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

[chrispillertkd]

I also know that in 1959 the person that signed General Choi's honorary 4th Dan Taekwondo certificate publicly revoked it in the national newspaper in Korea (translation from article reposted in A Modern History of Taekwondo by KANG Won Sik and LEE Kyong Myong, Bokyung Moonhwasa, ISBN 89-358-0124-0 - if you understand Korean I'm happy to post a scan of the pages in Korean):

Come on, Andy, if you're going to bring up this story then you have to also point out that GM Son, Duk Sun had already been removed as Kwan Jang of the Chung Do Kwan when he supposedly "revoked" Gen. Choi's 4th dan. He also, in the same newspaper add expelled Nam, Tae Hi; Hyun, Jong Myun; and Uhm, Woon Kyu from the Chung Do Kwan. If you are going to put any weight whatsoever in what GM Son did you're going to have to accept those "expulsions," too. But NO ONE does. And GM Uhm succeeded GM Son as Chung DO Kwan Kwan Jang. How does that work if what GM Son did had any validity?

General Choi was also sending instructors (Sabums) to Vietnam, but he did that on his own authority and chose the number of instructors to send without consulting me.

And Gen. Choi was the head of the Oh Do Kwan so why would he need GM Sons input on sending out his own instructors? Frankly, given the fact that Gen. Choi told GM Son he couldn't come along on the international demonstration tours since the members were all military Taekwon-Doin it seems like a lot of GM Son's reaction to Gen. Choi is based on some hard feelings. YMMV, of course.

Funny how General Choi never mentions that the Dan certificate he had in Taekwondo was only an honorary one nor that it was revoked/cancelled... Anyway, this goes to show there were other people more senior than him in Taekwondo (which even he obviously acknowledged at the time or he wouldn't have asked for higher Dan rank, he'd have just said "as the founder, I am considering myself X Dan from now").

Meh, all the Kwan founders ended up promoting themselves to higher rank after returning to Korea. As founders of their individual Kwans they were free to do as they wanted in the rank department, after all.

As for Gen. Choi getting a dan certificate in Taekwon-Do, this blow up all occurred in 1959. The Chung Do Kwan was teaching Taekwon-Do only because Gen. Choi was the honorary Kwan Jang, at GM Lee, Won Kuk's request, and basically made them use the name. The Oh Do Kwan had been using "Taekwon-Do" for years at that point.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

Here's a picture of an ITF practitioner in a front stance I grabbed off the internet.
View attachment 19061

That's a walking stance in ITF terminology. Except it's too long to be a walking stance. And that's not an ITF dobok.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Dirty Dog]

That's a walking stance in ITF terminology. Except it's too long to be a walking stance. And that's not an ITF dobok.

Pax,

Chris

Shhhhh... don't help the guy... I was trying to give him a chance to show his in depth knowledge. He didn't, so I'm pretty much done. If he insists on wallowing in ignorance and misinformation, I'm happy to let him.

 

[Archtkd]

It's by definition a different style, having different patterns, and a different art, not employing shared techniques ( some are, some not).

Tell me the commonalites then, besides both using their feet (in WTFs case rarely punching).

The dobok - not the same.

Turning kick/ roundhouse in WTF, is NOT a Mawashi geri as in ITF and it's precedors.

Stance is different.

Punches are virtually non existent, outside of the pomsae.

Grading is up to 10 dan, while ITF is up to 9

WTF does not recognize an ITF black belt, as a black belt of Taekwondo.

Etc.

This is a dead donkey we are beating, but here we go:

1. The World Taekwondo Federation (WTF) is an international sports organization, whose member national associations select and recognize whoever they want in their own countries -- even those with no blackbelts -- for international sport taekwondo competition. Essentially only taekwondoin who compete internationally should be concerned with the WTF. Put another way, 99.5 percent of the millions of Kukkiwon taekwondo practioners worldwide will never have any dealings with the WTF.

