I told myself I'd never get involved in this debate, but Oh well, I feel a need to share what i have learned, even if it comes back to burn me.

Disclaimer: Before anyone flames me for posting this information, please don't think I accept this as the one and only truth. There is probably as much evidence for contardicting theories, ideas and viewpoints. This is only what I have come to believe through my own research.

1. Tang Soo Do: Tang refers to Tang Dynasty of China, and refers to the cultural and philosphical influence of China on this Korean martial art. Soo means hand, but implies fist, punch, etc. Do means way of life. Literally: The way of the China Hand. It can be argued that 'Tang' as a different character can mean open or empty, just as 'kara' in karate can have two meanings. My personal belief is that this is open to interpretation, but the 'Open/Empty' interpretation of 'Tang' seems to be more ploitically than historically motivated.

2. The Pinan/ Pyung Ahn forms. For a long time, TSD practitioners maintained that Hwang Kee learned these forms while visiting China. This has puzzled many people, since these forms are Okinawan, created by Itosu (Idos). Those who point this out claim that since these forms are not Chinese, TSD has no Chinese connection. In my opinion. this is a rather narrow-minded point of view, but more on that later.

The fact remains that the Pyung Ahn (Pinan) forms as practiced today are not Chinese. I do not dispute this. They were created by Itosu, an Okinawan. The question many do not ask though, is what they were created from. Most tracing of this goes back to two forms- Jae Nam, and Kong Sang Koon/ Kusanku (both of Chinese origin).

Where then was Itosu exposed to these forms? His own teacher is accepted to be Sokon "Bushi" Matsumura. It is generally accepted that Matsumura was taught by Kong Sang Koon inwhile Kong Sang Koon served as military attache to Okinawa. Many propose that Kong Sang Koon may have taught the form Jae Nam to Matsumura, who in turn passed it along to Itosu. Others propose that it was actually another Chinese master who taught Jae Nam to Itosu directly, while the Kong Sang Koon form was taught to Matsumura who passed in on to Itosu. Whatever the origins, it is commonly accepted (at least in TSD circles) that the Pyung Ahn forms were created using Jae Nam and possibly Kong Sang Koon as their beginnings. Now to say that forms created using two Chinese forms as their starting point do not have a chinese influence does not make sense to me. Therefore, if the Pyung Ahn forms are Chinese influenced, Tang Soo Do is Chinese influenced.

3. The Pyung Ahn/ Bassai/ Kong Sang Koon connection. For the purposes of this post, when I refer to Bassai, I refer to the Greater Bassai, or Bassi Dai. There are many who argue as to the origins of this form as well. Since we cannot attach one creator to this form, it is hard to say, but my research has led me to the belief that the Bassi forms were created from the Form Pal Che, which goes back to 16th century Southern China, quite possibly to the Shaolin Temple Kwon Bop System.

You can further see evidence of this in the similarites between Kong Sang Koon and Bassai, which share some of the same movements. Bassai shares some of the same movements with some of the Pyung Ahn Hyungs, and many of the Pyung Ahn Hyungs incorporate movements found in Kong Sang Koon. The one real binding and unifying thread I have found in these three forms is China, once again indicating a Chinese influence to Tang Soo Do, even if the forms themselves came to TSD through Okinawa, which again I do not dispute.

4. Other forms practiced in TSD. To limit TSD's Chinese connections to only the forms above is a mistake. Forms like Ro hai (Lohai), Jindo (Chinto) and others are also practiced. While once again the origins of these forms are debated endlessly, I know I have personally seen footage of Chinese paractitioners (including shaolin monks and wushu practitioners) practicing forms with unmistakable similarities to Jindo, Ro hai, and Bassai. I have been told on numerous occasions that the most advanced form taught in TSD is the Tai Chi form.
Once again there is evidence for a Chinese influence.

5. Philosophy. Much of Korean and TSd philosophy can be traced to Confucianism and Taoism, and specifically the Tao te Ching and the I Ching, all of which are Chinese in origin. The belief in Um Yang (Yin and Yang) is central to TSD philosophy, and much of this philosophy can be traced to Lao Tze (Li Er), a Chinese philosopher. Again, there is Chinese influence.

