How important is the History to the present?

[granfire]

A lot of recent topics revolve around the history of TKD, Kwans, past masters etc.

While I am considering myself a history buff and can certainly understand for somebody to passionately dive into the past, some of the recent tenor on the board has me wonder as to just how important it really is to what we presently are doing.

 

[leadleg]

Well for one thing, if you want to talk tradition, which so many want to do I would think history would come in handy.

 

[terryl965]

It is if you want to learn about TKD, but if you just want to train than it really probaly does not matter.

 

[Manny]

The history and the past of TKD is very important to me as the comands,names of the techs must to be in korean, that's the way I was taught and that's the way it should be to me.

Since my comback I noticed the history of TKD is not as relevant in the dojangs, most of the time inside dojang is spended in kicking techs and poomsae but very few minutes are spended in the phyolosophie of TKD and the learning of the customs inside the dojang.

I am teaching my studentes the comands and techs in spanish and korean and I think that maybe in a couple of months I will use the koren comands only, I teach my studentes the hystory of TKD, the present of the TKD and the possible future of TKD.

For example very few of the students on my dojang know about the meaning of the Korean flag and the meaning of our patch, very few know something about Gen.Choi or the KTA or how TKD was born.

If we want to keep the Martial Art of TKD we must not forget it's roots, the vocabulary,the customs... and yes these is maybe worthless for the WTF/Olimpic sparing people but they only are focuse on THE GAME not the MA.

Manny

 

[Nomad]

I find that the history of an art is an interesting way to explore some of the culture and ideas that helped form the art, which in turn can give you insights into some of the techniques involved.

I don't think it's necessary, but it's definitely fascinating, especially if you can figure out where and how some of the changes in training and training methods happened.

As an example, it's been noted that much of the "character development" side of karate evolved during the american occupation of Japan following WWII, and was clearly used to downplay the military and fighting applications which had been heavily hyped during the militarization phase leading up to the war. This allowed karate to continue being openly practiced and spreading while many other martial arts were banned.

 

[puunui]

For the white belt student, or even the lower dan students, I don't think history study is important. I think when you are at the physical levels, you should concentrate on the physical techniques.

However, if you are in a policy making position in a position to determine Taekwondo's future, then I think it is very important to understand where you came from in order to figure out where we want to go. The problem today is that our decision makers do not have this background, and it is hurting Taekwondo.

I also think that if you wish to intelligently comment on what is going on, then is definitely helps to understand the background as to how we got to where we are.

 

[dancingalone]

I am very much interested in historical tae kwon do/Korean karate, particularly with regard to their technical nature. I see the curriculum commonly offered now as tae kwon do and I find them lacking in both depth as well as rigor, so I have set up to design what I hope to be a more robust syllabus bound together with the perhaps romanticized conception of what I believe the Koreans practiced in the 40's and 50's. That vision could be generalized as Japanese karate with kicking somewhat emphasized and a generous helping of judo and ju jutsu blended in.

As a reality check, I would love to see a full accounting of what the various kwans practiced. Unfortunately, it's tough to find anything fully detailed.

 

[puunui]

I see the curriculum commonly offered now as tae kwon do and I find them lacking in both depth as well as rigor, so I have set up to design what I hope to be a more robust syllabus bound together with the perhaps romanticized conception of what I believe the Koreans practiced in the 40's and 50's.

I think part of the problem is that your only comparison for Taekwondo is what you might see in your neighborhood strip mall. That I would say would be taking the lowest common denominator and using that as the basis for evaluation. I prefer to look at Taekwondo in its highest light, practiced by the elite level practitioner for physical performance and the pioneers for their vision and philosophy as to what Taekwondo is really about. So in that sense, we are talking apples and oranges. My suggestion is rather than a romanticized conception of what you believe the Korean practitioners were doing in the 40s and 50s, that you look at the highest level practitioners today, because the pioneers will all tell you that today's level of skill is much greater than what they had going on, at least with respect to kicking.

