Kukkiwon restructure

[miguksaram]

Those of us who do not see TKD as the exclusive property of the KKW's policy du jour deny that 'they establish it.' TKD has a wealth of resources from the Kwan and succeeding eras that are built into its hyung sets. That's TKD. The Korean TKD directorate has steadily promoted the defanging of a powerful combat system in favor of an esoteric and artificial martial sport/spectacle; its claim (in denial of TKD's Okinawan/Japanese roots) that because the components of that system originated in Korea, its development and definition is solely Korean, makes about as much sense as the claim that because the first novels were written in English, you have to write something in English or you're not entitled to call it a novel.

Prior to the formation of TKD, all that was taught was Japanese/Okinawan karate. The concept of TKD was developed in Korea. This concept is based off of Kwan leaders knowledge in karate and other areas of martial arts. TKD has since evolved from it roots of a Jap/Oki art into something that is uniquely Korean. Yes, I feel the 2000 year history they put on the website is BS and that they should change it to more exact history.

However that doesn't change the fact that if you are not studying KKW standards or have them in your curriculum, then you are not doing TKD. You are doing some hybrid system that may have been based off of TKD at one time.

The techical content of TKD, its combat resources, is what is summarized in the forms. And any application of that technical content to real combat is TKD, regardless of the KKW's view of those applications. I've seen the most absurd rubbish passed off as bunkai, booh hae, whaever you want to call it, on the KKW website in the past—stuff where the very same cognate applications of identical sequences in Shotokan kata have been shown to be ludicrous by British Combat Association people like Abernethy, Peter Consterdine and Geoff Thompson, people with decades of actual combat experience as bouncers, club security people and the like under their belts. You're saying that because this kind of ludicrous pseudo-application of the content of the hyungs is endorsed and promoted by the KKW, that means that the far more realistic kinds of applications that Stuart Anslow and others have provided are not Taekwondo? And you're saying that that makes sense??

Not at all. Nor did I ever say that what they pass off as bunkai is the real deal. Perhaps, you should read what I am writing more carefully and try not to put your own spin on what I am saying.

Let's follow out your logic here. I've suggested that North Americans would do better to think about what they want their TKD to be, to experiment with it and develop it in various directions—to explore multiple hypotheses about what the best exploitation of its technical content is for combat purposes, with individual schools pursuing different curricula and evolving new approaches in the light of recent work on how the problems posed by street combat can be solved using novel interpretations of the resources in TKD, particularly the forms. And your response is, yeah, well, the ATA sucks. I have the impression you think there's something relevant about that reply. :lol:

I believe my reply was to your long winded post about how we can do a better curriculum in TKD. From what I am understanding you biggest gripe is that KKW-TKD is very watered down and you said we could do better with our own concept of TKD...hince my ATA comment, which to me is much more watered down that KKW-TKD. So yes it does have relevance.

The bottom line is, TKD is what is in its hyungs, the formal patterns that encode its combat techs. And you don't need KKW permission either to work out the optimal application of the strategic and tactical content of those patterns for real self defense, or to call it TKD. By the same token, the KKW's decision to exclude the Pyung-Ahns and marginalize the Palgwes from their curriculum doesn't make those forms any less part of what TKD is, regardless of their historical origins. I note that in your comments in the TKD/bunkai you comment that. Perish forfend that people might actually, already be doing just that—Anslow, O'Neill and an increasing number of others—and calling it TKD; after all, by your lights, it's not really part of TKD till the 'KKW put that into their curriculum'.


Let me turn your own advice back on you: if you want to confine your TKD to what an instrumentality of the Korean government decides TKD should be, for the greater glory of the ROK, by all means do so. Just don't tell the rest of us who are trying to explore and expand the art (based on the technical core embodied in its patterns) in ways that seem practical and useful to us, that we're not doing TKD. We know better, eh?

Ok..I am going to say this one more time. After this I need you to be patient with me as I draw pictures for you.

KKW-TKD DOES NOT DICTATE HOW YOU RUN YOUR SCHOOL. The only thing it dictates is that you meet the basic requirements for certification, which is the curriculum that they set out. You can do what ever the hell you want outside of that. If you want to change the bunkai, then by all means change it. If you want to add different self defense, then by all mean add it. Do whatever, interpret whatever, but just have the bare minimum requirements they are asking for in that curriculum. Outside of that, they could give a crap.