All I am trying to point out is that the people who say there is no foundation for belief that the practice of TSD is in any way influenced by Chinese martial arts are incorrect. However I would equally like to say that those practitioners of TSD maintain that there is no influence of Okinawan martial art in TSD are equally incorrect.

Any research I have conducted shows me that much of what we know as true martial art today can trace its path back to China.
There is a natural cycle of cultural interchange from China to Okinawa to Korea in the South, and from China to Korea in the north.

I hope that this has been in some way helpful. It is not my wish to debate endlessly whether China has a place in TSD. It is my belief that it does. Feel free to present other viewpoints, as I am willing to read and take in any information. I am merely stating what my own research into this has shown me, while I am sure that others have uncovered evidence for other points of view.

The problem is that martial arts have always been political, and history has always been revisionist, so getting down to "the" truth is a difficult if not impossible task.

TSG, that was a great post! Lots of good information as well as clearly stated personal opinions.

As far as the Okinawan forms and TSD/TKD are concerned, I've always looked at it as Chinese influence via Okinawa. ;)

Cthulhu

Originally posted by Cthulhu

As far as the Okinawan forms and TSD/TKD are concerned, I've always looked at it as Chinese influence via Okinawa.

Me too, and I agree that this was a most interesting post. What is the Okinawan term for the Jae Nam form by the way?

Originally posted by arnisador



Me too, and I agree that this was a most interesting post. What is the Okinawan term for the Jae Nam form by the way?

I could be mistaken, but I think it's what the Koreans used to call the Pyong An forms.

Cthulhu

Great Post TSG:asian: When you present it that way I believe you are absolutly correct . Regarding the Chinese/Empty hand debat I belive as you do that Tang Soo Do never became "Empty". The funny thing is that Tang Soo Do's korean sisterart Taekwondo - The Moo Duk Kwan version and thereby also some of the Tang Soo Do instructors art - had a few years of calling itself Kang Soo Do (Empty hand) before going back to TKD. That charge was made when the Shorin ryu style changed it's name from Chinese to Empty hand. So....... ??
Take care
Zeke
:asian:

excellent thread here.

it i said that TSD has developed from shotokan karate which was founded by gichen funakoshi.

hwang kee's basic and phyung forms were developed from the tykiyoko and hein forms.

i have studied both shotokan and TSD so i see the major similarities. they are almost identical in technique.

I agree Shinzu.

My TSD dojang or members never denied the Okinawan Influence on the pyung ahn forms. In our student manual, it gives credit to Idos. I also heard that Shotokan is almost the same as TSD. I also found out so is Shorin-ryu. Which those arts are Okinawan arts. There isn't much difference at all between the three.

TangSooGuy hit it on the botton ;)

Hi all
Great post TSDguy. About the Pyung ahns etc, I have heard on many occasions that GM Hwang Kee Learned them from a book. Many of the early TSD practitioners had experience in Japanese/Okinawan Karate and brought some of the higher forms like Ro Hi into TSD, I believe there used to be a lot more Karate forms practiced in early TSD. The Chil Sung Hyung look very chinese and seem to be influenced by Yang Style Tiaji.

"I have been told on numerous occasions that the most advanced form taught in TSD is the Tai Chi form.
Once again there is evidence for a Chinese influence."

I beleive this form is called Tae Gyuk something(sorry memory not working) and is almost Identical to one of the Yang family Tiaji forms.

To me the thing which distances us from Shotokan is not the moves we perform but the way in which we perform them. I have noticed that Karate practitioners perform techniques with a lot of tension, whereas we will be a lot more relaxed in the execution of techniques. This is just an observation from training with various Karate Practitioners.

I believe the Koreans were reluctant to admit to Japanese influence in TSD due to the recent history between the two nations(occupation, suppresion of Korean culture etc). There is no doubt in my mind that TSD is influenced by Chinese and Japanese/Okinawan arts.

Hi and be blessed TSD Guy.

I want to congratulate you on this thread, logic plased based about the ideas you have on the information you have come to.

HAP

Ramon Navarro
Hapkido SabomNim
&
Tang Soo Do KyoSa
From the country of Panama

Originally posted by TangSooGuy

I told myself I'd never get involved in this debate, but Oh well, I feel a need to share what i have learned, even if it comes back to burn me.

