Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Anti-TKD slant

I noticed that the article was changed to reflect a pro-foreign-influence slant. I will eventually attempt to make appropriate edits in increments... edits made. Comments welcome: 1. Introduction stated that TKD is an amalgamation of Chinese, Japan and Korean art. While this may be factually true, it's a misleading introduction to TKD as many martial arts, including all forms of Karate, are amalgamations. It serves no good purpose, other than NPOV agenda, to highlight this as an introduction to TKD. 2. Under "development of TKD", controversies surrounding Karate's influence on TKD was overstated once again. This topic is dealt with quite accurately in the Karate article. It makes sense to follow that lead in this case. It's misleading and NPOV the way it is written now. 3. Under "traditional roots" TKD's foreign influence is again overstated. Whoever, made these edits obviously had a pro-karate agenda. The topic of foreign influence can be delt with in a fair and objective manner without being beaten to death under every subsection! 4. Under "External Influence" foreign influence should be appropriately dealt with.Melonbarmonster 05:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is now overstating Taekwondo's relationship with Subak/Taekkyon; do we really need several long paragraphs all about "Subak" (手搏) (whatever that was) and the Hwarang (whoever they really were) and Taekkyon supposedly slowly developing into Taekwondo over hundreds of years? Taekkyon still exists today, so we can talk about Taekkyon's development in that article separately (noting that Taekkyon looks completely different from modern Taekwondo). Japan's influences on Taekwondo are also well-documented, so why remove it? Let's keep a neutral point of view for this article. At this point, it sounds like the first few pages of a Taekwondo student's guide.Edededed
I think this needs to be looked into more carefully but history of Korean martial arts is a very relevant part of tkd. Let's leave the text as is until we can sort this out. I also have to say that your dismissive attitude isn't very POV. Instead of blindly defending or rejecting labels, we need to deconstruct ideas and arguments and go through them with a fine comb. Regardless of what you want to call it, Koreans have been kicking in fights and contests for thousands of years and documentation for this exists as far back as the three kingdoms era. Chosun documentation also exists that show that Subak was part of the formal requirements for entrance into Chosun military and large Taekyon tournaments held by the populace well into the 1800's. Most of Korean folk arts and traditional Korean disciplines existed and even thrived during the Chosun dynasty without formalization or systemization(e.g. korean wrestling called ssirum, pan sori, musical instruments, minstrels, etc.). But the absence of formal schools, teachers and formal links doesn't mean that those arts weren't passed down or that they didn't exist. While tkd isn't taekyon, tkd is a product of Korean attempts at formalizing a Korean martial art. In an objective inquiry into TKD's origins, you need to understand the history and culture of Korean martial arts, culture and history. To leave this out would be erroneously simplistic. The martial arts aspect of Korean culture(folk culture during Chosun times) provides the basis for the formalization and systemization that Korean martial arts goes through in the 1900's. TKD claims this, history and culture of Korean arts and disciplines provides the background for this, and the actual practice of tkd bears this out. To ignore all this and look only for and only accept formal links between masters, students, formal schools, etc., is NPOV and more importantly wouldn't reflective objective reality behind TKD's conception.
btw. There's a lot of crap out there about a lot of Korean martial arts but Hwarang are mentioned in Korean historical documents, Subak is mentioned countless times in military, historical records including Chosun records. Taekyon was a part of Subak and its popularity was well documented by during Chosun times in its mention of Taekyon tournaments that were held well into the 1800's. Melonbarmonster 18:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
To keep this (relatively) short, just a few points:
1. We know that "Subak" has been mentioned in the Mooyedobotongji and other sources, but we don't really know exactly what "Subak" actually referred to. In China, the same word (pronounced "Shoubo") was used as a general term for barehand martial arts, however - thus, it is likely that Koreans used the same word in the same way (as it was a loanword).
2. Hwarang are of course mentioned in many Korean texts, but we don't actually know what they were. While many have tried to compare them to Samurai or other military groups, the evidence for this is sparse, and so the actual nature of the Hwarang is still being debated.
3. We know that there were various ancient Korean martial arts, and such may still exist in the form of Taekkyon, Bulmoodo/Sonmoodo, Ssirum, and Korean archery, but there is little evidence that these arts strongly influenced Taekwondo (except that "they say so," which is not enough to state something as fact).
4. In order to avoid bias, as many of the topics above are still under debate, such topics are probably best kept in their own respective articles - we don't want to explain the various theories about Hwarang here, nor do we want to state just one of those theories as fact.
5. I don't follow the basis that because traditional Korean martial arts existed, this should be mentioned in a Taekwondo article. Do we need to talk about the Hwarang, Subak, the Three Kingdoms, and so on in Hapkido, Hanmoodo, etc. articles as well? Do we need to talk about Bodhidharma, Shaolin monks, Emei mountain, Wudang mountain, and ancient Changquan styles in an article about baguazhang? In a Hwarangdo article, for example, it would make sense to mention the Hwarang (and even the related controversy), and in a Tangsoodo article, it might be nice to mention the Mooyedobotongji and Subak (because of Hwang Kee's fascination with the text and subsequent renaming of his art to Subakdo), but we don't have to mention everything in every article. Edededed 04:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
First you have to realize that no one's is arguing that tkd has a direct formal link to taekyon or subak, ssirum, etc.. That is not what the text of this article states. You say you don't know why you have to mention other korean arts and disciplines have to be included here. I see history and cultural dynamics as being absolutely critical in understanding tkd, not because it's just "say so" but because TKD wasn't made in vacuum. It was created by korean martial artists who were products of a particular culture and time, in their attempt to create a unified formalized korean martial art. Please read my previous post because I already explained this carefully and I'm not sure if you grasp where your separate points fit in view of the larger picture. I feel like you're still stuck on presumed constructions that only work for formalized and systemized martial arts like karate post early 1900's or some chinese arts which were formalized even earlier. Like it or not history is not an exact science and you have to work with available hints and evidence and be as reasonable and logical as you can.
But by your reasoning an article on pansori would start with latest clear record of when it was taught and passed down in a formalized construction which would place it after the Korean War as would be the case with most Korean arts, disciplines and institutions. Do you see how that just doesn't work and results in conclusions that are factually wrong?
The link you need to look for between subak, taekyon, traditional military martial arts, etc. and their influence on modern KOrean martial arts including tkd lies in the historical and cultural context of late 1800's and early 1900's. If you have any familiarity with Korean culture and history you'll know that it would be pretty foolish to question the historical existence of other Korean folk arts most of which were developed through the ages without formalization and systemization such as ssirum, taekyon, traditional music, pansori, minstrels, cooking styles, ondol building, etc.. It's ignorant to ignore all of this historical, cultural context and look only for and only accept formal links between masters, students, formal schools, etc.. That's NPOV and more importantly wouldn't be reflective of the objective reality behind Korean attempts at formalizing a Korean martial art in the 1900's. TKD is a modern construction but in an objective inquiry into the history of its conception, all of this historical and cultural background is critical in understanding tkd's history and its eventual and continuing development.
As for your point about Hwarang, Hwarang's military exploits and training in military arts are mentioned in chosun documents(not sure which ones). Taekyon tournaments are also mentioned. This isn't hearsay but the texts clearly states these things. Unless you're making a specific critique doubting the original text, I'm not sure where you're getting this from. If you are critiquing the original text, please explain the reasons why these texts that mention military and martial arts training of Hwarang are doubtful and provide any sources or links, etc.. I wouldn't mind hearing it and looking into it more. Melonbarmonster 23:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV = Neutral Point of View, by the way.  :) Um... Don't worry, I am familiar with Korean culture and history (being my own culture). I'm afraid that your point doesn't really follow - nothing was created in a vacuum, but certain influences have more weight than others (such as, how does ondol relate with taekwondo?). This example is more obvious, but following your logic, we would have to write all about all those just-barely related topics as a preface to taekwondo. In this case, you are also trying to promote these weak influences in favor of the much stronger influences (such as karate) just because they are foreign in origin. This is, obviously, biased (in favor of Korean influences just because they are, well, Korean).

You also don't seem to know much about the Hwarang controversy - why don't you start with the Wikipedia article (which quotes quite a few sources, some of which you may read (very good scholarly articles))? Taekkyon tournaments are most certainly NOT mentioned in anything related to the Hwarang. Are you basing your opinions solely on what Taekwondo teachers told you? Are you paraphrasing original texts that you have never seen?

Edededed 06:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that you're not really interested in a constructive discussion. You're repeating what you wrote before, including the sarcasm and attitude, to which I've already given my answers and explained carefully all in good faith. If you're not interested in making the effort to explain your viewpoints with responsive and substantive posts, I can't respond to you. There's nothing for me to respond to.
E.g., I mentioned ondol as an illustration. You're asking me what it has to do with tkd because you misread(or skimmed)my post and missed the illustration. You need to address the logic of the illustration instead of making your point with a sarcastic question. If you're not being sarcastic and your question is genuine, tell me why you disagree with the illustration and I'll gladly hear you out and give my response. I've already carefully explained the importance of historical and cultural context in the creation of tkd. If you think historical and cultural context is not important, explain why. Instead, you've just repeated for previous complaint without an effort to expand, explain, give source for your position.
You also need to stick to what this article actually states. A lot of what you're arguing isn't being disclaimed by the text of the article. As for your accusation that I'm paraphrasing original texts and such, I've already asked you to give your critique of the original texts as I would be glad to hear it and look into it more. Instead all I've gotten from you is disingenuous, self-righteous posturing, accusations, snide remarks, etc..
I don't want to engage in a pissing match. If you want to actually explain yourself and discuss these things substantively I'll gladly hear you out and give you a response... now back to Christmas with family.

Melonbarmonster 19:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if I seemed unpolite, sarcastic, disingenuous, or self-righteous (that was not my intent). However, I should probably say that I also got the same sort of vibe from you - so let's just leave it at that (I hope that neither of us are trying to be these things). In any case, we should probably just stop and wait for others to jump in so we can hear some other opinions (whenever they decide to jump in...) before we go and edit the article right now.

I am, however, interested in what you thought of the Hwarang article and resources (linked in the Wikipedia article), though. Have you looked them over yet? Quite interesting, if you like that kind of stuff. (You may need to download Asian fonts to view some of the characters (the documents are PDF files)). If you like, you can also find the original (classical Chinese) sources for some old Korean texts like the Samguk Sagi on the web, too (if you can't find them, I can post the link for you).

Edededed 02:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You're skirting the issue and still not explaining yourself. I still haven't gotten why and what your disagreement is with the different argument I gave in previous comments so that we can have a responsive discussion about the substantive issues at hand. Instead of telling me to read SamukSagi, Hwarang articles, etc, you need to explain what your position is and make your own arguments and give explanations for your positions and disagreements. It's hard for me to take your suggestions to read this or that very seriously. I read the Hwarang article a while ago but from what I remember controversies aside, Hwarang's military exploits were stated as matter of fact and not questioned. Again it would be helpful if you explained what your personal critique is on Chosun references to Hwarang and why you doubt Hwarang's military exploits so that we could have a responsive discussion. As for your other suggestions, I'd rather limit this exchange to specific issues at hand.Melonbarmonster 06:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

N. Korean TKD, TKD origins

One subtle point to someone who asked the question: TKD is widely practiced in North Korea. General Choi made a tour of N.Korea, introduced, and popularized it there. That was the reason why he could not return to S.Korea. After visiting N.Korea, he was no longer welcome in S.Korea. N.Korea has amazing martial artists, universally practicing ITF TKD (they are quite opposed to S.Korean WTF TKD). In N.Korea, this is sponsored by the government (in a totalitarian regime, more or less everything that's done is done by the will of the government). I've known a couple of martial artists who have gone to train under the rather impressive N.Korean TKD instructors.

TKD also very directly derives from Karate and Kung Fu. General Choi, who coined the term TKD and brought together the ITF (before it split off into the WTF and ITF) was a black belt in Japanese Karate. Plenty of the other founding members were trained in kung fu. In fact, the name of one of the major school, Chung Do Kwan, directly comes from a mispronounciation of Shotokan.

If you trace back virtually all of the original TKD masters, they came from Karate and Kung Fu backgrounds. The influence of earlier Korean martial arts is much more weakly documented (although some of the techniques, for instance, the high kicks, demonstrate a very probable influence). Many of the earlier techniques were significantly influenced by China and possibly Japan (the fighting style of the Hwarang-Do was derived, largely, from Kung Fu).

That said, the Orient is a small enough community that you would expect influence from one culture onto the others.