So yes, I think bunkai is lacking in the TKD...so what can do now....hmmmm...let me think....Oh yeah, implement the bunkai into part of my school's curriculum. Again, quit trying to read more into what I am saying. I never said that KKW-TKD was the most effective martial art, nor have I said it was a flalwess orgainzation.

These are just things you like to rant about which, has no relevance in what we are trying to discuss.

 

[miguksaram]

All I know the KKW is in big trouble all they have become is what the founding fathers did not want, a money hungry cyclone of destruction. I am KKW certified which means what exactly nothing because alot of the KKW guys know nothing but WTF style. No SD all sport that is what it hasbecome and will be. Sorry I have been doing it before the KKW back when it was the KTA.

It would be the fault of the instructor for not teaching SD, not the organization. Don't confuse the two. I am KKW certified and my instructor did teach us SD. So is my KKW BB better than yours or the guy who only learned WTF sparring? Not at all. We just learned a different school curriculum. However, the basic KKW curriculum should have been the same.

 

[dancingalone]

I'm glad you placed "elected" in quotes. Pretty much he was put in charge largely due to his military connections. In 1959 he was in charge of the KTA, however, that lasted all of 2 years at most.

You're still skirting the issue. He was the administrative head of the association that unified the kwans. That makes Choi the head of tae kwon do at the time proceeding his departure from Korea. Additionally, I believe General Choi was one of the main proponents of using the name tae kwon do in the first place. Sorry, using antecedent logic the ITF folks have a very good argument that they are the "true" TKD - it's as good a claim if not better than the one you are making for Kukkiwon TKD.

Personally, I think it's all tae kwon do, whether you are ITF, KKW, ATA, or even <gasp> independent.

 

[YoungMan]

The ITF was founded in 1966, and was composed primarily of Chung Do Kwan students. Without Chung Do Kwan, he would have had nothing. Did he contribute the name? Possibly, although opinions vary.
All Choi did was get the Kwans to cooperate. In my book, that does not constitute founding a martial art. That's called being a good leader.

 

[miguksaram]

You're still skirting the issue. He was the administrative head of the association that unified the kwans. That makes Choi the head of tae kwon do at the time proceeding his departure from Korea. Additionally, I believe General Choi was one of the main proponents of using the name tae kwon do in the first place. Sorry, using antecedent logic the ITF folks have a very good argument that they are the "true" TKD - it's as good a claim if not better than the one you are making for Kukkiwon TKD.

Personally, I think it's all tae kwon do, whether you are ITF, KKW, ATA, or even <gasp> independent.

Not skirting the issue. Which particular time leaving Korea are you talking about? When he was stationed in Malaysia or when he was finally kicked out? Let's take a longer look at the history. In 1959, Choi did help put things together, however, in '60/'61 they fell apart. New leadership arose and a second attempt at unification was done. Choi was not the leader at this time, that I can recall.

I can throw a curriculum together of kicks, punches, locks, weapons and throws and I'm going to call it Kuk Sool Won. Does it make it legit?

 

[dancingalone]

Not skirting the issue. Which particular time leaving Korea are you talking about? When he was stationed in Malaysia or when he was finally kicked out? Let's take a longer look at the history. In 1959, Choi did help put things together, however, in '60/'61 they fell apart. New leadership arose and a second attempt at unification was done. Choi was not the leader at this time, that I can recall.

I can throw a curriculum together of kicks, punches, locks, weapons and throws and I'm going to call it Kuk Sool Won. Does it make it legit?

That's another debate altogether if you know anything at all about the history of Kuk Sool Won. Don't want to muddy the waters... LOL.

I don't have my sources here at work to reference, but I'm definitely referring the era immediately before Choi's departure to Canada. I has understood he was still the administrative head at that point, although the disagreements within TKD were fissuring and Choi found his political influence waning with the advent of the new Korean regime.

 

[miguksaram]

That's another debate altogether if you know anything at all about the history of Kuk Sool Won. Don't want to muddy the waters... LOL.

ha.ha.ha.ha..no..no...just trying to make a point.

I don't have my sources here at work to reference, but I'm definitely referring the era immediately before Choi's departure to Canada. I has understood he was still the administrative head at that point, although the disagreements within TKD were fissuring and Choi found his political influence waning with the advent of the new Korean regime.

I know by that time he was already "disowned" by CDK's leader at the time. He was stripped of his honorary 4th dan. By this time however, he had established a foot hold into the military, and was one of the main reasons why many CDK people went with him.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

To a great extent, much of this thread has covered ground quite apart from the troubles that the KKW is experiencing.