Disclaimer: Before anyone flames me for posting this information, please don't think I accept this as the one and only truth. There is probably as much evidence for contardicting theories, ideas and viewpoints. This is only what I have come to believe through my own research.

1. Tang Soo Do: Tang refers to Tang Dynasty of China, and refers to the cultural and philosphical influence of China on this Korean martial art. Soo means hand, but implies fist, punch, etc. Do means way of life. Literally: The way of the China Hand. It can be argued that 'Tang' as a different character can mean open or empty, just as 'kara' in karate can have two meanings. My personal belief is that this is open to interpretation, but the 'Open/Empty' interpretation of 'Tang' seems to be more ploitically than historically motivated.

2. The Pinan/ Pyung Ahn forms. For a long time, TSD practitioners maintained that Hwang Kee learned these forms while visiting China. This has puzzled many people, since these forms are Okinawan, created by Itosu (Idos). Those who point this out claim that since these forms are not Chinese, TSD has no Chinese connection. In my opinion. this is a rather narrow-minded point of view, but more on that later.

The fact remains that the Pyung Ahn (Pinan) forms as practiced today are not Chinese. I do not dispute this. They were created by Itosu, an Okinawan. The question many do not ask though, is what they were created from. Most tracing of this goes back to two forms- Jae Nam, and Kong Sang Koon/ Kusanku (both of Chinese origin).

Where then was Itosu exposed to these forms? His own teacher is accepted to be Sokon "Bushi" Matsumura. It is generally accepted that Matsumura was taught by Kong Sang Koon inwhile Kong Sang Koon served as military attache to Okinawa. Many propose that Kong Sang Koon may have taught the form Jae Nam to Matsumura, who in turn passed it along to Itosu. Others propose that it was actually another Chinese master who taught Jae Nam to Itosu directly, while the Kong Sang Koon form was taught to Matsumura who passed in on to Itosu. Whatever the origins, it is commonly accepted (at least in TSD circles) that the Pyung Ahn forms were created using Jae Nam and possibly Kong Sang Koon as their beginnings. Now to say that forms created using two Chinese forms as their starting point do not have a chinese influence does not make sense to me. Therefore, if the Pyung Ahn forms are Chinese influenced, Tang Soo Do is Chinese influenced.

3. The Pyung Ahn/ Bassai/ Kong Sang Koon connection. For the purposes of this post, when I refer to Bassai, I refer to the Greater Bassai, or Bassi Dai. There are many who argue as to the origins of this form as well. Since we cannot attach one creator to this form, it is hard to say, but my research has led me to the belief that the Bassi forms were created from the Form Pal Che, which goes back to 16th century Southern China, quite possibly to the Shaolin Temple Kwon Bop System.

You can further see evidence of this in the similarites between Kong Sang Koon and Bassai, which share some of the same movements. Bassai shares some of the same movements with some of the Pyung Ahn Hyungs, and many of the Pyung Ahn Hyungs incorporate movements found in Kong Sang Koon. The one real binding and unifying thread I have found in these three forms is China, once again indicating a Chinese influence to Tang Soo Do, even if the forms themselves came to TSD through Okinawa, which again I do not dispute.

4. Other forms practiced in TSD. To limit TSD's Chinese connections to only the forms above is a mistake. Forms like Ro hai (Lohai), Jindo (Chinto) and others are also practiced. While once again the origins of these forms are debated endlessly, I know I have personally seen footage of Chinese paractitioners (including shaolin monks and wushu practitioners) practicing forms with unmistakable similarities to Jindo, Ro hai, and Bassai. I have been told on numerous occasions that the most advanced form taught in TSD is the Tai Chi form.
Once again there is evidence for a Chinese influence.

5. Philosophy. Much of Korean and TSd philosophy can be traced to Confucianism and Taoism, and specifically the Tao te Ching and the I Ching, all of which are Chinese in origin. The belief in Um Yang (Yin and Yang) is central to TSD philosophy, and much of this philosophy can be traced to Lao Tze (Li Er), a Chinese philosopher. Again, there is Chinese influence.

