question about tae kwon do kata

[Flying Crane]

Just wanted to add an additional thought to my previous post.

Obviously an independent instructor has a clear obligation to not mislead his students into thinking that he is a member of an organization that he is not. If he has separated from an organization, he should make that very clear to his students. He should also make very clear the fact that any rank he awards will not be recognized by any other organization that he is not a member of. The reality is probably that he and his school would be the only group in which this rank would be recognized, but in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with that either.

 

[rmclain]

Just a general timeline of forms for TKD for the discussion:

Following WWII, Korean karate schools were practicing the same forms as shudokan or shotokan. The Chang Moo Kwan also taught CHinese chuan-fa forms as well. I don't know about Moo Duk Won, so I can't comment, though I've read that Hwang Kee studied some type of CHinese martial art.

Choi Hong Hi created his Chong Hon forms in 1950.

The Korean Taekwondo Association created the BB forms in 1967: Koryo, Tae Baek, Ship Jin, Baek Jae, Jee Tae, etc. In 1972, they created and introduced the Palgue forms (1-8) for gup-grade holders.

In 1974, the World Taekwondo Federation (formerly the KTA), introduced the Tae Guek forms (1-8) to replace the Palgue Forms. Also, they introduced a new version of Koryo.

I don't know about the ATA.

R. McLain

 

[Gemini]

Just wanted to add an additional thought to my previous post.

Obviously an independent instructor has a clear obligation to not mislead his students into thinking that he is a member of an organization that he is not.

Let's add another degree of confusion to that. (This tree appears to have alot of branches).

This isn't off-topic, but it may take this thread down a road we don't wish to go. I'll throw it out there and the board can decide its fate.

A Kukkiwon certified school advertises itself as a Kukkiwon certified school. Then as a student becomes a BB, they recieve the school recognition but it's never sent through Kukkiwon. (fine print-we never said we would and we can't control what you assume) That keeps the student's rank in that school only with little chance of recognition of his rank outside that school. Student options are leave and start over or stay. Business and MA.

Here is a thought on this: when you teach something to someone, they now have that knowledge. Knowledge is an intangible thing. What someone does with it cannot be controlled by others. If this person takes that knowledge and teaches it to another person, once again, how can someone stop them? Knowledge is not a product such as software or a book or a video, that might be sold in pirated or bootlegged versions. If something is pirated, there is legal recourse that can be taken. But if someone is passing on knowledge, how can someone else stop them?

Theoretically, I don't think you can, but then, why would someone leave a system, yet take the material from that system? I know it happens, but I see it as something's wrong. If you had a problem with it in the first place, why are you taking it. If you didn't, why did you leave? The only time I've personally seen this happen is when the person who left who wanted to take short cuts and ended up teaching a deluded version of what he was taught. I think someone mentioned above they knew someone who left a system, yet took the information with them. Just for the sake of adding to my own experience, I'd like to hear why?

 

[Flying Crane]

Theoretically, I don't think you can, but then, why would someone leave a system, yet take the material from that system? I know it happens, but I see it as something's wrong. If you had a problem with it in the first place, why are you taking it. If you didn't, why did you leave? The only time I've personally seen this happen is when the person who left who wanted to take short cuts and ended up teaching a deluded version of what he was taught. I think someone mentioned above they knew someone who left a system, yet took the information with them. Just for the sake of adding to my own experience, I'd like to hear why?

Well, this all comes back to politics, but what if someone had difficulties with the organization, but felt that the martial system was good? I think someone could decide to leave an organization for many reasons, but feel the martial training they had received was worth keeping. I think it is important to understand that the two are different. Good martial arts, but lousy organization that has all kinds of political red tape and outrageous dues and commitments and such that someone just gets fed up with.

 

[Flying Crane]

Just a general timeline of forms for TKD for the discussion:

Following WWII, Korean karate schools were practicing the same forms as shudokan or shotokan. The Chang Moo Kwan also taught CHinese chuan-fa forms as well. I don't know about Moo Duk Won, so I can't comment, though I've read that Hwang Kee studied some type of CHinese martial art.

