Standard KKW hip rotation for down block?

[Napitenkah]

It is, of course, possible he got mistaken information. The videos are not evidence, because he told me this after 2011, and he just found out.

He is Korean born, and he was on the Kukkiwon, wtf olympic team.

He had all his Dan testings at Kukkiwon, not at some other offshoot.

I feel it is the burden of all of us to find out if it is true, rather than to assume it is not, because we haven't heard anything.
Unless it isn't considered important.

It may have changed but it may take awhile for schools to find out.

 

[Dirty Dog]

It is, of course, possible he got mistaken information. The videos are not evidence, because he told me this after 2011, and he just found out.

So you're actually going to claim that the Official DVDs put out BY the Kukkiwon as Official Demonstrations of How It Is To Be Done, released both before and after the "change" you claim was made, and definitively proving that you're wrong 'don't count'?

I smell a troll.

 

[sopraisso]

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.
[...]

My instructor (7th dan certified Kukkiwon) always recurred to saying something like this to excuse his lack of updating to Kukkiwon standards. Funny thing is that he doesn't seem to notice that long ago I stopped believing it and started making my own research (with most good info learned here at MT) -- or he just doesn't care that I don't believe it (maybe a more likely hypothesis), as long as I don't question him openly about it.

This lack of updating from my instructor was the very reason that made me start this thread, and this is not the first one I have to start to have the correct standard. I'm sure that "Kukkiwon is changing things all the time" is a very common saying in many places. It may not be the case here, but sometimes many instructors could say that just repeating what they heard from one head instructor -- maybe I'd be one of them if I didn't care to check things later in different sources.

 

[Cyriacus]

My instructor (7th dan certified Kukkiwon) always recurred to saying something like this to excuse his lack of updating to Kukkiwon standards. Funny thing is that he doesn't seem to notice that long ago I stopped believing it and started making my own research (with most good info learned here at MT) -- or he just doesn't care that I don't believe it (maybe a more likely hypothesis), as long as I don't question him openly about it.

This lack of updating from my instructor was the very reason that made me start this thread, and this is not the first one I have to start to have the correct standard. I'm sure that "Kukkiwon is changing things all the time" is a very common saying in many places. It may not be the case here, but sometimes many instructors could say that just repeating what they heard from one head instructor -- maybe I'd be one of them if I didn't care to check things later in different sources.

I for one support your ability to see past your instructor.

Moving on, i suspect he may just not want to change the way hes doing it. The reason doesnt matter too much. The important thing is that he isnt inhibiting you. That being said, as with many things in life, sometimes having someone show you and help you to learn is better than learning in spite of someone. Just dont let yourself forget that these are things YOU are learning in ADDITION if ever the thought crosses your mind to change places. Ive seen too many people stay somewhere out of a sense of loyalty even though they want something else.

 

[sopraisso]

I for one support your ability to see past your instructor.

Moving on, i suspect he may just not want to change the way hes doing it. The reason doesnt matter too much. The important thing is that he isnt inhibiting you. That being said, as with many things in life, sometimes having someone show you and help you to learn is better than learning in spite of someone. Just dont let yourself forget that these are things YOU are learning in ADDITION if ever the thought crosses your mind to change places. Ive seen too many people stay somewhere out of a sense of loyalty even though they want something else.

Thank you very much for your support. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be unwillingly to change, he's just the kind that'd never recognize to be mistaken. He actually does changes things in class as he finds out about the differences between what he teaches and Kukkiwon standards - what normally happens after he goes to a seminar or a meeting with instructors from other regions of the country. The issue is that he comes to class and says that Kukkiwon has just changed it instead of honestly stating that he has just become aware of the difference, regardless of it being new or not. I've already seen instructors being that honest to their students and I highly approve that kind of attitude. I have to say that this is a minor problem, actually, I wouldn't be worried if that was the only.
I understand your further advice and agree with it. Actually, I'm already setting things up for my inevitable departure. Off course I won't forget the good things I learned and almost all kinds of experience are welcome, the experience I took from his classes has had its value.

 

[Cyriacus]

Thank you very much for your support. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be unwillingly to change, he's just the kind that'd never recognize to be mistaken. He actually does changes things in class as he finds out about the differences between what he teaches and Kukkiwon standards - what normally happens after he goes to a seminar or a meeting with instructors from other regions of the country. The issue is that he comes to class and says that Kukkiwon has just changed it instead of honestly stating that he has just become aware of the difference, regardless of it being new or not. I've already seen instructors being that honest to their students and I highly approve that kind of attitude. I have to say that this is a minor problem, actually, I wouldn't be worried if that was the only.
I understand your further advice and agree with it. Actually, I'm already setting things up for my inevitable departure. Off course I won't forget the good things I learned and almost all kinds of experience are welcome, the experience I took from his classes has had its value.

