Tae-Kwon-Do America ?

[Earl Weiss]

.... Whether it's an important loss is another matter. IMHO, yes it's important because if you're changing something it's generally a good idea to know what you're changing from and why you're doing so. Others may have a different view but there you go. If you don't know where you are coming from it's hard to tell where you're going.

Good point. Many offshoots don't know what was changed, what wasn't why things were a certain way or why they are a certain way now.

 

[dancingalone]

.
Your experiences have lead you to believe that those following the non ITF standard suffer no loss. My experience is different. If I asj\k why they do something a certain way, it's not that I have an issue because their reasons are different than mine, it's because often they have no reason other than "That is what my instructor did." To be fair, I have run into ITF people who were taught or learned this way as well, but that is not the fault of the system. Reasons are spelled out most of the time. Reasoneable minds can disagree as to whether the reasons make sense. I have issues with some of the rationale. But it least it's there to consider. Other issues are loss of detail. An example might be: No idea what the diffferences are between a Side - Piercing, Pushing, Thrusting, Checking, kick all of which is contained in the patterns. Not having these differences dilutes the art.

Lots of things to consider here and I'm not able to write too long of a response right now so please forgive me before hand.

Consider the following ideas:

• That people using these forms may have added to their understanding of the forms from sources outside of General Choi such as kickboxing and karate and maybe even some of the good George Dillman material. I've seen all three happen before with my own eyes. There are other influences too.
• That even if your premise is true about a "loss" of information this is not necessarily a net deficit in of itself. We've all heard the phrase that Less is More, that frequently it is better to practice less material and become extremely proficient at it. I do not practice Muay Thai myself, but some practitioners I know tell me that is one of their perceived strengths. They are excellent at the twelve or so strikes that they do use and they spend the rest of the time on conditioning, padwork, and sparring. Say someone has only snapping kicks in their forms. This in of itself does not mean their expression of TKD is less effective or less useful. Less information dense, yes, but qualitatively not necessarily so.
• That there can be no loss of information if it was never there in the first place. The crux of it which we haven't really talked about in this thread. My original TKD GM learned these forms from a manual! Obviously a manual cannot have every single bit of information possible within it, and indeed at the time Mr. Jhoon Rhee learned these forms, I don't believe that first, General Choi had finalized his latest additions to his system, and second, much of General Choi's publications in fact came out years if not decades after this point. Jhoon Rhee was a Chung Do Kwan man as has been mentioned before. He would have added his own prior existing knowledge as he performed and taught these forms, and the result would not have been a bad one. Different from General Choi (which phase by the way?), but not necessarily bad.

 

[dancingalone]

Well, yes there is a loss. There is simply the loss of knowing what the original intent of the patterns was, what the original technical principles were, etc. that you are now deviating from when you change things. Whether it's an important loss is another matter. IMHO, yes it's important because if you're changing something it's generally a good idea to know what you're changing from and why you're doing so. Others may have a different view but there you go. If you don't know where you are coming from it's hard to tell where you're going.

You are arguing that General Choi's intent regarding these patterns was always the same. I've had this discussion more than a few times over the years with people senior to me in my lineage and other related lineages. There is an undercurrent of feeling from our side that General Choi's standard actually changed over time - we just did not change with him, preferring to follow our own path. If that is the case and I doubt anyone who is still talking will really give the factual events behind it, there can be no discussion of original technical principles and deviation that is not speculation at its core.

 

[dancingalone]

Universality - For some fruitless, for some not. Lets face it the entire MA universe is small. Each segment certainly much smaller. I have heard the entire MA Supply business has gross receipts of less than a single Walmart store. Still, we live in an increasing mobile society. So, for many being able to find a "home" elsewhere is a real plus.

No offense intended, Mr. Weiss, but if you take that to its ultimate end, we should all switch to KKW TKD if we haven't already. It is the market dominant style of TKD. Or we should all switch to whatever the most popular, most universal martial art there is, whatever that may be.

 

[dancingalone]

Good point. Many offshoots don't know what was changed, what wasn't why things were a certain way or why they are a certain way now.

Changed or never was there in the first place? Consider that. A lot of people learned these forms a long, long time ago.