All I am trying to point out is that the people who say there is no foundation for belief that the practice of TSD is in any way influenced by Chinese martial arts are incorrect. However I would equally like to say that those practitioners of TSD maintain that there is no influence of Okinawan martial art in TSD are equally incorrect.

Any research I have conducted shows me that much of what we know as true martial art today can trace its path back to China.
There is a natural cycle of cultural interchange from China to Okinawa to Korea in the South, and from China to Korea in the north.

I hope that this has been in some way helpful. It is not my wish to debate endlessly whether China has a place in TSD. It is my belief that it does. Feel free to present other viewpoints, as I am willing to read and take in any information. I am merely stating what my own research into this has shown me, while I am sure that others have uncovered evidence for other points of view.

The problem is that martial arts have always been political, and history has always been revisionist, so getting down to "the" truth is a difficult if not impossible task.

Good write-up my friend, but there are a few problems.
Like you said the Pinan forms probably were devised from Kusanku (Kong Sang Kung) and Chanan (Jae Nam). Both Kusanku and Chanan had gone through some changes (Pattern, application, the evenness of right an left sides, stances) by Okinawans and were influenced by their"Te" system. This is why you can't find any Chinese forms that resemble CLOSELY to these mother forms today. Gichin Funakoshi and later on Kenwa Mabuni introduced these forms to the mainland Japan. Funakoshi changed the order of Okinawan Pinan I and II and renamed them Heian. He also changed some of the stances and movements in the forms to modernize and "Japanize" them. Korean Tang Soo Do follows these changes as well!!!

Hwang Kee did not learn these forms from any Chinese teachers. This has been confirmed by his son the current head of Soo Bahk Do. The late GM Kee also changed some of the application of the techniques to accomodate the Korean kicking strategies.

So a technique for a wrist lock and knee break was changed to a high thrust kick as an example in Bassai(Patsai). Other forms such as Jion, Jutte(Jin Thwe-Ship Soo), Gankaku-Chinto(Jin Do), are all Funakoshi's versions (Shotokan). Even the Kee Cho Hyung I, II, III, all resemble the Funakoshi's(creation) Taikyoku I, II,III to the "T".

Even looking past the forms, all basics minus the fancy kicking, stances, blocks(method), postures, the counting and the tempo of the forms are all copies of Japanese Karate.

The "Chil Sung" forms are the creation of GM Kee, incorporating some Tai Chi postures such as Ward off left, right, press and roll (with incorrect usage of Tai Chi principles and application) plus again movements borrowed and rearranged from Okinawan/Japanese forms. Please look carefuly and I am sure you will see them.

I'll be glad to discuss all forms and basics and their resemblance to Tang Soo Do (Soo Bahk Do) in detail if you like to.

Respectfully,
:asian:

Here is a website that has some TKD forms on it.

http://whitecollarboxing.com/flash/kataforms.htm

Look at "Chul Gi" which is obviously a "variation" on Naihanchi Shodan.

Basai is also on there.

I could only retrieve the "Chulgi" form. Wow, that was aweful.

"Chulki" is the Korean translation of "Tekki" - or "Iron Horse" or some variation.

The Korean translation of the Naihanchi (Tekki) forms is:

Chulki Cho Dan #1
Chulki Yi Dan #2
Chulki Sam Dan #3

It is also appropriate to use the term "Kema" in place of "Chulki." "Kema" sounds like " Kee Mah."

i.e. Kema Cho Dan
Kema Yi Dan
Kema Sam Dan

The Korean translation for Bassai is, "Bal Sek."

Historical note:

Sokon "Bushi" Matsumura (1797-1889) was taught by Karate Sakugawa(1733-1815).

Karate Sakugawa studied with Kusanku(Kong Son Kun) in 1756 and originated the form "Kong Son Kun" to preserve the techniques taught by Kusanku. Kusanku was a Chinese military envoy that visited Okinawa in the 1700's.

Sokon Matsumura never studied directly with Kusanku.

