Facts, Fiction, Lies and actual accounts

[Daniel Sullivan]

I've read the book. I found it an interesting viewpoint, and it's certainly added a few new tactics and strategies to my SD arsenal. In my view, it sits quite comfortably with the KKW curriculum. I guess it just depends how you look at movements.

To my mind, Mr O'Neill wasn't suggesting anything so radically different to what we were already doing with our applications of poomsae in our classes. Just because it's called a block, doesn't mean that's all it has to be. For example, I've been using momtong bakkat makki as a brachial stun, and momtong an makki as a press to the rubbing point behind the elbow during an arm lock, for a long long time and have never been questioned by any master on it.

The application in the KKW textbook is one of many possible - the same textbook recommends exploration and selection of techniques and applications that work for the individual.

You make what you want to make of it. That's the beauty of Poomsae.

What you say above is essentially what Archtkd said below:

Of course one can use any part of their body to do anything they want, but it would be misleading for them to say they are applying or teaching a technique based on a Kukkiwon style form or technique that they misunderstood or rewrote. Were you taught to block with your forearm in Taekwondo or you learned it in other martial arts?

However, that does not negate what he said regarding the way that blocks are taught in Kukkiwon taekwondo:

Serious taekwondoin with basic knowledge of Kukkiwon taekwondo know that the wrist (palmok) -- no more that 1 1/2 inches down from the wrist joint -- or the hand blade (sonnal) are the primary parts used in blocking in Taeguk poomsae, self defense and sparring (not the hand blade). Kukkiwon texts and all teachers I've known make specific warning about blocking with the forearm because it can be easily broken.

So yes, you can pull many more applications from arae makki than what is in the KKW textbook, but if you are using arae makki in a way that differs from how it is taught by the KKW, then while it may be a valid technique in the generic sense, it is not KKW.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Give me a bit. In an issue of Classical Fighting Arts (I believe #21), they had an interview with Pat Nakata (who was a student of Chibana Sensei). In that interview he states that Itosu created the first Pinan kata to be a "kihon kata" for younger students. According to Nakata as told to him by Chibana, Itosu then created the other Pinan with a different intent to be inclusive of the other katas and a complete structure. Nakata also talks about the application/bunkai and the three levels taught. The first level was the simple block/punch/kick applications and the second level was the joint locks/throws etc. The third level was not taught openly, but took level two up a couple notches so the throws instead of being grabs to clothing were now grabbing the groin/throat etc. to do a throw (example given). This is going off of memory, so I will look when I am home and be able to give more specifics.

So, if we go back to Gen. Choi's first book in Korean he states that the forms were japanese karate and that he didn't know the applications. Later, this edition was reprinted and that was taken out. I don't think that Gen. Choi meant that he didn't know any applications, I think he was referring to what Nakata Sensei would call levels 2&3. As to the Korean forms being "reworked", again the definition is everything. I think that Gen. Choi used sequences found in the japanese katas with added touches of what he was refining and creating with his vision of TKD, when he created the Taeguk series. But, I don't think that they are a move for move rendering. If by "reworked" we mean that they are the same, just scrambled around in a different order I would disagree with that statement. If by "reworked" we mean that they are influenced by and find many sequences the same and someone looking at it would recognize it as Kata X, then I think we would say that they were "reworked".

To use a non-TKD example, here is what I would consider a "reworked kata".

Seibukan Seisan (very close to what Chotoku Kyan taught)

Shotokan Hangetsu

And finally, Tatsuo Shimabuku's Seisan (taken from Kyan's lineage)

So, I don't think that the Korean forms are just "reworked". I do however feel that they were based on their japanese counterparts and have lots of sequences the same, but not the overall strategy/concept that the base kata had.

It should be noted that General Choi's forms are the Chang Hon tul, not the Taegeuk pumse used in the Kukkiwon, and which have been at issue for a portion of this thread, nor did he create them.

 

[chrispillertkd]

So, if we go back to Gen. Choi's first book in Korean he states that the forms were japanese karate and that he didn't know the applications. Later, this edition was reprinted and that was taken out. I don't think that Gen. Choi meant that he didn't know any applications, I think he was referring to what Nakata Sensei would call levels 2&3.

Interesting. I have the 1965 book but don't recall seeing that statement in there. I'll have to reread the pattern section. Do you know if it was in the 1965 version or the earlier 1959 book (which was only published in Korean)?

