|
Post by Colin Wee on Nov 15, 2005 10:46:45 GMT 8
|
|
|
Post by sifuwhite on Nov 15, 2005 12:45:06 GMT 8
Colin,
Which set of forms do you consider to be the most original forms of TKD.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by Colin Wee on Nov 15, 2005 13:18:11 GMT 8
Tim, the forms that I practice are ITF Chang Hon forms out from the 1950s. Apart from what I seen of Stuart and the stuff I download off the net, that is all that I know of TKD. If you are asking me about the original forms, the ones I do are it. But like Stuart will tell you, TKD has evolved and moved on since. ITF wants to move on, and development work since the 1970s from the General himself has made changes to the patterns. While I don't know if the things I do are 'original' or not, but the katas have made a direct impact on my own practice and my efficacy as a martial artist. They suit my body habitus nicely and I have used the mechanics of the katas practically and powerfully. Not many people can say that, and I'm proud to stake my own claim on their effectiveness. :-) Colin
|
|
|
Post by sifuwhite on Nov 15, 2005 18:57:06 GMT 8
I have seen the ITF forms, and they appear to be the more simple/complex versions of all the TKD forms I have seen and judged over the past 5 year. Is this a misconception on my part or should I look at them from a different angle.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by Colin Wee on Nov 15, 2005 21:01:36 GMT 8
"More simple/complex" ... er, which is which?
The first two are indeed basic. But as you and stuart have shown in your recent seminars, basic moves are all that's needed to put together a real effective or even fairly sophisticated attack/defence. For instance, the three shutos going forward in bassai could represent an arm bar, an irimi, an arm bar, and or elbow break. However, it just looks like three 'normal' shutos, plus one going bacwkards. FYI - these three shutos also are featured in Won-hyo, the fourth pattern in ITF Chang Hon.
If the katas are used to show such variations, then they can be as complex as the teacher wants them to be. On the outset however, they may indeed look fairly straightforward. In most cases, they are taught with little or no further variations. I have seen few schools teach even 1/10 of what I see coming from Stuart (he's a major oddity - in a good way). As for me, it is a bit easier to see how I can cook things up given my exposure to other arts.
Colin
|
|
|
Post by sifuwhite on Nov 17, 2005 13:08:05 GMT 8
Colin this may be true about the instructor making them more complex, but my thought was is that simple can and is complex in origin and follow through of many techniques. Many a student learn simple techniques, but never understand their true meaning or power. It is just another technique.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by Colin Wee on Nov 17, 2005 13:45:25 GMT 8
That's true. A person could for example practice only chon-ji and I am confident would be able to engage in most sparring events and hold their own. In fact, done properly Chon-ji teaches powerful and devastating techniques that a person could innovate and extrapolate from. One of the main problems I see of any modern day art ... they rush through the whole entire set to get the student to black belt. The student doesn't just learn simple techniques, he learns tens of thousands of simple techniques and never understand any of their potential. They may do them more or less accurately, but that's about it. Then they dance around and try to kick each other in the head. Colin
|
|
|
Post by Colin Wee on Nov 20, 2005 21:59:19 GMT 8
|
|
|
Post by sifuwhite on Nov 22, 2005 1:49:32 GMT 8
Colin, this is very interesting.
I was just reading these two extact articles about a month ago. WOW
Tim
|
|
|
Post by Colin Wee on Nov 22, 2005 22:35:47 GMT 8
Yeah. It's quite interesting to look at the conflicting stories - you always just get one side of the equation. I still think that some work has got to go into looking further back. If TKD is influence by Shotokan, then TKD practitioners *should* look at shotokan! Isn't that logical? Doesn't mean that shotokan as a precursor is better, it's just a point of reference. TKD has a different mission and objective. We should identify it for ourselves in order to understand it's identity. But then again most practitioners are looking for the height of their round kicks rather than a long winded history lesson. Colin
|
|
|
Post by Colin Wee on Dec 31, 2005 0:51:56 GMT 8
|
|
|
Post by wmioch on Jan 1, 2006 15:21:11 GMT 8
I think perhaps he doesn't mean the kind of TKD you practice Colin? But I would say that sums up the general MA populations view.
|
|
|
Post by Colin Wee on Jan 1, 2006 16:21:27 GMT 8
I think perhaps he doesn't mean the kind of TKD you practice Colin? But I would say that sums up the general MA populations view. I don't take things like this personally; given that's also my impression of what Taekwondo is, as practiced by the general MA population. Colin
|
|
|
Post by sbwright on Feb 3, 2006 14:20:09 GMT 8
Forumites,
Despite what some history books/organisations might say Tae Kwon Do is not 2000 Years old, it has influences from a number of arts with long lineages but as a separate cultural/combative entity it is essentially modern.
The first kwan or school in Korea was the Chung Do Kwan or blue wave school (c.1944). Founded by Won Kook(Kyuk) lee (Yi). Lee stated that he taught Tang So Do (Chinese Hand Way).
Lee's instructor was the Okinawan, Funakoshi the founder of Shotokan, although I don't think Funakoshi would have said he taught Shotokan rather, Okinawa Te or Kara Te(meaning both empty hand and chinese hand).
From what I have pieced together is that early Tang So Do was essentially Karate taught by Koreans. As more Kwans began other influences were brought in perhaps from direct from China.
The forms taught by the original Chung Do Kwan were Japanese/Okinawan.
Choi and Nam created the Chang Hon forms I think to distance themselves from the Japanese roots, but many of the moves will be similar to the Okinawan forms.
So if we talk about which Tae Kwon Do forms are the oldest I would have to say Chang Hon as they were created by the first group to split itself decisively from Japanese/Okinawan influence.
I practise Chung Do Kwan under its Second Grand Master Duk Sung Son. We do the following forms
Kuk Mu 1-2 Pyong Ahn 1-5 Chulgi 1-2 Palsek/Balsek Ship Soo Yun Bee
and although we are under the World Tae Kwon Do Association I prefer to state that I practise Korean Karate than Tae Kwon Do as this is more representative.
My style has more in common with Tang So Do and Karate than what the general public would call Tae Kwon Do.
Cheers
Sean
|
|
|
Post by Colin Wee on Feb 3, 2006 17:07:18 GMT 8
My style has more in common with Tang So Do and Karate than what the general public would call Tae Kwon Do. Cheers Sean Sean - what's the difference between Chung Do Kwan and Tang Soo Do? Colin
|
|