dancingalone
Grandmaster
But they could be. That's my perspective anyway and I am learning the KKW style now so I hope I don't speak as a total outsider.
Facts, Fiction, Lies and actual accounts
- Thread starter terryl965
- Start date
But they could be. That's my perspective anyway and I am learning the KKW style now so I hope I don't speak as a total outsider.
Gentlemen, I would strongly advise that you cool your blood before this 'discussion' reaches a pitch where we'll have to sling it into the Great Debate where no one will ever read it again. It's not there yet but please take care to stop it going that far.
It always seems to be TKD (with the various 'neo-Ninja' schools a short step behind) that stirs up this kind of mud.
I can only say that it is not a good advert for either the arts or those that practise it that any discussion can turn down the same somewhat distasteful alley at the drop of a hat.
Mark A. Beardmore
MT Mentor
{Nearly put "Moderator" then; old habits die hard
}
It always seems to be TKD (with the various 'neo-Ninja' schools a short step behind) that stirs up this kind of mud.
I can only say that it is not a good advert for either the arts or those that practise it that any discussion can turn down the same somewhat distasteful alley at the drop of a hat.
Mark A. Beardmore
MT Mentor
{Nearly put "Moderator" then; old habits die hard
}
You may or may not accept what I'm saying, however, I'll use your statement(s) for others to consider. They may then disregard what I offer or they may look into it for themselves and then make an informed decision. To begin with, your first statement;
This is incorrect. Additionally, I know and have talked with several TKD BB's and masters that share this position on forms. If you don't see them as such, it is because you were not instructed in this venue. A person can only teach what they themselves have learned or researched. Do the majority accept this position? No. Perhaps because they feel it isn't as financially lucurative as the venue they now teach. Perhaps they have no need for the venue that they teach. Perhaps it is lack of interest and it can even be arrogance or ego. Note that I'm not assigning any of those things to anyone in particular. General statements of observations. TKD caters in large part to children. Children can keep the doors open. You're not going to teach children techniques that are...a bit more on the brutal side.
Generally speaking, this is correct. But only because the creators of the Poomse (in general) didn't have an understanding of what they really had their hands on, for the most part. From a b/p/k perspective the forms are fair, but not good. What needs to be understood, if you're following me this far, is that they are based upon movements learned from TKD's parent art i.e. Karate. Karate kata are well done and contain a plethora of information, well beyond the b/p/k perception. For example, the opening movements of Pinan Shodan can be demonstrated as a very effective shoulder lock & takedown. Taking the balance displacement principle it demonstrates further, if can be used from a standing or ground position with equal effectiveness. However, some will only see it as some sort of block, that I would contend isn't all that effective. Poomse take many of the movements of Karate kata and transfer them to TKD Poomse. The order of movements may be altered and the flow changed to meet the needs of the form from a b/p/k perspective. In essense, while many of the Karate 'letters' are present in TKD Poomse, some content can be lost in translation as many form creators, apparently, didn't always form complete sentences from the letters. Though there is enough content present from the cross-over to be able to effectively flesh out the form. In otherwords, Karate kata contain a complete novel of principles, strategies and tactics. TKD Poomse contain a somewhat abridge version, but the information is still there. A 'high block' that is used in a Karate kata is also present in a TKD Poomse. The flow of the principle may, or may not be as 'precise' due to what has been added to or taken away from the surrounding movements, but it can still be demonstrated as an effective locking principle.
As an example, I can meet with a TKD practitioner and, if he/she is interested, take one of their forms and show some of the things that are in it. When I'm FTF with someone, it is always a 'light bulb' moment for them. The normal response is along the lines of, 'wow...I've never seen it presented that way. This opens it up into all sorts of training possibilities'. And it does. Even a 'simple' form such as Il Jang can contain months or even years worth of material to train including practical locks, balance displacement etc. This type of understanding could take TKD and bring it to an entirely new level, if one wanted to do so. Many don't want to, or don't need to as their satisfied with what they have and it works for them personally. And that's fine. But it IS there for those that want to take TKD beyond b/p/k.
With respect.
I think most serious Kukkiwon taekwondo practitioners know that. Here are excerpts taken straight from the Kukkiwon Taekwondo Instructor textbook.
... The best place to start the story of the modern development of Taekwondo is just after Korea’s liberation from Japanese colonization at the end of World War II in 1945. In the period between 1944 and 1947, the five main schools that would later combine to become Taekwondo were opened ... At that time, these schools used various names to describe what the were teaching .... As can be seen from this names not much at that time was given to foot techniques ....
... In the 1950s, taekwondo sparring still resembled the system used by Japanese Karate: the entire body was considered a target and not (sic) a contact was allowed. That reflected the belief that Taekwondo was first and foremost a method of self-defense where the entire body was a weapon and that contract (sic) between opponents would result in serious injury.