Not sure if having had kungfu, karate, jujitsu training, etc., means that foreign martial arts provided the sole basis for early korean ma schools and masters. Most claim to have been trained in indigenous korean martial and although this is hard to verify since since korean martial arts didn't exist as formalized systems, Subak and Taekyon tournaments(probably similar to ssirum tournaments) were held well into the 18th century and it was ingrained into folk culture where it continued to survive. It makes sense that those with interest and experience with indigenous Korean martial arts would seek Japanese, Chinese martial arts training when abroad. Melonbarmonster 07:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

To be exact, most of the original TKD masters had specific karate backgrounds (i.e. Choi Hong Hi, Lee Won Guk, and others learned from Funakoshi Gichin while studying abroad in Japan), some masters vaguely claimed to have learned some unspecific Chinese martial art previously (i.e. Hwang Kee learned from a "master Yang" while in Manchuria), and some also claimed to have learned or at least seen some Taekkyon as a child (although their techniques did not look anything like the Taekkyon extant today).

Edededed 06:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Translation of 'Do'

I am not sure whether it is right to translate "Do" as "way of life". "Do" is more a "spiritual way". --zeno 04:41 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Do , 道 , simply means 'way', road or street. It can be interpreted as above. --Jondel 09:08, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually "Do" means 'Art, Way or Method'. 12.221.129.83 06:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)M. Graham

Words have histories, and without understanding their histories it can be difficult to know how to interpret them in any given context. Individuals and groups can have their own ways of using vocabulary too. Both factors are at play here. The basic Chinese word originally meant, and still means in some social contexts such as that of Hong Kong, "road" or "street." From that concrete meaning it gained extended meanings. One extended meaning is "the way to do something," another is "the right way to do something," and a third meaning is "the way the universe works" -- which is basic to the way the term is used in Daoism.

In Okinawa, they called the martial art form they learned from China "China hands". That was "Tang (dynasty) hands", and in Japanese, thosecharacters were pronounced kara te, or, jamming it all together karate. Funakoshi Gichin introduced karate to Japan, and at about that time he made two changes in the name. First, he changed from writing "Tang (dynasty or people) hands" to writing "empty hands." Second, he added the Chinese character for Dao (the Way) to the name of that martial art, so it became "karate do." The reason was that he (and his group) wanted to emphasize the idea that karate was not just an efficient way to protect oneself, but that it was also a way to something, a way to spiritual perfection.

So the "Do", as it was originally and still is conceived in Japan is a path toward spiritual attainment. It's very similar to our sometime use of the word "Way." (As in, "I am the way...", perhaps.) It is also very similar to the use in some Indian spiritual traditions of the word "marga."

What it is supposed to mean in the Korean tradition, I would not know. Presumably there are books written by the master teachers of Taekwondo that will explain how they interpret the word, why they have named their school as they have, etc. P0M 07:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Korean literature in Chinese

67.72.135.235, you seem ignorant of Korean literature written in Classical Chinese. If you believe that Samurang is not a fabrication by Haedong Kumdo but is a historical fact, show me primary sources such as Samguk Sagi, Samguk Yusa. --Nanshu 01:32, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I thought primary sources weren't allowed on wiki. Even academics don't go around citing primary sources for reasonable claims. Samurang is historical fact and there are too many sources that cite this. If you have any sources for their non-existence, let me know. Whether Haedong Gumdo can claim lineage to it is where it get ridiculous but back to TKD. Melonbarmonster 07:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

TKD in history

I changed the history section but have reverted my change...I read one of the articles linked to at the bottom of the page and am convinced (for now) of the author's argument that Taekwondo has been retroactively "Koreanized"...but I think there needs to be more explanation: the history section as it is currently written dismisses too abruptly any possible link between Taekwondo and Subak. --Sewing 00:48, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I know what Taekwondo organizations say, and their attempts to associate Taekwondo with almost everything in historical sources that may have something to do with martial arts. It's not bad idea to add these claims, but we have to clarify the truth first. --Nanshu 22:42, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Major history section added; it is true that Japanese arts have had a major influence on Korean martial arts, largely by force under occupation, but, it is also true that the Chinese have had a large if not larger influence since they were the regional superpower for most of the last two millenia; think of it as America in a way. Nevertheless, what taekwondo is now, and what had been worked up by practitioners of kwonbeop is clearly quite uniquely Korean in flavor and derives from a longer history of unarmed practices which survived the occupation, along with the Japanese influences.

If your agenda is nationalist in origin, you should just say so. We're only interested in the truth here. --66.245.40.157 08:06, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ah, someone who knows the truth? Then tell me what laws the Japanese government used to ban the practice of Korean martial arts? Who forced the ban? When was this law passed? Is it the military police manned by the man like the father of the previous leader of Uri party or the military itself which had more than 160,000 Koreans at various levels of command with the highest attaining the rank of general? Is it the police in Korea who was manned at local levels by Koreans? What techniques did Japanese incorporate as their own? Why isn't Taekwondo practiced inside North Korea or in China bordering Korea? Why don't Taekwondo fighters wear traditional Korean clothes while fighting? Don't dare say "I don't know because I can't read Japanese. So you find it." Who is promoting the nationalist agenda and making up stories? --Revth 03:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
yawn. Taekwondo is practiced all over the world, including mainland China, and Taiwan which won two gold and one silver in this year's olympics. What's for npov about it? --Wareware 01:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen, all this posturing is besides the point. It is difficult to prove that when it comes to East Asian martial arts any art is sui generis. The fact is that what Tae Kwon Do is now is Korean, and that it had Japanese and Chinese influences, due to various forms of military and intellectual colonialism. This should not surprising to anyone who has ever studied the history of martial arts in East Asia. What remains is to describe the sources of this knowledge to the best of our ability, as Edededed has done below. --Zhongyi 03:36, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh...kay. The history in this article includes lots of unnecessary information about the Mongols, Three Kingdoms, etc., which should probably be put in a separate article about ancient Korean martial arts. Also, much of what is written in the history is taken directly from the Mooyedobotongji, which in turn quotes from many Chinese texts, and is thus talking about Chinese martial arts in China at the time (kwonbup = Korean pronunciation of quanfa = barehand martial arts in general, not a specific Korean martial art).

For example, Sorim IS Shaolin, and Zhang Songye = Zhang Songxi, who practiced Neijiaquan. This has little or nothing to do with Taekwondo at all.

China surely had a strong influence on Korea, as is clear from the strong use of Chinese sources in the Mooyedobotongji (although Japanese sources are listed in the bibliography as well), but modern taekwondo clearly is much more similar to Japanese karate than to Chinese martial arts, which have a totally different flavor.

On the other hand, more traditional arts with longer histories in Korea, like Taekkyon, have much more clear similarities with Chinese martial arts. (Similarities are easy to spot (using the eye).)

Taekwondo's history should be rewritten. While Chinese connections can be surmised, Japanese connections are much more specific and recent (Taekwondo leaders having studied abroad in Japan, achieving karate rank, for example). --Edededed 07:01, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

True, there is unneccesary info on the history part.. they explain more about olympic sparring --shawkat


Practical efficacy

I don't know how true this is: one of the reasons Taekwondo is so popular is because of its effectiveness as a form of self-defence. It's my understanding that tkd, like most striking martial arts, isn't a great form of self-defence. Grappling martial arts have a much better record in competitions such as ultimate fighting. I do tkd myself, and I think the reason for its popularity is similar to the other striking martial arts: possessing deadly techniques and physical fitness. Whether it's actually any good for street fighting is irrelevant.--Superninja 06:00, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While you may present some valid points, I must point out that UFC or K-1 competition fighting is not representative of actual street combat either. UFC tournaments have strict rules against what can be done in terms of striking. Taekwondo is a striking martial art. Kicks to the knee, knees to the groin, and strikes to the eyes are prohibited in "ultimate fighting" tournaments. These prohibited moves are often taught in the self-defense portion of Taekwondo training.

I don't think the "practical efficacy" of martial arts can really be gauged accurately and therefore should almost be ignored in Wikipedia articles.

Please sign your postings. It helps keep lines of communication straight.
Wikipedia articles are required to maintain a neutral point of view. An article should describe what something is, not indicate the judgment on it of a Wikipedia writer. For instance, someone might maintain that Taekwondo kicking techniques are better than Shotokan karate kicking techniques. Checking out the Shotokan article might reveal the "fact" that Shotokan kicking techniques are better than Taekwondo kicks. Neither view would be admissible as a statement by a Wikipedia writer. However, one might say, e.g., "Mossad research conducted in 1979 indicated that identical twins trained in the two styles developed kicks that produced a change of momentum in a 1 kg. block of plastic body armor compound of xxx kg/seconds-squared and yyy kg/seconds-squared." Then, assuming the Mossad was really letting out their research results somewhere, the information would be admissible. Even so, as one of my sempai remarked one time, people do not stand still and let you kick them the way that pine boards do. So the evaluation of various schools depends on the interrelations of so many characteristics both of the training and of the individuals being trained that there is unlikely to be any fixed body of opinion on what is best. Progress tends to move from the other end, i.e., by abandoning the teaching of response patterns that regularly get people in trouble, and formulating rules such as "Don't lead with your nose." P0M 01:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, TKD does not teach street fighting, nor prize money fighting. It teaches competitiveness and self improvement, among many other values. It is kind of pointless to discuss that TKD is not sufficient in self defense. And pointing out example in UFC is not right either. So all the UFC fighters can defend themselves in street when someone sneak from behind with knife? No one can. If you are thinking about bar fight, does that even count as self defense? Do not try to cofuse people with self defense and street fighting. TKD definitely does not teach street fighting. Also, it is true that TKD techniques are hard to master. Another challenge any martial art school is that it is impossible to create real life hostile situation. The simulated self defense situation at school usually is not aggresive enough. If it is aggresive to effectively simulate real life-and-death-situation, imagine how many law suits will be filed. Same thing with any other martial art school. Does any school teaches something like, "here, that person will attack you with real knife. he will really go after you and stab you if you cannot defend." no one does that. Can BJJ fighter win every street fight? Maybe. Can TKD competitor win every street fight? Before you answer that, isn't it wise to teach avoid getting into the fight? that is what most TKD school teaches. It is known fact that there are millions of TKD practioners. Let's say there are 10 million. If only 10% of them are truly good, then there are 9 million crappy taekwondo practitioners (I should say who are not serious). I would say same goes for BJJ or other martial art too, about only 10% being good. But then since there are so many TKD practitioners, you are statistically more likely to see crappy TKD person. I am not bashing BJJ or other martial artist. It is just sad that TKD gets attacked so much by media or some biased people. Love you martial art, no problem, but don't attack uneccessarily because of there are more TKD schools or more people practice TKD.


Uhm... Just a small thing: What about Ho Sin Sul, which are spesifically for street defense? They are all grappling, at least to the GUP techniques that I have access to. They do seem to be content to swing someone to the floor so you can leg it though... :-p OTOH, it's usually easy to see where they removed kicks and strikes to people lying down... So TKD does have a rather broad array of grappling techniques, it's just that what you must learn to be allowed to graduate varies videly from school to school. In my school, under NTN (which is under ITF), we have a standard book on the practice, and it shows that to graduate you must know:

10. Gup 4 techinques against being held with a hand from the front.

9. Gup 4 techniques against being held with both hands from the front.

8. Gup 4 techniques against being held with both hands from the sides.

7. Gup 4 techniques against being held with one or two hands from behind.

6. Gup 4 techniques against being held at the shoulders with one or two hands from the front.

5. Gup 4 techniques against being held at the side or behind with one or two hands.

4. Gup 4 techniques against being held at your hair. (front and back)

3. Gup 4 techniques against strangling from the front and back.

2. Gup 4 techniques against being held around your body. (different variations on bearhugs to be precise)

1. Gup 4 techniques against chokeholds and bodylocks (bearhuggish things, I'm not 1st gup yet, and not a grappling expert.)

1. Gup -1 4 techniques against chokeholds and being locked to the ground. (being taken down in the JJ guard. with the JJ guy on top.) also against chokeholds on the ground.

1. Gup -2 4 techniques againstkicks and punch, and against being held by two attackers.

All techniques except one 1. Gup -2 technique are pure grappling. So to have 1st Dan, you must know and be able to properly execute 47 grappling techniques, all to be used in case of self-defense. Kinda interesting, hm? And this curriculum were finished before the UFC showed how terribly efficient grappling could be.

