Not worth your time...

[astrobiologist]

I hope this isn't in too bad of taste. I'm not trying to be overly disrespectful or start a fight, but I just wanted to make a point here. I bought this book some years back called "Tang Soo Do" by Kang Uk Lee. Here's the cover.


http://images.booksamillion.com/covers/bam/0/86/568/170/0865681708.jpg

Does anyone here seriously consider this to be an application of the knife-hand technique? I mean, really? If someone were to ask me what they could do should someone try to kick them (with a front kick without using their hips properly, no less), I think one of the last things I might tell them to do is deflect the kick with a knife hand block in back stance but bring your rear hand into the knife hand at your chest as well just for style points. I mean, I guess maybe they just wanted to get a picture of the TSD knife hand for the cover, but ehy then have the kicker there? To highlight two techniques? If so, then why make it look like he's trying to use the knife hand in defense of the kick?

I read this book forever ago and used it for re-learning my forms when I was rusty. Now that I've learnt so much about the history of MA and TSD and I've really begun an examination of TSD hyung and techniques this book just seems like a waste of time. I know that's a harsh critique, but there's no way to sugarcoat it. For a book that claims to be 'the ultimate guide to the Korean martial art' it lacks in just about every category...

Thoughts?

 

[JWLuiza]

I found the book to be quite "average". The picture was probably staged and not a true application (I hope). But I don't think good applications are found in many TSD books. It's like the people who say Pyung Ahn Ee dan's opening is blocking two punches.... or the jump in Pyung Ahn O Dan is jumping over a bong staff.

HA!

 

[exile]

I have the same book, Astro, in a later edition with a fashionably blurry version of the same photo on the cover as you have in an unmutated version (doesn't look quite so lame in the blurred version, I suppose ).

The photos inside are grainy and unclear, there is absolutely no discussion of SD applications, and the same tired, utterly bogus, long discredited 'physical evidence' for ancient TSD is given that the WTF/KKW has pushed for 'ancient' (= Three Kingdoms era) TKD. I agree, the thing as a whole is a bit of a disappointment (although my mania for collecting reference sources for the MAs would probably lead me to buy it again if I ever lost this copy—the problem is, there just isn't that much published about TSD on a monograph scale). We need maunakunu to get that danged book of his started, and then finished!

 

[MBuzzy]

I also own the book - both versions actually.

Just to defend the "other side" here. I have found the book useful. I wouldn't say invaluable...but useful. You have to remember that when this was published, it was one of the very few TSD references and probably the first to be very widely and publicly available. For me, it had the forms and the movements that I needed. Going back now, years later, I see that much of the history and techniques may not be the best or the most accurate, but look at the audience this is indented for....

This book was not written for the 20 year martial artists or for the people who are in search of the truth, true history, etc. It was written for people in Lee, Kang Uk's organization to have a quick reference to the things that HIS ORGANIZATION required. Granted, he does say that it is the Ultimate guide....but so does everyone else, so I won't fault him for that.

As for the picture on the front....I guarantee that someone with a Dan Bon of 70 isn't kidding himself into thinking that a formal knife hand block is the way to go about defending a front kick....but again, look at the audience. Also, if you were writing a TSD reference manual for beginning members and lower gups - or to make publicly available (i.e. have shelf appeal), would you pick two cool looking "representative" movements and throw them together, or would you pick an Abernathy style complex application that the average practitioner won't be exposed to for years, let alone be able to figure out on their own right away...or from a book. Again...audience. Honestly, if I was selling a book and trying to make money, I'd target the non educated MA audience, not the half of a percent who care enough to research of the few percent who actually do have some knowledge and training.

Also - go ahead, TRY to tell me that you have never picked up a book like this to rememeber "that pesky move in that form you havent' done for a few months."

I could go on here, but let's be honest. All the older Koreans made up their version of history. Very few MA textbooks or references have the kind of stuff that we're talking about (If you doubt that, do an Amazon search for Tae Kwon Do or visit a bookstore and look at their selection of TKD versions of this book). And lastly....not to put too fine a point on it, but we're not who he was trying to sell the book to.....So Lee, Kang Uk probably doesn't really care about our opinions of it as he counts his stacks upon stacks of thousands that he's made off of this book.

 

[MBuzzy]

oh, just to throw this in....I'm not saying that I fully agree with how the book is written or presented or that I think it is great - just being devil's advocate.

