this is a sad state of affairs

[Earl Weiss]

This is what I learned in Korea. King Sejong ordered that a group of scholars to create a reading and writing system that the common man could use. This group of scholars was titled the "jiphyeonjun." They came up with 28 letters.

OK, so if he ordered it done, got it done, decided to have it implemented, and then fostered it's implementation might he not be considered the "Founder"???

 

[MSUTKD]

The true “sad state of affairs” is conversations like this. I really find it funny when people try to argue about history, lineage and authority. All of these things are easily refuted and also easily “proved”.

“History is the distillation of rumor” - Thomas Carlyle

What I can agree with is the passion of the individuals involved. I do not think taekwondo can be defined by “one” particular line; that is what makes it such a wonderful art. From a small country a few special individuals spread something that touched a lot of us and has shaped many lives, careers and dreams.

There is no “original” or “traditional” taekwondo, there is taekwondo. Each lineage carries with it its own unique flavor, style and importance. There is no “sport” or “self-defense” taekwondo, there is taekwondo. How an individual wishes to use, practice or test ones skills is up to them, all can be effective.

Masters, Grandmasters, Ultimate GrandMasters….whatever. If anyone expects you to revere them, without knowing them, red flag; real teachers do not need to ask for respect, they earn it with their actions, words and skills. The most amazing Masters I have known are very quiet individuals who do not need words to convey their art; they show it. The worst are ones who stand around talking and are rarely seen training on the mat; funny that these individuals all care about how high their rank is not how high their side kick is.

Put all of us in a room, without the internet, and we might see what is really there. Hopefully it would be taekwondo.

 

[mastercole]

The true “sad state of affairs” is conversations like this. I really find it funny when people try to argue about history, lineage and authority. All of these things are easily refuted and also easily “proved”.

“History is the distillation of rumor” - Thomas Carlyle

What I can agree with is the passion of the individuals involved. I do not think taekwondo can be defined by “one” particular line; that is what makes it such a wonderful art. From a small country a few special individuals spread something that touched a lot of us and has shaped many lives, careers and dreams.

There is no “original” or “traditional” taekwondo, there is taekwondo. Each lineage carries with it its own unique flavor, style and importance. There is no “sport” or “self-defense” taekwondo, there is taekwondo. How an individual wishes to use, practice or test ones skills is up to them, all can be effective.

Masters, Grandmasters, Ultimate GrandMasters….whatever. If anyone expects you to revere them, without knowing them, red flag; real teachers do not need to ask for respect, they earn it with their actions, words and skills. The most amazing Masters I have known are very quiet individuals who do not need words to convey their art; they show it. The worst are ones who stand around talking and are rarely seen training on the mat; funny that these individuals all care about how high their rank is not how high their side kick is.

Put all of us in a room, without the internet, and we might see what is really there. Hopefully it would be taekwondo.

I agree with most of what you write here. One thing does stands out to me though, and maybe your statement was not a blanket statement that applied to everyone, just certain ones. As far as physical training goes, I have seniors who produced and continue to produce excellent martial artist, institute programs to provide excellent training for others in marital arts, etc. Some of the seniors are responsible for most of us even being involved in Taekwondo today. Some of them do not personally train anymore, some have not trained for 10 years, some for decades. Some have even retired from physical teaching long ago, but are still "full time" Taekwondoin.

There are some though like GM PARK Hae Man whom several of us here have met and trained with, who still trains and travels the world to teach at his advanced age, and that is very impressive. I have a friend who is five years younger that me, I'm 52, he does not train at all any more, ever. But he is a great teacher and has some really good black belts and boxing students. He thought I was crazy for recently going off to Korea to be a participant in an intense physical Taekkyon training course. At the half way point of the course, in away, I agreed He is very knowledgeable about what he does and can pass that on to students, even though he personally does not train. I would never feel the need to ask him, or others who have made impressive achievements, produced excellent students (or fighters, competitors) to step up to the mat and prove anything. Now if someone is making wild claims about their personal skill and comparing to others, I can certainly see telling them to prove it.

