Tae-Kwon-Do America ?

I understand that you *think* that is the case, just as I think there's a great chance it might be otherwise. I normally wouldn't bother saying as much, but you did call me out on evidence a bit later down. And I think reasonable people know full well in martial arts, it is unlikely that anyone can prove unchanged intent in virtually anything, unless a full chronological journal or monograph is available from the beginning to the end of the subject, and that just doesn't exist for the Chang Hon patterns to my knowledge.

The intent behind the tul have been the same since at least 1965. You can check the texts like I have (1965 and 1972 textbooks and the 1983 and 1993 encyclopedias). If you familiarize yourself with what Gen. Choi says about patterns it becomes quite apparent that the intent has remained the same over the years, even with the technical changes that have occurred.

Well, I would be interested in seeing your bibliography that gives a full history beginning to finish of the Chang Hon patterns, showing how they have never changed in intent nor execution at all. Such a thing might meet the definition of 'evidence' as I understand it. I don't believe it exists but certainly if you've got it, I'd like to see it.

Why so defensive? I never said anything about the tul not changing in execution. Frankly, I can think of three of them off the top of my head that have changed in execution in the sense that some of the techniques in them were changed over time. But, again, if you know what Gen. Choi says about the purpose of the tul you'll see that the intent has remained the same.

As for my bibliography it's the 1965 textbook, 1972 textbook, 1983 encyclopedia, and 1993 encyclopedia. They were all written by Gen. Choi. I don't know why he would lie about what his intent about the patterns were, though.

I'll readily admit I don't have anything myself that I would be comfortable denoting as evidence. All I have are informal discussions I had in person with some first, second, and third generation students of Jhoon Rhee and Haeng Ung Lee hence why I use the phrase "undercurrent of feeling". I can cite a few of them by PM after I get their permission if you would find their names interesting. I would suspect you would not, but hey I've got them.

Sure, I'd be interested in hearing who they are and what they say. Why wouldn't I be? Post them up here in the thread if you want or send their names and what they said about Gen. Choi's intention to me as a PM. Have you had any discussions with people who studied with Gen. Choi or discussed this topic with him? I've been able to discuss tul with Master Parm Rai, who accompanied Gen. Choi as an assistant for his seminars, and Master Robert Wheatley, who was able to train with Gen. Choi many times while he was training in Ireland. Grand Master Choi, Jung Hwa has mentioned some interesting faccts about how some of the tul developed and changed over time, too.

Pax,

Chris
 
The intent behind the tul have been the same since at least 1965. You can check the texts like I have (1965 and 1972 textbooks and the 1983 and 1993 encyclopedias). If you familiarize yourself with what Gen. Choi says about patterns it becomes quite apparent that the intent has remained the same over the years, even with the technical changes that have occurred.

Chris, c'mon man, you know that when you throw around words like evidence, you probably need a stronger standard than that. If you want to prove unchangeable intent, you need something definitely expository from conception to end. So, we need General Choi's notes, drafts, etc, from at least sometime in the fifties going forward. The whole kaboodle, maybe some old video of the General running the forms with sine wave too, ala Mr. Suska. Maybe even a written statement somewhere where General Choi attests nothing has ever changed about the forms from design, meaning, and execution from its genesis onwards.

Why so defensive? I never said anything about the tul not changing in execution. Frankly, I can think of three of them off the top of my head that have changed in execution in the sense that some of the techniques in them were changed over time. But, again, if you know what Gen. Choi says about the purpose of the tul you'll see that the intent has remained the same.

Ah. I guess I understand now why you emphasized intent. I was conflating execution and intent in my mind and as I can have no issue with what you say above, I frankly don't have much else to say on the matter.

As for my bibliography it's the 1965 textbook, 1972 textbook, 1983 encyclopedia, and 1993 encyclopedia. They were all written by Gen. Choi. I don't know why he would lie about what his intent about the patterns were, though.

See above.


