KKW TKD, So what has really changed....

[d1jinx]

Something very interesting yet odd.

I have attended 4 KKW seminars in recent years. The KKW course that just past being the last. One major difference, that everyone can agree on is the forms are slightly different than we have been practicing here in the U.S.

Probably the one that stands out the most is the narrower stances. what I, along with almost everyone else had to say at each seminar was, we were taught the big wide "balanced" stances... more of an ITF / Japanese based stance. (Ok maybe not as deep as some japanese stances, but you get the point...)

So tonight, While putting away my "NEW" KKW text book from the course, I pulled out my old KKW book. The first english edition printed in 1996.

looks like this:

And guess what....


NARROW STANCES!!!!! ALL OF THEM.

yes, the "one fist" wide front stance is in there. The short backstance and narrow horse stance too...

So... other than the rules and people... it appears the forms HAVEN"T changed much at all since I got this book in 96. Sure, we dont have to "jump" from the side kick to the other leg in sipjin... but funny enough, the one major difference I always seemed to get from each seminar was the stances and "how they changed"...

well it seems they are the same now, as they were in 1996 when this book was published!!!!

 

[ATC]

Something very interesting yet odd.

I have attended 4 KKW seminars in recent years. The KKW course that just past being the last. One major difference, that everyone can agree on is the forms are slightly different than we have been practicing here in the U.S.

Probably the one that stands out the most is the narrower stances. what I, along with almost everyone else had to say at each seminar was, we were taught the big wide "balanced" stances... more of an ITF / Japanese based stance. (Ok maybe not as deep as some japanese stances, but you get the point...)

So tonight, While putting away my "NEW" KKW text book from the course, I pulled out my old KKW book. The first english edition printed in 1996.

looks like this:

And guess what....


NARROW STANCES!!!!! ALL OF THEM.

yes, the "one fist" wide front stance is in there. The short backstance and narrow horse stance too...

So... other than the rules and people... it appears the forms HAVEN"T changed much at all since I got this book in 96. Sure, we dont have to "jump" from the side kick to the other leg in sipjin... but funny enough, the one major difference I always seemed to get from each seminar was the stances and "how they changed"...

well it seems they are the same now, as they were in 1996 when this book was published!!!!

You can search this site for a few of my post on this and I have always stated that the KKW stances have not changed. They have always been what is being taught today. Not sure why many think they have changed.

It may be that they are simply telling people to change the stance at the seminars and people are taking it as, the stances changed. So once again I am saying that KKW has always been teaching the stances as they do today.

I think that there was a fusion of Japanese Karate and KKW TKD that just took place. I know that ITF always had the wider and deeper stances so it could be that many ITF TKD instructors moved over to KKW and simply kept the ITF stances. I really don't know. I do know that the KKW stances have always been what they are teaching now.

TKD (ITF) was based off of Karate (Shotakan) so this is why ITF uses wider and deeper stances, but KKW from the start tried to differentiate TKD from Karate and changed as much as they could to separate the arts. This is why the stances were different. KKW believes in comfort and ease of movement. Plus the KKW believes that transition from the shorter not so deep stance to another stance is faster. The KKW really used science and physics to evolve TKD to be faster and in their eyes stronger. If it is faster, then it hits harder philosophy.

 

[terryl965]

Well for one thing I have I am older and hopefully wiser, I am also bigger not in the good way and best of all I get to relive my past glory over and over again....

 

[IcemanSK]

I'm wondering (and I don't know the answer) how does it compare to the stances in the 1975 textbook? Are they different from the 1996 or current textbook?

My guess is that the 1975 textbook would have deeper stances in it.

 

[Archtkd]

Something very interesting yet odd.

I have attended 4 KKW seminars in recent years. The KKW course that just past being the last. One major difference, that everyone can agree on is the forms are slightly different than we have been practicing here in the U.S.

Probably the one that stands out the most is the narrower stances. what I, along with almost everyone else had to say at each seminar was, we were taught the big wide "balanced" stances... more of an ITF / Japanese based stance. (Ok maybe not as deep as some japanese stances, but you get the point...)

So tonight, While putting away my "NEW" KKW text book from the course, I pulled out my old KKW book. The first english edition printed in 1996.

looks like this:

And guess what....


