Is it disrespectful to ask your (ITF) master to teach you the old way of TKD punching (Karate)

[Axiom]

Apparently, judging only by what you say. Whether that is a problem with the teaching or the student cannot be determined with certainty in this forum.

I'm not sure what my part plays in the instructions I just quoted. Perhaps it's a structural problem within the ITF? How was your experience learning the art?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm not sure what my part plays in the instructions I just quoted. Perhaps it's a structural problem within the ITF? How was your experience learning the art?

I think his point is that we can only see this through your eyes, so if you misunderstood something, we wouldn't be able to see that.

 

[Axiom]

I think his point is that we can only see this through your eyes, so if you misunderstood something, we wouldn't be able to see that.

I think the quotes I gave speak for themselves

 

[Dirty Dog]

I'm not sure what my part plays in the instructions I just quoted. Perhaps it's a structural problem within the ITF? How was your experience learning the art?

Your understanding (or lack thereof) of what you're taught is not something we can really judge, since we only see what you have to say about it. Based only on what you say, I'd be inclined to think the problem lies in your understanding, but that's only an inclination, not a certainty by any means.

I've not trained with the ITF in many years, and I only trained through them to 3rd Dan. I started prior to sine-wave (1969) and some ITF schools I trained at never did adopt it. However, I can say that I've never personally trained in any school (ITF, KKW or MDK) that said "do this only in poomsae, not in sparring" about anything. Specific movements used in poomsae will need to be modified by circumstances during actual use, but the underlying principles taught through poomsae are still valid. Assuming you've understood them in the first place. As I think I said, based solely on what you've written here, you seem to lack understanding of these principles (i.e. your statement that you just need to memorize movements of a poomsae).
Of course, I never trained anyplace that handed out Dan ranks as participation awards, either.

 

[Archtkd]

We have talked and he has demonstrated to me how they used to throw punches. But what I seek is private lessons in it.

So you will pay for regular classes and pay extra for personal classes to learn the things that he doesn't teach? That's not a bad business proposition -- and in many place here in the U.S, we'd be talking $75-$100 an hour. I'm often amazed at the lengths students will go to corrupt the best of teachers.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So you will pay for regular classes and pay extra for personal classes to learn the things that he doesn't teach? That's not a bad business proposition -- and in many place here in the U.S, we'd be talking $75-$100 an hour. I'm often amazed at the lengths students will go to corrupt the best of teachers.

How are private lessons corrupting the teacher?

 

[TrueJim]

It doesn't happen often, but we do have parents ask for some private lessons for their children. We don't push private lessons, but we'll oblige when asked -- of course, there's a fee for a private lesson. Like, maybe a student has been stuck on some topic for a long time, and the parent is willing to pay for a 1-on-1 hour to help the student get over the hump. I didn't realize we were being corrupted though.

 

[kmorrisonnyc]

FWIW, I see this as similar to the debate around being taught the 'lost' or 'forgotten' patterns - I think they were Ko-dang and/or U-nam - per the book titled the '16th volume' of the ITF encyclopedia. Personally - and not to take this off on a tangent - I don't believe they were ever 'lost'. There was a conscious decision to stop doing them and they are no longer part of the syllabus.

Now I have no issue with someone wanting to learn them and understand the history. However, the way that I look at it is that I have so much to learn that I don't have the time to spend any real amount of time perfecting it.

Another perspective - I hold Dan grades in both ITF-Style TaeKwon-Do and from the Kukkiwon. At one point I tried to do both styles simultaneously and I personally could not - the styles were too different and I started to incorporate part of the other into the other style.

So basically I do not think it is disrespectful to ask the question or to understand what came before - far from it - however I'd be more focused on understanding the why versus spending any real time on perfecting the performance of it.

 

[kmorrisonnyc]

I should add - incorporating things from different arts is not a bad thing. But I'm talking about the fundamentals in my post above.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

FWIW, I see this as similar to the debate around being taught the 'lost' or 'forgotten' patterns - I think they were Ko-dang and/or U-nam - per the book titled the '16th volume' of the ITF encyclopedia. Personally - and not to take this off on a tangent - I don't believe they were ever 'lost'. There was a conscious decision to stop doing them and they are no longer part of the syllabus.

Now I have no issue with someone wanting to learn them and understand the history. However, the way that I look at it is that I have so much to learn that I don't have the time to spend any real amount of time perfecting it.

Another perspective - I hold Dan grades in both ITF-Style TaeKwon-Do and from the Kukkiwon. At one point I tried to do both styles simultaneously and I personally could not - the styles were too different and I started to incorporate part of the other into the other style.

So basically I do not think it is disrespectful to ask the question or to understand what came before - far from it - however I'd be more focused on understanding the why versus spending any real time on perfecting the performance of it.

