Standard KKW hip rotation for down block?

[sopraisso]

Hello everyone.
Today I took some time to watch a few Kukkiwon taekwondo vids and something seemed different from the way we perform at my school (that teaches Kukkiwon style). It was the hip position at the end of a few movements like down block (are makki) in front stance (ap keubi) - for example, as seen in the 5th movement of taegeuk il hang.

In the school where I practice we perform the hip rotation in that movement in the same direction following the arm that goes down (e.g. if I perform right down block, my hips turn clockwise seen from above). As a result, we finish the movement having the torso completely centered (instead of slighted tilted to the side as it more usually happens to shotokan karate). But in the vid I saw the performer seemed to always finish the position slightly off the center, more like it is usually seen in shotokan.

It wouldn't be the first time in my school the teachings were different from Kukkiwon standard, and now I want to know what's the standard for the movement from what I previously described. Should we finish with the torso completely centered or slightly turned outside?

Also, I'd like to ask about the hip rotation itself. In shotokan I learned it was possible to turn the hip (for a same movement like down block) both "with the block" (jun kaiten) or "against the block" (gyaku kaiten), but in taekwondo I've only seen the first case. So is that right or in Kukkiwon style it is also accepted to perform in both manners?

Please consider for my question techniques like down block, rising block (olgul makki) and outside block (montong bakkat makki), as all of them seem to work in a similar way regarding to the hip rotation.

Also note that my concern is with the standard for the style, not which one would be better or in which situations.

Thanks in advance.

 

[SJON]

Muito bom dia, Sopraisso.

I'm not certain what is standard right now, as I've lost track of all the little details of standard KKW technique that have changed over the years. I was always taught to have the hips completely "square", i.e. torso centred, at the end of movements in ap sogi and ap kubi.

I don't recall offhand seeing the "opposite hip twist" in any movement other than han sonnal olgul bituro makki as in Taegeuk Youk Jang, but there may be other examples.

It would probably get me failed in a grading nowadays, but my performance of these movements always includes (a) the hip twist preceding the arm movement and (b) a slight movement in the direction of the technique, so the hip twist of an are makki includes a slight drop and the hip twist of an olgul makki is tilted slightly upwards.

Best regards,

Simon

 

[sopraisso]

My concern is exactly about the changes of standards - or better, the change of organizations that happened years ago in most schools in my country (from Kwan/ITF- related to Kukkiwon, but without the necessary technical update, that came only lately and in bits). So I recently found out that a few technical details in my school (and probably in most of Brazil's schools) were still being teached "the old way" (kwan standards mainly). That's not a problem to me as I don't reject those ways (I even prefer most of them), but I only want to know the official Kukkiwon standard now - that's even more important since I started having students of my own.

Obrigado e forte abraço! (I realize that's quite a Brazilian way of finishing a message)

Enviado de meu GT-I9300 usando o Tapatalk 2

 

[ATC]

30 degrees turn and angle (hip and shoulders) when finished. This is the stance requirement for everything not just the low block but all blocks and punches when in long stance, walking stance, cat stance, except for back stance where the finished turn angle is 45 degrees. It is not the block or strike but the stance that requires the turn or angle. You should not be centered as you do not go into or thru your target. turning the hips and shoulders 30 degrees will put your punch beyond your target ensuring that you hit with max force. As I stated only the back stance is at a 45 degree angle as it allows for a better and stronger blocking angle in this stance, it also allows your to be quicker when transitioning into the next stance as well. It has always been this way if practicing KKW TKD.

 

[SJON]

30 degrees turn and angle (hip and shoulders) when finished. This is the stance requirement for everything not just the low block but all blocks and punches when in long stance, walking stance, cat stance, except for back stance where the finished turn angle is 45 degrees.

I'll bow to ATC's more current knowledge as to the standard, although I'm not so sure it's always been that way. I've seen these things change over the last 20 years. On the other hand, perhaps it has always been this way and my early teachers, who were very much "Kwan-based", did not observe KKW standards; this is entirely possible.

You should not be centered as you do not go into or thru your target. turning the hips and shoulders 30 degrees will put your punch beyond your target ensuring that you hit with max force.

