# A Brief History of Taekwon-Do by General Choi



## puunui

This comes from General Choi's 1965 book:

4. A Brief History of Taekwon-Do

Tae Kyon, the ancient name of Taekwon-Do, was as old as the history of the Hwarang-do. There was primitive activity known as Tae Kyon in the Silla Dynasty about 1300 years ago.

Originally, Silla possessed the smallest territory when the ancient Korea was divided into three kingdoms, and she had to meet constant invasions from Koguryu  in the north and Baekche in the west.

From the time 500 A.D. Koguryo became so strong that it made Silla untenable. Therefore King Chin-Hung at his 37th year of reign called up the strong and patriotic youths throughout the country and formed a strong organization called Hwarang-Do (a kind of military organization) to meet the national crisis.

This group respected the royalty, honour and spirit of the warrior while they enjoyed peoms, music and morality, and travelled to noted mountains and big rivers with the purpose of body spirit training. Consequently, General Kim Yu-Sin, the leader of Hwarang-Do, unified all the territories in 668 A.D. According to Mr. Song Duk-Ki who was one of the veterans of Tae-Kyon at the end of the Yi Dynasty this art had been developed and taken shape, but unfortunately the trend of the thought humiliated at art of valour while it encouraged the literary arts during the Yi Dynasty (1393-1910 A.D.) and Tae Kyon could barely maintain its exsistance having no chance to further progress from the original type of foot technique.

During the Japanese occupation, after the Yi Dynasty, the hand technique was introduced from both China and Japan to this traditional art enabling the hand and foot techniques to be combined into one body under various names such as Tang-Su, Kong-Su, Karate, Kwon-Bup, Tae-Su, etc. Soon after the liberation in 1945, there was a movement to find the real name of this art. In 1955, a special board of many Taekwon-Do masters, historians, and prominent leaders was formed to solve this problem.

In 1955, at the session for naming, the term worded "Tae" and "Kwon" which I submitted was chosen unanimously among the many other ballots. 

The reasons behind the selection are follows:

1. This term had close connection with the old name Tae-Kyon both in pronunciation and meaning.

2. It was appreciated as more relevant name to visualize the fact that this art employs combined techniques of both foot and hand, than such term as Tang-Su (Chinese hand) or Karate (empty hand) which implies hand technique only.

This is a brief history of Taekwon-Do which is widely called and practiced in many parts of the world today.


----------



## puunui

Also here is what GM KIM Byung Soo says about who created the story about Taekwondo's 2000 year history: 

http://www.arlingtonkarate.com/articles/KoreanMAtruth.pdf

GMKS: Most people called it Tang Soo Do, Kong Soo Do or Kwon Bop. General Choi
Hong-hi called his system, Tae Kwon Do.

RM: General Choi Hong-hi created Tae Kwon Do?

GMKS: In the early days he was teaching the same karate forms as the other kwans,
such as Pyung Ahn, Bassai Tae, Kon Sang Kun, etc. *Then in the late 1950s he came up
with a story about martial arts links to Korguryo dynasty, Silla Dynasty, 2000 years of tradition, etc.* He created new forms and gave each form a name related to something in Korean history, such as a scholars name or a famous Korean patriots name. He called
his system, Taekwondo. He was trying to get away from the connection to the
Japanese - trying to make something patriotic. He wanted everyone to follow this new
line and give up their previous training.


----------



## bluewaveschool

I understand his desire to give it a 'Korean identity', from a nationalistic pride point of view.  America has it's share of made up/exagrrerated  'patriotic' stories.  Paul Revere's ride comes to mind.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

bluewaveschool said:


> I understand his desire to give it a 'Korean identity', from a nationalistic pride point of view.  America has it's share of made up/exagrrerated  'patriotic' stories.  Paul Revere's ride comes to mind.


Hey, you forgot about freedom fries!

Daniel


----------



## bluewaveschool

I can see Russia from my house.


----------



## chrispillertkd

bluewaveschool said:


> I can see Russia from my house.


 
And all 57 States.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## bluewaveschool

Dear Scissors,

I feel your pain, no one wants to run with me either.

Sincerely, Sarah Palin


----------



## chrispillertkd

"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems." - Barak Obama on why the _government_ should run healthcare :lol:

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui

bluewaveschool said:


> I understand his desire to give it a 'Korean identity', from a nationalistic pride point of view.




You might have forgotten the original claim, which was that the Kukki Taekwondo pioneers "lied" about Taekwondo having a 2000 year old history that goes back to Taekkyon and the Hwarang and Soo Bahk Ki. The fact of the matter is that General Choi was the one who "lied" about the 2000 year old history thing.


----------



## Earl Weiss

puunui said:


> You might have forgotten the original claim, which was that the Kukki Taekwondo pioneers "lied" about Taekwondo having a 2000 year old history that goes back to Taekkyon and the Hwarang and Soo Bahk Ki. The fact of the matter is that General Choi was the one who "lied" about the 2000 year old history thing.


 
I submit that it is far different to claim something has links to other things going back 2000 years and misquoting that and / or claiming something is actualy 2000 years old. 

Not only would this be a case of misquoting but also taking it out of context since General Choi explicitly references, with analogies to discovering fire or inventing the wheel, that such things like Martial Arts are not the invention or discovery of a single person or country but likely occurred concurrently in different areas.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> Also here is what GM KIM Byung Soo says about who created the story about Taekwondo's 2000 year history:
> 
> http://www.arlingtonkarate.com/articles/KoreanMAtruth.pdf
> 
> GMKS: Most people called it Tang Soo Do, Kong Soo Do or Kwon Bop. General Choi
> Hong-hi called his system, Tae Kwon Do.
> 
> RM: General Choi Hong-hi created Tae Kwon Do?
> 
> GMKS: In the early days he was teaching the same karate forms as the other kwans,
> such as Pyung Ahn, Bassai Tae, Kon Sang Kun, etc. *Then in the late 1950s he came up*
> *with a story about martial arts links to Korguryo dynasty, Silla Dynasty, 2000 years of tradition, etc.* He created new forms and gave each form a name related to something in Korean history, such as a scholars name or a famous Korean patriots name. He called his system, Taekwondo. He was trying to get away from the connection to the
> Japanese - trying to make something patriotic. He wanted everyone to follow this new
> line and give up their previous training.


 Yes this is all great stuff & does contribute more proof that Gen Choi did create his martial art that he named TKD. 
All sides of the historical search for more truth can learn something from this & other things that GM Kim Soo has written.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Quote
Originally Posted by *puunui* 

 
_You might have forgotten the original claim, which was that the Kukki Taekwondo pioneers "lied" about Taekwondo having a 2000 year old history that goes back to Taekkyon and the Hwarang and Soo Bahk Ki. The fact of the matter is that General Choi was the one who "lied" about the 2000 year old history thing._




Earl Weiss said:


> I submit that it is far different to claim something has links to other things going back 2000 years and misquoting that and / or claiming something is actualy 2000 years old.
> 
> Not only would this be a case of misquoting but also taking it out of context since General Choi explicitly references, with analogies to discovering fire or inventing the wheel, that such things like Martial Arts are not the invention or discovery of a single person or country but likely occurred concurrently in different areas.


Yes it does appear that Puunui is really not to open to views that contridicate what he has come to know. Now I am not really sure what he wants us to think?
Is it that Gen Choi created the 2,000 year old myth or that GM Lee Chong Woo was lying when GM Lee said he made it up? Which one is it?
So is it that GM Lee just stole the idea from Gen Choi? If so, why?

Now to think seriously that Gen Choi did not insist that he the founder of TKD is beyond silly. Gen Choi constantly promoted the idea that he was THE Founder of TKD. While it is true that Gen Choi led a team that did create & systemized a Korean martial art for self defence that they called TKD, long before anyone else even wanted to acknolwedge the name, he was not the sole creator, he was their leader & he was a martial artist. Now maybe he was not as physically strong, gifted with God given talent as some others, especially the supermen he picked from thousands, he was their leader. So now what are we to believe, he was over 2,000 years old?
What Master Weiss accurately points out is that this was only part of what he wrote. He clearly says he created TK-D & he also points out that Korea had fighting systems in place since days of long ago, preceeding the Japanese occupation of his beloved homeland of Korea. 
So what comes next Puunui? More accusations that Gen Choi lied? Well tehn GM Lee followed a liar. But let me tell you upfront, that Gen Choi was consistent with his claims. He told of how Korea had arts in the past, how they died out & how he, along with his soldiers created TK-D. He never denied his karate roots & the training he had in that Japanese martial art. He then said how he used that, along with Taek Kyon, to make TK-D. It is the Kukki TKD version, repeated still to this day that says TKD is 2,000 years old & their versions do not make the all so obvious link to karate. Even the great GM Lee Chong Woo says it is time to tell the truth!


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> You might have forgotten the original claim, which was that the Kukki Taekwondo pioneers "lied" about Taekwondo having a 2000 year old history that goes back to Taekkyon and the Hwarang and Soo Bahk Ki. The fact of the matter is that General Choi was the one who "lied" about the 2000 year old history thing.


I offered proof in the man's own words that he lied about it, that he made up the story & that he said since TKD was now on the top of the world, they can & should come out with the truth. This is essentially what Steve Capener, PhD says as well. 
So GM lee Chong Woo made up the story that he gave to the Education Ministry of the ROK. This became the template for the Kukki TKD world & still is.
So now I guess that you want us to believe that GM Lee stole the story from Gen Choi & of course wrote him out of the part that he came up with the name, erased the karate connection & that was the basis for his fabrication, right? LOL  
I am just not sure we can have it both ways.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

bluewaveschool said:


> I understand his desire to give it a 'Korean identity', from a nationalistic pride point of view.


Yes & exactly why I keep harping on the fact that we must know the history of Korea, its politics & the context of the times that TKD's development took hold during!


----------



## puunui

Earl Weiss said:


> I submit that it is far different to claim something has links to other things going back 2000 years and misquoting that and / or claiming something is actualy 2000 years old.




But that is what General Choi did, say that it was 1300 years old, in his 1965 english book. Try and read the first post above. He might be saying something different now in the encyclopedia, but that isn't what he said back in 1965.


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> Yes it does appear that Puunui is really not to open to views that contridicate what he has come to know. Now I am not really sure what he wants us to think? Is it that Gen Choi created the 2,000 year old myth or that GM Lee Chong Woo was lying when GM Lee said he made it up? Which one is it? So is it that GM Lee just stole the idea from Gen Choi? If so, why?




What I am not open to is your paraphrasing of what GM LEE Chong Woo said. He didn't say what you say he said. He said this:

[Reporters Question]: Many Taekwondo textbooks set the time of Taekwondos beginnings as the pre- Three-Kingdoms Period. Even with all the historical assumptions,
it seems somewhat extreme.

[Chong Woo Lees Response]: I am one of those who wrote that in a book. To
be frank, we did not have much to come out with. At an early stage in the course of our
introducing Taekwondo to foreign countries, when we said Taekwondo was a Korean
traditional martial art, it was well justified and accepted. However, although there was a
resemblance, it is in fact different. Should we consult [Taekwondos] historical origins, it
could be persuasive to say that Japan adopted their martial arts form from the Chinese
martial arts, and it flowed into Korea later. Japanese people scientifically developed
them by making many modifications from the Chinese martial arts. It seems that there
remained a problem. Japanese people put emphasis on muscle strength rather than on
flexibility in the course of developing the form of exercise. Accordingly, you cannot
avoid the body movement being stiff.

With this, we started competitions in order to make Taekwondo a combative
sport. On the other hand, the Japanese kept Karate as an exercise form to be done by
oneself without competition. The Chinese developed a flexible exercise with interacting
[with a partner] hand movements. In this context, Taekwondo is not inclined to either
side, but lies somewhere in the middle. To make it easy to understand, it is neither right
nor left. Neither this nor that. Meanwhile, because we held competitions, we were able
to improve drastically. As a result, China and Japan are learning from us now.
Furthermore, their martial arts did not gain popularity, whereas in Taekwondo, young
children enjoy hitting and getting hit rather than fighting by themselves.

*****

But if it would make you happy, then feel free to tell the world that GM LEE Chong Woo did steal the 2000 year old lie about Taekwondo's origins from General Choi, that in fact it was General Choi, not GM LEE Chong Woo, who created the lie that Taekwondo is 2000 years old.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Earl Weiss* 

 
_I submit that it is far different to claim something has links to other things going back 2000 years and misquoting that and / or claiming something is actualy 2000 years old._




puunui said:


> But that is what General Choi did, say that it was 1300 years old, in his 1965 english book. Try and read the first post above. He might be saying something different now in the encyclopedia, but that isn't what he said back in 1965.


 
That is what he said... if you take the introductory sentense at page 22 "T'ae-Kyon the ancient name of Taekwon-Do was as old as the the history of the Hwa Rang Do. There was a primitive activity T'ae-Kyon in the Silla Dynasty 1,300 years ago."

The page goes on to review the naming in 1955 and concludes with:
That page concludes with the caveat "this is a brief history...'

More importantly this section is oreceded at page 14 which recounts TK-D being a version of an ancient form of unarmed combat practiced in the orient and now "perfected in it' present form in Korea"


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> But if it would make you happy, then feel free to tell the world that GM LEE Chong Woo did steal the 2000 year old lie about Taekwondo's origins from General Choi, that in fact it was General Choi, not GM LEE Chong Woo, who created the lie that Taekwondo is 2000 years old.


Please sir didn't Gen Choi write 1,300 years? Didn't GM Lee write 2,000 years? So GM Lee took Gen Choi's idea about connecting TKD's roots to Korea's proud past, BUT he then made it clear that He, Gen Choi was the founder of TKD & that he did it by combining his karate with the kicking from Korea's past. 
So now it appears that GM Lee, took Gen Choi's concept, added 700 years to it & never disclosed the fact that the roots were karate. of course we know why they did it, for national pride. This is what I mean by GM Lee's fabrication. The KTA, KKW & WTF publications & company line is still the same. That template has simply been repeated over & over. It is really so clear if one has an open mind, just read the following that you left out: [Reporters Question]: After the Liberation, did all the people who opened
studios do Karate?
[Chong Woo Lees Response]: "The basic movements, such as the blocking and
hitting techniques, were identical with Karate."
[Reporters Question]: If that is true, do you mean there is no resemblance to our
traditional martial arts forms?
[Chong Woo Lees Response]: At a quick glimpse, it looks the same, but the
basic techniques are completely different. Therefore, it should be determined that there
are no similarities. Taek Kyun has transformed significantly recently. Since people who
practiced Taekwondo are learning Taek Kyun, the kick is being transformed into the
Taekwondo style.
[Reporters Question]: Is Karate the only martial art that had an impact on
Taekwondo in the process of its creation after Liberation? No other influences at all?
[Chong Woo Lees Response]: That is a candid statement. I am the one who
wrote books bringing in various materials of all sorts, but now is the time to disclose the
facts. All the masters who taught Karate got together and formulated basic Taekwondo
forms, and I took a central role. It should not be a big issue now to disclose this fact,
because we are at the top of the world.

See so GM Lee, who I admire & who I feel should be publicly credited with his vitally important role in Kukki TKD, but he also was the one who crafted the fabrication about TKD being 2,000 years old & back in 2002 felt it was time to set the record straight, by disclosing the fact, karate men made TKD. It is not 2,000 years old. And how they did it was by emphasizing the new sports rules that they devised. It is plain to see.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

I did not want to derail another thread that announced the passing of a TKD Pioneer, as I did not think it was approriate.


puunui said:


> This is what GM Hong said about General Choi in the Modern History book: In the 1950's, CHOI Hong Hee's Chang Hon Ryu forms Ge Baek and Choong  Moo used at the Oh Do Kwan was included in this [1962] promotion test.  HONG Jong Pyo criticized CHOI Hong Hi and the Chang Hon Ryu: "CHOI Hong  Hi is a historical figure, and he was brave, but at one time, he had a  strong connection with former ROK President RHEE Syng Man and tried to  kiss up to him with those forms. He also made the Eui Am Hyung."


I am glad that GM Hong spoke positive things about Gen Choi. I also know that Gen Choi's patterns that he named after great Korean patriots & significant events in Korean history resonated with many Koreans & I am happy to hear that their 1st president is 1 of them. However this appears to be another mistake in the Modern History, as EuiAm was not named after President Rhee. There was another pattern that was never introduced that had a different name, that was never implemented as President Rhee was disposed off. The name escapes me at the moment.
Eui Am Tul was not even introduced till the 1972 textbook. It was 1 of the last 4 to be added.


----------



## terryl965

People People People, comeon everyone knows that puunui is always right about the history and was told just about everything from somebody. I find some of these thread just plain funny since the actual people that supposely said this or that are not here to say whether they did or did not say it. History was fabricated by all sides to give TKD some credibility out in the world, the only problem is later certain people started to say so and so is not telling the truth but my potion is the truth now. I own a pretty good library of TKD books with there own version of what they believe to bethe truth we all must decide which version we will believe in since we all must take one side or another.

You know the old story put seven people in seven different rooms and ask the same question and get seven defferent answers to your question. Keep the thread going because I do find it very informative and entertaining.:asian:


----------



## KarateMomUSA

terryl965 said:


> People People People, comeon everyone knows that puunui is always right about the history and was told just about everything from somebody. I find some of these thread just plain funny since the actual people that supposely said this or that are not here to say whether they did or did not say it. History was fabricated by all sides to give TKD some credibility out in the world, the only problem is later certain people started to say so and so is not telling the truth but my potion is the truth now. I own a pretty good library of TKD books with there own version of what they believe to bethe truth we all must decide which version we will believe in since we all must take one side or another.
> 
> You know the old story put seven people in seven different rooms and ask the same question and get seven defferent answers to your question. Keep the thread going because I do find it very informative and entertaining.:asian:


Yes & don't you think it is about time to start sorting through all the fabrication?
History is what happened, who made it happen, where did they make it happen & when did they make it happen.
These simple concepts are fairly easy to piece together since they happened less than or around 70 years ago.
I think once people see it charted out, much of the confusion will be cleared up & some of the fighting between groups will decline, as there is enough credit to go around & TKD's development took 2 major paths, so after a common start, their respective histories will differ, not through lies, but simply 1 side had little to do with the other!


----------



## Earl Weiss

terryl965 said:


> People People People, comeon everyone knows that puunui is always right about the history and was told just about everything from somebody. I find some of these thread just plain funny since the actual people that supposely said this or that are not here to say whether they did or did not say it..:asian:


 

I think the issue is more along the lines of quoting portions of written, published statements and those portions leaving a certain impression, when the entire item would leave a different impression or in the case of some things considering the source and what effect it later had.  (i.e.stating  former CDK head who was removed expelling people and revoking certificates without  also stating that this person was removed resulting in him possibly being motivated in anger for that and other reasons and the people he  "expelled" remaining with the CDK, even replacing him. )


----------



## puunui

Earl Weiss said:


> More importantly this section is oreceded at page 14 which recounts TK-D being a version of an ancient form of unarmed combat practiced in the orient and now "perfected in it' present form in Korea"



You mean this:

*

What exactly is the meaning of Taekwon-Do? To put it simply, Taekwon-Do is a version of an ancient form of unarmed combat, practiced for many centuries in the Orient. 

However, this art of self defense or unarmed combat came to be perfected in its present form in Korea. No doubt this art was adopted in many Eastern countries notably in Japan and China with, of course, their national characteristics and denominations.

In, they have given the name of Kwon-Tao or Chan-fuah. For Japanese, it is Karate or Kempoh.

*

I don't think, reading the passage in its entirety, helps you.


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> See so GM Lee, who I admire & who I feel should be publicly credited with his vitally important role in Kukki TKD, but he also was the one who crafted the fabrication about TKD being 2,000 years old & back in 2002 felt it was time to set the record straight, by disclosing the fact, karate men made TKD. It is not 2,000 years old. And how they did it was by emphasizing the new sports rules that they devised. It is plain to see.




Like I said, if it would make you happy, then feel free to tell the world that GM  LEE Chong Woo did steal the 2000 year old lie about Taekwondo's origins  from General Choi, that in fact it was General Choi, not GM LEE Chong  Woo, who created the lie that Taekwondo is 2000 years old.


----------



## puunui

terryl965 said:


> People People People, comeon everyone knows that puunui is always right about the history and was told just about everything from somebody. I find some of these thread just plain funny since the actual people that supposely said this or that are not here to say whether they did or did not say it.



We are talking about what General Choi wrote in his 1965 book, not what one of the pioneers told me. Hannabal Lecter said if you cannot keep up with the conversation, it's best not to try to jump in. 




terryl965 said:


> I own a pretty good library of TKD books with there own version of what they believe to bethe truth we all must decide which version we will believe in since we all must take one side or another.



A good library of TKD books. I guess that one depends on who you are comparing your book collection to.




terryl965 said:


> You know the old story put seven people in seven different rooms and ask the same question and get seven defferent answers to your question. Keep the thread going because I do find it very informative and entertaining.:asian:



But in this case, your old story is inapplicable because we are talking about what General Choi wrote in his 1965 book, not what someone told somebody else.


----------



## puunui

Earl Weiss said:


> I think the issue is more along the lines of quoting portions of written, published statements and those portions leaving a certain impression, when the entire item would leave a different impression or in the case of some things considering the source and what effect it later had.  (i.e.stating  former CDK head who was removed expelling people and revoking certificates without  also stating that this person was removed resulting in him possibly being motivated in anger for that and other reasons and the people he  "expelled" remaining with the CDK, even replacing him. )




Actually, that was stated in the newspaper article:

LEE Won Kuk's sister in
law, MOON Myung Ja, also frequently flew back and forth between Korean and Japan. I don't know why she
visited Korea so often. JUNG Yong Taek and MOON Myung Ja were jealous of the Chung Do Kwan's growth and
devised a plan to split the Chung Do Kwan. At last, they formed an illicit connection with discontented members
of the Chung Do Kwan and returned to Korea. They obtained not a nomination certificate (Im Myung Jung), but
a notice statement (Ji Ryung Jung) signed by LEE Won Kuk. *On June 4, 1959,* the notice statement was given
to UHM Woon Kyu.

*
But I feel very sorry for those who received
just a notice statement (Ji Ryung Jung) and not a nomination certificate (Im Myung Jung) from him. If he
thought about all the other Taekwondo schools and the Chung Do Kwan's future, he would not do such a
betrayal. I want the wise citizens of Korea to judge this matter. When I found out about these matters, I
expelled them from the membership on behalf of my name. All the more, the Chung Do Kwan will unite ever
more and practice rigorously for tournaments in the future, so please do not be disturbed by this whole action.
1. Expelled members: HYUN Jong Myun - UHM Woon Kyu - NAM Tae Hi
2. Cancellation of Honorary 4th Dan certificate and Honorary Kwan Jang position: CHOI Hong Hi
*June 15, 1959*
Kwan Jang SON Duk Sung


----------



## terryl965

*A good library of TKD books. I guess that one depends on who you are comparing your book collection to.*

Well we all know you have the best collection of anybody because you are so wonderful and great.


*We are talking about what General Choi wrote in his 1965 book, not what one of the pioneers told me. Hannabal Lecter said if you cannot keep up with the conversation, it's best not to try to jump in. *

Well I and a few others here can but you say otherwise on everything, so why bother. Sometimes you sound like you are the only person on this forum that knows anything.

*But in this case, your old story is inapplicable because we are talking about what General Choi wrote in his 1965 book, not what someone told somebody else. *

But even with the book you still tell people they are wrong, so why even bother to debate or say anything. I know for a fact nothing is ever gonna change your mind about anything because once again you are the upmost authority on TKD in the world.


See it does not matter if it is Earl, Karatemom or anybody else that say or quotes anything you always tell them they are wrong about it. Maybe they like to see if they can make you see something but I for one am enjoying the back and forth, what he said or wrote that is going on. Every once in a while I will just chime in to say something and go back to reading. Have a wonderful day :asian:


----------



## StudentCarl

puunui said:


> What I am not open to is your paraphrasing of what GM LEE Chong Woo said. He didn't say what you say he said. He said this:
> 
> [Reporter&#8217;s Question]: Many Taekwondo textbooks set the time of Taekwondo&#8217;s beginnings as the pre- Three-Kingdoms Period. Even with all the historical assumptions,
> it seems somewhat extreme.
> 
> [Chong Woo Lee&#8217;s Response]: &#8220;I am one of those who wrote that in a book. To
> be frank, we did not have much to come out with. At an early stage in the course of our
> introducing Taekwondo to foreign countries, when we said &#8216;Taekwondo was a Korean
> traditional martial art&#8217;, it was well justified and accepted. However, although there was a
> resemblance, it is in fact different. Should we consult [Taekwondo&#8217;s] historical origins, it
> could be persuasive to say that Japan adopted their martial arts form from the Chinese
> martial arts, and it flowed into Korea later. Japanese people scientifically developed
> them by making many modifications from the Chinese martial arts. It seems that there
> remained a problem. Japanese people put emphasis on muscle strength rather than on
> flexibility in the course of developing the form of exercise. Accordingly, you cannot
> avoid the body movement being stiff.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;With this, we started competitions in order to make Taekwondo a combative
> sport. On the other hand, the Japanese kept Karate as an exercise form to be done by
> oneself without competition. The Chinese developed a flexible exercise with interacting
> [with a partner] hand movements. In this context, Taekwondo is not inclined to either
> side, but lies somewhere in the middle. To make it easy to understand, it is neither right
> nor left. Neither this nor that. Meanwhile, because we held competitions, we were able
> to improve drastically. As a result, China and Japan are learning from us now.
> Furthermore, their martial arts did not gain popularity, whereas in Taekwondo, young
> children enjoy hitting and getting hit rather than fighting by themselves.&#8221;
> 
> ...


 
Stepping sideways from the '2000 year history' story line, this quotation is an interesting comment about the development of the sport aspect of Taekwondo vs. Japanese and Chinese arts. As the author was involved at the time, his credibility for this is strong. I am interested in the thinking of the pioneers about developing a martial sport. This is the first I've seen written about it. 

Puunui, would you please share the source and tell of any other sources you know relating to the thinking and choices made to move in the direction of sport and competitive sparring?

Thanks,
Carl


----------



## chrispillertkd

He's quoting from a 2002 interview with GM Lee, Cong Woo that appeared in Shin Dong-A. You can read it here:

http://www.tkdreform.com/yook_article.pdf

Interesting stuff about GM Lee being involved in _gagee-chigee_ ("branch trimming") in some TKD matches. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> I am glad that GM Hong spoke positive things about Gen Choi. I also know that Gen Choi's patterns that he named after great Korean patriots & significant events in Korean history resonated with many Koreans & I am happy to hear that their 1st president is 1 of them. However this appears to be another mistake in the Modern History, as EuiAm was not named after President Rhee. There was another pattern that was never introduced that had a different name, that was never implemented as President Rhee was disposed off. The name escapes me at the moment. Eui Am Tul was not even introduced till the 1972 textbook. It was 1 of the last 4 to be added.




GM Hong never said that Eui Am was named after President Rhee. It has that General Choi "also made the Eui Am Hyung."

This is what GM Hong said about General Choi in the Modern History book:  In the 1950's, CHOI Hong Hee's Chang Hon Ryu forms Ge Baek and Choong   Moo used at the Oh Do Kwan was included in this [1962] promotion test.   HONG Jong Pyo criticized CHOI Hong Hi and the Chang Hon Ryu: "CHOI Hong   Hi is a historical figure, and he was brave, but at one time, he had a   strong connection with former ROK President RHEE Syng Man and tried to   kiss up to him with those forms. He also made the Eui Am Hyung."


----------



## puunui

terryl965 said:


> Well we all know you have the best collection of anybody because you are so wonderful and great.




Actually, I already wrote in another post that Dr. Kimm has more Korean Martial Arts books than I do. But he did say I have a "good collection". I wonder what he would think about your collection. 




terryl965 said:


> Well I and a few others here can but you say otherwise on everything, so why bother. Sometimes you sound like you are the only person on this forum that knows anything.



I can't help how you feel. I also apologize if you feel displaced as one of the leaders of Kukki Taekwondo on here. 




terryl965 said:


> But even with the book you still tell people they are wrong, so why even bother to debate or say anything. I know for a fact nothing is ever gonna change your mind about anything because once again you are the upmost authority on TKD in the world.



All I did was post what was written in General Choi's book, in it's entirety. If you have the book in your good collection, you can look it up yourself. If you have an issue with what is written, your issue is with General Choi, not me. I'm just posting what he wrote. 




terryl965 said:


> See it does not matter if it is Earl, Karatemom or anybody else that say or quotes anything you always tell them they are wrong about it. Maybe they like to see if they can make you see something but I for one am enjoying the back and forth, what he said or wrote that is going on. Every once in a while I will just chime in to say something and go back to reading. Have a wonderful day :asian:



The problem from my perspective is too many people think "research" means booting up google and typing "taekwondo history". Then to make matters worse, they misread what is written, and go off on a wild tangent based on that erroneous assumption and misunderstanding. Then when I point to the original source and quote it in its entirety, the person gets all defensive and goes with some long winded argument (without facts) about why they are correct. 

If it upsets you that much, then I won't share anymore historical information. I did the research for me anyway, to further my own personal understanding and not for sharing with the world. I'll stop and then you can continue "believe" whatever you want and be happy.


----------



## puunui

StudentCarl said:


> Puunui, would you please share the source and tell of any other sources you know relating to the thinking and choices made to move in the direction of sport and competitive sparring?Thanks,Carl



I could, but all it would do is make terry upset. He has a good taekwondo book collection, perhaps he can refer you to one of the books he owns.


----------



## terryl965

puunui said:


> I could, but all it would do is make terry upset. He has a good taekwondo book collection, perhaps he can refer you to one of the books he owns.


 
See this is the crap you do puunui and have always done everywhere, act like a baby when someone does not agree with you or have there own opinion about anything. Share your knowledge but remember spme people may view things different than you.

Me feel displace hardly, maybe you need to feel good by making other people feel bad. I have been around a longtime and it would take more than some person saying things to displace me from anywhere. Once again please keep telling and giving your views about TKD and how General Chui and other lie and only your people can tell the truth.

Last thing before I leave I am far from an expert on anyhting beside my family and my school, what other people do is great, I just wish some of you USTU past people could get over the fact that others may have a different view than all of you.:asian:


----------



## terryl965

*Chong Woo Lees Response]: I am one of those who wrote that in a book*. To
be frank, we did not have much to come out with. At an early stage in the course of our
introducing Taekwondo to foreign countries, when we said Taekwondo was a Korean
traditional martial art, it was well justified and accepted. However, although there was a
resemblance, it is in fact different. Should we consult [Taekwondos] historical origins, it
could be persuasive to say that Japan adopted their martial arts form from the Chinese
martial arts, and it flowed into Korea later. Japanese people scientifically developed
them by making many modifications from the Chinese martial arts. It seems that there
remained a problem. Japanese people put emphasis on muscle strength rather than on
flexibility in the course of developing the form of exercise. Accordingly, you cannot
avoid the body movement being stiff.

I guess I am confused if one of the Tenets is Integrity in TKD why say something is 2000 years old when it is not, because they felt it was justify and accepted makes it OK?


----------



## puunui

terryl965 said:


> See this is the crap you do puunui and have always done everywhere, act like a baby when someone does not agree with you or have there own opinion about anything. Share your knowledge but remember spme people may view things different than you.


 

You can believe that it is because you or "someone" doesn't agree with me or has their own opinion, if that is what you want to believe. I will say that I have probably learned more from these exchanges than you have. But see, that is the thing that you never understood about me, that I wasn't here to convince you or anyone else to see things my way. My purpose for posting here is to learn.


----------



## terryl965

puunui said:


> You can believe that it is because you or "someone" doesn't agree with me or has their own opinion, if that is what you want to believe. I will say that I have probably learned more from these exchanges than you have. But see, that is the thing that you never understood about me, that I wasn't here to convince you or anyone else to see things my way. My purpose for posting here is to learn.


 
Ok then I apologies to you, it just did not seem that way to me.:asian:


----------



## puunui

terryl965 said:


> I just wish some of you USTU past people could get over the fact that others may have a different view than all of you.




Believe me the "USTU past people" are acutely aware that others have a different view. 

Even though Taekwondo is unified, there is one area where it is decidedly  divided and separated, and it isn't sport vs. non-sport. Where the real  divide is is in the same place where the divide exists in almost every area  out there, including martial arts. The true divide is between those  that have, and those that do not. But more specifically, it the great  divide between those that know how to have, and those that do not. 

My erroneous assumption was that everyone should have and I used to try  as much as possible to make sure everyone does have. But the problem is  that a lot of people don't want to have, that they are most happy when  they don't have and can complain about it. Try giving to someone like that,  and it is so foreign to their current belief system that they  immediately reject it and think that there is something wrong with you  for trying to give them something. They keep wondering "What is the  catch?" 

A friend of mine who, like me, tried to help as many as possible. That person once commented to  me that he was beginning to understand why some of the seniors chose  not to give certain students Kukkiwon dan certification, or if they did  give Kukkiwon certification, it was only very low dan. 

I think that the past ten years and the next twenty years have and will radically  change Taekwondo, as more of the haves leave the art through death or  retirement, while the have nots take over the world. David Askinas is a perfect example of a have not who is forever changing the face of Taekwondo, at least in the US. 

There is a part of me that really wants to believe that it can turn around, that there is hope and we can restore what was lost over the last seven years. But the facts are overwhelming in the other direction, and at this point, I am just lying to myself. Your last few posts have really driven that nail in, and something the seniors have known for quite a while now. I just didn't want to believe it. 

I guess there is nothing left to do but to sit in my warm lifeboat and watch all the have nots freeze to death as the Titanic goes down. All that can be saved have already been saved and we just have to accept the inevitability of the situation for the rest, whether they know it or not. 

But thank you terry for teaching me a lesson I should have learned a lot time ago.


----------



## terryl965

puunui said:


> Believe me the "USTU past people" are acutely aware that others have a different view.
> 
> Even though Taekwondo is unified, there is one area where it is decidedly divided and separated, and it isn't sport vs. non-sport. Where the real divide is is in the same place where the divide exists in almost every area out there, including martial arts. The true divide is between those that have, and those that do not. But more specifically, it the great divide between those that know how to have, and those that do not.
> 
> My erroneous assumption was that everyone should have and I used to try as much as possible to make sure everyone does have. But the problem is that a lot of people don't want to have, that they are most happy when they don't have and can complain about it. Try giving to someone like that, and it is so foreign to their current belief system that they immediately reject it and think that there is something wrong with you for trying to give them something. They keep wondering "What is the catch?"
> 
> A friend of mine who, like me, tried to help as many as possible. That person once commented to me that he was beginning to understand why some of the seniors chose not to give certain students Kukkiwon dan certification, or if they did give Kukkiwon certification, it was only very low dan.
> 
> I think that the past ten years and the next twenty years have and will radically change Taekwondo, as more of the haves leave the art through death or retirement, while the have nots take over the world. David Askinas is a perfect example of a have not who is forever changing the face of Taekwondo, at least in the US.
> 
> There is a part of me that really wants to believe that it can turn around, that there is hope and we can restore what was lost over the last seven years. But the facts are overwhelming in the other direction, and at this point, I am just lying to myself. Your last few posts have really driven that nail in, and something the seniors have known for quite a while now. I just didn't want to believe it.
> 
> I guess there is nothing left to do but to sit in my warm lifeboat and watch all the have nots freeze to death as the Titanic goes down. All that can be saved have already been saved and we just have to accept the inevitability of the situation for the rest, whether they know it or not.
> 
> But thank you terry for teaching me a lesson I should have learned a lot time ago.


 
I have always believed we all are under one banner until the USAT and David broke me down with all the political BS that goes along with TKD. Sorry if I come across very hard at times with people but between whatever happen to USTU and believe me I really never understood what truely happen with so many story's) and what the USAT has done to make sur eonly the few have rights while everyone else have no say at all. Maybe I am bitter and maybe I am just tired of all the stories and maybe just maybe I am just fed up with the vision that all is well. When we all know it is not, I too would like to see TKD as a brotherhood working together without favortism but I am affraid that will not be in my lifetime. I have three wonderful son's that will have to carry the torch and try to bring unity for TKD and maybe one day when I look down from the heavens above I will see what I have been blinded by for the last couple of years.

Tkd has been a life changer for me, I have found peace in my little world and every once in a while I go out and see what I hate about TKD and that is the way certain orgs have ruinedit for me to enjoy, this is why I choose to stay in my little world shelter from the reality of it all.:asian: Who knows maybe you and some here might help me over come my bitterness one day and help me get back to the path of what it was that I fell inlove with so many years ago.


----------



## leadleg

I do not see how you can think that the usat can have that big of an impact on TKD.Yes they have made it hard for some people in the sport but if you take all the people who are training in TKD in the US the percentage of those affected by usat is very small.
 Most everyone agrees the sport training of TKD is not as lucrative, enjoyable, or sustaining as regular training.
 Without the balance of all things TKD together you obviously find imbalance in training, instructing, and students. 
It is like the KKW without the WTF they balance each other. 
Forget forcing unification, the strong will survive and one day that style will be what is left, same with the usat's,aau's and other political orgs who are run by these petty tyrants,they too will fall by the wayside and something better will come along. 
If you want to be doomsday thinkers go ahead,but I know that our martial arts will prevail even if you may not recognise what they become.The instructors who are really trying to change lives,their own and their students by training their hearts and bodies will keep going without any org's.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

puunui said:


> The problem from my perspective is too many people think "research" means booting up google and typing "taekwondo history".


That and doing research with a predetermined outcome in mind (general comment, not directed at anyone specifically).  People often have a point that they wish to prove, so they will present 'proof' in the form of partial or inapplicable things found either on google or in publications.

There certainly is nothing wrong with trying to support one's points with some kind of source, but there also comes a point where people need to look at what is actually written and evaluate what it says rather than grasping for the minutia that will seemingly prove them right when copied and pasted in a quote.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

puunui said:


> Even though Taekwondo is unified, there is one area where it is decidedly divided and separated, and it isn't sport vs. non-sport. Where the real divide is is in the same place where the divide exists in almost every area out there, including martial arts. The true divide is between those that have, and those that do not. But more specifically, it the great divide between those that know how to have, and those that do not.


I don't know about that.  You may be right, but the have/have not divide within Kukki taekwondo does not seem to manifest until you get past the sport/non-sport divide.  Without the sport, there is no David Askinas, no USTU, and no USAT.

