Cirdan
Senior Master
When they decided to become merchants.
If you had just one question to ask KKW
- Thread starter miguksaram
- Start date
When they decided to become merchants.
No need to.. Simon O'Neills book cover that.. perhaps he'd lend them a few pages out of it and save them some trouble
Stuart
Another question: Are the WTF going to actually impliment punching as an equal or more viable scorer to kicking in tournaments now gloves are worn? I ask as there was a rumour head punches were going to be allowed but it never happened!
Stuart
Stuart
Thay say they are foing to apptove punches again, just do not know when.
Please youngman every single person that has been to the KKW back in the eighties and have gone over in the last 2-10 years says there standerds have dropped alot, so it would srill be a valed question. Asking someone if they are stupid after they where smart wold also be aq valed question under the right circumstanves.
I know you feel the need to protect the KKW and believe me I do to, but what they have been doing over the last twenty years is not fair to the Art I teach. If mor epeople would stand up and say we need qualify instructor teaching then it would help make them change.
Strongly seconded. "Yeah, we will at some point in the future" is a non-commital, evasive answer. There needs to be a deadline.
I don't think YM is saying the question is invalid (please correct me if I'm wrong), just that "When did you stop teaching Taekwondo?" is quite an aggresive way to ask the question, and will likely be construed as a something of a verbal attack, which is unlikely to get you anywhere as far as meaningful answers. They won't understand that you ask in that way because you are seriously concerned about your art. Better to give examples of how standards have slipped and ask why this has been allowed to happen?terryl965 said:
Last edited:
I agree with your above statement it is being hard but what they have done is being viewed by all to see and I get tired of explaining what once was.
If someone tells me my teaching style is no good or that my Taekwondo sucks, my first response would be "Oh really?"
Now, if they have criticisms of my teaching style or my Taekwondo and can give me concrete examples of what they think problems are, I may be more willing to listen if I think their critiques have validity.
"When did you stop teaching Taekwondo" may very well be construed (especially by senior instructors when confronted by someone they see as very junior to them, in rank if not in years) as an attack on the Kukkiwon and all it represents. Remember, the Kukkiwon is very important in Korean culture.
Presenting valid thought out criticisms and justifying them probably will be more likely to get you a positive response.
Now, if they have criticisms of my teaching style or my Taekwondo and can give me concrete examples of what they think problems are, I may be more willing to listen if I think their critiques have validity.
"When did you stop teaching Taekwondo" may very well be construed (especially by senior instructors when confronted by someone they see as very junior to them, in rank if not in years) as an attack on the Kukkiwon and all it represents. Remember, the Kukkiwon is very important in Korean culture.
Presenting valid thought out criticisms and justifying them probably will be more likely to get you a positive response.
Not entirely. Asking why someone is stupid is implying something about their nature that they may or may not be able to help. Asking why the KKW isn't teaching taekwondo anymore to the KKW is asking about the course they have chosen.
I would guarantee that if he asked this question they'd know exactly what he was talking about, though if I were asking it directly to the KKW, I would not be so blunt as the way Terry put it (meaning no offense Terry
). There is absolutely no question that current KKW curriculum differs in substantive ways from what it was thirty years ago, particularly the sparring style, which is a radical departure from what a taekwondo practitioner in the seventies would have participated in.
A lot of it comes down to whether or not Taekwondo as an art is defined by the Kukkiwon in a top down fashion or if it is defined by how art was before the Kukkiwon.
Daniel
The biggest complaint I hear is "why does the Kukkiwon not emphasize self defense anymore?"
Define self defense? Does self defense mean vital point attacks? Does it mean grappling? Does it mean effective kicking to stop an attacker? One step sparring? What do you mean when you say self defense?
Taekwondo does not emphasize grappling because it's not a grappling style. One step sparring? Taekwondo does that. Vital spots? Taekwondo teaches that. Remember, just because WTF sparring gets a lot of publicity doesn't mean other aspects have fallen by the wayside. A look at the Hanmadang will show Taekwondo still packs plenty of power in areas other than sparring.
And I don't need Simon O'Neil or any of the others to tell me otherwise.
Define self defense? Does self defense mean vital point attacks? Does it mean grappling? Does it mean effective kicking to stop an attacker? One step sparring? What do you mean when you say self defense?
