Cult of Personality in Taekwondo

[Kong Soo Do]

On another note, someone just sent me this link to this school in Florida. Interesting what comes up when I searched Google for this group. http://www.oomyungdoe-cfl.com/?page_id=16

Looking through the site, it looks like he came to the U.S. from Korea in 1972. Were you searching for this school because you wish to seek training from him?

 

[mastercole]

This is a very interesting discussion Master Cole! There's an TKD non-profit organization here in Jacksonville that is based thru a Christian ministry. I helped them out then left because people were ugly to each other, and I left after I found out that their leader/master was manipulating/misleading the group as a whole. I've always thought of them as developing a "culture" but not as a "cult" of sorts. Very interesting, I rethinking this now! After reading numerous posts on this thread, it's just sad how this happens at various levels with TKD as well as other martial arts. We see students revering their master instructor to the point that: their instructor manipulates/misleads them, being prevented them from growing, sacrifice money and time, etc. Who else sees this trend?1. A head master forms their own organization because: falling out with their master/organization because of money, rank issues, power/control.2. Their students revere their master as the foremost TKD expert.3. Black belts teach many classes for free or spread their organization by promoting students fast. The master doesn't teach at all or maybe just black belt instructor classes.4. The master was an Olympic delegate for TKD but isn't a member of the USTU/USAT ;-)

Response to:

#1. For me, I see that American's often break away from their instructors and I think that in the context of Taekwondo most of the break ups were really not necessary. But they happened anyway and then the American Taekwondoin sometimes ends up on a lost path, without good seniors, without good advise, without good sources of learning more. This spirals into all the weirdness that exist in martial arts and Taekwondo.

#2. I don't like this, at all. It's creepy and either on the fringe, or smack dab in the middle of lunacy.

#3. I don't see a problem with black belts teaching classes, as long as they are qualified and that can depend on a persons definition of qualified. I also don't see anything wrong with the dojang kwanjang never teaching classes, or only teaching black belts. As long as the instruction at the dojang is of good quality, it does not matter who is teaching, the owner, or one of their instructors.

#4. "The master was an Olympic delegate for TKD but isn't a member of the USTU/USAT ;-)" I'm in this category so I don't see a problem with it unless the person is lying. But I'm not lying about it. During the time of my appointment I was a USTU member, USA Team Leader to the World Olympic Qualifier, President of the USTU/WTF State Taekwondo Association for Ohio and involved in other official Taekwondo business.

 

[miguksaram]

Do you have any examples? Do you think any seniors have done this Jeremy?

Yes, I do have examples. None of which I will discuss publicly or privately with people I do not know that well. Yes, I am sure there are seniors out there who have done this...and when I say seniors I am not referring to any specific martial art.

But we weren't talking about the KKW or someone teaching an outdated version of their curriculum. We were discussing breaking away from an organization that didn't represent what was being taught or because the school/instructor didn't agree with a particular path the organization was following.

What I was addressing was your post that basically says that people who break away from an org have every write to criticize that org, yet the org has no right to criticize and individual who breaks away from them. Under certain circumstances that may be true but no under all circumstances. The KKW example was just that...and example. You can replace KKW with JKA or Kodokan or whatever org has a set curriculum that must be taught, followed and learned in order to advance in ranking within that organization.

And looking at your statement further, what would be the issue with teaching an 'outdated' KKW curriculum? Would that in turn mean it was irrelevant information when it was 'in date'?

No it means that things have progressed and ideas have changed due to updated training methods, more current research. Are you saying it is okay for someone should use a rag and ether to knock out a patient to perform an amputation then claim to be practicing modern medicine?

If I was teaching a KKW curriculum from 40 years the KKW would have every right to criticize me, as long as their point of criticism was correct. In this case not teaching their most updated curriculum.

Really? What system has only one organization that one had to belong to in order to obtain rank?

I never said that a system had ONLY one organization that you had to belong to to teach that system. I said that in order to teach that org's curriculum you would have to be associated with that org (i.e. a member). Example: If I am not associated with the KKW (i.e. have a dan cert# from the KKW) do you think I would be able to promote someone to a KKW black belt myself? Or better yet, I practice hapkido, can I promote you to a judo black belt through the Kodokan? After all I know how to throw and fall properly and I can teach it to others.