Choi Hong Hi created his Chong Hon forms in 1950.

The Korean Taekwondo Association created the BB forms in 1967: Koryo, Tae Baek, Ship Jin, Baek Jae, Jee Tae, etc. In 1972, they created and introduced the Palgue forms (1-8) for gup-grade holders.

In 1974, the World Taekwondo Federation (formerly the KTA), introduced the Tae Guek forms (1-8) to replace the Palgue Forms. Also, they introduced a new version of Koryo.

I don't know about the ATA.

R. McLain

Thank you. this is exactly the kind of information I was looking for in my original question.

 

[terryl965]

Gemini you are right advertising your Kukkiwon school, does not say they issue Kukkiwon certificates.

On the other subject if I teach a child to ride a bike and that child leaves my nieghborhood and start to charge childern in his new nieghborhood for teaching the same techniques I tought him years ago, do I have a right to condem him for his teaching of how to ride a bike. No where does it say when you sign up you canonly teach those I tell you can teach. In america we have the right to teach what we want to who we want and MA is no different than anyother organization. If you are a coach under Pat Riley if you leave his team to coach some where eles he can not say you can't do these drills they are mine. Just my two cents worth



Terry

 

[mantis]

I dont see how you can reserve your copyright on material that is taught.
usually in schools they teach copyrighted material, but they, for example, make students buy the original copy of the book, or they give credit to the founder, say like a math or a computer algorithm.
but for martial arts!?

am i making sense? not to me anyway!
it just sounds unusual in the first place to say forms are copyrighted.
that's just against what MA's stand for.

 

[Flying Crane]

If I recall this issue of physcial routines was determined when an issue of dance choreography arose.

http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/comm106/106copy.html#what%20COPYRIGHT%20IS


Regards,


Steve

Ok, so this is an interesting thought. I do think there is a difference, however, between dance choreography, and martial arts curriculum.

In dance choreography, the members of a performance group are taught the choreography for the sole purpose of performance, which is meant to make money as well as express the artistic talent of the director, choreographer and dancers. The choreography is meant for a small, specific group, to be used under a specific venue.

I think martial arts curriculum does not fall into this same category. MA is taught to people who come in the door and pay for lessons. The intention is that everyone who pays to learn the material will learn and master the material for themselves. Eventually, it is understood implicitly, that these people who are learning the material may teach it to others. The material is implicitly meant to be shared. I think this sets it apart from something like a dance choreography. The question is: does the parent organization have the right to determine under what cirumstances and conditions the material is taught? And here is another question: Is the person who first invented the forms still alive? if not, how does the organization get to hold this authority, when the original author is deceased?

Getting back to dance choreography, I guess there could arise an issue if a member of the dance troup left the group, formed their own group, and performed the same choreography that they learned from the other. Is this situation ripe for a law suit? I don't know, but it's worth thinking about. On the other hand, Swan Lake is performed by Ballet companies all over the world. Someone wrote the original performance, but it doesn't appear to me that there is any centralized control over it.

I need to run this by my lawyer contacts. I work in a legal dept., but not intellectual property. My wife and father-in-law are both criminal defense attorneys. Maybe someone has an opinion... Very interesting discussion!

 

[Flying Crane]

Gemini you are right advertising your Kukkiwon school, does not say they issue Kukkiwon certificates.

On the other subject if I teach a child to ride a bike and that child leaves my nieghborhood and start to charge childern in his new nieghborhood for teaching the same techniques I tought him years ago, do I have a right to condem him for his teaching of how to ride a bike. No where does it say when you sign up you canonly teach those I tell you can teach. In america we have the right to teach what we want to who we want and MA is no different than anyother organization. If you are a coach under Pat Riley if you leave his team to coach some where eles he can not say you can't do these drills they are mine. Just my two cents worth



Terry

good points!!

