New Tae Kwon Do Book

[Earl Weiss]

Terminology and technique are school/association specific. Not everyone in TKD uses the same terms, and that's still true even if you had a native Korean as your instructor.



.

You have put a bright light on the problem, and see the solution as having no worth. That is your privilege.

Why did Funakoshi create Shotokan? Why did Kano create Judo? To a large extent they toook fragmented systems and codified them so thy could be taught on a large consistent scale internationaly. People doing that system could travel anywhere in the world and and find a home learning the system. General Choi did the same.

If you are content with operating in your own little corner of the universe, and never intend to leave, and intend the same for your students, and really don't care that outsiders who may relocate to your area having trained in the system you purport to teach will be uncomfortable with the home gron changes then doing only what an isolated instructor teaches is fine.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Well, I consulted a few pages from my books to confirm my recollections. The applications given as IMO rather basic, confined to the punch kick variety. I suppose a New Techniques for the pattern section is useful in some part as it provides a path for lineal progression of difficulty.

quote]

Actualy it reflects a fundamental teaching concept emphasized by General Choi. Specificaly that a student must have a thorough understanding of new fundamental techniques of a pattern and be able to properly execute the techniques before learning the pattern.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Is this so revolutionary from what any kata/hyung book provides? Mr. Yates' book has these for sure, and I think Mr. Rhee's books do too. Mr. Cho's does not, but arguably his pictures are shot in a more clear fashion that the Encyclopedia.

In referring to foot diagrams, I did not mean to indicate, nor did I think that your inquiry targeted why a single element of General Choi's books made it better. As with anything you need to consider the totality of the elements.

 

[dancingalone]

You have put a bright light on the problem, and see the solution as having no worth. That is your privilege.

Why did Funakoshi create Shotokan? Why did Kano create Judo? To a large extent they toook fragmented systems and codified them so thy could be taught on a large consistent scale internationaly. People doing that system could travel anywhere in the world and and find a home learning the system. General Choi did the same.

If you are content with operating in your own little corner of the universe, and never intend to leave, and intend the same for your students, and really don't care that outsiders who may relocate to your area having trained in the system you purport to teach will be uncomfortable with the home gron changes then doing only what an isolated instructor teaches is fine.

Well, I think that's the issue at hand, Mr. Weiss. I personally don't hold General Choi's work or teachings highest in my pantheon as you do. My training in tae kwon do (not Taekwon-Do, not taekwondo) was in Jhoon Rhee's system that he originally taught in Texas when he emigrated. Mr. Rhee eventually adopted General Choi's Chang Hon forms, but in his earliest days he taught the original Chung Do Kwan hyung, which were the Japanese Shotokan kata. General Choi should be respected as a pioneer in the creation of tae kwon do, but there are others who deserve the same level of respect like Lee Won Kuk or even Hwang Kee for all his 'apostasy'.

I think the ship has sailed on standardization, and truthfully if an ITF student moved to my part of the country, he would find himself adapting to the local standard, rather than the other way around. There are NO effective worldwide standards, regardless of the efforts of various organizations like the ITF (whatever flavor) and the Kukkiwon, because each group has failed to make their spin on TKD universal.

Portability has nothing to do with whether you follow the information within General Choi's books or not; portability occurs when you find another school that follows the same syllabus you did in your prior school, whether that was the Choi syllabus or not. It's a subtle difference in wording, but I think it delineates clearly the chasm between your perspective and mine.

Again for the record, you should obviously buy General Choi's materials if you are ITF-affiliated. For the rest (I daresay majority) of us who learned the Chang Hon patterns from non-ITF teachers, your mileage may vary.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I never progressed far enough in TKD to learn all the black belt forms, but I recall there being a hyung called Juche(?) that was changed or replaced at some point due to politics. Does the Encyclopedia include both the old and new form?

Mr. Yates' book is a nicely focused book that is light and easy to transport.

