Would you label this a spinning back kick or side kick or hybrid?

[Acronym]

This is his disclaimer in his little blurb underneath the video "I recognise Grand Master General Choi Hong Hi as the true authority on Taekwon-Do. The information in my tutorial is based on my interpretation of Taekwon-Do as taught to me by the Founder General Choi Hong Hi and as referred to in his book ‘TAEKWON-DO’ (5th Edition 1999) Published by ITF and printed in Canada. Other Taekwon-Do Masters and Grand Masters may have a different interpretation of Taekwon-Do theory and practice, so if you are a Taekwon-Do student, it is important to check with your instructor if you are not sure about which interpretation you should be following."

It says right in there that it's ITF specific. He could I guess say it in the front of his video, but I can see how that would get annoying for him when he's made at least 47 other videos.

Most people click on the video without reading the disclaimer. I almost never read them.

 

[dvcochran]

I'm not sure if it has more acceleration or not, but even if it had the same acceleration (I assume we're talking about average acceleration over the entire movement, to preclude the idea of the acceleration ceasing earlier), and was traveling a longer distance, then (assuming the same static start), it would have to have higher velocity, because it would be under acceleration longer. If it has more acceleration and a longer distance, it has to have a higher velocity at the end.

That is not entirely correct. Consider this:

Acceleration/Formula

= average acceleration

= final velocity

= starting velocity

= elapsed time

From the web
Acceleration (a) is the change in velocity (Δv) over the change in time (Δt), represented by the equation a = Δv/Δt. This allows you to measure how fast velocity changes in meters per second squared (m/s^2). Acceleration is also a vector quantity, so it includes both magnitude and direction.

So, δV is always going to be faster than v-sub, that is just physics.
But if a mass is always accelerating (which is not possible) the velocity is null, at any point on a line. This is the reason for the v-sub variable. Yea, it confuses me too but it is a constant.
The easier way for me to think about it is to say an object can neither instantly start moving at a velocity nor can it instantly stop. This is part of being the vector quantity mentioned.

In motion control we often have to calculate final velocity from a 'flying' start. When considering the final destination (if relevant) the vector quantity usually has a higher value than δt since mass is complex and time is constant.

I think what you are saying is defined as ramp. The angle of acceleration. If you look at them on a plane you can much easier understand the difference between v and v-sub.

Hope this makes sense.

***Note: I can never get certain ASCII characters to work on this site.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Most people click on the video without reading the disclaimer. I almost never read them.

Well I'd assume most people looking up TKD kick tutorials are aware there are multiple styles of TKD. When you realize it's not what you expect, and/or see that the gi/logos there aren't KKW (if you come from a KKW background-if you're ITF reverse all of this), you can figure out why. And the literal minimum amount of research would be to look at the blurb directly underneath the video-honestly if you're looking at a video for any sort of educational purpose and aren't familiar with the channel you should be doing that.

Either way, you're statement that I quoted "Otherwise he is purposely misleading the viewer to think that the encyclopedia parameters are universal to all of TKD." Is untrue since if it was purposeful misleading he wouldn't be putting in a disclaimer pointing it out.

 

[dvcochran]

Well I'd assume most people looking up TKD kick tutorials are aware there are multiple styles of TKD. When you realize it's not what you expect, and/or see that the gi/logos there aren't KKW (if you come from a KKW background-if you're ITF reverse all of this), you can figure out why. And the literal minimum amount of research would be to look at the blurb directly underneath the video-honestly if you're looking at a video for any sort of educational purpose and aren't familiar with the channel you should be doing that.

Either way, you're statement that I quoted "Otherwise he is purposely misleading the viewer to think that the encyclopedia parameters are universal to all of TKD." Is untrue since if it was purposeful misleading he wouldn't be putting in a disclaimer pointing it out.

Agree. This is still a big point of contention within TKD. I have been in several dojangs that truly thought they were teaching 'traditional' TKD when really all that was taught was one form set (Taegueks) and WT style sparring.
To compound breaking down the kick in the video even more, it would certainly be slightly different from person to person within the same school/system. I would expect this to be true even with identical twins.
This is part of my rub with trying to learn a MA from video. There are just way too many omisions.