 

[Flying Crane]

I dont see how you can reserve your copyright on material that is taught.
usually in schools they teach copyrighted material, but they, for example, make students buy the original copy of the book, or they give credit to the founder, say like a math or a computer algorithm.
but for martial arts!?

am i making sense? not to me anyway!
it just sounds unusual in the first place to say forms are copyrighted.
that's just against what MA's stand for.

good points here too. I could understand if an organization has teaching materials such as books, diagrams, written descriptions, etc. and they insisted that you cannot use these materials if you are not part of the organization. That makes sense. If they developed a step-by-step formula and teaching approach that you are unable to use, I can understand. But I think you could take the same material and simply teach it in your own manner.

 

[Shu2jack]

I think someone mentioned above they knew someone who left a system, yet took the information with them. Just for the sake of adding to my own experience, I'd like to hear why?

Politics. They thought they could do better outside the ATA, so they left. That is fine, but they kept teaching our stuff. Why? Probably because it was easier than making up an entirely new system and that all their students would have to relearn a new system. Why go through all the trobule when you have a perfectly good system you have been using? It took years the develop our system and I'm sure various instructors didn't want to take the time to develop their own.

I could understand if an organization has teaching materials such as books, diagrams, written descriptions, etc. and they insisted that you cannot use these materials if you are not part of the organization. That makes sense. If they developed a step-by-step formula and teaching approach that you are unable to use, I can understand. But I think you could take the same material and simply teach it in your own manner.

You basically solved the whole problem to the copyrighted forms issue. The ATA has copyright forms, but the forms are part of an entire system of teaching. Not only is it a step-by-step method to mentally and physically develop a student from white belt to 9th degree black belt, it is the foundation of our instructor programs, our closed tournaments, how we train people, our philosophy (And there is a good deal of philosophy behind our forms), etc. The ATA spent years researching and developing the system. Why should someone who spent 10 years in the organization learn it all and simply be able to leave and make money off of other people's work?

And you are right, they can take the same material and teach it in their own manner. My 2nd degree form has 82 movements in it. I'm sure I can find a way to change half of those movements and still practice what I want to. The ATA would be happy because changing the forms in that manner destroys what they are meant for and you still can practice what you want and what you have learned.

 

[Flying Crane]

That is fine, but they kept teaching our stuff. Why? Probably because it was easier than making up an entirely new system and that all their students would have to relearn a new system.

Why should someone who spent 10 years in the organization learn it all and simply be able to leave and make money off of other people's work?

And you are right, they can take the same material and teach it in their own manner. My 2nd degree form has 82 movements in it. I'm sure I can find a way to change half of those movements and still practice what I want to. The ATA would be happy because changing the forms in that manner destroys what they are meant for and you still can practice what you want and what you have learned.

Ok, for your first point, I don't think many people would feel it necessary to create a whole new system just because they have cut ties with their old organization. The arts are always changing for many reasons, but I don't think too many people would see a need to completely change everything, and try to create an entire system that is new. Can't really do it anyway, because there is soo much overlap from one art to another as it is. Whatever one person might 'invent', someone else is probably already doing it somewhere (on a technical level anyway; obviously forms are created, but often they are just recycled techniques that have been repackaged into a new order).

For your second point, why should someone not be able to leave an organization after 10 years (or however long), and be able to make money from what he has learned? If he learned it well, reached instructor level, I don't think he can be stopped if he decides to teach others after breaking away from an organization. We spend four years in college, earn a degree, then go and start a business and make money from what we have learned. We don't have to remain in good standing with our college, or send them kickbacks for the profit we have made.

For the third point above, I guess I wasn't envisioning re-arranging the forms to make them different. I was really thinking in the line of a 'philosophy of teaching' kind of approach. I am not sure exactly how to explain this, but I wasn't referring to actually changing the material, just using your own personal approach in how it is taught.