Without getting mired by whether or not TKD outside of the KKW is TKD or not, and without getting mired in whether or not Choi is the legitamate founder, I'll say the following:

If you use the term Taekwondo as a generic umbrella term (way of foot and fist or way of kicking and striking), then any kicking and striking art could in theory qualify. Much in the way that karate seems to encompass everything under the sun that doesn't have a weapon attached to it.

If you use the term Taekwondo as a codified martial art with specific strikes, blocks, forms, and sparring rules, then what qualifies as specifically taekwondo is a much narrower field. I have never seen in any of the KKW's literature any statements of exclusivity. Not saying that there aren't any; I just haven't seen them (nor have I specifically looked for them).

Aside from technicality, does it really matter? I ask that in earnest, not rhetorically. From my own perspective, names of arts are a way to identify specific sets of techniques for the purpose of conversation. When I say that I practice taekwondo, everyone on this board knows generally what I mean. If they need clarification, I can say that I practice KKW taekwondo and they'll know more specifically what I mean. If you say that you practice ITF taekwondo, I know more specifically what you mean. Conversation bears out the rest; which ITF you are, or how much curriculum has been added to the base KKW curriculum that I practice. Once those specifics are made known, does the rest really and truly matter?

Lastly, the KKW had as one of its goals to spread taekwondo throughout the world. Whatever criticism one may have of the KKW, it has certainly worked very hard towards achieving this goal. Once you deposit your art on another continent with a foreign culture, that culture will make that art its own and still call it by the art's original name. And not everyone in that foreign culture will remain or even wish to become members of the parent organization. Those who wish to say that any not part of the parent org (in this case, the Kukkiwon) is not practicing the art (in this case, Taekwondo) may certainly do so, but that won't change the fact that those people will still call it taekwondo. And in my opinion they have the right to do so if they wish. Many arts have multiple styles and schools, so I don't see this as a problem.

Anyway, not trying to ruffle any feathers. Thankfully, we humans have no actual feathers to ruffle.

Daniel

 

[miguksaram]

BAH!!! Way to take the fun out CT. ha.ha.ha..

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

BAH!!! Way to take the fun out CT. ha.ha.ha..

Actually, I do think that the subject is worth discussing, but I see it as independent of the Kukkiwon's troubles. Those seem to be related more to corruption issues and a percieved shift in direction of sport taekwondo. I say perceived because I am not sure if it an actual shift, as I have not researched that in any depth. I concern myself less with the Kukkiwon's priorities than I do with the priorities of GM Kim, who is my master. As long as his priorities are on target, I am happy. We do learn the KKW curriculum, plus what he adds to it, so I know that I meet the standards set out by the KKW for a dan rank.

Daniel

 

[terryl965]

It would be the fault of the instructor for not teaching SD, not the organization. Don't confuse the two. I am KKW certified and my instructor did teach us SD. So is my KKW BB better than yours or the guy who only learned WTF sparring? Not at all. We just learned a different school curriculum. However, the basic KKW curriculum should have been the same.

I agree and I teach Sd principle as well, bnut so many school just focus on sport and the general public only see's that KKW stands for Sport.

 

[exile]

I believe my reply was to your long winded post about how we can do a better curriculum in TKD... Ok..I am going to say this one more time. After this I need you to be patient with me as I draw pictures for you.

Sorry to be long-winded, m., but you get so much stuff wrong that it takes a while to get round to it all. And alas, I have a hard time being patient with people who really believe that 'what I tell you three times is true'.

Prior to the formation of TKD, all that was taught was Japanese/Okinawan karate. The concept of TKD was developed in Korea. This concept is based off of Kwan leaders knowledge in karate and other areas of martial arts. TKD has since evolved from it roots of a Jap/Oki art into something that is uniquely Korean. Yes, I feel the 2000 year history they put on the website is BS and that they should change it to more exact history.

However that doesn't change the fact that if you are not studying KKW standards or have them in your curriculum, then you are not doing TKD.

See, the problem is that you keep saying this, over and over, as though sheer repetition made it true. I can't figure out why. The name Taekwondo was adopted in 1955 at the suggestion of either Gen. Choi or Song Duk Son and adopted by a number of kwan leaders. The KKW came into existence 17 years later, during which time people were doing various versions of something they agreed was 'Taekwondo'. What happened to that nearly two decades when TKD happily existed without benefit of KKW's approval? Yes, the KKW party line is, we get to define TKD, and all you're doing is repeating that party line. You're also saying that what the ITF people are doing isn't TKD either, simply because, in effect, Gen. Choi fell from favor and the Korean government assumed proprietary control of the 'TKD' brand. Say it all you like, but that doesn't make it true.

