dilemmas with other schools too. When Byung Rick Jo originally started teaching in Kaesong his school failed. So he relocated to Seoul and tried again, this time successfully. So which of these events counts as the start of his kwan?
> 
> Of course all kwan want to push their start dates as far into the past as possible, but the reality is a lot of the schools beginnings had "fuzzy" start dates. Like, "Oh, I'm just teaching my friends after work" to "Oh look, more people want my instruction! I guess we can call this a school now." When does a kwan become a kwan?
> 
> 
> 
> That's a fair point. While still fitting everything relevant to the early kwan on a single page (and keeping it legible), how would you re-diagram that?



*Diagramming isn't easy when you have a lot of detail. I guess I'd do it from the Kwan founders. Therefore, General CHOI's Oh Do Kwan would be an offshoot of Chung Do Kwan. The Chung Do Kwan has an official founding date of September 15, 1944. My thought is that if a Kwan officially says, "our founding date is 'X' I'll post that date. I wasn't there. I've got other things I think are more important issues (like who the great leaders of each Kwan are/were that get little acknowledgement). My  2 cents. *


----------



## Earl Weiss

NinjaChristian said:


> So far I know Chon-ji, Dan-Gun, Do-San, And Won-Hyo.



Well, opinions vary, but typicality the systems is defined by the pattern syllabus.   Based upon the syllabus you learn you are not doing CDK , you are practicint the Chang Hon System. I am familiar with others who have said similar things because their roots go back to the CDK and you can see a CDK flavor in their performance.   Many TKD noteables had CDK roots including Jhoon Rhee, He Il Cho,   The ATA founder  HU Lee and others.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Dirty Dog said:


> IcemanSK said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The date on the Chung Do Kwan piece bellow is incorrect. Chung Do Kwan was opened in 1944, not 1945.  Gen. Choi was a student of Grandmaster Won Kuk LEE. This makes it appear as if they were contemporaries. That was not their relationship. They were master & student.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Won Kuk Lee may have been Senior to General Choi and they certainly had interaction. What is the source for the statement that General Choi was ever a student of GM Won Kuk Lee?
Click to expand...


----------



## Earl Weiss

Dirty Dog said:


> And even if this unproven claim were true, being the person to suggest a name which is eventually selected by a committee is a long way from being "the founder."



Un proven , perhaps but supported by noteables. i.e. Nam Tae Hi.    

Further , General Choi did more than submit the name, 
He tirelessly fought for adoption of the name opposed by many and removed and then reinstated due to his efforts.   Of course, once it became popular they were more than happy to jump on the band wagon   (No different than callng it "Korean Karate" to jump on that bandwagon)
. What he did  and what the KKW copied decades later after originally accepting any number of systems was what others such as Kano, Funakoshi, Ueshiba etc. did was to codify a single system to be taught on a wide scale.   He also developed and dispatched demo teams and instructors and recruited  others throughout the world and as a result TKD as a single system was taught in dozens of countries prior to 1974 which might not seem like much due to the ease of communication, and travel we enjoy today.   Also published first Texts to use the name. 

Until politicised after 1974 with the SK influence and financial backing he enjoyed now backing the KKW there is no single individual who came anywhere close to what General Choi did to spread TKD.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Dirty Dog said:


> General Choi was not the founder of TKD. He was the founder of the Oh Do Kwan and the ITF. Not Taekwondo.



An opinion shared by those who view TKD thru the KKW lens of communal development so as to not allow any individual too much power.   Suffice it to say I reject your reality and substitute my own which began prior to   1974 when there was no KKW or anyone else who could lay claim to being the head of  promoting, spreading and deveolping a system called TKD.   I do not accept that any Korean kicking and punching before 1955 to be able to claim the TKD Moniker.   Forrunners of TKD - Yes. TKD - No.


----------



## Tez3

Bet the OP wishes he hadn't posted now.


----------



## TrueJim

Earl Weiss said:


> ...prior to 1974 when there was no KKW or anyone else who could lay claim to being the head of  promoting, spreading and deveolping a system called TKD...



I have enormous respect for General Choi and agree with many of your points...Choi was a driving force -- arguably THE driving force -- in the development and adoption of taekwondo worldwide. 

I'll play Devil's Advocate on the date though.  When Choi returned from Malaysia in 1965 he successfully lobbied the KTA to rename themselves once more to Korea Taekwondo Association, and from 1965 onward that name stuck. From what I've read, the KTA was a driving force in kwan unification (arguably WAY too heavy-handed even, in their government-sanctioned zeal for unification)...so shouldn't your suggested date be 1965 rather than 1974?

In other words, starting in 1965 there _was_ an organization claiming to be the head of promoting, spreading, and developing a system called taekwondo...that organization was the KTA. Then a year later, Choi founded the ITF.


----------



## Tez3

And the differences between karate and TKD are.......................................................


----------



## Earl Weiss

TrueJim said:


> ....
> I'll play Devil's Advocate on the date though.  When Choi returned from Malaysia in 1965 he successfully lobbied the KTA to rename themselves once more to Korea Taekwondo Association, and from 1965 onward that name stuck. From what I've read, the KTA was a driving force in kwan unification (arguably WAY too heavy-handed even, in their government-sanctioned zeal for unification)...so shouldn't your suggested date be 1965 rather than 1974?
> 
> In other words, starting in 1965 there _was_ an organization claiming to be the head of promoting, spreading, and developing a system called taekwondo...that organization was the KTA. Then a year later, Choi founded the ITF.



Again, it can be a matter of perspective.   The "Communal Effort" idea was promoted by the KKW which of course was founded in 1974.   

IMO without General Choi battling for the name TKD as you point out for at least 10 years, as well as developing, dispatching, and recruiting instructors we all might be doing an art with a different name now.   Heavy handed? No doubt..   General's  expect orders be obeyed.


----------



## TrueJim

Earl Weiss said:


> Heavy handed? No doubt..   General's  expect orders be obeyed.



He was probably heavy-handed too.  I was referring to the KTA's heavy-handedness once Choi left the KTA. I.e., working to shut-down any dojang in Korea that didn't fall in line with the KTA.


----------



## NinjaChristian

Tez3 said:


> All kicks, by the way, are done off both legs and also in both rear and forward stance.
> 
> I'll give a list and you can tick off what you know/do lol.
> Maegeri        Front kick
> Mawashigeri   round kick
> Yokogeri  side
> Ushirogeri  back
> Kingeri   groin
> Fumikomi  stamping kick
> Hizageri  knee kick
> ushiro Kingei  backward groin kick
> Soto Mawashigeri  outward groin kick
> Mikazukigeri  crescent kick
> Soto Mikazukigeri   outward crescent kick
> Ushiro Mawashigeri  back round kick
> Otoshigeri   dropping kick
> 
> We also do an inverse crescent kick which is like a figure four, I can't describe it very well though, I find showing much easier.
> 
> Tobigeri are jumping kicks, all of the above can be done jumping, some can also be done in jumping scissors style too. sidekick can be done jumping or 'flying. Kicks are often combined with hand/arm strikes.



All of these are in TKD. does Wado have bituro chagi(twisting kick)? Every kick that I know of (besides groin and stamping for aerial) in taekwondo can be performed while jumping, spinning, jumping and spinning, and some while flying. Does Wado have as many jumping kicks?


----------



## WaterGal

Tez3 said:


> I think the difference may be in the execution of them, sometimes too though the names may confuse. We have two types of front kick, a 'push' kick and a 'snap' kick. The 'axe' kick is a straight up and down kick ( the knee is up, bent, goes up then down, a clumsy description sorry)  whereas I believe TKD does it as a crescent kick type? the front kick for example too can be done as a straight kick either off the back or front leg, a straight up and down jump kick and as a scissors jump kick either on the spot or travelling. Most kicks can be spinning kicks too.
> Do you have stamping kick because I haven't seen them in TKD though that doesn't mean a lot or the straight groin kick, instep kick to the testicles? ( no surprise you probably don't see that a lot lol)



Keep in mind, I did my research by looking up each Japanese kick name on Youtube and watching one of the top videos in the results.   And I know "karate" isn't one monolithic thing, so it's possible that a kick may be done one way in your style of karate and another in the video I watched.  But from what I saw, I think we have a lot of the same kicks, just sometimes called or categorized in different ways.

Like, I would consider "front kick" to include both the "snapping" front kick with the ball of the foot and also a "groin front kick" which is where you kick upwards and hit with the instep, like one of your groin kicks.  And I would consider there to be three types of ax kick - a "straight ax" that goes just straight up and down in the same spot, and an "inside ax" and "outside ax" which do make a crescent shape on the way up (to get around the target) and then come straight down. ETA: Which then is different from a crescent kick, which hits with the side of the foot, while your leg is around the top of the crescent shape.

And then, yeah, the kicks can generally all be done with the back leg, front leg, jumping, turning, etc too.


----------



## Tez3

NinjaChristian said:


> All of these are in TKD. does Wado have bituro chagi(twisting kick)? Every kick that I know of (besides groin and stamping for aerial) in taekwondo can be performed while jumping, spinning, jumping and spinning, and some while flying. Does Wado have as many jumping kicks?



I'm having trouble with this one because I've tried looking on YouTube but seem to get different kicks, one of which is kicking a person behind you with what looks like a very high front kick that hits the person behind with the ball of the foot, does that sound right? There is another which looks like Wado's inverse crescent kick, and also a front kick. It's intriguing.

All the kicks in Wado can be used as a jumping kick ( by younger people lol my days of jumping kicks have gone, I now rely on a thumping good low kick to the thigh, I suspect it will be to the calf soon then the ankle or I'll be reduced to sparring toddlers ) I could do a good jumping side kick but never a flying side kick, I used to say it was too flashy to actually use but was always secretly jealous of those who could do it, that and the double front kick.


----------



## Tez3

WaterGal said:


> Keep in mind, I did my research by looking up each Japanese kick name on Youtube and watching one of the top videos in the results.   And I know "karate" isn't one monolithic thing, so it's possible that a kick may be done one way in your style of karate and another in the video I watched.  But from what I saw, I think we have a lot of the same kicks, just sometimes called or categorized in different ways.
> 
> Like, I would consider "front kick" to include both the "snapping" front kick with the ball of the foot and also a "groin front kick" which is where you kick upwards and hit with the instep, like one of your groin kicks.  And I would consider there to be three types of ax kick - a "straight ax" that goes just straight up and down in the same spot, and an "inside ax" and "outside ax" which do make a crescent shape on the way up (to get around the target) and then come straight down. ETA: Which then is different from a crescent kick, which hits with the side of the foot, while your leg is around the top of the crescent shape.
> 
> And then, yeah, the kicks can generally all be done with the back leg, front leg, jumping, turning, etc too.




It's fascinating isn't it? I wish we were all in a gym where we could all demonstrate and compare, it would be great fun.  I'm hoping karateka from other styles will chip in too with what they do. 

Would you say that there are different ways of doing the TKD techniques? Different schools/classes doing it differently?


----------



## jks9199

What are some of the differences between karate and taekwondo...

Well, it all depends on who you ask.

Some folks are going to tell you that taekwondo is Shotokan karate, with a dash of Korean sauce.  Others are going to tell you that taekwondo reflects historical, indigenous kick fighting from rural Korea, with a dash of Japanese karate.

TKD certainly has a much stronger focus on kicking than most styles of karate.  And they've developed some different emphasis points for developing power.  At the same time, there are certainly lots of elements that are shared.  A karateka is probably not going to feel completely lost in a TKD class -- and a taekwondoin in a karate class won't be completely at sea.  But neither will be completely comfortable, either.

On a practical basis, at least in my experience, TKD in the DC/VA/MD area is much more commercialized and business oriented.  Most TKD programs feature lots of day care programs, leader "teams", etc. while most (NOT ALL!) karate programs are run in a non-commercial, club based set up.  But, your mileage may vary.


----------



## chrispillertkd

TrueJim said:


> Shitō-ryū - Kwe Byung Yoon




Yoon, Kwe-Byung knew both Shudokan and Shito Ryu.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

dancingalone said:


> While I am inclined to believe General Choi had some karate training, that Wikipedia entry seems a little too enthusiastic, claiming that he studied directly with Funakoshi Sensei.



And that's a claim that Gen. Choi himself does NOT make. He first learned karate in Japan under the instruction of another Korean national. He did say in an interview with him I read that he had the opportunity to train at the Shotokan once in 1942 with Funakoshi, but not that he was a direct student. He taught karate along with Yoon, Byung-In until GM Yoon returned to Korea and opened the YMCA Kwon Bup Bu (forerunner of *both* the Chang Moo Kwan and Kang Duk Won).

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

IcemanSK said:


> *The date on the Chung Do Kwan piece bellow is incorrect. Chung Do Kwan was opened in 1944, not 1945.  Gen. Choi was a student of Grandmaster Won Kuk LEE. This makes it appear as if they were contemporaries. That was not their relationship. They were master & student.*



I would be interested in seeing evidence that Gen. Choi was a student of GM Lee, Won Kuk's. While I Have heard that before I have never seen any proof apart from a picture of them together sitting at a table. None of Gen. Choi's students from the Oh Do Kwan have ever stated this, as far as I know.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

Dirty Dog said:


> The name "taekwondo" was supported by a majority of the people working towards unification. The records do not show who actually suggested the name (or even if it was suggested by a single person).



Bit more complicated than that. 

"Taekwon-Do" was used exclusively by the Oh Do Kwan and Chung Do Kwan starting in 1955. I believe April 11, 1955 is the date Gen. Choi actually had his soldiers begin using the term for the martial art he was teaching them. The other Kwans did not begin using the name Taekwon-Do for several years. In fact, many of the second generation Kwan Jang opposed using it. 

Gen. Choi formed the Korea Taekwon-Do Association in 1959 but he left Korea in '62 to be ambassador to Malaysia. While he was there the second generation Kwan Jangs (Gen. Choi was really the only first generation Kwan Jang to be involved in the unification movement - there might have been one other if you count GM Hwang, Ki but he eventually distanced himself from the effort) began using the term Tae Soo Do to describe the martial art they were teaching. While the Oh Do Kwan continued to use Taekwon-Do I believe at least some Chung Do Kwan schools used Tae Soo Do during this time. When he returned to Korea in 1965 Gen. Choi became president of the Korea Tae Soo Do Association and used his position to force a change in the name back to Taekwon-Do. 

In retrospect this might not have been a wise move since there are now two distinct styles using the same name. GM Jong Chan Kim actually asked Gen. Choi to make the KTA stop using the name Taekwon-Do when he had a falling out with them and was removed as KTA president, but Gen. Choi didn't, believing that he could still spread Taekwon-Do through the military as well as the ITF. And apparently they were teaching Taekwon-Do to the Korean police by 1966 and about 90% of the armed forces by 1967 (again, according to GM Jong Chan Kim). Unfortunately, when he went into exile in Canada in 1972 things changed.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Dirty Dog

Earl Weiss said:


> Un proven , perhaps but supported by noteables. i.e. Nam Tae Hi.



Right. Unproven, as I said. Lots of those same notables also used to claim TKD was developed from Ancient Korean MA, which has long been know to be nonsense.
The General was a great contributor. He was not the sole founder of TKD by any means,



Earl Weiss said:


> An opinion shared by those who view TKD thru the KKW lens of communal development so as to not allow any individual too much power.   Suffice it to say I reject your reality and substitute my own which began prior to   1974 when there was no KKW or anyone else who could lay claim to being the head of  promoting, spreading and deveolping a system called TKD.   I do not accept that any Korean kicking and punching before 1955 to be able to claim the TKD Moniker.   Forrunners of TKD - Yes. TKD - No.



I'm being accused of being a KKW sycophant? ROFL




Earl Weiss said:


> Again, it can be a matter of perspective.   The "Communal Effort" idea was promoted by the KKW which of course was founded in 1974.



The "communal effort" began with the establishment of the KTA, which was well before the KKW was founded (had to be, since the KKW was founded BY the KTA...).



chrispillertkd said:


> Bit more complicated than that.



I am well aware. I didn't think the OP was interested in a long history lesson. The short version remains, as I said, that TKD did not have a single founder.


----------



## Tez3

Dirty Dog said:


> I didn't think the OP was interested in a long history lesson.



I think the OP was looking to discuss the differences in _actual techniques_ ie blocking, kicking, striking etc as he said the karateka had said that the karate blocks were different, I think he's looking to explore the different way we do things rather than the history of TKD.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Un proven , perhaps but supported by noteables. i.e. Nam Tae Hi.
"Dirty Dog: Right. Unproven, as I said. Lots of those same notables also used to claim TKD was developed from Ancient Korean MA, which has long been know to be nonsense.
""

Only unproven to the extent that you fail to accept evidence as proof. The difference between your analogy vis a vis claims of TKD being 2000 years old is that Nam Tae Hi was around at the time of the naming, claimed to have helped General Choi research and come up with the name and submit it for acceptance.   General Choi's submission of the name is widely reported and accepted except for a noteable exception by a relative of Son Cuc Sun who claims he submitted it during some internet chatter.   I accept the first hand accounts as proof. You are free to reject this reality. ,


----------



## Earl Weiss

Getting back to the OP, as many have stated due to the variety of things referred to as Karate generalizations are difficult.  Since you apparently have strong CDK roots which would have strong Shotokan roots we can use that for comparison. A major difference would be the "Strongly rooted" idea of Shotokan with the legendary story of it's founder on a roof in a typhoon versus TKD making power even while jumping. There is some disagreement on what Funakoshi wanted for stance length and depth, but many Karate practitioners favor longer, deeper and less mobile stances and more linear attacks as compared to TKD shorter stances and variety of circular techniques. .


----------



## chrispillertkd

Dirty Dog said:


> I am well aware. I didn't think the OP was interested in a long history lesson. The short version remains, as I said, that TKD did not have a single founder.



I was replying to your assertion that the _name_ Taekwon-Do was "supported by a majority of people working towards unification." That's simply not accurate. Repeated attempts were made to use a different appellation, in fact. Gen. Choi was the one who forced the use of the name. Which, parenthetically, would be an odd thing for him to do if he hadn't been the one to coin the term a decade before. 

As for the OP's interest in Taekwon-Do history, I cannot say one way or the other but thread drift is inevitable and the topic had been broached as soon as someone started talking about who founded the art.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

IcemanSK said:


> *Diagramming isn't easy when you have a lot of detail. I guess I'd do it from the Kwan founders. Therefore, General CHOI's Oh Do Kwan would be an offshoot of Chung Do Kwan.*



In what sense was the Oh Do Kwan an "offshoot" of the Chung Do Kwan since there is no actual record of Gen. Choi being a member of the Chung Do Kwan as anything other than honorary Kwan Jang? 

Honestly, the only people I have heard say this have Chung Do Kwan roots and seem to gloss over the fact that GM Lee, Won Kuk wasn't involved at all in the unification process. Despite this a few of them even claim he's the "real" founder of Taekwon-Do because the Chung Do Kwan was the first Kwan to open, even though he taught Tang Soo Do. And even though the Song Moo Kwan opened first 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Dirty Dog

chrispillertkd said:


> I was replying to your assertion that the _name_ Taekwon-Do was "supported by a majority of people working towards unification." That's simply not accurate. Repeated attempts were made to use a different appellation, in fact.



I didn't say it was adopted instantly and enthusiastically. If a majority had refused to adopt it, it wouldn't have been adopted.



chrispillertkd said:


> Gen. Choi was the one who forced the use of the name.



I don't think he "forced" anything of the sort. Persuaded, certainly. Badgered, possibly. Bribed, who knows? But forced?
General Choi was a lot of things, but Dictator of the KTA wasn't one of them.



chrispillertkd said:


> Which, parenthetically, would be an odd thing for him to do if he hadn't been the one to coin the term a decade before.



Not really. Anyone who supported the use of the term would do the same. It really says nothing about the origins of the term.



chrispillertkd said:


> As for the OP's interest in Taekwon-Do history, I cannot say one way or the other but thread drift is inevitable and the topic had been broached as soon as someone started talking about who founded the art.



Sure. Because the internet.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Earl Weiss said:


> Only unproven to the extent that you fail to accept evidence as proof.



That would be because evidence is NOT proof. Especially anecdotal evidence. I'm pretty sure you're aware of that. 



Earl Weiss said:


> The difference between your analogy vis a vis claims of TKD being 2000 years old is that Nam Tae Hi was around at the time of the naming, claimed to have helped General Choi research and come up with the name and submit it for acceptance.



Thank you for offering support for my statement that the name taekdondo is not, in fact, the invention of General Choi, any more than the art of taekwondo was developed by one person.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Dirty Dog said:


> That would be because evidence is NOT proof. Especially anecdotal evidence. I'm pretty sure you're aware of that.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for offering support for my statement that the name taekdondo is not, in fact, the invention of General Choi, any more than the art of taekwondo was developed by one person.



I am aware that proof is what the trier of fact decides it is.   First hand accounts are in fact evidence that can be deemed proof.    You simply have decided independant first hand accounts and reports do not rise to whatever level you would  deem to be proof.   

The name TKD was General Choi's invention just as was the new system to carry the name.    Inventions  and discoveries are rarely the work of a single person, and General Choi never claims he was acting alone.  (This would be like saying Edison did not invent the light bulb because he had assistance)  To the contrary,  he credits being a General and having resources at his disposal and that is why he was the founder.   He did not start with a bunch of white belts. Instead he used the resources to recruit top Martial Art Talent, noteably the 29th infantry among (other recruitmant like Jhoon Rhee), and then used that talent to develop the system and instructors.   This made the development and spread much more rapid than history reports for  earlier modern systems like Judo , Shotokan, and Aikido.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Dirty Dog said:


> I didn't say it was adopted instantly and enthusiastically. If a majority had refused to adopt it, it wouldn't have been adopted.



Not adopted instantly and enthusiastically is quite an understatement. I'm sure you know the history of the conflict within the Korea Tae Soo Do Association and, for example, GM Jong Woo Lee's reaction to the renewal of the use of "Taekwon-Do." 

As for whether or not it would have been used if a majority refused to adopt it, I honestly have my doubts about that.  



> I don't think he "forced" anything of the sort. Persuaded, certainly. Badgered, possibly. Bribed, who knows? But forced?
> General Choi was a lot of things, but Dictator of the KTA wasn't one of them.



You're obviously just arguing semantics at this point. You can force people to do what you want without being a dictator. It's a fairly common use of the word. Gen. Choi forced the Tae Soo Do association to start using the term Taekwon-Do in his position as President. 



> Not really. Anyone who supported the use of the term would do the same. It really says nothing about the origins of the term.



We'll just have to agree to disagree. Given the fact that pretty much everyone, whatever else they think about him, agree that Gen. Choi came up with the name I feel no reason to doubt him on this point. As for whether or not _anyone_ who liked the term Taekwon-Do would have done the same, that seems quite a bit of conjecture on your part. Especially since the KTA had already switched names. 



> Sure. Because the internet.



I'm not really sure why you've been belligerent to people who you disagree with recently. It's a bit unbecoming in a moderator.

People bringing up topics that are related to a post's main point isn't exactly unheard of. That's not a case of "Because the internet," it's a matter of human nature. It's how people think and act. You, in fact, were the one who made the claim that Gen. Choi didn't found Taekwon-Do. If you have such a problem with posts in this thread not sticking to the original question then you shouldn't have said anything because by doing so you just contributed to the "problem" of talking about Taekwon-Do history. You were then the one who said there's no proof that he coined the term Taekwon-Do. For someone who doesn't want thread drift you've done your share of contributing to it. If you don't think the OP is interested in Taekwon-Do history then why not stop contributing to the conversation yourself?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## TrueJim

chrispillertkd said:


> Gen. Choi forced the Tae Soo Do association to start using the term Taekwon-Do in his position as President...



I for one am enjoying this debate.  I have a sincere question though...

If General Choi was able to force the Tae Soo Do association to adopt the term Taekwon-Do, why was he unable to get the Tae Soo Do association to adopt his Chang Hon teul?

As I understand it, in January 1965 Choi returned from Malaysia and was once-again appointed head of the KTA. As you say, he lobbied strongly to get the KTA to return to the name Korea Taekwon-Do Association. But concurrently, he also strongly lobbied the KTA to adopt the Chang Hon teul, but the other kwan leaders refused. I was under the impression that was a contributing factor to Choi leaving the KTA in March 1966 to found the ITF.

Why do we suppose Choi was able to convince the KTA to do the one thing, but not the other?  I.e., adopt the Taekwon-Do name, but not the Chang Hon teul?


----------



## chrispillertkd

TrueJim said:


> I for one am enjoying this debate.  I have a sincere question though...
> 
> If General Choi was able to force the Tae Soo Do association to adopt the term Taekwon-Do, why was he unable to get the Tae Soo Do association to adopt his Chang Hon teul?
> 
> As I understand it, in January 1965 Choi returned from Malaysia and was once-again appointed head of the KTA. As you say, he lobbied strongly to get the KTA to return to the name Korea Taekwon-Do Association. But concurrently, he also strongly lobbied the KTA to adopt the Chang Hon teul, but the other kwan leaders refused. I was under the impression that was a contributing factor to Choi leaving the KTA in March 1966 to found the ITF.
> 
> Why do we suppose Choi was able to convince the KTA to do the one thing, but not the other?  I.e., adopt the Taekwon-Do name, but not the Chang Hon teul?