Sure, I'd be interested in hearing who they are and what they say. Why wouldn't I be?

Most are non-famous and their names would mean little to anyone not in their circles of influence.

Post them up here in the thread if you want or send their names and what they said about Gen. Choi's intention to me as a PM.

I'll share a couple right now that I am sure would not mind: Jee Ho Lee and Jerry Kilbourne. The rest would have to come later after I get permission.

Have you had any discussions with people who studied with Gen. Choi or discussed this topic with him?

I don't know if any studied with General Choi whether formally or through brief courses with him. As I said these people are connected with Jhoon Rhee and H.U. Lee in some respect.
 
Chris, c'mon man, you know that when you throw around words like evidence, you probably need a stronger standard than that. If you want to prove unchangeable intent, you need something definitely expository from conception to end. So, we need General Choi's notes, drafts, etc, from at least sometime in the fifties going forward. The whole kaboodle, maybe some old video of the General running the forms with sine wave too, ala Mr. Suska. Maybe even a written statement somewhere where General Choi attests nothing has ever changed about the forms from design, meaning, and execution from its genesis onwards.

A stronger standard than multiple editions of Gen. Choi's written texts, with three out of the four that I mentioned being verbatim the same? No, I don't need a stronger standard than that and to suggest otherwise is befuddling to say the least. Your assertion borders on thinking there was and continues to be some deep, dark conspiracy that Gen. Choi secretly hid his true ideas while repeatedly writing books to promulgate his system. It beggars the imagination. Read the various editions of the books and you can see for yourself that what Gen. Choi says about the intent and purpose of the tul has remained the same.

Video of the tul being executed with knee-spring, which was the designation for sine wave in the 1960s, is online. I've even read an interview with GM Kim, Yong Soo, a very early ITF pioneer who later became involved with the WTF in which he is asked point blank about sine wave being present in the early days (in TKD and Korean Martial Arts). To wit:

TKD-KMA: "Did [Gen. Choi] teach or mention sine wave at this time (late 1960s)?"

Kim Yong soo: "Yes. But in the beginning many instructors resisted change. However, Gen. Choi explained sine wave to us this way: 'For a car to have speed it uses a suspension, which enables it to go faster.' This, he said, was the same movement as sine wave. In the beginning not many could understand this theory, but later many approved. Also, to execute an attack you needed a slight movement, but not to telegraph an attack - this slight movement came with moving the knee up and down (knee spring) this helped develop speed in the attack
"I had a lot of doubt and question at this time. Like everyone else my body and mind were somewhat conditioned to the earlier way of practice, but as I listened more and more, and followed Gen. Choi's advice I began to feel more comfortable with the movements and could see the scientific implications of his teachings."

As a personal aside, GM Kim is absolutely correct about the effect sine wave has on speed when performed correctly.

Most are non-famous and their names would mean little to anyone not in their circles of influence.

I'll share a couple right now that I am sure would not mind: Jee Ho Lee and Jerry Kilbourne. The rest would have to come later after I get permission.

I don't know if any studied with General Choi whether formally or through brief courses with him. As I said these people are connected with Jhoon Rhee and H.U. Lee in some respect.

IIRC, Jee Ho Lee is one of H.U. Lee's brothers. Is that right? I am not aware of who Mr. Kilbourne is but I assume he's affiliated with Jhoon Rhee (or was at one point) since you mentioned both H.U. Lee and Jhoon Rhee in your last post. I'd be very interested, however, in hearing what they have to say about their thoughts on what Gen. Choi said and their training time with him.

While I know H.U. Lee did attend at least one course with Gen. Choi I don't know how extensive his training with him was or if any of his brothers had the chance to train with Gen. Choi. Nor do I know how much Jhoon Rhee actually trained with Gen. Choi. But if we're talking about knowing Gen. Choi's intent it would be helpful to get information from people who had a lot of training time in with him, as opposed to people who had little or none and relying on "feelings" about things. Otherwise we start sounding like the KKW folks who periodically argue about whether or not things have "changed" according to the KKW when, in fact, it was most likely their instructors who weren't in line with the KKW standard.