NARROW STANCES!!!!! ALL OF THEM.

yes, the "one fist" wide front stance is in there. The short backstance and narrow horse stance too...

So... other than the rules and people... it appears the forms HAVEN"T changed much at all since I got this book in 96. Sure, we dont have to "jump" from the side kick to the other leg in sipjin... but funny enough, the one major difference I always seemed to get from each seminar was the stances and "how they changed"...

well it seems they are the same now, as they were in 1996 when this book was published!!!!

I own a small book titled Tae Kwon Do Forms: Complete & Official Forms of the World Tae Kwon Do Federation, first published in 1988 by the International Council on Martial Arts Education comprised partly of the following pioneers of Taekwondo in the U.S: Dae Shik Kim, Kyung Sun Shin, Bong Yul Shin, Kiel Soon Park, Suk Ki Shin, Lee H. Park, Kwang Sung Kim and Ri Kon Ko. The forms in this book are almost exactly the same as what is in the current official Kukkiwon texbook, including narrower stances, no C-step on long stances, etc. In this "old" book, even hand position while kicking, are the same as what is the current Kukkiwon text.

This 1988 book shows Kukkiwon made changes quite a while back and some masters and GMs here in the U.S. accepted them, while others did not. The refusal to change might be pure preference or the results of lack of continuing education.

I am a little confused by the "one fist" wide front stance, you mention, though, and was wondering whether that was tongue-in-cheek. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the width of feet on the junbi, short and long stances is supposed to be about one foot. while the one-fist wide gap usually refers to the gap between the hand and knee on a low block, while in a long stance. Of course those measurements can vary depending on a practitioners' body type.

 

[d1jinx]

I'm wondering (and I don't know the answer) how does it compare to the stances in the 1975 textbook? Are they different from the 1996 or current textbook?

My guess is that the 1975 textbook would have deeper stances in it.

this book claims to be the first updated english version of that 1975 book. However, I have no idea what was in that 1975 book or where to find one. I remember when I got this book it was rare and expensive. but now with the "Internets" everything is plentiful and in abundance!

(oh... and for the record, alot of the pictures looke like they are from the 70's or early 80's.)

 

[d1jinx]

I am a little confused by the "one fist" wide front stance, you mention, though, and was wondering whether that was tongue-in-cheek. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the width of feet on the junbi, short and long stances is supposed to be about one foot. while the one-fist wide gap usually refers to the gap between the hand and knee on a low block, while in a long stance. Of course those measurements can vary depending on a practitioners' body type.

sure its based on body, but during this last seminar, the KKW instructor was showing the proper way to do a front stance, he seperated his feet by 1 fist width then stepped straight forward then turning his back foot 10-15 degrees. I thought it was way to narrow, but this was the theme of the course.... narrow stances, included a "less than shoulder width" Jun bi. Hey, like they said.... "open mind" "take from it what you can".

You know, this is just a matter of observation and oppinion, but its like they are moving away from the traditional japanese stances and more toward the relaxed, natural, chinese stances.

 

[dancingalone]

You know, this is just a matter of observation and oppinion, but its like they are moving away from the traditional japanese stances and more toward the relaxed, natural, chinese stances.

Depends on what you mean by "Chinese". For example this bow stance in 'Shaolin' seems a lot closer to a Japanese Shotokan front stance (zenkutsu dachi) than the KKW front stance being described here.

http://www.ehow.com/video_2354501_learn-shaolin-kung-fu-stances.html

At around 1:01 for anyone interested in having a peek.

Many Chinese styles actually emphasize training in low stances precisely to build leg strength. Ma bu is a dirty word to many CMA students.

 

[Miles]

Nothing has changed except that Americans are now learning first-hand how the Koreans have been doing it forever.

I have the older Poomsae book and will try to scan the page on stances. What is kind of cool is to see all of the pioneer instructors such as GM Park, in their younger days.

 

[Archtkd]

sure its based on body, but during this last seminar, the KKW instructor was showing the proper way to do a front stance, he seperated his feet by 1 fist width then stepped straight forward then turning his back foot 10-15 degrees. I thought it was way to narrow, but this was the theme of the course.... narrow stances, included a "less than shoulder width" Jun bi. Hey, like they said.... "open mind" "take from it what you can".

