Tae-Kwon-Do America ?

[DBZ]

Anybody heard of Tae-kwon-do America? There is a school in Sunbury Ohio my wife and I thought about looking into. I have never heard of them before. I stopped in to talk to them but a kids class was going so I did not get to talk to them much. There not WTF/Kukkiwon but there not full blown ITF or ATA either. Just wanted to make sure there not a fly by night Org. My wife and I are just looking to get back into MA, we have been out of it for about 4 years and just moved back to the area.

 

[harlan]

Wonder what the difference between 'TA', the organization you refer to, and 'ATA' (many threads on that....).

http://www.taekwondoamerica.org/

 

[DBZ]

Not sure, I found there website as well. I was just wondering if anybody on here practiced with them or new anybody that did?

 

[msmitht]

Looks fishy...

 

[chrispillertkd]

Never heard of them before. I checked out some of their videos. Their take on the patterns designed by Gen. Choi are ... interesting.

 

[KingDiesel]

OK so here is how it basically breaks down ATA spun off ITA and TA because they were once all ATA and a few people had a problem with how the organization was being ran and left to form the ITA then when the ITA came about a few people didnt like the direction they were headed and they broke off to form TA is how i understood it when it was told to me

 

[Instructor]

OP,

No harm in giving them a try. You are closer to them than us and in a better position to form an opinion. Let us know how it goes.

Jon

 

[granfire]

Try them out. A couple of instructors split from the ITA before they went nuts with their changes. One moved on from there, the other one is still affiliated with them as far as I know. Both were good instructors (but we had a few so-so ones in the ITA as well...)

I am not familiar with the organization, but from what I gather they left some of the nuttiness of A- and ITA behind.

But I could be wrong.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Since their lineage harkens back thru the ATA and HU Lee it's not surprising to see they do Chang Hon forms with a Chung Do Kwan influence, but their version of Ju Che as shown on the You tube video is really wacky. They must have reinvented it for some reason.

 

[granfire]

Since their lineage harkens back thru the ATA and HU Lee it's not surprising to see they do Chang Hon forms with a Chung Do Kwan influence, but their version of Ju Che as shown on the You tube video is really wacky. They must have reinvented it for some reason.

Probably copyright....it was the rumored reason for the ITA changing things up.

 

[dancingalone]

Since their lineage harkens back thru the ATA and HU Lee it's not surprising to see they do Chang Hon forms with a Chung Do Kwan influence, but their version of Ju Che as shown on the You tube video is really wacky. They must have reinvented it for some reason.

I heard some gossip about a new TKD org that formed under similar circumstances. Faced with a sudden need for new forms, they went 'back' to the General Choi forms and largely learned them from books and other publications. No surprise that differences may have been introduced as a result.

I believe I have expressed my opinion on similar topics before. It is inevitable that form variances creep in if there is no organizational control to mandate continuing orthodoxy to an outlined standard. At this point there are as many different ways of running the Chang Hon forms as there are of running the Pinan kata. Who is 'right' depends on whom you ask.

 

[Earl Weiss]

. Who is 'right' depends on whom you ask.

Uhm, Kinda sorta. In the olden days stuff was word of mouth, lots of room for disagreement unless you were training directly with the founder and even then no one's recall is perfect. Then stuff was written down and there was less room for Interpretation. Next came photos so interpretation issues lessened. Then came forms of video, some directly authorized by the founder along with video of competition. This lessened any issues with what was correct and what was not. In the case of the Chang Hon system we are left with 15 volumes setting the technical parameters, as well as CD ROM and DVD's he authorized and many people who spent dozens if not hundreds of classroom hours with him which might address remaining issues. So, whom you ask is important. Ask someone who is not well versed with what the founder did and what he wanted and there is the potential for huge errors.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Probably copyright....it was the rumored reason for the ITA changing things up.

I don't think so. That would apply to ATA patterns, maybe (which I have heard are protected by copyright) but not for the Chang Hun tul. Gen. Choi published many, many editions of his book and encyclopedia for public consumption so people would have easy access to his patterns. I imagine the changes they made were due to wanting to add more kicking techniques since all the patterns I viewed have additional kicks in them. Some of the turning, stepping, and general techniques used in the patterns are simply incorrect, however.

 

[dancingalone]

Uhm, Kinda sorta. In the olden days stuff was word of mouth, lots of room for disagreement unless you were training directly with the founder and even then no one's recall is perfect. Then stuff was written down and there was less room for Interpretation. Next came photos so interpretation issues lessened. Then came forms of video, some directly authorized by the founder along with video of competition. This lessened any issues with what was correct and what was not. In the case of the Chang Hon system we are left with 15 volumes setting the technical parameters, as well as CD ROM and DVD's he authorized and many people who spent dozens if not hundreds of classroom hours with him which might address remaining issues. So, whom you ask is important. Ask someone who is not well versed with what the founder did and what he wanted and there is the potential for huge errors.