I respect your position. In the end however, I just don't see the huge deal if you're not specifically an ITF student. You can certainly pick up the outer shell of say Do-San or Won-Hyo from any of these books. Obviously you need to visit your teacher for correction and fine tuning.

Ju Che has replaced Ko Dang since I believe 1980. Publications since that time only contain Ju Che.

For ease of transport some groups such as the USTF have small books containing the exact text from Gnmeral Choi's books. It is a training tool and sionce terminology is uniform cross reference is easy.

Here is the huge deal. Wherever I go in the world I can fit right in at an ITF gym or function. Similarly since I am near O'Hare airport I frequently get visitors, students who have transferred, and business people who transferred.

On one day I had an ITF Stylist from the east coast visit and I had 5 students perform a pattern for him. After they were done I had them say where they learned the Pattern. One was from the east coast. One from Poland. One from Siberia, One from Canada, and one from my school. He said he would have never known that they learned it from different places.

That is the beauty of the system. (BTW, my origins pre date when books were widely available. It made us crazy when different instructors told us different things. )

 

[CDKJudoka]

I'm looking forward to it Dave.

 

[dortiz]

Here is my plan. I am going to have some folks I deem experts take a look at it and review it. Then maybe formulate some questions which I can tackle with G.M. as an interview.
Hopefully this will provide a good piece for general reading and an introduction to the book. I think all of the discussions above show why different sources solve different aspects.

Cheers,

Dave O.

p.s. I will still try to move photos to flicker.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I think the ship has sailed on standardization, and truthfully if an ITF student moved to my part of the country, he would find himself adapting to the local standard, rather than the other way around. There are NO effective worldwide standards, regardless of the efforts of various organizations like the ITF (whatever flavor) and the Kukkiwon, because each group has failed to make their spin on TKD universal.
.

I would like to know the state and largest city in your vicinity. Your profile does not provide info.

I disagree with your claim that there are NO effective worldwide standards. The Kukkiwon seems hard at work with instructor courses to standardize their system.

Having been to several ITF international competitions and events I have seen the standardization at work.

The sad part is when you encounter people who do the Chang Hon System and do not follow ITF standards is that they often (But not always) are unaware that what they are doing does not follow a largely accepted standard and sometimes are in for a rude awakening. I have had some of these who were "Orphaned students" of 20+ years sometimes embrace the fact that they found me and can become part of a larger picture.

Others were shocked to learn that what they did was only accepted in a small corner of a small universe. Sadder yet was when I explained what the ITF standard was along with the rationale, and asked what the rationale was for their methodology was that they had none. At least if they had a rationale reasoneable minds could agree to disagree.

If you choose not to appreciate Gneral Choi's work, that's fine. As Patrick Swaze said in Roadhouse "Opinions Vary" . What is hypocritical is to perform General Choi's patterns and ignore his technical parameters. Why not just follow the patterns of someone whose teachings you respect?

Sadder, are those who perform General Choi's patterns yet are ignorant of who created them and how that creator intended that they be preformed. Can the original poster please advise if the cited book on the Chang Hon patterns gives credit to their designer?

 

[dancingalone]

I would like to know the state and largest city in your vicinity. Your profile does not provide info.

I'm in the Austin, Texas area. Texas is a big state, surely no need to go to Dallas or Houston (both of which are 3 hours away by car) to find a full ITF affiliate?

I disagree with your claim that there are NO effective worldwide standards. The Kukkiwon seems hard at work with instructor courses to standardize their system.

Having been to several ITF international competitions and events I have seen the standardization at work.

You only have to look at the huge collection of martial arts that falls under the umbrella of the "tae kwon do" name to know I'm right. There are ITF standards for ITF people. There are KKW standards for KKW people. And then of course the many splinter orgs as well as independent schools exist.

Mr. Weiss, your standards are only applicable within your own circles. The same holds true for any effort the KKW is making and judging by the discussion on this board, it appears they themselves have issues with regional variation.

