Why So Few Kicks In Tae Geuk Forms?

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Nastyhaggis

unread,
Aug 16, 2004, 10:37:45 PM8/16/04
to
I grew up in a WTF school that practiced Tae Geuk forms. Later in life I went
to a school that practiced Chang Hun forms. One thing I noticed in both sets
of forms that is to this day baffling to me is the number of kicks in them.

Isn't TaeKwonDo known to be a martial art that especially prides itself on its
powerful, beautiful kicks? Why then do these sets of patterns, which are the
two sets most often used to represent two very popular styles of TaeKwonDo
incorporate very few kicks?

I remember as a white belt learning round(house) kicks, front kicks, side
kicks, back kicks, and "crescent" kicks, but didn't even get to a kick until
form 3, and it was just a front kick. By that rank I had learned many other
kicks.

It just seems to me that these two sets of forms (which I think are very
beautiful and I enjoy them both very much and have a love for them both) do not
really represent TaeKwonDo very well.

What do you think?

Jake Speed

unread,
Aug 16, 2004, 11:07:48 PM8/16/04
to
My understanding is that the WTF and ITF forms were "borrowed" from
non-kick-emphasizing martial arts. As such, they rely more on hand
techniques. I have attended WTF and ITF schools and wondered the same
thing, at the time.

Later variations of TKD, such as the ATA, developed their forms "from
scratch", better reflecting the kick-centric nature of TKD. The ATA
developed the current forms 30 years after the origins of TKD, so they
had time to reflect upon the limitations of other styles when adapted
to TKD.

[Before anyone bothers to flame me about the ATA, please remember
we're discussing technique, not politics or teaching styles.]

Clothahump

unread,
Aug 16, 2004, 11:23:34 PM8/16/04
to

Jake Speed wrote:
> My understanding is that the WTF and ITF forms were "borrowed" from
> non-kick-emphasizing martial arts. As such, they rely more on hand
> techniques. I have attended WTF and ITF schools and wondered the same
> thing, at the time.
>
> Later variations of TKD, such as the ATA, developed their forms "from
> scratch", better reflecting the kick-centric nature of TKD. The ATA
> developed the current forms 30 years after the origins of TKD, so they
> had time to reflect upon the limitations of other styles when adapted
> to TKD.
>

---------
You are correct. Grandmaster Haeng Ung Lee, the first President
and founder of the ATA, developed the Songahm style of Taekwondo
for that very reason. He wanted to return to the traditional
kicking orientation of the classic Korean martial arts styles.

--


Return address has been spamguarded. Remove NO SPAM to reply.

Martial Arts 123

unread,
Aug 16, 2004, 11:58:38 PM8/16/04
to

>You are correct. Grandmaster Haeng Ung Lee, the first President
>and founder of the ATA,

Hmm. Somebody is naive or fibbing.
Is it you or Kimm?

http://www.hanmudo.com/bio06.html


Rob

unread,
Aug 17, 2004, 7:14:59 AM8/17/04
to
"Nastyhaggis" <nasty...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040816223745...@mb-m20.news.cs.com...

> I grew up in a WTF school that practiced Tae Geuk forms. Later in life I
went
> to a school that practiced Chang Hun forms. One thing I noticed in both
sets
> of forms that is to this day baffling to me is the number of kicks in
them.
>
> Isn't TaeKwonDo known to be a martial art that especially prides itself on
its
> powerful, beautiful kicks? Why then do these sets of patterns, which are
the
> two sets most often used to represent two very popular styles of TaeKwonDo
> incorporate very few kicks?

The Chon-ji forms (ITF) are actually inherited from Shotokan, a style which
is primarily concerned with midrange techniques i.e. more hands, less long
range kicks, etc.

I remember reading somewhere that the Tae Geuks are also based on
the forms of another martial art (although I can't remember which one,
offhand).
As Taekwondo is relatively unique in the emphasis it places on long range
techniques (including kicking) it's probably reasonable to assume that
the art the Tae Geuks are based on had less emphasis on kicks than is
the case with Taekwondo.

I'm not familiar with the Chang Hun forms, but would guess from what you
describe that they have a similar history.

>
> I remember as a white belt learning round(house) kicks, front kicks, side
> kicks, back kicks, and "crescent" kicks, but didn't even get to a kick
until
> form 3, and it was just a front kick. By that rank I had learned many
other
> kicks.

You should try some other martial arts. A friend of mine practices a style
that doesn't teach kicks to anyone who hasn't achieved dan ranking
(the emphasis of that style is primarily evasion, not attack).

