When does Taekwon-do cease to be Taekwon-do any more?

A little chat on another thread got me thinking about this... When does Taekwon-do cease to be Taekwon-do any more?

For me, the syllabus of Taekwon-do is not defined by what orgs (even the ITF) require for gradings, but rather what Gen. Choi has detailed in his manuals - of which grading requirements seem to be just a small part.

Over the years I have come to realise that most students tend to only really focus (and thus put in effort) in things which are required for a grading and thus have made much of the syllabus a grading requirement at some point.

But there is the opposite side of the coins, as in clubs/orgs that take things away even more. Many see the tul/patterns as the core of TKD - to me it is just one part - but what of a club that has decided not to do them anymore at all - I know of such a club - everything the instructor teaches was learned via TKD, he just doesnt teach the patterns - is he still doing TKD?

Some, but not all, see the terminology in Korean as part and parcel of TKD.. what about those clubs that only teach it in English - are they still doing TKD?

Are clubs that don't incorporate parts of the manual anymore (such as 3 step sparring, 2 step sparring, hosinsul, throwing technqiues etc.) still doing TKD?

In essense, how much can be stripped away, before it is no longer TKD and if its not TKD... what the heck is it?

Stuart

 

Staurt I have had the same question. I think that Gen. Choi would say that many schools which do not teach the complete curriculum of his encyclopedia are not teaching true Taekwon-Do. (I try to use Tae Kwon Do to talk about the art in general, and use the spelling Taekwon-Do to refer to Chang Hon/ITF TKD and Taekwondo for Kukki/WTF TKD). I think though that realistically, there is a bit of room to bend things a little. I think that it is a bunch of little things though that add up to make a style/system TKD or not-TKD. Some schools call themselves Tae Kwon Do but teach a variation of the Japanese Shotokan forms. Does this mean that they are not Tae Kwon Do? The forms were used before the name Tae Kwon Do existed and were first used when the name was adopted (not that I am telling you anything you do not already know). So it is not just the forms, or just the basics, or just the step-sparring, or just the terms, or just the hosinsul, or any of the other components. It is a combination of many of them. As far as exactly how much can be taken from it or added to it and it still be considered Tae Kwon Do is truly determined by an organization/instructor. I think that there will always be those that say that "so-and-so's TKD is not true TKD." Gen. Choi was reported to have said that Kukki Taekwondo was not actually Taekwon-Do. I do not know that there is an exact line where it is or is not Tae Kwon Do, but I think it is one of those things that individuals will all have their own idea. Sorry to be so vague, but I think it is about as accurate as I can be.

 

I depends, is the art static or dynamic. In other words is General Choi's encylopedia a fixed reference that should not be deviated upon? If so than anybody doing anything contrary to that book series has effectively begun something new.

However if TKD is a dynamic changing art (like I think it is) then this is a natural and normal part of MA evolution.

If you wind the clock back on most fighting styles you will see that things were different once upon a time.

 

Sorry duplicate post.

 

If you teach exactly as you were taught. You are a good copy machine, no more and no less. If you add your personal understanding into your art, your art will be evolved. Without the proper evolution, all MA style will die out.

If Bill Gates wanted to maintain the original DOS userface, there will be no Window user interface today. Is the Icon base Window UI better than the character input base DOS UI?

 

Watch them fight. If they fight like TKD, they're doing TKD.

 

No, that fine... I have no axe to grind against anyone using the name (or not as the case may be).. I just thought it would make an interesting discussion. In fact, many years ago, I think I said right here (in a post) that I have considered renaming what we do at the Academy something other than TKD.. as many that do TKD these days, do not do as much as we do (and thats not a boast) and hence what they see as TKD is quite far removed from what we (my school and I) see as TKD, yet all that we do is in the manuals and then some! I also see the Japanese kata as part of TKD heritage, so wouldnt think a school that teaches them as 'Not TKD' any more! BTW.. the Kata exsisted along side the name 'TKD', as all the patterns were formed after the naming of the art.. some many years later!

I agree, it should be dynamic/changing (though try telling most orgs or the ITF that!!!) - I`m not talking about updating methods, adding to it etc. but rather stripping it down!

Except I`m not talking about adding - but rather subtracting! Undersatnding the art is a different thing altogethor.. in fact, its why many subtract from it in the first place.. as they don't understand it and just give 'their take' on it! Evolution is a good thing.. but are we really evolving by saying 'I think this is pointless, lets get rid of it' - to me, thats not the same thing!

You know Bill gates stole the 'WIMPS' system from apple and commadore dont ya?

