another question

[andyjeffries]

You see, therein lies the difference. when I started KKW people were not around promoting there agenda. The KKW did not exist. Later they come along and we have a new story. The first bfg fairy tale was the 2000 year old TKD myth. Then omission of any names from history.

Where you training in Korea before the Kukkiwon? It's just that I can understand that you only saw the ITF/Oh Do Kwan's point of view because in the early days they were the only ones sending instructors abroad on any large scale.

 

[andyjeffries]

Do these people still promote the 2000 year old TKD idea? Do You?

I don't believe so to the first question (I have the latest Kukkiwon textbook, but not with me). Definitely not to the second (as I already posted). I no more believe that TKD is 2000 years old than I do think the earth was created 6000 years ago.

I think you need to broaden your perspectives. Start with "A Killing Art" It critices both the KKW and General Choi histories. It is not an ITF propoganda piece. It has over 400 footnotes and references.

OK, I'd understood it to be very ITF biased (and hence wasn't worth spending money on in these tight economic times) but I'm happy to stand corrected. I'm buying it on Amazon now...

 

[bluewaveschool]

From everything I've read (including just having read vol. 1 of the Encyclopedia of TKD byChoi), I'm unsure how he 'founded' anything. It seems to me that he was the head of a committee to give a unified name to the kwans, then created some new forms.

 

[Earl Weiss]

From everything I've read (including just having read vol. 1 of the Encyclopedia of TKD byChoi), I'm unsure how he 'founded' anything. It seems to me that he was the head of a committee to give a unified name to the kwans, then created some new forms.

Then I will ask you the same question.

Do you think Funakoshi was the founder of Shotokan?
Kano the Founder of Judo?
Ueshiba Founder of Aikido?

 

[Earl Weiss]

Where you training in Korea before the Kukkiwon? It's just that I can understand that you only saw the ITF/Oh Do Kwan's point of view because in the early days they were the only ones sending instructors abroad on any large scale.

No, but I have been on the training floor with those who did.

OK, now you get it "the ITF/Oh Do Kwan's point of view because in the early days they were the only ones sending instructors abroad on any large scale".

 

[Earl Weiss]

OK, I'd understood it to be very ITF biased (and hence wasn't worth spending money on in these tight economic times) but I'm happy to stand corrected. I'm buying it on Amazon now...

"A killing Art is only ITF Biased if you view credit given to General Choi in the book excessive and criticism of him insufficient and credit given to the KKW insufficient and criticism excessive.

In short it criticises and credits both. It's only a matter of perspective if you think any faction was treated unfairly. I felt a couple of criticisms of General choi were inaccurate but only a very few minor points and that was because I either had firsthand knowledge of what transpired or had certain experiences tat gave me a little more in depth knowledge than the author. But, considering the scope of the work as a whole, i felt is was a tremendous project.

 

[andyjeffries]

"A killing Art is only ITF Biased if you view credit given to General Choi in the book excessive and criticism of him insufficient and credit given to the KKW insufficient and criticism excessive.

In short it criticises and credits both. It's only a matter of perspective if you think any faction was treated unfairly. I felt a couple of criticisms of General choi were inaccurate but only a very few minor points and that was because I either had firsthand knowledge of what transpired or had certain experiences tat gave me a little more in depth knowledge than the author. But, considering the scope of the work as a whole, i felt is was a tremendous project.