There are 4 spesific techniques to be learned, but I cannot describe them, as that would be against the student's oath. Sorry. If this is helpful, feel free to add to the article. The information refers to GTF and ITF schools in Norway. Please check with someone else to see if this holds true in other countries as well. It may very well be that we are more thourough than others. HaakonKL 10:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Olympic scandals

The "subsection" under Organizations, "Scandels" [sic] is very sketchy and should at least be in its own node (and cleaned up). I summarised this in the Scandals of the 2004 Summer Olympics, so maybe we should just delete the stuff here? --24.226.53.162 02:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's a major event in modern Tak Won Do history. As major racism plays a huge part in the history of the sport. Dae Sung Lee is a major Tak Won Do figure. The outcome for this case will have a major effect on the Olympics, and Tournments and on how Tak Won Do will be practiced in the future. We should not delete this stuff here.

if there is more to it than this: "Dae Sung Lee, who was dismissed as the head coach of the US Taekwondo Team, sued the US Taekwondo Union and the US Olympic Committee alleging his dismissal related to his Korean heritage. His case was dismissed by US district Judge Susan Mollway. " Then we should propably keep it. Since it reportedly holds great significance.

korean Old Martial Arts / Taekwondo

TKD is a major form of self defense. That should be too obvious. As for the history, can you guys get the real history behind TKD? TKD was made from other martial arts that origin from the 3 kingdoms era, and there are hundreds of records to prove it in Seoul. It's like refering to Katanas without mentioning the Samurai. There are reasons why this martial arts was developed. It is very clear none of you do have any expertise, or definitive knowledge of the sport. Please do not act like you know. --Masssive ego

OK. You're saying, especially 'there are hundreds of recorde to prove it in Seoul'. It's very interesting. "As jiujitsu was derived from Yusul, sumo was a imitation of mongolian wrestling or Korean cireum. The Japanese arts were mainly derived from Korean martial arts, Chinese martial arts and Mongolian wrestling techniques.This annexation had far reaching effects in Korean martial arts since Japan tried to ban all forms of Korean martial arts while incorporating techniques from Korea and China into their own arts." Then, I want to ask about the followings. # "In addition many Koreans had an influence in the development of Karate," At least there should be written 'When' and 'How'. Karate derived from Ryukyu martial arts, and it came from Lost Chinese martial arts. No relation with Koreans. At least, Mr.Oyama practiced Karate at Shotokan. Oyama became famous in Japan by comics, but Kyokusin is just a group in many karate groups. Additionally, he is a naturalized Japanese.
How do you think about the text Problems in the Identity and Philosophy of T'aegwondo and Their Historical Causes Do you really believe old Taekyon is so similar to Taekwondo? If so, I want to see your references. --Poo-T Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
To put it simply, Taekwondo doesn't follow either Chinese or Japanese naming of martial arts so that's why it couldn't have existed from the 3 kingdoms era. For Taekwondo to have existed previous to Taisho period of Japan when "-do" naming became common and to have been influenced from China, it once had to be known Taekwonshu in Chinese which would make it Taekwonjutsu in Japanese. Another flaw of Taekwondo is the fact that its fighters don't wear a pair of shoes. You probably wouldn't know but like Chinese and most Europeans, Koreans used to wear shoes even in their homes. Not having a pair of shoes to wear or even bearing their feet in public place was considered to be faux pas in Korean culture. How can a martial art promote a cultural faux pas?
And this is not even the most important counter argument at all. Look at Kimchi and realize that it doesn't have Hanja or Chinese character to write it down. It actually does, but it is just a generic term for pickled vegetables in Chinese. You see, Kimchi is a real Korean culture and thus, unlike Taekwondo or Tang Soo Do that had been copied, there is no way to write it down accurately using Chinese characters. These are reasons Taekwondo's history is a fake made up after 1950s to claim its originality. Quite convincing, if you have no knowledge of Chinese and Japanese languages and take everything Koreans say at the full value and the "truth". --Revth 14:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Taekwondo has its roots both upon ancient korean martial arts and japanese martial arts like karate (because of the japanese ocupation), after WWII the koreans began to "koreanize" some karate influences (ex: if there was a 90º kick, koreans would do a 180º kick..) Taekwondo is not a 3000 years old martial art, its a 50 year old martial art, based upon diferent old korean martial arts and foreign influences.

[1] [2]

Revth's antagonistic and borderline xenophobic attitude notwithstanding, which is both distracting and ugly, he only demonstrates that there are Japanese influences on Taekwondo, which is self-evident, but what we lack is the historical documentation which inform the current practice and more work on the actual practice of the martial art itself as well as its unique emphasis on sport.

If I might make a recommendation at this point, I think the article should be structured roughly around the historic practices which fed into what became taekwondo, the development of the martial art and sport in the years after liberation, which includes the incorporation into the Olympics, and the current practice described in methods and techniques. The section on ancient Korean martial arts should be moved, as Edededed says, to a section on ancient Korean martial arts.

Still, we need more rigorous sources drawn from the Korean texts, for instance, the Mooyehdoboktongji and the Mooyehjibo, which are derived from a Chinese text, and historical records from the neighboring nations on Korea, not idle speculation on bare feet or kimchi or the lack of Chinese and Japanese words tacked on to Korean as so-called "proof" of the origins of Taekwondo. Given the centrality of martial arts practice in the feudal era, there must be pre-Occupation written and visual records. Of course there are political problems that need to be contended with that complicate the history and give rise to certain politicized versions of the history. By way of parallel example, the Shaolin Temple origin story, irrespective of "event truth", may have been created or used to foment anti-Qing sentiment from revolutionary paramilitary organizations in Southern China which developed martial arts practice.

Similarly, if there is a Korean nationalist mythology created around the origins of Taekwondo which coincided with the birth of the nation after liberation, that is a separate issue and it will come out during the historical research, but it is something secondary that readers of this article should keep in mind, because, again, practice should be the focus of the article. Any cursory investigation of the art's history reveals quickly that the founders of the art all trained in various styles of Japanese and even Chinese martial arts. Similarly, it is impossible to deny the influences that China, as the pre-Japanese imperial power, had on Korean military practice. Finally, although the origins have different pathways, there can also be no denying that the development and practice of the art over the decades (or perhaps, even longer) has been driven by Koreans, whether they have been colonial subjects or not. This kind of argumentation is, obviously, not very productive and I hope it will end here. These are secondary issues insofar as they do not relate to the actual practice and techniques of taekwondo, which should be at the core of the article here.

I find it interesting that Chinese and Japanese are arguing over the origins of Korean martial arts, but, I cite Santayana in my defense.

In brief, maximize practice, minimize history. --Zhongyi

I refer an Interview with Vice president of kukkiwon. as 'Taekwondo was just created from just Karate, not related with Taekwondo'. But I agree with you that Korea did much work to develop Taekwondo to be better one. So, I think, the history could be shrinked. By the way, do you think it needed to describe 'The influence of Koreans to Karate' in the Taekwondo Wikipage? I don't think so. --Poo-T 12:00, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have acess to Chong Hi's TKD Encyclopedia, if you want me to state something from it, then by all means send me an e-mail. I'm not guaranteeing impartialness, but a lot of the critisisms posted against him other places (he not beeing a real general amongst others) are explained and so on. He even states his military career, and is more humble than the other guys who write about him. So if anyone is interested... HaakonKL

What do you call someone who practices Taekwondo?

What do you call someone who practices taekwondo? In other words, wrestling to wrestler is like taekwondo to what? --roozbeh 22:46, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

In portuguese we say "taekwondoka"; in English it's simply Taekwondo practitioner I guess. --Cyprus2k1 07:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In the Philippines, they say "taekwondojin". (Jin is Japanese for person) --Jondel 07:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
One book I have in English uses the term "taekwondoist". It's an old book though, and usage may have changed since then. --Sonjaaa 10:25, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
There's always the term taekwondo practitioner, which seems to be broadly used.--Sonjaaa 10:27, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
I think this is the official term used by the WTF. See here. --Sonjaaa 19:47, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
The site Googled above does have a couple of instances of "taekwondoist" as well. Every school I've practiced at has used that term, when needed -- which is inoften. A general Google of both terms turns up about the same number of hits, over 600. "Taekwondoist" is a recognized term, but may be too formal; "tae kwon do/taekwondo practitioner" is more general and is probably a better compromise. Neither is incorrect BCampbell 20:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Answer: The Korean term for "Taekwondoist" is 跆拳道人 (태권도인, Taekwondoin). It's almost like the guy from the Philippines said above, except that the Korean equivalent for the Japanese jin (じん) is in (인). Taekwondoka is incorrect; someone probably tought that "if karate→karateka, then taekwondo→taekwondoka, but as far as I know, the ~ka suffix for "practitioner" is used in Japanese only, not Korean. Maybe someone fluent in Korean can confirm this. lampi 07:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

자 can be used interchangeably with 인, but whether that is the case here is still anybody's guess. -Lordraydens 16:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


In NZ, the accepted term (IN UNIZ at least) seems to be Taekwon-Do practitioner. =cJ=

Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art add yourself!

Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art


Awesome Taekwondo Demo

================

Anon Edit: Can't say I'm terribly impressed. most of the good jumping results in the person landing on their back/chest, which is not practical, and one of the two good mid-air multi-board breaks the guy actually has to jump off the backs of some people to get the height. While this is less "flashy", have a look at:

North Korean ITF Demo Team in Seoul - one practitioner breaks six boards (separate targets) one jump and lands on his feet.

Trolling?

Seems to me that there's a significant amount of subtle trolling in most sections of this page. Stuff like

"A focus on discipline, honor, good manners, self-confidence, and monthly payments."

"which techniques are taught vary from instructor to instructor, but you can best believe it will never be up to par"

and

"It is used in unarmed combat training in some armies (the French army, for instance, which is a horrible example for proving someone can fight, isn't it?)."

doesn't need to be there, surely? --Anonymous

Agreed. It's called NPOV.100110100 04:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Need for standardization

There are several problems with the text as it stands. I have fixed some of the most glaring problems, e.g., the failure to give a true martial arts benefactor even a minimal measure of due respect by capitalizing and properly spelling his name. There is no consistency in the way that the various forms of Korean martial arts are handled. Some are capitalized and some are not capitalized. The whole article needs to be gone over with attention to such issues so that it is consistent both within itself and is also consistent with Wikipedia standards. P0M 04:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


response to --Superninja 06:00, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Superninja, I assume that if you practice tae kwon do, you do so in an American dojang. At many of these establishments, aerobics and rapid belt advancement (to appease youngsters) take precedence over combat technique; tae kwon do in its original form is far more serious than the typical American suburban form.

The assertion that grappling martial arts are more successful in street fighting is untrue. Grappling techniques are only used by the law-enforcement officials because of an emphasis on fairly non-violently disarming criminals; percussive martial arts, which emphasize simply defeating an opponent, are therefore not used. Though practitioners of grappling martial arts have a clear advantage once the fight hits the ground, a competent tae kwon do practitioner wouldn't allow that to happen. Furthermore, unlike grappling, which requires full contact with the opponent, tae kwon do practitioners can deliver a knock-out kick from several feet away. Though there are certain advantages to grappling martial arts, the claim that they're superior to percussive arts is untenable. --D. Franklin 06:50, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with the intention behind what you say, I feel I should point out two things. The section a competent tae kwon do practitioner wouldn't allow that to happen edges towards being meaningless, as the definition of a competent practitioner becomes not being taken to the ground. It's easy to start excusing TKD practitioners being taken to the ground by then saying that they weren't competent. Situations can vary wildly, and it's impossible to state with any certainty that a person of style X would do a particular thing, or not let a particular thing to happen. You are right about the emphasis that law enforcement agencies have with control. Superninja's use of the UFC as an example is an interesting one. Grapplers did exceedingly well in the first few UFC tournaments because the other martial styles had forgotten their grappling elements, and they had no idea how to operate in that environment. These days, in UFC, everyone cross trains in both striking and grappling.
Secondly, and I know that you don't really mean this, so I'm mentioning it because I found it funny on first reading, unlike grappling, which requires full contact with the opponent, tae kwon do practitioners can deliver a knock-out kick from several feet away. reads like the TKD practitioner does not need to make contact in order to deliver a knock-out kick, as they can do it from several feet distant ;-) --SimonFr 09:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Response to "SimonFr 09:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC"
Yes, a competent TKD practitioner would not be taken to the ground unless he stepped on a roller-skate, or something. Since TKD emphasizes a fluid, mobile, somewhat unbalanced stance, the idea is to be able to position yourself ideally, making it impossible for an opponent to be able to grapple with you. While a truly competent fighter would have grappling knowledge, TKD techniques alone would suffice if used properly. As well, some grappling techniques that are found in TKD lean toward aikido more than true grappling. For example, a textbook maneuver in TKD is stepping aside from a rushing opponent, and pushing them past you, using their own momentum. Also, a COMPETENT practitioner rarely blocks directly: he redirects, accelerating the opponent's momentum and placing him off-balance. While these could be considered grappling techniques, practically they're not, since only minimal contact is used. I stand by my assertion. BTW, ha-ha to that second point; so much for that subtle, British wit!