>
> It just seems to me that these two sets of forms (which I think are very
> beautiful and I enjoy them both very much and have a love for them both)
do not
> really represent TaeKwonDo very well.
>
> What do you think?

You're probably right. Although I must admit I enjoy the forms because
they focus on something a little different from what I'd do in other parts
of training. I prefer the variety .....


Alex

unread,
Aug 17, 2004, 4:16:29 PM8/17/04
to
"Nastyhaggis" <nasty...@cs.com> schreef in bericht
news:20040816223745...@mb-m20.news.cs.com...

> I grew up in a WTF school that practiced Tae Geuk forms. Later in life I went
> to a school that practiced Chang Hun forms. One thing I noticed in both sets
> of forms that is to this day baffling to me is the number of kicks in them.

Not just the Tae Geuk (Tai Chi), but also the Hyungs and the
Pal Gwe (Pakua) forms.

I think it is because they are based on the forms of Shotokan
karate, which also has very few kicks in them.

Alex


Message has been deleted

Clothahump

unread,
Aug 22, 2004, 8:01:02 PM8/22/04
to
Kimm had nothing to do with ATA, as far as I know. The ATA was
founded in 1969 by Grandmaster H. U. Lee in Omaha, NB. It is
currently headquartered in Little Rock, AR. The museum there
contains the entire history of the organization.


Martial Arts 123 wrote:

--

MANOFTRUTH

unread,
Aug 25, 2004, 12:54:27 AM8/25/04
to
Tae Guek is to balance your soul in yoru body, equally span it in your
body.

Nothing to do with punching or kicking, the punches & kicks are
exercises of "equal spanning" your soul, your energy.

No other forms of no other style in existence do what Tae Guek forms
do.

Bruce Lees antipathy towards forms is completely null towards these
forms.

Earl Camembert

unread,
Aug 25, 2004, 3:30:17 AM8/25/04
to
On 24 Aug 2004 21:54:27 -0700, noge...@linuxmail.org (MANOFTRUTH)
wrote:

Tae Guek One has two snap kicks, at 14 and 16. As one increases in
rank one must learn a new form. One must not forget the former form.
The forms get progressively more difficult. By the time on is a Black
Belt doing all of the forms from one up to what you are responsible
for then back down to one will give one a complete work out, twisting
and bending every joint and muscle in the body. It is a good cardio
work also as one should not stop. There is a new form to learn all of
the way up to tenth Dan.

MANOFTRUTH

unread,
Aug 27, 2004, 7:12:20 AM8/27/04
to
> >> It just seems to me that these two sets of forms (which I think are very
> >> beautiful and I enjoy them both very much and have a love for them both) do not
> >> really represent TaeKwonDo very well.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
>
> Tae Guek One has two snap kicks, at 14 and 16. As one increases in
> rank one must learn a new form. One must not forget the former form.
> The forms get progressively more difficult. By the time on is a Black
> Belt doing all of the forms from one up to what you are responsible
> for then back down to one will give one a complete work out, twisting
> and bending every joint and muscle in the body. It is a good cardio
> work also as one should not stop. There is a new form to learn all of
> the way up to tenth Dan.

Earl? Earl CammerapNut? You are an amazing TKD person!! Can I hug and
kiss and lick you? lol... Chokey, Earl needs some attention, he got
serious on me and is being very beneficial in knowledge!!!

JP Jackson

unread,
Aug 27, 2004, 2:03:38 PM8/27/04
to
"Rob" <nos...@nonexistant.com> wrote in message news:<4121e84f$1...@news.iprimus.com.au>...

> "Nastyhaggis" <nasty...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:20040816223745...@mb-m20.news.cs.com...

> The Chon-ji forms (ITF) are actually inherited from Shotokan, a style which


> is primarily concerned with midrange techniques i.e. more hands, less long
> range kicks, etc.

> As Taekwondo is relatively unique in the emphasis it places on long range


> techniques (including kicking) it's probably reasonable to assume that

Just a random sidetrack (and forgive for not splitting this into a new
thread, I'm new here and unsure of the proper way to do that), but I
was wondering if people had a general consensus on how to discuss
range. Whenever I talk about long range, I usually mean close enough
to kick, or punch with a few inches added distance, and short range to
be just inside good kicking distance. (Without getting into standing
grappling etc.) I'm just wondering everyone else does things
differently, or if it just varies a lot, since semantics seems to
start all sorts of pointless crap around here.

Message has been deleted

Storys

unread,
Aug 27, 2004, 6:39:07 PM8/27/04
to

"JP Jackson" <biggy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f18de1a1.04082...@posting.google.com...

