Curricla old and new, anyone practice both?

[SahBumNimRush]

Glenn brought up an interesting point in another thread today, suggesting to keep arts completely separate when teaching and training. I am curious whether there are any MTer's here that come from the older era curricula that also practice Kukki TKD. Do you keep them completely separate? Do you integrate?

I can see value in keeping them completely separate, but I'm curious if anyone here teaches both the older curriculum and modern KKW TKD and how they do so.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

I know some suggest to completely throw out the old and just get "up to speed" with what is current. However, I see great value in what I have been taught and do not wish to sacrifice or compromise teaching this "style" of TKD. However, I have been increasingly interested in Kukki TKD, so I'm looking for any input here from our experienced MTer's.

 

[dancingalone]

Perhaps the dearth of replies is an answer in of itself.

 

[Master Dan]

Well I find it interesting that you divide old and new as old tkd and then KKW most of us thought we were doing KKW but my opinion is much like yours while my deepest desire is to satisfy and keep current on KKW curiculum. Lets take one issue specific stance.

The KKW said they invested over one million dollars to research the Ap Koobi or traditional front stance some would call it long stance. Now there are those who have said well it was alway high and narrow? My SGM and many other current GGM"s including thier text books approved and praised in writting from the KKW clearly show wider longer stances. It was demonstrated the higher narrow stance was easier for transition of movement similar to sparring but again taken into the factors of power and balance related to droping the Chi especially in using hands which seems to be a lost art for a majority of students in the last 20 years.

Now teaching old and new? I let my students know that the current official KKW position on the stances is and make it clear that if they enter PoomSe competion with strict WTF rules they will need to conform but when we shift to SD I revert to what is needed and relate that to the person's age and physiology with strong emphasis on dropping the Chi which can be done in some cases from a natural or higher position. For me having done the longer wider stance for 40 years its hard to break after 3-4 years it has modified some. I would also point out that the longer wider stance builds strength in the legs different than the lets say higher less tension stance.

I would prefer not to call it old and new the creation of modern TKD brought together different masters and Kwans who had individual methods and ideology as an American my view of the Pioneers were those who first came here to teach in the 60's and 70's perhaps those of us who started with them find it a negative term to be refered to as old which conotates wrong when thinking of our father master's ? As my SGM once said a person should not get upset over a slight changes or mistakes good technique is good techinque no matter what. small piece of metal at the end means little on the street?

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Perhaps the dearth of replies is an answer in of itself.

Yeah.. . Is that because no one on here practices both? Hmm.. . wonder why? I don't see the two as mutually exclusive, honestly I see it very much akin to your Goju vs. Kukki TKD. I can see a valid point to completely separate Goju and Kukki TKD, especially until you have a solid foundation in Kukki TKD. However, I'm curious about my situation, and if anyone has ever been in a similar one. Apparently no one has, or has reservations about giving some insight on the matter here.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Well I find it interesting that you divide old and new as old tkd and then KKW most of us thought we were doing KKW but my opinion is much like yours while my deepest desire is to satisfy and keep current on KKW curiculum. Lets take one issue specific stance.

The KKW said they invested over one million dollars to research the Ap Koobi or traditional front stance some would call it long stance. Now there are those who have said well it was alway high and narrow? My SGM and many other current GGM"s including thier text books approved and praised in writting from the KKW clearly show wider longer stances. It was demonstrated the higher narrow stance was easier for transition of movement similar to sparring but again taken into the factors of power and balance related to droping the Chi especially in using hands which seems to be a lost art for a majority of students in the last 20 years.

Now teaching old and new? I let my students know that the current official KKW position on the stances is and make it clear that if they enter PoomSe competion with strict WTF rules they will need to conform but when we shift to SD I revert to what is needed and relate that to the person's age and physiology with strong emphasis on dropping the Chi which can be done in some cases from a natural or higher position. For me having done the longer wider stance for 40 years its hard to break after 3-4 years it has modified some. I would also point out that the longer wider stance builds strength in the legs different than the lets say higher less tension stance.

I would prefer not to call it old and new the creation of modern TKD brought together different masters and Kwans who had individual methods and ideology as an American my view of the Pioneers were those who first came here to teach in the 60's and 70's perhaps those of us who started with them find it a negative term to be refered to as old which conotates wrong when thinking of our father master's ? As my SGM once said a person should not get upset over a slight changes or mistakes good technique is good techinque no matter what. small piece of metal at the end means little on the street?

I'm at a bit of a loss on what to call it, but I understand your point MasterDan. My KJN was one of those who came to America in the late 1960's. However, he never adopted the "modern" forms, terminology, etc.. . So what we practice is a curriculum I can only describe as pre-unification or para-unification TKD.