The interesting thing about the 1965 book is that it specifies there are, IIRC, 365 pressure point or vital spots on a person's body that can attacked. So, I don't know if I'd say he didn't know know higher applications (maybe level 2 but I tend to doubt level 3 for several reasons, not the least of which are I don't know if Shotokan was teaching advanced applications at the time and he was a Korean in Japan at a time where a lot of discrimination existed). I think it also needs to be remembered that once Gen. Choi started teaching in the mililtary his emphasis shifted to teaching large groups of soldiers instead of a smaller group of students. The emphasis on power generation instead of hitting small pressure points and grappling might be better understood given this fact.

That isn't too say Taekwon-Do patterns can't be made to "work," so to speak. But if Shotokan doesn't emphasize higher level bunkai is it really a surprise that Taekwon-Do doesn't? If you look at his later books and read Gen. Choi's explanation about what patterns are for I think it will be pretty enlightening. Taekwon-Do is still quite effective for self-defense (and Gen. Choi even added a sizeable component of joint locks, throws, etc. in his 1972 book). But judging one art on the norms of another art isn't going to be exactly helpful, I think.

As to the Korean forms being "reworked", again the definition is everything. I think that Gen. Choi used sequences found in the japanese katas with added touches of what he was refining and creating with his vision of TKD, when he created the Taeguk series. But, I don't think that they are a move for move rendering.

Exactly. The most common example people pull out when they talk abotu this is Won-Hyo which is very similar to one of the Shotokan patterns (I can't remember off hand which one), but you can see some techniques from kata in Yoo-Sin, too. I'm sure there are others. But the same does hold true for KKW poomsae (I'm thinking her specifically of one of the black belt poomsae, maybe Chonkwon, IIRC). But I would argue there's a diffrence between taking techniques from one pattern and putting them in another pattern and simply rearranging a pattern into a "new" one. And for some reason no one mentions patterns like Ge-Baek, Eui-Am, Kwang-Gae, Hwa-Rang, Moon-Moo, Yon-Gae, Sam-Il, etc. when this topic comes up It's quite apparent, I think, that as time went on Gen. Choi got farther from his SHotokan roots.

The only thing I'd point out is that Gen. Choi didn't make the Taeguks. Those were done by the Kukkiwon folks after Gen. Choi left Korea.

Great post.

Pax,

Chris

 

[SahBumNimRush]

So yes, you can pull many more applications from arae makki than what is in the KKW textbook, but if you are using arae makki in a way that differs from how it is taught by the KKW, then while it may be a valid technique in the generic sense, it is not KKW.

So, the KKW text itself (which I do not own nor have read) "recommends exploration and selection of techniques and applications that work for the individual," but rejects said techniques as NOT KKW. Is this akin to what Punisher talked about above with levels 1,2, and 3, and that the KKW only teaches and endorses a level one explanation but encourages individual exploration of levels 2 and 3?

I only ask, because as a non-KKW TKD guy with interest in learning more about the KKW, I'm still a bit confused on all this. I have heard on here that both A). the KKW curriculum is loose curricular standard that can be built upon without restriction (I like this idea, btw) and B). The KKW standard is THE standard and all older parts of TKD should be left behind (while I can see the point, I would not be interested in doing so).

So, to put it another way, if "A" is the case, am I correct in stating that while a level 2 or level 3 technique would not be considered KKW (because it is not the basic standard), said practice is still encouraged and supported by the KKW?

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Originally Posted by Daniel Sullivan


So yes, you can pull many more applications from arae makki than what is in the KKW textbook, but if you are using arae makki in a way that differs from how it is taught by the KKW, then while it may be a valid technique in the generic sense, it is not KKW.

So, the KKW text itself (which I do not own nor have read) "recommends exploration and selection of techniques and applications that work for the individual," but denounces said techniques as NOT KKW. Is this akin to what Punisher talked about above with levels 1,2, and 3, and that the KKW only teaches and endorses a level one explanation but encourages individual exploration of levels 2 and 3?

Good point Master Rush. Daniel, I'm pretty sure I was clear that what I offered, as well as others like Master Anslow and Mr. O'Neill was not KKW. And that is the entire point, or one of them to this point in the thread. It doesn't have to be KKW. Alternate interpretations exist if one chooses to use them. No one is required to use them, but they are there if they wish to use them. Nothing more, nothing less.