... In the early 1960s, however, some Taekwondo leaders started to experiment with a radical system that would result in the development of a new martial sport different from anything ever seen before. This new martial sport would bear some important similarities to the tradional Korean game, taekkyon ....
Not precisely, I think they've done an excellent job with what they knew. But no, I don't think that many of them were at the level of their counter-parts in Okinawa. I know that may sound like a put-down, and it isn't meant to be, but I don't know how else to frame my position. I think some Korean pioneers (read GM YOON) probably had an extensive understanding of what his arts contained. But many pioneers were lower Dan grade when they returned to Korea. No slam, no disrespect intented but this is how I view this topic. I clearly see things in the forms that aren't generally taught or accepted. To me, it is somewhat frustrating at times. But also I view the arts from a SD perspective and have to remind myself that some don't.
ralphmcpherson
Senior Master
Regarding poomsae applications for self defence, I have to agree with Kong soo do. My GM's teacher played a part in developing the palgwe forms and my GM says they were definetly designed for self defence purposes, but then my GM will tell you everything in tkd is for self defence. As my instructor says "if you want sport, go play tennis, if you want fun and fitness go join an aerobics class".
chrispillertkd
Senior Master
Interesting post. Thanks for the excerpt from the KKW book. I'm not a KKW Taekwon-Doin so it's nice to hear a different view on the development of Taekwon-Do, sometimes.
One question for you, and this isn't a "gotcha" type of inquiry. The excerpt you quoted says, "The best place to start the story of the modern development of Taekwondo..." Is there anything in the textbook about the "ancient" development of TKD? I ask because in the material I've seen that covers the development of KMA in general, and Taekwon-Do in particular, it isn't uncommon to see a "History of Taekwon-Do" section start in the Three Kingdoms Period and then fast forward to 1973 with the founding of the Kukkiwon. Little if any mention of the Kwans, Taekwon-Do being taught to troops in Viet Nam, etc.
Just curious.
Pax,
Chris
chrispillertkd
Senior Master
Ralph, by any chance do you know the name of your GM's instructor? Is it Hyun, Jong Myun by any chance?
Pax,
Chris
The Kukkiwon Kukkiwon Instructor Texbook, provided by the Kukkiwon 's World Taekwondo Academy, to all participants of the master instructor courses, touches briefly on the early history of Korean fighting/martial arts in the introduction, more as a primer to understanding Korean history and culture. The text does not directly tie those early fightin to the creation of taekwondo, the way that so many people assume, think or have misinterpreted from what some teachers have said. The text does state, as you read in the earlier excerpts I posted, that the revised kicking methods being developed in the 60s did have strong roots in Taekyyon. The text does not mention the use of modern taekwondo in modern combat .i.e Vietnam or the Korean War.
Part of that introduction in the text book reads thus:
"The history of subak and taekkyon is a good illustration of one of the Korean people's like of spirited martial arts. Further, the development for subak, which emphasized hand techniques, to taekkyon, which emphasized foot techniques show the traditional preference in Korean culture for sports or activities which use the feet. Perhaps even more important to the later development of taekwondo is the tendency of Korean martial arts to value difficult skills over easier and simpler ones. This aspect of Korean culture was to play an important role in developing Taekwondo into the highly sophisticated martial sport as it is today."
They certainly can, and applications of the pumse are actually detailed in the textbooks.
One thing that most people are unaware of is that the Kukkiwon curriculum is meant to serve as the common ground between the different kwans. Thus unique teachings of each kwan (boonhae, additional forms, etc.) were not supposed to just be scrapped in favor of this new curriculum.
My TKD GM taught applications to the forms and had a fairly well developed hoshinsul in his curriculum. He is also an IHF yukdan and former ROK hapkido instructor, so I know where it all came from.
The point is that the Kukkiwon curriculum is not meant to be a self contained whole, but the foundation upon which a unified, but diverse art can exist. Something that I would think many would welcome.
Except that you really don't know what is generally taught or accepted. You don't practice the art. I do practice the art and much of your characterization of the forms is simply incorrect.
The perspective that you view the art from is irrelevant, since you don't have the necessary knowledge to render an evaluation. That is very clear from your posts in this thread.
The fact that you're frustrated by how you think Kukki taekwondo is taught should tell you that you aren't spending enough time in your own Kong soo do, or whatever it is that you actually practice.
I have enough on my plate practicing TKD, HKD and Kendo without evaluating and critiquing other styles, styles that I don't know enough about to evaluate and critique anyway.
dancingalone
Grandmaster
Which textbooks do you refer to in specific? The ones I am familiar with do NOT detail applications beyond the block, kick, punch level. Which is fine and all, but we've been discussing about forms being repositories for more higher order information.