It's a good question. Simply from a pragmatic perspective I would imagine it had something to do with having only so much political pull. As I pointed out, it was absolutely true that Gen. Choi was _not _a dictator. He had a vision for what he wanted, and if you read his autobiography he clearly expresses the frustration he had with other Kwan Jang who, in his perspective, held on to katrate instead of really signing on to a _Korean _martial art. In fact, when he organized the "Taekwon-Do Goodwill Tour" he said that many people in the Tae Soo Do association were upset about how he could lead a demonstration team for "Taekwon-Do." At the same time when he was approached by people from Hwang Ki's Soo Bahk Do association, saying they'd like to have members on the tour his reply was, basically, "You don't even do Taekwon-Do." I think in the end there may have been one Moo Duk Kwan member on the team but you can see how his actions would have ruffled not a few feathers in both the Soo Bahk Do association and the Tae Soo Do association itself (many of whom felt like they were getting along just fine before Gen. Choi got back to Korea). 

Part of what allowed for the name to be changed by the KTA was the suggestion of Kim, Yong-Taek who was a lawyer and spokesman for Moo Duk Kwan. He suggested that since they were concurrently trying to unify between the Tae Soo Do and Soo Bahk Do associations they should use Taekwon-Do since it was a name that wasn't used by either party, thus avoiding competition, and was already internationally recognized. Even so, the vote to switch names back to Taekwon-Do only passed by one vote.

In 1966 shortly after the formation of the ITF, both Lee, Woo Jong and Uhm, Woon Kyu approached Gen. Choi about unifying the ITF, KTA, and Soo Bahk Do. After quite a bit of haggling they agreed to unite and combine the patterns at a ratio of 4:4:2 (ITF:KTA:Soo Bahk Do). That was at the suggestion of Lee, Jong Woo who then told Gen. Choi that the KTA would represent Soo Bahk Do as well do they'd really have a ration of 4:6 (ITF:KTA). 

Not really surprising there was no permanent union between the ITF and KTA after that, even though the initial agreement stuck for a little while. 

As  an interesting aside, Gen. Choi actually wanted to have Choi, Young Eui as the next KTA president since he thought he would better implement policies set by the ITF. Choi, Young Eui is, of course, the given name of Masutatsu Oyama, founder of Kyokushinkai karate.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Earl Weiss said:


> (This would be like saying Edison did not invent the light bulb because he had assistance)


Well, Edison _didn't_ invent the light bulb, at least not single-handedly. I believe there were roughly 22 inventors of light bulbs before him. Edison (and his then-employee Lewis Latimer) held patents on several important incremental improvements to the light bulb that were developed in Edison's lab by a team working under his guidance. Those incremental improvements were enough for Edison to start selling his lighting commercially. Around the same time (within the same year) Hiram Maxim started his own company selling light bulbs based on his own patents and those of William Sawyer. Also, in Britain, Joseph Swan was developing practical light bulbs at the same time. In Britain, Edison's and Swan's companies ended up merging. In the U.S. there was litigation for some years to determine whether Edison's patents were valid or based on the prior art of Sawyer.

Edison gets credited with being the "inventor" of the light bulb because
a) the folks on his team who may have done as much or more work on his patents as he did were his employees and not in a position to contend for credit and
b) Edison was a better self-promoter than the others who developed practical bulbs around the same time

What comparisons may be drawn between Edison and Choi is left as an exercise for the reader.


----------



## Earl Weiss

TrueJim said:


> I for one am enjoying this debate.  I have a sincere question though...
> 
> If General Choi was able to force the Tae Soo Do association to adopt the term Taekwon-Do, why was he unable to get the Tae Soo Do association to adopt his Chang Hon teul?



A. Because it's easier to learn a name than new stuff.
B. One need look no further than the KKW for a similar issue.    They unified TKD under their banner while accepting all sorts of pattern systems for BB Rank and only later  after developing a couple of pattern systems began to limit rank to those using the new patterns.   Unlike General Choi  the KKW took a much longer view.  General Choi PO'd lots of people by only accepting CDK rank and I think one or two others requiring everyone else to est for rank.


----------



## Dirty Dog

chrispillertkd said:


> I'm not really sure why you've been belligerent to people who you disagree with recently. It's a bit unbecoming in a moderator.



I don't think there's anything "belligerent" in what I've posted. Especially in this particular case, where I was _*agreeing*_ with you that a certain amount of topical drift is virtually inevitable. Apparently I'm agreeing belligerently? Or would agreeably belligerent be a better term?



chrispillertkd said:


> People bringing up topics that are related to a post's main point isn't exactly unheard of. That's not a case of "Because the internet," it's a matter of human nature.



Which is pretty much saying the same thing.
Just to be clear, this is me agreeing with you, again. Probably belligerently, though.



chrispillertkd said:


> It's how people think and act. You, in fact, were the one who made the claim that Gen. Choi didn't found Taekwon-Do.



That would be because he didn't. He was one of a number of contributors to the development of taekwondo (note the difference between taekwondo, a non-belligerent umbrella term for the entire range of systems with common roots, and Taekwon-Do, a term generally used to refer to a specific subset of taekwondo, in particular the subset with roots in the ITF (which General Choi certainly should be credited with founding)).



chrispillertkd said:


> If you have such a problem with posts in this thread not sticking to the original question then you shouldn't have said anything because by doing so you just contributed to the "problem" of talking about Taekwon-Do history. You were then the one who said there's no proof that he coined the term Taekwon-Do. For someone who doesn't want thread drift you've done your share of contributing to it. If you don't think the OP is interested in Taekwon-Do history then why not stop contributing to the conversation yourself?



Just went back through everything I've posted in this thread. Nope. Cannot find a single thing I've said that can reasonably be taken as a complaint about thread drift. Other than agreeing with you when you brought it up, of course.

So where did this little rant come from?

Having said that, and not being interested in arguing in circles, or causing further drift, this is me belligerently leaving the conversation. Feel free to reply to this and have the last word.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Dirty Dog said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> That would be because he didn't. He was one of a number of contributors to the development of taekwondo (note the difference between taekwondo, a non-belligerent umbrella term for the entire range of systems with common roots, and Taekwon-Do, a term generally used to refer to a specific subset of taekwondo, in particular the subset with roots in the ITF (which General Choi certainly should be credited with founding)).



That's only your evidence - Anecdotal - Not proof    I have to give you credit, aside from a long ago post on the net from someone who was closely allied with GM Sun, your  is  a lone voice casting doubt on who submitted the name.   Do you have any source for your position? Curious minds want to know. 

Further, the Knockoff name TKD versus TK-D was needed for the johnny come lately jealous usurpers to have something different so as to distance themselves from the Founder.,   (The lure is out, and motor set to troll.)


----------



## Tez3

In karate we 'kiai',  in TDK they ...?

In karate we do right leg back to get into fighting stance, I think in TKD they may put left leg forward to go into fighting stance?

In karate we have 'Sensei' in TKD, they have?

This one I know, in karate we have kata, in TKD they have patterns.

Ok it's a reach trying to change it back to the OP but at this point it's all I have!


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tez3 said:


> In karate we 'kiai',  in TDK they ...?



Kiap. Still just means "yell", basically. Same as kiai.



Tez3 said:


> In karate we do right leg back to get into fighting stance, I think in TKD they may put left leg forward to go into fighting stance?



I don't know that it's universal (is anything?) but I was taught back in the stone ages to move the right leg back.



Tez3 said:


> In karate we have 'Sensei' in TKD, they have?



Sabum. Which means "teacher", same as Sensei.



Tez3 said:


> This one I know, in karate we have kata, in TKD they have patterns.



We have poomsae, tul or hyung. All of which are variations that mean "forms" or "patterns". Same as kata.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't think there's anything "belligerent" in what I've posted. Especially in this particular case, where I was _*agreeing*_ with you that a certain amount of topical drift is virtually inevitable. Apparently I'm agreeing belligerently? Or would agreeably belligerent be a better term?



Dismissive or argumentative would probably work just as well. Look, if you post something in such a way that the person you're replying to can't tell you're in agreement then you may want to consider the possibility that the turn of phrase you used was less than great, especially since it's normally used to indicate the reason for something is stupid. It just seems odd. 




> Which is pretty much saying the same thing.
> Just to be clear, this is me agreeing with you, again. Probably belligerently, though.



In this case, yes. Even if you agreed with me previously (and I will certainly grant the benefit of the doubt) now you're just being kind of rude. Which, again, is great for a moderator. 



> That would be because he didn't. He was one of a number of contributors to the development of taekwondo (note the difference between taekwondo, a non-belligerent umbrella term for the entire range of systems with common roots, and Taekwon-Do, a term generally used to refer to a specific subset of taekwondo, in particular the subset with roots in the ITF (which General Choi certainly should be credited with founding)).



Great.



> Just went back through everything I've posted in this thread. Nope. Cannot find a single thing I've said that can reasonably be taken as a complaint about thread drift. Other than agreeing with you when you brought it up, of course.



"I am well aware. I didn't think the OP was interested in a long history lesson. The short version remains, as I said, that TKD did not have a single founder."

Which, again, is an odd thing to say since you engaged in the discussion yourself. 



> So where did this little rant come from?



There hasn't been a rant so I couldn't say. If you think I've ranted at all that's something you've inferred that wasn't implied. 



> Having said that, and not being interested in arguing in circles, or causing further drift, this is me belligerently leaving the conversation. Feel free to reply to this and have the last word.



 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## SahBumNimRush

I have enjoyed the thread, and I've hesitated to put my .02 in, mainly because I believe that I practice a form of TKD that insn't necessarily congruent with what most people today think of as TKD (I suppose I really fit more in the TSD category if you needed to label me).  

That being said, the karatekas that I have had trained with (shorin-ryu, kyokyushinkai, shorei-ryu, shotokan, and Isshin-ryu) have had far more similarities than differences when it comes to technique and approach.  

I admit I have never had the fortune to train with anyone in Wado, Goju, or any of the other styles of traditional karate, but from what I've seen, there appears to be much more of a difference between Wado and Goju technique/approaches than the aforementioned karate styles compared to those of my particular style of TKD.  

We practice the Kicho, Pyung Ahn (Pinan, Heian), Bassai, Naihanchi (Tekki), Chinto, Kong Sang Koon (Kanku/Kushanku) hyungs (katas).  

Again, this may not give a clear answer to the OP, as I see "my style of TKD" to be an "antiquated" iteration of the modern art.  Something of what TKD looked like in the 1960's?  My KJN moved to the U.S. in the late 60's, and the art that he teaches hasn't significantly changed since that time.


----------



## SahBumNimRush

The biggest difference that I have seen is the emphasis on leg/lower body kicks in Karate and the emphasis of head kicks in TKD.  

Another difference I have seen is that we have less stances than Karate.  We have 3 basic stances (horse stance/side stance; Keema Jasae (kiba dachi), front stance; chonkul Jasae (zen kutsu dachi) , and cat stance; hoogul jasae (resembles something between kokustu dachi and a neko ashi dachi).  We also have a cross legged stance and a crane stance and of course "ready stance."  I believe karate has many more stances than this.


----------



## chrispillertkd

SahBumNimRush said:


> The biggest difference that I have seen is the emphasis on leg/lower body kicks in Karate and the emphasis of head kicks in TKD.



Now this is a great point. While ITF Taekwon-Do has a wide variety of low line kicks there are many instructors who do not emphasize them as much as middle and high kicks.

I would be very interested if someone could comment on whether or not the various karate styles include higher kicks and they are simply not emphasized or if they are absent altogether. I know some styles (Kyokushinkai comes to mind) have high kicks, some quite acrobatic, in fact, but my general impression of Okinawan styles is that they either do not have them or, if they do, they are an addition that was added after being influenced by other styles (that's just an outsider's impression so it could be totally wrong).



> Another difference I have seen is that we have less stances than Karate.  We have 3 basic stances (horse stance/side stance; Keema Jasae (kiba dachi), front stance; chonkul Jasae (zen kutsu dachi) , and cat stance; hoogul jasae (resembles something between kokustu dachi and a neko ashi dachi).  We also have a cross legged stance and a crane stance and of course "ready stance."  I believe karate has many more stances than this.



Are these the entirety of the stances used in your style of TKD? Do the older style forms you practice contain different stances than their Japanese/Okinawan counterparts?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## dancingalone

SahBumNimRush said:


> I have enjoyed the thread, and I've hesitated to put my .02 in, mainly because I believe that I practice a form of TKD that insn't necessarily congruent with what most people today think of as TKD (I suppose I really fit more in the TSD category if you needed to label me).
> 
> That being said, the karatekas that I have had trained with (shorin-ryu, kyokyushinkai, shorei-ryu, shotokan, and Isshin-ryu) have had far more similarities than differences when it comes to technique and approach.
> 
> I admit I have never had the fortune to train with anyone in Wado, Goju, or any of the other styles of traditional karate, but from what I've seen, there appears to be much more of a difference between Wado and Goju technique/approaches than the aforementioned karate styles compared to those of my particular style of TKD.



I have a Goju student that studied Tang Soo Do. He did a few Chil Sung forms created by Hwang Kee that clearly look like adaptations of Northern Shaolin with some Tai Chi thrown in.  Odd stuff.    I was curious about what he felt the intended applications were, but he had no idea.  His old school just did the forms with little study as to what the motion meant.

I thought the movement expressed in those forms were very different (yet alike oddly enough) from the usual Shotokan-like movements I have come to associate with most Tang Soo Do or Korean karate styles.  Lots of big, wind-milling arm movements that at the same time were expressed with abrupt chime like Shotokan, which is a departure IMO from Northern Shaolin. 

Goju and Uechi will look very different from Tang Soo Do because they come from a different family tree altogether.  (This is more for general consumption as I am certain Master Rush knows this already.)  Meanwhile I think it reasonable to term Tang Soo Do as a cousin of sorts to Japanese styles like Shotokan.


----------



## dancingalone

SahBumNimRush said:


> The biggest difference that I have seen is the emphasis on leg/lower body kicks in Karate and the emphasis of head kicks in TKD.
> 
> Another difference I have seen is that we have less stances than Karate.  We have 3 basic stances (horse stance/side stance; Keema Jasae (kiba dachi), front stance; chonkul Jasae (zen kutsu dachi) , and cat stance; hoogul jasae (resembles something between kokustu dachi and a neko ashi dachi).  We also have a cross legged stance and a crane stance and of course "ready stance."  I believe karate has many more stances than this.



In my experience, various styles of karate do have more stances, but they are just variations off the same theme.  Like having two different horse stances with the toes and knees slightly angled out differently.  Or multiple cat stances with changes in the angle the two feet have in relation to each other.

Add the adaptations caused by kobudo study and you have a few more stances to catalog.  

I'm into simplicity these days and probably care more about outcomes (power, balance, speed) than the exact angle and terminology you are 'supposed' to follow - realizing that stances vary to an extent between different bodies and people.   It is the lesson the stances teach that are important, and not trying to duplicate with your own students the same exacting detail you got from your instructor when he was teaching YOU.


----------



## SahBumNimRush

This should be fun, looking at the picture above, starting with the first row.

There are moments in our forms that we are in the first position shown, but we have no formal name for it.

The second posture looks similar to our foot position on the fourth move in Pyung Ahn Chodan, but that's the only form I can think of off the top of my head that our feet are in that position, and again, we have no name for it.  

The third posture resembles our Jhoon Bi (ready stance).

The fourth posture we do not have.

The fifth posture looks similar to what we call crane stance (han bal soo ki jasae)

The sixth posture is what we call crossed leg stance (kyo cha rip jasae)

We do not have a posture like the last stance in the first row.

The second row:

We do not have any of the five postures in our forms or art.

The third row:  

The first posture is what we call a horse stance/side stance (keema Jasae)

The second posture looks similar to what we call a cat stance (hu gul jasae)

The fourth row:

The first posture looks similar to the horse stance, but the foot position isn't quite the same (we do not perform a stance in this manner).

The second posture looks like our front stance (chun gul jasae)


----------



## SahBumNimRush

Yeah, my KJN never taught us the "newer" soo bahk do formsets.  I believe that he left Korea prior to Hwang Kee creating them.  It is my understanding that Hwang Kee created those forms from interpreting the Muyedobotongji (which was more or less a transcribed copy of a chinese military training exercise text). 

Having seen these forms online and at a few competitions, they do appear very different from the Shotokan/Shudokan formsets that the early Moo Duk Kwan taught.


----------



## Earl Weiss

In relation to picture above same or similar Chang Hon Stances:
Row 1:  Close, Attention, Parallel, Outer Open, One Legged / Bending ready stance A or B, Rear Foot
Row 2  Inner Open, X Stance  (Last stance shown no similarities. Inward pointing lead foot. ) 
Row 3. Sitting, L / Fixed 
Row 4. (No Sitting stance with feet outward)   Walking / Low

Stances not shown as a similar item. Diagonal, Vertical, Crouched. ,


----------



## Dirty Dog

SahBumNimRush said:


>



OK, so following your picture...

Row 1:Moa Seogi (Close Stance), Chariot Seogi (Attention Stance) Joonbi Seogi (Ready Stance), Pal Ja Seogi (Open Ready Stance), Hakdari Seogi (Crane Stance - three versions exist, depending on the position of the raised foot to the front, side, or rear of the supporting leg), Koa Seogi (Cross Stance, though it's hard to be sure from this picture) and Beom Seogi (Cat Stance).

Row 2: An Jong Seogi (Closed Ready Stance), Oreun Seogi (Right Stance - although in our system, the feet would be at 90 degree angles), I do not know the last stance.

Row 3: Joo Choom Seogi (Horse Stance), Dwit Kubi or Fugul Kubi (Back Stance - although in our system the feet would be closer together, with about 2/3 of the weight on the rear foot).

Row 4: Ap Joo Seogi (Open Horse Stance), and Ap Kubi (Front Stance).

As I said, we teach three versions of the Crane Stance, depending on the position of the raised foot. And two versions of the Cross Stance, depending on if you're crossing in front or behind. We also teach Ap Seogi, (Walking Stance - a shorter, more upright Front Stance), Naranhi Seogi (Parallel Stance, seen in Keumgan - more upright Horse Stance), 

Also, there are several other variations on the Ready Stance - Tongmilgi Joonbi Seogi (Pushing Hands Ready Stance - seen in Koryo), Kyopson Joonbi Seogi (Overlapping or crossed hands Ready Stance - seen in Pyongwon), and Bojumeok Seogi (Covered Fist Ready Stance - seen in Iyeo), etc. 

There are also some transitional positions such as Bawimilgi (Boulder Pushing), Nalgaepyogi (Wingspreading Posture) that could be considered stances. I've been told they're not, by our KJN, but the difference between a stance and a posture, in this context, is something I'm not entirely clear on. I believe the difference is that they involve specific positions of the upper limbs, rather than just the body and feet. This is something I need to work on understanding better.


----------



## SahBumNimRush

I merely chose the first decent pic found on the interwebs as an example, as I am no expert in Karate, I cannot comment on whether this is a comprehensive list of stances in Karate. 

It is interesting to see the differences/similarities in stances between various styles of TKD though. 

In our association, we use what you are terming a Closed stance as our Attention stance, so there is no place that we have our heels together and our toes pointing outward, as in row 1, stance 2.

Our ready stance is row 1, stance 3, and we have no "open ready stance."

Like, Dirty Dog, we have a couple of different types of crane stance/single leg stance, depending on the nature of the particular technique being used.

We also have a kneeling crossed leg stance as well as a standing crossed leg stance.

We do not have the last stance in row 1 (the cat stance).

As I stated previously, we do not have any stances in row 2.


----------



## SahBumNimRush

The third row:  the first is a horse stance, and the next is close to what we term a cat stance (very similar to what Dirty Dog was describing).

The fourth row: We do not have an open horse stance.  and the last is our front/forward stance.

We have a low cat stance (Kong Sang Koon) and a dropped stance front stance (also Kong Sang Koon). 

It appears that ITF and Kukki TKD utilize more stances than what my association uses.


----------



## Earl Weiss

SahBumNimRush said:


> It appears that ITF and Kukki TKD utilize more stances than what my association uses.



FWIW a few of the stances I listed appear in the text but  do not appear in the patterns i.e. Crouched, inner and outer open.


----------



## NinjaChristian

Tez3 said:


> I'm having trouble with this one because I've tried looking on YouTube but seem to get different kicks, one of which is kicking a person behind you with what looks like a very high front kick that hits the person behind with the ball of the foot, does that sound right? There is another which looks like Wado's inverse crescent kick, and also a front kick. It's intriguing.
> 
> All the kicks in Wado can be used as a jumping kick ( by younger people lol my days of jumping kicks have gone, I now rely on a thumping good low kick to the thigh, I suspect it will be to the calf soon then the ankle or I'll be reduced to sparring toddlers ) I could do a good jumping side kick but never a flying side kick, I used to say it was too flashy to actually use but was always secretly jealous of those who could do it, that and the double front kick.


Here is a video that shows it


----------



## NinjaChristian

chrispillertkd said:


> As for the OP's interest in Taekwon-Do history, I cannot say one way or the other...


In this post I am not concerned with the history of any of the arts or styles, simply the different styles approach to fighting and the techniques contained within the styles.

 If someone could post some/all of the different styles of karate, and perhaps some information on those styles( such as what distinguishes them from other styles/arts) that would be great . 

I don't care for comparisons of one art to another, as I have come to the conclusion that no martial art is better than another that is practiced for the same purpose. I am eager to learn .


----------



## MAfreak

ta-da! google is your friend. 
Comparison of karate styles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
before someone says it: the sources of wikipedia articles might in worst case not be trustful but same to forums-posts and most wikipedia articles are researched very well.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Earl Weiss said:


> FWIW a few of the stances I listed appear in the text but  do not appear in the patterns i.e. Crouched, inner and outer open.



I suspect that is true of most, if not all, TKD variations. It's certainly true for us.


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> There is some disagreement on what Funakoshi wanted for stance length and depth.



There is no disagreement that I know of. Shotokan stance was originally high, there is footage of Gishin Funakoshi to support this. This was also during the time General Choi studied Shotokan. It was Funakoshis son who lowered it. This notion that Choi Hong Hi raised the TKD stance from Karate is false, not only because of Funakoshi but also becuse of the Okinawa styles.

One major difference between Shotokan and TKD is the roundhouse kick in patterns. Shotokan does not have a roundhouse kick in any of the patterns. Mawashi geri did not exist back when the patterns were created. TKD however does have it's version of the roundhouse kick in it's patterns.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> There is no disagreement that I know of. Shotokan stance was originally high, there is footage of Gishin Funakoshi to support this. This was also during the time General Choi studied Shotokan. It was Funakoshis son who lowered it. This notion that Choi Hong Hi raised the TKD stance from Karate is false, not only because of Funakoshi but also becuse of the Okinawa styles.
> 
> ............



It is fine that you see history in some absolute terms because of some video footage. 

In any event my post was qualified in it's wording "  There is some disagreement on what Funakoshi wanted for stance length and depth, but many Karate practitioners favor longer, deeper and less mobile stances ........" 

So, the notion is not "False"   General Choi took a Page from Funakoshi's "Book" in that he chose from various parameters used in a variety of previous arts and chose which parameters to include in his system.  To that extent General Choi's system differs from . .what "Many karate practitioners favor"  and he was the one who made the choice based upon various factors including various Okinawan styles such as Shorin and Shorei as referenced in his 1965 Book.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Prototype said:


> One major difference between Shotokan and TKD is the roundhouse kick in patterns. Shotokan does not have a roundhouse kick in any of the patterns. Mawashi geri did not exist back when the patterns were created. TKD however does have it's version of the roundhouse kick in it's patterns.



Broad brush generalizations have such a nasty habit of being wrong...
There are an awful lot of different TKD forms sets. Any school which teaches the Palgwae forms, for example, will not be teaching forms that include the roundhouse kick. Ooops.

And the claim that the roundhouse kick "did not exist", simply because it wasn't included in forms is patently ridiculous.


----------



## Prototype

Dirty Dog said:


> Broad brush generalizations have such a nasty habit of being wrong...
> There are an awful lot of different TKD forms sets. Any school which teaches the Palgwae forms, for example, will not be teaching forms that include the roundhouse kick. Ooops.
> 
> And the claim that the roundhouse kick "did not exist", simply because it wasn't included in forms is patently ridiculous.



So? Palgwe is not the complete forms of a given TKD style, its' only coloured belts. Shotokan has no roundhouse kick at any belt level. Mawashi geri did not exist. The reason for this is that a roundhouse kick of any sort was deemed radical/risky by the masters of the those times in Shotokan.


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> It is fine that you see history in some absolute terms because of some video footage.
> 
> In any event my post was qualified in it's wording "  There is some disagreement on what Funakoshi wanted for stance length and depth, but many Karate practitioners favor longer, deeper and less mobile stances ........"
> 
> So, the notion is not "False"   General Choi took a Page from Funakoshi's "Book" in that he chose from various parameters used in a variety of previous arts and chose which parameters to include in his system.  To that extent General Choi's system differs from . .what "Many karate practitioners favor"  and he was the one who made the choice based upon various factors including various Okinawan styles such as Shorin and Shorei as referenced in his 1965 Book.



It is a fact that he original stances in Shotokan were high (like the Okinawa styles) and that Funakoshis son later lowered them. That's a true/absolute statement. You claimed that there is disagreement, when there isn't. Fact is that General Choi lowered the stances, because Okinawa style stances are ridiculously high.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Prototype said:


> So? Palgwe is not the complete forms of a given TKD style, its' only coloured belts.