The forearm strike, as mentioned in Mr. O'Neill's book is valid. It does not 'make sense' if it is viewed as a down block, it does make sense if you view the movement as something other than a down block. One is free to view it either way. One would need to seriously, and thoughtfully examine the material offered in order to make an informed decision IF they are interested in looking into alternate interpretations that are tactically sound for combat. If they aren't interested in putting in that research/training time then that is fine. But I'm going to politely suggest they refrain from negatively commenting on the position or training experience of those that have invested the time.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

So, the KKW text itself (which I do not own nor have read) "recommends exploration and selection of techniques and applications that work for the individual," but denounces said techniques as NOT KKW. Is this akin to what Punisher talked about above with levels 1,2, and 3, and that the KKW only teaches and endorses a level one explanation but encourages individual exploration of levels 2 and 3?

See what I bolded. I never said that or anything even remotely similar to that.

I only ask, because as a non-KKW TKD guy with interest in learning more about the KKW, I'm still a bit confused on all this. I have heard on here that both A). the KKW curriculum is loose curricular standard that can be built upon without restriction (I like this idea, btw) and B). The KKW standard is THE standard and all older parts of TKD should be left behind (while I can see the point, I would not be interested in doing so).

So, to put it another way, if "A" is the case, am I correct in stating that while a level 2 or level 3 technique would not be considered KKW (because it is not the basic standard), said practice is still encouraged and supported by the KKW?

The KKW text does not 'denounce' anything. But if you're pulling things out of the forms that are not in the textbook, then they simply aren't KKW sourced.

That doesn't make them good or bad, or denounced by the organization, but you shouldn't declare them as being something that the KKW teaches.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Daniel, I'm pretty sure I was clear that what I offered, as well as others like Master Anslow and Mr. O'Neill was not KKW.

I wasn't responding to you.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Denounce was not the appropriate word for what I am trying to get at, sorry. Reject may be a more appropriate word. What I mean is, since the KKW text apparently recommends exploration and selection of techniques and applications that work for the individual," but rejects said techniques as NOT KKW, could someone explain to me the purpose or intent of said recommendation?

I apologize Daniel if my lack of proper wording added to any flames here. I am, however, genuinely interested in your thoughts on this. Is it that the KKW is just the foundation and practitioners are encouraged to build upon it? Or is the "recommendation" eluding to something else in your opinion?

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I wasn't responding to you.

But I was responding to you, hopefully to clarify the point. You mentioned that the interpretations weren't KKW. This seemed to be a point of concern/contention for you. I wanted to clarify that no one, to my knowledge, either here in the thread or in research material had claimed that it was KKW.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Denounce was not the appropriate word for what I am trying to get at, sorry. Reject may be a more appropriate word. What I mean is, since the KKW text apparently recommends exploration and selection of techniques and applications that work for the individual," but rejects said techniques as NOT KKW, could someone explain to me the purpose or intent of said recommendation?

I would even call reject too strong a word. Kukkiwon TKD is what it is. ITF TKD is what it is. Shotokan is what it is. Hapkido is what it is. If you're mixing and matching applications from different sources, or even figuring things out on your own, if it isn't part of the KKW curriculum, then it is an add on.

I don't have any personal objection to people adding on and there is no place in the KKW textbook that I recall where adding on in your personal development is discouraged. I'm simply saying that if your add on isn't in the curriculum, then it has been sourced from elsewhere.

I apologize Daniel if my lack of proper wording added to any flames here. I am, however, genuinely interested in your thoughts on this. Is it that the KKW is just the foundation and practitioners are encouraged to build upon it? Or is the "recommendation" eluding to something else in your opinion?

No apology necessary; I didn't take offense to it at all. The bolded is how I view it. Others may disagree, and they may be correct.

In a technical discussion, however, I do feel that it is important to separate what is and is-not part of the core curriculum. So if someone states that 'the Kukkiwon teaches thus and so...' but it isn't in the core curriculum or the official training manuals, then it is incorrect to say that the Kukkiwon teaches it. The same holds true when discussing any other art or organization.

Really, the only places where add-ons or alterations would be rejected would be at pumse competition or a grading.

In sparring, as long as it falls within the rules (correct body part striking a valid target), then nobody cares. In other words, if you use sine wave in your techniques in sparring and score valid points, the points are not invalidated just because you executed them 'ITF.'

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Thank you Daniel for your response. Much of my question stems from my training and the future of my training. My MDK background is from a very much "outdated" TKD curriculum: Shotokan/Shudokan form sets, level 1 explanation of forms, level 2 and 3 explanation of movements in forms through 1 step sparring and SD training. I do not wish to abandon this, but after my KJN passes, I'm not sure where my journey may take me. KKW is one of these paths, but I do not wish for that to conflict with my material. I know many MDK members assimilated with the KKW, but I see great value in the older curriculum. I am interested to know if any one teaches both the old and the modern curricula simultaneously, and if so, what are the pros and cons?

