OP
- Thread Starter
- #101
I am changing style to couch potato and I will have another beer.
Kukkiwon restructure
- Thread starter terryl965
- Start date
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
"However that doesn't change the fact that if you are not studying KKW standards or have them in your curriculum, then you are not doing TKD."
uh, terry, Exile?
am i supposed to laugh at this or get mad?
I need some guidance here dudes
uh, terry, Exile?
am i supposed to laugh at this or get mad?
I need some guidance here dudes
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
qfmft
OP
- Thread Starter
- #104
Twin Fist I know your linage you are TKD though in though so have a beer and be happy.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #105
I am stupid please explain
My advice is to take it for what it is worth. Though I am a KKW practitioner, I don't agree for reasons I've already stated. I'd leave it at disagreeing agreeably. There's nothing to be angry about and no real point in debating. When two people on a forum hold polar opposite views and have good reasons for holding their views, the best that they can do is respect one another's stand, agree to disagree, and move on.
From an organizational standpoint, I follow the KKW-only line of reasoning. But I think that an equally good line of reasoning can be made to the contrary. I'd love for the Kukkiwon to be such that I could really agree that it is the true and real deal. But its curriculum does not encompass enough for me to do so.
Miguksaram has made the valid point that the Kukkiwon does not limit you to their curriculum and that instructors are free to add whatever they wish. Yes, this is true, and my GM does exactly that.
The problem is that when a uniform standard is created and it is lower than that of any of the individual Kwans or is incomplete in many ways, then the majority of schools will sink to the lowest common denomenator. Take a good look at the vast majority of taekwondo schools in the US and that is exactly what you see: lots of schools with no curriculum beyond the bare KKW curriculum and WTF sparring. The majority of Kukkiwon masters in the US who have come up over the past decade add nothing of value because they simply don't have it to add: it was never taught to them. These may be wonderful teachers who teach the KKW curriculum well and teach good and proper technique, but that is all that they have. With no bunkai, no well developed SD, and a sparring style that has fallen very, very far from the tree (neither good nor bad, it simply is), the art they teach is incomplete and they haven't the reserves of knowledge to draw upon to make it otherwise.
Having said that, I find the KKW curriculum to be decent, just not comprehensive.
Daniel
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
lets put it this way
QFT =quoated for truth
QFMFT=quoated for mother.................
get the picture?
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
OP
- Thread Starter
- #110
Yes sorry did not know
miguksaram
Master of Arts
Ok, allow me to take another shot of this sans cold medicine, because after reading what I wrote, it doesn't make sense to me either. (Not to say what I'm about to write is going to be better).
All the kwans existed prior to the building of KKW and prior to the development of taekwondo. Do we agree on this?
Kwan leaders got together to work towards developing a unified art called taekwondo. Prior to 1961 none of them called what they were learning or teaching taekwondo. Would you say this is correct?
After they banded together they formed the KTA to which they worked to developing a formalized system for dan promotions (1962). To which this was the standard used:
2nd Dan forms: Balhan Hyung Dae, Chul Ki E Dan Hyung (Chul Ki #2), Naebojin E Dan Hyung (Naebojin #2), Kima E Dan Hyung (Kima #2), Choong Moo Hyung.
3rd Dan forms: Ship Su Hyung, Pal Sae Hyung, Yon Bi Hyung, Dan Kwon Kyung, No Pae Hyung, Ge Baek Hyung, Ul Ji Hyung.
4th Dan forms: Chul Ki Sam Dan Hyung (Chul Ki #3), Naebojin Sam Dan Hyung (Naebojin #3), Kima Sam Dan Hyung (Kima #3), Ja Un Hyung, Jin Soo Hyun, Am Hak Hyung, Jin Dong Hyung, Sam Il Hyung, Jang Kwon Hyung.
5th Dan forms: Kong Sang Kun Hyung, Kwan Kong Hyung, Oh Ship Sa Hyung, Ship Sam Hyung, Ban Wol Hyung, Pal Ki Kwon Hyung.
