# Kukkiwon restructure



## terryl965 (Sep 22, 2008)

Does anybody here believe with everything going on that if the Kukkiwon stays, they will need to restructure everything and not be so Korean base to really reach there potential once again?

I know for me this is a very dark time for the KKW and it needs to make proper decission to rebuild it for the future.


----------



## Kwanjang (Sep 22, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Does anybody here believe with everything going on that if the Kukkiwon stays, they will need to restructure everything and not be so Korean base to really reach there potential once again?
> 
> I know for me this is a very dark time for the KKW and it needs to make proper decission to rebuild it for the future.



I agree Terry!


----------



## IcemanSK (Sep 22, 2008)

I'm praying for a positive change during a restructure of the Kukkiwon.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 23, 2008)

Better question.

Why does the KKW need to survive?

no seriously.

what point does it serve?

how does it benefit TKD?


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 23, 2008)

Well for some like GM Kurban and GM Park here in Texas it keeps there linage going for there BB and there school.


----------



## granfire (Sep 23, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Well for some like GM Kurban and GM Park here in Texas it keeps there linage going for there BB and there school.



I don't see where the lineage would be broken. The student/master chain is still intact...not like the history would be rewritten.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Sep 23, 2008)

The lineage may not be broken, but how would rank translate?

Would everyone associated with KKW need to retest?  Or would they be recognized as their current rank under other orginizations?


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 23, 2008)

granfire said:


> I don't see where the lineage would be broken. The student/master chain is still intact...not like the history would be rewritten.


 
Because the linage would go back to a corrupt organixation, well I guess they will always have the Grand Master Society


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 23, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> The lineage may not be broken, but how would rank translate?
> 
> Would everyone associated with KKW need to retest? Or would they be recognized as their current rank under other orginizations?


 
That is the better wuestion for those not liking KKW and there rank it is a black before dawn sceniro.


----------



## granfire (Sep 23, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Because the linage would go back to a corrupt organixation, well I guess they will always have the Grand Master Society



I am blaming it on the early hour and lack of coffee but I do not follow.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 23, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Better question.
> 
> Why does the KKW need to survive?


Why does any large organization need to survive?  So long as its membership is well served, the organization will exist unless external factors impinge, such as the Korean IRS.  Can't say that I feel particularly sorry for the KKW leadership: they aren't idiots and they have lawyers, so it isn't like they didn't know this was a possibility.  But as they say, you ride the gravy train until it stops.  

Regarding the membership being well served, lets face it, the vast majority of blackbelts issued by the Kukkiwon are to suburbanite kids who quit once they receive the belt.  They are well served: all they wanted was a plaque, a card, and piece of black cloth.  They received it.  Only members such as myself, who actually care about what those things represent question how well the organization serves its membership, and we're in the minority.



Twin Fist said:


> no seriously.
> 
> what point does it serve?


It serves to provide a standardized curriculum that every practitioner learns, so that a blue belt in any member school anywhere in the world will have minimum training in a specific skill set and a specific body of knowledge.  That's the intended purpose at least.  You and I both know the reality.  If the KKW were to truly live up to its intended purpose, then my answer to your first question would be very different.



Twin Fist said:


> how does it benefit TKD?


Setting aside the fakes, scams, McDojos, and such, it benefits the genuine schools and instructors by providing them with a credential.  Its one of the reasons I _chose_ to study in a Kukkiwon dojang.  Now, in my case, the quality of the instructor was first and foremost.  Being someone who wants to open my own studio, credential is another little benefit that I can offer to potential customers.  Some people have a mental need to see a credential from a big organization.  Perhaps they've been burned, or perhaps its just the way that they are about investing time and money.  So for the school owner, it does provide an umbrella so to speak.

Frankly, that is the only true benefit, though to be fair, in terms of operating a school and dealing with the public, it is a _huge_ benefit.  The benefit to the art is more indirect in that it provides another credential to legitamately good instructors who are spreading the art and keeping it real (can't believe I'm using that expression, but so be it).

The laundry list of problems is a lot longer than my post, and I don't pretend that they're not there.  If the organization doesn't survive, then life will go on, we will continue to train, and schools will adapt.  The public doesn't interface with the Kukkiwon anyway.  They interface with the school.  The schools will likely handle the transistion invisibly, charging the same fees and either finding another organization to be affiliated with (USAT anyone?), forming their own, or simply being non affiliated and keeping a greater portion of the testing fees. 

Chances are, if the Kukkiwon folds (I doubt that it will), they'll be reorganized into or swallowed by another organization.  The size of the membership alone makes it impossible to ignore, and nobody is going to let all that potential cashflow peter off to smaller organizations.

Daniel


----------



## BrandonLucas (Sep 23, 2008)

Correct me if I'm wrong, Terry, but I think I'm following what you're saying:

Your lineage is something you should be proud of.  If you have received a rank from a lineage that later turns out to be dishonorable, in a way, it colors your rank as dishonorable.

I think that's what you're saying, Terry, but I could be wrong.  Either way, it's something that I would be concerned about if I had rank in KKW.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Sep 23, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> Why does any large organization need to survive? So long as its membership is well served, the organization will exist unless external factors impinge, such as the Korean IRS. Can't say that I feel particularly sorry for the KKW leadership: they aren't idiots and they have lawyers, so it isn't like they didn't know this was a possibility. But as they say, you ride the gravy train until it stops.
> 
> Regarding the membership being well served, lets face it, the vast majority of blackbelts issued by the Kukkiwon are to suburbanite kids who quit once they receive the belt. They are well served: all they wanted was a plaque, a card, and piece of black cloth. They received it. Only members such as myself, who actually care about what those things represent question how well the organization serves its membership, and we're in the minority.
> 
> ...


 
Regarding the purpose of the KKW, which would be to provide a standardized cirriculum, would it be such a bad thing if the KKW were disolved, and another orginization picked it up?  

That's kind of the thing I was getting at in another post about the Olympic sparring deal...unifying the martial art.  If there was only 1 orginization, then there wouldn't be such a need for overhaul for corruption.

Or even better, what about a system of checks and balances, like the US gov't?  I'm not sure how it would work, but it's a suggestion.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 23, 2008)

And we all know how well our checks and ballances work in government, lol.  Part of the reason we're in our political and economic disasters: both parties are so in bed with eachother that really, nobody checks anyone beyond what they need to do to maintain appearances.

Which is what most big organizations do.  To answer your quesiton, Brandon, I think that whether or not another organization picked it up is a good thing would depend upon who picked it up.  Chances are, it will be restructured by existing members, ousting those who embarrassed them and caused the problem (i.e. the ones who got caught) and business will go on as usual.  Just like the USTU to USAT transition.  In fact, I'd bet that any transition will be identical.

I find that when there's only one organization, corruption fourishes, particularly when the organization is strong.  

Make no mistake, the Kukkiwon will not die.  I doubt that it will even be renamed as a result of this.  Especially since it represents a level of national pride for the Korean Government.  Lets be realistic: its their tax status that is being debated.  I didn't see anywhere in the body of the article that the Kukkiwon would fold, even though it was strongly implied by the articles title.  But then, sensational headlines with less sensational articles below them are not uncommon.

Daniel


----------



## igillman (Sep 23, 2008)

I think that what the KKW needs are people who follow the tenets of Tae Kwon Do.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 23, 2008)

igillman said:


> I think that what the KKW needs are people who follow the tenets of Tae Kwon Do.


That would solve pretty much everything.

Daniel


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 23, 2008)

ok, since we have a good outline of what the org does, and why it is needed, the next question is is this org the only org that can do that?

the reason being, you have to know if this org goes away, will those functions be lost, or will another group step up to carry on?

mind you, i am not trying to diss the org, but an anallytical examination of the problem can sometimes show you the answer


----------



## rmclain (Sep 23, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Well for some like GM Kurban and GM Park here in Texas it keeps there linage going for there BB and there school.


 
Grandmaster Kurban has a lineage that pre-dates the Kukkiwon as does Grandmaster Park. 

I think Grandmaster Kurban gets nothing by being associated with Kukkiwon.  By watching Grandmaster Kurbans's students, I wouldn't even know they were associated with the Kukkiwon, except that they practice the Palgue forms and the Yudanja forms (koryo, taebaek, etc.).  The students certainly don't resemble what is represented as TKD from the Kukkiwon today.  They are more like the old Texas blood-n-guts students.  I imagine they are only involved with Kukki-won because of Grandmaster Kurban keeping himself under/associated with Grandmaster Park.

I think Grandmaster Park would be more affected since he follows the Kukkiwon guidelines now.  He was from an earlier line (Jido-kwan), but dropped it in favor of Kukkiwon TKD - probably because JDK senior Lee, Jong-woo, was on board from the beginning on WTF and Kukkiwon. I have a copy of Grandmaster Park's student manual.  Nothing JDK in there - just Kukkiwon.

R. McLain


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 23, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> ok, since we have a good outline of what the org does, and why it is needed, the next question is is this org the only org that can do that?


No.  The ATA certainly provides the same function, at least in the US, though shifting from the KKW to the ATA would be a lateral move at best, and would bring a whole host of new issues.  The ITF, I assume, does the same for its members as the KKW does for KKW members.  Edit: there are also other organizations, such as the NPTA, that I know less about.



Twin Fist said:


> the reason being, you have to know if this org goes away, will those functions be lost, or will another group step up to carry on?


The functions being lost is not the issue, so much as whether or not existing ranks would be recognized by another org or a new org if the KKW were to hypothetically vanish or if one were to exit the KKW.  

Since the WTF is a sporting body, its style of sparring and tournament circuit is independent of the KKW, so if members changed orgs, the WTF and USAT would be unaffected and sport TKDist would likewise be unaffected.



Twin Fist said:


> mind you, i am not trying to diss the org, but an anallytical examination of the problem can sometimes show you the answer


Any dissing they receive is, to a great extent, brought upon themselves.  Once they lost sight of their original purpose and took advantage of the financial gains to be made by not policing themselves, they lost a great degree of credibility.

Truly a sad thing that we are even having this discussion.  But we may as well; the execs at the KKW certainly should have and didn't.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 23, 2008)

rmclain said:


> Grandmaster Kurban has a lineage that pre-dates the Kukkiwon as does Grandmaster Park.
> 
> I think Grandmaster Kurban gets nothing by being associated with Kukkiwon. By watching Grandmaster Kurbans's students, I wouldn't even know they were associated with the Kukkiwon, except that they practice the Palgue forms and the Yudanja forms (koryo, taebaek, etc.). The students certainly don't resemble what is represented as TKD from the Kukkiwon today. They are more like the old Texas blood-n-guts students. I imagine they are only involved with Kukki-won because of Grandmaster Kurban keeping himself under/associated with Grandmaster Park.
> 
> ...


Realistically, if the Kukkiwon folded, GM Park could simply continue teaching the curriculum.  If he likes it, and he certainly knows it, then nothings keeping him from continuing it.  

That holds true for any school.  I could, in theory, open a school, have no affiliation and teach taegeuk forms and WTF style sparring to my students, all the while writing my own BB certs, though I'm certainly not as qualified as GM Park to do so.

Daniel


----------



## FearlessFreep (Sep 23, 2008)

What other arts have a central organization similar to the KKW?  

What does that bring to TKD that other arts do not have?

What does it cost TKD?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 23, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> What other arts have a central organization similar to the KKW?


Kendo has the FIK (Federation international kendo) of which the KKA (Korean Kumdo Association) is an affiliate.  I'm sure that other Japanese arts have their official bodies, due to the way such things are structured in Japan regarding government recognition and such.  Fencing has the FIE (Federation International Escrime) of which the USAF is an affiliate.  Can't speak for other arts.  The FIE is probably the closest the KKW in terms of its dominance (it really has no competition at all, whilst the KKW has some).  FIE not withstanding, I don't believe other martial organizations to be as proliferate or as commercial as the KKW seems to have become.



FearlessFreep said:


> What does that bring to TKD that other arts do not have?


In theory, minimum standards at each belt level the world over and portable rank the world over.



FearlessFreep said:


> What does it cost TKD?