2. The WTF does not issue dan certification of any kind.

3. Lots of punching exists in Kukkiwon style taekwondo in and outside the WTF style competition arena. A large part of Kukkiwon style taekwondo self defense training is centered on close quarter hand techniques.

4. The majority of the very few 10 dans issued by the Kukkiwon are awarded to dead folk, who've made major contributions to the art. Others are purely honorary awards.

5. The roundhouse kick in Kukkiwon style taekwondo can be thrown using the ball of the feet or the instep.

6. All the stances in Kukkiwon style taekwondo are found in ITF style taekwondo, albeit with minor differences. Specifically: the back stance, horse riding stance, fighting stance, cat/tiger stance are almost identiical. The biggest difference could be the Kukkiwon style long stance -- which lacks the wide width and sweep in some styles of ITF taekwondo.

 

[andyjeffries]

Come on, Andy, if you're going to bring up this story then you have to also point out that GM Son, Duk Sun had already been removed as Kwan Jang of the Chung Do Kwan when he supposedly "revoked" Gen. Choi's 4th dan. He also, in the same newspaper add expelled Nam, Tae Hi; Hyun, Jong Myun; and Uhm, Woon Kyu from the Chung Do Kwan. If you are going to put any weight whatsoever in what GM Son did you're going to have to accept those "expulsions," too. But NO ONE does. And GM Uhm succeeded GM Son as Chung DO Kwan Kwan Jang. How does that work if what GM Son did had any validity?

I accept all that and it's all debatable, particularly from a point of view where we are after the fact. However, the point I have never heard any argument about (and the reason I quoted it) is that he had an "honorary dan certificate" in Taekwondo. Why would the founder of a martial art a)have needed an honorary certificate rather than a real/tested on and b)have needed to ask anyone else for rank when surely he's the most senior martial artist in his own martial art?

I'd also wonder whether GM Son had the ability to revoke a dan certificate when he was no longer legally the kwanjangnim. I am in two minds - on one hand it's a CDK certificate and he was no longer the CDK head, on the other hand he could say "it's my signature on the cert, as far as I'm concerned it should be ripped up, if you want another one, ask the current CDK head for one with his signature". Both are valid points of view and I'm not sure on any given moment which I agree with.

However, there has been no real debate around the "honorary" and "asking for" points of view.

Remember this was posted in response to Laplace_Demon saying that "ITF is based on the Taekwondo promoted by General Choi in the 50 and 60s. It doesn't get more traditional than that" and also that General Choi was promoting his Taekwondo in the 1950/60s when as discussed above, at that point he was still asking for rank from his seniors.

 

[Laplace_demon]

They all semantically mean pattern, but different styles have their own patterns. I made the claim it's a different martial art, but for the sake of the discussion I will go by your opinion that it's the same martial art.


The chang hon forms are patterns from General Choi and ITF. Pomsae does not refer to the patterns created by General Choi, and no ITF school would ever use them. Only hybrids - that is to say instructors from both organisations will teach it. And yes I stand by schools being organisation-influenced. The students wear different doboks, spar differently,etc.

These are the patterns MOST WTF schools (dobok, competition, sparring) use:

These are not even remotely similiar to the Chang hon forms and it's no accident ITF-schools refuses to employ them. ITF recognizes General choi as the founder of Taekwondo, WTF does not.

 

[Laplace_demon]

5. The roundhouse kick in Kukkiwon style taekwondo can be thrown using the ball of the feet or the instep.
.

I am not talking about the ball of the feet or the instep. My claim is much bigger than that. Modern Taekwondo/kukkiwon, does not employ the roundhouse kick from karate, known as as Mawashi Geri, which however ITF practitioners learn.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I'd be very wary of saying "traditional Taekwondo" to mean ITF.

b) The kwans that unified to form Kukki-Taekwondo under the KTA group pre-date the founding of the ITF, so therefore surely that organisation (and it's international representatives Kukkiwon and WTF) is the real "Traditional" Taekwondo.

ITF is based on the Taekwondo promoted by General Choi in the 50 and 60s. It doesn't get more traditional than that.

