New Tae Kwon Do Book

[Earl Weiss]

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.

quote]

That is not what you stated, and that is not what I said. Referring to someone as an instructor has meanings on many levels. You said Gneral Choi was not in your lineage or family. Now you seek to change the debate. To the extent that anyone does the Chang Hon forms, it is disingenuous to claim that General Choi is not in your lineage. They are his forms. Anyone who does them traces their lineage to him, like it or not.

 

[dancingalone]

That is not what you stated, and that is not what I said. Referring to someone as an instructor has meanings on many levels. You said Gneral Choi was not in your lineage or family. Now you seek to change the debate. To the extent that anyone does the Chang Hon forms, it is disingenuous to claim that General Choi is not in your lineage. They are his forms. Anyone who does them traces their lineage to him, like it or not.

I don't see the discrepancy, sorry. General Choi is NOT in my family tree nor in my lineage. One MUST be in the instructorship chain somewhere, else the concept of a family tree would be far too overarching and general. I suppose I might as well claim Gichin Funakoshi or Nam Tae Hi or anyone else who had a role directly or indirectly in creating the Chang Hon patterns into my lineage. Now THAT would not only disingenuous but laughable too.

 

[dancingalone]

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.

Actually, I'm glad there is one. There's room for diversity in tae kwon do.

 

[Earl Weiss]

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".

.

I can't help but wonder if you really do not get my point.

I agree that there are more fragments out there doing any number of things than those who follow ITF standards whether officialy members or not. The point is that each of those fragments alone cannot be considered as following any single standard because they don't. If you consider any single group following a particular standard as to the ITF forms, by far the largest is the ITF standard, whether officialy a member or imitating what is on the CD ROMs.


An example was gentleman who came to me from another school. I am friendly with the instructor whose lteacher was Han Cha Kyo, an ITF pioneer and Chung Do Kwan Luminary. As with many pioneers, including Jhoon Rhee and He Il Cho, their execution of the Chang Hon System techniques had a strong Chung Do Kwan Flavor. I also noticed those who trained with ATA pioneer HU Lee had the same flavor to a lot of their techniques. (When I had GM Nam Tae Hi teach at my school he still used some Japanese terms.)

Anyway, this gentleman who knew little about me remarked "You do the patterns like General Choi teaches." I asked how he knew, and his response was that he had the CD ROMs. Justy an example of non ITF people acknowledging the standard.

So to say what I think you are saing) there is a greater population of people but fragment following all sorts of local standards versus a smaller but single large international population following a single standard is not a comparison of groups following a single standard.

 

[Earl Weiss]

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.

quote]

First you need to define the time frame. My first course with him was in 1990, and my last in 2002. I would say he was 95+% consistant, and out of that 5% some may have been communication issues.

 

[Earl Weiss]

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.

The era of learning was a factor. Bigger factors were how much tiome was spent learning and the existing habits of many as I related earlier in my "Chung Do Kwan Flavor" comment.

I have no problems with interpretations when represented as such.

I do not generalize with regard to the encyclopedia being the definitive text for all who choose to do what they call TKD. It is however the definitive text for the Chang Hon patterns.

If you disagree with this statement: "General Choi's Encyclopedia is the definitive text on the technical parameters of the Chang Hon pattern system" then we will agree to disagree.

There are ancilary works out there Like Tae Kwon Do Hae Sul, showing alternate applications for the pattern moves, but it is just that, an ancilary text, and a good one at that.

 

[dancingalone]

I can't help but wonder if you really do not get my point.

I agree that there are more fragments out there doing any number of things than those who follow ITF standards whether officialy members or not. The point is that each of those fragments alone cannot be considered as following any single standard because they don't. If you consider any single group following a particular standard as to the ITF forms, by far the largest is the ITF standard, whether officialy a member or imitating what is on the CD ROMs.

No, I understand. You want to separate the huge bucket of people who do non-ITF syllabus Chang Hon into hundreds of groupings since they are not identical to one another in day-to-day practice and because they are not aligned organizationally. Since we're talking forms however, I would say they're actually a majority group linked by their collective non-practice of sine wave theory. More people don't do sine wave than do -> a lack of largely accepted standards.

