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

[chrispillertkd]

Not sure what the deal is with the quoting function but your last post seems to not be wanting to cooperate. Hope this works.

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

As I said in a previous reply to you: "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."

Neither of the bolded sections apply to the differences I've seen between the groups. What's more, the number of differences are quite small. If you have personally seen major differences between the ITF groups I'd be interested in hearing about them (what they were, how many there were, which groups were doing which variations) because in my experience they are mall in number and slight in degree.

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.

Sure, but if you reread my answer you'll see that I was saying what I personally would or would not do specifically in answer to you saying it was OK to refer to any of the KKW pattern sets as "tul." I don't care what other people do. I wouldn't exactly because everyone knows "tul" was a term Gen. Choi used to refer to the patterns he developed whereas poomsae is not. There's nothing wrong with following convention, after all, and in this case not doing so could possibly just add to confusion.

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.

Well, you're kind of comparing two different things since "pattern" is a translation of "tul" and "Grand Master" is not a translation of "Kwan Jang." That being said, conventions of a system are usually adopted specifically because the meaning they had outside the system relate in some way to the meaning they have within the system.

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.

We'll agree to disagree then since both would undoubtedly fall back on the training they already received, neither of which allows for sweeps, throws, or takedowns. Even with the increased option the majority of the match would most likely be executed closely to how they were used to fighting in the first place.

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.

Applying techniques from a pattern in sparring is another can of worms (especially since sparring matches aren't self defense). But how an ITF fighter spars and how a WTF fighter spars is noticeably different and the first time I saw a WTF match my reaction was, basically, "What in the world are they doing?" I have little doubt a WTF fighter seeing an ITF match the first time would think any differently.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Dirty Dog]

Not sure what the deal is with the quoting function but your last post seems to not be wanting to cooperate. Hope this works.

We will fumble through.

As I said in a previous reply to you: "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."

That's why I keep asking "how much difference"... the three TKD systems I am most familiar with - ITF, Kukkiwon and Moo Duk Kwan - have far far more commonalities than they do differences. And yet we agree they're different styles.

Sure, but if you reread my answer you'll see that I was saying what I personally would or would not do specifically in answer to you saying it was OK to refer to any of the KKW pattern sets as "tul." I don't care what other people do. I wouldn't exactly because everyone knows "tul" was a term Gen. Choi used to refer to the patterns he developed whereas poomsae is not. There's nothing wrong with following convention, after all, and in this case not doing so could possibly just add to confusion.

I don't disagree, and for the most part I do stick with conventions. The only issue here arose because the silly person thought that "poomsae" vs "tul" was what determined that Kukki-TKD and ITF were different styles, when clearly the terms are irrelevant.

Well, you're kind of comparing two different things since "pattern" is a translation of "tul" and "Grand Master" is not a translation of "Kwan Jang." That being said, conventions of a system are usually adopted specifically because the meaning they had outside the system relate in some way to the meaning they have within the system.

Actually, I think it's because the Korean heads referred to themselves as "kwanjang" meaning "head of the school" and Americans decided that it was a rank. I am not aware that Korean even has a literal translation of the title Grandmaster.

We'll agree to disagree then since both would undoubtedly fall back on the training they already received, neither of which allows for sweeps, throws, or takedowns. Even with the increased option the majority of the match would most likely be executed closely to how they were used to fighting in the first place.

Well... we do teach sweeps, throws and takedowns, and when I trained with ITF instructors (admittedly a long time ago) they were taught there, too. And allowed in some competition. Are these techniques no longer a part of the ITF curriculum? Or were my instructors adding extra stuff? But I'm happy to leave them out for our theoretical match up.

So, basically, there will be two people in the ring, relying primarily on powerful kicks, but with hand techniques being used when the opportunity presents itself.

So how is the spectator supposed to be able to tell which of our schools they're from?

Applying techniques from a pattern in sparring is another can of worms (especially since sparring matches aren't self defense). But how an ITF fighter spars and how a WTF fighter spars is noticeably different and the first time I saw a WTF match my reaction was, basically, "What in the world are they doing?" I have little doubt a WTF fighter seeing an ITF match the first time would think any differently.

We're not a sport-oriented school, as I've always tried to make clear. So why would you expect my student to fight like an Olympic-style competitor?

 

[Laplace_demon]

If the moderator is seriously suggesting I was saying WTF has patterns, while ITF has patterns, then he's an idiot. I already knew they all meant patterns, and also know pomsae explicitly refer to WTF/KK-TDK patterns, and schools following General Choi does refer to their separate patterns as tul. This convention is so common that any other usage is confusing to the readers and intellectually dishonest.