You might both be wrong:

TaeKwon-Do was originally designed as a martial art of self defence. Rhee Tae Kwon Do Australia has two of the original twelve masters who were sent out to officially spread the art across the world. Rhee Tae Kwon Do Australia is also based on the original Taekwondo promoted by General Choi in the 50 and 60s. Now both ITF and WTF/Kukkiwon have added sporting elements and ITF has added the sinewave whilst Rhee Tae Kwon Do Australia has kept pretty much to the original format. So we could say that it does not get more traditional than that


It all depends on your perspective and what you would define as traditional.

 

[andyjeffries]

TaeKwon-Do was originally designed as a martial art of self defence. Rhee Tae Kwon Do Australia has two of the original twelve masters who were sent out to officially spread the art across the world. Rhee Tae Kwon Do Australia is also based on the original Taekwondo promoted by General Choi in the 50 and 60s. Now both ITF and WTF/Kukkiwon have added sporting elements and ITF has added the sinewave whilst Rhee Tae Kwon Do Australia has kept pretty much to the original format. So we could say that it does not get more traditional than that

As you brought it up (and although I generally like debating points, the below is written with a smile on my face and I had fun looking up the facts/details and not in any ill spirit)...

GM C. C. Rhee founded Rhee Taekwondo Australia in approximately 1965 (according to an interview with him, it was "established here for almost 20 years (as at 1985)" *1). No one has disputed his claim to be the Father of Australian Taekwondo, so we can assume it's fact. Even if not, General Choi sent instructors abroad to Vietnam (as the first place) in December 1962.

On November 11, 1962 the Korea Taesoodo Association (as it was known then) held it's first unified Dan test and as part of the documented rules "3) The size of the competition area is 8 x 8 meters; 4) The length of the competition was one round of three minutes.", therefore in November 1962 there was already a definition for "competition" and sparring rules *2.

That's the earliest reference I can find to "sporting elements" in Taekwondo, I'm sure there were earlier occurrences (the Jidokwan has always been very sparring focused), but I couldn't find a reference to it. However, it certainly disputes that because RTA hasn't added sporting elements it's more traditional - Taekwondo has had sparring/competition as the very basis of it's tradition.


*1 Master Rhee Interview
*2 (translation of) A Modern History of Taekwondo, by KANG Won Sik and LEE Kyong Myong, published March 1999 by Bokyung Moonhwasa, ISBN 89-358-0124-0.

 

[RTKDCMB]

As you brought it up (and although I generally like debating points, the below is written with a smile on my face and I had fun looking up the facts/details and not in any ill spirit)...

GM C. C. Rhee founded Rhee Taekwondo Australia in approximately 1965 (according to an interview with him, it was "established here for almost 20 years (as at 1985)" *1). No one has disputed his claim to be the Father of Australian Taekwondo, so we can assume it's fact. Even if not, General Choi sent instructors abroad to Vietnam (as the first place) in December 1962.

On November 11, 1962 the Korea Taesoodo Association (as it was known then) held it's first unified Dan test and as part of the documented rules "3) The size of the competition area is 8 x 8 meters; 4) The length of the competition was one round of three minutes.", therefore in November 1962 there was already a definition for "competition" and sparring rules *2.

That's the earliest reference I can find to "sporting elements" in Taekwondo, I'm sure there were earlier occurrences (the Jidokwan has always been very sparring focused), but I couldn't find a reference to it. However, it certainly disputes that because RTA hasn't added sporting elements it's more traditional - Taekwondo has had sparring/competition as the very basis of it's tradition.


*1 Master Rhee Interview
*2 (translation of) A Modern History of Taekwondo, by KANG Won Sik and LEE Kyong Myong, published March 1999 by Bokyung Moonhwasa, ISBN 89-358-0124-0.

