chrismay101
Green Belt
With this big split in Taekwondo who thinks this is good for the art or would this relationship be better together?
ITF / WTF better apart or together?
- Thread starter chrismay101
- Start date
I say bring them together this will help in the long run for a better union of brotherhood in TKD.
It would be (potentially) good - but I see no reason why it would happen any time soon. The split is too old, and yet there are many hard feelings remaining on both sides which could easily poison such a union. Perhaps in the future, when more of us have had the opportunity to get know each other in forums such as this one, and realize that our similarities are greater than our differences, and for those who were personally involved in the split and those who heard it first-hand to no longer be present, such a union could occur, but right now, I think it would cause more problems than it could solve.
I would love to see it happen. But, I don't see it for several reasons. Not only the ones that Kacey listed, but the "children" of the of the early leaders have developed the bad taste in their mouths that their fore-fathers had for each other. Pardon the annology, but it's sort of like street gangs that don't like the folks from "that" neighborhood. We may not know why we don't like em (although we've heard stories) we just don't.
Add to that our litlle "in house" squabbles (Tae Geuk or Pal Gwe: Sine Wave or no Sine Wave) & it's a wonder we walk on the same mat to train together.
Whether they are better together or apart, I'm not sure. But there is a saying....You can't go home, again. I think that applies, here.
Add to that our litlle "in house" squabbles (Tae Geuk or Pal Gwe: Sine Wave or no Sine Wave) & it's a wonder we walk on the same mat to train together.
Whether they are better together or apart, I'm not sure. But there is a saying....You can't go home, again. I think that applies, here.
Shaderon
Master of Arts
I'd like to see them put back together but on the whiole the most harmonoius would probably be to split them and name them different arts. Now the argument there would be who has the right to use TKD as the name so maybe Combat TKD and Kukiwan TKD, or anything like that.
I see I'm running against the majority here, but here goes, anyway...
I don't want the ITF to unify with WTF/KKW any more than I want Microsoft and Apple to `unify'. The last thing we need is a completely monoclonal culture of either Korean striking arts or personal computer operating systems... for the same reason that monoclonal agriculture is bad. I don't see any actual gain for the ordinary practitioner; what I see would be, less choice, more oppressive top-down control based on the market clout of what would be, in this scenario, a complete monopoly. What's wrong with the karate model, or the CMA model, instead? Many stories, many independent lines of development, a diverse MA ecosystem. Once you have `unity', chrismay, you have the strong potential for enforcement of a single unified curriculum in which any innovation or dissent is punished... for what benefit? How, as a TKD practitioner, are you harmed by the fact that at the moment there's a choice of orientations, hyung sets, and world-views out there.
Given my druthers, both the KKW and ITF would fade away and we would get the re-emergence of kwan-level curriculum and training methods as the top level of TKD organization. Before you jump on me for this perspective, at least take a look at what Rob Redmond has to say about the prospect of total unification in karate... please read this first!
http://www.24fightingchickens.com/2006/02/05/the-totalitarian-politics-of-karate/
OK... so was what I was saying above at least make a little bit of sense, in this light?
I don't want the ITF to unify with WTF/KKW any more than I want Microsoft and Apple to `unify'. The last thing we need is a completely monoclonal culture of either Korean striking arts or personal computer operating systems... for the same reason that monoclonal agriculture is bad. I don't see any actual gain for the ordinary practitioner; what I see would be, less choice, more oppressive top-down control based on the market clout of what would be, in this scenario, a complete monopoly. What's wrong with the karate model, or the CMA model, instead? Many stories, many independent lines of development, a diverse MA ecosystem. Once you have `unity', chrismay, you have the strong potential for enforcement of a single unified curriculum in which any innovation or dissent is punished... for what benefit? How, as a TKD practitioner, are you harmed by the fact that at the moment there's a choice of orientations, hyung sets, and world-views out there.