My copy has arrived (at my office unfortunately and I'm working from home today), but I'll post my thoughts once I've read it.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Warning -Semi Long Post
As I stated earlier before we can have a meaningful discusion we would first have to agree on how terms are defined. We will have to agree to disagree. .
You accept the Kukki party line that apparently any Korean who was ever kicking and punching, and anyone who can trace there lineage to such a Korean can call what they do TKD. Therein lies the KKW strength. Acceptance of any number of permutations and combinations, initially at least. Therein also lied the KKW weakness (initially at least) in that a KKW black belt from one system they accepted would be clueless when walking into another KKW Do Jang using another system. Some 30 years later the KKW seems to be more stringent with regard to having a single system. BTW as pertains to acceptance being the KKW strength, this was the Chang Hon / ITF weakness, in fact upsetting a lot of people requiring all but CDK members to re test for rank to help insure uniform standards and practices, which was the ITF's strength.
Accepting that reasoning, then it naturally follows that you would consider Taekwondo more of a group effort.
I cannot accept the KKW party line for the following reasons:
1. When I started the only ones using Taekwon-Do were the Chang Hon system and there was no KKW. For a few years after that the WTF / Kukki people I met also used that system. From 1975-1977 I trained at a WTF school while at college flying the WTF Flag but teaching the Chang Hon System with General Choi’s book on their desk (Written in Korean) At the same time the KKW came out with the "Group effort" and 200 year old history line which was a joke.
2. To call any Korean kicking and punching Taekwon-Do would not just be an oversimplification, but insulting to some who rejected the name.
3. Why would you need a single name to cover a variety of systems? If you were seeking some sort of cooperation and unification you could simply have the Korean Martial Arts Association or some such thing. Or, is it more likely that the thought was to follow the successful models of Kano and Funakoshi which was to have a single uniform system that could be taught (and spread) on a large scale? This is what was done for almost 20 years before the KKW formation.

 

[dancingalone]

2. To call any Korean kicking and punching Taekwon-Do would not just be an oversimplification, but insulting to some who rejected the name.

Whom are you referring to out of curiosity? I can think of Hwang Kee, who indeed resisted the unification efforts. Derivatives of his art are now usually called tang soo do or Soo Bakh Do.

3. Why would you need a single name to cover a variety of systems? If you were seeking some sort of cooperation and unification you could simply have the Korean Martial Arts Association or some such thing. Or, is it more likely that the thought was to follow the successful models of Kano and Funakoshi which was to have a single uniform system that could be taught (and spread) on a large scale? This is what was done for almost 20 years before the KKW formation.

I don't see the harm or even the inaccuracy in using TKD as a common name for systems connected to the KTA mergers. If this was the name agreed upon at the time, then it is an accurate general descriptor for school of martial arts tracing its heritage back to those times.

There are dozens of systems that all fall under the karate banner. Shotokan karate is very different from goju-ryu karate, but they both accurately use the same name as their founders elected to do so in the first place. I see the same parallel with the TKD world. Whether one is Kukki or ATA or independent, you're all still doing some form of TKD.

 

[FieldDiscipline]

Do you think Funakoshi was the founder of Shotokan?

Funakoshi was actually against the idea of 'founding' anything of the sort, he was not a fan of the stylisation of karate IIRC.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Funakoshi was actually against the idea of 'founding' anything of the sort, he was not a fan of the stylisation of karate IIRC.

Yes, I know. In his book he relates how it seems to have been forced upon him by his followers and students. So wehile he was against it, it seems his followers and students were not.

As far as the opinions of those outside the Shotokab system I seek their opinions here.

 

[FieldDiscipline]

While I don't think Gen Choi had as much to do with defining the technical content as you do (and I don't think we'll ever agree on that) I do think that he was the public face, and therefore as deserving the title of Founder as Bill Gates or George Washington.

You know I think that is rather close to summing up my thoughts on the subject.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Quote:
Originally Posted by andyjeffries http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1333808#post1333808
While I don't think Gen Choi had as much to do with defining the technical content as you do (and I don't think we'll ever agree on that) I do think that he was the public face, and therefore as deserving the title of Founder as Bill Gates or George Washington.

You know I think that is rather close to summing up my thoughts on the subject.

Well, my question to you and Mr. Jeffries would be how much time have you spent reviewing General Choi's technical content and comparing it to other systems, prior systems, other works done at the same time, before and after?
How much time have you spent in the classroom with General Choi to hear him not just recite, but explain the technical content? What instructors do you have first hand experience comparing how and what he taught to how and what they taught?

In short, I would like to hear the research and experience upon which your thoughts are based.