You failed to understand my point in perspective and the context in which it was made. The point was that many instructors give their blessings to go beyond what they've done. This is something that should be a common standard within the arts.

Perhaps. My point was if you have a clean amicable break from the org/teacher, then neither party should have any criticizing to do.

Please provide some examples that are within the context of the statements that I've made.

I already have....self promotion is one.

 

[miguksaram]

Looking through the site, it looks like he came to the U.S. from Korea in 1972. Were you searching for this school because you wish to seek training from him?

The Moo's were a big problem in Illinois. They were eventually shut down with their "Leader" and some other high ranking personnel jailed http://www.urbin.net/EWW/MA/cmd-tax.html. Now fast forward some many years later, the schools are popping back up again as Chung Moo Do as opposed to the original Chung Moo Quan. Instructors claim they have disassociated themselves with the original school.

When I first moved up to the Chicago suburbs back in 1984, I joined the school for a 30 day trial. When my 30 days were up they price jumped enormously from what I paid for the trial. Since we could not afford it I had to quit. I started receiving phone calls from them at 10pm at night saying that I was weak and anyone could just attack my family because I wouldn't be able to defend them. Keep in mind that I was 14 at the time and they would not talk to my mom directly, they kept asking for me. A lot of their membership was based on extortion. I am not sure what the new schools do or say now to get people in their doors.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Yes, I do have examples. None of which I will discuss publicly or privately with people I do not know that well. Yes, I am sure there are seniors out there who have done this...and when I say seniors I am not referring to any specific martial art.

Interesting.

What I was addressing was your post that basically says that people who break away from an org have every write to criticize that org, yet the org has no right to criticize and individual who breaks away from them. Under certain circumstances that may be true but no under all circumstances. The KKW example was just that...and example. You can replace KKW with JKA or Kodokan or whatever org has a set curriculum that must be taught, followed and learned in order to advance in ranking within that organization.

Actually, in the context of what I wrote, this is correct. Except that I was speaking of people within the organization and not the organization in-and-of-itself. You posted outside of the context in which I was posting and made it exclusive to the organization itself.

No it means that things have progressed and ideas have changed due to updated training methods, more current research. Are you saying it is okay for someone should use a rag and ether to knock out a patient to perform an amputation then claim to be practicing modern medicine?

You must have stock in produce, once again you're apples and oranges

I said that in order to teach that org's curriculum you would have to be associated with that org (i.e. a member). Example: If I am not associated with the KKW (i.e. have a dan cert# from the KKW) do you think I would be able to promote someone to a KKW black belt myself? Or better yet, I practice hapkido, can I promote you to a judo black belt through the Kodokan? After all I know how to throw and fall properly and I can teach it to others.

That kinda goes without saying doesn't it? And again, it is outside of the context I was making a point in.

I already have....self promotion is one.

Some would think self-promotion is okay. I have my own reservations about it, but I'd like to hear your perspective on it. And also, are you familar with any seniors that have self-promoted? Or, using the term you used previously, went org-hopping for rank?

I'm enjoying our conversation Jeremy and appreciate your participation. I think it very much links with the premise of the OP.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

The Moo's were a big problem in Illinois. They were eventually shut down with their "Leader" and some other high ranking personnel jailed http://www.urbin.net/EWW/MA/cmd-tax.html. Now fast forward some many years later, the schools are popping back up again as Chung Moo Do as opposed to the original Chung Moo Quan. Instructors claim they have disassociated themselves with the original school.

When I first moved up to the Chicago suburbs back in 1984, I joined the school for a 30 day trial. When my 30 days were up they price jumped enormously from what I paid for the trial. Since we could not afford it I had to quit. I started receiving phone calls from them at 10pm at night saying that I was weak and anyone could just attack my family because I wouldn't be able to defend them. Keep in mind that I was 14 at the time and they would not talk to my mom directly, they kept asking for me. A lot of their membership was based on extortion. I am not sure what the new schools do or say now to get people in their doors.