Pax,

Chris
 
you guys do understand that your academic analysis of the merit and value of the different variations of the General's forms are not exactly helping in this matter?

I do believe it does not matter a thing how the General did his forms in the 50s when somebody is looking for instruction in the present.

Taekwondo America......
 
A stronger standard than multiple editions of Gen. Choi's written texts, with three out of the four that I mentioned being verbatim the same? No, I don't need a stronger standard than that and to suggest otherwise is befuddling to say the least.

Befuddling? Not at all. If you want to say *any* intent from *any* of the 25 forms has always been the same from inception until General Choi's death, I'd say that's a heavy burden that needs to be backed up with far more than just citing his books. To back that up, you'd need to know General Choi's mind for the span of decades which is of course impossible. In fact, I could make a decent argument that the transition from Ko Dang to Juche is sufficient exhibit all by itself that the general's intentions changed over time in at least one aspect of the forms. What befuddles me is the certainty with which you declare your position on a subject that no one other than General Choi could rightly know the true answer.

In any case, since you acknowledge that execution of the forms in general have changed, my main point of contention is satisfied since really that has been my objection about the view expressed about the forms, that General Choi's last set of instructions is the only correct way to perform them.

Your assertion borders on thinking there was and continues to be some deep, dark conspiracy that Gen. Choi secretly hid his true ideas while repeatedly writing books to promulgate his system. It beggars the imagination. Read the various editions of the books and you can see for yourself that what Gen. Choi says about the intent and purpose of the tul has remained the same.

Rather than accuse me of thinking there is a conspiracy, just read my prior posts on this thread. It's been pretty simple: I state that Jhoon Rhee among others learned these forms and taught them a certain way, to an extent PRE-DATING all these books you cite later on. So thus, he (and by extension his 'progeny') can't by definition miss something that perhaps didn't exist at the time, or at the most, existed only through direct transmission from General Choi or another trusted lieutenant. So no, the current ITF standard for these forms do not apply to everyone, and no, people who follow another standard do not necessarily do them wrong, nor are they 'missing' anything. They are simply practicing another style of TKD than your own, even if they nominally use the same forms. So partially knowing the history of how these forms came into my lineage and having talked to multiple people from multiple cultural and lineal backgrounds ... sorry I'm not convinced that everything unfolded exactly according a unchanging master blueprint, perfect from conception with no need for modification and amendment over time. Nah. I've had a successful career in and outside of martial arts - I know how organizations and plans grow and transition to match new needs and even serendipity as they arise. And I know how often things change just because...

I'll try to respond a bit more to the rest of your post in a day or two. Too sleepy right to write any more.
 
Last edited:
you guys do understand that your academic analysis of the merit and value of the different variations of the General's forms are not exactly helping in this matter?

I do believe it does not matter a thing how the General did his forms in the 50s when somebody is looking for instruction in the present.

Taekwondo America......


<shrugs> Never have been good at staying on topic. I hope anyone that has lasted through all five pages of this thread found it interesting anyway, otherwise I would question why on earth are they doing reading it anyway.
 
<shrugs> Never have been good at staying on topic. I hope anyone that has lasted through all five pages of this thread found it interesting anyway, otherwise I would question why on earth are they doing reading it anyway.

I am sure somebody found it interesting....personally, my eyes glazed over after a rather short while and I skipped to the bottom.

:angel:
 
Chris, c'mon man, you know that when you throw around words like evidence, you probably need a stronger standard than that. If you want to prove unchangeable intent, you need something definitely expository from conception to end. So, we need General Choi's notes, drafts, etc, from at least sometime in the fifties going forward. The whole kaboodle, maybe some old video of the General running the forms with sine wave too, ala Mr. Suska. Maybe even a written statement somewhere where General Choi attests nothing has ever changed about the forms from design, meaning, and execution from its genesis onwards.