Well, that rather depends on whether you consider that going beyond or "through" your target is optimum, where along the trajectory of the "textbook" technique you wish to deliver that peak force and indeed how much you rely on hip and shoulder rotation to generate power.

Sopraisso, outro para você. Sorry about going off topic!

 

[msmitht]

Muito bom dia, Sopraisso.

I'm not certain what is standard right now, as I've lost track of all the little details of standard KKW technique that have changed over the years. I was always taught to have the hips completely "square", i.e. torso centred, at the end of movements in ap sogi and ap kubi.

I don't recall offhand seeing the "opposite hip twist" in any movement other than han sonnal olgul bituro makki as in Taegeuk Youk Jang, but there may be other examples.

It would probably get me failed in a grading nowadays, but my performance of these movements always includes (a) the hip twist preceding the arm movement and (b) a slight movement in the direction of the technique, so the hip twist of an are makki includes a slight drop and the hip twist of an olgul makki is tilted slightly upwards.

Best regards,

Simon

I always laugh when someone talks about the changes that the kkw makes. Guess what? They have never made a change except to stop using palgwe pomsae. Any sabum or kwang jang that talks about "changes" the kkw has made or is making is just making excuses for their poor technique. You could also call them liars.

 

[ACJ]

I always laugh when someone talks about the changes that the kkw makes. Guess what? They have never made a change except to stop using palgwe pomsae. Any sabum or kwang jang that talks about "changes" the kkw has made or is making is just making excuses for their poor technique. You could also call them liars.

That's entirely over the top. The "changes" made by the Kukkiwon are a colloquial way of referring to the clarifications in technique that get passed along and passed down that often have slight innacuracies in terms of interpretation (most of the seminars delivered as clarifications/updates aren't given in extreme technical detail) and in terms of details lost by degrees of seperation from the source.

As to it being an excuse or a lie to cover bad technique, then why are international technical judges getting and changing because of the updates?

 

[SJON]

I always laugh when someone talks about the changes that the kkw makes. Guess what? They have never made a change except to stop using palgwe pomsae. Any sabum or kwang jang that talks about "changes" the kkw has made or is making is just making excuses for their poor technique. You could also call them liars.

And I have to laugh about how confrontational people can be on internet forums. As far as I'm concerned, we're having a cordial exchange of impressions. My recollection of what I've been taught at various stages is not a product of my imagination, I can assure you, nor is it a product of poor technique or lies on the part of those who taught me. I found that last bit particularly amusing.

As I indicated in a previous post, my early instructors were very Kwan-based, i.e. they were 2nd or 3rd generation CDK or ODK masters, though they were KKW-affiliated, so they naturally retained certain technical characteristics of their Kwan styles.

Subsequently I spent a number of years with several "non-Kwan" masters who were very much concerned with correct standard technique. They would occasionally return from an official national KKW-affiliated governing body seminar or receive a circular from said NGB and inform us of "the new way" of doing such-and-such a technique. Several times I was told that for Dan gradings the new version of a particular movement or stance was the official one, but that the earlier version would be accepted if it met certain criteria, at least for older candidates who had grown up with the earlier version or versions.

I currently collaborate with some KKW-affiliated MDK and CDK masters whose personal technique is also at variance with the current KKW standard. They teach the latest NGB standard to their grading students, and discuss the Kwan versions with people like me.

How about we look at something specific? Can you confirm, for example, that the width, length and rear foot angle of ap sogi and ap kubi have remained constant ever since the KKW established a standard for this? When was that standard established?

 

[Gnarlie]

The stance accompanying movement 2 of Oh Jang has been changed more than once. It's currently L stance, but it has been parallel stance before that, and L stance again before that. I've even correlated this change with students from other countries along the same timescale.

Sometimes what is taught at the latest seminars isn't what's in the latest textbook, either.