I'm very sorry this happened to you, particularly at such a young age. Those are formative years and I'm glad it didn't keep you away from the arts as a whole. Since Al was specifically searching for this group online, I'm wondering if he has any information as to if they're still connected or using the same tactics?

Sounds like 'bad budo'.

 

[Tez3]

Tae Yun Kim.

Is that really a 'she'? Looks as if 'she' is actually a ladyboy tbh. That's not derogatory btw, they are much admired.

 

[IcemanSK]

The Moo's were a big problem in Illinois. They were eventually shut down with their "Leader" and some other high ranking personnel jailed http://www.urbin.net/EWW/MA/cmd-tax.html. Now fast forward some many years later, the schools are popping back up again as Chung Moo Do as opposed to the original Chung Moo Quan. Instructors claim they have disassociated themselves with the original school.

When I first moved up to the Chicago suburbs back in 1984, I joined the school for a 30 day trial. When my 30 days were up they price jumped enormously from what I paid for the trial. Since we could not afford it I had to quit. I started receiving phone calls from them at 10pm at night saying that I was weak and anyone could just attack my family because I wouldn't be able to defend them. Keep in mind that I was 14 at the time and they would not talk to my mom directly, they kept asking for me. A lot of their membership was based on extortion. I am not sure what the new schools do or say now to get people in their doors.

Ah yes, I remember those guys. My buddy & I went by a school of their's & wanted to watch a class. We could take a class, but not watch. We left immediately. It seemed fishy & creepy. Two weeks later the local tv investigative reporter did a huge story on them & their legal problems began.

Sorry that you had an up-close & personal experience with them, Jeremy.

 

[ETinCYQX]

Is that really a 'she'? Looks as if 'she' is actually a ladyboy tbh. That's not derogatory btw, they are much admired.

She kind of does, doesn't she.

She also terrifies me on a very deep level.

 

[puunui]

#1. For me, I see that American's often break away from their instructors and I think that in the context of Taekwondo most of the break ups were really not necessary. But they happened anyway and then the American Taekwondoin sometimes ends up on a lost path, without good seniors, without good advise, without good sources of learning more. This spirals into all the weirdness that exist in martial arts and Taekwondo.

I agree. People leave for whatever reason, then spend the rest of their lives criticizing their instructors. Then their students take up the cause, often times not knowing what the real reason for the original split was, or given a completely bogus reason. Remember that guy we were talking about a little while back? He got kicked out because he was "goofy", but now tells people he righteously left due to supposed high moral reasons. Now he heads up his own organization as the "grandmaster". It wouldn't be so bad if he simply left, but now he and his cohorts spend the majority of their time complaining about taekwondo and korean born instructors. "Lost" is a good description.

#4. "The master was an Olympic delegate for TKD but isn't a member of the USTU/USAT ;-)" I'm in this category so I don't see a problem with it unless the person is lying.

I got that one too, the "Certificate of Delegation" for the Sydney Games. We all did. They passed it out at one of the big meetings. I see a lot of people who put that up on their dojang wall.

 

[miguksaram]

Ah yes, I remember those guys. My buddy & I went by a school of their's & wanted to watch a class. We could take a class, but not watch. We left immediately. It seemed fishy & creepy. Two weeks later the local tv investigative reporter did a huge story on them & their legal problems began.

Sorry that you had an up-close & personal experience with them, Jeremy.

Actually I am not sorry that it happened, in fact I owe them gratitude. If they were not such a-holes, I would have never sought lessons elsewhere and would have never found one of my first real mentors in martial arts Arturo Gabriel. Through his teachings I became a better person and his teachings literally saved my life (a story for another time) and help me cope with a lot of things that happened in my teen years. So it all worked out in the end.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Originally Posted by mastercole
#1. For me, I see that American's often break away from their instructors and I think that in the context of Taekwondo most of the break ups were really not necessary. But they happened anyway and then the American Taekwondoin sometimes ends up on a lost path, without good seniors, without good advise, without good sources of learning more. This spirals into all the weirdness that exist in martial arts and Taekwondo.

