How did Taekwon-Do (1955) predating 1966 look like?

[TrueJim]

I posted a link earlier to Chois first book about Taekwondo from 1959, not 1965. Thought you might like to add it to the wiki...

Done.

 

[Laplace_demon]

Well, my response initialy is how anyone would: A. Quantify what is an "Improvement" let alone a substantial improvement; and B. What would be the answer for the same question asked about Kano, Funakoshi, Ueshiba, or the KKW.

With regard to General Choi, things he did:

1. Changged from only relying on being "Deeply Rooted" so popular with Shotokan, to having a more mobile system, even while airborne;
2. Unify and codify a system from Fragments as practiced in Korea so it could be taught uniformly on a wide scale, setting forth technical parameters for attacking tools, how to use them against which vital spots, stances and purpose for the stance.
3. Develop instructors and dispatch them throughout the world to demonstrate and teach
4. Recruit instructors practicing the root systems and have them come on board to spread the art on a unified scale.

With regard to #2 above, having trained with old time Korean isntructors the lessons were "Like this" or "Not like this" . Seldom was there an explanation. General Choi gave reasons for his methodologies, which was unusual, which is not to say that reasoneable minds would not differ about whether they agrred with him, but at least he gave reasons. He also welcomed "Good" questions whereas in other schools asking questions was often considered disrepsectful. He also employed the socratic method when teaching.

Examples: Low outer forearm Block. Block stops with thumb knucle even with center line. Other systems had it stop over the front leg. His reason was the abdomen is exposed if the arm moves further out. Leaving it there continues the protection.

Walking Stance. Lead loower leg angles rearword so kneecap is over heel. Other systems, lower leg is vertical. His makes it much easier for lead leg kiscking withou as large a weight shift.

Since his extensive text contains 15 volumes the above is certainly not meant to be exhaustive.

The more mobile stance compared to Shotokan has always been highly controversial. It's at best a trade off, not improvement. Choi asserted that TKD had surpassed Karate. He was the one attempting to improve Karate, later claiming to have done so. I am not impressed.

 

[TrueJim]

There are loads of places in Germany that practice the Chang Hon set and do not use the sine wave. They call themselves 'Traditional Taekwondo', but I am fairly sure they have no link to the ITF.

That has been my observation as well. Some Chang Hon-style schools that don't adopt the Sine Wave refer to themselves as "traditional" taekwondo.

But then, the school my son and I attend is a Kukkiwon-style school, and right there on the website of the school, they call themselves "traditional" taekwondo as well! It just goes to show you, one man's new-fangled-style is another man's "traditional."

 

[TrueJim]

1. Changed from only relying on being "Deeply Rooted" so popular with Shotokan, to having a more mobile system, even while airborne;

For me, this seems like a really big change from karate. When I first joined a "taekwondo" club in North Carolina in the late 1970s, the instructor called it taekwondo, but it was much more karate-like. The stances were wide and...as you say...rooted.

Then when I started Kukkiwon-style with my son a couple years ago, I had to learn to narrow my stances. I couldn't figure out why...why would anybody want narrow stances? Then I read it was because taekwondo emphasizes agility and a variety of spinning kicks, and a light-bulb went off over my head.

 

[TrueJim]

While we're on the topic of Encyclopedias and ITF canon...

The wikia software system doesn't give me a lot of insight into who is reading what...but it does give me a little. The wiki gets about 800 page-views per day on average. What's interesting to me though is: the most-read pages are almost invariably the ones about Chang Hon style. I've puzzled over this for quite a while. Websites like Blue Cottage are pretty darn good...I wonder why the wiki gets so much ITF-related traffic, when there are great alternatives...including even the freely-downloadable Encyclopedia itself in PDF form.

 

[elder999]

Sometimes you have to know the system in the first place in order to understand what you're being taught. One of Gen. Choi's "Basic Principles" for stepping is: "The body must always become half facing the opponent when stepping backwards and forwards."