Re-reading this, I perhaps wasn't clear. I'm not debating that TKD gives you the tools to do these things. I was attempting to point out a No_true_Scotsman fallacy. --SimonFr 14:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I know it were a long time ago anyone had this discussion, but my opinion in this matter is that if someone want to take the fight to the floor then the fight will end at the floor. TKD isn't a martial art that are learn't by people in UFC or K-1 because it's inefficency, the kicks are far too "flashy". You'll get an advantage over people who've never trained martial art, like in a street fight, because you have trained your condition and your speed(it's not an insurance for a win though, things can happen in a street fight which will make you lose, for example if someone pokes your eye out, kick you in your balls, draw a knife, gun or if there are multiple attackers you'll probably lose). When the guy above talks about blocking which redirects and "accelerate" the opponent's momentum I immediately think about what would happen if this guy meet an Muay Thai fellow. In Muay Thai you either block it with your whole body or you step out of range. Good luck with catching an low roundhouse thaikick. I've only seen one take-down failing miserably and that was when a fighter threw an knee against the grappler when he threw himself(dunno if it was luck or skill). K.O. instantly. Btw, if you fight in the pub for example, do you think the other guy will stand and try to smack you around? No, fights generally goes to the ground. And if your not a grappler and the other guy mounts you, then your pretty screwed. Can anyone mention ONE guy who practice TKD and fight in UFC? --NoNo 03:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
There was this guy, Patrick Smith who participated in UFC 1 & 2 and lost easily both times. It is difficult for practisioners of traditional martial arts to admit the fact that their styles are now obsolete. About going to the ground, I think every modern martial art should practise it, several statistics show that 90% of the street-fights end up on the ground. A nice example about the importance of this can be seen at Jeremy Bullock vs Travis Fulton. About TKD as a kicking-art, there is another nice example in this nice video. What this article also fails to mention is that in many places the TKD organizations care only about profit. A friend of mine is 4 Dan in TKD-ITF and once told me, "when you need to pay the rent, you make even your mother take the belt-exams.". Where I live people get a black belt in 3 years (or less...). While it takes 5,6 or even 15 years (like in BJJ) to reach that level... just my 2 cents (and sorry for my bad english)
Can you please provide what study/statistics proved that 90% of street fight goes to ground? I don't think there is any study done like that. But if you have any credible source or study that is done by actual Ph. D. let us all know. Also, if you want to promote BJJ, do it at BJJ page, not at TKD page. Also, how dare you to say TKD organization only cares about profit? What an insult! So are you learing BJJ for free? And are all other martial art other than TKD teaches for free? I don't think so. Don't say TKD is only for profit, that is just unfair. There are TKD practitioners who practice 5-6 years before getting black belt, also. Oh, if BJJ is that great and makes any people superman, have them go and compete at the TKD world championship, WTF style. They will not last more than a minute. If you want to say, have TKD fighters come and fight under UFC or Pride, why should they, if those competitions are basically made to benefit grapplers. The reason BJJ fighter will not fight under TKD is the same reason TKD fighters will not fight under BJJ rule. If you want to say there is no rule, that is a complete lie. No weapon? No biting? UFC is not the best example of what art is strongest. It's kind of like debating, hmmm who will win if a person fight with a sword and the other person fight with a spear. Well, it is very simple, if a sword guy can approach the spear guy before getting stabbed by spear, sword guy wins. If the spear guy stabbs first, he wins. In actual war, both weapons were used because there were situations that involve both weapons. So please stop discussing which martial art is better that which. It is all depend on situation.
It depends on the situation, as you said. So a guy who trains MMA is able to handle any situation, while a TKD practisioner can only launch kicks. For me TKD is like Capoheira, fun to see, but just that. Don't cheat yourselves.

Every situation is one of the best No-Lmits fallacies I've ever heard of. Are you saying that anyone In UFC knows a scret Anti Tzar-Bomb block? On a more serious level though, an MMA fighter usually trains more than one art, and a quite common combination of these are Muay Thai and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, or Tae Kwon Do and Hapkido and/or Aikido. It's not some magical spell that you cast to defeat your opponent. And as to wether a BJJ guy would lose in a WTF figh, well. DUH. No takedowns means his main weapon is effectively removed. Which again means that he will lose. I don't consider myself an expert on BJJ or anything, but isn't the "main fight plan" of BJJ to take 'em down and give them hell? MMA isn't a term used for people who have done Muay Thai and BJJ, but for people who crosstrains in different styles, which makes an MMA > TKD comparison invalid. And where I'm from, the MA clubs tends to operate very differently than what you describe. Teachers get expenses covered, but don't get paid, and the clubs aer idealistic clubs that don't make money. That goes for both Karate, TKD, JJ, Judo and so on. And as to the complaint that it took too short time to achieve 1st Dan in TKD, that might be because a 1st Dan means something different in TKD than in BJJ. In TKD, Gup = n00b so to speak. So 1st Dan means simply that you're no longer new at this. It does by no means mean mastery. EDIT: I forgot to sign. I'm still new at this, so bear with me... HaakonKL

Rewrite?

It seems to me that much of this article could be rewritten, not for content but for grammar and readability. Perhaps getting rid of some of the invented words would be good too. --TheDaveRoss 07:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Also the article starts off with the two accepted spellings variations, "Taekwondo" and "Tae Kwon Do" but then procedes to use "taekwondo" and "tae kwon do" along with the other two throughout. It would be ideal if each accepted variant were listed at the beginning and then one form chosen for use elsewhere in the text.


I also agree. The article makes little mention of Chung Do Kwan and none (?) of Moo Duk Kwan or any of the other original schools. But my real problem with the current version of the article is something that most people who belong to ITF and WTF schools don't even consider. ITF and WTF each have their set of standards which are followed more or less, but there is little standardization in the other schools if any at all. For example, I am a student at a reputable school which describes itself as teaching Chung Do Kwan, and yet my style is not the same as that of the Sells' Chung Do Kwan school, as far as I know.
The problem is that tae kwon do is no longer a single martial art. It is three or four similar ones. Therefore, I suggest that we break this down in the following format:
  • History
  • Belts (specifically black belts, with mention of the fact that colored belts are not standardized at all)
  • Features common to all styles
  • Styles (with a subsection for each sub-style: WTF, each ITF, Chung Do Kwan, Moo Duk Kwan, Tang Soo Do, etc)
We really, really need to do some serious hands-on research. I've learned that little of the information available online about tae kwon do is accurate. Perhaps we can attempt to interview some people who might no more? --aciel 01:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


Actually it is simple. Instead of using WTF, use Kukkiwon. WTF is just a tournament committe, Kukkiwon is the martial art style of Taekwondo. ITF is very small, and is basically the same as the old Oh Do Kwan, before it merged into Kukkiwon.

As for Chung Do Kwan, it is not a style anymore and has not been for many years now. The current President (Um Woon Kyu) and Vice-President (Hae Man Park) will agree that Chung Do Kwan, which they lead, is now a fraternal friendship club that endorses the Kukkiwon curriculum. If you would like to research this yourself, simply write a letter to the Chung Do Kwan President and ask. --Bigzilla 07:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not encyclopedic writing style

"If you want to join the Martial Arts to learn how to defend yourself and that of your loved ones, Taekwondo should be the very last art you look into. As it states above it is a great sport. Its great for kids, and for fun, but dont be fooled into thinking it even ranks *average* when it comes to combat viability."

Someone scrap it. The anony user is still on right now, I don't want to do it, lest he revert. --24.76.141.237 03:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Karate is not Japanese. It is a martial art of the Ryukyu Kingdom based on Chinese Shaolin and various fighting styles of southeast Asia used to fight Japanese pirates. karate or Karati means "China Hand". It was Introduced in 1927 to Japan and the japanese took "credit" for it and changed the chinese characters to mean "Empty hand". Can someone please change the Japanese ownership of Karate as an influence for Taekwondo. The Japanese have no right to Karate. Carlos

Karate (it is Karate and not Karati, i haven't never seen this form ) means in Uchinaguchi (language of Okinawa, very close to Japanese) and Japanese: "Empty Hand"; the ancient name of the traditional fighting disciplines from Okinawa which were developed from Shaolin Kungfu is "Tôde", which means "Tang's Hand"; Karate was created by Funakoshi by mixturing Tôde (mostly Shurite style) with somethings from traditional Japanese Budô, in order to create the Japanese "national" Martial art, in 1936 named it "Karatedô".

Please sign your postings. (Use ~~~~.)

The explanation above is a little imprecise. The original kanji that were written were different from the kanji that Funakoshi Gichin himself changed to. The original characters were the ones for the "Tang" dynasty (and so acted as a stand-in for China since Tang times was when Japan borrowed lots of new stuff from China) and "hand." The first one was changed by Funakoshi san to the kara that means "empty." Funakoshi san was Okinawan and he learned his karate from his teachers who had already modified the "Tang hand" that they had learned from the Chinese. There were probably some inputs from Japan at this early time even though a main reason for the development of Karate was that the Japanese maintained control over Okinawa and forbade them from possession of swords and other weapons. (That's also the reason that so many agricultural implements get used in this martial arts tradition. Spears were forbidden, but a farmer might a flail or a sickle.) The only real "contribution" from the Japanese side that I know of was that the Japanese on Okinawa could have swords and other such weapons and the Okinawans could not -- so many karate techniques are for use by an unarmed person defending himself/herself against an armed person. The only thing that I can think of that might appear to be of specifically Japanese origin are some controls used in Aikido, but those controls are also present in Qinna (ch'in-na), and probably came into Okinawa directly from China.

Now whether the kata of Karate went from Okinawa to Korea or from Okinawa to Japan to Korea seems to me irrelevant except in one possible respect. The Japanese treatment of some of the open-hand martial arts, e.g. Shaolin quan or, as they call it, Shorinji kempo, places more emphasis on the esthetics of the movements. It may be that the Korean interest in things like side thrust kicks that are aimed so high that they give the defender a perfect shot at the testicles of the kicker betrays a Japanese shift toward the esthetic and away from the practical.

One other thing: Okinawan style differs from both Chinese and Japanese in that in the latter two cultures fights were more likely to be hand to hand or weapon to weapon, and in either case the technically superior fighter had the luxury of being merciful to an opponent by, e.g., trapping, controlling, and giving a headstrong opponent time to consider the error of his ways. In a situation where an unarmed person was defending against an armed person the tendency would have been to be very conservative in offering the attacker a good target, and very much geared to disabling if not killing outright at the first opportunity. That's the origin of the "one-strike kill" ideal of karate. P0M 17:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand, sorry about that. "Karati" and "Ryukyuti" are the original names of Karate in the Shuri dialect of Uchinaaguchi. "Ti" means hand or martial art. "te" is japanese. ~~Carlos~~.

There is no eveidence of what you say. Gichin Funakoshi, Kenwa Mabuni, Kanken Toyama and others stated that the art was called "Tote", like TOE-TI in Okinawan dialet. Later it was changed to "Kute".--Bigzilla 07:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Olympic sparring rules

It seems that this page would be much improved with an addition (or a seperate page) devoted to the rules of WTF Olympic sparring. For anyone not familiar with the sport aspect of TKD, this would be very helpful. I know 2008 is a few years away, but hopefully there'll be more media coverage and it'd be great if there was a resource for anyone trying to figure out what's going on. Any refs/coaches/competitors out there who want to take on the task? I'll be glad to help out though it's been a while since I've competed and the rules have changed recently...

