bushido_man96

Lopez and his coach Herb Perez did file an appeal at the Games, but they claimed the they didn't handle the appeal by the book. They were quite upset about it. As for the merger, it does appear to be a stretch. Perhaps the ITF should make its play now as the official governing body of TKD.

I plan to fish through the book, popping in little bits and comments as I go. Should stimulate some good discussion.

According to the source by Park, Park, and Gerrard (from the post just above), makes a comment that the founders of the Chang Moo Kwan (which I assume he means the Kwon Bup Bu founder) and the Yun Moo Kwan lost their lives in and around 1952, which corresponds closely with the information provided by rmclain.

In the book Tae Kwon Do: The Ultimate Reference Guide to the World's Most Popular Martial Art, by Yeon Hee Park, Yeon Hwan Park, and Jon Gerrard, it lists that the first Kwan, the Chung Do Kwan, was opened in 1945, as opposed to 1944. I am not sure which is correct. Later that year, according to the source, the Moo Duk Kwan and Yun Moo Kwan came along. The following year (1946) saw the Chang Moo Kwan and Chi Do Kwan come along. Between 1953 and 1954 the Ji Do Kwan, Song Moo Kwan, and the Oh Do Kwan were opened. This source also claims that there were those who claimed to teach the original Taek Kyon, as well. No names are given, unfortunately. Here is where the source gets rather curious. The author(s) state that in 1945, Taek Kyon masters began teaching Taek Kyon to the Korean Armed Forces, as part of regular military training. In early 1946, master began teaching Taek Kyon to troops stationed in Kwang Ju. Two factors here raise my eyebrows: 1. No mention of names of the masters that taught Taek Kyon to the military. 2. Gen. Choi states in his Encyclopedia of Taekwon-do, that he started teaching Karate to his troops, after he was commissioned as 2nd Lt. in January of 1946. The two sources are not jelling very well.

In my organization, no age requirements kick in until 3rd dan, and I think it is 16? Have to check, for sure. As for the test, all colored belt forms, 10 total, along with the one-steps, which I think number 27 total, along with a Do-Kang, which our GM came up with for Black Belt basics. From there, it is sparring at least two matches, one from the rank you are reaching for, and one other. Board breaking finishes out the test.

Awesome! That's what I was hoping for.... That's great, a pre-emptive strike clause! And I agree so much with it. I think that there is such a huge misconception portrayed about how a Martial Artist will always be able to block the first strike, or be able to survive the first blow landed, and then procede from there. I think it is an unsafe generalization to make.

I think that most Martial Arts are "aggressive" arts, in and of the fact that they were designed to help prolong life and what not. That said, it is going to come down to the skill level of the individual, and not the assumed aggressivness of a style. I think that it would be the practitioner that would be viewed as aggressive, as opposed to the art. But that's just me. With the proper training, a TKDer can hold his own with any other stylist. Its all in the approach, and what the instructor has to offer, as it is with any other style.

8-25-08 Chest/triceps Bench press: 185x10, 205x5, 5 Abs Decline crunches: 3x12 Legs Lex extension: 70x15, 15, 15 Leg curls: 130x15, 15, 15 Hip abduction: 100x10, 10, 10 Hip adducition: 100x10, 10, 10 Hip extension: 100x10, 10, 10 Hip flexion: 160x10, 10, 10 Shoulders Shoulder press: 89x10, 95x8, 100x6 Combat Hapkido: 10:20 - 11:05. I focused on my red belt material today, and it is starting to come together nicely. Just need to keep refining it all.

I don't think so. He wasn't drafted for his arm. He is more of Joe Montana type of passer than a bomber like Marino or Elway.

That was pretty cool how they set that up. Also, they play too much WOW!

Cool. Dig the Lego bits, Patrick.

I've seen the ads, but thats it. Looks like Couture is in it, but I can't be for sure.

How is the WCL more "martial" than that UFC? Both are fighting organizations, but the UFC allows more ranges of combat.

They have been making efforts through meetings to do so. We'll see if it happens, though. It is unlikely in my eyes that they will come to terms on such a merger, but they are working on it right now.

I don't see any reason why the Kukkiwon, or the WTF, or the Cuban governing body of TKD should't strip him of his rank. You can't take his knowledge, but you can stip the symbols and affiliations. I think they should.

I had never heard of it either. Is it relatively new? Who is the GM of the style? That's a good catch. I don't think I would have caught that. It is an interesting point. Does the name reflect this?

Along with these attacks, striking with the flat back of the hand on the side of the neck can produce some blackout type results. You can also strike from the side with a knife hand strike, but you cut down your striking surface as well. Being justified in this case is going to be key, I think. If they have a weapon, or make comments of killing or maiming you in the confrontation, then I say go for the throat. Or, if they are considerably larger than you, or possess some skills that make you more concerned with your level of danger.

That's good stuff there.

I agree. I was hoping it was Frank Shamrock, but I imagine there is a bit of a weight disparity there. Ken Shamrock is just doesn't have it anymore. I don't see this one getting out of the first round.

This guy got what he deserved. Its really too bad that this may be the shining moment of TKD what could be its final Olympic appearance. All due to some poor judgement.

It sure is. If it falls out of the Olympics, its no big deal to me. It won't effect my TKD career at all. And, it will probably still have its international competitions and such. But, if the ITF and WTF do merge, perhaps they can streamline some things and get it back to the world stage.

Can you find a place that doesn't have a contract set up?

Tallgeese's post hits the nail on the head. It is a good way to articulate why you took the actions that you did. And you may be. In some places, they will arrest both parties involved in a fight, usually for disorderly conduct. But, back at the station, you should be able to get the opportunity to speak with officers, and give them a verbal and written statement as to what occured. Your friends may also show up and do the same thing for your case. All of this will help. The problem with this rationale is that you assume you will get the opportunity to hit back. I don't know who turned the phrase, "Everyone has a plan, until they get hit in the mouth," but it has meaning, especially in a situation like this. His one attack may be enough to knock you out cold, and then, you could be at his mercy. Not a good spot to be in. If there are witnesses around, then it is important to act the part of the victim. Keep your hands up, palms out, near your head, and make sure you say loudly and repeatedly something to the effect of "I don't want any trouble," or "I just want to go home," or anything of the like. When the attacker continues to press, look for signs of pending attack; face turns color, jaws clench, fists ball up, etc. If you see these things happening, then you can probably articulate the fact that you felt in "danger of great bodily harm from being struck." At that point, I would say preempt. As for the choice of strike, it is really going to depend on what you are comfortable with. A palm heel strike into the chin is a good strike, and you can control the chin afterwards, and drive the person back and to the ground. From there, it is time to get away, and report the incident to the police.

Well said, Josh. Sometimes we have to take a time-honored belief, a philosophy if you will, and apply its relevancy to our own time. It isn't disrespectful to determine how a past maxim may still be important, still be relevant, by examining it in a more fluid way. One of the reasons I enjoy teaching social studies is that the students analyze, think critically, and sometimes come up with surprising insights. I agree that at times we have to interpret some maxims in relation to how society has changed. Perhaps it is somewhat changed from the original interpretation, but people change too, and the original author may have adapted, as well.

Oh, yeah! I remember that thread. Very relevant. Perhaps not that one has to die, but that one is prepared to make that sacrifice, if need be. Here is a quote from Volume 1 of The Way of Traditional Taekwondo: Perhaps there is some relevance there, as well.