I am still waiting to hear from Mr. Jeffries about the technical contributions of GM Lee Won Kuk

 

[andyjeffries]

Well, my question to you and Mr. Jeffries

We're having a friendly chat/debate over the internet with no malice intended - no need to be so formal, Andy is fine

would be how much time have you spent reviewing General Choi's technical content and comparing it to other systems, prior systems, other works done at the same time, before and after?

Next to none. From content (videos) I've seen recently though ITF is more similar to Shotokan than WTF is.

How much time have you spent in the classroom with General Choi

Having started reading that book you highly recommend ("A Killing Art"), I'm glad to say zero! The opening chapter about his seminar and the way he berated senior practitioners because of who they learnt from really dropped my respect level for the man! How he could be so outrageously rude is beyond comprehension! And that worrying level of disrespect for others has been confirmed over and over again throughout that first half of the book (and I'm only just at the point where the WTF was founded, I assume he's going to get worse as his organisation declines in popularity).

to hear him not just recite, but explain the technical content?

But I'm not overly surprised at this. Let's take it from a hypothetical point of view. You have a man, Reverend Han who is a very well respected church leader (but doesn't actually have much knowledge of encouraging the masses, he just does a lot of fund raising/profile raising).

Rev Han gets together with other senior church leaders and discusses with them how they fire up their congregations. He documents it carefully, in amazing detail. He then uses his name to get funds from the church to send these other church leaders around the world spreading the gospel as he documented it.

Initially he doesn't teach these combined learnings himself (why should he, he's well respected and doesn't need to teach anyone but other leaders). After time (and having documented amendments and refined the books he wrote) he does start to teach others. Would you be surprised that having wrote books combining others knowledge (and thinking about it himself even though he wasn't as good as the others) that he could then teach in amazing detail levels?

It all sounds plausible, until you replace Reverend Han with General Choi - at which time you would disagree.

What instructors do you have first hand experience comparing how and what he taught to how and what they taught?

None of the people I've trained with are very high up in the WTF or ITF (that's not to say they're not senior or great) but they aren't in the founding group.

In short, I would like to hear the research and experience upon which your thoughts are based.

My experience is based on conversations such as this one (and others in person). Some people make convincing arguments and change my opinion. Some people don't. You've made some convincing arguments (comparing him to Bill Gates is one) but then you go back to lines like this where you believe he actually had a technical direction/seniority.

I am still waiting to hear from Mr. Jeffries about the technical contributions of GM Lee Won Kuk

As far as I know he never wrote any books on the topic. As for the technical contributions, he was the founder and instructor of one of the first major martial art schools in Korea and gave GM Nam and GM Jhoon Rhee their black belts. Surely that counts as technical contribution?

As I've explained my position, General Choi seemed to be mainly documenting the art of making minor changes (and including major movements from other instructors) while not actually teaching serious numbers of students.

In fact, taking General Choi's work as promotional/figurehead rather than technical creation, I'd also argue that Dr Kim, Un-Yong did as much in publicising Taekwondo during his time (in terms of taking it from X to Y) as General Choi did during the period before (should Dr Kim be called the Founder of Modern Taekwondo?)

 

[Earl Weiss]

But I'm not overly surprised at this. Let's take it from a hypothetical point of view. You have a man, Reverend Han who is a very well respected church leader (but doesn't actually have much knowledge of encouraging the masses, he just does a lot of fund raising/profile raising).

Rev Han gets together with other senior church leaders and discusses with them how they fire up their congregations. He documents it carefully, in amazing detail. He then uses his name to get funds from the church to send these other church leaders around the world spreading the gospel as he documented it.

Initially he doesn't teach these combined learnings himself (why should he, he's well respected and doesn't need to teach anyone but other leaders). After time (and having documented amendments and refined the books he wrote) he does start to teach others. Would you be surprised that having wrote books combining others knowledge (and thinking about it himself even though he wasn't as good as the others) that he could then teach in amazing detail levels?