My ITF school does not teach any throws, only joint manipulations, though this article:Soo Shim Kwan What s the Difference Between Taekwon-Do and Hapkido indicates that techniques from Judo were incorporated to ITF. Our school however, follows the teachings of General Choi, but no Judo, so I am not sure where this notion came from.

 

[Laplace_demon]

We will fumble through.



That's why I keep asking "how much difference"... the three TKD systems I am most familiar with - ITF, Kukkiwon and Moo Duk Kwan - have far far more commonalities than they do differences. And yet we agree they're different styles.

The three styles, hmm... I though you were the one claiming organisations did not denote styles - yet you mention ITF (which you previously claimed was just an organisation, and not a style), Kukkiwon, and Moo Duk Kwan as styles/systems. You don't know what your saying from day to day.

 

[Tez3]

The three styles, hmm... I though you were the one claiming organisations did not denote styles - yet you mention ITF (which you previously claimed was just an organisation, and not a style), Kukkiwon, and Moo Duk Kwan as styles/systems. You don't know what your saying from day to day.

I've been following this with interest, not much knowledge but a fair bit of interest. However even as an outsider I know the difference between 'systems' and 'styles' so I think you are throwing accusations when none are needed.

 

[Laplace_demon]

I've been following this with interest, not much knowledge but a fair bit of interest. However even as an outsider I know the difference between 'systems' and 'styles' so I think you are throwing accusations when none are needed.

"And yet we agree their different styles."

 

[Tez3]

"And yet we agree their different styles."

Sigh.

 

[Laplace_demon]

Sigh.

Indeed.

 

[Tez3]

"And yet we agree their different styles."

That wasn't the post I quoted and was commenting on. I was talking about one, quite specific post.

 

[Laplace_demon]

That wasn't the post I quoted and was commenting on. I was talking about one, quite specific post.

It's the post I was adressing, which contradicts his statement of organisations not (capable) of being styles. In the Tae Kwon Do world it is a fact.

 

[Tez3]

I did understand what is being said by everyone here you know, including the abusing of a mod.

 

[Laplace_demon]

I did understand what is being said by everyone here you know, including the abusing of a mod.

Your dear moderator was intentionally trying to make me look like a fool. Knowing full well no ITF organisation refers to their patterns as Pomsae, only WTF/KK students do. I persisted, and he ridiculed me for doing so. Trying to make it seem as if I don't understand their semantic meaning, which is an entirely different subject matter.

You be the judge.

 

[Tez3]

Okay, walking away shaking my head.....................

 

[chrispillertkd]

That's why I keep asking "how much difference"... the three TKD systems I am most familiar with - ITF, Kukkiwon and Moo Duk Kwan - have far far more commonalities than they do differences. And yet we agree they're different styles.

I can't speak to the MDK style of TKD but I have personal experience in KKW TKD, albeit only for a couple of years. It was very different from Taekwon-Do. I have stated this elsewhere but the differences between the two (Chang Hun Taekwon-Do and KKW Taekwondo) include, but are not limited to, chambering for blocks, execution of the major kicks, stances, ending positions of some of the techniques relative to the body of the person executing them, differences in how many hand techniques are performed (including low outer forearm blocks, low knife-hand guarding blocks, inward knife-hand strikes, and more), and differences in how power is generated using body mechanics. This last point is the most fundamental difference, IMNSHO, and the most important although the other differences I noted also serve to differentiate the two styles.

The different pattern sets used by the ITF and the KKW are tangential to how the styles are actually performed. I have seen many WTF Taekwondoin who say they also know "ITF Taekwon-Do" but it becomes obvious after seeing them do patterns that what they mean is they know both the KKW patterns and the ITF patterns because they perform both sets identically. Nothing wrong with that, it's just not the same thing as knowing both styles and performing them like they're supposed to be performed. I have seen people actually do both styles, not just both pattern sets, but not a great number of them.

This is all a long winded way of clarifying my comments about the very minor differences between the three ITF groups. None of the differences I have seen have been of the same degree as what I've mentioned above. They simply aren't in the same ballpark. There's nothing wrong with having differences between ITF and KKW TKD, but many of them are not just differences in magnitude but of kind.

Honestly, I don't even really agree that ITF and KKW TKD are "different styles" if by that we mean different styles of the same martial art. The differences between the two have developed over time such that I would simply call them different arts at this point.

Well... we do teach sweeps, throws and takedowns, and when I trained with ITF instructors (admittedly a long time ago) they were taught there, too. And allowed in some competition. Are these techniques no longer a part of the ITF curriculum? Or were my instructors adding extra stuff? But I'm happy to leave them out for our theoretical match up.