.
Your kidding, right? If a book has a copyright / publication date of 1965 it was obviously started well before that. The first 20 forms weren't even completed until the late 1950's. So, it is not really possible to go back much further. There was the manual from the 1950's, but have not seen it and from all reports the info was nominal.
 
Chri



I don't know if any studied with General Choi whether formally or through brief courses with him. As I said these people are connected with Jhoon Rhee and H.U. Lee in some respect.

Explains a lot. Jhoon Rhee and HU Lee were both Chung Do Kwan guys and you can see how theri their CDK habits altered the standard. I can see this because my own lineage went back thru Han Cha Kyo and can see it in his progeny as well. Same with he Il Cho progeny.
 
you guys do understand that your academic analysis of the merit and value of the different variations of the General's forms are not exactly helping in this matter?
.....

I think the above misses the point of the discussion. "Merit" will vary with opinion and perhaps with the circumstances. The issue is about standard for a technique, and the merit of widely accepted standard. (People are free to opine that there is no merit to a widely standard). Whether standards exist in a system, and wheter they changed as some claim or whether people just screwed up and claimed that they did it the way it was originaly taught by General Choi as an excuse for a mistake. Case in Point. A while back Twin Fist had a thread entilted something like "Friggin' Se Jong" After noting the form turned in a direction un,ike any of General Choi's texts he indicated it was like that in one of He Il Cho's books. I asked Twin Fist if he ever asked any of the Seniors about this discrepancy (As we know books can and do have errors, even General Choi's which he confirmed) Twin Fist took great offense to the suggestion that "He question his Seniors" . I for one felt that asking a question was not out of line if done respectfully. I e-mailed He Il Cho and asked if the discrepancy was due to a chnage he made or some editing / publication error. I got a responce from "Jasmine Cho" who stated that the books reflected the patterns as originaly taught. I responded by pointing out that the books going back thru 1965 which pre dated GM Cho's books were all the same and asked again if she could determine if it were a change or editing / publication error. I did not get a response.
 
Last edited:
Rather than accuse me of thinking there is a conspiracy, just read my prior posts on this thread. It's been pretty simple: I state that Jhoon Rhee among others learned these forms and taught them a certain way, to an extent PRE-DATING all these books you cite later on. So thus, he (and by extension his 'progeny') can't by definition miss something that perhaps didn't exist at the time, or at the most, existed only through direct transmission from General Choi or another trusted lieutenant. .
The most widely accepted story is that Jhoon Rhee spent a weekend in Texas learning the patterns. That was the early 1960's meaning he had been training about 10 years as a CDK guy. I went to my first course with General Choi in 1990. I had been training 18 years and had already learned the 20 forms and had General Choi's book. The course was a week long and I wrote down 150 things I needed to fix. By the second course I only wroted down 125 things to fix. So, I find it extremely unlikely Jhoon Ree learned everything and got everything down correctly, changing all his old habits in a weekend.
 
Your kidding, right? If a book has a copyright / publication date of 1965 it was obviously started well before that. The first 20 forms weren't even completed until the late 1950's. So, it is not really possible to go back much further. There was the manual from the 1950's, but have not seen it and from all reports the info was nominal.

If one wishes to argue that something has never changed from start to finish, it's reasonable to ask for supporting documentation from the same time span to substantiate the claim. A publication date indicates a finished milestone of some type and not the germination or formulation phase which is conspicuously missing here. It may be impossible to provide, but I've stated it is likewise impossible for anyone to know General Choi's complete longitudinal thought process on this other than himself.
 
The most widely accepted story is that Jhoon Rhee spent a weekend in Texas learning the patterns.

From a manual most likely at that.

That was the early 1960's meaning he had been training about 10 years as a CDK guy.

A little longer than 10 years if it is correct that he began training at age 13.

