Chuck Norris and TKD

InfiniteLoop

Black Belt
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
523
Reaction score
107
It's not that complicated. An art can be defined by it's curriculum. Forms are part of that curriculum. If you're not training using that curriculum, you're not practicing that art. You're just practicing kicking and punching.
Nonsense definition. Kihon/basics training in class has techniques drilled in isolation from patterns. Basics training is not in anyway shape or form considered cross training.
 

InfiniteLoop

Black Belt
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
523
Reaction score
107
So.. You don't need to do every part, or even most part of a curriculum to be practicing art X. If that were the case, my red belt should be revoked since I was denied throws training, even though throws is part of the curriculum in ITF.
 

SahBumNimRush

Master of Arts
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
1,790
Reaction score
151
Location
USA
Nonsense definition. Kihon/basics training in class has techniques drilled in isolation from patterns. Basics training is not in anyway shape or form considered cross training.
I'm not sure if there is a language barrier here, but you seem to twist every point made on these threads to further some sort of "debate." Training a small piece of an art, rather than its totality, so an argument could be made that you're not practicing the art, just parts. No one made the argument that it meant it was cross training.

There are no "schools" or "styles" that are widely accepted as TKD or TSD that do not have any forms/patterns that I am aware of. They are all, to some extent, an integral part of training. Most of my training curriculum is directly tied to my forms. The only parts that aren't really, are the kicking part of the curriculum.

For example, I wouldn't consider a musician that only practicing scales, to practicing musical composition. Sure, proficiency in scale knowledge is required/a part of, musical composition.
 

InfiniteLoop

Black Belt
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
523
Reaction score
107
I'm not sure if there is a language barrier here, but you seem to twist every point made on these threads to further some sort of "debate." Training a small piece of an art, rather than its totality, so an argument could be made that you're not practicing the art, just parts. No one made the argument that it meant it was cross training.

There are no "schools" or "styles" that are widely accepted as TKD or TSD that do not have any forms/patterns that I am aware of. They are all, to some extent, an integral part of training. Most of my training curriculum is directly tied to my forms. The only parts that aren't really, are the kicking part of the curriculum.

For example, I wouldn't consider a musician that only practicing scales, to practicing musical composition. Sure, proficiency in scale knowledge is required/a part of, musical composition.

Well ITF sparring is not at all connected to its forms... We don't use any punching mechanic from forms in sparring. We use mainly superman punches, which are not part of any forms or basics for that matter.

There are independent schools that abandoned patterns. I referenced one in Serbia but the point sailed right passed Earl.
 

SahBumNimRush

Master of Arts
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
1,790
Reaction score
151
Location
USA
Well ITF sparring is not at all connected to its forms... We don't use any punching mechanic from forms in sparring. We use mainly superman punches, which are not part of any forms or basics for that matter.

There are independent schools that abandoned patterns. I referenced one in Serbia but the point sailed right passed Earl.

I guess that does bring up a valid point. IF we consider Taekwondo a large-ish umbrella that encompasses a few different "versions," do we count the sport as part of the art? I assume schools that only practice sparring, are sport focused (which again, I would argue is a very small portion of the totality of the art). I would say that the general public accepts what they do as TKD, (various TKD camps debate this, I am sure). I mean, there are athletes that compete on the world stage under the name TKD, and I would call them TKD athletes. I competed in the 90's in events such as the JR Olympics. I did not compete in the Poomse, as I didn't know those forms. Could an argument be made that I didn't practice Olympic style TKD (Kukki TKD)? Sure, in fact, I would agree that I did not, as I did not train the entirety of that curriculum. I merely competed under those rules for certain competitions.
 

InfiniteLoop

Black Belt
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
523
Reaction score
107
I guess that does bring up a valid point. IF we consider Taekwondo a large-ish umbrella that encompasses a few different "versions," do we count the sport as part of the art? I assume schools that only practice sparring, are sport focused (which again, I would argue is a very small portion of the totality of the art). I would say that the general public accepts what they do as TKD, (various TKD camps debate this, I am sure). I mean, there are athletes that compete on the world stage under the name TKD, and I would call them TKD athletes. I competed in the 90's in events such as the JR Olympics. I did not compete in the Poomse, as I didn't know those forms. Could an argument be made that I didn't practice Olympic style TKD (Kukki TKD)? Sure, in fact, I would agree that I did not, as I did not train the entirety of that curriculum. I merely competed under those rules for certain competitions.

I don't understand the argument that you have to practice the full curriculum in order to be deemed a practitioner of the art. If you practice the basic moves, you are training the art. Even someone who practices 50% of a wushu demonstration sequence is still training Wushu in my opinion.
 

InfiniteLoop

Black Belt
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
523
Reaction score
107
Now this rubs me the wrong way. A South Korean named Jhoon Rhee who devoted his life to promoting TaeKwonDo, and was even named father of TaeKwonDo in the America, is pictured next to a TSD label by a Japanese milliennial..

Is it a coincidence that it's a Japanese Karateka doing this?


 

SahBumNimRush

Master of Arts
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
1,790
Reaction score
151
Location
USA
I don't understand the argument that you have to practice the full curriculum in order to be deemed a practitioner of the art. If you practice the basic moves, you are training the art. Even someone who practices 50% of a wushu demonstration sequence is still training Wushu in my opinion.

IMHO, the argument boils down to representing and passing on the art. A hobbyist practicing bits and pieces, represents little harm. However, practicing 50%, passing that knowledge on, misrepresents the art. You end up with people who trained 100% of what they were taught, and still only know 50% of the art. Many of the folks on this forum have devoted a large portion of time and energy into training their representative arts, and have taken on the responsibility of being "keepers of the way." Deviating and leaving those parts behind, hinders your ability to pass on the art. I.e. it only enables you to pass on the parts you maintain proficiency and knowledge in.