You know, this is just a matter of observation and opinion, but it's like they are moving away from the traditional Japanese stances and more toward the relaxed, natural, chinese stances.

Wow! A fist is like 3 inches. I am very open minded, but a stance with that width is hard to balance on, especially if you are as tall as I am. That's also interesting because at the Chicago KKW seminar last October. Prof. Yoon, Jae-Ahn, a Kukkiwon instructor and two time-world poomsae champion, emphasized that the width on Junbi and long stance is about 1 foot. The current KKW shows about the same measurements. Is the Kukkiwon being inconsistent or is this a real change within the last 6 months?

 

[ATC]

...You know, this is just a matter of observation and oppinion, but its like they are moving away from the traditional japanese stances and more toward the relaxed, natural, chinese stances.

KKW has moved away from nothing. They have always taught the stances as they do now. My GM use to do the long stances and even stated back when he taught us the longer deeper stances that this is not KKW way.

I can see how people think that the stances have changed as even when presented with the book and told that the stances have not changed, it is still stated that they are moving away from something that they have never done. Interesting.

 

[ATC]

Wow! A fist is like 3 inches. I am very open minded, but a stance with that width is hard to balance on, especially if you are as tall as I am. That's also interesting because at the Chicago KKW seminar last October. Prof. Yoon, Jae-Ahn, a Kukkiwon instructor and two time-world poomsae champion, emphasized that the width on Junbi and long stance is about 1 foot. The current KKW shows about the same measurements. Is the Kukkiwon being inconsistent or is this a real change within the last 6 months?

1 foot width, not leangth. I foot width is about 3 inches. Nothing has changed and KKW has always taught this way.

 

[MSUTKD]

1975 book has some stances even narrower than the current standard. NOTHING major has really changed in the forms. Most individuals just never bothered to learn it that way or learned them in a lineage specific method. No worries.

 

[Archtkd]

1 foot width, not leangth. I foot width is about 3 inches. Nothing has changed and KKW has always taught this way.

We learn something every day and I think I see where the issue of contention lies in the long stance. I think we might not be referring to the same thing. I am talking about the size of breadth in a long stance from toe to toe and you are talking about that breadth from heel to heel.


This is the way it's written in the current Kukkiwon text:

Naranhi seogi stance (at Junbi)
a. The breadth of two feet will be one foot wide, the inner sides of both feet paralleling with each other.

Ap Kubi (long forward stance)

a. The vertical distance between two feet is one and a half step. And the parallel distance between two feet's tiptoes is one foot.
b. The tip toes of front foot place forward.
c. Lower the knee in order to match your knees and tiptoes when you lock down in an upright standing position.
d. Keep the back sole turned inward within the angle of 30 degrees and stretch the knee of hind leg and put the balance of your weight forward by two thirds.
e. Stand upright and twist forward you body at an angle of 30 degrees.

 

[d1jinx]

1975 book has some stances even narrower than the current standard. NOTHING major has really changed in the forms. Most individuals just never bothered to learn it that way or learned them in a lineage specific method. No worries.

I would have to agree there. I can say first hand that my first instructor, thought "this move is stupid" so we did it "this way". so there were serveral small changes made to taylor to his way. I'm sure this has happened throughout everywhere outside of Korea.

But now with a smaller world... we get exposed to the original Non-watered version.

Just thought it was interesting that the book I have had all these years, did it that way and I never really noticed before. Or maybe i never actually read it.... who knows.

 

[ATC]

We learn something every day and I think I see where the issue of contention lies in the long stance. I think we might not be referring to the same thing. I am talking about the size of breadth in a long stance from toe to toe and you are talking about that breadth from heel to heel.


This is the way it's written in the current Kukkiwon text:

Naranhi seogi stance (at Junbi)
a. The breadth of two feet will be one foot wide, the inner sides of both feet paralleling with each other.

Ap Kubi (long forward stance)

a. The vertical distance between two feet is one and a half step. And the parallel distance between two feet's tiptoes is one foot.
b. The tip toes of front foot place forward.
c. Lower the knee in order to match your knees and tiptoes when you lock down in an upright standing position.
d. Keep the back sole turned inward within the angle of 30 degrees and stretch the knee of hind leg and put the balance of your weight forward by two thirds.
e. Stand upright and twist forward you body at an angle of 30 degrees.

