Taegue Il Jang application

[Daniel Sullivan]

Sure. I find it an interesting topic. Secondly, I think others may find it interesting. Thirdly, there is possibility to learn an application that I'm unfamiliar with by discussing it.

Nothing wrong with that; I was curious as to your reasons.

As you mentioned, it is a free forum and it is for the exchange of information regarding to a topic. If any KKW practitioner finds no interest in the topic, they are under no obligation to post and will find a plethora of threads to their liking. Indeed, this thread isn't to discuss 'if' so much as to discuss 'what'. It is for those that see various applications, or would like to take a look at it openly. If they don't wish to look at the topic of discussion, then they really should be on to other topics of interest to them.

The same can be said of everyone else regarding everything else. You have no interest in WTF sparring but are not shy about posting in threads about it.

Being a KKW senior is of no relation to the topic if that senior doesn't have the experience necessary to discuss various applications of a more in-depth nature, or wished to believe they don't exist. But again, this thread isn't designed for 'if' it is designed for 'what' and the conversation should remain on topic. That is my request as the OP to avoid rabbit trails and derail attempts.

Actually, it is of relation to the topic and Puunui has more than the necessary experience to discuss the applications. So while the two of you may not get on all that well, his opinion on the topic is of value and relevant to your thread.

As I said to Dirty Dog, the fact that a senior in the art considers it a waste of time and that his instructor, who was the chief editor of the taegeuk pumse, found it to be an exercise in futility actually does contribute, though not in the way you might like. You may not agree with the point of view of either gentlman, but it is relevant to the topic.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

1)There's really no reason to bring up Tae Geuk Il-jang as a topic for discussion, considering the same opening movements are present in a bunch of other kata/hyung like Chonji or Pyung Ahn Chodan or Kibon/Kicho Hyung Chodan. Why avoid the Tae Geuks? Well, I would out of sensitivity for the KKW folks who no doubt are tired of the discussion of self-defense and its teaching method in their system. It would be less antagonizing to showcase one of the other forms as an initial discussion point or at the very least give a spotlight on all of them and then request comment on any/all of them to look for commonality or differences in the approaches the MT participants have.

That is the same reason that KKW folks don't generally go doing this in the Tang Soo Do or Shotokan sections. Continued critique and discussion of self defense in their own system will raise eyebrows and be met with some reservation just as it is here.

2) It's a valid perspective to say there is no bunkai in the KKW poomsae as intended by the forms inventers. It's equally valid to say there could be if there is an interest in adding it retroactively and it's also fair to get into some discussion of WHY there is a lack of applications study in the KKW system. However, as MT is a place for polite, friendly discussion, it would behoove all to stay above on the belt when talking about history, etc.

Agree on all counts.

3) I would consider Kong Soo Do a form of taekwondo, not karate. It apparently uses Korean terminology, so sticking to my definition of TKD as a melting pot of martial influences, I have no problems reading about KSD in the TKD section.

While I don't agree with that assessment; I do not recall him ever identifying as taekwondo and what he describes sounds a lot more like tang soo do, it is a reasonable assessment to make.

 

[oftheherd1]

...

Actually, it is of relation to the topic and Puunui has more than the necessary experience to discuss the applications. So while the two of you may not get on all that well, his opinion on the topic is of value and relevant to your thread.

As I said to Dirty Dog, the fact that a senior in the art considers it a waste of time and that his instructor, who was the chief editor of the taegeuk pumse, found it to be an exercise in futility actually does contribute, though not in the way you might like. You may not agree with the point of view of either gentlman, but it is relevant to the topic.

I understand Puunui has much experience and has a lot to contribute. I respect his experience and contributions. But I do not however, agree that just because he and his teachers thought it a waste of time, that they can not be wrong. I think my observations are valid as well, even though they seem to contradict what Puunui and his teachers think.

And I also stated that since TKD doesn't use or teach any of the techniques that seem to be in forms, perhaps it is a waste of time to TKD. But I don't think that was what Puunui or his teachers meant. Or was I wrong?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

For an example of what I mean, take a look at the opening sequence of the form in the video.

The practitioner is looking forward initially. As he begins the 'down block' he is also simultaneously looking towards his left. Why? If the attack is coming from the front, what is the attack? What will the 'down block' do to that incoming frontal attack? The follow up is a straight punch to mid-section height at a 90 degree angle to the starting position. If the attack was frontal, what did that 'down block' specifically do to the attacker to cause their body to move a full 90 degrees to the practitioner's left in order to be in position to receive that straight punch to mid-section height?