This would probably be best on a separate page. The rules change frequently, so a complete listing of rules is probably not practical or desirable, but general formats and rules -- i.e., scoring, judging, penalities, match structures -- could be covered. I suppose it would be a good idea to more strictly define what the main entry should be for.BCampbell 14:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

spelling, etc

is there still a live debate about the spelling Taekwondo? it seems to make sense to standardize it now as Taekwondo, since due to the Olympic exposure, most people are thinking of WTF Taekwondo. also, the history section seemed to overemphasize the details of itf tkd, when in reality, the article actually needs more info on olympic tkd rules, as the above person said.Appleby 19:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Standardization is good, and that seems to be an accepted spelling. There are plenty of people that prefer tae kwon do, but we need to pick one. Also, is there a specific reason you removed the text "Tae Kwon Do is used in unarmed combat training in some armies, such as those of France, Vietnam, the Republic of Korea, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, with ITF being much more popular in North Korea, and WTF much more popular in South Korea (and actually world wide compared to ITF)."? I'm not aware that it's factually incorrect, but if it is that should be noted. As far as ITF vs. WTF, both are popular and should be covered in this article. If you're concerned about NPOV, feel free to point out specific areas where it's missing -- if it's missing in the history section, add information about how the WTF has shaped TKD. Again, clarification about the purpose of the main entry is needed; WTF and ITF have their own entries (along with ATA).BCampbell 14:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
when i first saw the sentence about army training in france, rok, & dprk, i just added vietnam from what i remembered. then i saw a comment above by someone, noting suspicious trolling language throughout the article, including possibly this sentence. i tried to google for confirmation of current use in the military of france or vietnam, but couldn't find any, though i didn't look very hard. i just felt it that it should be out until confirmed, although i have no objection about the latter part, about itf in dprk & wtf in rok.
also, i'm sure you know, the wtf recalls the history of modern tkd very differently from the itf, the timeline seemed to be mostly from the itf timeline, with maybe too many specifics for this article, & not enough about the wtf in the recent couple decades. i personally think choi hong hi is getting a raw deal considering his contributions, but the timeline will look odd to someone comingly from wtf. i'll try to add more as i have time, although i think the article is already too long, since as you point out itf & wtf already have own entries. Appleby 16:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The changes to the army training section sound good to me then, but it would be something to keep in mind for future research. As for the history, there does seem to be a fine line between what should be in the main entry and what should go into the specific organization entries. Maybe the main entry should have information that both major organizations agree upon, with a note that the indiviual pages have a deeper explanation of each organization's history.
Overall, this seems to be a hairy topic because so much of the history of TKD is arguable and lots of people are given information via word of mouth. Finding some good, documented sources would be a good idea. I don't want to propose reformatting this entire entry, but perhaps a larger conversation should be started to pin down exactly what the purpose of the main entry vs. related entries should be.BCampbell 17:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

i tried to make the article a bit more concise, clean & readable, except i haven't cleaned up the belts section yet. i think it could use a overview paragraph on forms & a section on the olympic sparring rules, & possibly brief summaries of the different kwons, if anyone wants to add them. Appleby 23:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything arguable yet, but I'll have to sleep on it. I still think a major reorganization of the entry as a whole is needed. It appears to me that this should focus on two main topics: Taekwondo historically, and Taekwondo today. It's hard to pin down the historical truth, and unfortunately it's just as hard to pin down any sweeping throughs about the art today because of its popularity. If enough people hack at this, I'm sure it will eventually all be sorted out.BCampbell 01:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Olympic rules

The rules that were present sounded as if they were ripped straight from the rulebook, and thus were hard to read for the layperson. I tried to make them easier to read and reorganize them. It's still a very long section, considering what's in it and that it may be worthy of it's own entry. BCampbell 20:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

thanks, needed some help with that. i did shorten it a lot, but it reads much better now. article could use still more cleaning up, i think. i thought about a separate entry, but what would it consist of, except a cut & paste of the actual rules? unless someone with olympic sparring experience can add some insight, which i can't. Appleby 21:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Good point, it would be relaly tough to write without editorializing. We'll see if anyone else stumbles across this and thinks it needs changes. I don't see any reason this couldn't eventually be a featured article. BCampbell 21:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

history changes

i think the recent wholesale changes to the history section are for the worse ... much too centered on one individual, when many others can claim large contributions. the previous version was much more objective, factual, concise. Appleby 14:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Full of nonsense on history section

First, if Taekwondo "refers to Korean martial arts as a whole", why do you call Taekyon as Taekyon, Ssirum as Ssirum, Soobak as Soobak, and Gumdo as Gumdo, while you can call it all as "Taekwondo"? It's nothing but self-contradictory nonsense. Taekwondo is not a general term for martial arts(there is a term for it as Moosul), but a proper noun for the name of one kind of martial arts.

Second, there is absolutely no relation between Taekwondo and Taekyon, except the similarity in the name. The name "Taekwondo" is actually stealing of sound from Taekyon, to create a make-believe of Taekwondo as a traditional martial arts. Choi Hong Hi's autobiography and testimonies of other surviving founders of Taekwondo verifies this fact. It was completely Choi's idea of changing name of Karate of their style(I'll explain this later).

The only person who claimed to learned Taekyon among the founders of Taekwondo is Choi Hong Hi, and the only fragment of Taekyon applied *only on ITF Taekwondo* is Jjae-Chagi, which is kicking from inside to outside. It is also known that early Taekwondo(1950~60's) didn't have this kind of technique, which emphasize the doubt that it is added later to make false connection between their martial arts and the traditional martial art.

Taekyon was completely forgotton during the end of Japanese occupation, only found as name in the book "Man Mul Bo" and some other materials. Japanese prohibited Taekyon and Ssirum during these times. Movement of finding Taekyon was started in 1961 by Shin Han Sung(also known as Shin Sung). Only two people(Song Duk Ki/Kim Hong Shik) could perform Taekyon, and Shin Han Sung learned from them. Song Duk Ki and Shin Han Sung was the only people who could perform Taekyon when it got the classification "Important Intangible Cultural Asset No. 76" in June 1, 1983.(Kim Hong Shik died before that) It is the only korean martial art which possesses such a classification.

Third, every person of the founders of Taekwondo is Karate black belt. I can even tell their style of Karate; they were all black belts in Shotokan Karate. In the Masutatsu Oyama's biography, he tried to merge Taekwondo and his Kyokushin Karate. If Taekwondo was not Karate, how could he think about merging two different martial arts? Have you ever thought about merging Taichi with Kickboxing, or Capoeira with boxing? Also Oyama Matsudasu's Karate books were used for teaching people in early Taekwondo. Can you teach Kendo with Boxing books? If you ever seen Taekyon, You'll never think about it.

I've been learning Taekyon, and I can't bear this kind of falsehood running around people's head.

if you're new to wikipedia, welcome. not that i'm exactly a veteran myself. please be sure to type ~~~~ at the end of your comment, to sign & date.
i think you can get the general sense even from browsing this talk section, a lot of people have detailed knowledge of a certain aspect of tkd, but nobody really wants to get down to doing the hard research to make this a scholarly, professional article. you can see from history that i tried to do a lot of work on it, not by researching from scratch, but at least cleaning up the wording & organization of the article.
the problem is, as an encyclopedia, this article has to consist of info from citable, reputable sources, & there just aren't that many, if any. like most martial arts, there are official organization sites, fan sites, commercial sites, & "anti" sites, but virtually no objective, scholarly sources. i'm not doubting your information, but if you start major editing of the article, you will find that other people are just as convinced, with as just as much detail, that a different version is true. unfortunately for us, but for very good reasons, we can't cite personal knowledge, or even personal original research, for wikipedia. see wikipedia policy on verifiability & no original research.
unless you are ready to back up major changes with authoritative citations that will convince people who don't share your views, i think the best we can do is basically maintain the current content, the result of countless interested people fighting it out for a long time.
having said that, by no means am i discouraging you from contributing. i made some moderate changes myself, having done some serious googling, & my changes were not objected to. if you do have convincing sources & can defend it, "be bold," as they say. but remember everyone's entitled to their convictions, the problem is verifying it under wikipedia policy. Appleby 03:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

found a nicer photo; anybody know how to link it?

i think this is a much better photo: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Taekwondo_Fight_01.jpg anyone who knows how, could you replace one of the existing images? Appleby 16:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC) You mean like this? ;-) P0M 04:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony Jaa comment

Tony Jaa - Taekwondo?

So then if anyone is found using a roundhouse kick must be employing taekwondo technique is that what you're saying?

It is a fact that Tony Jaa has extensive training in Taekwondo. A large chunk of the kicks seen in Ong-Bak are clearly TKD in nature. To deny the impact of Taekwondo on his fighting style would be naive. TKD kicking techniques are extremely popular in film, "Muay Thai warriors" included. -- Phil, 12/28/05

Martial arts category for Wikipedians

A new category for those interested in martial arts has been created at Category:Wikipedians_interested_in_martial_arts. To add yourself, simply copy the following code to the bottom of your own user page:

[[Category:Wikipedians interested in martial arts|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]]

Shawnc 11:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Style

Everyone,

I'm very concerned by this article. There is a great deal of controversy concerning WTF, the various ITF schools, and the other schools of Tae Kwon Do. There is no scholarly history that I can find by searching Google scholar or any journals my school (Virginia Tech) gives me access to.

I would propose that we split this article up into several smaller articles. The current article would become:

  • History of Taekwondo - Tae Kyon, Karate influence on TKD, and the five original schools; then, the splits which resulted in ITF and WTF and other contemporary schools.

Then we could have one article discussing WTF Taekwondo, another discussing the ITF schools, and one for each of the other modern styles (Tang Soo Do, Chung Do Kwan, etc).

Most schools use the names that come from their masters, who may have changed the style to reflect a completely different style. For example, Chung Do Kwan today may describe a very WTF/Olympic style or a much more ITF/karate-like style. We may want to have the pages revolve around the origin of the name rather than the style, and then we can have a section for each distinct version of each name (e.g., one for ITF-like Chung Do Kwan, another for WTF-like CDK, etc).

The reason, as I skimmed over before, is that Tae Kwon Do is essentially (these days) just a Korean word for punching-and-kicking martial arts. Tae Kyon is more like Capoiera or Shaolin than Tae Kwon Do; Tang Soo Do, which isn't really grouped with Tae Kwon Do, is more like many Tae Kwon Do styles than many other Tae Kwon Do styles. This is going to take a great deal of original research and a lot of open minds. As I said, there is no consensus on the history of Tae Kwon Do, so it's going to require some original research.

If no one has replied to this by mid-December, I suspect I'll get started on it myself. It would be nice, though, if someone would consider applying for a Fulbright Scholarship to more carefully examine the history of the art. That might be difficult given the current political climate, but it would be a good idea. --aciel 02:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I just want to encourage you. There are a number of issues like this where the factions involved seem to put partisan concerns before objective facts or impartiality. Getting an article on such a topic to NPOV encyclopedic standards is harder in such cases. I just have two small suggestions. [1] Call the "ITF-like" categories "traditional" and the "WTF-like" categories "modern sport" (or something similar). [2] Don't use holdovers from the deservedly ridiculed Ministry of Education Romanization system for spelling Korean words, such as separating words like "Taekwondo" into syllables ("Tae Kwon Do").
This is another matter, but ideally Wikipedia should also avoid spelling atrocities such as MOE's (and RR's) rendering of ㅓ as "eo," a historical mistake based on an erroneous assumption about the French spelling of 서울 as se-oul, which Koreans incorrectly assumed was seo-ul (reported in an academic journal edited by David McCann - I believe it was The Journal of Korean Studies). I will have to review the contents of that article and post the relevant points on Wikipedia; it seems that the most egregious shortcomings of RR have never been discussed here.
-DoctorW 07:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd worry about bias even in referring to ITF as traditional and WTF as modern sport. I mean, I obviously feel that ITF is traditional, and WTF is sport, but it would take a lot of reverts to keep people from modifying that. And unfortunately, I speak no Korean. Is Taekwondo actually one word in Korean? My understanding was Do was from Tao, or way, and Tae and Kwon were hand and foot, respectively. Or is it a compound word? --aciel 15:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
My point was simply that categories being named "ITF-like" and "WTF-like" are not really good literary style, and that some acceptable characterization that is descriptive needs to be found. -DoctorW 22:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
i see your point with this article needing work, but i think taking an incremental approach would be less likely to create revert backlash. general readers are going to type taekwondo & expect to see an overview of the complete history, from vague ancient connections to the modern politicking, & some details on how it is practiced. we already have itf & wtf articles, which can definitely use some more work, & some of the content here can me moved to either of them. i'd like to see separate articles on the five original schools, too. but i don't see a need to totally rewrite this main article now.
also, about spelling, as background: the korean word 태권도 is written without spaces in hangul, but hangul is sometimes transliterated into english with spacing or hyphens for pronunciation, disambiguatin, or just because there was no universally used transliteration system. today, there is a widely used official transliteration system (please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)). rr has been adopted by consensus for korea-related wikipedia articles.
however, there is a separate issue of loanwords, like kimchi or chaebol, that have been adopted into english with a certain set spelling that needs to be preserved, because the overriding consideration in wikipedia is the most common english spelling. i think taekwondo without spacing has become the standard spelling because of the recent publicity of wtf/olympics style, & because the spacing is consistent with rr. i think Tang Soo Do qualifies as a loanword & spelling should be preserved, even if inconsistent. but please remember this is not a simple black & white issue, & try not to be dogmatic, as transcription is a complex issue. Appleby 17:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I will attempt to phrase my arguments a bit more specifically.
  • First paragraph is completely inadequate for describing Taekwondo. TKD is, today, not even a couple of styles of martial arts. It's two separate things. Olympic sparring is a sport. ITF and Tang Soo Do are martial arts and not sports so much. To attempt to put them in one category is basically like comparing fruits and vegetables--they're all plants but clearly dissimilar.
  • The third paragraph attempts to justify putting both the sport and the martial art in the same article. "In general, they are..." This is a cop-out. It's not that the material in the paragraph is wrong--it's just that it is creating a comparison of two unalike things as the central point of the article. This comparison should exist, but not as a central point. That's not encyclopedic. This suggests that we should split the article into sport TKD and martial art TKD.
  • In History, where are the parenthetical citations, by the way? Chung Do Kwan TKD is directly descended from Shotokan Karate, not Subok or Taekyon. This does not mean that ALL of TKD is descended from Shotokan, or even that all of it has influence, which the article suggests it does.
  • The large part of the article focuses on Kukkiwon rules and Olympic sparring anyway. This has nothing to do at all with ITF or the other schools.
You say that we already have pages for ITF and WTF. What I meant was that we should have pages for TKD as a sport and TKD as a martial art. They are separate.
Any changes that are made are going to result in countless reverts, regardless. Can we at least put together a draft of a bunch of new pages? There's just too much vested interest and bias in this article to merely fix it. --aciel 18:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