 

[Dirty Dog]

.
Your experiences have lead you to believe that those following the non ITF standard suffer no loss. My experience is different. If I asj\k why they do something a certain way, it's not that I have an issue because their reasons are different than mine, it's because often they have no reason other than "That is what my instructor did." To be fair, I have run into ITF people who were taught or learned this way as well, but that is not the fault of the system. Reasons are spelled out most of the time. Reasoneable minds can disagree as to whether the reasons make sense. I have issues with some of the rationale. But it least it's there to consider. Other issues are loss of detail. An example might be: No idea what the diffferences are between a Side - Piercing, Pushing, Thrusting, Checking, kick all of which is contained in the patterns. Not having these differences dilutes the art.

It's not the fault of the non-ITF systems either. Some people just don't care to dig into the finer points of forms.

 

[Earl Weiss]

You are arguing that General Choi's intent regarding these patterns was always the same. I've had this discussion more than a few times over the years with people senior to me in my lineage and other related lineages. There is an undercurrent of feeling from our side that General Choi's standard actually changed over time - we just did not change with him, preferring to follow our own path..

I will tell you that people who feel their were major changes are uninformed or misinformed. I started in the Chang Hon system in 1972. Got his 1972 Book a couple of years later. Foruneately I had an American instructor who was a professional educator although his instructor at that time was one of the ITF pioneers. When we saw that the book had something different than what we were doing, we conformed to the book. (It wasn't until much later that I got the 1965 book.) There were refinements in terminology and more thorough descriptions in the 1972 book. Few changes. Most of the differences related to making stuff morre clear. Then I went to my first course with General Choi in 1990. I had trained with several of the top ITF USA peple before that. Often General Choi would say something and a voice in my head would say "that's wrong", or "that's new" Then I would check the book and see that either I had been taught wrong, or I could see how, like the common "Telephone Game" how information got altered as it was passed from person to person, and in some cases how something could be misinterpreted. (I had no idea what the "Pick Shape" Kick or Defensive Hook kick was until it was shown and explained in person due to the inadequacies of the 2 dimensional printed page in showing and explaining things that happen in 3 dimensions - Yes this was before videos) At that course I wrote down about 150 things I needed to fix. From 1990 to 2002 he was amazingly consistent. I would say the inconsistencies of less than 1% were often rrealted to communication issue or simply a human foible. With all due respect to Seniors, all students should be able to surpass their instructor because each successive generation sould have an instructor that was better than the instructor before them. Many Seniors , including the pioneers brought certain habits to the system. They passed those habits to their progeny. That does not mean that the habits were correct for the Cahng Hon system A simple example. Many system chamber the rising / high outer forearm block with the Blocking hand underneath. The Chang Hon system Chambers it on top. The reaon is not monumental (I know because I asked him) The reason is all outer forearm blocks are chambered on top in the system. Now while this provides plenty of fodder for the alternate application afficianados just because someone from a Kwan did the Chamber under thing does not mean General Choi Changed the way he did it. Using many people from different Kwans to develop a system neccessarily lead to choices.

 

[Earl Weiss]

It's not the fault of the non-ITF systems either. Some people just don't care to dig into the finer points of forms.

Well, that depends. If the system has it but it is not learned, then it is not the fault of the system. However, the offshoots often don't have it. Trained with a group that was an ITF offshoot. The top guy was telling me how they changed certain things. I s\asked if the changes were written down somewhere. He said no, his students just know it. Having trained with other offshoots after the top guy(An ITF Pioneer) died I know that there had to be meetings to try and figure out what the standard would be since different people recalled things differently and were perhaps taught differently at different times. The shortes pencil is better than the longest memeory.

 

[Earl Weiss]

No offense intended, Mr. Weiss, but if you take that to its ultimate end, we should all switch to KKW TKD if we haven't already. It is the market dominant style of TKD. Or we should all switch to whatever the most popular, most universal martial art there is, whatever that may be.