It sounds as though you blend the two somewhat seamlessly, which I can see a large benefit for doing so. Thank you very much for your reply!

 

[MAist25]

At my school we practice both traditional Moo Duk Kwan TKD and Kukki TKD. However, we focus much more on the traditional Taekwondo training. I had the opportunity to train in pure Kukki Taekwondo for a few months around the time I earned my 2nd Dan and it was quite different from what I was used to but I was able to transition to the way they trained very easily. But as for my main school, yea we train in Moo Duk Kwan TKD alongside the Kukki TKD.

 

[Master Dan]

I started in Moo Duk Kwan in CA with Ernie Reyes Senior and his master Dan Q Choi it had a profound effect on me but then returning to Oreong in 74 stayed with GM Choi Tae Hong/Jido Kwan to present We were always told both the Kwan and KKW but asked to study and keep the Kwan faith promenant in our lives and training. On the last birthday of Jidikwan in Korea last year SGM Lee and president of Jidokwan awarded 9th Dan to my good friend and prominent student of GM choi to carry on his legacy of Jidokwan. GM Rohr was inducted into the Taekwondo Times Grand Masters Society Hall of Fame in Dallas last month.
I like some of what young Korean masters say today that there is only one TKD and we are all brothers and I get a great sence of love and respect from the KKW in truly caring about wanting to help all who have a desire to do thier best but in general knowledge of the Kwan's and loyalty to them seem to be fading away by design or age? you decide?

 

[dancingalone]

Those of you who practice both... How do you integrate them or do you integrate them at all? Are the basics different? Forms? Sparring? Self defense? How much time do you spend on each bullet point?

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Those of you who practice both... How do you integrate them or do you integrate them at all? Are the basics different? Forms? Sparring? Self defense? How much time do you spend on each bullet point?

I'm really curious about this as well. I know from my perspective the forms will certainly be different, with minor differences in stances and techniques, as well as terminology. We use the "older" terminology: i.e. Jassae rather than Seogi for stance.

These are minor things, but I am curious how those who practice both integrate or separate the two. Thank you very much for everyone's input!

 

[SahBumNimRush]

I like some of what young Korean masters say today that there is only one TKD and we are all brothers and I get a great sence of love and respect from the KKW in truly caring about wanting to help all who have a desire to do thier best but in general knowledge of the Kwan's and loyalty to them seem to be fading away by design or age? you decide?

I'm glad to hear they are welcoming and respectful about being fully inclusive, but I am proud of my Moo Duk Kwan background and wish to maintain it's stylistic differences. I am also interested in Kukki TKD, and I'm trying to get a handle on how those of you who practice both integrate the two. Thank you Master Dan for your point of view on this matter.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

But as for my main school, yea we train in Moo Duk Kwan TKD alongside the Kukki TKD.

Could you elaborate on this a bit? How different are the techniques, in terms of chamber, wrap up, positioning, stance, etc.. . between MDK TKD and Kukki TKD? I can understand training in both forms, but in terms of lesson plan and technique, how do you set up the classes?

 

[Dirty Dog]

We train primarily in Moo Duk Kwan, with longer, wider stances than the KKW standard. I personally train both, though I still find the KKW standard to be less "automatic", simply because I've spent less time on it. There are a couple of students who are choosing KKW certification (most choose MDK, in our school) and I am working with them to perform the KKW material to the KKW standard.

The hardest part, honestly, is not the Palgwe vs Taegeuk poomsae. It's the Yudanja forms. Because we use the KKW Yudanja forms, they are performed with MDK stances by the vast majority of our students the vast majority of the time. It's difficult to change mindsets and say "this time I'll do it to MDK standard, next time I'll do it to KKW standard".

 

[SahBumNimRush]

We train primarily in Moo Duk Kwan, with longer, wider stances than the KKW standard. I personally train both, though I still find the KKW standard to be less "automatic", simply because I've spent less time on it. There are a couple of students who are choosing KKW certification (most choose MDK, in our school) and I am working with them to perform the KKW material to the KKW standard.

The hardest part, honestly, is not the Palgwe vs Taegeuk poomsae. It's the Yudanja forms. Because we use the KKW Yudanja forms, they are performed with MDK stances by the vast majority of our students the vast majority of the time. It's difficult to change mindsets and say "this time I'll do it to MDK standard, next time I'll do it to KKW standard".