Not an indictment of the sport itself.  But that is where the major divisions seem to be within Kukki taekwondo.  There is of course, the divide between KKW/WTF and the ITF, which you may feel falls into the have/have not divide at its root.

But as Leadleg stated, 


leadleg said:


> Yes they [USAT] have made it hard for some people in the sport but if you take all the people who are training in TKD in the US the percentage of those affected by usat is very small.


The vast majority of people in taekwondo are unaffected because the vast majority have no competitive aspirations.  I would venture (and could be wrong) that most students in taekwondo in the US haven't even heard of USAT.  At least that is the impression that I have gotten over the years.

Daniel


----------



## bluewaveschool

I didn't know about the USAT or AAU before coming here.  I did know ITF, WTF and ATA.  I did not know about the KKW either.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

bluewaveschool said:


> I didn't know about the USAT or AAU before coming here. I did know ITF, WTF and ATA. I did not know about the KKW either.


Most people practicing Kukki taekwondo (and I'm going out on a limb, but I think I'm probably on the money) just call it WTF taekwondo and don't know that there's a Kukkiwon.  I base that on the blank looks that people have given me when I have mentioned the Kukkiwon in conversation.  These are people at taekwondo schools that practice Taegeuk poomsae and WTF sport, as well as all of the traditional parts.  They just assume that it is the World Taekwondo Federation.

English speakers can much more easily wrap their heads around 'World Taekwondo Federation' than they can 'Kukkiwon.'  I also question whether the school owners are even mentioning the Kukkiwon.  Most TKD schools I have been to have big WTF flags drawing attention to the WTF on top of that.

Daniel


----------



## puunui

terryl965 said:


> I guess I am confused if one of the Tenets is Integrity in TKD why say something is 2000 years old when it is not, because they felt it was justify and accepted makes it OK?




The Tenets are General Choi's creation; it is only a part of his particular branch, although many have adopted it for curriculum filler purposes. The tenets, for example, are not in the Kukkiwon Textbook.

But try and read the part you quoted carefully once again, understanding that it is a translation of an article originally published in Korean for a korean speaking audience. 

*Chong Woo Lee&#8217;s Response]: &#8220;I am one of those who wrote that in a book*. To
be frank, we did not have much to come out with. At an early stage in the course of our
introducing Taekwondo to foreign countries, when we said &#8216;Taekwondo was a Korean
traditional martial art&#8217;, it was well justified and accepted. However, although there was a
resemblance, it is in fact different. Should we consult [Taekwondo&#8217;s] historical origins, it
could be persuasive to say that Japan adopted their martial arts form from the Chinese
martial arts, and it flowed into Korea later. Japanese people scientifically developed
them by making many modifications from the Chinese martial arts. It seems that there
remained a problem. Japanese people put emphasis on muscle strength rather than on
flexibility in the course of developing the form of exercise. Accordingly, you cannot
avoid the body movement being stiff.&#8221;


*&#8220;I am one of those who wrote that in a book*." -- Many people wrote the same thing in books, including the original Kukkiwon Textbook which GM Lee was the chief editor of. He is not saying that he was the first one or the only one. 


*"To be frank, we did not have much to come out with. At an early stage in the course of our introducing Taekwondo to foreign countries, when we said &#8216;Taekwondo was a Korean traditional martial art&#8217;, it was well justified and accepted."* -- At the time, "it was well justified and accepted" because the fundamental difference between Taekwondo and other martial arts was the emphasis on kicks, which comes from Korean culture. They needed something to explain korean culture, so they went back and cited to points in Korean history which indicated martial arts and also kicking, through Taekkyon, which is a Korean game based on skill in kicking or leg techniques. 


*"However, although there was a resemblance, it is in fact different." *-- meaning Taekkyon is different from Taekwondo in that Taekkyon is softer and emphasizes pushing rather than striking. Early Taekwondo competition did have some focus on pushing kicks, but this was eventually phased out in favor of striking. However, Taekkyon does emphasize a relaxed manner in developing techniques, as compared to the Japanese explosive muscle contraction style. 

*
"Should we consult [Taekwondo&#8217;s] historical origins, it could be persuasive to say that Japan adopted their martial arts form from the Chinese martial arts, and it flowed into Korea later. Japanese people scientifically developed them by making many modifications from the Chinese martial arts. It seems that there remained a problem. Japanese people put emphasis on muscle strength rather than on flexibility in the course of developing the form of exercise. Accordingly, you cannot avoid the body movement being stiff.&#8221; *-- meaning even though we can say that Taekwondo partially flowed into Korea through Japan, there was a problem with Japanese karate because it is stiff and muscle oriented, which is not the Taekwondo way. Taekwondo therefore is a combination of the format of Japanese karate (standardized uniform, belt ranks, forms, and linear striking) but done in the korean way (relaxed explosiveness, rather than hard muscle tensing explosiveness, and emphasis on kicking). 

In short, Koreans know that kicking is part of their culture, but how do you explain that to non-Koreans who want proof in the form of dates, documentation, and other "evidence"? So they did the best that they could, which is look at the historical records and books to explain their cultural affinity for kicking competitions. 

Is it persuasive? Maybe not. But that is all they have to go on, which GM Lee admits was not much, especially since Taekkyon itself as an art is so poorly documented. It is so poorly documented that they could not even find chinese hanmoon characters for Taekkyon,which is why we have Taekwon, the closest thing to taekkyon. If there were chinese characters for taekkyon, then the art name would be Taekkyondo, not Taekwondo. 

If that effort results in people thinking that all of this was "lies", then so be it. You can't please everyone.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

I like to think of taekwondo as being both a modern Korean art and the inheritor of Korean martial tradtion that predates it.  

Personally, I think that too many people get caught up and sidetracked by this.  I should know; I was one of them.  Now?  It doesn't bother me.  Taekwondo is an art without a single founder.  Connecting it to older KMA through the more advanced kicking techniques is certainly reasonable.  Am I crazy about how it is presented?  Not really, but no longer bothers me.  It is such a minor detail in the grand scheme of things that getting worked up over it is kind of pointless.

Daniel


----------



## puunui

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I like to think of taekwondo as being both a modern Korean art and the inheritor of Korean martial tradtion that predates it.  Personally, I think that too many people get caught up and sidetracked by this.  I should know; I was one of them.  Now?  It doesn't bother me.  Taekwondo is an art without a single founder.  Connecting it to older KMA through the more advanced kicking techniques is certainly reasonable.  Am I crazy about how it is presented?  Not really, but no longer bothers me.  It is such a minor detail in the grand scheme of things that getting worked up over it is kind of pointless.




Whenever I speak about these kinds of things, the biggest obstacle that I face is the inability to get others to see things from a perspective other than their own. This or that does not make sense, from their point of view. But understanding it from the other person's point of view, especially when trying to figure out what they did or why, is really the key. 

I like to use movie analogies and there is one from the movie Contact with Jodie Foster which hammers this point in. So the Vegans faxed down all these construction documents interlaced with scenes of Adolf Hitler giving the opening speech at the 1936 Olympic Games. Pages and pages of that stuff but they couldn't figure out the primer, the code to unlock the secret of the documents. The reason was because they were thinking like a human on earth, and not a vegan, who think multi dimensionally. Once you get that, then it all came together. But you have to think like a Vegan when trying to figure out the Vegan documents; thinking like a human, from your own perspective, will lead you nowhere. 

Look at all of the hostility and anger that was generated when I tried to explain how the pioneers thought about things. There was denial, demands for proof, all kinds of stuff, irrespective of the fact that everything I said made sense and explained away huge holes in everyone's understanding. After a while, I get tired of having to deal with all that crap. If people don't want to understand how the pioneers thought when they were creating Taekwondo, then don't. 

Were the pioneers perfect? Of course not, they made mistakes, acted self serving sometimes, but they all had the same goal that they were shooting for, which was to create something unique and special to give to the world. I want to understand their highest ideals, because that is the place where Taekwondo was created. It was their contribution and gift to the human race and to the world, and I personally want to understand their motivations and their efforts and struggles to give us that gift. 

If others don't want to hear it, then fine, we can talk about something else. Or we don't have to talk at all.


----------



## dowan50

terryl965 said:


> See this is the crap you do puunui and have always done everywhere, act like a baby when someone does not agree with you or have there own opinion about anything. Share your knowledge but remember spme people may view things different than you.
> 
> Me feel displace hardly, maybe you need to feel good by making other people feel bad. I have been around a longtime and it would take more than some person saying things to displace me from anywhere. Once again please keep telling and giving your views about TKD and how General Chui and other lie and only your people can tell the truth.
> 
> Last thing before I leave I am far from an expert on anyhting beside my family and my school, what other people do is great, I just wish some of you USTU past people could get over the fact that others may have a different view than all of you.:asian:



Thank You for putting into words which many of us have thought for some time. No one is saying all USTU bad or all Pioneers and I want to hear both the published and very much want to hear what is not published because at the end of the day you consider both and how much importance you put on the verbal comes from knowing the person and if you do not know them then try to get an consensus of how consistently they express themselves or give out information. It is rare that anything is either all black or all white. Lack of empathy for another person's perspective is short sighted and lacks the understanding of true martial art spirit. It just the same as needing to fully understand an opponent as to not offend by understanding where a person is coming from. I have watched this person go after people borderline on stalking saying things that are so unacceptable it violates the moral code and integrity of the very Pioneers he claims to worship. 

It is unacceptable to consider every person who may have a belief different as trailer trash, uneducated, low income or low rank juvenile's. The very most important part of what the Pioneers gave to us was a feeling of love same as father to child. How can you say your father is a lier or cheat or what ever to a family member and not expect them to defend or be upset? And if they do not cross over to his side he will state well your this or that and I going to take my toys and play somewhere else?

I have watched some truly great men over the last two decades reach out to slowly help people to unlearn what they have learned only out of love for them not to make a point and it has paid off over time. I am also amazed how patient some Korean born masters are with other Korean instructors when they have acted out badly even hitting the news and the comment was well he is still immature and learning and we have wondered if we would have been given the same consideration. 

What does it profit a man if he gains all knowledge and has not love??????

We have watched his behavior and he seems to relish hurting people especially if they have disagreed with him. There are many old USTU people who do not agree that it was all good or that purely sport TKD is the golden idol to be sacrificed to. But USTU and USAT are just old news and fighting over historical details just has no relevance related to the needs of the public we are trying to help. But that is me and to others on their quest for pin point accuracy of their origins or legacy I understand you have that need for you and that is fine. The attitudes of that person or groups are inferior due to their beliefs has started wars and we should all be sharing and enjoying the diversity. 

I can only say live long and prosper


----------



## puunui

whatever


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Come on everyone.  Lets back away from the personal stuff and stay focused on the topics.  There's already been a general mod warning to the TKD section and at least one locked thread.

I'm not a moderator, so take it for what its worth.

Daniel


----------



## terryl965

puuniu your last real statement about the vegan, let me ask you this. How should one look at what is being said without any proof? I am asking because you have brought up a great point in the fact that most people cannot see past what they can read, I am probaly one of them. I know my perspective comes from some of the people I have trusted in for years, now to hear that this was never the way in the beginning goes against what I have put into blind faith. Mow you are saying something that goes against what I have been told but at the same time saying that what I have put into blind faith may or may not have been the original intent. How are we suppose to look at what is being said with blind faith again? I am open to learning and trying to understand but there has been so many lies or fabrication of TKD history that we will probaly never be able to find out the entire truth and if this is the case than how does the ART/Sport grow into one common TKD for all to love and enjoy thoughout there lifes? 

I am hoping to can give me a way to fully understand what it is that you have learned over the years. I would love my childern to learn and see other perspective than mine because once you get closed minded it is not the most perfect way of living your life. Any help and or thought would be appreciated.:asian:


----------



## dancingalone

terryl965 said:


> puuniu your last real statement about the vegan, let me ask you this. How should one look at what is being said without any proof? I am asking because you have brought up a great point in the fact that most people cannot see past what they can read, I am probaly one of them. I know my perspective comes from some of the people I have trusted in for years, now to hear that this was never the way in the beginning goes against what I have put into blind faith. Mow you are saying something that goes against what I have been told but at the same time saying that what I have put into blind faith may or may not have been the original intent. *How are we suppose to look at what is being said with blind faith again?*



Perhaps we shouldn't ever use faith in connection with history.  Critical thinking means more than absorbing blindly what we read or what we hear.  A first step towards understanding controversial subjects is to read as many sources as possible, including first hand accounts, with credible opposing viewpoints.  Next, understanding context is vital - in TKD, this invariably means knowing at least some about the Korean  culture along with how it was affected through the epochal events of WWII and the Korean war.

To be fair, it seems like puunui has done his homework in much of this.


----------



## Earl Weiss

I will take puunui's analogy in a different direction. 

In one of the Star Trek episodes someone got killed and they were trying to prosecute one of the crew members for murder. 

They had some technology where they could tap into the witnesses memories. 

The result was that different people had different perceptions of the occurrence. They weren't lying, they actualy thought that different things happened. 

Now, add to that a factor of someone who had been disenfranchised or was unhappy for another reason. Their perceptions would be affected as well.


----------



## terryl965

dancingalone said:


> Perhaps we shouldn't ever use faith in connection with history. Critical thinking means more than absorbing blindly what we read or what we hear. A first step towards understanding controversial subjects is to read as many sources as possible, including first hand accounts, with credible opposing viewpoints. Next, understanding context is vital - in TKD, this invariably means knowing at least some about the Korean culture along with how it was affected through the epochal events of WWII and the Korean war.
> 
> To be fair, it seems like puunui has done his homework in much of this.


 
But to be honest here, he is asking us to believe converstation he has had without any written proof of those converstations. So for me to believe the founding fathers wanted a sport base ma is believing that without seeing proof, is that not blind faith? 

Believe me when I say I am not trying to stir the pot here just asking question so I can better understand his views and try to understand why we have so much inconsistatsy in the TKD I do. Also it seems no two Koreans from different kwans come up with the same accounts during the conception of TKD, why forge into an new era of ma with fabrication of how long it has been around? Why now are some of these GM coming forward and saying this never happen and so and so is not being truthful? I am not and will not put any names to anything but will say over the years I have talked to some people and have gone back and kept notes and years later there story has change, why? Was the beginning truth and now they are changing or was the beginning ot truthfuland now they want to head down that rightgous pass. 

I have read alot of books over the year and have had converstation with people about the context of said books but to be honest, they are for the most part sub par in my opinion. I am trying to keep an open mind though


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

The confrontational tone of many of the posts by many involved has not helped. 

I approach these discussions as discussions. If I am asked, I will do my best to cite a source, but to be honest, much of the information that I have was collected over the course of decades, and comes from things that I have read, conversations that I have had, and things that I have heard. I can only assume that others are in the same boat that I am. 

How do you cite a conversation with a master? Realistically, you cannot. The books that we cite often contain referrences to conversations that somebody had with somebody else. The person relating the conversation cannot cite it; they had it.  If they go on to publish a book, I can cite their book, but just because they were published doesn't make their account of a conversation any more or less reliable than Puunui's account of conversations.  It simply means that they wrote down the details of their conversation and published a book. 

As far as things that can be cited, if you have the ability to cite your comments, then by all means do so. But lets not take ourselves overly seriously; this is not the gathering of the preeminent MA historians. This is an open forum where we discuss taekwondo topics. Some of use are much more well versed and have a much more solid factual base than others.

If someone is offering a different perspective, take it in and consider its merit, even if it is opposed to your own. If you have questions about it, then simply ask without any snyde commentary. If you are the one being questioned, simply answer without any snyde or belittling commentary. 

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone

terryl965 said:


> But to be honest here, he is asking us to believe converstation he has had without any written proof of those converstations. So for me to believe the founding fathers wanted a sport base ma is believing that without seeing proof, is that not blind faith?



Puunui has passed along information that falls into 3 categories:



statements that seem to be factual about TKD history and can hopefully be corroborated with different sources eventually if one is prepared to do the research and interviewing of living sources themselves
recollections of opinions and personal thoughts or personal facts as passed to him from Korean TKD seniors
his own interpretations of the meaning of the information in groups 1 and 2 which does seem to have a strong 'KKW is the true path' bias
I have not read anything outrageous that I would classify in the first group.  I have seen nothing that makes me raise an eyebrow making me want to prove him wrong even if I had the connections and wherewithal to do (which I don't).

Of his writings I actually find the second group the most interesting as they're information I've seen nowhere else.  The point about Lee, Won Kuk training with Funakoshi, Gigo primarily and deriving his influence from Waka Sensei and thus possibly giving TKD a strong link to Okinawan karate rather than Japanese karate was very interesting to me.  And if these bits can't be 'proven', I'm OK with it.  Most of these older Koreans aren't going to go on record in a book about various matters like General Choi anyway.  If their attitude was anything like my father's, they will never speak publicly about distasteful (to them) subjects, but privately, you just might get the good scoop on things if you're in the trusted circle.  At the very least, hearing bits of subjective and second or third hand information like this will help you fill in the gaps and get you to a place where you can ask GOOD questions when given the opportunity to do so from another authoritative source. 

As for his 'KKW is the right path' mentality, I'm not bothered by it.  It's his opinion and he's entitled to it.  We are all partisan in our own ways.


----------



## StudentCarl

dancingalone said:


> We are all partisan in our own ways.


 
Not only does that shape our interpretation of what we see and hear, it shades our memories over time. As a teacher dealing with people, I see that credibility is earned. When what you say proves out to be right, you gain credibility. Without that, I think it goes back more to faith--where we tend to agree with those whose statements fit best with our own ideas.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

One of the problems that I see in these conversations is that many of the responders reinterpret and rephrase what they are responding to, and/or take statements in a spirit in which they were not intended.

The 'partisanship' for lack of a better term, tends to exaggerate that.  In one thread that was locked, the OP related an experience from high school about how a Korean student's roundhouse kick make him think very differently about taekwondo.  The thread descended into a debate about whether or not the OP was a bully, and then into members attacking one another's credentials.  The whole point of the OP was pretty much ignored.

These discussions can go much, much further if people can, um, kick it down a notch and at least try to see what the other person is getting at and what their perspective is.

Daniel


----------



## terryl965

OK I am an old dog trying to understand a new trick, I am a very visual person. With this being said how do someone like me come to understand what it is someone is trying to say to the contrary of what I have learn?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

terryl965 said:


> OK I am an old dog trying to understand a new trick, I am a very visual person. With this being said how do someone like me come to understand what it is someone is trying to say to the contrary of what I have learn?


One question is whether or not you feel that to understand it, you have to agree with it.

For example, in an earlier thread, Puunui made the statement that Ron Samarach (SP?) had contributed more to taekwondo than any single individual aside from Un Yong Kim. I understood what he said and why, as he places a great deal of emphasis and importance on taewkwondo in the olympics and the olympic movement itself. Now, I didn't agree, but I understand. 

At the complete opposite end of the spectrum, I understand Twin Fist's fairly negative view regarding WTF sparring and "olympic" taekwondo. I don't entirely agree with him, but I understand his point of view.

There are many historical events upon which historians don't agree. But each understands the positions of their dissenting collegues. 

Understanding, of course, is a two way street. We both need to understand each other's perspective in order to have meaningful discussion. 

Lastly, we all need to take in the perspectives of others without taking it personally when those perspectives differ from our own. For example, if my GM says thus and so, but someone else says, no, a book by such and such historian says differently, I can't take that as a personal afront to my GM or to myself. 

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the General or his account of taekwondo, and I've said pretty much everything that I have to say regarding MT etiquette.  

Daniel


----------



## puunui

terryl965 said:


> OK I am an old dog trying to understand a new trick, I am a very visual person. With this being said how do someone like me come to understand what it is someone is trying to say to the contrary of what I have learn?




Take what you learned out of the picture and try to understand the statement in a context free place first. Once you have an understanding of what the other person's point is, then you can compare it to what you have learned. Or at least that is what I do, in pretty much all learning situations. 

For example, ten years ago, the distance between the front heel and back toes in walking stance was one fist length. Now it is one foot length. I understand that it is one foot length now. I also understand that at the Kukkiwon Instructor Course ten years ago, it was one fist length. The adjustment has been difficult for me, because I have done so many repetitions doing the one fist length. But I saw GM LEE Chong Kwan teach one foot length, when he taught one fist length ten years ago, and I figure if he can change, so can I, or so I must. I don't argue in my head about the reasons why one fist length is better than one foot length. That is what they are doing now, and it is pointless for me to fight that. In ten years, when they change it again, I will have to change again. Doing this I realized, keeps me young in mind and spirit.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

terryl965 said:


> People People People, come on everyone knows that puunui is always right about the history and was told just about everything from somebody. I find some of these thread just plain funny since the actual people that supposely said this or that are not here to say whether they did or did not say it.


I have no doubt that Puunui adds very important insight to the discussion of the history of TKD & how it developed. I also feel that he is truthful with what he posts. However what we must understand is that for many reasons people did not like Gen Choi. We also must understand the nasty Korean politics & the context of the times that this development took place in. There is great motivation by many to discredit Gen Choi & smear his name & great accomplishments. What is required to know is that Gen Choi did do things that maybe no other martial artist may have ever done, but his accomplishments simply do not have anything at all to do with Kukki TKD. In fact, he fought them along the way, which of course is another reason why he was hated so much. None of this can ever take away or diminish what he has done for so many outside of Kukki TKD around the world.     




terryl965 said:


> History was fabricated by all sides to give TKD some credibility out in the world, the only problem is later certain people started to say so and so is not telling the truth but my potion is the truth now. I own a pretty good library of TKD books with there own version of what they believe to bethe truth we all must decide which version we will believe in since we all must take one side or another.


The biggest problem is with the confusion that while all TKD had the same roots, karate, they developed differently along 2 major routes, simply stated as Chang Hon or Original TKD & Kukki or Olympic TKD or even simpler, but maybe less accurate ITF & WTF. This is the root cause of much of the confusion & various historical accounts. Then add in the very bad & needless fighting between the groups or styles of TKD.



terryl965 said:


> You know the old story put seven people in seven different rooms and ask the same question and get seven defferent answers to your question. Keep the thread going because I do find it very informative and entertaining.:asian:


That is probably because they have been told 7 or more versions of the history of TKD. 
The history is rather simple:
There were 7 Koreans that we know of that studied martial arts abroad. They returned to Korea & eventually opened or played significant parts in the 1st 5 original kwans or the 6 early kwans. There were movements on the civilian & military side in creating a Korean martial art free from the hated Japanese connection. At 1st these efforts centered around names, then techniques & sports rules. The term or label TKD was 1st used in the military by soldiers. The term eventually agreed upon by the others was Tae Soo Do. Later they all used the same name of TKD, but it was now being applied to different physical systems with different emphasis. It is at this point that the history should now break into 2 or more recordings, to more accurately reflect what came next. The history that is important to you, is not what you think is correct, but rather what best describes the people who made what you do today possible, along with when & where did they do it.

No need to battle, quibble, fight or attack one another. It is simply beyond silly! It is also unbecoming of the spirit of the martial arts.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Earl Weiss said:


> I think the issue is more along the lines of quoting portions of written, published statements and those portions leaving a certain impression, when the entire item would leave a different impression or in the case of some things considering the source and what effect it later had.


Yes I think that it is rather silly to think that Gen Choi said TKD was 2,000 years old, as he always was taking credit for creating TKD. He did it in that same 1965 book. So we know that Gen Choi was not 2,000 years old.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Quote:Originally Posted by *KarateMomUSA* 

 
_See so GM Lee, who I admire &  who I feel should be publicly credited with his vitally important role  in Kukki TKD, but he also was the one who crafted the fabrication about  TKD being 2,000 years old & back in 2002 felt it was time to set the  record straight, by disclosing the fact, karate men made TKD. It is not  2,000 years old. And how they did it was by emphasizing the new sports  rules that they devised. It is plain to see.
_


puunui said:


> Like I said, if it would make you happy, then feel free to tell the world that GM  LEE Chong Woo did steal the 2000 year old lie about Taekwondo's origins  from General Choi, that in fact it was General Choi, not GM LEE Chong  Woo, who created the lie that Taekwondo is 2000 years old.


Geez I wonder why you keep missing the point. Plus you are not stating things as accurately as you can. Now please understand that in Gen Choi's book that he wrote in 1965, he gives a brief history of TKD. In this piece he goes through great lengths to show that Korea had its own martial arts 1,300 years ago. He never mentions 2,000 years, that was what GM Lee Chong Woo inserted. So both Gen Choi & GM Lee go through great pain to paint the picture that Korea had martial arts in the past, 1,300 t0 2,000 years ago. 
I am sure that they both do this to get 1 up on Japan. It is even implied that culture spread to Japan from China via Korea. This is another back door way to say, hey even if TKD came from Japan, we gave Japan martial arts anyway, so it is all Korean! Now I am sure that 1,300 or 2,000 years ago Korea had in place organized systems of fighting. However that was not the TKD we know today.
While both Gen Choi & GM Lee, along with many others, tell of Korea's long & proud history, it is Gen Choi, even in his 1965 book that clearly talks about his karate training in Japan & that he combined this with his exposure to Taek Kyon to make his TKD. None of the official KTA, KKW & WTF historical accounts come close to acknowledging karate's connection to TKD. they simply talk about what was going on in Korea 2,000 years ago. They talk about it for pages, then have that brief paragraph or 2 about the kwans opening after the liberation.

So which is it, Gen Choi is 1,300+ years old when he named & created his TK-D or he never ever claimed to be the founder of TK-D?
Gen Choi was always honest about the karate roots. He simply showed how he moved away from them. The Kukki TKD leaders simply did not do this. Steve Capener, PhD says this should have been ore of a focus. GM Lee simply stated it in 2002. But neither the KTA, KKW or WTF has seen fit to do so, so far, or did I miss that update?


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> We are talking about what General Choi wrote in his 1965 book, not what one of the pioneers told me.
> But in this case, your old story is inapplicable because we are talking about what General Choi wrote in his 1965 book, not what someone told somebody else.


No we are or some are only talking about a piece of what he wrote in his book, that he called a brief history of TKD. You do not talk about how he states he is the father of TKD, how he created it, how he combined karate with his knowledge of Taek Kyon to make his TK-D. Gen Choi never said that TKD was 2,000 years old! GM Lee Chong Woo, along with countless others who repeated the standard template that TKD was 2,000 years old that the KTA, KKW & WTF still put forth to this day!


----------



## puunui

This is the last time I am responding to this. 



KarateMomUSA said:


> The biggest problem is with the confusion that while all TKD had the same roots, karate, they developed differently along 2 major routes, simply stated as Chang Hon or Original TKD & Kukki or Olympic TKD or even simpler, but maybe less accurate ITF & WTF.



Chang Hon is NOT original Taekwondo. Original Taekwondo is Chung Do Kwan Taekwondo. When the name was developed in December 1954 and finally approved by President Rhee in April 1955, the two groups that adopted the name were the Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan. But at the time the Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan's curriculum were the same. This is why Chung Do Kwan members' dan rank was accepted while others from different Kwans were not. 





KarateMomUSA said:


> There were 7 Koreans that we know of that studied martial arts abroad.



There are way more than seven Koreans that studied abroad. Off the topic of my head: 1) LEE Won Kuk; 2) CHUN Sang Sup; 3) YOON Byung In; 4) HWANG Kee; 5) RO Byung Jick; 6) YOON Kwe Byung; 7) CHOI Hong Hi; 8) KIM Ki Whang; 9) OYAMA Masatatsu; 10) Oyama Sensei's Korean teacher in Goju Ryu; 11) Judo practitioners who brought Judo to Korea; 12) Kumdo practitioners who brought Kumdo to Korea; 13) the members of GM YOON Kwe Byung's Kanbukan (Korean Martial Arts Gym) in Japan; 14) CHOI Yong Sool; 15) the other Daito Ryu guy whose name I can never remember; 16) other Koreans who studied under TAKEDA Sokaku Sensei listed in Takeda Sensei's enrollment books; 17) Mr. Kim, who allegedly taught General Choi in Japan; 18) Kung Fu practitioners who brought Kung Fu to Korea; 19) Sensei Richard Kim; 




KarateMomUSA said:


> The term or label TKD was 1st used in the military by soldiers. The term eventually agreed upon by the others was Tae Soo Do.



See above. The name was first used by the Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan, not only in the military. In fact, the Chung Do Kwan Jang was present and was a member of the naming committee so of course he was going to use the name. The Chung Do Kwan dan certificates issued by GM Son had the name "Taekwondo" on it. And as was recently shown, the "Korea Taekwondo Association" name was still being used prior to the official changing from Taesoodo to Taekwondo, in August 1965. If you wish to give credit, give credit to the Chung Do Kwan and its members, including but not limited to its members in the Oh Do Kwan, for first using the name.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

StudentCarl said:


> Puunui, would you please share the source and tell of any other sources you know relating to the thinking and choices made to move in the direction of sport and competitive sparring?


Read accounts of Dr Kim Un Yong & also the 2002 Yook interview of GM Lee Chong Woo, along with noted scholar Steve Capener, PhD. All the kwans were doing there own thing, which early on was mostly karate. A way to unite them was around a common set of rules that were different from the ones in place at the time, which I guess came from karate as well. The push for these rules, which in similar fashion were used under the Korean Tae Soo Do Association in the early 1960s. Dr Kim when he came on board in 1971 had a vision to make it Korea's national sport, then move it to various international sports bodies for acceptance, as a prelude to Olympic sport status. He plan was brilliant & obviously worked well.
Now the plan to unify training methods & system can follow. Having a world championship in Poomsae will also move that forward.


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> Geez I wonder why you keep missing the point. Plus you are not stating things as accurately as you can.




Unlike you, I quote directly from his book. It doesn't get anymore accurate than that.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

chrispillertkd said:


> Interesting stuff about GM Lee being involved in _gagee-chigee_ ("branch trimming") in some TKD matches.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


Of course this is also part of understanding the nasty Korean politics & how it shaped TKD & the times that the development took place in. These are fairly complex concepts.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> GM Hong never said that Eui Am was named after President Rhee. It has that General Choi "also made the Eui Am Hyung."
> This is what GM Hong said about General Choi in the Modern History book:  In the 1950's, CHOI Hong Hee's Chang Hon Ryu forms Ge Baek and Choong   Moo used at the Oh Do Kwan was included in this [1962] promotion test.   HONG Jong Pyo criticized CHOI Hong Hi and the Chang Hon Ryu: "CHOI Hong   Hi is a historical figure, and he was brave, but at one time, he had a   strong connection with former ROK President RHEE Syng Man and tried to   kiss up to him with those forms. He also made the Eui Am Hyung."


No Gen Choi did make a form named after President Rhee, the name escapes me, as it never took hold or become a part of the syllabus.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> The problem from my perspective is too many people think "research" means booting up google and typing "taekwondo history". Then to make matters worse, they misread what is written, and go off on a wild tangent based on that erroneous assumption and misunderstanding. Then when I point to the original source and quote it in its entirety, the person gets all defensive and goes with some long winded argument (without facts) about why they are correct.
> 
> If it upsets you that much, then I won't share anymore historical information. I did the research for me anyway, to further my own personal understanding and not for sharing with the world. I'll stop and then you can continue "believe" whatever you want and be happy.


Not sure what this means, but I do hope that you do continue to share your valuable insight with me & other readers of this forum.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

terryl965 said:


> ....... Once again please keep telling and giving your views about TKD and how General Chui and other lie and only your people can tell the truth.:asian:


Please understand that there is much confusion & outright distortion with the telling of TKD's history. Gen Choi had many powerful enemies because of his outspoken political views that shed light on the brutality of the military dictators. Gen Choi did in fact make a Korean martial art of self defence, along with his soldiers & followers, who then spread it around the world, even before the WTF was formed. So it is not so much that he is lying, he simply is not talking about Kukki TKD. Now to be fair, Gen Choi also had great disdain for them as well & viewed them as karate.
Truth be told, they all cam from karate, but moved away from it in different ways, with neither side even acknowledging the other, never mind give them credit.
I for one, say this is silly & that it is long overdue that a new & proper perspective respectful of both sides & the independents, crediting all that are deserving take place. We can start it here!


----------



## KarateMomUSA

terryl965 said:


> I guess I am confused if one of the Tenets is Integrity in TKD why say something is 2000 years old when it is not, because they felt it was justify and accepted makes it OK?


They simply had to do it for nationalist purposes. However while the context of the times may have demanded it, they could not foresee that TKD would have such far reaching effect & that the internet, along with real freedom of speech & the press in south Korea, would eventually shed light on this fabrication.


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> Truth be told, they all cam from karate, but moved away from it in different ways, with neither side even acknowledging the other, never mind give them credit. I for one, say this is silly & that it is long overdue that a new & proper perspective respectful of both sides & the independents, crediting all that are deserving take place. We can start it here!




The pioneers aren't interested in credit. The idea of credit takes away from the idea that everyone contributed to Taekwondo's creation and development, and therefore no one person should be singled out. If the pioneers wanted credit, they would have put their names in prominently in all of the Kukkiwon and WTF publications. The closest thing to anyone receiving any credit is indirectly through the names and philosophy behind the three highest Kukkiwon poomsae, Chonkwon, Hansu and Ilyeo, which are indirect references to the Chang Moo Kwan (Chonkwon), Chungdokwan (Hansu) and Jidokwan (Ilyeo).


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> No we are or some are only talking about a piece of what he wrote in his book, that he called a brief history of TKD. You do not talk about how he states he is the father of TKD, how he created it, how he combined karate with his knowledge of Taek Kyon to make his TK-D. Gen Choi never said that TKD was 2,000 years old! GM Lee Chong Woo, along with countless others who repeated the standard template that TKD was 2,000 years old that the KTA, KKW & WTF still put forth to this day!




Look at the title of this subject. We are talking about what General Choi wrote in the "A Brief History of Taekwon-Do" section of his 1965 book, not that other stuff you are mentioning. But if you want to quote the dustcover and whatever else from the 1965 book (as opposed to paraphrasing), then be my guest. 

Ok, enough. I'm done.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> I will say that I have probably learned more from these exchanges than you have. But see, that is the thing that you never understood about me, that I wasn't here to convince you or anyone else to see things my way. My purpose for posting here is to learn.


Me too & please keep the exchanges going!


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> That and doing research with a predetermined outcome in mind (general comment, not directed at anyone specifically).  People often have a point that they wish to prove, so they will present 'proof' in the form of partial or inapplicable things found either on google or in publications.
> 
> There certainly is nothing wrong with trying to support one's points with some kind of source, but there also comes a point where people need to look at what is actually written and evaluate what it says rather than grasping for the minutia that will seemingly prove them right when copied and pasted in a quote.
> 
> Daniel


Yes I have learned so much in my research when I looked for outside sources that challenged my previously held beliefs or assumptions.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> In short, Koreans know that kicking is part of their culture, but how do you explain that to non-Koreans who want proof in the form of dates, documentation, and other "evidence"? So they did the best that they could, which is look at the historical records and books to explain their cultural affinity for kicking competitions.
> Is it persuasive? Maybe not. But that is all they have to go on, which GM Lee admits was not much, especially since Taekkyon itself as an art is so poorly documented. It is so poorly documented that they could not even find chinese hanmoon characters for Taekkyon,which is why we have Taekwon, the closest thing to taekkyon. If there were chinese characters for taekkyon, then the art name would be Taekkyondo, not Taekwondo.
> If that effort results in people thinking that all of this was "lies", then so be it. You can't please everyone.


I think that in terms of making TKD connect to Korean culture & a preference for legs over hands, then yes, it is good. However the mistake in my view was to simply have pages that go back all those years & not much more than a paragraph on the all important formative years. This was the main difference between Gen Choi's history, as he goes on with pages of what he did during the formative years.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I like to think of taekwondo as being both a modern Korean art and the inheritor of Korean martial tradtion that predates it.
> 
> Personally, I think that too many people get caught up and sidetracked by this.  I should know; I was one of them.  Now?  It doesn't bother me.  Taekwondo is an art without a single founder.  Connecting it to older KMA through the more advanced kicking techniques is certainly reasonable.  Am I crazy about how it is presented?  Not really, but no longer bothers me.  It is such a minor detail in the grand scheme of things that getting worked up over it is kind of pointless.
> 
> Daniel


Agreed. While Gen Choi comes closest to a single founder for his Chang Hon, ITF or Original TKD, he was not the single founder, but rather a leader of that movement, with many of his soldiers & other followers deserving some credit as well. But it must be made clear that he had little if anything to do with Kukki TKD, WTF or Olympic TKD. In fact he was a major thorn in their side.
I would like to know more about the Kukki TKD leaders, as I think they deserve so much credit!


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

KarateMomUSA said:


> I think that in terms of making TKD connect to Korean culture & a preference for legs over hands, then yes, it is good. *However the mistake in my view was to simply have pages that go back all those years & not much more than a paragraph on the all important formative years.* This was the main difference between Gen Choi's history, as he goes on with pages of what he did during the formative years.


If you are referring to the Kukkiwon website, then this was probably the best way to have handled it.  If they had gone into greater detail, then people would complain that this, that or the other person was left out, slighted, or in some way not treated well, so its best that they simply kept it brief.

Daniel


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> Were the pioneers perfect? Of course not, they made mistakes, acted self serving sometimes, but they all had the same goal that they were shooting for, which was to create something unique and special to give to the world. I want to understand their highest ideals, because that is the place where Taekwondo was created. It was their contribution and gift to the human race and to the world, and I personally want to understand their motivations and their efforts and struggles to give us that gift.


Yes I think it was a great gift to the world. It was 1st spread outside of Korea as TKD in 1959 when Gen Choi led the military TKD team to Vietnam & Taiwan. Then of course in 1962 when they spread it to Malaysia & Vietnam, followed by the Kukki TKD goodwill tour in 1965 around the world. I for one think that all these Pioneers on both the Chang Hon & Kukki side should be credited.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

terryl965 said:


> puuniu your last real statement about the vegan, let me ask you this. How should one look at what is being said without any proof?:asian:


I find little wrong with what Puunui writes. I think a shortcoming may be his dislike for Gen Choi based upon what some people have told him, many of which may have been motivated by different reasons to dislike Gen Choi, especially given the terrible politics of those times. In the end few reasonable people can deny the positive influence & far reaching effect Gen Choi & his original TKD have had on so many people around the world.
I have nothing but respect for the Kukki Pioneers & am very grateful for what they have given to so many around the world. Korea & all TKDin owe them a debt of gratitude, one that is also owed to Gen Choi by south Korea, which someday he will be credited for. There is nothing to prevent the Kukki TKD Pioneers from being listed & credited.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

dancingalone said:


> Perhaps we shouldn't ever use faith in connection with history.  Critical thinking means more than absorbing blindly what we read or what we hear.  A first step towards understanding controversial subjects is to read as many sources as possible, including first hand accounts, with credible opposing viewpoints.  Next, *understanding context is vital - in TKD*, this invariably means knowing at least some about the Korean  culture along with how it was affected through the epochal events of WWII and the Korean war.


