KKW textbooks

[IcemanSK]

I just bought the 2006 edition of the Kukkiwon textbook. I was surprised to find out that Sang Moo Sa (where I got it) also had copies of all the previous editions as well. I would have bought others but couldn't have justified the expense.

I've heard that the 2006 edition is an attempt to regain the "old school" Taekwondo of the 1975 edition. I do find it funny that they consider any technique used in any TKD form (including 8th Dan Han Soo & 9th Dan Il Yeo) to be "Basic techniques."

Can anyone compare the 2006 edition & older versions to say how it is more like "old school" TKD or at least older editions of the textbook? Or, if it's not, I'd be curious about that too.

 

[exile]

Can anyone compare the 2006 edition & older versions to say how it is more like "old school" TKD or at least older editions of the textbook? Or, if it's not, I'd be curious about that too.

I have a lot of trouble, myself, with the description `Old School', because the only way to determine it would be to have a clear picture of what TKD was in its earliest incarnation—the Kwan era TKD, presumably. And there is almost no record of that around, so as I know.

Really old school TKD is just Shotokan karate, for the most part. So what seems to be at issue here is the earliest TKD that wasn't straight Shotokan. This is what everyone wants to know about but no one has a source for. So it's going to be hard to relate any given later text to this earlier version of TKD whose content is essentially unknown, eh?...

 

[IcemanSK]

I guess by "old school" I was willing to settle for 1975-ish thoughts (or anything pre-Olympic style TKD).

I just ordered "Korean Karate" by Song Duk Sun & Tillson's book on Older forms to attempt to get an "old school" flavor. I figure GM Song's book was written in the late 60's, so I have a shot at getting a taste of old school CDK.

exile, I figure between you, Terry, Miles, MSUTKD & others on here, there is credible knowledge of such things. I'm sure that will be the case.

 

[exile]

I guess by "old school" I was willing to settle for 1975-ish thoughts (or anything pre-Olympic style TKD).

I just ordered "Korean Karate" by Song Duk Sun & Tillson's book on Older forms to attempt to get an "old school" flavor. I figure GM Song's book was written in the late 60's, so I have a shot at getting a taste of old school CDK.

I've actually got the Song book—it was published in 1968, the same year as S. Henry Cho's Secrets of Korean Karate, but boy, do the book look different. SHC's book has a very modern appearance; the Song book by contrast could have come out in the '40s—you'll see what I mean when your copy arrives. It actually contains some tree-kicking exercises (Xue would love it!) and while it displays high kicks, Song cautions that while 'beginners tend to think only of the height of a side kick[,] in actual fighting, a side kick any higher than the chest is not generally used because it is easier for the opponent to guage a high kick and step away.'—this from the guy who was responsible for training the Seoul police force in unarmed combat techniques at the start of the Korean War era and later was chief instructor of Korean Military Academy, the RoK's analogue of West Point, that helped produced the practitioners feared, quite correctly, by both the North Koreans and later the Viet Cong; and after the Korean was 'seconded' to the elements of the U.S. Eighth Army remaining to defend the South as their chief H2H tactics instructor. The forms are really old—the Kuk Mu hyungs are the starting point, the Pyung-Ahn forms are the intermediate colored belt forms, and ChulGi and Pal Sek start the advanced colored belt sequence. I agree, this is probably as 'old school' as we're going to find systematic documentation for. And there is no evidence of a sport orientation in the book at all. The applications have the kind of 'literal' quality that people like Abernethy, Burgar and the others talk about in connection with the kind of bunkai for karate katas that dominated the period between the war and the beginning of the 1990s, which isn't surprising, given what we know about how much the Okinawans withheld from their Japanese students during the '20s and '30s. All in all, a piece of living history; I haven't yet had a chance to read it at the level of detail I'd like to.

I'm not familiar with the Tillotson book at all—have to look it up...

 

[IcemanSK]

Ok, I musta had too much pizza & was too sleepy last night. The other book is Ted Hillson's book "Taekwondo Classic Forms". I don't know where "Tillson" came from...

Perhaps it's the fact that the Olympic style sport oriented TKD is a known quantity & the Kwan era Art is more of a mystery is why it's so appealing. But, for whatever reason, it is.

I've heard referrences to GM Uhm, Woon Kyu being called "the sliding side kick god" in his younger days. I'd love to see video of that!