Offense not taken The KKW example is valid to an extent, but in the ice cream store of the MA there are still flavors you like and flavors you don't . You don't eat what you don't like because everyone else does.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I will tell you that people who feel their were major changes are uninformed or misinformed. I started in the Chang Hon system in 1972. Got his 1972 Book a couple of years later. Foruneately I had an American instructor who was a professional educator although his instructor at that time was one of the ITF pioneers. When we saw that the book had something different than what we were doing, we conformed to the book. (It wasn't until much later that I got the 1965 book.) There were refinements in terminology and more thorough descriptions in the 1972 book. Few changes. Most of the differences related to making stuff morre clear. Then I went to my first course with General Choi in 1990. I had trained with several of the top ITF USA peple before that. Often General Choi would say something and a voice in my head would say "that's wrong", or "that's new" Then I would check the book and see that either I had been taught wrong, or I could see how, like the common "Telephone Game" how information got altered as it was passed from person to person, and in some cases how something could be misinterpreted. (I had no idea what the "Pick Shape" Kick or Defensive Hook kick was until it was shown and explained in person due to the inadequacies of the 2 dimensional printed page in showing and explaining things that happen in 3 dimensions - Yes this was before videos) At that course I wrote down about 150 things I needed to fix. From 1990 to 2002 he was amazingly consistent. I would say the inconsistencies of less than 1% were often rrealted to communication issue or simply a human foible. With all due respect to Seniors, all students should be able to surpass their instructor because each successive generation sould have an instructor that was better than the instructor before them. Many Seniors , including the pioneers brought certain habits to the system. They passed those habits to their progeny. That does not mean that the habits were correct for the Cahng Hon system A simple example. Many system chamber the rising / high outer forearm block with the Blocking hand underneath. The Chang Hon system Chambers it on top. The reaon is not monumental (I know because I asked him) The reason is all outer forearm blocks are chambered on top in the system. Now while this provides plenty of fodder for the alternate application afficianados just because someone from a Kwan did the Chamber under thing does not mean General Choi Changed the way he did it. Using many people from different Kwans to develop a system neccessarily lead to choices.

I think that's a very subjective opinion. I started in the Chang Hon system in 1968 (but didn't stay with it my entire life). I considered the whole sine wave thing a pretty major change. I still don't care for it, and I still don't practice forms with it.

 

[Earl Weiss]

• That people using these forms may have added to their understanding of the forms from sources outside of General Choi such as kickboxing and karate and maybe even some of the good George Dillman material. I've seen all three happen before with my own eyes. There are other influences too.

I actualy am an alternate application officianado, and had an article published in Totaly TKD about the ultimate paradigm of patterns. I submit that knowing the most widely accepted standard and adding to understaning from other sources are not mutualy exclusive. I have trained at several sessions with GDilman (Although he sent me a note telling me not to come back) some of his progeny, Vince Morris and Oyata. Enjoyed them all.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Well, that depends. If the system has it but it is not learned, then it is not the fault of the system. However, the offshoots often don't have it.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I ready this as implying that some offshoots don't have anybody in the system who knows all the ins and outs of why their forms and techniques are done the way they are, other than "because". If that's what you're saying, I honestly can't agree. In our school, there are an awful lot of students who can't (yet) talk about why we do things in a given way. That doesn't mean I can't. Or if I can't, that my Master can't (And if I can't, you can bet my next step will be to ask him...).
I suspect the same is true in the offshoots you're talking about.

Trained with a group that was an ITF offshoot. The top guy was telling me how they changed certain things. I s\asked if the changes were written down somewhere. He said no, his students just know it. Having trained with other offshoots after the top guy(An ITF Pioneer) died I know that there had to be meetings to try and figure out what the standard would be since different people recalled things differently and were perhaps taught differently at different times. The shortes pencil is better than the longest memeory.

I agree that a standard is a good thing, and that there ought to be reasons other than "because I said so". And unless you document both the standard AND the reasoning behind that standard, you should expect it to change over time, and that the more time passes, the greater both the likelihood and degree of change.

Though it would have been better had it been documented, I am confident that the gentleman you mentioned had both a standard and solid reasoning behind those changes.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I actualy am an alternate application officianado, and had an article published in Totaly TKD about the ultimate paradigm of patterns. I submit that knowing the most widely accepted standard and adding to understaning from other sources are not mutualy exclusive. I have trained at several sessions with GDilman (Although he sent me a note telling me not to come back) some of his progeny, Vince Morris and Oyata. Enjoyed them all.