We've been over this before. I don't think either side will yield. For the sake of discussion though since the board is very slow right now, I'll offer the following bits again.

From my perspective (as someone who practiced the Chang Hon forms though certainly not to General Choi's latest and fullest specifications), the technical parameters General Choi left are largely irrelevant to me as a practitioner though certainly I value them as intrinsic pieces of TKD history and scholarship. This is because I sprouted from a lineage that did things their own way from the very start with a strong grandmaster independent to General Choi. We weren't members of the ITF - our rank and recognition didn't come from General Choi and in fact when we encountered current branches of General Choi's family tree back in the eighties, we were bemused by how unlike they performed their patterns compared to us.

This doesn't mean that General Choi's works are devoid of value. Of course not. They can be very important sources of information for people who are closely aligned to his brand of TKD. For others, even if they nominally run the Chang Hon patterns, not so much. Again, it depends on whom you ask whom is right.

I'll use the Pinan forms example again. If we accept someone like Gichin Funakoshi as the starting point for discussion, we know that his Karate-do Kyohan outlines closely the 'correct' way to perform the Pinan (Heian kata) among others. Yet it is no difficulty at all to find examples on Youtube of where these kata by people who sprang from Funakoshi's lineage ultimately who perform these in sometimes very different fashion.

Why? There's a reference tome to refer back to, after all. Because people move on. People find things they would rather emphasize and they intentionally or unintentionally change things up to match. I don't think it's a big deal. Forms practice is supposed to be organic to the individual. If we want to do things a certain way for organizational conformity, that's fine, but the reality is that the Chang Hon patterns (Pinan too) have been 'open sourced'. If I'm ever at a tournament in my neck of the woods and some green belt is running Do San or Won Hyo, I fully expect to see it run any number of ways.

 

[Earl Weiss]

>>>. This is because I sprouted from a lineage that did things their own way from the very start with a strong grandmaster independent to General Choi. We weren't members of the ITF - our rank and recognition didn't come from General Choi and in fact when we encountered current branches of General Choi's family tree back in the eighties, we were bemused by how unlike they performed their patterns compared to us.<<<



>>> Forms practice is supposed to be organic to the individual. If we want to do things a certain way for organizational conformity, that's fine, but the reality is that the Chang Hon patterns (Pinan too) have been 'open sourced'.<<< If I'm ever at a tournament in my neck of the woods and some green belt is running Do San or Won Hyo, I fully expect to see it run any number of ways.

I have trained with any number of people whose lineage was more or less removed from General Choi as well as directly with General Choi. Here are the issues. General Choi had reasons for doing most of what he did a certain way. reasonable minds can differ as to whether they agreed with those reasons or whether their was a better reason do to things differently. However, if I asked why someone did something differently , most often they had no idea whether there was a specific parameter for the technique, and / or had no reason for following certain specifications. They only reason they had for a doing something different than what the founder intended was that they were clueless, or perhaps "Did what the instructor told them to do"We will agree to disagree with regard to pattern practice being organic to the individual. AFAIAC the technical specifics for a pattern serve as a metric to determine whether the student knows how the technique is supposed to be performed, and whether they can perform it that way. . For open competition judging these things are left to an educated guess. When I see radical departures from how the patterns were designed I am sometimes bemused, but mostly saddened because I have little doubt that the performers are clueless as to what they are doing.

 

[granfire]

I don't think so. That would apply to ATA patterns, maybe (which I have heard are protected by copyright) but not for the Chang Hun tul. Gen. Choi published many, many editions of his book and encyclopedia for public consumption so people would have easy access to his patterns. I imagine the changes they made were due to wanting to add more kicking techniques since all the patterns I viewed have additional kicks in them. Some of the turning, stepping, and general techniques used in the patterns are simply incorrect, however.

well, it's not a matter of using public domain material, but creating material (with minute changes) you can cash in on.

That means, while I can use the 'original' forms to my heart's content, I cannot claim profit from it. If I change it a little bit around, it's mine and I can charge (thus the hint on the organization formerly known)

 

[dancingalone]

"Did what the instructor told them to do"

Well, yes, that's precisely what I'm getting at. Not everyone running Chon-Ji begins with the same assumptions. Nor does the genesis of their Chon-Ji flow back to General Choi's ultimate grand design - the one that culminated in the final set of publications and recordings he authorized. From what I gather, my original TKD GM learned them out of a field manual after being asked by General Choi to switch over to the Chang Hon sets from the Chung Do Kwan kata. So instead of practicing the forms perhaps like General Choi would have liked (perhaps, perhaps not - I'm not convinced that what we see NOW as the final testament on how these forms should be run is what the standard ALWAYS was), we practiced them with the basic underlying assumptions our GM imparted. What is right? Obviously, follow what your teacher says. Decades later, the answer is the same. What is right is what your teacher says it is. And if you don't like what your teacher says, you are always free to find another. Regardless, it still remains that there are plenty of interpretations on how to do these forms and the right way depends on your lineage and your history of how these forms made it down to you.