(Plus, the book has a special place in my heart, since it was my first reference when I got back into TSD after a years long hiatus.)

 

[DMcHenry]

Maybe it's an outside/inside crescent kick??

I agree with MBuzzy - not the best book, but at the time it was published it was a basic cheep reference book on TSD when there was very little to choose from (that wasn't $95). I had mine delivered for about $12.

 

[MBuzzy]

Maybe it's an outside/inside crescent kick??

Could be...I still wouldn't block it like that! Although, I don't think that I'd EVER do a formal knife hand in a real SD situation. And I'm sure that Lee, Kang Uk knows that too.

I agree with MBuzzy - not the best book, but at the time it was published it was a basic cheep reference book on TSD when there was very little to choose from (that wasn't $95). I had mine delivered for about $12.

And it is STILL a good low price quick reference book. I will always keep it on the shelf for when I need a quick reminder of something. There really isn't that much else on the market in a comparable price category. Not not much else, I mean nothing.

 

[clfsean]

Just to throw in a different perspective on the picture.

Unless I'm seeing it wrong, he's making contact with the leg with his forearm, not his hand. I'm in 100% agreement that I'd never do that either. It's a really good way to draw back a busted hand. BUT... to my point, he's making contact with his forearm. In CMA (where TSD claims a degree of roots if I'm not mistaken), we would call that "bridging". We tend to not make force on force contact with that because it doesn't matter what the technique is, 9 out of 10 times, the leg wins handily. Ask Frank Shamrock about trying that with Cung Le. With a "bridging" motion, rather than trying to stop it or forcefully move it, the bridge allows deflection & contact to enter the opponent & control their center or move the kick off it's intended target (me) and control the leg, again taking control of their balance & ultimately, their center.

With a front kick (in the pic)thrown that high, my first instinct is to bridge & enter, get into his personal space, offset balance & strike all at the same moment.

I know this is staged for the pic, but there's a possible other aspect he's addressing without necessarily "addressing" the masses.

 

[MBuzzy]

Just to throw in a different perspective on the picture.

Unless I'm seeing it wrong, he's making contact with the leg with his forearm, not his hand. I'm in 100% agreement that I'd never do that either. It's a really good way to draw back a busted hand. BUT... to my point, he's making contact with his forearm. In CMA (where TSD claims a degree of roots if I'm not mistaken), we would call that "bridging". We tend to not make force on force contact with that because it doesn't matter what the technique is, 9 out of 10 times, the leg wins handily. Ask Frank Shamrock about trying that with Cung Le. With a "bridging" motion, rather than trying to stop it or forcefully move it, the bridge allows deflection & contact to enter the opponent & control their center or move the kick off it's intended target (me) and control the leg, again taking control of their balance & ultimately, their center.

With a front kick (in the pic)thrown that high, my first instinct is to bridge & enter, get into his personal space, offset balance & strike all at the same moment.

I know this is staged for the pic, but there's a possible other aspect he's addressing without necessarily "addressing" the masses.

I see that as a great interpretation and application, but I don't think that it is part of the traditional TSD techniques. TSD is a pretty heavy striking art - more of a block/counter mindset than a block/move in mindset.

Again, the principles that you're talking about are solid principles which I happen to agree with, but in terms of a TSD reference, I doubt that is what he was trying to get to.

 

[astrobiologist]

Thank you all for your comments!

Like I said, I purchased this book for the same reason. I couldn't find another cheap text that had step-by-step images of TSD hyung back when I was just getting back into TSD after a few years hiatus.

I agree with Exile here, I'm excited for Maunakuma's book. TSD needs to continue in its evolution and that means a reconciliation with true history, a movement away from ego and politics, and an open approach to martial arts while maintaining some tradition. I read and hear a lot about how TKD/TSD schools have become over McDojangified, but I really don't think this needs to be the case. I'm proud of my knowledge of TSD. I think that our art has a lot to offer, especially when the instructor's approach is more about a love of martial arts and self-defense and less about money or power.

I hope the upcoming generations of TSD practitioners will have more accurate texts to work with when they're looking for some reference to their style.

 

[MBuzzy]

Astro - I very much agree with you. It will be wonderful when the true history and effective applications catch up to the publishing world.

