TKD Historians: Duk Son Song's Book

[dancingalone]

Korean Karate has been mentioned a few times recently here, so I pulled my copy of the bookshelf to browse through. I'll admit I've never thought much of the book, but it's an interesting curio for anyone interested in tae kwon do.

Does anyone know if Duk Son Song was in fact the author of the book or did he just lend himself as a resource for the pictures and such? There is a co-author listed named Robert J. Clark.

 

[puunui]

Does anyone know if Duk Son Song was in fact the author of the book or did he just lend himself as a resource for the pictures and such? There is a co-author listed named Robert J. Clark.

I can't say for sure, you have to probably ask Mr. Clark about that one, but I am pretty sure it was like any other collaborative book between an english is my second language speaker and an english speaker. They both contributed, but I sure there are lot of words or ideas placed in the book that came primarily from the english speaker.

I'll give you one example. In GM YH Park, Sr.'s book, there is a short obligatory blurb about some Taekwondo history, which obviously was lifted from Corcoran and Farkas' work. Then people like Dakin Burdick quote that section and attribute it to GM Park. I used to see GM Park at USTU meetings and events all the time and he would speak about history matters to me once in a while. The conversations we had were nothing like what was written in his book, and it made me wonder whether he was even aware of that obligatory historical blurb.

 

[dancingalone]

but I sure there are lot of words or ideas placed in the book that came primarily from the english speaker.

That would actually be reassuring to me. I've come across one 'funny' bit in the book. I wonder if there are others.

 

[FieldDiscipline]

I'll admit I've never thought much of the book, but it's an interesting curio for anyone interested in tae kwon do.

I have the book too, and a similar view of it.

I've come across one 'funny' bit in the book. I wonder if there are others.

Which bit?

 

[dancingalone]

Which bit?

Page 273 in my copy. The text has a picture of someone in open-hand haiwan uke (that's the Shotokan term for the twin 'block' where the lead hand is in a side block and the rear hand is in an upper block - not sure what the Korean name is). The book then argues that it is an impractical fighting stance and how it is vulnerable to a roundhouse kick.

This is an odd argument to make and makes me think the author knows little about the usages of stances and arm actions in the context of karate, if he thinks haiwan uke is a 'fighting stance'.

 

[bluewaveschool]

Really? I've only read good reviews on it. Can you elaborate?

 

[dancingalone]

Really? I've only read good reviews on it. Can you elaborate?

It's a rather ho-hum description of basic to intermediate Japanese kata for the most part. The text and the pictures aren't laid out conveniently, so you have to do some flipping to correspond them to each other much of the time. Like 99% of kata 'instructional' books, the book only describes the stances and movements statically, giving you only a shell of the form at best.

The book is useful if you want to see how the Chung Do Kwan was running forms circa the late sixties. Other than that, I don't see much utility in reading it, particularly if you don't practice the Japanese forms.

 

[bluewaveschool]

So it's strictly a form book? What about his other book? Not that I've found a copy of that for sale under $200, so I won't be getting it.

 

[dancingalone]

No, there's other stuff covered too like some basics, three steps, and sparring. Don't let me keep you from buying the book if you wanted one. I am very jaded when it comes to martial arts books and videos.

The BB book is more of the same IMO.

 

[bluewaveschool]

Any out there that you do like?

 

[dancingalone]

Depends on the topic. In general, the more tightly focused books tend to be 'better' IMO with more in-depth coverage of its topic.

What kind of information are you seeking?

 

[puunui]

Page 273 in my copy. The text has a picture of someone in open-hand haiwan uke (that's the Shotokan term for the twin 'block' where the lead hand is in a side block and the rear hand is in an upper block - not sure what the Korean name is). The book then argues that it is an impractical fighting stance and how it is vulnerable to a roundhouse kick. This is an odd argument to make and makes me think the author knows little about the usages of stances and arm actions in the context of karate, if he thinks haiwan uke is a 'fighting stance'.

I think we can attribute that one to GM Son himself, since he is in the photos demonstrating why that particular stance is impractical.

 

[dancingalone]

I think we can attribute that one to GM Son himself, since he is in the photos demonstrating why that particular stance is impractical.

Well, I am speechless then. This is like writing an article arguing that the Daniel Larusso 'crane kick' posture would be a bad fighting stance.

 

[bluewaveschool]

Depends on the topic. In general, the more tightly focused books tend to be 'better' IMO with more in-depth coverage of its topic.

What kind of information are you seeking?

I prefer to focus on the basics in my classes, so anything focusing on stances/kicks/hand techs and the proper* way of doing then, that doesn't quickly dive into jumping/flying kicks. I enjoy GM Cho's book on kicking, but his book on One and Three Step Sparring takes off into some crazy complicated SD techs pretty quick. I also like SD techs. I'd like to read anything by the old masters, which is why i was getting Duk Son Song's book. Gen. Choi's first TKD book is also out there in reprint. Not sure who else of the old old masters wrote a book.


