TKDJUDO
Yellow Belt
What Dan are these forms supposed to be taught at ?:tantrum:
To me they look flashy and "modern". Tae kwon do is not a modern art form. These forms would do well at open karate tourneys, but does not give us the traditional lower stances that are all part of training. I tell my students that the lower the stance the more we train our muscles and discipline ourselves to perform things to develop our bodies and mind. While the numerous kicks look good, they are just too flashy for me. Give me "old school" Tae kwon do!
These forms appear, to me, to be more in line with "TKD-based self-defense" than what I've seen of the previous forms. Granted, I've not studied any of the KKW forms, except 2 of the palgwe forms. TKD starts from a couple of basic premises:
1) The legs are the strongest part of the body.
2) The legs are the longest part of the body.
1+2=legs as primary weapons. Whether that means standing, jumping, or spinning kicks. Isn't this what everyone wanted when the kwans unified? "How can we make TKD more unique? Lots of kicks!" They standardized the sparring rules around this. They teach line drills marching up and down dojangs the world over throwing jump kick after spin jump kick.
Then you get to the forms. The forms don't follow the "legs as primary weapons" principle. Lots of hand techs with a couple of kicks. It's a somewhat bizarre dichotomy, which truthfully is evident in most arts, but especially in TKD.
Which one will someone fall back on when forced to defend themselves? Probably the former, because the forms are so different from the rest of the training, and somewhat marginalized.
These forms, at least the first one, appears to try to bridge that. Time will tell whether there are "official" applications, but just watching the first form a couple of times, other than the oddly-placed flying sidekicks, all of the jumping/spinning kicks are placed after what I would term "distancing techniques" - techs designed to push your opponent away or make him retreat, giving you more room for the follow-up. Another of the sequences of kicks starts with a step back followed by a skipping roundhouse kick. Did they just think it looked cool, or did they want to teach evading and follow-ups, or feigning weakness to draw in an opponent?
All conjecture. But to me, the old (and not likely to be replaced anytime soon) way looked like "fight using these principles, practice forms (which could be self defense) using these principles". If these forms, and more like them, are used, it would seem to form a more coherent system, wherein instead of borrowing Japanese self-defense principles, they would use the principles, or at least similar ones, taught in the rest of the curriculum.
Or, you know, they just thought they looked cool.
There's no dichotomy. The forms are the record of tested combat techniques, and the fact that in traditional, SD-based Chinese, Okinawan, Japanese and Korean forms the hand techs greatly outnumber the leg techs tells you pretty much everything you need to know.
Look at Simon O'Neil's article `Kicking in Self-Defense: a Practical Re-evaluation' (Taekwondo Times, November, 2005)for a very good critique of the role of kicks in CQ street combat. The forms in TKD are `marginalized' because the technique for interpreting them as practical jutsu technical guides, what in Japanese is called kaisai no genri, has essentially been lost, and not just in the KMAs. It was lost in Japanese Karate as well, and only during the past decade has any serious effort been made to recover it. And the version of karate that gave rise to TKD were probably seriously diluted even with respect to standards in Japan, given the attitude of the Japanese towards citizens of Korea.
Good questions. But I doubt that we're going to be finding out anytime soon. If what earlier posters have said is correct, the whole intention of these new forms what to compress into a single hyung a large number of `showcase' techniques, and I very much question the self-defense sincerity of their designers. A series of three kicks off a single chamber, at low, middle, and head height?? Just what kind of `realistic' combat response does that move correspond tobearing in mind that to be maximally effective, a middle-height side-kick has to target an attacker who's further away than a close-up assailant, someone you've almost certainly knocked over if that low kick were been successful? And assuming that the latter attack works successfully, why on earth would you follow up with a head-high kick, given that the attacker would almost certainly not be upright, at this point? The whole sequence screams DEMO in italicized caps...
This way of putting it baffles me. To the extent that TKD ever had explicit `self-defense principles', those principles were Japanese. Tang soo do/Kong soo do are the Korean translations of the two senses of Japanese kara te under its `empty/Chinese hand' transliterations. Given that that's what the Kwan founders learned, from the horse's mouth, so to speakGichin Funakoshi and Toyama Kanken, respectivelywhy describe what happened as `borrowing'? TKD was Korean karate, period, before the nationalist-inspired purge of all things Japanese became de rigueur there. What I see is incoherence: a complete lack of any systematic theory of CQ combat in those forms, especially the first.
There is a great dichotomy - between the sparring techniques taught and the form techniques taught. The two methods of fighting are very different.
I agree with you, but the reason behind the marginalization was not my point. In fact, I'd almost say the forms are marginalized because they are not what TKD is about - at least not KKW TKD. It's about sparring. I think TKD only has forms because the arts from which it descended had forms. They didn't really give them any thought.
I interpreted them as roundhouse kicks; it's tough to tell from the video. I also interpreted that series as a symbolic "kick knee, kick groin, kick head," not "kick low, kick medium, kick high."
Again, it's the dichotomy between the sparring and the forms. Students are taught two completely different ways of fighting - one at range, with lots of kicks, one very close, with lots of grabs, and locks, and few kicks. One is KKW TKD, the other is... well... not what KKW wants to be thought of as TKD. That's why I described it as "borrowing."
I'm not arguing the true combat efficacy of these forms; all I'm saying is that this appears an attempt to encode fighting methods based on TKD sparring principles. If that is their goal, I think this works better than the previous forms. You can look at these forms and tell that what you are looking at is TKD. Better yet, you can perform these and feel like you are doing TKD.