Here's some info on our other Rhee (not part of original 12):

http://www.rheetaekwondosydney.biz/index.php?p=1_5

 

[chrispillertkd]

This is a dead donkey we are beating, but here we go:

1. The World Taekwondo Federation (WTF) is an international sports organization, whose member national associations select and recognize whoever they want in their own countries -- even those with no blackbelts -- for international sport taekwondo competition. Essentially only taekwondoin who compete internationally should be concerned with the WTF. Put another way, 99.5 percent of the millions of Kukkiwon taekwondo practioners worldwide will never have any dealings with the WTF.

2. The WTF does not issue dan certification of any kind.

3. Lots of punching exists in Kukkiwon style taekwondo in and outside the WTF style competition arena. A large part of Kukkiwon style taekwondo self defense training is centered on close quarter hand techniques.

4. The majority of the very few 10 dans issued by the Kukkiwon are awarded to dead folk, who've made major contributions to the art. Others are purely honorary awards.

5. The roundhouse kick in Kukkiwon style taekwondo can be thrown using the ball of the feet or the instep.

All of this is true and bears repeating from time to time, given the nature of internet bulletin boards (i.e. turn over of old members and the addition of new members).

But if you're going to be a stickler for correct terminology about the WTF and KKW you should probably not have written this:

6. All the stances in Kukkiwon style taekwondo are found in ITF style taekwondo, albeit with minor differences. Specifically: the back stance, horse riding stance, fighting stance, cat/tiger stance are almost identiical. The biggest difference could be the Kukkiwon style long stance -- which lacks the wide width and sweep in some styles of ITF taekwondo.

I've used "ITF Taekwon-Do" as a moniker before but, strictly speaking, it would be more accurate to call it Chang Hun Taekwon-Do. Like people referring to "WTF Taekwondo" when they mean KKW TKD people often use "ITF Taekwon-Do" when they mean Chang Hun Taekwon-Do. But what would definitely be incorrect, however, would be to refer to "some styleS of ITF Taekwon-Do" (you might be OK with referring to multiple styles of WTF/KKW TKD but that's a different matter). The whole point of the ITF was to standardize people's practice to be in line with what Gen. Choi wanted for his style. And he was very successful with the people who are actual members of the ITF.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

I accept all that and it's all debatable, particularly from a point of view where we are after the fact. However, the point I have never heard any argument about (and the reason I quoted it) is that he had an "honorary dan certificate" in Taekwondo. Why would the founder of a martial art a)have needed an honorary certificate rather than a real/tested on and b)have needed to ask anyone else for rank when surely he's the most senior martial artist in his own martial art?

Because he was the honorary head of the Kwan in question. If you're head of the Oh Do Kwan you can give yourself whatever Oh Do Kwan rank you want. If you're honorary head of the Chung Do Kwan it wouldn't be unheard of to actually have an honorary rank from that Kwan, IMNSHO. I honestly never got why this subject was such a puzzler for some people (OK, actually, I have a suspicion of why it is, but still it's not like this is rocket surgery or anything).

I'd also wonder whether GM Son had the ability to revoke a dan certificate when he was no longer legally the kwanjangnim. I am in two minds - on one hand it's a CDK certificate and he was no longer the CDK head, on the other hand he could say "it's my signature on the cert, as far as I'm concerned it should be ripped up, if you want another one, ask the current CDK head for one with his signature". Both are valid points of view and I'm not sure on any given moment which I agree with.

GM Son could do whatever he wanted. His expulsion of Nam, Tae Hi; Um, Woon Kyu; and Hyun Jong Myung certainly demonstrate that. People's reaction to his actions also tell us how much weight they carried, viz. none. Honestly, the reaction to GM Son's add seems to be, "Well, that's interesting." I see no reason to have a different one, myself.

However, there has been no real debate around the "honorary" and "asking for" points of view.

Maybe, but if Gen. Choi asked for a 6th dan and already had an honorary 4th dan there's reason to think he wouldn't have received another honorary rank, especially since he was already claiming a 6th dan for himself in the adds for the international demonstration team he was leading with the members of the Oh Do Kwan (the one on which he denied GM Son a place).