Now this really doesn't make much sense if you look at the big picture. The Koreans broke away from the Japanese/Okinawans/Chinese, creating their own thing from what was learned from them. Why would this be okay, but not for Americans? Or Canadians? Or the British or French? Why didn't the Koreans find themselves on a 'lost path' after breaking away? After all, the Japanese, Okinawans and Chinese have a much richer history of martial arts from an overall perspective than the Koreans, so didn't they separate themselves from 'good advice and good sources or learning more'?

I agree. People leave for whatever reason, then spend the rest of their lives criticizing their instructors.

Your completely discounting that there could be very legitimate reasons for leaving. Some people I've noticed are very comfortable covering for rewritten histories. Some are very comfortable making excuses for dishonest or dishonorable business practices. Some are very comfortable overlooking exceptionally poor skills and/or teaching ability. Some are comfortable looking the other way at highly questionable ways of gaining rank.

But some people aren't comfortable with those things at all. They prefer to forge their own path, using a higher standard to guide them. Perhaps this is one of the things that separate a leader from a follower. And just like some Koreans felt they could take what the Japanese taught them and then leave and create their own thing, some westerners felt they could do the same. And they can. And they have.

Sometimes it is a natural progression because the student becomes more proficient than the original teacher. Or learns more to pass on. And sometimes it is because the original instructor was a schmuck and the student wasn't going to lower their standards just because their rank depended on it. Some break away, using the same label as the original but with different standards. Some change the name completely. The Koreans did both. And now you complain if Americans do the same thing?

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Actually I am not sorry that it happened, in fact I owe them gratitude. If they were not such a-holes, I would have never sought lessons elsewhere and would have never found one of my first real mentors in martial arts Arturo Gabriel. Through his teachings I became a better person and his teachings literally saved my life (a story for another time) and help me cope with a lot of things that happened in my teen years. So it all worked out in the end.

I'm glad it worked out for you Jeremy.

 

[miguksaram]

Interesting. Some would think self-promotion is okay. I have my own reservations about it, but I'd like to hear your perspective on it. And also, are you familar with any seniors that have self-promoted? Or, using the term you used previously, went org-hopping for rank?

I'm combining these two quotes since they are starting to merge into one topic. Yes, it interesting. When you are a director of an organization and when you have an 'in' in certain communities, you learn a lot of dirty laundry. I know of a couple of seniors, again not all necessarily in Korean arts, that have done self promotion. I do not discuss names publicly without extensive investigation to back it up or do I discuss it privately with people that I do not know well, because it could lead down a road I rather not travel.

Do I believe in self promotion? I am not a huge fan of it myself, but I am not one to totally shun someone because of it. As I mentioned I do know people who have done it. They made a decision I did not agree with, but that did not necessarily make them horrible people and I still maintain a good relationship with them. They are very good martial artists and reason for their decision is their own.

Actually, in the context of what I wrote, this is correct. Except that I was speaking of people within the organization and not the organization in-and-of-itself. You posted outside of the context in which I was posting and made it exclusive to the organization itself.

Which people within the organization? Board members, directors, just general people? Without knowing the content of why one separated from the organization, we cannot say that either side has no right to criticize. I will grant this if it is general people outside of the know, then yes they have no right to criticize the person who left. If you do not both sides of the why then you really don't have a voice in the matter.

You must have stock in produce, once again you're apples and oranges

Not really. You said "...the issue with teaching an 'outdated' KKW curriculum? Would that in turn mean it was irrelevant information when it was 'in date'? My point is at the time of its use it had a purpose. However, as we progress and evolve, things that may have been useful then may not be as useful now. If the KKW tells me they are doing away with older forms because they function they served then does not meet the needs of what we are doing today, then I change. I never said that what was taught before had no use. It just not meet the needs of today's direction.

That kinda goes without saying doesn't it? And again, it is outside of the context I was making a point in.

Then perhaps you could explain your point a bit more so I can I figure out where the miscommunication is. Thank you.