Taekwondo does not emphasize grappling because it's not a grappling style. One step sparring? Taekwondo does that. Vital spots? Taekwondo teaches that. Remember, just because WTF sparring gets a lot of publicity doesn't mean other aspects have fallen by the wayside. A look at the Hanmadang will show Taekwondo still packs plenty of power in areas other than sparring.
And I don't need Simon O'Neil or any of the others to tell me otherwise.
Great points Youngman
YM, I've bolded the relevant parts here that I think don't jibe.
You've characterized the statement you have a problem with as one about what the KKW does (or rather, mostly doesn't do). But in the rest of your post you talk about what TKD itself does. A martial art doesn't itself teach anything, or pack power, or 'do', however. Teachers teach, or don't teach, something; practitioners pack power, if they've learned how. TKD itself is an abstraction. It's a set of resources, like any MA. Those resources are there, but not every teacher is going to take avantage of particular aspects of them. And the objection is that the KKW curricululum, in particular, does not take advantage of a particular set of resources: the CQ combat applications that are encoded in a particular set of forms, many of which have little to do with the stylized 'one steps', but a lot to do with the way real fights initiated by a dangerous assailant often start. The general consensus is that the KKW ignores this particular aspect of TKD's resources in its curriculum. From what he's posted, it looks like even miguksaram, who's among the most supportive of the KKW of anyone on MT, agrees with this particular assessment. For those who share that point of view, the research carried out by people like Stuart and by SJO'N represents a chance to get access to these SD resources and add to our knowledge and capability as TKDists.
And that's in part why I'm baffled by the implication in your statement that what Stuart and SJON have written is intended to 'tell you otherwise'. They are supporting the picture of TKD as an effective combat art, by showing how the resources hidden in the stylized movements of the forms, including the much derided Taegeuks, contain a wealth of practical combat utility. How does this amount to 'telling you otherwise'? On the contrary, it seems that their work contradicts and challenges people who argue that TKD has no fighting applicability.
If you decide, in advance of the facts, that nothing these people have discovered about TKD hyungs could possibly enhance your knowledge and SD capability, that's absolutely your choice. Those of us who feel that there's always more to learn, and that there's too much to know for any one person to work it all out on their own, will gladly acquire, study and benefit from this sort of work. It's a free country; if you don't want to take advantage of new knowledge, in any area of life, that's your perfect right. I'm not sure that there's much more that needs saying, beyond that.
Last edited:
Exile,
What I'm saying, and continue to say, is that I don't need a couple of British guys who've analyzed Japanese forms telling me "this" is what I need to do make TKD forms more effective. If you've analyzed Japanese forms, tell the Japanese what they need to do to make their forms more self defense oriented. I'm sure they'll be glad to hear it.
I also believe that just because Olympic Taekwondo gets a lot of publicity doesn't mean that the Kukkiwon (which oversees all the other aspects of Korean Taekwondo) has forsaken self defense. Of course they haven't. A seminar with Hae Man Park or other senior instructor will really open your eyes about how effective Kukkiwon technique can be.
What I'm saying, and continue to say, is that I don't need a couple of British guys who've analyzed Japanese forms telling me "this" is what I need to do make TKD forms more effective. If you've analyzed Japanese forms, tell the Japanese what they need to do to make their forms more self defense oriented. I'm sure they'll be glad to hear it.
I also believe that just because Olympic Taekwondo gets a lot of publicity doesn't mean that the Kukkiwon (which oversees all the other aspects of Korean Taekwondo) has forsaken self defense. Of course they haven't. A seminar with Hae Man Park or other senior instructor will really open your eyes about how effective Kukkiwon technique can be.
But YM, the forms Stuart (one our own members, btw) and SJON have analyzed are TKD forms. Stuart has analyzed the Ch'ang Hon ITF tuls; Simon's book is called The Taegeuk Cipher, and that's what he's worked on. Japanese karate kata don't come into it at all!
And on the second point, a number of Japanese karateka have been influenced by the work of some of the British kata analysts like Abernethy... they are willing to learn from others' good ideas, whatever the source.