It costs taekwondo a great degree of diversity in technique.  All must step in line with the big organization or be marginalized.  Some did not get on board with the Kukkiwon, and so we still have Tang Soo Do and Mu duk kwan surviving outside of the KKW, but lets face it, the KKW dominates the landscape of taekwondo.

Daniel


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 23, 2008)

Well for one thing instant recognition from anywhere in the world. RMcLain since I have spoken to GM Park about this and he is in uh about it, GM Kurban has stepped down and was thrown a retirement party about two months ago. He is also moved the way of KKW TKD and has been doing so for the last couple of years. Whu do you think he has been so big in the Ft. Worth international with alot of players as of late. Last year he brought over fifty to compete in Olympic style of sparring.

Not trying to start a war here but it does effect both of them and will so if it folds just like it will effect alot of us.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 23, 2008)

So who is running his school now? 

Mike Johnson has his own place.

Jennifer branch is more or less out of the business

Andrea Ronch has the rank, but she isnt senior enough

Ramsey has his own place

Eva and Nevill have thier own place

?


----------



## rmclain (Sep 23, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Well for one thing instant recognition from anywhere in the world. RMcLain since I have spoken to GM Park about this and he is in uh about it, GM Kurban has stepped down and was thrown a retirement party about two months ago. He is also moved the way of KKW TKD and has been doing so for the last couple of years. Whu do you think he has been so big in the Ft. Worth international with alot of players as of late. Last year he brought over fifty to compete in Olympic style of sparring.
> 
> Not trying to start a war here but it does effect both of them and will so if it folds just like it will effect alot of us.


 
Thanks for keeping me up-to-date on him.  I didn't know his dojang went that way or that he retired. I lost contact with Master Johnson after I left teaching at UTA.  I figured they were still doing the same way.

Who is the Chief Instructor now at Grandmaster Kurban's place?

R. McLain


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 23, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> So who is running his school now?
> 
> Mike Johnson has his own place.
> 
> ...


 
What I understand it is John Paul Mitchell and Ed and Helen Copeland.

By the way Mike is doing well at his new place, Eva and nevil is having trouble keeping the doors open I hear.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 23, 2008)

ah, that makes sense. JP is a good guy, I always liked him. Good fighter.Good forms too.

Ed and helen are good people as well.

Mike should be doing well, that close to the college. I always liked Eva, but I dont know Nevill that well. Sorry to hear they are having problems, but i cant say it suprises me. Some folks in Ft Worth wont take to thier ...."situation" very well


----------



## Miles (Sep 23, 2008)

This is one of the topics I wish to discuss with GM Park (former instructor at KKW) when he comes in October.  When he visited last April, he was very happy that my students received KKW certification.  When we trained in my basement dojang ("the Miguk Kukkiwon" he called it , he looked long and hard at the group photo of the Instructor Course trainees.

GM Uhm (KKW President) is GM Park's instructor.  GM Uhm has dedicated his life to Taekwondo and his shoes will be very hard to fill.  I am wondering who will be able to fill them and what their agenda will be.

This is an exciting time for Taekwondoin.


----------



## IcemanSK (Sep 23, 2008)

Miles said:


> This is one of the topics I wish to discuss with GM Park (former instructor at KKW) when he comes in October. When he visited last April, he was very happy that my students received KKW certification. When we trained in my basement dojang ("the Miguk Kukkiwon" he called it , he looked long and hard at the group photo of the Instructor Course trainees.
> 
> GM Uhm (KKW President) is GM Park's instructor. GM Uhm has dedicated his life to Taekwondo and his shoes will be very hard to fill. I am wondering who will be able to fill them and what their agenda will be.
> 
> This is an exciting time for Taekwondoin.


 

I'm glad you're optimistic, Master Miles. It's nor my nature, sadly. I'm working on cautiously optimistic. I anxiously await your report on GM Park's thoughts on the matter.:asian:


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 24, 2008)

The KKW will not fold.  There may be a purging of personel but KKW is not going anywhere.  Keep in mind what it symbolizes to the Korean people.  The government has helped back the structuring of the KKW since its beginnings.  To clos it down would actually do more harm than good.  People responsible for any misuse of monetary income will be asked to step down from their position.

The kwans will always have their lineages regardless of KKW.  There are still Kwan HQ's all over Korea.  For the most part they are more of a 'Hwe' (Association) than a 'Kwan' (School).


----------



## YoungMan (Sep 24, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Better question.
> 
> Why does the KKW need to survive?
> 
> ...


 
Why does it need to survive? Because it provides oversight to many schools and helps prevent rinky-dink instructors from teaching as they see fit and calling it Taekwondo. Call it accredidation if you will. I will trust a Kukkiwon school before I will a lot of schools that are not Kukkiwon, because at least I know what I'm getting. Otherwise, you're taking your chances.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 24, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> Why does it need to survive? Because it provides oversight to many schools and helps prevent rinky-dink instructors from teaching as they see fit and calling it Taekwondo. Call it accredidation if you will. I will trust a Kukkiwon school before I will a lot of schools that are not Kukkiwon, because at least I know what I'm getting. Otherwise, you're taking your chances.


Thats what its supposed to do.  I have, unfortunately, seen some very poor instructors with KKW credentials.  I've also seen some rinky dink instructors with no KKW credentials who are very, very good.

You're spot on regarding accredidation, though, and that's how much of the public sees it as well.

Daniel


----------



## IcemanSK (Sep 24, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> The KKW will not fold. There may be a purging of personel but KKW is not going anywhere. Keep in mind what it symbolizes to the Korean people. The government has helped back the structuring of the KKW since its beginnings. To clos it down would actually do more harm than good. People responsible for any misuse of monetary income will be asked to step down from their position.
> 
> The kwans will always have their lineages regardless of KKW. There are still Kwan HQ's all over Korea. For the most part they are more of a 'Hwe' (Association) than a 'Kwan' (School).


 

That assumes that folks know what their kwan lineage might be. Many people do not, nor do they care. For many, the KKW is all they've been told about.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 24, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> The KKW will not fold. There may be a purging of personel but KKW is not going anywhere. Keep in mind what it symbolizes to the Korean people. The government has helped back the structuring of the KKW since its beginnings. To clos it down would actually do more harm than good. People responsible for any misuse of monetary income will be asked to step down from their position.


That's pretty much how I see it. 

Daniel


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 24, 2008)

IcemanSK said:


> That assumes that folks know what their kwan lineage might be. Many people do not, nor do they care. For many, the KKW is all they've been told about.


 
Which is just as good.  The whole purpose of uniting under one roof was to do away with the individuality of kwans in order to work for a common goal.  For the most part the kwans are just social clubs for the old gaurd.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 24, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> Which is just as good.  The whole purpose of uniting under one roof was to do away with the individuality of kwans in order to work for a common goal.  For the most part the kwans are just social clubs for the old gaurd.



I preferred the kwan system myself.  Too many kwan specific hyung and exercises were lost in the name of Korean nationality.  It's always been the martial art I care about instead of some political ideal which frankly is lost on an American anyway.


----------



## Baby_Huey (Sep 24, 2008)

I'm not a WTF student or an ITF Student, I do study both ITF forms and WTF Palgwes at my school, Jung's Tae Kwon Do Academy ran by Grandmaster Woo Jin Jung. He has several schools in Iowa, Florida, North and South Carolina and a few other affililate schools.   My grandmaster believes that both ITF and WTF should merge as one are.  I don't think that Kukkiwon will fold but maybe this might help with a possible merger between the two, which in my opinion would help out Tae Kwon Do more as an art then Kukkiwon folding.


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 25, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> I preferred the kwan system myself. Too many kwan specific hyung and exercises were lost in the name of Korean nationality. It's always been the martial art I care about instead of some political ideal which frankly is lost on an American anyway.


 
Not to sound like an ***, but if you prefer the "Kwan" then your best bet is to quit TKD and join Shotokan as that is where the vast majority of the kwans came from.  Unless you came from Changdokwan or Jidokwan, the forms were pretty much the same through out.  It was more than just a political idea that prompted the formation of TKD.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 25, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> Not to sound like an ***, but if you prefer the "Kwan" then your best bet is to quit TKD and join Shotokan as that is where the vast majority of the kwans came from.  Unless you came from Changdokwan or Jidokwan, the forms were pretty much the same through out.  It was more than just a political idea that prompted the formation of TKD.



Yes, I was primarily thinking of the Jido Kwan and the Manchurian chuan fa forms Byung In Yoon taught.  My opinion still stands though.  I prefer my martial arts to be organic and more familial or school oriented.  The whole Kukkiwon system seems rather sterile and bureaucratic, but I'm not a Kukkiwon member so what do I know?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 25, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> Yes, I was primarily thinking of the Jido Kwan and the Manchurian chuan fa forms Byung In Yoon taught. My opinion still stands though. I prefer my martial arts to be organic and more familial or school oriented. The whole Kukkiwon system seems rather sterile and bureaucratic, but I'm not a Kukkiwon member so what do I know?


Unfortunately, anytime a big organization swallows one or more smaller organizations, homogenization is what occurs and whatever charm or uniqueness is lost.  

Daniel


----------



## bluekey88 (Sep 25, 2008)

If the Kukkiwon folds...we may see a retunr to a Kwan-like era.  But I don't see the old Kwans themselves taking the reigns.  My gut feeling is that they have really been subsumed by the larger organization.  Maybe in and around Korea they will have a resurgence. 

 Elsewhere, I see individual schools doing things their way.  TKD will then splinter further until you have "99 flavors" of TKD instead of the 3 or 4 we have today.  This is neither a good nor bad thing...some school's will be very good, some not so much.  Much like today. 

Peace,
Erik


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 25, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> Yes, I was primarily thinking of the Jido Kwan and the Manchurian chuan fa forms Byung In Yoon taught. My opinion still stands though. I prefer my martial arts to be organic and more familial or school oriented. The whole Kukkiwon system seems rather sterile and bureaucratic, but I'm not a Kukkiwon member so what do I know?


 
Also keep this in mind, the KKW doesn't restrict the practicing of other techniques.  It lays out a specific requirement to be met in ordered to be certified.  So your Jidokwan school (which btw, I am also Jidokwan) can still hold true to its root forms.


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 25, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> Unfortunately, anytime a big organization swallows one or more smaller organizations, homogenization is what occurs and whatever charm or uniqueness is lost.
> 
> Daniel


 
Keep in mind the KKW didn't "swallow" the kwans.  The leaders of the kwans formed the KKW.  The banded together to form a uniformed curriculum of martial arts.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 25, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> Keep in mind the KKW didn't "swallow" the kwans. The leaders of the kwans formed the KKW. The banded together to form a uniformed curriculum of martial arts.


True.  

I used the generic expression in the sense that the many went into the larger one in the process of forming the KKW.  But the end result is the same: homogenization.  While not necesarilly bad, what made each kwan unique was lost in the process.

There's a benefit to having a big organization, no question.  Stability, uniform standards, portable rank, huge number of tournaments available to members, and the ability to actually check the authenticity of a practitioner's claims of rank (a huge benefit in my opinion, given the number of frauds out there).  

But there's also a drawback.  Gradings are not policed as strictly and standards generally lower, not rise, when small orgs morph into one big one.  Big organizations tend to come with all of the corporate corruption issues that small orgs can (but not always do) more easily avoid.  Which is the very problem that the KKW seems to be experiencing.

Daniel


----------



## YoungMan (Sep 25, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> Not to sound like an ***, but if you prefer the "Kwan" then your best bet is to quit TKD and join Shotokan as that is where the vast majority of the kwans came from. Unless you came from Changdokwan or Jidokwan, the forms were pretty much the same through out. It was more than just a political idea that prompted the formation of TKD.


 
Not true at all. Every Kwan, even from the earliest days, established themselves as separate from whatever their influences were. Chung Do Kwan was definitely not just Shotokan. So you could join a Kwan and still retain the flavor and spirit or Korean martial art.


----------



## exile (Sep 25, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> Not true at all. Every Kwan, even from the earliest days, established themselves as separate from whatever their influences were. Chung Do Kwan was definitely not just Shotokan. So you could join a Kwan and still retain the flavor and spirit or Korean martial art.



