WTF Kukkiwon Dan holder to ATA Dojang?

[dvcochran]

Words have meaning, and that's not limited to their definition. There are plenty of words that have a meaning outside of their literal definition, and because of that meaning, they are no longer politically correct to use.

I would definitely argue that people studying KKW TKD are NOT studying KKW sparring. If they're not WT forms, they're not KKW sparring. The WT sets the rules that are used, and KKW schools train for those rules. As the rules change, the KKW schools change with it.

That's what I'm getting at. There is a symbiotic relationship between the two organizations. The KKW curriculum drives the rules of one aspect of competition, and the rules of another aspect drive the KKW curriculum.

You seem to be purposefully ignoring this relationship just to prove they're separate entities.

I am jumping in the fray. I think what Dog is saying is that where really isn't a relationship in an official sense. Truly WT facilities are the sport element of TKD and has it's own body of regulation. The Kukkiwon, as part of the Korean government, has it's own body of control. Because both have very strong Korean roots and are both often taught together at the same schools, they get squeezed together as the same entity. As an example, as black belt certificate doesn't come from WT, it comes from Kukkiwon.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Words have meaning, and that's not limited to their definition.

Actually, it is. That's what a definition IS.

You seem to be purposefully ignoring this relationship just to prove they're separate entities.

You already admitted that they are. Now you're just desperately trying to defend being wrong instead of just moving on.

 

[skribs]

Actually, it is. That's what a definition IS.

So let me ask you this...if I say "I train WTF TKD", do you know what I mean? Not what I say, not whether or not what I say is correct, but do you know what I mean? Do you know what forms I probably train in, what my sparring style is?

---

You already admitted that they are. Now you're just desperately trying to defend being wrong instead of just moving on.

You have outright stated that if KKW got rid of the Taegeuks and moved onto new forms that WT would stay the same. You've also hinted or stated that if WT rules changed, it would not affect what KKW schools teach in sparring. That these are two completely different entities that have nothing to do with each other, and that it is random coincidence that they both use the same forms and both have the same sparring style.

So let me ask you two questions:

1. Why do WT Tournaments focus on Taegeuks and KKW Black Belt Forms (i.e. KKW curriculum)?
2. Why do KKW schools primarily teach WT sparring?

And two follow-up questions:

1. If KKW came up with a new set of forms that replaced the Taegeuks, why would WT stick with the deprecated forms over the KKW curriculum?
2. What is it that KKW students get out of the WT sparring style other than preparing for the game of WT sparring?

It's nothing like the forms or self defense, and many of the techniques and tactics only apply because of the WT sparring rules that disallow grappling or head punches.

---

Okay, so I asked 5 questions.

 

[skribs]

I am jumping in the fray. I think what Dog is saying is that where really isn't a relationship in an official sense. Truly WT facilities are the sport element of TKD and has it's own body of regulation. The Kukkiwon, as part of the Korean government, has it's own body of control. Because both have very strong Korean roots and are both often taught together at the same schools, they get squeezed together as the same entity. As an example, as black belt certificate doesn't come from WT, it comes from Kukkiwon.

Officially, no. But from the functional perspective there is.

I work IT at a hospital, and there is the "technical" and "functional" side of things. Technical is things like "can the user log in" and "do the servers talk to each other." Functional is things like "does the layout and terminology make sense to the doctors" and "are these workflows optimized?"

So while technically the organizations may be separate, for the student, they train in TKD forms and sparring, and they go to tournaments and compete in TKD forms and sparring. The tournaments register black belts based on their KKW ID, and we teach "Olympic-style sparring" at our school.

There's a system at my hospital, which other systems can connect into it. (Think of it like how you use Facebook, and in addition to the main Facebook page and apps, there's also 3rd-party apps and games you can use, like Words With Friends). Facebook doesn't make Words With Friends, and technically it's a 3rd-party app that's contracted through Facebook. However, because you use your Facebook account and you can play it on the Facebook site, most of the players see it as a Facebook game. Similarly, the system that I manage is completely separate from the system it's used in, but because the accounts are linked and you use the same application to access both of them, the users see them as the same thing. (And in my case, the developers of both systems have so little to do with each other they won't even talk to each other, I have to be a middle-man when I escalate anything).