Or

If the attack is coming in from the left of the practitioner, how is he seeing what type of attack is coming? Peripheral vision? Possibly, but is that good enough to have already committed to a specific blocking strategy? Why is he turning into the attack rather than moving laterally away from it to a position of advantage or better defense? If indeed he was able to identify the mode of attack with peripheral vision, and respond to it simultaneously, is the 'down block' the best option? I can see a down block deflecting a straight kick, but it is a very poor choice against a kick coming in from the side i.e. the radial bone isn't a match against a shin bone unless you've done a LOT of hard body conditioning to your arms. Normally, TKD schools don't center on that type of arm conditioning. Certainly not to the degree of specific Karate Ryus (I know, I've done it). So the question becomes; is this really a b-p-k defense from either the front or side? Or are there better alternatives available using the movements indicated in the form?

As I explained earlier, this is not meant to emulate an attacker coming in from the front. I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up; this isn't your first thread on the subject. While the imaginary attack is from the left side, the form isn't designed to emulate you getting attacked from your side. Facing ahead (north for the purposes of this discussion) is simply how the practitioner starts and bows in. The block is intended against ap chagi, not dolyo chagi (roundhouse kick) or yubchagi (side kick). There is no, 'out of your peripheral vision, you see your attacker, whom you turn to face...' in this form. It is simply about teaching basic movements of the form.

As has been said in previous threads on the topic, the form is not representative of a fight. Attempts to make it into one fail because that is not the intent of the form. Which is why this sort of thing isn't a big part of KKW taekwondo, particularly at this level.

This form is learned by eighth geub students. In other words, raw beginners. Yes, you could pull all kinds of cool techniques out of the elements of this form. But unless you are coming into the art with a fairly in depth background in another similar MA, you will not be ready to learn those techniques.

Later Taegeuk pumse do focus on more advanced techniques, though very little, if any is strategically hidden away.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I understand Puunui has much experience and has a lot to contribute. I respect his experience and contributions. But I do not however, agree that just because he and his teachers thought it a waste of time, that they can not be wrong. I think my observations are valid as well, even though they seem to contradict what Puunui and his teachers think.

I didn't say that they are infallable or can't be wrong. However, if a judo sensei or veteran judoka says that certain teaching methodologies are a waste of time judo, even though they may work very well in another similar grappling art, it is probably because they know more about it than you do.

I've already given my opinion on the form and on the usefulness of teaching taekwondo forms in a karate style teaching method. While I don't oppose it and am willing to see the results of an instructor's effort before declaring it a waste of time, I suspect that the people most intent on and comfortable with teaching this way are people who have a background in an art with that teaching methodology or who have experience in other arts that they view as applicable to and worth adding to KKW taekwondo.

Again, what value it has is really determined by who is doing it and what the end product looks like. Since it isn't a codified part of the art, simply teaching in that way does not automatically mean that your efforts are more productive (or less) than the way that it is normally done.

Also, this is not the first go-around for this topic on this pumse. KSD has raised it, both separately, and within previous threads and has received a lot of detailed responses. He seems very intent on continuing to make critique about the direction of the attacker and the use of the radial bone. All of his criticisms have been addressed at length in other threads.

And I also stated that since TKD doesn't use or teach any of the techniques that seem to be in forms, perhaps it is a waste of time to TKD. But I don't think that was what Puunui or his teachers meant. Or was I wrong?

He specifically said that reverse engineering the pumse to pull applications out of them that are not specifically in them is a waste of time.

I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded part; when you say TKD doesn't use or teach any of the techniques that seem to be in the forms, do you mean the Taegeuk pumse? If so, then I would disagree with that statement. If you mean that WTF rules do not allow for any of the techniques that seem to be in the pumse, then I would say that that is not correct, but that a great many of the techniques taught as part of the pumse are either not permitted, not utilized or both in WTF sparring.

 

[puunui]

And since you find it a waste of time, nobody should do it. You don't see the arrogance of such an attitude?

I might be if that is what I said, but it isn't. Again. And if you had asked me "why" I think it is a waste of time, I would have told you that it is because I also practice hapkido. In hapkido we practice defenses and applications in a logical structured fashion. We start with wrist grabs and work our way up the arm to the top of the head, then down the center of the body, then go to back facing defenses and so forth. Each area builds on the next to the point where when you reach 1st dan, you have a solid foundation in the art, as well as a conceptual framework from which to work off of. Once a student reaches hapkido 1st dan level, it is relatively easy to see applications in poomsae. They jump out at you.

