New Tae Kwon Do Book

[dancingalone]

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I'd be interested in a few examples of what you describe in A, Mr. Weiss. .

Some quick examples:

1. What are their specifications for stance lengths.
2. Do they differentiate or classify most attacks as Piercing , striking and thrusting?
3. How do they classify levels of attacks for general parameters? Do they observe the same exceptions?
4. How do they divide the body for vital spot differentiation such as high, middle or low.
5. Do they follow General Choi's Tenets? (Yes I know they had roots in other things)
6. Do they follow points to be observed in the student / instructor relationship?
7. Do they use the same striking surfaces for techniques/ i.e outer edge of foot or bottom of the heel for side kick?
8. Do they incorporate all of the techniques? For instance, just side kick, or Side -Piercing, Pushing, Checking, thrusting, checking, inward and outward pressing.

 

[Earl Weiss]

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?



.

I can see how my post may have been misinterpreted to give such a broad based conclusion other than what I intended.

First of all it has nothing to do with membership in any org. I have seen some independants more closely approximate what General Choi wanted than card carrying members. My post was basicaly an acknowledgement as to how the various strains manifested themselves and how TKD was initialy spread.

When I first started my instructor was under Chung Do Kwan luminary Han Cha Kyo. (There was also those times when Nam Tae Hi accepted my invitation to teach at my school. ) So, when I later trained with some of his progeny or see those who trace their roots to the days when Jhoon Rhee or HU Lee were doing the Chang Hon system, I know very well where certain habits originated.

At seminars / courses General Choi would see someone doing something a certain way. He would then ask who their instructor was. The response often met (not always) with an unflattering comment about the instructor. On one occasion the response was "Nam Tae HI'. General Choi's comment was "You have the right roots".

As we all know "The roots" are only part of the process from which the plant grow. Part of it has to do with the fertilizer used. We all know where a lot of fertilizer comes from.

 

[Earl Weiss]

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, .

Well, to an an extent I agree that striking styles are remarkably alike. All breeds of dogs are remarkeably alike yet some more different than others from each other.

Now you get into a quantitative discussion as to how different is different? (OK, I know that really does not make a lot of sense, but I hope you get my meaning. )

 

[dancingalone]

1. What are their specifications for stance lengths.
2. Do they differentiate or classify most attacks as Piercing , striking and thrusting?
3. How do they classify levels of attacks for general parameters? Do they observe the same exceptions?
4. How do they divide the body for vital spot differentiation such as high, middle or low.
5. Do they follow General Choi's Tenets? (Yes I know they had roots in other things)
6. Do they follow points to be observed in the student / instructor relationship?
7. Do they use the same striking surfaces for techniques/ i.e outer edge of foot or bottom of the heel for side kick?
8. Do they incorporate all of the techniques? For instance, just side kick, or Side -Piercing, Pushing, Checking, thrusting, checking, inward and outward pressing.

Thank you. Yes, I can tell you I learned some of this material but not all when I studied TKD. Some of it can be attributed to my relatively junior rank of 2nd dan, some undoubtedly due to my instructor (a 5th dan) either not knowing or not teaching it. There's little question that there are different styles of TKD.

In the end, does it matter though? How many types of kicks do you have to know before you can be counted as a TKDist? How must of General Choi's ideas or philosophy must you follow? I'm really trying to understand what you are contending, Mr. Weiss.

I've been very clear all along that I believe there are many different shades and styles of tae kwon do now, all with varying ideas and terminologies, both technically and philosphically. Mike a few posts above was clear himself, saying you should follow the General's guidelines as you perform the Chang Hon patterns. I disagree, having explained over and over again in this thread, the way you perform the patterns largely depends on whom your instructor was, and in my case, Mr. Jhoon Rhee was considered a master instructor by General Choi's ITF itself! Nothing wrong with how I learned them...

 

[tkd1964]

Mike, you're ignoring all the people who learned the Chang Hon patterns in General Choi's org sans sine wave. They left the ITF and continued to practice and teach the way they learned. Later, General Choi chose to emphasize sine wave movement and those connected with him in this last phase of his life perform the patterns in the style you describe.

The older type movement may not be "Taekwon-Do", but it certainly is tae kwon do.

Maybe someone should start an ITF for non-sinewave pattern people.

