Standard KKW hip rotation for down block?

[WaterGal]

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.

The way I learned it was that front stance low block usually ends with your torso still somewhat turned, and in Taegeuk 1 you then turn your hips with the punch and end the movement with your shoulders square.

I just checked the KKW video for the form and it looks like that's how it is there, only the guy turns his hips even a little farther than square for the punch. It's a little hard to tell though, because of the camera angle.

 

[SJON]

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

Thanks. I was just about to apologise again for hijacking the thread.

Points taken. Again, it is a sore subject for me and I get an little emotional over it. Apologies if I offended anyone.

No offence taken. I enjoy a bit of lively debate, as you may have noticed.

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.

To be fair, I don’t ever recall seeing this. Even the most staunchly old-school masters I’ve trained with in the last few years (i.e. since the “corrections” we’ve discussed have been introduced in Spain) have taught their grading students the “new” standard while griping to their peers about how they prefer their old ways.

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.

True, of course. But I would suggest that the degree of integration varies greatly even within a Kwan, not least because that it is no longer a Kwan in the literal sense but a kind of diaspora of people descended from that physical Kwan. It stands to reason that the visible leaders of groups that support KKW standardisation should … be seen to support KKW standardisation (that was elegantly phrased, eh?). What I’ve seen in the UK and Spain over the last 20 years, though, is (a) the process we’ve discussed whereby the “corrections” take a long time to filter down, and (b) individual Kwan-lineage masters being less enthusiatic about the KKW standard.

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).

We’ll have to agree to disagree there. I think historically there has been a very definite agenda, with all the negative connotations of the word, even if things have been cleaned up a bit now.

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...

Fair enough. That’s your experience. Mine involves seeing people paying to be certified by an organisation that hasn’t examined their ability first hand, has been lax about defining its technical standards and has not been averse to a bit of scandal over the years.

No, I haven’t visited the KKW, but I have visited Korea several times in a business context. I would say that the hospitality you experienced is by no means out of the ordinary.

By the way, have you read this?
http://www.lulu.com/es/es/shop/zoe-...orea-and-beyond/paperback/product-299556.html
Among other things it portrays KKW BB grading – at the KKW – pretty much as a joke in terms of quality.

Let’s see. Putting aside issues of quality, transparency, commercialism or whatever, I do actually think the idea of an internation org like the KKW is a good idea in the sense of uniting TKD practitioners and providing some kind of standards and certification. What I don’t see is how this is incompatible with individuality.
As I’ve said, I think the emphasis on technical standardisation is a mistake. I think the emphasis should be on technical quality within a broad set of guidelines. But wouldn’t this be chaos, with everyone doing their own thing? I don’t think so. It's not really that difficult to sort out who's who, which lineages can be considered TKD and which can't (start with the 9 Kwans, for example). It wouldn't really be that difficult to establish a set of guidelines encompassing any of the 3 or 4 pattern sets used since the Kwan era, the 2 or 3 variations on stances, the 2 or 3 variations on how you do an inward palm block, etc.
But this hasn’t been the case. The approach has been for everyone to abandon what they knew/did/believed before and embrace a new way, of inferior quality in the minds of many, and to be encouraged to pay for a rubber-stamp certificate.

Does the current model mean I can walk into a KKW-affiliated dojang anywhere in the world and fit right in? Sure it does. Do I need that luxury and that degree of spoon-feeding to the detriment of good TKD? No, I certainly don’t. Does the formula [everyone must "speak exactly the same language"] + [strong implication that your "language" is not legitimate if you don't] + [paying for certification in that "language" whether you can speak it or not] not sound at best like a strongly business-oriented model and at worst like a cult?

Best regards,

Simon

 

[Gnarlie]

I'd say the video in this thread isn't the clearest example I've ever seen. The issue is clouded by the fact that the demonstrator is stepping backward into the Apkubi, which changes the dynamic of the footwork - waist twist relationship slightly.

