Lad_Gorg Dear Sir, I few books authored by General Choi that relate most directly to the practice of Taekwondo as a martial art are as follows... [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Tae-Kwon-Self-Defense-1965/dp/1897307764/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313861298&sr=8-1"]http://www.amazon.com/Tae-Kwon-Self-Defense-1965/dp/1897307764/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313861298&sr=8-1[/ame] I posses the first edition of this book and believe it to be invaluable in description of the evolution of Taekwondo from it's Okinawan/Japanese Roots. Not only does it include the "original 20" hyung of Chang heon, but also the Okinawan Kata from which Chang heon derived. Also, the "Condensed Encyclopedia", preferably the 1970's Edition (orange binding). These two books have the most insight into early "Traditional" Taekwondo, prior to sign-wave, free of DPRK political influence. You may wish to search through enter-library loan as the actual text can be rather expensive just for a read. Tae-Kwon! Spooks
Ah thanks mate! Sounds rlly interesting, I'll try n get them. If I'm right, the Condensed Encyclopedia is "Taekwondo: the Art of Self Defence" by Gen. Choi? Yeh, I was looking into that book, and the prices scared me more than anything else. Something over the 100's. But I'll try n get a cheap 1970's edition as you recommended (as you can tell that i'm not a fan of sine wave ). Thanks a lot for the recommendations, much appreciated!!!
Quote: Originally Posted by TKDstudent Not to drive you crazy, but there was actually 2 groups of founders. One led by Gen. Cho (ITF) & one led by Dr. Kim (WTF). The others, or independents can not be categorized as neatly as the other 2, as they have their own stories & often it can be traced to a person or 2, but they are small groups. Just to be clearer: There were only 6 early kwans, but 7 Koreans would studied MAs abroad, who then opened the 6 early kwans. Of course there were other Koreans who studied abroad, but they did hapkido, yudo etc. Sorry to confuse. Clarity is very important to me. I never would refute the existence of the Kwans. They played a vital role in making TKD by producing the 2nd generation students who actually created Kukki TKD & played such an important part as Gen. Choi's team in creating Chang Hon. What I was talking about was the 2 major TKD groups. But when it xomes to the independents, they are much harder to categorize, because they are not major, with significant numbers of followers. Of course these independents can most likely trace their roots to the 6 early kwans. No doubt about that. Sorry, There is no doubt that Chang Hon TKD & the ODK was heavily influenced by the CDK. AGREED. This was where Col. Nam 1st trained & he was taught by the founder of the CDK, GM Lee. Sgt. Han Cha Kyo was also from the CDK & was a student of Col. Nam. However Gen. Choi's roots are traced directly to Japan & the karate he learned there. He had a minor trace influence of the stories he was told about Taek Kyon & the few basics that was shared with him by his calligraphy teacher. He was the honorary head of the CDK, not a student there. Yes I would never use real or pure TKD. I would use the term the TKD style that originally applied the name TKD or original TKD. I know that some may not like that label, but it is historically accurate. Once people realize that fact, it may become less of a problem, JMHO. My view on what TKD is, has evolved because of the research I have done. To me it is clear, TKD is what people want it to be. However before we start debating the history or anything else about TKD, we need to define what TKD is, so we don't argue needlessly. I have no problem with the view that TKD is an umbrella term, as it is. That has become so much clearer to me. Its funny: Gen. Choi said the WTFers were karate, because they were not doing his TKD & they originally learned karate. They of course said he & the ITFers were karate, because they were not doing their TKD & he 1st learned karate. IMHO they were both right in some ways & both definitely wrong. Neither side respected the other sides' evolution from their shared karate roots! So TKD is both an umbrella term & a label applied to different entities. Your view is accurate, as there are many people who use the TKD name, but apply it to different styles, so to speak. Very valid. No not directed at you or anyone else for the matter. It is just that history shows us that the mudslinging & dirty, even nasty tricks, often relating more to Korean politics than TKD's politics, has played such a heavy role in the history. As a result, many hard feelings still linger & many