One senior confided in me that even as late as the 50s and early 60's, they really did not understand the concept of kicking, how to use footwork to position yourself to land a kick with maximum speed and power. If you watch some of the old style videos on youtube which are out there, you can see that there was no commitment of body weight or momentum such that power in kicks would be generated. They simply snapped their lower legs with no commitment and no understanding. Many practitioners still do that today. But there has been tremendous development in kicking, and it's a whole new ball game.

Whenever I hear people say taekwondo kicks lack power, that it is a game of tag, I immediately question whether this person has actually seen or experienced high level Taekwondo. All it takes is to stand in front of an elite level player for a couple of minutes and perhaps those opinions would dramatically and drastically change.

The point I am trying to make is that when evaluating an art, we should look at the ideal or the elite level practitioner to decide the quality of the art, not what the seven year old orange belts are doing around the corner next to the dominoes pizza outlet. After all, and once again, we are all in a state of non-compliance, some more than others, but we are all striving for a certain ideal. Let's compare to the ideal, rather than the ones who are still trying to reach that ideal.

 

[miguksaram]

For me the historical research into Korean arts gives me a better appreciation for what I am learning. So much of TKD and Korean arts in general derives from that diversities that they faced as nation through out their history. I find it fascinating and admirable that their diligence to perservere has helped create an art that is so widely practiced today.

Will it make my kick stronger or faster, probably not. However, it will help me get a better idea on what the pioneers' vision of what they wanted to do with all that they developed.

 

[dancingalone]

I think part of the problem is that your only comparison for Taekwondo is what you might see in your neighborhood strip mall. That I would say would be taking the lowest common denominator and using that as the basis for evaluation. I prefer to look at Taekwondo in its highest light, practiced by the elite level practitioner for physical performance and the pioneers for their vision and philosophy as to what Taekwondo is really about. So in that sense, we are talking apples and oranges. My suggestion is rather than a romanticized conception of what you believe the Korean practitioners were doing in the 40s and 50s, that you look at the highest level practitioners today, because the pioneers will all tell you that today's level of skill is much greater than what they had going on, at least with respect to kicking.

No, I am not using the McDojo as a benchmark. I've done my homework on this. But you're right in one respect: I am definitely not comparing to the training regimen of the typical Olympic contender, because frankly IMO the taekwondo would be even MORE deficient, albeit focused highly towards winning contests under the rule set established for Olympic rules TKD.

These are the considerations I have in designing my syllabus:

• competence in long, medium, and short striking ranges
• familiarity with ground defense with survival as a primary goal
• variety in response levels from the destructive (striking) to the controlling (locks and pins) for all trained attack scenarios
• techniques should work even when the defender is only within 30% of the attacker's size, height, or strength
• all instructions of technique, strategy/tactics, and principles should be tied back to the forms or drills derived from the forms
• viable empty hand defense practiced against the so-called Habitual Acts of Violence as described by Patrick McCarthy
• viable defense versus stick/club and knife attacks
• familiarity with using stick/club and knife as weapons

With all due respect, I do not see the KKW requirements fitting this list of requirements. That's not a value judgment about whether KKW is good or not, merely an observation that it does not address the needs I have identified.

One senior confided in me that even as late as the 50s and early 60's, they really did not understand the concept of kicking, how to use footwork to position yourself to land a kick with maximum speed and power. If you watch some of the old style videos on youtube which are out there, you can see that there was no commitment of body weight or momentum such that power in kicks would be generated. They simply snapped their lower legs with no commitment and no understanding. Many practitioners still do that today. But there has been tremendous development in kicking, and it's a whole new ball game.

Whenever I hear people say taekwondo kicks lack power, that it is a game of tag, I immediately question whether this person has actually seen or experienced high level Taekwondo. All it takes is to stand in front of an elite level player for a couple of minutes and perhaps those opinions would dramatically and drastically change.

I am sure there's been a lot of study and improvement made upon the art of kicking under the auspices of the KKW. I would be surprised that there hasn't been given the group's overall goals.