I hope it all works out for you
Upwards and onwards!

 

[andyjeffries]

He is Korean born, and he was on the Kukkiwon, wtf olympic team.

He had all his Dan testings at Kukkiwon, not at some other offshoot.

I feel it is the burden of all of us to find out if it is true, rather than to assume it is not, because we haven't heard anything.
Unless it isn't considered important.

It may have changed but it may take awhile for schools to find out.

OK, please clarify and phrase it simply exactly what you feel the situation was/is. To the best of my knowledge Taegeuk 8 has never included a step backwards in the first move. You are saying (if I understood correctly) that it used to be a step backwards on movement 1 but changed 3-4 years ago to be a step forwards.

In the interest of getting you a definitive answer - I happen to be going to Korea on Friday.

On Saturday morning I have a private session with Grandmaster Kang Ik Pil. He is one of the demonstrators and instructors at the Kukkiwon. It happens that he's the person who demonstrates pal jang in the Kukkiwon DVDs. So he should be authoritative enough?

Then the following Monday I'm attending the Kukkiwon Foreign Instructor Course at the Kukkiwon. I don't know who the instructor for Taegeuk poomsae will be yet, but I will happily ask whoever it is.

So, you should have two very high level sources from the Kukkiwon. If they both say that it hasn't been a step backwards in the last twenty years, will that be enough. I promise on my honour as a Taekwondo instructor to ask them both (i.e. not just to make up that I did and give you my answer), will you accept my answer as truth or do I need to video them saying it?

I understand loyalty to your instructor, and I understand your belief that he is highly skilled and is an authority on this. I'm happy to ask from as high level sources as I am able to (and this is really good timing) if it helps put this to bed...

 

[Gnarlie]

Would save me a couple of email enquiries. I think we all already know what the answer is going to be though.

Gnarlie

 

[andyjeffries]

Napitenkah, is my word good enough or will you require video to put this to bed?

I'd rather get you an answer that you trust, it's a bit more embarrassing to ask my seniors to have their answer on video (because it shows that the person I'm asking on behalf of doesn't trust me), but I'm happy to do it if you won't believe it unless you see it with your own eyes.

 

[Gnarlie]

Napitenkah, is my word good enough or will you require video to put this to bed?

I'd rather get you an answer that you trust, it's a bit more embarrassing to ask my seniors to have their answer on video (because it shows that the person I'm asking on behalf of doesn't trust me), but I'm happy to do it if you won't believe it unless you see it with your own eyes.

I'm intrigued to find out, but I think Napitenkah might have left the building...I'd appreciate an update either way. Your word is good enough for me, obviously.

 

[SJON]

Quoted from the "conditioning and stuff" thread:

On a slightly different tack, I'm not so sure that the Kukkiwon really changes things all that often, I mean if you watch video footage from the 1980's of forms (see Keumgang extracts and Chil Jang near the end), it's not that different. Perhaps some details regarding stance lengths / widths, and some chamber positions, but not that much change in 30 years. Certainly not enough to warrant so many instructors claiming that 'Kukkiwon have changed something' again.

I would contend that these "details" are major differences. It makes a big difference to the performance and effect of a technique if an ap kubi is shoulder width or narrow, if a tuit kubi is short or long, if a dung chumok ape chigui is chambered by the ear or by the ribs, if a batanson momtong makki is chambered high and wide or at the hip, if an okgorro are makki is chambered with one hand on each hip or both on the same hip. People have mentioned that this is either the result of "mistakes" made when recording the "correct" movements when they were first standardised (pretty sloppy work, no?), or the "correct" information taking time to filter down to the many NGB's.
I have spoken to several 6th and 7th Dan Spanish masters over the last couple of weeks, and they all coincide that there certainly have been changes, specifically since about 2005, that these changes were introduced to them at European TKD Union seminars given by Korean KKW masters. While acknowledging that many masters retained their own kwan-influenced technique in some cases - and pointing out that even on trips to Korea they were regularly shown what would now be called "non-standard" technique - they all reject (laughed at, actually) the idea that KKW standard has remained constant since 1972.

 

[Gnarlie]

Quoted from the "conditioning and stuff" thread:



I would contend that these "details" are major differences. It makes a big difference to the performance and effect of a technique if an ap kubi is shoulder width or narrow, if a tuit kubi is short or long, if a dung chumok ape chigui is chambered by the ear or by the ribs, if a batanson momtong makki is chambered high and wide or at the hip, if an okgorro are makki is chambered with one hand on each hip or both on the same hip.