Anyway, this gentleman who knew little about me remarked "You do the patterns like General Choi teaches." I asked how he knew, and his response was that he had the CD ROMs. Justy an example of non ITF people acknowledging the standard.

I've never disputed that an ITF standard exists. Just that it is largely accepted when you consider the entire population of taekwondoists that use the Chang Hon forms but would likely be considered technically incorrect by your criteria.

So to say what I think you are saing) there is a greater population of people but fragment following all sorts of local standards versus a smaller but single large international population following a single standard is not a comparison of groups following a single standard.

I'm afraid my little peabrain blew a fuse trying to follow that one.

Anyway, what really matters is that there's a multitude of tae kwon do styles, some using the Chang Hon patterns, some not, some with sine wave and more that don't. In the end, it's all tae kwon do, and they're just different paths of reaching the same point. Given that perspective, it's certainly fine for multiple media options to exist for one to learn or study the Chang Hon patterns.

 

[dancingalone]

I do not generalize with regard to the encyclopedia being the definitive text for all who choose to do what they call TKD. It is however the definitive text for the Chang Hon patterns.

If you disagree with this statement: "General Choi's Encyclopedia is the definitive text on the technical parameters of the Chang Hon pattern system" then we will agree to disagree.

I would add a few small (to me) qualifiers to that statement, so we undoubtedly would have to agree to disagree. I did enjoy the conversation, though. Thank you.

 

[dortiz]

"There are ancilary works out there Like Tae Kwon Do Hae Sul, showing alternate applications for the pattern moves, but it is just that, an ancilary text, and a good one at that. "

Lol,
That and Simons book are on my desk here at work as I read.

Dave O.

 

[Earl Weiss]

No, I understand. You want to separate the huge bucket of people who do non-ITF syllabus Chang Hon into hundreds of groupings since they are not identical to one another in day-to-day practice and because they are not aligned organizationally. Since we're talking forms however, I would say they're actually a majority group linked by their collective non-practice of sine wave theory. More people don't do sine wave than do -> a lack of largely accepted standards.




.

Well, I am confused as to how a bunch of disconected groups who do not share any standards are considered collectively as one group sharing no standard and are therfeore the larges group with a standard. I guess it is the standard of no standard?

Not sure how this became so focused on sine wave.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Quote:
So to say what I think you are saing) there is a greater population of people but fragment following all sorts of local standards versus a smaller but single large international population following a single standard is not a comparison of groups following a single standard.
I'm afraid my little peabrain blew a fuse trying to follow that one.

Anyway, what really matters is that there's a multitude of tae kwon do styles, some using the Chang Hon patterns, some not, some with sine wave and more that don't. In the end, it's all tae kwon do, and they're just different paths of reaching the same point. Given that perspective, it's certainly fine for multiple media options to exist for one to learn or study the Chang Hon patterns.

Per my prior post. You seem to consider the non standards irrespective of any cohesion or lack of uniformity as being the largest group when they share little or nothing in the way of standard technical parameters.
Your next statement ... "it's all tae kwon do ..." gives better insight into an all inclusive perspective.

It is a different topic and one that has been explored but IMNSHO never resolved. That is "What is TKD? " Extremes seem to range from being syllabus specific KKW, ITF. ATA, any old or new Kwan, any Korean Kicking and punching or their progeny, or none of the above.

 

[dancingalone]

Well, I am confused as to how a bunch of disconected groups who do not share any standards are considered collectively as one group sharing no standard and are therfeore the larges group with a standard. I guess it is the standard of no standard?

Not sure how this became so focused on sine wave.

==

You seem to consider the non standards irrespective of any cohesion or lack of uniformity as being the largest group when they share little or nothing in the way of standard technical parameters.

As I stated, the common thing they share is a lack of sine wave movement despite still using Chang Hon hyung. Since this discussion centers on the various Chang Hon pattern book(s), there should be no doubt why sine wave is a big topic.