Given my druthers, both the KKW and ITF would fade away and we would get the re-emergence of kwan-level curriculum and training methods as the top level of TKD organization. Before you jump on me for this perspective, at least take a look at what Rob Redmond has to say about the prospect of total unification in karate... please read this first!
http://www.24fightingchickens.com/2006/02/05/the-totalitarian-politics-of-karate/
OK... so was what I was saying above at least make a little bit of sense, in this light?
It sure did. Honestly, I'm split between whether they should or shouldn't merge... I'm leaning more for staying put at the moment...
Chizikunbo
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2004
- Messages
- 306
- Reaction score
- 2
If we all join together under one umbrella it will create self-destruction. There would be toooo many chiefs and not enough indians, so to speak.
Nobody would agree on who would lead and who would follow. JMHO.
Nobody would agree on who would lead and who would follow. JMHO.
cali_tkdbruin
Master of Arts
I'm for a merger between the 2 orgs and ending all of the infighting. Enough already! Shut yourselves in a room for as long as it takes, compromise and hammer out the differences. I guess I'm partial to one side, but I'm willing to listen to the other side. I'm just a practitioner of the art, and I just hope these powers that be work out what's best for our art. Enough already... :bird:
cali_tkdbruin
Master of Arts
Since it's a long Memorial Day weekend here in the States, this topic is sorta like the IRL and Champ racing split. These 2 orgs need 2 get together and make the Indy 500 the premenent sports spectical over the Memorial Day weekend like it was prior 2 the split. NASCAR is ok, but I've always liked open wheel racing (especially the Long Beach Grand Prix here in So. Cali. when it comes to town). Anyway, these orgs need 2 get together and get back to the negotiating table! :tantrum:
Fluffy
Black Belt
I feel they have they're merits being apart, but I would like to see some joint ventures. Like the Olympics or some world championship tourney's - or even an open instructors camp would be great!
I think all competitors no-matter what style should have a shot at the Olympics if you are a ITF point sparrer but can adapt to the rules of engagement for Olympic sparring and can beat everybody else than you should be able to go, plain and simple.
stoneheart
Purple Belt
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 317
- Reaction score
- 2
I think ITF and WTF technique have diverged sufficiently to where they are now different styles altogether. That's ok, too. Look at the various karate styles: Isshin-ryu looks fairly different from Goju-Ryu, even though Goju was one of the influences on Isshin-ryu. TKD has developed the way it has over time - there's no way to turn back the clock, nor do I believe there's any real benefit to doing so.
Sad, but all too true. Here's an example:
Note the last line (bold added). I found a reference to this contest on a Ch'ang H'on TKD board I visit from periodically; the person who posted it sent a letter refusing to participate and urging others to boycott it as well, since he holds ranks in both organizations and is, therefore, ineligible by the rules, despite having been sent a letter of invitation by the organizers.
Not a good example of folks wanting to unite, is it?
I was about to post a thread on the subject after reading an article titled, 'the merger' in the July issue of Taekwondo Times on page 20, but I figured I'd show my high belt skills and utilize the search button.
Anyway, the article didn't have anything solid about what efforts are taking place aside from mention of an ITF-WTF meeting in Beijing in March, "which was very friendly, cooperative, and productive."
In any case, what do you think? Could it happen? Would it be good? If so, for whom? ITF, WTF, both, or neither.
I can't help but think of the merger between Chrysler and Mercedes, which was supposed to aid Mercedes with small cars and help Chrysler with big, rear drive cars. Well, Mercedes has no Chrysler sourced small cars and Chrysler has no small cars period, is suffering more than Ford and GM combined, and definitely drew the short stick in that deal. Why mention this?
Because in a merger, generally, one of the merging parties tends to be eaten by the other. Or both suffer. There are those instances where the whole turns out to be greater than the sum of the parts, and if a WTF/ITF merger were to happen, I would hope that the result would be such.
Not being particularly familiar with the ITF, I have no strong feelings on the subject beyond what I have already stated above...... which is why I'm posting and asking for your thoughts instead.
Daniel
Anyway, the article didn't have anything solid about what efforts are taking place aside from mention of an ITF-WTF meeting in Beijing in March, "which was very friendly, cooperative, and productive."