With that said, when I look at it from the perspective of a TKD student, or even an instructor or coach, whether the two organizations are so separate they merely read the news about each other, or if they're run by the same person and are two branches of the same affiliation is irrelevant. The fact is, how it works out for us in practice, is what we train at a KKW school is what we compete in at a WT tournament, and our qualifications at a KKW school is what we use to sign up for the WT tournament. So even if they're technically separate, that doesn't matter to the end user...er, the student/competitor.

From the top down, you might see the divide. But from the bottom up, you see a Venn Diagram with a very large center section, if you even realize there's a difference.

 

[dvcochran]

So let me ask you this...if I say "I train WTF TKD", do you know what I mean? Not what I say, not whether or not what I say is correct, but do you know what I mean? Do you know what forms I probably train in, what my sparring style is?

---



You have outright stated that if KKW got rid of the Taegeuks and moved onto new forms that WT would stay the same. You've also hinted or stated that if WT rules changed, it would not affect what KKW schools teach in sparring. That these are two completely different entities that have nothing to do with each other, and that it is random coincidence that they both use the same forms and both have the same sparring style.

So let me ask you two questions:

1. Why do WT Tournaments focus on Taegeuks and KKW Black Belt Forms (i.e. KKW curriculum)?
2. Why do KKW schools primarily teach WT sparring?

And two follow-up questions:

1. If KKW came up with a new set of forms that replaced the Taegeuks, why would WT stick with the deprecated forms over the KKW curriculum?
2. What is it that KKW students get out of the WT sparring style other than preparing for the game of WT sparring?

It's nothing like the forms or self defense, and many of the techniques and tactics only apply because of the WT sparring rules that disallow grappling or head punches.

---

Okay, so I asked 5 questions.

You are still mincing. I have friends that practice ITF TKD who learn WT sparring simply because there are so many more tourneys with WT rules. Conversely, I know schools that practice the Taeguek and Yudanja Poomsae but do not adhere to WT sparring rules. I agree with your IT analogy in part but the facts remain the same. Trying to make them fit a certain scenario doesn't change that.

 

[WaterGal]

All of us here know that 99%+ of the time, when someone says they have a "WTF black belt", they mean they have a black belt from KKW. Most people just don't know the difference, and use them interchangeably. That's not technically correct, but we all know what they mean and there's no point in being argumentative about it.

 

[Dirty Dog]

So let me ask you this...if I say "I train WTF TKD", do you know what I mean? Not what I say, not whether or not what I say is correct, but do you know what I mean? Do you know what forms I probably train in, what my sparring style is?

The only thing I'd know, for sure, is that you're confused. I might suspect that you do KKW TKD, because lots of people seem to be confused on this issue. But I wouldn't know it. Because it's not what you said.

You have outright stated that if KKW got rid of the Taegeuks and moved onto new forms that WT would stay the same.

No I didn't.

You've also hinted or stated that if WT rules changed, it would not affect what KKW schools teach in sparring.

No I didn't.
I'm not in a position to know, for sure, what either entity would do.

 

[skribs]

The only thing I'd know, for sure, is that you're confused. I might suspect that you do KKW TKD, because lots of people seem to be confused on this issue. But I wouldn't know it. Because it's not what you said.

So you would know what I mean, and be an elitist snob about my particular choice of terminology. Which means my objective of telling you what I'm learning is accomplished, and as I cannot control your reaction to what I say, the rest isn't on me.

You have outright stated that if KKW got rid of the Taegeuks and moved onto new forms that WT would stay the same.

No I didn't.

Let's look at the conversation from Page 2:

You: "Other way 'round. The KKW curriculum doesn't teach what the WT wants. WT currently says "we judge KKW forms only" and goes from there."
You: "I have no opinion on the usefulness of the Skirbs patterns, but your assertion about how WT would respond to fundamental changes is unsupported (and unsupportable) by any actual evidence."
Me: "That's...not what you just said in the previous quote. If they say "we judge KKW forms only" and those were KKW forms, then WT would respond to them."
You: "I was imprecise. Mea culpa. What WT actually says is "we judge the taegeuk forms for colored belts, and Koryo, Keumgang [...] for Dan ranks". "

This line of thought very strongly suggests that even if the KKW changes their curriculum, that WT would stay the same. Can you please explain to me how it doesn't?

