Facts, Fiction, Lies and actual accounts

[chrispillertkd]

Yes, I read that, too. But that does not explain a thing.

After all, it seemed that japan was out to quelch much of anything Korean. Why educate some of them? Hoping they become the leaders in their newly Japanified Korea?


That, to me, is more interesting as to which monk supposedly saw the praying mantis first....

More like trying to assimilate them to become more "Japanese," most likely. If you want people to think a certain way a very effect means of doing so is to control their education. This can be counteracted by influence from a child's parents, of course, but not necessarily easily.

(plus you completely missed the point on the story telling)

No, I didn't I just didn't think it applied to the topic of why the Kwan founders studied karate in Japan since that's a matter of public record.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I'm sorry, but you're essentially rebutting with 'is not.'

No, I'm standing by what I stated.

Just to clarify, are you saying that taekwondo is just Okinawan/Japanese karate with a little bit mixed in from other sources?

Or are you talking about what taekwondo was in the late forties/early fifties?

If the latter, I am inclined to agree with you.

My point from my original post would be along the lines of 'was' (Karate/other) and not a 2000 yr old indigenous KMA. What it is today is a distinct art. From my personal, and professional perspective (read SD), it was far more effective then than it is now. Modern TKD, from a SD perspective is watered down and generally ineffective. I repeat, from a SD perspective. Sport on the other hand is a different animal and is not within the scope of my statement.

Kukki taekwondo has evolved significantly from what it was prior to the start of unification efforts (five kwan era) and is notably different, has different forms, forms that are not simply reworked karate forms, might I add.

I will strongly disagree, with respect Daniel, about your comment on forms. Again, in my opinion (personal and professional) they are reworked karate forms. I do NOT feel those that put them together, generally speaking, knew exactly the information they could/should contain or the true value of the form. Or, at least felt that that knowledge wasn't needed for the agenda they wished to pursue.

How many 'modern' practitioners (of any art that uses forms) sees those forms as a waste of time? A class-filler? Something that really doesn't apply to actual training? I'd say the majority. And that is a shame, because proper knowledge of forms is the depth of the art itself. Does TKD (and Karate) have joint locks, throws, balance displacement, cavity pressing, misplacing the bone/tendon etc? It does with a proper knowledge of the forms in my opinion. And it is something that has been lost for the most part in most schools. True, if you only want sport it isn't needed or useful, but it is very relevant to those in the arts for SD.

I would suspect that Funakoshi had more at that point, but my comment was more to emphasize that rank doesn't necessarily equate to time in grade.

Yes, Funakoshi had more at this point. And we agree that rank and experience (time in training) aren't necessarily the same thing.

While they may not have had the same amount of experience in Okinawan or Japanese karate, I would not say they had 'little experience.'

I disagree, with respect. I feel that forms training is a prime example of that lack of experience/deeper knowledge of the art. Had the majority possessed this insight, TKD 'might' look different today. Be that good or bad is to the opinion of the beholder.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Self awareness is a gift...your post is somewhat accurate...Tkd has the lions share...your opinion...your post has some truth colored with your opinion...I think you are pompous...still enjoy your posts..

You come off as Kong Soo Do has spoken!!!

No offense, Gorilla, but that pretty much applies to anyone making a definitive statement on a BBS.

Thus spake Daniel Sullivan

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

My point from my original post would be along the lines of 'was' (Karate/other) and not a 2000 yr old indigenous KMA. What it is today is a distinct art. From my personal, and professional perspective (read SD), it was far more effective then than it is now. Modern TKD, from a SD perspective is watered down and generally ineffective. I repeat, from a SD perspective. Sport on the other hand is a different animal and is not within the scope of my statement.

The problem here is that you are making a distinction between parts of the same art. If you're comparing the arts, you cannot simply lop off a major portion of the art in order to make your point.

I will strongly disagree, with respect Daniel, about your comment on forms. Again, in my opinion (personal and professional) they are reworked karate forms. I do NOT feel those that put them together, generally speaking, knew exactly the information they could/should contain or the true value of the form. Or, at least felt that that knowledge wasn't needed for the agenda they wished to pursue.

This is entirely your opinion. I am familiar enough with Shotokan (though it has been a very long time since I have practiced it) to say that you are incorrect. You might have been able to make that case for Palgwe pumse, but those were only practiced for a brief period of time. Perhaps you can make that case for Chang Hon tul; I'm not saying that you can, but I am not familiar enough with them to say one way or the other.

How many 'modern' practitioners (of any art that uses forms) sees those forms as a waste of time? A class-filler? Something that really doesn't apply to actual training? I'd say the majority.

Couldn't tell you; that has not been my experience at the specific schools where I have trained.

And that is a shame, because proper knowledge of forms is the depth of the art itself.

On that we can agree!

Does TKD (and Karate) have joint locks, throws, balance displacement, cavity pressing, misplacing the bone/tendon etc? It does with a proper knowledge of the forms in my opinion.

Probably; I'm not familiar with enough of the hundreds of karate ryu to speak to 'karate' as a whole.

It does with a proper knowledge of the forms in my opinion. And it is something that has been lost for the most part in most schools.