Absolutely! Context is very key. On emust understand the nasty Korean politics if there are to get a better grasp on why things was so distorted & confusing.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Earl Weiss said:


> I will take puunui's analogy in a different direction.
> 
> In one of the Star Trek episodes someone got killed and they were trying to prosecute one of the crew members for murder.
> 
> They had some technology where they could tap into the witnesses memories.
> 
> The result was that different people had different perceptions of the occurrence. They weren't lying, they actualy thought that different things happened.
> 
> Now, add to that a factor of someone who had been disenfranchised or was unhappy for another reason. Their perceptions would be affected as well.


Master Weiss as you & others may know, in the law, often eye witness testimony is less reliable as witnesses have different abilities to remember & different perceptions. I think that this does play a part here, but more importantly is the split that started to happen in the early 1960s with the Original TKD & the TaeSuDo guys. This split was patched up somewhat in 1965 when Gen Choi was elected 3rd president of the Korean TaeSuDo Assoc. He was able to get them to adopt his name, but they simply would not follow him or adopt his system or focus. He no longer possessed the power to force his way. hence the confusion, as the 2 TKDs took different roads on their respective development. Since Gen Choi become an enemy of the state in many eyes & he worked against their efforts, he became a target & he belittled them. 
There really is no reason any longer for anyone to continue with this fighting.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

terryl965 said:


> But to be honest here, he is asking us to believe converstation he has had without any written proof of those converstations. So for me to believe the founding fathers wanted a sport base ma is believing that without seeing proof, is that not blind faith?


I am not sure what you have a problem with. Of course they wanted to make a Korean martial sport. He is right, you can read it in Yook's interview of GM Lee Chong Woo, a vitally important Kukki TKD leader, maybe their most influential martial artist. Dr Kim Un Yong & his writings & interviews he granted all confirm this. Steve Capener, PhD, former WTF employee confirms this as well. His research & writings are available on the internet. Also the Modern History addresses this was well.
I have little problem with that. I am just disappointed of the lack of respect for Gen Choi & his valuable contributions all around the world. That is simply not right, any way you cut it.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> How do you cite a conversation with a master?


There is an actual formal way that you do it, with the format depending on the style used, like APA etc.
Basically you say from interview or discussion with so & so or personal communication on such & such a date.  
Again I find little that I would disagree with, from the info provided by Puunui. His is highly informed, well read & has been generous with his contributions. He has opened my eyes to valuable new info.
It is more of his apparent dismissal of things associated with Gen Choi.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Ron Samarach (SP?) had contributed more to taekwondo than any single individual aside from Un Yong Kim. I understood what he said and why, as he places a great deal of emphasis and importance on taewkwondo in the olympics and the olympic movement itself.


 Yes that would be Juan, the IOC President. I think he was from Spain & Dr Kim had a great relationship with him. Dr Kim says without this person as President of the IOC, there would be no TKD in the Olympics.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> There are many historical events upon which historians don't agree. But each understands the positions of their dissenting collegues.
> Understanding, of course, is a two way street. We both need to understand each other's perspective in order to have meaningful discussion.
> Lastly, we all need to take in the perspectives of others without taking it personally when those perspectives differ from our own. For example, if my GM says thus and so, but someone else says, no, a book by such and such historian says differently, I can't take that as a personal afront to my GM or to myself.
> Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the General or his account of taekwondo, and I've said pretty much everything that I have to say regarding MT etiquette.
> Daniel


Thank you Sir. I would like to add that history is about what happened, when did it happen & who made it happen. Personal perspective goes more to the why & how, which of course is always subjective.
Additionally I am not sure how many historians have written about TKD's history. Dr Kimm He Young is a PhD in History & has been involved in scholarly research for some 40 years on this subject. I think his work will be most comprehensive & fill in a lot of holes, settling many battles, that really have been fought for no good reasons, especially for non-Koreans.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> Take what you learned out of the picture and try to understand the statement in a context free place first. Once you have an understanding of what the other person's point is, then you can compare it to what you have learned. Or at least that is what I do, in pretty much all learning situations.


Yes of course, but then also add in the context of the times that this all happened, to get more insight as well weigh or evaluate the info.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> This is the last time I am responding to this. :
> Quote:Originally Posted by *KarateMomUSA*
> 
> 
> _The biggest problem is with the  confusion that while all TKD had the same roots, karate, they developed  differently along 2 major routes, simply stated as Chang Hon or Original  TKD & Kukki or Olympic TKD or even simpler, but maybe less accurate  ITF & WTF.
> _
> 
> Chang Hon is NOT original Taekwondo. Original Taekwondo is Chung Do Kwan Taekwondo. When the name was developed in December 1954 and finally approved by President Rhee in April 1955, the two groups that adopted the name were the Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan. But at the time the Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan's curriculum were the same. This is why Chung Do Kwan members' dan rank was accepted while others from different Kwans were not.


Sorry Sir but this is spin or perspective. What is Original TKD is the TKD of Gen Choi. While he may have offered it as an umbrella name it simply was not accepted by those not following him. So we know that the ODK was staffed with important instructors from the CDK. However what was becoming TKD 1st, was the system that they were developing in the military under Gen Choi's leadership. At 1st it was mostly the patterns. So it was Gen Choi & his soldiers that were developing that Original TKD. of course many of those soldiers were from the CDK & yes they did not have to retest for their rank.
Kukki TKD came from the TaeSuDo guys. they united around the sports competition rules that they devised & competed under the name Tae Soo Do. In 1965 they took the name, made their new forms, replaced by the Taeguek Poomsae later on. So Kukki TKD did not come from the CDK, it came from the 9 kwans that united & signed the agreement in Aug of 78. Original TKD or the Korean martial art that 1st used the name TKD is from the ODK. The roots are shared, but the paths of development were different.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> There are way more than seven Koreans that studied abroad. Off the topic of my head: 1) LEE Won Kuk; 2) CHUN Sang Sup; 3) YOON Byung In; 4) HWANG Kee; 5) RO Byung Jick; 6) YOON Kwe Byung; 7) CHOI Hong Hi; 8) KIM Ki Whang; 9) OYAMA Masatatsu; 10) Oyama Sensei's Korean teacher in Goju Ryu; 11) Judo practitioners who brought Judo to Korea; 12) Kumdo practitioners who brought Kumdo to Korea; 13) the members of GM YOON Kwe Byung's Kanbukan (Korean Martial Arts Gym) in Japan; 14) CHOI Yong Sool; 15) the other Daito Ryu guy whose name I can never remember; 16) other Koreans who studied under TAKEDA Sokaku Sensei listed in Takeda Sensei's enrollment books; 17) Mr. Kim, who allegedly taught General Choi in Japan; 18) Kung Fu practitioners who brought Kung Fu to Korea; 19) Sensei Richard Kim;


Ok yes of course there were more than 7, but I am talking about the 7 that played a part in TKD, not hapkido, judo, kumdo etc. Nor am I talking about the karate guys that stayed karate. So I agree with your listing of the 1st 7, as they were the 7 Koreans that worked with the 6 early kwans or 5 original kwans, the founders & 1st generation leaders.




puunui said:


> The name was first used by the Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan, not only in the military. In fact, the Chung Do Kwan Jang was present and was a member of the naming committee so of course he was going to use the name. The Chung Do Kwan dan certificates issued by GM Son had the name "Taekwondo" on it. And as was recently shown, the "Korea Taekwondo Association" name was still being used prior to the official changing from Taesoodo to Taekwondo, in August 1965. If you wish to give credit, give credit to the Chung Do Kwan and its members, including but not limited to its members in the Oh Do Kwan, for first using the name.


Yes of course, we are making progress & yes I would include those in the CDK who were following Gen Choi.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> The pioneers aren't interested in credit. The idea of credit takes away from the idea that everyone contributed to Taekwondo's creation and development, and therefore no one person should be singled out. If the pioneers wanted credit, they would have put their names in prominently in all of the Kukkiwon and WTF publications. The closest thing to anyone receiving any credit is indirectly through the names and philosophy behind the three highest Kukkiwon poomsae, Chonkwon, Hansu and Ilyeo, which are indirect references to the Chang Moo Kwan (Chonkwon), Chungdokwan (Hansu) and Jidokwan (Ilyeo).


Yes & like GM Lee said, we had to sacrifice our teachers for the national good. In other words, hide the karate connection. We will see names being listed & people being credited, it is a matter of time. South Korea is setting that up already.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Quote:
Originally Posted by *KarateMomUSA* 

 
_No we are or some are only talking  about a piece of what he wrote in his book, that he called a brief  history of TKD. You do not talk about how he states he is the father of  TKD, how he created it, how he combined karate with his knowledge of  Taek Kyon to make his TK-D. Gen Choi never said that TKD was 2,000 years  old! GM Lee Chong Woo, along with countless others who repeated the  standard template that TKD was 2,000 years old that the KTA, KKW &  WTF still put forth to this day!
_



puunui said:


> Look at the title of this subject. We are talking about what General Choi wrote in the "A Brief History of Taekwon-Do" section of his 1965 book, not that other stuff you are mentioning. But if you want to quote the dustcover and whatever else from the 1965 book (as opposed to paraphrasing), then be my guest.
> Ok, enough. I'm done.


OK your done? How about addressing my point?
The point is again, that yes Gen Choi did go back 1,300 years, not 2,000 years, to show that Korea had fighting arts in the past. But that was for the national pride. He clearly shows in that SAME BOOK, that he founded or created TKD, was referred to as the Father of TKD & he combined his karate training with his Taek Kyon knowledge to make his TKD!
The difference with the KTA, KKW & WTF is not the 700 year difference, but the fact that they never make the karate connection or talk about the karate roots.
So why do you not respond to this?


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> If you are referring to the Kukkiwon website, then this was probably the best way to have handled it.  If they had gone into greater detail, then people would complain that this, that or the other person was left out, slighted, or in some way not treated well, so its best that they simply kept it brief.
> 
> Daniel


Sorry but think of what you are saying. They can go on for pages about 2,000 years ago, but then just a brief paragraph or 2 about the all important formative years! It is pretty clear to me that they simply looked to hide the karate roots.


----------



## miguksaram

KarateMomUSA said:


> I find little wrong with what Puunui writes. I think a shortcoming may be his dislike for Gen Choi based upon what some people have told him, many of which may have been motivated by different reasons to dislike Gen Choi...


Which could be but when you hear one person tell you that another person is an @$$hole he may biased.  When you have two or three people telling you another person is an @$$hole, they may bandwagoning, but when you have several people telling you that someone is an @$$hole, then it is good chance that person is an @$$hole.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

KarateMomUSA said:


> Sorry but think of what you are saying. They can go on for pages about 2,000 years ago, but then just a brief paragraph or 2 about the all important formative years! It is pretty clear to me that they simply looked to hide the karate roots.


When you say 'go on for pages,' it sounds like they go on and on.  But really they don't; the history on the KKW site is only seven pages long, and each 'page' is only a column just under half a page in width, so they aren't even full pages.  

In any case, you haven't been complaining about them hiding karate roots, but about General Choi's contributions not being recognized.

As far as five pages worth of Korea's martial past, this used to bug the tar out of me.  If you go digging through Daniel Sullivan's old posts in this section, you can see for yourself just how much.  It took me a long time to wrap my head around the notion that they were not implying that the modern striking art practiced today was practiced centuries ago, but that they were applying the term 'taekwondo' retroactively.  The Japanese did so with 'jujutsu' in (I believe) the 1800's, retroactively applying the term to older arts practiced by the samurai.

The term is just a term.  Taekwondo encompasses fighting with the hands and feet, not exactly a new concept.  

As I said in a previous post, I am not crazy about the way that they present it, but I'm not bothered by it any longer.  

Daniel


----------



## andyjeffries

miguksaram said:


> Which could be but when you hear one person tell you that another person is an @$$hole he may biased.  When you have two or three people telling you another person is an @$$hole, they may bandwagoning, but when you have several people telling you that someone is an @$$hole, then it is good chance that person is an @$$hole.



After reading A Killing Art I came away with the feeling he was an @$$hole.  That book seemed fairly biased to General Choi too (always using his title of General Choi, but referring to ex-WTF President Dr Un Yong Kim as Mickey Kim).

Don't get me wrong, he did a lot to popularise Taekwon-do, but I think the same thing would have happened if he hadn't, it would have just happened later...  If Dr Kim had the skills to get Taekwondo in the Olympics he would have been equally capable of popularising the art.


----------



## miguksaram

andyjeffries said:


> After reading A Killing Art I came away with the feeling he was an @$$hole. That book seemed fairly biased to General Choi too (always using his title of General Choi, but referring to ex-WTF President Dr Un Yong Kim as Mickey Kim).
> 
> Don't get me wrong, he did a lot to popularise Taekwon-do, but I think the same thing would have happened if he hadn't, it would have just happened later... If Dr Kim had the skills to get Taekwondo in the Olympics he would have been equally capable of popularising the art.


I do enjoy the book Killing Art the same way I enjoyed Race against Evil By David Bannon.  For those not familiar with Race Against Evil it was an autobiography of a man who claimed to be an interpool agent and all the cool missions he was on.  It was like reading a James Bond book with out the cool weapons and hot ladies jumping all over him.  However, the book were all lies and the author was eventually busted on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_"Race"_Bannon).  

Anyway, my point is Killing Art rings of the same cloak and dagger tale.  Though the author tries to play a "unbiased" roll it is clear this is a pro-Choi book.


----------



## dancingalone

miguksaram said:


> Though the author tries to play a "unbiased" roll it is clear this is a pro-Choi book.



 I didn't get that impression at all.  Personally, I came out of reading the book with fairly negative feelings for Choi and his son.   The narrative Gillis gives shows many of the early TKD figures as be flawed individuals, sometimes criminally so.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

miguksaram said:


> Which could be but when you hear one person tell you that another person is an @$$hole he may biased.  When you have two or three people telling you another person is an @$$hole, they may bandwagoning, but when you have several people telling you that someone is an @$$hole, then it is good chance that person is an @$$hole.


I am not sure what you mean. I think all of us are bias in some form. I leave that to others to judge for themselves. If you are speaking in a derogatory fashion about Gen Choi & his personality that is OK as well. But that does not take away from his many accomplishments & what he gave to & left for so many around the world.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> When you say 'go on for pages,' it sounds like they go on and on.  But really they don't; the history on the KKW site is only seven pages long, and each 'page' is only a column just under half a page in width, so they aren't even full pages.


Valid point, but you must include the all important context, pages about history that has little to do with the present day formation of a modern Korean martial art/sport & a brief paragraph or 2 about the all important formative years when they actually created TKD. That is done n purpose, as a main architect states in his own words (GM Lee). I say it was to promote their national agenda & hide the hated Japanese karate connection.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> In any case, you haven't been complaining about them hiding karate roots, but about General Choi's contributions not being recognized.


Both! The karate roots are real & can't be hidden. Then by extension people like Gen Choi & the 6 others that studied martial arts abroad & brought it back to Korea & played a role in opening those 6 early kwans will be credited. Just to make it clear, I think all 7 Koreans were dissed, not just Gen Choi. All 7 deserve credit, as do their 2nd generation leaders that have also been dissed. Once you tell the truth about the formative years, you can't help but credit people like Gen Choi. Some may deserve more credit than others, but that is another topic. I am just for giving credit where credit is due. I find nothing wrong with that & am amazed about the lengths that some people will go to, just to stop some from getting deserved credit. Now just to restate & make clear, TKD has shared roots from a common start. Once the paths of development took 2 major roads, Gen Choi of course would  not play a part in the Kukki TKD creation & in fact it would be historically accurate to tell how he even interfered with that development.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> As far as five pages worth of Korea's martial past, this used to bug the tar out of me.  If you go digging through Daniel Sullivan's old posts in this section, you can see for yourself just how much.  It took me a long time to wrap my head around the notion that they were not implying that the modern striking art practiced today was practiced centuries ago, but that they were applying the term 'taekwondo' retroactively.  The Japanese did so with 'jujutsu' in (I believe) the 1800's, retroactively applying the term to older arts practiced by the samurai.
> The term is just a term.  Taekwondo encompasses fighting with the hands and feet, not exactly a new concept.
> As I said in a previous post, I am not crazy about the way that they present it, but I'm not bothered by it any longer.


Again it is the imbalance with so much detail given to the past with little direct connection compared to the formative years when TKD was being "formed". This must be & I believe will be rectified when historians record TKD's history. I am much more concerned with giving credit to the many that deserve it. To me that is just right, plain & simple. How can we not want to credit those that made possible what we & so many do today? Why would we not want to list these Korean heroes so they can receive proper thanks?


----------



## KarateMomUSA

andyjeffries said:


> After reading A Killing Art I came away with the feeling he was an @$$hole.  That book seemed fairly biased to General Choi too (always using his title of General Choi, but referring to ex-WTF President Dr Un Yong Kim as Mickey Kim).


Again even if Gen Choi had traits that were not to be admired, that does not take away from his many contributions. I know of no human that is perfect. We also have to remember that to many in the south, Gen Choi was a traitor for bringing TKD to the north of Korea. This also can play a big role in shaping people's opinion about him, so poliitcal context is a must. I think the book was well researched & that it did confirm many things, like Dr Kim being a KCIA operative that went by the name of "Mikey Kim". That is a very important point as it speaks to how Korean politics shaped TKD's development & the recording of its history, at least in the short term.



andyjeffries said:


> Don't get me wrong, he did a lot to popularise Taekwon-do, but I think the same thing would have happened if he hadn't, it would have just happened later...  If Dr Kim had the skills to get Taekwondo in the Olympics he would have been equally capable of popularising the art.


There is little doubt that this feeling is correct. Or at least I share it with you. However history is in large part the recording of what happened, where did it happen & who made it happen. For TKD's history, Gen Choi did play a role. His role was important in the formative years for all TKD, as they all share those common roots. His role for Kukki or Olympic sport TKD is basically zero, if not even negative, as he was a drag on its development. However once the split happened, he presided over the development of another form of TKD, which of course history shows us was the style or branch of TKD that was 1st labeled as such.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

miguksaram said:


> Anyway, my point is Killing Art rings of the same cloak and dagger tale.  Though the author tries to play a "unbiased" roll it is clear this is a pro-Choi book.


It does seem like a cloak & dagger tale, as TKD's history & how it was shaped, influenced by the nasty Korean politics & how it developed in the context of the times that it was developed in, yes post WWII, not 2,000 years ago, was like that. This is what is in my view the greatest accomplishment of the work. Please tell me 1 other TKD author or researcher that dug through hundreds, if not thousands of Koreagate scandal pages recorded by the US Congress & FBI to come up with these links & paint the picture of the all important context of those times?

Like him or not, Gen Choi, because of his political views which were highly vocal & very critical of the military dictatorships, became the target of these military dictators! What is so hard to believe about that? History is filled with examples of what dictators do to those in political dissent, even ex-pats! Readers do realize that another leading political opponent who lived abroad & spoke out against the military dictatorships was about to be killed when the American CIA found out & Washington stepped in to save his life. That man eventually became a democratically elected civilian president of south Korea who then went on to win the Nobel Prize for Peace. Readers should also know that Gen choi was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.  

One can not really or more fully understand the confusion & distortions that have plagued TKD's history without being informed of this all important context. While a book that is well researched can be viewed as "pro-Choi", it is really just pro what happened, who made it happen, when did they make it happen & where did it happen.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

KarateMomUSA said:


> Valid point, but you must include the all important context, pages about history that has little to do with the present day formation of a modern Korean martial art/sport & a brief paragraph or 2 about the all important formative years when they actually created TKD. That is done n purpose, as a main architect states in his own words (GM Lee).


The history section of the website, if put into a word document, would take up about two pages, maybe three. And of course it was done on purpose.


KarateMomUSA said:


> I say it was to promote their national agenda & hide the hated Japanese karate connection.


Maybe that is the reason. Or maybe it was not so much to hide something as it was to emphasize something else. Or maybe both. Or maybe neither. We're talking about between two and three full pages of information on a website with no citations. It was not intended to be a scholarly work but to look cool on a website.



KarateMomUSA said:


> Both! The karate roots are real & can't be hidden.


Different topic, but I haven't heard Puunui argue that the karate roots were 'fake' in any way.



KarateMomUSA said:


> Then by extension people like Gen Choi & the 6 others that studied martial arts abroad & brought it back to Korea & played a role in opening those 6 early kwans will be credited. Just to make it clear, I think all 7 Koreans were dissed, not just Gen Choi. All 7 deserve credit, as do their 2nd generation leaders that have also been dissed. Once you tell the truth about the formative years, you can't help but credit people like Gen Choi. Some may deserve more credit than others, but that is another topic. I am just for giving credit where credit is due. I find nothing wrong with that & am amazed about the lengths that some people will go to, just to stop some from getting deserved credit. Now just to restate & make clear, TKD has shared roots from a common start. Once the paths of development took 2 major roads, Gen Choi of course would not play a part in the Kukki TKD creation & in fact it would be historically accurate to tell how he even interfered with that development.


You are way too worried about credit being given on a very brief website historical overveiw. It was obvious that they were trying to emphasize Korean martial roots. Nobody was individually credited. There are more comprehensive and schollarly works available for those who want to dig deeper. 

Part of this issue is that I think that you, like many others, have a need or desire to have a distinct 'founder' to trace your lineage to. Aikido, Judo, BJJ, and Karate all have 'the founder' to refer to and to wax philosophical about. Kukki taekwondo has no single founder. Chang Hon taekwondo has General Choi, who was either a founder or a leader who can be looked to by ITF and Chang Hon taekwondo practitioners. 

Kukki taekwondo does not have a singel founder, so no attempt is made to credit anyone. ITF/Chang hon folks have four federations plus a myriad of independents that all spash the general's name up in lights as the founder and/or father of taekwondo with scant or less mention of the Kukki pioneers, so I really don't see why the KKF not mentioning him (or anyone else) on their website is bothering you. Be happy with the really cool taekwondo you practice and proud of the lineage that you have. 



KarateMomUSA said:


> Again it is the imbalance with so much detail given to the past with little direct connection compared to the formative years when TKD was being "formed". This must be & I believe will be rectified when historians record TKD's history. I am much more concerned with giving credit to the many that deserve it. To me that is just right, plain & simple. How can we not want to credit those that made possible what we & so many do today? Why would we not want to list these Korean heroes so they can receive proper thanks?


Again, it is an incredibly brief website overview, not a definitive and comprehensive history of taekwondo. In less than three full pages, there is no way to give the kind of credit that you are demanding. 

The KKW website is intended to tell people what the art is about, not as an historical reference.

Daniel

Edit:  I hope that I am not coming off as flippant to you, as that is not my intent.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

dancingalone said:


> I didn't get that impression at all.  Personally, I came out of reading the book with fairly negative feelings for Choi and his son.   The narrative Gillis gives shows many of the early TKD figures as be flawed individuals, sometimes criminally so.


Please look at Korea post WWII in the context of what was happening. Compare it to Afghanistan today & some of the former eastern European nations that struggled with independence when the USSR broke up. When a people are controlled by a force, like the Japanese, Taliban & Soviet communists, an internal battle often ensues when free, as competing factions "compete" for control or to take control. During the initial periods, lawlessness often takes place. This is exactly what happened in Korea at the end of the War. 
Gangsters ran the streets. Outside occupation forces led by the US in the south & USSR in the north tried to establish control & exert their influence. Local thugs were aggressive in their attempts to one up others. Soon a civil war broke out that resulted in the largest amount of casualties in the shortest duration of any war in history. The devastation was far reaching & almost total, with around 80% of the country bombed out. The north was brutally governed by a totalitarian regime & still is to this very day. The south was ruled with an iron hand by a puppet govt for 12 years, then a succession of military dictators, until the early 90s, when democratic elections were held & civilian leadership was voted into office.
This coincided with the fall of the USSR's Iron Curtain, which led to an economic collapse in the north as their main benefactor fell apart & flooding caused wide spread famine. This changed the dynamics between the 2 Koreas. It also resulted in removing the chip or ace card that the south Korean former brutal leaders (non-civilian democratically elected) used to rule with an Iron Fist, as the south was constantly under threat of attack from a more healthy north. Now the north depends on outside aid from the south. So the harsh tactics employed in the south were no longer justified or could be explained away as needed due to national security etc.
So we must really understand the all important context, as it gives us much needed insight that is required if we are to sort through & more fully understand this whole mess. Yes Gen Choi, like all humans was flawed. Some of his traits that allowed him to accomplish many great things, also resulted in many people disliking his style & vision. He was an autocrat, much like a dictator with the way he ran his TKD & his ITF. The book also makes this clear, something that many who knew him, knew from 1st hand experience. Many of TKD's leaders have flawed personalities & made mistakes. They were human after all. However none of this should prevent history from recording what happened & this book does a good job of it. It uses numerous sources & has hundreds of footnotes. I think if you check the sources & use the footnotes, you will find that the investigative journalist that wrote the book used at least 2 sources to back up his claims. Another great contribution of this work is to show that TKD did indeed develop along 2 major roads that were different. So after a point in time, their respective histories will start to emerge separately.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> The history section of the website, if put into a word document, would take up about two pages, maybe three. And of course it was done on purpose.
> 
> Maybe that is the reason. Or maybe it was not so much to hide something as it was to emphasize something else. Or maybe both. Or maybe neither. We're talking about between two and three full pages of information on a website with no citations. It was not intended to be a scholarly work but to look cool on a website.
> 
> Again, it is an incredibly brief website overview, not a definitive and comprehensive history of taekwondo. In less than three full pages, there is no way to give the kind of credit that you are demanding.
> 
> The KKW website is intended to tell people what the art is about, not as an historical reference.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> Edit:  I hope that I am not coming off as flippant to you, as that is not my intent.


Not at all. I enjoy our exchanges. Now I would respectfully suggest that we look more at the bigger picture: The fabrication that GM Lee Chong Woo says they came up with, was used as a template. You can see it copied or referred to as "the history" of TKD in so many other publications, both on paper & in electronic form. This is what led to the 2,000 year old myth. So many people around the world have been led to believe that TKD is 2,000 years old. We know that this is not true. We also know why it was written. We are the lucky ones. We are better informed.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> You are way too worried about credit being given on a very brief website historical overveiw. It was obvious that they were trying to emphasize Korean martial roots. Nobody was individually credited. There are more comprehensive and schollarly works available for those who want to dig deeper.


Which ones? This is part of the problem. Once any source is listed, someone attacks it as being self serving. The KKW is "the world TKD academy". As such, they should lead with a comprehensive piece on the formative years of TKD. Thats just my opinion, but would anybody disagree with that? 



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Part of this issue is that I think that you, like many others, have a need or desire to have a distinct 'founder' to trace your lineage to. Aikido, Judo, BJJ, and Karate all have 'the founder' to refer to and to wax philosophical about. Kukki taekwondo has no single founder. Chang Hon taekwondo has General Choi, who was either a founder or a leader who can be looked to by ITF and Chang Hon taekwondo practitioners.
> 
> Kukki taekwondo does not have a singel founder, so no attempt is made to credit anyone. ITF/Chang hon folks have four federations plus a myriad of independents that all spash the general's name up in lights as the founder and/or father of taekwondo with scant or less mention of the Kukki pioneers, so I really don't see why the KKF not mentioning him (or anyone else) on their website is bothering you. Be happy with the really cool taekwondo you practice and proud of the lineage that you have.


I do have my personal lineage & am proud of that. I know exactly which of the 7 Koreans that studied abroad my teacher connects to. I also know very well that Gen Choi was the principle founder of the type TKD that I eventually came to embrace. I am also aware of the many Koreans that helped him accomplish what he did. I am also equally vocal that the ITF propaganda put out does a disservice to other TKDin. To me it is no longer either or, but both. 
It seems to me that the KKW does not list the many who were responsible for Kukki TKD as it initially was just not allowed, as they had to hide the karate roots & the hated Japanese connection. That no longer is the case. Dr Kim Un Yong was the capable & talented leader of the Kukki TKD movement. He considers himself the father of modern TKD. I think that GMs Lee Chong Woo, Uhm Un Gyu & Lee Nam Suk were the martial artists that led the Kukki TKD movement. They & many others must be listed, credited with their contributions & thanked by all of us & those of us yet to come. The stories of what these great martial artists did much be recorded & save for all eternity. Their time in this place is limited. Too many have already left to the next place. The clock is running not only to get their story, but for them to personally hear, read & feel the thanks of so many around the world.
I was happy to see the WTF credit & formally thank some of the ITF Pioneers for their work. I simply wish more on all sides would be named & thanked.
What is wrong with giving thanks?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

KarateMomUSA said:


> Which ones? This is part of the problem. Once any source is listed, someone attacks it as being self serving. The KKW is "the world TKD academy". As such, they should lead with a comprehensive piece on the formative years of TKD. Thats just my opinion, but would anybody disagree with that?


The fact that the guy you are debating with may say that the source is self serving and that others disagree, all on a message board, doesn't apply to any of what I said. 

Do you think that you'll see the name of William Crapo Durant splashed all over GM's website? Why not? He essentially made GM into the multi-divisional enitity that became by buying everything around him. Or Alfred P Sloan's name, the man who put it all together into the multi-tiered divisional pricing system after Durant was forced out? Nobody cares, so why bother? Durant's name on a car will not sell vehicles. Even invocations of Harley Earl's name in Buick adds a few years back did nothing to help flagging sales. Unless your name is Porsche, Ferrari, Cunningham, Shelby, Earnhardt, Gordon or Petty, chances are, your name on a car will mean diddly, and I don't mean Bo.

I hate to say it, but aside from a small group of us who are keenly interested, nobody cares, which is why the vast majority of the website is devoted to other aspects of taekwondo.



KarateMomUSA said:


> I do have my personal lineage & am proud of that. I know exactly which of the 7 Koreans that studied abroad my teacher connects to. I also know very well that Gen Choi was the principle founder of the type TKD that I eventually came to embrace. I am also aware of the many Koreans that helped him accomplish what he did. I am also equally vocal that the ITF propaganda put out does a disservice to other TKDin. To me it is no longer either or, but both.
> It seems to me that the KKW does not list the many who were responsible for Kukki TKD as it initially was just not allowed, as they had to hide the karate roots & the hated Japanese connection. That no longer is the case. Dr Kim Un Yong was the capable & talented leader of the Kukki TKD movement. He considers himself the father of modern TKD. I think that GMs Lee Chong Woo, Uhm Un Gyu & Lee Nam Suk were the martial artists that led the Kukki TKD movement. They & many others must be listed, credited with their contributions & thanked by all of us & those of us yet to come. The stories of what these great martial artists did much be recorded & save for all eternity. Their time in this place is limited. Too many have already left to the next place. The clock is running not only to get their story, but for them to personally hear, read & feel the thanks of so many around the world.
> I was happy to see the WTF credit & formally thank some of the ITF Pioneers for their work. I simply wish more on all sides would be named & thanked.
> What is wrong with giving thanks?


Nothing wrong with thanking people at all. 

But I think that you need to be realistic about where you expect to see such thanks expressed. Chances are, if its 'the other guy's' website, don't expect to find it, especially if the other guys and your guy parted ways on bad terms.

Daniel


----------



## miguksaram

KarateMomUSA said:


> I am not sure what you mean. I think all of us are bias in some form. I leave that to others to judge for themselves. If you are speaking in a derogatory fashion about Gen Choi & his personality that is OK as well. But that does not take away from his many accomplishments & what he gave to & left for so many around the world.


 I'm speaking in generalities here.  However, if someone is telling you "Hey, I heard from about 8 people who grew up with him that he is just no good." Then it goes a bit beyond the person telling you being biased.  If they say I heard from this one guy or I heard from this one guy and his friend...then bias will play a role.


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> Personally, I came out of reading the book with fairly negative feelings for Choi and his son.




Try reading his autobiography and see how you feel after that.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I hate to say it, but aside from a small group of us who are keenly interested, nobody cares, which is why the vast majority of the website is devoted to other aspects of taekwondo.


I think you may be right. However now is the time when we are seeing all kinds of new movement & more freedom for things to be sorted out. Many of the flamers, those with the self interests are gone, as is the dictatorships & the restrictions that they had in effect. So historians & other credible writers who have done their homework will produce more concrete info, minus some of the dribble that existed "back in the day". 




Daniel Sullivan said:


> Nothing wrong with thanking people at all.
> But I think that you need to be realistic about where you expect to see such thanks expressed. Chances are, if its 'the other guy's' website, don't expect to find it, especially if the other guys and your guy parted ways on bad terms.


Yes it is great to give thanks, most reasonable & fair minded thinking people will agree with that. The process will of course take time & be done in steps. I would think that getting more info out there would be a good place to start. This will help dispel the 2,000 year old myth & put many Gen Choi's self serving claims into perspective. Information will help people understand why there is all this confusion to begin with. 
Once some of this takes place, several entities will then look to address these developments. I would look for the WTF to make further out reach to ITFers, once the political situation between the 2 Koreas settles somewhat. I also think the new TKD Park will start to include the efforts of the ITF in their Park & Museum. I think they both are looking to be more inclusive. Actually the south Korean govt has commissioned journalists to travel the world & bring back stories of the Korean Pioneers, from all styles, so they can forever be preserved for eternity.
Its happening & we can push the efforts along, especially if we believe in unity & believe that credit should be given!


----------



## KarateMomUSA

miguksaram said:


> I'm speaking in generalities here.  However, if someone is telling you "Hey, I heard from about 8 people who grew up with him that he is just no good." Then it goes a bit beyond the person telling you being biased.  If they say I heard from this one guy or I heard from this one guy and his friend...then bias will play a role.


Sorry I am still a bit confused with your point. Do you mean if 8 people said Gen Choi was bad, that this takes away from what he did all around the world for countless numbers of his students?
Any person can have faults & character flaws, in fact all humans have them. Likewise one person can never make everyone happy, nor command or act in a way that everyone likes them. None of that in my view should ever take away from what they accomplished & what they contributed. 
Don't you agree?


----------



## Earl Weiss

miguksaram said:


> ...........................
> Anyway, my point is Killing Art rings of the same cloak and dagger tale. Though the author tries to play a "unbiased" roll it is clear this is a pro-Choi book.


 
I tend to see a pattern among those who read "A Killing Art" vis a vis their feelings toward General Choi.
If they disliked him before reading the book they felt it unduly flattering.


----------



## miguksaram

Earl Weiss said:


> I tend to see a pattern among those who read "A Killing Art" vis a vis their feelings toward General Choi.
> If they disliked him before reading the book they felt it unduly flattering.


Actually it was just the opposite.  I was not a huge fan of Choi, but the opening chapter had me thinking that the author had no love for him either as it seemed that he was trying to show him as being an @sshole.  Perhaps it was a tactical ploy to get people like myself to think that it will be more unbiased than we thought...then again perhaps I am giving the author too much credit in doing such a thing.  However, from what I have read thus far it just seems that was a ploy in hopes to lead the reader to think he is being unbiased in the book.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

miguksaram said:


> Actually it was just the opposite.  I was not a huge fan of Choi, but the opening chapter had me thinking that the author had no love for him either as it seemed that he was trying to show him as being an @sshole.  Perhaps it was a tactical ploy to get people like myself to think that it will be more unbiased than we thought...then again perhaps I am giving the author too much credit in doing such a thing.  However, from what I have read thus far it just seems that was a ploy in hopes to lead the reader to think he is being unbiased in the book.


No I think it was more that while he found out that Gen Choi did have many personal flaws & character defects (as all humans do) it did not take away from what he did, as that was what he did. This was different for many of Gen Choi's followers, & Mr Gillis was not 1 of them, as Gen Choi's followers more often then not, only listened to Gen Choi's side & were dismissive of others attacks on their idol or leader.
I knew early on that Gen Choi had a strong ego, was a driven man & had a leadership style that made it difficult for people to follow him. He was in many ways a dictator himself. Students might not see that too clearly, as they were looking up to him on a pedestal. However those of us who could step outside of that zone & of course Gen Choi's peers, were not blinded by that light of awe. Gen Choi was a shred tactician. I think he used that aurora to help him move forward his agenda.
Now Mr Gillis was just a student of TKD, looking to sweat while he learned to protect himself. He is also an investigative journalist that is a writing instructor at the college level in Toronto. He came across this story as he trained with people that knew Gen choi personally & studied under him directly, as Gen Choi escaped to Toronto in 1972, the height of the brutality under the Park military dictatorship. So the ITF was strong in that city & area. It also served as ITF headquarters for 13 years, before it moved to Vienna Austria, a politically neutral country to allow easier access to the communist & socialist nations, as Austria is between east & western Europe.
It was when conversations peeked his interest that he embarked on his in-depth research. It also should be pointed out that he also did Kukki TKD as well & his daughter was training in Kukki TKD as well. What Mr Gillis says about his experience was that TKD is supposed to be this nobel activity with high ideals. For him, that was an important part of his martial art training. He however, was deeply saddened by what he found out about many of TKD leaders. In a way, he came to know that some of the things that Puunui says about Gen Choi were true. He came to discover through his research that Gen Choi was a flawed person (as we all are in some manor), had his detractors & made mistakes. But not of that takes away from the recording of what the man accomplish! Some of which was never done before on the scale that he did.
Like him or not, it is clear that Gen Choi was a great martial artist that has affected many lives around the world with his work. Just because those lives are not that of Kukki TKDin, does not diminish he great contributions.


----------



## dancingalone

puunui said:


> Try reading his autobiography and see how you feel after that.




I own a copy.  Perhaps I'll start reading it.  After A Killing Art however, I don't feel like reading anything that may have the same themes, albeit from exclusively one side.  I may need to stick to comic books and Dean Koontz for a while.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

dancingalone said:


> I own a copy.  Perhaps I'll start reading it.  After A Killing Art however, I don't feel like reading anything that may have the same themes, albeit from exclusively one side.  I may need to stick to comic books and Dean Koontz for a while.


Please do & if you do get around to reading it, please pay particular attention to the research he did & the references, along with the 400+ footnotes. If you do that, you will see that it is not 1 sided.