I have a feeling there might be an entertaining story lurking in the wings...

 

[Earl Weiss]

I think that's a very subjective opinion. I started in the Chang Hon system in 1968 (but didn't stay with it my entire life). I considered the whole sine wave thing a pretty major change. I still don't care for it, and I still don't practice forms with it.

In the early 1970's we called the knee flexing "Spring Style" the kne flexing is referred to in the 1972 Book. Who was your instructor in 1968?

 

[Earl Weiss]

I'm not sure what you mean here. I ready this as implying that some offshoots don't have anybody in the system who knows all the ins and outs of why their forms and techniques are done the way they are, other than "because". If that's what you're saying, I honestly can't agree..............
.



I agree that a standard is a good thing, and that there ought to be reasons other than "because I said so". And unless you document both the standard AND the reasoning behind that standard, you should expect it to change over time, and that the more time passes, the greater both the likelihood and degree of change.

Though it would have been better had it been documented, I am confident that the gentleman you mentioned had both a standard and solid reasoning behind those changes.

On the one hand it says you can't agree yet you seem to feel documenting the standard and reason are important, yet few offshoots can point to much, if any documentation except perhaps those who simply follow a He Il Cho or Jhoon Rhee book which may have a nominal standard and an occasional reason. Lots of people say lots f stuff. Again, some in the ITF may not learn it, but the documented standard is there in books ranging from a 15 volume set as well as CD ROM and DVD. I trained with a couple of the Pioneers who infrequeently expressed any reason for what they did, and the atmosphere was generaly "Don't ask questions" . General Choi was the polar opposite of this.

 

[dancingalone]

I will tell you that people who feel their were major changes are uninformed or misinformed. I started in the Chang Hon system in 1972. Got his 1972 Book a couple of years later. Foruneately I had an American instructor who was a professional educator although his instructor at that time was one of the ITF pioneers. When we saw that the book had something different than what we were doing, we conformed to the book. (It wasn't until much later that I got the 1965 book.) There were refinements in terminology and more thorough descriptions in the 1972 book. Few changes. ...

This is a prime illustration of what I have talking about where there cannot be loss if it was never there in the first place. Jhoon Rhee arrived in the USA in the fifties. He began teaching almost immediately and what he passed to his students would have almost certainly have been pure CDK. Later on (not sure of the exact date) he learned the Chang Hon from a manual and begin teaching those forms. So he never received General Choi's standards such as those may be. And there is indeed argument about how transitory those were over the years, though I understand you state your side of it above.

Many Seniors , including the pioneers brought certain habits to the system. They passed those habits to their progeny. That does not mean that the habits were correct for the Cahng Hon system A simple example. Many system chamber the rising / high outer forearm block with the Blocking hand underneath. The Chang Hon system Chambers it on top. The reaon is not monumental (I know because I asked him) The reason is all outer forearm blocks are chambered on top in the system. Now while this provides plenty of fodder for the alternate application afficianados just because someone from a Kwan did the Chamber under thing does not mean General Choi Changed the way he did it. Using many people from different Kwans to develop a system neccessarily lead to choices.

I don't disagree with much of what you say here. From what I have heard from people older than me is that General Choi refined his system in the intervening years and our side of TKD just kept going with our own ways. We never received his refinements (original instructions if you prefer from your side of the aisle) and we were more than content. Now decades later, such is the state of things. The divergence of the patterns whomever we want to lay the blame upon makes any rapprochement unlikely with any of the current ITF groups.

 

[Dirty Dog]

In the early 1970's we called the knee flexing "Spring Style" the kne flexing is referred to in the 1972 Book. Who was your instructor in 1968?

I was 7 years old. I really do not remember. It was on an Air Force base in California.

On the one hand it says you can't agree yet you seem to feel documenting the standard and reason are important, yet few offshoots can point to much, if any documentation except perhaps those who simply follow a He Il Cho or Jhoon Rhee book which may have a nominal standard and an occasional reason. Lots of people say lots f stuff. Again, some in the ITF may not learn it, but the documented standard is there in books ranging from a 15 volume set as well as CD ROM and DVD. I trained with a couple of the Pioneers who infrequeently expressed any reason for what they did, and the atmosphere was generaly "Don't ask questions" . General Choi was the polar opposite of this.