 

[dancingalone]

Thank you Daniel for your response. Much of my question stems from my training and the future of my training. My MDK background is from a very much "outdated" TKD curriculum: Shotokan/Shudokan form sets, level 1 explanation of forms, level 2 and 3 explanation of movements in forms through 1 step sparring and SD training. I do not wish to abandon this, but after my KJN passes, I'm not sure where my journey may take me. KKW is one of these paths, but I do not wish for that to conflict with my material. I know many MDK members assimilated with the KKW, but I see great value in the older curriculum. I am interested to know if any one teaches both the old and the modern curricula simultaneously, and if so, what are the pros and cons?

If you take this path, perhaps we can correspond on a more meaningful basis on the boards and through other channels. I think we could trade quite a bit of information to mutual benefit.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Thank you Daniel for your response. Much of my question stems from my training and the future of my training. My MDK background is from a very much "outdated" TKD curriculum: Shotokan/Shudokan form sets, level 1 explanation of forms, level 2 and 3 explanation of movements in forms through 1 step sparring and SD training. I do not wish to abandon this, but after my KJN passes, I'm not sure where my journey may take me. KKW is one of these paths, but I do not wish for that to conflict with my material. I know many MDK members assimilated with the KKW, but I see great value in the older curriculum. I am interested to know if any one teaches both the old and the modern curricula simultaneously, and if so, what are the pros and cons?

I don't really see any cons whatsoever, so long as you can maintain the nuances specific to each form set. Is your MDK the MDK that unified with the Kukkiwon or from the MDK TSD that went with GM Hwang Kee? If TSD, does Tangsudo also include both form sets?

I know based on correspondence that there are schools that do teach form sets in addition to the Taegeuk pumse.

 

[terryl965]

Thank you Daniel for your response. Much of my question stems from my training and the future of my training. My MDK background is from a very much "outdated" TKD curriculum: Shotokan/Shudokan form sets, level 1 explanation of forms, level 2 and 3 explanation of movements in forms through 1 step sparring and SD training. I do not wish to abandon this, but after my KJN passes, I'm not sure where my journey may take me. KKW is one of these paths, but I do not wish for that to conflict with my material. I know many MDK members assimilated with the KKW, but I see great value in the older curriculum. I am interested to know if any one teaches both the old and the modern curricula simultaneously, and if so, what are the pros and cons?

I can say there is no con what so ever, mixing the old with new the new only makes sense. Tkd is a evolving art that needs the old to embrace all the new over the last ten years. The sport has given TKD an avenue to promote the Korean way of life though TKD. The old give us the substance to have a solid foundation to keep building the art and sport. I believe alot of good has come from this thread.

 

[punisher73]

It should be noted that General Choi's forms are the Chang Hon tul, not the Taegeuk pumse used in the Kukkiwon, and which have been at issue for a portion of this thread, nor did he create them.

Yep, you're right. Misspoke myself. Thanks for the correction!

 

[punisher73]

Interesting. I have the 1965 book but don't recall seeing that statement in there. I'll have to reread the pattern section. Do you know if it was in the 1965 version or the earlier 1959 book (which was only published in Korean)?

The interesting thing about the 1965 book is that it specifies there are, IIRC, 365 pressure point or vital spots on a person's body that can attacked. So, I don't know if I'd say he didn't know know higher applications (maybe level 2 but I tend to doubt level 3 for several reasons, not the least of which are I don't know if Shotokan was teaching advanced applications at the time and he was a Korean in Japan at a time where a lot of discrimination existed). I think it also needs to be remembered that once Gen. Choi started teaching in the mililtary his emphasis shifted to teaching large groups of soldiers instead of a smaller group of students. The emphasis on power generation instead of hitting small pressure points and grappling might be better understood given this fact.

That isn't too say Taekwon-Do patterns can't be made to "work," so to speak. But if Shotokan doesn't emphasize higher level bunkai is it really a surprise that Taekwon-Do doesn't? If you look at his later books and read Gen. Choi's explanation about what patterns are for I think it will be pretty enlightening. Taekwon-Do is still quite effective for self-defense (and Gen. Choi even added a sizeable component of joint locks, throws, etc. in his 1972 book). But judging one art on the norms of another art isn't going to be exactly helpful, I think.