Remember this was posted in response to Laplace_Demon saying that "ITF is based on the Taekwondo promoted by General Choi in the 50 and 60s. It doesn't get more traditional than that" and also that General Choi was promoting his Taekwondo in the 1950/60s when as discussed above, at that point he was still asking for rank from his seniors.

Sure, but that doesn't mean we should omit some of the facts. If you're going to bring up GM Son's actions towards Gen Choi as having some sort of weight we should examine them in the context of other things he did. They were as relevant or irrelevant as the rest of what he tried to do when he was no longer Kwan Jang.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Archtkd]

All of this is true and bears repeating from time to time, given the nature of internet bulletin boards (i.e. turn over of old members and the addition of new members).

But if you're going to be a stickler for correct terminology about the WTF and KKW you should probably not have written this:



I've used "ITF Taekwon-Do" as a moniker before but, strictly speaking, it would be more accurate to call it Chang Hun Taekwon-Do. Like people referring to "WTF Taekwondo" when they mean KKW TKD people often use "ITF Taekwon-Do" when they mean Chang Hun Taekwon-Do. But what would definitely be incorrect, however, would be to refer to "some styleS of ITF Taekwon-Do" (you might be OK with referring to multiple styles of WTF/KKW TKD but that's a different matter). The whole point of the ITF was to standardize people's practice to be in line with what Gen. Choi wanted for his style. And he was very successful with the people who are actual members of the ITF.

Pax,

Chris

Chris: Thanks a lot for pointing that out. I've always wondered about the correct way of classifying Chang Hun Taekwon-Do systems in general.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I've used "ITF Taekwon-Do" as a moniker before but, strictly speaking, it would be more accurate to call it Chang Hun Taekwon-Do. Like people referring to "WTF Taekwondo" when they mean KKW TKD people often use "ITF Taekwon-Do" when they mean Chang Hun Taekwon-Do. But what would definitely be incorrect, however, would be to refer to "some styleS of ITF Taekwon-Do" (you might be OK with referring to multiple styles of WTF/KKW TKD but that's a different matter). The whole point of the ITF was to standardize people's practice to be in line with what Gen. Choi wanted for his style. And he was very successful with the people who are actual members of the ITF.

I don't really disagree, and this probably falls into the category of splitting fairly small hairs, but given that there are currently at least three different ITFs, it's not entirely inaccurate to refer to "styleS" of ITF", especially as this would inherently include all those who still consider themselves ITF (of whichever flavor) while excluding those who use the Chang Hon poomsae but do not consider themselves to be ITF practitioners.

 

[Laplace_demon]

I don't really disagree, and this probably falls into the category of splitting fairly small hairs, but given that there are currently at least three different ITFs, it's not entirely inaccurate to refer to "styleS" of ITF", especially as this would inherently include all those who still consider themselves ITF (of whichever flavor) while excluding those who use the Chang Hon poomsae but do not consider themselves to be ITF practitioners.

It is innacurate to claim there are three styles of ITF, given that their techniqual arsenal and practice are as similiar/dissimilar, as between schools of the same martial art. That is to say very little. But of course, you also claim WTF schools don't own a monopoly on KKW style TKD. And argues the reason for this is that some instructors, certified in both styles Chang Hun and KK TKD, teach both in their school.

It goes without saying that they would offer both flavors of TKD, but this completely escapes you.

 

[chrispillertkd]

I don't really disagree, and this probably falls into the category of splitting fairly small hairs, but given that there are currently at least three different ITFs, it's not entirely inaccurate to refer to "styleS" of ITF", especially as this would inherently include all those who still consider themselves ITF (of whichever flavor) while excluding those who use the Chang Hon poomsae but do not consider themselves to be ITF practitioners.