We will agree to disagree with regard to pattern practice being organic to the individual.

OK. This is an idea from karate, so YMMV.

AFAIAC the technical specifics for a pattern serve as a metric to determine whether the student knows how the technique is supposed to be performed, and whether they can perform it that way. . For open competition judging these things are left to an educated guess. When I see radical departures from how the patterns were designed I am sometimes bemused, but mostly saddened because I have little doubt that the performers are clueless as to what they are doing.

And this is where I will disagree with you about being 'clueless'. I think there are plenty of people who use the Chang Hon forms and perform them well even if the same underlying assumptions General Choi gave in his writings are not part of what they study. They know their own versions very well and could doubtlessly answer any level of detailed questioning about them. It may not be the same answers you might give - but hey, here we are.

 

[Earl Weiss]

>>>Not everyone running Chon-Ji begins with the same assumptions. Nor does the genesis of their Chon-Ji flow back to General Choi's ultimate grand design<< If it doesn't flow back to his design to whom or what does it originate with?

>>From what I gather, my original TKD GM learned them out of a field manual after being asked by General Choi to switch over to the Chang Hon sets from the Chung Do Kwan <<< Who do you think wrote the field manual? The lineage explains how Chung Do Kwan habits influenced an instructor's performance and progeny. >>>>Obviously, follow what your teacher says.<<< Decades later, the answer is the same.<<< What is right is what your teacher says it is. And if you don't like what your teacher says, you are always free to find another.<<< How do you develop the knowledge to determine if you like what your instructor says or if he was correct? Jim Jones had his minions drink Cool aid. Throughout history students have done that, learning that the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth. >>Regardless, it still remains that there are plenty of interpretations on how to do these forms and the right way depends on your lineage and your history of how these forms made it down to you.<<Would you tell Mozart that the right way to perform his song was how some instructor told you to perform it as opposed to how he wanted it performed and designed it to be performed?

 

[dancingalone]

If it doesn't flow back to his design to whom or what does it originate with?

You misunderstand me - let me expand on what I mean.

Chon-Ji is indeed General Choi's invention (or one of his lieutenant's anyway). But the moment the form is learned and taught by someone else with considerable knowledge and experience himself, part of him inevitably bleeds into the instruction and becomes part of the transmission itself. This is inavoidably so, particularly if the method of instruction in the first place was something like a book or manual and the reader WILL fill any gaps with his own pre-existing knowledge, intentionally so or not.

Who do you think wrote the field manual? The lineage explains how Chung Do Kwan habits influenced an instructor's performance and progeny.

My educated guess, not having a copy myself, is that General Choi was the attributed author. As for Chung Do Kwan habits, sure. You are what you are. If you practice a certain method and then later convert to another set of forms, it's likely that your new forms will show evidence of your prior training. This actually solidifies what I said above about people coming into the Chang Hon patterns with different assumptions because they stem from different lineages.

How do you develop the knowledge to determine if you like what your instructor says or if he was correct? Jim Jones had his minions drink Cool aid. Throughout history students have done that, learning that the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth.

Most people obviously won't advance to the level of mastery enough that they KNOW what is correct or not for themselves, much less for 'most' other people. But a small number will. To link it back to a more concrete example, rather than talking about Jim Jones, I'll point out that I think how Jhoon Rhee taught the Chang Hon patterns is perfectly acceptable though it deviates from what is written in the Encyclopedia. I'll go ahead and say the same for little groups here and there, ATA off-shoots or not, that also use the Chang Hon patterns. It's fine enough if they know the weapon, the target, and intended outcome for each section of *THEIR* forms as that level of understanding is broadly accepted as necessary for BB level.

Would you tell Mozart that the right way to perform his song was how some instructor told you to perform it as opposed to how he wanted it performed and designed it to be performed?

People make remixes all the time, Mr. Weiss. Or they add their own spin on things. See the Star Spangled Banner for example. Andrew Lloyd Webber became a very successful modern composer just by changing around some of the classics and then working with a team of lyricists for his productions.

I'll go back to older martial arts than TKD as well. Sets are modified and adjusted all the time there.

 

[Earl Weiss]

But a small number will. To link it back to a more concrete example, rather than talking about Jim Jones, I'll point out that I think how Jhoon Rhee taught the Chang Hon patterns is perfectly acceptable though it deviates from what is written in the Encyclopedia. I'll go ahead and say the same for little groups here and there, ATA off-shoots or not, that also use the Chang Hon patterns.



.

1. Please teach me how to split a post in a reply. 2. HU Lee was also a Chung Do Kwan guy so his time with the Chang Hun forms and his progeny from that time show the CDK influence