perceptions are poisoned by this unneeded garbage, JMHO Yes Gen. Choi's 1965 book is still mostly karate based. So is his 1st book written in 1959, which BTW was the 1st ever book on TKD. The 59 book has just 4 Chang Hon Tuls, called Hyungs in it, while the 65 book has 20. It is also interesting to see how his history sections expanded & evolved as well. As for techniques I would suggest the 1972 book, which has 6 editions & 2 reprints up to 1986. Better than that is the full 15 volume set of Encyclopedias with the 1st edition being dated 1983 (printed in 85), with editions up to the last which was 2008. The 15 volume set is only available through TKD Times Magazine, or through someone that has a set(s) in stock from buying in a larger order. There are also several editions of the condensed single version of the 15 volumes. The latest being the 2004 edition. This leaves out a lot of details of the 24 Tuls. When is your birthday? Never mind, I will give you the 1965 book & 15 volumes for free! google blue cottage Taekwon-Do. PDFs of both available there for free download, including a condensed version in Spanish. BTW: Gen. Choi's books have been translated & printed in 6 languages: Korean English Spanish German Russian Japanese (Not bad for someone who many think was not a martial artist)
Agree, plus add in a look at the 1959 book & then you can see the movement from the 1950s to the mid 1960s as well. WARNING! Pet Peeve Alert: The 1st edition of the 1970s book was 1972. It had 6 editions & 2 reprints, up to & including 1986. This book during it time (1970s) was commonly referred to as the "bible of TKD". It simply was unlike anything else up to that time on any MA. It can not (& here is the pet peeve) be referred to as a condensed encyclopedia, as the Encyclopedia of TKD did not come out till 1985 & it was a 15 volume set. Starting in 1987 (I think), Gen. Choi produced a single book version of the 15 volume set. It was over 700 pages. But he was able to make it into a single book by cutting out a lot of the extra detailed step by step instructions of the patterns. This book, starting in 1987 was then called the condensed version of the Encyclopedia, as it was shrunk down to 1 book. Therefore the 1972 textbook, which predates the 15 volume set of Encyclopedias, can NOT be a condensed version! Okay, sorry, pet peeve rant over Now a new question: What in the 15 volumes or condensed version (1983-2008) do you think was influenced by the politics of the DPRK?
You may want to consider that since the 1972 book & subsequent editions are out of date & no longer printed, the prices tend to be high. Collector pieces! I would go with a copy of a 1987-2004 version. You can get 1 new from the ITF-NK, 2008 edition, or Comdo, 1999 edition or TKD Times, earlier edition, not sure which one, but that would be your cheapest route (TKD times). Shipping overseas is costly though. Track them on E-Bay & Amazon etc. As far as the SW goes, it doesn't matter, as that is a couple of pages in the theory of power section. Who knows, maybe reading it from the source may actually help. See the ToP evolved from 4 factors in the 65 book to 5 in the 72 book, to eventually 6 today. (I forget which edition of the 72 book added in the 6th factor) So the inclusion of SW as a part of the overall ToP should not discourage anyone from buying the book. IMHO the 15 volume set is a must have for any serious student of TKD!
No problem. But indeed they Kwans can be hard to categorize, the fault of the Kukkiwon and SK. Maybe I´ll be steering this thread in another direction again; but in your opinion how much influence do you think that this "Taekkyon" actually have on TKD? I know some people that dislike the man strongly criticize whether this is actually true at all. Similarly, there are some stories about GM Won Kuk Lee having some Taekkyon training himself. Which I'm skeptical about. It's my belief that TKD's kicks come from Chinese MA's (namely Northern Shaolin Kung Fu) and not from Taekkyon. Shed some light here if I'm wrong. Nice post!! What's odd with the bolded section though, is that I actually take pride in that TKD has such strong roots in Karate. For me it's like practicing multiple MA's at the same time, I feel more conected to MA's as a whole. Agreed. More of an annoyance than anything else. At the end of the day, kicking and punching is far more important than the politics surrounding the art, so long as it actually doesn't get in the way of practice. Oh wow!!!!! You are too kind!! The site works perfectly, I might go blind, but definatly a cheaper option than buying the books. I'll definately take your advice however. Thanks again mate, big help!
