How so (besides no head gear)?
How did Taekwon-Do (1955) predating 1966 look like?
- Thread starter Laplace_demon
- Start date
Earl Weiss
Senior Master
You seem to have missed page 428 when he talks about creation of the first 2 patterns. Exact date not given but other events on the pages around that one were 1955 or so. Other patterns followed. Did not take 10 years as you suggest.
Laplace_demon
Black Belt
There are detectors on their chest nowdays to register impact, which wasn't prevalent in the 80s. It's just point fighting, with very few going for the kill (head shots). Doesn't resemble any martial art of this day. ITF however is similiar to lighter kickboxing. While ITF pro is full contact.
I guess we will find out. North Koreans will most likely be able to compete in the 2016 Olympics, under WTF rules. I have not seen WTF guys move better than their best guys, even back in the 90s. Not a chance.
I guess we will find out. North Koreans will most likely be able to compete in the 2016 Olympics, under WTF rules. I have not seen WTF guys move better than their best guys, even back in the 90s. Not a chance.
Last edited:
Laplace_demon
Black Belt
Basic arithmetic informs me there's missing publication of 22 patterns. It took 10 years for all of his 24 forms to be completed =established, in either 1965 or 1966.
Why are you so persistent in this hopeless quest? Is it because Taekwon-Do boils down to Karate, without it's forms?
Last edited:
Earl Weiss
Senior Master
No, it's because people need to know:
A. You have no idea what you are talking about, and
B. You mis cite sources to support erroneous statements.
Examples:
LAPLACE_DEMON SAID:
>>This thread is about before 1966, though. I am curious why it took General Choi ten years to establish ITF, and their own patterns? What did he do in between?<<
This statements is factualy incorrect. It did not take 10 years to establish patterns.
Have you posted in other groups as "ITF-Taekwon-Do" You seem to have similar misinformation.
EARL WEISS SAID: ?
This statements is factually incorrect. It did not take 10 years to establish patterns.
Have you posted in other groups as "ITF-Taekwon-Do" You seem to have similar misinformation.
Not if you go by Chois bio, and his own accounts. He worked on finishing specific patterns in the 60s. This can only mean the 24 patterns were not completed by then.<<
You also mkissed the part in his Bio about completing work in 1958 and getting it published in 1959 although TBH I am not sure what patterns were in the 1959 Publication.
So, you erroneously conclude that since the 1965 Book was the first date of Publication of a book in english that nothing happened before then and you miss cite the bio which contains cotrary information to what you claim.
finaly, you nnever answered the question which seems your real forte.
did you use the Monker ITF-Taekwondo on another board or this board?
Trying to figure out if you are a troll extroardinaire, badly uniformed or worse.
Laplace_demon
Black Belt
Even if the completion predates 1965, and I would be wrong in my 10 years claim, I would still suppose the 24 forms (or even close to that) were not in existence during the TKD schools back in 1955. And 1955 was the point of my question - how did those schools operate, which patterns (apart from one or two from Choi) did the students practice and recieve gradings in?
One of the things I have tried to do on MT boards since late 2009 is to remain civil, have an open mind and respect those I disagree with so long as they make simple efforts to argue with some logic, from a position of knowledge. Unfortunately your posts fall way below the baseline of what I would consider to be common sense. You ignorance, sir, is so deep that I fear making any further commentary on your posts will do nothing more than expose you to more scorn and ridicule.
Well said, I clicked on this thread because of the title. I'm interested in all martial arts and I love to learn more about them, looking at the title I thought it was going to be about historical TKD, something I know little about. I sat back to read and learn but what it actually seems to have been posted for was to bash one particular 'style/type/movement' of TKD and bash it rudely as well as bash those who do it. I'm disappointed quite frankly in the OP, it's not necessary to bash and disrespect other posters. I assume, because those that say the OP is wrong are respected posters here that the OP is wrong, to be honest with his attitude I wouldn't have believed him even if he had been right!
Earl Weiss
Senior Master
Since the name Tae Kwon Do was first officialy adopted in 1955 there weren't many schools using the name that year. There are accounts that with the exception of CDK students those entering the Oh Do Kwan (ODK) or other TKD gyms had to re grade whic was another element that really P O'd many people. Since the ODK contained luminaires from several Kwans it is likely reps from the respective Kwans did the grading. It seems to have not been unlike the KKW where dans were issued to people doing any number of systems. The KKW has no moved to a single pattern system for Dan Issuance. I will let a KKW person address when this occurred.
Laplace_demon
Black Belt
Starting which year did schools adopt the name of Taek Kwon Do? 1956?
Last edited:
Laplace_demon
Black Belt
Also, some dispute Choi came up with the name Tae Kwon Do. He did however suggest it.
Why did General Choi convince Jhoon Rhee, amongst others, to start using the name Tae Kwon Do instead? It's just semantics. The effort was clearly to differentiate their art from Karate, due to nationalistic purposes.
Why did General Choi convince Jhoon Rhee, amongst others, to start using the name Tae Kwon Do instead? It's just semantics. The effort was clearly to differentiate their art from Karate, due to nationalistic purposes.
Laplace_demon
Black Belt
No. I offered my uncontroversial answer to the question. Maybe theirs is different, but they will have something to play with in response.
As to your complaints; I can dismiss which every art or style I want. It just so happens that I didn't, but instead rejected a specific sparring format,
Last edited:
1. My comments weren't complaints rather that you misled us over the content of your thread.
2. Actually on MT you cannot dismiss any style or art, it's against the rules here. You cannot bash anything especially in the way you are rude to posters.
Laplace_demon
Black Belt
You don't think the meaningless post you praised from poster archtkd, was rude?
I am free of all charges as to bashing, since I do both styles of Taekwondo, and I love it.
Really? 'meaningless' ? no, of course that's not bashing anyone is it roflmao. I will give you marks for your arrogance though and as you say you do both styles of TKD also your hypocrisy.
Laplace_demon
Black Belt
He equated me with ignorance and you don't find that rude? I wouldn't want to know your friends.
The post was meaningless since it lacked any substance; It did not offer a single response to my view points.
Call it hypocrisy if you like. I can have an objective viewpoint on my martial art, not being brain washed by it's founding fathers, and still taking pleasure from it's various training methods.
Kind of formed the impression that you were anti WTF. Oh well I'll go and be confused elsewhere.
You and me both mate. I've been insulted by better
Tempted to quote a certain Michael Crawford TV sitcom, guess that would be an insult though