I personally think it's high time the Kukkiwon developed new forms that integrated and showcased modern TKD techniques (i.e. spinning, jumping, flying, high kicks etc.). However, not techniques to be used in sparring, but techniques with actual martial application.
I agree-not all techniques in the modern WTF forms are what you would call practical. But they all have a reason for existing (balance, isometric power, tradition). Develop new forms with modern technique, but keep the traditional principles.
'm outta time here tonight ..
You know.. you keep posting really long posts and saying "I don't have time to go into detail..." the last day or two![]()
To quantify what I posted earlier: I think it's time the Kukkiwon developed new forms that integrate what you would consider Korean-style technique (i.e. kicking) into modern forms.
The ITF forms alluded to these kicking techniques, and certainly proved they don't need to be sport based. They included spinning kicks, jumping side kicks, jump spinning kicks. The majority of these based on Chung Do Kwan, since that's where Gen. Choi and his black belts came from. For the life of me, I can't understand why the Kukkiwon didn't include these in the Palgue/Koryo forms.
I have sen Youtube video of Taekkyon, btw, and Taekkyon uses those techniques. So they are part of the heritage.
First Lauren, I would like to wish you a Happy Holiday and I hope the coming New Year brings you and your loved ones good fortune.I am most interested in this part of your post (although I enjoyed all of it). Can you tell me more about your idea that "WTF style" (for lack of a better term) is a fighting style evolved from other systems? What systems are you referring to? How and when did this evolution take place? I would really like to hear your thoughts on this so I can understand your opinion as it seems to be a new idea to me or at least comes from a different angle. Of course, with the holidays I know I may have to wait...![]()
First Lauren, I would like to wish you a Happy Holiday and I hope the coming New Year brings you and your loved ones good fortune.
Im still pretty busy and regrettably couldnt devote more time to your post but here is a very brief response. I hope it answers some of your questions and helps you gain insight on my perspective.
There is little that those discussing the history of TKD can agree upon. One seemingly indisputable point though, was that during the 50s began a movement to merge the Kwans; the Kwans being the predominate MA schools in Korea at the time. While the majority of the Kwans MA lineage can be traced back to Shotokan there are Kwans who have a different MA background; most notably Chang Moo Kwan and Moo Duk Kwan. Chang Moo Kwans founder taught a combination of Shudokan and Chuan-fa. Moo Duk Kwan founder, Hwang Kees MA background is difficult to discern, the only formal training he may have received was in a CMA while working on the railroads in China. Even those Kwans whos primary art was Shotokan based had their own take on the system and had developed different preferences towards application. Most credit General Choi with spurring the movement to merge, creating an environment which allowed members of various Kwans to share their knowledge and experience. This eventually led to representatives of the Kwans coming together, in the late 60s early 70s, and creating poomse for the emerging system.
Be Well - F2F
F2F let me chime in here General Choi is what most people call the founding father of modern day TKD, his vision and this is just what Iwas told by other Koreans here. He wabted a more combat personal approach for the Korean Army and for this to truely happen the early Kwans had to came together to form what became the KTA and later the Kukkiwon. the General vision was more about the combat and later the SD principle that what others wanted so the split happened around 1970 that is when the new sets of poomsae came in and was more about basic SD principle and truely just those of the Korean Government. This is when they tried to completely erase all facts about Shotokan Karate and started more of a Korean look to them.
I wish I had more time to go into all of this and maybe after Junior National and the holidays I will.
What I was alluding to when I wrote that Most credit General Choi with spurring the movement to merge, creating an environment which allowed members of various Kwans to share their knowledge and experience, was that there is evidence that this was not his original intent. Rather than unifying the Kwans, some believe he wished to replace them with a new Korean system of his own design. This seems to be supported by the informative post Exile linked to and I believe it to be the first among many points of contention, between General Choi and the Korean MA community with its respective masters, eventually leading to his ousting. As Exile touched upon in his linked post, General Choi apparently recruited/strong-armed skilled and prominent members of various Kwans into his Oh Do Kwan, in an attempt to drain their pool of talent. I think this somewhat backfired on him. Instead of overwriting the knowledge of the other Kwans with his own he actually created an environment that allowed them to share their experience. One would serve under General Choi, he would order You are no longer (insert Kwan name here) you are Oh Do Kwan now!, but its not as if this erased their prior knowledge or methods, simply because he ordered it so. One would begin their training in Oh Do Kwan, drawing on, lets say, their Chang Moo Kwan experience, with the man on his right having come form Ji Do Kwan and the man to his left from Moo Duk Kwan. These men would all train together under the same system while relying on the skill they had already gained from their Kwans. Thus began the merging of the Kwans and the eventual sharing of their knowledge. A senior BB at my school once commented that General Choi and the Kwans head masters didnt created TKD, the soldiers did, their students did. This is what I think he meant by that.
Hello. I have stumbed across two new forms designed by the Kukkiwon. Here is a youtube video:
Now, I have also seen at least one of our members, who I respect, comment on these forms favourably on some other message board. (The board and the member will go unnamed). I myself think these forms are grand!
Thoughts?
This is why I can't excel at TKD...I can't remember forms for anything. I can't even remember my white belt. For some reason I never took a interest in forms and only learned b/c it was a requirement.