i actually agree with what you say about the content that should be in the article(s). but as a practical matter of organizing articles, people will expect the main taekwondo article to treat various forms & versions of what people mean when they say taekwondo. afaik, all encyclopedias treat tkd as a sport & martial art in one article, for a good reason. detailed sub-articles are welcome, & kukkiwon rules & full olympic sparring details can go into a seprate sub-article, but the main article needs to be a broad, general article about the topic as a whole, because that's what people use encyclopedias for. Appleby 19:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Then we're more or less talking about the same thing, just...glass half full, or glass half empty. =) --aciel 21:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I also agree with the general approach you two have mentioned for this article.
On the question of whether taekwondo is a compound word, the vast majority of words (especially terms) in the vast majority of topical vocabularies in Korean are loanwords from Chinese, all of which are compound words.
A hyphen (or space) in taekwondo does not help with pronunciation or disambiguation. And this spelling (with no hyphen) has been the standard spelling for decades (and arguably also agrees with a version of RR and of McR). Sometimes hyphens worsen pronunciation, as they make Americans think the vowel is short. Even so, they were used between every syllable of the system that RR was revised from, the MOE (Ministry of Education) system (some "official" systems were simply inferior by any intelligent, well-informed standard). Some spellings made up by Koreans living in America (or uninformed Americas "sounding it out") do not follow any published system, ignore international conventions, and are misleading. I think it's quite clear that the word taekwondo qualifies as a word that has entered the English vocabulary with a particular spelling (and the spelling doesn't contradict RR or McR anyway). There are some words, however, that are not widely used in English (even though they can be found on the web), and that have never been spelled in a reasonable way. (An example might be some of the Korean words that are used by some Taekwondo practitioners, though many of these are spelled variously.) It is inaccurate to say that "there was no universally used transliteration system," if a somewhat flexible and real-world (rather than dogmatic) meaning of "universal" is used, perhaps something like "universal employment" (95%). In Korea, politics and power gave us a situation that seemed to undervalue the main purpose - helping those who couldn't read Korean with a way to say the words as closely as possible to the correct pronunciation - and gave us vaccilations from idiosyncratic spellings to MOE, McR, and recently RR. So if we set that aside, McCune-Reischaer has been the standard system since its invention in 1937 among virtually all Korean scholars and those who publish about all Korean topics (except linguists who want a more precise method for their purposes, who use the Martin, or so-called "Yale," system). As I mentioned before, there are important issues in relation to McR and especially RR that have never been discussed on Wikipedia as far as I can find. I hope no one here considers that matter "closed." -DoctorW 23:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. I thought the spaces were to show that the middle syllable doesn't necessarily have the accent. A lot of people who don't practice the art/sport say TaeKWONdo, and my understanding is that it's more TAEKWONDO... or at least, I can't find where I put the accent on it. --aciel 05:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

korean doesn't have any accented syllables. because formal romanization was not known by most people, spacing & hyphenation was more or less random, i think, & various forms, tae kwon do, taekwon-do, etc, with various capitalizations., were used, until taekwon-do was standardized by itf, & taekwondo was standardized by wtf, afaik. Appleby 06:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Bigzilla here. There is no comparison of the WTF and ITF. To say that ITF is tradition, is really missing the big picture. First off, the WTF is not a style, like Gen. Choi wanted people to believe. The Kukkiwon sets the curriculum and trains instructors in Taekwondo, not the WTF. The WTF is nothing more than a full service tournament committee, and it serves a very different function from the Kukkiwon. The Kukkiwon curriculum contains everything that most Karate like organizations contain. Forms, Breaking, Mom ma ki (hoshinsul), and many different types of sparring.

People wrongly confuse the Kukkiwon with the WTF. This is partly because of the propaganda of Gen Choi, and partly because the one type of Kukkiwon sparring, called Shihap Kyorugi, or match sparring, was accepted by the WTF nations, and finally by the IOC as an Olympic event. WTF does not set these standards, they just approved of the Kukkiwon standard.

--Bigzilla 03:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Or, brigzilla, perhaps the fact that Schools themselves market themselves as WTF schools might have something to do with it? Or perhaps it is just the mighty propaganda apparatus of Chong Hi that's so good that he has obviously made them believe it as well? Oh, and if the WTF is just a tournament commitee, then the name is very misleading indeed, since it refers to a federation, and not a committee. Especially when ITF means a federation of schools that teach the same curriculum, and then WTF is something completely different. And since to the average layperson, the Kukkiwon and the WTF are more or less indistinguishable, (The Kukkiwon seemingly lays out the curriculum, whereas the WTF makes the tournaments where they compete in the rules and curriculum that the Kukkiwon made.) this just adds even more to the confusion. So General Chong Hi's evil propaganda machines cannot wholly be blames... Oh, yes, references to Chong Hi's evil propaganda machine and Chong Hi as evil were sarcastic, and not to be taken seriously. HaakonKL 09:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia not the place for single club links

An encyclopedia is not the appropriate place for links to a single club (New Hampshire/Massachusetts; Montreal; or Mendoza, Argentina, etc.). The Singapore club justified its presence by saying links could be found on their site to General Choi's Encyclopedia of Taekwondo; I changed it to the correct link to go directly to the encyclopedia.

If someone can tell me why there are 3 "official" ITF sites, and why their international headquarters seems to be in 3 places (Canada, Austria, and England), I would appreciate it.

The "Scholarly history" was a dead link.

-DoctorW 02:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

"Tang Soo Do" and "Tangsoodo" are incorrectly spelled. It doesn't matter whether the error is widely committed; an encyclopedia has to use a spelling that can be defended as correct. This rendering is what has been called the American-enlisted-man's-back-of-the-envelope Romanization as a slap against the ignorance of international spelling conventions that is reflected. Eventually all the spellings on Wikipedia will have to be corrected, even if they don't agree with the the way some martial arts instructor from Korean first jotted it down on the corner of schedule. -DoctorW 06:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

please see above. language by its nature involves corruptions and illogical evolution, as american english demonstrates. wikipedia policy is to use the most common english word, balanced with the official rr system that korean wikipedia article editors have adopted at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). personally, i think Tang Soo Do can be characterized as a loanword. Appleby 17:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

TKD History

Want to know the history of TKD. It's Shotokan Karate. Do you want more than google research? Go get any early TKD book and compare that with Shotokan book. It's identical. I want to see how long before someone own up and write history of TKD as a part of Karate lineage. FWBOarticle

No kidding, General Choi trained in Karate before he was involved in the development of TKD. You'd have to be pretty simplistic to not recognise that that's going to have influenced him.
Read the above statement carefully. It's not saying early TKD book is "similar". It's saying it's "identical". Go through few martial arts forums. There are few comments by those who learned TKD in 70s. They are later suprised to discover that their entire TKD forms are identical to Shotokan kata. TKD's Korean root is fiction invented to cover up the fact that TKD is a Korean variation of Karate. Wikipedia should not be a soapbox for Korean identity politics. Vapour
I don't think there is any secret about the fact that Shotokan was brought back to Korea by one or more people who studied it, probably in Japan. It is conceivable that somebody brought it from Okinawa to Korea, but I think the Shotokan kata were probably defined, or at least redefined, by Funakoshi San in Japan. Whatever the pathway, the kata that I saw performed in the early 70s by a Taekwondo blackbelt in the Denver area were either my Shotokan kata, kata that were half one Shotokan kata and half another Shotokan kata, or kata that I had never seen before that were identified as members of "the new set of kata." So things have changed in Korea. For one thing, the Taekwondo version of zenkutsudachi that is being taught by a University school where I am now would get a very rude reception at the hands of my Japanese karate instructors and probably all my different Chinese quan-fa teachers, the reason being that the back leg is bent and the back heel is raised from the ground leaving the back foot on tip-toe.
Since Shotokan karate goes back to Okinawa and from there back to two styles in China, it is interesting to look at what has happened to one of them, Shao Lin quan, when it got to Japan. It is still recognizably the "same" style, but the esthetic component has been emphasized to the detriment of fighting power. Tang2 shou3 became kara te in the Japanese version of that term, but apparently also a Korean version called something like tang soo do, and I believe that it derives primarily from Shao Lin quan. Whatever it actually traces back to, it would be interesting to see how it has been reinterpreted in Korea. One of the things that happens when styles cross borders is that they may incorporate new techniques that were already present in indigenous fighting schools. Probably some elements of karate derive from Japanese sword fighting and unarmed defense against sword fighting. Similar changes may have occurred in Korea.
It would be nice if some responsible person with a good library on Korean MA would straighten out any kinks or hitches in the history of this MA. P0M 00:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Tangsoodo is just korean reading of karatedo in kanji. When TKD kata is reduced to each technique, it just a collection of karate techniques. There is nothing in TKD techinque which you can't find it in karate and vice versa. Karate was influenced by kendo, not in the sence of techniques but in the sence that Funakoshi adopted competition format from kendo, which ironically evolved into olympic sport under korean bland. TKD is a (shotokan) karate style with emphais on Korean naming (identity politics), kicking (to claim association of takeyon which is a folk game not martial arts and was considered extinct at that time) and olympic (for national prestege). A fine example of nationalism and anti japanese sentiment overriding art's merit as martial arts. As of karate, my understanding is that Five Ancestors style and White crane have sanchi-no-kata, though in this case, there are some difference in expression of stance and sequence of techniques. If anyone is honest enough, TKD history should start from Chinese Fujian provice, Okinawa, Japan then to post war Korea. The current wikipedia page is a joke. FWBOarticle
Eh. I think you may be misunderstanding some of it. My style is Chung Do Kwan, which is definitely descended directly from Shotokan, but most modern Taekwondo is not at all like karate any longer. --aciel 06:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
"Modified Taekyon kick in linear form" = "Karate kick reblanded as Korean". When did karate become a boxing? Adding more high spining kick in form (just to suit Taekyon narrative) and alterling flavour of stance probably make TKD different from Shotokan karate. But does that make TKD "unique" from Karate or just a variation of Karate style developed in Korea. As I said, when TKD form is reduced to collections of techniques, it is identical to collection of karate techniques. This can't be said about (non Okinawan) Karate and Kung Fu. Still, TKD and Karate should be recognised as what it is, part of (Fujian) Kung Fu lineage. This three kindom BS have to go. FWBOarticle
Not all Karate Ryu came from Fujian Kung Fu. One style, Liu Wei (in Chinese Pinyin) Ryu, was founded by a Shangdong martial who was a military attache to Ryukyu. There are over 200 different Karate styles in Japan alone. Some styles from the Japanese Shorin Tempo also called themselvs Karate Do now, but their style is distinctly Hebei lineage. As for Kyukushin Style, the influence of Hebei lineage is very prominent, not only in kicks, standing meditation, leg exercises, etc, but also in iron palm practice, fingers training, etc. There are also two Fujian styles which are obviously Northern Chinese in origin, one is called "Gou Quan" (Dog Style) and the other is simply called "Di Tang Quan" (Ground Lying Style), which is predominatly in central Hebei.