You've also hinted or stated that if WT rules changed, it would not affect what KKW schools teach in sparring.

No I didn't.

Looking back through the thread...you're right. Sorry on this one.

 

[Dirty Dog]

blah blah blah

At this point you're wrong, you know you're wrong, you've admitted you're wrong, and you're just trying to justify how it's ok to be wrong.
It is, in the sense that we're all wrong sometimes. But justifying it is pointless. The thing to do is recognize the error and correct it in the future.

 

[skribs]

At this point you're wrong, you know you're wrong, you've admitted you're wrong, and you're just trying to justify how it's ok to be wrong.
It is, in the sense that we're all wrong sometimes. But justifying it is pointless. The thing to do is recognize the error and correct it in the future.

You're not even going to justify the contradictions I pointed out? You're just going to pull the "I'm going to ignore everything you say, because I think you're wrong" card?

If you have an argument to make, then make it. If the only thing you can do is put your fingers in your ears and go "I'M NOT LISTENING LALALALALALA LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"...then I think I may have a valid point.

---

I admitted I was wrong on one specific thing: that you said something. I had said "You've also hinted or stated that if WT rules changed, it would not affect what KKW schools teach in sparring." You didn't say that. That's the only wrong I admit to.

I don't know how you interpreted that, in the context of the post, to mean "I'm wrong about everything."

 

[Gnarlie]

You fellas are literally arguing about nothing. Back to the point - ATA and KKW TKD are not particularly compatible. I've taken on a couple of ex ATA students and it has basically meant starting over with them.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Dirty Dog]

You're not even going to justify the contradictions I pointed out?

There were no contradictions in what I said. You are, once again, confused.

There is no such thing as WT TKD. That is a fact. Pretty much everything else said has been you trying to rationalize your error as acceptable, rather than simply correcting it.

You're just going to pull the "I'm going to ignore everything you say, because I think you're wrong" card?

There's no point in arguing with someone who won't correct their errors, even after they've admitted to them.

 

[Gwai Lo Dan]

All of us here know that 99%+ of the time, when someone says they have a "WTF black belt", they mean they have a black belt from KKW. Most people just don't know the difference, and use them interchangeably. That's not technically correct, but we all know what they mean and there's no point in being argumentative about it.

I'll add that it is a pet peeve of mine NOT that the terms are used interchangeably, but the the context of the techniques are used interchangeably.

By "context" I mean, under what situation is the technique used. Too often IMO, techniques are taught as being "TKD" but really they are only good for sport TKD, and the students are not specifically told that.

As an example, I found the back kick instruction here, at about 7:00 to be fascinating. I had never seen that instruction for the hand position. At TKD, the master was dismissive of the hand positioning, under the logic that people can't punch you in the head (IN SPORT TKD). But when I asked a dutch-style kickboxer who competed, he said "oh yeah, you definitely want to practise that. It saved me many times".

So, getting back to the question at hand, if I walked into an ATA school as a 2nd dan KKW black-belt, my primary question would be, "what is the context of the instruction and drills? General TKD, or sport TKD under a specific rule-set"? And I'd be fine with being a white belt, so long as there wasn't onerous fees for every new belt.

 

[skribs]

There were no contradictions in what I said. You are, once again, confused.

There is no such thing as WT TKD. That is a fact. Pretty much everything else said has been you trying to rationalize your error as acceptable, rather than simply correcting it.



There's no point in arguing with someone who won't correct their errors, even after they've admitted to them.

You have made contradictions and won't admit it.

I have committed one error, and did fix it. I still stand by the rest of what I said and haven't admitted to any errors.

 

[Dirty Dog]

You have made contradictions and won't admit it.

Please, by all means, show me one.

I have committed one error, and did fix it. I still stand by the rest of what I said and haven't admitted to any errors.

If you're still using WT to mean KKW, you have not fixed it.

 

[skribs]

Please, by all means, show me one.

I did. But you just quoted it as "blah blah blah" and pretended my post didn't exist.