 

[Earl Weiss]

There is no “original” or “traditional” taekwondo, there is taekwondo. .

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

 

[MSUTKD]

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

That is my point, lol.

 

[puunui]

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

In your reality, what is "original" or "traditional" taekwondo?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

There is no “original” or “traditional” taekwondo, there is taekwondo. Each lineage carries with it its own unique flavor, style and importance. There is no “sport” or “self-defense” taekwondo, there is taekwondo. How an individual wishes to use, practice or test ones skills is up to them, all can be effective.

Well, I agree with you in spirit, but I would not have phrased it the way that you did.

There is an 'original' everything. There was an original car. Nobody drives it anymore because it either sits in a museum or has since been turned into scrap.

Traditional taekwondo is a relative term. Traditional mens fashion has only been traditional since it replaced what came before it. At one time, it was the men who wore stockings and frilly sleeves and collars. Sure, its all mens fashion, but it isn't all the same.

I'd say that 'traditional' taekwondo your' "there is taekwondo." So, traditionally, taekwondo has forms, breaking, and some type of contact sparring and 'traditional' schools utilize a group of similar core teaching methods mixed in with whatever they do and some level of Korean language and culture. The white dobok is pretty commonplace. This is what ties the different groups together while each group is also distinct from the others.

So traditional changes in one of the following ways:

• incrementally changes until it has changed so much that its current, normative form no longer resembles the formerly accepted traditional.
• is replaced/radically changed by the progressive. If the progressive is accepted and adopted by the majority, it then becomes normative, and after about twenty years or so, what was once progressive has passed through the stage of being normative and becomes traditional.

Either way, things are changed and the new form becomes the traditional form. Sometimes, there is enough of a support base for the older way of doing things that it is kept alive. This is seen in black powder weapons, archery, sword arts, and also in things like Tang Soo Do, which to my knowledge, is essentially karate and has remained essentially what it was while Taekwondo, which was progressive in the unification effort, was developed and became something different.

 

[mastercole]

I agree with Master Southwick. I don't think he is saying there are no traditions, I think he is referring more to practitioners who try to divided Taekwondo by stating that what they do is so-called traditional Taekwondo, vs what others do.

Taekwondo has been in a constant state of change from the date our seniors began using that name to this very day. I do not think Taekwondo training methods have remained "frozen" long enough to even be considered "traditional" at any point in time. If so, what date? 1944, 1953, 1959, 1961, 1965, 1968, 1972, 1973, 1980, 1988, 1998, 2009, now? When?

That said, I believe we do have some strong traditions, and some general traditions. Strong traditions would be things like; constant improvement and change, reverence for seniors, strengthen character, self discovery, etc. General traditions would be stuff like; the wearing of a training uniform and belt, we kick-punch-and move in defensive and offensive patterns, we have forms-sparring-breaking, we have competitions, we use some Korean terms, etc.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I agree with Master Southwick. I don't think he is saying there are no traditions, I think he is referring more to practitioners who try to divided Taekwondo by stating that what they do is so-called traditional Taekwondo, vs what others do.

Taekwondo has been in a constant state of change from the date our seniors began using that name to this very day. I do not think Taekwondo training methods have remained "frozen" long enough to even be considered "traditional" at any point in time. If so, what date? 1944, 1953, 1959, 1961, 1965, 1968, 1972, 1973, 1980, 1988, 1998, 2009, now? When?

That said, I believe we do have some strong traditions, and some general traditions. Strong traditions would be things like; constant improvement and change, reverence for seniors, strengthen character, self discovery, etc. General traditions would be stuff like; the wearing of a training uniform and belt, we kick-punch-and move in defensive and offensive patterns, we have forms-sparring-breaking, we have competitions, we use some Korean terms, etc.

Agree, but you put it more succinctly than I.

 

[mastercole]

Agree, but you put it more succinctly than I.

I think we said basically the same thing.