The sad part is when you encounter people who do the Chang Hon System and do not follow ITF standards is that they often (But not always) are unaware that what they are doing does not follow a largely accepted standard and sometimes are in for a rude awakening. I have had some of these who were "Orphaned students" of 20+ years sometimes embrace the fact that they found me and can become part of a larger picture.

I'd like to see auditable membership numbers for all three of the ITF orgs. I suspect their enrollment is lower than the KKW numbers combined, and is smaller still than all non-ITF/non-KKW tae kwon do people in the USA alone. It's doubtful any substantive figures could ever emerge however, given the political climate we're in. I suppose the NK group could report anything, given the lack of transparency under Kim Jong Il's regime.

Anyway, I fully dispute that there is any largely accepted standard. I'd be willing to bet if it could ever be verified that more US tae kwon do students DON'T do sine wave than do. Certainly that's the case from my anecdotal experience.

Others were shocked to learn that what they did was only accepted in a small corner of a small universe. Sadder yet was when I explained what the ITF standard was along with the rationale, and asked what the rationale was for their methodology was that they had none. At least if they had a rationale reasoneable minds could agree to disagree.

Not everyone is fully cognizant of WHY they do things the way they do. That kind of person is probably 1 out of 100, a master of his art. I'm not surprised if you had some people coming to you for training that they might not have all the pieces yet.

If you choose not to appreciate Gneral Choi's work, that's fine. As Patrick Swaze said in Roadhouse "Opinions Vary" . What is hypocritical is to perform General Choi's patterns and ignore his technical parameters. Why not just follow the patterns of someone whose teachings you respect?

Come now, I did say I respect General Choi. However, I don't elevate him above men like Lee Won Kuk or other comparable masters. When I practiced the Chang Hon patterns I performed them to the standard of my instructors who learned from Mr. Allen Steen who learned from Mr. Jhoon Rhee. I see no problem with that. General Choi is not in my family tree. Why then the expectation for me to hang onto his every word or every writing?

Sadder, are those who perform General Choi's patterns yet are ignorant of who created them and how that creator intended that they be preformed.

Well, following that line of thinking, perhaps we should consult Funakoshi's Karate Kyohan for pointers on how to perform the Chang Hon set?

I respect where you are coming from, Mr. Weiss, but likewise I believe you should give a bit more understanding to others not in your circles. Not every taekwondoist fell from the Choi tree, you know, and it's simply not logical to expect everyone in tae kwon do to conform to your expectations on what the art of tae kwon do is or not.

 

[FieldDiscipline]

What is hypocritical is to perform General Choi's patterns and ignore his technical parameters.

On that, what are your thoughts on sine wave?

Sadder, are those who perform General Choi's patterns yet are ignorant of who created them and how that creator intended that they be preformed. Can the original poster please advise if the cited book on the Chang Hon patterns gives credit to their designer?

Bok Man Kim you mean? I am very sorry to say I cannot remember the name of the other master involved.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I'm in the Austin, Texas area. Texas is a big state, surely no need to go to Dallas or Houston (both of which are 3 hours away by car) to find a full ITF affiliate?


.

Where is Cedar Park in relation to Austin?

 

[Earl Weiss]

You only have to look at the huge collection of martial arts that falls under the umbrella of the "tae kwon do" name to know I'm right. There are ITF standards for ITF people. There are KKW standards for KKW people. And then of course the many splinter orgs as well as independent schools exist.

Mr. Weiss, your standards are only applicable within your own circles. The same holds true for any effort the KKW is making and judging by the discussion on this board, it appears they themselves have issues with regional variation.


.

First you need to accept that any orean that is Kicking and punching, or any of their progeny are doing TKD.

Second you need to accept that anyone can create their own standards and thats OK no matter how isolated it makes the student. As I quoted, Opinions vary.