No I read this as it states. The length of the long stance is 1 and ½ steps. The distance between the feet apart from one another is 1 foot (meaning if you had the feet side by side (touching each other) you would separate them by one foot width, then step forward by 1 and ½ steps).

The ready stance also is clear. It states that you need to separate the feet by one foot wide (width). It is also detailed out in the book.

KKW just needs to find a way to be more clear in what they are saying. Whenever there is room for interpretation where there should be none, is a fault of the one doing the explanation.

 

[Archtkd]

No I read this as it states. The length of the long stance is 1 and ½ steps. The distance between the feet apart from one another is 1 foot (meaning if you had the feet side by side (touching each other) you would separate them by one foot width, then step forward by 1 and ½ steps).

The ready stance also is clear. It states that you need to separate the feet by one foot wide (width). It is also detailed out in the book.

KKW just needs to find a way to be more clear in what they are saying. Whenever there is room for interpretation where there should be none, is a fault of the one doing the explanation.

Sir: I stand corrected. This morning I began working on my poomsae at 6 a.m. and I carefully looked at how wide the gap between my feet is when I do long stances, in motion. I was surprised. It's about a fist size wide wide, 3-3.5 inches, give or take. I went back o the Kukkiwon text: In the breakdown of Poom 6 in Il Jang it instructs thus in tiny print on the accompanying graphic: "with gap of one fist" The gap refers to the width between the heel of rear leg heel and the front foot.

 

[dancingalone]

Hmm, there's an article in this month's Totally Tae Kwon Do (#15, http://totallytkd.com) magazine that addresses KKW poomse. The author states that the standards HAVE changed and he believes they are to the detriment of the art from a combat standpoint. I have no dog in the fight, but it's interesting reading.

"...one 6’4” and another 5’8” may have the same shoe size. If both apply the 'foot length' criteria, their stances will look quite different and the taller of the two will almost certainly have not achieved a stable base. In most cases, the 'two foot' distance for both and horse and back stances puts the feet at less than shoulder width apart. This is too narrow to provide an adequate foundation.

The front stance (forward inflection stance) is likewise too narrow and too long. Competitors are required to place their feet only one fist distance apart (about 3-4 inches) and extend the foot three foot lengths forward. This places the practitioner in an unnatural, awkward and unbalanced position. The walking stance, at one foot distance in length, though shorter is even narrower, with the width between feet at zero inches."

 

[ATC]

Hmm, there's an article in this month's Totally Tae Kwon Do (#15, http://totallytkd.com) magazine that addresses KKW poomse. The author states that the standards HAVE changed and he believes they are to the detriment of the art from a combat standpoint. I have no dog in the fight, but it's interesting reading.

"...one 6’4” and another 5’8” may have the same shoe size. If both apply the 'foot length' criteria, their stances will look quite different and the taller of the two will almost certainly have not achieved a stable base. In most cases, the 'two foot' distance for both and horse and back stances puts the feet at less than shoulder width apart. This is too narrow to provide an adequate foundation.

The front stance (forward inflection stance) is likewise too narrow and too long. Competitors are required to place their feet only one fist distance apart (about 3-4 inches) and extend the foot three foot lengths forward. This places the practitioner in an unnatural, awkward and unbalanced position. The walking stance, at one foot distance in length, though shorter is even narrower, with the width between feet at zero inches."

Yes the height difference with the same size foot was brought to the attention of my GM way back and he stated that exacts were more of a guide not exacts. For the most part most fit into the measurements given but for those that don't, well just don't and can't go by the exact numbers. Even at 5'8" vs. 6'2" you wont find much difference in foot size but the stances will vary in length and width. Not by much but enough that each could not use each others distances and be correct or comfortable.

There is really no way to make something such as a stance with an exact measurement to fit all the different size people in the world. But again most people will fit what they have laid down as a guide, with the rest just slightly one way or the other.

As for the changes that the article spoke of...it is just wrong. There were no changes when it comes to KKW and what they stated from inception.

 

[dortiz]

Some misunderstanding here. The article speaks specifically about the WTF rules. The WTF is creating its own set of standards/rules for Poomse.
They do not exactly match the Kukkiwons.

This of course can turn in to an entirely different conversation about whats going on in TKD : )