What are some differences between Karate and Taekwondo?

[Earl Weiss]

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.

It's no wonder. Top Martial artists were recruited into the 29th Infantry division. They consisted predominantly of CDK people among them the most hands on senior instructor at the time Nam Tae Hi. as well as Han Cha Kyo. The CDK was basically doing Shotokan at the time.
This is where the initial group of instructors was developed, sent out to do demos and ultimately spread far and wide teaching the system. CDK luminaries included Jhoon Rhee, He Il Cho, and HU Lee.

Took me a while to fix stuff which came thru lineage to pioneers, and I know some of the Pioneers never changed their habits.

So,in 1959 that is what you got. Even decades later that is how their progeny were trained. The need to get a book out trumped the need for a thoroughly refined manual. The 1972 Book made many refinements. The 1980 Encyclopedia had a lot more detail.

 

[Earl Weiss]

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.

.

Since the Chang Hon system has numerous inner forearm blocks including 4 in the fundamental exercise and 4 in the first pattern I could not agree with the above. I will let others answer for other TKD systems as well as their opinion on the prevalence of the respective blocks in various Karate systems.

 

[NinjaChristian]

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?"

A lot of this has details that are beyond me, such as leading with your elbow with an inner forearm block. I suppose that I will learn these things with time .
This is very informative, thank you! with the side kicks, in karate are the hips lined up for the target, or are they turned so that your back faces or partially faces the target when you kick?

 

[TrueJim]

...with the side kicks, in karate are the hips lined up for the target, or are they turned so that your back faces or partially faces the target when you kick?

When I was originally taught side kicks (back in the 1970s), the back was turned slightly away from the target. That appears to be less true now with Kukkiwon style. Also, I was taught to raise the kickside arm over the kicking leg pretty much all the time (not necessarily as a simultaneous "punch", but just as a way to better keep your balance), whereas now the style seems to be to keep both your arms low in front of you (which is something I have difficulty with). Also, I was taught that the foot-blade was always the striking surface, whereas now I'm taught that it can be the foot-blade or the bottom of the heel.

But again, which of these are differences in style, and which are just differences in instructor? It's not always clear.

 

[Prototype]

I The need to get a book out trumped the need for a thoroughly refined manual.

What you call "refine", I call evolve. If General Choi had originally expressed a desire for the Chang Hon system to display higher and more narrow stances than in Tang Soo Do, he would have actually informed his students of this posing for the encyclopedia. It's not hard raising or narrowing a stance for any competent black belt in parent arts. I am of the opinion that Choi was simply conservative at first and content with what he had been taught.

Going back to my original point: Chang Hon-TKD is derrived from Japanese Karate, not Okinawan. Thus anything attributed to Okinawa influences can also be attributed to Shotokan/Tang Soo Doo. There is nothing Okinawan about Chang Hon-TKD independently of it's Shotokan derivation. To suggest otherwise would be to mislead the reader.

 

[Prototype]

When I was originally taught side kicks (back in the 1970s), the back was turned slightly away from the target. That appears to be less true now with Kukkiwon style. Also, I was taught to raise the kickside arm over the kicking leg pretty much all the time (not necessarily as a simultaneous "punch", but just as a way to better keep your balance), whereas now the style seems to be to keep both your arms low in front of you (which is something I have difficulty with). Also, I was taught that the foot-blade was always the striking surface, whereas now I'm taught that it can be the foot-blade or the bottom of the heel.

But again, which of these are differences in style, and which are just differences in instructor? It's not always clear.

Do you have a clip of the KKW side kick you are referring to? It may very well be that the KKW side kick has been morphed, much like the roundhouse, from sparring experiences.

 

[NinjaChristian]

When I was originally taught side kicks (back in the 1970s), the back was turned slightly away from the target. That appears to be less true now with Kukkiwon style. Also, I was taught to raise the kickside arm over the kicking leg pretty much all the time (not necessarily as a simultaneous "punch", but just as a way to better keep your balance), whereas now the style seems to be to keep both your arms low in front of you (which is something I have difficulty with). Also, I was taught that the foot-blade was always the striking surface, whereas now I'm taught that it can be the foot-blade or the bottom of the heel.

But again, which of these are differences in style, and which are just differences in instructor? It's not always clear.

in the school I go to, which is Chung do kwan TKD, we train in deep stances and just about all (or all) techniques start from the hip. When we spar we bring our hands up into some sort of guard (The guard tends to be fluid, moving to accommodate the situation), techniques come from the guard, and the stances tend to be more upright. When you say "both your arms low in front of you" do you mean that they are hanging in front or they are bent and in a low guard?

 

[TrueJim]

Do you have a clip of the KKW side kick you are referring to?...

Generally, this is what a Kukkiwon sidekick looks like:

Notice that the hip isn't particularly turned over at all. Your back is not turned toward your opponent at all. The hardest part about this, I think, is keeping your butt pushed forward, because unless you're allowed to turn that hip over (which you're not) then there's a natural tendency to want to bend forward at the waist when doing a kick like this. Both hands are down low in front of you (unless the poomsae specifically calls for a simultaneous punch-and-kick).

That having been said, it's recognized in this style that what any kick looks like for poomsae won't necessarily be exactly what your kick looks like for sparring, breaking, or self-defense. For example when sparring you tend to use more neutral chambers so that you're harder to read.

 

[chrispillertkd]

I have the condensed version of the encyclopedia. I think that the "front kick with knee" was left out of it. same thing for the foot placement in the forms. Sad, because i was hoping it would have that. You get what you pay for I guess...

Check Choong Jang tul, movement #19. I'm surprised, though, that it isn't included in the Foot Techniques section as it appears in both the 1965 and 1972 books (as well as the unabridged encyclopedia).