The kwans did exist still but were now rectifying their curriculums to meet the requirements that was set by the board. Now let's fast forward 10 years to 1971. It was at this time they talked about restructuring teaching methods as well as allowing members to transfer from one kwan to another (not a popular idea). So yes, the kwans still exisited and yes they had their own teaching methods along with a standard curriculum agreed upon earlier. Slightly prior to that KKW was built. This main purpose was to be a centralized dojang for educational training and testing for dan ranks and "to promote Taekwondo as a means of general exercise for the benefit of public health as well as to spread Taekwondo as a symbol of Korea and its traditions." (Modern History of TKD).
In 1976 the KTA worked in unifying the Kwans. Prior to this they already unified 40 Kwans into 9 Kwans. In 1978 all kwans agreed to the elimination of the Kwan concept and band together as one Taekwondo. Since 1972 they already had a standardized teminology and poomse curriculum so this was the final step in making one TKD.
So this is what I mean by saying if you were not following the standards set forth by the KKW, that you were not doing TKD. These were the standards agreed upon by the kwan leaders to be the core curriuculum of their concept of TKD. I figured since they were the leaders and our masters/teachers then their concept would be the correct one since they were the ones who had a say in the development.
If you adhere to the original teachings of GM Yoon, Byung-in as he taught them back in 1946, then I'm sorry, but that is not taekwondo. That is karate, that is what he learned, that is what he taught. If you studied Chang Moo Kwan (or any kwan method) as it was taught after 1962, then yes, that is taekwondo and I apologize for saying otherwise. I hope this better explains my point of view.
All the kwans existed prior to the building of KKW and prior to the development of taekwondo. Do we agree on this?
Kwan leaders got together to work towards developing a unified art called taekwondo. Prior to 1961 none of them called what they were learning or teaching taekwondo. Would you say this is correct?
After they banded together they formed the KTA to which they worked to developing a formalized system for dan promotions (1962). To which this was the standard used:
2nd Dan forms: Balhan Hyung Dae, Chul Ki E Dan Hyung (Chul Ki #2), Naebojin E Dan Hyung (Naebojin #2), Kima E Dan Hyung (Kima #2), Choong Moo Hyung.
3rd Dan forms: Ship Su Hyung, Pal Sae Hyung, Yon Bi Hyung, Dan Kwon Kyung, No Pae Hyung, Ge Baek Hyung, Ul Ji Hyung.
4th Dan forms: Chul Ki Sam Dan Hyung (Chul Ki #3), Naebojin Sam Dan Hyung (Naebojin #3), Kima Sam Dan Hyung (Kima #3), Ja Un Hyung, Jin Soo Hyun, Am Hak Hyung, Jin Dong Hyung, Sam Il Hyung, Jang Kwon Hyung.
5th Dan forms: Kong Sang Kun Hyung, Kwan Kong Hyung, Oh Ship Sa Hyung, Ship Sam Hyung, Ban Wol Hyung, Pal Ki Kwon Hyung.
The kwans did exist still but were now rectifying their curriculums to meet the requirements that was set by the board. Now let's fast forward 10 years to 1971. It was at this time they talked about restructuring teaching methods as well as allowing members to transfer from one kwan to another (not a popular idea). So yes, the kwans still exisited and yes they had their own teaching methods along with a standard curriculum agreed upon earlier. Slightly prior to that KKW was built. This main purpose was to be a centralized dojang for educational training and testing for dan ranks and "to promote Taekwondo as a means of general exercise for the benefit of public health as well as to spread Taekwondo as a symbol of Korea and its traditions." (Modern History of TKD).
In 1976 the KTA worked in unifying the Kwans. Prior to this they already unified 40 Kwans into 9 Kwans. In 1978 all kwans agreed to the elimination of the Kwan concept and band together as one Taekwondo. Since 1972 they already had a standardized teminology and poomse curriculum so this was the final step in making one TKD.