Next, just because Kukkiwon has issues with variations which they acknowledge as a problem needing correction as shown by a recent testing in the USA where not everyone passed an was told to work some more and try again does not mean they accept the second premise outlined above.

I have no issues with people who simply say "I do what my instructor says". The issue is when they so so blindly or sadly unaware that what their instructor says may simply be an error or misinterpretation of what their instructor learned from their instructor.

In fact if the theory is "Do what your instructor teaches" then a logical extension would be that the instructor should be doing what their instructor teaches.
By that logic, if you do the Chang Hon patterns you should do what General Choi teaches since the instructional lineage is traced back to him for those patterns.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I'd like to see auditable membership numbers for all three of the ITF orgs. I suspect their enrollment is lower than the KKW numbers combined, and is smaller still than all non-ITF/non-KKW tae kwon do people in the USA alone. It's doubtful any substantive figures could ever emerge however, given the political climate we're in. I suppose the NK group could report anything, given the lack of transparency under Kim Jong Il's regime.

Anyway, I fully dispute that there is any largely accepted standard. I'd be willing to bet if it could ever be verified that more US tae kwon do students DON'T do sine wave than do. Certainly that's the case from my anecdotal experience.


.

I don't think there is any need for numbers about ITF vs. KKW. ITF memebership, even all 3 combined is a small percentage of Kukkiwon.


Don't misunderstand me.
Lets not mix apples and oranges. If you compare the number of people accepting either the ITF or KKW standard versus all independant factions who are clueless as to those standards and doing any number of different things, the multitude of factions probably outweigh the unified standards group. However the multitude of factions all do different stuff.

So lets compare groups that adhere to a single standard. There are those who properly follow The KKW whether formal members or not, Those who follow the ITF whether still formal members of the big 3 or not, The ATA may be anoter large one, and then a huge number of tiny factions all happily doing their own stuff.

Accepting your argument would be like saying it's OK to screw up the way you play Mozart because most people do, and they do it in any number of ways. So what if Mozart would say it's wrong. Heck, your teacher likes it better and that's OK. If your happy, blissfully ignorant or not, thats all that matters. heck, sometimes it might sound even better than Mozart intended, according to some people. No need to worry about how it was intended to sound. Most people don't do it that way.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Come now, I did say I respect General Choi. However, I don't elevate him above men like Lee Won Kuk or other comparable masters. When I practiced the Chang Hon patterns I performed them to the standard of my instructors who learned from Mr. Allen Steen who learned from Mr. Jhoon Rhee. I see no problem with that. General Choi is not in my family tree. Why then the expectation for me to hang onto his every word or every writing?



.

1. I said appreciate, which is different than respect.
2. Interesting. General Choi not in your family tree? When it comes to the Chang Hon patterns, your instructors learned from Allen Steen who learned them from Jhoon Rhee who learned them from ..........?

 

[Earl Weiss]

Well, following that line of thinking, perhaps we should consult Funakoshi's Karate Kyohan for pointers on how to perform the Chang Hon set?

I respect where you are coming from, Mr. Weiss, but likewise I believe you should give a bit more understanding to others not in your circles. Not every taekwondoist fell from the Choi tree, you know, and it's simply not logical to expect everyone in tae kwon do to conform to your expectations on what the art of tae kwon do is or not.

<<

Sorry, Aanlogy fails or you would need to go to the Shorin and Shorei systems to learn Funakoshi's stuff, or perhaps even Shaolin to learn the Shorin stuff.

Each person, Funikoshi, Kano and General Choi codified systems based on other systems. To perform their system you follow their parameters.

If you perform the Chang Hon patterns and think you did not fall from the General Choi tree at least for thos epatterns, than whose tree did you fall from?

 

[Earl Weiss]

On that, what are your thoughts on sine wave?



Bok Man Kim you mean? I am very sorry to say I cannot remember the name of the other master involved.