Here is another thought to chew on. Let's say a person who has broken from the organization continues to teach the material, and the organization then files a law suit to get him to stop, and maybe even pay damages of some sort. Assuming that their copyright on the material holds up, how would they even prove to the court that this person is in violation? I doubt they would be able to force the rogue instructor to perform his forms for the benefit of the court, and then pick them apart piece by piece to show a certain degree of similarity. The instructor could just claim that he is not teaching the same thing. If they were successful in forcing him to perform for the court (something that I think would be extremely unlikely), he could make up some nonsense on the spot, claim that is what he is teaching, and who could argue with him? And even if he did the forms legitimately, the court is in no position to determine if this is the same thing or not. The court is not an expert on the martial arts, or on this particular martial art. So then both sides hire 'expert witnesses' who testify that the forms are the same or are not the same, but it is all really a bunch of nonsense. The organization's expert witness testifies that it is the same because it looks 'significantly' the same (whatever that means), and the instructor's expert witness testifies that it is different because he holds his fist slightly different in eight different places,and he doesn't kick as high. it is basically the word of the org. vs. the word of the instructor. I think it would be a very difficult case to fight. The nebulous nature of this material is what makes it difficult to prove. This is not a tangible product like a bootlegged DVD, where it can be proven that someone copied an original and distributed it unlawfully.

I am playing something of the Devil's advocate here. I am not trying to say that everyone should ditch their parent organization and go it alone. If someone belongs to an organization and they are happy with the arrangement, and feel that they benefit from the relationship, then I think he should stay with it. But there are many reasons why someone might choose to leave an organization. If this happens, I just don't see how the organization can take a position that the person can no longer teach what he has learned and knows.

Anyway, it has been a very thought-provoking discussion!

 

[Flying Crane]

OK, here is another addition to the debate over holding a copyright to forms. I discussed this with My wife, who is an attorney. While she does not specialize in intellectual propery law, she does have some experience with it thru helping her sister establish her business in high fashion clothing design.

She believes that it could be possible to hold a copyright on forms, and infringements could be pursued with legal action. So there ya go, that's one legal opinion for us all to chew on, in direct contrast to my own reaction to the prospect.

Personally, I find this trend in the martial arts to be extremely disturbing. It highlights the focus on financial profit as the supreme motivator. I often question, in my own mind, the wisdom of using martial arts as a full-time business. I wonder if it might be better to keep it as a side interest/job, but not the main source of one's livelihood. When the financial motivation is removed or at least minimized, I wonder if it opens the door to a higher level of quality in training, and a greater willingness to share information between teacher and student. Although at the same time, it could effectively and tremendously reduce the availability of martial arts instruction to the general public. hmmm..............

 

[Shu2jack]

I had a response for you, but as I finished typing it out, the website went through maintence and wiped out what I typed.

Basically, I do think the ATA, and other such organizations, could prove that their copyright is being infringed upon. I won't try to elboarate again out of laziness, but I think that since neither of us are lawyers in that specific field, any argument would be pointless.

Personally, I find this trend in the martial arts to be extremely disturbing. It highlights the focus on financial profit as the supreme motivator. I often question, in my own mind, the wisdom of using martial arts as a full-time business. I wonder if it might be better to keep it as a side interest/job, but not the main source of one's livelihood. When the financial motivation is removed or at least minimized, I wonder if it opens the door to a higher level of quality in training, and a greater willingness to share information between teacher and student. Although at the same time, it could effectively and tremendously reduce the availability of martial arts instruction to the general public. hmmm..............

I understand what you are saying and it is something I struggle with also.

I don't know if not depending on MA for a living would overall improve quality.

What I do know from personal experience is that I am renting a building from the local school system to teach TKD. I have to clean up other's messes, I don't have an office on site for paper work, I don't have flags and other material, I have to lug around training equipment every where, the floor is not well suited for training, etc. I also don't make a living off of teaching. I work a full time job (12 hour night shifts), going to college full-time to get a better job, and teaching TKD between trying to sleep/study. I feel my teaching suffers on some level because of frequent lack of sleep, lack of some equipment, and lack of being able to plan out a class sometimes.

