From brown belt to red....

[IcemanSK]

Well, not really. First we would have to agree on what is "Original" and then on what is "TKD"

Per General Choi's 1965 Book. The lowest grade rank - White Belt was 8th -7th, Then Blue 6-5, Then Brown, 4-1st, Followed by Black (Degrees). (Also explains early use fo the Brown Belt) In the 1972 Book it was 10 Grades / Gups WYGBR. Likely the original system copied that of the early Kwans Which copied earlier Ryus, and the change along with the meaning for the colors was part of giving TKD a unique identity.

I had not considered the impact of Gen. Choi's influence on early American & even Korean TKD. However, red belt (rather than brown belt) was an original belt color for Chung Do Kwan (of which Gen. Choi was an early student). I'm still inclinced to believe that the brown belt was the color of choice (even for Gen. Choi) out of ease of availability because Karate & Judo (who both used the brown belt) were using it. I see it as a practical reason to change to brown belt.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I had not considered the impact of Gen. Choi's influence on early American & even Korean TKD. However, red belt (rather than brown belt) was an original belt color for Chung Do Kwan (of which Gen. Choi was an early student)..

When I interviwed Nam Tae Hi he said the belt color was Brown, Not Red.
https://1c47d0f0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites...ibq2frxUkl83wUjYSlqHHXFBD6GDc=&attredirects=0

Glenn U from Hawaii a well versed TKD historian called me to task on this saying I was wrong and it was red as you stated. Can't point you to sources but what I found was that Red may have replaced brown at the CDK at some point or vica versa. Not sure of time line either.

 

[Metal]

I had not considered the impact of Gen. Choi's influence on early American & even Korean TKD.

In some countries where Choi's influence was strong and/or where Taekwondo was introduced in the 60s and early 70s brown belts are still in use.

In Germany for example you can choose if you wanna wear brown or red belts for 2nd Kup (plus black stripe for 1st kup).
Austria has both, brown belt for 4th kup, brown w/ red stripe for 3rd, red belt for 2nd Kup and red belt w/ black stripe for 1st.

 

[IcemanSK]

In some countries where Choi's influence was strong and/or where Taekwondo was introduced in the 60s and early 70s brown belts are still in use.

In Germany for example you can choose if you wanna wear brown or red belts for 2nd Kup (plus black stripe for 1st kup).
Austria has both, brown belt for 4th kup, brown w/ red stripe for 3rd, red belt for 2nd Kup and red belt w/ black stripe for 1st.

In the Kukki-TKD school where I trained in the early 80's, we used both brown belt (3rd & 2nd gup) & red belt (1st gup). In the organization I'm in now (also a Kukki-TKD system, with Chung Do Kwan association)) we use red belt at 3rd gup & brown for 2nd & 1st gup.

 

[TrueJim]

At the school my son and I attend, they tend to use solid belt colors when they can, rather than relying on stripes, I think for a couple of reasons:

• It makes the kids feel like they're advancing, when they get a whole new belt color
• In large classes, it's very convenient to be able to quickly scan around the room and pick out all the students of the same color

I think if they could find 10 good, distinct belt colors, they'd use a different color for each gup. It's hard to find 10 good, distinct, solid colors though, so for Blue and Brown they use a striped belt as well. (No, we're not going to us Pink or Camo! )

 

[Earl Weiss]

I had not considered the impact of Gen. Choi's influence on early American & even Korean TKD. .

This is something that is really hard to get a handle on unless you read some books that are neither ITF or KKW related. 2 of note are Martial Arts, Traditions History and People by Corcoran and Farkus (1987), and He Young Kim's History of TKD (2013?).

If you review the Bio's of seemingly 95% of the TKD people of note teaching before 1975 or so, they all had strong ties to General Choi at some point.

Now, picture yourself as one of those. You only learned the first 20 patterns, (Jhoon Rhee, He Il Cho, maybe HU Lee as well) you used a brown Belt as well, so out comes this "New" text with a publication date of 1972 which becomes available maybe a couple of years later in your neck of the woods. Do you Change what you've been doing?

 

[IcemanSK]

Changing over to the "new" (whether it be in forms, belts, or whatever) is a really difficult thing, for many MAists. Whether it be be "because my instructor did it this way (so I do too)", "who are they to tell me what to do?", "I like it better the old way (or my own new way," or whatever the reason. Change is hard for most of us.

 

[Oldbear343]

This is something that is really hard to get a handle on unless you read some books that are neither ITF or KKW related. 2 of note are Martial Arts, Traditions History and People by Corcoran and Farkus (1987), and He Young Kim's History of TKD (2013?).

