Tang Soo Do?
- Thread starter terryl965
- Start date
terryl965 said:
Alot of it depends on what specific techniques you are thinking about. Let me know if you were thinking about something specific...
Generally, TSD has more curricular fluidity then TKD. There are more people outside federations then in it and even within the federations, most of the dojangs are teaching arts that reflect the personal martial art of the teacher. There are some similarities, for instance we all tend to practice the same hyung, but there are a lot more differences.
OP
OP
There are some similarities, for instance we all tend to practice the same hyung,
Ok lets go with this I have been to several TSD school that teach the same Hyung but in a whole different way, Why if it is the same why does it look so different to the trained eye?
Terry
Ok lets go with this I have been to several TSD school that teach the same Hyung but in a whole different way, Why if it is the same why does it look so different to the trained eye?
Terry
rmclain
Black Belt
Hi Mr. Stoker,
This will vary from instructor-to-instructor and depends greatly on the teaching method (if any) that is applied.
At my visit, myself and students demonstrated some karate and chuan-fa forms from the Chang Moo Kwan kongsoodo/tangsoodo curriculum and we compared some taekwondo forms later. As you could see, there was great emphasis on each movement and application of each technique. Also, our system emphasizes certain principles of movement in the forms: balance, rhythm, proper breathing, etc. as a foundation for teaching forms and movements.
From my experience over the years, we're the only system teaching this way even though we practice forms found in other places. So, I believe it is the manner students are taught that changes the forms from place-to-place.
R. McLain
This will vary from instructor-to-instructor and depends greatly on the teaching method (if any) that is applied.
At my visit, myself and students demonstrated some karate and chuan-fa forms from the Chang Moo Kwan kongsoodo/tangsoodo curriculum and we compared some taekwondo forms later. As you could see, there was great emphasis on each movement and application of each technique. Also, our system emphasizes certain principles of movement in the forms: balance, rhythm, proper breathing, etc. as a foundation for teaching forms and movements.
From my experience over the years, we're the only system teaching this way even though we practice forms found in other places. So, I believe it is the manner students are taught that changes the forms from place-to-place.
R. McLain
OP
OP
rmclain said:
Sir I believe that is a great assumption but beside the breathing and the power of said form why are the movements kinda different, is it just proper placement of said technique or is it the whole way of teaching?
Terry
rmclain
Black Belt
Proper placement and understanding each movement is important, but it is mostly the teaching method that makes the difference.
I can only speak for my system (Chayon-Ryu "Natural Way"). We have core principles (around 20 each) for both forms and sparring. Many of these deal with body mechanics (balance of movements, rhythm, breathing timing, body shifting, etc.) that my instructor had to figure out on his own. His instructors never taught this way. He was a 5th Dan in 1964 before he started figuring out fundamental principles in the martial arts.
The first principle was body shifting. For example, in the old days students were taught (in forms) to step with the foot first then spin around and execute the technique. But, he noticed that many students would be off balanced turning this way, including himself. No one questioned this before, because in the Asian teaching environment questions are seen as disrespectful in the classroom - you have to practice and figure it out yourself. So, he thought, "Why am I falling off balance?" Around that time he read a copy of M. Nakayama's book and it mentioned turning in forms as "one unit motion- just as you would turn and go somewhere in everyday walking" He'd never heard of this before. "That's it," he thought. From there he analyzed and studied other movements and found the underlying principles of movements from karate, chuan-fa, yudo, hapkido, taekwondo - no matter which style the principles applied them all.
So, this is how he developed the Chayon-Ryu "Natural Way" teaching method in 1968. He's continuously refined this method to make it better by teaching at his own schools in Houston since 1968, University of Houston since 1973 (classes of 150 students), Rice University since 1981.
You got to see a little bit of this method when I visited. Remember body twisting, running motion, crossed-arm motion, etc.?
R. Mclain
I can only speak for my system (Chayon-Ryu "Natural Way"). We have core principles (around 20 each) for both forms and sparring. Many of these deal with body mechanics (balance of movements, rhythm, breathing timing, body shifting, etc.) that my instructor had to figure out on his own. His instructors never taught this way. He was a 5th Dan in 1964 before he started figuring out fundamental principles in the martial arts.
The first principle was body shifting. For example, in the old days students were taught (in forms) to step with the foot first then spin around and execute the technique. But, he noticed that many students would be off balanced turning this way, including himself. No one questioned this before, because in the Asian teaching environment questions are seen as disrespectful in the classroom - you have to practice and figure it out yourself. So, he thought, "Why am I falling off balance?" Around that time he read a copy of M. Nakayama's book and it mentioned turning in forms as "one unit motion- just as you would turn and go somewhere in everyday walking" He'd never heard of this before. "That's it," he thought. From there he analyzed and studied other movements and found the underlying principles of movements from karate, chuan-fa, yudo, hapkido, taekwondo - no matter which style the principles applied them all.
So, this is how he developed the Chayon-Ryu "Natural Way" teaching method in 1968. He's continuously refined this method to make it better by teaching at his own schools in Houston since 1968, University of Houston since 1973 (classes of 150 students), Rice University since 1981.
You got to see a little bit of this method when I visited. Remember body twisting, running motion, crossed-arm motion, etc.?
R. Mclain
terryl965 said:
Again, its the curricular fluidity. People are changing things based on their personal interpretations. This can be a good and a bad thing. It's good that people are developing their own understanding of the art and implementing their understanding in practice. However, I think that many people are changing things before they understand what it is they are really doing...thus the meaning is lost.
terryl965 said:
I hate to sound cynical, but my feeling is that most of the changes are being made so that the forms "look good" to the individual teaching. I don't know if there is much deep thought given to application. This is unfortunate, but I think its common in other arts as well.
I wish it were a whole way of teaching. That would be so great because every aspect of the art would be tied together and it would make sense. That it doesn't only goes to show that most martial arts teachers aren't really trained in the principles of education. They don't understand alot of the crucial things about curriculum that they need to understand.
Heck, alot of school teachers don't understand that stuff...
rmclain said:
When you turn in a form, what are you doing? This is a question that should be asked when one is talking about whether to turn the whole body or to step first. You can be balanced either way, all it takes is a change in mechanics.
Do all TSD practicioners ask that question? No. But my teachers does. I do. And so do my students. I wish that more TSD people would ask that question.
Similar threads
- Knifehand
- Tang Soo Do