I often think what is the definition of one sided?
It appears that it usually means, if it does not agree with my understanding, what I thought or have come to believe, then it is 1 sided! It sounds a lot like the political debate in the USA that we hear about, red vs blue, liberal vs conservative, dems vs repubs etc.
The history of TKD is much like these political debates like fixing public education. Answers will come from both sides of the aisle, as there is no 1 simple solution to complicated & complex problems, just simple phrases that 1 side can use against their opponents on a bumper sticker or that will make that all important blip as a sound bite on the news. To many listen to the special interests that fund these political battles. It is about time that Americans see through this hogwash, as the only ones that win are the politicians that get the money donated to them & those same special interests that give the money to buy access & get what they want. Meanwhile education is still broke, it don't educate nuttin.
TKD is much the same. It is not ITF vs WTF, it is simply recording what happened, where & when did it happen & who helped make it happen. I admire, respect & hold in high regard  Dr Kim, GMs Lee, Uhm & Lee, among many others that worked so hard to give the world Taekwondo. I am amazed that so many have such apparent disdain for Gen Choi & seem to be so set against giving credit where credit is due. How is that in the spirit of the martial arts?


----------



## dancingalone

KarateMomUSA said:


> Please do & if you do get around to reading it, please pay particular attention to the research he did & the references, along with the 400+ footnotes. If you do that, you will see that it is not 1 sided.



It wouldn't particularly bother me if his autobiography was one-sided.  An autobiography is a person telling his own life story after all.  It is not objective or critical history.  It would be an unusual one indeed if General Choi's book attempts to cover the same events also from the eyes of his opponents.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Oh so sorry I mixed up the Killing Art with the autobio
;(


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

KarateMomUSA said:


> Please do & if you do get around to reading it, please pay particular attention to the research he did & the references, along with the 400+ footnotes. If you do that, you will see that it is not 1 sided.
> 
> I often think what is the definition of one sided?
> It appears that it usually means, if it does not agree with my understanding, what I thought or have come to believe, then it is 1 sided! It sounds a lot like the political debate in the USA that we hear about, red vs blue, liberal vs conservative, dems vs repubs etc.
> The history of TKD is much like these political debates like fixing public education. Answers will come from both sides of the aisle, as there is no 1 simple solution to complicated & complex problems, just simple phrases that 1 side can use against their opponents on a bumper sticker or that will make that all important blip as a sound bite on the news. To many listen to the special interests that fund these political battles. It is about time that Americans see through this hogwash, as the only ones that win are the politicians that get the money donated to them & those same special interests that give the money to buy access & get what they want. Meanwhile education is still broke, it don't educate nuttin.
> TKD is much the same. It is not ITF vs WTF, it is simply recording what happened, where & when did it happen & who helped make it happen. I admire, respect & hold in high regard Dr Kim, GMs Lee, Uhm & Lee, among many others that worked so hard to give the world Taekwondo. I am amazed that so many have such apparent disdain for Gen Choi & seem to be so set against giving credit where credit is due. How is that in the spirit of the martial arts?


Congrats!  I think this post got you your M/T purple belt!

Daniel


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Congrats!  I think this post got you your M/T purple belt!
> 
> Daniel


What good does that do me, there is no purple belt in Taekwon-Do!


----------



## chrispillertkd

dancingalone said:


> It wouldn't particularly bother me if his autobiography was one-sided. An autobiography is a person telling his own life story after all. It is not objective or critical history. It would be an unusual one indeed if General Choi's book attempts to cover the same events also from the eyes of his opponents.


 
True enough. I will say this, however, Gen. Choi's autiobiography really "let's it all hang out." He talks about the good and the bad and the impression I got from reading it was that he went to some lengths to give an accurate portrayal of his life. There were several incidents that he wrote about in his book that made me wonder why he was talking about them _at all_ as he doesn't come out in a particularly good light in them. 

I'm hoping that at some point the third volume gets translated into English. Maybe one day, but it was supposed to be in the works for several years now and I haven't seen any sign of it as yet.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

KarateMomUSA said:


> What good does that do me, there is no purple belt in Taekwon-Do!


Different art, lol.

Daniel


----------



## KarateMomUSA

chrispillertkd said:


> True enough. I will say this, however, Gen. Choi's autiobiography really "let's it all hang out." He talks about the good and the bad and the impression I got from reading it was that he went to some lengths to give an accurate portrayal of his life. There were several incidents that he wrote about in his book that made me wonder why he was talking about them _at all_ as he doesn't come out in a particularly good light in them.
> 
> I'm hoping that at some point the third volume gets translated into English. Maybe one day, but it was supposed to be in the works for several years now and I haven't seen any sign of it as yet.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


Good points & I heard that Mrs Choi was getting all 3 done in betterer English, as the 1st 2 volumes are a hard read with the translation.


----------



## chrispillertkd

I hope so. The current translation is torturous to read and there are a couple of places where the text repeats itself. Wish they had invested in a good editor and typesetter the first time around.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> But that is what General Choi did, say that it was 1300 years old, in his 1965 english book. Try and read the first post above. He might be saying something different now in the encyclopedia, but that isn't what he said back in 1965.


No he was actually fairly consistent throughout. He repeats many of these same things in his newer books & even expands on them in sections like "The Origins & Development of the Martial Arts", "Soo Bak Gi & Taek Kyon in the Koryo Dynasty", "Definition of TKD" & "The History of TKD".

Now Puunui, here are some direct questions for you personally:
1) Did you ever meet Gen Choi?
2) If so did you ever speak with him directly?
3) Did you ever communicate with him in any way?
4) Did you ever train under him?
5) Did you ever attend any training session with him?


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> Now Puunui, here are some direct questions for you personally:
> 1) Did you ever meet Gen Choi?
> 2) If so did you ever speak with him directly?
> 3) Did you ever communicate with him in any way?
> 4) Did you ever train under him?
> 5) Did you ever attend any training session with him?



no, no, no, no, and no. There was a time when I was interested in meeting him, but that time has long past. If he were still alive, I don't think I would take the opportunity to speak with him, even if the opportunity presented himself. I read his books, or at least I tried to, and that is enough for me. In my opinion, his self centered me myself and I agenda is the anti-thesis of what I believe Taekwondo is all about. I am repelled by the readily apparent selfishness of General Choi and don't wish to associate with him at all. 

I like the pioneers, both Kukkiwon/WTF ones in Korea as well as the USTU pioneers. They didn't always agree, but the one thing that attracted them to such organizations in the first place was their desire to meaningfully participate and build something from scratch in a cooperative unified fashion. That appeals to me and attracts and interests me. I feel positive and good when I think about the pioneers. I feel mentally and emotionally disturbed when I think about General Choi, to the point where I don't want to talk about him anymore. The man beat a horse with punches and kicks and bragged about it in his book. Stuff like that.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Quote:Originally Posted by *KarateMomUSA* 

 
_Now Puunui, here are some direct questions for you personally:
1) Did you ever meet Gen Choi?
2) If so did you ever speak with him directly?
3) Did you ever communicate with him in any way?
4) Did you ever train under him?
5) Did you ever attend any training session with him?
_


puunui said:


> no, no, no, no, and no. There was a time when I was interested in meeting him, but that time has long past. If he were still alive, I don't think I would take the opportunity to speak with him, even if the opportunity presented himself. I read his books, or at least I tried to, and that is enough for me. In my opinion, his self centered me myself and I agenda is the anti-thesis of what I believe Taekwondo is all about. I am repelled by the readily apparent selfishness of General Choi and don't wish to associate with him at all.
> 
> I like the pioneers, both Kukkiwon/WTF ones in Korea as well as the USTU pioneers. They didn't always agree, but the one thing that attracted them to such organizations in the first place was their desire to meaningfully participate and build something from scratch in a cooperative unified fashion. That appeals to me and attracts and interests me. I feel positive and good when I think about the pioneers. I feel mentally and emotionally disturbed when I think about General Choi, to the point where I don't want to talk about him anymore. The man beat a horse with punches and kicks and bragged about it in his book. Stuff like that.


All I can say is wow!


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> All I can say is wow!




_Now KarateMomUSA, here are some direct questions for you personally:
1) Did you ever meet Gen Choi?
2) If so did you ever speak with him directly?
3) Did you ever communicate with him in any way?
4) Did you ever train under him?
5) Did you ever attend any training session with him?_


----------



## Earl Weiss

puunui said:


> _Now KarateMomUSA, here are some direct questions for you personally:_
> _1) Did you ever meet Gen Choi?_
> _2) If so did you ever speak with him directly?_
> _3) Did you ever communicate with him in any way?_
> _4) Did you ever train under him?_
> _5) Did you ever attend any training session with him?_


 

Drum roll please...........................


----------



## Earl Weiss

puunui said:


> _Now KarateMomUSA, here are some direct questions for you personally:_
> _1) Did you ever meet Gen Choi?_
> _2) If so did you ever speak with him directly?_
> _3) Did you ever communicate with him in any way?_
> _4) Did you ever train under him?_
> _5) Did you ever attend any training session with him?_


 
Drum roll please........................

The more interesting question might be whom else "Mom" has trained with / communicated with  who has direct experience from the 1950's  or even earlier and later.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Earl Weiss said:


> Drum roll please...........................


 
Heh.



Pax,

Chris


----------



## Twin Fist

History of TKD?

ok, some korean guys were bb's in shotokan, and wanted something to call their own, so they basically made up some history, took shotokan forms and re-arranged them, called them something new, and BOOM, TKD came to be.


anything else in addition to these facts is made up history


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Twin Fist said:


> History of TKD?
> ok, some korean guys were bb's in shotokan, and wanted something to call their own, so they basically made up some history, took shotokan forms and re-arranged them, called them something new, and BOOM, TKD came to be.


I agree for the most part. You miss that not all of them got black belts & there was some Chinese martial art influence as well, so it was not limited to just Shotokan



Twin Fist said:


> anything else in addition to these facts is made up history


No not really. The fabrication that TKD is 2,000 years old is made up history, made up to show that Koreans had martial arts a long time ago. But we know that this, whether true or not, has little direct connection to TKD, which was a 20th century creation by Koreans in Korea that had karate from Japan which served as the basis for the respective developmental paths taken forward from those common roots.

So we must get away from the made up history & recognize that the true history is the telling of how these Koreans put together their respective martial activities that they all call TKD. It will of course start with the 7 Koreans that lived abroad during the occupation period & while there were introduced to the martial arts, which was starting to take hold. These 7 Koreans were responsible for opening & teaching at the 6 early kwans. It was 2 of these 7 & their 1st generation students who eventually gave the world TKD, both a Korean martial art & sport, that has become an Olympic sport & the world's most practiced martial art.

So once we get past all the fluff, stick to the basics, we can start to really grasp what happened, where & when did it occur, along with who played a part in giving this great gift to the world.


----------



## Hollywood1340

I do notice the drum role wasn't answered. This has been most entertaining.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Twin Fist said:


> History of TKD?
> 
> ok, some korean guys were bb's in shotokan, and wanted something to call their own, so they basically made up some history, took shotokan forms and re-arranged them, called them something new, and BOOM, TKD came to be.
> 
> 
> anything else in addition to these facts is made up history


 
I like this. It should continmue:

Founder of Shotokan wanted.... had some experience in Shorin and Shorei.....and

Founder of Shorin....... had some experiece in Shaolin...


----------



## puunui

Hollywood1340 said:


> I do notice the drum role wasn't answered. This has been most entertaining.



I think a lot of people noticed. I also think it is quite rude to ask me questions, expecting an answer, I answer, ask the very same questions, and the person completely ignores it. It cuts tremendously into the poster's credibility and goes directly to my point that this discussion has been mainly one sided.


----------



## puunui

Twin Fist said:


> History of TKD? ok, some korean guys were bb's in shotokan, and wanted something to call their own, so they basically made up some history, took shotokan forms and re-arranged them, called them something new, and BOOM, TKD came to be. anything else in addition to these facts is made up history




That might be true if Taekwondo were a carbon copy of Shotokan, but it isn't. Also, which Shotokan are we speaking about, the Shotokan from pre 1944, or post WWII Shotokan, because the two are not the same.


----------



## leadleg

Twin Fist said:


> History of TKD?
> 
> ok, some korean guys were bb's in shotokan, and wanted something to call their own, so they basically made up some history, took shotokan forms and re-arranged them, called them something new, and BOOM, TKD came to be.
> 
> 
> anything else in addition to these facts is made up history


 
I do some Shotokan forms,a couple are rearranged somewhat by Mu Duk Kwan pioneers and some straight up Shotokan,according to what I can compare them to on the web and from some I have seen at tournaments.
 The KKW forms are quite different in their stances and the way the power is delivered, they do not look like Chinese styles either, I would have to say they are unique to KKW style. Their are two poomse in development that resemble modern TKD even more, but they are still not being released as official yet.
 One should realise that KKW TKD is scientific in nature and is always evolving and being studied with modern tools to make it faster and more powerful.
 This is alien to those who feel traditional ways are better  or cannot be improved. I think we should not think of KKW TKD as anything but a very modern and progressive martial art. 
Korean martial arts are however older than what a few BB's brought back or learned from the Japanese.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

leadleg said:


> I do some Shotokan forms,a couple are rearranged somewhat by Mu Duk Kwan pioneers and some straight up Shotokan,according to what I can compare them to on the web and from some I have seen at tournaments.
> The KKW forms are quite different in their stances and the way the power is delivered, they do not look like Chinese styles either, I would have to say they are unique to KKW style. Their are two poomse in development that resemble modern TKD even more, but they are still not being released as official yet.
> One should realise that KKW TKD is scientific in nature and is always evolving and being studied with modern tools to make it faster and more powerful.
> This is alien to those who feel traditional ways are better  or cannot be improved. I think we should not think of KKW TKD as anything but a very modern and progressive martial art.
> Korean martial arts are however older than what a few BB's brought back or learned from the Japanese.


Yes I have seen some examples of the new sports Poomsae & they are definitely more TKD looking. I would also say that an argument can be made that all martial art techniques are similar & even though they may be arranged differently they will still have the feel for some that they are still similar. For me what I think helps the ITF Tuls stand apart is they way they move & how they formed the techniques.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Hollywood1340 said:


> I do notice the drum role wasn't answered. This has been most entertaining.


Yes I did see this & didn't think there was a set time frame that a response was required by.
Maybe I just like a longer drum roll.


----------



## leadleg

KarateMomUSA said:


> Yes I have seen some examples of the new sports Poomsae & they are definitely more TKD looking. I would also say that an argument can be made that all martial art techniques are similar & even though they may be arranged differently they will still have the feel for some that they are still similar. For me what I think helps the ITF Tuls stand apart is they way they move & how they formed the techniques.


 If you see the ITF forms done by experts I'd say they are quite artistic as well as technical, but to me very Japanese.
 The KKW forms are also very artistic and very powerful,when done by the experts.The power being generated is smooth from relaxed to explosion.
 Either one can be so messed up by most practicioners as to give bad impressions. 
KKW can look weak and inefective,ITF can look like bouncing and spitting.
 IMHO,which with a $1.00 won't get you a pack of juicy fruit.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> I think a lot of people noticed. I also think it is quite rude to ask me questions, expecting an answer, I answer, ask the very same questions, and the person completely ignores it. It cuts tremendously into the poster's credibility and goes directly to my point that this discussion has been mainly one sided.


Sir I personally am very eager to learn. I do respect your knowledge & value your very insightful input. I am so very glad that you participate in this forum & share what you do. I have also tried to be courteous in each & every post.I am not sure if I have ever been anything but very respectful. If there is something that is even remotely close to being disrespectful, please let me know or anyone else for that matter. I will gladly & most humbly retract it & make amends as best as I can via this venue.
As to not answering your question, let me say that a day didn't even pass yet.
Maybe let me respond first by asking you what do you think?


----------



## Twin Fist

puunui said:


> That might be true if Taekwondo were a carbon copy of Shotokan, but it isn't. Also, which Shotokan are we speaking about, the Shotokan from pre 1944, or post WWII Shotokan, because the two are not the same.




till about 1960, it WAS an exact copy of shotokan. For that matter, at that time, it wasnt even KNOWN as TKD, it was called Tang Soo Do by most people, or just korean karate


----------



## puunui

Twin Fist said:


> till about 1960, it WAS an exact copy of shotokan. For that matter, at that time, it wasnt even KNOWN as TKD, it was called Tang Soo Do by most people, or just korean karate




You speak as if Taekwondo back in 1960 was a singular entity. It wasn't. There were five main schools, two of which were based purely on pre WWII Shotokan (Chung Do Kwan and Song Moo Kwan) but the other three had elements of non-Shotokan based curriculum. As for the name Tang Soo Do (a name which was which was never used by the Shotokan), other schools called their style by other names. Your statement above is overly simplistic and therefore erroneous.


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> Sir I personally am very eager to learn. I do respect your knowledge & value your very insightful input. I am so very glad that you participate in this forum & share what you do. I have also tried to be courteous in each & every post.I am not sure if I have ever been anything but very respectful. If there is something that is even remotely close to being disrespectful, please let me know or anyone else for that matter. I will gladly & most humbly retract it & make amends as best as I can via this venue.
> As to not answering your question, let me say that a day didn't even pass yet.
> Maybe let me respond first by asking you what do you think?



I think you need to find yourself another teacher besides me.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> I think you need to find yourself another teacher besides me.


I will repeat that I have learned from your posts & hope to continue to have you teach me & others here. But make no mistake about it, I do have more than 1 teacher & do cherish what all of them have shared with me.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Twin Fist said:


> till about 1960, it WAS an exact copy of shotokan. For that matter, at that time, it wasnt even KNOWN as TKD, it was called Tang Soo Do by most people, or just korean karate


No by 1960 the move from karate was already underway, but it was still very closely related. Of course Original TKD was absolutely know as TKD & was so since 1955. The problem is that it was Gen Choi & his follwers that were only using the name. The Kukki guys in 1960 were still using the karate or fist based names. In fact in 1961 they adopted the name Tae Soo Do & did not use the TKD till 1965, some even later.
Tang Soo Do is still alive & well today in many places around the world. Many people still call that Korean Karate, but it is not TKD, even though some TKD schools do resemble Tang Soo Do.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> You speak as if Taekwondo back in 1960 was a singular entity. It wasn't. There were five main schools, two of which were based purely on pre WWII Shotokan (Chung Do Kwan and Song Moo Kwan) but the other three had elements of non-Shotokan based curriculum. As for the name Tang Soo Do (a name which was which was never used by the Shotokan), other schools called their style by other names. Your statement above is overly simplistic and therefore erroneous.


Well actually it was pretty singular, as only Gen Choi's follwers were even using the name TKD. The others were still using the other names & when the miltary coup took place on May 16, 1961 & issued the military govt decree to unify, they did so a couple of months later in 1961 under the new name Tae Soo Do. They forcefully rejected the name TKD, as that was the name of their arch rival, Satan Redux's martial art & was so since 1955. They then fought him again in 1965, but I guess the dark side & his black power won out, as they finally started after 10 years to jump on the TKD bandwagon. Please also remember that the TKD bandwagon was already on display around the world in several countries that even had TKD students before the Kukki TKD pioneers were even TKD!


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> Well actually it was pretty singular, as only Gen Choi's follwers were even using the name TKD.



Again, for the last time, the Chung Do Kwan was never "General Choi's followers"  and they were using the name Taekwondo. Also, the Chung Do Kwan never adopted the Chang Hon forms, ever, although individuals did.




KarateMomUSA said:


> The others were still using the other names & when the miltary coup took place on May 16, 1961 & issued the military govt decree to unify, they did so a couple of months later in 1961 under the new name Tae Soo Do. They forcefully rejected the name TKD, as that was the name of their arch rival, Satan Redux's martial art & was so since 1955.



I don't if it was a "forceful rejection" so much as it was an objection because they did not participate in the naming process. 




KarateMomUSA said:


> They then fought him again in 1965, but I guess the dark side & his black power won out, as they finally started after 10 years to jump on the TKD bandwagon. Please also remember that the TKD bandwagon was already on display around the world in several countries that even had TKD students before the Kukki TKD pioneers were even TKD!



I realize what your agenda is, but is simply wasn't true, at least with the vigor in which you wish to imply. General Choi was a hinderence to the process, and all the things you attempt to give him credit for, are the very things that caused chaos, turmoil and conflict. Taekwondo would have been better off for everyone, including his followers, if General Choi had never made an appearance on the Taekwondo scene.


----------



## Earl Weiss

puunui said:


> I realize what your agenda is, but is simply wasn't true, at least with the vigor in which you wish to imply. General Choi was a hinderence to the process, and all the things you attempt to give him credit for, are the very things that caused chaos, turmoil and conflict. Taekwondo would have been better off for everyone, including his followers, if General Choi had never made an appearance on the Taekwondo scene.


 
That is certainly a widely held perspective, particularly among those who were  disenfranchised early and then jumped on the bandwagon or the new bandwagon following successful efforts by General Choi to dispatch and recruit instructors throughout and around the world. AFAIAC it is merely sour grapes.  

It is also part of the genius of the KKW when they reinvented TKD. Not to give any individual any significant degree of credit or power in order to control TKD if one person should become persona non grata for any reason. 

Without the pre KKW spread of TKD the KKW would have been deprived of a huge launching pad for their system put in place by General Choi. Without that we would in all likelyhood be doing Karate, Kung Fu or NinJitsu now.


----------



## puunui

Earl Weiss said:


> Without the pre KKW spread of TKD the KKW would have been deprived of a huge launching pad for their system put in place by General Choi. Without that we would in all likelyhood be doing Karate, Kung Fu or NinJitsu now.




No, actually you would probably be doing Kukki Taekwondo right now. You yourself said in a post most recently that there were few American born instructors out there during the 50's and 60's, and by extension, very few Korean born Taekwondo instructors as well. The way you make it sound, General Choi was out there sending thousands of instructors all over the world in the sixties, which isn't true. Perhaps he made a difference in Vietnam, or Malaysia, but those were never WTF powerhouses. In fact, I have a listing of all KTA affiliated dojang worldwide from 1972, and it shows that Taekwondo already had their launching pad in place, with 690 Korean born instructors teaching in 36 countries.

According to GM Hee Il CHO, only the top two graduates from the ITF Instructor Course were allowed to leave Korea to teach. Assuming you have ten classes per year (a big assumption) for six years, that's 120 instructors that the ITF pushed through from 1966 to 1972 and exported to the world.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> Again, for the last time, the Chung Do Kwan was never "General Choi's followers"  and they were using the name Taekwondo. Also, the Chung Do Kwan never adopted the Chang Hon forms, ever, although individuals did.


I guess we have a difference of viewpoint of what following or followers were! It is clear that the CDK was at the meeting in the mid 1950s that decided on the name TKD, which of course was put forth by Gen Choi, so in essence or in a way they followed him. Gen choi, because of his powerful position in the military, which by the way, history teaches us that in developing countries, often plays a vitally important role. This was of course the case in south Korea. So again we see how they did look to him for the support he was able to provide. They followed him in 1959 when he took many of them abroad when they demonstrated aspects his TKD there. They had instructors under him teaching in the military & 2 or 3 prominent members of the CDK have high profile places in his 1959 book. 
So while GMs Uhm Won Kyu & Nam Tae Hi wanted the name TKD in 1961, it was GM Uhm that embraced the name Tae Soo Do, even using it on the CDK literature & certificates up till at least 1965.
So yes, Gen Choi came up with the name TKD & it was only those in the ODK & those from the CDK that were loyal to him, follwoed him or needed him for some aspect, that actually used the name TKD.
I would love to see evidence of the CDK using the name of TKD consistently on their own, minus Gen Choi's input or influence.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> I don't if it was a "forceful rejection" so much as it was an objection because they did not participate in the naming process.


Sorry but I think only the military & CDK were represented at the naming meeting in the mid 1950s. However I think all the 5 original kwans were with the ODK, hence the term 6 early kwans in the 1959 meeting that formed the Korean Taekwon-Do Association. Of course in 1961, they rejected the name of TKD & settled on the new compromise name of Tae Soo Do.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> General Choi was a hinderence to the process, and all the things you attempt to give him credit for, are the very things that caused chaos, turmoil and conflict. Taekwondo would have been better off for everyone, including his followers, if General Choi had never made an appearance on the Taekwondo scene.


Yes maybe he was a hindrance to the Kukki TKD process. I stipulated that long ago & see how that was the case in many aspects. I even made it clear that he did in fact work against them, fighting their work towards Olympic recognition. So I understand that clearly.
You however, because of your personal feelings & what you have learned from those he was working against, seem to have not only disdain for the man, hesitant to give him any credit early on in those formative years & wish to actually discredit him & even slur him for the great accomplishments he achieved in his style of TKD & how that contributed in a positive way to many people around the world.
That not only seems disingenuous, but also not in the spirit of the martial arts.

May I ask, do you have such views or hard feelings towards any other martial art leader?
Or any other martial artist period?


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> No, actually you would probably be doing Kukki Taekwondo right now. You yourself said in a post most recently that there were few American born instructors out there during the 50's and 60's, and by extension, very few Korean born Taekwondo instructors as well. The way you make it sound, General Choi was out there sending thousands of instructors all over the world in the sixties, which isn't true. Perhaps he made a difference in Vietnam, or Malaysia, but those were never WTF powerhouses. In fact, I have a listing of all KTA affiliated dojang worldwide from 1972, and it shows that Taekwondo already had their launching pad in place, with 690 Korean born instructors teaching in 36 countries.
> According to GM Hee Il CHO, only the top two graduates from the ITF Instructor Course were allowed to leave Korea to teach. Assuming you have ten classes per year (a big assumption) for six years, that's 120 instructors that the ITF pushed through from 1966 to 1972 and exported to the world.


No we would be doing Tang Su Do or Tae Soo Do, not Kukki TKD!
There simply would be no TKD without Gen Choi. Many may have stayed with Tang Su Do if they wanted a martial art or less of sports focus of Tae Soo Do. This was a complaint of GM Hwang Kee & Dr Yoon.
Now GM Cho Hee Il may have said that, but I do not believe that is accurate, at least according to his teacher at the course he attended & the other chief & asst instructors of those courses, which also included English. Please also keep in mind that many instructors were already dispatched by Gen Choi & his team even before the ITF was even formed in Seoul back in 1966, 7 years before the WTF replaced it.


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> I guess we have a difference of viewpoint of what following or followers were! It is clear that the CDK was at the meeting in the mid 1950s that decided on the name TKD, which of course was put forth by Gen Choi, so in essence or in a way they followed him.



At the 1954 demonstration in front of President Rhee, it was he who exclaimed "That's Taekkyon". From there came the effort to find hanmoon characters for Taekkyon. For course there wasn't any, so they went with Taekwon instead. Had there been hanmoon characters for Taekkyon, would General Choi still taken credit for the name? In fact it was the President of Korea who started all that and it was the President who approved the name. So the Chung Do Kwan and GM Son was following what President Rhee wanted, given his nationalistic position. Everyone was following President Rhee's lead, including General Choi. This is what GM HONG Jong Pyo meant when he said General Choi was trying to kiss up to President Rhee with the Chang Hon forms. 




KarateMomUSA said:


> Gen choi, because of his powerful position in the military, which by the way, history teaches us that in developing countries, often plays a vitally important role. This was of course the case in south Korea. So again we see how they did look to him for the support he was able to provide. They followed him in 1959 when he took many of them abroad when they demonstrated aspects his TKD there.



Everyone who went to Vietnam in 1959 were in the ROK military. 




KarateMomUSA said:


> They had instructors under him teaching in the military & 2 or 3 prominent members of the CDK have high profile places in his 1959 book. So while GMs Uhm Won Kyu & Nam Tae Hi wanted the name TKD in 1961, it was GM Uhm that embraced the name Tae Soo Do, even using it on the CDK literature & certificates up till at least 1965.



That cuts against your position that the Chung Do Kwan "followed" General Choi, since the Chung Do Kwan used the name Taesoodo during the Taesoodo period. 




KarateMomUSA said:


> So yes, Gen Choi came up with the name TKD & it was only those in the ODK & those from the CDK that were loyal to him, follwoed him or needed him for some aspect, that actually used the name TKD.



You add nothing to the discussion and only say the same thing over and over in all your posts. So what if General Choi came up with the name, if he did? And he doesn't say that by the way in his 1965 book, all he says is that he proposed the name, not that he created it. 

Another point which you fail to recognize or acknowledge is the fact that the Oh Do Kwan did not follow General Choi but instead they were represented in the KTA committee which created the Palgwae, Taeguek and Yudanja poomsae. GM HYUN Jong Myung, who was Oh Do Kwan Jang at the time, was the representative on that KTA committee. Even now, the Oh Do Kwan still exists and they advocate the Kukkiwon poomsae, not the Chang Hon Tul. 

Thirty years ago, most Taekwondoin knew the name General Choi, through his books. Today, less know his name, and tomorrow, no one will know who he is. I realize you don't want that to happen, but that is the direction in which the Taekwondo world is moving. And it's probably for the best.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

No actually his name will be know, as the history comes to the surface. It is inevitable, as we know longer have the propaganda being put forth. The gates are open.


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> No actually his name will be know, as the history comes to the surface. It is inevitable, as we know longer have the propaganda being put forth. The gates are open.




You might be right. The gates are open and now people are coming forward to tell the truth about General Choi, and nothing you can do will prevent that. I mean we have people who read Killing Art, people with ITF backgrounds on MT say they dislike General Choi after reading that book. And that book was written in favor of General Choi.


----------



## Twin Fist

who the hell is this guy that tries to sound  like he was there??


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> You might be right. The gates are open and now people are coming forward to tell the truth about General Choi, and nothing you can do will prevent that. I mean we have people who read Killing Art, people with ITF backgrounds on MT say they dislike General Choi after reading that book. And that book was written in favor of General Choi.


You can try to twist or confuse the issue, but we have to get back to the fact, it doesn't matter how someone likes Gen Choi. What matters is that the accomplishments that he did with his Original TKD can not be ignored & won't be ignored in the recording of history. It is also not important if people read The Killing Art, The Untold History of TKD & come to find that Gen Choi had a difficult personality & acted in a way that upset people, as that is accurate. However they will also come to see what he did with his Original TK-D for so many around the world & how the nasty Korean politics played such a role. This not only benefited the students, but Korea, as his TK-D also helped play a great role for introducing people around the world to Korea, Korean language, history & culture. Even the south Korean govt will come to realize this.
Imagine millions of people around the world coming to know Korea through his Original TK-D. Yes it is undeniable that he will receive proper credit, as will the many members of his team.


----------



## Earl Weiss

puunui said:


> According to GM Hee Il CHO, only the top two graduates from the ITF Instructor Course were allowed to leave Korea to teach. Assuming you have ten classes per year (a big assumption) for six years, that's 120 instructors that the ITF pushed through from 1966 to 1972 and exported to the world.


 
I can't speak to the accuracy of GM Cho's claim about being "allowed" to teach but it wouldcertainly seem inaccurate since by 1972 here in Chicago there were at least 6 Korean born instructors teaching ITF TKD among them Han Cha Kyo, Nam Tae Hi and KS Shin. 
 As we know, others like Jhoon Rhee were "Recruited" so obviously some like hi were teaching without having been thru the course.


----------



## terryl965

Twin Fist said:


> who the hell is this guy that tries to sound like he was there??


 
puunui has been around a long time and has alot of information to be given out. He has been with almost every single top flight person over the last forty yar or longer. Some may not like his approach, kinda like yours at times but he has a view of what he believes in strongly, unify all TKD brothers to come together for the betterment of TKD whether it is KKW, WTF ITF USAT AAU or any other org.


----------



## terryl965

Can I ask this question without a blood bath errupting? In everything I have read the general is consider one of the founding fathers of modern day TKD, why after all these year would it change? What makes one G.M. word better than another? Which story would be consider the truth and how can anything be verified enough to stand in a court of law? The last thing is nobody can ever say that General Choi did not do anything for TKD as a whole, I can say honestly that I find it funny that after the man has passed away there is a big attempt to prove he was a not a big part of the developement of TKD. I agree he was not found of sport TKD but alot of great G.M. are not for that matter does that make them bad? I for one was not there but by all accounts he was and had something to do with TKD, now what that truely was who knows but I really doubt I will ever not believe he was a man that had a vision for TKD on the global world.


----------



## andyjeffries

KarateMomUSA said:


> No we would be doing Tang Su Do or Tae Soo Do, not Kukki TKD! There simply would be no TKD without Gen Choi..



You might be doing an art called Tae Soo Do (more likely Taesoodo knowing the WTF's preference for a single word romanisation), but the movements/style you'd be practicing would likely be identical to what Kukki-Taekwondo is today.  The only difference would be the name.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

terryl965 said:


> Can I ask this question without a blood bath errupting? In everything I have read the general is consider one of the founding fathers of modern day TKD, why after all these year would it change? What makes one G.M. word better than another? Which story would be consider the truth and how can anything be verified enough to stand in a court of law? The last thing is nobody can ever say that General Choi did not do anything for TKD as a whole, I can say honestly that I find it funny that after the man has passed away there is a big attempt to prove he was a not a big part of the developement of TKD. I agree he was not found of sport TKD but alot of great G.M. are not for that matter does that make them bad? I for one was not there but by all accounts he was and had something to do with TKD, now what that truely was who knows but I really doubt I will ever not believe he was a man that had a vision for TKD on the global world.


Eh... fifty plus pages of back and forth over several threads about the General and his place seem to have only two common denominators: Puunui and KaratemomUSA.  There hasn't been this much discussion about the General on this board since I've been a member.  One of them cannot drop the topic no matter how many times they get the same answers and the other simply cannot ignore the first's posts.

When you get down to it, you have two separate organizations, each of which value the contributions different individuals.  The problem comes up when people from one org demand recognition for their founders from people in the other org.

Daniel


----------



## KarateMomUSA

terryl965 said:


> puunui has been around a long time and has alot of information to be given out. He has been with almost every single top flight person over the last forty yar or longer. Some may not like his approach, kinda like yours at times but he has a view of what he believes in strongly, unify all TKD brothers to come together for the betterment of TKD whether it is KKW, WTF ITF USAT AAU or any other org.


It appears that he was not with Gen Choi, nor I sure he had much exposure to those doing Original TKD. While I do think he means that he would like all of TKD to unite, I am not sure that he is very welcoming to ITF people, as he is so harsh at times with their founder & does not seem to be able to credit what they have accompliished to any meaningful extent.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

terryl965 said:


> Can I ask this question without a blood bath errupting? In everything I have read the general is consider one of the founding fathers of modern day TKD, why after all these year would it change? What makes one G.M. word better than another? Which story would be consider the truth and how can anything be verified enough to stand in a court of law? The last thing is nobody can ever say that General Choi did not do anything for TKD as a whole, I can say honestly that I find it funny that after the man has passed away there is a big attempt to prove he was a not a big part of the developement of TKD. I agree he was not found of sport TKD but alot of great G.M. are not for that matter does that make them bad? I for one was not there but by all accounts he was and had something to do with TKD, now what that truely was who knows but I really doubt I will ever not believe he was a man that had a vision for TKD on the global world.


Yes you are right & it is changing a bit now, as more people are free from the restrictions put on them via the military dictatorships & those politics are no longer in place.
The problem as I see it, is that the 2 major views of TKD's history & development are different as the other side fails to acknowledge thwe other different path taken. So if your Kukki TKD, ITF is karate. If you are Chang Hon TKD, they are karate. Both sides are wrong. They are both TKD, but different styles of TKD, hence they have different paths of development, from of course the same common roots. Gen Choi deserves credit for what he did on his side. He also gets blame for interefering with the Kukki TKD guys as well.
Like Steve Capener, PhD states TKD would do better with the telling of history if they dealt with the karate connection & highlighted how they moved away from those roots AND I add how they moved away from those common roots via 2 major & separate paths of development.
What may I ask is wrong with that approach?


----------



## KarateMomUSA

andyjeffries said:


> You might be doing an art called Tae Soo Do (more likely Taesoodo knowing the WTF's preference for a single word romanisation), but the movements/style you'd be practicing would likely be identical to what Kukki-Taekwondo is today. The only difference would be the name.


 Yes of course, but I may be doing Tangsudo myself, which I think is different from TKD, either of the 2 major TKDs.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> When you get down to it, you have two separate organizations, each of which value the contributions different individuals. The problem comes up when people from one org demand recognition for their founders from people in the other org.
> 
> Daniel


True. Here we also have not only this, but an attack on 1 side, plus what appears at times to be a whole disregard for what 1 side did actually make happen.
I don't think anyone should hide their heads in the sand. This is of course ther 21st centrury!


----------



## chrispillertkd

KarateMomUSA said:


> It appears that he was not with Gen Choi, nor I sure he had much exposure to those doing Original TKD. While I do think he means that he would like all of TKD to unite, *I am not sure that he is very welcoming to ITF people*, as he is so harsh at times with their founder & does not seem to be able to credit what they have accompliished to any meaningful extent.


 
Can't say I agree with the bolded sentiment. Glenn alread ystated in another post he was quite wiling to have ITF'ers join the KKW. All they have to do is stop practicing Taekwon-Do like Gen. Choi designed it and start practicing Taekwon-Do like the KKW wants (maybe he'd even help them get KKW dan ranks before they completely were up to speed with the KKW method of doing things since, by his own admission, rank is unimportant). Sure, the post he made regarding that can be read in such a way that it sounds belittling, but then most of his posts can be read that way. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## KarateMomUSA

chrispillertkd said:


> Can't say I agree with the bolded sentiment. Glenn alread ystated in another post he was quite wiling to have ITF'ers join the KKW. All they have to do is stop practicing Taekwon-Do like Gen. Choi designed it and start practicing Taekwon-Do like the KKW wants (maybe he'd even help them get KKW dan ranks before they completely were up to speed with the KKW method of doing things since, by his own admission, rank is unimportant). Sure, the post he made regarding that can be read in such a way that it sounds belittling, but then most of his posts can be read that way.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


Yes I understand & agree with that. What I meant by the text you bolded was it often reads like students (children) of the ITF are definately most welcome. but their teacher(s) (parents, especially the father) was so terribly bad AND really didn't accomplish anything much worth acknowledging. That is what I get the impression from what he posts. So how do you actually welcome someone, with welcoming implying some type of warmth, with harshness. At times it seems more like, you innocent children have been so abused & have wasted so much time, but come to us & you can start again.


----------



## chrispillertkd

KarateMomUSA said:


> Yes you are right & it is changing a bit now, as more people are free from the restrictions put on them via the military dictatorships & those politics are no longer in place.
> The problem as I see it, is that the 2 major views of TKD's history & development are different as the other side fails to acknowledge thwe other different path taken.