We practice a wider/deeper/longer vs. the KKW standard as well, and the is the biggest obstacle I foresee between the two. There are also minor differences with wrap ups and such as well. We practice the Kicho forms, Pyung Ahn forms, and Bassai for our colored belts, and Naihanchi forms, Chinto, and Kang Song Kun hyungs for our yundanja. I can easily see us teaching dual form sets and progressing rank in both or either/or MDK or KKW, but I'm curious how difficult people find it for the differences in technique standard.

I take it you give students the option of ranking in either MDK or KKW? Do many people choose both?

 

[Master Dan]

I have alot of respect for MuDuk Kwan I started in before changing to Jido Kwan we also used the lower wider Apkoobi front stance espeacialy with the transition of moving in and out with the specific of keeping the body at one constant level in trasistion so to speek if the lights were out and you had candles on your hips you would not see them go up and down but smooth line understanding that in the raising up in transition you become weak and prone to being knocked 0ver also if you analizy power like a gun shot it must go in a strait line or it looses power like a ricochet. After 40 years of developing my legs that way it has taken three years to change some what but for competition only not related to power and Chi flow.

We have always issued simultaneous Dan Rank in KKW and Jido Kwan. We just reviewed a tape of the Korean Tigers last night which our NW association has sponsored to Oregon for over 30 years and thier demo forms all accent stances and especally Koryo with the extreme high kicks it pains me to think those who have the genetics to show those equisit kicks may stop due to the trying to bring into the fold so to speak of standardization should be for testing and masters teaching license follow the KKW format to the letter and in WTF rules for PoomSe competition but for creative PoomSe and Creative Demo that are more open to expression beyond robotic adhearance?

 

[Dirty Dog]

We practice a wider/deeper/longer vs. the KKW standard as well, and the is the biggest obstacle I foresee between the two. There are also minor differences with wrap ups and such as well. We practice the Kicho forms, Pyung Ahn forms, and Bassai for our colored belts, and Naihanchi forms, Chinto, and Kang Song Kun hyungs for our yundanja. I can easily see us teaching dual form sets and progressing rank in both or either/or MDK or KKW, but I'm curious how difficult people find it for the differences in technique standard.

I take it you give students the option of ranking in either MDK or KKW? Do many people choose both?

I don't think anybody is progressing in both. For the most part younger students, who are more likely to go away to college and such, are encouraged to pursue KKW ranking simply because they are more likely to find a KKW school. They are not, however, required to learn the taegeuks, about which I have mixed feelings (but it's not up to me...). I chose KKW (and as I said, practice both standards). Another chose MDK (2nd Dan) and yet another started as MDk (2nd Dan) and then did a skip dan to KKW 4th Dan through another school (he also practices both standards) and is no longer (to my knowledge) pursuing advancement within the MDK.

I am going to talk to our GM about pursuing advancement in both KKW and MDK and see what his opinion is, but I do not think anybody is currently advancing in both.

 

[MAist25]

Could you elaborate on this a bit? How different are the techniques, in terms of chamber, wrap up, positioning, stance, etc.. . between MDK TKD and Kukki TKD? I can understand training in both forms, but in terms of lesson plan and technique, how do you set up the classes?

I am not the head instructor of a school, I just learned what my instructor taught to me. To be honest, what I learned was traditional Moo Duk Kwan Taekwondo in almost every way shape and form, other than KKW forms in addition to the MDK forms. All of our stances are low to the ground, we have very long, strong chambers for our techniques. Every technique we use emphasizes power. We do not really throw multiple kicks or fancy flying kicks. We do not spar under the WTF ruleset. Hell, we don't even wear the V-neck dobak. However, my school offers rank through Kukkiwon and therefore I chose to receive rank because it allows me the ability to keep my rank if i train in different schools, which has already come in handy.

While I was us at college I trained at a pure Kukki Taekwondo school and experienced the style for the first time in its pure form. Honestly, there were a few modifications I had to make to some techniques, and the school emphasized kicks much more than my MDK school, which uses more punches. The sparring we did was under the WTF ruleset and the kicks they threw were extremely fast and always emphasized multiple kicks or being in a position to throw multiple kicks. Although the two schools were different, it was only slight changes I needed to make and the schools placed emphasis in different areas. All in all, I feel like I became a much better TKD practitioner because I was exposed to both traditional MDK and Kukki Taekwondo and I now have multiple points of view from which to view my training.

 

[Jaeimseu]

We practice a wider/deeper/longer vs. the KKW standard as well, and the is the biggest obstacle I foresee between the two. There are also minor differences with wrap ups and such as well. We practice the Kicho forms, Pyung Ahn forms, and Bassai for our colored belts, and Naihanchi forms, Chinto, and Kang Song Kun hyungs for our yundanja. I can easily see us teaching dual form sets and progressing rank in both or either/or MDK or KKW, but I'm curious how difficult people find it for the differences in technique standard.