You are doing some hybrid system that may have been based off of TKD at one time.

Oh yes, the technical set of the Song Moo Kwan is some 'hybrid system that may hve been based off of TKD at one time'. :lol: See, you're just giving us more of the same. If it was based 'off of TKD at one time', but is now not TKD (as you assure us it isn't) that has to be because... well, because the KKW says it's not. Again, back to your starting position&#8212;the KKW gets to define what is TKD because, well, the KKW gets to define what is TKD. That's all you've got, in the end.

Not at all. Nor did I ever say that what they pass off as bunkai is the real deal. Perhaps, you should read what I am writing more carefully and try not to put your own spin on what I am saying.

I have read what you're saying, m, as carefully as it deserves, but it's not all that complicated. You're saying that TKD is exactly what the KKW says it is. You're also acknowledging here that their nonsensical bunkai is not the, ah, 'real deal'. The 4 we get from putting your own 2 + 2 together is that the one organization that gets to define what TKD is pushes SD applications that are not the real deal. That's my spin? Since we agree on that, the question is, why not develop TKD in a direction where its self-defense component is the real deal, and leave behind an organization that clearly has no interest in realistic SD applications? And now I suppose we'll start being scolded about hybrid systems that are not TKD again.

From what I am understanding you biggest gripe is that KKW-TKD is very watered down and you said we could do better with our own concept of TKD...hince my ATA comment, which to me is much more watered down that KKW-TKD. So yes it does have relevance.

You can say it's relevant all you want, but since neither I nor anyone else in any of these discussion has, so far as I know, ever used the ATA as an example of a successful experiment, it isn't relevant. Red herrings aren't, as a rule.

KKW-TKD DOES NOT DICTATE HOW YOU RUN YOUR SCHOOL.

... just as this isn't relevant. No one said they did.

The only thing it dictates is that you meet the basic requirements for certification, which is the curriculum that they set out. You can do what ever the hell you want outside of that. If you want to change the bunkai, then by all means change it. If you want to add different self defense, then by all mean add it. Do whatever, interpret whatever, but just have the bare minimum requirements they are asking for in that curriculum. Outside of that, they could give a crap.

Based on what you've already said, plus this lot, this is what we get: follow the KKW curriculum or what you're doing isn't Taekwondo. Not: '... isn't the TKD as the KKW sees it', but not TKD, period. As to why not following the KKW curriculum means it's not TKD, you're still reciting as a mantra one of the points that's under discussion and has yet to be given even a weak defense. If TKD is a skill set, rather than the KKW's property, why the hell should anyone have to follow a Korean government organization's checklist in order to be doing TKD? So what makes it the KKW's property??

So yes, I think bunkai is lacking in the TKD...so what can do now....hmmmm...let me think....Oh yeah, implement the bunkai into part of my school's curriculum. Again, quit trying to read more into what I am saying. I never said that KKW-TKD was the most effective martial art, nor have I said it was a flalwess orgainzation.

Who said you did? You try rereading what I said, now. I said that there was no particular reason why North Americans (or anyone else, really) needed to take KKW doctrines as a given, whether about curriculum, the history of TKD or anything else; that what's in our interest and what's in their interest are totally different things. TKD isn't a brand name the KKW owns. A TKD curriculum based completely on bunkai applications, the way Abernethy and Co., or Bill Burgar, or Patrick McCarthy, have built complete karate curricula around Shotokan and other bunkai applications, won't have anything in common with the KKW curriculum, and by your lights, that's not TKD. Suppose the JKA tried to enforce a standard curriculum that you had to follow or 'you weren't doing karate'? Right away, what the BCA karate instructors are teaching isn't karate&#8212;because the JKA was saying so??

These are just things you like to rant about which, has no relevance in what we are trying to discuss.

Well, interestingly enough, at least a few well-informed TKD people did find it relevant, m. The issue was what would happen to the KKW as a result of the muck it's been rolling around in. Here and elsewhere, people have expressed the view that if bad stuff happens to the KKW, that doesn't necessarily have to be bad for TKD here. What I said was exactly on that point. Twin Fist says, the KKW way or the highway irks him no end, you tell him to stay away from the martial arts. Someone suggests you can have TKD without the KKW, you tell them the KKW is TKD, so don't you dare say you're doing the second unless you're with the first. And on and on... anyone else see a pattern here?