 
Perhaps at one point (OK, not really "perhaps") but I'd hazard to say that this now depends on who you talk to. GM Choi, Jung Hwa has stated several times that the ITF and WTF are both Taekwon-Do and that "the time for being enemies is past." 

I don't know what the other heads of the ITF groups are doing in this regard, however. With all of them attempting to re-enter South Korea I doubt very much you're going to hear much of the "those guys are karate" rhetoric these days. 

On the other hand, I don't _expect_ the KKW to say anything remotely similar to such sentiments (although it was great to see that some of the ITF pioneers were given a much overdue recognition last year). While the ITF, especially under GM Choi, has made modest gains in schools and students in South Korea it is still a small presence and will never have anywhere near the influence or size that the KKW does (which is fine by me, frankly). I very much doubt that the KKW will feel that such a small presence will warrant any sort of rapprochment. I could defintiely be wrong but would be very surprised if this were to happen on any sort of large scale. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

KarateMomUSA said:


> Yes I understand & agree with that. What I meant by the text you bolded was it often reads like students (children) of the ITF are definately most welcome. but their teacher(s) (parents, especially the father) was so terribly bad AND really didn't accomplish anything much worth acknowledging. That is what I get the impression from what he posts. *So how do you actually welcome someone, with welcoming implying some type of warmth, with harshness.* At times it seems more like, you innocent children have been so abused & have wasted so much time, but come to us & you can start again.


 
Offer them a skip dan, perhaps?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## KarateMomUSA

chrispillertkd said:


> Perhaps at one point (OK, not really "perhaps") but I'd hazard to say that this now depends on who you talk to. GM Choi, Jung Hwa has stated several times that the ITF and WTF are both Taekwon-Do and that "the time for being enemies is past."
> 
> I don't know what the other heads of the ITF groups are doing in this regard, however. With all of them attempting to re-enter South Korea I doubt very much you're going to hear much of the "those guys are karate" rhetoric these days.
> 
> On the other hand, I don't _expect_ the KKW to say anything remotely similar to such sentiments (_although it was great to see that some of the ITF pioneers were given a much overdue recognition last year_). While the ITF, especially under GM Choi, has made modest gains in schools and students in South Korea it is still a small presence and will never have anywhere near the influence or size that the KKW does (which is fine by me, frankly). I very much doubt that the KKW will feel that such a small presence will warrant any sort of rapprochment. I could defintiely be wrong but would be very surprised if this were to happen on any sort of large scale.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


Yes & that was done by the WTF. The KKW at the time was still led by the man that the south Korean Natioanl Assemby's new law made inelligible to head the KKW, in their attempt to clean up south Korean TKD which is very important to Korea & Koreans. It seems to me that the "old guard" is moving aside in 1 way or another & that the changes are not going over well with many. I also know that the TKD Park will honor Gen Choi & the Original TKD Pioneers in some fashion as well, with their own chairman crediting Gen Choi with being TKD's founder.
So these things are happening & I can only imagine are not going over too well with some who were in the trenches fighting the good fight, when they were fighting.


----------



## puunui

Earl Weiss said:


> I can't speak to the accuracy of GM Cho's claim about being "allowed" to teach but it wouldcertainly seem inaccurate since by 1972 here in Chicago there were at least 6 Korean born instructors teaching ITF TKD among them Han Cha Kyo, Nam Tae Hi and KS Shin.




Let's take those three. Were they "sent" by General Choi to spread "his" Taekwon-Do in the United States, or did they immigrate to the US because they wanted to live in the US?


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> You however, because of your personal feelings & what you have learned from those he was working against, seem to have not only disdain for the man, hesitant to give him any credit early on in those formative years & wish to actually discredit him & even slur him for the great accomplishments he achieved in his style of TKD & how that contributed in a positive way to many people around the world.



It has nothing to do with my "personal feelings", which frankly is indifference, if you must know. I don't hate him, I just don't spend all that much time thinking about him, at all. And there is no slur in correcting all of misinformation that constantly spew regarding General Choi. 




KarateMomUSA said:


> That not only seems disingenuous, but also not in the spirit of the martial arts.



What is disingenuous is for you to take all of the information that I have provided and then twist it in your effort to place General Choi at the pinnacle of the Taekwondo world. 




KarateMomUSA said:


> May I ask, do you have such views or hard feelings towards any other martial art leader? Or any other martial artist period?



No one is out there attempting to make everyone eat General Choi's lies as much as you do. If you have anyone to blame for all this, try looking in the mirror. You brought all of this on yourself and General Choi, by trying to make him out to be someone he is not. He is Benedict Arnold, not George Washington, and all your spins and twists isn't going to change that.


----------



## puunui

terryl965 said:


> In everything I have read the general is consider one of the founding fathers of modern day TKD, why after all these year would it change? What makes one G.M. word better than another? Which story would be consider the truth and how can anything be verified enough to stand in a court of law? The last thing is nobody can ever say that General Choi did not do anything for TKD as a whole, I can say honestly that I find it funny that after the man has passed away there is a big attempt to prove he was a not a big part of the developement of TKD. I agree he was not found of sport TKD but alot of great G.M. are not for that matter does that make them bad? I for one was not there but by all accounts he was and had something to do with TKD, now what that truely was who knows but I really doubt I will ever not believe he was a man that had a vision for TKD on the global world.




It's not so much that General Choi didn't participate during the mid 50's and beyond, but rather it is the extent and nature of his "contributions". I simply feel that it is wrong to allow lies to go unanswered. That and the fact that karatemom (what a name for a General Choi cheerleader) takes information that I share and then misconstrues it in an effort to prove that General Choi is the greatest thing since sliced bread. In the meantime, his ITF followers find themselves in organizations that are subject to constant fragmentation and disintegration. They are the real victims in this sad story. As a Chung Do Kwan member, I do empathize with these ITF members and try to help them if I can, just like I helped the ITF practitioners in my area. But maybe I shouldn't. Maybe I should just leave them alone and let them be where they are. I know that I do not enjoy thinking about General Choi because all it does is bring forth chaotic thoughts mixed with bold faced lies. For someone like me who is interested in truthful exchanges, it is distasteful to have to deal with so much falsifications and misrepresentations.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> It has nothing to do with my "personal feelings", which frankly is indifference, if you must know. I don't hate him, I just don't spend all that much time thinking about him, at all. And there is no slur in correcting all of misinformation that constantly spew regarding General Choi.
> What is disingenuous is for you to take all of the information that I have provided and then twist it in your effort to place General Choi at the pinnacle of the Taekwondo world.
> No one is out there attempting to make everyone eat General Choi's lies as much as you do. If you have anyone to blame for all this, try looking in the mirror. You brought all of this on yourself and General Choi, by trying to make him out to be someone he is not. He is Benedict Arnold, not George Washington, and all your spins and twists isn't going to change that.


I have not spewed any misinformation about Gen Choi. Nor do I lie & I avoid any use of negative writing in any of the postings.
I also never said Gen Choi was the pinnacle of the Taekwondo world. In fact I said often & I will repeat again that he had little if anything to do with Kukki TKD & he was a thorn in their side that even fought against some of the things they were trying to do.
What I have spoken about in positive terms is Gen Choi's contributions & accomplishments in his Original or Chang Hon TKD, which are many & have impacted millions of students around the world. This has nothing to do with Kukki TKD. but yet you still argue about Kukki Taekwondo, when I simply highlight the many good things Gen Choi did with his Taekwon-Do.
I am not sure why you keep ignoring that & never respond to those distinct points.
I can only imagine that you can bring yourself to give any positive credit as thinking about Gen Choi, because of your feelings & viewpoint of him, causes you some emotional reaction. (Forgive me but I forgot exactly how you explained it)


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> It's not so much that General Choi didn't participate during the mid 50's and beyond, but rather it is the extent and nature of his "contributions". I simply feel that it is wrong to allow lies to go unanswered. That and the fact that karatemom (what a name for a General Choi cheerleader) takes information that I share and then misconstrues it in an effort to prove that General Choi is the greatest thing since sliced bread. In the meantime, his ITF followers find themselves in organizations that are subject to constant fragmentation and disintegration. They are the real victims in this sad story. As a Chung Do Kwan member, I do empathize with these ITF members and try to help them if I can, just like I helped the ITF practitioners in my area. But maybe I shouldn't. Maybe I should just leave them alone and let them be where they are. I know that I do not enjoy thinking about General Choi because all it does is bring forth chaotic thoughts mixed with bold faced lies. For someone like me who is interested in truthful exchanges, it is distasteful to have to deal with so much falsifications and misrepresentations.


Again Gen Choi did make contributions in the formative years of TKD. But what he did with his so called private organization is actually pretty amazing. Sorry that some can not see that or are so hesitant to acknowledge it.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Earl Weiss* 

 
_I can't speak to the accuracy of GM Cho's claim about being "allowed" to teach but it wouldcertainly seem inaccurate since by 1972 here in Chicago there were at least 6 Korean born instructors teaching ITF TKD among them Han Cha Kyo, Nam Tae Hi and KS Shin._




puunui said:


> Let's take those three. Were they "sent" by General Choi to spread "his" Taekwon-Do in the United States, or did they immigrate to the US because they wanted to live in the US?


 
I have no idea. One is still around and I can ask, but this info was not relavent to the postvis a vis who was allowed to teach.


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> On the other hand, I don't _expect_ the KKW to say anything remotely similar to such sentiments (although it was great to see that some of the ITF pioneers were given a much overdue recognition last year). While the ITF, especially under GM Choi, has made modest gains in schools and students in South Korea it is still a small presence and will never have anywhere near the influence or size that the KKW does (which is fine by me, frankly). I very much doubt that the KKW will feel that such a small presence will warrant any sort of rapprochment. I could defintiely be wrong but would be very surprised if this were to happen on any sort of large scale.




In South Korea, the KTA mandate is that you must have Kukkiwon 4th Dan or higher and pass the Kukkiwon Instructor Course in order to obtain a license to teach Taekwondo. If you don't have those two things, they will shut your dojang down.


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> It appears that he was not with Gen Choi, nor I sure he had much exposure to those doing Original TKD.




Again, Original Taekwondo was Chung Do Kwan Taekwondo. When the name was created in 1954, General Choi hadn't made any of his tul yet, and the curriculum of both the Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan was the Chung Do Kwan curriculum. So again, Original Taekwondo was Chung Do Kwan Taekwondo.


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> The KKW at the time was still led by the man that the south Korean Natioanl Assemby's new law made inelligible to head the KKW, in their attempt to clean up south Korean TKD which is very important to Korea & Koreans.




Wrong. Again. The new law was put into effect so that the Kukkiwon would fall under the ROK Ministry for Culture, Sport and Tourism. It was purely so that the Kukkiwon would be a Korean governmental entity, something that Dr. Un Yong KIM fought by the way from the earliest days of the Kukkiwon. In the beginning stages of building the Kukkiwon, the Korean government offered to pay at least part of the construction costs and was also willing to appropriate money every year to the maintenance and growth of the Kukkiwon. Dr. Kim declined and stated that it is important that the Kukkiwon remain independent of the Korean government. 

By the way, there is a lawsuit pending regarding whether the Korean government takeover of the Kukkiwon was legal. There should be a ruling on that this year sometime.


----------



## bluewaveschool

puunui said:


> Again, Original Taekwondo was Chung Do Kwan Taekwondo. When the name was created in 1954, General Choi hadn't made any of his tul yet, and the curriculum of both the Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan was the Chung Do Kwan curriculum. So again, Original Taekwondo was Chung Do Kwan Taekwondo.




How much was Gen. Choi exposed to original Taekwondo?  Since he wasn't even a student of the CDK, just had honorary rank.


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> I have not spewed any misinformation about Gen Choi.



Yes you have. Repeatedly. Try rereading some of the discussions. Now you are spewing misinformation about Kukki Taekwondo. You don't hear me commenting, rephrasing or explaining the latest ITF ongoings. That's because in general I try not to speak about things that I do not know. 




KarateMomUSA said:


> Nor do I lie & I avoid any use of negative writing in any of the postings.



I don't know if you are intentionally lying or it is more of a reading comprehension issue with you. And you have used negative writings in your postings -- try rereading your posts in regard to GM LEE Chong Woo, Dr. KIM Un Yong or the latest on GM LEE Seung Wan. 




KarateMomUSA said:


> I also never said Gen Choi was the pinnacle of the Taekwondo world. In fact I said often & I will repeat again that he had little if anything to do with Kukki TKD & he was a thorn in their side that even fought against some of the things they were trying to do.



He did have a lot to do with Kukki Taekwondo, if you read and believe his autobiography. Or he strongly tried, by insisting everyone learn his Chang Hon tul because he was the Founder and only he could say what is or isn't Taekwondo. 




KarateMomUSA said:


> What I have spoken about in positive terms is Gen Choi's contributions & accomplishments in his Original or Chang Hon TKD, which are many & have impacted millions of students around the world. This has nothing to do with Kukki TKD. but yet you still argue about Kukki Taekwondo, when I simply highlight the many good things Gen Choi did with his Taekwon-Do.



All his efforts to spread his Chang Hon Taekwon-Do (NOT original Taekwondo) end up hurting Taekwondo because it creates disunity, and confusion. But in spite of this, you have the nerve to say the Kukkiwon should recognize General Choi and all his "accomplishments". If you want to go hang out with the ITF and have everyone celebrate whatever great thing you feel he did then fine, but frankly it is insulting and unrealistic to expect the Kukkiwon or the pioneers to do the same. 




KarateMomUSA said:


> I am not sure why you keep ignoring that & never respond to those distinct points.



I have responded to your points. Numerous times. 



KarateMomUSA said:


> I can only imagine that you can bring yourself to give any positive credit as thinking about Gen Choi, because of your feelings & viewpoint of him, causes you some emotional reaction. (Forgive me but I forgot exactly how you explained it)



I do think you may have memory issues, as well as reading comprehension issues. 

As far as I am concerned, the Taekwondo world would have been much better off if General Choi had never come around. Everything he did caused disruption, chaos and turmoil. General Choi is to the KTA/WTF/Kukkiwon what Herb Perez and Ronda Sweet are to the USTU/USAT -- everything they touch, turns to crap. 

GM LEE Won Kuk said he blames himself for General Choi's entrance into the Taekwondo world, because he said that he asked General Choi to look out and help the Chung Do Kwan if he could, just prior to GM Lee's move back to Japan before the Korean War. That is how he got his "in" with the Chung Do Kwan, in case you ever wondered.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Just so you are aware, Rhonda Sweet is a member here on this site.

Daniel


----------



## terryl965

puunui Rhonda Sweet is a member here on this board and we should try to keep all converstation polite and respectful towards our members. To be fair and honest about USTU or USAT blame the high people not the litle one's that really do not have a voice in any matters that either org. does. 

Just for the record not trying to stict up for anybody just trying to keep the peace ona great board and decussion.


----------



## puunui

terryl965 said:


> puunui Rhonda Sweet is a member here on this board and we should try to keep all converstation polite and respectful towards our members. To be fair and honest about USTU or USAT blame the high people not the litle one's that really do not have a voice in any matters that either org. does.




I know she is a member of this message board, and that was respectful, believe me. And you are not being fair and honest about the USTU. My USTU Club # is 10, which means I was there before Ronda Sweet and I saw her entire career in the USTU. And I have all the relevant documents from the point in time when the USTU got transmuted into USAT. So I know exactly what happened. I was there. Were you?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

puunui said:


> I know she is a member of this message board, and that was respectful, believe me. And you are not being fair and honest about the USTU. My USTU Club # is 10, which means I was there before Ronda Sweet and I saw her entire career in the USTU. And I have all the relevant documents from the point in time when the USTU got transmuted into USAT. So I know exactly what happened. I was there. Were you?


Irrelevant. You might want to read the terms of service (1.10.3 in particular). Just a heads up.

Daniel


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> In South Korea, the KTA mandate is that you must have Kukkiwon 4th Dan or higher and pass the Kukkiwon Instructor Course in order to obtain a license to teach Taekwondo. If you don't have those two things, they will shut your dojang down.


That is my understanding. One of the ways that they can get around this is to have the dojang run by a 4th Dan & above licensed KKW instructor that converted to or adopted the ITF syllabus or incorporated it into the teaching.
Another problem in sout Korean is that ITF TKD is looked at by some as communist TKD. So that nasty stigma is also difficult to overcome.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> Again, Original Taekwondo was Chung Do Kwan Taekwondo. When the name was created in 1954, General Choi hadn't made any of his tul yet, and the curriculum of both the Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan was the Chung Do Kwan curriculum. So again, Original Taekwondo was Chung Do Kwan Taekwondo.


Good point & the distinction I would make is that the ODK was the original TKD, led by CDK instructors that were developing a different system from what they learned at the CDK. Furthermore we know from history, that even the CDK accepted the name Tae Soo Do.
It was the ODK that named TKD & applied it continuously to the new system that they were developing. They are the only kwan with the unbroken use of the name TKD. This TKD is obviously different from Kukki TKD, so hence it is the original TKD.
If the CDK is the original TKD, then Funakoshi Sensei is the founder.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Quote:Originally Posted by *KarateMomUSA* 

 
_The KKW at the time was still led  by the man that the south Korean Natioanl Assemby's new law made  inelligible to head the KKW, in their attempt to clean up south Korean  TKD which is very important to Korea & Koreans.
_



puunui said:


> Wrong. Again. The new law was put into effect so that the Kukkiwon would fall under the ROK Ministry for Culture, Sport and Tourism. It was purely so that the Kukkiwon would be a Korean governmental entity, something that Dr. Un Yong KIM fought by the way from the earliest days of the Kukkiwon. In the beginning stages of building the Kukkiwon, the Korean government offered to pay at least part of the construction costs and was also willing to appropriate money every year to the maintenance and growth of the Kukkiwon. Dr. Kim declined and stated that it is important that the Kukkiwon remain independent of the Korean government.
> By the way, there is a lawsuit pending regarding whether the Korean government takeover of the Kukkiwon was legal. There should be a ruling on that this year sometime.


Again, semantics. Of course the south Korean govt wanted to takeover TKD, as it is their national sport & very important to Korea & Koreans. Since it was rocked by corruption & used as a means to an end by nasty Korean politics, reformed was needed & that is what they did. One may not think that this reform was needed or needed to be done this way, but again, that may be interpretation of those politics.
I also think that the KKW becoming an official govt entity, will be another reason why the WTF will make some more distance from them.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

bluewaveschool said:


> How much was Gen. Choi exposed to original Taekwondo?  Since he wasn't even a student of the CDK, just had honorary rank.


Gen Choi was an educated man that trained in karate & knew of Taek Kyon. He was asked by the CDK founder himself to look after or help out with the CDK. This of course was prompted by Gen Choi's powerful position at the time. (Yes there goes the politics again)!
However GM Lee Won Kuk, who also learned karate in Japan, was not teaching TKD, he was teaching Korean karate, as were basically all the others, including Gen Choi. 
It was Gen Choi who came up with the umbrella term of TKD which was rejected by most. Those that adopted it or accepted it, were those following him. He was of course asked to help out with the CDK by their won founder. Additionally the CDK was very influential. In the army, Gen Choi used many CDK instructors to teach TangSuDo & to help him devise original TKD, which took place on Jeju Island & then in the ODK. He even had his soldiers shout Tae Kwon when they saluted each other in training. The others were simply not using TKD. They preferred Tang Soo Do, Kong Soo Do, Kwon Bup or other names they made up, Hwa So Do, Su Bak Do etc. 
We also know that in 1961, these Koreans rallied around the new compromise name of Tae Soo Do. 
So history shows clearly how TKD developed, all the different styles, including the 2 main ones, Chang Hon & Kukki. History also shows how & when the name TKD was introduced & who used it & when did they use it. Some used it & dropped. Some never wanted to use it, but conceded, while others did not. Gen Choi, however & his followers, did use it continuously from 1954/5 till present day. Many may not want to acknowledge that, but it is the case. They were the ones who originally used it & used it continuously, uninterrupted, as they applied it to a new system that they were developing 1st in the military, then though the ITF.

So we know that Chang Hon & Kukki TKD are the 2 major styles of TKD.
We know of the many differences between the 2 major TKD entities.
We know that Chang Hon TKD was developed in the ODK which was formed in 1954. We know that the name TKD was offered in Dec of 1954 & approved on April 11, 1955. We know that the ODK adopted the name TKD & applied it to the system that they were developing under the leadership of Gen Choi.

We also know that Kukki TKD was the result of the unification of the major kwans in Korea. We know that they used the name Tae Soo Do in 1961 to replace the names Tang Soo Do, Kong Soo Do, Kwon Bup, Hwa Soo Do, Su Bak Do & even TKD. It was not till 1965 when at the urging of Gen Choi, which by the way resulted in him being forced out due to his authoritative means, that they forever dropped the Tae Soo Do name & used TKD.

It is plain to see who was the original TKD & who applied that name loyally, without any interruption or abandonment.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> I don't know if you are intentionally lying or it is more of a reading comprehension issue with you. And you have used negative writings in your postings -- try rereading your posts in regard to GM LEE Chong Woo, Dr. KIM Un Yong or the latest on GM LEE Seung Wan.


I & I think many be be less informed about GM Lee Seung Wan. I do know that he was at least a 2x convicted criminal according to south Korean law. I also know that he was made in-illegible for his KKW position as a result of the new law passed by the Korean National National Assembly to clean up the scandals & corruption with TKD in Korea. One of his arrests was for interference in a previous KTA election process.
I have very high regards for GM Lee Chong Woo, who may be 1 of the most significant & most influential figures in Kukki TKD's development. I would never speak negatively of him. I have repeated & pointed to his own words. 
I have very high regards for Dr Kim Un Yong, who may be 1 of the most significant & most influential figures in Kukki TKD's development & the Olympic movement. I also do not wish to speak negatively of him, as he is probably the most important person with Olympic TKD. Dr Kim calls himself the father or modern TKD. I have only wrote about his legal problems, which he was arrested for, convicted of & served time in prison for. I also acknowledged how those "nasty Korean politics" played a part in. 
You however seem only to be able to see how those nasty Korean politics affected 1 side, your side! I have been very fair & open minded, very consistent.



puunui said:


> All his efforts to spread his Chang Hon Taekwon-Do (NOT original Taekwondo) end up hurting Taekwondo because it creates disunity, and confusion. But in spite of this, you have the nerve to say the Kukkiwon should recognize General Choi and all his "accomplishments". If you want to go hang out with the ITF and have everyone celebrate whatever great thing you feel he did then fine, but frankly it is insulting and unrealistic to expect the Kukkiwon or the pioneers to do the same.
> As far as I am concerned, the Taekwondo world would have been much better off if General Choi had never come around. Everything he did caused disruption, chaos and turmoil. General Choi is to the KTA/WTF/Kukkiwon what Herb Perez and Ronda Sweet are to the USTU/USAT -- everything they touch, turns to crap.


This sounds like more personal attacks than anything constructive. Unity can not have a hope of happening, if we don't 1st stop the negativity. I am not Gen Choi. I don't wish to engage in negativity. I simply look to deal with the positive. The positive of what all the TKD leaders of done. If any unity is to happen, we must stop the negativity. Then we simply acknowledge the good others have done, all the others. Then we credit it them with what they did & show how some of those things worked against unity. But now, acknowledging the past, understanding it, allows us to move forward in a better, more effective & harmonious way. This is how unity can have a chance to happen.



puunui said:


> GM LEE Won Kuk said he blames himself for General Choi's entrance into the Taekwondo world, because he said that he asked General Choi to look out and help the Chung Do Kwan if he could, just prior to GM Lee's move back to Japan before the Korean War. That is how he got his "in" with the Chung Do Kwan, in case you ever wondered.


Yes of course, but remember it wasn't the TKD world, but the Korean karate world. It was Gen Choi who got the TKD world ball rolling!


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Quote:
 	 	 		 			 				 					Originally Posted by *KarateMomUSA* 

 
_I am not sure why you keep ignoring that & never respond to those distinct points._


puunui said:


> I have responded to your points. Numerous times.


No you have not responded on point to the postive things that Gen choi did, not even when I numbered them 1 to 5.
I can do it again, but am sure you would either ignore them or not respond on point.


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> Yes of course, but remember it wasn't the TKD world, but the Korean karate world. It was Gen Choi who got the TKD world ball rolling!



And you know what? Nobody cares. I know I certainly don't. But if you wish to continue spewing misinformation, then be my guest. I'm done with this conversation. I was done two weeks ago.


----------



## miguksaram

KarateMomUSA said:


> Gen Choi was an educated man that trained in karate & knew of Taek Kyon.


Actually there is no real proof of his Taekkyon connection.  In fact there is supposedly a recording of him stating he never learned it  or someone high up in the Taekkyon food chain saying he never learned. it.  As for his Karate it is still speculative in some circles to what rank he received overall.


----------



## chrispillertkd

miguksaram said:


> Actually there is no real proof of his Taekkyon connection. In fact there is supposedly a recording of him stating he never learned it or someone high up in the Taekkyon food chain saying he never learned. it.


 
High up in the Taekkyon food chain? It was a _game_ when Gen. Choi was a boy. It had more in common with darts or baseball in that respect than with an actual martial _art_. Gen. Choi stated in an interview that he only learned some basic techniques from his calligraphy teacher. 



> As for his Karate it is still speculative in some circles to what rank he received overall.


 
Yes, some people don't take his word on what rank he earned while in Japan. Some people also don't think Choi, Yong Sul studied Daito Ryu because he claims to have lost the scrolls he received from Takeda Sokaku. 

Then again, other people critisize him for his style "obviously" being no different from karate because he included Japanese kata in his 1965 book. So _obviously_ he didn't know karate. Wait. Never mind. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> Yes, some people don't take his word on what rank he earned while in Japan. Some people also don't think Choi, Yong Sul studied Daito Ryu because he claims to have lost the scrolls he received from Takeda Sokaku.




I have a photo of GM CHOI Yong Sul and Takeda Sensei together.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Double post.


----------



## chrispillertkd

puunui said:


> I have a photo of GM CHOI Yong Sul and Takeda Sensei together.


 
Fantastic. Do you have his lost mokuroku?

I've seen a picture of Gen. Choi at the Shotokan. But not his dan certificates.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> Fantastic. Do you have his lost mokuroku? I've seen a picture of Gen. Choi at the Shotokan. But not his dan certificates. Pax, Chris




He was never given any scrolls from Takeda Sensei. And that picture isn't of the Shotokan.


----------



## chrispillertkd

puunui said:


> He was never given any scrolls from Takeda Sensei.


 
I'm sure he told you that 



> And that picture isn't of the Shotokan.


 
Did you ask Dr. Kimm why he misidentified it, then?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> I'm sure he told you that


 
Never spoke to GM Choi. But he's not listed in the books either. Those things were for paying students. Takeda Sensei's son I don't believe is listed in the books nor did he receive any scrolls either. Have you actually studied Hapkido, or is your experience limited to what is shown in General Choi's books? 




chrispillertkd said:


> Did you ask Dr. Kimm why he misidentified it, then?



Never spoke to Dr. Kimm about that photo. But there are lots of photos of the Shotokan from that era. That looks more like a high school class picture more than a shot of students at the Shotokan.


----------



## chrispillertkd

puunui said:


> Never spoke to GM Choi.


 
Oh, I meant Takeda Sensei :lol:



> Never spoke to Dr. Kimm about that photo. But there are lots of photos of the Shotokan from that era. That looks more like a high school class picture more than a shot of students at the Shotokan.


 
Maybe you should ask him about it next time you chat.

But oddly, in your previous post you said it _wasn't_ the Shotokan. Now you're saying it "looks" like a high school class picture "more than" a picture taken in the Shotokan. I thought you knew. 

Of course, Gen. Choi was finishing high school when he first went to Japan before he was able to enter college but that's obviously irrelevant :lol: 

And of course it looks like a group of younger students (although high school or college I couldn't say). The issue was what building it was in, no?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> But oddly, in your previous post you said it _wasn't_ the Shotokan. Now you're saying it "looks" like a high school class picture "more than" a picture taken in the Shotokan. I thought you knew.



I think it is a reading comprehension issue. Try reading it again and maybe again. Every time I see your name on a post, I keep hoping I am going to read something that shows original effort, or personal experience, or something, anything, that came from you, instead of someone else. I guess I have to wait a little longer. The ten fold thing really does serve as a bright line between the haves and have nots. I can instantly tell which side of the line people fall on just by reading their posts. And I think everyone else can see it too, now that it has been pointed out to them.


----------



## chrispillertkd

puunui said:


> I think it is a reading comprehension issue. Try reading it again and maybe again.


 
:lol: If you say so, brother. Frankly, I have noticed that your posts aren't exactly marked by good prose. Reading your stuff is a bit like reading someone who has nothing better to do than tell people who awesome they are :lol:



> Every time I see your name on a post, I keep hoping I am going to read something that shows original effort, or personal experience, or something, anything, that came from you, instead of someone else.


 
Oh, I sure that's exactly what you hope for when you read my posts, Glenn :lol: 

Of course if you bothered to actually read my posts you'd see that stuff :lol: 



> I guess I have to wait a little longer. The ten fold thing really does serve as a bright line between the haves and have nots. I can instantly tell which side of the line people fall on just by reading their posts. And I think everyone else can see it too, now that it has been pointed out to them.


 
Wow, it must be awesome to be as awesome as you are, Glenn. Maybe one day the rest of us will be able to judge the kind of people others are simply based on some posts they make on an internet forum :lol: 

I think, however, the most awesome thing about you is that you can type the kind of things in your posts such as the one to which I'm replying and apparently take them seriously (and expect others to do so, as well) :lol:

Pax frater,

Chris


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> :lol: If you say so, brother. Frankly, I have noticed that your posts aren't exactly marked by good prose. Reading your stuff is a bit like reading someone who has nothing better to do than tell people who awesome they are :lol:



If that's how you comprehend my posts, then frankly that is your problem. 




chrispillertkd said:


> Oh, I sure that's exactly what you hope for when you read my posts, Glenn :lol:  Of course if you bothered to actually read my posts you'd see that stuff :lol:


 
I do try to read your posts. But I also have to admit that I often times don't finish. 



chrispillertkd said:


> Wow, it must be awesome to be as awesome as you are, Glenn. Maybe one day the rest of us will be able to judge the kind of people others are simply based on some posts they make on an internet forum :lol:



I don't know about all of that, but I do think people can see the difference between my posts and yours. 




chrispillertkd said:


> I think, however, the most awesome thing about you is that you can type the kind of things in your posts such as the one to which I'm replying and apparently take them seriously (and expect others to do so, as well) :lol: Pax frater,
> Chris



Ok, note to self, don't take chrispillertkd's posts seriously. Got it kid.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

If you two want to get personal, take it to PM please.

Daniel


----------



## puunui

Daniel Sullivan said:


> If you two want to get personal, take it to PM please.
> Daniel




It's not personal for me, but it's obviously personal for him. One question for you though, who have you learned more from, chris or I? Because to me, that's what it should really be about, learning.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

puunui said:


> It's not personal for me, but it's obviously personal for him. One question for you though, who have you learned more from, chris or I? Because to me, that's what it should really be about, learning.



Its personal when your post is a critique of Chris and his is one of you.  Whether or not either of you take it personally is another matter.

While I very much appreciate your insights, I make it a practice to avoid directly comparing the overall value of one site member's posts to those of another site member.  

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone

<shrugs>  The moderators are obviously giving both gentlemen some leeway.  I'm sure they'll step in when they feel it necessary.


----------



## puunui

Daniel Sullivan said:


> While I very much appreciate your insights, I make it a practice to avoid directly comparing the overall value of one site member's posts to those of another site member.




That's good answer.


----------



## chrispillertkd

puunui said:


> If that's how you comprehend my posts, then frankly that is your problem.


 
It's not really a _problem_, Glenn. It's a simple matter of reading your posts. Oh, you have some interesting things to say about KKW Taekwon-Do, sure. But you certainly have lots of things to say about yourself too :lol:



> I do try to read your posts. But I also have to admit that I often times don't finish.


 
I'm sure you don't  Why would you want to form a judgement about something that you've actually read?  



> I don't know about all of that, but I do think people can see the difference between my posts and yours.


 
Of this I have little doubt :lol: 



> Ok, note to self, don't take chrispillertkd's posts seriously. Got it kid.


 
:lol: Hey, that's fair enough. I don't take anything youwrite seriously :lol: And thanks for callingme kid. It's been twenty years since I've been called that :lol: Of course that was by people who actually _know_ me and not by people who "can instantly tell which side of the line people fall on just by reading their posts" :lol:

Pax frater,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

puunui said:


> It's not personal for me, but it's obviously personal for him.


 
:lol: No, not really. I find you amusing more than anything, Glenn. That hardly qualifies as me taking anything you post "personally" :lol:  

Pax brother,

Chris


----------



## bluewaveschool

Hey, we've made it a page and a half without some KarateMom/Puunui bickering.  Got to be some kind of record.


----------



## puunui

bluewaveschool said:


> Hey, we've made it a page and a half without some KarateMom/Puunui bickering.  Got to be some kind of record.




Seems chrispillertkd has taken up the baton on that one. Someone told me the issue seemed to be jealousy, and someone else said it was more envy. Personally, I think it is envy. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envy


----------



## chrispillertkd

:lol: 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## d1jinx

You know, a while back we had some nice discussions with the Author of A Killing Art...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85330&highlight=Alex+Gillis

He is/was a member of MT... perhaps someone could entice him to hear his side and perspective... again...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=68516&highlight=Alex+Gillis

EVERYBODY COMES TO MT!
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/member.php?u=19785


----------



## KarateMomUSA

miguksaram said:


> Actually there is no real proof of his Taekkyon connection.  In fact there is supposedly a recording of him stating he never learned it  or someone high up in the Taekkyon food chain saying he never learned. it.  As for his Karate it is still speculative in some circles to what rank he received overall.


Yes there is no real proof of anyone's connection to Taek Kyon. It was a folk game that had all but disappeared in Korea. It means push shoulder. The Taek Kyon Master that was made a human cultural asset by Korea for keeping this folk game alive stated that he couldn't even find 1 person that he could demonstrate with. The later Taek Kyon leaders that revitalized this Korean tradition went on record saying that no one from TKD consulted them & that they had not played a part in helping to create TKD, any form or style of TKD.
What we know about Taek Kyon comes only from south Korea, post 1945. North Korea has went on record saying Gen Choi's calligraphy teacher whereabouts were unknown due to the Civil War.
Gen Choi was simply exposed to Taek Kyon by his calligraphy teacher. He incorporated the use of the legs in his original TKD, via "foot technique sparring".
There was also no independent verification of any of the Koreans who studies martial arts abroad & were involved with the TKD movement, except 2. However you rarely here about the others, just people ragging on Gen Choi. There is however independent verification that Gen Choi taught karate in Japan at a YMCA.

Grandmaster Hwang Kee & Gen Choi are often dogged by many, possibly because they did not unify into the KKW. Their training history is often called into question. It is a double standard, but regardless, as what they accomplished was truly amazing & appreciated by so many more that try to detract from them.
History will set the record straight.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Quote: Originally Posted by *bluewaveschool* 

 
_Hey, we've made it a page and a half without some KarateMom/Puunui bickering.  Got to be some kind of record._


puunui said:


> Seems chrispillertkd has taken up the baton on that one. Someone told me the issue seemed to be jealousy, and someone else said it was more envy. Personally, I think it is envy.


I am sorry as I don't look at these exchanges as "bickering", nor have I posted anything negative or attacked anyone in any way. I will not get personal & I will continue to post with courtesy.
I am disappointed however that the tones of some posts are not fitting with the martial art spirit.
I also remain open minded & wish more would. I am not on any side, but am simply looking to learn more. I have come to understand that a mind is like a parachute, it works BEST when it is OPEN!


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> nor have I posted anything negative or attacked anyone in any way. I will not get personal & I will continue to post with courtesy.



Obviously, other people feel differently.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

I don't think that she's negative or has attacked other board members. Both you and she have had negative things to say about various figures in taekwondo history. In fairness, your comments about such people have been far more scathing than hers.

The fact is that in all of the threads where the two of you get into protracted debate, it is the same debate. You both argue the same points over and over again, seemingly in some vain attempt to have the last word. And that is what people are tiring of (though if they truly are tining of it, they could simply avoid this thread and one or two others. Their continued reading and participation is entirely their own doing, myself included).

Yourself and Chris have far fewer posts exchanged between the two of you, though frankly, the nature of those exchanges are such that less is probably more.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

KarateMomUSA said:


> I am sorry as I don't look at these exchanges as "bickering",


They didn't start out that way, but that is what they have become. You've both gone well past what most would consider productive discussion and well past what most would be considered productive debate. 



KarateMomUSA said:


> I also remain open minded & wish more would. I am not on any side, but am simply looking to learn more.


No offense, but you are every bit as entrenched in your postition as Puunui is in his. 

99.9% of the time, I find that people who say, 


KarateMomUSA said:


> a mind is like a parachute, it works BEST when it is OPEN!


 are really not as open minded as they would like to believe and really only want you to be open their point of view. In the context of a debate, the implication by the one saying it is that they are open minded while their opponent is close minded.

In most debates/arguments, both individuals are equally close minded. It comes down to what you are trying to achieve. If you are trying to learn what the other person has to say, you wouldn't be debating or arguing. In a debate, the goal is to make a stronger case for your position than the person you are debating against.

Being close minded regarding a subject is also not always bad, as the parachute saying implies. I am closed minded, for example, to the arguement that the holocaust never happened. I give it no weight. The weight of evidence and historical accounts leave no room for such a silly assertion. Same goes for the idea of a flat earth. I am closed to that idea because it is proven to be round and successfull navigation of international air and sea travel based on a round earth leaves no room for a flat earth. Entertainment value aside, why be open to arguements to the contrary?

Don't get me wrong; I'm a fan of spirited debate because it benefits both participants by forcing them to present cogent and supportable arguments. Debate is also beneficial to those in the audience because they are getting to hear two opposing views in real time and may then decide for themselves what to think.

But debates have absolutely nothing to do with open mindedness and rarely result in a debator being swayed by the argument of the other party. 

Daniel


----------



## terryl965

I would love to add to this converstation about proper ettique, but then again we cannot simply because TKD has not had any except for those that believe the same way you do. I know my input would just bring certain people to say but that was not the right way of the elders or this is completely wrong because so and so said so? I would love to see TKD grow as a whole but to be honest to many chiefs and not enough compromising to bring people together for the betterment of TKD.