Yeah, and that point deserves a lot of expanding on. The Kwans didn't just get together and ditch their separate identities, curricula, forms and so on; they were under terrific pressure from the Korean government, and not just any old part of the government, but the ROK _military_&#8212;which had more clout than the rest of the government put together&#8212;looking for a standardized training curriculum for its infantry; for the gory details, see Eric Madis' 'The evolution of Taekwondo from Korean karate', _Martial Arts in the Modern World_ (Green & Svinth, eds. Praeger, 2003) or Dakin Burdick's 1997 and 2000 papers (citations here). Whatever the facts are about Korean history that drove the Kwans to accept the homogenization that a series of military dictatorships was anxious to impose on the spectrum of MAs they originally taught, there's absolutely no reason why we in North American need to accept the KKW's particular interpretation of what TKD should be (something very glitzified and wushu-like, I'd say, judging from the new forms they're sponsoring; but what else is new?). The British have done a brilliant job of taking karate away from its increasing sportification, a major trend in Japan among other places, back to its down-and-dirty fighting roots through the work of Iain Abernethy, Gavin Mulholland and many others; there's no reason why a North American reconstruction of the kwan idea, with curricula built around the self-defense applications elaborated by people like Simon John O'Neill and our own Stuart Anslow, can't do the same the same thing for the increasing number of people here who don't have any interest in sport TKD but want the effictive fighting system that we know TKD started out as. For the KKW, and the Korean TKD directorate general, TKD is an instrument of Korean nationalism and a potent economic lever. What on earth does that have to do with _us??_ A TKD curriculum and organizational context reflecting North American interests and MA priorities, which are definitely not going to coincide with Korean interests and priorities, is going to emerge over the next decade, I'd say, and that's all to the good. And experimentation and innovation in the development of that context, in which the individual school is the active center of curriculum development and certification, is I think far healthier than a corrupt, bloated top-down sport mega-organization, purpose-built for the nationalistic aspirations of another country, with a profoundly different history and set of problems that it hopes to overcome. No matter how the KKW is restructured, it, or whatever replaces it in name, it's always going to be an instrumentality of an ROK agenda that serves the ROK vision of what it wants to be in the world, just as it and its precursers have been for just about half a century. I think we can do a lot better on our own.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 25, 2008)

Great post Exile and welcome back:asian:


----------



## exile (Sep 25, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Great post Exile and welcome back:asian:



Thanks, Terryit's very good to _be_ back!


----------



## IcemanSK (Sep 25, 2008)

I second Master Stoker's words on both counts.:ultracool


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 26, 2008)

And I third them!

Daniel


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 26, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> True.
> 
> I used the generic expression in the sense that the many went into the larger one in the process of forming the KKW. But the end result is the same: homogenization. While not necesarilly bad, what made each kwan unique was lost in the process.


 
Again, unless you were Jidokwan or Chang Moo Kwan, there wasn't really anything unique about the schools.  They were all pretty much students of Shotokan.  So they all studied the same patterns and such.



> There's a benefit to having a big organization, no question. Stability, uniform standards, portable rank, huge number of tournaments available to members, and the ability to actually check the authenticity of a practitioner's claims of rank (a huge benefit in my opinion, given the number of frauds out there).
> 
> But there's also a drawback. Gradings are not policed as strictly and standards generally lower, not rise, when small orgs morph into one big one. Big organizations tend to come with all of the corporate corruption issues that small orgs can (but not always do) more easily avoid. Which is the very problem that the KKW seems to be experiencing.
> 
> Daniel


 
But is that the organization's fault or the fault of the instructor for the lowered standards?  I place a bit more blame on the individual schools than that of the organization.  As far as corruption is concerned, small orgs can be just as bad as the big orgs.  The bigger orgs have a bit more checks and balances than the smaller ones.  However, they are more vulnerable to corruption than the smaller ones.


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 26, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> Not true at all. Every Kwan, even from the earliest days, established themselves as separate from whatever their influences were. Chung Do Kwan was definitely not just Shotokan. So you could join a Kwan and still retain the flavor and spirit or Korean martial art.


 
I would have to disagree.  For the most part the kwan leaders were students of Shotokan who, upon returning to Korea opened up their own school.  Very few had any other martial art training outside of that.  What other martial art did CDK present outside of Shotokan?  

Joining a kwan didn't give you a Korean martial art.  For the most part you were learning a Japanese martial art.  Once they all got together, they combined their efforts to produce a Korean martial art.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 26, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> Again, unless you were Jidokwan or Chang Moo Kwan, there wasn't really anything unique about the schools. They were all pretty much students of Shotokan. So they all studied the same patterns and such.


Perhaps, but even if that is the case, each one, I'm sure had its unique flavor.  Within a given martial art, there is always variance between schools, even in the same organization.  Each kwan was a product of the individuals who founded it and the way in which they trained and perhaps even where they were.  I can't say much beyond this, as I am not as knowleagable about the kwans as I'd like to be (working on it).



miguksaram said:


> But is that the organization's fault or the fault of the instructor for the lowered standards? I place a bit more blame on the individual schools than that of the organization. As far as corruption is concerned, small orgs can be just as bad as the big orgs. The bigger orgs have a bit more checks and balances than the smaller ones. However, they are more vulnerable to corruption than the smaller ones.


Most definitely small orgs can be as bad.  We're on the same page there.  That's why I said _Big organizations tend to come with all of the corporate corruption issues that small orgs can (but not always do) more easily avoid._  Big orgs have more checks and ballances, but also more avenues of corruption to check and ballance.

Regarding lowering standards, I wasn't thinking of it in that regard: I'm talking about the actual codified standards of the curriculum, not the laxity of individual instructors promoting undeserving students, though I agree that that is a problem too.

Daniel


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 26, 2008)

exile said:


> Yeah, and that point deserves a lot of expanding on. The Kwans didn't just get together and ditch their separate identities, curricula, forms and so on; they were under terrific pressure from the Korean government, and not just any old part of the government, but the ROK _military_which had more clout than the rest of the government put together


 
This should be expanded a bit more.  Prior to any military influence, the kwan leaders wanted to unify during the Korean war due to social disorder.  They wanted to establish a distinguishable martial art that brought back Korean traditional fighting skills.  There was much disruption in this process.  In '59 Choi, Hong-hi lobbied the Korean Ministry of Education and the Korean Sports Authority to establish the the KTA.  In '61 was when there was a Military coup which over threw the reigning government and caused a rush in re-registering the KTA.  This was unsuccessful and an independent meeting was established without outside influence to develope the standard.

It was Choi's connection to President Rhee which help put his art in the military training as well as pushed it through out Korea.  Prior to this the military was not pushing for anything.



> Whatever the facts are about Korean history that drove the Kwans to accept the homogenization that a series of military dictatorships was anxious to impose on the spectrum of MAs they originally taught, there's absolutely no reason why we in North American need to accept the KKW's particular interpretation of what TKD should be (something very glitzified and wushu-like, I'd say, judging from the new forms they're sponsoring; but what else is new?).


 
This makes no sense.  That's like saying we don't have to accept the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law, even though they establish it.  The KKW was established to be the interpreter of what TKD is supposed to be.  It was established by the kwan leaders as a source of unification of the TKD.  



> The British have done a brilliant job of taking karate away from its increasing sportification, a major trend in Japan among other places, back to its down-and-dirty fighting roots through the work of Iain Abernethy, Gavin Mulholland and many others; there's no reason why a North American reconstruction of the kwan idea, with curricula built around the self-defense applications elaborated by people like Simon John O'Neill and our own Stuart Anslow, can't do the same the same thing for the increasing number of people here who don't have any interest in sport TKD but want the effictive fighting system that we know TKD started out as.


 
As I said before.  If you want the "traditional" TKD, then go take Shotokan.



> For the KKW, and the Korean TKD directorate general, TKD is an instrument of Korean nationalism and a potent economic lever. What on earth does that have to do with _us??_ A TKD curriculum and organizational context reflecting North American interests and MA priorities, which are definitely not going to coincide with Korean interests and priorities, is going to emerge over the next decade, I'd say, and that's all to the good. And experimentation and innovation in the development of that context, in which the individual school is the active center of curriculum development and certification, is I think far healthier than a corrupt, bloated top-down sport mega-organization, purpose-built for the nationalistic aspirations of another country, with a profoundly different history and set of problems that it hopes to overcome. No matter how the KKW is restructured, it, or whatever replaces it in name, it's always going to be an instrumentality of an ROK agenda that serves the ROK vision of what it wants to be in the world, just as it and its precursers have been for just about half a century. I think we can do a lot better on our own.


 
Yes, such great "American" TKD concepts have been done so well such as the ATA.  No money grubbing there eh?  Bottom line is this, if you don't like the KKW, then don't be a part of it.  Just don't call what you do TKD.


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 26, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> Perhaps, but even if that is the case, each one, I'm sure had its unique flavor. Within a given martial art, there is always variance between schools, even in the same organization. Each kwan was a product of the individuals who founded it and the way in which they trained and perhaps even where they were. I can't say much beyond this, as I am not as knowleagable about the kwans as I'd like to be (working on it).


 
Well that shouldn't have changed.  The KKW just establishes a basic set of requirements needed to be promoted within the system.  Every school can go above and beyond the requirments if they so choose.  So in essence the flavor is still there.  Example would be my last instructor's TKD school.  We are also required to learn basic arnis & HKD in order to promote.  So we have our own flavor while still be in line with KKW.  He hasn't lost his identity.




> Most definitely small orgs can be as bad. We're on the same page there. That's why I said _Big organizations tend to come with all of the corporate corruption issues that small orgs can (but not always do) more easily avoid._ Big orgs have more checks and ballances, but also more avenues of corruption to check and ballance.


 
Agreed.



> Regarding lowering standards, I wasn't thinking of it in that regard: I'm talking about the actual codified standards of the curriculum, not the laxity of individual instructors promoting undeserving students, though I agree that that is a problem too


 
I see what you mean now.  Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 26, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> As I said before.  If you want the "traditional" TKD, then go take Shotokan.
> 
> Yes, such great "American" TKD concepts have been done so well such as the ATA.  No money grubbing there eh?  Bottom line is this, if you don't like the KKW, then don't be a part of it.  Just don't call what you do TKD.



I reject the idea that only Kukkiwon taekwondo is taekwondo.  The Kukkiwon may be the largest "style" currently, but it's certainly not the only one out there.  The various ITFs are an obvious counterexample as are the students of prominent TKD independent masters like  He Il Cho or Jhoon Rhee.


----------



## Kwanjang (Sep 26, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> I reject the idea that only Kukkiwon taekwondo is taekwondo. The Kukkiwon may be the largest "style" currently, but it's certainly not the only one out there. The various ITFs are an obvious counterexample as are the students of prominent TKD independent masters like He Il Cho or Jhoon Rhee.


 
Nice post! Both great icons of TKD. My pref would be He Il Cho. almost joined his Assoc. in 97


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 26, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> I reject the idea that only Kukkiwon taekwondo is taekwondo.  The Kukkiwon may be the largest "style" currently, but it's certainly not the only one out there.  The various ITFs are an obvious counterexample as are the students of prominent TKD independent masters like  He Il Cho or Jhoon Rhee.



as do I.

The KKW isnt even a style, it is apolitical organization that exists, as far as I can see just to make money.

And what do you get for that money?

a card

and the ability to look someone up and see if THEY paid the KKW money. 

The idea that it lends one credibility is false, since they dont actually test the people below a certain rank, all you gotta do is get a signature from someone else that paid them money

they only actually test what? candidates for 8th and above?

they just take the money and issue the card. 

Sorry, but this "the KKW way or the highway" stuff irks me to no end

Martial artists should not make themselves slaves to a political group


----------



## Kwanjang (Sep 26, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> as do I.
> 
> they only actually test what? candidates for 8th and above?


 
some great posting CT!

Yes, My teacher had to got appear before them in 2001 for his 9th.

I think in the Beginning the concept of the Kukkiwon was a noble one. But it would seem not to be the case anymore.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 26, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> as do I.