In contrast, learning applications through poomsae study and reverse engineering provides no such logical structured framework. Instead, what you are left with is a mish mash hodgepodge study of random techniques in no particular order. This is very inefficient to say the least and does not give the type of rounded curriculum that one can receive if the student studied an art which directly addresses those types of defenses or applications. If you are seriously interested in studying those types of techniques and defenses, when a better approach would be to separately study another art that did focus on such techniques, which would be presented within a logical structured framework.

In other words, why waste time doing random easter egg hunts when there are arts out there that will give you the same thing in an orderly direct fashion? To do otherwise is a waste of time.

 

[puunui]

I don't care if someone wants to study applications for individual techniques found in the poomse, but if the men who created the poomse say it's a waste of time

Actually he said it was an exercise in futility. The reason why he said that is his opinion that too many people, especially in the US, perform the poomsae movements incorrectly to start with, such that its meaning and applications are perverted. No sense hunting for applications if you are doing the poomsae in a technical incorrect fashion in the first place. He would much rather see students concentrating on performing the movements correctly than veering off half cocked on some tangent, hunting for easter eggs. How can you find applications when that person doesn't do the movements as they were intended to be done? Looking for applications using a distorted technical base would be an exercise in futility. Or at least that is what he said 15 or so years ago when this topic came up between us. Perhaps he would say something different to someone else today.

 

[dancingalone]

Actually he said it was an exercise in futility. The reason why he said that is his opinion that too many people, especially in the US, perform the poomsae movements incorrectly to start with, such that its meaning and applications are perverted. No sense hunting for applications if you are doing the poomsae in a technical incorrect fashion in the first place. He would much rather see students concentrating on performing the movements correctly than veering off half cocked on some tangent, hunting for easter eggs. How can you find applications when that person doesn't do the movements as they were intended to be done? Looking for applications using a distorted technical base would be an exercise in futility. Or at least that is what he said 15 or so years ago when this topic came up between us. Perhaps he would say something different to someone else today.

This is something to highlight as to the differences between TKD and karate and why bunkai might be a low yield effort at least with regard to KKW poomsae. Within the Okinawan karate I am familiar with, the motion within the kata are only regarded as starting places. It is 'fine' to change up the directional flow or the bodily posture of the presenter to come up with a viable application of the form. Some of the explicit usages I've been taught in fact append footwork not even in the kata originally itself, and senior karate-ka even exhort their juniors to not be bound by the embusen of the form when seeking to master the meaning of the kata.

 

[puunui]

So here is the real agenda of this thread, to once again attack and disparage the taekwondo pioneers:

Many different styles of Karate teach this methodology including the ones I took. Blocks can be and are strikes or have other applications. Furthering this thought, the father of TKD is Karate. Since Karate kata can serve a dual purpose i.e. b-p-k and alternative applications, I submit that to an extent, so can TKD forms. The founders of TKD, as I've pointed out in the past, were initially very low level practitioners themselves with at least on exception I'm aware of. Their levels of actual experience varied widely, but mostly they were of very low rank or even no rank. That is just history and not meant to down play their contribution to the establishment of TKD.

Many of the forms in certain Korean arts are simply renamed Okinawan kata. Again, just stating the obvious. However, to their credit, the Koreans did develop many forms of their own for the new art(s). My suggestion is that since Korean forms use many/most of the same movement patterns of Okinawan kata, and since Okinawan kata contains both b-p-k and alternative or more advanced applications, that Korean forms will also contain them to an extent. I do not believe the founders of TKD for the most part were experienced enough in their original training to have any appreciable amount of in-depth knowledge about more advanced applications. They in turn would not understand these principles for the most part when developing their own forms. As I've mentioned before, one can only teach what they've learned or researched or discovered for themselves. Some will point out that the creators of these forms suggest no deeper meanings, and they are correct. They would not have known, again for the most part, the deeper meanings of Okinawan kata and therefore not understood what was going into the forms they were creating. For example, if in an Okinawan kata a certain movement sequence contains a b-p-k and an advance application and that movement sequence is transplanted into a newly created Korean form, then it will have the same b-p-k and advanced applications even if only one is known and/or understood.