Pax,

Chris

 

[Earl Weiss]

What you call "refine", I call evolve. .....
Going back to my original point: Chang Hon-TKD is derrived from Japanese Karate, not Okinawan. Thus anything attributed to Okinawa influences can also be attributed to Shotokan/Tang Soo Doo. There is nothing Okinawan about Chang Hon-TKD independently of it's Shotokan derivation. To suggest otherwise would be to mislead the reader.

Refine - Evolve pick your poison. Point being that if the text was Published in 1972 the specs had to be in place before that time. So, if that's your beef that for the first 10 years of TKD's life the specs closely resembled the root art, Then OK, but for the last 50 years it had evolved.

Frankly you lost me with any distinction

"Chang Hon-TKD is derived from Japanese Karate, not Okinawan. Thus anything attributed to Okinawa influences can also be attributed to Shotokan/Tang Soo Doo. There is nothing Okinawan about Chang Hon-TKD independently of it's Shotokan derivation"
Derived from Japanese Karate, Not Okinawan, but anything Okinawan can also be attributed to Shotokan?
AFAIAC - makes no sense. In fact it seems backward to say the Okinawan precurser as an influence is attributed to the latter, Shotokan which it influenced. Unless you are simply stating that the Okinawan influences were primarily filtered thru the Shotokan experiences which is of course historicaly accurate.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Check Choong Jang tul, movement #19. I'm surprised, though, that it isn't included in the Foot Techniques section as it appears in both the 1965 and 1972 books (as well as the unabridged encyclopedia).

Pax,

Chris

Dang, Thanks, Mr. Spiller. I thought I was losing it. Well, I am. Knew I had seen it, but couldn't place it in the patterns.

 

[Prototype]

Unless you are simply stating that the Okinawan influences were primarily filtered thru the Shotokan experiences which is of course historicaly accurate.

That is exactly what I am saying. Compare that to Karate styles such as Kyokushinkai, which has both direct Okinawa and Japanese influences. This is evident not only in the Kata but also the training curriculum. Choi Hong Hi changed the method of delivering the strikes via Sine Wave (although no explanation has been given how to sensibly apply Sine Wave in an actual fist fight). The striking techniques still follow the same trajectory path as in Shotokan.

And please don't tell me Taekwon-Do from General Choi revolutionised kicking.

 

[chrispillertkd]

And please don't tell me Taekwon-Do from General Choi revolutionised kicking.

Taekwon-Do from Gen. Choi revolutionized kicking.

Pax,

Chris

 

[TrueJim]

...The striking techniques still follow the same trajectory path as in Shotokan.

There are a number of other blatant rip-offs too. Like, in Shotokan, when you're stepping forward, you do it by stepping forward with one foot, then the other. Taekwondo stole that!

Taekwondo also stole Shotokan breathing. In both, you inhale followed by exhale, then repeat indefinitely. But Shotokan was doing that first.

I could go on, but it's perfectly obvious to anybody who's studied these things. Even the subtle things are the same, like: both style tie their belts around the waist. Coincidence? I think not.

(No but seriously...there's only a finite number of ways to punch and kick. How many trajectories could there be?)

 

[Prototype]

(No but seriously...there's only a finite number of ways to punch and kick. How many trajectories could there be?)

Plenty. Muay Thai and Kyokushinkais don't kick or punch the same. Note that history is revised in later encyclopedias where Choi grabs full credit for creating Taekwondo. In the earliest, Taekwon-Do is really Taekkyon, with hand techniques incorporated from Karate. Later, Choi claimed to be the sole founder and to have invented movements, and evolved into a Donald Trump-like narcissist.

 

[Tames D]

There are a number of other blatant rip-offs too. Like, in Shotokan, when you're stepping forward, you do it by stepping forward with one foot, then the other. Taekwondo stole that!

Taekwondo also stole Shotokan breathing. In both, you inhale followed by exhale, then repeat indefinitely. But Shotokan was doing that first.

I could go on, but it's perfectly obvious to anybody who's studied these things. Even the subtle things are the same, like: both style tie their belts around the waist. Coincidence? I think not.

(No but seriously...there's only a finite number of ways to punch and kick. How many trajectories could there be?)

Interesting. But I've always been under the impression that Al Gore invented Taekwondo.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Plenty. Muay Thai and Kyokushinkais don't kick or punch the same. Note that history is revised in later encyclopedias where Choi grabs full credit for creating Taekwondo. In the earliest, Taekwon-Do is really Taekkyon, with hand techniques incorporated from Karate. Later, Choi claimed to be the sole founder and to have invented movements, and evolved into a Donald Trump-like narcissist.

Who did Funakoshi rip off for Shotokan's punches? And if it wasn't Praying Mantis kung-fu then why are there so many similarities between how these two styles punch? And since the manner in which Shotokan and Taekwon-Do now punch are quite different why does this matter do much to you?

Pax,

Chris

 

[Dirty Dog]

In the earliest, Taekwon-Do is really Taekkyon,

No, it really isn't. Taekkyon was supressed and there is no real reason to believe that it had anything to do with early TKD, other than being referenced as a source (which the founders still alive now pretty much all admit was not true) to make a connection with early Korean culture and distance themselves from their Japanese oppressors.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Interesting. But I've always been under the impression that Al Gore invented Taekwondo.

And the Interwebs. So we can haz cheeseburgers.

 

[Prototype]

No, it really isn't. Taekkyon was supressed and there is no real reason to believe that it had anything to do with early TKD, other than being referenced as a source (which the founders still alive now pretty much all admit was not true) to make a connection with early Korean culture and distance themselves from their Japanese oppressors.

General Choi made the silly claim in the 59/65 encyclopedia, not I. Later with ITF changing it and referring to himself as the founder of Taekwondo. Two polar opposite accounts well documented.