 

[Acronym]

Well I'd assume most people looking up TKD kick tutorials are aware there are multiple styles of TKD. When you realize it's not what you expect, and/or see that the gi/logos there aren't KKW (if you come from a KKW background-if you're ITF reverse all of this), you can figure out why. And the literal minimum amount of research would be to look at the blurb directly underneath the video-honestly if you're looking at a video for any sort of educational purpose and aren't familiar with the channel you should be doing that.

Either way, you're statement that I quoted "Otherwise he is purposely misleading the viewer to think that the encyclopedia parameters are universal to all of TKD." Is untrue since if it was purposeful misleading he wouldn't be putting in a disclaimer pointing it out.

Yes but it is unhelpful. Just say ITF encyclopedia and they would understand that it applies only to the ITF.

 

[Acronym]

Well I'd assume most people looking up TKD kick tutorials are aware there are multiple styles of TKD. .

They would not neccesarily know that the techniques are different though. Just as you wouldn't neccesarily know that the techniques of Shotokan and Kyokushin are different. You could might as well think it's only the sports of the arts that differ

 

[Acronym]

Agree. This is still a big point of contention within TKD. I have been in several dojangs that truly thought they were teaching 'traditional' TKD when really all that was taught was one form set (Taegueks) and WT style sparring.
To compound breaking down the kick in the video even more, it would certainly be slightly different from person to person within the same school/system. I would expect this to be true even with identical twins.
This is part of my rub with trying to learn a MA from video. There are just way too many omisions.

There is no meaning saying traditional Taekwondo when several kwans existed simultaneously. The taeguk forms are obviously not one of the original ones but the term traditional Taekwondo is meaningless since several branches existed at the same time originally

 

[Jaeimseu]

To be clear, it doesn’t matter to me what style Taekwondo the instructor is from. It was clear from the video at least to me that the instructor was talking about ITF Taekwondo and the ITF encyclopedia. I simply find it needless to concern myself with details that have little to no bearing on the technique. I’d have the same opinion if a Kukkiwon instructor did that.

I don’t remember ever doing a back kick when I learned ITF forms, so where does bent knee ready stance come into play?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Acronym]

I don’t remember ever doing a back kick when I learned ITF forms, so where does bent knee ready stance come into play?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Huh? There are several ITF forms with a back kick. First one is Chong Moo.

 

[Acronym]

Here is with bent ready stance

 

[dvcochran]

There is no meaning saying traditional Taekwondo when several kwans existed simultaneously. The taeguk forms are obviously not one of the original ones but the term traditional Taekwondo is meaningless since several branches existed at the same time originally

I cannot agree with that. If I were forced to set a dividing line to designate traditional, it would be at the peak of the Kwan era. That each Kwan did their own thing to a degree is irrelevant since they were all still under the banner of TKD.

I has always spoke volumes to me that the Masters of that time were able to see the bigger picture, swallow their pride and unify.
It did not really get sideways until the 2nd generation of KKW/WT leadership. That is when the traditional was lost. It is apparent you have been fed the same Kool-aid.

 

[Jaeimseu]

[QUOTE="Jaeimseu, post: 2022321, member: 25949"
I don’t remember ever doing a back kick when I learned ITF forms, so where does bent knee ready stance come into play?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Huh? There are several ITF forms with a back kick. First one is Chong Moo.[/QUOTE]

I didn’t learn any ITF forms with back kick. I wasn’t in the ITF, though, so I’m sure I didn’t learn ITF standard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

They would not neccesarily know that the techniques are different though. Just as you wouldn't neccesarily know that the techniques of Shotokan and Kyokushin are different. You could might as well think it's only the sports of the arts that differ

Then specifying it as ITF instead of KKW wouldn't matter. It's really only you that is having this issue-most people aren't learning from youtube, or if they are, know what style the instructor is teaching when he puts it in the description of each video.