The point I am trying to make is that when evaluating an art, we should look at the ideal or the elite level practitioner to decide the quality of the art, not what the seven year old orange belts are doing around the corner next to the dominoes pizza outlet. After all, and once again, we are all in a state of non-compliance, some more than others, but we are all striving for a certain ideal. Let's compare to the ideal, rather than the ones who are still trying to reach that ideal.

See above. I generally agree with your premise about looking at the best of an art in order to evaluate it correctly. That said, that's not the situation here at all. I have certain outcomes I believe are important in a martial art, so I have resolved to design a solution to help students reach them. I am sure I am reinventing the wheel to an extent, but not so when compared to KKW base requirements. These simply don't begin to address the problems I find important, which is not surprising. They were meant for something else entirely, fitting with your sport = TKD view.

Do you disagree?

 

[puunui]

They were meant for something else entirely, fitting with your sport = TKD view. Do you disagree?

I disagree that my view is sport = TKD. My view is that it is all Taekwondo, whether competition or for any other reason why Taekwondoin train, including but not limited to the tiny fraction of Taekwondoin that train primarily for self defense.

 

[puunui]

No, I am not using the McDojo as a benchmark. I've done my homework on this. But you're right in one respect: I am definitely not comparing to the training regimen of the typical Olympic contender, because frankly IMO the taekwondo would be even MORE deficient, albeit focused highly towards winning contests under the rule set established for Olympic rules TKD.

I think you need to go work out and/or spar with groups like chae dae or samsung s1 team. Their promise sparring can and often times does go outside the parameters of the olympic rules. You might be surprised, they hear the same complaints about taekwondo that you are voicing, and they have a different perspective on that.

 

[dancingalone]

I disagree that my view is sport = TKD. My view is that it is all Taekwondo, whether competition or for any other reason why Taekwondoin train, including but not limited to the tiny fraction of Taekwondoin that train primarily for self defense.

There's not much to disagree with that. You're basically reducing everything down to the level of a discrete technique or tool. Thus, it's up to the individual to pick the tool and do something with it. The results can be good or bad, depending on the goal and how the tool is applied.

 

[dancingalone]

I think you need to go work out and/or spar with groups like chae dae or samsung s1 team. Their promise sparring can and often times does go outside the parameters of the olympic rules. You might be surprised, they hear the same complaints about taekwondo that you are voicing, and they have a different perspective on that.

Maybe so. Yet perhaps they need to work out or spar with ME with my parameters and underlying assumptions.

Might be illuminating for both sides.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

A lot of recent topics revolve around the history of TKD, Kwans, past masters etc.

While I am considering myself a history buff and can certainly understand for somebody to passionately dive into the past, some of the recent tenor on the board has me wonder as to just how important it really is to what we presently are doing.

I think that history is important. Taekwondo is a 'do' art, so it is about more than just the physical skills. The history is how we can remain connected with those who did the hard work to bring taekwondo to the world, be they Kukki, ITF, or otherwise.

Being a kendo practitioner and an occasional participant on ebudo.com, one of the things that really impresses me is the way that practitioners of Japanese sword arts honor and in some cases, revere their art's history.

Taekwondo's history is fascinating and the great thing is that the art is a young, postwar art. We can all have at least a working knowledge of that art. Consider also that we are practicing in the first century of Taekwondo's history, so not only may we know it, we are a part of it.

Daniel

 

[puunui]

Taekwondo's history is fascinating and the great thing is that the art is a young, postwar art. We can all have at least a working knowledge of that art. Consider also that we are practicing in the first century of Taekwondo's history, so not only may we know it, we are a part of it.

And the thing is, the people who contributed the most to Taekwondo's development, up until a few short years ago, were still alive and ready and willing to discuss the actual history. I remember GM Jhoon Rhee was at a USTU event a while back, and people were trying to talk to him and tell him how much they admired him. A friend of mine and I walked up and joined the conversation, and within a few seconds, GM Rhee was answering questions from me that no one thought to ask him. GM Rhee had to go, so we said our goodbyes, and everyone was like "How did you do THAT? How did you get him to talk about THAT?" The simple answer is, they want to talk about that stuff, if you approach them the proper and right way.