I went to my first course with General Choi in 1990. I had been training 18 years and had already learned the 20 forms and had General Choi's book. The course was a week long and I wrote down 150 things I needed to fix. By the second course I only wroted down 125 things to fix. So, I find it extremely unlikely Jhoon Ree learned everything and got everything down correctly, changing all his old habits in a weekend.

Exactly. Where we differ on this subject is whether or not the means Jhoon Rhee learned the forms even had any substantial part of what survives as the current ITF standard today. Of course my contention is that you can't miss what you never had. If you want to say that Jhoon Rhee TKD is an evolved expression of Chung Do Kwan karate/TKD, I'd have no issue with that. Where I disagree is if someone takes it a further step and asserts that the Jhoon Rhee people are 'missing' anything. No way. They are simply practicing their own style.
 
Explains a lot. Jhoon Rhee and HU Lee were both Chung Do Kwan guys and you can see how theri their CDK habits altered the standard. I can see this because my own lineage went back thru Han Cha Kyo and can see it in his progeny as well. Same with he Il Cho progeny.

There's an awful lot of people in the same boat then. The Chung Do Kwan supplied the bulk of the early TKD instructors and practitioners.
 
Befuddling? Not at all. If you want to say *any* intent from *any* of the 25 forms has always been the same from inception until General Choi's death, I'd say that's a heavy burden that needs to be backed up with far more than just citing his books. To back that up, you'd need to know General Choi's mind for the span of decades which is of course impossible. In fact, I could make a decent argument that the transition from Ko Dang to Juche is sufficient exhibit all by itself that the general's intentions changed over time in at least one aspect of the forms. What befuddles me is the certainty with which you declare your position on a subject that no one other than General Choi could rightly know the true answer.

It is absolutely befuddling. I've pointed out that all of the information we have from Gen. Choi on the subject is the same each time it is published (which was often). It changed slightly in wording between 1965 and 1972 and from 1972 until his death in 2002 was the same, verbatim, in every edition of his textbooks.

The switch from Ko-Dang to Ju-Che doesn't effect the intention Gen. Choi had for the tul at all. Your assertion that you could "make a decent argument" to the contrary simply means you don't know what his intentions were, despite apparently knowing the patterns themselves and perhaps having access to some or many of Gen. Choi's books wherein he lays out the information quite clearly. In light of the statements you've made about the "feeling" people on "your side" get about the change in intention I am not really surprised, however. I think it may be probable that neither you nor the instructors you mentioned familiarized yourself with Gen. Choi's teachings on the subject in the first place. I could be wrong about that but if you did you would certainly have seen that his position hasn't changed since the 1965 textbook. If you want to argue that it was different before then you could get a hold of a copy of the 1959 textbook, I suppose. But since that seems unlikely I really have to wonder why you're so adamant in the face of all the evidence, which is against you in every instance. In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that I know of which points to a change in the General's thinking here. Of you know of any please, by all means, produce it. I would be interested in seeing it if for no other reason than historical interest.

In any case, since you acknowledge that execution of the forms in general have changed, my main point of contention is satisfied since really that has been my objection about the view expressed about the forms, that General Choi's last set of instructions is the only correct way to perform them.

But that's not really the same thing as the intention behind the tul. FWIW, however, I'm pretty comfortable with saying that the man who designed the pattern has the last word on how they should be performed. In other words, of course there's one correct way to perform them. I'm also pretty comfortable saying if people don't perform them correctly it's no skin off my nose. Or theirs, unless they want to join the ITF. You could say, for instance, that there is, or was, an ATA method of performing the Chang Hun tul. But I'd be very hesitant in saying it was the correct way of doing so. But that's just me and doesn't really touch on the topic of intention.