Those who wish to say that any not part of the parent org (in this case, the Kukkiwon) is not practicing the art (in this case, Taekwondo) may certainly do so, but that won't change the fact that those people will still call it taekwondo. And in my opinion they have the right to do so if they wish. Many arts have multiple styles and schools, so I don't see this as a problem.

QFT.

 

[miguksaram]

I have read what you're saying, m, as carefully as it deserves, but it's not all that complicated. You're saying that TKD is exactly what the KKW says it is. You're also acknowledging here that their nonsensical bunkai is not the, ah, 'real deal'. The 4 we get from putting your own 2 + 2 together is that the one organization that gets to define what TKD is pushes SD applications that are not the real deal. That's my spin? Since we agree on that, the question is, why not develop TKD in a direction where its self-defense component is the real deal? And now I suppose we'll start being scolded about hybrid systems that are not TKD again.

Person A - I do TKD

Person B - Cool can you help me learn the Taeguk form 8?

Person A - No.. we don't do any of those forms, our instructor made up his own forms and our techniques a mixed in with some kung fu he learned and we use Japanese terminology from the shotokan training he did before, but since our instructor has his black belt in TKD, that is the system that he teaches.

Am I the only person who finds this ridiculous?

What I am saying is that KKW sets a core curriculum for the TKD community to adhere to in order to maintain a basic unified art. Outside of the curriculum all schools are not created equal.

For those people who don't want to follow that core curriculum, that's cool. More power to you. Just don't call it TKD. If you are so apt to get away from the stigma set forth by KKW, then why even call your art TKD?

That whole thing with Bunkai is a moot point. It is not part of the core curriculum, just a their take on the movements of the form. It is not a requirment to be adhere by through out the TKD community. I don't agree with it so I won't implement it. It really is just that simple.

 

[dancingalone]

What I am saying is that KKW sets a core curriculum for the TKD community to adhere to in order to maintain a basic unified art. Outside of the curriculum all schools are not created equal.

Yeah, but who's to say the KKW is the only standard to follow? You're stating that the KKW is the only legitimate source of TKD curricula without making the case for it. What makes the KKW any more qualified or legitimate than the ITF or any other group out there?

I'm really curious where you're coming from with this. It's not like the KKW can claim to be the first in the TKD space. That domain belongs to the kwans and then arguably to the ITF.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

QFT.

I will now show my ignorance by asking what this stands for.

Daniel

 

[bluekey88]

Person A - I do TKD

Person B - Cool can you help me learn the Taeguk form 8?

Person A - No.. we don't do any of those forms, our instructor made up his own forms and our techniques a mixed in with some kung fu he learned and we use Japanese terminology from the shotokan training he did before, but since our instructor has his black belt in TKD, that is the system that he teaches.

Am I the only person who finds this ridiculous?

What I am saying is that KKW sets a core curriculum for the TKD community to adhere to in order to maintain a basic unified art. Outside of the curriculum all schools are not created equal.

For those people who don't want to follow that core curriculum, that's cool. More power to you. Just don't call it TKD. If you are so apt to get away from the stigma set forth by KKW, then why even call your art TKD?

That whole thing with Bunkai is a moot point. It is not part of the core curriculum, just a their take on the movements of the form. It is not a requirment to be adhere by through out the TKD community. I don't agree with it so I won't implement it. It really is just that simple.

Two things. First, in your extreme example...Person B sounds fairly suspect by the standards of ANY art. What if the reply was "No, I can't. We do the Chang H'on forms not the Taeguks?" OR "No, I can't we still practice the Palgwe's and do not do the taeguk forms".

In the former example, that would be the reply from any ITF affiliated school...to my eye, what they do looks very much like TKD. In the latter example, that may be the reply you'd get from a VERY experienced school...pre taeguks...using your criteria, they USED to do TKD, but no longer because they did not take up the Taeguks. I dunno...I don't think that's it.

My second point...the kukkiwon curriculum to my eye really isn't much of a curriculum. Basically, to be a black belt you need to know the 8 taeguks and do slome beraking and sparring. Sure, most schools include a certain amount of breaking, self-defense, and sparring...Kukkiwon is leaving a lot of what most of us consider to be core features of the art up to the interpretation of individual teachers. Why? Furthermore, what they do claim as their curriculum they don't police very well. I've been to enough tournamnets to tell you that people do the taeguks in a myriad of ways...all claiming theirs is the RIGHT way to perform the poomse. No mention of what the breaking need consists of , nor the sparring.