And I as well.  The idea that only the KKW is taekwondo can certainly be argued, but so too can the opposite.  I'm not even sure that the KKW would maintain that non KKW taekwondo is not taekwondo (though I could be wrong on that count).



Twin Fist said:


> The KKW isnt even a style, it is a political organization that exists, as far as I can see just to make money.


I disagree with the first sentence; it is a style with specific forms and techniques.  Regarding the rest, while I disagree that they exist for the sole purpose of making money, making money is definitely something that they do very well.



Twin Fist said:


> And what do you get for that money?
> 
> a card
> 
> and the ability to look someone up and see if THEY paid the KKW money.


It also gains one access to any tournament circuit that requires KKW membership or a KKW blackbelt.  May or may not be important to you (it isn't to me personally), but it is important for some.  Also, it is as valueable to those who hold KKW rank as your rank is to you.  Admittedly, the pride that one holds in their KKW cert is tied to their dojang and not to the KKW itself.  Certainly, one could ask what _any_ dan certificate gains you beyond a certificate and a card.  At least the ability to look someone up is one thing that other certs don't have.  

A school being a KKW school simply means that it can provide its students with a recognized cert.  Nothing more.  The value of the certification lays in the instructor who signed off on it and the practitioner who holds it, which is very quickly determined, certification or not. 



Twin Fist said:


> The idea that it lends one credibility is false, since they dont actually test the people below a certain rank, all you gotta do is get a signature from someone else that paid them money


The lending of credibility is in the mind of the consumer, not the content of the certificate.  The consumer is generally ignorant, but for those that are inclined to check credentials, the KKW cert is a plus.    Anything that builds consumer confidence is a benefit for a school in a difficult economic climb.

Also, how much genuine credibility does _any_ certification have?  Plenty of people have high school diplomas (some college degrees) who are illiterate.  But a literate holder of a GED will nearly always be passed over for the holder of a high school diploma, and certainly for someone with a diploma and a degree.  But neither of those truly means that the person is qualified.  ASE certification is certainly legitamate, and there are plenty of crap mechanics out there that have it.  But every garage and service center proudly displays the sign, as it clicks switches in the mind of the consumer.



Twin Fist said:


> they only actually test what? candidates for 8th and above?
> 
> they just take the money and issue the card.
> 
> ...


It is the responsibility of the instructors who can issue KKW certs below eighth dan to conduct legitamate tests.  Given that most of them collect a fee far and above the Kukkiwon's fee of 120.00 USD, I place a far higher responsibility (and much greater part of the blame) squarely on their collective shoulders.

As for the KKW or the highway, it doesnt' irk me; I agree to disagree agreeably and continue doing what I'm doing.

As for the last sentence, I agree wholeheartedly.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 26, 2008)

Kwanjang said:


> some great posting CT!


Thank you, but you quoted Twin Fist

Daniel


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 26, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> I reject the idea that only Kukkiwon taekwondo is taekwondo. The Kukkiwon may be the largest "style" currently, but it's certainly not the only one out there. The various ITFs are an obvious counterexample as are the students of prominent TKD independent masters like He Il Cho or Jhoon Rhee.


 
There are many TKD splinter groups out there, and yes, in my opinoins ITF is a splinter group of TKD.  Choi didn't get the power he craved and went off on his own.  I also have a lot of respect for GM Rhee and Cho.  Rhee was one of the first black belts (#17) of the Chungdokwan under Lee, Won-kuk and has a healthy relationship with the KKW.  If anything, Cho proves my point about being in line with KKW guildlines while having your own flavor.  Unless he has changed, he teachese KKW forms as well as his own system and he is a KKW certified black belt. 

The original intent of KKW was to be the underlying guidelines for TKD


----------



## Kwanjang (Sep 26, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> Thank you, but you quoted Twin Fist
> 
> Daniel


 
whoops...Sorry bout that! I do enjoy reading your posts!


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 26, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> as do I.
> 
> The KKW isnt even a style, it is apolitical organization that exists, as far as I can see just to make money.


 
Do you know who took care of the athletes accomodations during the Hanmadang in Korea?



> And what do you get for that money?
> 
> a card and the ability to look someone up and see if THEY paid the KKW money.


 
What do you get with other associations?



> The idea that it lends one credibility is false, since they dont actually test the people below a certain rank, all you gotta do is get a signature from someone else that paid them money
> 
> they only actually test what? candidates for 8th and above?


 
Actually 4th and above should be tested via KKW or a KKW official.



> they just take the money and issue the card.


 
Don't they do the same with driver's liscences?



> Sorry, but this "the KKW way or the highway" stuff irks me to no end
> 
> Martial artists should not make themselves slaves to a political group


 
Then stay away from martial arts because it is all political.  If you follow a certain way you are subject to being part of a political process.  I am not saying KKW is without flaws and it does need to clean house if there is as much corruption as people are claiming.  Just don't kid yourself in thinking all the splinter groups are just squeaky clean.  Hell half of these American associations are founded by people who magically became 10th dans.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Sep 26, 2008)

I'm afraid that as long as people pay for martial art lessons, be it TKD, Karate, Judo, or any other MA of any kind, there is going to be corruption.

Money does that to people...they may start off with good intentions, but the more schools that they have under their "belt" as an orginization, the more money they are going to make.  The more money they make, the more they want to make, and will come up with all kinds of crazy ways to make the money.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 26, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> Hell half of these American associations are founded by people who magically became 10th dans.


Not magic.  Just sufficiently advanced enough technology that to us mere traditional practitioners, it is indistinguishable from magic.

Daniel


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 26, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> As for the last sentence, I agree wholeheartedly.
> 
> Daniel



well thanks CT.
It is always a pleasure to get positive feedback from one's peers


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 26, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> well thanks CT.
> It is always a pleasure to get positive feedback from one's peers


Agreed.  Lots of positive in your posts

Daniel


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 26, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> Do you know who took care of the athletes accomodations during the Hanmadang in Korea?



dont know. Dont care.



miguksaram said:


> What do you get with other associations?


 not much else, which is why i dont belong to ANY orgs



miguksaram said:


> Actually 4th and above should be tested via KKW or a KKW official.



in theory yeah



miguksaram said:


> Don't they do the same with driver's liscences?


true, but no one outside of highschool looks down thier nose at someone without a driver's license. In my experience anyway



miguksaram said:


> Then stay away from martial arts because it is all political.



nope, my martial arts isnt.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 26, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> There are many TKD splinter groups out there, and yes, in my opinoins ITF is a splinter group of TKD.  Choi didn't get the power he craved and went off on his own.



I guess it depends on your perspective.  I think ITF people could reasonably argue that it's the WTF that is the splinter org, following the Confuscian family head ideal.  Choi WAS the head man at one point - you could argue that any legitimacy went through him.  

I realize the Korean government sans Choi endorsed the new WTF instead.  Again, it's all about perspective.


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 26, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> dont know. Dont care.


 
Well the answer was KKW who foot the bill for them.



> not much else, which is why i dont belong to ANY orgs


 
Neither did your instructor or his/her instructor?  So basicly you just teach whatever and then just give out a belt without any true structured curriculum?





> true, but no one outside of highschool looks down thier nose at someone without a driver's license. In my experience anyway


 
The same would apply with the KKW 




> nope, my martial arts isnt.


Cool..What martial art do you study?


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 26, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> I guess it depends on your perspective. I think ITF people could reasonably argue that it's the WTF that is the splinter org, following the Confuscian family head ideal. Choi WAS the head man at one point - you could argue that any legitimacy went through him.
> 
> I realize the Korean government sans Choi endorsed the new WTF instead. Again, it's all about perspective.


 
Choi was never the head man.  There was never any head.  If you are looking at seniority he wouldn't even rank up there.  The only pull was his military pull.  If it weren't for the fact the ruling military regime, Choi would have nothing.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 26, 2008)

I realize General Choi was a junior martially to most of the kwan heads (for example).  But he was 'elected' president of the KTA was he not?  Would that not make him the de facto head of tae kwon do before he left Korea?


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 26, 2008)

I study TKD, from the Jhoon Rhee-Allen Steen line.
Interesting side note. i started in "Tex kwon Do" as we call it in 1984, then left to join the military. I can back and picked it up 15 years later. And the neat thing is, the same kata were being taught. The same blocks, the same belt system, the same requirements for belt rank, the same forms, the same kicks, etc

The exact same structured cirriculum, basically un-changed (some minor drills were dropped and/or replaced by other training drills) for 15 years

all without the the need for sending a dime to Korea.

Another interesting side note:

The katas we do are commonly called the ITF, or Chang Hon forms. They are the ones Jhoon Rhee taught in 1959. WAY before the KKW was even a glimmer in anyone's eye, so the ITF isnt the splinter group, it is the original TKD. It was what was taught BEFORE the Koreans decided to re-write thier history and start building a so-called "national martial art(sport)"




miguksaram said:


> Well the answer was KKW who foot the bill for them.
> 
> Neither did your instructor or his/her instructor?  So basicly you just teach whatever and then just give out a belt without any true structured curriculum?
> 
> ...


----------



## BrandonLucas (Sep 26, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> I study TKD, from the Jhoon Rhee-Allen Steen line.
> Interesting side note. i started in "Tex kwon Do" as we call it in 1984, then left to join the military. I can back and picked it up 15 years later. And the neat thing is, the same kata were being taught. The same blocks, the same belt system, the same requirements for belt rank, the same forms, the same kicks, etc
> 
> The exact same structured cirriculum, basically un-changed (some minor drills were dropped and/or replaced by other training drills) for 15 years
> ...


 
To me, this is the way it should be.  I realize that there is going to be some change, but I don't think it would change a great deal...only very slightly.  TKD is TKD.  If you change it too much, whether you think it's more effective the way you change it, it ceases to be TKD.

And I appreciate and respect the fact that TKD came from Korea.  I don't see the need to send them any money for learning TKD, especially when they're not the ones teaching it to me.  And, on that note, if you want to be really technical, no one is learning the strict, original Korean style of TKD unless they're taking from someone directly from that era that lived in Korea at the time.


----------



## exile (Sep 26, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> This makes no sense.  *That's like saying we don't have to accept the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law, even though they establish it.*  The KKW was established to be the interpreter of what TKD is supposed to be.  It was established by the kwan leaders as a source of unification of the TKD.



TKD is the name for a technique set and a set of combat strategies. The ways these can be applied, the way strategic plans and tactical resources may be combined to the advantage of the defender, are latent in the set of combat tools the art makes available. Your error in the passage I quoted from you is that you're assuming as given something which actually the issue under dispute. Those of us who do not see TKD as the exclusive property of the KKW's policy du jour _deny_ that 'they establish it.' TKD has a wealth of resources from the Kwan and succeeding eras that are built into its hyung sets. _That's_ TKD. The Korean TKD directorate has steadily promoted the defanging of a powerful combat system in favor of an esoteric and artificial martial sport/spectacle;  its claim (in denial of TKD's Okinawan/Japanese roots) that because the components of that system originated in Korea, its development and definition is solely Korean, makes about as much sense as the claim that because the first novels were written in English, you have to write something in English or you're not entitled to call it a novel. 

The techical content of TKD, its combat resources, is what is summarized in the forms. And any application of that technical content to real combat is TKD, regardless of the KKW's view of those applications. I've seen the most absurd rubbish passed off as bunkai, booh hae, whaever you want to call it, on the KKW website in the past&#8212;stuff where the very same cognate applications of identical sequences in Shotokan kata have been shown to be ludicrous by British Combat Association people like Abernethy, Peter Consterdine and Geoff Thompson, people with decades of actual combat experience as bouncers, club security people and the like under their belts. You're saying that because this kind of ludicrous pseudo-application of the content of the hyungs is endorsed and promoted by the KKW, that means that the far more realistic kinds of applications that Stuart Anslow and others have provided are not Taekwondo? And you're saying that _that_ makes sense?? 




miguksaram said:


> Yes, such great "American" TKD concepts have been done so well such as the ATA.  No money grubbing there eh?  Bottom line is this, if you don't like the KKW, then don't be a part of it.  Just don't call what you do TKD.



