Traditional Taekwondo??

 In this post I would like to delve a little into "tradition" and how we can call Taekwondo traditional.

I practise "Kukki Taekwondo", and the "Kukki" Taekwondo does as its name implies follow the "Kukkiwon syllabus" as outlined in the Kukkiwon Textbook (I am trying to see if anyone will react to my overly use of Kukki and Kukkiwon in one paragraph:p ). Actually I do not usually tell people that I practise "Kukki" Taekwondo when asked about what I do on my free time, I usually refer to it as "Traditional Taekwondo". This is to differntiate "my Taekwondo" from what they might have seen in the Olympics. I too practise the Olympic sparring as it is a great workout, maybe the best way to develop kicking skills against an opponent and it is plain fun to do, but it is just a very small part of my overall system as I define as "Traditional Taekwondo".

Japanese or Korean terminology in Taekwondo?

It`s been a while, but recently I read the term "Taekwondoka" on an internet forum discussing Taekwondo. The person who wrote that used it instead of "Taekwondo student/ exponent/ practisioner" etc. The "ka" ending in Taekwondoka is a Japanese term that is used in Japanese Martial Arts. Examples: Judoka, Karateka, Kendoka etc. Having spendt a lot of time in Korea (one of my stays was for a whole year) seeing this "mishmashing" of different foreign languages is like being in the classroom where someone with long fingernails starts scratching them along a blackboard. I realize that for people who have not been to Korea or have much interest in foreign cultures and languages it might be nothing to worry about, but I still wonder why people choose to put a Japanese word ending onto a Korean name for its Martial Art.

What is the point of Basic Forms (Kihon Kata/ Gibon Poomsae/ Hyung/ Tul)

I have seen the question in the headline so many times on different discussion forums over the years

Image source: Tae Kwon Do 1965
By Choi Hong Hi

that I think it warrants its own post on this blog. The question in a nutshell is two fold:

1.  What is the point of the basic forms if the time spendt on those could be used in teaching the more advanced ones? (The viewpoint of purely form not function)
2. If the basic forms were developed only for movement education and not applications should we only teach/ practise the advanced forms so we learn both movement and application? (The viewpoint that the basic forms does not have applications)

Boonseok (분석) Analyse your forms for meaning

I have written about this before but I really do want to get the word out there so people will start researching their forms for themselves (and share their findings with the world). The Korean Martial Arts were developed largely from Chinese and Japanese/ Okinawan sources; all of which placed a
heavy emphasis on solo forms for the preservation of the key concepts of the system.

Somewhere along the way however the Korean Martial Arts seems to have lost their link back to their forms, treating them solely as performance sport rather than the encyclopedia or basis upon wich their practical application of the Martial Arts rest. It is unfair to say that this is only a problem in the Korean Martial Arts as there are similar situations in both Chinese systems (Tai Chi for instance is often trained solely as performance art for health benifits) and Japanese systems (several styles of Karate train them for grading purposes and for maintaining "Tradition").

Essentual Reading For All Taekwondoin!!!!!!!!!

I frequently write about "lost things" within Taekwondo. Stuff that we had in the beginning but lost under the expansion and development into at martial sport, or stuff we have currently in our system but not trained in the mainstream.

I came accross this post today and found it so important that I highly reccomend that all Taekwondoin study it and apply this "new" knowledge in their training and teaching.

http://ryukyuma.blogspot.no/2013/04/small-surface-strikes-structurally.html

Exploring the Traditional "Double Blocks"

In my previous post I wrote a lot about blocks being blocks, at the same time I do acknowledge that in a dynamic context in forms there are a multitude of practical and sophisticated applications that can be derived from them ranging from defensive to offensive, but at the same time we do need to acknowledge that we need defensive techniques as well as offensive ones. In the bullet list in the previous post where I listed some of the most often heard critizism of traditional blocks I listed
unrealistic double blocks. I did make in my own opinion a good case for traditional simple blocks like arae makki (low block), han sonnal bakkat makki (single outward knife hand block), eolgul makki (face block), momtong an makki (inward middle block), but I did not mention the double blocks at all. You know the ones I mean: the infamous W shaped block is one of them:-)

Exploring The Traditional "Blocks"

I have written extensivly about forms application, and showed many applications to different blocks not being blocks at all. For instance if you have read through all the different blog post you will have

Image source: Secrets of Korean Karate
by Henry Cho in 1968

seen low block "arae makki" as a wrist release, straight arm bar, hammer fist strike to the groin, "rising elbow lock" and hammer fist strike in one movment etc etc.

I mean we all know the reasons why a block cant really be a block right?