Exactly. The most common example people pull out when they talk abotu this is Won-Hyo which is very similar to one of the Shotokan patterns (I can't remember off hand which one), but you can see some techniques from kata in Yoo-Sin, too. I'm sure there are others. But the same does hold true for KKW poomsae (I'm thinking her specifically of one of the black belt poomsae, maybe Chonkwon, IIRC). But I would argue there's a diffrence between taking techniques from one pattern and putting them in another pattern and simply rearranging a pattern into a "new" one. And for some reason no one mentions patterns like Ge-Baek, Eui-Am, Kwang-Gae, Hwa-Rang, Moon-Moo, Yon-Gae, Sam-Il, etc. when this topic comes up It's quite apparent, I think, that as time went on Gen. Choi got farther from his SHotokan roots.

The only thing I'd point out is that Gen. Choi didn't make the Taeguks. Those were done by the Kukkiwon folks after Gen. Choi left Korea.

Great post.

Pax,

Chris

It was the 1959 version in Korean that he referenced. It was in a talk about how martial arts history has been changed and how knowledge has been lost or not communicated in some cases. He also gave examples of other arts as well where this happened.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

I don't really see any cons whatsoever, so long as you can maintain the nuances specific to each form set. Is your MDK the MDK that unified with the Kukkiwon or from the MDK TSD that went with GM Hwang Kee? If TSD, does Tangsudo also include both form sets?

I know based on correspondence that there are schools that do teach form sets in addition to the Taegeuk pumse.

Somewhere in between. We use the term Taekwondo, not Tang Soo Do, and although my KJN has his early dan certifications through Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan, his later rankings are through the Korean Taekwondo Association, and KKW. However, he has only ever issued in house certificates. We have never practiced the KKW standard form sets outside of back in 80's and 90's when we were involved in USTU competitions (My KJN was past VP of USTU).

I am only guessing, but I would say my lineage aligned with the KTA during the unification but did not adopt the newer curriculum. For those of you who own Kang Uk Lee's Tang Soo Do book, my KJN is listed toward the top right hand side of the MDK family tree in the back (beside Ki Whang KIM and Kyong Won AHN). AHN went with the unification and was a close childhood friend of my KJN, whereas Ki Whang KIM sided with HWANG Kee, for the most part, and kept the old curriculum.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Somewhere in between. We use the term Taekwondo, not Tang Soo Do, and although my KJN has his early dan certifications through Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan, his later rankings are through the Korean Taekwondo Association, and KKW. However, he has only ever issued in house certificates. We have never practiced the KKW standard form sets outside of back in 80's and 90's when we were involved in USTU competitions (My KJN was past VP of USTU).

I am only guessing, but I would say my lineage aligned with the KTA during the unification but did not adopt the newer curriculum. For those of you who own Kang Uk Lee's Tang Soo Do book, my KJN is listed toward the top right hand side of the MDK family tree in the back (beside Ki Whang KIM and Kyong Won AHN). AHN went with the unification and was a close childhood friend of my KJN, whereas Ki Whang KIM sided with HWANG Kee, for the most part, and kept the old curriculum.

Sounds like your KJN went with the unification but did not ever change his curriculum. Nothing wrong with that, but since he's not issuing KKW certs, it means that after he passes, unless he has some high ranking subordinates who are also KKW ranked, his students' link to the Kukkiwon will be effectively severed.

Again, if nobody cares and is happy going on with what they're doing, then there's nothing wrong with that.

I think that it was Puunui and yourself that had a discussion about this in a previous thread.

 

[chrispillertkd]

It was the 1959 version in Korean that he referenced. It was in a talk about how martial arts history has been changed and how knowledge has been lost or not communicated in some cases. He also gave examples of other arts as well where this happened.

Nice! Where in the world did you get a copy of that thing?

Pax,

Chris

 

[d1jinx]

Sounds like your KJN went with the unification but did not ever change his curriculum. Nothing wrong with that, but since he's not issuing KKW certs, it means that after he passes, unless he has some high ranking subordinates who are also KKW ranked, his students' link to the Kukkiwon will be effectively severed. .

this is actually pretty common. alot of Koreans came over before and during the Unification of the kwans and didnt take to the change. Again, like you said, nothing wrong with it and it doesn't discredit anyone. and this didnt prevent any of them from having successful TKD schools and Orgs. Look at GM Joon Rhee and the Lee's of ATA. they didnt align with KKW and made out quite alright.