Let's follow out your logic here. I've suggested that North Americans would do better to think about what they want their TKD to be, to experiment with it and develop it in various directions&#8212;to explore multiple hypotheses about what the best exploitation of its technical content is for combat purposes, with individual schools pursuing different curricula and evolving new approaches in the light of recent work on how the problems posed by street combat can be solved using novel interpretations of the resources in TKD, particularly the forms. And your response is, yeah, well, the ATA sucks. I have the impression you think there's something _relevant_ about that reply. :lol:

The bottom line is, TKD is what is in its hyungs, the formal patterns that encode its combat techs. And you don't need KKW permission either to work out the optimal application of the strategic and tactical content of those patterns for real self defense, or to call it TKD. By the same token, the KKW's decision to exclude the Pyung-Ahns and marginalize the Palgwes from their curriculum doesn't make those forms any less part of what TKD is, regardless of their historical origins. I note that in your comments in the TKD/bunkai you comment that




miguksaram said:


> I feel that is something that is missing from Korean arts.  I would love to see KKW put that into their curriculum.  I enjoy doing it in my Shorei-ryu studies.



Perish forfend that people might actually, already be _doing_ just that&#8212;Anslow, O'Neill and an increasing number of others&#8212;and calling it TKD; after all, by your lights, it's not really part of TKD till the 'KKW put that into their curriculum'. 


 Let me turn your own advice back on you: if you want to confine your TKD to what an instrumentality of the Korean government decides TKD should be, for the greater glory of the ROK, by all means do so. Just don't tell the rest of us who are trying to explore and expand the art (based on the technical core embodied in its patterns) in ways that seem practical and useful to us, that we're not doing TKD. We know better, eh?


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 26, 2008)

All I know the KKW is in big trouble all they have become is what the founding fathers did not want, a money hungry cyclone of destruction. I am KKW certified which means what exactly nothing because alot of the KKW guys know nothing but WTF style. No SD all sport that is what it hasbecome and will be. Sorry I have been doing it before the KKW back when it was the KTA.


----------



## exile (Sep 26, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> All I know the KKW is in big trouble all they have become is what the founding fathers did not want, a money hungry cyclone of destruction. I am KKW certified which means what exactly nothing because *alot of the KKW guys no nothing but WTF style. No SD all sport that is what it hasbecome and will be. *Sorry I have been doing it before the KKW back when it was the KTA.



Exactly, Terry, and that's the point. And we're supposed to accept the absurd premise that somehow the KKW owns the concept TKD and is the sole arbiter of what constitutes it???

As far as I know, the Académie Française is not at all corrupt, but they too would like to be able to decide what is French and what is not. Just try telling someone from a Provençal, Normandy or Northern Rhône town or village that they don't really speak French because the Académie is highly suspicious of the source of some of their vocabulary!


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 29, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> I realize General Choi was a junior martially to most of the kwan heads (for example). But he was 'elected' president of the KTA was he not? Would that not make him the de facto head of tae kwon do before he left Korea?


I'm glad you placed "elected" in quotes.  Pretty much he was put in charge largely due to his military connections.  In 1959 he was in charge of the KTA, however, that lasted all of 2 years at most.


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 29, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> I study TKD, from the Jhoon Rhee-Allen Steen line.  Interesting side note. i started in "Tex kwon Do" as we call it in 1984, then left to join the military. I can back and picked it up 15 years later. And the neat thing is, the same kata were being taught. The same blocks, the same belt system, the same requirements for belt rank, the same forms, the same kicks, etcThe exact same structured cirriculum, basically un-changed (some minor drills were dropped and/or replaced by other training drills) for 15 years all without the the need for sending a dime to Korea.


 
Cool..Who did you send your money to?  Which organization?



> Another interesting side note:
> 
> The katas we do are commonly called the ITF, or Chang Hon forms. They are the ones Jhoon Rhee taught in 1959. WAY before the KKW was even a glimmer in anyone's eye, so the ITF isnt the splinter group, it is the original TKD. It was what was taught BEFORE the Koreans decided to re-write thier history and start building a so-called "national martial art(sport)"


 
Rhee was an original student of Chungdokwan's Lee, Won-kuk.  Choi was an honorary black belt under the Chungdokwan.  They taught shotokan forms.  They were not the original TKD, because, as you stated, TKD didn't exist.  Once TKD did come into their own, patterns were changed.  Choi didn't like the fact he had no power or say so and split off with his followers.  So again, ITF is a splinter group.


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 29, 2008)

exile said:


> Those of us who do not see TKD as the exclusive property of the KKW's policy du jour _deny_ that 'they establish it.' TKD has a wealth of resources from the Kwan and succeeding eras that are built into its hyung sets. _That's_ TKD. The Korean TKD directorate has steadily promoted the defanging of a powerful combat system in favor of an esoteric and artificial martial sport/spectacle; its claim (in denial of TKD's Okinawan/Japanese roots) that because the components of that system originated in Korea, its development and definition is solely Korean, makes about as much sense as the claim that because the first novels were written in English, you have to write something in English or you're not entitled to call it a novel.


 
Prior to the formation of TKD, all that was taught was Japanese/Okinawan karate.  The concept of TKD was developed in Korea.  This concept is based off of Kwan leaders knowledge in karate and other areas of martial arts.  TKD has since evolved from it roots of a Jap/Oki art into something that is uniquely Korean.  Yes, I feel the 2000 year history they put on the website is BS and that they should change it to more exact history.

However that doesn't change the fact that if you are not studying KKW standards or have them in your curriculum, then you are not doing TKD.  You are doing some hybrid system that may have been based off of TKD at one time.  



> The techical content of TKD, its combat resources, is what is summarized in the forms. And any application of that technical content to real combat is TKD, regardless of the KKW's view of those applications. I've seen the most absurd rubbish passed off as bunkai, booh hae, whaever you want to call it, on the KKW website in the paststuff where the very same cognate applications of identical sequences in Shotokan kata have been shown to be ludicrous by British Combat Association people like Abernethy, Peter Consterdine and Geoff Thompson, people with decades of actual combat experience as bouncers, club security people and the like under their belts. You're saying that because this kind of ludicrous pseudo-application of the content of the hyungs is endorsed and promoted by the KKW, that means that the far more realistic kinds of applications that Stuart Anslow and others have provided are not Taekwondo? And you're saying that _that_ makes sense??


 
Not at all.  Nor did I ever say that what they pass off as bunkai is the real deal.  Perhaps, you should read what I am writing more carefully and try not to put your own spin on what I am saying.




> Let's follow out your logic here. I've suggested that North Americans would do better to think about what they want their TKD to be, to experiment with it and develop it in various directionsto explore multiple hypotheses about what the best exploitation of its technical content is for combat purposes, with individual schools pursuing different curricula and evolving new approaches in the light of recent work on how the problems posed by street combat can be solved using novel interpretations of the resources in TKD, particularly the forms. And your response is, yeah, well, the ATA sucks. I have the impression you think there's something _relevant_ about that reply. :lol:


 
I believe my reply was to your long winded post about how we can do a better curriculum in TKD.  From what I am understanding you biggest gripe is that KKW-TKD is very watered down and you said we could do better with our own concept of TKD...hince my ATA comment, which to me is much more watered down that KKW-TKD.  So yes it does have relevance.  



> The bottom line is, TKD is what is in its hyungs, the formal patterns that encode its combat techs. And you don't need KKW permission either to work out the optimal application of the strategic and tactical content of those patterns for real self defense, or to call it TKD. By the same token, the KKW's decision to exclude the Pyung-Ahns and marginalize the Palgwes from their curriculum doesn't make those forms any less part of what TKD is, regardless of their historical origins. I note that in your comments in the TKD/bunkai you comment that.  Perish forfend that people might actually, already be _doing_ just thatAnslow, O'Neill and an increasing number of othersand calling it TKD; after all, by your lights, it's not really part of TKD till the 'KKW put that into their curriculum'.
> 
> 
> Let me turn your own advice back on you: if you want to confine your TKD to what an instrumentality of the Korean government decides TKD should be, for the greater glory of the ROK, by all means do so. Just don't tell the rest of us who are trying to explore and expand the art (based on the technical core embodied in its patterns) in ways that seem practical and useful to us, that we're not doing TKD. We know better, eh?



Ok..I am going to say this one more time.  After this I need you to be patient with me as I draw pictures for you.

KKW-TKD DOES NOT DICTATE HOW YOU RUN YOUR SCHOOL.  The only thing it dictates is that you meet the basic requirements for certification, which is the curriculum that they set out.  You can do what ever the hell you want outside of that.   If you want to change the bunkai, then by all means change it.  If you want to add different self defense, then by all mean add it.  Do whatever, interpret whatever, but just have the bare minimum requirements they are asking for in that curriculum.  Outside of that, they could give a crap. 

So yes, I think bunkai is lacking in the TKD...so what can do now....hmmmm...let me think....Oh yeah, implement the bunkai into part of my school's curriculum.  Again, quit trying to read more into what I am saying.  I never said that KKW-TKD was the most effective martial art, nor have I said it was a flalwess orgainzation. 

These are just things you like to rant about which, has no relevance in what we are trying to discuss.


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 29, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> All I know the KKW is in big trouble all they have become is what the founding fathers did not want, a money hungry cyclone of destruction. I am KKW certified which means what exactly nothing because alot of the KKW guys know nothing but WTF style. No SD all sport that is what it hasbecome and will be. Sorry I have been doing it before the KKW back when it was the KTA.


 
It would be the fault of the instructor for not teaching SD, not the organization.  Don't confuse the two.  I am KKW certified and my instructor did teach us SD.  So is my KKW BB better than yours or the guy who only learned WTF sparring?  Not at all.  We just learned a different school curriculum.  However, the basic KKW curriculum should have been the same.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 29, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> I'm glad you placed "elected" in quotes.  Pretty much he was put in charge largely due to his military connections.  In 1959 he was in charge of the KTA, however, that lasted all of 2 years at most.



You're still skirting the issue.  He was the administrative head of the association that unified the kwans.  That makes Choi the head of tae kwon do at the time proceeding his departure from Korea.  Additionally, I believe General Choi was one of the main proponents of using the name tae kwon do in the first place.  Sorry, using antecedent logic the ITF folks have a very good argument that they are the "true" TKD - it's as good a claim if not better than the one you are making for Kukkiwon TKD.

Personally, I think it's all tae kwon do, whether you are ITF, KKW, ATA, or even <gasp> independent.


----------



## YoungMan (Sep 29, 2008)

The ITF was founded in 1966, and was composed primarily of Chung Do Kwan students. Without Chung Do Kwan, he would have had nothing. Did he contribute the name? Possibly, although opinions vary.
All Choi did was get the Kwans to cooperate. In my book, that does not constitute founding a martial art. That's called being a good leader.


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 29, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> You're still skirting the issue. He was the administrative head of the association that unified the kwans. That makes Choi the head of tae kwon do at the time proceeding his departure from Korea. Additionally, I believe General Choi was one of the main proponents of using the name tae kwon do in the first place. Sorry, using antecedent logic the ITF folks have a very good argument that they are the "true" TKD - it's as good a claim if not better than the one you are making for Kukkiwon TKD.
> 
> Personally, I think it's all tae kwon do, whether you are ITF, KKW, ATA, or even <gasp> independent.


 
Not skirting the issue.  Which particular time leaving Korea are you talking about?  When he was stationed in Malaysia or when he was finally kicked out?  Let's take a longer look at the history.  In 1959, Choi did help put things together, however, in '60/'61 they fell apart.  New leadership arose and a second attempt at unification was done.  Choi was not the leader at this time, that I can recall.

I can throw a curriculum together of kicks, punches, locks, weapons and throws and I'm going to call it Kuk Sool Won.  Does it make it legit?


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 29, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> Not skirting the issue.  Which particular time leaving Korea are you talking about?  When he was stationed in Malaysia or when he was finally kicked out?  Let's take a longer look at the history.  In 1959, Choi did help put things together, however, in '60/'61 they fell apart.  New leadership arose and a second attempt at unification was done.  Choi was not the leader at this time, that I can recall.
> 
> I can throw a curriculum together of kicks, punches, locks, weapons and throws and I'm going to call it Kuk Sool Won.  Does it make it legit?