I see Okinawan kata as well-written and complete 'stories' so-to-speak. Conversely, I see Korean forms, as far as advanced applications, as somewhat choppy. In other words, most of the words are there but many of the sentences are somewhat broken, fragmentary or incomplete. This is because some/many of the Korean forms were put together with purely b-p-k in mind because the more advanced applications weren't known. Therefore some movement sequences were transplanted intact and some were altered to a lesser or greater extent to make the forms flow as far as b-p-k. However, imo, sometimes the flow of the b-p-k is questionable which, too me, lends credence to the existence of a more advanced application within the sequence.

 

[dancingalone]

As has been said in previous threads on the topic, the form is not representative of a fight. Attempts to make it into one fail because that is not the intent of the form. Which is why this sort of thing isn't a big part of KKW taekwondo, particularly at this level.

Do you think the form is meant to have other meaning later on for more advanced taekwondoin like the peeling an onion metaphor? Or not?

 

[puunui]

Being a KKW senior is of no relation to the topic if that senior doesn't have the experience necessary to discuss various applications of a more in-depth nature, or wished to believe they don't exist. But again, this thread isn't designed for 'if' it is designed for 'what' and the conversation should remain on topic. That is my request as the OP to avoid rabbit trails and derail attempts.

Actually you are the one who shows a lack of experience, especially of kukki taekwondo. You misspell, twice, and by extension mispronounce the very form that you are attempting to discuss here. Have you even learn taegeuk 1 jang, or is your "experience" in this area, once again limited to watching videos? Put another way, if you wish to discuss "experience" with taegeuk 1 jang, I figure I have done at least 12 to 15 thousand reps of that form over my lifetime, 6 thousand over a two year period alone, preparing for the kukkiwon instructor course. How many times have you done it?

 

[puunui]

If you think this discussion is a waste of time, then wondering why you'd be involved in it seems an entirely reasonable question.

Again, that is not what I said. I said "I find the whole idea of reverse engineering applications into poomsae a complete waste of time." No mention about discussion. In the future, I would ask that you please read my posts more carefully, so that we can avoid these types of misunderstands in the future. Personally, I think the topic is worth discussing, for no other reason than to explain why we don't do such things in kukki taekwondo. If you go to the instructor course, which in korea is 40 hours long spread out over five days, plus a half day for testing, you will not be instructed in secret knockout pressure point applications, triple warmers and all of that. However, the class might get a lecture on the importance of doing the poomsae in a technically accurate fashion, which is what happened during my course. GM KIM Soon Bae was so disgusted at the perverted performances of some of the participants that he stood up from the testing board and began to lecture everyone on the actual movements of the particular poomsae being tested. The pioneers view "the american style" of poomsae, as they call it, a perversion and abomination of the technical, not to mention the mental and philosophical foundations of kukki taekwondo.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Do you think the form is meant to have other meaning later on for more advanced taekwondoin like the peeling an onion metaphor? Or not?

Personally? No. I will defer to Puunui as to whether or not the pioneers intended it to be so.

I view it as building blocks of the art:

• Makki: arae makki, momtong makki, and olgul makki
• chigi: dwit jireugi and ap chagi
• seogi: moa seogi, kibon junbi seogi, ap seogi, and ap kubi

These and movement and transition within and between them. Each pumse builds on what came before it, particularly one through three.

I also view the pumse as representative of Confucian thought and philosophy. Each one has a meaning. After the taegeuk pumse, each yudanja pumse follows the line of a particular hanja, each carrying a specific meaning.

 

[seasoned]

This is something to highlight as to the differences between TKD and karate and why bunkai might be a low yield effort at least with regard to KKW poomsae. Within the Okinawan karate I am familiar with, the motion within the kata are only regarded as starting places. It is 'fine' to change up the directional flow or the bodily posture of the presenter to come up with a viable application of the form. Some of the explicit usages I've been taught in fact append footwork not even in the kata originally itself, and senior karate-ka even exhort their juniors to not be bound by the embusen of the form when seeking to master the meaning of the kata.

Very good points. Kata is static and a real world fight is ever changing. So the kata can't be locked in pertaining to exact foot work or embusen rule' but ever flowing with the circumstances, as they are presented.

As I think about my comment above I am refering to my art and kata, which may not equate to the thread and Taegue Il Jang application that I know nothing about. But, I find it all very interesting.