I also agree with Chrispillertkd, there's not much waist twist to be seen there. The demonstrator is a high grade master, and I know from personal experience that these guys can generate a whopping amount of power from the waist without it being particularly visible. It's like we as learners have to exaggerate the motion to get the same effect, but once it's mastered, the movement necessary to achieve the same effect is much smaller and less obvious.

My experiences with Kukkiwon trainers are that for the most part, the waist twist is prepared by winding up with the chamber motion (to the right for a left hand low block), then unwinding in the direction of the block, simultaneously blocking with the arms. Recent seminars have stressed that the shoulders don't have to be fully square but should be slightly angled, around 5-10 degrees, both for blocking and punching. For both, the shoulders should be down at the same height, with a good straight spine posture.

It's going to be pretty hard to find a video of a high grade master where the waist twist is clearly visible - mainly because we concentrate on physical skills in the early Dan grades, after which the waist twist is fully ingrained and doesn't need as big a movement to reach the same goal. I remember asking my current instructor about this as I couldn't see his waist twist, and he demonstrated how much power is in his momtong makgi against a pad for me - way more than I'm getting with the full twisting motion.

There's also the issue that the video is demonstrating basics only, presumably with a target audience of Kup grades who are seeing the techniques for the first time. Their focus is on the shape of the arm motion and stance rather than power generation, which comes later.

 

[sopraisso]

The way I learned it was that front stance low block usually ends with your torso still somewhat turned, and in Taegeuk 1 you then turn your hips with the punch [would it be with the block instead?] and end the movement with your shoulders square. [...]

[...] My experiences with Kukkiwon trainers are that for the most part, the waist twist is prepared by winding up with the chamber motion (to the right for a left hand low block), then unwinding in the direction of the block, simultaneously blocking with the arms. Recent seminars have stressed that the shoulders don't have to be fully square but should be slightly angled, around 5-10 degrees, both for blocking and punching. For both, the shoulders should be down at the same height, with a good straight spine posture. [...]

[Emphasis mine in both quotes]

I think the highlighted parts do provide answers to what I asked about this technical standard on the down block (also applicable to rising block, I believe). But I'm still not sure if I made it clear what my question is about for everyone, so I'm trying to make it simpler now, as following:

When I perform down block with left arm, when seen from above, my hip should twist:
a) Counter-clockwise -- i.e., what I'd call a "normal twist" or twisting "with the block" (jun kaiten in karate terms). In this case, the hip would start from turned position and finish square or almost square;
or
b) Clockwise -- i.e., what I called a "reverse twist" or twisting "against the block" (gyaku kaiten in karate terms). In this case, the hip would start from square (or almost square) position and would end twisted;
or further
c) One direction or another, depending on the situation. If that's the case, which form would be more usual (mainly for basics and forms training)?

From the answers given and quoted above, I believe the standard KKW method is the first one. Does anyone disagree? Does anyone practice differently in their schools? Actually I would also enjoy knowing if there are different methods in different styles, like in Chang Hon system.

Thank you everyone who already answered and thanks in advance for further clarification. I hope I'm not being very annoying, this is just a very important subject to me and that's why I'm asking like that. Everyone else is invited to answer just "method a)", "b)" or "c)" if they will.

 

[sopraisso]

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

I think you're both right, Chris and Gnarlie. I agree that we hardly see any twist at all, so when I said "reverse twist" at 2:03 I took into consideration only the twist done before the actual block (something like a chambering backwards), which is far more visible than any kind of twist at the same time of the block. At a certain point I even believe to see a "normal" twist after this chambering, but I'm not sure.

I believe I have my questions answered already, but I explained what I mean more clearly (I think so) in my latest post, so if there's something wrong with what I pointed out you could tell me.

Chris, once you're not a KKW practitioner, it would even be very interesting to know if there is any difference in ITF also. Thank you very much.

