What are some differences between Karate and Taekwondo?

[Prototype]

So I guess your thesis is....that during the 1950s, before Choi had finished making all of his changes to Shotokan, he still should have been calling it Shotokan? Like, the fact that Choi was in the process of making changes isn't good enough...until he had all the changes finished, he should have kept with the "Shotokan" name.

1960s too. No fundamental changes even when the forms (lifted from Shotokan) had come into existence. "Hey, let's raise or lower our arm or stance an inch and call it Korean". After all, it's not technically, by the millimeter, the same.

 

[Prototype]

1968 or 1969.

Cool.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Sorry, My terminology error. Check Toi Gye # 21 , It's "Upward Kick " with knee, not front kick.

To revise my "Correction" checked text. try index under "Front Kick" Patterns Toi Gye and Choong Moo use the "Upward Kick" with the Knee.

Front Kick tool options use Ball of foot, Toes and Knee.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Some freely-downloadable PDFs can be found here: The Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do

If anybody knows of downloadable links to other editions, I'd love to know them.

I have the 15 Volume hard set as well as the CD ROM set, but I downloaded the 15 Volumes from the Blue Cottage site so I could put it on my I Phone.

 

[Earl Weiss]

......General Choi took everything from those systems, including philosophy, and pretended it was Korean made. .............................

Yep that is why so much time is devoted in the 1965 Book to the Shorin and Shorei patterns and systems because he wanted to show all that material to pretend it wasn't there? Or do you simply choose to ignore that?

 

[Prototype]

Yep that is why so much time is devoted in the 1965 Book to the Shorin and Shorei patterns and systems because he wanted to show all that material to pretend it wasn't there? Or do you simply choose to ignore that?

How peculiar then that his Chang Hon patterns were lifted from Shotokan and not the Okinawa ancestors... I am not the least surprised that he emphazised the non Japanese elements. That is to be expected.

 

[Prototype]

By the way, the 1965 encyclopedia is simply an english version of the 1959 Korean book. That's why there are only 20 patterns. You can download it here for free: Free download of Gen. Choi Hong Hi's Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do! (1965 condensed edition) • /r/taekwondo

 

[Gnarlie]

That the original TaeKwon-Do system from General Choi was promoted without Knee Spring/Sinewave. It was Shotokan repackaged.

In the same way that you are banned user Laplace_Demon repackaged, you mean?

Your belligerent posting style and failure to answer questions about your own experience give you away.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Why there are only 20 patterns in the 1965 edition may have been for other reasons.

OK, if you choose to believe based upon the NZ website that 24 Patterns were completed before 1965, yet it makes little difference if they were completed yet not in circulation since the point I was trying to make was the system was still undergoing major refinements from 1965-1972. As further evidence that this is correct, even such luminaries as He Il Cho in his "Complete" book of patterns (1981 date) and Jhoon Rhee's book - 1971, only have 20 patterns. Further, such pioneers as Han Cha Kyo and Nam Tae Hi only taught / new those 20 patterns. Again, point being that there was plenty of stuff, that the early guys had not adopted for a variety of reasons.

 

[Earl Weiss]

How peculiar then that his Chang Hon patterns were lifted from Shotokan and not the Okinawa ancestors... I am not the least surprised that he emphazised the non Japanese elements. That is to be expected.

Not sure why you say that since here is the ancestor version of what you post at 253

.

Funakoshi and General got theres from the same place.

Sounds like the Bill Gates detractors who say he got the mouse and GUI from Apple when both he and Steve Jobs got it from Xerox PARC.

 

[TrueJim]

Funakoshi and General got theres from the same place.

Sounds like the Bill Gates detractors who say he got the mouse and GUI from Apple when both he and Steve Jobs got it from Xerox PARC.

Agreed 100%. I'm still trying to figure out what Prototype's thesis is. Apparently it's: "Choi should have been calling his art Shotokan in the 1960s because even though he wasn't teaching Shotokan forms, the forms he was teaching have combinations of movements that are also seen in Shotokan forms."

 

[Prototype]

Not sure why you say that since here is the ancestor version of what you post at 253

.

Funakoshi and General got theres from the same place.