I also know that my instructor works a full time job, supports a family, and teaches TKD as a "hobby". He also doesn't see his kids much during the week and doesn't spend many weekends of the year with them because of his TKD responsiblities as a senior rank in our area. He sacrifices family time and health for TKD, while having to rely on assistants to teach some of the classes because of paperwork for the school. I think that if he could start over again, he would choose to do TKD for a living instead.

Now I am not whining or makes excuses. I think a life of an instructor is based around sacrifice. But I also think that if I could make a modest living teaching TKD I could afford a better building, time to sleep, better equipment, more time to train, as well as other benifits, that the quality of training would increase. I don't think that information between students and instructors is not a problem, at least in the ATA and how the system is set up. If my students are sucessful, I will be even more sucessful. I WANT my students to be knowledgable and kicking *** (even mine!). There is concern about the quality of students, but that is another topic.

 

[Flying Crane]

I understand what you are saying and it is something I struggle with also.


What I do know from personal experience is that I am renting a building from the local school system to teach TKD. I have to clean up other's messes, I don't have an office on site for paper work, I don't have flags and other material, I have to lug around training equipment every where, the floor is not well suited for training, etc. I also don't make a living off of teaching. I work a full time job (12 hour night shifts), going to college full-time to get a better job, and teaching TKD between trying to sleep/study. I feel my teaching suffers on some level because of frequent lack of sleep, lack of some equipment, and lack of being able to plan out a class sometimes.

I also know that my instructor works a full time job, supports a family, and teaches TKD as a "hobby". He also doesn't see his kids much during the week and doesn't spend many weekends of the year with them because of his TKD responsiblities as a senior rank in our area. He sacrifices family time and health for TKD, while having to rely on assistants to teach some of the classes because of paperwork for the school. I think that if he could start over again, he would choose to do TKD for a living instead.

Now I am not whining or makes excuses. I think a life of an instructor is based around sacrifice. But I also think that if I could make a modest living teaching TKD I could afford a better building, time to sleep, better equipment, more time to train, as well as other benifits, that the quality of training would increase. I don't think that information between students and instructors is not a problem, at least in the ATA and how the system is set up. If my students are sucessful, I will be even more sucessful. I WANT my students to be knowledgable and kicking *** (even mine!). There is concern about the quality of students, but that is another topic.

Sounds like you are working hard to make the best of a shoestring budget, and that is commendable. It is the people who are willing to put themselves thru the hardships to do what they love that are doing the good work.

I guess maybe the financial conundrum lies more with the Org., because they are the one's who stand to gain financially by keeping control over a network of instructors. I think that once upon a time, there was a relationship between an instructor and a student, and that was as far as it went. When the student reached a certain level of proficiency, the instructor granted them permission to teach, and that was it. Now, we have these large organizations telling instructors what they can and cannot do. It sometimes seems like empire building, and I question its place in the martial arts.

I used to belong to a big martial arts organization, that has grown to be huge. I was never an instructor, but my teacher is part of that org. I have since drifted from that group, but I have experienced what this can be like. In some ways, it is great. It can be almost like a giant extended family. But in other ways, it seemed like I was simply part of someone else's agenda. I wasn't really comfortable with that, once I started to really think about it.

Anyway, I am not trying to be judgemental about your organization. The thread just sort of ended here, but I was really looking at this more on the abstract principles, and not intending to single out yours, or anyone else's parent organization. Like I stated before, if it works for you and you are happy with the arrangement, all the power to you.

cheers!
michael

 

[Shu2jack]

I used to belong to a big martial arts organization, that has grown to be huge. I was never an instructor, but my teacher is part of that org. I have since drifted from that group, but I have experienced what this can be like. In some ways, it is great. It can be almost like a giant extended family. But in other ways, it seemed like I was simply part of someone else's agenda. I wasn't really comfortable with that, once I started to really think about it.