  That's another debate altogether if you know anything at all about the history of Kuk Sool Won.  Don't want to muddy the waters... LOL.

I don't have my sources here at work to reference, but I'm definitely referring the era immediately before Choi's departure to Canada.  I has understood he was still the administrative head at that point, although the disagreements within TKD were fissuring and Choi found his political influence waning with the advent of the new Korean regime.


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 29, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> That's another debate altogether if you know anything at all about the history of Kuk Sool Won. Don't want to muddy the waters... LOL.


ha.ha.ha.ha..no..no...just trying to make a point. 



> I don't have my sources here at work to reference, but I'm definitely referring the era immediately before Choi's departure to Canada. I has understood he was still the administrative head at that point, although the disagreements within TKD were fissuring and Choi found his political influence waning with the advent of the new Korean regime.


 
I know by that time he was already "disowned" by CDK's leader at the time.  He was stripped of his honorary 4th dan.  By this time however, he had established a foot hold into the military, and was one of the main reasons why many CDK people went with him.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 29, 2008)

To a great extent, much of this thread has covered ground quite apart from the troubles that the KKW is experiencing.

Without getting mired by whether or not TKD outside of the KKW is TKD or not, and without getting mired in whether or not Choi is the legitamate founder, I'll say the following:

If you use the term Taekwondo as a generic umbrella term (way of foot and fist or way of kicking and striking), then _any_ kicking and striking art could in theory qualify.  Much in the way that _karate_ seems to encompass everything under the sun that doesn't have a weapon attached to it.

If you use the term Taekwondo as a codified martial art with _specific strikes, blocks, forms, and sparring rules, _then what qualifies as specifically taekwondo is a much narrower field.  I have never seen in any of the KKW's literature any statements of exclusivity.  Not saying that there aren't any; I just haven't seen them (nor have I specifically looked for them).

Aside from technicality, does it really _matter_?  I ask that in earnest, not rhetorically.  From my own perspective, names of arts are a way to identify specific sets of techniques for the purpose of conversation.  When I say that I practice taekwondo, everyone on this board knows _generally_ what I mean.  If they need clarification, I can say that I practice KKW taekwondo and they'll know more specifically what I mean.  If you say that you practice ITF taekwondo, I know more specifically what you mean.  Conversation bears out the rest; which ITF you are, or how much curriculum has been added to the base KKW curriculum that I practice.  Once those specifics are made known, does the rest _really and truly_ matter?

Lastly, the KKW had as one of its goals to spread taekwondo throughout the world.  Whatever criticism one may have of the KKW, it has certainly worked very hard towards achieving this goal.  Once you deposit your art on another continent with a foreign culture, that culture *will* make that art its own and still call it by the art's original name.  And not everyone in that foreign culture will remain or even wish to become members of the parent organization.  Those who wish to say that any not part of the parent org (in this case, the Kukkiwon) is not practicing the art (in this case, Taekwondo) may certainly do so, but that won't change the fact that those people will still call it taekwondo.  And in my _opinion_ they have the right to do so if they wish.  Many arts have multiple styles and schools, so I don't see this as a problem.

Anyway, not trying to ruffle any feathers.  Thankfully, we humans have no actual feathers to ruffle.

Daniel


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 29, 2008)

BAH!!! Way to take the fun out CT.  ha.ha.ha..


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 29, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> BAH!!! Way to take the fun out CT.  ha.ha.ha..


Actually, I do think that the subject is worth discussing, but I see it as independent of the Kukkiwon's troubles.  Those seem to be related more to corruption issues and a percieved shift in direction of sport taekwondo. I say perceived because I am not sure if it an actual shift, as I have not researched that in any depth.  I concern myself less with the Kukkiwon's priorities than I do with the priorities of GM Kim, who is my master.  As long as his priorities are on target, I am happy.  We do learn the KKW curriculum, plus what he adds to it, so I know that I meet the standards set out by the KKW for a dan rank.

Daniel


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 29, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> It would be the fault of the instructor for not teaching SD, not the organization. Don't confuse the two. I am KKW certified and my instructor did teach us SD. So is my KKW BB better than yours or the guy who only learned WTF sparring? Not at all. We just learned a different school curriculum. However, the basic KKW curriculum should have been the same.


 
I agree and I teach Sd principle as well, bnut so many school just focus on sport and the general public only see's that KKW stands for Sport.


----------



## exile (Sep 29, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> I believe my reply was to your long winded post about how we can do a better curriculum in TKD... Ok..I am going to say this one more time.  After this I need you to be patient with me as I draw pictures for you.



Sorry to be long-winded, m., but you get so much stuff wrong that it takes a while to get round to it all. And alas, I have a hard time being patient with people who really believe that 'what I tell you three times is true'. 



miguksaram said:


> Prior to the formation of TKD, all that was taught was Japanese/Okinawan karate.  The concept of TKD was developed in Korea.  This concept is based off of Kwan leaders knowledge in karate and other areas of martial arts.  TKD has since evolved from it roots of a Jap/Oki art into something that is uniquely Korean.  Yes, I feel the 2000 year history they put on the website is BS and that they should change it to more exact history.
> 
> However that doesn't change the fact that if you are not studying KKW standards or have them in your curriculum, then you are not doing TKD.



See, the problem is that you keep _saying_ this, over and over, as though sheer repetition made it true. I can't figure out why. The name Taekwondo was adopted in 1955 at the suggestion of either Gen. Choi or Song Duk Son and adopted by a number of kwan leaders. The KKW came into existence 17 years later, during which time people were doing various versions of something they agreed was 'Taekwondo'. What happened to that nearly two decades when TKD happily existed without benefit of KKW's approval? Yes, the KKW party line is, _we_ get to define TKD, and all you're doing is repeating that party line. You're also saying that what the ITF people are doing isn't TKD either, simply because, in effect, Gen. Choi fell from favor and the Korean government assumed proprietary control of the 'TKD' brand. Say it all you like, but that doesn't make it true.



miguksaram said:


> You are doing some hybrid system that may have been based off of TKD at one time.



Oh yes, the technical set of the Song Moo Kwan is some 'hybrid system that may hve been based off of TKD at one time'. :lol: See, you're just giving us more of the same. If it was based 'off of TKD at one time', but is now not TKD (as you assure us it isn't) that has to be because... well, because the KKW says it's not. Again, back to your starting position&#8212;the KKW gets to define what is TKD because, well, the KKW gets to define what is TKD. That's all you've got, in the end.



miguksaram said:


> Not at all.  Nor did I ever say that what they pass off as bunkai is the real deal.  Perhaps, you should read what I am writing more carefully and try not to put your own spin on what I am saying.



I _have_ read what you're saying, m, as carefully as it deserves, but it's not all that complicated. You're saying that TKD is exactly what the KKW says it is. You're also acknowledging here that their nonsensical bunkai is not the, ah, 'real deal'. The 4 we get from putting your own 2 + 2 together is that the one organization that gets to define what TKD is pushes SD applications that are not the real deal. That's _my_ spin? Since we agree on that, the question is, why not develop TKD in a direction where its self-defense component _is_ the real deal, and leave behind an organization that clearly has no interest in realistic SD applications? And now I suppose we'll start being scolded about hybrid systems that are not TKD again. 



miguksaram said:


> From what I am understanding you biggest gripe is that KKW-TKD is very watered down and you said we could do better with our own concept of TKD...hince my ATA comment, which to me is much more watered down that KKW-TKD.  So yes it does have relevance.



You can say it's relevant all you want, but since neither I nor anyone else in any of these discussion has, so far as I know, ever used the ATA as an example of a successful experiment, it _isn't_ relevant. Red herrings _aren't_, as a rule.




miguksaram said:


> KKW-TKD DOES NOT DICTATE HOW YOU RUN YOUR SCHOOL.



... just as _this_ isn't relevant. No one said they did. 



miguksaram said:


> The only thing it dictates is that you meet the basic requirements for certification, which is the curriculum that they set out.  You can do what ever the hell you want outside of that.   If you want to change the bunkai, then by all means change it.  If you want to add different self defense, then by all mean add it.  Do whatever, interpret whatever, but just have the bare minimum requirements they are asking for in that curriculum.  Outside of that, they could give a crap.



Based on what you've already said, plus this lot, this is what we get:  follow the KKW curriculum or what you're doing isn't Taekwondo. Not: '... isn't the TKD as the KKW sees it', but not TKD, period. As to why not following the KKW curriculum means it's not TKD, you're still reciting as a mantra one of the points that's under discussion and has yet to be given even a weak defense. If TKD is a skill set, rather than the KKW's property, why the hell should anyone have to follow a Korean government organization's checklist in order to be doing TKD?  So what makes it the KKW's property??



miguksaram said:


> So yes, I think bunkai is lacking in the TKD...so what can do now....hmmmm...let me think....Oh yeah, implement the bunkai into part of my school's curriculum.  Again, quit trying to read more into what I am saying.  I never said that KKW-TKD was the most effective martial art, nor have I said it was a flalwess orgainzation.



Who said you did? _You_ try rereading what _I_ said, now. I said that there was no particular reason why North Americans (or anyone else, really) needed to take KKW doctrines as a given, whether about curriculum, the history of TKD or anything else; that what's in our interest and what's in their interest are totally different things.  TKD isn't a brand name the KKW owns. A TKD curriculum based completely on bunkai applications, the way Abernethy and Co., or Bill Burgar, or Patrick McCarthy, have built complete karate curricula around Shotokan and other bunkai applications, won't have anything in common with the KKW curriculum, and by your lights, that's not TKD. Suppose the JKA tried to enforce a standard curriculum that you had to follow or 'you weren't doing karate'? Right away, what the BCA karate instructors are teaching isn't karate&#8212;because the JKA was _saying_ so??



miguksaram said:


> These are just things you like to rant about which, has no relevance in what we are trying to discuss.



Well, interestingly enough, at least a few well-informed TKD people _did_ find it relevant, m. The issue was what would happen to the KKW as a result of the muck it's been rolling around in. Here and elsewhere, people have expressed the view that if bad stuff happens to the KKW, that doesn't necessarily have to be bad for TKD here. What I said was exactly on that point. Twin Fist says, the KKW way or the highway irks him no end, you tell him to stay away from the martial arts.  Someone suggests you can have TKD without the KKW, you tell them the KKW is TKD, so don't you dare say you're doing the second unless you're with the first. And on and on... anyone else see a pattern here?



			
				Celtic Tiger said:
			
		

> Those who wish to say that any not part of the parent org (in this case, the Kukkiwon) is not practicing the art (in this case, Taekwondo) may certainly do so, but that won't change the fact that those people will still call it taekwondo.  And in my _opinion_ they have the right to do so if they wish.  Many arts have multiple styles and schools, so I don't see this as a problem.



QFT.


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 29, 2008)

> I have read what you're saying, m, as carefully as it deserves, but it's not all that complicated. You're saying that TKD is exactly what the KKW says it is. You're also acknowledging here that their nonsensical bunkai is not the, ah, 'real deal'. The 4 we get from putting your own 2 + 2 together is that the one organization that gets to define what TKD is pushes SD applications that are not the real deal. That's my spin? Since we agree on that, the question is, why not develop TKD in a direction where its self-defense component is the real deal? And now I suppose we'll start being scolded about hybrid systems that are not TKD again.



Person A - I do TKD

Person B - Cool can you help me learn the Taeguk form 8?

Person A - No.. we don't do any of those forms, our instructor made up his own forms and our techniques a mixed in with some kung fu he learned and we use Japanese terminology from the shotokan training he did before,  but since our instructor has his black belt in TKD, that is the system that he teaches.

Am I the only person who finds this ridiculous?

What I am saying is that KKW sets a core curriculum for the TKD community to adhere to in order to maintain a basic unified art.  Outside of the curriculum all schools are not created equal.

For those people who don't want to follow that core curriculum, that's cool.  More power to you.  Just don't call it TKD.  If you are so apt to get away from the stigma set forth by KKW, then why even call your art TKD?