If you review the Bio's of seemingly 95% of the TKD people of note teaching before 1975 or so, they all had strong ties to General Choi at some point.

Now, picture yourself as one of those. You only learned the first 20 patterns, (Jhoon Rhee, He Il Cho, maybe HU Lee as well) you used a brown Belt as well, so out comes this "New" text with a publication date of 1972 which becomes available maybe a couple of years later in your neck of the woods. Do you Change what you've been doing?

Thanks for this. So perhaps my question was not so silly after all.... ☺

 

[Gnarlie]

Changing over to the "new" (whether it be in forms, belts, or whatever) is a really difficult thing, for many MAists. Whether it be be "because my instructor did it this way (so I do too)", "who are they to tell me what to do?", "I like it better the old way (or my own new way," or whatever the reason. Change is hard for most of us.

That I think is partly because our abilities are purchased with hard work, and we think we might have done all that work for nothing.

Typically that is not the case, the changes are normally minor and can be worked in within a few weeks.

People just struggle to let go of what they worked for.

 

[IcemanSK]

That I think is partly because our abilities are purchased with hard work, and we think we might have done all that work for nothing.

Typically that is not the case, the changes are normally minor and can be worked in within a few weeks.

People just struggle to let go of what they worked for.

But moreso, people struggle with change in general. Life, birth, career change, the need to get a new car...people struggle with that. Add something like, "this is the way MY instructor taught me it was !" It's understandable that some want to engrave it in stine for all to see. I think changing where a kihaps in a form goes or what belt color is designated for what gup grade tends to fall under the category of HISTORY with a capital H, rather than any sense of work we've put it. (That still doesn't mean I won't forget the kihap has now moved, or put one in where "I" think it should be. )

 

[Dirty Dog]

Changing over to the "new" (whether it be in forms, belts, or whatever) is a really difficult thing, for many MAists. Whether it be be "because my instructor did it this way (so I do too)", "who are they to tell me what to do?", "I like it better the old way (or my own new way," or whatever the reason. Change is hard for most of us.

I take a simple approach. If it's a CORRECTION, I do my best to fix it. If it's a CHANGE, I do my best to practice it. While continuing to practice the old way, in many cases.

 

[Gnarlie]

I take a simple approach. If it's a CORRECTION, I do my best to fix it. If it's a CHANGE, I do my best to practice it. While continuing to practice the old way, in many cases.

I sort of agree. I never forget the old way, and I will always seek out the reasoning behind corrections and changes.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Personal story: Went to my first IIC with General Choi in 1990. Had trained with top ITF people in the world. for 19 years. Figured I would not learn much new. When he would say something that was different then what I learned a litle voice in my head would scream "That's wrong". Of course, since he was the final authority of the system it could not be wrong. My notes had over 150 things I needed to fix. When I checked them against the text I found that 95%+ were what the text stated and I had been taught differently. In some cases you could see how there may have been a different interpretation by an instructor, or how things morphed as they got passed thru generatrions of instructors. In a very few cases newer editions had revisons / corrections from earlier texts. (At a much later IIC I had General Choi sign my 1965 Book and he commented that it had many errors, but the need to get a manual in print outweighed delaying printing for repeated corrections.)

 

[Oldbear343]

I sort of agree. I never forget the old way, and I will always seek out the reasoning behind corrections and changes.

I'm with you on that, Gnarlie - it can be very a noting to be taught something as being traditional and Rhee fore sacrosanct, only for it to be changed from year to year afterwards!

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Personal story: Went to my first IIC with General Choi in 1990. Had trained with top ITF people in the world. for 19 years. Figured I would not learn much new. When he would say something that was different then what I learned a litle voice in my head would scream "That's wrong". Of course, since he was the final authority of the system it could not be wrong.

Interesting to see the different philosophy in play in different arts. In some arts there is the idea of a "final authority of the system" who can decree what is right or wrong. In other arts it's totally down to what works for the purpose at hand.

If Helio Gracie came back to life and told me I was doing my BJJ wrong, that wouldn't make it so. I would listen very respectfully and try whatever he suggested*, just as I would with any senior instructor, but ultimately he would not be the arbiter of right or wrong for my BJJ.

*(I'd be particularly interested in his methods for rising from the grave. )

In general, I'm not sure that "right" or "wrong" are the most helpful concepts in martial arts. I prefer to look at questions like:

Does the technique/drill/training method work in a particular situation?
Does the technique/drill/training method work for a particular person?
Is the technique/drill/training method the most efficient means of reaching a particular goal in a particular situation?
What are the pros and cons of performing a technique/drill/training method in a particular way?
and so on.