Not true. I know of at least one system in my area that teaches the Palgwae forms after black belt is reached. In our Moo Duk Kwan system, we use the Palgwae forms for geup ranks and the KKW Yudanja forms for Dan ranks. None of those include roundhouses. I do teach the Taegeuk forms (which do include roundhouse kicks) as an option for those students who want KKW Dan rank, but you can rest assured that all of our students learn the roundhouse kick, regardless of which certification they choose.



Prototype said:


> Shotokan has no roundhouse kick at any belt level.



Sure it does. Just not in the kata. Anyone with any actual training in Shotokan will confirm that the style does, in fact, include the roundhouse kick.








Prototype said:


> Mawashi geri did not exist. The reason for this is that a roundhouse kick of any sort was deemed radical/risky by the masters of the those times in Shotokan.



Well, if it didn't exist, how could it be "deemed radical/risky?" Ooops....
The roundhouse kick is one of the most fundamental kicks in any striking art.


----------



## Prototype

Dirty Dog said:


> Not true. I know of at least one system in my area that teaches the Palgwae forms after black belt is reached. In our Moo Duk Kwan system, we use the Palgwae forms for geup ranks and the KKW Yudanja forms for Dan ranks. None of those include roundhouses. I do teach the Taegeuk forms (which do include roundhouse kicks) as an option for those students who want KKW Dan rank, but you can rest assured that all of our students learn the roundhouse kick, regardless of which certification they choose.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. Just not in the kata. Anyone with any actual training in Shotokan will confirm that the style does, in fact, include the roundhouse kick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if it didn't exist, how could it be "deemed radical/risky?" Ooops....
> The roundhouse kick is one of the most fundamental kicks in any striking art.



I asserted (correctly) that a roundhouse kick *of* *any* *sort* was deemed radical/risky. That is not in conflict with the statement that mawashi geri did not exist in Shotokan There was no roundhouse kick concept to Shotokan taught at all. Now there is. It is however still absent from their kata. One can therefore in principle teach traditional Shotokan, pre world war 2, without the inclusion of the roundhouse kick. One can not however teach *Chang-Hon* *TKD* without the roundhouse kick.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Prototype said:


> I asserted (correctly)



Well, you did make the assertion. Doesn't seem to be correct, though.



Prototype said:


> that a roundhouse kick *of* *any* *sort* was deemed radical/risky.



Which, once again, contradicts your claim that it didn't exist. If it didn't exist, it would be deemed non-existent.


----------



## Prototype

Dirty Dog said:


> Well, you did make the assertion. Doesn't seem to be correct, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Which, once again, contradicts your claim that it didn't exist. If it didn't exist, it would be deemed non-existent.



The *Shotokan mechanics* of the Mawashi Geri/roundhouse kick did not exist as part of their system. The actual concept of a roundhouse kick in any fashion was not unheard of, but it was deemed radical and thus rejected. Especially roundhouse kicks to the head (!).


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> It is a fact that he original stances in Shotokan were high (like the Okinawa styles) and that Funakoshis son later lowered them. That's a true/absolute statement. You claimed that there is disagreement, when there isn't. Fact is that General Choi lowered the stances, because Okinawa style stances are ridiculously high.


Please point me to the text that stipulates stances specifications as established by Funakoshi. I have Karate Do Kyohan with a 1956 forward / preface by Funakoshi and the Front Stance has the lower leg from ankle to Knee perpendicular to the floor. 
Perhaps if you provide a source I will accept your truth. It is not the first time I heard this. It may very well be true. The issue is "How High is High, or how low is low"?   the best I found for a specification in the noted text is that the stance is 3 feet long allowing for height differences.   Can you provide another source / specification?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Earl Weiss said:


> Please point me to the text that stipulates stances specifications as established by Funakoshi. I have Karate Do Kyohan with a 1956 forward / preface by Funakoshi and the Front Stance has the lower leg from ankle to Knee perpendicular to the floor.
> Perhaps if you provide a source I will accept your truth. It is not the first time I heard this. It may very well be true. The issue is "How High is High, or how low is low"?   the best I found for a specification in the noted text is that the stance is 3 feet long allowing for height differences.   Can you provide another source / specification?



Master Wiess, does the source you have specify how this is to be measured? There's a big difference between:
Heel of the leading foot to toe of the rear foot
and
Toe of the leading foot to toe of the rear foot
and
Toe of the leading foot to heel of the rear foot.

The first would, I think, have to be considered a low stance, while the last would have to be considered a high stance. The second one could be argued either way.

The lower leg being perpendicular to the floor doesn't tell us much, I don't think, since this angle can be changed simply by changing the weight distribution.


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> Please point me to the text that stipulates stances specifications as established by Funakoshi. I have Karate Do Kyohan with a 1956 forward / preface by Funakoshi and the Front Stance has the lower leg from ankle to Knee perpendicular to the floor.
> Perhaps if you provide a source I will accept your truth. It is not the first time I heard this. It may very well be true. The issue is "How High is High, or how low is low"?   the best I found for a specification in the noted text is that the stance is 3 feet long allowing for height differences.   Can you provide another source / specification?



You might as well ask what the stances are for the Okinawa styles Funakoshi trained. It is higher than what General Choi brought to Chang Hon. This is no secret. They were lowered in Shotokan because of war time in which stability was emphasized.  What eventually happened is that the Shotokan masters of the day demanded of the students to train in a very deep stance until 4th dan, to build leg strenght, and then change to change to natural stance when becoming masters. 

This natural stance is still lower than Funakoshis original Shotokan which Choi trained in.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Dirty Dog said:


> Master Wiess, does the source you have specify how this is to be measured? There's a big difference between:
> Heel of the leading foot to toe of the rear foot
> and
> Toe of the leading foot to toe of the rear foot
> and
> Toe of the leading foot to heel of the rear foot.
> 
> The first would, I think, have to be considered a low stance, while the last would have to be considered a high stance. The second one could be argued either way.
> 
> The lower leg being perpendicular to the floor doesn't tell us much, I don't think, since this angle can be changed simply by changing the weight distribution.



1. No spec vis a vis where measured from Being a Chang Hon guy I was looking for this. 
2. Lower leg perpendicular does not tell much except that A. There is a photo, B. Having it perpendicular makes it lower than not having it perpendicular, and C. The reason General Choi  made the lead lowered leg angled rearword with kneecap in line with back of the heal was to facilitate lead leg kicking which is another difference from "Many" Karate stances which is why I brought it up. 

As you note the vertical line of the lead leg affects weight distribution. I would say this places more weight on the lead leg as opposed to the Chang Hon 50/50 distribution . At a Karate seminar the instructor explained how this was good for powerful rear  leg kicks and moving the rear leg forward.   (I was thinking OK, but hinders lead leg kicks and moving the lead leg in any direction.)


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> This natural stance is still lower than Funakoshis original Shotokan which Choi trained in.



It may have been unusual for the time to memorialize specifications for stances, so unless or until you can provide a reference for the "Natural Stance" i.e. length, measured from which part of front foot to which part of rear foot, Leg angles, weight distribution etc. any comparison is between the Chang Hon walking stance and a Shotokan Front or Natural stance as practiced / taught by Shotokan's founder is difficult at best.   (the source I cited has minimal specs)


----------



## Dirty Dog

Earl Weiss said:


> 1. No spec vis a vis where measured from Being a Chang Hon guy I was looking for this.



It certainly would be helpful... but that book was written a couple years before the camera phone...



Earl Weiss said:


> 2. Lower leg perpendicular does not tell much except that A. There is a photo,



I didn't know if there was a photo, or text saying 'the lower leg is perpendicular' but if there is a photo, that should help with the "3 feet" measurement too. Unless the photo is too small or grainy.



Earl Weiss said:


> B. Having it perpendicular makes it lower than not having it perpendicular, and C. The reason General Choi  made the lead lowered leg angled rearward with kneecap in line with back of the heal was to facilitate lead leg kicking which is another difference from "Many" Karate stances which is why I brought it up.



It continues to surprise me how much variation there is between arts with similar roots.



Earl Weiss said:


> As you note the vertical line of the lead leg affects weight distribution. I would say this places more weight on the lead leg as opposed to the Chang Hon 50/50 distribution . At a Karate seminar the instructor explained how this was good for powerful rear  leg kicks and moving the rear leg forward.   (I was thinking OK, but hinders lead leg kicks and moving the lead leg in any direction.)



Agreed. The front stance as we teach it is long, wide and low, with about 2/3 of the weight on the front leg. It absolutely makes rear leg kicks easier, and front leg kicks more difficult. Similarly, the back stance is shorter, very narrow, and about 2/3 on the rear leg, making front leg kicks easier and rear leg kicks more difficult. The ITF stances as I learned them were, in general, much more centered. This is something I struggled with when I transitioned to the Moo Duk Kwan.

I think that, outside of forms, these weight shifts and balance points are less significant, since you're never "in" a stance so much as constantly transitioning from one stance to another, with all the balances and position changes that would require.


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> It may have been unusual for the time to memorialize specifications for stances, so unless or until you can provide a reference for the "Natural Stance" i.e. length, measured from which part of front foot to which part of rear foot, Leg angles, weight distribution etc. any comparison is between the Chang Hon walking stance and a Shotokan Front or Natural stance as practiced / taught by Shotokan's founder is difficult at best.   (the source I cited has minimal specs)



It was not altered from the Okinawa origins. That came later. Which part of that do you find unsatisfactory? Do you think the Chang Hon stance is higher than the Okinawa Karate-styles?


----------



## Tez3

Prototype said:


> They were lowered in Shotokan because of war time in which stability was emphasized.



That's one of the most confusing statements I've read for a while. Why would martial arts stances be lowered because it was wartime?

I'm Wado so my stances are high and short.


----------



## Prototype

Tez3 said:


> That's one of the most confusing statements I've read for a while. Why would martial arts stances be lowered because it was wartime?
> 
> I'm Wado so my stances are high and short.



Since when did I become a spokesman/laywer for old school Japanese Shotokan masters rationale? Ever heard of "don't kill the messenger"?


----------



## Tez3

Prototype said:


> Since when did I become a spokesman/laywer for old school Japanese Shotokan masters rationale? Ever heard of "don't kill the messenger"?



You posted up the statement along with other similar ones so you made yourself the de facto spokesman. Well perhaps you could cite your sources so we can understand what you are talking about.


----------



## Prototype

I know all of this due to direct black belt "descendants*" *of Funakoshis son who've reported it. I don't need any texts to back up what I write. Anybody that disputes it can take a look at photos of Funakoshi and make up their own mind if it looks like an Okinawa stance or not.


----------



## Prototype

Prototype said:


> It was not altered from the Okinawa origins. That came later. Which part of that do you find unsatisfactory? Do you think the Chang Hon stance is higher than the Okinawa Karate-styles?



And if they were altered by the time General Choi studied Shotokan, it wasn't more than what he ultimately brought over to *Chang Hon* TKD. That is some variant of the natural stance in Shotokan today (preserved for master levels).


----------



## Tez3

Prototype said:


> I know all of this due to direct black belt "descendants*" *of Funakoshis son who've reported it. I don't need any texts to back up what I write. Anybody that disputes it can take a look at photos of Funakoshi and make up their own mind if it looks like an Okinawa stance or not.




I'm sorry but that is actually quite amusing. You don't need anything to back up what you write eh? Well let me introduce myself, I'm the Queen of Great Britain, I am the richest woman on earth, I have a rather dysfunctional family....what, you don't believe me? Tough I don't need any text to back up what I write, I can write anything I like and if you don't believe me I will put on an attitude and stuff the lot of you. 

if you say things like stances changed because of the need for stability during the war  ( it sounds like people would fall over during wartime when during peace they'd wouldn't) etc you do need to back it up here with some solid evidence, otherwise it just sounds like a teenager's tantrum.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Tez3 said:


> I'm sorry but that is actually quite amusing. You don't need anything to back up what you write eh? Well let me introduce myself, I'm the Queen of Great Britain, I am the richest woman on earth, I have a rather dysfunctional family....what, you don't believe me? Tough I don't need any text to back up what I write, I can write anything I like and if you don't believe me I will put on an attitude and stuff the lot of you.


An I am the Undisputed Lord and Master of the Universe. And what do I have to back up my claim? Because I said so, that's what.


----------



## Tez3

RTKDCMB said:


> An I am the Undisputed Lord and Master of the Universe. And what do I have to back up my claim? Because I said so, that's what.



I was going to write I'm the mistress but it just gets taken the wrong way..................


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> It was not altered from the Okinawa origins. That came later. Which part of that do you find unsatisfactory? Do you think the Chang Hon stance is higher than the Okinawa Karate-styles?



To the Contrary. There were variations among the various Okinawan systems, and unlike today where the printed page is easy to come by finding a "Standard" text laying exact specs would be difficult to come by. 

 So, It is more than likely that 1 or more Okinawan systems taught by one or more pioneers in Okinawa taught a stance similar to the Chang Hon Walking stance. 

That is not the issue. The issue is how was the Front Stance of Shotokan originaly specified in relation to the Specs of the Chang Hon walking stance.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> I know all of this due to direct black belt "descendants*" *of Funakoshis son who've reported it. I don't need any texts to back up what I write. Anybody that disputes it can take a look at photos of Funakoshi and make up their own mind if it looks like an Okinawa stance or not.



Thank you for acknowledging a report of information, widely circulated which you received 2nd hand  from the son of the founder.  I readily acknowledged this by initialy stating some degree of disagreement about the height / length of the Shotokan stances.  

And if you think I am slamming your sources I am not.   I had trained  been with people who trained directly with General Choi, some pioneers etc.) but it was not until 17 years into my training that I trained directly with him. I saw how things got altered as passed from person to person. It's kind of like the old "telephone game." 

There is no substitute for the written spec.   As far as things being "Passed on directly" goes the MA stories are numerous of seniors changing stuff from time to time with different of their senior students having different recollections. Theories abound as to whether the "Changes" were intentional to keep students dependent or simply recall lapses.


----------



## Tez3

I still want to why a stance was changed because of the war.......................


----------



## Earl Weiss

Tez3 said:


> I still want to why a stance was changed because of the war.......................


Land mines. If it's longer only one leg gets blown off...


----------



## Earl Weiss

Dirty Dog said:


> It certainly would be helpful... but that book was written a couple years before the camera phone...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know if there was a photo, or text saying 'the lower leg is perpendicular' but if there is a photo, that should help with the "3 feet" measurement too. Unless the photo is too small or grainy.
> 
> 
> 
> .



There is a photo. I will see if I can determine more about the 3 foot measurement.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Having now checked the Karate Do Text the photos for front stance seem to show 3 foot lengths from heel of lead foot to toes of rear foot.  (This would be the same as the Chang Hon "Low Stance". 

Now, with respect to Prototype. I made the comment that there was some uncertainty about the specs for the Shotokan front stance vis a vis longer / deeper than the Chang Hon Walking stance.   Prototype expressed disagreement repeating a wideheld (and perhaps accurate) mantra that the Shotokan stances were designed by it's founder to be shorter and higher than many practiced later due to teachings / changes by the Founders son, and that this was an irrefutable truth and accurate. 

Toward that end we can simply agree to disagree. I feel there is some uncertainty and disagreement. I have cited a source to support my point.  Protoype is of the belief that there is no uncertainty or disagreement. Fine by me. .


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> Having now checked the Karate Do Text the photos for front stance seem to show 3 foot lengths from heel of lead foot to toes of rear foot.  (This would be the same as the Chang Hon "Low Stance".
> 
> Now, with respect to Prototype. I made the comment that there was some uncertainty about the specs for the Shotokan front stance vis a vis longer / deeper than the Chang Hon Walking stance.   Prototype expressed disagreement repeating a wideheld (and perhaps accurate) mantra that the Shotokan stances were designed by it's founder to be shorter and higher than many practiced later due to teachings / changes by the Founders son, and that this was an irrefutable truth and accurate.
> 
> Toward that end we can simply agree to disagree. I feel there is some uncertainty and disagreement. I have cited a source to support my point.  Protoype is of the belief that there is no uncertainty or disagreement. Fine by me. .



I am not excluding the possibility that Funakoshi eventually changed his mind on stance specifics, only that it had no bearing on what came of General Chois * Chang Hon-TKD*. My own take on it is that Choi Hong Hi more or less took the prevalent Shotokan stance over to TKD, and that later incarnations of Shotokan made TKD representatives, such as yourself, misinformed. And I say that with all due respect. It was not the case that General Choi was subjected to deep Shotokan stances and had the light bulp idea to raise them. As was also stated, they are raised in Shotokan at the appropriate level ranging from 3rd Dan (4th was incorrect). I reject this philosophy and advocate General Chois default stance, but I am also inclined to favour kicking more than your average Shotokan. There isn't neccesarily a right or wrong answer. Shotokan karatekas will tell you that the Chang Hon stance affects punching in a negative way.


----------



## Prototype

RTKDCMB said:


> An I am the Undisputed Lord and Master of the Universe. And what do I have to back up my claim? Because I said so, that's what.



_I am the law!  - Judge Dredd _


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Tez3 said:


> I still want to why a stance was changed because of the war.......................



Well, during the war constant artillery bombardments made the ground shake so much that you needed a lower stance to keep your balance.

(Hey, it's not any more ridiculous a claim than the stories about jumping kicks to knock mounted warriors off of horses or the idea that board breaking demonstrates the ability of an unarmed karateka to punch through a samurai's armor. Other people have had their opportunity to promulgate silly fantasy history - it's my turn now.)


----------



## Buka

Karate has way cooler uniforms.


----------



## Tez3

Prototype said:


> _I am the law!  - Judge Dredd _



then you are broken............


----------



## Earl Weiss

Earl Weiss said:


> Having now checked the Karate Do Text the photos for front stance seem to show 3 foot lengths from heel of lead foot to toes of rear foot.  (This would be the same as the Chang Hon "Low Stance".
> 
> .


For any pickers of nits.   Same length as Chang Hon "Low Stance" but the Low stance still has the kneecap over the heel  as opposed to the lower leg being vertical.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> ... My own take on it is that Choi Hong Hi more or less took the prevalent Shotokan stance over to TKD, and that later incarnations of Shotokan made TKD representatives, such as yourself, misinformed. ..............



Having trained with TKD  Pioneers that were doing TSD under the CDK which was basically Koreanized Shotokan, and then later recruited to General Choi's system, all of this in the 1950's, their stances were lower than what he later determined should be part of his system. That is why my perspective is different.  They all would have been doing the higher stance if that was what was taught in the early 1950's.


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> Having trained with TKD  Pioneers that were doing TSD under the CDK which was basically Koreanized Shotokan, and then later recruited to General Choi's system, all of this in the 1950's, their stances were lower than what he later determined should be part of his system. That is why my perspective is different.  They all would have been doing the higher stance if that was what was taught in the early 1950's.



The stances were certainly lower in 1950, but the original system was equal or higher than Chang Hon-TKD. And you would have to discount the Okinawa styles of Karate to begin with, in order to say that the Chang Hon-TKD stance is higher/more flexible for kicking than Karate.


----------



## Tez3

Prototype said:


> The stances were certainly lower in 1950.



people were shorter then............


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> The stances were certainly lower in 1950, but the original system was equal or higher than Chang Hon-TKD. And you would have to discount the Okinawa styles of Karate to begin with, in order to say that the Chang Hon-TKD stance is higher/more flexible for kicking than Karate.



No, I don't have to "Discount" anything. For convenience of all I repost what I said here:

"Getting back to the OP, as many have stated due to the variety of things referred to as Karate generalizations are difficult. Since you apparently have strong CDK roots which would have strong Shotokan roots we can use that for comparison. A major difference would be the "Strongly rooted" idea of Shotokan with the legendary story of it's founder on a roof in a typhoon versus TKD making power even while jumping. There is some disagreement on what Funakoshi wanted for stance length and depth, but many Karate practitioners favor longer, deeper and less mobile stances and more linear attacks as compared to TKD shorter stances and variety of circular techniques. ."

As you can see my post was qualified vis a vis making generalizations concerning the multitude of systems that may carry the "Karate" moniker.   Further, I did not say "Flexible" and therefore cannot elaborate on what might be meant by that.


----------



## Prototype

Anyway, why is there no historical documentaton/verification of when General Choi trained Shotokan? There is no evidence that Funakoshi taught him, yet that is a widely held belief. So, how do we know Choi trained it at all, and to second degree?


----------



## TrueJim

Prototype said:


> Anyway, why is there no historical documentaton/verification of when General Choi trained Shotokan...



I think a better question is why *would* we expect there to be any historical documentation? Stepping away from General Choi in particular, just think about martial arts in general, historically...

I mean, even just watching any of our favorite historical martial arts movies -- _Ip Man_ or _Once Upon a Time in China_ or whatever -- does it look like instructors back then spent a lot of time jotting this stuff down? I'm not sure it would have even entered into the consideration of a lot of instructors that this sort of thing even needed to be written down.
But okay, suppose there was a school or instructor that kept a journal with a training record of their students  -- it's not as if they had photocopiers back then! if that one copy of that one journal gets lost or destroyed, it's gone baby, gone!
So okay, suppose some school _did_ keep a record, and suppose they even kept it someplace really safe for posterity (though why they would want to do this escapes me) -- along comes World War II, creating enough chaos that we lost track of whole _people_, not just written records.
I know that nowadays we're used to databases, photocopiers, web pages, etc. keeping meticulous track of everything going on, but I don't know that some karate instructor at Chuo University in 1942 is going to bother to make sure that "history remembers" the inauspicious-looking Freshman from Korea named Choi Hong Hi!

Personally, I'd be more surprised if there *were* any kind of historical documentation. Hell, during the Korean War we lost track of where Yun Moo Kwan's founder Sang Sup Chun disappeared to...we lost track of an entire school founder!!! That's war baby! We should be surprised we lost track of a college doodle on which somebody might (but just as easily might not) have recorded student names?


----------



## Prototype

I raise suspicions if there is difficulties finding the specific years studying the art, let alone dates. Especially given that other reports, such as the Taekkyon information, is highly disputed. As well as the fact that Choi never displayed the level of martial arts proficiency that his name was tied to. No proof whatsoever.

Read this : General Choi Wasn't Very Good at Taekwon-Do | ITF Taekwon-Do


----------



## Tez3

tkd spors, I'm not sure what you are saying by posting yet more TKD highlights up. Out of your 36 posts, the vast majority have been these videos, I don't know what your thoughts on are this thread .


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> . Especially given that other reports, such as the Taekkyon information, is highly disputed. As well as the fact that Choi never displayed the level of martial arts proficiency that his name was tied to. No proof whatsoever.
> 
> Read this : General Choi Wasn't Very Good at Taekwon-Do | ITF Taekwon-Do



It's the haters that dispute this since if you read General Choi's account there is only a brief mention about a short amount of time spent with someone who claimed to know Taekkyon.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> Read this : General Choi Wasn't Very Good at Taekwon-Do | ITF Taekwon-Do



Read it. . The author uses a video of General Choi at approximate age of 80 and critiques quality of technique   

FWIW I had seen General Choi at about that age perform a high Twist Kick without warmup in street clothes and shoes.   I for one could only hope to has his level of ability at age 80.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> Anyway, why is there no historical documentaton/verification of when General Choi trained Shotokan? There is no evidence that Funakoshi taught him, yet that is a widely held belief. So, how do we know Choi trained it at all, and to second degree?



Asked  Nam Tae Hi about his old documents thinking it would be interesting stuff for an article i was writing. His response was that when he returned home from the Korean war. everything was gone.  Home, buildings etc.   Paperwork was lost along with it.


----------



## TrueJim

Prototype said:


> I raise suspicions if there is difficulties finding the specific years studying the art, let alone dates...



*Prototype*, let me put it another way: if it's a historical record that you want, what exactly would you expect that historical record to *be*?

Are you expecting to find cancelled checks from Choi Hong Hi to Funakoshi Gichin, with "For karate instruction" written on the memo line?
Are you expecting to find a big book in which Funakoshi Gichin wrote down the names and start dates of all his students?
Are you expecting to find a diary from some Japanese girl at Chuo University that reads, "Dear diary, today the cutest Korean guy started school. I hear he's studying karate! I wonder if he'll ask me out?"
I mean, what's the written document that you think should exist?

I also think your same statement applies to many taekwondo and karate pioneers. We know that Won Kuk Lee moved to Tokyo in 1907 to attend high school...but what date did he start studying karate? We know Hwang Kee was in Manchuria during the 1930s, but what martial arts did he study there, and when? The list goes on and on.


----------



## Earl Weiss

TrueJim said:


> .......................that we lost track of whole _people_, not just written records.
> I know that nowadays we're used to databases, photocopiers, web pages, etc. keeping meticulous track of everything going on, but I don't know that some karate instructor at Chuo University in 1942 is going to bother to make sure that "history remembers" the inauspicious-looking Freshman from Korea named Choi Hong Hi!
> 
> ..


This was part of the Genius of General MacAurthur.  When concentration camps were liberated he called in the press corps to photograph and memorialize what they saw as long as bringing many top officers.   He knew that this proof would be needed to refute any claims that accounts were not accurate. We still have holocaust deniers.   Even if you had paperwork like Obamas birth certificate. You'd still have jealous deniers.


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> Read it. . The author uses a video of General Choi at approximate age of 80 and critiques quality of technique
> 
> FWIW I had seen General Choi at about that age perform a high Twist Kick without warmup in street clothes and shoes.   I for one could only hope to has his level of ability at age 80.