*Proper being dependent on the writer, I like seeing what other people consider the proper way of doing things.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Page 273 in my copy. The text has a picture of someone in open-hand haiwan uke (that's the Shotokan term for the twin 'block' where the lead hand is in a side block and the rear hand is in an upper block - not sure what the Korean name is). The book then argues that it is an impractical fighting stance and how it is vulnerable to a roundhouse kick.

That is odd. If one is going to use that position for a fighting stance there are many more reasons why it would be impractical than it just being vulnerable to a roundhouse kick.

This is an odd argument to make and makes me think the author knows little about the usages of stances and arm actions in the context of karate, if he thinks haiwan uke is a 'fighting stance'.

Does he demonstrate any sort of application for the block, even the usual defending against two opponents type of thing?

Personally I find it hard to believe that he'd present it as a fighting stance instead of simply presenting it as a technique with a particular application or two. That's kind of like saying an inner forearm block is a bad fighting stance because your non-blocking hand is on your hip so you're leaving half your body open. (Sure you are, but you're also applying the technique against an attack instead of using it as your fighting stance.) This could be the result of trying to convey information in what isn't your native language.

Pax,

Chris

 

[dancingalone]

That is odd. If one is going to use that position for a fighting stance there are many more reasons why it would be impractical than it just being vulnerable to a roundhouse kick.

Indeed. It's much like setting up a premise that no one would take seriously at all and then proceeding to argue against it. Well, obviously, Sherlock Holmes.

Does he demonstrate any sort of application for the block, even the usual defending against two opponents type of thing?

Nope.

Personally I find it hard to believe that he'd present it as a fighting stance instead of simply presenting it as a technique with a particular application or two. That's kind of like saying an inner forearm block is a bad fighting stance because your non-blocking hand is on your hip so you're leaving half your body open. (Sure you are, but you're also applying the technique against an attack instead of using it as your fighting stance.) This could be the result of trying to convey information in what isn't your native language.

Believe it. Here's the text:

Figures 73.01 and 73.02 illustrate another fighting stance which might be fine in films or spy novels but is not very useful in Tae Kwon Do free-styling fighting. The figure on the reader's right is wide open. His whole body is unprotected and he is not even in a position to attack. In order either to block or to attack, he has to move his hands to another position, which gives his opponent time to withdraw or counterattack before the attack itself is made. In Figure 73.02, the figure on the reader's left has chosen to attack with a roundhouse kick to the head against which the right figure as no defense.

Painful stuff to read. What makes the pictures even more ridiculous is that the performer holding haiwan uke is also sitting in a high shiko dachi (horse stance with knees bowed out to the sides). Yes, that would be my first choice for a neutral sparring stance. Um, not.

 

[puunui]

Figures 73.01 and 73.02 illustrate another fighting stance which might be fine in films or spy novels but is not very useful in Tae Kwon Do free-styling fighting. The figure on the reader's right is wide open. His whole body is unprotected and he is not even in a position to attack. In order either to block or to attack, he has to move his hands to another position, which gives his opponent time to withdraw or counterattack before the attack itself is made. In Figure 73.02, the figure on the reader's left has chosen to attack with a roundhouse kick to the head against which the right figure as no defense.

And he has his hands up too. I wonder if GM Son feels that having your hands up like that will allow you to block punches to your face.

 

[Miles]

I got this book to compare how GM Son performs the hyungs versus GM HC Hwang in the TSD book by his father, versus as shown in GM Funikoshi's Karatedo Kyohan. I thought it would be interesting to see the similarities and the differences.

 

[bluewaveschool]

I got this book to compare how GM Son performs the hyungs versus GM HC Hwang in the TSD book by his father, versus as shown in GM Funikoshi's Karatedo Kyohan. I thought it would be interesting to see the similarities and the differences.

results?

 

[FieldDiscipline]

Page 273 in my copy. The text has a picture of someone in open-hand haiwan uke (that's the Shotokan term for the twin 'block' where the lead hand is in a side block and the rear hand is in an upper block - not sure what the Korean name is). The book then argues that it is an impractical fighting stance and how it is vulnerable to a roundhouse kick.

This is an odd argument to make and makes me think the author knows little about the usages of stances and arm actions in the context of karate, if he thinks haiwan uke is a 'fighting stance'.

I've re-read that bit a couple of times now and get the feeling he didn't mean it to be analysed like that. By which I mean he is not saying it is a fighting stance, but if it were it's no good. Does that make sense? Otherwise it would be odd.

It's a rather ho-hum description of basic to intermediate Japanese kata for the most part. The text and the pictures aren't laid out conveniently, so you have to do some flipping to correspond them to each other much of the time. Like 99% of kata 'instructional' books, the book only describes the stances and movements statically, giving you only a shell of the form at best.

The book is useful if you want to see how the Chung Do Kwan was running forms circa the late sixties. Other than that, I don't see much utility in reading it, particularly if you don't practice the Japanese forms.

I'd definately agree with that, and got it for similar reasons to Miles. I'd also read good reviews. It's a nice to have for historical purposes, but I wouldn't spend lots of money buying it.