 

[Gnarlie]

[Emphasis mine in both quotes]

I think the highlighted parts do provide answers to what I asked about this technical standard on the down block (also applicable to rising block, I believe). But I'm still not sure if I made it clear what my question is about for everyone, so I'm trying to make it simpler now, as following:

When I perform down block with left arm, when seen from above, my hip should twist:
a) Counter-clockwise -- i.e., what I'd call a "normal twist" or twisting "with the block" (jun kaiten in karate terms). In this case, the hip would start from turned position and finish square or almost square;
or
b) Clockwise -- i.e., what I called a "reverse twist" or twisting "against the block" (gyaku kaiten in karate terms). In this case, the hip would start from square (or almost square) position and would end twisted;
or further
c) One direction or another, depending on the situation. If that's the case, which form would be more usual (mainly for basics and forms training)?

From the answers given and quoted above, I believe the standard KKW method is the first one. Does anyone disagree? Does anyone practice differently in their schools? Actually I would also enjoy knowing if there are different methods in different styles, like in Chang Hon system.

Thank you everyone who already answered and thanks in advance for further clarification. I hope I'm not being very annoying, this is just a very important subject to me and that's why I'm asking like that. Everyone else is invited to answer just "method a)", "b)" or "c)" if they will.

It's mostly winding up against the block and unwinding with the block, so the first one. There are some exceptions, particularly where 2 hands are involved. How do you twist for kawi makgi, wesanteul makgi, biteureo makgi, keumgang makgi, otgoreo makgi, momtong jecho jireugi and chetdari jireugi? You have to experiment and find out for yourself where the power is. There is no explicit KKW specified standard that I am aware of, but certain principles of waist twist make themselves apparent through basics and poomsae, which are then applied to more advanced two handed techniques.

Gnarlie

 

[chrispillertkd]

I think you're both right, Chris and Gnarlie. I agree that we hardly see any twist at all, so when I said "reverse twist" at 2:03 I took into consideration only the twist done before the actual block (something like a chambering backwards), which is far more visible than any kind of twist at the same time of the block. At a certain point I even believe to see a "normal" twist after this chambering, but I'm not sure.

I believe I have my questions answered already, but I explained what I mean more clearly (I think so) in my latest post, so if there's something wrong with what I pointed out you could tell me.

Chris, once you're not a KKW practitioner, it would even be very interesting to know if there is any difference in ITF also. Thank you very much.

Well, I'll do my best. I reviewed the video clip again and actually see quite a few differences between it and how we would perform a comparable technique. There are at least a few differences simply in the execution of the block but I'll concentrate solely on the use of the hip.

Your post clarified what you mean by "reverse twist." I thought you might have meant twisting the hips in the reverse direction as you execute the block, not as you "wind up" for it. We do the same thing, rotating in the opposite direction as we chamber our arms for the block and then rotating the hips in the direction of the block as it's executed. There is no technique in ITF Taekwon-Do which has the hips twisting in the opposite direction of the technique as it's delivered.

One of the general principles in Taekwon-Do when stepping, including when stepping backwards to execute a low block, is that "the body must always be half facing the opponent when stepping backward or forward." Half facing can be defined as when the shoulders and hips are not square on to the opponent, nor side-on to him. It shouldn't be thought of as being, for example, simply at a 45 degree angle as the side facing in an L-Stance is at a different angle than in a Walking Stance. That's all a long wind-up to say that staying half facing while stepping still allows you to get in the needed hip-twist as the block is executed without over-rotating into a complete sideways facing posture first. You could twist to about 45 degrees and then rotate back to, say, 30 degrees or so as the block is execute and get a ton of force into the technique.

There are plenty of technicians who can get a lot of power out of a slight hip twist. My instructor, for example, has demonstrated blocks while jerking his hip maybe two inches and they still packed a wallop.

Pax,

Chris

 

[WaterGal]

That is clearer. Just to be sure I understood what you meant by "reverse twist", I found a youtube video demostrating "gyaku kaiten", and yeah, you don't see that much with a low block in KKW TKD. You do it some with a middle block, like in Taegeuk 6.