So this is what I mean by saying if you were not following the standards set forth by the KKW, that you were not doing TKD. These were the standards agreed upon by the kwan leaders to be the core curriuculum of their concept of TKD. I figured since they were the leaders and our masters/teachers then their concept would be the correct one since they were the ones who had a say in the development.
If you adhere to the original teachings of GM Yoon, Byung-in as he taught them back in 1946, then I'm sorry, but that is not taekwondo. That is karate, that is what he learned, that is what he taught. If you studied Chang Moo Kwan (or any kwan method) as it was taught after 1962, then yes, that is taekwondo and I apologize for saying otherwise. I hope this better explains my point of view.
miguksaram
Master of Arts
I can't disagree with you there. I feel they can definetely use a change in standards. I do agree with exile that there SD methods are not done very well at all and that they should work towards that more.
What I can tell you from what I have heard from higher ups, is that there is a shift happening that is causing TKD to not be so "olympic" focused and get back to the martial art area of things.
Wep, you'll just have to call me Missouri (the show me state). If it happens, that woudl be a good thing...but I'm not feeling especially optimistic at the moment.
I have no problem with there being an Olympic style component to TKD...in fact, I'm a big fan of the style. However, it's one small componnent to what was and still is (if taught correctly) a rich martial art. Whether or not the kukkiwon will survive the current turmoil is in question...Whether or not they will then look to return KKW TKD to its roots is an even bigger if.
Peace,
Erik
I have no problem with there being an Olympic style component to TKD...in fact, I'm a big fan of the style. However, it's one small componnent to what was and still is (if taught correctly) a rich martial art. Whether or not the kukkiwon will survive the current turmoil is in question...Whether or not they will then look to return KKW TKD to its roots is an even bigger if.
Peace,
Erik
miguksaram
Master of Arts
From what I am gathering is KKW is trying to promote more of the Ho sin sul, poomse and breaking areas of TKD while WTF will promote more of the sparring side of things. Again, nothing for certain, and I agree that I would like to see it to believe it.
rmclain
Black Belt
I have a copy of this original test program. It is written in Korean. It lists the forms as detailed below.
Grandmaster Kim Soo and one other student tested for 5th Dan at the first exam.
Here is a link to another thread with videos for historical research:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67861
R. McLain
Grandmaster Kim Soo and one other student tested for 5th Dan at the first exam.
Here is a link to another thread with videos for historical research:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67861
R. McLain
This is why a lot of people eschew the Kukkiwon and either attach themselves to a taekwondo federation that does address these things, or address them themselves and simply be non-affiliated.
I would be very pleased to see that. I find that olympic involvement generally always compromises a martial art. Taekwondo should be, first and formost, a fighting style, not a sport.
Daniel
This is really the crux of the whole issue, for me and for others in TKD who I know feel similarly. It's very straightforward: we see the KKW as linked much too tightly to the promotion of a WTF-style martial sport. Where miguksaram sees the lack of realistic combat-oriented bunkai practical self-defense as an unfortunate omission from the KKW syllabus that should, and maybe will, in due time be corrected, we see it not as something the KKW hasn't gotten around to, but rather as a very clear sign of the KKW's active commitment to turning TKD into a martial sport, period, eliminating any combat relevance in the process—because of what we see as the ROK's decision to market TKD purely as a sport (even as they invoke an invented legendary history full of Korean pseudo-samurai using proto-TKD on Three Kingdoms-era battlefields), in just the way the Chinese government appears to be interested in repackaging the CMAs purely as a martial spectacle, labelled wushu, for similar reasons (Flying Crane has written a number of very good—but quite discouraging—posts about this process).