That whole thing with Bunkai is a moot point.  It is not part of the core curriculum, just a their take on the movements of the form.  It is not a requirment to be adhere by through out the TKD community.  I don't agree with it so I won't implement it.  It really is just that simple.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 29, 2008)

> What I am saying is that KKW sets a core curriculum for the TKD community to adhere to in order to maintain a basic unified art. Outside of the curriculum all schools are not created equal.



Yeah, but who's to say the KKW is the only standard to follow?  You're stating that the KKW is the only legitimate source of TKD curricula without making the case for it.  What makes the KKW any more qualified or legitimate than the ITF or any other group out there?  

I'm really curious where you're coming from with this.  It's not like the KKW can claim to be the first in the TKD space.  That domain belongs to the kwans and then arguably to the ITF.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 29, 2008)

exile said:


> QFT.


I will now show my ignorance by asking what this stands for.

Daniel


----------



## bluekey88 (Sep 29, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> Person A - I do TKD
> 
> Person B - Cool can you help me learn the Taeguk form 8?
> 
> ...


 
Two things.  First, in your extreme example...Person B sounds fairly suspect by the standards of ANY art.  What if the reply was "No, I can't.  We do the Chang H'on forms not the Taeguks?"  OR "No, I can't we still practice the Palgwe's and do not do the taeguk forms".

In the former example, that would be the reply from any ITF affiliated school...to my eye, what they do looks very much like TKD.  In the latter example, that may be the reply you'd get from a VERY experienced school...pre taeguks...using your criteria, they USED to do TKD, but no longer because they did not take up the Taeguks.  I dunno...I don't think that's it.

My second point...the kukkiwon curriculum to my eye really isn't much of a curriculum.  Basically, to be a black belt you need to know the 8 taeguks and do slome beraking and sparring.  Sure, most schools include a certain amount of breaking, self-defense, and sparring...Kukkiwon is leaving a lot of what most of us consider to be core features of the art up to the interpretation of individual teachers.  Why?  Furthermore, what they do claim as their curriculum they don't police very well.   I've been to enough tournamnets to tell you that people do the taeguks in a myriad of ways...all claiming theirs is the RIGHT way to perform the poomse.  No mention of what the breaking need consists of , nor the sparring.  

In the end, if the Kukkiwon really wnats to be a hub for promotion and betterment of Taekwondo, they can do a heck of alot better than they are doing now.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 29, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> I will now show my ignorance by asking what this stands for.
> 
> Daniel



I don't think Exile means  Quantum Field Theory, so I'll go with Quoted For Truth.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 29, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> I don't think Exile means Quantum Field Theory, so I'll go with Quoted For Truth.


I freely admit to being acronym challenged.

Daniel


----------



## exile (Sep 29, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> Person A - I do TKD
> 
> Person B - Cool can you help me learn the Taeguk form 8?
> 
> ...



No, m., I at least also find it ridiculous. What I don't understand&#8212;and I mean this completely seriously&#8212;is what connection this conversation between A and B has to anything I've been saying. My TKD comes in a straight SMK lineage from Byung Jik Ro, who was as they say present at the creation. The SMK is arguably the oldest Kwan, certainly one of the oldest, and what I learned is essentially the same skill set BJR developed throughout the forties and fifties and taught to his senior students, one of whom taught it to my instructor's instructor. We do the Kichos, Palgwes and a number of the old Korean hyungs, including a number of Koreanized katas, like Rohai and Empi, that Joon Pye Choi introduced into the SMK curriculum in the 1960s. Why on earth would you think that any of what I've been saying corresponds to what A says?



miguksaram said:


> What I am saying is that KKW sets a core curriculum for the TKD community to adhere to in order to maintain a basic unified art.  Outside of the curriculum all schools are not created equal.



I think Celtic Tiger's point in my previous posts speaks to this statement exactly. Is Okinawan karate or Fukien White Crane a 'basic unified art', institutionally speaking? What _legitimacy_ does the KKW have for this imposed 'unity'? Its role in certifying the ranks that the WTF accepts is all very cozy, but what legitimate authority does it have to define TKD? 



miguksaram said:


> For those people who don't want to follow that core curriculum, that's cool.  More power to you.  Just don't call it TKD.



Why not? What makes it not&#8211;TKD? I'm just baffled. The stuff I was describing was part of the TKD curriculum, as maintained in the SMK, for a decade or more before the KKW existed. What gives it retroactive rights to declare all of that material an 'unperson'? This again is just another insistance that only the KKW gets to define what TKD is. _What makes that true??_



miguksaram said:


> If you are so apt to get away from the stigma set forth by KKW, then why even call your art TKD?



See above. What I learn and teach was TKD before there _was_ a KKW. 



miguksaram said:


> That whole thing with Bunkai is a moot point.  It is not part of the core curriculum, just a their take on the movements of the form.  It is not a requirment to be adhere by through out the TKD community.  I don't agree with it so I won't implement it.  It really is just that simple.



If you take a careful, pressure-tested approach to bunkai and use it as the basis of your curriculum, why is the result necessarily not TKD, just because the KKW has a totally different curriculum? My question about a bunkai-based curriculum in karate, as vs. any hypothetical JKA official curriculum, still stands. If you use a totally different curriculum based on the idea that your MA is a combat technique set designed to be effective in real fights, and build your curriculum around that, where your basic components, kicking techs and so on are all standard TKD, why is the result not TKD, just because the KKW has a very different take on what the point of TKD is?



dancingalone said:


> I don't think Exile means  Quantum Field Theory, so I'll go with *Quoted For Truth*.



Yup, exactly. I think CT hit the nail dead center.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 29, 2008)

bluekey88 said:


> My second point...the kukkiwon curriculum to my eye really isn't much of a curriculum. Basically, to be a black belt you need to know the 8 taeguks and do slome beraking and sparring. Sure, most schools include a certain amount of breaking, self-defense, and sparring...Kukkiwon is leaving a lot of what most of us consider to be core features of the art up to the interpretation of individual teachers. Why? Furthermore, what they do claim as their curriculum they don't police very well. I've been to enough tournamnets to tell you that people do the taeguks in a myriad of ways...all claiming theirs is the RIGHT way to perform the poomse. No mention of what the breaking need consists of , nor the sparring.
> 
> In the end, if the Kukkiwon really wnats to be a hub for promotion and betterment of Taekwondo, they can do a heck of alot better than they are doing now.
> 
> ...


This is really the biggest shortcoming of the Kukkiwon.  I do feel that with the notion of portable rank should also be a well policed and more articulated curriculum.  Not bashing the KKW; I am a KKW practitioner.  But this is a legitamate shortcoming.  Not one that cannot be overcome.

Daniel


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 29, 2008)

I am changing style to couch potato and I will have another beer.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 29, 2008)

"However that doesn't change the fact that if you are not studying KKW standards or have them in your curriculum, then you are not doing TKD."

uh, terry, Exile?

am i supposed to laugh at this or get mad?

I need some guidance here dudes


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 29, 2008)

exile said:


> what i learn and teach was tkd before there _was_ a kkw.



qfmft


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 29, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> "However that doesn't change the fact that if you are not studying KKW standards or have them in your curriculum, then you are not doing TKD."
> 
> uh, terry, Exile?
> 
> ...


 
Twin Fist I know your linage you are TKD though in though so have a beer and be happy.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 29, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> qfmft


 
I am stupid please explain


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 29, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> "However that doesn't change the fact that if you are not studying KKW standards or have them in your curriculum, then you are not doing TKD."
> 
> uh, terry, Exile?
> 
> ...


My advice is to take it for what it is worth.  Though I am a KKW practitioner, I don't agree for reasons I've already stated.  I'd leave it at disagreeing agreeably.  There's nothing to be angry about and no real point in debating.  When two people on a forum hold polar opposite views and have good reasons for holding their views, the best that they can do is respect one another's stand, agree to disagree, and move on.

From an organizational standpoint, I follow the KKW-only line of reasoning.  But I think that an equally good line of reasoning can be made to the contrary.  I'd love for the Kukkiwon to be such that I could really agree that it is the true and real deal.  But its curriculum does not encompass enough for me to do so.

Miguksaram has made the valid point that the Kukkiwon does not limit you to their curriculum and that instructors are free to add whatever they wish.  Yes, this is true, and my GM does exactly that.

The problem is that when a uniform standard is created and it is lower than that of any of the individual Kwans or is incomplete in many ways, then the majority of schools will sink to the lowest common denomenator.  Take a good look at the vast majority of taekwondo schools in the US and that is exactly what you see: lots of schools with no curriculum beyond the bare KKW curriculum and WTF sparring.  The majority of Kukkiwon masters in the US who have come up over the past decade add nothing of value because they simply don't have it to add: it was never taught to them.  These may be wonderful teachers who teach the KKW curriculum well and teach good and proper technique, but that is all that they have.  With no bunkai, no well developed SD, and a sparring style that has fallen very, very far from the tree (neither good nor bad, it simply is), the art they teach is incomplete and they haven't the reserves of knowledge to draw upon to make it otherwise.

Having said that, I find the KKW curriculum to be decent, just not comprehensive.

Daniel


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 29, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> I am stupid please explain



lets put it this way

QFT =quoated for truth

QFMFT=quoated for mother.................

get the picture?


----------



## YoungMan (Sep 29, 2008)

You can get your point across without being rude or condescending.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 30, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> You can get your point across without being rude or condescending.



sure you can. Well, i can, i am not sure if you can, but I can. I just dont want to


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 30, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> lets put it this way
> 
> QFT =quoated for truth
> 
> ...


 
Yes sorry did not know


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 30, 2008)

Ok, allow me to take another shot of this sans cold medicine, because after reading what I wrote, it doesn't make sense to me either.  (Not to say what I'm about to write is going to be better).

All the kwans existed prior to the building of KKW and prior to the development of taekwondo.  Do we agree on this?

Kwan leaders got together to work towards developing a unified art called taekwondo.  Prior to 1961 none of them called what they were learning or teaching taekwondo.  Would you say this is correct?

After they banded together they formed the KTA to which they worked to developing a formalized system for dan promotions (1962).  To which this was the standard used:

2nd Dan forms: Balhan Hyung Dae, Chul Ki E Dan Hyung (Chul Ki #2), Naebojin E Dan Hyung (Naebojin #2), Kima E Dan Hyung (Kima #2), Choong Moo Hyung.

3rd Dan forms: Ship Su Hyung, Pal Sae Hyung, Yon Bi Hyung, Dan Kwon Kyung, No Pae Hyung, Ge Baek Hyung, Ul Ji Hyung.

4th Dan forms: Chul Ki Sam Dan Hyung (Chul Ki #3), Naebojin Sam Dan Hyung (Naebojin #3), Kima Sam Dan Hyung (Kima #3), Ja Un Hyung, Jin Soo Hyun, Am Hak Hyung, Jin Dong Hyung, Sam Il Hyung, Jang Kwon Hyung.

5th Dan forms: Kong Sang Kun Hyung, Kwan Kong Hyung, Oh Ship Sa Hyung, Ship Sam Hyung, Ban Wol Hyung, Pal Ki Kwon Hyung.

The kwans did exist still but were now rectifying their curriculums to meet the requirements that was set by the board.  Now let's fast forward 10 years to 1971.  It was at this time they talked about restructuring teaching methods as well as allowing members to transfer from one kwan to another (not a popular idea).  So yes, the kwans still exisited and yes they had their own teaching methods along with a standard curriculum agreed upon earlier.  Slightly prior to that KKW was built.  This main purpose was to be a centralized dojang for educational training and testing for dan ranks and "to promote Taekwondo as a means of general exercise for the benefit of public health as well as to spread Taekwondo as a symbol of Korea and its traditions." (Modern History of TKD).  

In 1976 the KTA worked in unifying the Kwans.  Prior to this they already unified 40 Kwans into 9 Kwans.  In 1978 all kwans agreed to the elimination of the Kwan concept and band together as one Taekwondo.  Since 1972 they already had a standardized teminology and poomse curriculum so this was the final step in making one TKD.  