Sounds like the Bill Gates detractors who say he got the mouse and GUI from Apple when both he and Steve Jobs got it from Xerox PARC.

Mr Weiss, I suggest you open the 59/65 encyclopedia and look at the forward/walking stance. It is suspiciously low compared to the Okinawa style...and quite identical to the Shotokan revision. I wonder why.

 

[Tez3]

 

[Tez3]

Mr Weiss, I suggest you open the 59/65 encyclopedia and look at the forward/walking stance. It is suspiciously low compared to the Okinawa style...and quite identical to the Shotokan revision. I wonder why.

How many times are you planning on ignoring the OP? Why don't you start another thread about this and argue away there to your heart's content so this thread can go back to the original subject.

 

[Prototype]

How many times are you planning on ignoring the OP? Why don't you start another thread about this and argue away there to your heart's content so this thread can go back to the original subject.

It takes two to tango, and this is certainly the thread subject. Perhaps the thread subject in 1965 but still.

 

[TrueJim]

...so this thread can go back to the original subject.

I thought we pretty-much already answered the OP in prior pages of the thread? To recap the notes of prior pages:

• Answering the question requires making large generalizations since there are several styles of karate and several styles of taekwondo.
• So it's difficult to point to specific differences between karate and taekwondo, since there are different styles of each.
  • For instance one might say that "a karate low block ends here, whereas a taekwondo low block ends there"...but those sorts of statements about specific techniques only apply when discussing a specific style of karate and a specific style of taekwondo.
• But if one had to make large generalizations, the list would probably look something like this:
  • Some styles of taekwondo tend to emphasize narrower, more agile stances than karate so that a person is better positioned for high, jumping, and turning kicks...whereas some styles of karate tend to favor more stable (and therefore presumably less agile) stances.
  • More than some styles of karate, some styles of taekwondo tend to emphasize turning kicks more than linear kicks.
  • More than some styles of karate, some styles of taekwondo tend to emphasize speed as the most important mechanism for generating power.
  • And of course, many styles of taekwondo use forms that are different than many styles of karate.

 

[Tez3]

I think we are looking at specific things like stances, kicks, strikes etc rather than generalisations ie in Wado we do it like 'this', in Shotokan they do it like 'that' and in TKD they have 'this' plus hopefully people from other styles would have joined in. It's the little things that are interesting but now it's turned into a TKD argument which is disappointing.

 

[TrueJim]

I think we are looking at specific things like stances, kicks, strikes etc rather than generalizations...

Do you mean (for example):

• We are looking for strikes that are used in taekwondo but are not used in karate

Or do you mean:

• Here's a strike that's used in both taekwondo and karate, but here's how the two versions are different

In other words, are you asking which techniques are in one but not the other, or are you asking how the techniques that are common to both differ?

I'm not an expert on this, but I don't know either question has good answers. For almost any stance, kick, or strike that you find in one style of karate, I would imagine you can probably find a corresponding stance, kick, or strike in some style of taekwondo somewhere.

Likewise, one could ask "how does a taekwondo low block differ from a karate low block" but since different styles of each may do a low block differently, you have to make the question much more specific, such as "how does a low block in ITF-style taekwondo differ from a low block in Shotokan karate" ...because even different styles of karate or taekwondo may perform the block a bit differently.

 

[TrueJim]

What do people think of these two examples? I don't know that they're true, so I'm asking...

1. When performing an Outside Middle Block in karate, the blocking surface tends to be the inner forearm, whereas when performing an Outside Middle Block in taekwondo, it's more common to see the outer forearm as the striking surface.

2. A Double Knifehand Block (i.e., an augmented knife hand outside block) is commonly seen in taekwondo, but is rarely seen in karate.

 

[Tez3]

Do you mean (for example):

• We are looking for strikes that are used in taekwondo but are not used in karate

Or do you mean:

• Here's a strike that's used in both taekwondo and karate, but here's how the two versions are different

In other words, are you asking which techniques are in one but not the other, or are you asking how the techniques that are common to both differ?

I'm not an expert on this, but I don't know either question has good answers. For almost any stance, kick, or strike that you find in one style of karate, I would imagine you can probably find a corresponding stance, kick, or strike in some style of taekwondo somewhere.