The most outwardly distinguishing quality of ITF people is your characteristic sine wave motion; ironically it may be your worst form of negative publicity, as it seems to raise the hackles of many tae kwon do people who might otherwise be favorably disposed to the ITF3. In my opinion, General Choi's syllabus without the sine wave would be attractive to many disenchanted with the sports focus many KKW-affiliated schools have.

"What is TKD? "

Yes, I am an inclusionist. Essentially any art with a historical link back to the KTA unification talks can and should be able to call themselves tae kwon do.

tae kwon do Moo Duk Kwan guys who use the Shotokan forms = tae kwon do
ITF Taekwon-Do = tae kwon do
KKW taekwondo = tae kwon do
ATA Songahm tae kwon do = tae kwon do
independents that had links to the ITF at one point = tae kwon do
And so on.

 

[StuartA]

Hi Guys my teacher B. K. Cho has put together a book detailing Tae Kwon Do and both the Chang On and Kukkiwon forms. Its awesome! Stuart, Simon and anyone else, I would love ideas on where to place it to help him sell them.
Here is my Facebook link with some pics.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=438210&id=1324279200&ref=mf

Thanks,
Dave O.

Hi Dave,

First of all apologies for replying to this issue so late. I believe Simon O'Neill has already suggested that you send it to TotallyTKD for an 'Honest John's" review.

Now, before you decide, I shoudl warn you that we have a small group of reviewers, totally anonymous, both ITF/WTF/indendant based. The book will be judged on its merits, not its affliation, but how well it will serve the whole of the TKD world.. obviosuly if a book has say a WTF slant, than this will be stated etc. The reviewers point out both good and bad points and leave the reader to decide if its a worthy purchase for them.

I say this not to put you off sending it, but to because obviously the author has a personal connection to you, which is a bit like singing in front of your family s opposed to Americas Got talent.. Mum says its fantatsic.. Simon Cowell may or may not! - I hope you see my point.

This thread has generated lots of discussion, and TBH, some of it may reflect in the review, not the posts here, but some of the trains of thoughts some have posted.. such as is the Ch'ang hon stuff the same as ITF standards, as they are valid questions a reviewer will be asking.. that said, there are many non-ITF people that do the Ch'ang hon form anyway, so I could say whether it would be a big issue with the reviewer or not, as I cannot speak for them anyway. Sucuringa review in TKDTimes or Black belt mag may help, but get them to commit to a review before sending it, as from what i heard.. big bucks speak the loudest there and not everything gets a big review.. mine didnt, despite sending them a copy from the UK!

Okay, Totally TKD aside.. ensure there is a web site to purchase the book from if it hasnt got an ISBN number.. if it has, get it on Amazon quick smart.. contact the publisher and get them to do it!

Regards,

Stuart

Ps. If the book is decent, people will buy it, whether ITF/WTF or not... its that simple really However, they need to know about it first!

 

[dortiz]

Thanks Stuart,
thats all helpfull. I know there will be some good and maybe lots bad. I already talked to him about the history. He went with the usual 3 kingdoms to Taekyon shazamo modern tae Kwon Do bit. I explained what folks really know already and the understanding of cultural pride. He said he is open to make changes in future runs. I am sure in the end there will be much more feedback.
I would buy it in minute for the tae Geuk break down and detail. Without a doubt save for the DVDs its a s good a documnetd and explained lay out as I have found. For ITF I worry. No Sine wave and I dont think as detailed. I will wait for your opinions though. I still find plenty to like and ans as most books see about half that works for me and half to make the shelf look fuller : )
Its being mailed off and I will pursue the Amazon avenue.

Thanks for the input from you and everyone. I think it sparked good thoughts.

Dave O.

 

[StuartA]

Dave,

I wouldnt worry about the ITF bit.. if its not aimed at ITF guys then that will probibly just be stated.. there are millions who do the Ch'ang Hon patterns that arnt in the ITF or follow their more recent changes.

Stuart

 

[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?



.

ITF Instructor Travis Young (I think) is still at the University of Texas at Austin TKD club. Came across a January 2009 article mentioning him there.

 

[dancingalone]

ITF Instructor Travis Young (I think) is still at the University of Texas at Austin TKD club. Came across a January 2009 article mentioning him there.