I don't care about YouTube footage of an elderly Choi. What does however raise concern about his legitimacy is this:

_“*Very few of Choi’s men saw Choi do much martial arts during the fifty years in which they worked with him*. He did not have to; he was a two-star general. He gave the orders to lower-ranking athletes, such as Nam (Tae-hi) who brought the art to life.”_


----------



## Prototype

TrueJim said:


> *Prototype*, let me put it another way: if it's a historical record that you want, what exactly would you expect that historical record to *be*?
> 
> Are you expecting to find cancelled checks from Choi Hong Hi to Funakoshi Gichin, with "For karate instruction" written on the memo line?
> Are you expecting to find a big book in which Funakoshi Gichin wrote down the names and start dates of all his students?
> Are you expecting to find a diary from some Japanese girl at Chuo University that reads, "Dear diary, today the cutest Korean guy started school. I hear he's studying karate! I wonder if he'll ask me out?"
> I mean, what's the written document that you think should exist?
> 
> I also think your same statement applies to many taekwondo and karate pioneers. We know that Won Kuk Lee moved to Tokyo in 1907 to attend high school...but what date did he start studying karate? We know Hwang Kee was in Manchuria during the 1930s, but what martial arts did he study there, and when? The list goes on and on.



I would at least expect specific years reported. Doesn't prove much but it's a start.


----------



## Prototype

General Choi was not 80 years of age in the clip instructing someone who is reported to be a young Jaroslaw Suska. I can't say that I am believer from that clip.


----------



## TrueJim

Prototype said:


> I would at least expect *specific years reported*. Doesn't prove much but it's a start.



But reported by *whom*???  That's the problem. Reported by somebody 20-years after-the-fact recounting a story they were told by somebody who was there?  Because in a lot of cases for both taekwondo and karate, that's all we have...people recounting stories in their later years of things they remember from their youths. _People weren't writing this stuff down as it happened.  
_
Secondly, you could unfortunately make the same complaint for a vast number of karate and taekwondo pioneers.  "Well we don't know exactly when they studied, but we do know they traveled abroad in such-and-such a year, so it's assumed they started sometime after that..."  For quite a few pioneers, that's all we have!  It would be so much nicer if people had been writing this stuff down as it happened, but mostly they didn't.

*But if it makes you feel any better, I will now officially report that Choi Hong Hi studied under Funakoshi Gichin between 1940 and 1943. *You heard it here first! Never mind I wasn't there; never mind it's decades later. It's a sensible conclusion based on when Choi was at Chuo University, where it is known that Funakoshi Gichin did teach. And I'm making it official by _typing it in print_. It doesn't get much more official than that!


----------



## Prototype

TrueJim said:


> But reported by *whom*???  That's the problem. Reported by somebody 20-years after-the-fact recounting a story they were told by somebody who was there?  Because in a lot of cases for both taekwondo and karate, that's all we have...people recounting stories in their later years of things they remember from their youths. _People weren't writing this stuff down as it happened.
> _
> Secondly, you could unfortunately make the same complaint for a vast number of karate and taekwondo pioneers.  "Well we don't know exactly when they studied, but we do know they traveled abroad in such-and-such a year, so it's assumed they started sometime after that..."  For quite a few pioneers, that's all we have!  It would be so much nicer if people had been writing this stuff down as it happened, but mostly they didn't.
> 
> *But if it makes you feel any better, I will now officially report that Choi Hong Hi studied under Funakoshi Gichin between 1940 and 1943. *You heard it here first! Never mind I wasn't there; never mind it's decades later. It's a sensible conclusion based on when Choi was at Chuo University, where it is known that Funakoshi Gichin did teach. And I'm making it official by _typing it in print_. It doesn't get much more official than that!



I would not keep it shrouded in mystery If I were taught by *Funakoshi Gishin*. Especially if I promote an alternative martial art and seek to establish credibility. But hey, that's just me. Kinda like not wanting it be known that Erwin Schrodinger was your professor in Physics. Let's not get that information out. 

Do you see the illogic in all of this?


----------



## Tez3

Prototype said:


> I would not keep it shrouded in mystery If I were taught by *Funakoshi Gishin*. Especially if I promote an alternative martial art and seek to establish credibility. But hey, that's just me. Kinda like not wanting it be known that Erwin Schrodinger was your professor in Physics. Let's not get that information out.
> 
> Do you see the illogic in all of this?



The 'iilogic'? 
Look at the dates...between 1940 and 1943 then have a think what was going on then...a *world war*. For Japan it was invasions then defeat and the chaos of occupation, for Korea, the end of occupation, then another war, it's no wonder things are unclear, it likely would if it were in the UK, maybe not the US but who knows, the war years weren't kind on anyone. The years during and after the war were notable for the confusion, chaos and people having much more on their minds than who trained with whom and writing about it. Perhaps it was written down and it was lost as so much was then. I think perhaps you need to think about this a lot more, remember two atom bombs were dropped on Japan and events in Korea were horrendous.


----------



## TrueJim

Prototype said:


> I would not keep it shrouded in mystery If I were taught by *Funakoshi Gishin*.
> 
> Do you see the illogic in all of this?



So you just want a reference that Choi himself said he studied under Funakoshi Gichin?  That's easy enough:

FightingArts.com - Storming the Fortress:  A History of Taekwondo  - Part 4

"Choi stated that he studied karate at Chuo University under Shotokan founder Gichin Funakoshi, eventually earning the rank of 2nd degree black belt (Kimm, 2000)."

Boom!  *drops the mic*


----------



## Prototype

TrueJim said:


> So you just want a reference that Choi himself said he studied under Funakoshi Gichin?  That's easy enough:
> 
> FightingArts.com - Storming the Fortress:  A History of Taekwondo  - Part 4
> 
> "Choi stated that he studied karate at Chuo University under Shotokan founder Gichin Funakoshi, eventually earning the rank of 2nd degree black belt (Kimm, 2000)."
> 
> Boom!  *drops the mic*



Good! Now why are there still some  some *within the ITF* who question that he in fact trained under Funakoshin? I've seen it written on Martialtalk.


----------



## Tez3

Prototype said:


> Good! Now why are there still some  some *within the ITF* who question that he in fact trained under Funakoshin? I've seen it written on Martialtalk.



I imagine everyone in ITF says he didn't study under Funakoshin, they probably think he studied under Funakoshi.


----------



## TrueJim

Prototype said:


> Good! Now why are there still some  some *within the ITF* who question that he in fact trained under Funakoshin? I've seen it written on Martialtalk.



Well pretty much all we have is Choi's word, and the fact that he was at the same university where Funakoshi sometimes taught in that timeframe (so it would make sense)...but for that matter, for a lot of these early pioneers, all we have is what they later told biographers. 

And in any case, it's kind of beside-the-point, isn't it? Your original question was, "Why is there no historical documentaton/verification of when General Choi trained Shotokan?" I've already explained _when_ he would have trained (high school and college, by Choi's account) and why there would be no historical documentation (because people generally didn't write these kinds of things down back then, and even if they had, there was a war on).

Take my own story as an example...I originally studied "traditional taekwondo" (i.e., more karate-like) at a college club back in 1978 in a small college outside Charlotte, NC. We trained in a racquetball court, and everybody (except the instructor) wore white belts indefinitely because quite frankly nobody in the club was worrying about what color belt they had. I doubt you'd find "historical documentation/verification" of my training there, and hey -- we weren't even at war! There weren't that many of us in the club, and knowing us all by name was easy, so writing down that "Jim was in the taekwondo club" for posterity's sake would have been a little silly. So, all you have is my word, and the fact that I was at that college in the timeframe I said I was. 

Because that's how things worked, back in the day.


----------



## Prototype

TrueJim said:


> Well pretty much all we have is Choi's word, and the fact that he was at the same university where Funakoshi sometimes taught in that timeframe (so it would make sense)...but for that matter, for a lot of these early pioneers, all we have is what they later told biographers.
> 
> And in any case, it's kind of beside-the-point, isn't it? Your original question was, "Why is there no historical documentaton/verification of when General Choi trained Shotokan?" I've already explained _when_ he would have trained (high school and college, by Choi's account) and why there would be no historical documentation (because people generally didn't write these kinds of things down back then, and even if they had, there was a war on).
> 
> Take my own story as an example...I originally studied "traditional taekwondo" (i.e., more karate-like) at a college club back in 1978 in a small college outside Charlotte, NC. We trained in a racquetball court, and everybody (except the instructor) wore white belts indefinitely because quite frankly nobody in the club was worrying about what color belt they had. I doubt you'd find "historical documentation/verification" of my training there, and hey -- we weren't even at war! There weren't that many of us in the club, and knowing us all by name was easy, so writing down that "Jim was in the taekwondo club" for posterity's sake would have been a little silly. So, all you have is my word, and the fact that I was at that college in the timeframe I said I was.
> 
> Because that's how things worked, back in the day.



No account by Choi about his training in Shotokan that I've seen. No mention about Funakoshi as his instructor. All we have is: _"I studied Karate". _That's basically it. Karate is only mentioned in relation to Tae Kwon-Do as inferior. I want to know about his studies in the art to make  such claims.


----------



## Tez3

Prototype said:


> No account by Choi about his training in Shotokan that I've seen. No mention about Funakoshi as his instructor. All we have is: _"I studied Karate". _That's basically it. Karate is only mentioned in relation to Tae Kwon-Do as inferior. I want to know about his studies in the art to make  such claims.



Why?


----------



## Prototype

Tez3 said:


> Why?



I would be interested as a marthial arts enthusiast to hear what conclusions he drew from his experience in Shotokan and how that influenced his Chang Hon-TKD.


----------



## Tez3

Prototype said:


> I would be interested as a marthial arts enthusiast to hear what conclusions he drew from his experience in Shotokan and how that influenced his Chang Hon-TKD.



Are you a martial artist or a martial arts enthusiast who doesn't actually train?


----------



## Prototype

Tez3 said:


> Are you a martial artist or a martial arts enthusiast who doesn't actually train?



I do train. Love it.


----------



## Tez3

Prototype said:


> I do train. Love it.



Do you question your senior instructors the way you have the posters here who are senior instructors?


----------



## Prototype

Tez3 said:


> Do you question your senior instructors the way you have the posters here who are senior instructors?



I haven't questioned senior instructors on their own martial art. I did question their knowledge of the cousin art. Shotokan originally not having roundhouse kicks in anyway shape or form is not a questionable subject either.


----------



## TrueJim

Prototype said:


> I would be interested as a marthial arts enthusiast to hear what conclusions he drew from his experience in Shotokan and how that influenced his Chang Hon-TKD.



Well I think we'd _all_ like to hear that. Too bad he's dead and can't tell us. I'd just as equally love to hear Funakoshi Gichin talk about studying under Itosu Ankh, and hear about what he changed and why. I'm also curious to know what Hwang Kee studied in Manchuria, and why if quanfa was his base he adapted karate-like patterns for Tang Soo Do. I'd be interested to know if Byung Jick Ro made any changes to his art when he relocated his school from Kaesong to Seoul, and if he attributes any of those changes to the latter school's success after the former school had failed. I'd love to ask Haeng Ung Lee why he made up his own forms in 1969 for ATA/Songahm, rather than just using the ITF or KTA/Kukkiwon forms. I mean, the list of questions I have for _dead_ taekwondo pioneers is massive!

For that matter, Jhoon Rhee is still alive (and lives not that far from me!) and I'd like to ask him why he developed his own forms, when there were so many forms already in existence that he could have picked from. Chuck Norris is also still alive, and I'd like to ask him what was wrong with Tang Soo Do that he felt the need to create Chun Kuk Do. 

But you know what? I'm sure they had their reasons.

The point is, you can go down a real rabbit hole wondering what these pioneers changed, when they changed it, and especially why they changed it. For the ones who are dead especially, I doubt we're going to get that satisfaction though.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> General Choi was not 80 years of age in the clip instructing someone who is reported to be a young Jaroslaw Suska. I can't say that I am believer from that clip.



Video in referenced / linked seems to be dated 2001  He was born in 1918.   So, you are right. That would have made him at least 82 going on 83. (Not 80)


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> I would not keep it shrouded in mystery If I were taught by *Funakoshi Gishin*. Especially if I promote an alternative martial art and seek to establish credibility. But hey, that's just me. Kinda like not wanting it be known that Erwin Schrodinger was your professor in Physics. Let's not get that information out.
> 
> Do you see the illogic in all of this?



Yes, the illogic is your frame of reference from the current state of things, and applying them to someone from an occupied country, being schooled in the occupying country, conscripted into the occupiers army, later fighting the occupiers and returning to his war torn homeland and asking about records of being with the occupier.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> I would be interested as a marthial arts enthusiast to hear what conclusions he drew from his experience in Shotokan and how that influenced his Chang Hon-TKD.



Get a hold of his 1965 Book where he has 20 of the earlier Karate patterns. He addresses both the Shorin and Shorei systems. You can see where he may have gotten stuff wrong in the reference material.   When he taught he would sometimes indicate that "Karate" (did not specify which system) does things this way and he does things a different way with the reason for the change. Aside from the more mobile Walking stance better suited to lead leg kicks he stopped his low outer forearm block with the thumb knuckle alignned with the centerline as opposed to being over the front knee. His reason was to have the block continue to protect the same side lower abdomen.   

if you find his encyclopedia on line he has numerous examples in Volumes 3 & 4 as to why he has things done a certain way and not another way. You could judge for yourself where the specs differed from or was similar to any Karate specs.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> Good! Now why are there still some  some *within the ITF* who question that he in fact trained under Funakoshin? I've seen it written on Martialtalk.



It's healthy to question. Not the same as denying without foundation.


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> Yes, the illogic is your frame of reference from the current state of things, and applying them to someone from an occupied country, being schooled in the occupying country, conscripted into the occupiers army, later fighting the occupiers and returning to his war torn homeland and asking about records of being with the occupier.


 
I don't think you can blame Funakoshi for that.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Prototype said:


> I don't think you can blame Funakoshi for that.



I don't think anybody did. It is, however, not unreasonable to believe that these events might make it somewhat difficult to produce the sort of 21st Century document trail that would be needed to satisfy your questions.


----------



## Prototype

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't think anybody did. It is, however, not unreasonable to believe that these events might make it somewhat difficult to produce the sort of 21st Century document trail that would be needed to satisfy your questions.



The implications are that there underlies a deep resentment towards Japanese people in general, and that it could explain why Choi does not pay respect to his instructors in Shotokan. If he does name Funakoshi, or whoever it was that taught him, then I stand corrected.


----------



## Prototype

I would like to see Funakoshi Gishin award a second degree black belt after a mere 3 years of training. None of it makes any sense.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Prototype said:


> The implications are that there underlies a deep resentment towards Japanese people in general, and that it could explain why Choi does not pay respect to his instructors in Shotokan. If he does name Funakoshi, or whoever it was that taught him, then I stand corrected.



Of course there is. There is a huge underlying resentment of the Japanese by Koreans in general. After all, the Japanese only occupied Korea for about 40 years, during which time the native culture was brutally suppressed. Why would that possibly cause resentment?


----------



## Prototype

Dirty Dog said:


> Of course there is. There is a huge underlying resentment of the Japanese by Koreans in general. After all, the Japanese only occupied Korea for about 40 years, during which time the native culture was brutally suppressed. Why would that possibly cause resentment?



Doesn't mean that you can't express appreciation to your Karate instructor. I see no mention of him in his recount. That's not in the spirit of Karate and Taekwon-Do.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Prototype said:


> Doesn't mean that you can't express appreciation to your Karate instructor. I see no mention of him in his recount. That's not in the spirit of Karate and Taekwon-Do.



So you think it makes sense that a Korean with a military and political career to worry about, living in the immediate post-liberation period, when anti-Japanese feeling was at it's greatest, should have talked about how awesome things were learning under the Japanese oppressors?
Given the prevailing attitude at the time, doing so would have been less than wise. 
And later, it frankly no longer mattered. He'd earned his position through his early work with the KTA and (later) the ITF.


----------



## Tez3

Prototype said:


> Doesn't mean that you can't express appreciation to your Karate instructor. I see no mention of him in his recount. That's not in the spirit of Karate and Taekwon-Do.




Good grief. Do you know what went on in Korea during the Japanese occupation? Do you know why there still is bad feeling in Korea for Japanese? Korea isn't alone actually, there are still many ex prisoners of war of the Japanese ( men, women and children) in the UK who cannot forgive the Japanese for what they put them through especially as the later still haven't apologised. The 'spirit of karate and Taekwondo' doesn't count when your family is massacred or tortured, your women turned into sex slaves for the military and you fellow prisoners starved and beaten, subject to horrendous treatment. I think you need to do some research and have some empathy for the Koreans and others. Would you have said that those in the Nazi concentration camps ought to have been grateful to the Germans who had perhaps taught them at school or served them in shops?


----------



## TrueJim

Prototype said:


> Doesn't mean that you can't express appreciation to your Karate instructor. I see no mention of him in his recount. That's not in the spirit of Karate and Taekwon-Do.



Yah, I hate to pile-on, but I think you're missing some important historical context. Not that it's necessarily your fault, some schools here in the U.S. seem to do a poor job generally of teaching world history outside a Euro-centric context. But just as one example, see: Comfort women - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Using just that one example, I think if the Japanese forcefully took your 13 year old sister from your home, piled her in a boxcar with a bunch of other teenage girls, hauled her to the nearest Japanese military base, and turned her into a sex slave for the Japanese army...after the war was over you wouldn't be like, "Well, I'd at least like to thank the Japanese for all the _good_ things they did for me." You'd probably rather cut off your own arm that find something nice to say about the Japanese.

If you're not in the mood to read, there's a highly fictionalized account of a story (based loosely on real-life events) that despite being fictional I think does a nice job of depicting what life must have been like for soldiers forced to fight for the Japanese army. It's available on Amazon streaming with your choice of English subtitles or English dubbing. It's really worth watching: Amazon.com: My Way: Jang Dong-Gun, Fan Bingbing, Joe Odagiri, Je-kyu Kang: Movies & TV


----------



## Prototype

TrueJim said:


> Yah, I hate to pile-on, but I think you're missing some important historical context. Not that it's necessarily your fault, some schools here in the U.S. seem to do a poor job generally of teaching world history outside a Euro-centric context. But just as one example, see: Comfort women - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Using just that one example, I think if the Japanese forcefully took your 13 year old sister from your home, piled her in a boxcar with a bunch of other teenage girls, hauled her to the nearest Japanese military base, and turned her into a sex slave for the Japanese army...after the war was over you wouldn't be like, "Well, I'd at least like to thank the Japanese for all the _good_ things they did for me." You'd probably rather cut off your own arm that find something nice to say about the Japanese.
> 
> If you're not in the mood to read, there's a highly fictionalized account of a story (based loosely on real-life events) that despite being fictional I think does a nice job of depicting what life must have been like for soldiers forced to fight for the Japanese army. It's available on Amazon streaming with your choice of English subtitles or English dubbing. It's really worth watching: Amazon.com: My Way: Jang Dong-Gun, Fan Bingbing, Joe Odagiri, Je-kyu Kang: Movies & TV



I wouldn't advocate rejecting Japanese people due to the wrongdoings of some. That would be racism or bigotry. I ask again, what does Funakoshi got do with this besides being Japanese? By that reasoning, African Americans should reject caucasians.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> The implications are that there underlies a deep resentment towards Japanese people in general, and that it could explain why Choi does not pay respect to his instructors in Shotokan. If he does name Funakoshi, or whoever it was that taught him, then I stand corrected.



OK, since General Choi does reference his training in Japan - consider yourself corrected.    I do not imply a general resentment toward Japanese people.   However, it is no secret that there is a historic (and understandable)  resentment of the Japanese by the Korean people.


----------



## TrueJim

Prototype said:


> I wouldn't advocate rejecting Japanese people due to the wrongdoings of some. That would be racism or bigotry. I ask again, what does Funakoshi got do with this besides being Japanese? By that reasoning, African Americans should reject caucasians.



Your analogy is a poor one. Here's a much better analogy: "*in the years immediately following the U.S. Civil War, African Americans in the South should reject caucasians."* 

That would be a more accurate analogy to the situation in post-War Korea. For Koreans after World War II, the oppression they suffered wasn't something that had happened a "hundred years ago;" it was something that had _just happened_. I.e., the oppression personally affected you, your immediate family members, your neighbors, the friends you grew up with, and everybody you've ever known.


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> OK, since General Choi does reference his training in Japan - consider yourself corrected.    I do not imply a general resentment toward Japanese people.   However, it is no secret that there is a historic (and understandable)  resentment of the Japanese by the Korean people.



Well, Choi does mention Funakoshi as the supervisor in one of the interviews available online. That's not however the same as being ones instructor. Maybe people shouldn't rush to such conclusions.


----------



## Prototype

TrueJim said:


> Your analogy is a poor one. Here's a much better analogy: "*in the years immediately following the U.S. Civil War, African Americans in the South should reject caucasians."*



Doesn't matter one bit. It's not an understandable viewpoint unless you can show a uniform hatred by one nationality/group towards the other.  And that uniformity would have to include General Chois Karate instructor.


----------



## Tez3

Prototype said:


> Doesn't matter one bit. It's not an understandable viewpoint unless you can show a uniform hatred by one nationality/group towards the other.  And that uniformity would have to include General Chois Karate instructor.



Your comments are naïve and extremely insensitive.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> Well, Choi does mention Funakoshi as the supervisor in one of the interviews available online. That's not however the same as being ones instructor. Maybe people shouldn't rush to such conclusions.



FWIW I must have missed the post in this thread where anyone jumped to such a conclusion. Perhaps you can point it out?


----------



## TrueJim

Prototype said:


> Doesn't matter one bit. It's not an *understandable* viewpoint unless you can show a uniform hatred by one nationality/group towards the other.



I suppose it may not be _right_ to hate an entire people, but it's definitely _understandable_. I think if another country attacks your country, it's understandable to hate everybody who lives in the attacking country. Like I'm sure the French probably weren't too enamored of Germans in the years right after World War II.


----------



## Tez3

TrueJim said:


> I suppose it may not be _right_ to hate an entire people, but it's definitely _understandable_. I think if another country attacks your country, it's understandable to hate everybody who lives in the attacking country. Like I'm sure the French probably weren't too enamored of Germans in the years right after World War II.



Exactly. To live under occupation, to be subjugated, beaten, tortured, have your children taken away, to see your whole culture destroyed, and dismissed for so many decades it's more than understandable that you would have no love or forgiveness for those responsible. There is no being politically correct in this, there is no 'oh it's racist for the Koreans to hate the Japanese', it is what it is. We should get on our knees thankful we don't know what this was like. It doesn't help that modern Japan is ambivalent even now about the apologies and compensation due to Korean and others. The OP is talking about the Japanese and Koreans of that time, not modern people but of the time of the atrocities etc, looking at it from a distance of many years perhaps some cannot understand the feelings of those involved, which is a shame because not understanding and remembering means not learning and not learning means repeating those horrors.
We have people in our country who still suffer because of what was done to them by the Japanese. 
Flashbacks terror for Japanese prison camp survivor

BBC - WW2 People's War - A Woman Prisoner of the Japanese


----------



## Prototype

TrueJim said:


> I think if another country attacks your country, it's understandable to hate everybody who lives in the attacking country.



I can't hate in the abstract.

One thing I find ironic is how little Choi changed from the basics of Shotokan, given his views on Japan and the urge to produce a nationalistic counterpart. Am I the only one perceptive of this paradox? The Chang Hon patterns are essentially tweaks of Shotokan Katas up until black belt level. The move order and techniques are just variants of those Katas. Slight changes here and there. I am aware of the changes but they would hardly be noticeable for the layman. Black belts patterns are indeed more flashy than Shotokan, but your average student isn't going to be doing those for quite a while.


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> FWIW I must have missed the post in this thread where anyone jumped to such a conclusion. Perhaps you can point it out?



I am referring to subsequent biographical writings.


----------



## TrueJim

Prototype said:


> I can't hate in the abstract.



Over-simplifying in the abstract however...well...let's just say you have a gift.  



Prototype said:


> One thing I find ironic is how little Choi changed from the basics of Shotokan, given his views on Japan and the urge to produce a nationalistic counterpart. Am I the only one perceptive of this paradox?



You should read "A Killing Art" -- the main thesis of the entire book is that Choi spent his life trying to distinguish taekwondo from karate...so no, you're definitely not the only one!  Personally I think Gillis over-states his case for the sake of telling a ripping yarn, but still....it's a must-read.

Some relevant excerpts:

A Killing Art: The Untold History of Tae Kwon Do, Updated and Revised: Alex Gillis: 9781770413009: Amazon.com: Books

“Why do you withdraw your hand after the strike?” the General asks him. The black belt explains that he is ripping off the opponent's scrotum. “No,” General says. “That's Karate and WTF style.” 

That reminds the General of a joke: “A woman told another, ‘Don't marry a guy who studied WTF.' ‘Why?' asks the second woman. ‘Because he has no weapon,' said the first.” 

Another one of his refrains is “This is a bad habit from Karate,” as if bad habits pass through dynasties, handed from instructor to instructor. But what the General is not telling us is that he developed Tae Kwon Do from Shotokan Karate and has been trying to cover his Karate roots for fifty years.

---

To anyone who did not know the martial arts, the two blocks looked identical and protected the same area. Choi had simply moved the arm a couple of inches to the right, so that it stopped in front of the belly instead of to the side of the belly. For Choi, though, this was a start. He began thinking about a new martial art, one that would be better than Karate...

