No but you said TKD was not progressing in direct reply to discussing its sparring and how its gotten "softer".
...unless youre trying tk change the answer now...
How did Taekwon-Do (1955) predating 1966 look like?
- Thread starter Laplace_demon
- Start date
No but you said TKD was not progressing in direct reply to discussing its sparring and how its gotten "softer".
...unless youre trying tk change the answer now...
Laplace_demon
Black Belt
The old style:
1. Pivots 180 degrees
2. Leans the whole body into the kick
3. Uses the ball of the foot to strike
4. Whip-cracking motion at the target
5. Speed acceleration via torque from slight twisting from opposite side in the beginning
6. Target-High, Middle, Low sections
7. Powerful
8. Most common complaint is the speed, but I notice this varies individually
9. Trained with suspended bags
Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy
One article?
Which again said, "VARIES INDIVIDUALLY"
I literally just explained the physics and mechanics behind equalization.....read it and try again
Laplace_demon
Black Belt
I don't recall writing that. The sparring has gotten softer for sure. I wrote that sparring rules are not intrinsic to TKD or any other martial art. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the thread.
Sure,
So whats your response to your other point?
In the rogan thread you believed ITF to be superior, but after this article you believe Kukki kocks to be superior based on a difference in tech.
Even though your own article of evidence goes against the "style v style" point youre trying to make, and we explained the equalizing physics behind the differing techs.
Laplace_demon
Black Belt
Varies individually, but still realistically slower - worse acceleration, than the never version. This is my contention. I could be wrong.
Laplace_demon
Black Belt
In summary then: God bless WTF (think I am gonna be sick..)
Laplace_demon
Black Belt
It is not the same thing. Do you seriously wish to challenge a philosophy undergraduate in verbal comprehension? Have you ever concidered the possibility of the talent pool being weaker? or the progression being irrelevant stuff? Progression carries with it different connotations.
was that your dad too?
And yes, they can carry different connotations. But you said that in direct repsonse to discussing sparring. You cant go back and act like you meant something else now
Laplace_demon
Black Belt
The fact that WTFers today can do things differently technically does not mean that A) those things are of any use, B) That those practitioners are stronger than they were in the 90s. You point to one guy - Lopez, and base your hole contention that because of him, most of the talent pool is surely stronger, and surely employ superior techniques.
...
I used lopez because his family is very well known.
My instrcutor qualified and competed in the 97 jr. Olympics, he kept up and outspeed MANY other kukki guys to get there.
Not to mention the other guys in our association at the time who were also competing, my boo sah bum nim was briefly the state champ of wv for a time, for example.
And no, youre the only guy pointing fingers in any direction of one styles twch being surperior.
We've been giving examples and the physics behind the exact opposite.
And the kukki guys ARENT doing things differently, their techs are the same. Tje people have grown thus allowing competition to grow.
Not to mention the example i gave wasnt meant as an example of all the growth within kukki tkd, in another thread we showed other videos and links for that. My example was specificall and blatantly to show no specific execution is superior. We had many successful competitiors at the time, my instrcutor just went the farthest fighting the "old way"
Laplace_demon
Black Belt
You can't have it both ways. You specifically claimed that they (WTFers) were worse fighters 10 years ago, but now retract it by saying that the've "grown". LOL.
.......yes the competition in kukki HAS grown over 10 years.....they were worse 10 years ago. Literallt the the same statemenr with different wording,i havent retracted anything.
The individuals and level of competition have grown, but the TECHNIQUES are the same as 10 years ago.
Ive seen many current Kukki kickers who are out kicked other styles who kick differently. Its not hard to find for those who actually go out and train. You realize real quick there isnt some superior tech
Not to mention the ITF guys who are now performing on WTF,
So even if your argument is my examples are dated and flawed, you can find power and speed from old style kickers from other associations equatable modern Kukki kickers, even on youtube.
So, no, my point still stands,
because you see when you grow, youre better now than you before and worse back then than you are now.
You seem to have this inner desire to prove either WTF or ITF is better than the other and its just not.
Laplace_demon
Black Belt
You are the one hung up on that. I am simply discussing a kick. I have never claimed ITF is superior to KKW. You made that up in your mind somehow.
I suggest you go back and look over some of your posts in other threads.
Not assuming you will, you've already been flippy floppy in this thread...
Just a suggestion
Laplace_demon
Black Belt
Show the quote were I said ITF is superior to KKW. I challenge you to find it.
Jaeimseu
3rd Black Belt
It's important to remember that the speed in the equation is not related to the time it takes to throw the kick, but how fast the object is moving upon impact. When we talk about how fast a kick is it can be deceiving.
Laplace_demon
Black Belt
Yes. However, the time it takes to throw the kick affects (many would argue) the acceleration upon impact. I happen to be able to accelerate it pretty fast, but it still doesn't seem to be a very economical kick, especially if I am out of the dojo, in jeans. I still like it, though.
Last edited:
chrispillertkd
Senior Master
I read through the article and there are some inaccuracies in it. First, the rotation of the base (supporting) foot is not 180 degrees. There is no documented evidence in Gen. Choi's 1965 or 1972 textbooks or in the later Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do that the base foot pivots 180 degrees. No such directions are given in the 1965 text. The 1972 text states that the base foot should point almost completely forward. This is in relation to the body; the kick is actually being thrown at an angle to the "side front" (approximately 45 degrees from the front). The encyclopedia states that "the toes of the stationary foot should point 45 degrees outward at the moment of impact." That's a greater angle than keeping the toes almost completely forward as the 1972 text states, but nowhere near 180 degrees.
As for what attacking tool is used, turning kicks used the ball of the foot but also the knee as early as the 1965 textbook. In the 1972 textbook the attacking tools are listed as ball of the foot, knee, instep, and toes (if shoes are worn).
There might also be some confusion about the KKW/WTF "bit chagi." I am under the impression that the 45 degree angle this kick is often referred to as being delivered at is in relation to the rotation of the hip/leg. So instead of rotating completely over the hip only partially rotates so the bit chagi is delivered as kind of a cross between a front kick and a turning kick so the kick travels slightly upwards into the target hitting with the instep instead of coming straight across. But in the article the bit chagi is compared to the turning kick in Choong-Moo tul, which is delivered at a 45 degree angle from where the kicker stands (if you're facing 12 o'clock your kick is aimed at between 1 and 2 o'clock) not a 45 degree rotation of the hip/leg. Maybe a KKW Taekwondoin can speak to this?
Pax,
Chris
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
重心 Zhòngxīn center of gravity- Latest: windwalker099
-
-
-
-