- Nov 7, 2007
- Reaction score
I'd be interested in a few examples of what you describe in A, Mr. Weiss. Functionally, I believe most striking styles, particularly the Korean systems that fall under the 'tae kwon do' umbrella are remarkably alike, when contrasted to so-called internal systems such as baquazhang. Even the sine wave differences which have received so much attention in this thread is primarily cosmetic IMO, so I see no reason to differentiate so greatly between TKD styles. I suppose it's in the eye of the beholder. You might like ribeye and I might prefer tbone, but in the end both steaks are still beef.What I think you and others choose to ignore is that:
A. There are many parameters in addittion to sine wave involved in the Chang Hon System which are omitted to any number of greater and lesser extent by many who think they do the system. It would be one thing if they knew they did some variation, but usualy they are blissfully unaware.
B. It is interesting to note that you feel those omitting any number of factors share a common bond simply because they have a single omoission in common.
Sure. I even practice a version of the 'spring'. Some styles call it grounding or even rooting when striking or blocking. It's pretty widespread across striking systems. Where I differ is with the exaggerated up and down movement seen in so many ITF videos today. Some have explained that this exaggerated movement is actually a misunderstanding of General Choi's teachings, which is an entirely reasonable explanation. As you've doubtlessly guessed, I'm not a fan.C. While the term "Sine Wave" did not appear until the 1980 encyclopedia the concept and execution appears in earier texts which refer to bending the knees. In the 1970's we called it "Spring Style".
And whether you want to call it spring style or sine wave, the fact is that the large up-down movement did not manifest itself until the eighties or so, give or take 5 years. This can be verified by comparing the pattern performance of TKD people according to when they or their instructor left the ITF.
I don't doubt this is the case. Regardless, it doesn't address the fact that all these pioneers were card-carrying members of the ITF at one point and they were honored even as master instructors. It seems a bit self-serving at this point to say they're not teaching TKD, just because they're not with the ITF anymore, no?D. Many of the Pioneers had strong roots in kwans which predated the Chang Hon system. They developed habits which were characteristic of those systems such as the Karate / Shotokan / Chung Do Kwan keeping the head level when stepping and those habits carried thru to the students who learned the new system irrespective of whether the new system employed those habits.
So, whether the old movement is "TKD" depends on whether you adopt the all inclusive definition.
...Chang Hon system then you only need to address how it was intended to be performed.
As I said above, tae kwon do is tae kwon do. You may certainly use a more narrow term like 'Taekwon-Do' if you like and reserve it for your own use. I have no interest in it. However, as a Jhoon Rhee system dan holder, I certainly did learn the Chang Hon patterns and I certainly did practice tae kwon do. If my hypothetical execution of the patterns suffer from a Chung Do Kwan taint, well then, perhaps the past leaders of ITF should be faulted for not making sure every single of their masters adhere to their standard. A moving standard at that.