That would be dependent if you look at techniques or principles. If, as you put forward in your book, you view Poomsae as a series of techniques to be literally and practically applied, then it's a problem. If you look at Poomsae as a collection of demonstrations of principles that can be modified and applied in whatever way that practitioner wishes, then these details are not all that important.

In my experience where changes have been mooted, both the old and new ways are functional, perhaps for different reasons. I retain both.

People have mentioned that this is either the result of "mistakes" made when recording the "correct" movements when they were first standardised (pretty sloppy work, no?), or the "correct" information taking time to filter down to the many NGB's.

Can't comment on the standard of work, I understand that the first round of documentation was done quickly and perhaps by someone not involved in the design process. Further problems may however be attributable to fairly limiting communication mediums prior to the advent of electronic media and the internet.

I have spoken to several 6th and 7th Dan Spanish masters over the last couple of weeks, and they all coincide that there certainly have been changes, specifically since about 2005, that these changes were introduced to them at European TKD Union seminars given by Korean KKW masters. While acknowledging that many masters retained their own kwan-influenced technique in some cases - and pointing out that even on trips to Korea they were regularly shown what would now be called "non-standard" technique - they all reject (laughed at, actually) the idea that KKW standard has remained constant since 1972.

That's just the problem here. We can't know who is telling us the truth, because people who were teaching non-standard material tend not to admit it once they have updated, and a governing body in another country makes an easy scapegoat. But video evidence suggests there have been minor changes but the broad strokes have remained the same.

Gnarlie

 

[SJON]

That would be dependent if you look at techniques or principles. If, as you put forward in your book, you view Poomsae as a series of techniques to be literally and practically applied, then it's a problem. If you look at Poomsae as a collection of demonstrations of principles that can be modified and applied in whatever way that practitioner wishes, then these details are not all that important.

Not really. The techniques in the book are practical examples of principles, as mentioned at the beginning of each section. In many cases the application I favour now for a given sequence is different from what it was 5 years ago.

My own main gripe with the current standard is mainly with the short, narrow stances, which I find less efficient in terms of power generation, stability, rooting and mobility. When I say “mobility”, I mean “putting you where you need to be”, and work under the assumption that a stance is a momentary position at the end of a technique, not a position you get into to launch a technique from. I really don’t buy the “high narrow stances are more mobile and more similar to real fighting” explanation.

That's just the problem here. We can't know who is telling us the truth, because people who were teaching non-standard material tend not to admit it once they have updated, and a governing body in another country makes an easy scapegoat.

I honestly don’t think that’s been the case here. These are several people who have independently given me the same story. What they have in common is that they all started teaching the “new” standards around the same time, even if some of them (all of them, actually) disagree with some or many of the “changes”.

Cheers,

Simon

 

[Gnarlie]

Here's my suggestion on what might have caused this issue:

The Taegeuk forms and the Kukkiwon syllabus were formed with representatives from each of the Kwans present, with the idea of producing a coherent unified syllabus and set of standards. As can happen when you do things by committee, people agree to things at the time, and then perhaps just go on doing their own thing when they get home to their Kwan. Or the Kwan members resist changes made by the committee, because they are Not Invented Here. So for years, each ex Kwan lineage continues to do things slightly differently. Then, at the time you mention, around 2005 or before (when incidentally I heard about a few *possibly new, possibly always there* things we needed to change too), the Kukkiwon has the stones to admit that they know people aren't following the standard that was agreed, and they push out a series of international seminars, courses at Kukkiwon, DVD and online material, a new Kukkiwon Taekwondo Textbook Edition (2006), and many other measures to promote the standard that was originally agreed in 1972.

Because of this push, and the availability of the information via new media, the new generation of instructors gets wind of the information, which they view as 'changes'. This view of the new information as 'changes' is supported when they question their masters about the new information, and not wanting to admit that they were still practising the old Kwan style (or perhaps not knowing), the Master claims that this is a change.

And everyone believes it, because the big bad international governing body changing what was agreed by committee in 1972, is far more pleasant to believe than believing that our seniors might not have been presenting us with the whole truth, knowingly or otherwise.

So when the Kukkiwon says the standard hasn't changed, and people you know *laugh* at the idea, there might be a reason for that.

However you look at it, there's more to the story than just 'changes' - that's over simplifying it.

 

[SJON]

That sounds very plausible. Thanks for taking the time to write it out.