 

[Acronym]

Then specifying it as ITF instead of KKW wouldn't matter. It's really only you that is having this issue-most people aren't learning from youtube, or if they are, know what style the instructor is teaching when he puts it in the description of each video.

These days a lot of people are learning from youtube and preparing for tests.. It would make a difference since the viewer would learn that it's not the encyclopedia period, but instead for a specific style. And from a principled standpoint, it's silly to refer to an encyclopedia for a style of TaeKwondo which is very obscure compared to the Olympic one, without making it clear it's only for a particular style. WT TaeKwondo outnumbers ITF by such a big number that I can't even quantify it.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

These days a lot of people are learning from youtube and preparing for tests.. It would make a difference since the viewer would learn that it's not the encyclopedia period, but instead for a specific style. And from a principled standpoint, it's silly to refer to an encyclopedia for a style of TaeKwondo which is very obscure compared to the Olympic one, without making it clear it's only for a particular style. WT TaeKwondo outnumbers ITF by such a big number that I can't even quantify it.

Again though, he specifies it in the paragraph right below, and is in full ITF gear/logo on the wall. If someone is trying to study a kick for a test, chooses a random youtube video, doesn't notice that the gi/logo is different than their style, doesn't read the description of the random youtube video, and doesn't notice that the kick is different than what they learned, that's on them. Literally all the clues are there. No deceit is going on. I don't understand why you have such an issue with this.

 

[Acronym]

Again though, he specifies it in the paragraph right below, and is in full ITF gear/logo on the wall. If someone is trying to study a kick for a test, chooses a random youtube video, doesn't notice that the gi/logo is different than their style, doesn't read the description of the random youtube video, and doesn't notice that the kick is different than what they learned, that's on them. Literally all the clues are there. No deceit is going on. I don't understand why you have such an issue with this.

Again, nobody reads disclaimers for Youtube clips, and believe it or not, many people don't know which style they train..

But anyway my objection is principled.

 

[dvcochran]

Again, nobody reads disclaimers for Youtube clips, and believe it or not, many people don't know which style they train..

But anyway my objection is principled.

Um, yes they do.
You leave me with the impression that you truly believe learning from Youtube is the bastion of academics. It can be a useful tool but I would day it can do as much damage as good if a person is not careful.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Again, nobody reads disclaimers for Youtube clips, and believe it or not, many people don't know which style they train..

But anyway my objection is principled.

Yes people do and yes people do. If people learn bad info from youtube because they don't bother to see what they're learning that's on them. If people are looking online for information on their style without knowing what their style is, that's also on them. It's not everyone else's job to cater to the lazy/purposefully ignorant.

 

[Acronym]

Yes people do and yes people do. If people learn bad info from youtube because they don't bother to see what they're learning that's on them. If people are looking online for information on their style without knowing what their style is, that's also on them. It's not everyone else's job to cater to the lazy/purposefully ignorant.

Regardless of if they do or not, referencing the encyclopedia without adding the term ITF is ridiculous. That's as if i referenced to a hypothetical Boxing Encyclopedia of techniques, when it only concerned bare knuckle boxing, a minor sport compared to gloved boxing.

 

[jobo]

These days a lot of people are learning from youtube and preparing for tests.. It would make a difference since the viewer would learn that it's not the encyclopedia period, but instead for a specific style. And from a principled standpoint, it's silly to refer to an encyclopedia for a style of TaeKwondo which is very obscure compared to the Olympic one, without making it clear it's only for a particular style. WT TaeKwondo outnumbers ITF by such a big number that I can't even quantify it.

if your using you tube as a learning siurce for anything, you need to vet the source and be aware

that you tube is an income stream and there a bias toeards telling people, what they want to hear to get views

and anybody can start a you tube channel and call themselves an exspert

if your goibg down that route you need to view multiple videos, to get a selection of views and then make a decision with which is the best source to go with

you may then turn to them again, next time as the validation process has been completed.

its much the same as tsking legal advice of some random bloke you met in a pub, its rather more your fault than his if it goes badly wrong