I for one love to listen to the exact sameting over and over because it reminds me of teaching my boys when they was two and three years old if they hear it enough they will start to believe what I am saying but for the most part we are dealing with grown adults, that cannot seem to understand we wish to believe what we want and what we have been told.

In closing please remember that I love TKD as a way of life but all this so call bickering is just plain stupid because you will never agree or change your mindset to believe anything except what you have been told.:asian:


----------



## puunui

Daniel Sullivan said:


> The fact is that in all of the threads where the two of you get into protracted debate, it is the same debate. You both argue the same points over and over again, seemingly in some vain attempt to have the last word.



I would disagree that it is the same debate; I would say that it is different debates with the same result. I guess that came look like the same debate, but I don't think it really is. For example, the very last one, about President Park hating General Choi to the point of doing things to thwart him, is simply not true, because if what they were saying was true, there would have been a completely different result for General Choi. Think about it, if you were President Park, and you hated General Choi, would you have allowed the ROK military to teach General Choi's forms? Different debate, same result. 




Daniel Sullivan said:


> Yourself and Chris have far fewer posts exchanged between the two of you, though frankly, the nature of those exchanges are such that less is probably more.


 
There is a purpose to that one.


----------



## puunui

terryl965 said:


> but all this so call bickering is just plain stupid because you will never agree or change your mindset to believe anything except what you have been told.:asian:




I again disagree. I do think they are changing their minds. You can see it and feel it in their posts. We go through all this now, once and for all, in the hopes that we never have to deal with it ever again. In other words, take a look at the discussion from the Chonkwon sky viewpoint, rather than from the Koryo ground level, because the perspective will radically change the way you see it. One of the things I like about the new Hawaii 5-0 is that there are camera shots from a helicopter of places I recognize, and the different viewpoint changes my perspective on the area being panned. I like google earth for the same reason, although street view is also very handy.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

puunui said:


> I would disagree that it is the same debate; I would say that it is different debates with the same result. I guess that came look like the same debate, but I don't think it really is. For example, the very last one, about President Park hating General Choi to the point of doing things to thwart him, is simply not true, because if what they were saying was true, there would have been a completely different result for General Choi. Think about it, if you were President Park, and you hated General Choi, would you have allowed the ROK military to teach General Choi's forms? Different debate, same result.


Yes, that is a better way of putting it.  Same result: a debate about General Choi.



puunui said:


> There is a purpose to that one.


I'll have to take your word there.

Daniel


----------



## puunui

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Yes, that is a better way of putting it.  Same result: a debate about General Choi.




Or rather same result: General Choi lied once again.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

puunui said:


> Or rather same result: General Choi lied once again.


Common denomenator: General Choi.

Daniel


----------



## terryl965

Who of the pioneers did not lie, I mean really. All of them had what they believe to be the truth based on what they believe was being said. I cannot comment because I have been told many stories over the years, which one to believe, maybe none of them and just start believing in what I can see.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Well, I have nothing further to contribute to this thread at this point.

Enjoy,

Daniel


----------



## puunui

terryl965 said:


> Who of the pioneers did not lie, I mean really. All of them had what they believe to be the truth based on what they believe was being said. I cannot comment because I have been told many stories over the years, which one to believe, maybe none of them and just start believing in what I can see.




The pioneers didn't lie, at least not to me; they didn't have to, because the facts are on their side. Sometimes I have had to think deeply about what was being said to understand the point that they were trying to make. Also, some of the second or third generation who came to the US did not know the answers to certain questions, and when put on the spot by their American students, may have said things they they believed was correct, but didn't actually know. Also, I notice that different seniors will give different answers to different students, depending on the student's ability to understand. For example, we tell children the story of Santa Claus, but for adults they can hear a different story about the real St. Nicholas. Are we lying to children when we speak of Santa, or are we simply giving them a version that they can understand? One thing I do notice though, is that the story is very basically very consistent, no matter who I speak to. Talk to people and they all give a very similar version of what happened, if they were in fact present and speaking from personal knowledge.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I don't think that she's negative or has attacked other board members. Both you and she have had negative things to say about various figures in taekwondo history. In fairness, your comments about such people have been far more scathing than hers.


Yes I have posted negative things about people involved in the history of TKD. However I never made any personal attacks against them & please correct me if I am wrong & I will go on record corre ting it myself & making amends where ever needed, with the appropriate apologies.
So for instance I have said that Gen Choi had a dictatorial leadership style, he was an authoritarian, he was a self promoter & highlighted his efforts & downplayed that of his team, that he worked with the CIA & north Korea, a terrible regime, so much worse than their southern counterparts, who are now a true, free & rich democracy, helped greatly by the father of the Korean economic miracle, Gen Park, who was also a brutal dictator, with some saying the ends justified the means.
I have also said that Dr Kim Un Yong, the father of modern TKD & the greatest TKD leader responsible for Olympic TKD, was a KCIA operative, who operated under the name of Mikey Kim, who was also arrested, convicted & served time for breaking Korean law. However the acknowledgment was fully there for all to see, that the nasty Korean politics played their part in that as well.
Of course we know the uproar that I caused when I said Grandmaster Lee Chong Woo lied, but then again, I was only using his words when he said he was the one that came up with that story about the 2,000 year old history of TKD. Then it was his own words again, where he addressed the "branch trimming" that help to steal medals for the Korean players on the world stage. But make no mistake about it, Mr Lee is probably the most influential martial artist who helped give the world Kukki TKD.
I have done nothing but applaud these individuals, saying that they do deserve credit & thanks!



Daniel Sullivan said:


> The fact is that in all of the threads where the two of you get into protracted debate, it is the same debate. You both argue the same points over and over again, seemingly in some vain attempt to have the last word. And that is what people are tiring of (though if they truly are tining of it, they could simply avoid this thread and one or two others. Their continued reading and participation is entirely their own doing, myself included).
> 
> Yourself and Chris have far fewer posts exchanged between the two of you, though frankly, the nature of those exchanges are such that less is probably more.
> 
> Daniel


I think that this is a valid point & legitimate concern. I will try to move some replies & posts to separate threads & keep points refuted to single reponses, not adding more than 1 in a reply.
Part of the problem as I see it, is when I respond with substance, much is ignored & the response at times only addresses minor points. That is what is frustrating for me.
I will persevere & try to be clearer, sorry.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> They didn't start out that way, but that is what they have become. You've both gone well past what most would consider productive discussion and well past what most would be considered productive debate.
> No offense, but you are every bit as entrenched in your postition as Puunui is in his.
> 99.9% of the time, I find that people who say,
> are really not as open minded as they would like to believe and really only want you to be open their point of view. In the context of a debate, the implication by the one saying it is that they are open minded while their opponent is close minded.
> In most debates/arguments, both individuals are equally close minded. It comes down to what you are trying to achieve. If you are trying to learn what the other person has to say, you wouldn't be debating or arguing. In a debate, the goal is to make a stronger case for your position than the person you are debating against.
> Being close minded regarding a subject is also not always bad, as the parachute saying implies. I am closed minded, for example, to the arguement that the holocaust never happened. I give it no weight. The weight of evidence and historical accounts leave no room for such a silly assertion. Same goes for the idea of a flat earth. I am closed to that idea because it is proven to be round and successfull navigation of international air and sea travel based on a round earth leaves no room for a flat earth. Entertainment value aside, why be open to arguements to the contrary?
> Don't get me wrong; I'm a fan of spirited debate because it benefits both participants by forcing them to present cogent and supportable arguments. Debate is also beneficial to those in the audience because they are getting to hear two opposing views in real time and may then decide for themselves what to think.
> But debates have absolutely nothing to do with open mindedness and rarely result in a debator being swayed by the argument of the other party.
> Daniel


Yes Sir, good points. By open minded, I mean more fair. I am the 1st to say that TKD came from karate, but is not karate, it is Korean TKD. I am also very clear that the path taken, was actually 2 major ones, original, ITF, Chang Hon TKD or Olympic, WTF, Kukki TKD. 
Therefore at some point, probably the 1960s, the histories will diverge! It is not a lie or fabrication by the other side, but rather 2 different stories to be told, 2 seperate groups to be credited & thanked.
I clearly see this & have been very consistent in my praise of the Kukki TKD pioneers. They all deserve credit & thanks from Korea & all TKD students, now & in the future. But they never will now or in the future, unless we name them.
Surely no one can have a problem with this approach, can they?
Am I being too naive? 

You see for me, it is now the 2nd decade of the 21st century. We still see to be fighting 20th century battles & few of us have been even hurt directly from those past wars, so why are we fighting?
We are all TKDin!
We owe it to each other & our Art, to be fair, polite & open to share.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

d1jinx said:


> You know, a while back we had some nice discussions with the Author of A Killing Art...
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85330&highlight=Alex+Gillis
> He is/was a member of MT... perhaps someone could entice him to hear his side and perspective... again...
> 
> EVERYBODY COMES TO MT!


Yes thanks for sharing those links.
The great thing about Mr Gillis' book is that he has trained ITF, WTF & independently. he is an investigative journalist & college writing instructor, who did his homework.
Going through some 4,000 pages of FBI & US Congress official records helps shed light on the all important context of the time & the nasty Korean politics that played such a role in TKD development & history. If we do not understand these concepts & Korean history, we will not really get to the bottom of the confusion surrounding this subject.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

terryl965 said:


> I would love to add to this converstation about proper ettique, but then again we cannot simply because TKD has not had any except for those that believe the same way you do. I know my input would just bring certain people to say but that was not the right way of the elders or this is completely wrong because so and so said so? I would love to see TKD grow as a whole but to be honest to many chiefs and not enough compromising to bring people together for the betterment of TKD.:asian:


Sir I don't think that there is a need for compromise or better yet, the compromise can be simple:
TKD was created in Korea by TKD leaders that either learned martial arts abroad or leanr from those that learned outside of Korea.
These Korean were patriotic & looked to create a new Korean martial art & or sport.
I for one think that they did both & did it great!

Then we have to tell the story of who did what, so the 2 major paths of development can be more fully documented.

The time for silly my TKD is better than your TKD or my TKD Father can beat up your TKD Father, is long gone.
I for one do not want to wage that battle.
We are all TKDin, maybe some of us are TKD brothers & sisters, while some may be cousins, while others distant cousins. But we are all in the big TKD family. While families do fight from time to time, they also have to remember that in the end, they are still family.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> I would disagree that it is the same debate; I would say that it is different debates with the same result. I guess that came look like the same debate, but I don't think it really is. For example, the very last one, about President Park hating General Choi to the point of doing things to thwart him, is simply not true, because if what they were saying was true, there would have been a completely different result for General Choi. Think about it, if you were President Park, and you hated General Choi, would you have allowed the ROK military to teach General Choi's forms? Different debate, same result.


Again, the history is there. While some may not wish to acknowledge it, it is still there. Go to the time line & you will see how things broke down & got worse, not only for Gen Choi, but many Koreans, including Gen Park, which resulted in his ever more harsh & brutal tactics being deployed.
Try asking academics who specialize in Korean history or politics. They can verify these things & probably explain them better. Much of this can also be researched online.
The problem is most TKDin don't join TKD for history. They join to sweat in a physical activity that will give them some self defence, a sport & a way to a better life. Even those TKDin that are interested in their roots & history of their Art, fewer will be motivated or interested enough to do the required deeper research & thinking.
You sir are a thinking man, highly educated, wonderfully positions to have been in the company of many important people & seem to be highly motivated & interested in sharing. I thank you for it.

I think that the ITF syllabus was finally removed from the military in or by 1975.

Things often take time.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Yes, that is a better way of putting it.  Same result: a debate about General Choi.   Daniel


The debate about Gen Choi is often heated as many do not like to acknowledge what he did with his TKD or the role that he played in the early days of TKD, before the split occurred.

See I stipulated long ago that Gen Choi lied, was a self promoter, dictator etc. I also know that not only didn't he have anything to do with Kukki TKD he fought their efforts all along the way & tried hard to keep it from getting into the Olympics.

Now I know that many do not like him & some, like the deceased Gen Park even "hated" him (according to the Modern History). Personal feelings aside & personalities not withstanding, he did accomplish many things with his TKD & for those that followed him, while not as many as Kukki TKDin, but none the less, a significant number. Not to want to give any credit for this, is somewhat disingenuous & has a partisan feel to it.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

terryl965 said:


> Who of the pioneers did not lie, I mean really. All of them had what they believe to be the truth based on what they believe was being said. I cannot comment because I have been told many stories over the years, which one to believe, maybe none of them and just start believing in what I can see.


I am not so sure that all of it was lies. People see things differently. All of us have various levels of recall & interpretation etc. People were involved in the development of more than 1 TKD, so that in & of itself is reason for numerous accounts. None of which can be looked at as lies, but rather different stories of the various paths of development.

So if I post that "A" did 1,2,3, that does not mean that "B" did not do 7,8,4 & 2.

It is fairly simple in the end, as it boils down to:
Some Koreans had an opportunity to travel abroad. While there they were exposed to martial arts, like karate that itself was a fairly new development in Japan from the 1920s. When they returned to Korea, they opened Korean karate kwans after WWII ended. From here, TKD developed. In the 1960s, there were 2 major paths of development:
1) TaeKwon-Do 2) Tae Soo Do
In 1965 they started to embrace the TKD name, but attempts to bring the 2 together with techniques etc, failed.
(I will add that the failure may have had a lot to do with Gen Choi & his behavior. However it was also resisted by GM Hwang Kee & Dr Yoon, who didn't unify as well)
By 1971 Dr Kim Un Yong came on the scene & this gifted leader had a 3 point vision for developing TKD.
1972 Gen Choi entered into exiled to Canada, to escape political oppression, which coincided with his ever shrinking power in Korea & weakening hand in TKD. 1972 saw the arrival of the KKW, with 1973 being the WTF's 1st year. At these points the paths were never yet able to join together again. The world came to know TKD as Kukki or Olympic TKD. Very harsh feelings remain today, as evidenced by these debates.

However today is the time to start to understand more & credit all.


----------



## bluewaveschool

ITF Taekwondo is NOT original TKD.  GM Lee had nothing to do with the ITF.  Gen. Choi founded a NAME, and even that's up for debate if you ask GM Son.  He called what he was doing, what the Chung Do Kwan people taught his Oh Do Kwan, TKD.  TKD had already been founded, he just changed the name to give it a nationalistic name.  Having read GM Son's book Korean Karate: The Art of Tae Kwon Do (remember him, kicked Choi out on his rear?) and compared the pictures to what I do, appears to be that someone had learned TKD before the 1954 naming committee came around.  There are some differences for sure, but given that what is most likely my lineage, original ATA, was founded by a Chung Do Kwan guy, it's pretty close.  Unless you want to say that GM Son changed his ways to teach what Gen. Choi was teaching.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

bluewaveschool said:


> ITF Taekwondo is NOT original TKD. GM Lee had nothing to do with the ITF. Gen. Choi founded a NAME, and even that's up for debate if you ask GM Son. He called what he was doing, what the Chung Do Kwan people taught his Oh Do Kwan, TKD. TKD had already been founded, he just changed the name to give it a nationalistic name. Having read GM Son's book Korean Karate: The Art of Tae Kwon Do (remember him, kicked Choi out on his rear?) and compared the pictures to what I do, appears to be that someone had learned TKD before the 1954 naming committee came around. There are some differences for sure, but given that what is most likely my lineage, original ATA, was founded by a Chung Do Kwan guy, it's pretty close. Unless you want to say that GM Son changed his ways to teach what Gen. Choi was teaching.


Ok not to be disagreeable, but you can be right. Many people will trace much of what became TKD to the CDK, there is little doubt about that.
However when I use the term "Original TKD" I am referring to Gen Choi's TKD that they started to develop in the ROK Army. By that I mean it was the ORIGINAL or 1st system of Korean Martial Art to apply the name TKD to it, continuously from 1954/5 to present day.
So it can really boil down to both semantics & definitions of how the term is applied or used.
Now additionally we know that the CDK was an original kwan & that it was very influential in producing member students who would evntually play a role in the Tang Su Do & Kong Su Do movements. We also know from the Modern History that they also adopted the name Tae Soo Do & applied it to the martial sport rules that they were developing in 1961.
There is also some evidence to suggest that the Song Moo Kwan may have opened before the CDK, by a couple of months. But even if that is accurate, the SMK did not play a big role in the early days of unification of Tae Soo Do to TKD. While its founder Grandmaster Ro Byung Jik was the 4th president of the KTA, he followed Gen Choi, but only lasted about a year. The Modern History said he was more comfortable with his own kwan.
But in both cases, if you take this route & it is a good route to take, it will lead you further back to Shotokan & Funakoshi Sensei, as he was both of their teachers. So if you say that either of these original & early kwans was the root for TKD, you have to go back to their teacher, don't you?
What is also important to understand is that Grandmaster Lee Won Kuk, the CDK founder was arrested & jailed in 1949. His family was harrassed by the use of nasty Korean politics. When he was released in 1950, he & some of his family fled to Japan to escape further political persecution. So we see him involved for 4, 5-6 years tops, in Korean karate, leaving way before TKD & those unification efforts. He really wasn't directly involved in TKD. His students were very much so, even making up most of the eventual instructor core in the military ODK. The ODK was not only staffed by CDK students.

As to GM Son, yes he did revoke Gen Choi's honorary certificate after they had a falling out. Prior to that they were closer & did work together. But as we know from other debates, GM Son was out of the CDK, replaced by masters would who eventually play huge roles in TKD's unifcation. GM Son kicked those people out, not Gen Choi. But we know his order had little effect & that those he did try to kick out, were members that were highly influential, were following & working with Gen Choi & we know how important they were for TKD.  

Now if you mean the ATA that was formed in the States back in the 1960s by Eternal Grandmaster Lee. Was he not a student of Grandmaster Kang Suh Chong, a student of the CDK that opened the Kuk Mu Kwan, which was where he taught Grandmaster Lee?

As to the naming of TKD, I have not found 1 credible source that supports GM Son's claim. Even his Korean karate book written in the 1960s, does not mention it at all, nor does he have that claim recorded in any interview or written work that he produced. While I am aware of that claim, I would love to see some evidence of that assertion.


----------



## Earl Weiss

bluewaveschool said:


> ''''''''''but given that what is most likely my lineage, original ATA, was founded by a Chung Do Kwan guy, it's pretty close. Unless you want to say that GM Son changed his ways to teach what Gen. Choi was teaching.


 
Yep, HU Lee wasa CDK guy. ATA doid the Chang Hon Patterns for a long while. To this day those progeny that did not change do the Chang Hon Patterns with a CDK Flavor.  I have a video of a ATA demo in North Korea, I think it's from 1999 or perhaps early 2000, with HU Lee Watching along with General Choi.  So they obviously still had a relationship.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

KarateMomUSA said:


> Yes Sir, good points. By open minded, I mean more fair. I am the 1st to say that TKD came from karate, but is not karate, it is Korean TKD. I am also very clear that the path taken, was actually 2 major ones, original, ITF, Chang Hon TKD or Olympic, WTF, Kukki TKD.
> Therefore at some point, probably the 1960s, the histories will diverge! It is not a lie or fabrication by the other side, but rather 2 different stories to be told,.


You both got to this point (remember the Rashamon analogy?) and it probably should have ended there.  But continues because of this:



KarateMomUSA said:


> 2 seperate groups to be credited & thanked.
> 
> I clearly see this & have been very consistent in my praise of the Kukki TKD pioneers. They all deserve credit & thanks from Korea & all TKD students, now & in the future. But they never will now or in the future, unless we name them.
> Surely no one can have a problem with this approach, can they?
> Am I being too naive?


In and of itself, no, but to demand it from another poster on a forum is another matter.  If they want credit and thanks from outside of their own organization, they or their students can write books detailing their work and efforts in the establishment and proliferation of taekwondo.  Nothing stopping you from writing such a book, in fact.

Primary issue that you have with Puunui is that he has stated reasons why he does not wish to credit Choi as you feel Choi should be credited.  Regardless of the feelings of ITF folks, he is not going to change his viewpoint on the subject.

Might be best if individuals receive credit and thanks within their own organizations.  Honestly, it isn't as if there are legions of people waiting with baited breath for all of this to be sorted out.  Outside of taekwondo, nobody cares.  And in my observation, the people making an issue out of credit always seem to be ITF, so its kind of a one sided issue.  Choi receives *tons* of credit, by the way.  Between four separate ITF groups, numerous independent but ITF descended groups, and various people who just latch onto his name because it is intellectually easier, he is lauded all over the web as the "Father of Taekwondo."  If anything, he receives way more individual credit than *any* other individual in taekwondo, possibley in KMA.

To read some of your posts, youd think Choi was some unsung hero outside of a small group of people and that simply is not the case. 



KarateMomUSA said:


> You see for me, it is now the 2nd decade of the 21st century. We still see to be fighting 20th century battles & few of us have been even hurt directly from those past wars, so why are we fighting?
> We are all TKDin!
> We owe it to each other & our Art, to be fair, polite & open to share.


'We' aren't.  A small sub-group fights over this stuff.  The rest of us are happy to discuss it when it comes up but really don't dwell on it.

Think about the founders of our country.  Which do you think was more important to them; credit or a nation of people 200+ years later enjoying the benefits of living in a free democratic republic?  

Likewise, those who pioneered and established taekwondo were, for the most part, more interested in establishing an art and sport that would benefit people around the world for generations to come than they were in getting their names painted all over Blackbeltmag.  If that was indeed what they had wanted, I'd guarantee that they would be mentioned extensively in the KKW site's TKD history section.  

General Choi established a comprehensive and well constructed martial art of Chang Hon Taekwondo, either on his own or with assistance from others.  But from what everyone on both sides of the aisle say, he was a one man show with regards to authority and credit.  In the end, when he died, his organization fell apart precisely because was a one man show.  Why do you expect the organization that prospered without him to credit him for anything when they aren't even crediting their own founders?

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

bluewaveschool said:


> ITF Taekwondo is NOT original TKD.


Another point not worth arguing over.  The term original can be applied in a number of ways; first to wear the name, first to exist, or original by virtue of practicing what was generally practiced at the time that it was put together.

As vids on another thread indicate, Kukki taekwondo is not what was being practiced in the forties and fifties, and probably sixties as well.  If you don't practice the way that they practiced in the late forties and in the fifties, then what you're doing isn't original anyway, regardless of what organization you are affiliated with.

And I have seen enough videos of ATA taekwondo to say that it is far removed from anything 'original' with regards to what was 'originally' practiced.  And no, that is not a criticism of the ATA.

In fairness to Karatemom, she is not the first person that I have heard use the term 'original' taekwondo to describe ITF TKD.  I don't care.  I know that Kukki taekwondo as I train in it, is modern taekwondo.  If someone else wants to call whatever it is that they do 'original' then so be it.  Doesn't change the fact that the Kukkiwon is the largest single organization or that it is the taekwondo that was included in the olympics.  Nor does it change the fact that the Kukkiwon can trace itself to the CDK just as the ITF can.  Common root, different paths.  

Choose.  But choose wisely.

Daniel


----------



## chrispillertkd

bluewaveschool said:


> ITF Taekwondo is NOT original TKD. GM Lee had nothing to do with the ITF. Gen. Choi founded a NAME, and even that's up for debate if you ask GM Son. He called what he was doing, what the Chung Do Kwan people taught his Oh Do Kwan, TKD. TKD had already been founded, he just changed the name to give it a nationalistic name.


 
Out of curiosity, how did the Tang Soo which GM Lee taught in the Chung Do Kwan differ from Shotokan? What were the technical differences? What were the forms that the Kwan used that were different from those he learned in Japan? I'm very interested in hearing what it was that GM Lee founded that was unique enough to be its own style (the detail of the name used to describe it aside, obviously). 



> Having read GM Son's book Korean Karate: The Art of Tae Kwon Do (remember him, kicked Choi out on his rear?)


 
GM Son also kicked out some pretty high ranking KKW guys "on their rear" but no one cares about that. Uhm Woon Kyu, Hyun Jong Myun and Nam Tae Hi also got "expelled" from the Chung Do Kwan by GM Son but it's quite apparent that his actions don't warrant any real concern given the effect it had on these individuals. 



> and compared the pictures to what I do, appears to be that someone had learned TKD before the 1954 naming committee came around. There are some differences for sure, but given that what is most likely my lineage, original ATA, was founded by a Chung Do Kwan guy, it's pretty close. Unless you want to say that GM Son changed his ways to teach what Gen. Choi was teaching.


 
Hmm, I guess I'm not really following you. Are you saying that, since you hold the Chung DO Kwan to be the origin of Taekwon-Do, GM Son founded Taekwon-Do? Or GM Lee? Or both?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> What is also important to understand is that Grandmaster Lee Won Kuk, the CDK founder was arrested & jailed in 1949. His family was harrassed by the use of nasty Korean politics. When he was released in 1950, he & some of his family fled to Japan to escape further political persecution. So we see him involved for 4, 5-6 years tops, in Korean karate, leaving way before TKD & those unification efforts. He really wasn't directly involved in TKD.




Wrong. GM LEE Won Kuk (who wasn't jailed but instead held for questioning and tortured using electrice shock treatments to his fingertips and other methods, along with GM SON Duk Sung) returned to Korea in 1967 and gave a series of seminars to correct what had become what GM Lee considered a perversion of the forms. Because of Korea's fascination with things Japanese during the 60's, and because of those exchange trips that Taekwondoin were taking to Japan, the stances became wider and longer. GM Lee returned those to the original Okinawan short narrow stances, which are carried on to this day in the Kukkiwon poomsae, which were in part created at the exact same time that GM Lee visited, in 1967. I have lots of photos from those 1967 seminars, with GM Lee wearing a dobok and teaching, with the pioneers (including members of the Oh Do Kwan) in their dobok learning from him. That picture with General Choi sitting quietly and humbly with his eyes down at the table with GM Lee hold a microphone comes from that time. 

Mr. Vitale, you need to show a little more respect for GM LEE Won Kuk. If it weren't for him, Taekwondo would be radically different today. Perhaps General Choi would not have had any role whatsoever. It was through GM Lee that General Choi was allowed to infect the Chung Do Kwan and by extension, Taekwondo. 

We talked about all of this before by the way.


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> Out of curiosity, how did the Tang Soo which GM Lee taught in the Chung Do Kwan differ from Shotokan? What were the technical differences? What were the forms that the Kwan used that were different from those he learned in Japan? I'm very interested in hearing what it was that GM Lee founded that was unique enough to be its own style (the detail of the name used to describe it aside, obviously).




Who cares what the differences are. All of it is Taekwondo, whether you are practicing what was done in 1944 or what is done in 2011. What GM Son is doing is Taekwondo to the same extent and validity as what Master Jimmy Kim is doing. That's the way the pioneers wanted it, and therefore, that is the way it is.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

puunui said:


> *Mr. Vitale*, you need to show a little more respect for GM LEE Won Kuk. If it weren't for him, Taekwondo would be radically different today. Perhaps General Choi would not have had any role whatsoever. It was through GM Lee that General Choi was allowed to infect the Chung Do Kwan and by extension, Taekwondo.
> 
> We talked about all of this before by the way.


I seem to be missing something, but who's Mr. Vitale?

Daniel


----------



## chrispillertkd

puunui said:


> Who cares what the differences are.


 
I'm interested. I don't know if I'd say I "cared," but I am interested. Perhaps others are curious, too. This is a public BBS. People are free to ask questions here, Glenn. Besides, bluewaveschool brought it up so I was wondering what he saw as the defining characteristic(s) that set Taekwon-Do apart from Shotokan. Hence, my question.



> All of it is Taekwondo, whether you are practicing what was done in 1944 or what is done in 2011.


 
So, is what the JKA doing Taekwon-Do, too? 



> What GM Son is doing is Taekwondo to the same extent and validity as what Master Jimmy Kim is doing. That's the way the pioneers wanted it, and therefore, that is the way it is.


 
Perhaps.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> So, is what the JKA doing Taekwon-Do, too?




No, because what the JKA is doing today is different than what was being done in 1944. What GM Lee learned under FUNAKOSHI Yoshitaka Sensei is not what the JKA curriculum is about, and in fact the JKA under Nakayama Sensei went out of their way to exclude and remove Yoshitaka Sensei's influences and teachings. But what the JKA is doing maybe similar to "Taekwon-Do"; to me ITF "Taekwon-Do" is closer to what the JKA is doing than Kukki Taekwondo, but I haven't really looked at it all that in depth. I do notice that ITF "Tae
kwon-Do" has wider stances, similar to JKA stances for example.


----------



## chrispillertkd

puunui said:


> No, because what the JKA is doing today is different than what was being done in 1944. What GM Lee learned under FUNAKOSHI Yoshitaka Sensei is not what the JKA curriculum is about, and in fact the JKA under Nakayama Sensei went out of their way to exclude and remove Yoshitaka Sensei's influences and teachings.


 
So, was what Funakoshi was teaching at the Shotokan in '44 Taekwon-Do, then?



> But what the JKA is doing maybe similar to "Taekwon-Do"; to me ITF "Taekwon-Do" is closer to what the JKA is doing than Kukki Taekwondo, but I haven't really looked at it all that in depth. I do notice that ITF "Taekwon-Do" has wider stances, similar to JKA stances for example.


 
Wider stances than KKW TKD? Yes, but that would only be for _gunnun sogi_ and _annun sogi_, really. Many of the other stances are quite similar. (Though we don't have any that cross the feet like the _ohja sogi_. Well I don't really consider _kyocha sogi_ to be "crossed," at least not in the same way.)

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> So, was what Funakoshi was teaching at the Shotokan in '44 Taekwon-Do, then?



I don't know which Funakoshi Sensei you are referring to, but what Gichin Sensei and Yoshitaka Sensei were doing was Karate, which is what they called it and which is what GM LEE Won Kuk called it when he was studying there. What GM LEE Won Kuk was teaching in 1944 is considered Taekwondo by the pioneers, and by GM Lee. I once asked GM LEE Chong Woo what was the martial arts school name where he studied during the 1940's. He wrote on a piece of paper "Chosun Yun Moo Kwan Taekwondo Bu" in hangul. I understand that to mean that everything from the earliest days is considered Taekwondo, and it is all considered Taekwondo from the date that the Kwan first began in the 1940's. I still have that piece of paper. Even General Choi says the same thing, and he includes the Okinawan practitioners who invented the Okinawan kata as practicing Taekwon-Do. 




chrispillertkd said:


> Wider stances than KKW TKD? Yes, but that would only be for _gunnun sogi_ and _annun sogi_, really. Many of the other stances are quite similar. (Though we don't have any that cross the feet like the _ohja sogi_. Well I don't really consider _kyocha sogi_ to be "crossed," at least not in the same way.)



I have no idea what you are talking about. I understand Sogi, but that is about it.


----------



## chrispillertkd

puunui said:


> I don't know which Funakoshi Sensei you are referring to, but what Gichin Sensei and Yoshitaka Sensei were doing was Karate, which is what they called it and which is what GM LEE Won Kuk called it when he was studying there. What GM LEE Won Kuk was teaching in 1944 is considered Taekwondo by the pioneers, and by GM Lee.


 
How did what GM Lee taught at that time differ from what he learned in Japan? 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> How did what GM Lee taught at that time differ from what he learned in Japan?




I asked him about that actually, but can't remember his answer with respect to individual techniques. It's on tape though. I remember that he felt that there were enough differences in his own method that he chose to change the name of the art from Kongsoodo to Tangsoodo and also the name Songdokwan (Shotokan) to Chung Do Kwan. Specifically on the name change from Shotokan to Chung Do Kwan, he said that the parent is different from the child, hence the different name. He said that much of it was the same just like much of the name is the same, but there were also differences hence the different first character. I know that he disagreed with Gichin Sensei's methods, mainly because he felt the son Yoshitaka Sensei had the better style and method. Yoshitaka Sensei and GM Lee were also about the same age, so he felt more comfortable learning the son's style. He also said that his own students were much more interested in and practiced kicking much more than was ever emphasized or taught in Japan. He also considered NAKAYAMA Sensei to be his junior, in age and also karate experience. So to answer to your question, there are differences but there are also similarities from what he learned in Japan to what was taught and practiced in Korea.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Earl Weiss said:


> Yep, HU Lee wasa CDK guy. ATA doid the Chang Hon Patterns for a long while. To this day those progeny that did not change do the Chang Hon Patterns with a CDK Flavor.  I have a video of a ATA demo in North Korea, I think it's from 1999 or perhaps early 2000, with HU Lee Watching along with General Choi.  So they obviously still had a relationship.


OK I thought he was a student of GM Kang Suh Chong at the Kuk Mu Kwan, not the CDK. The Kuk Mu Kwan was a sub-kwan under the CDK. I didn't realize he was training at the CDK.


----------



## chrispillertkd

puunui said:


> I asked him about that actually, but can't remember his answer with respect to individual techniques. It's on tape though. I remember that he felt that there were enough differences in his own method that he chose to change the name of the art from Kongsoodo to Tangsoodo and also the name Songdokwan (Shotokan) to Chung Do Kwan. Specifically on the name change from Shotokan to Chung Do Kwan, he said that the parent is different from the child, hence the different name. He said that much of it was the same just like much of the name is the same, but there were also differences hence the different first character. I know that he disagreed with Gichin Sensei's methods, mainly because he felt the son Yoshitaka Sensei had the better style and method. Yoshitaka Sensei and GM Lee were also about the same age, so he felt more comfortable learning the son's style. He also said that his own students were much more interested in and practiced kicking much more than was ever emphasized or taught in Japan. He also considered NAKAYAMA Sensei to be his junior, in age and also karate experience. So to answer to your question, there are differences but there are also similarities from what he learned in Japan to what was taught and practiced in Korea.


 
Interesting. I'm not surprised about the cultural emphasis on kicking, of course. It would be nice to know specifics abotu what he said regarding differences, however. If something is a different style, after all, it should have some sort of differentiation from the style(s) it came from.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> In and of itself, no, but to demand it from another poster on a forum is another matter.  If they want credit and thanks from outside of their own organization, they or their students can write books detailing their work and efforts in the establishment and proliferation of taekwondo.  Nothing stopping you from writing such a book, in fact.
> Primary issue that you have with Puunui is that he has stated reasons why he does not wish to credit Choi as you feel Choi should be credited.  Regardless of the feelings of ITF folks, he is not going to change his viewpoint on the subject.
> Might be best if individuals receive credit and thanks within their own organizations.


Good points. Let me clarify if I may:
It is not so much that Gen Choi needs to be credited, but all the Koreans who brought martial arts to Korea & opened those original & early kwans. Likewise, they & their students that played major roles in not only developing TKD, but spreading it around the world also need to be thanked & recorded in history.
It really has little to do with what me, you, Puunui or anyone else thinks or feels, but that the history of TKD needs to expand so it can be more comprehensive.
Thats my point!
Remember that the history of TKD as still reported officially via the KTA, KKW & WTF is still talking about 2,000 years ago.
And we know that the ITF version is Gen Choi did everything, which is also false. He had a team of very talented martial artists that need to be credited & thanked as well. These men, Chang Hon, Kukki & Indie TKD leaders were in effect goodwill ambassadors for Korea. They truly deserve the thanks of their nation & all TKDin, now & in the future.
I for one do not think that it is too much to ask. It would also be nice for them to hear it themselves, before they leave us for the next place.
WHAT GOOD IS IT to hear in a eulogy at their funeral. They should hear it with their own ears now, see it with their own eyes, feel it in their hands when they shake the hands of the officials that thanks them, as well as feel it in their hearts. It is the least we can do for those that did for us & made possible what so many love today & will come to love tomorrow & all the other tomorrows.

(Eulogy = Solemn praise, not limited to a funeral or graveside reading. However far to often it is only said then. So much so, that most think it is only something said when someone passes from this life. It is not, not by definition!)


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> And in my observation, the people making an issue out of credit always seem to be ITF, so its kind of a one sided issue.  Choi receives *tons* of credit, by the way.  Between four separate ITF groups, numerous independent but ITF descended groups, and various people who just latch onto his name because it is intellectually easier, he is lauded all over the web as the "Father of Taekwondo."  If anything, he receives way more individual credit than *any* other individual in taekwondo, possibley in KMA.
> To read some of your posts, youd think Choi was some unsung hero outside of a small group of people and that simply is not the case.


Again good points & this is part of the problem. What Gen Choi said & what the ITFers put out & have come to believe is not really correct. It is a 1 sided version that ignores the larger group, which has more influence & has become what the world has come to know when they think about TKD. This is both not fair & a source of great conflict & much hard feelings by many outside of the ITF group.
With this approach, working together is difficult. With these hard feelings, comes more hard feelings.
Since the history of TKD is so confusing, with much distortion, we must start to be more comprehensive, crediting the many that deserve being honored & thanked.
While Gen Choi was the leader of a developmental path for TKD, he did not do it by himself. While he was a talented & educated man that held power, he was a leader of his development, not the sole figure responsible.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Think about the founders of our country.  Which do you think was more important to them; credit or a nation of people 200+ years later enjoying the benefits of living in a free democratic republic?


Sir you are 100% right. These giants among men were doing what they had to do. They established something that was never in place before. They did it without a blueprint or guidance from some previous model, other than knowing what they did not want to repeat.
However they are honored all the time, throughout major holidays, monuments, schools, bridges & other things named after them. They appear in the textbooks in schools, on money, in movies, books etc.
They didn't do it for the glory, but they deserve the credit they got, they have been preserved forever in history. Their examples have become models to emulate & they have inspired untold numbers around the world.
I would venture a guess that we didn't do it only for them, but for us & those that will come into this world in the future.

(I love the Chang Hon Tuls. part of my admiration come from the fact that they are named after great Korean patriots & significant events in Korean history. When I perform them & when I read about these figures, they remind me of how much more I have to work, how much better I can be. This is TKD)


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> General Choi established a comprehensive and well constructed martial art of Chang Hon Taekwondo, either on his own or with assistance from others.  But from what everyone on both sides of the aisle say, he was a one man show with regards to authority and credit.  In the end, when he died, his organization fell apart precisely because was a one man show.  Why do you expect the organization that prospered without him to credit him for anything when they aren't even crediting their own founders?


