another question

[Earl Weiss]

I've learnt that General Choi disclaims all credit for himself and considers that no one person can take sole credit. That seems to be more than most ITF students will concede.

I guess I wasn't clear enough. He makes an anology between Martial Arts techniques, discovering fire, or inventing the wheel. This is far different than being the father or founder of a system.

Do you consider Kano and Funakoshi fathers or founders of Judo, and Shotokan? Can they take credit for creating their systems?

 

[Earl Weiss]

I'd agree with #1 ambassador, but I'd certainly give LEE Won Kuk more of the credit for the technical content of the art, while sharing a decent amount round to the leaders of the other kwans.

Why? What GM Lee was doing was not TKD but a forrunner of TKD. His technical contant was almost indistinguishable from it's Japanese and Okinawan roots. What works did he author setting forth any standards?

 

[andyjeffries]

Whether Kano or Funakoshi were experts is a matter of opinion. Whether General Choi was "One of the Seniors in Korean martial arts at the time" is a non issue. There were no Korean Martial arts at the time. Only Koreans doing Japanese arts. The Japanese had basicaly eradicated everything else during their occupation.

OK, fair point - but if he was a senior in a martial art why did he need an honourary grade from GM Son rather than a genuine, tested-for grade?

 

[andyjeffries]

I guess I wasn't clear enough. He makes an anology between Martial Arts techniques, discovering fire, or inventing the wheel. This is far different than being the father or founder of a system.

Do you consider Kano and Funakoshi fathers or founders of Judo, and Shotokan? Can they take credit for creating their systems?

Yes they can, because they had enough seniority in a martial art to be able to make informed decisions regarding technical direction.

Although I don't like Choi Kwang Do (it was very popular in the UK at one time), I have to appreciate and respect GM Choi, Kwang-Jo as he had an earned senior degree in a martial art (in ITF Taekwon-do no less) before founding his own style and changing the techniques of the art.

I feel the same about Hanmudo's founding by GM Kimm, He-Young. He had a very senior degree in Hapkido before founding his own art and changing the techniques.

I'd put Kano, Funakoshi, Choi (Kwang-Jo) and Kimm in one category and Gen Choi in another. He documented an existing art, (arguably) suggested the name - but I don't believe he offered much technical direction except potentially the Sine Wave principle (which I'm not even sure if 100% of ITF practitioners believe works, let alone Kukki-Taekwondoin).

 

[andyjeffries]

Why? What GM Lee was doing was not TKD but a forrunner of TKD. His technical contant was almost indistinguishable from it's Japanese and Okinawan roots.

Seriously? Taking your point as absolute, to a lay observer, ITF Taekwon-do is closer to Karate than Kukki-Taekwondo is - and you're using the closeness of an art to Karate as your argument basis here that GM Lee wasn't doing Taekwondo? Has ITF Taekwon-do reverted to Karate-style or has it just not evolved like Kukki-Taekwondo has?

OK, anyway, what all the Korean Grandmasters did was something else before it was named Taekwondo - it was all a forerunner of Taekwondo before it was named Taekwondo then it became Taekwondo.

What works did he author setting forth any standards?

Is that the only way of teaching? By selling books? Or is physically teaching lots of students a better way.

My original instructor (who is now my Grandmaster) always used to complain about people who practiced like they learnt from books - the final position was correct, but how they got there was completely wrong.

I'd much rather have an instructor that went around teaching than published books.

 

[Earl Weiss]

OK, fair point - but if he was a senior in a martial art why did he need an honourary grade from GM Son rather than a genuine, tested-for grade?

It was common at that time in post war Korea where a unification of the arts and Kwnas was happening for people to seek cerification from other kwans. It is not clear wheter Gneral Choi sought the certification or it was awarded to him as a step in trying to unite the Kwans or use his considerable influence to strengthen the CDK.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Yes they can, because they had enough seniority in a martial art to be able to make informed decisions regarding technical direction.

Although I don't like Choi Kwang Do (it was very popular in the UK at one time), I have to appreciate and respect GM Choi, Kwang-Jo as he had an earned senior degree in a martial art (in ITF Taekwon-do no less) before founding his own style and changing the techniques of the art.

I feel the same about Hanmudo's founding by GM Kimm, He-Young. He had a very senior degree in Hapkido before founding his own art and changing the techniques.

I'd put Kano, Funakoshi, Choi (Kwang-Jo) and Kimm in one category and Gen Choi in another. He documented an existing art, (arguably) suggested the name - but I don't believe he offered much technical direction except potentially the Sine Wave principle (which I'm not even sure if 100% of ITF practitioners believe works, let alone Kukki-Taekwondoin).

Your analogy to Choi Kwang Do makes no sense, and destroys your argument which seems to be that General Choi can't be considered founder / father of an art due to lack of experience yet GM Choi Kwang Jo can be considered a founder when his experience was in the system primarily founded by General Choi.

