Dear All, I am interested in your opinions concerning the different branches of the Chang-Heon family tree. Notable Chang Heon-Taekwondo evolutionary phases: Kwan era (Oh Do Kwan / Chung Do Kwan) The early formation of the ITF Original Masters' Exodus ITF Pattern Changes & "Modern" Sinewave So often when discussing our system of Taekwondo words like "Original" and "Traditional" are used. Generally, these terms are used to differentiate between the Chang-Heon & Kukki systems of Taekwondo. The irony is that a great portion of "Chang Heon" was created after the foundation of Kukki-Taekwondo (although Kukki-Taekwondo was evolved as well). As practitioners of Chang-Heon Taekwondo, were do we stand along the lines of respect between those who practice one of the many phases of "the original Taekwondo" as opposed to those who practice the "Official ITF" syllabus? Where do you stand? Regards, Spookey
I am an ITF practitioner, and while I'm admittedly biased towards "my" art/style, I have a lot of respect for anyone who is dedicated to tkd in any of it's forms. Just because it's not what I do, doesn't make it wrong or a lesser art/style.
I do Kukki/ military TKD which is Oh Do Kwan lineage. its all TKD to me. different branches of the same tree.
I like all Taekwondo, although I don't particularly like North Korean influenced groups (politically). As far as people on the floor (and away from politics), I really don't care what group you are. We do the Chang Hon forms (20), and are from an Oh Doh Kwan base that later added in the Kukkiwon forms as well (Pal-Gye, Taegeuk, and Black Belt)... we also use Master Hee Il Cho's references as our primary guide for the patterns (Chamg Hon and WTF). We've worked people from the ATA, KTA, and independent groups. It's all Taekwondo to me.
I for one refer to original TKD as the TKD left to us in 2002 when the principle founder passed away. Lets face it, the 1st TKD was essentially Korean karate. Then I think it evolved to Korean karate with more Korean influence, like kicking & new Chang Hon patterns. But they were still performed in a karate like manner. I think it may be more productive to define them in terms of era, like: 1940s to mid 1950s 1955 to 1966 1966 to early 1980s 1980s to 2002 2002 & beyond
Chang Hon was the pen name of Gen. Choi. So I think maybe that is a term that should be applied to what he left us in 2002. I simply look at the other eras as a KMA that did not evolve the way Gen. Choi progressed. One not better than the rest, just different in some ways. Some of the differences are wider & more varied than others. To me it is all good.
I see all what many refer as 'ITF Style' as Ch'ang Hon TKD - just different eras (or branches) from the same tree. The other style I see as Kukki TKD as thats where it developed. Any still following an old Kwan, happy to recognise them as well. I like the history of all of them and feel diffieniating too much between, say the various Ch'ang Hon era's is just a route to further seperation and alienation of students! All TKD is good... I would just like some schools to delve a bit deeper is all! Stuart
Yes maybe a better way to look at it is by era. While this is a thread about ITF TKD I do realize that the WTF or Kukki TKD probably has similar problems, as not everyone followed the KKW's standard or directions, other than the sports match rules. Now I see they are trying to catch up to the ITF in terms of a true world wide standard that can be judged in a WC of Poomsae. This is another prime example of how much Gen. Choi actually did accomplish! It is amazing that many outsiders don't look at him as a real martial artist.
Actually the thread is specific to Chang heon and the view of practitioners of each other. Numerically the number of non ITF practitioners of Chang heon must far out weigh ITF membership both nationally and internationally
Yes I think you are right! The independent ITFers or Chang Hon style of TKD far outweigh any & the total of all the ITFs put together. I personally view all MAists have family, with TKD stylists closer family, with active or current ITFers immediate family. I appreciat all MAs & as a TKD student, have a special affinity for KMAs, due to the close cultural connection. I view the 1950s era as more Korean karate, which is not a bad thing, just not something that evolved along the way that Gen. Choi did over the passage of time. So the 1950s version vs. the 2002 version would have the most difference, one not better then the other. Likewise the 1966 version would be closer to the early 1980s version, butnfurther than the final 2002 product.
Rank vs curriculum Agreed there are multiple generation gaps if u will, some negative others positive. How do u all view the rank vs syllabus? For instance the 65 year old master who has held 6th Dan for years and remained active with decades of experience yet never incorporated the 1980's material therefore only practices 20 hyung in the old order?
If you are looking for information on Chang-Hon TKD/ITF I would recommend the book "A Killing Art: The Untold History of Tae Kwon Do" by Alex Gillis. [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Art-Untold-History-Kwon/dp/1550228250"]Amazon.com: A Killing Art: The Untold History of Tae Kwon Do (9781550228250): Alex Gillis: Books[/ame] It was well-written and by all appearances, it seems to be well researched. He conducted interviews and delved as much as he could into the political situation which led to the formation of the ITF as well as the split between Gen. Choi and South Korea, and thus the formation of the Kukkiwon and the WTF (I know they are different, but in this case, as one followed the other, I felt is appropriate). I know I enjoyed it.