Likewise, one could ask "how does a taekwondo low block differ from a karate low block" but since different styles of each may do a low block differently, you have to make the question much more specific, such as "how does a low block in ITF-style taekwondo differ from a low block in Shotokan karate" ...because even different styles of karate or taekwondo may perform the block a bit differently.

The idea I imagine was that people who train different styles of karate and TKD could compare how they do things, not just Shotokan but all the different styles so it would have been interesting for all of us. Remember I'm not the OP, I'm trying to stop the arguing.

 

[TrueJim]

I've only trained two styles: back when I was young, a more karate-like version of taekwondo at a college club, and now the Kukkiwon style. I'm not an expert in either style, but here are some things I needed to unlearn/relearn when I reentered taekwondo:

• When I was young, we were taught to make our long-front-stances low, square, and stable. Now I'm generally taught to make my stances higher, narrower, and more agile.
• In particular I really miss my old Horse-Riding Stances which were nice and low, which made them fun, whereas now our Horse-Riding Stance seems boringly high to me. (I liked feeling that burn in my quads while doing punching drills!)
• When I was young, there seemed to be more emphasis on keeping my torso squared during the movement (moving just the hips) whereas now it seems I'm allowed to twist my torso as well as the hips. Newer taekwondo generally seems more "twisty" to me. (In fact, apparently we're now allowed to be so twisty that we even "teacup" the outside middle block when in a back stance!)
• While in both styles I was taught to twist my fist during the block or punch, in the older style it seems like the twisting motion was supposed to be fairly uniform through the movement, whereas now I'm supposed to save most of the twist for the end, to create more snap. (Sometimes we drill on punching out candle flames, which I think is fun. I don't think my old punch would be very good at that...not snappy enough.)
• Nowadays I'm taught that my inside middle block should lead with the elbow (again, to improve the snap), but that's not something that I was taught before.
  
• Generally, the chambers for many of the blocks are different. For example for an inner-forearm outside-middle-block, I'm now taught to chamber the blocking fist with the thumb against the body so that the fist can rotate during the block, whereas back in the day I was taught to chamber with the base of the blocking fist touching the body. Also, the old chamber was lower toward the hip, whereas now the chamber is higher on the ribs, I'm told to make the block faster. Again, more emphasis on "twisting" and "speed" in the newer style.
• In fact, there seems to be a LOT more emphasis on chambering now. Before the emphasis seemed to be on the movement and how it finishes...less emphasis on how you chamber at the outset.
• In the old days it seems like we didn't just drill on punching, we also drilled on knifehand strikes, ridgehand strikes, knuckle strikes, etc. Now it seems like when we're drilling strikes it's mostly just punches (with of course lots of knifehands appearing in the poomsae).
• Of course the foot position for kicks is very different now. Before the front kicks and roundhouse kicks struck with the ball of the foot rather than the top of the foot. But of course that only applies to things like breaking...in poomsae we're still taught to curl the toes back on front kicks and roundhouse kicks. But boy did the straightened toes feel unnatural when I first started Kukkiwon-style!
• I feel like my old side kicks were taught with more hip-turnover, so that they bordered on almost looking like a back-kick at full extension, whereas now the hip seems to be turned-over less. Also, there seems to be even MORE emphasis now on rotating the base foot more during the kick.
• As previously mentioned, we never even practiced double knife hand blocks or outer-forearm outside blocks, which is why I still struggle to make those blocks look pretty. (Hard to teach an old dog new tricks.)
• While we did practice things like spinning back hook kicks back in the day, there was nothing like the tornado kick in our club. Likewise, we did practice some jump kicks, but not as many as what we practice now.
• We do one-step sparring sometimes nowadays at my schools, whereas back in the day we did one-steps during almost every class. They seemed to have been viewed as being much more important back in that old club.
• Of course the uniforms were different. I like the pullover better than the crossover though. Back in the day we trained on hardwood floors (a racquetball court) rather than these sissy millennials that want nice cushy mats under their feet (kidding! My old knees like the mats.)

But how many of these things are truly difference in the style, and not just differences in instructor? That I don't know. I suspect lots of other people in this thread are in that same boat..."Well, I can tell you what's change since when I started...but is that a difference in style, or just a difference in the instructor?"