For whatever reason you also ignore reports of General Choi being a Shotokan 2nd Dan (which you may dsagree with but why do you ignore it? ) as well as his considerable and for the the time an unparalleled access to martial Art knowledge thru his recruitmant of Martial art talent to the 29th infantry division.

You can believe what you like, but he did not document an existing art at least not to any extent different than what Kano or Funakoshi did.

If you haven't read his books and compared them to anything else out there, particularly technical details and rationale, then you have nothing more than speculation.

Further, by your reasoning, everything you have said about General Choi would apply equaly, if not more so to Founders of Kukki TKD since so many early practitioners were Chang Hon people.

You make rash generalizations based on limited observation and knowledge.

I have great respect for he Young Kim. I would also state he founded Han Mu Do. But how can you say he is a founder of an art based on his experience in an art which was simply a derivation of Aikido? This would be much less than you claim gneral Choi was responsible for.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Seriously? Taking your point as absolute, to a lay observer, ITF Taekwon-do is closer to Karate than Kukki-Taekwondo is - and you're using the closeness of an art to Karate as your argument basis here that GM Lee wasn't doing Taekwondo? Has ITF Taekwon-do reverted to Karate-style or has it just not evolved like Kukki-Taekwondo has?

OK, anyway, what all the Korean Grandmasters did was something else before it was named Taekwondo - it was all a forerunner of Taekwondo before it was named Taekwondo then it became Taekwondo.



Is that the only way of teaching? By selling books? Or is physically teaching lots of students a better way.

My original instructor (who is now my Grandmaster) always used to complain about people who practiced like they learnt from books - the final position was correct, but how they got there was completely wrong.

I'd much rather have an instructor that went around teaching than published books.

I see your opinion and will defend to the death your right to be wrong.
" it was all a forerunner of Taekwondo before it was named Taekwondo then it became Taekwondo."

I don't think calling Chinese fireworks rockets turned them into spaceships because they were the forrunners of space ships. If you start calling dogs cats they don't later become cats.

You say Kukki TKD has evolved. Some would say devolved.

I am not saying what GM Lee did was close to the art of Karate. It was Karate.

I expected you would disagree so asked for technical distinctions. They are????

I asked for sources concerning GM Lees technical innovations you feel are neccessary to establish a founder vis a vis different than some other art and asked for books he may have written. So far you have provided none but claim he taught "a better way" . What was that?

Have you spoken with any of his direct students? Who? Have oou been on the floor training under them? Who? What did they teach that was different?

Or is this just more beliefs and guesses?

As far as General Choi teaching, he taught hundreds of classes and courses in Dozens of countries.

The technical detail and composition of his early books were significant for the time and later surpassed with the 15 volume encyclopedia abd then CD ROM of a type, now more than ten year later (DVDS) more common now, have very little out there with the same technical content.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I feel the same about Hanmudo's founding by GM Kimm, He-Young. He had a very senior degree in Hapkido before founding his own art and changing the techniques.

.

Would you respect GM Kimm, He-Young's opinion of General Choi?

 

[bluewaveschool]

What about Duk Sung Son's opinion?

 

[andyjeffries]

It was common at that time in post war Korea where a unification of the arts and Kwnas was happening for people to seek cerification from other kwans. It is not clear wheter Gneral Choi sought the certification or it was awarded to him as a step in trying to unite the Kwans or use his considerable influence to strengthen the CDK.

According to GM Son's open letter in the Seoul Shinmun: "NAM Tae Hi asked me to give a dan certificate to 29th Infantry Division commander CHOI Hong Hi". He did definitely ask for another one though "In 1957, Choi insisted that I give him a 6th Dan and sent a certificate he prepared in my name for me to sign. Because Choi and I were sworn brothers, and because my younger brother had a 6th Dan, he wanted one also."

 

[andyjeffries]

Would you respect GM Kimm, He-Young's opinion of General Choi?

I would respect anyone's opinion of anyone else. I respect that you have an opinion of General Choi, based on your own experience and the experiences of people you know/have met.

I personally don't agree that he did as much for the art technically as you do, but that's fine.

It doesn't mean I don't respect your or anyone else's opinion. There's a difference between disagreeing and having no respect for an opinion.

 

[andyjeffries]

I don't think calling Chinese fireworks rockets turned them into spaceships because they were the forrunners of space ships. If you start calling dogs cats they don't later become cats.

This is how evolution works though. Things change little by little and at some point (usually long after the fact, but in Taekwondo's case not so) you say these descendents are X and their predecessers are Y.

Chicken and egg, which came first? I would argue egg for the fact that there were a long line of chicken-like birds, at some point you could say "this bird is a chicken but it's parents were just chicken-like" in which case the egg that the chicken was born from came before the first chicken.

The point is, that Taekwondo is a label applied to the martial art at a particular point in time.

You say Kukki TKD has evolved. Some would say devolved.