If you're still using WT to mean KKW, you have not fixed it.

I fixed the mistake I made, which was saying you said something you didn't. I apologized for that. So yes, I fixed THAT mistake.

You're just so hung up on telling me I'm wrong you're not even paying attention to what I'm talking about.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I did. But you just quoted it as "blah blah blah" and pretended my post didn't exist.

The contradiction doesn't exist. You keep insisting I made a statement about how one agency would respond to a change made by the other. I did not. YOU did, and I pointed out that you had no basis for the assumptions you made. I don't pretend to have any idea how either organization would respond if the other made some basic change.

 

[skribs]

The contradiction doesn't exist. You keep insisting I made a statement about how one agency would respond to a change made by the other. I did not. YOU did, and I pointed out that you had no basis for the assumptions you made. I don't pretend to have any idea how either organization would respond if the other made some basic change.

No basis...except conclusions arrived to by logical analysis?

WT exclusively uses KKW forms. Is that a random coincidence, or is that on purpose? If KKW changes its curriculum, then all the KKW schools will change their curriculum, and the next generation of competing talent will know the new forms, and not the Taegeuks. It makes logical sense that if KKW changes, then in order to adapt to what the competitors know, the WT rules would have to change.

If WT did not adjust their rules when KKW changed their forms, then poomse competition would be relegated to schools which still teach the Taegeuks in addition to (or in spite of) the new forms, or students who have been in long enough that they still learned the old forms. For the first year or two this wouldn't be a big deal. After 5 years, or 10 years...it would start to matter, and WT would have to adjust in some way (either to change over to the new forms, to get rid of form competition entirely, open up the form competition to allow a wider variety of forms to be used).

Do I have any proof of this? No. But I don't think I'm off-base in my assumption here. It's not a huge leap of logic to assume that would happen.

What would be a big leap is if I made a claim that if the KKW came up with new forms, then WT would abandon the Taegeuks and go to the Palgwes, or that they'd drop the KKW forms altogether and go to ITF or ATA forms, or Shotokan forms, or make up their own forms. It's not much of a stretch to assume that if KKW replaces the Taegeuks, the WT will as well, to stay relevant.

 

[Tez3]

Just a thought here, if you have someone with a high grade in another style joining you who is happy about wearing a white belt do you let other students know he has a higher rank in another style? The reason I'm asking is that I went to a friend's class in JKD for a while, just to see what they did really and to enjoy something different, I wore a white belt of course but later after holding pads, then punching and sparring a couple of older guys got a bit shirty because they seemed to think I was somehow cheating because I hadn't said I was a blackbelt and quite a highish one at that. Tbh I didn't think I should have, it's quite different from what I do usually. They had tried to make things difficult for me by punching the pads harder than they would for a white belt on their first session and were trying to show off when holding the pads. I think they were miffed because it didn't bother me. I told my friend later and he sort of smiled and said well that's one of the reasons I invited you! Er thanks....., I think. Couldn't get on with JKD though, made my knees hurt even more than karate.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Just a thought here, if you have someone with a high grade in another style joining you who is happy about wearing a white belt do you let other students know he has a higher rank in another style? The reason I'm asking is that I went to a friend's class in JKD for a while, just to see what they did really and to enjoy something different, I wore a white belt of course but later after holding pads, then punching and sparring a couple of older guys got a bit shirty because they seemed to think I was somehow cheating because I hadn't said I was a blackbelt and quite a highish one at that. Tbh I didn't think I should have, it's quite different from what I do usually. They had tried to make things difficult for me by punching the pads harder than they would for a white belt on their first session and were trying to show off when holding the pads. I think they were miffed because it didn't bother me. I told my friend later and he sort of smiled and said well that's one of the reasons I invited you! Er thanks....., I think. Couldn't get on with JKD though, made my knees hurt even more than karate.

I'd leave it up to them to decide what to tell other people. When I joined the MDK school, I wore a white belt. Didn't take most people long to figure out that I'd had some prior experience. I don't recall it bothering anybody, though, so maybe one or the other of our schools is weird.
Actually, thinking back, there was one fellow who was a bit bothered. He was well known to have a bit of ego involvement. Perhaps that's a common thread?