TKD as a "Formal System"

[Makalakumu]

I came across this little tidbit while reading this thread...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23953&page=1&pp=15

Oh, incidentally, kenpo is a formal martial arts system in a way that arts such as TKD are not. By this, I mean that there is a well-described curriculum, an organized set of theories supporting that curriculum, and a fairly-orderly road map laid out for learning that system. In this regard, it woud be comparable to the sword arts taught by, say, Gerard Thibault, or the traditional internal arts such as Yang style t'ai chi.

Hopefully, Robert will come and clarify this point here. I don't want to gank the other thread completely with this discussion.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Miles]

I would respectfully disagree with the conclusion as it relies upon erroneous information.

If the "standard" of whether an art is formal or not is based upon curriculum, then Taekwondo (I will only speak to Kukkiwon Taekwondo specifically, but would posit that ITF Taekwondo is also formal) meets the criteria. There are generally 9 guep (under belt ranks). There is generally a single poomsae required for rank advancement. The terminology is standardized. There is a requirement for time-in-grade.

A cursory review of the Kukkiwon Textbook has a sample curriculum.

Miles

 

[Marginal]

I wish rmcrobertson had gotten around to actually doing what he said he could do easily. Describe Kenpo's concepts etc to a non practitioner so they know exactly what Kenpo's about. It's left rather vague as the original thread has progressed.

Defined syllabus? TKD generally has that across the board. Road map for getting students from white belt onwards is also present. Basic underlying theory? Legs make for more powerful striking tools than arms. The focus is on developing the stronger, (but admittedly less instinctive) tool.

But then, all of that can be found with a simple net search. www.itf-information.com, the kukkikwon web site, the KK textbook, the TKD encyclopedia all delve into that on one level or another. There's a load of info and effort put into that stuff, but if someone doesn't care enough to look at all, it's silly to even attempt such a comparison in the first place.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Thanks; I wish someone had simply corrected me, if I was wrong. However, there are fundamental differences between what I was talking about, and what information the linked site offers about tae kwon do.

1. I did not find any ordered teaching system; could you point it out to me?

2. The basic theory seemed to be limited to saying that legs are stronger than arms, and tae kwon do was unparallelled as a martial art: could you direct me to something more developed?

3. The descriptions of, "patterns," offered instructions, certainly--but the theory they offered was confined, as far as I could see, to describing some of the symbolism. There appeared to be nothing comparable to, say, Short Form 1 in kenpo, which is taught to a) teach retreating and blocking; b) teach a beginner to start to consider, "all around," defense; c) reinforce yellow belt techniques, and so forth. Again--could you show me where something comparable to the, "Web of Knowledge," in kenpo was?

Sorry if I offended. But I was clear that a) there wasn't anything necessarily wrong with a martial art that didn't have a formal set of concepts and principles, or b) a set teaching system, since these things might very well get done in other ways. And I did several times ask for better information than I had available.

And it does seem that the easiest way to deal with ignorance is simply to explain.

 

[Makalakumu]

Thanks; I wish someone had simply corrected me, if I was wrong. However, there are fundamental differences between what I was talking about, and what information the linked site offers about tae kwon do.

1. I did not find any ordered teaching system; could you point it out to me?

2. The basic theory seemed to be limited to saying that legs are stronger than arms, and tae kwon do was unparallelled as a martial art: could you direct me to something more developed?

3. The descriptions of, "patterns," offered instructions, certainly--but the theory they offered was confined, as far as I could see, to describing some of the symbolism. There appeared to be nothing comparable to, say, Short Form 1 in kenpo, which is taught to a) teach retreating and blocking; b) teach a beginner to start to consider, "all around," defense; c) reinforce yellow belt techniques, and so forth. Again--could you show me where something comparable to the, "Web of Knowledge," in kenpo was?

Sorry if I offended. But I was clear that a) there wasn't anything necessarily wrong with a martial art that didn't have a formal set of concepts and principles, or b) a set teaching system, since these things might very well get done in other ways. And I did several times ask for better information than I had available.

And it does seem that the easiest way to deal with ignorance is simply to explain.

Robert

Thanks for jumping in here. I'm sure that you will find more people on this thread in this forum that can contribute to this discussion. I'm very curious about kenpo and how it compares to some of the other KMAs.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Marginal]

Thanks; I wish someone had simply corrected me, if I was wrong. However, there are fundamental differences between what I was talking about, and what information the linked site offers about tae kwon do.

1. I did not find any ordered teaching system; could you point it out to me?

2. The basic theory seemed to be limited to saying that legs are stronger than arms, and tae kwon do was unparallelled as a martial art: could you direct me to something more developed?

3. The descriptions of, "patterns," offered instructions, certainly--but the theory they offered was confined, as far as I could see, to describing some of the symbolism. There appeared to be nothing comparable to, say, Short Form 1 in kenpo, which is taught to a) teach retreating and blocking; b) teach a beginner to start to consider, "all around," defense; c) reinforce yellow belt techniques, and so forth. Again--could you show me where something comparable to the, "Web of Knowledge," in kenpo was?