In the end, if the Kukkiwon really wnats to be a hub for promotion and betterment of Taekwondo, they can do a heck of alot better than they are doing now.

Peace,
Erik

 

[dancingalone]

I will now show my ignorance by asking what this stands for.

Daniel

I don't think Exile means Quantum Field Theory, so I'll go with Quoted For Truth.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I don't think Exile means Quantum Field Theory, so I'll go with Quoted For Truth.

I freely admit to being acronym challenged.

Daniel

 

[exile]

Person A - I do TKD

Person B - Cool can you help me learn the Taeguk form 8?

Person A - No.. we don't do any of those forms, our instructor made up his own forms and our techniques a mixed in with some kung fu he learned and we use Japanese terminology from the shotokan training he did before, but since our instructor has his black belt in TKD, that is the system that he teaches.

Am I the only person who finds this ridiculous?

No, m., I at least also find it ridiculous. What I don't understand&#8212;and I mean this completely seriously&#8212;is what connection this conversation between A and B has to anything I've been saying. My TKD comes in a straight SMK lineage from Byung Jik Ro, who was as they say present at the creation. The SMK is arguably the oldest Kwan, certainly one of the oldest, and what I learned is essentially the same skill set BJR developed throughout the forties and fifties and taught to his senior students, one of whom taught it to my instructor's instructor. We do the Kichos, Palgwes and a number of the old Korean hyungs, including a number of Koreanized katas, like Rohai and Empi, that Joon Pye Choi introduced into the SMK curriculum in the 1960s. Why on earth would you think that any of what I've been saying corresponds to what A says?

What I am saying is that KKW sets a core curriculum for the TKD community to adhere to in order to maintain a basic unified art. Outside of the curriculum all schools are not created equal.

I think Celtic Tiger's point in my previous posts speaks to this statement exactly. Is Okinawan karate or Fukien White Crane a 'basic unified art', institutionally speaking? What legitimacy does the KKW have for this imposed 'unity'? Its role in certifying the ranks that the WTF accepts is all very cozy, but what legitimate authority does it have to define TKD?

For those people who don't want to follow that core curriculum, that's cool. More power to you. Just don't call it TKD.

Why not? What makes it not&#8211;TKD? I'm just baffled. The stuff I was describing was part of the TKD curriculum, as maintained in the SMK, for a decade or more before the KKW existed. What gives it retroactive rights to declare all of that material an 'unperson'? This again is just another insistance that only the KKW gets to define what TKD is. What makes that true??

If you are so apt to get away from the stigma set forth by KKW, then why even call your art TKD?

See above. What I learn and teach was TKD before there was a KKW.

That whole thing with Bunkai is a moot point. It is not part of the core curriculum, just a their take on the movements of the form. It is not a requirment to be adhere by through out the TKD community. I don't agree with it so I won't implement it. It really is just that simple.

If you take a careful, pressure-tested approach to bunkai and use it as the basis of your curriculum, why is the result necessarily not TKD, just because the KKW has a totally different curriculum? My question about a bunkai-based curriculum in karate, as vs. any hypothetical JKA official curriculum, still stands. If you use a totally different curriculum based on the idea that your MA is a combat technique set designed to be effective in real fights, and build your curriculum around that, where your basic components, kicking techs and so on are all standard TKD, why is the result not TKD, just because the KKW has a very different take on what the point of TKD is?

I don't think Exile means Quantum Field Theory, so I'll go with Quoted For Truth.

Yup, exactly. I think CT hit the nail dead center.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

My second point...the kukkiwon curriculum to my eye really isn't much of a curriculum. Basically, to be a black belt you need to know the 8 taeguks and do slome beraking and sparring. Sure, most schools include a certain amount of breaking, self-defense, and sparring...Kukkiwon is leaving a lot of what most of us consider to be core features of the art up to the interpretation of individual teachers. Why? Furthermore, what they do claim as their curriculum they don't police very well. I've been to enough tournamnets to tell you that people do the taeguks in a myriad of ways...all claiming theirs is the RIGHT way to perform the poomse. No mention of what the breaking need consists of , nor the sparring.

In the end, if the Kukkiwon really wnats to be a hub for promotion and betterment of Taekwondo, they can do a heck of alot better than they are doing now.

Peace,
Erik

This is really the biggest shortcoming of the Kukkiwon. I do feel that with the notion of portable rank should also be a well policed and more articulated curriculum. Not bashing the KKW; I am a KKW practitioner. But this is a legitamate shortcoming. Not one that cannot be overcome.

Daniel