)

Your analogy fails on several counts.
1. As I said and General Choi said, he does not claim to have invented techniques. That would be a bogus claim for anyone. He did make definite modifications from the most commonly practiced standards (Shotokan) of the time, and in many cases he gave specific reasons why those technical standards were implemented (The purpose of doing something a certain way). In his memoirs he even addresses how he had some difficulties with GM Nam vis a vis adopting the revisions.
He did not simply assemble what had existed previoulsy. Further, since what existed among the Seniors varied greatly, he had to establish which of the variations would be adopted. Again, not just a choice, but a choice supported by a reason. Now, people can disagree with th choices and reasons. Rational people will. But at least he supplied reasons and tremendous detail, unlike many others I attended class with whose intruction was typicaly "Like this" . Sometimes they went so far as to say "Not like this, like this.".
2. Initialy he did teach. But he taught the teachers. I can provide names and dates, but they are in his memoirs and other historical accounts like his teaching the Deo teams in the late 1950's and even Jhoon Rhee and his students in Texas (I believe 1960) when General Choi was there for an officers training course.
3. Anyone who has been in class with him was surprised / amazed at the level of recall and technical detail he supplied notwithsatnding the fact that he wrote the text.

 

[Earl Weiss]

As far as I know he never wrote any books on the topic. As for the technical contributions, he was the founder and instructor of one of the first major martial art schools in Korea and gave GM Nam and GM Jhoon Rhee their black belts. Surely that counts as technical contribution?

Mauybe we are having an issue of semantics vis a vis "Technical Contribution" .

I understand this to mean esatablishment, refinement or codification of technical standards for techniques. I know of know evidence which indicates that GM Lee did anything to establish, codify, or modify any technical standards for technique. He simply taught what he learned in Japan.

Did he contribute to the establishment of martial Arts in Korea by heading the largest and perhaps for a time the only Kwan under japanese occupation. Most definitely. A really good story might be why he was able to do this under Japanese occupation.

So, no, by my understanding this wasnot a technical contribution.

i am also pretty sure GM Lee was gone form the CDK when Jhoon Rhee got his BB. I think this was under GM Son, but I would have to check.

 

[Earl Weiss]

We're having a friendly chat/debate over the internet with no malice intended - no need to be so formal, Andy is fine



)

Thank you sir. I act as I have been trained and as I teach. I consider the forum to be a TKD setting and therefore appropriate to follow General Choi's first (and most important tenet of TKD - courtesy.

And yes, I do know that Funakoshi before him also valued it highly so that it is not unique or original to General Choi. Yet, he did assemble it along with 4 others as his particular tenets of TKD (An assembly and codification which did not exist previoulsy in that form - how unique or differnt is a matter of degree and opinion) which have been adopted by some non followers of General Choi as well.

 

[Earl Weiss]

While General Choi did not teach the enlisted men, since this is not something a General would do, and if you consider it logically, it would be terribly inefficient. Instead, he taught instructors. Think of it this way. You want to codify and spread a martial art system. Do you chose to teach a few dozen people of varying athletic skills and no prior martial art knowledge, or do you chose to take experienced martial art athletes and teach them your system?
In the Military among those he spent teaching the system and who in term taught the troops were Nam Tae Hi and Han Cha Kyo..
Subsequently his teaching included:
1959 demo team Kyong Il Kim, Hong Geul Kim, Jae Kwon Go, Kim Bok Man, and others (21 in total).
1959 Published first manual
1960 Teaching Jhoon Rhee and his top students in San Antonio (In USA attending weapons familiarization course)
1960 Trained Vietnamese army members in Vietnam
1961 -1962 teaching instructors at his home, among them Jong Soo Park
1962 - 1963 Taught directly to students in Malaysia while serving as Ambassador.
1968 While in Washington gives lessons to Jhoon Rhee, SH Cho, MG Kang, SG Shim, IM Kim, JS Hyun, HW Lee, Jack-Hwang, DA Yun, SK Eun, Kang Lee, BS Kim, DW Moon.
1969 Athens, "Stamatios".
Circa 1970 Jhoon Rhee travels to Seoul to train with General Choi
The above is a brief synopsis .
So, while you and others critics may find it important that he may not have trained a large group from white belt, I consider it a non factor because he trained a sizeable number who in turn trained huge numbers from white belt.