This not only reduces the potential that you are hit because you don't present as open of a target as you could but it also makes utilizing your hip quite natural with no need for an over exaggerated twisting. (This all assumes one is familiar with the concept of full, half, and side facing in the first place, of course.)

What is being shown in the video, however, is not technically stepping it's moving from a kick into two punches. After executing the front snap kick one is already full facing. If you were to try to get into a half facing position before executing the first punch you would have to rotate the hip and torso backwards first, thus diminishing any momentum you had after the kick. When moving from a full facing position (after the kick) directly into another full facing position (the punch) you stay full facing. Hence Gen. Choi telling him not to twist his body and making sire his torso stays full facing during both punches.



IMO the person demonstrating is doing a poor job there. The backwards motion should be negated by engaging the knee of the front leg.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

It was pretty straight forward. Sorry you couldn't understand out.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Jaeimseu]

With regard to General Choi, things he did:

2. Unify and codify a system from Fragments as practiced in Korea so it could be taught uniformly on a wide scale, setting forth technical parameters for attacking tools, how to use them against which vital spots, stances and purpose for

With regard to #2 above, having trained with old time Korean isntructors the lessons were "Like this" or "Not like this" . Seldom was there an explanation. General Choi gave reasons for his methodologies, which was unusual, which is not to say that reasoneable minds would not differ about whether they agrred with him, but at least he gave reasons. He also welcomed "Good" questions whereas in other schools asking questions was often considered disrepsectful.

I would guess that this was necessary for General Choi to do this once he left Korea and began teaching more Westerners. Culturally, the teaching style in Korea (probably all of Asia, as well, though I only have first hand experience in Korea) and in Canada or America is incredibly different.

 

[TrueJim]

Culturally, the teaching style in Korea (probably all of Asia, as well, though I only have first hand experience in Korea) and in Canada or America is incredibly different...

Years ago at work I had to coordinate Six Sigma ("process improvement") training for offices in the U.S. and UK. The training included a deck of a few hundred (!) PowerPoint slides. My UK point-of-contact looked me in the eyes and with a straight face said, "Only a Yank would think anybody learns anything by looking at slides." I couldn't disagree with him.

The "Like this" or "Not like this" approach would probably be a big improvement over a lot of teaching methods that I see.

 

[Laplace_demon]

That's interesting. I cannot name any schools that belong to any of the ITF's - and I know people that being to all three ITF organizations - that do not practice sine wave. Even the schools I know of that have joined one of the ITF organizations have in short order adopted sine wave. I suppose if you want to get pedantic you could say that at one point those school weren't practicing sine wave but if you join the ITF you adopt sine wave. Period. That's much different that you saying sine wave isn't a universal practice in the ITF or Wikipedia, an online source I could go and edit right now to say something else if I wanted to, saying that some ITF schools adopt sine wave while others don't as if it's just an option. You might as well say some Isshin Ryu schools use a vertical fist when punching and some don't or some Wing Chun school use chain punching while others don't. You know, whatever they want to do.

As for when sine wave was introduced, GM Kim, Yong Soo, who was the ITF chief instructor at one point, said in an interview in 2005 that it was introduced in the late 1960's. I'm going to take his word on it over Wikipedia's. You can make up your own mind on the matter, of course.



Well, that's a long time. I'm sure you have a pretty good handle on the nuances of the art and its history at this point.

Pax,

Chris

I would assume in any case that a truly traditional ITF school, not geared towards ITF competition (in which sine wave is mandatory) could teach it either way. I at any rate don't concider sine wave a defining characteristic of ITF Taekwon-Do. Something which only gained prominence in the 80s, as a direct result of an overly ambitious, brain storming General Choi. My school is geared towards competition and teaches sine wave.

 

[chrispillertkd]

I would assume in any case that a truly traditional ITF school, not geared towards ITF competition (in which sine wave is mandatory) could teach it either way.