>
> Just a random sidetrack (and forgive for not splitting this into a new
> thread, I'm new here and unsure of the proper way to do that), but I
> was wondering if people had a general consensus on how to discuss
> range. Whenever I talk about long range, I usually mean close enough
> to kick, or punch with a few inches added distance, and short range to
> be just inside good kicking distance. (Without getting into standing
> grappling etc.) I'm just wondering everyone else does things
> differently, or if it just varies a lot, since semantics seems to
> start all sorts of pointless crap around here.

Seems to vary greatly with the art being the primary determinant. Mr. Rhee
has given you his definitions. They are good for TKD. My own base art is a
different one. Long range means anything outside of hand's reach. Mid range
is anything in hands reach but too far for primary weapons. Close range (
also referred to as normal ) is anything from about 12" on in. This art does
use kicking but even here the emphasis is on doing it at much closer range.
Try this exercise. Hold a broom in your two fists with your fists about a
foot or so apart. Now do front kicks INSIDE the area defined by your chest,
arms and the broom.

My only point here is that the definitions vary. I suggest that since this
is a TKD news group that the TKD definitions should hold sway.

............................Tom...............................


Topo Gigio

unread,
Aug 28, 2004, 8:59:42 AM8/28/04
to

"JP Jackson" <biggy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f18de1a1.04082...@posting.google.com...
snip

> Just a random sidetrack (and forgive for not splitting this into a new
> thread, I'm new here and unsure of the proper way to do that), but I
> was wondering if people had a general consensus on how to discuss
> range. Whenever I talk about long range, I usually mean close enough
> to kick, or punch with a few inches added distance, and short range to
> be just inside good kicking distance. (Without getting into standing
> grappling etc.) I'm just wondering everyone else does things
> differently, or if it just varies a lot, since semantics seems to
> start all sorts of pointless crap around here.

Long range to me is ten feet or more on a good day. I used to spar and
exchange knowledge with an Okinawa Karate black belt on our lunch hour. When
we were in close he had all kinds of grabbing and tripping techniques. He
would try to get behind me and then strike. It took me quite a wile to get
used to that type of sparring.

The advantage of TKD was the kicks coming from a place he never saw before.
The turning back round house to the head was one he was a little surprised
at. The best one was when he was standing ten feet away explaining how he
was out of range. I gave him one of my best tornado back side kicks. It is a
stepping back side kick with the step in the air. Fooled him; flying is the
surprise in TKD.


Storys

unread,
Aug 28, 2004, 10:25:45 AM8/28/04
to

"Topo Gigio" <to...@forme.org> wrote in message
news:2l%Xc.1989$B91.1461@trndny08...

>
> was out of range. I gave him one of my best tornado back side kicks. It is
> a stepping back side kick with the step in the air. Fooled him; flying is
> the surprise in TKD.
>


Take care some of us Okinawan stylists are familiar with this :-) Seriously
you are right. Okinawan karate is right up close & in your face. Not pretty
not nice but that's how it is.

....................Tom.............................


ordosclan

unread,
Aug 29, 2004, 4:48:31 PM8/29/04
to
nasty...@cs.com (Nastyhaggis) wrote in message news:<20040816223745...@mb-m20.news.cs.com>...

Well lesse. Walter mitty walks in and wants to learn korean karate.
But cant even bend over and touch his toes. Guess what his first 3
belts are going to consist of? Pretty obvious isnt it?

ordo...@mail.hongkong.com -- 89% of women that discover their
husbands are are homosexual commit suicide within the first 48 hours.

phauna

unread,
Aug 30, 2004, 2:59:52 AM8/30/04
to

"Earl Camembert" <nos...@forme.org> wrote in message
news:3bfoi051fmcsueltg...@4ax.com...

Technically Tae Guk is the old way that Korean guys used to do dueling, and
Olympic TKD sort of uses those rules. It's a different martial art, but
it's a bit like Capoeira, a stylised form of dance that's not meant to be
very dangerous. The idea was to insult the other guy by putting your foot
on his head, these being the lowest and highest regarded parts of the body
respectively. I've heard a similar thing in Thai boxing, when they want to
insult the other guy they do a front push kick into their face.

The Tae Guk guard actually involves windmilling your arms constantly while
stepping around in triangle fashion like Capoeira.


Alex

unread,
Aug 30, 2004, 12:10:23 PM8/30/04
to

"phauna" <rebekah...@optusnet.com.au> schreef in bericht
news:4132d067$0$10615$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...

You mean Taek Kyon, no Tae Geuk.