Last edited:
I take it I'm included in that! Not sure what my nationality has to do with anything though.. perhaps if I was Korean I would be more worthy or something eh! Anyways, jokes aside, I (and Simon or others) arnt telling you anything.. we simply have tried to open a few doors... purely up to you if you walk through it or decide not to!
Regarding the KKW not emphasising Self defence.. that comes mainly from KKW students/instructors and Exile is right on point when he says you refer to TKD not any KKW madate regarding it - sure decent kicks etc etc can fall into the frameset of self defence, but just a part of it. The emphasis should play the major part of it, the various attacks & situations that can happen, HAOV attacks etc etc, kicking against a kicker in a TKD match isnt the same thing, but its not that TKD is lacking, or that KKW instructors do not teach it (Terry does), its that if its not required as a grading requirement then it often isnt practiced or enforced across the board (key words there) and that is probibly the problem/issue. Remember, many students may not have access to those you mention (Hae Man Park etc.) and thus do not get that side of it like you do.
I know many WTF'ers who do good SD related stuff in their classes, but how much of that is down to them as opposed to International requirements of a governing body! I do not know as I do not 100% know what the KKW require, but I do know that those who ask the quetion of the KKW arnt slighting any WTF Instructors, but questioning organisational issues as a whole! Defend TKD by all means, let the orgs fend for themselves IMO!
Stuart
Well I for one agree with Stuart and have teamed up with him in regards to a more Self Dfense Tae Kwon Do there books open other views and angle for alot of TKD folks. I have no problem if they are British Turkish or American as long as they are doing TKD and the way I like it.
Remmeber the KKW really does not offer alot of SD any,ore and maybe you should actually go ove rther and see for yourself. I know I have been there at least five times, seeing is believing is'nt that what everyone says. Any Master or GM can say one thing to look good and I am not starting a flame war here but look at all the evidence that follows the Art of TKD.
Remmeber the KKW really does not offer alot of SD any,ore and maybe you should actually go ove rther and see for yourself. I know I have been there at least five times, seeing is believing is'nt that what everyone says. Any Master or GM can say one thing to look good and I am not starting a flame war here but look at all the evidence that follows the Art of TKD.
I believe the Kukkiwon viewpoint, as I'm sure the ITF's is as well, is that Taekwondo is a martial art and a way of life. As such, while many of the techniques are designed for self defense, by definition Taekwondo is not a pure fighting style. By that I mean it is not designed strictly for combat and self defense. It is designed to be an overall program of physical, mental, spiritual (hence the Do), and social well being.
Therefore, asking "why does Taekwondo no longer emphasize self defense and combat" strikes me as short sighted and not understanding what Taekwondo is really all about. Do I think Taekwondo should be effective as a self defense art useful in combat (although it certainly depends on your definition of combat)? Sure. Do I think that Taekwondo should only emphasize self defense and combat? No. There are plenty of strictly combat styles out there. The nice thing about Taekwondo, to me, is that it is a holistic style. It has something for everyone.
Anyway, many of the things it teaches (speed, power, footwork, accuracy, stamina etc.) have definite SD and combat application.
Therefore, asking "why does Taekwondo no longer emphasize self defense and combat" strikes me as short sighted and not understanding what Taekwondo is really all about. Do I think Taekwondo should be effective as a self defense art useful in combat (although it certainly depends on your definition of combat)? Sure. Do I think that Taekwondo should only emphasize self defense and combat? No. There are plenty of strictly combat styles out there. The nice thing about Taekwondo, to me, is that it is a holistic style. It has something for everyone.
Anyway, many of the things it teaches (speed, power, footwork, accuracy, stamina etc.) have definite SD and combat application.
No one has asked that, as Taekwon-do itself does emphasize SD, the question refer to the KKW, as an organisation, nt emphasizing it!
Wishful thinking and actions are often different (and Im not refering to you per se, just that actions speak louder than words in general and we rise to how we are trained, not to what we expect will be the case). The only saying "you fight as you train" is certainly true of a street enviroment, you can mix & match anything physical as attributes to SD, but on their own they are not SD. For example swimming has benefits towards SD.. but how much will it help when the sh#t hits the fan!
Again, no one said 'only'.. SD is just one part of TKD, a part that many feel is missing from the KKW syllabus/emphasis of TKD
See point regarding swimming & SD
Stuart