That's why this discussion is, I think, relevant to the topic the OPer brought up: even if the KKW is restructured, what will result will almost certainly not represent a change in the basic de-martialization of TKD. And that's one of the primary reasons why many of us resist identification of TKD with the official KKW model of it: if we accept that, we are automatically accepting the elimination of the combat relevance of the art—which many of us started because we wanted an effective combat system for personal self-protection. So from this point of view, any restructuring or reassembling of the KKW will make no difference on this essential point.
Of course it's true that the KKW doesn't control schools' curricula completely—but they don't have to. Given the huge attention given to the Olympic side of TKD, any curriculum which doesn't explicitly build in a robust self-defense component to training leads, by default, to a general acceptance of the core curriculum as the whole curriculum. This is bound to be true with SD especially, for a number of reasons: legal liability and insurance issues, the shortage of instructors who themselves have trained in street-useful TKD, and so on.
To us, the Kwan era doesn't mean the bad old days when Korean martial arts 'lacked unity'; it means the era when the Seoul police deputized instructors and black belt students from the Kwans because their fighting skills were valuable in helping LEOs keep order on some very mean streets; the era when the ROK infantry was feared by its communist enemies in two wars because of their CQ combat abilities. For us, the KKW means the rejection of that view of TKD. We see it as the technique-side partner of the WTF (which works on the promotion/organization side), collaborating to kill off that earlier vision of TKD and replace it with a sanitized, toothless arena sport. So the problem for us with the restructuring issue of the KKW is that it doesn't get at what we think the real, fundamental trouble is...
And look, I'm just the messenger here. I'm just reporting what people I know—many, many people—think. They will welcome a non-KKW organization which promises to make the combat content of TKD the core of their training component, the way the British Combat Association does in the UK. Anyone who wants to strengthen and support the KKW should be thinking beyond its current temporary legal and organizational problems to take those fundamental concerns about direction seriously.
Last edited:
miguksaram
Master of Arts
As I was reading this I started thinking (yeah I know..scary) what if KKW left SD out on purpose for the sake of having the individual schools fill in the blanks? Let's just say KKW does place SD requirements into its curriculum, who is to say what they put in would be useful at all? Who is the overall judge of what is practicial and what isn't?
Example would be their take on the bunkai. Both you and I agree that the bunkai, is really not all that. It's basic ata best. Now my opinoin and I'll assume your opinoin is based on our training in a different martial art which utilizes bunkai a bit more effectively. Since the KKW requirements don't include this, we are free to discard it from our teachings and replace with our own.
As I mentioned before, the individual kwans still maintained their individuality even after the initial development. All that changed was just a set minimum standards for belt testing. You see I like that I have some basic guildlines to follow, but I sure as hell don't want them dictating to me how to run my school to teach my classes.
I agree with you on this. I come from the Jidokwan and I love the history that is behind that school. When there was a huge paradigm shift to olympic TKD, I, like you felt left behind and frankly pissed off at the KKW for just treating the people who built it up like the unwanted step children in lieu of their new promise child of sparring. It wasn't until I met with my last GM that he explained to me that KKW just provides you with the basic tools. You can build whatever you want with them.
Now fast forward 10 years later and I have recently had the pleasure of working with some gentlemen who want to see a shift in the paradigm again to back to more martial art and not martial sport in the KKW. Almost a split, if you will, between WTF (who would handle sport) and KKW (who would handle art).
Agreed. I'm not blindly following the KKW and I know that it has its flaws. It just seems that people are more willing to just leave instead of trying to make some sort of impact to get them to change. I for one, still believe it can change for the better, but that's just the hippy in me.
This was my favorite paragraph in all the post on this thread. Well stated!
It's unfortunate some people laugh when you tell the you are a TKDist.
TKD has been proven a very effectvie form of MA and SD because of its simplicity. In my experience, I only know of a few, including myself who've ACTUALLY used thier TKD in real SD situation. At my school(s) we A big on the SD aspect. Eventhough I am KKW certified I am most content with my CDK certification.
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
Aging, health issues and Martial Arts. - Martial Journal- Latest: Kung Fu Wang
-
-