Tae Geuk means "Tai Chi".

For a Tae Kyon website, see:

In Korean: http://www.taekkyon.com/


phauna

unread,
Aug 31, 2004, 6:14:40 AM8/31/04
to

"Alex" <avdeele...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:413353f5$0$59001$b83b...@news.wanadoo.nl...

Both appellations are used although the tae guk one is the only one
applicable here. I know what tae guk means. Tai chi chuan is also called
tai chi for example.


Earl Camembert

unread,
Aug 31, 2004, 6:22:37 AM8/31/04
to

Why would you make an ass of your self telling Earl Camembert what he
means? Tae Geuk are the class of forms the WTF uses.
http://www.onlinesports.com/pages/I,CEN-18515.html

Shuurai

unread,
Aug 31, 2004, 1:14:13 PM8/31/04
to
biggy...@yahoo.com (JP Jackson) wrote in message news:<f18de1a1.04082...@posting.google.com>...

> "Rob" <nos...@nonexistant.com> wrote in message news:<4121e84f$1...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
> > "Nastyhaggis" <nasty...@cs.com> wrote in message
> > news:20040816223745...@mb-m20.news.cs.com...
>
> > The Chon-ji forms (ITF) are actually inherited from Shotokan, a style which
> > is primarily concerned with midrange techniques i.e. more hands, less long
> > range kicks, etc.
>
> > As Taekwondo is relatively unique in the emphasis it places on long range
> > techniques (including kicking) it's probably reasonable to assume that
>
> Just a random sidetrack (and forgive for not splitting this into a new
> thread, I'm new here and unsure of the proper way to do that), but I
> was wondering if people had a general consensus on how to discuss
> range.

There really isn't a general consensus on range.

> Whenever I talk about long range, I usually mean close enough
> to kick, or punch with a few inches added distance, and short range to
> be just inside good kicking distance. (Without getting into standing
> grappling etc.) I'm just wondering everyone else does things
> differently, or if it just varies a lot, since semantics seems to
> start all sorts of pointless crap around here.

Good example. You consider short range to be just inside kicking distance -
I consider that long range. To me, short range is inside punching distance,
where I can grapple without having to close.

Alex

unread,
Aug 31, 2004, 4:50:11 PM8/31/04
to

"Earl Camembert" <nos...@forme.org> schreef in bericht
news:j7k8j017i4lgvcn4t...@4ax.com...

Welcome to my killfile, "Earl". :-)

Alex


phauna

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 2:41:11 AM9/1/04
to

"Earl Camembert" <nos...@forme.org> wrote in message
news:j7k8j017i4lgvcn4t...@4ax.com...

Sorry to intrude with actual knowledge of Korea that wasn't contained in the
WTF bible.


YoJimbo

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 7:35:14 PM9/1/04
to
In article <a9d0195c.04083...@posting.google.com>, Shuu...@hotmail.com says...

>
>> biggy...@yahoo.com (JP Jackson) wrote in message >
>> Whenever I talk about long range, I usually mean close enough
>> to kick, or punch with a few inches added distance, and short range to
>> be just inside good kicking distance. (Without getting into standing
>> grappling etc.) I'm just wondering everyone else does things
>> differently, or if it just varies a lot, since semantics seems to
>> start all sorts of pointless crap around here.
>
>Good example. You consider short range to be just inside kicking distance -
>I consider that long range. To me, short range is inside punching distance,
>where I can grapple without having to close.

Shows ya how different styles look at things and where people are accustomed
to fightin'.
I consider long range to be anything where the extended leg can hit. The Korean
stuff generally is over-occupied with this range.
Many Japanese stylists prefer to set up an opponent with kicks and step in to
punch. Since they generally are better with their hands than with their
feet, kicks can be attacks but customarily they're used to finishing off with
punches. This is the middle range, where either feet or hands can be employed
easily in an exchange. And usually a step-in occurs.

Close range, I agree, occurs once you/opponent penetrates and both bodies contact,
not way out near kicking range like our friend above says.
Traditionalists may disagree with me but most of the traditional step-in-and-
punch habits don't really have close-in as a forte.
Yes, and I know every Okinawan stylist does (I expect a Goju dude to pipe up
any moment) and in fact, a lot of the southern shaolin arts have close-in
techniques (mantis, choy-li-fut, eagle claw, hung gar, etc.).

Whether these are as practical and effective as boxing's short hook/uppercut
series, I'll stay out of for now :-).
That's the beauty of RMA. I can raise debatable points and watch everybody
argue while I sit back and enjoy the show.
JS



Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages