There has, of course, been evolution to Taekwondo recently, but as you ask why we have not seen more evolution, I say it depends on where you look. There are schools, and instructors who are becoming one-dimensional with their focus on sports, or learning a small fraction of what Taekwondo really is, from a poor source, and then lumping that in with other training to claim some enhanced program under "Mixed Martial Art." It is unfortunate that there are not enough thoroughly trained Masters for the majority of students to learn about the complete package of what Taekwondo has to offer all by itself.
I think it is a shame when people begin to identify a Martial Art by its tournament aspect, or by the forms (kata, hyung, poomsae, tul) they use. This is such a small, insignificant portion of the whole Martial Art that I don't see why people get so hung up on trying to "identify" the roots of Korean Taekwondo because the modern use of forms are patterned after something that was done in Karate or elsewhere.
This is the exact kind of misleading statement that keeps each generation of new students (and some of the older ones) believing that Taekwondo came from Japanese Karate. The fact is, post war instructors had been introduced to Japanese Martial Art, and it influenced their training. General Choi, Hong Hi had learned Karate, and much of his own methods of teaching, and his Chang Hon forms were based on that knowledge.
The younger students look to us, the instructors, and senior Masters to teach them. If not, they are foolishly trying to re-invent the wheel in their own life-time. It is fine for them to gain the knowledge of the Masters, and then add modern influences, and adaptations. This is the evolution that keeps any Art alive. The core roots, and scientific principles will never change, but the surface is flexible to fit the circumstances, and changing times.
As long as I have been around Taekwondo, I have never experienced any type of control over what I teach by the Korean Government. Smaller organizations (ATA, ITF, etc.) tend to control what is taught more than the Kukkiwon or Korean Government. Minimum standards only help to set guidelines and prevent low quality certification. Taekwondo instructors, inside Korea as well as out, have always been able to teach whatever they want beyond the basics that are laid out in any curriculum established by the Kukkiwon.
Not to be argumentative with you, exile, because I do respect your opinions, but the passage you quoted does not imply that General Choi was the only source at that time. In fact, quite the opposite! I do acknowledge, and often emphasize, that there where many who contributed to the modern day emergence of the Kwans, what was taught in each of those Kwans, and how it all came together to be labeled as Taekwondo.
What did General Choi say about his training in "taekyon" as a youth in Korea. Did he describe it as a sport, or a game? Did he later claim that he combined his Taekyon kicking with his Japanese hand skills to create Taekwondo. Well, he was not the first to put hand and foot together, but the taekyon was, indeed, Martial Art training.
No, what I was referring to was Korea's "pride" in their National Art, and wanting to set some minimum standards for Black Belt and instructor certification, yet I clearly stated that the neither the government, nor the Kukkiwon, nor the WTF attempts to control what is taught in the classroom (and I have trained and taught in Korea). All an instructor is expected to do is prepare their students to be eligible to promote to each Dan level with the minimum basic requirements. Any instructor worth their weight goes way beyond that with their full curriculum.
Actually, Master Stoker's original question was "why."
Actually, you misquoted me, and misunderstood my meaning. I did not say to preserve the foundations "of" Korean history; I said to preserve the foundations "from" Korean history. The difference being that I am not talking about a history lesson, but finding the core knowledge, and foundations of the Korean Martial Art that existed in history, and preserving the intrinsic nature of the original art. Then, moving forward into modern times, we can evolve the art as needed, without fear of losing the identity of this unique system, the scientific principles and philosophies upon which it was built, yet keeping it effective, fresh, and current for all times.