I believe that there is truth in this. We do need to credit & thank his team as well. They have had a deep, positive effect on the lives of many.
As to the KKW:
I truly believe that the KKW is "The Mecca of TKD". It has as a main function of holding the honor of being the world TKD academy. As such, it has the privilege & responsibility of not only developing techniques & instructors, but educating the world of what TKD is.
How can they accomplish teaching the world, including students of TKD, of what TKD is, without teaching the history of TKD?
That history will of course include how TKD came about, who helped develop it, where & when did they do it & how was it spread to some 190+ nations of the world!
Once that is done, in an honest & comprehensive way, Gen Choi will get whatever credit he deserves, but so will all the others, who have largely remained nameless.
There is only 1 TKD.
We really do have more in common with each other, than that which sets us apart.
There is no reason why battles that go back to the turn of the last century, have to be fought today, by fellow martial artists who did not start the fights & may never even knew that they existed. Most people do not join TKD to learn history. So they often don't even know of the divisions & if they do, they don't know why, but they do know the other side is the bad guy(s).
We no longer have to fight, nor should we. I would venture a guess that most of us would have better relations with other martial arts, than those TKDin from another style of TKD. That is just not right, nor what the Pioneers wanted!


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Another point not worth arguing over.  The term original can be applied in a number of ways; first to wear the name, first to exist, or original by virtue of practicing what was generally practiced at the time that it was put together.


Yes & it does depend on how one defines original. 
I can make an argument that the CDK is the original TKD, or GM Lee's teachers in Japan. (Which is what some karate people say)
I can make an argument that the SMK is the original TKD.
I can make an argument that the Tae Soo Do guys in the 1960s are the original TKD.
I can make an argument that the 5 original kwans were the original TKD.
I can make an argument that the 5 original kwans  & the ODK, or 6 early kwans were the original TKD.

I simply say that Gen Choi coined the name TKD & applied it continuously to the system he was developing, which started in the ROK Army. I never said it was the true TKD, the better TKD, the real TKD or anything like that. It is simply a statement of fact, documented even by the Modern History.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> As vids on another thread indicate, Kukki taekwondo is not what was being practiced in the forties and fifties, and probably sixties as well.  If you don't practice the way that they practiced in the late forties and in the fifties, then what you're doing isn't original anyway, regardless of what organization you are affiliated with.
> 
> And I have seen enough videos of ATA taekwondo to say that it is far removed from anything 'original' with regards to what was 'originally' practiced.  And no, that is not a criticism of the ATA.


True & also what the ITFers do today is also not what they were doing in the 40s, 50s & 60s either. ITF TKD came into its present formstarting mostly by 1972, according, to some & then the 1980s, with some modifications taking hold in the 90s.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

chrispillertkd said:


> Out of curiosity, how did the Tang Soo which GM Lee taught in the Chung Do Kwan differ from Shotokan? What were the technical differences? What were the forms that the Kwan used that were different from those he learned in Japan? I'm very interested in hearing what it was that GM Lee founded that was unique enough to be its own style (the detail of the name used to describe it aside, obviously).


I would say that most of them early on were all doing basically the same things, more or less, which was basic karate, with some Chinese influence, as well as some judo, as 1 of the 5 original kwans opened in a Judo/Yudo school.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> Wrong. GM LEE Won Kuk (who wasn't jailed but instead held for questioning and tortured using electrice shock treatments to his fingertips and other methods, along with GM SON Duk Sung) returned to Korea in 1967 and gave a series of seminars to correct what had become what GM Lee considered a perversion of the forms. Because of Korea's fascination with things Japanese during the 60's, and because of those exchange trips that Taekwondoin were taking to Japan, the stances became wider and longer. GM Lee returned those to the original Okinawan short narrow stances, which are carried on to this day in the Kukkiwon poomsae, which were in part created at the exact same time that GM Lee visited, in 1967. I have lots of photos from those 1967 seminars, with GM Lee wearing a dobok and teaching, with the pioneers (including members of the Oh Do Kwan) in their dobok learning from him. That picture with General Choi sitting quietly and humbly with his eyes down at the table with GM Lee hold a microphone comes from that time.


Yes thank you for the additional info. Now I did read that he was jailed, along with his family. If I recall correctly it was of an interview that he gave, so it was coming from him.
The point remains that GM Lee was on the scene in Korea from 1944/5 to 1950, 6 years tops, which I clearly stated. It was his students at the CDK which ran with the ball he put into play. While he did return to Korea in 1967 & give a seminar, teach & correct etc, Kukki TKD was developing from the new sports rules that they put into place & the form sets that they were developing & would later develop.
GM Lee, who I personally have the utmost respect for, was not on the scene in Korea from 1950, 5 years before the name TKD even came into being. I have never wrote a disrespectful word about him or any other TKD leader. I have stated that it was his students that were so influential. I also remember clearly saying that GM Lee & his family were also subject to the nasty Korean politics & that was not fair at all.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> Who cares what the differences are. All of it is Taekwondo, whether you are practicing what was done in 1944 or what is done in 2011. What GM Son is doing is Taekwondo to the same extent and validity as what Master Jimmy Kim is doing. That's the way the pioneers wanted it, and therefore, that is the way it is.


I agree & that is why I think all of them should be honored & the different paths of development delineated so all can trace their roots & thank those that made it possible for them to do the TKD they do today, tomorrow & forever into the future.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

chrispillertkd said:


> So, was what Funakoshi was teaching at the Shotokan in '44 Taekwon-Do, then?


Good point. Now while I would not agree or think of it that way, it is a distinction that has to be made by showing what the differences were.
Now in all fairness, all martial arts have something in common. After all there are only so many ways to kick, punch, throw & fight someone. While we have similarities, we also have many, many differences.
The differences in Korea & for TKD, came in over the passage of time & the incorporation of new techniques, sports rules, uniforms, philosophies, foot movements, terminology, patterns, etc, etc. In the end, for some it may still seem similar, while others we say no way, it is 100% different! A lot of it is like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
These paths of development occurred not only over time, but on 2 major roads with were different, even though they are the same in many ways as well.


----------



## chrispillertkd

KarateMomUSA said:


> I would say that most of them early on were all doing basically the same things, more or less,


 
I'm _primarily_ interested, for the sake of this conversation, in what the Chung Do Kwan was doing that qualified it as Taekwon-Do. Bluewave school said:



> ITF Taekwondo is NOT original TKD. GM Lee had nothing to do with the ITF. Gen. Choi founded a NAME, and even that's up for debate if you ask GM Son. He called what he was doing, what the Chung Do Kwan people taught his Oh Do Kwan, TKD. TKD had already been founded, he just changed the name to give it a nationalistic name.


 
So, according to him the Chung Do Kwan was teaching Taekwon-Do before Gen. Choi. Fair enough. But he has yet to answer my question of how what was being taught at the CDK was different enough from Shotokan to warrant being its own style of martial arts.

Then Glenn said: 



> No, because what the JKA is doing today is different than what was being done in 1944. What GM Lee learned under FUNAKOSHI Yoshitaka Sensei is not what the JKA curriculum is about, and in fact the JKA under Nakayama Sensei went out of their way to exclude and remove Yoshitaka Sensei's influences and teachings. But what the JKA is doing maybe similar to "Taekwon-Do"; to me ITF "Taekwon-Do" is closer to what the JKA is doing than Kukki Taekwondo, but I haven't really looked at it all that in depth. I do notice that ITF "Taekwon-Do" has wider stances, similar to JKA stances for example.


 
So there's another vote for Taekwon-Do being taught as early as 1944. Great. 

But when I asked how what GM Lee learned in Japan differed from what he taught at the CDK Glenn said that he didn't remember although he had asked GM Lee about this. He mentioned an analogy between a parent and a child as to how Taekwon-Do is different from karate, which I rather like. But in order for that analogy to be useful it would need to accompany a mention of how, in fact, Taekwon-Do differed in the the first place. So, while it might be true that what GM Lee taught in the CDK as Tang Soo was in fact different from Shotokan there's no evidence for this. 



> which was basic karate, with some Chinese influence, as well as some judo, as 1 of the 5 original kwans opened in a Judo/Yudo school.


 
As far as I know, Byung In Yoon's YMCA Kwon Bup Bu was directly influenced by Chinese martial arts. The Chang Moo Kwan, as a successor to the YMCA Kwon Bup Bu, was too, as was the Kang Duk Won. Yon Kwai Byeong studied Chuan Fa in Manchuria, apparently, but I don't know if any of that information was filtered into the Ji Do Kwan. In any event, that hardly qualifies as "all" IMO. 

As for the influence of Judo I'd be _very_ interested in seeing how the Ji Do Kwan was influenced by that art. Chun Sang Sup taught at the Yun Moo Kwan judo school when he returned to Korea but I know of no evidence to indicate that he incorporated Judo into the Kong Soo Do he taught. It would be pretty cool if he had though!

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

KarateMomUSA said:


> A lot of it is like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


 
I hope not, as this is a self evidently false statement 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

KarateMomUSA said:


> True & also what the ITFers do today is also not what they were doing in the 40s, 50s & 60s either. ITF TKD came into its present formstarting mostly by 1972, according, to some & then the 1980s, with some modifications taking hold in the 90s.


If what the ITF does now is something that was codified in 1972 and is different from the previous decades, then you really shouldn't call it original, because it isn't.  

If memory serves, Karl Benz built the first car and the company, Mercedes Benz, was named for his daughter.  But that does not make "Mercedes" cars built today the "original automobile."

Call what you do Chang Hon taekwondo (That is the formal name for it, is it not?).  Everyone will know what you're talking about and you'll avoid pointless arguments over the usage of the term 'original' taekwondo.

Daniel


----------



## KarateMomUSA

chrispillertkd said:


> I'm _primarily_ interested, for the sake of this conversation, in what the Chung Do Kwan was doing that qualified it as Taekwon-Do. Bluewave school said:
> So, according to him the Chung Do Kwan was teaching Taekwon-Do before Gen. Choi. Fair enough. But he has yet to answer my question of how what was being taught at the CDK was different enough from Shotokan to warrant being its own style of martial arts.
> Then Glenn said:
> So there's another vote for Taekwon-Do being taught as early as 1944. Great.
> But when I asked how what GM Lee learned in Japan differed from what he taught at the CDK Glenn said that he didn't remember although he had asked GM Lee about this. He mentioned an analogy between a parent and a child as to how Taekwon-Do is different from karate, which I rather like. But in order for that analogy to be useful it would need to accompany a mention of how, in fact, Taekwon-Do differed in the the first place. So, while it might be true that what GM Lee taught in the CDK as Tang Soo was in fact different from Shotokan there's no evidence for this.


Yes I see & these are good points. I think it would be better & easier to follow if we didn't lump so many things in a post. It can be viewed as too contentious & partisan bickering. It also affors the opportunity for some things to be ignored or even just lost in the verbiage.
So to me it really boils down to what is TKD, how do you define it & what does someone mean by original TKD.
Until parameters for concepts are better defined, replies will be all over the place & some people will just "tune out".


----------



## KarateMomUSA

chrispillertkd said:


> As far as I know, Byung In Yoon's YMCA Kwon Bup Bu was directly influenced by Chinese martial arts. The Chang Moo Kwan, as a successor to the YMCA Kwon Bup Bu, was too, as was the Kang Duk Won. Yon Kwai Byeong studied Chuan Fa in Manchuria, apparently, but I don't know if any of that information was filtered into the Ji Do Kwan. In any event, that hardly qualifies as "all" IMO.
> As for the influence of Judo I'd be _very_ interested in seeing how the Ji Do Kwan was influenced by that art. Chun Sang Sup taught at the Yun Moo Kwan judo school when he returned to Korea but I know of no evidence to indicate that he incorporated Judo into the Kong Soo Do he taught. It would be pretty cool if he had though!


I would say that a lot of this was emphasized less, when they rallied around the new sports rules that they created. As Puunui wrote elsewhere on the Poomsae, some of these things were preserved there by the Kwan leaders or reps at the time when they all got together & created the Taeguek Poomsae.
As far as Judo goes, I am sure that knowing students, there was probably some cross training & sharing with each other, especially since they were under the same roof. However unless your individual school worked these things, they would have also suffered from some fading away.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

chrispillertkd said:


> I'm _primarily_ interested, for the sake of this conversation, in what the Chung Do Kwan was doing that qualified it as Taekwon-Do.


Maybe if you broke it off into a different topic, it would get the attention is deserves.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> If what the ITF does now is something that was codified in 1972 and is different from the previous decades, then you really shouldn't call it original, because it isn't.


My use of the label "original" has been previously defined by myself in rather strict & narrow terms. While you make a good point, you appear to be using a more common usage definition of original. Hence we are talking about almost 2 different things or concepts.
All TKD of today can be traced back to the martial arts that 7 known Koreans brought back with them to Korea, from the time they lived abroad during the occupation period. Of course during the development of all TKD, various Korean cultural aspects & preferences were added to the mix in varying degrees, depending on the numerous paths of development taken. Naturally certain of these aspects can be traced back several thousands of years.

To restate, my use (arbitrary indeed) of the label original was defined as Gen Choi's system that he was developing 1st in the military (ROK Army) from the early days AND had the name TKD applied to it from 1954/5 forward, with an uninterrupted use or used continuously. So it was the 1st system to call itself TKD continuously, hence original, not better, true, authentic or any other divisive label.

By codified I mean the fact the system was almost entirely documented by the 1972 textbook on TKD put out by Gen Choi. It was referred to as the bible of TKD. I think it was probably the most comprehensive martial art book at that time, certainly the most comprehensive TKD text. It was of course superseded by the 15 Volume Encyclopedia of TKD that Gen Choi wrote by 1983, but did not get published till 1985, due to the interference of the nasty Korean politics. While the system was being developed post WWII, its roots are also karate & the long & proud Korean culture, but the system was developing & evolving until 2002, when Gen Choi passed away. Its future development is now entrusted to many individuals & groups of individuals. As such, it is inevitable that the standardization & cohesiveness that was worked so hard by Gen Choi, will eventually loosen as the fragmentation continues, also largely the fault of Gen Choi.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Call what you do Chang Hon taekwondo (That is the formal name for it, is it not?).  Everyone will know what you're talking about and you'll avoid pointless arguments over the usage of the term 'original' taekwondo.


Yes I can use that term & have. I see your point & it is a good one.
So to beat that poor horse again, pointless arguments can also be avoided if posters respond to the actual definition offered.


----------



## chrispillertkd

KarateMomUSA said:


> Maybe if you broke it off into a different topic, it would get the attention is deserves.


 
I'd settle for having my post answered 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

KarateMomUSA said:


> My use of the label "original" has been previously defined by myself in rather strict & narrow terms. While you make a good point, you appear to be using a more common usage definition of original. Hence we are talking about almost 2 different things or concepts.
> All TKD of today can be traced back to the martial arts that 7 known Koreans brought back with them to Korea, from the time they lived abroad during the occupation period. Of course during the development of all TKD, various Korean cultural aspects & preferences were added to the mix in varying degrees, depending on the numerous paths of development taken. Naturally certain of these aspects can be traced back several thousands of years.
> 
> To restate, my use (arbitrary indeed) of the label original was defined as Gen Choi's system that he was developing 1st in the military (ROK Army) from the early days AND had the name TKD applied to it from 1954/5 forward, with an uninterrupted use or used continuously. So it was the 1st system to call itself TKD continuously, hence original, not better, true, authentic or any other divisive label.


You had explained your definition,, so I have no question as to how you are using the term. A counter arguement was offered, however, by your debating partner that disputes the continuous use of the term.

Look, if it were not for the nature of the debate, I wouldn't have said anything, as I really don't care. I have very definite opinions of the term 'martial artist', namely that it is not a legitimate term and that a martial artist does not exist. I do not argue the point unless someone specifically asks how I define the term. Usually, I hold my keys unless they ask how I define a "true" martial artist.  If you wish to comment on my opinion of the term, Martial artist, there is an appropriate thread on the subject here: http://www.martialtalk.com//forum/showthread.php?t=93159

But outside of a thread specifically about the term itself, arguing about it is not appropriate, as I know what is meant when someone uses the term.

The reason that I called the argument about the use of the term 'original' pointless is because you and Glenn already have ample material to argue about and because others apparently take issue with the term being applied to the ITF system.

Daniel


----------



## KarateMomUSA

chrispillertkd said:


> I'd settle for having my post answered
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


Yes I understand. But we must realize that complex issues have no real easy answers. It often gets more complicated as when such narrow aspects can only highlight the link to karate, which we know has been something that has been avoided for the most part by many, for obvious reasons.

It is pretty clear that the original & early kwans were basically doing basic karate. Each kwan added influences, preferences & focused emphasis on what they thought was important. They moved away from their common roots, in different ways & at different paces. But early on it was basic karate.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> You had explained your definition,, so I have no question as to how you are using the term. A counter arguement was offered, however, by your debating partner that disputes the continuous use of the term.


Yes & I think he made the mistake with trying to confine it to the ODK, when I was saying Gen Choi's TKD which they started to develop in the military. 
I offered several concrete & specific instances that should it was only Gen Choi & his followers that used the name TKD continuously from 1954/5 that has so far gone unanswered.
I do realize that the ODK did sign on to the unification efforts in the 1960s.
That does not however negate the fact that Gen Choi & his followers continuously used the name TKD to label the Chang Hon system that they were developing. 
I do not believe that any other group can state that. I am open to learn how I am missing someone or some group. But the Modern History makes it pretty clear that they rejected the name TKD in 1961, in favor of the new compromise name of Tae Soo Do. It was not till 1965 that Gen Choi was able to get them to change the name to TKD. The Modern History also makes clear that this was a cause of problems between Gen Choi & the 2nd generation leaders, causing them to eventually force him out of the KTA.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> But outside of a thread specifically about the term itself, arguing about it is not appropriate, as I know what is meant when someone uses the term.
> The reason that I called the argument about the use of the term 'original' pointless is because you and Glenn already have ample material to argue about and because others apparently take issue with the term being applied to the ITF system.


Yes Sir it would make some sense to move that debate, but I kept it here as this is a debate about the history of TKD by Gen Choi. I am also aware that many people may not be as interested as others, myself included are about details of TKD's history. So I felt it may be best to limit it to this thread, which has been pretty extended with some good info.
Anyone can take issue with anything that is posted on a public discussion forum such as this. The debate is facilitated & info shared, when posters stay on point & respond with specific contrary info to counter or additional info to support.
It is pretty clear that while some may not agree, there really has not been evidence to counter. I think that Puunui's use of the Modern History supports my point. The Modern History does really confirm this. I can go back & bring forward the specific counter points I responded with, if needed, or those interested can simply go back a page or 2.


----------



## chrispillertkd

KarateMomUSA said:


> Yes I understand. But we must realize that complex issues have no real easy answers.


 
Sure, but my question was a relatively simple one. What was GM Lee teaching at the CDK that was different from what he learned in Japan? It's not a complex question, at all. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

KarateMomUSA said:


> Yes Sir it would make some sense to move that debate, but I kept it here as this is a debate about the history of TKD by Gen Choi.


I didn't say anything about moving it. I said that it was a pointless arguement. See the rest of my response on the original taekwondo thread, since Glenn already started one.  

Unless the General called his system "original taekwondo" in his History of TKD (maybe he did) then the appelation of original is a construct of devotees of his system and has no place in a debate about the History of TKD by Gen. Choi.

Daniel


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> Yes thank you for the additional info. Now I did read that he was jailed, along with his family. If I recall correctly it was of an interview that he gave, so it was coming from him.



If you are speaking about the Taekwondo Times interview, it obviously contained errors in translation, due to the misunderstanding of the interviewer/interpreter, who I know. We actually traveled to Korea together. I spoke to GM Lee about that article and my discussion was different than what was printed, mainly because I had a clearly understanding of the background information. 




KarateMomUSA said:


> The point remains that GM Lee was on the scene in Korea from 1944/5 to 1950, 6 years tops, which I clearly stated. It was his students at the CDK which ran with the ball he put into play. While he did return to Korea in 1967 & give a seminar, teach & correct etc, Kukki TKD was developing from the new sports rules that they put into place & the form sets that they were developing & would later develop.
> GM Lee, who I personally have the utmost respect for, was not on the scene in Korea from 1950, 5 years before the name TKD even came into being. I have never wrote a disrespectful word about him or any other TKD leader.



Yes, you have written disrespectful things about GM Lee George. The above is one example, which attempts to minimize his role in the development of Taekwondo. But we'll go with your definition, that he was not "on the scene" in Korea and therefore it was his students who ran with the ball. Got it.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Glenn, if you are going to make a point to call people on their identities, then put your own in your signature. Or request to have your username changed to your actual name.

*Edit:* the question I had posed regarding 'George' has been withdrawn, as it has been answered on another thread.

Daniel


----------



## puunui

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Glenn, if you are going to make a point to call people on their identities, then put your own in your signature. Or request to have your username changed to your actual name.




People address me by my first name all the time. Everyone knows who I am. I don't hide under a screen name that infers a different gender and a different art. The identity of Mr. KarateMom is the biggest open secret on MT, at least among ITF practitioners.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

puunui said:


> People address me by my first name all the time. Everyone knows who I am. I don't hide under a screen name that infers a different gender and a different art. The identity of Mr. KarateMom is the biggest open secret on MT, at least among ITF practitioners.


Fair enough.  

Daniel


----------



## KarateMomUSA

I moved this thread as not to derail the topic about True TKD:



puunui said:


> As an aside, GM Rhee wasn't the first to  incorporate boxing into Taekwondo. There were two main schools that did  that. One was Moo Duk Kwan GM OH Jae Joon, who taught at the Seoul YMCA  for many years. He incorporated boxing, including the stance and hand  positions into his sparring. Also the Han Kuk Che Yuk Kwan (Seoul  Jidokwan HQ) had a boxing program. The Han Che people, notably GM LEE  Byung Ro (first Taekwondoin to receive Kukkiwon 10th Dan) studied boxing  and used that to create the steps and sparring strategies that are used  even today



I would also like to add that those that eventually created Chang Hon  TKD did have various levels of experience with boxing & did  incorporate it into the system that they were developing. It appears throughout with such techniques as crescent punch, angle punch, turning punch, upward punch, vertical stance etc. The use of the hands is very prevalent in ITF tournament sparring.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Unless the General called his system "original taekwondo" in his History of TKD (maybe he did) then the appelation of original is a construct of devotees of his system and has no place in a debate about the History of TKD by Gen. Choi.


Yes of course he did & did so from at least 1972 & he increased these claims, which by the way, hurt all of us in TKD. He did a disservice to not only his students, but all of TKD. he was a very political person & he used TKD & his ITF for his own agenda, which at times had some noble goals. But by mixing TKD with politics, he did the same thing he accused his govt of doing, along with his detractors, many of which he caused by his own actions. Then he goes to an state like the north & gives them a tool that he complained his govt abusing.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> If you are speaking about the Taekwondo Times interview, it obviously contained errors in translation, due to the misunderstanding of the interviewer/interpreter, who I know. We actually traveled to Korea together. I spoke to GM Lee about that article and my discussion was different than what was printed, mainly because I had a clearly understanding of the background information.


That is fair enough & it might have well been that article. Thanks for that added info.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

KarateMomUSA said:


> Yes of course he did & did so from at least 1972 & he increased these claims, which by the way, hurt all of us in TKD. He did a disservice to not only his students, but all of TKD. he was a very political person & he used TKD & his ITF for his own agenda, which at times had some noble goals. But by mixing TKD with politics, he did the same thing he accused his govt of doing, along with his detractors, many of which he caused by his own actions. Then he goes to an state like the north & gives them a tool that he complained his govt abusing.


If he was doing CDK at the time of the submission of the name Taekwondo, then he submitted the name for CDK, which would mean that he called CDK 'original' taekwondo, only to change his mind after being kicked out of the sandbox by the other kids.

Daniel


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Quote:Originally Posted by *KarateMomUSA* 

 
_The point remains that GM Lee was  on the scene in Korea from 1944/5 to 1950, 6 years tops, which I clearly  stated. It was his students at the CDK which ran with the ball he put  into play. While he did return to Korea in 1967 & give a seminar,  teach & correct etc, Kukki TKD was developing from the new sports  rules that they put into place & the form sets that they were  developing & would later develop.
GM Lee, who I personally have the utmost respect for, was not on the  scene in Korea from 1950, 5 years before the name TKD even came into  being. I have never wrote a disrespectful word about him or any other  TKD leader.
_


puunui said:


> The above is one example, which attempts to minimize his role in the development of Taekwondo. But we'll go with your definition, that he was not "on the scene" in Korea and therefore it was his students who ran with the ball. Got it.


I am sorry but I do not think that was disrespectful, nor was it my intent. I have nothing but respect for GM Lee & feel he needs to be credited & thanked by a more complete history of TKD, by all entities, including those based in Korea. I guess we will have to agree to disagree & let readers decide.
I will state again, that GM Lee is a pivotal figure in TKD's history & development. A case could be made & I would make it, that he can be considered the father of TKD.
Now when he was in Korea, they tried to unify under the name of Kong Su Do & Tang Su Do. GM Lee was simply not present in Korea when the name TKD came into being. He also was not personally involved in any of the TKD unification efforts of the 1950s, or the Tae Soo Do unification efforts in 1961, which eventually adopted the name TKD in 1965.
Many of his students were & did great work in eventually giving the world TKD. That alone is a major, major contribution & his many contributions were not limited to just that.
I would have no problem making a separate topic to highlight this important, iconic TKD figure.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> If he was doing CDK at the time of the submission of the name Taekwondo, then he submitted the name for CDK, which would mean that he called CDK 'original' taekwondo, only to change his mind after being kicked out of the sandbox by the other kids.


That is 1 way of looking at it. 
I think that they all were pretty much doing the basic karate that was brought back to Korea after & during the occupation period by 7 Koreans, with Gen Choi being 1 of the 7. He did train in karate as well. I think that while many Koreans, not limited to these 7, all had various notions or ideas & visions of how they should move forward with their Korean martial art training. So it does appear that when the name was initially submitted, it may have been as an umbrella term, even though some may have had visions of their own. 
Certainly it is common sense that it would be hard enough to get someone to adopt a name for nationalist purposes, then to change what they were doing or adopt a new system. We see how numerous attempts from the 1940s to the 1960s all fell apart, often due to who would be in charge of testing & testing standards, which gets to technical training.
Dr Kim Un Yong & the Kukki TKD pioneers had a great idea. Their model was most successful.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

KarateMomUSA said:


> That is 1 way of looking at it.
> I think that they all were pretty much doing the basic karate that was brought back to Korea after & during the occupation period by 7 Koreans, with Gen Choi being 1 of the 7. He did train in karate as well. I think that while many Koreans, not limited to these 7, all had various notions or ideas & visions of how they should move forward with their Korean martial art training. So it does appear that when the name was initially submitted, it may have been as an umbrella term, even though some may have had visions of their own.
> Certainly it is common sense that it would be hard enough to get someone to adopt a name for nationalist purposes, then to change what they were doing or adopt a new system. We see how numerous attempts from the 1940s to the 1960s all fell apart, often due to who would be in charge of testing & testing standards, which gets to technical training.
> Dr Kim Un Yong & the Kukki TKD pioneers had a great idea. Their model was most successful.


See my response in the other thread.

Daniel


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Moved to this thread, as not to derail the other topic:


puunui said:


> The boxing incorporation in Taekwondo was more in  the sparring, since boxing is a sparring based activity, and is not  forms oriented. As an aside, I have been watching this show on FX I  think it is, Lights Out. Last night's episode was about a guy who didn't  keep his hands up and ended up getting knocked out.





dancingalone said:


> This is one of my primary criticisms of  forms practice as generally done in TKD.  To me, I think they should be a  more integrated activity with clear linkages into basics, sparring, and  practical application.
> Students often look upon pattern practice as useless and a time filler  and I don't fault them if they've never trained forms in a  comprehensive, integrated fashion.


Yes & it is a shortfall as  viewed by some.
I would say that the ITF did try to an extent to add them to their  pattern set with the incorporation of turning, angle, crescent punches,  along with both obverse & reverse punches with the forefist,  depending on the stances utilized in the respective Tul.
But the boxing influence is most definitely relected in the 6 types of  sparring the ITF has, as well as their tournament rules sparring.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> If he was doing CDK at the time of the submission of the name Taekwondo, then he submitted the name for CDK, which would mean that he called CDK 'original' taekwondo, only to change his mind after being kicked out of the sandbox by the other kids.
> 
> Daniel


Just to further clarify my response to your above post, Gen Choi was doing Tang Su Do, essentially Korean karate, as he trained in karate while in Japan. So he was not doing CDK, he was doing Tang Su Do, which the CDK was basically doing as well.
While we know from common sense that the 7 Koreans learned karate & then participated in the early kwans, doing basically karate, with the natural differences from 1 instructor to the next, with the different emphasis & focus that different kwans had.
It appears that the name TKD was offered for nationalist purposes to move from the Japanese linked or based names being used. Since they were all doing basically the same thing, I guess it can be viewed as being offered as an umbrella term.
The big point is that it was not accepted by all the kwans in 1955, as only 2 were represented. In 1957 & 59, more attempts were made to unfiy, but they did not hold.
Clearly in 1961, the unification effort decided on the new compromise name of Tae Su Do. However some still clung to the name of TKD & used it continuously from 1955 forward.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Quote:Originally Posted by *KarateMomUSA* 

 
_Yes I understand. But we must realize that complex issues have no real easy answers._


chrispillertkd said:


> Sure, but my question was a relatively simple one. What was GM Lee teaching at the CDK that was different from what he learned in Japan? It's not a complex question, at all.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


Yes it is a simple question, not a complex question at all. The answer is simple, they were basically doing the karate he learned abroad, plus his exposure to Chinese martial arts, along with his particular take, focus, methods of instructing etc.
The ISSUE is COMPLEX, as it goes back to the link to karate that Korea was trying to hide for nationalist purposes.
Kukki TKD came from Korean karate trained 2nd generation leaders of the original kwans. They unified under the name of TKD, under a new set of tournament sports rules, new Palgwe forms, etc in the 1960s. 
Chang Hon came from the ROK Army  & was a consolidation of fighting for military that initially unified around the 1st set of Korean patterns. 
Gen Choi always acknowledged his karate roots. He explained & emphasized how his TKD moved away from karate.
The KKW in its official publications to the general public do not make the karate connection. They instead explain & emphasize the connection to Korea's history & martial arts of 2,000 years ago.
That is changing.


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> Just to further clarify my response to your above post, Gen Choi was doing Tang Su Do, essentially Korean karate, as he trained in karate while in Japan. So he was not doing CDK, he was doing Tang Su Do, which the CDK was basically doing as well.



Which was followed by more nonsensical off topic rambling about 7 koreans and the like. George do you think if you keep fitting that into every other post, that it will somehow become accepted as true?  

And by the way, in 1955 General Choi was practicing Tang Soo Do. He wasn't practicing any martial arts because he was too busy being a general in the ROK Army. And even if he was practicing while in the ROK Army, it wasn't Tang Soo Do. Tang Soo Do is a unique name that was created by GM LEE Won Kuk.


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> Yes it is a simple question, not a complex question at all. The answer is simple, they were basically doing the karate he learned abroad, plus his exposure to Chinese martial arts, along with his particular take, focus, methods of instructing etc.
> The ISSUE is COMPLEX, as it goes back to the link to karate that Korea was trying to hide for nationalist purposes.
> Kukki TKD came from Korean karate trained 2nd generation leaders of the original kwans. They unified under the name of TKD, under a new set of tournament sports rules, new Palgwe forms, etc in the 1960s.
> Chang Hon came from the ROK Army  & was a consolidation of fighting for military that initially unified around the 1st set of Korean patterns.
> Gen Choi always acknowledged his karate roots. He explained & emphasized how his TKD moved away from karate.
> The KKW in its official publications to the general public do not make the karate connection. They instead explain & emphasize the connection to Korea's history & martial arts of 2,000 years ago.
> That is changing.




If I wanted this, I would go dust off a phonograph and listen to a broken record. Again, Mr. Vitale, what does this rambling have to do with the issue chrispillertkd brought up, which is what was GM LEE Won Kuk teaching when he returned to Korea in 1944?


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> Yes of course he did & did so from at least 1972 & he increased these claims, which by the way, hurt all of us in TKD. He did a disservice to not only his students, but all of TKD. he was a very political person & he used TKD & his ITF for his own agenda, which at times had some noble goals. But by mixing TKD with politics, he did the same thing he accused his govt of doing, along with his detractors, many of which he caused by his own actions. Then he goes to an state like the north & gives them a tool that he complained his govt abusing.




Mr. Vitale, if that is the case, then why are you out there handing a plaque to his wife at the Hall of Fame?


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> That is fair enough & it might have well been that article. Thanks for that added info.



Mr. Vitale, they call you a renown scholar on Taekwon-Do history. Wasn't it obvious to you, the renown scholar that you are, that there were glaring mistakes? For example, it mentions Goju Ryu in there. Did you assume that was true?


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> I am sorry but I do not think that was disrespectful, nor was it my intent.



That is one of the problems, not seeing disrespect when others do. 




KarateMomUSA said:


> I have nothing but respect for GM Lee & feel he needs to be credited & thanked by a more complete history of TKD, by all entities, including those based in Korea. I guess we will have to agree to disagree & let readers decide.



They have already. And Mr. Vitale, I would also like to say that the readers have probably decided things about you as well, with a screen name that misrepresents your gender and your art. 




KarateMomUSA said:


> I will state again, that GM Lee is a pivotal figure in TKD's history & development. A case could be made & I would make it, that he can be considered the father of TKD.



That's ok George. You don't have to make any case for anyone except General Choi.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> And by the way, in 1955 General Choi was practicing Tang Soo Do. He wasn't practicing any martial arts because he was too busy being a general in the ROK Army. And even if he was practicing while in the ROK Army, it wasn't Tang Soo Do. Tang Soo Do is a unique name that was created by GM LEE Won Kuk.


Yes Tang Soo Do was a named used by GM Lee, but it was not limited to use only by him. There were several terms to describe the karate based martial art that they were doing, without using the troublesome karate name.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

I have not yet seen any revisions, updates or added info on the KTA, KKW or WTF websites with respect to their history of TKD which still reflects that standard template with the connection to 2,000 years ago. But maybe it will be forthcoming & will name GM Lee Won Kuk & the other kwan founders for their great contributions to their motherland, which in turn spurred the effort to create TKD & share it with the world.
They certainly do deserve credit & thanks!


----------



## chrispillertkd

KarateMomUSA said:


> Quote:Originally Posted by *KarateMomUSA*
> 
> 
> _Yes I understand. But we must realize that complex issues have no real easy answers._
> Yes it is a simple question, not a complex question at all. The answer is simple, they were basically doing the karate he learned abroad, plus his exposure to Chinese martial arts, along with his particular take, focus, methods of instructing etc.


 
How do we _know_ this is what he was teaching? Similarly, what evidence is there that this is what he was teaching if we are simply to _believe_ he was teaching this (which is different from knowing)? 

And, assuming for the sake of argument that this is what he was teaching at the time what, exactly, does it entail in terms of technical and philosophical differences from the Shotokan karate of his day? If someone _knows_ that what GM Lee was teaching was different then they would certainly _know_ what those differences were, _a fortiori_. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

KarateMomUSA said:


> Just to further clarify my response to your above post, Gen Choi was doing Tang Su Do, essentially Korean karate, as he trained in karate while in Japan.


Never heard that either he or the CDK had done tangsudo, but again, you end up in the same place: 


KarateMomUSA said:


> So he was not doing CDK, he was doing Tang Su Do, which the CDK was basically doing as well.


Which is not that he was "doing CDK," but that he was doing the same thing that the CDK was doing.



KarateMomUSA said:


> While we know from common sense that the 7 Koreans learned karate & then participated in the early kwans, doing basically karate, with the natural differences from 1 instructor to the next, with the different emphasis & focus that different kwans had.


One knows not to grab the kettle around the middle when it is boiling because one's hand will be burned from common sense.  One does not know historical events from common sense, though yes, karate was at the core of what most of them were doing.  



KarateMomUSA said:


> It appears that the name TKD was offered for nationalist purposes to move from the Japanese linked or based names being used. Since they were all doing basically the same thing, I guess it can be viewed as being offered as an umbrella term.
> The big point is that it was not accepted by all the kwans in 1955, as only 2 were represented. In 1957 & 59, more attempts were made to unfiy, but they did not hold.
> Clearly in 1961, the unification effort decided on the new compromise name of Tae Su Do. However some still clung to the name of TKD & used it continuously from 1955 forward.


None of which makes ITF taekwondo the original taekwondo.  Please look up the definition for the word 'original' and use it properly.  If you wish to create your own coloquial meanings for words, that is fine when you are with your friends.  But on a public forum, please use the accepted definitions of words if you have any interest in meaningful communication with others.

Daniel


----------



## KarateMomUSA

chrispillertkd said:


> How do we _know_ this is what he was teaching? Similarly, what evidence is there that this is what he was teaching if we are simply to _believe_ he was teaching this (which is different from knowing)?
> 
> And, assuming for the sake of argument that this is what he was teaching at the time what, exactly, does it entail in terms of technical and philosophical differences from the Shotokan karate of his day? If someone _knows_ that what GM Lee was teaching was different then they would certainly _know_ what those differences were, _a fortiori_.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


I don't think you will find many sources that address this, as they simply do not want to highlight the karate connection. Some independents like Grandmaster Kim Soo do speak about this in general terms, as well as GM Lee Chong Woo who used the general term karate.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> None of which makes ITF taekwondo the original taekwondo.  Please look  up the definition for the word 'original' and use it properly.  If you  wish to create your own coloquial meanings for words, that is fine when  you are with your friends.  But on a public forum, please use the  accepted definitions of words if you have any interest in meaningful  communication with others.


Yes I can certainly do this, as stated in the other thread. I appreciate your feedback as you are reading the posts. Thank you.




Daniel Sullivan said:


> Never heard that either he or the CDK had done tangsudo, but again, you end up in the same place:
> Which is not that he was "doing CDK," but that he was doing the same thing that the CDK was doing.
> One knows not to grab the kettle around the middle when it is boiling because one's hand will be burned from common sense.  One does not know historical events from common sense, though yes, karate was at the core of what most of them were doing.


There were various ways to call the karate something other than karate, as that was a Japanese term. Grandmaster Lee Won Kuk is credited with coming up with the Tang Su Do term, way of China/Tang hand. Kong Soo Do, a Korean way of saying karate or empty hand way, or Kwon Bup, fist method, all implying in some fashion fighting with hands were used in those early days. Grandmaster Hwang Kee tried using Hwa Soo Do, but apparently dropped that in favor of the more popular Tang Su Do label. We know that he continued to use that name, even though he was not the 1st to use it.
Yes karate was basically what they were doing. Gen Choi, GM Hwang Kee, GM Kim Soo, GM Lee Chong Woo & Dr Yoon all admitted that. Some like Dr Yoon  stayed loyal or true to his karate training. While others used not only different terms, like TK-D (Choi) & Su Bak Do (Hwang Kee), but created new systems that they called their own.
The 2nd generation leaders united 1st under Tae Soo Do in 1961, but only applied the term TKD to what they were doing in 1965. By then TK-D & Su Bak Do were already being developed prior to that time, under those pre-applied labels.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Karate is actually an Okinawan term. There was a change in kanji, from &#21776;&#25163; (China hand) to &#31354;&#25163; (empty hand) which was chosen specifically because it sounded exactly the same, and the change was for purely nationalistic reasons in Funakoshi's efforts to promote karate in Japan, though that would not be apparent in English.