I take it you give students the option of ranking in either MDK or KKW? Do many people choose both?

In my experience, these minor differences aren't so minor in practice. If you've spent any length of time performing techniques/stances/poomse in a particular way it's a real struggle to do them differently. Things that were automatic aren't automatic any more. When I transitioned to the Kukkiwon poomse I felt like a white belt again. Even though the differences seem minor, the philosophy or reasoning behind the technique or stance is different. So when I switched, I switched. I'm sure integration can be done, but it made more sense to me to just change it and be done with it. I feel like if I had tried to practice both (especially in regard to poomse) that I would have ended up with some kind of hybrid method of my own making. At that point I would have been doing things wrong from either standpoint.

 

[lifespantkd]

In my experience, these minor differences aren't so minor in practice. If you've spent any length of time performing techniques/stances/poomse in a particular way it's a real struggle to do them differently. Things that were automatic aren't automatic any more. When I transitioned to the Kukkiwon poomse I felt like a white belt again. Even though the differences seem minor, the philosophy or reasoning behind the technique or stance is different. So when I switched, I switched. I'm sure integration can be done, but it made more sense to me to just change it and be done with it. I feel like if I had tried to practice both (especially in regard to poomse) that I would have ended up with some kind of hybrid method of my own making. At that point I would have been doing things wrong from either standpoint.

This is a very interesting thread. I have chosen to bring my Taekwondo practice into greater adherence to Kukkiwon standards. I am finding this process challenging, fascinating, and rewarding, both physically and philosophically. Differences that seem subtle on the surface often have greater implications than one might expect at first glance. Some of my experience, particularly philosophical discoveries, is very difficult to describe. Other aspects are more tangible, like experiencing more power in various techniques than I did before.

In reading this thread, I find myself comparing the simultaneous practice of martial arts to my experience of being a dual professional. My two professions (maternal mental health care provider and International Board Certified Lactation Consultant) are distinct and complementary. I am able to combine them (into lactational psychology) in a way that is both uncommon and useful to mothers. However, I can imagine the possibility of trying to combine professions that are simply incompatable, say lactation consultant and formula company sales representative, because the purposes and/or values involved are polar opposites. And, I can imagine a spectrum of degrees of compatibility between these two extremes. I also find myself relating this discussion to adults learning two non-native languages. (Children's brains work differently, so I'm not talking about them; they can learn just about anything!) I think most adults would say that learning one new language solidly before beginning to learn the other is easier, faster, and more effective than trying to learn two non-native languages simultaneously. In the latter case, there would be a strong tendency to mix the grammar and/or vocabulary of one into the other and vice versa. Martial arts may be considered to have vocabulary (individual techniques) and grammar (how those individual techniques are combined so that their execution is meaningful). Both the grammar and the vocabulary of a language are intimately intertwined with the culture in which the language evolved--just like the individual techniques of a martial art and their usage in that martial art are intimately intertwined with the underlying philosophy of the martial art. Furthermore, anyone who is multilingual has experienced the unintentional mixing of languages or the unintentional shifting from one language to another while speaking.

Similarly, I would hazard to guess that some martial arts are technically and philosophically more compatible with each other than others are. I would also hazard to guess that the simultaneous practice of some martial arts would be more prone to unintentionaly mixing or shifting, as is experienced by the multilingual. The ultimate development of automaticity is a central and philosophically-based goal of the practice of Kukkiwon Taekwondo as it is a manifestation of mind-body-spirit unity. Automaticity cannot be achieved if the practitioner is constantly guarding against mixing or shifting technique and/or philosophy. Therefore, I think that a strong case can be made for focusing solely on Kukkiwon Taekwondo when the practitioner's goal is a high level of mastery in it. I imagine that this could be argued for the practice of any martial art.

Cynthia

 

[lifespantkd]

P.S. I realize that the original question is in regard to old versus new curriculum in what many would consider the same art. However, if the differences are substantial, technically and/or philosophically, they could be considered different arts or different "sub-arts" (like "subcultures") and their differences would/could still pose challenges for the development of automaticity. Also, until one has developed a high level of mastery in a particular martial art (or new curriculum), he or she will be unable to fully recognize the differences between it and another art (or old curriculum). So, it is very hard for any practitioner new to the study of a second art (or to the study of a newer curriculum) to be able to gauge the wisdom/effectiveness/impact of studying the old along with the new. We don't know what we don't know. And, there may be much more to the new art (or new curriculum) than meets the eye. This is exactly what I am experiencing as I bring my Taekwondo practice into closer alignment with Kukkiwon standards.

Cynthia