 

[sopraisso]

[...] Your post clarified what you mean by "reverse twist." I thought you might have meant twisting the hips in the reverse direction as you execute the block, not as you "wind up" for it. We do the same thing, rotating in the opposite direction as we chamber our arms for the block and then rotating the hips in the direction of the block as it's executed. There is no technique in ITF Taekwon-Do which has the hips twisting in the opposite direction of the technique as it's delivered.
[...] Pax,

Chris

It's mostly winding up against the block and unwinding with the block, so the first one. There are some exceptions, particularly where 2 hands are involved. How do you twist for kawi makgi, wesanteul makgi, biteureo makgi, keumgang makgi, otgoreo makgi, momtong jecho jireugi and chetdari jireugi? You have to experiment and find out for yourself where the power is. There is no explicit KKW specified standard that I am aware of, but certain principles of waist twist make themselves apparent through basics and poomsae, which are then applied to more advanced two handed techniques.

Gnarlie

That is clearer. Just to be sure I understood what you meant by "reverse twist", I found a youtube video demostrating "gyaku kaiten", and yeah, you don't see that much with a low block in KKW TKD. You do it some with a middle block, like in Taegeuk 6.

Thank you everyone for the answers! Now I'm confident about that technical detail on KKW style, and also I become aware of ITF method, too, that seems to work in exactly the same way. This was a subject I've been willing to clarify for quite some time and now I can help my own students understand how it works (according to KKW) better than in the time I was taught.

 

[Napitenkah]

There was a point my Gwanjangnim said, for Taegeuk Pal Jung, On the first move, which apparently was to step forward to a forward stance, double block. He said Kukkiwon had changed it to where you step back into a forward stance, double block.
I told him that he had actually already showed me it as stepping back.

After that there is a front snap kick on the right, followed by a jumping front snap kick on the left.

From what I have seen, some schools or books just have the Jumping front snap kick by itself.

With Arae Makki, I was shown to snap the wrist just before the contact moment.

 

[Gnarlie]

There was a point my Gwanjangnim said, for Taegeuk Pal Jung, On the first move, which apparently was to step forward to a forward stance, double block. He said Kukkiwon had changed it to where you step back into a forward stance, double block.
I told him that he had actually already showed me it as stepping back.

After that there is a front snap kick on the right, followed by a jumping front snap kick on the left.

From what I have seen, some schools or books just have the Jumping front snap kick by itself.

With Arae Makki, I was shown to snap the wrist just before the contact moment.

Shortly after design of the Taegeuk forms by the KTA Committee, the documentation of the forms began. In the first versions of this documentation, some mistakes were made, which led to confusion over some motions and sequences in the forms.

However, Kukkiwon has changed very little in the forms since they were designed. Where changes have happened, it's mostly been clarification of smaller details that already existed (e.g. the path that the hands take to reach the end position, which is rarely documented in a picture book sequence). I am not aware of any actual changes to stances or stepping directions originating from Kukkiwon. I am certainly not aware of any version of Pal Jang where the first step is a forward Apkubi stance, regardless of stepping forward or back. To my knowledge the Kukkiwon version of Pal Jang has always been a step forward to a Dwikubi back stance with Kodeureo Bakkat Palmok Momtong Bakkat Makki, a twin middle block.

The first set of kicks are doobal dangsong, Momtong Apchagi and Eolgul Apchagi in a single jump, moving forward. Both kicks should be done as part of the jump (i.e. body weight already travelling upwards as the first kick reaches its target). This is in deliberate contrast to the 2 kicks on the way back, which are an Apchagi on the ground in place, followed by a Jumping Apchagi in place.

It's my view that schools and books with one snap kick or one jumping snap kick have misinterpreted the form, possibly as a result of early mistakes made in the documentation process, possibly because of not seeing that first kick because it's so quick.

In this age of technology and relative ease in finding authentic tuition, it surprises me that people still haven't caught up to the standard, or don't want to. I think it might be a case of 'well we do it like this because we always have', or NIH syndrome (Not Invented Here).

 

[Napitenkah]

Yes, when I wrote Forward stance, it didn't feel right, but when I do the moves, I do a back stance, double block, it is when you do the punch after, which I also left out of the explanation, that the back stance turns to a front stance.
Then a front snap kick with the right leg, chamber it, but leave it up, and do a jumping front snap kick for the left leg.
Then do a ahn palmahk mahki, Inner forearm block, double punch, Ki-up...and continue.