Well, a "style" generally refers to a branch of a specific martial art system (for example, the various branches of Shorin Ryu) or it can refer to a specific martial art itself ("Judo" as a style of martial art). IMNSHO, neither of these would apply to what the various ITF groups teach. For it to qualify under the first aspect you'd have to see some major differences in the way techniques are performed between the groups and for it to qualify under the second there would have to be one or more differences that were so obvious you were no longer talking about Gen. Choi's Taekwon-Do.

Also, weren't you the one giving another poster a hard time about the differences between tul, hyung, and poomsae? And then you refer to ITF poomsae. Come on! LOL

If you have specific examples of changes made by one or more of the ITF groups I'd be interested in hearing about them, however. I know of a couple made by two of the three groups but they are so minor that most people wouldn't even recognize.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Dirty Dog]

Well, a "style" generally refers to a branch of a specific martial art system (for example, the various branches of Shorin Ryu) or it can refer to a specific martial art itself ("Judo" as a style of martial art). IMNSHO, neither of these would apply to what the various ITF groups teach. For it to qualify under the first aspect you'd have to see some major differences in the way techniques are performed between the groups and for it to qualify under the second there would have to be one or more differences that were so obvious you were no longer talking about Gen. Choi's Taekwon-Do.

How big a difference? You don't think there are differences between how the various ITF-groups do things, or just that these differences are not sufficient to make them a different style? How about groups like the GTF? AIMAA? They're Chang Hon systems, but do not consider themselves ITF. Personally, I'm happy to consider each org as a separate style. I'd say if they didn't consider themselves a different style, they wouldn't be part of a different org.

Also, weren't you the one giving another poster a hard time about the differences between tul, hyung, and poomsae? And then you refer to ITF poomsae. Come on! LOL

That's the point. My understanding of the terms(and flat out asking GM Kim, since he's both Korean born and was a direct student of the founder) indicates that it really doesn't matter which term you use. The convention in the ITF is to use tul, just as it is most common in KKW schools to use poomsae. Not following the convention doesn't make the other terms incorrect, though.
Feel free to refer to Palgwae or Taegeuk Tul, if you like.

If you have specific examples of changes made by one or more of the ITF groups I'd be interested in hearing about them, however. I know of a couple made by two of the three groups but they are so minor that most people wouldn't even recognize.

That's my point. Unless you're an expert in the tiny details of the curriculum in each and every one of these groups, you won't really know how different they are. So for simplicity, each org is their own style, so far as I am concerned.

Realistically, do you think that a non-taekwondoin could watch one of your students and one of mine spar and be able to tell which org they trained with? Do you think most taekwondoin could tell?

 

[Laplace_demon]

How big a difference? You don't think there are differences between how the various ITF-groups do things, or just that these differences are not sufficient to make them a different style? How about groups like the GTF? AIMAA? They're Chang Hon systems, but do not consider themselves ITF.

That would make sense, given that they are not ITF affiliated. It doesn't affect styles by creating off-shoots. It could still label ITF-style, for clarity.

 

[chrispillertkd]

How big a difference? You don't think there are differences between how the various ITF-groups do things, or just that these differences are not sufficient to make them a different style?

The differences I have noticed are so small as to be hardly noticeable to an ITF practitioner. They are minor but there. They are also not numerous. IMNSHO, there are less differences between the three ITF groups than there are between the majority of KKW Taekwondoin I've seen.

How about groups like the GTF? AIMAA? They're Chang Hon systems, but do not consider themselves ITF. Personally, I'm happy to consider each org as a separate style. I'd say if they didn't consider themselves a different style, they wouldn't be part of a different org.

I honestly don't know if the GTF considers itself as teaching Chang Hun Taekwon-Do or not. GM Park, Jung Tae was purposefully developing new patterns when he died and the body mechanics for some techniques in the GTF are somewhat different. I'd leave it to them to say whether they are Chang Hun or not.

As for the AIMAA I've only seen them on video and have no opinion as to whether or not what they do would be considered Chang Hun Taekwon-Do. I know some people who say that anyone who does Gen. Choi's patterns is a Chang Hun stylist. That might work for some but I tend to equate it with more than just the pattern set. Some karate styles use the same kata but the body mechanic are so different that they are different ryu. That's closer to my opinion on the subject.