Stuart

 

It depends on how much information that you intend to add into your system. The more that you add in, the more that you have to take out. The reason is simple. Our training time is limited. There are just too many valid skills to train in our life but our life time is limited.

Yes, I do. When Bill Gates stole technique from Apple Lisa, I stole the same technique from Zerox Star (the original Apple guys all came from Zerox). I had a chance to compete with Bill Gates head on if my project wasn't cancelled by my IBM vice opresident.

https://www.google.com/search?q=xer...yJuansAL7rPmtDQ&ved=0CE0QsAQ&biw=1400&bih=909

 

Yet.. these clubs arnt 'upgrading'.. just taking things out TBH! And theres improving on old methods Vs taking from elseware... but if you take from elseware and take things out to do so, again, when does it cease to be TKd as opposed to an MMA type training system?

Wow.. how weird is that - thats cool my friend lol. Amazing co-incidence of posting in fact.. more cool! So.. you worked at IBM at that time.. when Apple stole it from xerox? IBM should have listen to you I think!

Stuart

 

In my opinion, Taekwon-Do is more of an umbrella term these days. Like 'karate' or 'kung fu', it describes a collection of Korean martial arts sub-styles. These sub-styles are called by their respective 'house' names, such as Chang Hon style, Kukkiwon style, Song Ahm, etc. I have heard the word 'code' used in reference to these sub-style or house names. And of course you have variations even within the sub-styles. The ITF-NK have one way of training (and testing for belts in) the Chang Hon sub-style and the TAGB have another way of doing it. Do we therefore create names for these 'sub-sub-styles'? I think it is important to use different names for ease of communication and cataloguing purposes. But I also think a lot of it is just semantics. In my opinion, anyone who does something resembling the sub-styles I listed above (and even those I didn't) can call what they do "Taekwon-Do." I personally stick to General Choi's instructions in his manuals and teach the whole syllabus (patterns, breaking, hosinsul, step sparring, free sparring, traditional sparring, etc).

 

The form (pattern) is just a set of sequences that linked together. If you break the form apart and teach individual sequence, the result will be the same as to teach the whole form. Form is designed for "teaching" and "learning", it's not designed for "training".

 

Sorry, your missing the point - this (imaginary) club isnt breaking apart the patterns and teachings segments etc. it has dropped everyting to do with patterns altogethor and simply kept up some of the other areas.

 

I like the old TKD not the new TKD

 

I think I understand what you are talking about here. I have learned many forms (patterns) in my life. I don't teach forms any more because I find something better to teach. Do I still teach my original styles of art? When people asked me what style do I teach, I just told them that I teach "combat - kick, punch, lock, throw, ground game" and I don't teach any particular style of art.

IMO, your style can help your personal development but the style should not own you. You are still the master of your style. It's you that's more important. Whether people will call you style X or style Y, it won't be important to you at all.

 

I think this is still a semantics issue. The name 'Sport TKD' would probably be more accurate to describe the example club's syllabus. I know of clubs which use this title, mostly those that offer patterns as a supplement to tournament training. They are very good at what they do. I asked one such instructor why he taught patterns at all. He said it was purely for his studens to satisfy the demands of the governing body in order to participate in advanced competitions. For example, I Dan is required to fight at the Olympics; performing the taeguks is required for I Dan; yet athletes do not need to do patterns at the Olympics or, in fact, any competition. The opposite is also true: I know other instructors who flat out refuse to support any students who wish to compete. They refer to what they teach as 'Traditional TKD.' Personally, I think they are both wrong. I prefer to take the middle ground and just call it Taekwon-Do.

 

I agree. Gen. Choi authored some of the most comprehensive textbooks on any MA. His 15 volume Encyclopedia of TKD is by far they best & most comprehensive work on any MA that I have ever saw.
(I would be interested in learning about any others that beat it or come close)
He also approved a series of videos and traveled the world more that any other MA teacher that I am aware of. He crossed the globe several times a year & would often joke he had 2 homes, 1 in Canada & 1 in the airplane!