Gnarlie

 

[msmitht]

This is a sore subject for me. I have had students that came from other schools that were so far off of the standard I couldn't believe that they were kkw certified. Their instructors assured them that their techniquewas "pure" and up to date. Well iI've been to Korea, trained with kkw masters Hwang, In Sik and Park, Jeom bom(spelled wrong). The majority of what I have seen in usat/ustu is wrong. In the past few years corrections have been made and students are improving. Call the inaccuracies suttle differences or whatever you will to justify them; they are mistakes. Sad thing is that when they are pointed out the answer usually is"well, that's not how gm taught me".
I was not attacking anyone verbally. If you have mistakes in your technique then correct them and be happy. If someone taught you wrong you should let them know that you were corrected and ask them why their techniques differ....or you could continue to be sheep.
If a math teacher told me 2+2=8 I would correct them. If they continued to insist I would tell them they were a poor teacher, a liar, and then leave. Ignorance is no excuse if you are teaching others. Get it right or stop teaching things you don't know.

 

[msmitht]

Ap kubi, ap seogi and beom seogi all have the same angle to their rear foot. The width of Ap kubi/ap seogi is one fist, as it was in the first printed kkw manual(2-24-73/updated 11-30-87). Updates to referees are being done for 2 reasons: Many learned them with inaccurate details and there is a difference between kkw standards and wtf competition rules. Take the double side kick in poomsae korryo for example. Kkw standard says kick no higher than the head. Wtf champions are kicking vertically.

 

[Gnarlie]

That's one of the frustrating things about being a person who likes to make sure they are up to date and ahead of the curve. You're always dealing with people who haven't caught up. But that doesn't change the fact that Kukkiwon certified trainers out there are also only human, and small errors are and have been transmitted from time to time. It doesn't make anyone a liar.

I understand what you mean about some instructors being way off the mark, and that's really down to them not understanding the need to update. They teach what they were taught, and as far as they are concerned, if nothing has changed since they were taught it, why would they need to attend a seminar? It doesn't make anyone a liar.

Some instructors continue to teach what they learned even though they know it is different from the Kukkiwon standard. This could be an old Kwan-style thing or it could just be a detail, a way of an instructor placing his personal style signature on his students. Again, it doesn't make anyone a liar, and those who still adhere to old Kwan variances don't really have problems at testing time.

I think it would be nice if we all worked to the same standard, but unless there's an incentive (rather than a cost) to do so, that's not going to happen.

 

[chrispillertkd]

This is a sore subject for me. I have had students that came from other schools that were so far off of the standard I couldn't believe that they were kkw certified.

This is one of the strengths/selling points of the KKW according to many people, however.

Pax,

Chris

 

[SJON]

There are several issues here that I think are worth separating.

One is the question of whether there has been a constant KKW standard over time, and it seems that there has. Thank you for the specific information. I was unaware that the following was not a relatively new development.

Ap kubi, ap seogi and beom seogi all have the same angle to their rear foot. The width of Ap kubi/ap seogi is one fist, as it was in the first printed kkw manual(2-24-73/updated 11-30-87).

Another is the matter of the KKW purporting to be on the one hand an “inclusive” organisation willing to accommodate a wide range of variations and on the other hand having an agenda of standardisation. I would venture that this is a contradiction and is motivated primarily by a desire for money and power. In fact, I would suggest that the KKW isn’t really very concerned at all about standardisation as long as the money is rolling in.
To illustrate my point, let me tell you how things worked out in Spain. TKD was introduced here in, I think, 1968, so pre-KKW, mainly by CDK and MDK masters who taught the Chang Hon hyungs (yes, the ITF ones). The Palgwe set was never introduced in Spain. The Taegeuk set was introduced in 1978 or 1979. The norm for ap sogi and ap kubi was shoulder width, feet parallel for the former, rear foot turned out 30º for the latter, body square. I think I have somewhere a BB grading manual from the early 2000’s from the KKW-affiliated Spanish TKD Federation indicating this. It was only in the mid-2000’s, when people stopped bothering to pay to have their NGB dan grades convalidated by the KKW amidst news of embezzlement scandals and non-receipt of KKW certificates that the stance standards you describe above were promoted here.
Can we see a pattern here?

This is a sore subject for me. I have had students that came from other schools that were so far off of the standard I couldn't believe that they were kkw certified. Their instructors assured them that their techniquewas "pure" and up to date. Well iI've been to Korea, trained with kkw masters Hwang, In Sik and Park, Jeom bom(spelled wrong). The majority of what I have seen in usat/ustu is wrong. In the past few years corrections have been made and students are improving.