I do think that books like this are a STEP in the right direction. When I started in the art, there was nothing.....basically it was either "Authentic Tang Soo Do" or Hwang Kee's texts and even until fairly recently, those were hard to get your hands on. We are getting more texts out there, by more people...which mean competition, which means the requirement for BETTER material to succeed. I'm hoping that as TSD grows, we will see more texts, some will be good, some will be crap, but the more that are out there, the higher probability of good stuff.

 

[Montecarlodrag]

I hope this isn't in too bad of taste. I'm not trying to be overly disrespectful or start a fight, but I just wanted to make a point here. I bought this book some years back called "Tang Soo Do" by Kang Uk Lee. Here's the cover.

It seems like a photoshop. The angle of the kick doesn't match and a lot of things don't seem quite right. Maybe the photo was shot in a rush without thinking too much about it.

Some kicks can be blocked and countered, but as I was taught, it's better to get out of the way and let them pass.

 

[exile]

It seems like a photoshop. The angle of the kick doesn't match and a lot of things don't seem quite right. Maybe the photo was shot in a rush without thinking too much about it.

Some kicks can be blocked and countered, but as I was taught, it's better to get out of the way and let them pass.

I know what you mean, M. There was something very odd about the way the figures are positioned in space... as though they were taken from two separate photos and superimposed. But why would anyone bother to do something like that, when it would be so much easier just to get a couple of MAists doing the kind of (fairly unrealistic) kick/block exchange depicted? :idunno:

 

[Makalakumu]

I do not have that book as it is just about the same material that is in Hwang Kee's textbook. For me, the book is a moment in time. It's a picture of what TSD was and of what was handed down. Mbuzzy is right when he says that no body practices it like this. Hardly anyone really takes the hokey applications, the Ill Soo Shik, the Ho Sin Shul, or the bogus history seriously. My teacher calmly brushed all of that aside. My teacher's teacher, a 6th dan in SBD and Regional Examiner to boot, taught it because he was required, and then calmly moved on to material that was effective. This material came from his law enforcement background. My teacher's teacher's teacher taught the material and then folded in material from his wide experience in cross training. When you did a clinic with him, he was teaching several other MA on top of TSD.

The point is this, over the generations in my lineage, TSD has evolved. From teacher to teacher, people have not passed it down exactly as it was laid down in this book. They have made changes and have interpretted it as they saw fit in order to attempt to make what they did handy for self defense. I'll wager that this was the impetus behind the big standardization push in the MDK back in 1986. People were practicing TSD differently all across the country and no one knew what to expect when you went from one MDK dojang to another.

According to my teacher, when the first wave of standardized techniques came down the pipe from the Federation, people were like, "what the hell is this?" Even the old timers were surprised because they had never seen this stuff before. It wasn't the TSD that was taught to them. They lost a lot of members. As more and more stuff came down the pipe, the Kool Aide drinkers rose to the top and began to force out others. Now we've gotten to the point where there are more people outside of the Federation then in it and they are still bleeding membership.

It's all changing before our eyes and that book is just a reflection of a certain point in time.

At the Hawaii Karate Museum they have a book that was written in 1957 about TSD. The curator of the museum says its the very first book penned on TSD. When it's done being scanned and preserved, I'm going to go and take a look because I'm curious to see if what came in later volumes really was what was being taught back then.

 

[Makalakumu]

We need maunakumu to get that danged book of his started, and then finished!

I'm ten chapters in and plan to have a draft with pictures completed by this summer. The photoshoots will be interesting with beautiful mountain and beach back drops.

 

[astrobiologist]

At the Hawaii Karate Museum they have a book that was written in 1957 about TSD. The curator of the museum says its the very first book penned on TSD. When it's done being scanned and preserved, I'm going to go and take a look because I'm curious to see if what came in later volumes really was what was being taught back then.

That sounds awesome! I appreciate your insight into the history of TSD; you've definitely done a lot of research. When you get a chance, share what you see in that book with the rest of us. Thanks!

 

[MBuzzy]

I do not have that book as it is just about the same material that is in Hwang Kee's textbook. For me, the book is a moment in time. It's a picture of what TSD was and of what was handed down. Mbuzzy is right when he says that no body practices it like this. Hardly anyone really takes the hokey applications, the Ill Soo Shik, the Ho Sin Shul, or the bogus history seriously. My teacher calmly brushed all of that aside. My teacher's teacher, a 6th dan in SBD and Regional Examiner to boot, taught it because he was required, and then calmly moved on to material that was effective. This material came from his law enforcement background. My teacher's teacher's teacher taught the material and then folded in material from his wide experience in cross training. When you did a clinic with him, he was teaching several other MA on top of TSD.