Karolus 2006_05_02

====================================================
Plus, when the official governing body and TKD instructors (who's pbobably been lied to as well) are prepared to propagate such blatantly factually incorrect narrative, how much credibility can you give to narrative of Subak, Taekyon, Yusul and Hwarang?
I studied Wado for a while with Kurubane San, a good friend of my Shotokan teacher. There were little differences between Wado and Shotokan, but they both traced their techniques back to Funakoshi San. There are some things in Shotokan that derive from Okinawa tradition that I never liked very much when I was learning, but I could not understand them at the time. My critque was that everything was "one strike kills" -- a plan of action that you don't want to implement when dealing with an out-of-control teenager in a disciplinary school. For those kids some of my Crane teacher's techniques, some qin-na techniques, some aikido techniques, were preferable. There are actually some qin-na techniques in some Shotokan kata, but you'd have trouble spotting them from the sidelines. My point is just that special circumstances in Okinawa made their definition of kata, techniques, etc., different from what they got from China. By the same token, my Shotokan teachers would disapprove of many of the Korean modifications, and I think that Aciel is right to say that present-day Taekwondo has morphed quite a bit.
Some of the things that you see in aikido are also present in qin-na, but some are not. I would be fascinated to know the history of aikijutsu. I suspect that it may have come from qin-na, but, on the other hand, my neighbors and I invented on aikido technique on our own (I guess). It's just that the human body can only bend and twist so many different way, and if you start experimenting around with what you can do to a person who aggressively gives you a hand you can easily discover a few of the vanilla qin-na or aikido techniques. On the other hand, lore of the field says that much of aikido came about by trying to figure out how an unarmed person can overcome an attacker with a sword.
My memory is that at least some of the post World War II masters in Korea openly credited Shotokan karate. There must be books somewhere that detail their accounts and could be cited in the Taikwondo article. I know that Mr. Charles Bewley told me that he knew the old Taikwondo forms that were like my Shotokan forms, but I think he said he had only learned them when he went to Korea, and that they were not being taught anymore, at least as an active part of the beginning curriculum. P0M 03:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
According to Chong Hi, Taekwondo was a mix of Shotokan and Taekyon, and there was also a great controversy about the naming.

Everybody liked the name, but they felt it might have been disrespectful of Taekyon. So they asked the president of South Korea, who gave his OK. So I'm not going to say ITF has nothing in common with Shotokan, but it's a different MA, and should be treated as a different MA. Oh, and Hwarang-Tul is not from Shotokan, although the other Tuls were. I do not know how this has changed though. And there are a lot of things in TKD, which are not in Shotokan, like the Down-Up-Down movement. Also, the flashy kicks that were not good for actual fighting were discussed, and was pointed to older Korean history, where people competing in Taekyon would try not to hurt eachother so that they wouldn't end up facing the harsh rerisals of the day. To overcome this problem, they created contests that would exersize skill, as well as not being dangerous. Thus they made patterns, and did kicks that were difficult to do. This was also one of the reasons of including patterns in TKD, and also a reason to train in difficult kicks, like the now infamous 540 kick. It is more an exersize in skill then a real combat kick. To be able to pull it off, you need a lot of speed, agility and skill. Just as an example of Taekyon/Older Korean thinking influences on TKD HaakonKL 09:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

WTF

Excuse me, but is it just me, or are all the images on this page from WTF? ITF have two patches on our doboks (I think thats how you spell it) and none of the people have that. It would be good to have a image of WTF and an ITF one side by side to show the discintion. 220.239.150.90 05:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC) you are right the pictures are all WTF

It's not just the pictures, the rank system seems to be WTF too, as is the tul section. cJ

Belt Section

I rewrote the belt section entirely (though keeping most of the previous data points), and removed the cleanup tag.

I think a primary question of interest to people that don't do TKD is, "What is the order of colors in belts?" But it's hard to give a definitive answer to that, since the "belt system" for TKD varies so much between school and school. I tried to emphasize this in the article, while still answering the question using the "traditional" color system, common to both the ITF and WTF. Although individual schools may vary, it will at least provide a baseline of commonality between schools.

I also added in information about the time it takes to progress between Dan grades (which is normally one year per current Dan level). I'm not as familiar with the ITF system, but I believe that generally holds in ITF schools as well. If I'm wrong, somebody please correct me.

Also, I was considering adding a note that the actual Dan level to be considered a "Master" seems to vary between schools as well. In Tang Soo Do (which I started in before I graduated from college and transfered to a TKD school) the actual flag of TSD has a picture of the Master's Belt on it, which is set at 5th Dan (and doesn't look like a normal "Black Belt"), which is why some schools set Master at 5th Dan instead of 6th (which is the ITF standard). But I thought that would be a relatively unimportant aside, so I left it out. -- Wkerney 20:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC) (2nd Dan, WTF)

thanks for the sorely needed rewrite. much better. Appleby 21:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's the thing... what's consistent is the ranks, as in "gups" and "dans". It's the numbers that are consistent, not the belt color. Though white and black are pretty universal, you'll never find a true "norm" for belt colors in Taekwondo schools. However, a "typical" order goes white, yellow, green, blue, red, (possible "poome" -- half red, half black), and then black.
Again, this varies quite a bit. I'd just focus on the ranks, not the colors. :) -- Drew, 04/17/06
I noted that there's no consistency, and that one should refer to one as a "7th Gup" when dealing with people outside your school, since nobody else will know what a purple belt is. Some new content was added (alongside some errors and typos), which I mainly preserved and formatted in a better presentation when I re-edited it right now. Wkerney 08:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think purple belt should be changed to correspond to 3rd gup in the example, since it is more common to be one of the higher gup grades rather than any of the lower. But when I changed it someone change back to 7th so maybe I have got it wrong in some way? 113 20:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I did some research on this, and there's no consistency at all as to what a purple belt is supposed to be (which is kind of the point). I think the current way it's phrased is fine. Wkerney 23:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I know that since purple isn't widely used it could be used at any grade, but considering the colors often range from light colors (low grades) to dark colors (high grades) and blue/red being the highest grades in both ITF and WTF, with purple being pretty much a mix of these two colors, it would make much more sense to have purple at a higher grade than a low. 113 11:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Bigzilla, the Kukkiwon and WTF are inextricably linked. The WTF only recognizes Kukkiwon Dans. The Kukkiwon only tests on WTF-official forms. One can be mindful of their different roles while still acknowledging their symbiotic relationship. Posting a line disagreeing with this by mentioning the different physical locations in the belt section of all places seems odd to me. And the Kukkiwon is called the WTF headquarters, even if it is more symbolically now. See the wiki page on the Kukkiwon. The WTF poomsae curriculum is here: [[3]], which is what you must test on to become Kukki-certified, and are the official forms for WTF tournaments. For the sake of clarity (if not brevity), I changed all the applicable references to Kukki/WTF, which is the most precise.

Also, I'm curious if you have a reference to the number of 10th Dans issued by the Kukkiwon. Doing some research on the internet, I've not been able to find a specific number for it. Wkerney 11:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Bigzilla here, sorry if I do not yet understand how to use Wikipedia, I'm learning.

First off the Kukkiwon and the WTF disagees with your statements. The Kukkiwon is not the WTF Headquarters, it is "World Taekwondo Headquarters", which is different. Do not confuse World Taekwondo Federation, with World Taekwondo Headquarters. The World Taekwondo Federation (WTF) does not set standards for Dan promotion or curriculum. The WTF is simply concerned with the organization of competition events in nations around the world, where, only Kukkiwon Taekwondo is recognized. The Poomsae listed on the WTF website are Kukkiwon Poomsae. This is because the WTF will now hold Poomsae World Championships and the WTF will only recognize Kukkiwon Taekwondo Poomsae. The relationship betweem the Kukkiwon and the WTF you mention of is simply one of recognition of Kukkiwon by the WTF. The different addresses of the two different organization are VERY important to note, considering some folks mistakenly state that the Kukkiwon is the headquarters of the WTF. The Kukkiwon buidling can not be the WTF HQ if the WTF HQ is located at a different address, many miles away. For someone to state this is odd to me. I was in the Kukkiwon building last month, and I can tell you there is no WTF office there.

It is also important to note that at one time the Kukkiwon RENTED OUT an office inside the Kukkiwon building to the WTF. So for many years, the WTF office (headquarters) was located inside the Kukkiwon. These two different organizations even have different web sites!

Also, it is incorrect for folks to state they have WTF Dan. No where on a Kukkiwon certificte does it have a WTF logo, of the WTF name. Also, there is no such thing as Kukki-certified. It is correctly "Kukkiwon Certified". Kukki-Taekwondo would be more correctly the style, not the organization. No where will you find the Kukkiwon or the WTF refer to Dan holders as Kukki-certified.

As far as reference to how many persons hold the 10th Dan, I have e-mail and documents from the Kukkiwon, and the Past WTF Deputy General Secretary that I can send to you via e-mail, if you like.

I'd like for you to reference it here, if possible. A friend of mine called the Kukkiwon and they said there was something like 30 living 10th Dans issued. So please provide a reference for it if possible. I've searched for the names you provide in the belts section, and this article is the only place that references them on the internet. Wkerney 03:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Bigzilla. Past President of a WTF/USTU State Association in the USA

Graduate of the World Taekwondo Academy at Kukkiwon --Bigzilla 01:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


The Kukkiwon would never state such a thing. Feel free to contact them yourself, directly like I did. I have the e-mail and board post, again, if you like, I could e-mail them to you. I suggest you write the Kukkiwon. As far as the names I listed, anyone who has been involved in Taekwondo on an international level knows who these important men are. When you write the Kukkiwon to ask about 10th Dans, be sure and ask about these men. Do you need the address?--Bigzilla 06:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Even now, you list the four guys who were given 10th Dans, but have no reference for it. Wikipedia demands verifiability. Also, I'm personally curious about the subject. Wkerney 23:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a reference. Letters to and from the Kukkiwon in regard to this subject. Also, note that the Kukkiwon web site shows only 5 10th Dan, not 30 like your friend claimed.

kukkiwon_wth@yahoo.com 2/25/2005 1:17:54 AM Eastern Standard Time

Dear Sir; 3 persons are same and JEON IL SEOB instead of PAE young ki. Thanks --- MasterCole@aol.com wrote:

> Dear Sir, > > Thank you for your response. Could you supply me the > names of those four > persons? My guess is HONG, Chong Soo, ~ LEE, Byung > Roh, ~ LEE, Nam Suk ~ PAE, > young Ki ? > > Please provide correction and advise, > > Thank you, > > Walter A. Cole, Jr. USA > > > In a message dated 2/24/2005 1:10:13 A.M. Eastern > Standard Time, > kukkiwon_wth@yahoo.com writes: > > Dear Sir; > The 10th Dan holders are Dr. Un Yong Kim former > President of Kukkiwon and 4 persons who were > promoted > to 10th Dan after passing away by Postumous honours > Dan test. > Thanks

--- MasterCole@aol.com wrote:

> Dear Sir, > > I hope that you are in the best health and all is > well in Korea. > < > Yesterday, Feb 15, I sent via Express US Mail, > approximately 20 Dan/Poom > applications, a few name corrections>< Thank > you for your assistance. > > Some of my students have been on the Kukkiwon Web site > and saw that there we 5 > persons listed as Kukkiwon 10th Dan. I did not > know. > > Please advise me on who the 5 10th Dan holders are > so I can correctly inform > my students. > > Thank you for your assistance, > > Walter A. Cole, Jr. > Sabum # 3601023 > Dan # 5029039

2nd resource. http://www.kukkiwon.or.kr/english/index.jsp 3rd resource. Kukkiwon Taekwondo Textbook 4th resource. Kukkiwon People. Official Publication of the Kukkiwon Of course, if you stil have doubts, I suggest you contact the Kukkiwon directly instead of depending on others to do it for you.--Bigzilla 08:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have looked repeatedly for that information without being able to find it. Your link above is just to the main Kukki website; if you have something more direct I'd appreciate it. Also, I guess I should point out that your quote contradicts yourself that 10th Dans are only awarded posthumously, if I'm reading that right. Dr. Kim was a living 10th Dan. As far as the linking of the WTF and Kukki, I've said it before: the WTF only recognizes Kukki Dans and Kukki forms. Wkerney 06:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

pardon my being a stickler, but isnt the first syllable of 태권도 pronounced like 'stay'? i dont know why it bugs me so much to hear it prounounced like 'tie' -Lordraydens 16:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Lordraydens, you are correct. Americans tend to say "TIE". Tay is closer to the Korean. --Bigzilla 01:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Young Man Park

Any info on him who pioneered Taekwondo in the Philippines would be highly appreciated. Very little to no info on the net.--Jondel 06:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyedits on the belt section

I've attempted to clean up some sloppy grammar and spelling in the belt section. I have no particular knowledge about the belt system beyond the most basic understanding, so I have tried not to change the meaning of any of the statements. A few sentences in here were garbled run-ons with no clear and decipherable meaning, and I omitted them. Somebody wiser can hopefully fill in the blanks, especially in the 4th Dan testing paragraph. I intend to do some more work on this section to clean up typos and poor grammar. This section is very large, I'm considering ways to break it down. I already organized it by Gup vs Dan belt, but a lot of the information in here has less to do with "belts" than the rules for testing and advancement. I may re-org along those lines. Feedback welcome. Bjsiders 18:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of it is my bad spelling and grammar, but thanks for helping! I read it over and it looks much better. The 4th Dan area reads fine. --Bigzilla 06:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

ITF and WTF treated seperately?

