Jump to content

Talk:Choi Kwang-jo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Kwang Jo Choi)

Yoga

[edit]

Hi guys im going to be removing the information on yoga, it suggests that yoga is a traditional martial art, yoga is not and has never been a martial art, yoga is a system of relaxation and stretching exercises that promote a healthy body.Please feel free to add your comments below on the discussion page.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody would construe "Yoga" to mean a martial art. This article clearly says CKD incorporates "yoga-based stretching", it's obvious to most people that "yoga" is calisthenics combined with meditation. Also the kirwan CKD website says "Conventional martial arts methodology is more often based on mysticism" and implies that CKD is free of mysticism. These are the two main selling points of CKD yet they contradict each other - "CKD is free of mysticism, yet we practise yoga-based stretching". BMurray (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Murray, are you an ex choi student or instructor, why all the CKD rubbishing, let it go ! yoga and mysticism, what the mystry in yoga mmmm let me think yer nothing. CKD is one of the best all round martial arts in the world, and Ive done a few check my page, if your local to London maybe I could show the benefits of CKD, perhaps you experinced a poor class or not so good instructor, lets say a karate student or kick boxing student did the same, would all karate& kick boxing schools be crap.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CKD uses a yoga based stretch. What that means is that some of the stretches are based on yoga poses while using deep abdominal breathing. Therefore I think it is a fair comment to make and should be retained. If CKD claimed to use Yoga then it would need amending, but as it is saying its stretches are BASED on Yoga, then I personally think its fine.---- Dale Miller

Comment

[edit]

CKD stats that w traditional arts are more based on mysticism, however as you agree yoga is not a traditional martial art nor is there any mysticism yoga is what it is, and that is a strecthing based system with calisthenics and relaxation, CKD only promotes good health and uses modern science it a proven fact that yoga benefits the body, it a scientifc fact, do you agree with that! the problem with traditional martial art is that they can over a period of time be harmful to the body, when I was doing TKD all the jumping and locking made me have really bad knee problems. Has any one else found that with there training ?--90.210.142.60 (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said yoga is a calisthenics incorporating meditation. Yoga is steeped in mysticism, meditation being a large part of that. Choi also meditates quite often during his tungeun breathing. BMurray (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your quite right about the meditation, and yes CKD do use this is the tungeun, this is used to relax the body and get the mind reday for training, I think what choi means about the mysticism in traditional martial arts is based more on his scentific studies into CKD the artcile is abot Kwang Jo Choi the man not about the art, this article does not say any thing about yoga!!! mysticism and traditional martial arts, you only have to watch a kung fu moving!! to see where most people believe it will work, however real training in any art is very different for the street.--90.210.142.31 (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proven to be effective martial system

[edit]

Hi guys this is a pretty bold statment, however another editor is using the same RS in relation to the yoga ref, surley if we are using the RS for the yoga ref, and in that ref it mention proven to be the most effective martial art then that must be a RS. If not both should be removed, I agree with the later, both removed. Can not afvour one ref over another in the same RS. Please correct to prevent a editing war.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a primary source so i've restated both as assertions rather than facts. Most effective is a whole can of worms and unless someone wants to do a round robin based on UFC 1 rules there will never be a scientifically definitive answer.--Nate1481(t/c) 15:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"the most effective martial art system for todays modern society" is in fact an open ended statement, are we right in assuming that it is refering to knock down brawling? competition with another individual in a UFC type based environment or is it refering to a "system" where martial arts may be considered to be pursuit of development of the individual both physical and mental incorporating personal development as well as self defence? applying to the perhaps older balance marttial art theory of ying & yang Mind & body in a "modern sence" I have read and heard many times over the years the following and I may not have it word for word but it goes like this... " martial arts without additional emphasis of character development is just punching and kicking and bloodying each other up" (if someone requires a referance Google it, it should not be hard to find), the referance for a modern society also infirs to me that we are not living in a society in the throws of civil unrest (as KJ Choi grew up in) and instead are in a civilized society. So the simplified idea of "effective" as only being based on the self defence aspect of martial arts is a narrow viewpoint on the purpose of martial arts as a whole. After all regardless of style it comes down to how much fight is in the dog as to how effective a PERSON can be (regardless of their style or how much noise they make :) The referance to Yoga says "based on" when I read it, it does not mean they 'do yoga' and it does not mean they follow yogas 'mystasism', but it is based on yoga, maybe that s just the physical side - visit a school and ask a ckd instructor :) lol. B.Murray 's statement on tungeun breathing read like an opinion so I did a quick google search on tungeun breathing (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=tungun+breathing&spell=1) it produced 2 pages plus about 6 to 7 commercial ads per page - 100% of the ads refer to breathing methods, 0% refer to meditation, the resulting search links produced where quite varied but I did not see any refering to meditation. --Bacmac (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Civilized Society