On a side note: Karate Sakugawa is credited with originating the "Dojo Kun" or "Dojang Hun." - Training Hall Oath

Kanken Toyama(1888-1966), the only other student under Itosu to be given the title of, Shihanshi, from Itosu, taught the Okinawan forms in his school in Tokyo called, "Shudokan," - not to be confused with Funakoshi Gichin's, "Shotokan." Toyama studied under Itosu in Okinawa from around 1900-1915(when Itosu died). Toyama re-located to Japan and opened the "Shudokan" in March 1930, and admitted to not creating anything new, but rather preserving the teachings of Itosu.

R. McLain

Actually Dim mak, youy are correct- this was written quite hastily quite a while back...

the appropriate line tracing the hyungs back to China should be something more like:

Kong Sang Koon (Kusanku) ->Sakugawa (in Shuri village)->Matsumura ->Itosu


As for other (very correct) points that were made by others:

I don't deny that the hyungs as we practice them today come through Okinawa, and then Funakoshi and Japan,nor that this is where Hwang kee picked them up, only there is still a Chinese Influence on these forms.

Basically what I am saying is that there is a Chinese influence on Okinawan and Japanese forms, and thereby a Chinese influence on Tang Soo Do as well. It just puzzles me when people refuse to accept that there could be any connection at all to China, just as much as it puzzles me when people try to ignore the Okinawan and Japanese influence. I try hard not to deny either.

I have seen photos and video from previous WTSDA expeditions to China that clearly show Chinese Saholin monks practicing forms which strongly resemble Pyung Ahn E Dan, Bassai, and Rohai (Lohi)..so the conection is still there.

As for application: I've always been taught that there are nearly infinite applications for any of the moves in these forms, so to say that the application was changed puzzles me somewhat...if you mean that the execution of the move waschanged in such a way that the original applications of those movements can no longer work, I guess I see what you are saying, but I have always been taught to lookbeyons the most obvious appllicaton to seehow many others could work for the same movement. I try to think of forms as a tool that has come down from teachers of the past- nothing has really been 'lost' because it's all right there in front of you - it justtakes years of study to see it. i know it sounds like a cliche, but i am just now begiing to link forms to sparring in a way that i can truly use dome of the applications from the forms in my natural way of fighting.


In addition, I am beginning to see that Tang Soo Do (at least as we practice it) has a much stronger Chinese influence after 4th dan, as things begin to become much more internal and less external - not really any good way for me to explain it, other than it is happening inmy own training- the 'hard' from earlier on is beginning to 'soften' and become much more balanced. many of the movements as i do them now are very different than as i did them at 1st Dan, and things that i once sa only as strikes and Blocks have become grappling, joint lock, and pressure point techniques now.

Sorry, I got off on a pretty big tangent there. I didn't mean to revive a dead thread, just wanted to clarify some of my own points and try to rectify some mistakes.

Originally posted by Cthulhu
TSG, that was a great post! Lots of good information as well as clearly stated personal opinions.

As far as the Okinawan forms and TSD/TKD are concerned, I've always looked at it as Chinese influence via Okinawa. ;)

Cthulhu

Jae Nam is not Pyong Ahn. Chiang Nan or Channan were two terms used on Okinawa for Jae Nam. Go back to Pyong Ahn history. Pyong Ahn is the Korean version of the Pinan Kata developed by Okinawan Karate Master Itosu Yasutsune (often called Master Idos by Koreans). He created these forms between 1903 and 1913 and purportedly based them upon the form Kushanku (Kong Sang Koon) and Channan (aka Jae Nam). The Jae Nam for no longer exists and has been completely lost. We aren't even sure if there was actually a set or routine by that name but instead this might have been a broader term for a style of Southern Chinese martial arts. Some believe that there were two forms in Jae Nam and that two of the Pyong Ahn make up one while the other three make up the other. But even those proponents can't tell you which two makes of which form. So much for that theory. Another fly in that ointment is that there is a preponderance of techniques in the Pyong Ahn forms that performed exactly as they are in the Kong Sang Koon form. This would lead us to infer that the Pyong Ahn forms were actually created from expanding parts of Kong Sang Koon and then adding some extra movements.....and maybe they are the techniques of this Jae Nam art. OH..by the way...Jae Nam refers to (a) a geographic location in Southern China, (b) the name of a River (c) the name of a Shaolin Monk, or (d) all the above. The anwer is..."D". WHich only serves to make the debate even more confusing.