Sine-Wave is only part of Taekwon-Do as a whole. There are those who were part of the ITF who followed Gen. Choi and his teachings and those who were ITF in name only. This can be seen in their teaching of the techniques of Taekwon-Do ( whether Sine-Wave or not ) as well as the Do. What hurt the ITF is that Gen. Choi tried to get as many under the ITF umbrella first and then teach the Chang Hun system later. many were brought on without knowing the system. This is why you have videos of people on youtube doing patterns that look like Shotokan. Others look like they took the Taekwon-do Book and learned from that.
I feel that Gen. Choi's exile from South Korea actually helped Taekwon-Do since he had a smaller group that could be shown the actual techniques of the Art. This could be seen at seminars in the later years where veriations in techniques were much fewer and less time had to be spent on corrections.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Sine-Wave is only part of Taekwon-Do as a whole. There are those who were part of the ITF who followed Gen. Choi and his teachings and those who were ITF in name only. This can be seen in their teaching of the techniques of Taekwon-Do ( whether Sine-Wave or not ) as well as the Do. What hurt the ITF is that Gen. Choi tried to get as many under the ITF umbrella first and then teach the Chang Hun system later. many were brought on without knowing the system. This is why you have videos of people on youtube doing patterns that look like Shotokan. Others look like they took the Taekwon-do Book and learned from that.
I feel that Gen. Choi's exile from South Korea actually helped Taekwon-Do since he had a smaller group that could be shown the actual techniques of the Art. This could be seen at seminars in the later years where veriations in techniques were much fewer and less time had to be spent on corrections.

Well put. Points often not known or not understood. Gneral Choi had to make a choice. Spend what time he could developing instructors and then spreading TKD on a large scale by dispatching many instructors to teach the system and worry about the finer points later, or develop a finely tuned uniform system and not be able to spread the system quickly and widely. He chosse the first, apparently hoping to refine technique later. However, circumstances intervened.

Yes, from a series of courses during the 1980's you could see a huge move to a single standard on an international basis.

Dancing also made a good point about some motions being overly exagerated. This occurred with "Hip Twist" as well. Many thought that "If some is good, more is better".

However, to an extent many pattern motions, irrespective of system are exagerated. Esthetics aside, a possible purpose for this was made apparent at RMCAT Adrenal stress conditioning program where they explained (It is n0n-Martial Art Specific training) that they practice good body mechanics in large, exagerated fashion because motions become smaller and less effective under adrenal stress, and by exagerating them they will still be large enough and powerful under the adrenal stress, While they are saying this, I am thinking patterns.

 

[dancingalone]

Well put. Points often not known or not understood. Gneral Choi had to make a choice. Spend what time he could developing instructors and then spreading TKD on a large scale by dispatching many instructors to teach the system and worry about the finer points later, or develop a finely tuned uniform system and not be able to spread the system quickly and widely. He chosse the first, apparently hoping to refine technique later. However, circumstances intervened.

Yes, from a series of courses during the 1980's you could see a huge move to a single standard on an international basis.

Dancing also made a good point about some motions being overly exagerated. This occurred with "Hip Twist" as well. Many thought that "If some is good, more is better".

However, to an extent many pattern motions, irrespective of system are exagerated. Esthetics aside, a possible purpose for this was made apparent at RMCAT Adrenal stress conditioning program where they explained (It is n0n-Martial Art Specific training) that they practice good body mechanics in large, exagerated fashion because motions become smaller and less effective under adrenal stress, and by exagerating them they will still be large enough and powerful under the adrenal stress, While they are saying this, I am thinking patterns.

That's an interesting statement about General Choi's intentions regarding instruction within his organization. It goes a far way to explain why member technique was so divergent.

 

[dancingalone]

I feel that Gen. Choi's exile from South Korea actually helped Taekwon-Do since he had a smaller group that could be shown the actual techniques of the Art. This could be seen at seminars in the later years where veriations in techniques were much fewer and less time had to be spent on corrections.

Yes, but now the ITF(s) is so greatly fragmented and eclipsed by the numbers both KKW-affiliated and independent. And the way things stand now, sine wave can and will prevent ITF-style TKD from being an engine for reunification of TKD martial artists. KKW probably is more poised to make that move if it ever comes.

I am content with the current landscape. I like the variety.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I'd Functionally, I believe most striking styles, particularly the Korean systems that fall under the 'tae kwon do' umbrella are remarkably alike,

Was watching a show on destruction of the Orangutan habitat and thinking about this when the narrator said Humans and Orangutan DNA is 97% identical (OK, so I need to get a life).

Remarkably alike applies to many things, but that 3%.....

 

[dancingalone]

Was watching a show on destruction of the Orangutan habitat and thinking about this when the narrator said Humans and Orangutan DNA is 97% identical (OK, so I need to get a life).

Remarkably alike applies to many things, but that 3%.....

Depends on what you consider germane, I suppose. Most tae kwon do instructors I have met, whatever their style, tend to teach their students to maintain a defensive range that will enable them to end the fight with a high impact strike, probably a kick. And that's your 97-98% right there - the rest is just cosmetics.

This is undoubtedly a generalization, but there's always some truth in generalizations else they would not exist.