Honestly I got the opposite impression from reading some of the posts written by puunui and mastercole. The new curriculum created by the kwans coming together is supposed to be the latest, greatest information and taekwondoin should endeavor to update to current standards asap. Maintaining older information, while certainly the case with many under the KKW umbrella, represents a state of noncompliance though puunui was always consistent in maintaining that everyone is noncompliant on some level.
I didn't get the feeling that either gentleman felt there was much value to keeping old kwan material like the karate kata, etc. Modernize or die. And there's a certain logic to that line of reasoning when you think about it.
If I am wrong about my perception of their position, perhaps either or both could do me the favor of returning and clarifying what they think for me.
Honestly I'd rather see the KKW create and endorse a curriculum that could provide consistent technique and standards across the whole of the art, including SD, weapons, grappling, etc. I think that is something many would be interested in, instead of working with hodge-podge buckets from here and there.
dancingalone
Grandmaster
Which of KSD's characterizations out of curiosity (aside from the reworked thing which we've already addressed)?
The current one. I have the softbound two volume version. The applications are not overly elaborate, but they do mitigate against some of the things that KSD said about the forms.
I have always been under the impression that if one was teaching the old and not the new, that they were out of compliance. I'm not saying that the KKW was trying to endorse adding all the new curriculum to the old, but that it is meant to be the foundation, and if they wanted to teach the old, then they were not prohibited from doing so.
Wasn't where I was going with it. I view it more as the taegeuk pumse replacing whatever forms were used before, but things such as boonhae and hoshinsul, or whatever was taught in addition to the pumse.
While I agree, if they did that, then the same people that complain about the curriculum not being thorough enough would simply whine that the KKW was telling them how to run their school. They're successful as they are, so why change to satisfy people who are simply going to find excuses to criticize them regardless of what they do?
dancingalone
Grandmaster
Hmm, I own those but someone seems to have 'borrowed' them at the school. To be frank, I don't think they do much for me in the way of applications, but I will recheck at the earliest opportunity.
With regard to forms, there's definitely been a certain feeling expressed here that there's not much value for a modern KKW taekwondoin to practice the Palgwe, much less the Chang Hon or the karate kata.
And while your grandmaster may have taught 'good' applications beyond the b-k-p variety, I do believe he would be in the < 1% range that do. My honest opinion formed from lots of traveling and experience back when I was spending my trust fund and not doing much else other than training MA. I've darkened the doorway of many different MA schools, some run by very highly ranked and respected teachers. Just the truth as I see it - no disparagement intended to anyone or any art.
Because it would be a genuine service to taekwondoin worldwide. It would address many of the shortcomings, real or perceived, existing in their curriculum. As a school owner, I would see it as a positive asset for KKW affiliated dojang and I sincerely hope it is something that will happen eventually.
There's that. Then there's the whole 'shin bone vs. radial bone' thing, something that I have never been taught to do in over thirty years. By anyone. That was the point of mentioning the applications in the textbook.
Each form in the textbook has a set of photos to demonstrate the applications, none of which involve using the small bone of the forearm to block against the shin bone of the attacker. The application for blocks against kicks all involve striking the side of the lower leg, which would be a deflection, not a block. The closes thing in any of the pumse to a forearm versus shin block is the otkeoro arae makki ("X" block) in taegeuk chiljang (page 304) against an apchagi, and that really doesn't fit what he described.
Grabbing and pulling is detailed to some extent as well. Page 255 in discussing taegeuk sajang, for example.
Pages 37-52 detail all manner of hand/arm attacks, none of which are sport related, and some of which also appear in the forms. Also, all of Kukki taekwondo's techniques are not contained in the taegeuk pumse. There are another eight forms after black belt, starting with Koryu.
Then there's the whole issue of what each pumse represents; each one is a different palgwe (bagua) and the philosophical elements that go with them.
Last edited:
ralphmcpherson
Senior Master
I will try and find out. It was my instructor who originally told me, the name you quote does ring a bell.
Just to be clear, I'm not implying that you're going to see all kinds of hidden jujutsu in the Taegeuk pumse. Only that applications are in the textbook and they verify that the way that I was taught the forms wasn't radically different then the way the Kukkiwon intends them to be taught.
My GM did not do elaborate classes on the applications of the forms specifically. What he did was to teach hoshinsul that made use of the techniques in the forms. He would occasionally say something along the lines of, 'you know, like when you do Taegeuk samjang...'
The hoshinsul that he had involved defenses against grabs and such, and that was all culled from hapkido, and was part of self defense classes (we had a forms night, a self defense night, a sparring night, and an applications night, not necessarily in that order). It was a very holistic class. Once he started teaching hapkido as a separate curriculum, the class became less holistic and I ended up in the hapkido classes because I wanted more of those elements.
As I said before, I agree. But as it is now, they have little incentive to do so. Aside from what I'd said earlier, I don't think that the individual school owners are asking for such a course of action in meaningful numbers.