Again, I couldn't speak to that, as my personal experience has been otherwise.

True, if you only want sport it isn't needed or useful, but it is very relevant to those in the arts for SD.

In my opinion, you're either learning the art or you're not. Some people only want sport, usually because they are younger and still in a competitive mindset. People who stay with the art longer generally want a more balanced curriculum.

Honestly, I don't see sport as the issue. I see the focus on belts as being the main issue; people learning a form just to get a belt, then forgetting about it until they have to test for black belt, then reviewing it enough to pass a belt test, get their black belt, and then quit. Unfortunately, instructors are complicit in this (and that I have seen first hand) in order to keep their school running.

I disagree, with respect. I feel that forms training is a prime example of that lack of experience/deeper knowledge of the art. Had the majority possessed this insight, TKD 'might' look different today. Be that good or bad is to the opinion of the beholder.

How familiar are you with Taegeuk pumse?

 

[dancingalone]

Regarding the idea that the KKW poomsae are or aren't reworked karate kata...What would make a poomsae 'reworked'?

I think it is true enough on a physical technique level. Having gone through the poomsae up through Taebaek, there's certainly not any stances, blocks, strikes that aren't also present within karate kata. You could perform the KKW forms with a Japanese karate mindset (take your pick which style) and you can definitely see the roots of Shuri te are still present in TKD, even within the Kukkiwon flavor.

If someone wants to make the argument that the intent within KKW poomsae departs in a large way from karate kata, I think that is potentially a much stronger case to build. That or the philosophical meaning which has been written about a good deal on MT in recent months.

As to TKD schools lacking depth or rigor in their forms training... I've never come across a TKD dojang in person that studies forms in the same way that some karate dojo do with layers of meaning to the same movement or sequences of movements such that a simple blocking motion is transmuted into a hold or lock or takedown. And that's fine. Given the connection TKD has to Japanese karate where such things are largely nonexistent as well I would expect as much.

This doesn't mean that TKD stylists don't know the overt meaning of each move in their forms. I think that most yudanja indeed do know it. It'd be hard to perform a poomsae well without this knowledge I think and we know there are many excellent poomsae practitioners in the TKD world.

For myself, I think there is an excellent opportunity to retrofit some karate bunkai into the KKW poomsae, given the broad similarity of discrete techniques within them compared to the Itosu-line karate kata. Whether that is something the designers of these forms would want I cannot say, but the path is open for those that don't mind a closer relationship with their karate roots.

 

[punisher73]

I think we need to understand different perspectives. Adoption of the name is well documented. A good question would be why was a name neccessary. We know the various Kwans were practicing different types of japanese or Okinawa systems. Why was a single name needed? Was the plan to do what Knao or Funakoshi did? Create not just a name but a single system with well defined parameters or something else? Having a single name encompass a variety of system is not unusual. We say systems from various Ryus referred to as Ju Jitsu. We saw various Okinawan and Japanese systems referred to as Karate. So, if the name Ju Jitsu or Karate did not exist, then did the things they referred to which pre dated the name make them incapable of being called Karate or Ju Jitsu?

Some say that the art was developed in part to bring something to the International stage for the purpose of familiarizing the world with Korea.

General Choi's 1965 Book is the first book in English I know of and i believe it was a translation of a prior Korean language edition.


Yet it states (Page 173) "Most of the patterns have been created and developed by the famous TKD masters in the course of many centuries.. They are classified into 3 main groups: the Sorim School, Soryong School, and Chang Hon School. It is my understnading that Sorim and Soryong were the Korean terms for the Okinawan Shorin and Shorei systems.

So, it can be seen that the term TKD was used in a somewhat generic fashion referring not only to the then relatively new Chang Hon System but other sytemns generally viewed only as roots or predecessors.

Perhaps it is a cultural issue, but then again that issue would seem to spread to the terms Karate or Ju Jitsu as well.

What's interesting is that when the book was translated and newer editions came out, material such as that quote was added. I know a well known instructor who studied in Korea and achieved Dan ranking while there in the 60's. He has a first edition copy of that book in Korean and the quote about the patterns is that they were Japanese in nature and the applications were not known.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Regarding the idea that the KKW poomsae are or aren't reworked karate kata...What would make a poomsae 'reworked'?

I think it is true enough on a physical technique level. Having gone through the poomsae up through Taebaek, there's certainly not any stances, blocks, strikes that aren't also present within karate kata. You could perform the KKW forms with a Japanese karate mindset (take your pick which style) and you can definitely see the roots of Shuri te are still present in TKD, even within the Kukkiwon flavor.

Just to be clear, when I said that the Taegeuk pumse are not reworked karate kata, I meant that they didn't take existing kata and alter them in ways to make them just different enough; the pumse are original forms, not simply permutations of karate kata.

Regarding strikes, blocks, and stances, I would expect commonality.

 

[dancingalone]

Just to be clear, when I said that the Taegeuk pumse are not reworked karate kata, I meant that they didn't take existing kata and alter them in ways to make them just different enough; the pumse are original forms, not simply permutations of karate kata.