In any case, what do you think? Could it happen? Would it be good? If so, for whom? ITF, WTF, both, or neither.
I can't help but think of the merger between Chrysler and Mercedes, which was supposed to aid Mercedes with small cars and help Chrysler with big, rear drive cars. Well, Mercedes has no Chrysler sourced small cars and Chrysler has no small cars period, is suffering more than Ford and GM combined, and definitely drew the short stick in that deal. Why mention this?
Because in a merger, generally, one of the merging parties tends to be eaten by the other. Or both suffer. There are those instances where the whole turns out to be greater than the sum of the parts, and if a WTF/ITF merger were to happen, I would hope that the result would be such.
Not being particularly familiar with the ITF, I have no strong feelings on the subject beyond what I have already stated above...... which is why I'm posting and asking for your thoughts instead.
Daniel
I think the fundamental objectives of the two orgs is different. WTF is a huge international sport-promotion 'federation', owned and operated by the ROK, with the greater glory, political and economic, of South Korea always the number one consideration, with an overwhelming emphasis on sport TKD of now all-too-familiar kind. The ITF is in many respects still the legacy Gen. Choi, with what I think of as a built-in skepticism—part of the institutional culture—so far as the sportification of the art is concerned. How can these two outfits 'get together' when they differ on fundamental questions about the direction of TKD—what Taekwondo should really be? And ITF practitioners have good reason to be worried that if that unification ever happened, then the greater fish would eat the smaller. Why would that be to anyone's benefit?
I've made it pretty clear in other posts that what I'd really like to see is a declaration of independence from the WTF by those American (and other) TKDists who see the art, first and foremost, as a vehicle for self-defense and who are therefore totally indifferent to what happens under the completely street-impractical scoring conventions of Olympic-style sparring. So my response to this question could be seen as simply knee-jerk aversion to the WTF. And I wouldn't argue with that, but I'd want to go a little further and ask, why should the ITF's fundamentally different point of view be silenced (as you can bet it would be in any 'merger') when it corresponds—much more closely than the WTF's—to the perspective of many TKD practitioners who see their art as a practical fighting system?
I've made it pretty clear in other posts that what I'd really like to see is a declaration of independence from the WTF by those American (and other) TKDists who see the art, first and foremost, as a vehicle for self-defense and who are therefore totally indifferent to what happens under the completely street-impractical scoring conventions of Olympic-style sparring. So my response to this question could be seen as simply knee-jerk aversion to the WTF. And I wouldn't argue with that, but I'd want to go a little further and ask, why should the ITF's fundamentally different point of view be silenced (as you can bet it would be in any 'merger') when it corresponds—much more closely than the WTF's—to the perspective of many TKD practitioners who see their art as a practical fighting system?
Last edited:
I am for a merger in theory, but it will never happen for several reasons.
1. There is too much acrimonious history between the two, each one promoting itself as the true Korean Tae Kwon Do
2. There is too much difference in ideology, especially with the ITF insisting that Gen. Choi was the founder of Taekwondo. That would not go over well in a merger.
3. Approach to forms and sparring is different. Sine wave or not? Full contact or not? What rules and gear do you use?
I think if a merger theoreticaly happened, you'd pretty much have to start from square one-new forms, sparring rules, ideology etc. I also think that The Kukkiwon/WTF would be much more reluctant toward a merger than the ITF asthey have more to lose. I don't see it happening.
1. There is too much acrimonious history between the two, each one promoting itself as the true Korean Tae Kwon Do
2. There is too much difference in ideology, especially with the ITF insisting that Gen. Choi was the founder of Taekwondo. That would not go over well in a merger.
3. Approach to forms and sparring is different. Sine wave or not? Full contact or not? What rules and gear do you use?
I think if a merger theoreticaly happened, you'd pretty much have to start from square one-new forms, sparring rules, ideology etc. I also think that The Kukkiwon/WTF would be much more reluctant toward a merger than the ITF asthey have more to lose. I don't see it happening.