The point is this, over the generations in my lineage, TSD has evolved. From teacher to teacher, people have not passed it down exactly as it was laid down in this book. They have made changes and have interpretted it as they saw fit in order to attempt to make what they did handy for self defense. I'll wager that this was the impetus behind the big standardization push in the MDK back in 1986. People were practicing TSD differently all across the country and no one knew what to expect when you went from one MDK dojang to another.

According to my teacher, when the first wave of standardized techniques came down the pipe from the Federation, people were like, "what the hell is this?" Even the old timers were surprised because they had never seen this stuff before. It wasn't the TSD that was taught to them. They lost a lot of members. As more and more stuff came down the pipe, the Kool Aide drinkers rose to the top and began to force out others. Now we've gotten to the point where there are more people outside of the Federation then in it and they are still bleeding membership.

It's all changing before our eyes and that book is just a reflection of a certain point in time.

At the Hawaii Karate Museum they have a book that was written in 1957 about TSD. The curator of the museum says its the very first book penned on TSD. When it's done being scanned and preserved, I'm going to go and take a look because I'm curious to see if what came in later volumes really was what was being taught back then.

All excellent points - and I think that this entire situation grows out of the fact that the book was written (or more likely commissioned) by Dan Bon #70. He is teaching what he knew growing up in the art and passing it down not only how he knows/knew it, but more importantly, how he WANTS it to be done in HIS organization.

I think that the biggest take-away from this book analysis is that ANY MA book that is written, TSD or otherwise, should be read with the understanding that the material contained within is how the Instructor who wrote it wants it done. To others outside the organization, it is nothing more than a quick general reference and a look into the world of another organization.

 

[Gi1]

It's a £15 - £20 book for god sake the price of 3 packets of cigarettes in the UK what more do you want for your money. It's meant more for a reference book for those in his organization. I wonder how many of the people critising actually have real valuable fighting experience and in live or die situations - I know for a fact Grandmaster KU Lee has.

 

[exile]

It's a £15 - £20 book for god sake the price of 3 packets of cigarettes in the UK what more do you want for your money. It's meant more for a reference book for those in his organization.

I have some excellent books in that same price range or less whose technical content, photography and analysis are impeccable—works by Iain Abernethy, Bill Burgar, Geoff Thompson, Lorne Christiansen, Simon O'Neil, Stuart Anslow.... almost every MA book I have is in that price range. So exactly how does what I've bolded in the above quote from your post have any bearing on the criticisms that people have made earlier in this thread? You're saying that, for the equivalent of $30–$40 U.S., don't expect much? That's supposed to be a credible defense??

I wonder how many of the people critising actually have real valuable fighting experience and in live or die situations - I know for a fact Grandmaster KU Lee has.

So what? What does that have to do with the fact that the book includes totally bogus KMA history of the usual fantasy kind; that it has virtual no SD realistic applications, and that the photography is inferior? We're supposed to go by these supposed 'live or die' situations you attribute to the author, rather than what is actually there, eh? Sort of like a international ski racer who knocks out an uninformative books about ski technique—you can't complain about the book because, hey, the guy is a major slalom competitor on the World Cup circuit? Or any number of similar cases where someone with relevant life experience in some domain of activity failed to produce a high-quality publication about that activity?

 

[Gi1]

Like I said it's probably more of a reference book for those within his association, I also this there are some inferior copies out there, I've seen them on ebay etc that do seem to have dodgey pictures. Sorry it sounds like some of you have them. My copy is fine, with clear pictures, it's original. The book should mostly be used when learning hyung away from class but not to replace instruction from a qualified instructor. When establishing the credentials of the author this was aimed at some of the coments along the lines of "I wouldn't do that block there" etc. You're critising probably the highest ranking student left alive of the founder, If we're doing anything differently to what he does then surely thats an addition and a diviation from the original style. I've actually used soo do blocks in real fights not hypothetical fights. I've also used them against people with weapons, always with sucess. It just seems too easy to knock others these days, we should be supporting each other in an Art where there are already too many divisions and too much politics.

Tang Soo