 

[puunui]

1)There's really no reason to bring up Tae Geuk Il-jang as a topic for discussion, considering the same opening movements are present in a bunch of other kata/hyung like Chonji or Pyung Ahn Chodan or Kibon/Kicho Hyung Chodan. Why avoid the Tae Geuks? Well, I would out of sensitivity for the KKW folks who no doubt are tired of the discussion of self-defense and its teaching method in their system. It would be less antagonizing to showcase one of the other forms as an initial discussion point or at the very least give a spotlight on all of them and then request comment on any/all of them to look for commonality or differences in the approaches the MT participants have.

Good point. See my earlier post above regarding my opinion as to the actual agenda of this thread.

2) It's a valid perspective to say there is no bunkai in the KKW poomsae as intended by the forms inventers.

I never said there was no bunkai in the kukkiwon poomsae. There are, and if the poomsae are performed correctly, they jump out at you.

3) I would consider Kong Soo Do a form of taekwondo, not karate. It apparently uses Korean terminology, so sticking to my definition of TKD as a melting pot of martial influences, I have no problems reading about KSD in the TKD section.

Just because someone uses korean terminology and a korean name for their art doesn't make them a part of taekwondo. If that were true, changing my last name to Murphy would make me irish, which I am not.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Just because someone uses korean terminology and a korean name for their art doesn't make them a part of taekwondo. If that were true, changing my last name to Murphy would make me irish, which I am not.

You mean you're not???

 

[miguksaram]

Do you think the form is meant to have other meaning later on for more advanced taekwondoin like the peeling an onion metaphor? Or not?

Please see my initial posting on this. I believe people will see what they want to see in this. Puunui's instructor hit it right on the head, if you are not doing the form correctly, then you are missing everything. As I have been told by Sensei Sharkey in regards to kata, it is nothing more than a set of self-defenese moves strung together in a partterned shape. Which is true. While I believe bunkai does help me understand why I am doing what I am doing in the form, I do not start with bunkai and then try to learn the form.
To add to that, I take exception to a couple of things:

The founders of TKD, as I've pointed out in the past, were initially very low level practitioners themselves

Explain low level? They held 1st - 3rd dans. At the time Funakoshi Sensei held a 5th dan. So in today's standard a 1st -3rd may seem low, that was far from the case in their time. So saying they held low levels is misleading.

I do not believe the founders of TKD for the most part were experienced enough in their original training to have any appreciable amount of in-depth knowledge about more advanced applications. They in turn would not understand these principles for the most part when developing their own forms. As I've mentioned before, one can only teach what they've learned or researched or discovered for themselves

So now you are are saying that they didn't know enough about their art? I am confused, what classes did they miss? Can you point out in any of Funakoshi's books about hidden meaning or advance applications in bunkai?

I guess I am trying to see the point of all of this as well. If it was to sit here and discuss boonhae of Taeguk Il-jang then by all means ask for different intepretations with others. It seems more like a "Let's bash on the founders of TKD" type thread, because you bring up your view of shortcomings which have no relevance to the actual topic at hand. I would also like to ask how much time have you spent with the any founders or 1st-3rd generation students of founders to know for sure what they know or don't know in relation to boonhae? As I mentioned, I personally never seen a book from Funakoshi that points out all these "hidden" or "advance" applications. So perhaps that type of thing may have been discussed within the class room itself and not something for that was meant to be written in his books. So if there is no written work from the founder what would make you think that students would produce any written work?

 

[dancingalone]

I never said there was no bunkai in the kukkiwon poomsae. There are, and if the poomsae are performed correctly, they jump out at you.

I would be interested in an expansion of this statement if you are minded to write one.

Just because someone uses korean terminology and a korean name for their art doesn't make them a part of taekwondo. If that were true, changing my last name to Murphy would make me irish, which I am not.

I think adoption of terminology is a good first step. At the very least, it's a basic recognition of comity and could lead to more down the line.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Please see my initial posting on this. I believe people will see what they want to see in this. Puunui's instructor hit it right on the head, if you are not doing the form correctly, then you are missing everything. As I have been told by Sensei Sharkey in regards to kata, it is nothing more than a set of self-defenese moves strung together in a partterned shape. Which is true. While I believe bunkai does help me understand why I am doing what I am doing in the form, I do not start with bunkai and then try to learn the form.
To add to that, I take exception to a couple of things:

Explain low level? They held 1st - 3rd dans. At the time Funakoshi Sensei held a 5th dan. So in today's standard a 1st -3rd may seem low, that was far from the case in their time. So saying they held low levels is misleading.

So now you are are saying that they didn't know enough about their art? I am confused, what classes did they miss? Can you point out in any of Funakoshi's books about hidden meaning or advance applications in bunkai?