Next issue: the assumption that the KKW standard is “right” and therefore better than the more Kwan-influenced versions. I dispute this. I think that – apart from the KTA pattern sets, which of course were the work of a particular KTA committee formed by Kwan masters, not of the KKW as an org, and which I happen to think are rather good – a significant number of what I refer to as KKW “changes” are for primarily aesthetic reasons and to differentiate Kukki TKD from whatever happened to be its biggest competitor at a given time (ITF, Karate, whatever). Sure, I’ve heard the argument that they afford greater mobility, are more natural for fighting, etc., etc., but to my mind that’s … what’s the word? … Master Ken uses it a lot in reference to rival arts … come on, folks, help me out here.
I find the Kwan-influenced methods to be superior in a practical sense. I could go into great detail on this, but I'll refrain from doing so here.

If you have mistakes in your technique then correct them and be happy … If someone taught you wrong you should let them know that you were corrected and ask them why their techniques differ ... or you could continue to be sheep.

There’s a wealth of ideological parallels to be drawn there, but I’ll limit it to this: what is more sheep-like, blindly conforming to an imposed standard or encouraging critical evaluation and individuality?

Get it right or stop teaching things you don't know … Ignorance is no excuse if you are teaching others.

Well, I don’t claim to represent the KKW, but that’s beside the point. My point is that “ignorance” of KKW standards is because the KKW has been lax (or not particularly zealous) about enforcing those standards. The fact remains that all those people who have been taught in a non-standard fashion have been certified by the KKW or by KKW-affiliated NGB’s regardless. And then there are a lot of people who, when the “changes” or “corrections” have finally filtered down, have decided upon consideration that they are not of value and ignore them.

I was not attacking anyone verbally … mistakes … wrong … sheep … poor technique … liars … ignorance …

Of course you weren’t, you old charmer, you.

 

[msmitht]

Points taken. Again, it is a sore subject for me and I get an little emotional over it. Apologies if I offended anyone. Gonna go roll and practice tapping now.
When I said that you could call them "liars" I was referring to those who know about the differences and continue to teach their way while telling their students that they are right and everyone else isn't.

 

[andyjeffries]

Next issue: the assumption that the KKW standard is “right” and therefore better than the more Kwan-influenced versions. I dispute this. I think that – apart from the KTA pattern sets, which of course were the work of a particular KTA committee formed by Kwan masters, not of the KKW as an org, and which I happen to think are rather good – a significant number of what I refer to as KKW “changes” are for primarily aesthetic reasons and to differentiate Kukki TKD from whatever happened to be its biggest competitor at a given time (ITF, Karate, whatever). Sure, I’ve heard the argument that they afford greater mobility, are more natural for fighting, etc., etc., but to my mind that’s … what’s the word? … Master Ken uses it a lot in reference to rival arts … come on, folks, help me out here.
I find the Kwan-influenced methods to be superior in a practical sense. I could go into great detail on this, but I'll refrain from doing so here.

I would just add a simple point to the discussion - remember, all the kwans in Korea actively support the Kukkiwon and its standards. For example, I'm a Changmookwan member and our current Kwanjang is GM Kim, Joong-Young. GM Kim is also on the 9th Dan promotion panel for the Kukkiwon. GM Lee, Chong-Kwan is also Changmookwan and is one of the main instructors on the Kukkiwon Instructor Courses, teaching Kukkiwon standards...

So, when saying "kwan-influenced" methods/versions and things like that, remember that you are talking about historically different versions and the current kwan practices are exactly the same as the Kukkiwon practices.

 

[andyjeffries]

Another is the matter of the KKW purporting to be on the one hand an “inclusive” organisation willing to accommodate a wide range of variations and on the other hand having an agenda of standardisation.

I wouldn't phrase it as having an agenda, I would say that yes they would like all Taekwondoin to be a)a part of the same family and b)speak exactly the same language (Kukki-Taekwondo standards). I don't think I'd describe that as an agenda (which has negative connotations of hidden scheming).

I would venture that this is a contradiction and is motivated primarily by a desire for money and power. In fact, I would suggest that the KKW isn’t really very concerned at all about standardisation as long as the money is rolling in.

I completely disagree with this!