A killing art Good book, read it, met the author...not super relevant to this thread as most are already knowledgeable of past conflicts and are seeking to move past that era and forward towards respect and unity!
I think that rank & syllabus are 2 different things. The question for me would be did that person earn the rank by doing what their syllabus required? If so, that person deserves their rank. I find little value in comparing from 1 style to another, as the styles are by definition different. To me the equalizer would be time in training. So someone with 10 years of diligent training should be pretty much on par with another person in a different style with that same time period of diligent training. Then if the TKD trained is SD based, then I would think that they should have comparable SD skills. So in terms of the Chang Hon tree, it is similar to a family tree. Some in a family move away from the traditional homesite. So pursue higher education, some do not. Some work in a field that earns them higher buying power and some stay at home & raise the children. But regardless of where their extended personal journeys & own new nuclear family takes them, they still should be able to get together on holidays, family reunions, weddings,funerals etc. When they do, their children should know that they are cousins & they, along with all the older family members share blood & a common bond as well as history. Same as Chang Hon, ITF or OhDoKwan students IMHO.
I think this book should not be described as good for Chang Hon or ITF TKD. Rather it is for all of TKD. It shows clearly that tkd is not 2,000 old. It shows clearly that the roots are in karate from Japan. It shows clearly that the move away from karate took different paths. It shows clearly who came up with the name tkd & who used it first to define their system of KMA for SD. It does a great job of highlighting how Gen. Choi's personal agenda, his politics & Korean national politics, mixing with his megalomaniac leadership style caused great tension & a split in the KMA world. It then shows that the same TKD label was applied to both ITF TKD & Olympic sport TKD & used by the KTA, KKW & WTF, as well as the ITF. Chang Hon & all TKD students should know that we have more in common than that which separates us. The time for division is behind us, as are the military dictatorships that ruled south Korea for so many years & caused much of of the problems within TKD. If more people read the book, they would understand much more & IMHO be more likely to unite, or make friends & work together. JMHO
Agreed, but I think if more read it, instead of reading WTF propaganda that TKD is 2,000 years old & Gen. Choi's propaganda that he did it all, more would have a better understanding of the true history, why it is so controversial & how Korean politics helped & hurt TKD's development. They would also gain insight into why Gen. Choi was vilified by others & worshiped by many. Then they could see why these 2 sides were so polarized. Then they could realize that there is no need for such nonsense. If that would happen more, unity among TKDin, may approach the friendship that usually exists between all MAists.
Okay.. though same applies. Its all Ch'ang Hon TKD to me, just an older version, a middle version and a newer version TBH. I only ever use the term 'ITF' to describe what the most recent incarnation is today or the style with the 'bobbing' sine wave (ie. "it's an ITF based competition" - meaning, if you enter patterns, expect to bob a lot or not win anything!.. purely so others know what we are talking about, even though technically its an incorrect term to use, as the ITF is an organisation, not a style and I know many who do 'ITF Style' but arnt in the ITF. Stuart
Agreed. And (unlike some ITF'ers sadly) I make no distinction in whatever TKD style (aka era) they earnt them in - a 6th dan is a 6th dan regardless. Stuart
Rank and syllabus tKDstudent & Mr Anslow, That is precisely the opinion and input I was searching for! Also, I'm in agreance with your answer.
Yes & while there are differences in eras, there was also differences in death of knowledge & ability to communicate that knowledge. but some would say that it was tougher in those days & the training was more Spartan. So it is all good. I for one value experience & think that we can all & should learn from those from the earlier eras. But again, all TKD is family. GM Rhee says ITF - International tkd FAMILY. We can change that to WTF, World tkd FAMILY. Every TKD student is welcome in Korea. They are encourage to visit the KKW, the new TKD Park in SK, Gen. Choi's grave, the TKD Palace & their new TKD Sanctuary. All KMAs have so much in common, especially a rich, vibrant Korean culture. In fact all MAs are more the same then they are different. I respect all MAists for the decision to participate. I respect all ranks for what reflect within the style or school that issued it. I don't look at a 5th degree BB who trained 5 years as senior to a 3rd Dan BB that has trained 7 years! Rather I see one who has 7 years of experience vs 1 who has 5 years of experience. Hopefully their training will reflect some basic standard of what someone training in the MAs for those timespans should reasonably have. I agree with a Korean perspective which places value on age, length of training, education & station in life when it comes to seniority.