---

Never one to give up, he began writing a Tae Kwon Do book, and after 1957, when Shotokan Karate's founder, Gichin Funakoshi, died, Choi borrowed many of his ideas and words. Choi felt that he was improving Karate. He wanted Korea to have its own art, one that would be superior to anything from Japan, but his lies were outrageous now: he accused Japan of taking Korea's T'aekkyon and renaming it Karate during Japan's occupation of Korea before the Second World War.

Choi loathed the Japanese, whose armies and governments had bullied Korea. He thought nothing of stealing Funakoshi's “elbow,” “ball of the foot,” “back of the heel,” and “sword foot.” [13] It was only fair, perhaps, because Funakoshi had originally borrowed them from Chinese martial arts. Choi also took the “sword hand,” “four-finger spear hand,” and “two-finger spear hand,” all of which appeared in Funakoshi's 1943 Japanese-language book, Karate-Do Nyumon. Funakoshi wrote that to strengthen a fist, one should punch a tapered wooden post. [14] Choi described exactly the same post for Tae Kwon Do, and included Funakoshi's advice to bury it one-third in the ground and wrap it in rice straw at the top. These all went into Choi's book. 

His five-year-old creation myth became beautifully simple: “Tae Kwon Do is an ancient, Korean martial art,” a claim that would be emblazoned on gym walls and people's minds for the next fifty years. Always the dramatic storyteller, he added wondrous 1,300-year-old anecdotes about the hwarang warriors: “T'aekkyon was so advanced that the history books of that period describe martial artists jumping over the high walls and attacking the enemy on the other side.” Another, wrote Choi, described martial artists, “kicking a ceiling after jumping from a sitting position.” [15] The jumps were possibly the only true part of the myth, but the hwarang could not leap through time.

Gillis, Alex (2008-11-20). A Killing Art: The Untold History of Tae Kwon Do (Kindle Locations 1157-1170). ECW Press. Kindle Edition. 

...there's tons more, but you get the idea. You should give this a read. I don't know that it would _directly_ answer any of your questions, but it might illustrate how complex, subtle, and nuanced any meaningful answer has to be.

========

*The analogy I like to use with people is this*: suppose Al-Qaeda took over the U.S. and outlawed Christmas for 40 years. All the Christmas tree farms have been converted into corn fields, all the sheet music for Christmas carols have been burned, all the factories that made ornaments have shut down, and nobody remembers any Christmas recipes. Every book, article, and recording relating to Christmas has been destroyed.

Nobody has sung a carol, decorated a tree, or seen a Christmas movie for a generation and a half. The only memories that people have of traditional Christmas are 40 years old. Some of the older people have some dim childhood memories of Christmas, but that's about it. People under 40 have never seen a Christmas at all. Your children and grandchildren have never celebrated Christmas.

Worse, if you wanted to get a decent job during those 40 years -- and not have your sisters and daughters be abducted and raped -- you had to covert to Islam. So not only have you NOT been celebrating Christmas, you've been celebrating Islamic holidays instead.


Now...oh happy day!...the occupation is over after 40 years, and you're allowed to recreate Christmas. Where would you even begin? 

Would your "New Christmas" wind up incorporating some of the Islamic traditions that you _have_ been using for the last 40 years? Yah probably.
Would your childhood memories of Christmas inspire you to change these traditions in important ways? Yah definitely!
Would you want to admit that there were any "Islamic traditions" at all in your New Christmas -- probably not.
Your New Christmas would probably wind up being some weird mashup of Islamic traditions that are your recent memories, and very old memories of Christmas traditions that you're not quite sure you're recollecting correctly -- but you sure as hell will do anything to make sure get incorporated into the New Christmas that all your grandchildren will now start celebrating.

I imagine it was probably kinda like that, with you doing your best to take dim memories of taekkyon and other indigenous traditions and mashing them up into your recent knowledge of karate, to try to make something that would honor the Korean traditions of the past to the best of your ability.

So personally, I say...let's cut the original taekwondo pioneers a little slack. We haven't lived through what they lived through...not even close.


----------



## Azulx

TrueJim said:


> You should read "A Killing Art" -- the main thesis of the entire book is that Choi spent his life trying to distinguish taekwondo from karate...so no, you're definitely not the only one! Personally I think Gillis over-states his case for the sake of telling a ripping yarn, but still....it's a must-read.
> 
> Some relevant excerpts:
> 
> A Killing Art: The Untold History of Tae Kwon Do, Updated and Revised: Alex Gillis: 9781770413009: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> “Why do you withdraw your hand after the strike?” the General asks him. The black belt explains that he is ripping off the opponent's scrotum. “No,” General says. “That's Karate and WTF style.”
> 
> That reminds the General of a joke: “A woman told another, ‘Don't marry a guy who studied WTF.' ‘Why?' asks the second woman. ‘Because he has no weapon,' said the first.”
> 
> Another one of his refrains is “This is a bad habit from Karate,” as if bad habits pass through dynasties, handed from instructor to instructor. But what the General is not telling us is that he developed Tae Kwon Do from Shotokan Karate and has been trying to cover his Karate roots for fifty years.
> 
> ---
> 
> To anyone who did not know the martial arts, the two blocks looked identical and protected the same area. Choi had simply moved the arm a couple of inches to the right, so that it stopped in front of the belly instead of to the side of the belly. For Choi, though, this was a start. He began thinking about a new martial art, one that would be better than Karate...
> 
> ---
> 
> Never one to give up, he began writing a Tae Kwon Do book, and after 1957, when Shotokan Karate's founder, Gichin Funakoshi, died, Choi borrowed many of his ideas and words. Choi felt that he was improving Karate. He wanted Korea to have its own art, one that would be superior to anything from Japan, but his lies were outrageous now: he accused Japan of taking Korea's T'aekkyon and renaming it Karate during Japan's occupation of Korea before the Second World War.
> 
> Choi loathed the Japanese, whose armies and governments had bullied Korea. He thought nothing of stealing Funakoshi's “elbow,” “ball of the foot,” “back of the heel,” and “sword foot.” [13] It was only fair, perhaps, because Funakoshi had originally borrowed them from Chinese martial arts. Choi also took the “sword hand,” “four-finger spear hand,” and “two-finger spear hand,” all of which appeared in Funakoshi's 1943 Japanese-language book, Karate-Do Nyumon. Funakoshi wrote that to strengthen a fist, one should punch a tapered wooden post. [14] Choi described exactly the same post for Tae Kwon Do, and included Funakoshi's advice to bury it one-third in the ground and wrap it in rice straw at the top. These all went into Choi's book.
> 
> His five-year-old creation myth became beautifully simple: “Tae Kwon Do is an ancient, Korean martial art,” a claim that would be emblazoned on gym walls and people's minds for the next fifty years. Always the dramatic storyteller, he added wondrous 1,300-year-old anecdotes about the hwarang warriors: “T'aekkyon was so advanced that the history books of that period describe martial artists jumping over the high walls and attacking the enemy on the other side.” Another, wrote Choi, described martial artists, “kicking a ceiling after jumping from a sitting position.” [15] The jumps were possibly the only true part of the myth, but the hwarang could not leap through time.
> 
> Gillis, Alex (2008-11-20). A Killing Art: The Untold History of Tae Kwon Do (Kindle Locations 1157-1170). ECW Press. Kindle Edition.
> 
> ...there's tons more, but you get the idea. You should give this a read. I don't know that it would _directly_ answer any of your questions, but it might illustrate how complex, subtle, and nuanced any meaningful answer has to be.
> 
> ========
> 
> *The analogy I like to use with people is this*: suppose Al-Qaeda took over the U.S. and outlawed Christmas for 40 years. All the Christmas tree farms have been converted into corn fields, all the sheet music for Christmas carols have been burned, all the factories that made ornaments have shut down, and nobody remembers any Christmas recipes. Every book, article, and recording relating to Christmas has been destroyed.
> 
> Nobody has sung a carol, decorated a tree, or seen a Christmas movie for a generation and a half. The only memories that people have of traditional Christmas are 40 years old. Some of the older people have some dim childhood memories of Christmas, but that's about it. People under 40 have never seen a Christmas at all. Your children and grandchildren have never celebrated Christmas.
> 
> Worse, if you wanted to get a decent job during those 40 years -- and not have your sisters and daughters be abducted and raped -- you had to covert to Islam. So not only have you NOT been celebrating Christmas, you've been celebrating Islamic holidays instead.
> 
> 
> Now...oh happy day!...the occupation is over after 40 years, and you're allowed to recreate Christmas. Where would you even begin?
> 
> Would your "New Christmas" wind up incorporating some of the Islamic traditions that you _have_ been using for the last 40 years? Yah probably.
> Would your childhood memories of Christmas inspire you to change these traditions in important ways? Yah definitely!
> Would you want to admit that there were any "Islamic traditions" at all in your New Christmas -- probably not.
> Your New Christmas would probably wind up being some weird mashup of Islamic traditions that are your recent memories, and very old memories of Christmas traditions that you're not quite sure you're recollecting correctly -- but you sure as hell will do anything to make sure get incorporated into the New Christmas that all your grandchildren will now start celebrating.
> 
> I imagine it was probably kinda like that, with you doing your best to take dim memories of taekkyon and other indigenous traditions and mashing them up into your recent knowledge of karate, to try to make something that would honor the Korean traditions of the past to the best of your ability.
> 
> So personally, I say...let's cut the original taekwondo pioneers a little slack. We haven't lived through what they lived through...not even close.



I own this book, have not finished it but i will definitely make taht a priority this summer. I remember reading about General Choi saying that is a bad Karate habit etc. It made me laugh because it sounded like something my instructor would say. Literally my instructor is in a incredibly watered down version of what happened to General Choi. He had a huge falling out with his organization, and has been trying to cover up his old organization "flavor" if you will in what he does for the past 8-10 years. Great analogy btw the Christmas Islam thing is a pretty interesting way to look at things.


----------



## Tez3

Prototype said:


> I can't hate in the abstract.



That makes no sense. No one is asking you to hate anyone, what is being asked of you is to understand the history and stop making silly assertions based on what you think _should_ of happened.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> I am referring to subsequent biographical writings.



I will check his Bio again. IIRC, he does not state he trained directly  under Funakoshi. Would you care to point me to the page where he purportedly said this?


----------



## Earl Weiss

Azulx said:


> I own this book, have not finished it but i will definitely make taht a priority this summer. I remember reading about General Choi saying that is a bad Karate habit etc. It made me laugh because it sounded like something my instructor would say. Literally my instructor is in a incredibly watered down version of what happened to General Choi. He had a huge falling out with his organization, and has been trying to cover up his old organization "flavor" if you will in what he does for the past 8-10 years. Great analogy btw the Christmas Islam thing is a pretty interesting way to look at things.



Have the book. Read it, Sent a critique to the author. In some cases I understood his (mis)  perception. I found some to be rash generalizations based upon limited observation. I had similar issues after one course with General Choi, (Gillis apparently went to one) but reasons became more clear after more courses. I.E. low outer forearm block remains at the spot to protect.,    it was a difference with a reason.  At least he had the and stated them.   Purportedly Hiding Shotokan roots. Apparently Gillis never read the 1965 Book.   He "stole" paramaters from Funakoshi, yet he states Funakoshi Borrowed them from Prior Arts. Yet General Choi explicitly states the Shorin and Shorei roots  so what he did was "Stealing" but what others did was "Borrowing" etc.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> I can't hate in the abstract.
> 
> One thing I find ironic is how little Choi changed from the basics of Shotokan, given his views on Japan and the urge to produce a nationalistic counterpart. Am I the only one perceptive of this paradox? The Chang Hon patterns are essentially tweaks of Shotokan Katas up until black belt level. The move order and techniques are just variants of those Katas. Slight changes here and there. I am aware of the changes but they would hardly be noticeable for the layman. Black belts patterns are indeed more flashy than Shotokan, but your average student isn't going to be doing those for quite a while.



Not paradoxical at all considering what he did. He assembled  top MA Guys in the country in the 29th infantry division. Their background was typically largely Shotokan thru the CDK . He trained them as instructors to teach the new system using their foundation. They adapted and adopted his system, taught and spread it. He also recruited instructors in the USA - he Il Ch - Jhoon Rhee, again with CDK training to teach his system.   History shows us how successful the plan was especially given what travel and communication was like in the 1950s-1960s.


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> Not paradoxical at all considering what he did. He assembled  top MA Guys in the country in the 29th infantry division. Their background was typically largely Shotokan thru the CDK . He trained them as instructors to teach the new system using their foundation. They adapted and adopted his system, taught and spread it. He also recruited instructors in the USA - he Il Ch - Jhoon Rhee, again with CDK training to teach his system.   History shows us how successful the plan was especially given what travel and communication was like in the 1950s-1960s.



You don't see the paradox in loathing Japanese representation, but in actuality producing something like Shotokan 2.1 (once the Chang Hon patterns were completed)  instead of TaeKwon-Do 1.0?


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> I will check his Bio again. IIRC, he does not state he trained directly  under Funakoshi. Would you care to point me to the page where he purportedly said this?



Perhaps not but som biographical accounts do claim that.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> You don't see the paradox in loathing Japanese representation, but in actuality producing something like Shotokan 2.1 (once the Chang Hon patterns were completed)  instead of TaeKwon-Do 1.0?



The only paradox I see is your inability to consider things in historical context.


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> The only paradox I see is your inability to consider things in historical context.



I am saying that if he wanted to pay tribute to Japanese representation, he couldn't have done a better job. That was not however the stated intent. The intent was the exact opposite - to differentiate.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> Perhaps not but som biographical accounts do claim that.



The problem is you complain about and critique General Choi using some non specific and unsubstantiated reference.  You make a reference to "Wanting to See" Funakoshi issuing a 3rd Degree after 3 years. 

The 1965 Book states he trained in Karate under a Korean Friend Mr,.Kim, and in just under 2 years attained first degree, then he went to prep school for 1.5 years, then high school, then to the University of Tokyo, and then after 2 more years attained 2nd degree. (Page 296) . So, no third degree is mentioned and it was much longer to reach 2nd degree, and no mention of Funakoshi. Also reviewed the Bio and found no such reference. 

If you want to be critical, fine . Go right to his texts for whatever he said or wrote instead of quoting (Misquoting) someone somewhere with bad information.


----------



## TrueJim

Prototype said:


> I am saying that if he wanted to pay tribute to Japanese representation, he couldn't have done a better job. That was not however the stated intent. The intent was the exact opposite - to differentiate.



Prototype, I think you find this observation both (a) new, and (b) interesting. 

Yes, taekwondo has karate roots. Yes, many of the early pioneers tried to distance themselves from those roots. Yes, those two things are at odds with one another. By all means -- why don't you and I meet up at nice air-conditioned Starbucks somewhere for a yummy latte so that we sit back comfortably and criticize people who spent decades living through mind-boggling horrific conditions and yet went on to sincerely accomplish great things in their lives.

Or, Plan B, we could be a little more sympathetic to the fact that whatever paradoxes you and I may see in hindsight from 50 years later and half-a-world away were perhaps pretty darn understandable - and arguably even unavoidable - when taken in the context of the times.


----------



## Prototype

TrueJim said:


> Prototype, I think you find this observation both (a) new, and (b) interesting.
> 
> Yes, taekwondo has karate roots. Yes, many of the early pioneers tried to distance themselves from those roots. Yes, those two things are at odds with one another. By all means -- why don't you and I meet up at nice air-conditioned Starbucks somewhere for a yummy latte so that we sit back comfortably and criticize people who spent decades living through mind-boggling horrific conditions and yet went on to sincerely accomplish great things in their lives.
> 
> Or, Plan B, we could be a little more sympathetic to the fact that whatever paradoxes you and I may see in hindsight from 50 years later and half-a-world away were perhaps pretty darn understandable - and arguably even unavoidable - when taken in the context of the times.



I didn't criticize him for it, I stated that it was an ironic fact/paradox. You extrapolate that to mean something negative. That being said, had this been in the United States in modern times, Choi Hong Hi could have been sued his pants off by various Shotokan Karate organisations (in principle). Let's not pretend otherwise.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Prototype said:


> That being said, had this been in the United States in modern times, Choi Hong Hi could have been sued his pants off by various Shotokan Karate organisations (in principle). Let's not pretend otherwise.



That being said... who cares? Pick any event in history. Had it occurred in modern times, it would have been very different. 
The problem seems to be your inability to grasp the difference between your modern viewpoint and the viewpoint of someone in that time and place.


----------



## Prototype

Dirty Dog said:


> That being said... who cares? Pick any event in history. Had it occurred in modern times, it would have been very different.
> The problem seems to be your inability to grasp the difference between your modern viewpoint and the viewpoint of someone in that time and place.



 I do understand the context of history. That's exactly why I fond it curious that Choi didn't depart his Chang Hon-system more from Karate.


----------



## dancingalone

Prototype said:


> I do understand the context of history. That's exactly why I fond it curious that Choi didn't depart his Chang Hon-system more from Karate.



But that's an entirely subjective complaint you have there.  From my equally subjective perspective, I think Chang Hon varies the most by far from Japanese karate in things like blocking chambers and sine wave execution compared to KKW TKD or Chung Do Kwan TKD.  When I decided to recommit towards growing in TKD after years in karate, I actually ruled out ITF-type instructors precisely because the sine wave was too different for me to accept.

Unless you come up with an accepted scoring rubric based on research models to evaluate the degree of departure Chang Hon TKD has from Shotokan karate, you're just being opinionated.  Which is fine and all, but it's about as relevant as me not liking the ITF uniforms aesthetically or the flavor of Rocky Road ice cream for that matter.


----------



## TrueJim

Prototype said:


> That being said, had this been in the United States in modern times, Choi Hong Hi could have been sued his pants off by various Shotokan Karate organisations (in principle). Let's not pretend otherwise.



In principle, you can sue anybody for anything...literally. I can sue you for having nostrils that are too far apart. The question is, will I win? It's up to a judge to decide if my case has merit.

I take it you're suggesting that Choi could have been sued by some karate organizations for Intellectual Property infringement? I don't think a judge -- then or now -- would rule that that case has any merit:

In the case of copyright, only the copyright holder can sue for infringement. 
In the case of inventions, only the patent holder can sue for infringement. 
In the case of trademarks, only the trademark holder can sue for infringement. 
There are no karate organizations to my knowledge that hold any copyrights, patents, or trademarks on traditional karate techniques or forms. 

In other words:

For a kata that was developed in the early 1900s by some karate master in Okinawa, I doubt the karate master ever applied for any IP protection for the kata. 
And for kata that's older than that, you're predating the existence of most IP law anyway...and the applicable law would be Okinawan, not U.S. or Korean, which gets you into the territory of IP _treaties_. And even if IP protection _had_ been granted way back then,
There are no karate organizations now (or in the 1950s) to who that IP would belong. Not unless the organization has some legal documentation which states that they represent the personal estate of that karate master.
Barring a will or other document that passes the IP rights to the estate of some karate organization, in theory the IP (if it even existed, which it probably didn't) would now belong to the master's _descendants_ -- but for IP that old, the protection would have expired by now (and by the 1950s) anyway.
That having been said...my understanding is that the American Taekwondo Association (ATA) *does* consider their poomsae to be the intellectual property of the ATA. I know the PDFs they provide to their schools have copyright notices on the bottom (which makes sense, since copyright doesn't cover ideas, only the _expression_ of ideas)...but I've always wondered what intellectual property protection they consider to apply to their poomsae? In theory you can also copyright choreography, so I've always wondered whether or not ATA considers their poomsae to fall under the IP category of _choreography_. You'll notice that I don't diagram the ATA poomsae on the taekwondo wiki...and that's why. I don't know what the IP status of this diagrams would be.

But ATA aside, that's why people can make diagrams, write instructions, write books, or make videos about kata, teul, or poomsae to their heart's content without worrying about IP infringement. None of those things -- to my knowledge -- have any associated IP protection.

How to Copyright Choreography


----------



## Prototype

dancingalone said:


> But that's an entirely subjective complaint you have there.  From my equally subjective perspective, I think Chang Hon varies the most by far from Japanese karate in things like blocking chambers and sine wave execution compared to KKW TKD or Chung Do Kwan TKD.  When I decided to recommit towards growing in TKD after years in karate, I actually ruled out ITF-type instructors precisely because the sine wave was too different for me to accept.
> 
> Unless you come up with an accepted scoring rubric based on research models to evaluate the degree of departure Chang Hon TKD has from Shotokan karate, you're just being opinionated.  Which is fine and all, but it's about as relevant as me not liking the ITF uniforms aesthetically or the flavor of Rocky Road ice cream for that matter.



Sine Wave was implemented about 25 years into Taekwon-Do. It was not part of the original system promoted. I don't think it's subjective that Chang Hon-TKD lifted it's handtechniques from Karate and tweaked the coloured Katas from Shotokan. Pretty damning evidence.


----------



## dancingalone

Prototype said:


> Sine Wave was implemented about 25 years into Taekwon-Do. It was not part of the original system promoted. I don't think it's subjective that Chang Hon-TKD lifted it's handtechniques from Karate and tweaked the coloured Katas from Shotokan. Pretty damning evidence.



You missed my point, but it's not worth discussing further.  Good luck to you.


----------



## Tez3

Prototype, what style of martial arts do you practice and how long have you been training?


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> Sine Wave was implemented about 25 years into Taekwon-Do. It was not part of the original system promoted. I don't think it's subjective that Chang Hon-TKD lifted it's handtechniques from Karate and tweaked the coloured Katas from Shotokan. Pretty damning evidence.



Chalk up another error for Prototype. The term "Sine Wave" makes it's appearance in the 1980 Encyclopedia.  That's 36 years ago. Further, the knee flexing which is what causes the "Sine Wave"  mention appears in the 1972 book. In the 1970's we referred to the Up Down motion as "Spring Style".


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> I didn't criticize him for it, I stated that it was an ironic fact/paradox. You extrapolate that to mean something negative. That being said, had this been in the United States in modern times, Choi Hong Hi could have been sued his pants off by various Shotokan Karate organisations (in principle). Let's not pretend otherwise.



If you imply that he would be sued for copying or plagiarizing, that has no more merit than saying the same orgs would be sued by orgs doing Shorin and Shorei.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> I am saying that if he wanted to pay tribute to Japanese representation, he couldn't have done a better job. That was not however the stated intent. The intent was the exact opposite - to differentiate.



Except that he credits not to the Japanese system, but the Okinawan predecessors..


----------



## Prototype

*Accuser: Gishin Funakoshi. Defendenant: Choi Hong Hi. Accusation: Plagiarism*.

 Now that's a trial I would pay to see. I would expect Choi to rant and rave  about the Japanese stealing Taekkyon kicking (lol) and Funakoshi to ask for his patterns back (...)

I wonder who wins that one.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Prototype said:


> *Accuser: Gishin Funakoshi. Defendenant: Choi Hong Hi. Accusation: Plagiarism*. Now that's a trial I would pay to see. I would expect Choi to rant and rave  about the Japanese stealing Taekkyon kicking (lol) and Funakoshi to ask for his patterns back (...)
> 
> I wonder who wins that one.



Umm.... maybe you don't realize this, but Master Weiss, the man you're attempting to argue the legal merits of this hypothetical case with, is actually a lawyer. You know... someone who gets paid to know about this stuff.

And of course, given the effectiveness of the industry in stopping international piracy (you know, the well known duping of DVDs in China, for example) TODAY, I really doubt your hypothetical international plagiarism suite would have gotten very far. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I will absolutely concede to whatever information Master Weiss  provides on this subject.


----------



## Tez3

Dirty Dog said:


> Umm.... maybe you don't realize this, but Master Weiss, the man you're attempting to argue the legal merits of this hypothetical case with, is actually a lawyer. You know... someone who gets paid to know about this stuff.
> 
> And of course, given the effectiveness of the industry in stopping international piracy (you know, the well known duping of DVDs in China, for example) TODAY, I really doubt your hypothetical international plagiarism suite would have gotten very far. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I will absolutely concede to whatever information Master Weiss  provides on this subject.



I'm neither TKD nor a lawyer but I also with go with what Master Weiss says on subjects he knows about.

Personally I think Prototype is what we call in Yorkshire sh*t stirring.


----------



## Prototype

Dirty Dog said:


> Umm.... maybe you don't realize this, but Master Weiss, the man you're attempting to argue the legal merits of this hypothetical case with, is actually a lawyer. You know... someone who gets paid to know about this stuff.



Doesn't mean that he is a *criminal* *defence *lawyer. There are different types of lawyers you know...


----------



## Dirty Dog

Prototype said:


> Doesn't mean that he is a *criminal* *defence *lawyer. There are different types of lawyers you know...



I do know. And I know that any lawyer, regardless of focus, is going to know more about the law than a layman. Just as it's safe to assume that I know more about obstetrics than a layman, even though it's not my specialty.


----------



## Tames D

Legal cases are often times lost due to incompetent attorneys. I'm not saying Mr. Weiss falls into this category and no disrespect intended. My point is... because someone has passed the bar and practices law, does not automatically mean they have the right answers. The same holds true for any profession.


----------



## Tez3

Prototype said:


> Doesn't mean that he is a *criminal* *defence *lawyer. There are different types of lawyers you know...