Thanks. I'm not familiar with Mr. Young, being well out of my university years. The clubs are for students and faculty only; that's unfortunate because some of the people involved with these clubs and classes are world class.

Years ago, I took 2 semesters of TKD at UT with the late Dr. Daeshik Kim, a KKW 9th dan.

 

[tkd1964]

I think what is being forgotten is that the Patterns are Taekwon-do techniques put in different sequences. These techniques are the Taekwon-do techniques as developed by Gen. Choi Hong Hi. You may be doing the sequences but if you are not doing the techniques as set down by Gen. Choi, you are not doing Taekwon-Do. You may be doing Tang Soo Do techniques or Chung Do Kwan( tang Soo). If a person did the patterns but used his Kung fu techniques, he would not be doing Chang Hun Taekwon-do. Just because you are not ITF does not mean you shouldn't be doing the Patterns ( Taekwon-Do techniqurs) as Gen. Choi developed them. There are many non ITF groups still doing the Techniques as Gen. Choi wanted them. In the states you have the USTF,Yom Chi, Chi TKD, etc. Taekwon-do patterns are more then just movements, it is the embodyment of the ART.

Taekwon!!

Mike

 

[dancingalone]

I think what is being forgotten is that the Patterns are Taekwon-do techniques put in different sequences. These techniques are the Taekwon-do techniques as developed by Gen. Choi Hong Hi. You may be doing the sequences but if you are not doing the techniques as set down by Gen. Choi, you are not doing Taekwon-Do. You may be doing Tang Soo Do techniques or Chung Do Kwan( tang Soo). If a person did the patterns but used his Kung fu techniques, he would not be doing Chang Hun Taekwon-do. Just because you are not ITF does not mean you shouldn't be doing the Patterns ( Taekwon-Do techniqurs) as Gen. Choi developed them. There are many non ITF groups still doing the Techniques as Gen. Choi wanted them. In the states you have the USTF,Yom Chi, Chi TKD, etc. Taekwon-do patterns are more then just movements, it is the embodyment of the ART.

Taekwon!!

Mike

Mike, you're ignoring all the people who learned the Chang Hon patterns in General Choi's org sans sine wave. They left the ITF and continued to practice and teach the way they learned. Later, General Choi chose to emphasize sine wave movement and those connected with him in this last phase of his life perform the patterns in the style you describe.

The older type movement may not be "Taekwon-Do", but it certainly is tae kwon do.

Maybe someone should start an ITF for non-sinewave pattern people.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Mike, you're ignoring all the people who learned the Chang Hon patterns in General Choi's org sans sine wave. They left the ITF and continued to practice and teach the way they learned. Later, General Choi chose to emphasize sine wave movement and those connected with him in this last phase of his life perform the patterns in the style you describe.

The older type movement may not be "Taekwon-Do", but it certainly is tae kwon do.

Maybe someone should start an ITF for non-sinewave pattern people.

What I think you and others choose to ignore is that:
A. There are many parameters in addittion to sine wave involved in the Chang Hon System which are omitted to any number of greater and lesser extent by many who think they do the system. It would be one thing if they knew they did some variation, but usualy they are blissfully unaware.
B. It is interesting to note that you feel those omitting any number of factors share a common bond simply because they have a single omoission in common.
C. While the term "Sine Wave" did not appear until the 1980 encyclopedia the concept and execution appears in earier texts which refer to bending the knees. In the 1970's we called it "Spring Style".
D. Many of the Pioneers had strong roots in kwans which predated the Chang Hon system. They developed habits which were characteristic of those systems such as the Karate / Shotokan / Chung Do Kwan keeping the head level when stepping and those habits carried thru to the students who learned the new system irrespective of whether the new system employed those habits.


So, whether the old movement is "TKD" depends on whether you adopt the all inclusive definition.

For purposes of most discussions it is unneccessary to answer this question since if you specify the Chang Hon system then you only need to address how it was intended to be performed.

Coming from an early background of pioneers, having a single standard is a lot simpler than having various instructors all teaching differnt ways, especialy to lower ranks.