Sine wave. Is a way to describe the way the body moves when you flex your knees (as part of the bodiy's motion) to generate power in hand techniques. It is a basic description in the nature of an anology or metaphor. The descriptive term while being unique to General Choi describes something that is not unique to the system. Examples can be found in Bruce Lee's description of the one and 2 inch punch. Other descriptions are found in examples of physical motion described as Kinetic inking or closed Chain movement. (There are other examples as well). You can also see it when a boxer flexes their knees as they punch.


Kim Bok Man, Nam Tae Hi, Han Cha Kyo and others all had input into the Chang Hon system. (Reference my article with GMNam published in TKD Times on my website. ) However, as far as I know they all acknowledge that General Choi was the final authority on the finished product.

 

[dortiz]

Hi Earl,
In the book, the page before the forms start clearly gives proper credit and acknowledgement to General Choi.
I apologize that I had some camera/3 year old child issues last night but I will make sure to snap a photo and email it you.

Very fair question, thanks.

Dave O.

 

[dancingalone]

Where is Cedar Park in relation to Austin?

It's a suburb of Austin, about 30 minutes from downtown. If there's an official school there that's news to me. The only site I found quickly with google is this one: http://www.hk-tkd.com/Site/Welcome_to.html, and they seem to be aligned with the WTF. Within the Austin metro area, there's probably at least 20 tae kwon do studios, over half are ATA or ITA, a couple are Jhoon Rhee tae kwon do, and only two KKW/WTF I know of, one run by a KKW 6th dan. There's a couple of clubs at the University of Texas also, one that seems to train for Olympic comps.

First you need to accept that any orean that is Kicking and punching, or any of their progeny are doing TKD.

Second you need to accept that anyone can create their own standards and thats OK no matter how isolated it makes the student. As I quoted, Opinions vary.

That's precisely my point. There is a plethora of fighting styles and even systems that use the "tae kwon do" name. The ITF does not have a monopoly on it, probably hence why your group prefers the term "Taekwon-Do". Heck, there's people still doing the Japanese forms using the tae kwon do name. ITF = 1 style of tae kwon do. NOT all of it.

Next, just because Kukkiwon has issues with variations which they acknowledge as a problem needing correction as shown by a recent testing in the USA where not everyone passed an was told to work some more and try again does not mean they accept the second premise outlined above.

Yes, they are working on standards for KKW members. I would hope they recognize likewise that different interpretations exist of tae kwon do that do not fall under their purvey.

I have no issues with people who simply say "I do what my instructor says". The issue is when they so so blindly or sadly unaware that what their instructor says may simply be an error or misinterpretation of what their instructor learned from their instructor.

In fact if the theory is "Do what your instructor teaches" then a logical extension would be that the instructor should be doing what their instructor teaches.
By that logic, if you do the Chang Hon patterns you should do what General Choi teaches since the instructional lineage is traced back to him for those patterns.

==
2. Interesting. General Choi not in your family tree? When it comes to the Chang Hon patterns, your instructors learned from Allen Steen who learned them from Jhoon Rhee who learned them from .....
==

Sorry, Aanlogy fails or you would need to go to the Shorin and Shorei systems to learn Funakoshi's stuff, or perhaps even Shaolin to learn the Shorin stuff.

Each person, Funikoshi, Kano and General Choi codified systems based on other systems. To perform their system you follow their parameters.

If you perform the Chang Hon patterns and think you did not fall from the General Choi tree at least for thos epatterns, than whose tree did you fall from?

General Choi's inspiration from the beginning Shotokan forms are clear. In understanding anything, it's useful to go back to the roots, and it's a reasonable line of inquiry to consult Funakoshi's work since it is 1) documented and 2) the immediate predecessor with clear linkage. Going back to the shorin-ryu grandfather would be difficult since the art drift is much greater given the many modifications Funakoshi and his students made. (By the way, it's doubtful that Shotokan as explained in books like the Karate Kyohan or Dynamic Karate) contains much if any Naha-te influence, and Funakoshi even misclassifies a few kata in his writing.) This is a really a side discussion however.