A criminal defence lawyer wouldn't deal with a plagiarism case as this is a civil matter. Such things as plagiarism etc are covered while taking your law degree and then again while training to be a lawyer. A law graduate spends time training to be an actual lawyer or solicitor before specialising, a law degree doesn't make you a lawyer.  
I would say it's a safe bet that Mr. Weiss would know a fair bit about something that also involves his martial arts studies.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Prototype said:


> *Accuser: Gishin Funakoshi. Defendenant: Choi Hong Hi. Accusation: Plagiarism*.
> 
> Now that's a trial I would pay to see. I would expect Choi to rant and rave about the Japanese stealing Taekkyon kicking (lol) and Funakoshi to ask for his patterns back (...)
> 
> I wonder who wins that one.


Well since they are both dead I would guess no one.


----------



## Tez3

RTKDCMB said:


> Well since they are both dead i would guess no one.



Perhaps we could have a séance....where they both turned round and said 'STFU and train'  And we all said 'amen' to that.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> Doesn't mean that he is a *criminal* *defence *lawyer. There are different types of lawyers you know...





Tez3 said:


> A criminal defence lawyer wouldn't deal with a plagiarism case as this is a civil matter.



Hmm, seems Protoype  messed up again.   Another Bad conclusion based on an erroneous premise.


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> Hmm, seems Protoype  messed up again.   Another Bad conclusion based on an erroneous premise.




I didn't mess up earlier. 1955+25=1980


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> *Accuser: Gishin Funakoshi. Defendenant: Choi Hong Hi. Accusation: Plagiarism*.
> 
> Now that's a trial I would pay to see. I would expect Choi to rant and rave  about the Japanese stealing Taekkyon kicking (lol) and Funakoshi to ask for his patterns back (...)
> 
> I wonder who wins that one.



Well then we can continue to argue about how many angels fit on the head of a a pin. Would the Okinawans join in claimin Funakoshi copied there stuff, and of course then the chines come in claiming the same of the Okinawans. 

The History of the Shotokan Kata – Part One.   
Why is this conspicuously absent from your complaints?


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> I didn't mess up earlier. 1955+25=1980



I stand corrected- to an extent . Misread your post as "25 Years Ago" as opposed to "25 Years Into" which is of course the first publication of the term.  As indicated, long before that the knee flexion existed and was referred to in the USA informally as "Spring Style".


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> I stand corrected- to an extent . Misread your post as "25 Years Ago" as opposed to "25 Years Into" which is of course the first publication of the term.  As indicated, long before that the knee flexion existed and was referred to in the USA informally as "Spring Style".



So? Still *not* part of the original system promoted as you see can see here :


----------



## Azulx

Prototype said:


> So? Still *not* part of the original system promoted as you see can see here :


Really cool video thank for sharing!


----------



## Earl Weiss

You tube caption says filmed late 1950's or early 1960's . Uses terminology and methodology from the 1965 Book which the author  explicitly states had numerous errors but the need to get a book out trumped the need for perfection. 

Much was refined by the time the 1972 Book came out in English, earlier in Korean, and as was often the case the pioneers could be seen using many habits from their Kwan which filtered through to the new system .  

Note that my time line referenced the early 1970's so this video really has no bearing on the time line.   The Shorin and Shorei roots are undeniable except to those using the "Straw man"  logical fallacy claiming that they are denied.


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> Note that my time line referenced the early 1970's so this video really has no bearing on the time line.



I already adressed that and will do so again. 1972 is a good *9* years after the Chang Hon patterns were completed (1963) and the original system was being promoted. I linked to a *promotional video* with no knee spring/Sine Wave of any sorts. There is no escaping this.


----------



## Tez3

Prototype said:


> I already adressed that and will do so again. 1972 is a good *9* years after the Chang Hon patterns were completed (1963) and the original system was being promoted. I linked to a *promotional video* with no knee spring/Sine Wave of any sorts. There is no escaping this.



...and you haven't thought about actually answering the OP's question at all? I rather think if he'd wanted an argument about TKD he'd have phrased it in such a way he'd have got one instead he asked for the differences between karate and TKD.


----------



## Prototype

I don't believe the video of the patterns is from the late 50s as the YouTube user estimated. There are 21 patterns displayed. If it that video was the late 50s, it  would have to entail that it took Choi several years for the last three patterns to be formed, which I don't buy. So my best bet is that the video is somewhere between 1960-1963.


----------



## Prototype

To the thread topic: The traditional Shotokan way of throwing a turning kick/roundhouse (13:25:






The Chang Hon TKD way (3:05): 



 3:05

I will leave it up to the viewers to decide if there is a difference.


----------



## NinjaChristian

Tez3 said:


> ...and you haven't thought about actually answering the OP's question at all? I rather think if he'd wanted an argument about TKD he'd have phrased it in such a way he'd have got one instead he asked for the differences between karate and TKD.


I am so confused... Does any of what's being talked about have anything to do with the topic? It seems it turned into an argument about what styles of karate actually went into taekwondo. Thank you for you efforts to return the thread to the topic. 

By the way, I just learned the "knee kick" is in taekwondo(the one that is thrown like a push kick, except the foot never comes out). Also, another knee strike that is in taekwondo is the "turning knee kick"(made up that term, not sure what it is called) it's thrown like a round kick, but the tool is the knee. I saw it in general Choi's encyclopedia; not sure if my school teaches it though.

 Does wado have sticky hands or something similar? I don't think TKD has it, and if it does it is very limited.

Just about any kick you can think of is in taekwondo, the only one I have never seen is a certain kung fu kick (tai chi?) that comes off the back leg with the toes pointing outward.
looks like this, but I have seen it thrown higher. makes a nasty check for a round house.


----------



## Jaeimseu

NinjaChristian said:


> I am so confused... Does any of what's being talked about have anything to do with the topic? It seems it turned into an argument about what styles of karate actually went into taekwondo. Thank you for you efforts to return the thread to the topic.
> 
> By the way, I just learned the "knee kick" is in taekwondo(the one that is thrown like a push kick, except the foot never comes out). Also, another knee strike that is in taekwondo is the "turning knee kick"(made up that term, not sure what it is called) it's thrown like a round kick, but the tool is the knee. I saw it in general Choi's encyclopedia; not sure if my school teaches it though.
> 
> Does wado have sticky hands or something similar? I don't think TKD has it, and if it does it is very limited.
> 
> Just about any kick you can think of is in taekwondo, the only one I have never seen is a certain kung fu kick (tai chi?) that comes off the back leg with the toes pointing outward.
> looks like this, but I have seen it thrown higher. makes a nasty check for a round house.
> View attachment 19864


In my opinion, if a technique involves striking a target with the arms or legs, it's in Taekwondo. It may not be in the poomse/tul, but it's part of Taekwondo.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> I already adressed that and will do so again. 1972 is a good *9* years after the Chang Hon patterns were completed (1963) and the original system was being promoted. I linked to a *promotional video* with no knee spring/Sine Wave of any sorts. There is no escaping this.



It doesn't need to be escaped because it's wrong. 1965 book only had 20 of the 24 patterns. So, 20% of the patterns were not completed (at least not circulated in any meaningful manner until the 1972 Book was available.)

Video clearly uses 1965 Book Material - Not 1972 Book and later.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> I don't believe the video of the patterns is from the late 50s as the YouTube user estimated. There are 21 patterns displayed. If it that video was the late 50s, it  would have to entail that it took Choi several years for the last three patterns to be formed, which I don't buy. So my best bet is that the video is somewhere between 1960-1963.


I see, you cite a source then denounce it as inaccurate using only the parts you like to support your argument and rejecting the rest. .   Since the 1965 Book only contains 20 patterns with the last 4 appearing in the 1972 Book it seems more than logical that the last were completed after this video during whatever time line. In addittion to more patterns there were many refinements in terminology and technical parameters during this time.


----------



## Earl Weiss

NinjaChristian said:


> By the way, I just learned the "knee kick" is in taekwondo(the one that is thrown like a push kick, except the foot never comes out). Also, another knee strike that is in taekwondo is the "turning knee kick"(made up that term, not sure what it is called) it's thrown like a round kick, but the tool is the knee. I saw it in general Choi's encyclopedia; not sure if my school teaches it though.
> 
> Just about any kick you can think of is in taekwondo, the only one I have never seen is a certain kung fu kick (tai chi?) that comes off the back leg with the toes pointing outward.
> looks like this, but I have seen it thrown higher. makes a nasty check for a round house.
> View attachment 19864



FWIW there are both "Front Kick with Knee" and "Turning Kick with Knee" In General Choi's system.

Tough to tell from photo, but could be similar to "Inward Side pressing kick " used to attack the knee joint.


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> It doesn't need to be escaped because it's wrong. 1965 book only had 20 of the 24 patterns. So, 20% of the patterns were not completed (at least not circulated in any meaningful manner until the 1972 Book was available.)
> 
> Video clearly uses 1965 Book Material - Not 1972 Book and later.



_"Grandmaster Choi had completed Tong Il, the final Pattern of the original 24 Tul by 1963"_
_
http://www.itkd.co.nz/reference/essays/6-pattern-history.pdf

_


----------



## Prototype

With the exception of Kyokushinkai, not all Karate organisations will include breaking. Some current day Karate chief instructors deem breaking "cartoonish" and "silly". Taekwondo organisations will however invariably include breaking.


----------



## NinjaChristian

Prototype said:


> _"Grandmaster Choi had completed Tong Il, the final Pattern of the original 24 Tul by 1963"
> 
> http://www.itkd.co.nz/reference/essays/6-pattern-history.pdf
> _


just curious... what exactly are you guys arguing about?


----------



## NinjaChristian

Earl Weiss said:


> FWIW there are both "Front Kick with Knee" and "Turning Kick with Knee" In General Choi's system.
> 
> Tough to tell from photo, but could be similar to "Inward Side pressing kick " used to attack the knee joint.


I have the condensed version of the encyclopedia. I think that the "front kick with knee" was left out of it. same thing for the foot placement in the forms. Sad, because i was hoping it would have that. You get what you pay for I guess...


----------



## Prototype

NinjaChristian said:


> just curious... what exactly are you guys arguing about?



That the original TaeKwon-Do system from General Choi was promoted without Knee Spring/Sinewave. It was Shotokan repackaged.


----------



## NinjaChristian

Prototype said:


> That the original TaeKwon-Do system from General Choi was promoted without Knee Spring/Sinewave. It was Shotokan repackaged.


I don't know about the knee spring, but my instructor said that sine wave actually is in karate(I forget which style) under the name "compression". He said that the "sine wave" is more pronounced in TKD than in karate, but karate does have it.


----------



## Tez3

NinjaChristian said:


> I don't know about the knee spring, but my instructor said that sine wave actually is in karate(I forget which style) under the name "compression". He said that the "sine wave" is more pronounced in TKD than in karate, but karate does have it.



I've not come across it but that means little lol. I also don't have any idea what 'sine wave' is or what it's for....that wasn't me asking for an explanation lol. I find differences between styles very interesting but definitely not worth arguing over.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tez3 said:


> I've not come across it but that means little lol. I also don't have any idea what 'sine wave' is or what it's for....that wasn't me asking for an explanation lol. I find differences between styles very interesting but definitely not worth arguing over.



Sine wave is an ITF-ish thing. It's moving the body up and down during techniques in poomsae and is supposed to generate more power. It was not a part of my earliest training, but it was certainly in use in the schools I attended by the mid- late-70's. I remain unconvinced that it actually does develop more power in the strikes, but if it's part of the standards for a given school, then students should certainly work on it.
Perhaps it does make tons more power for some. I'm just not one of them.


----------



## Tez3

Dirty Dog said:


> Sine wave is an ITF-ish thing. It's moving the body up and down during techniques in poomsae and is supposed to generate more power. It was not a part of my earliest training, but it was certainly in use in the schools I attended by the mid- late-70's. I remain unconvinced that it actually does develop more power in the strikes, but if it's part of the standards for a given school, then students should certainly work on it.
> Perhaps it does make tons more power for some. I'm just not one of them.



Ah, I see. Moving up and down was very definitely discouraged in my karate classes, the instructor would complain if anyone looked as if they weren't moving steadily as he called it, as it made him seasick! We were told to keep on the level if you know what I mean. I think beginners tend to bob up and down, I know that when doing some stances for the first few times they tend to have their feet in line with each other which made them very unstable and likely to bob up and down. We'd be told that when you walk it's on two parallel lines not one foot exactly in front of another so it's the same with front, back, cat stance etc.


----------



## TrueJim

Tez3 said:


> ...We'd be told that when you walk it's on two parallel lines not one foot exactly in front of another so it's the same with front, back, cat stance etc.



Even walking on two lines...doesn't it take extra leg/knee strength to keep a uniform height as you go through the poomsae? For example if I'm in a long-front-stance, and I step forward into another long-front-stance, in order to keep my head-height uniform as I step, I need to be holding all my weight on one leg with a bent knee as I step forward. On some days that even makes my knees creak a bit. 

So with regard to beginners, I think to some extent the problem is that they haven't yet developed the muscle memory to keep their head-height constant throughout the step, but in some cases also their joints and muscles aren't yet strong enough to do it well. Personally, not keeping constant head-height is something I always need to keep working on.

FYI Taekwondo Sine Wave


----------



## Prototype

Dirty Dog said:


> It was not a part of my earliest training



Glad to see we have dinosaurs in here who were actually around and are able to refute rubbish claims. You started training ITF when exactly?


----------



## Tez3

TrueJim said:


> Even walking on two lines...doesn't it take extra leg/knee strength to keep a uniform height as you go through the poomsae? For example if I'm in a long-front-stance, and I step forward into another long-front-stance, in order to keep my head-height uniform as I step, I need to be holding all my weight on one leg with a bent knee as I step forward. On some days that even makes my knees creak a bit.
> 
> So with regard to beginners, I think to some extent the problem is that they haven't yet developed the muscle memory to keep their head-height constant throughout the step, but in some cases also their joints and muscles aren't yet strong enough to do it well. Personally, not keeping constant head-height is something I always need to keep working on.
> 
> FYI Taekwondo Sine Wave




In Wado our stances are shorter and more upright than Shotokan's ( that's the only other karate style I know) we have 26 or so stances lol. We have a very short one which I believe is also used in kendo and aikido called Renojidachi, we have four front stances, none of which are as deep as TKDs or TSDs.

In Shingo Ohgami's book ( my favourite reference) he says when training Junzuki you have to be careful concerning the following points Quote 1. Keep your body straight ( keep your back vertical to the floor) from the beginning to the end (  balance). 2. Keep the same height. Don't go up and down ( concentration of energy, the principle of the shortest distance). Unquote. He does say at a very advance level it's possible to use the energy of going up and down to get more power but I don't know anyone who does it, perhaps it's very, very advanced lol. Perhaps too it may work on the shorter stances we do rather than the deeper ones? I don't know, I tend to know what works for me and for students but the science type stuff is beyond me. In the book there's some amazing equations he does to show the power of strikes, goes way over my head I'm afraid. Starts off  " when a force meets a surface s, the effective element of F to s is the vertical part of F, that is to say F sin" ...... and there is goes off into symbols I can't even find on my keyboard never mind my brain lol!  It's a cracking book though as is the companion one on kata's.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> _"Grandmaster Choi had completed Tong Il, the final Pattern of the original 24 Tul by 1963"
> 
> http://www.itkd.co.nz/reference/essays/6-pattern-history.pdf
> _



Thank You for providing the source.   Sorry to say but the source is wrong depending on how you look at it and here is why.   Tong Il is the Final Pattern and it appears in the 1965 Book. However , that book only contains the 20 patterns that he had created for circulation prior to that point.   4 more were created after that and did not appear in publication until the 1972 Book. Tong Il remained  as the Final pattern.


----------



## Earl Weiss

NinjaChristian said:


> I have the condensed version of the encyclopedia. I think that the "front kick with knee" was left out of it. same thing for the foot placement in the forms. Sad, because i was hoping it would have that. You get what you pay for I guess...



 Sorry, My terminology error. Check Toi Gye # 21 , It's "Upward Kick " with knee, not front kick.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> That the original TaeKwon-Do system from General Choi was promoted without Knee Spring/Sinewave. It was Shotokan repackaged.



Therein lies the debate.  Prototype like lots of General Choi detractors claims General Choi simply repackaged Shotokan.  yet they choose to ignore that the same could be said of Fuankoshi repackaging Shorin and Shorei systems, or Kano repackaging Ju Jitsu ,  Ueshiba repackaging etc. etc. etc. 

Further it's silly to make such a critique when those such as General Choi, Fuankoshi etc. readily acknowledge and give credit to the roots of their arts. 

As the OP questioned "What are the differences" .  That is like asking about the differences between breeds of dogs.   Some are very simiklar, some less so, yet they are distinctive.


----------



## NinjaChristian

Earl Weiss said:


> Sorry, My terminology error. Check Toi Gye # 21 , It's "Upward Kick " with knee, not front kick.


I am talking about the knee strike where you pick up your knee and thrust it forward with your hips, as opposed to lifting it straight up as when attacking a bent over target.


----------



## Azulx

Where can I get Gen. Choi's encyclopedia?


----------



## TrueJim

Earl Weiss said:


> ...lots of General Choi detractors claims General Choi simply repackaged Shotokan.  yet they choose to ignore that the same could be said of Fuankoshi repackaging Shorin and Shorei systems, or Kano repackaging Ju Jitsu, Ueshiba repackaging etc. etc. etc.



Just to pile-on: *Yes*. As I alluded to a couple of pages ago, Prototype has a death-grip on the obvious. His contention is neither new nor interesting. Taekwondo is largely based on Shotokan and nowadays essentially everybody acknowledges this. Perhaps in the 1950-1960s some taekwondo pioneers might have been loathe to admit this, but at this point it's just well-known, widely-acknowledged history. The early pioneers took karate, sprinkled in a bit of this and that...and out came taekwondo. Which is basically how *all* new martial arts have been developed throughout history.

Gillis was making a similar rant a few weeks ago in his Facebook group, at which time I pointed out: Alex...you won, ages ago. But some people just can't admit victory.


----------



## TrueJim

Azulx said:


> Where can I get Gen. Choi's encyclopedia?



Some freely-downloadable PDFs can be found here: The Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do

If anybody knows of downloadable links to other editions, I'd love to know them.


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> Therein lies the debate.  Prototype like lots of General Choi detractors claims General Choi simply repackaged Shotokan.  yet they choose to ignore that the same could be said of Fuankoshi repackaging Shorin and Shorei systems, or Kano repackaging Ju Jitsu ,  Ueshiba repackaging etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Further it's silly to make such a critique when those such as General Choi, Fuankoshi etc. readily acknowledge and give credit to the roots of their arts.



Funakoshi also made his own mark on Karate, for better or worse. Either he or his son implemented mawashi geri(roundhouse kick) among other things. General Choi took *everything* from those systems, including philosophy, and pretended it was Korean made. Choi offically declared in 1963 that all traces of Karate were eliminated. His own patterns were completed by that time, or that statement would make very little sense. Why there are only 20 patterns in the 1965 edition may have been for other reasons.


----------



## TrueJim

Prototype said:


> General Choi took *everything* from those systems, including philosophy, and pretended it was Korean made...



Yah! He took everything! You hear me? EVERYTHING!!! Except...the forms. And he made a lot of small changes to the stances and the techniques. And developed his own theory of power. And added Sine Wave. And made up his own Oath and Tenets. But other than that...he took EVERYTHING!


----------



## Prototype

TrueJim said:


> Yah! He took everything! You hear me? EVERYTHING!!! Except...the forms.



Newsflash: The forms are from, guess again, Shotokan. They are mixed around.















TrueJim said:


> And he made a lot of small changes to the stances.



No he didn't. I already refuted that, easily.



TrueJim said:


> And developed his own theory of power. And added Sine Wave. And made up his own Oath and Tenets.



Not in the 50 and 60s he didn't.


----------



## NinjaChristian

Prototype said:


> Funakoshi also made his own mark on Karate, for better or worse. Either he or his son implemented mawashi geri(roundhouse kick) among other things. General Choi took *everything* from those systems, including philosophy, and pretended it was Korean made. Choi officially declared in 1963 that all traces of Karate were eliminated. His own patterns were completed by that time, or that statement would make very little sense. Why there are only 20 patterns in the 1965 edition may have been for other reasons.





Earl Weiss said:


> Therein lies the debate.  Prototype like lots of General Choi detractors claims General Choi simply repackaged Shotokan.  yet they choose to ignore that the same could be said of Fuankoshi repackaging Shorin and Shorei systems, or Kano repackaging Ju Jitsu ,  Ueshiba repackaging etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Further it's silly to make such a critique when those such as General Choi, Fuankoshi etc. readily acknowledge and give credit to the roots of their arts.
> 
> As the OP questioned "What are the differences" .  That is like asking about the differences between breeds of dogs.   Some are very simiklar, some less so, yet they are distinctive.


If this argument _must _continue, please start a new thread devoted to that topic. I am sure much can be learned from your guys knowledge on the subject, but I would appreciate it if this thread was brought back to the original topic now.


----------



## Prototype

NinjaChristian said:


> If this argument _must _continue, please start a new thread devoted to that topic. I am sure much can be learned from your guys knowledge on the subject, but I would appreciate it if this thread was brought back to the original topic now.



If you are led to believe that the blocks or whatever are different, why not just google it?


----------



## NinjaChristian

Which style or styles of karate are most like TKD? Which style or styles of karate are least like TKD?  What makes them different from TKD, and what makes them similar?


----------



## TrueJim

Prototype said:


> ...Not in the 50 and 60s he didn't.



So I guess your thesis is....that during the 1950s, before Choi had _finished_ making all of his changes to Shotokan, he still should have been _calling_ it Shotokan? Like, the fact that Choi was in the _process_ of making changes isn't good enough...until he had all the changes finished, he should have kept with the "Shotokan" name.

I mean, Choi wasn't _calling_ it taekwondo either, not until the 1960s, so your complaint can't be that Choi was calling Shotokan "taekwondo" -- because clearly he wasn't -- the term hadn't even been coined yet. Choi didn't start calling it taekwondo until he had a lot of his changes in place. But that's not good enough?


----------



## NinjaChristian

Azulx said:


> Where can I get Gen. Choi's encyclopedia?


I got my condensed version from amazon.com. The full version is a lot more expensive, but it also contains much more detail. I have(well, had, until I find it again ) the 1965 version; apparently there is a later version, but I am not sure of the differences.


----------



## Prototype

NinjaChristian said:


> Which style or styles of karate are most like TKD? Which style or styles of karate are least like TKD?  What makes them different from TKD, and what makes them similar?



Dude, there are half a dozen TKD styles. KKW/WTF  is the least similiar one - they chamber their kicks completely different from Karatekas. ITF/Chang Hon is the most similiar - they chamber identically.

Here you can see the two difference ways of chambering the kicks:

KKW/WTF style (picture( - ITF Vs Kukkiwon Dollyo Chagi

ITF style (picture) roundhouse kick | Taekwondo Fighter


So: ITF identical to Shotokan (semi circle chambering). KKW (Straight chamber) not at all like Karate styles.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Prototype said:


> Glad to see we have dinosaurs in here who were actually around and are able to refute rubbish claims. You started training ITF when exactly?



1968 or 1969. 
However, I'm not in any way supporting your rubbish claims. Given how new the curriculum was, I'd say it was far more likely that my earliest training - which took place on American Air Force bases, for the most part - was not up to the standards the General wanted. It's not like there were enough high-Dan instructors to go around, at that time.


----------



## Prototype

TrueJim said:


> So I guess your thesis is....that during the 1950s, before Choi had _finished_ making all of his changes to Shotokan, he still should have been _calling_ it Shotokan? Like, the fact that Choi was in the _process_ of making changes isn't good enough...until he had all the changes finished, he should have kept with the "Shotokan" name.



1960s too. No fundamental changes even when the forms (lifted from Shotokan) had come into existence. "Hey, let's raise or lower our arm or stance an inch and call it Korean". After all, it's not *technically, by the millimeter,* the same.


----------



## Prototype

Dirty Dog said:


> 1968 or 1969.



Cool.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Earl Weiss said:


> Sorry, My terminology error. Check Toi Gye # 21 , It's "Upward Kick " with knee, not front kick.



To revise my "Correction" checked text. try index under "Front Kick" Patterns Toi Gye and Choong  Moo use the "Upward Kick"  with the Knee.

Front Kick tool options use Ball of foot, Toes and Knee.


----------



## Earl Weiss

TrueJim said:


> Some freely-downloadable PDFs can be found here: The Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do
> 
> If anybody knows of downloadable links to other editions, I'd love to know them.


 I have the 15 Volume hard set as well as the CD ROM set, but I downloaded the 15 Volumes from the Blue Cottage site so I could put it on my I Phone.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> ......General Choi took *everything* from those systems, including philosophy, and pretended it was Korean made. .............................



Yep that is why so much time is devoted in the 1965 Book to the Shorin and Shorei patterns and systems because he wanted to show all that material to pretend it wasn't there?   Or do you simply choose to ignore that?


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> Yep that is why so much time is devoted in the 1965 Book to the Shorin and Shorei patterns and systems because he wanted to show all that material to pretend it wasn't there?   Or do you simply choose to ignore that?



How peculiar then that his Chang Hon patterns were lifted from *Shotokan* and not the Okinawa ancestors... I am not the least surprised that he emphazised the non Japanese elements. That is to be expected.


----------



## Prototype

By the way, the 1965 encyclopedia  is simply an english version of the 1959 Korean book. That's why there are only 20 patterns. You can download it here for free: Free download of Gen. Choi Hong Hi's Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do! (1965 condensed edition) • /r/taekwondo


----------



## Gnarlie

Prototype said:


> That the original TaeKwon-Do system from General Choi was promoted without Knee Spring/Sinewave. It was Shotokan repackaged.