 

[tkd1964]

Yes, but now the ITF(s) is so greatly fragmented and eclipsed by the numbers both KKW-affiliated and independent. And the way things stand now, sine wave can and will prevent ITF-style TKD from being an engine for reunification of TKD martial artists. KKW probably is more poised to make that move if it ever comes.

I am content with the current landscape. I like the variety.

I agree and would say that I would not like a Unification but a mutual existence with the KKW/WTF. Both camps can exist together and have co-existed for 36 plus years( although the early years were troublesome):whip:

Taekwon!!
Mike

 

[Earl Weiss]

I agree and would say that I would not like a Unification but a mutual existence with the KKW/WTF. Both camps can exist together and have co-existed for 36 plus years( although the early years were troublesome):whip:

Taekwon!!
Mike

OT but a concept I have thought about as well. You can have cooperation without unification.
I can forsee all sorts of issues. For example if cooperation were to be from a competition standpoint, aligning sparing rules, and then what happens when one group's members seem to dominate? There are already some apparent issues of "Tree Trimming" or something like that, and by virtue of shear numbers to draw from WTF / KKW members would likely dominate.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Coincidentaly I was teaching Won Hyo Mon. Night and a student asked a question. Now, I have been doing this form since 1974, and probably teaching it in one form or another since 1976. Still, to answer the question I had to refer to the text. This got me to wondering about the "Other Books " out there.

In fairness I do not have them all and just referring to a pattern volume would not be a fair comparison, but I could not help but wonder if the other books, collectivley for each author, contained information about parameters of say move #2 in this pattern.

NOTE: I am not questioning whether or not those parameters may agree with what General Choi stipulates, simply whether they exist at all. These parameters would include:

Stance - Length, weight distribution, angles of feet and knees, how to classify right / left, available facings - Half, side, full, Primary uses of the stance, Definitions of general parameters for level of technique, high, middle or low and whether this fits the General parameter or is an exception, whether the strike is "Inward" "Front" or "Side" and what the parameters for those terms are.

I note that the scanned volume does not address what I believe to be a widely accepted standard for move #2 in Won Hyo (ITF or offshoot) and that is to bring the opposite side fist to the shoulder. Does the poriginal poster know if this group performs the technique with or without this motion?

 

[Earl Weiss]

Depends on what you consider germane, I suppose. Most tae kwon do instructors I have met, whatever their style, tend to teach their students to maintain a defensive range that will enable them to end the fight with a high impact strike, probably a kick. And that's your 97-98% right there - the rest is just cosmetics.

This is undoubtedly a generalization, but there's always some truth in generalizations else they would not exist.

I believe that Funakoshi was a proponent of the "One Technique for Victory" goal, so it predates TKD. So at leat that part is not a TKD characteristic, but one shared by many arts.

 

[dancingalone]

I imagine none of them will other than General Choi's books. But as you mentioned the pattern books by other authors serve an entirely different purpose. They're meant to illustrate the base choreography, and you have to consult your instructor to fill in the gaps.

General Choi's books go farther, but you have to consult pages across multiple volumes do you not, to get complete information on how to form a proper stance, etc?

 

[Earl Weiss]

General Choi's books go farther, but you have to consult pages across multiple volumes do you not, to get complete information on how to form a proper stance, etc?

Well, yes and no. The curriculum is established so that before you learn a pattern you are supposed to have a good understanding of the techniques in that pattern. So you would learn the stance and movement first using whatever volume(s) you needed. This is further emphasized by the intro section for each patern containing "New Moves" for the pattern with any new or specific parameters for the move in the pattern stipulated. After you learn those things, then you learn the pattern so you would or should not need to refer to other volumes as you learn the pattern.

for instance, you learn that "Inward" is to the chest line. So for #2 in Won Hyo, High Inward Knifhand, you do not need to return to the hand technique volume to learn it is to the Chest line. You would also have learned that high attacks are to eye level as a default parameter. But new moves section specifies it as to the neck artery level.

Unless, like me you are getting older and tend to forget or confuse the other stuff I should know.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I imagine none of them will other than General Choi's books. But as you mentioned the pattern books by other authors serve an entirely different purpose. They're meant to illustrate the base choreography, and you have to consult your instructor to fill in the gaps.

quote]

Here is the issue. I have run into it time and again. Trained with some of Han Cha Kyo's seniors and asked anbout "Variations." they were forthright in admitting that Han Changed stuff. Unfortuenately no one wrote it down . So now, somethjimes they have to figure out who remembers what and how they will do it. They also came from the "Don't question the Instructor" mindset. I aksed if they think perhaps Han may have made an error from time to time and perhaps the error became entrenched as a variation? I was surprised that they said this was a real possibility.

Once Trained with a former American Seniotr ITF Robert Hardin. Did some patterns and he said "Oh we changed this that and the other thing". Asked if it was written down anywhere. He said "no, my students know what I want. " Well we all know the saying about the shortest pncil being better than the longest memory.