Tang-su is the Korean reading of the original kanji, &#21776;&#25163; with &#36947; added.

Daniel


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> Yes Tang Soo Do was a named used by GM Lee, but it was not limited to use only by him.



Yes, his students who opened their own dojang used the term too. Pretty much the only people who did use the term Tang Soo Do can trace their roots to the Chung Do Kwan. 




KarateMomUSA said:


> There were several terms to describe the karate based martial art that they were doing, without using the troublesome karate name.



What does this statement have to do with the topic at hand, which is GM LEE Won Kuk created the term Tang Soo Do?


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> I have not yet seen any revisions, updates or added info on the KTA, KKW or WTF websites with respect to their history of TKD which still reflects that standard template with the connection to 2,000 years ago.




I guess that shows you how much juice you have with the KTA, Kukkiwon and WTF. Tell me Mr. Vitale, when you met GM Uhm at the Kukkiwon and took your picture with him in his office, did you raise this topic and tell him he needs to give credit to General Choi? If so, what was his response?


----------



## jks9199

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let's stop sniping, OK?  This thread has been a remarkably civil discussion of these issues for the most part.  Don't ruin it 20+ pages in.


----------



## miguksaram

jks9199 said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen,
> 
> Let's stop sniping, OK? This thread has been a remarkably civil discussion of these issues for the most part. Don't ruin it 20+ pages in.


I agree that this has been remarkably civil especially in the TKD areana.  I am not sure if your general statement was brought on by Glenn's last question, but I think the question Glenn raises is a valid question.  Especailly when you consider many people have asked him about conversations that he has had with pioneers and Dr. Kim.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Quote: Originally Posted by *dancingalone* 

 
_So, merely being the largest aggregate of kwans makes the KKW the most legitimate?  I do not believe that._


puunui said:


> Actually the Kukkiwon was created and unification  was achieved with ALL kwans, not the largest aggregate.


While the unification was indeed a great accomplishment, it was not complete. It did include all the kwans, but not all kwan members & not all kwan founders & not a current kwanjangnim.
(This was moved to limit the threads & nothing stated above should be mis-construed as a dig against the KKW, as they are "THE" Taekwondo group)


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Karate is actually an Okinawan term. There was a change in kanji, from &#21776;&#25163; (China hand) to &#31354;&#25163; (empty hand) which was chosen specifically because it sounded exactly the same, and the change was for purely nationalistic reasons in Funakoshi's efforts to promote karate in Japan, though that would not be apparent in English.
> 
> Tang-su is the Korean reading of the original kanji, &#21776;&#25163; with &#36947; added.
> 
> Daniel


Yes good points, thank you, it does seem that the national pride thing is important.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> Yes, his students who opened their own dojang used the term too. Pretty much the only people who did use the term Tang Soo Do can trace their roots to the Chung Do Kwan.
> What does this statement have to do with the topic at hand, which is GM LEE Won Kuk created the term Tang Soo Do?


I think that there is some confusion among the term Tang Soo Do & Kong Soo Do as umbrella terms that were used to avoid the karate name. While GM Lee came up with the term, GM Hwang Kee continued with its use, making his own martial art & the Tang Soo Do name played prominently in that process.


----------



## tkd1964

chrispillertkd said:


> How do we _know_ this is what he was teaching? Similarly, what evidence is there that this is what he was teaching if we are simply to _believe_ he was teaching this (which is different from knowing)?
> 
> And, assuming for the sake of argument that this is what he was teaching at the time what, exactly, does it entail in terms of technical and philosophical differences from the Shotokan karate of his day? If someone _knows_ that what GM Lee was teaching was different then they would certainly _know_ what those differences were, _a fortiori_.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


 
To see what GM Lee was teaching at the time, all one has to do is to review one of GM Son's books on Korean Karate. GM Son's teachings did not follow the changes which Gen. Choi made to Taekwon-Do or what changes the KTA made to Tae Kwon Do. He followed the teachings of GM Lee.


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> While the unification was indeed a great accomplishment, it was not complete. It did include all the kwans, but not all kwan members & not all kwan founders & not a current kwanjangnim.




Again, so what? Benedict Arnold probably disagreed with the signing of the Declaration of Independence, but that doesn't make the Declaration of Independence any less valid. And I don't know who signed the Declaration on behalf of Pennsylvania or any of the colonies, but I am sure not all of the "founders" of the colonies signed either.


----------



## chrispillertkd

tkd1964 said:


> To see what GM Lee was teaching at the time, all one has to do is to review one of GM Son's books on Korean Karate. GM Son's teachings did not follow the changes which Gen. Choi made to Taekwon-Do or what changes the KTA made to Tae Kwon Do. He followed the teachings of GM Lee.


 
How do you know GM Son didn't change anything?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> How do you know GM Son didn't change anything?




I'm sure GM Son did change things. GM Son's front stance for example, is much wider than what GM Lee advocated.


----------



## terryl965

chrispillertkd said:


> How do you know GM Son didn't change anything?
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


 
Nobody really knows anything except what they have been told, I guess it is all up to one's interpitation of things.


----------



## chrispillertkd

terryl965 said:


> Nobody really knows anything except what they have been told, I guess it is all up to one's interpitation of things.


 
Well, maybe. But if everyone's relying on what they've been _told_ then technically no one _knows_ anything. They're believing, and that's different. It's a matter of faith. That in itself isn't bad (not all faith is blind, you can have good reasons to believe someone even though what you believe doesn't rise to the level of knowledge). 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui

terryl965 said:


> Nobody really knows anything except what they have been told, I guess it is all up to one's interpitation of things.




Speak for yourself.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Glenn, how much time did you spend training at the Chung Do Kwan circa 1944?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## terryl965

chrispillertkd said:


> Well, maybe. But if everyone's relying on what they've been _told_ then technically no one _knows_ anything. They're believing, and that's different. It's a matter of faith. That in itself isn't bad (not all faith is blind, you can have good reasons to believe someone even though what you believe doesn't rise to the level of knowledge).
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


 
Like I said it is all up to what people want to believe and what sets of facts, puuniu and Karatemom have been going back in forth forever and both have there beliefs. Some believe the other knows nothing while some are trying to see outside there world.


----------



## terryl965

puunui said:


> Speak for yourself.


 
Glen if you nnotice I was speaken for myself and making an observation of what I believe to be. Sorry if you are the only one that believes everything you have ever been told about TKD, it seems if anybody has a different opinion they are wrong and you are right, geez wonder how come you are the only one right? I enjoy listening and learninmg but there are way to many people that have a different view that you and they all cannot be wrong.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

terryl965 said:


> Like I said it is all up to what people want to believe and what sets of facts, puuniu and Karatemom have been going back in forth forever and both have there beliefs. Some believe the other knows nothing while some are trying to see outside there world.


I for one am very thankful for what Puunui has shared with us via this forum & the work he has done with, for & behalf of TKD. All can benefit from this.
We do know that TKD, while it started from the same shared common roots, it has developed along different paths. Much of the discussion has been long 2 of the major paths, the ITF & KTA/KKW/WTF. Therefore it is logical & common sense to see that these respective developments will be different & not better. It is somewhat disappointing when we are to think that we are all TKD, we should all work together, but there is some animosity still held for the other side(s).
Many, many individuals have dome such great things over the years to give the world this wonderful thing we call TKD. I for one see no reason why credit should not be given to all. I certainly see no reason to put down anyone or any side.
Going back & forth can be very helpful, if the exchanges contain good info, & avoid negativity & becoming personal.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

Quote:Originally Posted by *terryl965* 

 
_Nobody really knows anything except what they have been told, I guess it is all up to one's interpitation of things.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_


chrispillertkd said:


> Well, maybe. But if everyone's relying on what they've been _told_ then technically no one _knows_ anything. They're believing, and that's different. It's a matter of faith. That in itself isn't bad (not all faith is blind, you can have good reasons to believe someone even though what you believe doesn't rise to the level of knowledge).
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


A very big part of evaluating info given or provided by a source, is to check its veracity against other sources. There are 3 sides to every story, Side "A"s & Side "Z"s that we are given & the all important "Side In Between". So it is also helpful to gather info from not just 1 side, but the other, along with as many others as you can, in putting the pieces of the puzzle together. We all know how confusing the history of TKD is & of the many reasons why it was not recorded properly & accurately. We can do something positive about that.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Sure, and that's very helpful when deciding on what to _believe_. But it's not the same thing as coming to _knowledge_ about a particular person or event.

As I said before, there's nothing wrong with believeing something one doesn't (or can't) know for sure. We do it all the time. Sometimes our beliefs are later vindicated, sometimes they are shown to have been false, and very often we simply go through life never knowing one way or the other as to their truth or falsity. One of the problems, however, is when some people think they know something when they just believe it. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> Glenn, how much time did you spend training at the Chung Do Kwan circa 1944?



none


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> Sure, and that's very helpful when deciding on what to _believe_. But it's not the same thing as coming to _knowledge_ about a particular person or event.
> 
> As I said before, there's nothing wrong with believeing something one doesn't (or can't) know for sure. We do it all the time. Sometimes our beliefs are later vindicated, sometimes they are shown to have been false, and very often we simply go through life never knowing one way or the other as to their truth or falsity. One of the problems, however, is when some people think they know something when they just believe it.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris




I understand you believe all of the above, but it doesn't mean you know it to be true.


----------



## puunui

terryl965 said:


> Glen if you nnotice I was speaken for myself and making an observation of what I believe to be.



Not the first part of your statement, where you make a generalized point applicable to everyone. 




terryl965 said:


> Sorry if you are the only one that believes everything you have ever been told about TKD,



I don't believe everything that I have been told about Taekwondo. 




terryl965 said:


> it seems if anybody has a different opinion they are wrong and you are right, geez wonder how come you are the only one right? I enjoy listening and learninmg but there are way to many people that have a different view that you and they all cannot be wrong.



If you have any facts to support your position, then I would like to hear them. But if all you are doing is voicing your "opinion", without supporting facts.... There is a difference between discussing facts and voicing opinion without facts. Please don't get upset with me because I support my position with facts, and the other side does not.


----------



## puunui

terryl965 said:


> Like I said it is all up to what people want to believe and what sets of facts, puuniu and Karatemom have been going back in forth forever and both have there beliefs.




Yes, and the dynamic has been I present facts, Mr.Karatemom does not but instead misconstrues or misstates my facts, I then have to waste time correcting the misstatement, then Mr.Karatemom goes off on seven koreans, six kwans, giving credit to General Choi, nasty korean politics, etc. which had nothing to do with the original discussion. And if you had been following the discussion, you would see that.


----------



## chrispillertkd

puunui said:


> none


 
Oh, that's odd. You were talking like you _knew_ things from that era.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

puunui said:


> I understand you believe all of the above, but it doesn't mean you know it to be true.


 
Since the things I stated are in no way controversial but are pretty basic elements of epistemology I'd be very interested in hearing what part of my post you think I don't have knowledge about but only belief. To make this easier for you, I will repost it. To wit:



> _Sure, and that's very helpful when deciding on what to believe. But it's not the same thing as coming to knowledge about a particular person or event.
> 
> As I said before, there's nothing wrong with believeing something one doesn't (or can't) know for sure. We do it all the time. Sometimes our beliefs are later vindicated, sometimes they are shown to have been false, and very often we simply go through life never knowing one way or the other as to their truth or falsity. One of the problems, however, is when some people think they know something when they just believe it.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris_


 
Do you think I only believe but don't know that checking statements made by various people against others is a good thing but doesn't rise to the level of knowledge?

Do you think I only believe but don't know that there's nothing wrong with believing something even if you don't know it (provided you have a justified reason for doing so)?

Do you think I believe but don't know that sometimes we come to knowledge about a thing and then we gain knowledge about the thing in question which either vindicates or abrogates our previously held belief?

Do you think that I believe but don't know that sometimes we never come to knowledge abotu a thing we believe?

Do you think that I believe but don't know that sometimes people think they know something but really only believe it?

Thanks in advance for answering my questions.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## DMcHenry

Chris - side note... what does "Pax" mean in your sig?


----------



## chrispillertkd

Latin for "peace."

Pax frater!

Chris


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> Oh, that's odd. You were talking like you _knew_ things from that era.



I do. Being there isn't the only way. There are for example, lots of photos from the era and even after which show what the training was like at the Chung Do Kwan.


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> Since the things I stated are in no way controversial but are pretty basic elements of epistemology I'd be very interested in hearing what part of my post you think I don't have knowledge about but only belief. To make this easier for you, I will repost it. To wit:
> 
> Do you think I only believe but don't know that checking statements made by various people against others is a good thing but doesn't rise to the level of knowledge?
> 
> Do you think I only believe but don't know that there's nothing wrong with believing something even if you don't know it (provided you have a justified reason for doing so)?
> 
> Do you think I believe but don't know that sometimes we come to knowledge about a thing and then we gain knowledge about the thing in question which either vindicates or abrogates our previously held belief?
> 
> Do you think that I believe but don't know that sometimes we never come to knowledge abotu a thing we believe?
> 
> Do you think that I believe but don't know that sometimes people think they know something but really only believe it?
> 
> Thanks in advance for answering my questions.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



I don't know what you believe. And I don't really care all that much, at least with respect to the above, since it has nothing to do with me and my path. I'm happy with my approach to research, and so are a lot of other people, even if you wish to concern yourself with the above. All that stuff above adds nothing to the conversation, except noise. People want to hear facts, not the above. I gave you a simple example, GM Son's stance. If you wish to characterize that as belief vs. knowledge, go ahead. But it doesn't change the fact that GM Son's stances are much wider than what was going on at the Chung Do Kwan during the 1940's.


----------



## chrispillertkd

puunui said:


> I do. Being there isn't the only way. There are for example, lots of photos from the era and even after which show what the training was like at the Chung Do Kwan.


 
Right, because photos are always totally clear about what they show. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd

puunui said:


> I don't know what you believe. And I don't really care all that much, at least with respect to the above, since it has nothing to do with me and my path. I'm happy with my approach to research, and so are a lot of other people, even if you wish to concern yourself with the above. All that stuff above adds nothing to the conversation, except noise. People want to hear facts, not the above. I gave you a simple example, GM Son's stance. If you wish to characterize that as belief vs. knowledge, go ahead. But it doesn't change the fact that GM Son's stances are much wider than what was going on at the Chung Do Kwan during the 1940's.


 
I'll give you this, Glenn, people want to hear facts. But they also want to know what they're hearing is a fact. Despite your protestations to the contrary you haven't offered any proof that you've actually heard the things you say. Less so have you offered any proof that what you say is true. Your inability to answer my questions is telling, however. 

I have noticed, too, that you do get a bit testy whenever someone disagrees with you. Perhaps this is because you view yourself as senior to everybody else here. You've already stated that juniors should respect their seniors and that it's not for the junior to determine whether a senior is worthy of respect or not. Which is odd given your disrespectful posts towards Gen. Choi. Maybe you hold yourself to a different standard; what's OK for you is not OK for others?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> I'll give you this, Glenn, people want to hear facts. But they also want to know what they're hearing is a fact. Despite your protestations to the contrary you haven't offered any proof that you've actually heard the things you say. Less so have you offered any proof that what you say is true. Your inability to answer my questions is telling, however.



Ok. no problem. No one said you had to believe me or even read my posts. And by the way, what the pioneers have told me isn't the only basis for my "proof". I cite to many things that are easily available to others, including but not limited to General Choi's books. You read the parts that I quoted. Do you still think I offered no proof of what he said? But that's ok, like I said, no problem.




chrispillertkd said:


> I have noticed, too, that you do get a bit testy whenever someone disagrees with you. Perhaps this is because you view yourself as senior to everybody else here. You've already stated that juniors should respect their seniors and that it's not for the junior to determine whether a senior is worthy of respect or not. Which is odd given your disrespectful posts towards Gen. Choi. Maybe you hold yourself to a different standard; what's OK for you is not OK for others?


 
I don't know if I am the most senior here. I don't think so. I do "believe" that I am more senior that you though, right? Also, what you describe as "testy", others, such as the people who run MT, describe it as "passionate". They want me here, they like me here, MT Taekwondo section is very different since my arrival. But I don't really "know", that's just what they tell me. 

As for your judgment of me as being disrespectful to General Choi, I asked my senior about that and their response was that I was not disrespecting General Choi, General Choi disrespected himself with his lies, and that I was showing respect to my seniors by calling him on his lies.


----------



## chrispillertkd

puunui said:


> I don't know if I am the most senior here. I don't think so. I do "believe" that I am more senior that you though, right?


 
 Your rank isn't anything to me  I do believe you like being senior to people, though, even if your repeatedly say rank isn't important 



> Also, what you describe as "testy", others, such as the people who run MT, describe it as "passionate". They want me here, they like me here, MT Taekwondo section is very different since my arrival. But I don't really "know", that's just what they tell me.


 
:lol: I'm sure they do.



> As for your judgment of me as being disrespectful to General Choi, I asked my senior about that and their response was that I was not disrespecting General Choi, General Choi disrespected himself with his lies, and that I was showing respect to my seniors by calling him on his lies.


 
So, it's OK to be disrespectful to your seniors if someone else tells you it's OK? Got it! :lol: That's odd since last I knew you yourself said a junior has no say in the matter :lol: Like I said, Glenn, you like to hold yourself to a different standard than the rest of us. Whatever let's you sleep easy at night, brother :lol:

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> Your rank isn't anything to me  I do believe you like being senior to people, though, even if your repeatedly say rank isn't important
> 
> 
> 
> :lol: I'm sure they do.
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's OK to be disrespectful to your seniors if someone else tells you it's OK? Got it! :lol: That's odd since last I knew you yourself said a junior has no say in the matter :lol: Like I said, Glenn, you like to hold yourself to a different standard than the rest of us. Whatever let's you sleep easy at night, brother :lol:
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



no problem kid. Read it anyway you want. It's all your "belief" anyway, right?


----------



## chrispillertkd

I love the fact that you still call me "kid" because "people" told you I was 29 :lol: Do you _know_ my age, too, even though I'm not 29? :lol: 

Belief vs. knowledge, Glenn. I figured someone who likes to talk about how smart they are would get that elementary distinction 

Now, I _believe_ you don't like double standards so is it OK if a junior insults and disrepests you since you're doing that to your senior? Or would that be wrong for some reason even though it's OK for you?

Pax brother,

Chris


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> I love the fact that you still call me "kid" because "people" told you I was 29 :lol: Do you _know_ my age, too, even though I'm not 29? :lol:
> 
> Belief vs. knowledge, Glenn. I figured someone who likes to talk about how smart they are would get that elementary distinction
> 
> Now, I _believe_ you don't like double standards so is it OK if a junior insults and disrepests you since you're doing that to your senior? Or would that be wrong for some reason even though it's OK for you?
> 
> Pax brother,
> 
> Chris




Do whatever you want kid. You will anyway.


----------



## terryl965

puunui said:


> Do whatever you want kid. You will anyway.


 
Come on Glen please stop calling him a kid, it is dis-respectful. Just for the record who here on MT said that you have brought TKD to the section like it was never here? It was here long before me and will probaly be here long after me, you assume so much that people think of you that highly. What happen to intregrity,rspect, humble or any of those tenets that we should be living by.

Now I have no problem with you except for the fact you are always right and everybody else is wrong, but wait that is not totally correct since the WTF and KKW are going in different diection and seperating the sport and the technical side of TKD but than again I know they are not because you say so even though it is on the wall. Finally you said it ddoes not brother you because it does not pretain to you but once again if unification is so important and that is what the senior wanted why is the seperation being made? 

But wait that cannot be right because once again you and your seniors say so, please so me where this unification is coming from since everything else point in another direction?

The last thing everytime someone corners you you say but that is not true or give us names or we are reading wrong or the seniors do not care and so on. It would be nice if you could provide proof that the KKW and the WTF are on the same page beside somebody is telling you, please give me names and addresses so I can reach them for a converstation but I know I am not worthly because I am a lonely person with little knowledge of anything. One day I will grow up and be a real TKD person and who knows the Easter Bunny will stop by with some candy as well.

I will apologies to the members and people of MT but I simply am tired of all this I am holly than all of you attitude that some have around here.:asian:


----------



## chrispillertkd

puunui said:


> Do whatever you want kid. You will anyway.


 
But I didn't say anything about what *I* was going to do or not do. You should _know_ that since you obviously read my post. There was no mention of anything about what I would do or not do in it. To wit:



> I love the fact that you still call me "kid" because "people" told you I was 29 :lol: Do you _know_ my age, too, even though I'm not 29? :lol:
> 
> Belief vs. knowledge, Glenn. I figured someone who likes to talk about how smart they are would get that elementary distinction
> 
> Now, I _believe_ you don't like double standards so is it OK if a junior insults and disrepests you since you're doing that to your senior? Or would that be wrong for some reason even though it's OK for you?
> 
> Pax brother,
> 
> Chris


 
As you can plainly see, Glenn, I was asking you about what you thought if people who are junior to you do the same thing to you that you do to your seniors. It's a simple question to answer, don't you think? (Or was I wrong in my _belief_ that you dislike double standards?)

Oh, and how about answering that question of mine about whether or not you _know_ I'm 29 because that's what people "told" you. Even though I'm not 29  Gee it's almost as if people can say something that isn't true and you think you have knowledge when all you have is belief :lol:

Pax brother,

Chris


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> If you have any facts to support your position, then I would like to hear them. But if all you are doing is voicing your "opinion", without supporting facts.... There is a difference between discussing facts and voicing opinion without facts. Please don't get upset with me because I support my position with facts, and the other side does not.


Part of the problem as I see it, is that TKD, while it came from common roots, its subsequent development took place on more than 1 path & also under more than 1 name, initially. So a more full telling of the history, should I think include info on how the other than Kukki TKD developed, that's all.
Now either TKD is one or it is not.
If it is one, than all the TKD groups can have their respective paths of development recorded & shared for all to see their both roots & those people responsible for giving them what they have today.
If TKD is not one, then still all groups deserve to have their respective paths of development recorded for all to see  their both roots & those people responsible for giving them what  they have today. If other than their TKD group wants to share in reading that development, fine, as there is nothing wrong with reading about recorded history.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> ...seven koreans, six kwans, giving credit to General Choi, nasty korean politics, etc...


Yes there were 7 Koreans that lived abroad during the occupation period for various reasons often related to trying to get access to a better life & future. While outside of Korea, they were also exposed to the martial arts. These 7 men played a role in either opening or teaching at the 5 original kwans & the ODK or what I call the early kwans.
(I am sure that there were more Koreans, but they were not really involved in TKD, they were Hapkido, etc, so no need to add confusion by listing them)
While Gen choi deserves some credit, as do many others, for his involvement in the early days of the formative years, he also was someone who fought the Kukki TKD & Olympic movement, so he not only does not deserve any credit for that, it should be recorded in history how he was a negative influence & was hated by some for it. This is history, as well as what he did, along with his team that gave the world Chang Hon TKD, which of course was already being developed, recorded & spread around the world before the KtkdA (1965), KKW (1972) & WTF (1973) were even formed. This is history & it should be recorded & those that made it happen & spread it around the world should be credited & thanked in some fashion, as it happened. To deny it is beyond silly & implies some sort of partisanship. Let me restate yet again, the credit is not limited to Gen Choi, there are many, maybe even countless, that deserve credit & thanks. I for one am more interested in raising the count, not limiting it or ignoring it. TKD history has all too often done that, with self serving versions & myths about 2,000 years ago. TKD is a 20th century creation, that of course has influences from aspects of Korean culture which can go back some centuries. 
While many TKD students may not be interested in history, even the history of their TKD, maybe even less are interested in Korean politics or the larger geo-political arena that TKD developed in. Please just look at Eygpt & Tunisia today. They give us prime examples of how nasty politics effect almost all aspects of how the people live under their govts. All one has to do is read about how Korea evolved into its 21st century version to see how lives, events & aspects of their lives & lives were affected. To not see how this shaped both TKD & its leaders in both positive & negative ways, is simply not looking at a more larger scope & more of the picture.
Few things that I am aware of develop or take place in a vacuum.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> I gave you a simple example, GM Son's stance. If you wish to characterize that as belief vs. knowledge, go ahead. But it doesn't change the fact that GM Son's stances are much wider than what was going on at the Chung Do Kwan during the 1940's.


While that certainly is a difference, is it a big difference or the only difference?


----------



## KarateMomUSA

chrispillertkd said:


> ...a bit testy whenever someone disagrees with you...
> ...juniors should respect their seniors...


There should be little reason for anyone getting testy & respect should be a 2 way street. 
Exchange of info on a public discussion forum can have benefits, but we always have to carefully evaluate info obtained in such a fashion.

I know I am stating the obvious, but felt a need to state it, for obvious reasons)


----------



## KarateMomUSA

puunui said:


> As for your judgment of me as being disrespectful to General Choi, I asked my senior about that and their response was that I was not disrespecting General Choi, General Choi disrespected himself with his lies, and that I was showing respect to my seniors by calling him on his lies.


I find little problem with highlighting any info that is not factual in basis.
However you also seem to not want to credit anything positive Gen Choi did, along with his team, in spreading their TKD around the world, which resulted in many wonderful benefits from those that participated in their system of TKD or shared parts of it.
We are all TKD or we are not.
The battles of foes in the past, do not have to be wage now or in the future, especially if we are all TKD.
I find much less bickering between members of other martial arts with each other & their exchanges, than those doing the same martial art of TKD. That to me is sad.


----------



## KarateMomUSA

terryl965 said:


> Come on Glen please stop calling him a kid, it is dis-respectful. Just for the record who here on MT said that you have brought TKD to the section like it was never here? It was here long before me and will probaly be here long after me, you assume so much that people think of you that highly. What happen to intregrity,rspect, humble or any of those tenets that we should be living by.
> Now I have no problem with you except for the fact you are always right and everybody else is wrong, but wait that is not totally correct since the WTF and KKW are going in different diection and seperating the sport and the technical side of TKD but than again I know they are not because you say so even though it is on the wall. Finally you said it ddoes not brother you because it does not pretain to you but once again if unification is so important and that is what the senior wanted why is the seperation being made?
> But wait that cannot be right because once again you and your seniors say so, please so me where this unification is coming from since everything else point in another direction?
> The last thing everytime someone corners you you say but that is not true or give us names or we are reading wrong or the seniors do not care and so on. It would be nice if you could provide proof that the KKW and the WTF are on the same page beside somebody is telling you, please give me names and addresses so I can reach them for a converstation but I know I am not worthly because I am a lonely person with little knowledge of anything. One day I will grow up and be a real TKD person and who knows the Easter Bunny will stop by with some candy as well.
> I will apologies to the members and people of MT but I simply am tired of all this I am holly than all of you attitude that some have around here.:asian:


There were several events that took place in south Korea with TKD. These events resulted in people being arrested, convicted & serving prison time & or other forms of punishment. Since TKD is so valuable to Korea & the Korean people, the Korean National Assembly put in reforms to help "reform" TKD. There are new presidents of the KTA, KKW & WTF. While this may help reform movements, it can also hamper in some ways organizational efficiency, the cooperation between the groups & can also create divisions & pulling in different directions with various priorities that may or may not be shared totally by all. So south Korean TKD is in some sort of transition phase & how they sort things out will have long reaching effect for many & for some time. So I for one wish them well.

I think that these various movements may not only be "moving" in different directions, but both participants & observers may vary in what they think is important or what they thing should happen & who should make it happen. At times these feelings can be very strong, because to many, these issues are so very important. So it is understandable that tensions can led to hard feelings & the like.

I wish that all can work to make TKD better. The hard part is deciding how that is best done.


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> As you can plainly see, Glenn, I was asking you about what you thought if people who are junior to you do the same thing to you that you do to your seniors.




I think it's good. My direct seniors all say that I am a very good junior.  If I wasn't a good junior, then I wouldn't gain access to the type of information that I have access to. As for disrespecting General Choi, I understand that is your belief. However, I think Harry Truman said it best: "http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3255.htmlI never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell." Similarly, I never did disrespect General Choi. I just told the truth, and you thought it was disrespect.


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> I wish that all can work to make TKD better. The hard part is deciding how that is best done.



Mr. Vitale, are you angling for Kukkiwon certification? Is that what this is all about for you?


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> Exchange of info on a public discussion forum can have benefits, but we always have to carefully evaluate info obtained in such a fashion.



Again, there has been no exchange of information; rather it's me giving you facts and then you twisting it with your commentary, so that General Choi can get some credit, along with the seven Koreans, six kwans, etc.


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> Pax brother, Chris




No problem kid.


----------



## puunui

terryl965 said:


> Come on Glen please stop calling him a kid, it is dis-respectful.



If you read carefully, you will notice that I only call him kid when he calls me brother. I am not his brother. If he doesn't want me to call him kid, then he needs to stop referring to me as his brother. If he doesn't mind me calling him kid, then he should continue to refer to me as brother. 




terryl965 said:


> Just for the record who here on MT said that you have brought TKD to the section like it was never here? It was here long before me and will probaly be here long after me, you assume so much that people think of you that highly. What happen to intregrity,rspect, humble or any of those tenets that we should be living by.



That's not what I said, but I have no doubt in my mind that is what you think I said. 

This is what I said: "I don't know if I am the most senior here. I don't think so. I do  "believe" that I am more senior that you though, right? Also, what you  describe as "testy", others, such as the people who run MT, describe it  as "passionate". They want me here, they like me here, MT Taekwondo  section is very different since my arrival. But I don't really "know",  that's just what they tell me. "




terryl965 said:


> Finally you said it ddoes not brother you because it does not pretain to you but once again if unification is so important and that is what the senior wanted why is the seperation being made?



I am not active either as a coach, referee or competitor at WTF International Events, so I don't need a license or membership card. I explained this before, WTF and Kukkiwon have different functions, but that doesn't mean they are separated. 




terryl965 said:


> It would be nice if you could provide proof that the KKW and the WTF are on the same page beside somebody is telling you, please give me names and addresses so I can reach them for a converstation



It is very hard to follow your train of thought. But, the answer to your question is I already did. You probably missed it. But for you, again, the President of the Kukkiwon is an alumni of Kyung Hee University, the school in which the WTF President's father founded and the Choue family owns. President Choue's base of support is through the Kyung Hee alumni network. His strongest supporters at the WTF are Kyung Hee alumni, to the point where some people complain about the fact that you almost have to be a Kyung Hee alumni in order to work at the WTF offices. The WTF Secretary General is a Kyung Hee alumni. So the Kukkiwon president, who is also a Kyung Hee alumni, has been making an effort to show up at WTF events and they take pictures of the two presidents together which they publish on the WTF and Kukkiwon webpage, something that none of the previous Kukkiwon presidents have done with President Choue. If you want, you can call up either President Choue at the WTF or President Kang at the Kukkiwon and have a conversation with them to confirm. Or you can go look on the WTF and Kukkiwon webpages in the news sections and see everyone smiling for the camera together for yourself.


----------



## terryl965

*This is what I said: "I don't know if I am the most senior here. I don't think so. I do "believe" that I am more senior that you though, right? Also, what you describe as "testy", others, such as the people who run MT, describe it as "passionate". They want me here, they like me here, MT Taekwondo section is very different since my arrival. But I don't really "know", that's just what they tell me. "*


Which people that run MT, would that be Bob Hubbard? So Bob has told you he likes you here and he wants you here? Sure it is different with all the decussion but it has been the top place here on MT for years, it has always been the busies place on MT. Once again who is they?

Please give names or screen names, you require people to give names so why do you not follow what you ask?


*am not active either as a coach, referee or competitor at WTF International Events, so I don't need a license or membership card. I explained this before, WTF and Kukkiwon have different functions, but that doesn't mean they are separated.* 

So I beg to defer on this they are two seperate parts of TKD, one process certificates and has a limited curriculum, while the other governs the sport side of TKD. I do not see them as one or working together, when it comes down to money they will fight and argue over who should get what. The one thing that TKD has a croos the board is greed and plenty of it.

Me and you will never see eye to eye on alot of things but the one thing we have in common is the love for our brand of TKD even though it maybe so different but yet it remains so much the same. Keep telling and explaining your version of TKD and what your future may bring because I am keeping notes from you and George(karatemom) and other to keep for my sons to look at twenty to thirty years from now. It is always good to look into the past to see where the future would go.

I have some paperwork from the seventies that predicted that when General Choi died the ITF would split and it did, so greed was a factor in that as well. I have learned so much over the months of what people would believe versus what they have been told and what is written and I am looking forward to some more great pieces to add to the journal.:asian:


----------



## puunui

terryl965 said:


> Which people that run MT, would that be Bob Hubbard? So Bob has told you he likes you here and he wants you here?



Yes, it was Mr. Hubbard. Go ask him if you don't "believe" me.



terryl965 said:


> So I beg to defer on this they are two seperate parts of TKD, one process certificates and has a limited curriculum, while the other governs the sport side of TKD. I do not see them as one or working together, when it comes down to money they will fight and argue over who should get what. The one thing that TKD has a croos the board is greed and plenty of it.



Believe what you want. I really don't care if you agree with me or not at this point. Frankly, if that is how you wish to see it, as some sort of divided thing, then more power to you. You might just get your wish, because presently, we have maniacs at the wheel, at USAT, WTF and Kukkiwon. We get to see what happens when individualistic free agents think they can and should run with the ball. 




terryl965 said:


> Keep telling and explaining your version of TKD and what your future may bring because I am keeping notes from you and George(karatemom) and other to keep for my sons to look at twenty to thirty years from now. It is always good to look into the past to see where the future would go.


 
What good is keeping notes from me if you misconstrue and misunderstand what I write? I can say one thing about conversing or interacting with my seniors, is that we never have this kind of issue. It's a waste of time having to go over it and over it and over it. Sometimes I feel like a special education teacher. Why can't we be a gifted and talented group instead, where the highest bar is out goal, instead of constantly arguing for the lowest common denominator? It really makes me cynical about the future, because if we have to go over and over, if we make simple stuff overly complicated, how can we possibly tackle the larger issues that are facing us? Think about your position for a minute and then project it out. Do you see a positive outcome for Taekwondo? Is your "Wall Street greed" outlook going to take us where we need to go? 

Put another way, I'm trying to improve Taekwondo and Taekwondoin by reaching out and giving them hope for a better future, a future where our children, or students and our juniors have it better than we did. What are you trying to do, stop me?


----------



## terryl965

I keep notes just for records for my family since they will be apart of TKD for a longtime like me. I am glad Bob thinks you are good for hear, you help bring in numbers to the site that is good on any chat line. 

One thing we agree on is the USAT, WTF and KKW are in turmoil, so that is a starting point for me atleast. 

You have it wrong not trying to stop anybody just trying to make people see other views and not be like a race horse and have blinders on for the entire race.


----------



## puunui

KarateMomUSA said:


> Yes there were 7 Koreans that lived abroad during the occupation period for various reasons often related to trying to get access to a better life & future. While outside of Korea, they were also exposed to the martial arts. These 7 men played a role in either opening or teaching at the 5 original kwans & the ODK or what I call the early kwans.




It was eight, not seven: 1) GM LEE Won Kuk; 2) GM CHUN Sang Sup; 3) GM YOON Byung In; 4) GM RO Byung Jick; 5) GM HWANG Kee; 6) General Choi; 7) Dr. YOON Kwe Byung; and 8) GM KIM Ki Whang. GM KIM Ki Whang taught at Moo Duk Kwan GM HONG Chong Soo's dojang and also was an influence on the Kang Duk Won's GM PARK Chull Hee.


----------



## chrispillertkd

puunui said:


> I think it's good.


 
So you think it's good that juniors simply insult or belittle their seniors? That's is an interesting position from someone who claims that it isn't up to the junior to decide whether or not the senior is worthy of respect :lol: 



> My direct seniors all say that I am a very good junior.


 
That's interesting, I have been told the opposite by some pretty high ranking people. Well, I suppose it all depends on who you believe :lol:



> If I wasn't a good junior, then I wouldn't gain access to the type of information that I have access to.


 
If you say so, although you've stated that some of what you have supposedlly been told was simply the result of you asking questions that others didn't think to ask. What that has to do with being a good junior is anybody's guess.



> As for disrespecting General Choi, I understand that is your belief.


 
Oh, that's not a matter of belief, at all, Glenn. Surely someone as proud of their high school SAT score as you should _know_ that :lol: 



> However, I think Harry Truman said it best: "I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell." Similarly, I never did disrespect General Choi. I just told the truth, and you thought it was disrespect.


 
So, it's OK to disrespect someone if your senior says it's OK, then? "Truly you have a dizzying intellect" 

Pax brother,

Chris


----------



## puunui

We've all moved on.


----------



## chrispillertkd

Actually, I just got back here  

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui

A day late and a dollar short.


----------



## chrispillertkd

puunui said:


> A day late and a dollar short.


 
:lol: That's what I get for having things to do; being belittled by Glenn :lol: Well, I'm in a rather large company there I guess :lol:

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> :lol: That's what I get for having things to do; being belittled by Glenn :lol: Well, I'm in a rather large company there I guess :lol:




Actually you are in a class of your own. No one acts the way you do here.


----------



## chrispillertkd

puunui said:


> Actually you are in a class of your own. No one acts the way you do here.


 
Well, who am I to question my senior, Glenn?

But then you're pretty unique in these parts, too 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui

anything else?


----------



## jks9199

*Cut the crap out.  Drop the personal shots and sniping.  Bring the discussion back on track.

This is the final warning.  Further instances will result in disciplinary action.

jks9199
Super Moderator
*


----------



## puunui

jks9199 said:


> *Bring the discussion back on track.*




I think we are done discussing General Choi. At least I hope so.


----------



## chrispillertkd

puunui said:


> I think we are done discussing General Choi. At least I hope so.


 
This is a thread about Gen. Choi. Which you started. If you don't want to talk about him why start a thread on him?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Don't blow off the mods, guys.  Bad idea.

Daniel


----------