JH

I told myself I'd never get involved in this debate, but Oh well, I feel a need to share what i have learned, even if it comes back to burn me.

Disclaimer: Before anyone flames me for posting this information, please don't think I accept this as the one and only truth. There is probably as much evidence for contardicting theories, ideas and viewpoints. This is only what I have come to believe through my own research.

1. Tang Soo Do: Tang refers to Tang Dynasty of China, and refers to the cultural and philosphical influence of China on this Korean martial art. Soo means hand, but implies fist, punch, etc. Do means way of life. Literally: The way of the China Hand. It can be argued that 'Tang' as a different character can mean open or empty, just as 'kara' in karate can have two meanings. My personal belief is that this is open to interpretation, but the 'Open/Empty' interpretation of 'Tang' seems to be more ploitically than historically motivated.

2. The Pinan/ Pyung Ahn forms. For a long time, TSD practitioners maintained that Hwang Kee learned these forms while visiting China. This has puzzled many people, since these forms are Okinawan, created by Itosu (Idos). Those who point this out claim that since these forms are not Chinese, TSD has no Chinese connection. In my opinion. this is a rather narrow-minded point of view, but more on that later.

The fact remains that the Pyung Ahn (Pinan) forms as practiced today are not Chinese. I do not dispute this. They were created by Itosu, an Okinawan. The question many do not ask though, is what they were created from. Most tracing of this goes back to two forms- Jae Nam, and Kong Sang Koon/ Kusanku (both of Chinese origin).

Where then was Itosu exposed to these forms? His own teacher is accepted to be Sokon "Bushi" Matsumura. It is generally accepted that Matsumura was taught by Kong Sang Koon inwhile Kong Sang Koon served as military attache to Okinawa. Many propose that Kong Sang Koon may have taught the form Jae Nam to Matsumura, who in turn passed it along to Itosu. Others propose that it was actually another Chinese master who taught Jae Nam to Itosu directly, while the Kong Sang Koon form was taught to Matsumura who passed in on to Itosu. Whatever the origins, it is commonly accepted (at least in TSD circles) that the Pyung Ahn forms were created using Jae Nam and possibly Kong Sang Koon as their beginnings. Now to say that forms created using two Chinese forms as their starting point do not have a chinese influence does not make sense to me. Therefore, if the Pyung Ahn forms are Chinese influenced, Tang Soo Do is Chinese influenced.

3. The Pyung Ahn/ Bassai/ Kong Sang Koon connection. For the purposes of this post, when I refer to Bassai, I refer to the Greater Bassai, or Bassi Dai. There are many who argue as to the origins of this form as well. Since we cannot attach one creator to this form, it is hard to say, but my research has led me to the belief that the Bassi forms were created from the Form Pal Che, which goes back to 16th century Southern China, quite possibly to the Shaolin Temple Kwon Bop System.

You can further see evidence of this in the similarites between Kong Sang Koon and Bassai, which share some of the same movements. Bassai shares some of the same movements with some of the Pyung Ahn Hyungs, and many of the Pyung Ahn Hyungs incorporate movements found in Kong Sang Koon. The one real binding and unifying thread I have found in these three forms is China, once again indicating a Chinese influence to Tang Soo Do, even if the forms themselves came to TSD through Okinawa, which again I do not dispute.

4. Other forms practiced in TSD. To limit TSD's Chinese connections to only the forms above is a mistake. Forms like Ro hai (Lohai), Jindo (Chinto) and others are also practiced. While once again the origins of these forms are debated endlessly, I know I have personally seen footage of Chinese paractitioners (including shaolin monks and wushu practitioners) practicing forms with unmistakable similarities to Jindo, Ro hai, and Bassai. I have been told on numerous occasions that the most advanced form taught in TSD is the Tai Chi form.
Once again there is evidence for a Chinese influence.

5. Philosophy. Much of Korean and TSd philosophy can be traced to Confucianism and Taoism, and specifically the Tao te Ching and the I Ching, all of which are Chinese in origin. The belief in Um Yang (Yin and Yang) is central to TSD philosophy, and much of this philosophy can be traced to Lao Tze (Li Er), a Chinese philosopher. Again, there is Chinese influence.