In the same way that you are banned user Laplace_Demon repackaged, you mean?

Your belligerent posting style and failure to answer questions about your own experience give you away.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> Why there are only 20 patterns in the 1965 edition may have been for other reasons.



OK, if you choose to believe based upon the NZ website that 24 Patterns were completed before 1965, yet it makes little difference if they were completed yet not in circulation since the point I was trying to make was the system was still undergoing major refinements from 1965-1972.   As further evidence that this is correct, even such luminaries as He Il Cho in his "Complete" book of patterns (1981 date) and Jhoon Rhee's book - 1971, only have 20 patterns. Further, such pioneers as Han Cha Kyo and Nam Tae Hi only taught / new those 20 patterns.   Again, point being that there was plenty  of stuff, that the early guys had not adopted for a variety of reasons.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> How peculiar then that his Chang Hon patterns were lifted from *Shotokan* and not the Okinawa ancestors... I am not the least surprised that he emphazised the non Japanese elements. That is to be expected.



Not sure why you say that since here is the ancestor version of what you post at 253




. 

Funakoshi and General got theres from the same place. 

Sounds like the Bill Gates detractors who say he got the mouse and GUI from Apple when both he and Steve Jobs got it from   Xerox PARC.


----------



## TrueJim

Earl Weiss said:


> Funakoshi and General got theres from the same place.
> 
> Sounds like the Bill Gates detractors who say he got the mouse and GUI from Apple when both he and Steve Jobs got it from   Xerox PARC.



Agreed 100%. I'm still trying to figure out what Prototype's thesis is. Apparently it's: "Choi should have been calling his art Shotokan in the 1960s because even though he wasn't teaching Shotokan forms, the forms he was teaching have combinations of movements that are also seen in Shotokan forms."


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> Not sure why you say that since here is the ancestor version of what you post at 253
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Funakoshi and General got theres from the same place.
> 
> Sounds like the Bill Gates detractors who say he got the mouse and GUI from Apple when both he and Steve Jobs got it from   Xerox PARC.



Mr Weiss, I suggest you open the 59/65 encyclopedia and look at the forward/walking stance. It is suspiciously low compared to the Okinawa style...and quite identical to the Shotokan revision. I wonder why.


----------



## Tez3




----------



## Tez3

Prototype said:


> Mr Weiss, I suggest you open the 59/65 encyclopedia and look at the forward/walking stance. It is suspiciously low compared to the Okinawa style...and quite identical to the Shotokan revision. I wonder why.



How many times are you planning on ignoring the OP? Why don't you start another thread about this and argue away there to your heart's content so this thread can go back to the original subject.


----------



## Prototype

Tez3 said:


> How many times are you planning on ignoring the OP? Why don't you start another thread about this and argue away there to your heart's content so this thread can go back to the original subject.



It takes two to tango, and this is certainly the thread subject. Perhaps the thread subject in 1965 but still.


----------



## TrueJim

Tez3 said:


> ...so this thread can go back to the original subject.



I thought we pretty-much already answered the OP in prior pages of the thread? To recap the notes of prior pages:

Answering the question requires making large generalizations since there are several styles of karate and several styles of taekwondo.
So it's difficult to point to _specific_ differences between karate and taekwondo, since there are different styles of each.
For instance one might say that "a karate low block ends here, whereas a taekwondo low block ends there"...but those sorts of statements about specific techniques only apply when discussing a specific style of karate and a specific style of taekwondo.

But if one _had_ to make large generalizations, the list would probably look something like this:
Some styles of taekwondo tend to emphasize narrower, more agile stances than karate so that a person is better positioned for high, jumping, and turning kicks...whereas some styles of karate tend to favor more stable (and therefore presumably less agile) stances.
More than some styles of karate, some styles of taekwondo tend to emphasize turning kicks more than linear kicks.
More than some styles of karate, some styles of taekwondo tend to emphasize _speed_ as the most important mechanism for generating power.
And of course, many styles of taekwondo use forms that are different than many styles of karate.


----------



## Tez3

I think we are looking at specific things like stances, kicks, strikes etc rather than generalisations ie in Wado we do it like 'this', in Shotokan they do it like 'that' and in TKD they have 'this' plus hopefully people from other styles would have joined in. It's the little things that are interesting but now it's turned into a TKD argument which is disappointing.


----------



## TrueJim

Tez3 said:


> I think we are looking at specific things like stances, kicks, strikes etc rather than generalizations...



Do you mean (for example):

We are looking for strikes that are used in taekwondo but are not used in karate
Or do you mean:

Here's a strike that's used in both taekwondo and karate, but here's how the two versions are different
In other words, are you asking *which techniques* are in one but not the other, or are you asking how the techniques that are common to both *differ*?

I'm not an expert on this, but I don't know either question has good answers. For almost any stance, kick, or strike that you find in one style of karate, I would imagine you can probably find a corresponding stance, kick, or strike in some style of taekwondo somewhere.

Likewise, one could ask "how does a taekwondo low block differ from a karate low block" but since different styles of each may do a low block differently, you have to make the question much more specific, such as "how does a low block in ITF-style taekwondo differ from a low block in Shotokan karate" ...because even different styles of karate or taekwondo may perform the block a bit differently.


----------



## TrueJim

What do people think of these two examples? I don't know that they're true, so I'm asking...

1. When performing an Outside Middle Block in karate, the blocking surface tends to be the inner forearm, whereas when performing an Outside Middle Block in taekwondo, it's more common to see the outer forearm as the striking surface.

2. A Double Knifehand Block (i.e., an augmented knife hand outside block) is commonly seen in taekwondo, but is rarely seen in karate.


----------



## Tez3

TrueJim said:


> Do you mean (for example):
> 
> We are looking for strikes that are used in taekwondo but are not used in karate
> Or do you mean:
> 
> Here's a strike that's used in both taekwondo and karate, but here's how the two versions are different
> In other words, are you asking *which techniques* are in one but not the other, or are you asking how the techniques that are common to both *differ*?
> 
> I'm not an expert on this, but I don't know either question has good answers. For almost any stance, kick, or strike that you find in one style of karate, I would imagine you can probably find a corresponding stance, kick, or strike in some style of taekwondo somewhere.
> 
> Likewise, one could ask "how does a taekwondo low block differ from a karate low block" but since different styles of each may do a low block differently, you have to make the question much more specific, such as "how does a low block in ITF-style taekwondo differ from a low block in Shotokan karate" ...because even different styles of karate or taekwondo may perform the block a bit differently.




The idea I imagine was that people who train different styles of karate and TKD could compare how they do things, not just Shotokan but all the different styles so it would have been interesting for all of us. Remember I'm not the OP, I'm trying to stop the arguing.


----------



## TrueJim

I've only trained two styles: back when I was young, a more karate-like version of taekwondo at a college club, and now the Kukkiwon style. I'm not an expert in either style, but here are some things I needed to unlearn/relearn when I reentered taekwondo:

When I was young, we were taught to make our long-front-stances low, square, and stable. Now I'm generally taught to make my stances higher, narrower, and more agile.
In particular I really miss my old Horse-Riding Stances which were nice and low, which made them fun, whereas now our Horse-Riding Stance seems boringly high to me. (I liked feeling that burn in my quads while doing punching drills!)
When I was young, there seemed to be more emphasis on keeping my torso squared during the movement (moving just the hips) whereas now it seems I'm allowed to twist my torso as well as the hips. Newer taekwondo generally seems more "twisty" to me. (In fact, apparently we're now allowed to be so twisty that we even "teacup" the outside middle block when in a back stance!)
While in both styles I was taught to twist my fist during the block or punch, in the older style it seems like the twisting motion was supposed to be fairly uniform through the movement, whereas now I'm supposed to save most of the twist for the end, to create more snap. (Sometimes we drill on punching out candle flames, which I think is fun. I don't think my old punch would be very good at that...not snappy enough.)
Nowadays I'm taught that my inside middle block should lead with the elbow (again, to improve the snap), but that's not something that I was taught before.

Generally, the chambers for many of the blocks are different. For example for an inner-forearm outside-middle-block, I'm now taught to chamber the blocking fist with the thumb against the body so that the fist can rotate during the block, whereas back in the day I was taught to chamber with the _base_ of the blocking fist touching the body. Also, the old chamber was lower toward the hip, whereas now the chamber is higher on the ribs, I'm told to make the block faster. Again, more emphasis on "twisting" and "speed" in the newer style.
In fact, there seems to be a LOT more emphasis on chambering now. Before the emphasis seemed to be on the movement and how it finishes...less emphasis on how you chamber at the outset.
In the old days it seems like we didn't just drill on punching, we also drilled on knifehand strikes, ridgehand strikes, knuckle strikes, etc. Now it seems like when we're drilling strikes it's mostly just punches (with of course lots of knifehands appearing in the poomsae).
Of course the foot position for kicks is very different now. Before the front kicks and roundhouse kicks struck with the _ball_ of the foot rather than the top of the foot. But of course that only applies to things like breaking...in poomsae we're still taught to curl the toes back on front kicks and roundhouse kicks. But boy did the straightened toes feel unnatural when I first started Kukkiwon-style!
I feel like my old side kicks were taught with more hip-turnover, so that they bordered on almost looking like a back-kick at full extension, whereas now the hip seems to be turned-over less. Also, there seems to be even MORE emphasis now on rotating the base foot more during the kick.
As previously mentioned, we never even practiced double knife hand blocks or outer-forearm outside blocks, which is why I still struggle to make those blocks look pretty. (Hard to teach an old dog new tricks.)
While we did practice things like spinning back hook kicks back in the day, there was nothing like the tornado kick in our club. Likewise, we did practice some jump kicks, but not as many as what we practice now.
We do one-step sparring sometimes nowadays at my schools, whereas back in the day we did one-steps during almost every class. They seemed to have been viewed as being much more important back in that old club.
Of course the uniforms were different.  I like the pullover better than the crossover though. Back in the day we trained on hardwood floors (a racquetball court) rather than these sissy millennials that want nice cushy mats under their feet (kidding!  My old knees like the mats.)
But how many of these things are truly difference in the _style_, and not just differences in _instructor_? That I don't know. I suspect lots of other people in this thread are in that same boat..."Well, I can tell you what's change since when I started...but is that a difference in style, or just a difference in the instructor?"


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> Mr Weiss, I suggest you open the 59/65 encyclopedia and look at the forward/walking stance. It is suspiciously low compared to the Okinawa style...and quite identical to the Shotokan revision. I wonder why.



It's no wonder. Top Martial artists were recruited into the 29th Infantry division. They  consisted predominantly of CDK people among them the most hands on senior  instructor at the time Nam Tae Hi. as well as Han Cha Kyo. The CDK was basically doing Shotokan at the time. 
This is where the initial group of instructors was developed, sent out to do demos and ultimately spread far and wide teaching the system.   CDK luminaries included Jhoon Rhee, He Il Cho, and HU Lee. 

Took me a while to fix stuff which came thru lineage to pioneers, and I know some of the Pioneers never changed their habits. 

So,in 1959 that is what you got.   Even decades  later that is how their progeny were trained.   The need to get a book out trumped the need for a thoroughly refined manual. The 1972 Book made many refinements. The 1980 Encyclopedia had a lot more detail.


----------



## Earl Weiss

TrueJim said:


> What do people think of these two examples? I don't know that they're true, so I'm asking...
> 
> 1. When performing an Outside Middle Block in karate, the blocking surface tends to be the inner forearm, whereas when performing an Outside Middle Block in taekwondo, it's more common to see the outer forearm as the striking surface.
> 
> .



Since the Chang Hon system has numerous inner forearm blocks including 4 in the  fundamental exercise and 4 in the first pattern I could not agree with the above.   I will let others answer for other TKD systems  as well as their opinion on the prevalence of the respective blocks in various Karate systems.


----------



## NinjaChristian

TrueJim said:


> I've only trained two styles: back when I was young, a more karate-like version of taekwondo at a college club, and now the Kukkiwon style. I'm not an expert in either style, but here are some things I needed to unlearn/relearn when I reentered taekwondo:
> 
> When I was young, we were taught to make our long-front-stances low, square, and stable. Now I'm generally taught to make my stances higher, narrower, and more agile.
> In particular I really miss my old Horse-Riding Stances which were nice and low, which made them fun, whereas now our Horse-Riding Stance seems boringly high to me. (I liked feeling that burn in my quads while doing punching drills!)
> When I was young, there seemed to be more emphasis on keeping my torso squared during the movement (moving just the hips) whereas now it seems I'm allowed to twist my torso as well as the hips. Newer taekwondo generally seems more "twisty" to me. (In fact, apparently we're now allowed to be so twisty that we even "teacup" the outside middle block when in a back stance!)
> While in both styles I was taught to twist my fist during the block or punch, in the older style it seems like the twisting motion was supposed to be fairly uniform through the movement, whereas now I'm supposed to save most of the twist for the end, to create more snap. (Sometimes we drill on punching out candle flames, which I think is fun. I don't think my old punch would be very good at that...not snappy enough.)
> Nowadays I'm taught that my inside middle block should lead with the elbow (again, to improve the snap), but that's not something that I was taught before.
> 
> Generally, the chambers for many of the blocks are different. For example for an inner-forearm outside-middle-block, I'm now taught to chamber the blocking fist with the thumb against the body so that the fist can rotate during the block, whereas back in the day I was taught to chamber with the _base_ of the blocking fist touching the body. Also, the old chamber was lower toward the hip, whereas now the chamber is higher on the ribs, I'm told to make the block faster. Again, more emphasis on "twisting" and "speed" in the newer style.
> In fact, there seems to be a LOT more emphasis on chambering now. Before the emphasis seemed to be on the movement and how it finishes...less emphasis on how you chamber at the outset.
> In the old days it seems like we didn't just drill on punching, we also drilled on knifehand strikes, ridgehand strikes, knuckle strikes, etc. Now it seems like when we're drilling strikes it's mostly just punches (with of course lots of knifehands appearing in the poomsae).
> Of course the foot position for kicks is very different now. Before the front kicks and roundhouse kicks struck with the _ball_ of the foot rather than the top of the foot. But of course that only applies to things like breaking...in poomsae we're still taught to curl the toes back on front kicks and roundhouse kicks. But boy did the straightened toes feel unnatural when I first started Kukkiwon-style!
> I feel like my old side kicks were taught with more hip-turnover, so that they bordered on almost looking like a back-kick at full extension, whereas now the hip seems to be turned-over less. Also, there seems to be even MORE emphasis now on rotating the base foot more during the kick.
> As previously mentioned, we never even practiced double knife hand blocks or outer-forearm outside blocks, which is why I still struggle to make those blocks look pretty. (Hard to teach an old dog new tricks.)
> While we did practice things like spinning back hook kicks back in the day, there was nothing like the tornado kick in our club. Likewise, we did practice some jump kicks, but not as many as what we practice now.
> We do one-step sparring sometimes nowadays at my schools, whereas back in the day we did one-steps during almost every class. They seemed to have been viewed as being much more important back in that old club.
> Of course the uniforms were different.  I like the pullover better than the crossover though. Back in the day we trained on hardwood floors (a racquetball court) rather than these sissy millennials that want nice cushy mats under their feet (kidding!  My old knees like the mats.)
> But how many of these things are truly difference in the _style_, and not just differences in _instructor_? That I don't know. I suspect lots of other people in this thread are in that same boat..."Well, I can tell you what's change since when I started...but is that a difference in style, or just a difference in the instructor?"



A lot of this has details that are beyond me, such as leading with your elbow with an inner forearm block. I suppose that I will learn these things with time  .
This is very informative, thank you! with the side kicks, in karate are the hips lined up for the target, or are they turned so that your back faces or partially faces the target when you kick?


----------



## TrueJim

NinjaChristian said:


> ...with the side kicks, in karate are the hips lined up for the target, or are they turned so that your back faces or partially faces the target when you kick?



When I was originally taught side kicks (back in the 1970s), the back was turned slightly away from the target. That appears to be less true now with Kukkiwon style. Also, I was taught to raise the kickside arm over the kicking leg pretty much all the time (not necessarily as a simultaneous "punch", but just as a way to better keep your balance), whereas now the style seems to be to keep both your arms low in front of you (which is something I have difficulty with). Also, I was taught that the foot-blade was always the striking surface, whereas now I'm taught that it can be the foot-blade or the bottom of the heel.

But again, which of these are differences in style, and which are just differences in instructor? It's not always clear.


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> I   The need to get a book out trumped the need for a thoroughly refined manual.



What you call "refine", I call evolve. If General Choi had originally expressed a desire for the Chang Hon system to display higher and more narrow stances than in Tang Soo Do, he would have actually informed his students of this posing for the encyclopedia. It's not hard raising or narrowing a stance for any competent black belt in parent arts. I am of the opinion that Choi was simply conservative at first and content with what he had been taught.

Going back to my original point: Chang Hon-TKD is derrived from Japanese Karate, not Okinawan. Thus anything attributed to Okinawa influences can also be attributed to Shotokan/Tang Soo Doo. There is nothing Okinawan about Chang Hon-TKD independently of it's Shotokan derivation. To suggest otherwise would be to mislead the reader.


----------



## Prototype

TrueJim said:


> When I was originally taught side kicks (back in the 1970s), the back was turned slightly away from the target. That appears to be less true now with Kukkiwon style. Also, I was taught to raise the kickside arm over the kicking leg pretty much all the time (not necessarily as a simultaneous "punch", but just as a way to better keep your balance), whereas now the style seems to be to keep both your arms low in front of you (which is something I have difficulty with). Also, I was taught that the foot-blade was always the striking surface, whereas now I'm taught that it can be the foot-blade or the bottom of the heel.
> 
> But again, which of these are differences in style, and which are just differences in instructor? It's not always clear.



Do you have a clip of the  KKW side kick you are referring to? It may very well be that the KKW side kick has been morphed, much like the roundhouse, from sparring experiences.


----------



## NinjaChristian

TrueJim said:


> When I was originally taught side kicks (back in the 1970s), the back was turned slightly away from the target. That appears to be less true now with Kukkiwon style. Also, I was taught to raise the kickside arm over the kicking leg pretty much all the time (not necessarily as a simultaneous "punch", but just as a way to better keep your balance), whereas now the style seems to be to keep both your arms low in front of you (which is something I have difficulty with). Also, I was taught that the foot-blade was always the striking surface, whereas now I'm taught that it can be the foot-blade or the bottom of the heel.
> 
> But again, which of these are differences in style, and which are just differences in instructor? It's not always clear.


in the school I go to, which is Chung do kwan TKD, we train in deep stances and just about all (or all) techniques start from the hip. When we spar we bring our hands up into some sort of guard (The guard tends to be fluid, moving to accommodate the situation), techniques come from the guard, and the stances tend to be more upright. When you say "both your arms low in front of you" do you mean that they are hanging in front or they are bent and in a low guard?


----------



## TrueJim

Prototype said:


> Do you have a clip of the  KKW side kick you are referring to?...



Generally, this is what a Kukkiwon sidekick looks like:







Notice that the hip isn't particularly turned over at all. Your back is not turned toward your opponent at all. The hardest part about this, I think, is keeping your butt pushed forward, because unless you're allowed to turn that hip over (which you're not) then there's a natural tendency to want to bend _forward _at the waist when doing a kick like this. Both hands are down low in front of you (unless the poomsae specifically calls for a simultaneous punch-and-kick).

That having been said, it's recognized in this style that what any kick looks like for poomsae won't necessarily be exactly what your kick looks like for sparring, breaking, or self-defense. For example when sparring you tend to use more neutral chambers so that you're harder to read.


----------



## chrispillertkd

NinjaChristian said:


> I have the condensed version of the encyclopedia. I think that the "front kick with knee" was left out of it. same thing for the foot placement in the forms. Sad, because i was hoping it would have that. You get what you pay for I guess...



Check Choong Jang tul, movement #19. I'm surprised, though, that it isn't included in the Foot Techniques section as it appears in both the 1965 and 1972 books (as well as the unabridged encyclopedia).

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> What you call "refine", I call evolve. .....
> Going back to my original point: Chang Hon-TKD is derrived from Japanese Karate, not Okinawan. Thus anything attributed to Okinawa influences can also be attributed to Shotokan/Tang Soo Doo. There is nothing Okinawan about Chang Hon-TKD independently of it's Shotokan derivation. To suggest otherwise would be to mislead the reader.



Refine - Evolve pick your poison. Point being that if the text was Published in 1972 the specs had to be in place before that time.   So, if that's your beef that for the first 10 years of TKD's life the specs closely resembled the root art,  Then OK, but for the last 50 years it had evolved. 

Frankly you lost me with any distinction 

"Chang Hon-TKD is derived from Japanese Karate, not Okinawan. Thus anything attributed to Okinawa influences can also be attributed to Shotokan/Tang Soo Doo. There is nothing Okinawan about Chang Hon-TKD independently of it's Shotokan derivation" 
Derived from Japanese Karate, Not Okinawan, but anything Okinawan can also be attributed to Shotokan? 
 AFAIAC - makes no sense.   In fact it seems backward to say the Okinawan precurser as an influence is attributed to the latter, Shotokan which it influenced.  Unless you are simply stating that the Okinawan influences were primarily filtered thru the Shotokan experiences which is of course historicaly accurate.


----------



## Earl Weiss

chrispillertkd said:


> Check Choong Jang tul, movement #19. I'm surprised, though, that it isn't included in the Foot Techniques section as it appears in both the 1965 and 1972 books (as well as the unabridged encyclopedia).
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



Dang, Thanks,  Mr. Spiller. I thought I was losing it. Well, I am. Knew I had seen it, but couldn't place it in the patterns.


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> Unless you are simply stating that the Okinawan influences were primarily filtered thru the Shotokan experiences which is of course historicaly accurate.



That is exactly what I am saying. Compare that to Karate styles such as Kyokushinkai, which has both *direct* Okinawa and Japanese influences. This is evident not only in the Kata but also the training curriculum. Choi Hong Hi changed the *method* of delivering the strikes via Sine Wave (although no explanation has been given how to sensibly apply Sine Wave in an actual fist fight). The striking techniques still follow the same trajectory path as in Shotokan. 

And please don't tell me Taekwon-Do from General Choi revolutionised kicking.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Prototype said:


> And please don't tell me Taekwon-Do from General Choi revolutionised kicking.



Taekwon-Do from Gen. Choi revolutionized kicking. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## TrueJim

Prototype said:


> ...The striking techniques still follow the same trajectory path as in Shotokan.



There are a number of other blatant rip-offs too. Like, in Shotokan, when you're stepping forward, you do it by stepping forward with one foot, then the other. Taekwondo stole that!

Taekwondo also stole Shotokan breathing. In both, you inhale followed by exhale, then repeat indefinitely. But Shotokan was doing that first. 

I could go on, but it's perfectly obvious to anybody who's studied these things. Even the subtle things are the same, like: both style tie their belts around the waist. Coincidence? I think not.

(No but seriously...there's only a finite number of ways to punch and kick. How many trajectories could there be?)


----------



## Prototype

TrueJim said:


> (No but seriously...there's only a finite number of ways to punch and kick. How many trajectories could there be?)



Plenty. Muay Thai and Kyokushinkais don't kick or punch the same. Note that history is revised in later encyclopedias where Choi grabs full credit for creating Taekwondo. In the earliest, Taekwon-Do is really Taekkyon, with hand techniques incorporated from Karate. Later, Choi claimed to be the sole founder and to have invented movements, and evolved into a Donald Trump-like narcissist.


----------



## Tames D

TrueJim said:


> There are a number of other blatant rip-offs too. Like, in Shotokan, when you're stepping forward, you do it by stepping forward with one foot, then the other. Taekwondo stole that!
> 
> Taekwondo also stole Shotokan breathing. In both, you inhale followed by exhale, then repeat indefinitely. But Shotokan was doing that first.
> 
> I could go on, but it's perfectly obvious to anybody who's studied these things. Even the subtle things are the same, like: both style tie their belts around the waist. Coincidence? I think not.
> 
> (No but seriously...there's only a finite number of ways to punch and kick. How many trajectories could there be?)


Interesting. But I've always been under the impression that Al Gore invented Taekwondo.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Prototype said:


> Plenty. Muay Thai and Kyokushinkais don't kick or punch the same. Note that history is revised in later encyclopedias where Choi grabs full credit for creating Taekwondo. In the earliest, Taekwon-Do is really Taekkyon, with hand techniques incorporated from Karate. Later, Choi claimed to be the sole founder and to have invented movements, and evolved into a Donald Trump-like narcissist.



Who did Funakoshi rip off for Shotokan's punches? And if it wasn't Praying Mantis kung-fu then why are there so many similarities between how these two styles punch? And since the manner in which Shotokan and Taekwon-Do now punch are quite different why does this matter do much to you?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Dirty Dog

Prototype said:


> In the earliest, Taekwon-Do is really Taekkyon,



No, it really isn't. Taekkyon was supressed and there is no real reason to believe that it had anything to do with early TKD, other than being referenced as a source (which the founders still alive now pretty much all admit was not true) to make a connection with early Korean culture and distance themselves from their Japanese oppressors.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tames D said:


> Interesting. But I've always been under the impression that Al Gore invented Taekwondo.



And the Interwebs. So we can haz cheeseburgers.