0) As I mentioned, it's not clear what you're asking for.

1) It varies. USTF for example prints a syllabus and requires instructor certification etc.

2) I beleive the various theories are actually on the ITF site. Theory of power, secrets of training etc. (Least they used to be) All are reprinted from Gen Choi's encyclopedia.

3) USTF syllabus does do that to an extent. Each belt rank's hand techniques are introduced by the pattern. Applications are explained as they come. The patterns aren't presented with any grand theme as it relates to attacking while moving sideways as three people attack you etc.

I suppose it comes down to whether or not you consider Shotokan an unordered system as well. Similar approaches.

 

[TX_BB]

1. I did not find any ordered teaching system; could you point it out to me?

Please, define by example or a pointer to what you think this should look like.

2. The basic theory seemed to be limited to saying that legs are stronger than arms, and tae kwon do was unparallelled as a martial art: could you direct me to something more developed?

I can only speak for WTF style TKD it is all about dynamics. Modern TKD is the study of bodies in motion and how force works in these system.

3. The descriptions of, "patterns," offered instructions, certainly--but the theory they offered was confined, as far as I could see, to describing some of the symbolism. There appeared to be nothing comparable to, say, Short Form 1 in kenpo, which is taught to a) teach retreating and blocking; b) teach a beginner to start to consider, "all around," defense; c) reinforce yellow belt techniques, and so forth. Again--could you show me where something comparable to the, "Web of Knowledge," in kenpo was?

Generally most of this information is in the original korean. Translations for the non-sport topics normally get done in this order German, English, Spanish and French. Quite honestly Korugi (sparring) normally covers items a,b,c.

I believe if we comunicate better we can answer your questions. In Korea I am of the understanding that there 7 Univerities which have Bachleor of Science programs.

 

[arnisador]

They offer a B.S. in TKD, you mean? For teachers or for historians (or something else)?

 

[TX_BB]

My understanding is that it is in Kinesology with an emphasis in TKD.

 

[Akidorina]

Wait you want the terminology of taekwando?

In that case go to http://www.fightoppression.com/

Click on this symbol once you get to the webpage ->
And on the bar it says terminology simply click on that.
I hope this helps!

http://fightoppression.com/studentguides/studentguides.htm
​

http://fightoppression.com/studentguides/studentguides.htm
​

 

[Miles]

I checked out the terminology guide at the website you posted. It was very comprehensive. Thanks!

Miles

 

[Akidorina]

I am glad I could help!:asian:

 

[Spookey]

Dear Kempo Guy,

The general cirriculum of Chang Hon (ITF) Taekwon-Do is very formal. There are set gup ranks and dan ranks. As previously stated each rank has a specific pattern. The patterns contain the required techniques for the rank as well as a basic demonstration of technical utiliage. There are also basic testing requirements for each rank.

Modes of application of learned techniques consist of progressive application drills. The begin with 3-Step Sparring, 2-Step Sparring, 1-Step Sparring, Ho-Sin-Sul, Foot Technique Sparring, Model Sparring, and finally Free Sparring.

Every school in the ITF teaches the same patterns in the same order (thus the same minimum techniques as well). The techniques used in step sparring are introduced according to rank, thus working the techniques as you learn them.

The "Theory of Power" is standard accross the board as is the training secrets of Taekwon-Do!

All of this is accessable throught the reading of the Encyclopedia. It is a wonderful reference tool for the instructor and advanced student.

TAEKWON!
SPooKeY

 

[Han-Mi]

1 form and three one steps per level of rank. teaching a progression of forming combos in order to defend and set up techs. Most of the hand techs are learned by the 3rd rank(advanced yellow for us) and that kicking techs are learned with addition of jumping and spinning as the students progress, there are set ranks for each variation. That is how our school works the curriculum, I would assume it is a similar progression for any school of any style with some techs moved around or a different number of self defense techs, but I'd say that as long as you aren't going out there teaching complete randomness then it is a formal art.

 

[Flying Crane]

As a kenpo guy, maybe I can help a little bit. In general, many people in the various branches of the kenpo tree see kenpo as a very scientific art. In my opinion, I think sometimes the scientific approach can become overdone in kenpo. I think it is good to analyze body mechanics when teaching and practicing techniques, to understand the effect the technique will have (if properly applied), and the possible progressions from that point on. However, it sometimes seems that some of the kenpo people can get a bit wrapped up in trying to write the mathematical equation that best describes every angle in a dynamic situation, accounting for defensive and offensive movements, maximized power, ideal evasion, etc. Perhaps the original comments that sparked this thread come from that vantage point. Don't get me wrong, kenpo was my first martial art and I love it, but I sometimes think that it can become a bit easy to get too wrapped up, and even bogged down, in the details.