It's always interesting for me to see discussions of an art where there is an assumption of one true correct way of doing things that is designated by an authority of some sort. I'm not criticizing - it's just an alien mindset to me.

 

[Earl Weiss]

It's always interesting for me to see discussions of an art where there is an assumption of one true correct way of doing things that is designated by an authority of some sort. I'm not criticizing - it's just an alien mindset to me.

I can see how this would happen without the proper frame of reference. First and foremost many of the technical standards General Choi used had explicit reasons in his encyclopedia as to why they were done a certain way and the negative ramificatiopns of common errors. This is not to say reasoneable minds could not differ as to which is better and he readily acknowledged while the system had certain standard methods of performing techniques they would be altered as circumstances warranted.

For instance, in the pattern system all single inner forearm blocks are middle. That does not men the "Standards Police" are going to jump out and say you are doing it wrong if you use a high inner forearm block to defend your self. However, if the student does a high block in a pattern when it's supposed to be middle, does the student know what level the block is supposed to be at? Does the student know what level they are actualy doing it at? Having the standard allows for teaching and learning.

So, perhaps it is a semantics issue where "correct" denotes the standard applied universaly and internationaly as opposed to the optimal manner of execution uinder any and all circumstances.

The next issue had to do with understanding terminology and what meaning or concept the terminology conveyed as it related to executuion of a technique. It is important that everyone "Speak The Same language" for training / learning and teaching to take place on a wide scale.

The next reason for having a "correct" (standard) way to execute a technique was so students had a technical standard as a metric for achievement, and the instructors / observers had a way to determine if the student knew the standard, and understood whether or not they were achieving the standard.

 

[chrispillertkd]

According to Grand Master Jong Chan Kim, Gen. Choi settled on the current ranking system (10 geups, white, yellow, green, blue, red, and black belts) in 1966. This is one year after the first English Taekwon-Do textbook was published but still several years before his more extensive 1972 text book was published.

Apparently, GM Kim and GM Moon Ku Baek were discussing Taekwon-Do training in the U.S. and Moon Ku Baek said that Americans were used to a more progressive training and ranking system so GM Kim suggested to Gen. Choi that he expand the ranking system that was currently in use. Gen. Choi dropped brown, replaced it with red, and added both yellow and green to have the 10 geup system we have today. He also tied each color to a symbolic meaning giving the belt progression an underlying philosophy.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Oldbear343]

According to Grand Master Jong Chan Kim, Gen. Choi settled on the current ranking system (10 geups, white, yellow, green, blue, red, and black belts) in 1966. This is one year after the first English Taekwon-Do textbook was published but still several years before his more extensive 1972 text book was published.

Apparently, GM Kim and GM Moon Ku Baek were discussing Taekwon-Do training in the U.S. and Moon Ku Baek said that Americans were used to a more progressive training and ranking system so GM Kim suggested to Gen. Choi that he expand the ranking system that was currently in use. Gen. Choi dropped brown, replaced it with red, and added both yellow and green to have the 10 geup system we have today. He also tied each color to a symbolic meaning giving the belt progression an underlying philosophy.

Pax,

Chris

Thanks Chris ☺

 

[oftheherd1]

Well, not really. First we would have to agree on what is "Original" and then on what is "TKD"

Per General Choi's 1965 Book. The lowest grade rank - White Belt was 8th -7th, Then Blue 6-5, Then Brown, 4-1st, Followed by Black (Degrees). (Also explains early use fo the Brown Belt) In the 1972 Book it was 10 Grades / Gups WYGBR. Likely the original system copied that of the early Kwans Which copied earlier Ryus, and the change along with the meaning for the colors was part of giving TKD a unique identity.

For whatever it does or doesn't add, when I studied under Jhoon Goo Rhee about 1965-1966, white was 10-9 gub, green was 8-7 gup, blue 6-5 gup, and there were 4 levels of brown belt before reaching black.

In the Hapkido I studied, again there were 10 gups, the last 4 being red belt.

 

[Oldbear343]

For whatever it does or doesn't add, when I studied under Jhoon Goo Rhee about 1965-1966, white was 10-9 gub, green was 8-7 gup, blue 6-5 gup, and there were 4 levels of brown belt before reaching black.

In the Hapkido I studied, again there were 10 gups, the last 4 being red belt.

Many thanks ☺