The part he said had changed at that time, a few years ago, was the very first stepping back, to a back stance. It was step forward into a back stance before.

He was a 6th Dan Kukkiwon certified, I even checked his number with Kukkiwon. So bets are on he was right.

 

[Gnarlie]

Yes, when I wrote Forward stance, it didn't feel right, but when I do the moves, I do a back stance, double block, it is when you do the punch after, which I also left out of the explanation, that the back stance turns to a front stance.
Then a front snap kick with the right leg, chamber it, but leave it up, and do a jumping front snap kick for the left leg.
Then do a ahn palmahk mahki, Inner forearm block, double punch, Ki-up...and continue.

The part he said had changed at that time, a few years ago, was the very first stepping back, to a back stance. It was step forward into a back stance before.

He was a 6th Dan Kukkiwon certified, I even checked his number with Kukkiwon. So bets are on he was right.

Nope, it has always been a step forward. A step back puts one off the start point at the end of the form. A dan grade doesn't make one infallible. The higher you go up the dan grades, the more you realise how true that is.

I am assuming you mean the first step of the form.

 

[Gnarlie]

Commented on this before the downtime but it didn't bump...

Gnarlie

 

[andyjeffries]

The part he said had changed at that time, a few years ago, was the very first stepping back, to a back stance. It was step forward into a back stance before.

He was a 6th Dan Kukkiwon certified, I even checked his number with Kukkiwon. So bets are on he was right.

I wouldn't rely on someone being Kukkiwon certified as knowing what the standards are or ever were.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Kukkiwon certified 5th Dan, I was appointed a Regular Member of the Kukkiwon World Taekwondo Leaders Forum last year in Seoul and I'm attending the Kukkiwon Foreign Instructors Course in just under 2 weeks in Korea. I'm not saying all that to brag, but to show that I'm not a Kukkiwon-basher, far from it.

My point is that just because someone has a Kukkiwon Dan it doesn't mean that the person who promoted them to it knew what the standard is or ever was, it doesn't mean that the Kukkiwon or its representatives have ever seen the dan-holder perform. It doesn't mean they attended the instructor course to learn from the Kukkiwon instructors what the standard is.

Let's go further though. For arguments' sake, let's assume he promoted to 6th Dan on the Kukkiwon floor in front of a panel of Kukkiwon 9th Dans. Let's also assume he was the only person on the floor and therefore had the entire panel's attention 100%. He still could have done that first move incorrectly (but with good skill/focus/etc) and have got over 60% on the poomsae part overall and therefore passed. He may even have taken that as implicit approval that he'd done it correctly (but he'd be wrong and most likely the examiners would have marked him down for it but assumed it was a mistake in the moment rather than an intentional fact).

I've never heard of the first movement going backwards for pal jang and I have books from the 70s and 80s.

 

[Napitenkah]

I understand that and it makes a good point.
But for this guy, it doesn't fit.
This is not a situation of comparing this to what is in a book from twenty to thirty years ago.
This was a change made in the last 3 or 4 years.
He was born in South Korea. He is Korean. English is a second language for him, and not a very close second.
He was on the WTF kukkiwon olympic team, and his Dan testings were all done at Kukkiwon.
He apparently would check with Kukkiwon on any updates to the art.
When I was at the school he had, Black belt instructors who owned schools in the area, would come to him there to receive training in various things. I know, I would be there practicing, and they would come in and ask him, so apparently he had a reputation as someone that knew his stuff.
I would see these people come in, and I was glad that I had not gone to one of their schools, they seemed to be the more american taekwondo, filtered down.
I had also done ITF style in my early twenties, though at the time, and for years after, I did not know it, or the difference between ITF and WTF kukkiwon.
But I am happy that both the main instructors were korean. This may sound racist, but I feel I have a better chance with a Korean in taekwondo, then an american.
He started teaching us the Korean language, to prep us for if we ever decided to go to Kukkiwon to test.
So still, my bet is on that he was right.
I don't expect anyone to take my word for it though, and find out for yourself. Contact Kukkiwon.
And, just for my own preference, stepping back feels more natural and effective.
If someone is coming at you, stepping back and blocking, then punch and kicks, would likely work better than stepping into their fists, which would smash against your arms, and maybe get through.