I guess I am trying to see the point of all of this as well. If it was to sit here and discuss boonhae of Taeguk Il-jang then by all means ask for different intepretations with others. It seems more like a "Let's bash on the founders of TKD" type thread, because you bring up your view of shortcomings which have no relevance to the actual topic at hand. I would also like to ask how much time have you spent with the any founders or 1st-3rd generation students of founders to know for sure what they know or don't know in relation to boonhae? As I mentioned, I personally never seen a book from Funakoshi that points out all these "hidden" or "advance" applications. So perhaps that type of thing may have been discussed within the class room itself and not something for that was meant to be written in his books. So if there is no written work from the founder what would make you think that students would produce any written work?

This is not the first thread in which he has made these statements either. Not by a long shot.

 

[puunui]

This is something to highlight as to the differences between TKD and karate and why bunkai might be a low yield effort at least with regard to KKW poomsae. Within the Okinawan karate I am familiar with, the motion within the kata are only regarded as starting places. It is 'fine' to change up the directional flow or the bodily posture of the presenter to come up with a viable application of the form. Some of the explicit usages I've been taught in fact append footwork not even in the kata originally itself, and senior karate-ka even exhort their juniors to not be bound by the embusen of the form when seeking to master the meaning of the kata.

Exactly. I've seen some reverse engineered applications from forms that were so far removed from the actual movements themselves that I could hardly recognize it as being related. People stretch all sorts of applications into these forms, to the point of ridiculousness.

My point, if you wish to study applications based on okinawan theories, then my suggestion would be to study those okinawan arts themselves, and keep them separate as much as possible. I study taekwondo and hapkido, and as much as possible, I keep them separate, which is easy for me to do, because my mind works like that. Compartmentalizing is a natural thing for me, work is work, home is home, martial arts is martial arts and I have no problems keeping them all separate.

Here is another observation: Those who have the least understanding of kukki taekwondo are the ones most likely to veer off and adopt things from other arts to fill the gaps in their knowledge. It is only natural and I too was guilty of that early on. We all were. That's one of the reasons why I have so many books, being part of the bruce lee era, I and a lot of people who lived through that listened to Bruce's words "If it helps you in a fight, then you should use it, it doesn't matter where it comes from". We were all making chop suey back then, blending whatever we could into our own personal art.

I did that mainly because I did not have access to very high level instruction, and therefore I was forced to teach myself. So Bruce Lee's permission in this regard was the sort of thing that I needed to hear. But ultimately, for me, Bruce's words were not right for me, because doing what he said I could do prevented me from seeing my chosen arts in the manner that they were meant to be seen, by the pioneers and creators of those arts.

It's wasn't until I gained access to very high level practitioners in taekwondo and hapkido that my ideas started to change. It suddenly became important to me to understand these arts from the perspective of those pioneers, especially if I wanted to travel the long road that they themselves traveled. I started thinking less about myself and what was important to me and more about the arts in their pure form and what was important to that. Of course we all put our own signature on the arts that we study, the bottomline is that I wanted my arts to transform me, and not the other way around.

Yet another way to view it: When study something like kukki taekwondo, or even itf taekwon-do, there is a framework and picture of what we are supposed to look like, and to a large extent, to think about. Our understanding of our art is to a large extent like building a giant jigsaw puzzle, and our job is to first understand what that puzzle looks like, and then put the pieces together in the right way so that we have an undistorted picture.

Some people, a lot of people, maybe even most people, do not have all the pieces. But instead of seeking out more pieces of the puzzle, they instead grab pieces from another art and use those pieces to fill in the blank spaces. Do that too much, and you end up with a puzzle that looks completely different. Then when discussions such as these come up, you are looking at your puzzle, while I am looking at mine, and we each think we are looking at the same picture when in reality we are not.

The people who most enjoy what I have to say and take to heart the things that I have to say, are the ones who, like me, are interested in seeing taekwondo or hapkido or whatever as they are meant to be seen, from the creators' eyes and viewpoint. To that end, I try to freely share concepts and philosophies as explained by those pioneers, so that people have a road map as to where they need to go, if they wish to follow in my footsteps. I try to as much as possible give them the cover to the box of the jigsaw puzzle so that they can see ahead of time what the picture will look like.

Those who are "opposed" to me, like adding pieces from different puzzles, because frankly they don't care what the accurate picture of taekwondo is about. What they care about is their perspective, their american god given right to do whatever the hell they want to do and no one is going to tell them different.