Rather than accuse me of thinking there is a conspiracy, just read my prior posts on this thread. It's been pretty simple: I state that Jhoon Rhee among others learned these forms and taught them a certain way, to an extent PRE-DATING all these books you cite later on. So thus, he (and by extension his 'progeny') can't by definition miss something that perhaps didn't exist at the time, or at the most, existed only through direct transmission from General Choi or another trusted lieutenant. So no, the current ITF standard for these forms do not apply to everyone, and no, people who follow another standard do not necessarily do them wrong, nor are they 'missing' anything. They are simply practicing another style of TKD than your own, even if they nominally use the same forms. So partially knowing the history of how these forms came into my lineage and having talked to multiple people from multiple cultural and lineal backgrounds ... sorry I'm not convinced that everything unfolded exactly according a unchanging master blueprint, perfect from conception with no need for modification and amendment over time. Nah. I've had a successful career in and outside of martial arts - I know how organizations and plans grow and transition to match new needs and even serendipity as they arise. And I know how often things change just because...

Oh, come on. Now you're just fooling with me. You're conflating two topics here.

Can you please produce some evidence, I won't even say proof - just evidence, that Jhoon Rhee and the others you mentioned knew what the intention behind Gen. Choi's patterns were when they learned them and that at some later date this intention was changed? Because every bit of evidence we have suggests it did not. If you have any evidence whatsoever that Gen. Choi changed what the intention behind the tul were please show it to me. Otherwise this is just an example of one person saying something has changed when it hasn't which is so common with you KKW types.

Pax,

Chris
 
If one wishes to argue that something has never changed from start to finish, it's reasonable to ask for supporting documentation from the same time span to substantiate the claim. A publication date indicates a finished milestone of some type and not the germination or formulation phase which is conspicuously missing here. It may be impossible to provide, but I've stated it is likewise impossible for anyone to know General Choi's complete longitudinal thought process on this other than himself.
That is like saying a painter or sculpture idea changes as he progresses thru his work. Only the completed work is the expression intended for mass consumption. The printed materials show nominal changes.
 
From a manual most likely at that.



QUOTE]

No, General Choi spent a weekend with him in Texas. >>>>>>>>>>>Taekwondo slowly made its way into the United States. In 1946- 1947, Hong Hi Choi taught martial arts to both Koreans and Americans stationed at Tae-Jon. In 1952, Tae Hi Nam was stationed in Ft. Benning, Georgia, and received a lot of publicity when he demonstrated before military troops and the public. In 1959, Maj. Gen. Choi attended a "modern weapon familiarization course" in Texas, and used his extra time to visit several Taekwondo schools there, including Jhoon Rhee's. << Seehttp://ryanshroyer.tripod.com/dakin_burdick.html
 
A little longer than 10 years if it is correct that he began training at age 13.



.

The above post puts the year at 1959 (Sorry, I thought it was early 1960's) since he was born in 1932 assuming he started at age 13 that would be 1945. So he had been training 14 years.
 
Exactly. Where we differ on this subject is whether or not the means Jhoon Rhee learned the forms even had any substantial part of what survives as the current ITF standard today. Of course my contention is that you can't miss what you never had. If you want to say that Jhoon Rhee TKD is an evolved expression of Chung Do Kwan karate/TKD, I'd have no issue with that. Where I disagree is if someone takes it a further step and asserts that the Jhoon Rhee people are 'missing' anything. No way. They are simply practicing their own style.
No argument that Jhoon Rhee had his own style for performing the Chang Hon forms. You are incorrect in your contention that by and large the technical content has changed to any great degree.
 
There's an awful lot of people in the same boat then. The Chung Do Kwan supplied the bulk of the early TKD instructors and practitioners.
Well, that depends on whether those of CDK lineage chose to enhance their knowledge by continuing to learn the standard for the new system or simply took the new system and grafted it on to what they were doing. Examples are Park Jong Soo being a CDK guy and the Father of TKD in Canada, continuing to learn the new system. Another is GM Van Binh (In Texas) who was a student in Viet Nam of CDK pioneers, and had his sturdents learn the proper standard.
 
Back
Top