 

[Gnarlie]

Napi, are you saying that this change is how it is now, that we should be stepping back now? Or are you saying that it changed 4 years ago and changed back again, and we are now stepping forward?

Either way I remain unconvinced as I have been training with high dan Kukkiwon representatives and Korean University representatives pretty much continuously for most of the last decade, and this idea has never been part of any of that except in practical application of the form. It also changes the line of the form on the ground, meaning that it no longer fits the kwae, so is highly unlikely to be or have been adopted into the pattern.

What is likely is that in a practical interpretation of the pattern sequence a step back would be demonstrated. Could this be the case if there was a language barrier between you? Or did you actually practice the form stepping back?

Gnarlie

 

[andyjeffries]

I understand that and it makes a good point.
But for this guy, it doesn't fit.
This is not a situation of comparing this to what is in a book from twenty to thirty years ago.
This was a change made in the last 3 or 4 years.

Your guy's bonafides aside - this is simply not fact. You can watch the official Kukkiwon DVDs released in 2008 (5 years ago) and see that it was a step forward. A pal jang snippet starring GM KANG Ik Pil of the DVD is here :

You can also see the official Kukkiwon DVD released in the mid 90s and see that back then it was a step forward. A pal jang snippet starring GM LEE Chong Kwan of that DVD is here :

There's been no change in the last 3 to 4 years, this is just plain wrong. To be honest, I'm 99% sure it's never changed, but I can prove with the snippets above (which I certify are the same as the legal DVDs that I own) that it hasn't changed in the last 3-4 years

So still, my bet is on that he was right.
I don't expect anyone to take my word for it though, and find out for yourself. Contact Kukkiwon.

Given that I have given evidence above that it's not true, maybe it should be for you to contact Kukkiwon?

I trained with a Kukkiwon instructor GM HWANG In Sik last September at Kukkiwon organised event in Seoul and the whole room full of international masters, not one of them stepped backwards (and some of them were doing some really weird old-style stuff).

And, just for my own preference, stepping back feels more natural and effective.
If someone is coming at you, stepping back and blocking, then punch and kicks, would likely work better than stepping into their fists, which would smash against your arms, and maybe get through.

I don't disagree with this. However, there are LOTS of cases in poomsae where you step in to a block (in fact pretty much 95% of the blocks done in Taekwondo poomsae are done stepping forward). The fact that your stepping forward doesn't mean the block is ineffective you just need to time it better. One-step sparring blocks are often done at the higher levels stepping in to the punch rather than backwards.

 

[Jaeimseu]

For what it's worth. I live, teach, and train in Seoul, Korea (and have for nearly 7 years) and I've never seen Taegeuk 8 jang start with a step back. Two of our instructors are former Kukkiwon demonstration team members (one as recently as a year ago) and they don't teach it that way.

This could simply be a case of an instructor prefering to do the poomse a certain way and attributing it to a "change" from Kukkiwon. Telling the student body that changes have been made by a body in a foreign country that common students are not likely to have direct contact with has been fairly common practice, I suspect.

Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk 2

 

[andyjeffries]

This could simply be a case of an instructor prefering to do the poomse a certain way and attributing it to a "change" from Kukkiwon. Telling the student body that changes have been made by a body in a foreign country that common students are not likely to have direct contact with has been fairly common practice, I suspect.

This is a fair point. Our previous instructor always said that we did things the way he was taught because the Kukkiwon way changed every few years when they got a new president and he was from a different kwan so they wanted it done it their way.

It took a LOT of convincing from me, showing him multiple books, DVDs, YouTube clips etc to show that Taekwondo in Korea really hasn't changed that much in the past 20 years and we should get on board with the standard.

In the end he agreed and over about a year we made more and more tweaks away from the way he was taught and are now really pretty close to standard.