All I am trying to point out is that the people who say there is no foundation for belief that the practice of TSD is in any way influenced by Chinese martial arts are incorrect. However I would equally like to say that those practitioners of TSD maintain that there is no influence of Okinawan martial art in TSD are equally incorrect.

Any research I have conducted shows me that much of what we know as true martial art today can trace its path back to China.
There is a natural cycle of cultural interchange from China to Okinawa to Korea in the South, and from China to Korea in the north.

I hope that this has been in some way helpful. It is not my wish to debate endlessly whether China has a place in TSD. It is my belief that it does. Feel free to present other viewpoints, as I am willing to read and take in any information. I am merely stating what my own research into this has shown me, while I am sure that others have uncovered evidence for other points of view.

The problem is that martial arts have always been political, and history has always been revisionist, so getting down to "the" truth is a difficult if not impossible task.
Hello All,

The original five founders of Tang Soo Do all had black belts from Japanese instructors in Japan except Hwang Kee. Hwang Kee had a Chinese martial arts background. He knew and taught the Tai Chi Chuan form (Tae Kuek Kwan), which made him a Tai Chi Chuan instructor which is never discussed, Dam Toi and So Rim Jang Kwan forms. These forms were part of the original Hwa Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan style that did not survive in 1947. Though, he continued to teach his Chinese forms for several decades. They appear in lists of Moo Duk Kwan Hyungs in at least 2 of his English versions of Tang Soo Do Soo Bahk Do published in 1970 and 1978.

In order to "catch up" with the other 4 Korean kwan Instructors that were teaching Japanese Karate as Tang Soo Do, Hwang Kee began adding Okinawan techniques and forms from book(s) located where he workded. He even began awarding black belts to his students a year after he began teaching the Okinawan forms even though he had never tested for one.


By the end of the 1950', Hwang Kee had all the well known Okinawan forms in his Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan plus he continued to teach his Chinese forms.

The Chinese forms finally get dropped from Moo Duk Kwan publications in the 1980's. They get replaced with the more Chineses flavored forms of Chil Sang, Yuk Ro and Hwa Sun.

Most of this is in his book, "The History of the Moo Duk Kwan" available through his remaining organisation.

I wanted to take a moment and express my concern at the easy manner in which people seem to be shifting back and forth between the Okinawan and Japanese renditions of these kata. Using Kang Uk Lees' book as a resource I see strong similarities between the Shudokan/Shotokai/Shotokan versions and those of the Tang Soo Do material. Were I to offer guidance, my personal recommendation would be to follow the Okinawan versions rather than the Japanese, but thats just my own personal preference. However, I think for the purposes of this discussion people would be better served by limiting the scope to the Japanese version. In this way we could avoid getting bogged down in lineage issues and focus primarily on the biomechanics of the techniques. Thoughts? Comments?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Master Dan Nolan says there is NO Chinese connection to China via Doju Hwang Kee...Other than TSD copied Shorin Ryu by way of ShotoKan....

1. Tang Soo Do: Tang refers to Tang Dynasty of China, and refers to the cultural and philosphical influence of China on this Korean martial art. Soo means hand, but implies fist, punch, etc. Do means way of life. Literally: The way of the China Hand. It can be argued that 'Tang' as a different character can mean open or empty, just as 'kara' in karate can have two meanings. My personal belief is that this is open to interpretation, but the 'Open/Empty' interpretation of 'Tang' seems to be more ploitically than historically motivated.This is not true. They are not open to any interpretation at all.
The kanji for Tang and kara (empty) are written totally different, and as such are 2 totally different words. It's like saying the meaning for "cot" and "caught" are the same but open to interpetation.
The tang kanji that is used in Tang Soo Do is the same as the old To (kara/tang) kanji used in the old way to write Karate Do/Tode.
Tang Soo Do is nothing more than the Korean way to say Karate Do/Tode




2. The Pinan/ Pyung Ahn forms. For a long time, TSD practitioners maintained that Hwang Kee learned these forms while visiting China. This has puzzled many people, since these forms are Okinawan, created by Itosu (Idos). Those who point this out claim that since these forms are not Chinese, TSD has no Chinese connection. In my opinion. this is a rather narrow-minded point of view, but more on that later.