[edit]
Perhaps you live in a different world than me, when Choi was growing up, we are no more civilized, Do you know how many tenagers have been killed by knife crime 08 to 09 in London ? How about in the UK ? What about wars and un rest in the middle East, im sure those living in israel would not agree !!! What about all the sick Bastards killing children ? drug problems, world of starving children, civilized society what a Joke,, There is still, if not more so a need for good self defence..Oh and dont get me started with all the over weight people and depression !!! CKD is great form of self defence/health programme for every one..Regards to a UFC round robin, how many 92 year old cage fighters do you know ? (and dont say gracie) CKD has student in there 80's and 90's, CKD has been scientifically proven to be powerful, see youtube for the results. Its faster, more fluid, stronger, powerfull and not harmfull to the body. I suppose that we are all wrong and its in most of the countries across the world I suppose thousands are wrong lol--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Kwang Jo Choi sits with his legs crossed and eyes closed after stretching and tells the students to clear their mind, that is technically meditation. That part of the yoga is holistic based and mystical which is contradictory to the claim that CKD is a non mystic based martial art. BMurray (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, BMurray, i'm not going to respond to a unsupported unsubstantiated statement and I suggest anyone else who is tempted to respond should visit BMurrays talk page and read it, I just did - Bacmac (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I thought it was just a given that meditation was mystical, I don't see why it has to be substantiated that it is. BMurray (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

who said CKD meditate ? is it not just breathing, B Murray come on what the crack ? ex student, bad instructor, never made black belt, koo self defence, dynamic self defence, what ?? what is your problem ? let me know, come to a good CKD school, honest my friend your enjoy it.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
surley CKd being the largets growing martial in the world is proof enough it is the most effective in the world, its well mentioned in many main stream magazine thats its that largest growing, also BMurray you wanted to use the same ref for some thing else !!

UFC rules does not prove effective, is UFC effective for over 50's to get more healthy ? mmm no, is UFC effective as a street defence mmm do they use knifes in UFC ? mmmm No shall we put all the children from 3 years old into a UFC ring to see if there confidence improves ....what a complete div...so nate if I beat you does that mean shotokan karate is crap.. I have worked on the door for many years and have never lost a street fight...--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antagonists" ?

[edit]

So many things have antagonists but why list them - this is not encyclopedic and could be viewed as self promotion /riding on the reputation of a 'notable' person and even an attempt to drive web traffic to a particular site - keep the integritiy of wiki intact - dont use it as a marketing tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacmac (talk • contribs) 16:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please use this section to respond to the editing changes - otherwise if there is no reason behind your edits then I will perform an 'undo' Bacmac (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not received any responce for your edits so I am performing an undo.Bacmac (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"So many things have antagonists but why list them" That statement is a non sequitur. Including controversies in an article add to its encyclopedic content. A perfect example is the article on Mother Teresa, the article contains several paragraphs of criticisms of her. The article contains the word "criticism" no less than eight times. Also I previously referred you to the Conflict of Interest article, so in a sense I had responded. BMurray (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bacmac and BMurray, I am aware that you have been debating Roger Koo's claims regarding Kwang Jo Choi for some time. I would like to draw your attention to WP Biography's guidelines on criticism and praise. To quote, "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides ..." To me, the relevant text in the article (as it currently stands) is potentially relevant to the subject's notability (if indeed most instructors have left his organisation, as Koo claims on his website) and it is written in a balanced and neutral tone, but it is not reliably sourced. One reference to a website written by one critic is not reliable sourcing. If Koo's claims are true, reliable sources should be found and included in the article, but if Koo's claims are not true, the content is libellous. In either case, I encourage you to follow the Wikipedia guideline above. Trust this helps. Janggeom (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Janggeom, the article only says that Roger Koo was one of the first vice presidents of Choi Kwang Do and that he dedicates a lot of his website to disparging Kwang Jo Choi. His website is only referenced to show that he does indeed dedicate a lot of it to disparaging Kwang Jo Choi. We're not endorsing the content of Koo's website, it may very well be an embarrassment to him, but given that he has been a critic for quite some time is notable. BMurray (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All right, but that does not change the fact that there is (currently) only one reference to Koo's criticism of Choi, and that reference is a link to Koo's own website. Whether Koo's claims are true or not, this is not reliable sourcing. If indeed Koo's position is notable, then I would expect there would be sources other than Koo that report on this. (I have not looked yet, so I do not know, but this is what seems logical to me.) To put it another way: could we really justify inclusion of a critic in someone's biography if all we can provide is one link to that critic's website? Surely, for an encyclopaedic article, we want more than that? Trust this helps to illustrate my point. I am not disputing your comments, but Wikipedia's policies indicate that we do need better sources (i.e., more than just what Koo has written, whether it is accurate or not). Janggeom (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now had a look for references to support Koo's criticism of Choi, or to support Koo's inclusion in this article as a notable critic of Choi, and have not found any reliable sources. Janggeom (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Cairney

[edit]

for BMurrey; i understand Bruce Cairney is a Master instructor in Choi Kwang Do and the highest rank in the Oceania Region, that he is recognised as "the Father of Choi Kwang Do' in that area by Kwang Jo Choi, He has had a long relationship with Choi Kwang Do dating back as far as 1987, in 2008 he travelled to many countries (Argentina, England, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, America and maybe some more) to meet and attend seminars by Kwang Jo Choi, but to also train instructors and school owners. Knowing these things I cannot see what relevance there is to have a discussion about him in the Kwang Jo Choi pages, if you beleive his involement with Choi Kwang Do is substantial then perhaps you should add a section about him to the 'Choi Kwang Do' article? but I do feel his inclusion in the Kwang Jo Choi article or discussions is not relevant, or if you feel he is notable on his own create a article about him. Bacmac (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bacmac , I didn't make any mention of Bruce Cairney? BMurray (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Koo

[edit]

If Roger Koo is so notable, why has he not got a his own page on wikipedia ? Thats an idea, im going to start building One. Does anyone want to help.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kwang Jo Choi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kwang Jo Choi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Choi_Kwang-jo&oldid=1257437488"