Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ahh! But which sine-wave Chris.. because the newer version doesnt feature in any of the good books!!! :angel:
Stuart
ok,
(assume starting facing 12 on a clock and forgive my highly condensed writing)
turn to 9 and low block
turn to 3 and box block (high block/outward block combo, whatever you call it)
side kick to 12
step out to 9 and high block
step to 3 and chop
feet together facing 12
rt foot behind left to 12 and left hammer/rt open hand
now here is where it gets different.
in Hee Il Cho's book, he turns 180 degrees to 6 and rev punch out of a front stance
in every video i have seen, they turn 90 degrees to 3 and rev punch out of a front stance
and did i mention that i HATE sine wave?
No, not in the books, but it was taught by the guy who wrote them. His son. His top students. A ton of other people who have a hell of a lot of experience.
But, yeah, if you just stick to the section of the book that wasn't updated then, yeah it's not in there
Pax,
Chris
Interesting. I have not seen Se-Jong done with that particular variation before, but then I've seen all sorts of variations thrown into the Chang-Hun tuls depending on when a particular instructor learned them or if they thought they had a better way of doing them.
Are you from GM Hee Il Cho's lineage, then? He had a video series on te ITF tuls, IIRC. Might want to get a hold of them, if so.
Pax,
Chris
Weird that eh! Makes you almost think it was a political change, ordered from the top down (hence why all those you mention taught it)No, not in the books, but it was taught by the guy who wrote them. His son. His top students. A ton of other people who have a hell of a lot of experience.
Weird that eh! Makes you almost think it was a political change, ordered from the top down (hence why all those you mention taught it)![]()
Disagree with that, but thats another discussionI would also point out, however, that if such an initial downwards dip is missing you seem to have a better chance ending up doing a saw-toothed wave rather than a sine wave.
Not hung up on.. hence the smiley by each post when I wrote about it here, but IT IS a major omission seeing as its the under-lyning pin and bedrock of how the ITF now teach their patterns, its not like a small typo or anything and to try to write it off as such just is non-sensical! And i ahve an issue with it because it was brought in as a political move and now tens of thousands of students around the word are preaching it as gosepl when 1) it has no more benefits than the original versions, less in fact 2) is too slow for any SD use at all 3) is still being taught to gullible students worldwide despite its clear errors because they have no choice but to accpet it (but again, a seperate discussion, sorry)I still don't really understand why you are so hung up on a change in technique that didn't get into the encyclopedia given that there are still several editorial errors in the books.
Very relevant IMO.. see above and below points!Your previous comment that the newer version of sine wave isn't in the encyclopedia is to a large degree irrelevant.
So.. its so important that its been taught at IIc's for 20 years.. but has never found its way into numerous reprints and updates of the manuals during that 20 year period, despite other items being changed and updated!! Like I said.. its all weird and makes you wonder surely!Anyone who has been to an IIC or Master Class in the last 20 years has seen it.
That could be applied to getting things corrected in his books and legacy type stuff.. after all, it would only of meant 1 additional photo.. not exactly hard to do! After all, not evryone could afford to train with Gen Choi or go to IIC's etc. and his books were a way to spread his system on a much wider scale!If you're serious about learning Taekwon-Do the way Gen. Choi taught it you'll go to where you can get that information.
Disagree with that, but thats another discussion
Not hung up on.. hence the smiley by each post when I wrote about it here, but IT IS a major omission seeing as its the under-lyning pin and bedrock of how the ITF now teach their patterns, its not like a small typo or anything and to try to write it off as such just is non-sensical!
And i ahve an issue with it because it was brought in as a political move and now tens of thousands of students around the word are preaching it as gosepl when 1) it has no more benefits than the original versions, less in fact 2) is too slow for any SD use at all 3) is still being taught to gullible students worldwide despite its clear errors because they have no choice but to accpet it (but again, a seperate discussion, sorry)
So.. its so important that its been taught at IIc's for 20 years.. but has never found its way into numerous reprints and updates of the manuals during that 20 year period, despite other items being changed and updated!! Like I said.. its all weird and makes you wonder surely!
That could be applied to getting things corrected in his books and legacy type stuff.. after all, it would only of meant 1 additional photo.. not exactly hard to do! After all, not evryone could afford to train with Gen Choi or go to IIC's etc. and his books were a way to spread his system on a much wider scale!
The good/bad points of books are seperate issue really.. as their are pro's and con's to them. However, bad points can be corrected in subsequent editions, that much is clear!
I wont post further unless Twin Fist okay's further posts on the subject, as my original comment was made tongue in cheek and not really meant to spark another sine-wave debate.I forgot how much fun it is to discuss things with you, Stuart![]()
Apologies if it came across that way, that wasnt my intention, I simply meant that students have no choice but to do it if taught that way and part of certain orgs as its something that comes from the top down. "Gullilble" was a bad choice of words - sorry3) This last statement is, to put it frankly, absurd to say nothing of disrespectful.