TKDStudent & Lad_Gorg As stated by TKDStudent, the older versions carry the highest price, however the link I provided is to a re-print of the 65' Edition. The original 65' Daeha Publication can run as much as your rent! Additionally, the 1970's Big Book (as we call it) was pre-encyclopedia, that is why I stated "condensed" as although incorrect, it is commonly perceived as an earlier condensed due to it's size and content being very much like the actual condensed. Primarily pattern Juche! Primarily, I referenced the specific books and editions as I believe understanding is developed through chronology. For instance the inclusion of the Okinawan Kata disputes any claim that Taekwondo did not derive from Karate-do. Additionally, the earlier books demonstrate Chang Heon Taekwondo as demonstrated and viewed during the original world tours. Pre Sign-wave, pre removal of hip twist, pre rearrangement of the hyung. In my opinion it is the most pure depiction of Chang-heon as originally created. Chronology is the key to understanding! This thread continues to grow, and I believe is serving a point...AndyJeffries, is providing insight from the Kukki-Taekwondo standpoint, Lad-Gorg from the semi independent Chung Do Kwan point of view, myself from the earlier Chang-heon format as well as the current Kwan / Kukkiwon arrangement, and yourself to include up through the modern renovation of Chang-heon with a good knowledge of total Taekwondo history and the inclusion of Korean politics. We have maintained courtesy among us, differentiated points of view (all of which have been correct from their respective angles) and continued to share the varied shades of interpretation in a compassionate and educational format. This is what Taekwondo needs! Now, I will add this without being asked specifically...Although, our school crest spells "Taekwon-Do", I most commonly use the singular spelling Taekwondo as it is one word, one art, and one world in which we are to make better and more peaceful. It's all about Tong-Il, first among us brothers, then to the world! Tae-Kwon! Spooks
Yes, but remember that the reason why is that they look to hide the karate connection. They really don't want to highlight the Kwans at all. There history section makes it seem like they opened KMA school after the occupation ended & that they were actually teaching KMAs. In fact, the schools were opened by Koreans that studied karate, mostly in Japan. So the more they talk about the kwans, the more that they have to mislead, so avoid the whole thing by keeping it vague. If not, people connect the dots & they have a BIG embarrassment to deal with, if people think that TKD is Japanese karate. Of course it is not! That is why I think they should get out in front of it. Do what the WTF former employee wrote they should do: Acknowledge the all too apparent & obvious roots & emphasize how they moved away from those roots & made TKD, something different & maybe better than what was taught in the early kwans, JMHO & the educated wisdom of Dr. Capener. It is IMHO that Taek Kyon had none to very little influence on TKD. Now while that is my opinion, it is also factual. The Taek Kyon leaders say that the TKD leaders never consulted them. The TKD main Kukki TKD leader GM Lee Chong Woo went on record saying they never consulted the taek kyon guys. Gen. Choi backed away from his claims of training in Taek Kyon to saying his calligraphy teacher showed him a few basics, to he told him stories about taek kyon. GM Hwang Kee's unverified claim is even less convincing & even comical. He says that as a 7 year old, he saw a Korean man beat up several thugs. He then followed the man home & later approached him to ask the man to teach him. The man refused, so GM Hwang Kee, as a 7 year old child, watched him train from afar & that was the basis of his training in KMAs & apparently he said that the man was doing taek kyon! Furthermore, Son Duk Ki was named a Korean human cultural asset for keeping this folk game alive during the occupation. Don't you think that the ROK govt & the DPRK govt would proudly highlight this connection & others that kept this cultural asset alive, as it is very important to Koreans? They didn't, why? There were no others, even Son Duk Ki stated when asked to perform for the president, he couldn't even find a partner to train with! I do not feel qualified to comment on the CMA connection. I can tell you that the kicks in ITF TKD came from the experimentation that they did. Sgt. Han Cha Kyo was a great jumper & they added in so many flying kicks. They made an overt attempt to make it more of a kicking art. This may have been from the cultural influence & Korean preference for kicking, but it was not from any direct