This is debatable since a truly tradition ITF school would be a member of the ITF and follow the ITF syllabus. Tradition comes from a Latin word meaning "to hand on" (tradere).If you're a traditional ITF school you're teaching what has been handed on by Gen. Choi. Do instructors vary things sometimes? Sure. I know many instructors who have different ho sin sul techniques that they teach, or different free sparring drills. But I don't know any ITF instructors who do not teach sine wave.

Your previous posts said you knew some. I'd be very interested in knowing who they are, as well as knowing which of the ITF groups you belong to so I can know which organization has made sine wave an optional requirement.

I at any rate don't concider sine wave a defining characteristic of ITF Taekwon-Do. Something which only gained prominence in the 80s...

You obviously know more about this than I do so I would only ask upon what you're basing this belief. It certainly can't be that it only gained prominence in the 80's because it existed even in the 1960's, according to the then-ITF Chief Instructor. I've also heard Gen. Choi as well as three of his highest ranking and longest lasting students all talk about the importance of sine wave to Gen. Choi's system. But I would appreciate any light you could shed on this for me.

...as a direct result of an overly ambitious, brain storming General Choi.

You know, of course, that this statement kind of undercuts your pervious one about sine wave not being a defining characteristic of Taekwon-Do.

My school is geared towards competition and teaches sine wave.

My school is not geared towards competition and also teaches sine wave.

Pax,

Chris

 

[RTKDCMB]

That video is puzzling. Is he saying that they should never twist their waist or that they ARE never twisting their waist?

I would guess the former as he says 'That is sine wave, don't twist".

 

[RTKDCMB]

There are loads of places in Germany that practice the Chang Hon set and do not use the sine wave. They call themselves 'Traditional Taekwondo', but I am fairly sure they have no link to the ITF. I wonder if this is the case in Sweden.

It is the case in Australia with at least two major organizations.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Years ago at work I had to coordinate Six Sigma ("process improvement") training for offices in the U.S. and UK.

Like TKD Six Sigma also has black belts.

 

[elder999]

It was pretty straight forward. Sorry you couldn't understand out.

Pax,

Chris

Interesting...

Sometimes you have to know the system in the first place in order to understand what you're being taught. One of Gen. Choi's "Basic Principles" for stepping is: "The body must always become half facing the opponent when stepping backwards and forwards."

True or not (not), what's that got to do with rising before sinking into a strike?

This not only reduces the potential that you are hit because you don't present as open of a target as you could but it also makes utilizing your hip quite natural with no need for an over exaggerated twisting. (This all assumes one is familiar with the concept of full, half, and side facing in the first place, of course.)

What-in the name of the Buddha's beard-has that got to do with rising before sinking into a strike?

What is being shown in the video, however, is not technically stepping it's moving from a kick into two punches. After executing the front snap kick one is already full facing. If you were to try to get into a half facing position before executing the first punch you would have to rotate the hip and torso backwards first, thus diminishing any momentum you had after the kick. When moving from a full facing position (after the kick) directly into another full facing position (the punch) you stay full facing. Hence Gen. Choi telling him not to twist his body and making sire his torso stays full facing during both punches.

We'll deal with the illogic of this later (move from full facing into full facing, when, well, you could turn?), but what, in the name of the Buddha's beard and almighty Zeus's butthole has this to do with rising before sinking into a strike?

IMO the person demonstrating is doing a poor job there.

Yeah, that's because......I dunno....sine wave

The backwards motion should be negated by engaging the knee of the front leg.

And now we're right back where we started:

 

[Gnarlie]

Like TKD Six Sigma also has black belts.

Useless in a street fight though.

 

[Gnarlie]

Sometimes you have to know the system in the first place in order to understand what you're being taught. One of Gen. Choi's "Basic Principles" for stepping is: "The body must always become half facing the opponent when stepping backwards and forwards."