That's the point. My understanding of the terms(and flat out asking GM Kim, since he's both Korean born and was a direct student of the founder) indicates that it really doesn't matter which term you use. The convention in the ITF is to use tul, just as it is most common in KKW schools to use poomsae. Not following the convention doesn't make the other terms incorrect, though.
Feel free to refer to Palgwae or Taegeuk Tul, if you like.

I'm not sure why you were asking the other poster about what terms to use then. Personally, I'd not refer to any pattern set developed by the KKW as "tul" because the term is specifically used to refer to patterns developed by Gen. Choi.

That's my point. Unless you're an expert in the tiny details of the curriculum in each and every one of these groups, you won't really know how different they are. So for simplicity, each org is their own style, so far as I am concerned.

But in the specific case that you raised (the three competing ITF groups) the differences are so small that there really is very little difference. Claiming that each ITF therefore really teaches a different style simply isn't true. Which is why equating a style with each individual organization is problematic in this case. There were some differences in how certain Grand Masters taught even prior to Gen. Choi's death. Some personal variation within a style is inevitable.

Realistically, do you think that a non-taekwondoin could watch one of your students and one of mine spar and be able to tell which org they trained with? Do you think most taekwondoin could tell?

Of course a non-Taekwon-Doin couldn't tell which organization each person belonged to simply because they wouldn't know the choices, but I'm pretty sure they could see the differences in how they sparred (granting the match wasn't constrained by one set of rules and each was free to spar how they had been taught). If they were familiar at all with martial arts in general they would most likely realize they studied different styles. Perhaps even different arts depending on the degree of difference.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Dirty Dog]

The differences I have noticed are so small as to be hardly noticeable to an ITF practitioner. They are minor but there. They are also not numerous. IMNSHO, there are less differences between the three ITF groups than there are between the majority of KKW Taekwondoin I've seen.

That is why I asked "how much difference" is needed before you consider it a separate style.

I'm not sure why you were asking the other poster about what terms to use then.

I was not. I was pointing out that it's wrong to say "one uses poomsae and the other uses tul" as a way to define a separate style, simply because the words are interchangeable. His (incorrect) usage showed quite clearly that he hadn't a clue what the words actually mean.

Personally, I'd not refer to any pattern set developed by the KKW as "tul" because the term is specifically used to refer to patterns developed by Gen. Choi.

But that is not true. It is a convention, but that does not change the meaning of the word. Tul mean "patterns". Poomsae means "patterns". Hyung means "patterns". None of them mean "patterns developed/used by [insert person/group here]".
Or at least, so I am informed by a man who was born and raised in Korea, and who was a student in the Moo Duk Kwan prior to the unification movement.
By the same token, many groups use "kwanjangnim" for the rank of GrandMaster, even though that isn't what it means. It means "Headmaster". As in, the leader of a school.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with following the conventions of your system. But that doesn't mean those conventions have any meaning outside that system.

Of course a non-Taekwon-Doin couldn't tell which organization each person belonged to simply because they wouldn't know the choices, but I'm pretty sure they could see the differences in how they sparred (granting the match wasn't constrained by one set of rules and each was free to spar how they had been taught). If they were familiar at all with martial arts in general they would most likely realize they studied different styles. Perhaps even different arts depending on the degree of difference.

OK, so let's propose a ruleset for this match. Let's put them in headgear, mouth guards, gloves and feet. Let's allow whatever kicks and punches they choose to use. Let's allow sweeps, throws and takedowns (to make it possible to use as much of their training as possible). Since both are strikers, let's say that they have, say, 2 seconds to follow up after a takedown or throw and then they're reset (to keep it a striking match).

Do you think the average taekwondoin watching this match would be able to tell which student studied which style of TKD?
I doubt it, personally.
Forms are stylized, and it's not difficult to recognize which form set is being used. Applying those techniques in a sparring match is not.