How long does it take to lose proficiency in your forms training? Not long, a couple of months off of consistent training, you may lose small details. I see it in my college aged students who come back to train in the summers. Some practice while away at school, others do not. Those who do not, have to struggle a bit to knock the proverbial rust off. Imagine if you took years off, and then decided to teach others?

Some one who knows how to stick weld, and practices stick welding, but doesn't know how to mig or tig weld, would you call them a welder? I don't think any certified welder would think so.
 

InfiniteLoop

Black Belt
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
523
Reaction score
107
IMHO, the argument boils down to representing and passing on the art. A hobbyist practicing bits and pieces, represents little harm. However, practicing 50%, passing that knowledge on, misrepresents the art. You end up with people who trained 100% of what they were taught, and still only know 50% of the art. Many of the folks on this forum have devoted a large portion of time and energy into training their representative arts, and have taken on the responsibility of being "keepers of the way." Deviating and leaving those parts behind, hinders your ability to pass on the art. I.e. it only enables you to pass on the parts you maintain proficiency and knowledge in.

How long does it take to lose proficiency in your forms training? Not long, a couple of months off of consistent training, you may lose small details. I see it in my college aged students who come back to train in the summers. Some practice while away at school, others do not. Those who do not, have to struggle a bit to knock the proverbial rust off. Imagine if you took years off, and then decided to teach others?

Some one who knows how to stick weld, and practices stick welding, but doesn't know how to mig or tig weld, would you call them a welder? I don't think any certified welder would think so.


I would only agree if the bits and pieces overlap with every other martial art. Since they don't do that, no matter how subtle, one is still practicing the art. As to teaching, that's an entirely different matter.
 

Earl Weiss

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
3,239
Reaction score
631
There are independent schools that abandoned patterns. I referenced one in Serbia but the point sailed right passed Earl.
Didn't sail past me. it's a non issue. Any school can do whatever they want if independent and call it whatever they want Doesn't mean anything.
 

dancingalone

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
5,313
Reaction score
266
Now this rubs me the wrong way. A South Korean named Jhoon Rhee who devoted his life to promoting TaeKwonDo, and was even named father of TaeKwonDo in the America, is pictured next to a TSD label by a Japanese milliennial..

Is it a coincidence that it's a Japanese Karateka doing this?


I am in Jhoon Rhee's lineage for tae kwon do. He was a relatively senior Chung Do Kwan practitioner before the tae kwon do unification. I doubt he would have been offended by someone referring to him as tang soo do, despite being known in some circles as the "Father of American Tae Kwon Do".
 

InfiniteLoop

Black Belt
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
523
Reaction score
107
I am in Jhoon Rhee's lineage for tae kwon do. He was a relatively senior Chung Do Kwan practitioner before the tae kwon do unification. I doubt he would have been offended by someone referring to him as tang soo do, despite being known in some circles as the "Father of American Tae Kwon Do".

Some circles being THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES. Show me one guy referring to Jhoon Rhee as Tang Soo Do outside of that Japanese who is just doing it to provoke. It's not hard to google that Jhoon Rhee joined the unification
 

InfiniteLoop

Black Belt
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
523
Reaction score
107
Didn't sail past me. it's a non issue. Any school can do whatever they want if independent and call it whatever they want Doesn't mean anything.

Do you seriously believe that Chois branch in the 50s trained one or two Korean forms exclusively and no Japanese? That would be curious given that he based his entire forms on Shotokan, including black belt forms, simply adding a few aerials into the soup.
 

dvcochran

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
2,109
Location
Southeast U.S.
IMHO, the argument boils down to representing and passing on the art. A hobbyist practicing bits and pieces, represents little harm. However, practicing 50%, passing that knowledge on, misrepresents the art. You end up with people who trained 100% of what they were taught, and still only know 50% of the art. Many of the folks on this forum have devoted a large portion of time and energy into training their representative arts, and have taken on the responsibility of being "keepers of the way." Deviating and leaving those parts behind, hinders your ability to pass on the art. I.e. it only enables you to pass on the parts you maintain proficiency and knowledge in.

How long does it take to lose proficiency in your forms training? Not long, a couple of months off of consistent training, you may lose small details. I see it in my college aged students who come back to train in the summers. Some practice while away at school, others do not. Those who do not, have to struggle a bit to knock the proverbial rust off. Imagine if you took years off, and then decided to teach others?

Some one who knows how to stick weld, and practices stick welding, but doesn't know how to mig or tig weld, would you call them a welder? I don't think any certified welder would think so.
Respectfully, if they do it for a living, I would call that stick welder a specialist. I would say the same for people who only know how to tig (a very different animal).
Mig welding is called childs welding for good reason, not trying to take anything away from it.

I do feel this is analogous with your argument which is spot on IMHO.
 

dvcochran

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
2,109
Location
Southeast U.S.
Do you seriously believe that Chois branch in the 50s trained one or two korean forms exhaustively and no Japanese? That would be curious given that he based his entire forms on Shotokan, including black belt forms, simply adding a few aerials into the soup.
When GM Choi created his own form set and they were Not under the Karate moniker they were Not karate forms. How is this so hard to understand?
 

InfiniteLoop

Black Belt
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
523
Reaction score
107
I'm trying to dig up the first form released. 1959 is the year I remember having at least one.
 

InfiniteLoop

Black Belt
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
523
Reaction score
107
Website is down but just as I remembered.. Choi only had 5 patterns done by 1959!!! So a fair guess is that he had NONE in 1955, certainly not 24.

"In October 1959, the first ever Taekwon-Do book was published. It contained several Karate kata and five other patterns: Hwa Rang, Choong Moo, Ul Ji, U Nam, Sam"
 
Top