Last year I was invited to the World Taekwondo Leaders Forum by the Kukkiwon. Bear in mind that I'm a small club owner and not an MNA president or anything. I had to pay for my own flights, but then the Kukkiwon paid for my accommodation at the Grand Hilton in Seoul, spent three days showing me Korean culture, training with grandmasters in Taekwondo and discussing things related to the future of Taekwondo, all while feeding me (and on one evening taking about 10 of us out for more than enough beer and soju!). There was no cost for attending the forum at all (aside from travel)!

This year I'm going to the Foreign Instructor Course, where I'm going to be taught by experts from the Kukkiwon for 5 days, 8+ hours per day - for the total cost of $200.

They seem to actively go out of the way to make things as affordable as they can.

I would question whether you've been to the Kukkiwon, met/talked with its staff? They were very friendly and helpful to me (including meeting both Kukkiwon and WTF presidents, speaking for a few minutes with the Kukkiwon VP) and were not at all about controlling, money or any agenda. I would recommend visiting (with an open mind) before casting aspersions on a group of people who are trying to do their genuine best for our art...

 

[msmitht]

I did 2 FIC in the USA and one in Korea. Well worth the trip and inexpensive compared to similar events in the USA.

 

[sopraisso]

30 degrees turn and angle (hip and shoulders) when finished. This is the stance requirement for everything not just the low block but all blocks and punches when in long stance, walking stance, cat stance, except for back stance where the finished turn angle is 45 degrees. It is not the block or strike but the stance that requires the turn or angle. You should not be centered as you do not go into or thru your target. turning the hips and shoulders 30 degrees will put your punch beyond your target ensuring that you hit with max force. As I stated only the back stance is at a 45 degree angle as it allows for a better and stronger blocking angle in this stance, it also allows your to be quicker when transitioning into the next stance as well. It has always been this way if practicing KKW TKD.

Thank you so much!
This is great and surprising news to me. It is hard to decribe the feeling now that I see one more important thing that we've been taught in my school that is not KKW-standard, despite the fact that we are a KKW school. It is probably a technical heritage from my instructor's kwan period that has not been properly adressed. Now I'm thinking whether I should or not talk to him about these issues (it would be a very delicate talk, and I'm not sure how he'd react). The bad part actually is that I have myself taught my own students to keep a centered hip (when they tended to naturally stand in the correct position!), and now I'll have to make them change their stance -- at least better soon than after the mistake is more ingrained in their technique -- I'm glad I found out about this relatively soon. Things would be a little harder if I had to correct other instructors' students, fortunately I only need to correct the few ones of my own.

Hey, people, no-one needs to stop the debate, feel free to use the thread at will.

IMPORTANT EDIT: Hey, I just noticed there's one more thing regarding this subject, as important as the previous, or more, that is specifically regarding the down block (as I mentioned in the OP) and other blocks like rising block. That is the very direction of the hip rotation.
So I've been taught to perform a right down block (for example) twisting the hip from the side to the center (that means clockwise if seen from above). I've just learned now that the end position of the hip -- as it happens generally in ap keubi -- is not completely centered. But what about the direction of the hip twist? Should it be really from side to center or should it be "reverse", from center to the side, like the more typical way of shotokan karate? Or even, could it be that both kinds of hip rotation are technically correct depending on the circumstances (as it happens to shotokan -- jun kaiten and gyaku kaiten). And, being both correct, is there a prevalence of one of them when practicing forms and/or basics?

I saw the vid below and now I have such doubts (down block starts at 2min3s). In the vid the performer seems to use a "reverse twist" (for down block), but the strange thing is he twists the hips before the down block -- that is thrown from an almost stationary position. Please, I would very welcome anyone's help on KKW standard about this.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see any hip twist with regards to the down blocks at the time you mentioned (2:03 and following). Can you p

Truthfully, I see very little if any hip twist anywhere in that video. The closest I see to a "reverse twist" is around 6:20 or so where he is doing knife hand guarding blocks. But that motion doesn't look like it's intentional so much as just an odd shaking of the body from the exertion of blocking itself. In a certain light it looks as if that motion would actually detract from the power you were trying to generate since it looks like it's more of a jiggling of the stomach back and forth than a jerking of the hip into the technique. YMMV, but that is what it looks like to my non-KKW eye.

Pax,

Chris