Oh, yes, we have those techniques but they aren't allowed in free sparring. My point was that even if you say "OK, you can now use these techniques in a free sparring situation" it's less likely to happen since they aren't regularly used in such a context (although I have used them before myself ).

So, basically, there will be two people in the ring, relying primarily on powerful kicks, but with hand techniques being used when the opportunity presents itself.

So how is the spectator supposed to be able to tell which of our schools they're from?

Body mechanics, how the techniques are executed, differences in strategy and tactics, differences in which techniques are primarily used, and differences in where they are directed to.

We're not a sport-oriented school, as I've always tried to make clear. So why would you expect my student to fight like an Olympic-style competitor?

Because you've mentioned that you do both ITF and WTF TKD. Since it was a question of being able to tell which organization each person belonged to and one would be an ITF practitioner I figured you'd be asking about being able to tell the difference between Chang Hun Taekwon-Do and KKW Taekwondo. If you are interested in the differences between Chang Hun Taekwon-Do and a school which teaches an amalgam of three distinct styles, such as yours does, then I can't say since I've never seen your students spar and so can't offer any actual observation.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Laplace_demon]

I agree entirely with Chris. Different philosophy, historical accounts (General Choi is all but forgotten), techniques, body mechanics, patterns, etc

Just about everything in the book of what you would label a different martial art. Nothing wrong with that, besides creating unfortunate confusion.

 

[chrispillertkd]

My ITF school does not teach any throws, only joint manipulations, though this article:Soo Shim Kwan What s the Difference Between Taekwon-Do and Hapkido indicates that techniques from Judo were incorporated to ITF. Our school however, follows the teachings of General Choi, but no Judo, so I am not sure where this notion came from.

There's an old ITF training tape (old 8mm film, really) floating around that is narrated by both Gen. Choi and Mr. Robert Walson which demonstrates several Ho Sin Sul techniques. While many of the techniques have an obvious Hapkido flavor to them some look more judo-ish and Mr. Walson points out that the gentleman demonstrating, Yang Dong Ja, is not only an ITF 6th dan but also holds a (IIRC) 5th dan in judo ("Yudo, Korean judo," as Mr. Walson puts it).

There have been joint locks, throws, and sweeps in all of Gen. Choi's books, to varying degrees.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

I agree entirely with Chris. Different philosophy, historical accounts (General Choi is all but forgotten), techniques, body mechanics, patterns, etc

Just about everything in the book of what you would label a different martial art. Nothing wrong with that, besides creating unfortunate confusion.

Sometimes I think it would have been better if Gen. Choi had not changed the name of the Korea Tae Soo Do Association back to the Korean Taekwon-Do Association after they had changed it. Would have been simpler.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Laplace_demon]

Indeed. Are you referring to these throws: from 23:10 forward....

We are not taught throwing follow ups.. Only joint manipulations. 3 situations, involving wrist grabbing, and in a pretty friendly manner

 

[chrispillertkd]

Indeed. Are you referring to these throws: from 23:10 forward....

Yes, but there are others, too. The video from about 22:48 to 25:50 is part of the video I mentioned above. I don't think it's the whole thing, though, and it's missing the audio commentary by Gen. Choi and Mr. Walson.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Dirty Dog]

The different pattern sets used by the ITF and the KKW are tangential to how the styles are actually performed. I have seen many WTF Taekwondoin who say they also know "ITF Taekwon-Do" but it becomes obvious after seeing them do patterns that what they mean is they know both the KKW patterns and the ITF patterns because they perform both sets identically. Nothing wrong with that, it's just not the same thing as knowing both styles and performing them like they're supposed to be performed. I have seen people actually do both styles, not just both pattern sets, but not a great number of them.

Then you probably wouldn't like the way I do Chang Hon forms. I don't do the sine wave stuff. Primarily because that was introduced well after I learned the forms, and I've always preferred the non-sine wave versions. According to some, that would make me 'more traditional'. I just consider it a personal preference. And, frankly, I disagree with the suggestion that sine wave has any benefit.

Oh, yes, we have those techniques but they aren't allowed in free sparring. My point was that even if you say "OK, you can now use these techniques in a free sparring situation" it's less likely to happen since they aren't regularly used in such a context (although I have used them before myself ).

Fair enough. How well do you think the average student is really learning them if they're never allowed to practice them in free sparring?

Because you've mentioned that you do both ITF and WTF TKD.

No, I've been very clear that there is no such thing as WTF TKD. I trained ITF in my youth. Now I am with a school that is primarily a Moo Duk Kwan school but also offers Kukkiwon certification to those who want it.