----------



## Prototype

Dirty Dog said:


> No, it really isn't. Taekkyon was supressed and there is no real reason to believe that it had anything to do with early TKD, other than being referenced as a source (which the founders still alive now pretty much all admit was not true) to make a connection with early Korean culture and distance themselves from their Japanese oppressors.



General Choi made the silly claim in the 59/65 encyclopedia, not I. Later with ITF changing  it and referring to himself as the founder of Taekwondo. Two polar opposite accounts well documented.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> . Later, Choi claimed to be the sole founder and to have invented movements, and evolved into a Donald Trump-like narcissist.



This is only true if you choose to select a snippet out of volumes and then offer it up as a classic "Straw man" flawed argument while ignoring his own statements to the contrary.  . He explicitly sates that no one person or country can take credit for discovering Martial Art techniques. He analogizes it to the discovery of fire or invention of the wheel.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Tames D said:


> Interesting. But I've always been under the impression that Al Gore invented Taekwondo.



Interesting analogy. Critiques of Al Gore deride him for saying he invented the internet which is a misquote of something he said taken out of context.   Prototype uses the same flawed logical reasoning.   Big difference is that Isaccson (Who also wrote the Jobs authorized Bio) relates in his book "Innovators" , that the people truly behind inventing the internet credit Gores political initiative (which is what he said) to making the net become a reality.


----------



## TrueJim

Dirty Dog said:


> Taekkyon was supressed and there is no real reason to believe that it had anything to do with early TKD...



I have this theory about taekkyon, but mind you this is pure conjecture on my part. 

Suppose that we as little children were told stories about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, and when playing outside we turned sticks into swords and played at being knights, etc. Then some invaders came along and said, "You're not allowed to tell those stories or play like that any more. What you _can_ do is tell stories of _kenjutsu_ and play at kendo swords." 

Then 35 years later, we're allowed to play however we want, and tell whatever stories we want. I suppose our children who grew up playing nothing but kendo would still play at kendo, but as adults we might try to recreate a tradition of what we remember from our youths about King Arthur and medieval knights. "Here kid, let me show you how Lancelot would have done it..."

Is it possible that when taekwondo pioneers returned from Japan with karate, but wanted to recreate a tradition of Korean martial arts, they turned to their childhood memories and said, "Well, there was this one thing called taekkyon that I saw as a child at festivals, and that my grandparents would tell me stories about...but it was mostly fancy kicking." Is it possible that that's why early pioneers opted to emphasize and expand upon the kicking aspects of karate more than anything else? 

In other words, I'm not saying that there's a shred of taekkyon _technique_ in taekwondo, but maybe there's some taekkyon _inspiration_ in taekwondo?

Of course we'll never know what was going on inside the heads of the early taekwondo pioneers, so my conjecture is completely unprovable. But I wonder if maybe the people who claim a little bit of taekkyon heritage for taekwondo aren't _completely_ nuts.


----------



## chrispillertkd

TrueJim said:


> In other words, I'm not saying that there's a shred of taekkyon _technique_ in taekwondo, but maybe there's some taekkyon _inspiration_ in taekwondo?



It is an interesting idea. I don't have the magazine in front of me right now but I read an article with Gen. Choi in which he states that his calligraphy teacher mostly told him stories about Taekkyon, with some basic instruction. It is interesting to note that Gen. Choi never claimed to have "mastered" Taekkyon.

That being said there are some techniques in ITF Taekwon-Do that resemble, to my eye at any rate, Taekkyon techniques (twisting kick, side checking kick, front checking kick, foot tackling, etc.). If they aren't the result of a direct influence of Taekkyon then it would seem that they were developed from a common cultural inclination towards the use of the feet in combat.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Dirty Dog

chrispillertkd said:


> It is an interesting idea. I don't have the magazine in front of me right now but I read an article with Gen. Choi in which he states that his calligraphy teacher mostly told him stories about Taekkyon, with some basic instruction. It is interesting to note that Gen. Choi never claimed to have "mastered" Taekkyon.
> 
> That being said there are some techniques in ITF Taekwon-Do that resemble, to my eye at any rate, Taekkyon techniques (twisting kick, side checking kick, front checking kick, foot tackling, etc.). If they aren't the result of a direct influence of Taekkyon then it would seem that they were developed from a common cultural inclination towards the use of the feet in combat.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



Or, equally likely, those who were attempting to recreate taekkyon borrowed these techniques from TKD. So TKD doesn't resemble taekkyon. Taekkyon resembles TKD.


----------



## TrueJim

Dirty Dog said:


> Or, equally likely, those who were attempting to recreate taekkyon borrowed these techniques from TKD. So TKD doesn't resemble taekkyon. Taekkyon resembles TKD.



Agreed, equally possible.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Dirty Dog said:


> Or, equally likely, those who were attempting to recreate taekkyon borrowed these techniques from TKD. So TKD doesn't resemble taekkyon. Taekkyon resembles TKD.



Oh, sure, and I have heard such speculation before. It does seem very likely that KKWTKD has exercised some influence on Taekkyon simply due to the fact that so many people practice it before moving on to other arts. I think the bigger influence of TKD on Taekkyon, however, has been in re-presenting it as a martial art as opposed to a folk sport/game.

I have, however, seen video of Song Duk Ki performing Taekkyon techniques which are similar if not the same as the ones I mentioned in my post. Since he's usually accepted as the source of the rebirth of Taekkyon in SK, and wasn't involved in Taekwon-Do, it really is a question of where did Gen. Choi and his associates get those techniques. Did they independently come up with them themselves (which is certainly possible) or was there influence from some Taekkyon practitioners? It's an interesting aspect of the development of Taekwon-Do which I have not seen anyone address really because they don't focus on those techniques, talking mainly about the influence of Japanese karate to the exclusion of any other possibility. 

As an aside, this blog post about the similarities of Taekkyon's and Taekwon-Do's kinaesthetics is interesting. Soo Shim Kwan 水心館수심관: Sine Wave Motion & Korean Kinesthetics 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Earl Weiss

chrispillertkd said:


> It is an interesting idea. I don't have the magazine in front of me right now but I read an article with Gen. Choi in which he states that his calligraphy teacher mostly told him stories about Taekkyon, with some basic instruction. It is interesting to note that Gen. Choi never claimed to have "mastered" Taekkyon.
> 
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



That is all there is in his books as well,  He went to learn Calligraphy and the calligraphy teacher introduced him to Taekkyon.     Somewher along the line the haters blow this out of proportion to create  "straw man" argument to tear apart. 

Current thought is that the elements of Taekkyon are lost to history. So, did his calligraphy teacher fabricate the story? How much does it really matter?


----------



## chrispillertkd

Earl Weiss said:


> That is all there is in his books as well,  He went to learn Calligraphy and the calligraphy teacher introduced him to Taekkyon.     Somewher along the line the haters blow this out of proportion to create  "straw man" argument to tear apart.



Off the top of my head the only other Kwan founder who I know who mentioned Taekkkyon was Hwang, Kee (in an interview that was published in TKDTimes circa 1987, or thereabouts). IIRC GM Hwang says he saw people practicing Taekkyon in a park when he was young and it inspired him to become interested in martial arts. I don't recall him claiming he trained in it at all, though. I've never seen or heard any accounts of Taekkyon's influence from any of the other Kwan founders, though that doesn't mean there wasn't any.

[quot]Current thought is that the elements of Taekkyon are lost to history.[/quote]

Perhaps, although it's pretty well accepted that Song Duk Ki taught at least some people authentic Taekkyon, which became the basis for today's Taekkyon.



> So, did his calligraphy teacher fabricate the story? How much does it really matter?



I couldn't say for sure since Han Il Dong is no longer available to interview. Or Gen. Choi, for that matter. It is things like this that make me wish people had thought to do more historical research while the primary players were still alive. I don't think it matters if Taekkyon techniques were used in the development of Taekwon-Do, but I do think it played a part as an indigenous Korean martial art in inspiring Gen. Choi to develop his own martial art.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> General Choi made the silly claim in the 59/65 encyclopedia, not I. Later with ITF changing  it and referring to himself as the founder of Taekwondo. Two polar opposite accounts well documented.



And the claim was:

"
Page 295

His father sent him to study calligraphy under a well known teacher Mr. Han Il-Dong. ...

 Mr. Han, a great calligrapher, was also a veteran of the ancient T’ae-Kyon. ...

Mr. Han taught him T’ae-Kyon besides calligraphy. Thus it came about in 1936 the author took up T’ae-Kyon, which was consisting solely of foot maneuvers. 

Then his father sent him to Japan....  After one and a half year in prepatory school...he went on to High School and then university in Tokyo,, he returned home in 1943............ "

So, in 1936 he studied calligraphy and T'ae-Kyon in Korea then went to Japan, and there  he spent 1.5 years in Prep school, High School, University,   certainly does not allude to much time that could have been spent with the calligraphy guy in Korea. 

Further, he refers to himself as the founder of at one time Tae Kwon Do, or Taekwon-Do, but not Taekwondo.  

So, whatever you consider silly, is just fine. But if you want to make your case the out of context snippets has not helped you.


----------



## Prototype

No, this is what he claimed originally.

*Chapter 4. A brief history of TaeKwon-Do
*
_"Taekkyon,* the ancient name of TaeKwon-Do*, was as old as the history of the Hwarang-Do."

"During the Japanese occupation, after the Yi Dynasti, the hand technique was introduced from both China and Japan, enabling the hand and foot techniques to be combined into one one body under various names such as: Tang-Su, Kong-Su, *Karate*.."

"Soon after the liberation in 1945, there was a movement to find the real name of this art. In 1955 a special board of many TaeKwon-Do masters, historians and promiment leaders was formed to solve this problem"

"In 1955 at the session for naming, the term worded in "Tae" and "Kwon" which I submitted was chosen unanimously among the many other ballots."

TaeKwon-Do, the art of self defence. 1965.
_
He was thus either a delusional nutcase or a con man. Not only does he claim that Taekwon-Do is Taekkyon, but that it's also Karate.
_
_


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> No, this is what he claimed originally.
> 
> *Chapter 4. A brief history of TaeKwon-Do
> *
> _"Taekkyon,* the ancient name of TaeKwon-Do*, was as old as the history of the Hwarang-Do."
> 
> "During the Japanese occupation, after the Yi Dynasti, the hand technique was introduced from both China and Japan, enabling the hand and foot techniques to be combined into one one body under various names such as: Tang-Su, Kong-Su, *Karate*.."
> 
> "Soon after the liberation in 1945, there was a movement to find the real name of this art. In 1955 a special board of many TaeKwon-Do masters, historians and promiment leaders was formed to solve this problem"
> 
> "In 1955 at the session for naming, the term worded in "Tae" and "Kwon" which I submitted was chosen unanimously among the many other ballots."
> 
> TaeKwon-Do, the art of self defence. 1965.
> _
> He was thus either a delusional nutcase or a con man. Not only does he claim that Taekwon-Do is Taekkyon, but that it's also Karate.



Not  delusional. Your quote of the passage while accurate in isolation is  another example of your tactic to use a snippet as a straw man.    He is simply using Taekkyon, and TaeKwon-Do as generic names for Korean Hand and Foot fighting. Saying that Taekkyon was an ancient name and TKD a modern one.   Certainly, had he thought some 50 years later some myopic critic would use a passage in isolation as a critique it could have been more artfuly worded.


----------



## TrueJim

Earl Weiss said:


> Certainly, had he thought some 50 years later some myopic critic would use a passage in isolation as a critique it could have been more artfuly worded...



Prototype..I have to agree. You seem to be grasping at straws here to prove a point. Worse, it's not even clear what point you're trying to prove. 

For the sake of this thread, could you recap exactly what your thesis is? Is it your thesis that Choi was schizophrenic? Or is it your thesis that taekwondo is just karate? At this point, I can't even figure out what it is that you're trying to prove.


----------



## Gnarlie

I third this, Prototype, your point is purely subjective and the language you are using to make it detracts from the objectivity and therefore the credibility of your view.

It is likely that Choi had many and complex reasons for writing the text in the way he did, most of which are understandable when viewed in the context of the time and place of writing. 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Prototype

Earl Weiss said:


> Not  delusional. Your quote of the passage while accurate in isolation is  another example of your tactic to use a snippet as a straw man.    He is simply using Taekkyon, and TaeKwon-Do as generic names for Korean Hand and Foot fighting. Saying that Taekkyon was an ancient name and TKD a modern one.   Certainly, had he thought some 50 years later some myopic critic would use a passage in isolation as a critique it could have been more artfuly worded.



 Choi openly stated that the foot techniques in Karate are from Taekkyon, and later made conflicting statements once South Korea wanted no part of him. Then he was suddenly the creator of TKD, the father even. Taekkyon in later encyclopedias has very little to do with TaekKwon-Do, aside from a historical perspective, according to the SAME author. Contradicts himself depending on era and motives.


----------



## Prototype

Gnarlie said:


> It is likely that Choi had many and complex reasons for writing the text in the way he did, most of which are understandable when viewed in the context of the time and place of writing.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



That doesn't exuse the fact that held a warped view of history, or simply tried to propagandize his own nationalistic interests. The latter is most likely.


----------



## Prototype

_I_ _was_ _subjected_ _to_ _X_, _and_ _can_ _therefore_ _deceive_ _the_ _public_.

I will have to remember that one.


----------



## TrueJim

Prototype said:


> That doesn't exuse the fact that held a warped view of history, or simply tried to propagandize his own nationalistic interests. The latter is most likely.



So what you're saying is...  General Choi was using spin to promote taekwondo.


----------



## Prototype

TrueJim said:


> So what you're saying is...  General Choi was using spin to promote taekwondo.



Well, duh. The only legitimate Taekwondo is the one you train, Kukkikwon. At least KKW as of today. It is a completely separate art to any Karate style in terms of the main techniques. I have trained too. The Chang Hon/ITF chambering is identical to Shotokan. To put it in laymens terms: *They* *kick* *the* *same as Shotokan*. Congrats, Mr legit.


----------



## Tez3

Prototype said:


> To put it in laymens terms: *They* *kick* *the* *same*



Gosh you mean they all kick with their legs! Wow, that's a revelation! All this time I thought TKD were kicking with their arms which made them different from karate, now I've learnt they kick with their legs just like us.............. I shall have to go lie down this is all too much at once for me.........


----------



## Tez3

Prototype said:


> Yeah, you go do that while I dispel myths and imposters in here (in a friendly matter of course). Concider me the seeker of truth, and the foremost TKD debunker.



Really? I mean really? you think so highly of yourself that you can break the rules here with impunity, refuse to answer questions ( you do need to by the way as no one knows what you are chuntering about) and generally act the prat?


----------



## TrueJim

Prototype said:


> Well, duh.



Your entire thesis is that Choi used spin to promote taekwondo? That's what this has been about, all along?


----------



## Tez3

Prototype said:


> I haven't offended anyone alive. And I hold no personal animosity towards General Choi. I actually object more to people trying to defend him against a locked and shut case, simply because they were brainwashed into this ITF cult. Sorry to say but this intellectual is not up for grabs.



"_Sorry to say but this intellectual is not up for grabs_" what on earth does that mean? You haven't made an intellectual argument because you haven't made it clear what you are arguing for or against. Your mind isn't as open as you claim because you are telling us what you is the truth and everyone else is wrong. How do I as a karateka know what you are saying could be true, you've not provided any proof at all. The other posters I know by reputation and I can it for granted that they are genuine in their arguments so are far more likely to be right than you are. They are no more brainwashed than I am about TKD, the likelihood actually is that you are because you are the one with the unbending ideas and not open to argument.


----------



## TrueJim

Prototype said:


> Concider me the seeker of truth, and the foremost TKD debunker.



I think Alex Gillis has that title. :-D


----------



## TrueJim

<opinion>

Taekwondo by any meaningful definition/distinction from Karate dates back to 70-80s with the advent of Kukkiwon and the fundamental changes to kicking. Much more speedy, snappy kicking with a *straight* chamber. The WTF drove their sparring format to the ditch lately, but watch the 80s and 90s for the very best of Taekwondo.

</opinion>


----------



## Tez3

Prototype said:


> You will simply have to step aside if my lingo is too advanced for you. I am not an intellectual for nothing. Darling, you know by your account very little about TKD, so stay out of this. It might get ugly.



It's fine, I like a man who can make fun of his own shortcomings.
I will try to use my BA(Hons) in English to follow your 'lingo' and will also try to use my BSc in psychology to work out why you think yourself an intellectual without having any sign of being so.

 I think this sums you up fairly well._ “The self-styled intellectual who is impotent with pen and ink hungers to write history with sword and blood.”_  Eric Hoffer


----------



## chrispillertkd

Prototype said:


> The kicking part is a fact. The mechanics of Chang Hon/ITF and Shotokan kicks are the same, not however in KKW. Fact.



I'm very interested in hearing what your background in ITF Taekwon-Do is. How long have you trained in it? What dan level are you? How many times did you train with Gen. Choi our any of his top students? Because as it stands your claim is a not odd to be coming from anyone with a passing familiarity with Gen. Choi's system. 

Pax, 

Chris


----------



## Earl Weiss

Since Prototype was kind enough to post a link to the 1965 book on line and since it's tiresome  to respond to his cherry picked snippets to the exclusion of all else I will leave it to those interested to follow the link.and read the entire chapter  1 he quotes from as well as Chapter 4 (Each very short)  and decide for themselves how selective his choice of material is.

Free download of Gen. Choi Hong Hi's Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do! (1965 condensed edition) • /r/taekwondo


----------



## Dirty Dog

Prototype said:


> What on earth does it have to do with anything? Do you dispute the fact that Chang Hon kicks are directly lifted from Shotokan/Tang Soo Do? That they are Indeed executed the same? If not, why claim you are doing nothing more than Shotokan/TSD repackaged? Do you in fact know that there are various Shotokan organisatons that perform their Kata differently, some with bounce? Your Sine Wave plea is meaningless.



Even if your claim that the kicks are identical were correct (it's not, though the differences may be too subtle for those ignorant of the nuances of the arts to understand), Shotokan and Taekwon-Do would still be different arts. Because there's more to both arts than just the kicking.


----------



## Gnarlie

Prototype said:


> You will simply have to step aside if my lingo is too advanced for you. I am not an intellectual for nothing. Darling, you know by your account very little about TKD, so stay out of this. It might get ugly.


What a telling post.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Prototype said:


> Well, duh. The only legitimate Taekwondo is the one you train, Kukkikwon..



Well, I guess that shows the frame of reference from whence Prototype formulates his world view.


----------



## Gnarlie

Earl Weiss said:


> Well, I guess that shows the frame of reference from whence Prototype formulates his world view.


Apparently he's authorised to assign legitimacy or illegitimacy to martial arts willy-nilly. He must be highly qualified, huh?

Why don't you tell us what qualifications and experience you have that allow you to make this type of judgement, Prototype?

Oh wait, I think I know why... 

 :|


----------



## Dirty Dog

Prototype has been banned, and thus will be unable to respond to any further comments or questions.

Moving one now...


----------



## Gnarlie

OK, now I'll add my view on what's actually different: tension and rooting. 

Karate has always seemed relatively tense-looking to me, in that muscular tension is present throughout the motion. 

Taekwondo seeks to eliminate unnecessary tension and only add it at the moment of impact or where necessary for the motion.

Where I've had people join classes coming out of Karate, even with relatively experienced people, tension has been an issue.

Karate seems to generate power from rooted stances, whereas Taekwondo draws power from a combination of a rooted foot and momentary instability. 

Perhaps it's just local and perhaps just specific Karate styles, but that's my experience of the thing.


Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Gnarlie said:


> OK, now I'll add my view on what's actually different: tension and rooting.
> 
> Karate has always seemed relatively tense-looking to me, in that muscular tension is present throughout the motion.
> 
> Taekwondo seeks to eliminate unnecessary tension and only add it at the moment of impact or where necessary for the motion.
> 
> Where I've had people join classes coming out of Karate, even with relatively experienced people, tension has been an issue.
> 
> Karate seems to generate power from rooted stances, whereas Taekwondo draws power from a combination of a rooted foot and momentary instability.
> 
> Perhaps it's just local and perhaps just specific Karate styles, but that's my experience of the thing.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



Not sure about that one, I'm going to have to think about it. I've certainly never felt we were more rooted or used more tension. I shall have a very good think on this, cheers for posting, it's a good question.


----------



## TrueJim

Gnarlie said:


> Karate has always seemed relatively tense-looking to me, in that muscular tension is present throughout the motion....



I did not add this in my previous list, but yes. When I was taught "taekwondo" back in 1978, we were taught to be equally tense throughout the movement. Or to be more accurate, we weren't taught to the relaxed at the outset of the movement, and then tense-up during the movement...I recall no mention of this.


----------



## Dirty Dog

TrueJim said:


> I did not add this in my previous list, but yes. When I was taught "taekwondo" back in 1978, we were taught to be equally tense throughout the movement. Or to be more accurate, we weren't taught to the relaxed at the outset of the movement, and then tense-up during the movement...I recall no mention of this.



Conversely, I do not recall ever being taught to hold tension throughout a movement. But, as I always admit, there are plenty of things that a 7 year old will miss or that instructors will gloss over when dealing with very young students. But by the time my memory can be considered reasonably reliable (the mid- to late-70's) I am pretty sure no such tension was being taught.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Gnarlie said:


> Karate seems to generate power from rooted stances, whereas Taekwondo draws power from a combination of a rooted foot and momentary instability.



This. I can't speak to KKWTKD but in ITF TKD there's a lot of emphasis placed on moving in and out of a stable stance very quickly. I've actually been at a seminar with GM Choi, Jung Hwa where he described stepping in Taekwon-Do as a "controlled fall." The use of knee spring should actually propel you forward so you accelerate into the technique as you step. This can result in a very powerful strike, especially if you end up hitting an opponent who is himself moving (which is a commonly overlooked aspect of "Reaction Force" in Gen. Choi's Theories of Power).

That being said, I have noticed that not a few people seem a bit "top heavy" when performing certain techniques. By this I mean they focus a bit too much on the mobility aspect and not enough on being rooted. This is quite detrimental when practicing joint locks and throws.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Balrog

Dirty Dog said:


> General Choi was not the founder of TKD. He was the founder of the Oh Do Kwan and the ITF. Not Taekwondo.


Wasn't Gen. Choi the one who suggested the name Taekwondo?  I believe that's where all this stuff about him being the "Father of Taekwondo" came from.  I stand to be corrected on this, but I don't think he "invented" Taekwondo - that was a group effort, IIRC.  He just got some good publicity out of it and he ran with it.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Balrog said:


> Wasn't Gen. Choi the one who suggested the name Taekwondo?  I believe that's where all this stuff about him being the "Father of Taekwondo" came from.  I stand to be corrected on this, but I don't think he "invented" Taekwondo - that was a group effort, IIRC.  He just got some good publicity out of it and he ran with it.



He is the one who coined the term "Taekwon-Do." He's the one who developed the first set of Taekwon-Do patterns and began altering the body mechanics from the various forms of Japanese karate that the Kwan founders had studied. GM J.C. Kim pointed out that it was only the Oh Do Kwan and, later, the Chung Do Kwan after Gen. Choi became its honorary Kwan Jang that were doing Taekwon-Do until the mid to late 1960s.

The problem is there are two distinct styles using the same name. After Gen. Choi returned to Korea from Malaysia he found that the Korea Taekwon-Do Association was no longer using the name Taekwon-Do and had changed to Tae Soo Do. He was re-elected President and during his term forced a name change back to Taekwon-Do. After he was no longer president the KTA kept the  name despite developing its own style. In retrospect it may have been better if Gen. Choi had simply left the KTA as the Korea Tae Soo Do Association. It certainly would be much less confusing today.

The bottom line is Gen. Choi is the founder of the Oh Do Kwan, the ITF, and Taekwon-Do. When he was asked about others' contributions to Gen. Choi's TKD GM J.C. Kim made it very clear that other people shouldn't be considered "co-founders" since it was Gen. Choi's vision and they were, at most, assisting him. He's on facebook if you want to ask him questions. He's quite forthcoming and was with Gen. Choi very early on through the 1980's and was a very important figure in the development of Taekwon-Do and the founding of the ITF.

Kukkiwon Taekwondo was founded by second generation Kwan Jangs who didn't follow Gen. Choi. As far as I can tell none of the Kwan founders were involved with the actual founding of KKW TKD. That was left to their students.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Balrog

Thanks!


----------



## Earl Weiss

Balrog said:


> Wasn't Gen. Choi the one who suggested the name Taekwondo?  I believe that's where all this stuff about him being the "Father of Taekwondo" came from.  I stand to be corrected on this, but I don't think he "invented" Taekwondo - that was a group effort, IIRC.  He just got some good publicity out of it and he ran with it.


To elaborate on what Mr. Spiller said. Semantics  can be confusing . "Father" "Founder" etc. George Washington is considered the "Father" of the USA, yet certainly he had plenty of help. 

There is no single person who did as much to ;

Promote acceptance of the name.

Recruit Top Talent around the world, have them accept the name and system, Have them demonstrate the system, and then teach the system.  (Although some 20 years later the Korean govenrment copied this format that had been wildly succesful and used it thru the KKW) 

The "Group Effort" is the KKW party line which they needed in order not to repeat a potential problem of perhaps having one person with too strong a following that could lead the government to lose control if that person and the government had a falling out. The KKW may have had (I will leave that history to KKW people to comment on) many contributors to it's system so that line would have fit what they did.


----------