Would it be a silly idea to seperate the belt sections, protocol, naming history etc into WTF and ITF specific sections? It seems the styles are fairly different, despite being grouped under the umbrella of Taekwon-Do.

This may also clear up some of the inconsistency that seems to plague this article with respect to naming conventions people, places and similar.

cJ

I considered that while editing it but I ultimately decided to leave it alone and let somebody more knowledgable tackle it. I'll try to re-write today along those lines and see how easy it will be to divide it up. I'll post it here before updating the live page, not all of the material is clear on what applies to ITF vs WTF vs both. Bjsiders 12:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

After looking over the material, there's not enough information on ITF to really separate it and do a good job of it. The article needs a lot more work and clarity, it's written like a UNIX manual page - the information is only useful if you already understand it. I'm going to make some updates where I can and ask questions here, hopefully we can improve it. Bjsiders 13:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That will not work. You are blending the WTF with the Kukkiwon, when in fact, they are very different organizations with very different functions. ITF is a very small, and very private organization, and it has no such counterpart as the Kukkiwon. I have explained in great and accurate detail the differences between the Kukkiwon and the WTF and people who have no idea about this subject keep removing it. If ITF is discussed, then so should every other PRIVATE TKD organization. WTF is the only public one. --Bigzilla 06:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

=====Archive=====

Would anyone like to sift through this page and archive anything that has already been attened to? Much of what I am readiing has already been edited o adjusted in the article, so for ease of use I believe that it would be a lot easier if this page was cut down to the bare essentials.

Cleanup

I'm still going through, section by section, and cleaning up the article. This article is liberally polluted with good but disorganized and sometimes inappropriate information. There is a great deal of unnecessary detail, confused statements that contradict each other, and much cheerleading on behalf of WTF vs IFT taekwondo practitioners. I've removed large swaths of excrutiating details that are unlikely to be interesting or relevent to a typical reader, these details more appropriate belong in more specific articles, such as articles specific to the WTF, ITF, or even the kwan. Please discuss here if anybody feels I've taken too much liberty in what I've elected to remove, I'd be glad to talk about it. I'm trying to get this article to the point where somebody who knows little to nothing about taekwondo can quickly read through the article and understand it, as well as dispel some myths (like what exactly it means to have a black belt vs a blue belt vs a yellow belt, etc). Right now a casual reader who didn't already know most of what's in here would become hopelessly lost just trying to understand taekwondo's origins.

My next task will be to separate the "history of Korean striking arts" into two sections - one on the history of the development of taekwondo as a martial art, and another on the history of the administrative bodies of taekwondo. I plan to remove a lot of name-dropping and cheerleading. Bjsiders 14:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You want to add Gen. Choi's name, but remove others? That does not make sense. History shows he was a minor/junior Taekwondo person. The few other names that appear in the article are folks that made great contributions, far beyong Choi, and far senior to him as well. --Bigzilla 06:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about any of these people. Choi has his own article on Wikipedia, nobody else in the article did, so I kept that one. As I said, the history section had become a big list of names and places and kwan and for a typical reader of this article, that level of detail was unnecessary, and more appropriately belongs in another article, perhaps an article that focuses specifically on the kwan. Bjsiders 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. TonyTheTiger 17:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've re-written the history section, drawing on various sources. Among the sources I used were the articles about subak and taekkyon, other web pages, the official WTF web site, and the information already contained in the article. I have shortened the section up immensely, it contained a lot of dates and lists of names and places that didn't flow at all with the prose and made the section incredibly difficult to read. I also tried to re-write it as more of a flowing narrative that explains the history of the art in an organized manner. This means a lot of names and details were omitted. If that level of detail is desired to be in the history section, I think a separate "history of takewondo" or "history of korean martial arts" article may be appropriate. The only "todo" I have left is to properly link the reference to Choi. Again, somebody who is more knowlegable should scan it for factual accuracy. The Korean sources I looked at were either in Korean (of which I speak very little) or computer-translated English which is often unintelligable, and many of them contradicted each other. I tried to rely on Wikipedia's other articles first and foremost, and support with additional material from other web sources. As always, discuss here if you disagree or have ideas for improvements. Or just make your changes and I'll discuss them. :) Bjsiders 15:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


I'll be sure to check it over. FYI. The ITF slant/propaganda has no place in the Taekwondo article, unless you want to add similar information from all other existing private TKD organizations. --Bigzilla 06:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't find any ITF slant or propoganda when I re-did the section. My tae kwon do career has taken place entirely in World Taekwondo Federation schools, and I tried to include as much ITF information as I could, but I don't know much about the ITF. Bjsiders 17:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

nice article

I read through the article and its well informed. I suggest writing a more informative section on how it developed and formed. I also suggest applying this article as a featured article candidate. Showing taekwondo on the main page will help make it more known. Good friend100 20:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As somebody who has put some time into this article recently, thanks! I think it has a long way to go before it's featured article material, but we're working on it. The 'history' section is still a little pockmocked with gaps, and I think more could be done to organize the section on gup ranks. Give it a few more weeks. Bjsiders 14:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Under the picture with the kid stretching...

It said stretching is "one way" to gain flexibility. It's the ONLY way. I changed it to "It is important for students to stretch to become for flexible." because that makes sense. Please don't be an idiot and change it unless you want people to think less of Wikipedia/Tae Kwon do.

Kup vs Gup

We had gup used universally in the page for a long time, and somebody went in and changed about half of the gups to kups and now the article is inconsistant. Let's pick one and stick with it. I vote gup simply because that's what we've always used, but I don't really care which one we use as long as we don't alternate. Bjsiders 16:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that, and cleaned up the Kups in the belt section to be uniformly Gups. Wkerney 22:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 Just to add to this you can have active stretching where you stretch by performing the different techniques you don't need to sit down and stretch you can actively stretch "apcha olligi" is an example of active stretching.

http://www.martialartsresource.com/korean/ancienthistory.htm#1

I've recently came across this website; I'm not sure if it's been brought up. It has a nice bibliography at the end, so maybe it's factual? The case is: 'A renowned martial art book of the days, called "muyedobo-tongji" said; "Taekwondo(the art of hand-to-hand fight) is the basis of martial art, enabling one to build strength by means of using the hand and foot freely and training arms and legs as well as the body to be adaptable to any critical situations, which means Taekwondo was already prevalent in that age.'. This contridicts the fact in the wikipedia article: Taekwondo that says taekwondo was coined in the 1900's. So who's right???100110100 23:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA nom

I have failed this article primarily because the references were too thin, improperly formatted and not consistent with each other to boot (we should not mix plain old footnotes and inline external links in an article). Otherwise it's fairly good.

I would also consider taking a long hard look at the External Links section, which seems to be getting near the spam event horizon. Daniel Case 03:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to say that the names of the kicks does not follow ITF's naming, but rather the Kukkiwon/WTF naming. I'm not suggesting we remove the old naming, but simply add ITF naming as well. So instead of reading Ap Chagi, it would read Ap Chagi/Ap Cha Busigi. Any thoughts? EDIT: whoops! forgot to sign.. 80.202.245.223 10:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC) There you go.

External Links

Wikipedia is not a collection of links - the links of this article are far too many - this is unacceptable. It does establish a good information hierarchy however - the article should have a list of styles (WTF, ITF, etc) and link to articles on each of them, those articles can contain lists of "National Organizing bodies" (USTU for WTF in the US, etc) in them with articles for each. the "general" links should be trimmed down to at most 10 links. I may start doing this stubbing out myself. Lordkazan 14:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Schools

Too many people have been editing the article changing things to reflect how their school does it in the belt section. Please don't do that. The section is correct when it says that the odd numbered belts "vary" from school to school. Putting a random belt that your school uses into those slots is wrong, as there really is no consensus between schools on how to set ranks to colors, especially on the odd gups. You're doing no one a favor. 64.203.50.95 07:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Verification

I invoke verification criteria, especially on history section. Some complain that there are not much third party source of information. In that case, correct wikipedia procedure is not to add information. We all know that different people have different take on TKD's historical origin. So asserting one version as truth/fact as the current article does is not kosher. I will add {{Fact}} for each unverified statement. Failiure to find citation from third party source would result in deletion. Of course, Korean source may say something and Japanese source say the exact opposite. Either way, all sources have to be verifiable source as defined by this site. Vapour

Extra Quotation Marks For What?

Rv if I made a mistake.100110100 04:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Kup Vandalism

Gup is the standard spelling for class grades in the Kukkiwon (http://www.kukkiwon.or.kr/english/examination/examination08.jsp?div=01). The article mentions Kup is also allowed. It is not necessary for whoever it is messing up the page to change half the Gups to Kups. It doesn't help, and just makes the page look confused. For your average English speaker, it just makes the article harder to understand. 75.18.223.68 08:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate information

Time & Age Limits for Poom or Dan Promotion [1]
Poom/Dan Minimum Time Required
for Promotion		 Age Limits for Promotion
Start from Dan Start from Poom
1st Poom N A N A Less than 15 Years Old
1st to 2nd Poom 1 year N A 15?
2nd to 3rd Poom 2 year N A 15?
3rd to 4th Poom 3 year N A 18?
1st Dan N A 15 years and above N A
1st to 2nd Dan 1 year 16 years and above 14 years and above
2nd to 3rd Dan 2 year 18 years and above 15 years and above
3rd to 4th Dan 3 year 21 years and above 18 years and above
4th to 5th Dan 4 year 25 years and above 22 years and above
5th to 6th Dan 5 year 30 years and above 30 years and above
6th to 7th Dan 6 year 36 years and above 36 years and above
7th to 8th Dan 8 year 44 years and above 44 years and above
8th to 9th Dan 9 year 53 years and above 53 years and above
9th to 10th Dan N A 60 years and above 60 years and above

I have studied this chart and realised almost instantly, that it's wrong! I acheived my Black belt within eight years of training, one less than this graph shows. In my Tae kwon Do school we didn't have to wait a year before we could get promoted or whatnot. We could get promoted every three months if we had the skil,, which i often did. So i beleive this chart should be removed effective immediately. Jasca Ducato 11:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, that's taken right from the Kukkiwon web page, dude. Not all schools follow Kukkiwon protocol, but the information is certainly accurate. And as Jackal says, you're probably thinking of Gups, not Dan. Wkerney 08:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You are thinking of 'Gups' Emperor Jackal 08:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, i know what i'm thinking off. And its not Gups. Jasca Ducato 12:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

TKD Fraud?

Hi. I'm a Muay Thai guy, so I don't have too much background in TKD. Found this page on a supposed "father of Tae Kwan Do", Bok Man Kim, while wiki-surfing. This seems suspiciously like an advertisement for his dojos (as it is lifted verbatim from his dojo ad sites), but I don't know enough about TKD to know if he actually *is* a notable figure or not within the TKD world. Would someone with more expertise on the subject take a look at the page? Djma12 01:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Djma12,

Just a few things, the Korean word is dojang not dojo, when questioning TKD you must keep in mind that depending on what organization someone is from they will have heard different history, if you research through the ITF you will find a great deal of info about GM Kim as his students are now the highest ranks in the ITF and include Rhee, Ki Ha and Park, Jung Soo if you research through the WTF you will find that he was a founding member of the Kukkiwon, but left them in 1970's and went independent a simple google search of Bok Man Kim TKD will net a lot of info keep in mind there is also a hotelier in Korea with the same name.Saboem 17:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Djma12, as you have personally admitted, you have little, background in TKD. I've participated in and watched Taekwondo grow in my country, the Philippines. Please don't suggest that the Kim Bok Man article is advertisement. My teacher , Paul Cabatingan was one of the first blackbelts of the country. Kim Bok Man was one the very early bonafide pioneers of Taekwondo in the Philippines and in many South East Asian Countries. In those days, Taekwondo hardly had any prestige and was referred to as 'Korean Karate'. Another early pioneer which I wish I had more info on is Young Man Park. --Jondel 12:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)