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I'll try to be clear. If you're saying that these groups HAVE no standard and that there is nobody who can explain why things are done a certain way, that is what I have a hard time believing. I think a documented standard is good, unless (as I said...) you're sticking with a VERY small group, in which case you should expect to see that standard drift somewhat.

 

[Earl Weiss]

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I'll try to be clear. If you're saying that these groups HAVE no standard and that there is nobody who can explain why things are done a certain way, that is what I have a hard time believing..

Being near Chicago I get a fair amount of visitors. I also have had rerlationships with Han Cha Kyo and their progeny as well as some others.. If they are receptive we discuss reasons for doing things a certain way. Obvioulsy I do not question every person in every group. My experience has been that few can articulate a reason for a standard and in some cases their eyes get wide like saucers if I explain the standard and reasons set out in the text. In other cases the application they believe is the reason is virtualy impossible to accomplish and easily demonstrated. Now, of course I cannot say that these individuals were the most learned in their group and I for one would hate to be judged by my worst student on their best day or even my best student on their worst day. In fact, my seniors know my standard line to use if some senior from outside sees them screwup and asks who their instructor is they should lie and say someone iother than me. So, I readily accept how generalizations can be misleading.

 

[chrispillertkd]

You are arguing that General Choi's intent regarding these patterns was always the same.

Yes, I do think Gen. Choi's intent remained the same over he years, even with some of the technical refinements he made both in his system and in some of the patterns themselves (I don't mean changing a middle kick to a high kick, but rather changing actual techniques themselves). I don't think his intention ever changed because of what he said the intention behind patterns was in the first place.

I've had this discussion more than a few times over the years with people senior to me in my lineage and other related lineages. There is an undercurrent of feeling from our side that General Choi's standard actually changed over time - we just did not change with him, preferring to follow our own path. If that is the case and I doubt anyone who is still talking will really give the factual events behind it, there can be no discussion of original technical principles and deviation that is not speculation at its core.

You've just made it so you never need to change your position even when faced with evidence contrary to your own (if you have any besides the "undercurrent of feeling" you mentioned). I'd be very interested in hearing who you've talked to about the factual events behind the changes in Gen. Choi's standard and what their relationship is to Gen. Choi in the first place in order to reach this conclusion.

Pax,

Chris

 

[dancingalone]

Yes, I do think Gen. Choi's intent remained the same over he years, even with some of the technical refinements he made both in his system and in some of the patterns themselves (I don't mean changing a middle kick to a high kick, but rather changing actual techniques themselves). I don't think his intention ever changed because of what he said the intention behind patterns was in the first place.

I understand that you *think* that is the case, just as I think there's a great chance it might be otherwise. I normally wouldn't bother saying as much, but you did call me out on evidence a bit later down. And I think reasonable people know full well in martial arts, it is unlikely that anyone can prove unchanged intent in virtually anything, unless a full chronological journal or monograph is available from the beginning to the end of the subject, and that just doesn't exist for the Chang Hon patterns to my knowledge.

You've just made it so you never need to change your position even when faced with evidence contrary to your own (if you have any besides the "undercurrent of feeling" you mentioned). I'd be very interested in hearing who you've talked to about the factual events behind the changes in Gen. Choi's standard and what their relationship is to Gen. Choi in the first place in order to reach this conclusion.

Well, I would be interested in seeing your bibliography that gives a full history beginning to finish of the Chang Hon patterns, showing how they have never changed in intent nor execution at all. Such a thing might meet the definition of 'evidence' as I understand it. I don't believe it exists but certainly if you've got it, I'd like to see it.

I'll readily admit I don't have anything myself that I would be comfortable denoting as evidence. All I have are informal discussions I had in person with some first, second, and third generation students of Jhoon Rhee and Haeng Ung Lee hence why I use the phrase "undercurrent of feeling". I can cite a few of them by PM after I get their permission if you would find their names interesting. I would suspect you would not, but hey I've got them.