Regarding strikes, blocks, and stances, I would expect commonality.

Indeed. It's fair to say the KKW poomsae are more original than the Palgwe or the Chang Hon patterns. The Chang Hon geup hyung are especially plagiaristic when you compare them side-by-side with the Heian kata.

Still, karate-ka, of the former or current variety, running through the KKW poomsae will conjure feelings of deja vu from time to time. I think it is also fair to say that the committee members who invented the Taegeuk & yudanja poomsae knew their karate kata very well and some influence was bound to bleed through at times.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Indeed. It's fair to say the Taegeuk poomsae are more original than the Palgwe or the Chang Hon patterns. The Chang Hon geup hyung are especially plagiaristic when you compare them side-by-side with the Heian kata.

I changed 'KKW' to 'Taegeuk, as the Palgwe are also KKW pumse.

Still, karate-ka, of the former or current variety, running through the KKW poomsae will conjure feelings of deja vu from time to time. I think it is also fair to say that the committee members who invented the Taegeuk & yudanja poomsae knew their karate kata very well and some influence was bound to bleed through at times.

I'd say that that pretty much sums it up.

 

[leadleg]

How many 'modern' practitioners (of any art that uses forms) sees those forms as a waste of time? A class-filler? Something that really doesn't apply to actual training? I'd say the majority.
I am sure you are wrong on this aspect, as a TKD guy with many TKD friends all over the world this statement is eroneous at best. Kong do, you are simply stating things you have heard nothing you have experienced. Most of your posts are semi- trolling, and if called out you start whining and repping.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

How many 'modern' practitioners (of any art that uses forms) sees those forms as a waste of time? A class-filler? Something that really doesn't apply to actual training? I'd say the majority.

I am sure you are wrong on this aspect, as a TKD guy with many TKD friends all over the world this statement is eroneous at best. Kong do, you are simply stating things you have heard nothing you have experienced. Most of your posts are semi- trolling, and if called out you start whining and repping.

I fixed this; at first, I thought you were restating KSD's post because you didn't use the quote function; it just blended in with your rebuttal.

 

[Gorilla]

No offense, Gorilla, but that pretty much applies to anyone making a definitive statement on a BBS.

Thus spake Daniel Sullivan

yep...some make allot more definitive statements than others

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

yep...some make allot more definitive statements than others

Yes, but all of mine are correct!

Thus spake Daniel Sullivan

 

[granfire]

No, I didn't I just didn't think it applied to the topic of why the Kwan founders studied karate in Japan since that's a matter of public record.

Pax,

Chris

that it is, but the topic also is the abundance of stories and lore (not to cal it myths and lies )

 

[Gorilla]

Yes, but all of mine are correct!

Thus spake Daniel Sullivan

Thanks Daniel for doing the heavy lifting on this one...great posts!!!! this is a interesting topic since we are Tkd and Shotokan . Allot of similar techs in both...we love both...

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Thanks Daniel for doing the heavy lifting on this one...great posts!!!!

No real heavy lifting; just first hand experience. Most of what I have posted is readily available to anyone who is interested in such things anyway.

this is a interesting topic since we are Tkd and Shotokan . Allot of similar techs in both...we love both...

Indeed. I loved Shotokan back when I did it in high school. Once I graduated, I went to a 'karate' school hoping to keep training and found that their' karate was different. And that's because it was Taekwondo, which I had always associated with Jhoon Rhee (that is where I had taken it prior to high school).

 

[Kong Soo Do]

How many 'modern' practitioners (of any art that uses forms) sees those forms as a waste of time? A class-filler? Something that really doesn't apply to actual training? I'd say the majority.
I am sure you are wrong on this aspect, as a TKD guy with many TKD friends all over the world this statement is eroneous at best. Kong do, you are simply stating things you have heard nothing you have experienced. Most of your posts are semi- trolling, and if called out you start whining and repping.

I'm sure that you are only commenting upon your personal experience and what you've heard. I have done the same. No difference.

BTW, I don't know what 'repping' is and I'd like to see where I've 'whined'? I have an opinion, I back up those opinions with personal/professional experience(s) and I comment on them. If they don't agree with your opinion then we obviously haven't had the same experiences.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

yep...some make allot more definitive statements than others

Some of us have quite a bit more experience than others :uhyeah:

Opps...that sounded 'arrogant'. :ultracool

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I'm sure that you are only commenting upon your personal experience and what you've heard. I have done the same. No difference.

And there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself.

Speaking generally however, there are times when personal experience, no matter how lengthy, does not equip us with knowledge of specific areas that may fall either outside of our experience or in which our lengthy experience only touches on.

And what we've heard is never a good basis for definitive statements unless the only thing one is definitive about is that they have heard it. Particularly when making statements of a technical nature.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

And there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself.

Speaking generally however, there are times when personal experience, no matter how lengthy, does not equip us with knowledge of specific areas that may fall either outside of our experience or in which our lengthy experience only touches on.

And what we've heard is never a good basis for definitive statements unless the only thing one is definitive about is that they have heard it. Particularly when making statements of a technical nature.

Agree 100%.