 

[leadleg]

I think part of the problem is that your only comparison for Taekwondo is what you might see in your neighborhood strip mall.

That I would say would be taking the lowest common denominator and using that as the basis for evaluation. I prefer to look at Taekwondo in its highest light, practiced by the elite level practitioner for physical performance and the pioneers for their vision and philosophy as to what Taekwondo is really about. So in that sense, we are talking apples and oranges. My suggestion is rather than a romanticized conception of what you believe the Korean practitioners were doing in the 40s and 50s, that you look at the highest level practitioners today, because the pioneers will all tell you that today's level of skill is much greater than what they had going on, at least with respect to kicking.

One senior confided in me that even as late as the 50s and early 60's, they really did not understand the concept of kicking, how to use footwork to position yourself to land a kick with maximum speed and power. If you watch some of the old style videos on youtube which are out there, you can see that there was no commitment of body weight or momentum such that power in kicks would be generated. They simply snapped their lower legs with no commitment and no understanding. Many practitioners still do that today. But there has been tremendous development in kicking, and it's a whole new ball game.

Whenever I hear people say taekwondo kicks lack power, that it is a game of tag, I immediately question whether this person has actually seen or experienced high level Taekwondo. All it takes is to stand in front of an elite level player for a couple of minutes and perhaps those opinions would dramatically and drastically change.

The point I am trying to make is that when evaluating an art, we should look at the ideal or the elite level practitioner to decide the quality of the art, not what the seven year old orange belts are doing around the corner next to the dominoes pizza outlet. After all, and once again, we are all in a state of non-compliance, some more than others, but we are all striving for a certain ideal. Let's compare to the ideal, rather than the ones who are still trying to reach that ideal.

The schools location if in a stripmall is grounds for calling it the lowest common denominator? So all the WTF schools on O'ahu are not in stripmalls,nor Master Remark,
Master Poos,I could go on but you get my drift. If a school is located in a stripmall has no more bearing on its quality than if its location is in a YMCA or some Masters basement.
By the way if TKD kicks lack power then why do I have to keep replacing targets and wavemasters so often?

 

[puunui]

The schools location if in a stripmall is grounds for calling it the lowest common denominator? So all the WTF schools on O'ahu are not in stripmalls,nor Master Remark, Master Poos,I could go on but you get my drift. If a school is located in a stripmall has no more bearing on its quality than if its location is in a YMCA or some Masters basement. By the way if TKD kicks lack power then why do I have to keep replacing targets and wavemasters so often?

I wasn't talking about your school or any of the others mentioned which are the exceptions to the rule.

 

[bluewaveschool]

Catch a full force sliding side kick in the chest, then tell me TKD kicks lack power. I went off my feet and landed 3 feet backwards.

Question, Puunui, since you know/converse with some of the pioneers. How many still practice daily? Do any of them still teach on a regular basis? We all know GM Rhee practices daily, and I had read somewhere that GM Son still teaches daily, though that may no longer be true.

 

[leadleg]

And the thing is, the people who contributed the most to Taekwondo's development, up until a few short years ago, were still alive and ready and willing to discuss the actual history. I remember GM Jhoon Rhee was at a USTU event a while back, and people were trying to talk to him and tell him how much they admired him. A friend of mine and I walked up and joined the conversation, and within a few seconds, GM Rhee was answering questions from me that no one thought to ask him. GM Rhee had to go, so we said our goodbyes, and everyone was like "How did you do THAT? How did you get him to talk about THAT?" The simple answer is, they want to talk about that stuff, if you approach them the proper and right way.

USTU event,was that JR"S in Kentucky? GM Rhee sitting at the head table,takes off his suit jacket,jumps up on the table and does 100 pushups in under 1 minute.Those were pretty darn good pushups too.