I can see how there might be some conflict, trying to learn both at once, or even trying to continue one while learning the other. I see this when I get a student who has other training, especially if they are maintaining that previous training.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Nah, the instructor states explicitly that "patterns are sine wave, "mitts/pad practise we twist our hip (although more boxing-like mechanics than Karate). And I don't for the life of me understand why. That's not even mentioning sparring where of course sine wave is nowhere to be found.

That my TKD is disjointed mess?

I have visited more than one TKD school where the forms used one set of body mechanics, sparring used a different set, and the "self-defense" curriculum used something entirely different. Doesn't seem to be the most effective approach to teaching, in my opinion.

However it's been over 30 years since I attended any TKD classes, so I couldn't say how widespread the issue is these days or if it's more prevalent in one organization than another.

 

[Axiom]

I have visited more than one TKD school where the forms used one set of body mechanics, sparring used a different set, and the "self-defense" curriculum used something entirely different. Doesn't seem to be the most effective approach to teaching, in my opinion.
.

Agreed, and probably my main issue... So while you get good at specific things, you aren't systematically trained like a boxer where everything is interrelated to each other in the training. Boxers rarely do things that have no bearing on their fighting.

But, Taekwondo has some effective techniques, you get a good sweat, and it's fun.

 

[Archtkd]

How are private lessons corrupting the teacher?

It’s tongue in cheek. I was implying the OP might be giving his teacher new ideas to generate more cash by teaching old and discarded stuff to a select and chosen few.

Without derailing this thread further, but more seriously though, we know there are teachers out there who structure regular curriculum to boost a more lucrative private classes line of business. There’s nothing wrong with making more money – after all the majority of martial arts school in the US are for-profit enterprises – but there could be ethical concerns when said teachers tweak curriculum for the sole purpose of boosting profit, unbeknownst to students who think they are learning cool, advanced or necessary stuff, in the best way.

I recall attending a taekwondo seminar a few years ago along with a large number of other taekwondoin, some of who are/were members of Martialtalk, and we were all stunned as one “grandmaster” boastfully explained his main rationale for teaching poomsae in quarterly sessions and his plans to buy a Bentley. I.e members of his dojang might only learn Taeuguk Il Jang – Sam Jang – in the first quarter of the year; Oh Jang – Chil Jang in the second quarter, etc. When we asked him how he accommodated students enrolling in mid session or student who already knew a set for poomsae and wanted to learn other poomsae, he answered with a big grin, “private classes.” That was in front of some parents of students the “GM” had brought to the seminar as a demo team.

I’ve not answered OP's question with the above, but I am saying that his teacher may not completely care for the old stuff or think it’s useful, but will teach it if offered money to do so. I also think the OP may be better served by learning his grandmaster’s current curriculum in detail and allowing his grandmaster over time to teach him how that curriculum evolved from the old, at no extra cost.

 

[Gnarlie]

I find it odd that philosophically the Do of Taekwondo is about living in the present moment and yet so many practitioners are concerned with what was rather than what is.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Tez3]

So while you get good at specific things, you aren't systematically trained like a boxer where everything is interrelated to each other in the training. Boxers rarely do things that have no bearing on their fighting.

There's many a bad boxing coach who is doing it for the money. What you are complaining about is human nature not a style of martial arts.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy

I have read that article. The study was very limited and inconclusive.

 

[TrueJim]

...so many practitioners are concerned with what was rather than what is....

...and so upset about what's happening at the dojang down the street.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Rejection of hip twist in favor of a down, up, down motion.

This is not accurate although some of have to this conclusion based upon a single snippet from a Video where General Choi says "Don't twist your body". (Note he does not say "Don't twist your hips". ) IMO he was trying to reduce excessive shoulder rotation in that particular instance. SW and Hip twist are not mutually exclusive and General Choi specifically taught employing muscles of the hip and abdomen when punching along with the knee flex that gave the resulting SW motion.

 

[Earl Weiss]

How would master Earl Weiss respond? Would you be willing to teach it if the student seeks to learn both ways of punching?

1. I can not speak to any instructor's potential reaction.
2. It should take all of about 10 minutes to have teach a student to to eliminate the initial "Down" motion of SW and keep your head level as you punch by reducing your knee flex.

 

[Earl Weiss]

When was the change made? And what drove it?

This is a topic of much debate. The term SW does not appear until the encyclopedia circa 1980 or so but prior to that the books mentioned knee spring and many of us did what was often referred to as "Spring Style" as early as 1972 . I can't speak to earlier times since that is when I started. Genral choi recruited intructors with various roots who did not change their habits which proliferated thru their progeny for various lengths of time.