I agree! In some ways it has, in others it has evolved.

I am not saying what GM Lee did was close to the art of Karate. It was Karate.

I expected you would disagree so asked for technical distinctions. They are????

I'd be interested in GM Nam's opinion on this - as GM Lee was the technical leader of the Chung Do Kwan when he was training.

<snipped>Or is this just more beliefs and guesses?

This is all my beliefs and understanding from reading about the topic. You have far more access to senior ITF practitioners than I have Kukki-Taekwondo practitioners. There are a number of the Kukki-Taekwondo seniors (and people who regularly talk with them) on the taekwondo-net internet mailing list.

I've happily absorbed the output of their conversations and formed my opinion based upon it. As I said early in this thread, if you make a convincing argument I'm open to changing my opinion - this isn't a religious/faith based battle for me. I have just haven't heard anything convincing yet...

As a reminder, my position always has been the General Choi has been highly useful in Taekwondo's history as a promoter but doesn't deserve the term Founder because I believe a group of martial artists collectively created this art.

As far as General Choi teaching, he taught hundreds of classes and courses in Dozens of countries.

In the early days when the art was being founded?

The technical detail and composition of his early books were significant for the time and later surpassed with the 15 volume encyclopedia abd then CD ROM of a type, now more than ten year later (DVDS) more common now, have very little out there with the same technical content.

I agree - but that doesn't mean that he founded the art, just that he was better at promoting it.

 

[Earl Weiss]

What about Duk Sung Son's opinion?

From a guy who was obvioulsy very jealous for being left out, take it for what it's worth. At the same time ask why he was gone from the CDK right after his advertisement and why one of the 2 guys he booted out replaced him as president (going on to head the WTF) and the other guy apparently never left and is still with the CDK as well.

 

[Earl Weiss]

The point is, that Taekwondo is a label applied to the martial art at a particular point in time.



.

Before an intelligent discussion can take place, first, participants must agree on how relevant terms are defined. I suspect we do not agree on how certain terms are defined.

Please define "The Martial Art" to whcih the labl TKD was applied.

Please define at which point in time this was applied to that art.

While your at it, i am still waiting for an answer to my query as to what technical distinctions GM Lee to provided to a system which he never taught as TKD.

 

[Earl Weiss]

This is all my beliefs and understanding from reading about the topic. You have far more access to senior ITF practitioners than I have Kukki-Taekwondo practitioners. There are a number of the Kukki-Taekwondo seniors (and people who regularly talk with them) on the taekwondo-net internet mailing list.

.

Do these people still promote the 2000 year old TKD idea? Do You?

I think you need to broaden your perspectives. Start with "A Killing Art" It critices both the KKW and General Choi histories. It is not an ITF propoganda piece. It has over 400 footnotes and references.

 

[Earl Weiss]

In the early days when the art was being founded?



quote]

Define early days when the art was being founded and I can give you an answer.

 

[Earl Weiss]

As a reminder, my position always has been the General Choi has been highly useful in Taekwondo's history as a promoter but doesn't deserve the term Founder because I believe a group of martial artists collectively created this art.



.

"I believe a group of martial artists collectively created this art." This is the KKW party line. As it applies to KKW TKD it is most likely very accurate. As it applies to TKD for the 20 years before the KKW was created, not so much.

Buildings are built through collective efforts. But there is usualy a main or single architect. Bill Gates had a lot of help developing the windows operating system Yet he is still the father of Windows. George Washington had a lot of help creating the USA but he is still the father of the country.

It's unfortunate the KKW people chafe at the characterization. If it wasn't for General Choi and those he recruited / converted and influenced to accept and spread a single system, (As the KKW followed this wildly successful plan some 20 years later building on the foundations Gneral Choi created of a network of schools and instructors) you would likely be doing Kung Fu or Karate now.

 

[Earl Weiss]

This is all my beliefs and understanding from reading about the topic. You have far more access to senior ITF practitioners than I have Kukki-Taekwondo practitioners. There are a number of the Kukki-Taekwondo seniors (and people who regularly talk with them) on the taekwondo-net internet mailing list.

You see, therein lies the difference. when I started KKW people were not around promoting there agenda. The KKW did not exist. Later they come along and we have a new story. The first bfg fairy tale was the 2000 year old TKD myth. Then omission of any names from history.

 

[andyjeffries]

Buildings are built through collective efforts. But there is usualy a main or single architect. Bill Gates had a lot of help developing the windows operating system Yet he is still the father of Windows. George Washington had a lot of help creating the USA but he is still the father of the country.

I disagree with the first point, I wouldn't consider Gen Choi to be the chief architect, let alone main or single.

However, this actually makes my position a bit less strict and moves towards yours. It's a good point. While I don't think Gen Choi had as much to do with defining the technical content as you do (and I don't think we'll ever agree on that) I do think that he was the public face, and therefore as deserving the title of Founder as Bill Gates or George Washington.