So this is what I mean by saying if you were not following the standards set forth by the KKW, that you were not doing TKD.  These were the standards agreed upon by the kwan leaders to be the core curriuculum of their concept of TKD.  I figured since they were the leaders and our masters/teachers then their concept would be the correct one since they were the ones who had a say in the development.  

If you adhere to the original teachings of GM Yoon, Byung-in as he taught them back in 1946, then I'm sorry, but that is not taekwondo.  That is karate, that is what he learned, that is what he taught.  If you studied Chang Moo Kwan (or any kwan method) as it was taught after 1962, then yes, that is taekwondo and I apologize for saying otherwise.  I hope this better explains my point of view.


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 30, 2008)

bluekey88 said:


> In the end, if the Kukkiwon really wnats to be a hub for promotion and betterment of Taekwondo, they can do a heck of alot better than they are doing now.
> 
> Peace,
> Erik


 
I can't disagree with you there.  I feel they can definetely use a change in standards.  I do agree with exile that there SD methods are not done very well at all and that they should work towards that more.

What I can tell you from what I have heard from higher ups, is that there is a shift happening that is causing TKD to not be so "olympic" focused and get back to the martial art area of things.


----------



## bluekey88 (Sep 30, 2008)

Wep, you'll just have to call me Missouri (the show me state).  If it happens, that woudl be a good thing...but I'm not feeling especially optimistic at the moment.  

I have no problem with there being an Olympic style component to TKD...in fact, I'm a big fan of the style.  However, it's one small componnent to what was and still is (if taught correctly) a rich martial art.  Whether or not the kukkiwon will survive the current turmoil is in question...Whether or not they will then look to return KKW TKD to its roots is an even bigger if.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## miguksaram (Sep 30, 2008)

bluekey88 said:


> Wep, you'll just have to call me Missouri (the show me state). If it happens, that woudl be a good thing...but I'm not feeling especially optimistic at the moment.
> 
> I have no problem with there being an Olympic style component to TKD...in fact, I'm a big fan of the style. However, it's one small componnent to what was and still is (if taught correctly) a rich martial art. Whether or not the kukkiwon will survive the current turmoil is in question...Whether or not they will then look to return KKW TKD to its roots is an even bigger if.
> 
> ...


 
From what I am gathering is KKW is trying to promote more of the Ho sin sul, poomse and breaking areas of TKD while WTF will promote more of the sparring side of things.  Again, nothing for certain, and I agree that I would like to see it to believe it.


----------



## rmclain (Sep 30, 2008)

I have a copy of this original test program.  It is written in Korean.  It lists the forms as detailed below.

Grandmaster Kim Soo and one other student tested for 5th Dan at the first exam.

Here is a link to another thread with videos for historical research:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67861

R. McLain




miguksaram said:


> After they banded together they formed the KTA to which they worked to developing a formalized system for dan promotions (1962). To which this was the standard used:
> 
> 2nd Dan forms: Balhan Hyung Dae, Chul Ki E Dan Hyung (Chul Ki #2), Naebojin E Dan Hyung (Naebojin #2), Kima E Dan Hyung (Kima #2), Choong Moo Hyung.
> 
> ...


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 30, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Yes sorry did not know


Nor did I.  This is an educational forum.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 30, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> I can't disagree with you there. I feel they can definetely use a change in standards. I do agree with exile that there SD methods are not done very well at all and that they should work towards that more.


This is why a lot of people eschew the Kukkiwon and either attach themselves to a taekwondo federation that does address these things, or address them themselves and simply be non-affiliated.



miguksaram said:


> What I can tell you from what I have heard from higher ups, is that there is a shift happening that is causing TKD to not be so "olympic" focused and get back to the martial art area of things.


I would be very pleased to see that.  I find that olympic involvement generally always compromises a martial art.  Taekwondo should be, first and formost, a fighting style, not a sport.

Daniel


----------



## exile (Sep 30, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> I would be very pleased to see that.  I find that olympic involvement generally always compromises a martial art.  Taekwondo should be, first and formost, a fighting style, not a sport.



This is really the crux of the whole issue, for me and for others in TKD who I know feel similarly. It's very straightforward: we see the KKW as linked much too tightly to the promotion of a WTF-style martial sport. Where miguksaram sees the lack of realistic combat-oriented bunkai practical self-defense as an unfortunate omission from the KKW syllabus that should, and maybe will, in due time be corrected, we see it not as something the KKW hasn't gotten around to, but rather as a very clear sign of the KKW's active commitment to turning TKD into a martial sport, _period_, eliminating any combat relevance in the process&#8212;because of what we see as the ROK's decision to market TKD _purely _as a sport (even as they invoke an invented legendary history full of Korean pseudo-samurai using proto-TKD on Three Kingdoms-era battlefields), in just the way the Chinese government appears to be interested in repackaging the CMAs purely as a martial spectacle, labelled wushu, for similar reasons (Flying Crane has written a number of very good&#8212;but quite discouraging&#8212;posts about this process). 

That's why this discussion is, I think, relevant to the topic the OPer brought up: even if the KKW is restructured, what will result will almost certainly not represent a change in the basic de-martialization of TKD. And that's one of the primary reasons why many of us resist identification of TKD with the official KKW model of it: if we accept that, we are automatically accepting the elimination of the combat relevance of the art&#8212;which many of us started because we wanted an effective combat system for personal self-protection. So from this point of view, any restructuring or reassembling of the KKW will make no difference on this essential point. 

Of  _course_ it's true that the KKW doesn't control schools' curricula completely&#8212;but they don't _have_ to. Given the huge attention given to the Olympic side of TKD, any curriculum which doesn't explicitly build in a robust self-defense component to training leads, by default, to a general acceptance of the _core_ curriculum as the _whole_ curriculum. This is bound to be true with SD especially, for a number of reasons: legal liability and insurance issues, the shortage of instructors who themselves have trained in street-useful TKD, and so on. 

To us, the Kwan era doesn't mean the bad old days when Korean martial arts 'lacked unity'; it means the era when the Seoul police deputized instructors and black belt students from the Kwans because their fighting skills were valuable in helping LEOs keep order on some very mean streets; the era when the ROK infantry was feared by its communist enemies in two wars because of their CQ combat abilities. For us, the KKW means the rejection of that view of TKD. We see it as the technique-side partner of the WTF (which works on the promotion/organization side), collaborating to kill off that earlier vision of TKD and replace it with a sanitized, toothless arena sport. So the problem for _us_ with the restructuring issue of the KKW is that it doesn't get at what we think the real, fundamental trouble is...

And look, I'm just the messenger here. I'm just reporting what people I know&#8212;many, many people&#8212;think. They _will_ welcome a non-KKW organization which promises to make the combat content of TKD the core of their training component, the way the British Combat Association does in the UK. Anyone who wants to strengthen and support the KKW should be thinking beyond its current temporary legal and organizational problems to take those fundamental concerns about direction seriously.


----------



## miguksaram (Oct 1, 2008)

exile said:


> This is really the crux of the whole issue, for me and for others in TKD who I know feel similarly. It's very straightforward: we see the KKW as linked much too tightly to the promotion of a WTF-style martial sport. Where miguksaram sees the lack of realistic combat-oriented bunkai practical self-defense as an unfortunate omission from the KKW syllabus that should, and maybe will, in due time be corrected...


 
As I was reading this I started thinking (yeah I know..scary) what if KKW left SD out on purpose for the sake of having the individual schools fill in the blanks?  Let's just say KKW does place SD requirements into its curriculum, who is to say what they put in would be useful at all?  Who is the overall judge of what is practicial and what isn't?

Example would be their take on the bunkai.  Both you and I agree that the bunkai, is really not all that.  It's basic ata best.  Now my opinoin and I'll assume your opinoin is based on our training  in a different martial art which utilizes bunkai a bit more effectively.  Since the KKW requirements don't include this, we are free to discard it from our teachings and replace with our own.    

As I mentioned before, the individual kwans still maintained their individuality even after the initial development.  All that changed was just a set minimum standards for belt testing.  You see I like that I have some basic guildlines to follow, but I sure as hell don't want them dictating to me how to run my school to teach my classes.



> To us, the Kwan era doesn't mean the bad old days when Korean martial arts 'lacked unity'; it means the era when the Seoul police deputized instructors and black belt students from the Kwans because their fighting skills were valuable in helping LEOs keep order on some very mean streets; the era when the ROK infantry was feared by its communist enemies in two wars because of their CQ combat abilities. For us, the KKW means the rejection of that view of TKD. We see it as the technique-side partner of the WTF (which works on the promotion/organization side), collaborating to kill off that earlier vision of TKD and replace it with a sanitized, toothless arena sport. So the problem for _us_ with the restructuring issue of the KKW is that it doesn't get at what we think the real, fundamental trouble is...


 
I agree with you on this.  I come from the Jidokwan and I love the history that is behind that school.  When there was a huge paradigm shift to olympic TKD, I, like you felt left behind and frankly pissed off at the KKW for just treating the people who built it up like the unwanted step children in lieu of their new promise child of sparring.  It wasn't until I met with my last GM that he explained to me that KKW just provides you with the basic tools.  You can build whatever you want with them.  

Now fast forward 10 years later and I have recently had the pleasure of working with some gentlemen who want to see a shift in the paradigm again to back to more martial art and not martial sport in the KKW.  Almost a split, if you will, between WTF (who would handle sport) and KKW (who would handle art).  



> And look, I'm just the messenger here. I'm just reporting what people I knowmany, many peoplethink. They _will_ welcome a non-KKW organization which promises to make the combat content of TKD the core of their training component, the way the British Combat Association does in the UK. Anyone who wants to strengthen and support the KKW should be thinking beyond its current temporary legal and organizational problems to take those fundamental concerns about direction seriously.


 
Agreed.  I'm not blindly following the KKW and I know that it has its flaws.  It just seems that people are more willing to just leave instead of trying to make some sort of impact to get them to change. I for one, still believe it can change for the better, but that's just the hippy in me.


----------



## Kwanjang (Oct 1, 2008)

exile said:


> To us, the Kwan era doesn't mean the bad old days when Korean martial arts 'lacked unity'; it means the era when the Seoul police deputized instructors and black belt students from the Kwans because their fighting skills were valuable in helping LEOs keep order on some very mean streets; the era when the ROK infantry was feared by its communist enemies in two wars because of their CQ combat abilities. For us, the KKW means the rejection of that view of TKD. We see it as the technique-side partner of the WTF (which works on the promotion/organization side), collaborating to kill off that earlier vision of TKD and replace it with a sanitized, toothless arena sport. So the problem for _us_ with the restructuring issue of the KKW is that it doesn't get at what we think the real, fundamental trouble is...


 
This was my favorite paragraph in *all *the post on this thread. Well stated!
It's unfortunate some people laugh when you tell the you are a TKDist.
TKD has been proven a very effectvie form of MA and SD because of its simplicity. In my experience, I only know of a few, including myself who've ACTUALLY used thier TKD in real SD situation. At my school(s) we A big on the SD aspect. Eventhough I am KKW certified I am most content with my CDK certification.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 1, 2008)

exile said:


> To us, the Kwan era doesn't mean the bad old days when Korean martial arts 'lacked unity'; it means the era when the Seoul police deputized instructors and black belt students from the Kwans because their fighting skills were valuable in helping LEOs keep order on some very mean streets; the era when the ROK infantry was feared by its communist enemies in two wars because of their CQ combat abilities.


This is how I grew up thinking of blackbelts.  This why I have such strong opinions regarding blackbelts and why I am so firmly against the kiddie blackbelts that are the meat and drink of 90% of the dojangs that claim to be teaching taekwondo in the US.


exile said:


> For us, the KKW means the rejection of that view of TKD. We see it as the technique-side partner of the WTF (which works on the promotion/organization side), collaborating to kill off that earlier vision of TKD and replace it with a sanitized, toothless arena sport. So the problem for _us_ with the restructuring issue of the KKW is that it doesn't get at what we think the real, fundamental trouble is....


I never really looked at the KKW that way myself; its a scary thought for taekwondo if that is what they are actually doing.  I just see the KKW as a certification body and little more, though their promotion the hanmadang is cause for some confidence in the KKW.

Daniel


----------