Sadly, in our Youtube "everything you want to know is but a few clicks away" world, it's hard when some things are simply handled down in stories. Like Alex Halley, I'd love to discover those "Roots". I guess some things will always be mysteries.

I can't wait til GM Song's book arrives!

 

[exile]

Ok, I musta had too much pizza & was too sleepy last night. The other book is Ted Hillson's book "Taekwondo Classic Forms". I don't know where "Tillson" came from...

Ah, that's why Amazon.com professed not to know about that book!

I actually think I've got that one too, around somewhere.... I think I bought it...Yup, found it. Astonishing, what treasures you can turn up if you revisit your bookshelves every so often

Perhaps it's the fact that the Olympic style sport oriented TKD is a known quantity & the Kwan era Art is more of a mystery is why it's so appealing. But, for whatever reason, it is.

I think myself that it's probably more the sense that there are answers to many of our technical questions which are to be found in the pre-sport era of TKD, when it was known as a particularly hard-style fighting system. At bottom, a lot of us are probably not very happy with what's happened to TKD; we see all of these effective combat resources left to die on the vine in favor of an increasingly artificial system which has little meaning outside the ring. So personally, I have to say, I'm not all that interested in the outcome of a WTF-rules sparring match, in the same way I'm not particularly interested in Pogo-stick Ultimate Frisbee or synchonized weaving competitions. No negative reflection on anyone who's interested in any of 'em, but... And as Sheryl Crow says, I get the feeling I'm not the only one. There are, going by what people post, a lot of us like that on MT. We say that we're curious about the Kwan era form of TKD; but what I think it really is is the sense that TKD as we understand it is in danger of becoming a lost art (certainly, if the arena-sport mega-organizations such as the WTF continue to define TKD, that outcome looks like it's in the cards) and we want to get it back.

I've heard referrences to GM Uhm, Woon Kyu being called "the sliding side kick god" in his younger days. I'd love to see video of that!

Sadly, in our Youtube "everything you want to know is but a few clicks away" world, it's hard when some things are simply handled down in stories. Like Alex Halley, I'd love to discover those "Roots". I guess some things will always be mysteries.

I can't wait til GM Song's book arrives!

You'll like it—every page has the feel of something from the dim past (well, next year it'll be 40 years old, eh?—though as I say, S. Henry Cho's book, published the same year, doesn't have that feel at all. Actually, a systematic comparison of the two textbooks would be, I suspect, an extremely revealing exercise. Cho's work feels very contemporary, and his point of view is also very contemporary: TKD is Korean karate, indigenous fighting systems played at most a marginal role in its formation, the technical content is almost entirely Okinawan/Japanese in origin; what innovations there are have to do mostly with kicking mechanics, etc. And, especially significantly, there seems to be much less emphasis on the primacy of street defense as the motivation for TKD in the first place. Son hits that note early, and keeps on hitting it throughout his book, which has a much 'grittier' feel to it—more street-Seoul, less Americanized, than SHC's book...)

 

[foot2face]

I guess by "old school" I was willing to settle for 1975-ish thoughts (or anything pre-Olympic style TKD).

I hope you're right. The older BBs at my school divided TKD into three categories, "old style", "southern style" and "northern style". "Old style" generally referred to the kwan era TKD. In this regard TKD is a generic term used to describe the numerous hard-style striking systems that were practiced at the time. The term TKD was an attempt to put a Korean face on foreign influences. "Southern style", whats known now as KKW TKD, is a singular system that evolved from the merging of the kwans. Based from the experiences of the Korean War and honed during the Vietnam War, it flourished during the 60's and 70's. Unfortunately, over the last few decades it has been dominated by the WTF "Olympic-style", and has lost much of harder edge SD oriented sensibilities. "Northern style" referred to ITF systems, which is "southern style" TKD that was heavily influenced by General Choi's preferences.

I was beginning to believe that my master was of a dying breed. He was what the BBs considered a "southern stylist" but hadn't been co-opted by the Olympic style. To hear that the KKW may be going back to it's 70's pre-Olympic way is very encouraging.

 

[andyjeffries]

To pass on a recommendation for a good book I've heard about (and is currently winging it's way across the pond to me):

http://www.goldentiger.com/shop/sho...00000000370&pn=1&sub_id=001009001&listg=gosub
The Explanation of Taekwondo Poomsae; New Poomsae

Apparently it has a lot more detail on the poomsae than the KKW textbook.

Anyway, just thought I'd pass the recommendation on as there seem to be a lot of fellow resource collectors here