I still don't think those short narrow stances are much use, though ... :wink1:

Cheers,

Simon

 

[Gnarlie]

That sounds very plausible. Thanks for taking the time to write it out.

I still don't think those short narrow stances are much use, though ... :wink1:

Cheers,

Simon

I think most people justifiably prefer whatever standard they have trained into their bodies over the decades.

I'm used to the KKW standard stances and find them just fine. It took a while to figure out how to stabilise the structures, but once they are habit they work just like longer, wider stances. You do really need to know where to step to get the best out of them.

Under application emphasis is on them being transitional, and power / stability being in very specific directions. If those directions are worked into the drill footwork, there is not a problem.

With practice, I find the higher stances do afford better mobility and I expend less energy moving into and out of them. Early problems I had with getting good hip rotation into techniques and balance issues under application are not problems anymore. I can do my self defence just as effectively as before and I don't miss my low, wide apkubi and longer dwikubi at all. Like anything else new, you have to work on it to make it work.

I think a lot of people write the mobility idea off, but it is true - less work against gravity.

 

[andyjeffries]

I think most people justifiably prefer whatever standard they have trained into their bodies over the decades.

I disagree with this premise. I don't think it's justified. If someone makes a mistake in their movements, the fact that they have trained their body in to it over decades doesn't make it right and they should try to correct the mistake. If they didn't know it was inaccurate (to now change from mistake to non-standard), the same applies - when they find out it's inaccurate they should try to change it.

Otherwise they are saying they know more about Taekwondo than the group of people who founded it and them/their students that are setting the standard.

 

[Gnarlie]

I disagree with this premise. I don't think it's justified. If someone makes a mistake in their movements, the fact that they have trained their body in to it over decades doesn't make it right and they should try to correct the mistake. If they didn't know it was inaccurate (to now change from mistake to non-standard), the same applies - when they find out it's inaccurate they should try to change it.

Otherwise they are saying they know more about Taekwondo than the group of people who founded it and them/their students that are setting the standard.

Yes, sorry, I wasn't being clear: with that sentence in my head I went on to say 'but that doesn't mean it is right or has more value'.

It's justifiable to feel that your way is the right way. That doesn't mean it is right.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Gnarlie

 

[SJON]

I disagree with this premise. I don't think it's justified. If someone makes a mistake in their movements, the fact that they have trained their body in to it over decades doesn't make it right and they should try to correct the mistake. If they didn't know it was inaccurate (to now change from mistake to non-standard), the same applies - when they find out it's inaccurate they should try to change it.

Andy,

I realise that you are talking as a Kukki TKD instructor. I imagine you are assuming that I consider myself a Kukki TKD instructor – I do not – which would account for what could otherwise be construed as condescending choice of language.

Your premise seems to be that the KKW standard is:

1. … the correct way of doing things if you consider yourself a KK-TKD instructor. I’m fine with that, particularly in the light of Gnarlie’s excellent hypothesis of how things shaped up.
2. … the best way of doing things, what other groups who call themselves TKD should aspire to. I entirely disagree with this.

It rather depends on whether you consider TKD to be specifically what is prescribed by a particular group or individual, or a general term for the Karate-based arts which developed in Korea post WWII. Obviously I am in the latter camp.

Otherwise they are saying they know more about Taekwondo than the group of people who founded it and them/their students that are setting the standard.

That’s a red herring, but I’ll take you up on it anyway. Who founded TKD? When? Who is claiming greater knowledge than whom?

Do you think that the members of the KTA committees that laid the groundwork for the KKW syllabus and technical standards had a deeper understanding of their arts (plural) than their own instructors, the Kwan founders? Which of the two groups founded TKD? Is it reasonable to believe that these committees’ work was really an improved version of what came before, with each representative objectively contributing or graciously accepting that another representative’s contribution was better? Or was it just the best compromise they could come up with under the not entirely controversy-free circumstances of unification? Are these circumstances conducive to optimum results?

I am expressing an opinion that in my direct experience certain ways of moving are more efficient for power generation, stability, rooting and mobility than others, specifically in the context of fighting and self-defence. Nothing else.

Cheers,

Simon

 

[andyjeffries]

I'm intrigued to find out, but I think Napitenkah might have left the building...I'd appreciate an update either way. Your word is good enough for me, obviously.

Ok, so I asked Grandmaster Kang, Ik-Pil on Sunday and his response was that the way Taegeuk Pal-Jang was originally defined it stepped backwards on the first movement, but it was changed really early on to be stepping forwards, maybe 1970-1973, somewhere around then.