 

[Earl Weiss]

In your reality, what is "original" or "traditional" taekwondo?

I am not smart enough to use those terms.

 

[Twin Fist]

Earl, i got the book. Thanks, it is interesting. Dont know all the terms it uses though

 

[puunui]

OK, so if he ordered it done, got it done, decided to have it implemented, and then fostered it's implementation might he not be considered the "Founder"???

I don't know. Do you think it is right that others did the work and then King Sejong takes the credit as if he did the work and created the hangul system?

 

[puunui]

I am not smart enough to use those terms.

So what did you mean by your "in my reality" comment then? I was trying to understand what you meant by that.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Earl, i got the book. Thanks, it is interesting. Dont know all the terms it uses though

You are welcome. If you have any questions we can take it to private e-mail.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I don't know. Do you think it is right that others did the work and then King Sejong takes the credit as if he did the work and created the hangul system?

I don't know if he "took' the credit. When it comes to "Pattern Histories" I think people need to apprediate that what is written is generaly the "Readers Didgest version". Another point about pattern history inaccuracies came to me while reading another book. I think it was "Shotokan Secrets". Anyway, the point made there was that in the culture (It seemed the bkk\ook referred to Japanese culture because it was about Shotokan) the point of a story was more important that the accuracy of the story. That lead me to appreciate that this concept might be spread thru other cutures as well and apply to things like the General Choi pattern histories.

 

[Earl Weiss]

So what did you mean by your "in my reality" comment then? I was trying to understand what you meant by that.

IMNSHO the item quoted was overly broad in accepting what could be called TKD. I think it basicaly allows anyone with aKorean lineage to kicking and punching to claim what they do is TKD. I would not consider Tae Bo TKD. I think that some who rezected the name would be insulted to be referred to as TKD.

Now, if your next question is how would I define it? Perhaps one day I will have an answer. So far it's more along the line of what it's not, rather than what it is. Or perhaps more along th line of differentiating Tkd, Tk-D and T K D.

 

[puunui]

IMNSHO the item quoted was overly broad in accepting what could be called TKD. I think it basicaly allows anyone with a Korean lineage to kicking and punching to claim what they do is TKD. I would not consider Tae Bo TKD.

Not a lineage to kicking and punching, but rather to the original five kwan.

I think that some who rezected the name would be insulted to be referred to as TKD.

If people wish to reject the name taekwondo, then fine, that is their perogative. But considering everyone who can claim lineage to one of the five kwan as being a part of taekwondo is not the same thing as forcing someone to call their art taekwondo, especially if they have gone with another name. It is more a situation of leaving the door open, if they wish to come in.

Now, if your next question is how would I define it? Perhaps one day I will have an answer. So far it's more along the line of what it's not, rather than what it is. Or perhaps more along th line of differentiating Tkd, Tk-D and T K D.

What is not taekwondo then, and how do you differentiate between tkd tk-d and t k d?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

What is not taekwondo then, and how do you differentiate between tkd tk-d and t k d?

Unless you're changing something in the source language, you don't.

I can differentiate between Chang Hon taekwondo, Kukki taekwondo, Ho-Am taekwondo, and Songahm taekwondo, but since all three use identical Hanmoon and Hangeul, and since many schools from each organization use any one of the English language variations with regards to writing it together, with one space or with two spaces, and with or without hyphens, the English variations are meaningless with regards to practically distinguishing between the different organizations versions.

 

[Earl Weiss]

the English variations are meaningless with regards to practically distinguishing between the different organizations versions.

I submit that it is not meaningless to the extent that certain groups seem to stipulate a particular romanization and from the General Choi system perspective there was a reason for it. So, if a group that purports to follow General Choi's system uses something other than Tk-D at this pooint in time, they've screwed up. (in the early days all sorts of stuff was out there.)

I am not a Kukki scholar and will defer to those who are. Somewhere in the cobwebs of my brain I thought I read that the designated romanization of KKW was Tkd and that they had a reason for it. I read it on the internet so it must be true