connection to taek kyon. No as far as WTF TKD goes. This is simple & you must read Dr. Steve Capener's writings on this. He makes it very clear where Kukki TKD kicks came from. They come from the new sports rules designed to be different from karate. As you know, these rules encourage kicking & severely limit the use of the hands. Therefore the players put their brains together, along with the coaches to figure out how to best score points in the new sport. So as the saying goes: Necessity is the Mother of all Invention"! This is how WTF TKD evolved into a fast kicking-counterkicking sport, with quick stepping, speedy footwork. Many people think that TKD is 70% kicks vs 30% hands, or 75-25%, 80-20% split. But ITF TKD is 2/3rds hands & only a third feet. While WTF TKD may be even 90+% kicking, as hand techniques virtually never score. Yes, it is there, don't lie & focus on how you made TKD Thats right & while the Korean politcs may help us understand the history, if we are not korean, it shouldn't matter at all or very little. But because of the Korean politics, we have to deal with so much garbage today, with a tremendous amount of hard done over the years, that will require much understanding to correct. Hopefully the new museum at the TKD Park will help No need to thank me, I did nothing. Thank the website's host or owner. Someone over there dug it up or spent a great deal of time & effort to make it possible. But please let me know what you think as you go through that info!
Ok! Ithought it might have been the north Korean instructors photos in there, along with the pictures of historical Korean places that just happen to be in the physical north & that the 1st ed of the 15 volumes were actually printed there, along with references to places Gen. Choi took the NK team to, in order to help him introduceTKD there, like China (85) & the USSR (88), etc. No doubt about it! You know it is funny, as in the 1960s the 1st ones to point out that TKD was karate, was the Japanese karate guys. There was no reply, as the dojangs has signs that said KOREAN KARATE till the 70s & people like GMs Son Duk Sung & S. (Sihak) Henry Cho wrote books called KOREAN KARATE in the 60s & 7os! It really took awhile for TKD to become TKD. The WTF via the sports rule set & the ITF via primarily the Tuls & SW. Couldn't agree more. I would add that courtesy is the 1st tenet of TKD & the most important. That was why Gen. Choi listed it 1st, as little else can take place if we don't engage in a civil & polite exchange. It is a must, IMHO for all true TKDin, regardless of style or ABC tag, to be courteous at all times! While those are nice words & a wonderful sentiment, I of course defer to the way the person who came up with the name, preference & reasoning. That does not mean others must. But I like it when students are informed enough to state a reason WHY they do something. It shows they think, are engaged, care & wish to be informed!
That's a nice quote. I guess as I'm a martial artist and not a politician, I just don't get this whole national pride issue. Yeh many TKD guys (namely ATA) are quick to say that TKD has roots in Taekkyon, this gives it more of a connection to Korea and Korean history. When in actuallity the techniques are like looking at apples and oranges. But I'll let this be for someone else to start a thread on. So the Chang Heon just experimented to develop their kicks? That's pretty interesting, as the kicks have come a long way since their shotokan roots. I don't want to wonder off topic again, but I think that some improvements might have come straight out of the Kwans. When looking at Shotokan kicks (and stances as well) I see quite a few differences to the Chung Do Kwan that I practiced (naturally also Chang Heon and KKW as well). Natually, this may be a later addition to CDK, and may be different from Won Kuk Lee's first school. But I would argue that even Tang Soo Do has these difference present. But I guess at the end of the day, this may be something that is lost to history. Unless, of course you know of videos of Won Kuk Lee training? Agreed. Agreed. Tragically true Well I can still thank you for pointing me towards it Well so far I've gone over the "Condensed Encyclopedia", I've read over till page 23, just after the brief history, and then I skimmed through the other sections mostly looking at pictures. I must say, it's pretty nicely writen, and I imagine that the ToP section is much larger in Vol. 2 of the Encyclopedias. I guess I could go on record and say that these books are quite fundamental to all serious TKD students, and martial artists as a whole. But as I read more, I'll probably start threads relating to questions that I encounter during the reading.