This not only reduces the potential that you are hit because you don't present as open of a target as you could but it also makes utilizing your hip quite natural with no need for an over exaggerated twisting. (This all assumes one is familiar with the concept of full, half, and side facing in the first place, of course.)

What is being shown in the video, however, is not technically stepping it's moving from a kick into two punches. After executing the front snap kick one is already full facing. If you were to try to get into a half facing position before executing the first punch you would have to rotate the hip and torso backwards first, thus diminishing any momentum you had after the kick. When moving from a full facing position (after the kick) directly into another full facing position (the punch) you stay full facing. Hence Gen. Choi telling him not to twist his body and making sire his torso stays full facing during both punches.



IMO the person demonstrating is doing a poor job there. The backwards motion should be negated by engaging the knee of the front leg.

Pax,

Chris

But it looks like the General is letting him fall back even at the points where the General has control...and perhaps there is something here that I don't understand about sine wave, but even if that back leg negates the backward motion, you still only have a vertical up-down motion with no vector contributing to the punch.

I understand the use of sine wave for motions where there is a step forward, adding gravity as an assistive force. But on the spot as it is here, or in a stationary horse stance, I can't get my head round what it actually adds.

 

[chrispillertkd]

But it looks like the General is letting him fall back even at the points where the General has control...

It's hard to tell exactly what's going on from the video. All I can say is when I have asked about this I've been personally told there must be no backwards motion by some people in the ITF with rank that can only be described as stratospheric. In the video it looks to me like Gen. Choi is holding his back straight and not letting him twist from side to side because that is the thing he is concentrating on teaching at that time. I've seen plenty of people teach and only focus on one or two things instead of everything that needs to be fixed. I do it myself at times. It's just a question of priorities.

and perhaps there is something here that I don't understand about sine wave, but even if that back leg negates the backward motion, you still only have a vertical up-down motion with no vector contributing to the punch.

I think you may have made a typo here as before I mentioned you negate the backwards motion by unbending the front knee. As a note, this shouldn't result in the front leg becoming completely straight. The front knee should remain flexed slightly. But as you straighten it the body lifts and then drops without the backwards motion seen in this video, which results in the settling down of the weight into the punch with no backwards motion taking power away from the technique.

I understand the use of sine wave for motions where there is a step forward, adding gravity as an assistive force. But on the spot as it is here, or in a stationary horse stance, I can't get my head round what it actually adds.

Much like a sitting stance itself (a "horse stance") which has it's primary use as training the legs to get stronger, IMHO using sine wave while stationary is a training tool to get the students used to raising and dropping their weight. While a sitting stance does have other uses standing in one and throwing front punches is likely less directly applicable than the strengthening of the legs that is going on at the same time. Similarly, shuffling the weight in a stationary position does help you sink your mass into the technique, but it seems to be more important as a learning method so the student can easier generalize what's happening when actually stepping.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

True or not (not), what's that got to do with rising before sinking into a strike?

My comment was made in response to Gnarlie's question about Gen. Choi saying the student should not twist his body when punching. The topic of sinking one's weight wasn't at issue.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Earl Weiss]

And I posted some pre-sine wave ITF tae kwon do upthread as well...then, of course, there's this resounding demonstration of what I think is a complete misunderstanding of physics and basic body mechanics:

Watch General Choi's rear leg when he demonstrates, the bending of the knee and lifting of the heel. Then do a search for "Kinetic Linking" "Closed Chain Linking" and the Fight science video. (post #448 Below) It's the same thing. Agreed that the student has excessive forward and backward motion.

This video and comment about "Don't Twist your body" is a classic example of taxing an excerpt of something he said and thinking it was meant to be exhaustive, exclusive and all encompassing when instead he would say something to make a point and that is not how he meant it. How do I know? Because at the very same courses he would address using the hips and abdomen to generate power.

AFAIAC he was making a point about excessive twisting for this student.