Anyway, I am not trying to be judgemental about your organization. The thread just sort of ended here, but I was really looking at this more on the abstract principles, and not intending to single out yours, or anyone else's parent organization. Like I stated before, if it works for you and you are happy with the arrangement, all the power to you.

No worries. Overall I like the ATA. Big organizations have their benifits and drawbacks.

I do understand why the ATA was sort of singled out. It was the organization I belong and was speaking about.

 

[Miles]

I have heard some TKD people claim that the new kata are not as good as the Japanese kata.

If it did happen, what are your thoughts about the new vs. the old forms, and why did this change take place? If this did happen, has the change been uniformly embraced by TKD people, or are there people out there who still do it the old way?

FC, not sure all of your questions have been answered as this thread kind of diverged.

As background, I have done at various stages in my journey the ITF tuls, Japanese Shotokan heians, and the Palgwe and Taeguek poomsae. There are benefits to each of these series. If some people believe that the newer poomsae are not as good as the kata, that's their opinion, and it's fine.

For my part, I enjoy training and teaching the Taeguek series. Currently I am teaching my Kali senior the Taegueks and he teaches me Kali. He is amazed at the organization behind the Taegueks. I guess that is one thing I never realized since I've been practicing them.

The Taeguek series may appear to be simpler than other forms, but there is a sophistication about how they present material in a foundational manner. There is also a deep philosophical context within each poomsae which is actually quite artistic. Finally, there is a history behind the Taegueks, a history in which a group of martial artists, in a spirit of inclusion, decided to create a series different than practiced by other martial artists, including their instructors.

You asked if the new poomsae been uniformly accepted. At this point, I unfortunately would say not yet. Taekwondo spread so quickly that many people have not kept up with the art as it evolved. There is a very human reluctance to change, and that reluctance manifests itself with those students who feel that what they were taught (or how they were taught) is the only right way.

Miles

 

[Flying Crane]

FC, not sure all of your questions have been answered as this thread kind of diverged.

As background, I have done at various stages in my journey the ITF tuls, Japanese Shotokan heians, and the Palgwe and Taeguek poomsae. There are benefits to each of these series. If some people believe that the newer poomsae are not as good as the kata, that's their opinion, and it's fine.

For my part, I enjoy training and teaching the Taeguek series. Currently I am teaching my Kali senior the Taegueks and he teaches me Kali. He is amazed at the organization behind the Taegueks. I guess that is one thing I never realized since I've been practicing them.

The Taeguek series may appear to be simpler than other forms, but there is a sophistication about how they present material in a foundational manner. There is also a deep philosophical context within each poomsae which is actually quite artistic. Finally, there is a history behind the Taegueks, a history in which a group of martial artists, in a spirit of inclusion, decided to create a series different than practiced by other martial artists, including their instructors.

You asked if the new poomsae been uniformly accepted. At this point, I unfortunately would say not yet. Taekwondo spread so quickly that many people have not kept up with the art as it evolved. There is a very human reluctance to change, and that reluctance manifests itself with those students who feel that what they were taught (or how they were taught) is the only right way.

Miles

Nice to hear your perspective on this point. thank you

 

[rmclain]

FC, not sure all of your questions have been answered as this thread kind of diverged.

There is also a deep philosophical context within each poomsae which is actually quite artistic. Finally, there is a history behind the Taegueks, a history in which a group of martial artists, in a spirit of inclusion, decided to create a series different than practiced by other martial artists, including their instructors.

Miles

Hello,

I am interested to know about this: The philosophical context of these forms and the history of them.

R. McLain

 

[Miles]

Hello,

I am interested to know about this: The philosophical context of these forms and the history of them.

R. McLain

OK, I will start a new thread as I believe the original question starting this thread has been asked and answered.

Miles