In his writings & teaching he gives us the 5 parts of the physical composition of TKD. The graphic that he used to illustrate his words was that of a circle with arrows connecting & flowing 1 aspect into the next, to a point when at times they are not easy to distinguish. What are these 5 parts:
forging (conditioning)
fundamental movements
patterns
sparring
SD

So to me & IMHO (+only talking about Gen. Choi's TKD) there is not only much to his fairly complete system, but plenty of room to add & refine. For instance, as modern science (physical & medical, etc.) gives us better & more efficient, safer ways to stretch & condition our bodies to better learn TKD, these should be incorporated into our training.
As minds conceive & develop new fundamental techniques or movements, they also can be added in with no problem at all. When it comes to SD & sparring, one can always & should always seek better & more efficient ways to defend oneself, hit, hurt, strike, throw, pin your opponent, as often fighting for SD purposes can have serious consequences if you fail. Likewise sports match techniques can be developed enhancing ones ability to win. Plus we can always think up & add new categories of competition.

So ITF TKD or the TKD that Gen. Choi left us, does not have to stay stagnant. He never did, so why should those that follow him stay stuck in the past?

So we can see that there is so much to add. But the question remains: When does it cease to be TK-D anymore?
To answer this maybe we need to list what MUST remain.
I for one think that the unique style of DoBok he wanted should remain. Of course changes in material or the actual manufacture may change, but the look must stay the same. So should the military procedures he used to devise, implement, set up & teach his system. The aspects of Korean culture that he added so that it was & would remain a KMA of SD must stay, but can be added to. His 19 levels of rank, 10 grade & 9 Dans must stay. (Hopefully we will not see any 10th Dan ITFers ever.)
Perhaps the part that he used as his signature for his TKD, the Tuls (Patterns) must remain as is. So we must keep his 24, even 25th Tuls AND we must strive to do them as he designed them. This to me is the tradition or mark of his system that shows it is Gen. Choi's TKD.
I would have less of a problem with adding patterns than I would at taking them away or doing them differently than he taught, ie no SW. But I like his stated reason for the 24 Tuls. I also love his writings on moral culture & the philosophy of his TKD. Adding to that, by teaching additional readings from Confucius, Asian, Greek & other philosophers is fine & should be encouraged as he said as he got older one of his shortfalls with his teachings was not going deeper into the "DO" as that is the harder (& more important) part of TKD.
The way he taught sparring, which he classified into 6 types, should be kept as well as the 6 types & their sub-categories. Of course we use this as a base & to help keep it ITF TKD, but sparring is & must be an individual things. But we need:
pre-arranged sparring (3,2 & 1 step)
semi-free sparring
free sparring
foot technique sparring
model sparring
pre-arranged free sparring
(Of course tournament match rules sports sparring is not included above, as sport is not fighting. But of course we can & should modify sports rules as needed, as long as we keep the basic themes: feet score higher points than hands, scoring when both feet are off the ground score higher that while standing & techniques to the head target area score more than to the body target area.)

 

Yes & this is why gradings should be very comprehensive & demanding IMHO. It should also include current level & all previous levels as well. If not, students cheat & become lazy by focusing more or solely on current requirements!

 

This was a mistake Gen. Choi made. It was not only silly, but divisive as well. It was also something he created. The Kukki TKD men were never really TKD, with some exceptions. The original 5 Kwans or the 6 early Kwans were all essentially doing some form of basic karate. While he used the name TKD (1954-5) that he came up with to label his new system that they were developing in the military (Oh Do Kwan), they started with basic karate. So the TKD name also defined how they decided to move from the karate roots.
The civilian Kwans also did pretty much the same basic karate. Remember the Kwan founders were basic BBs in karate & few had any documentation of their rankings or lack thereof. They did not have decades of in-depth & sophisticated training. At some point (1961) the 2nd generation leaders of the original Kwans & annex Kwans rallied around the new compromise name of Tae Soo Do, as they did not want to use the name TKD, as that had already been used & applied to what the military guys were doing under Gen. Choi's direction.
In 1965, when Gen. Choi was voted 3rd president of the Korean Tae Soo Do Assoc. he forced them to change the name. So they did not steal it, nor did they misapply it. Therefore to say that they are not TKD, as Gen. Choi did, is not factually correct. Gen. Choi was misleading at best, & I am being polite. He had a political agenda & motives that we no longer have to repeat IMHO!

 

One of the best things about his 15 volumes is that he dedicates 8 books to his patterns. This very comprehensive work leaves little doubt as to how he wanted the Tuls to be performed.
The rest of the textbooks are a great guide that can & should be added to. It should not be IMHO a step by step guide of do it THIS WAY & no other way or not in any other sequence. But we are lucky to have such a great comprehensive tool, combined with his videos & teachings that are also have been preserved on films, gives us great guidance for the ages. Something that pervious MA founders/leaders did not have the technology to do. We are most fortunate today in the 21st century to have a new (20th century) MA documented so well & so fully. JMHO

 

Great point!