To address your claim that my line of tae kwon do flows from General Choi: Only organizationally and only for a time as Jhoon Rhee eventually left the ITF. As I understand it, Mr. Jhoon Rhee does not consider General Choi to be his instructor. I was taught that his instructor was the Chung Do Kwan kwang jang nim. While Mr. Rhee was convinced by General Choi to adopt his patterns, and he may(?) even have learned the patterns from General Choi, it doesn't necessarily follow that General Choi should be considered his instructor.

What makes someone your teacher? How many hours in the dojang did Mr. Rhee toil under General Choi's tutelage? I believe the number is probably low to non-existant.

I don't think there is any need for numbers about ITF vs. KKW. ITF memebership, even all 3 combined is a small percentage of Kukkiwon.

Don't misunderstand me.
Lets not mix apples and oranges. If you compare the number of people accepting either the ITF or KKW standard versus all independant factions who are clueless as to those standards and doing any number of different things, the multitude of factions probably outweigh the unified standards group. However the multitude of factions all do different stuff.

So lets compare groups that adhere to a single standard. There are those who properly follow The KKW whether formal members or not, Those who follow the ITF whether still formal members of the big 3 or not, The ATA may be anoter large one, and then a huge number of tiny factions all happily doing their own stuff.

Well, I think you're puffing up your numbers too much when you claim that there is largely accepted standard, hence my point about ITF membership... define 'those who follow the ITF where still formal members of the big 3 or not'. If your qualifier is simply that they practice the Chang Hon patterns, I'll argue you can't count them. My point is that more people exist that DON'T follow ITF guidelines (key point: sine wave) than do, all while studying the Chang Hon forms. So it follows that there are NO "largely accepted standards".

Accepting your argument would be like saying it's OK to screw up the way you play Mozart because most people do, and they do it in any number of ways. So what if Mozart would say it's wrong. Heck, your teacher likes it better and that's OK. If your happy, blissfully ignorant or not, thats all that matters. heck, sometimes it might sound even better than Mozart intended, according to some people. No need to worry about how it was intended to sound. Most people don't do it that way.

Nope. You seem to be arguing that General Choi always taught the same way throughout his career, and that might be the case from where you stand as probably a close associate of the General and the ITF. To those of us in the hinterlands, we see it as the ITF increasingly diverged and changed from its previous body of knowledge under the General's guidance in his later years.

To use your Mozart analogy (not a great one, since the design of the forms was made by several people), we learned and practice the "Marriage of Figaro" in one fashion and we were pleased with it. A few years later, the piece now changes with odd, unaesthetically pleasing syncopation super-imposed throughout.

Is it any wonder that those of us not longer part of ITF simply said, "No thanks?"

At this point, there are multiple ways of executing the Chang Hon forms, depending on which era you or your instructors learned them in. I fully concede that ITF members received the last word on how they should be done from General Choi. At the same time are any of the other interpretations wrong? No way. General Choi's place in tae kwon do history is secure, but his Encyclopedia is hardly the authoritative source of knowledge for EVERYONE in tae kwon do. There's nothing wrong with using or consulting a book or dvd from someone not named Choi Hong Hi.

 

[Earl Weiss]

It's a suburb of Austin, about 30 minutes from downtown. If there's an official school there that's news to me. quote]

Fabian Nunez, ITF 8th Dan lists an address in Cedar Park. http://www.nuneztkd.com/home.html He hosted an ITF International Instructor Course in Ausstin in MArch of 2008.

So, I guess there is an ITF presence in you area.

 

[Earl Weiss]

The ITF does not have a monopoly on it, probably hence why your group prefers the term "Taekwon-Do". Hong Hi.

FYI Originaly Tae Kwon Do, 3 seperate words to aid in pronunciation changed to combine the physical yet show it's link to the "Do".