The fact remains that the Pyung Ahn (Pinan) forms as practiced today are not Chinese. I do not dispute this. They were created by Itosu, an Okinawan. The question many do not ask though, is what they were created from. Most tracing of this goes back to two forms- Jae Nam, and Kong Sang Koon/ Kusanku (both of Chinese origin).Most like they came from Kusanku and Annan



I hate to sound argumentative because this is also a touchy subject among TKD folks as well but simply put I have seen little if any proof that Tang Soo Do has a 2,000 year history from Korea as some Koreans as well as TSD folks in the west would have one think.
More actual evidence like it's name and the Kata practiced there in suggest it came from Okinawa via Japan and no where else less than 100 years ago.

Dear Robert:

Since I have been using the transmission of martail science through Okinawa to Japan as a kind of model for structuring my research into Korean material I thought I would take a moment and just "tweak" your response which is pretty much on the money. For people who are wondering, my Cit. for this is John Sells "UNANTE- Secrets of Karate. A truely excellent book which is both well written and well-researched.

Funakoshi, Gichin in both his autobiography, KARATE-DO: MY WAY OF LIFE and his masterwork, KARATE-DO KYOHAN relates that he took it upon himself to change the characters from the commonly used "Tang" (referring to Chinese origin) to "Tang"(referring to empty) in an effort to distance his art from Chinese martial tradition and make it more universal to the world as a path of personal development. My personal opinion is that it also didn't hurt as he sought to introduce his art to the Japanese educational system the way one of his teachers, Itosu, had done in Okinawa.

As far as the Chinese influence in the Korean MA I think we really need to delve into this. Using the Japanese versions of Okinawan reorganizations of Chinese material is a pretty roundabout way of getting to Korean arts. Itosu was instrumental in developing and modifying Okinawan material and is generally identified as the originator of the last three Pinan Kata (the first 2 are often ascribed to his teacher, Kyan, Chotoku) either deriving them from the no-longer-extant Channon kata or possibly from material found in the KuShanKu kata. In any event he seemed determined to find a more user friendly (and less combative) alternative to the traditional introductory kata Naifanchi, which he is likewise associated with having reportedly split the original kata into two pieces and adding the third version as well.

OK, so where does that leave us as far as Chinese influence? Well, there are a couple pathes one can take.

1.) The MYTBTJ was one source Hwang Kee drew on for his material. The KWON BUP chapter as organized by the Koreans has little to recommend it in its current 2-man format. However it IS based on Gen Qis' Boxing Canon of 31 techniques. Some 29 of these techniques are said to be derived from Taizu Long Fist (Chang Chuan) Boxing, and this same source is significant in the development of Chen Tai Chi Chuan. So there is one connection there.

2.) A second connection IS through TCC though not the Yang Style that Hwang Kee is reputed to have studied in Manchuria. Rather I suggest one study the more demanding and the argueably more martial Chen TCC with special focus on the CANNON FIST form. This form is available on both DVD/VCD and video tape for people who are careful readers of advertising in such magazines as KUNG FU and INSIDE KUNG FU here in the States.

3.) Finally the are a myriad of Chinese Boxing tradiions in the Shandong (NE China close to Korea) and Hebei provinces. There is also considerable emphasis on kicking techniques in this area and spilling over the border into Manchuria. Leaving behind the modern Wu Shu reorganizations of Chinese traditions by the Chinese in 1927 I suggest more focus be placed on the pre-Revolution traditions including Taizu Long Fist, Red Fist (both Large and Small styles), Hong and Lost Track Boxing just to name a few. There is a growing availability of these traditions on VCD (See: Jarek Szymanski website "Inside China"). Traditions have been lapping back and forth across these borders for centuries and I think we would do well to give them their "propers".

Sorry this got so long, guy. I just throw it out for what it is worth.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Dear Robert:

Since I have been using the transmission of martail science through Okinawa to Japan as a kind of model for structuring my research into Korean material I thought I would take a moment and just "tweak" your response which is pretty much on the money. For people who are wondering, my Cit. for this is John Sells "UNANTE- Secrets of Karate. A truely excellent book which is both well written and well-researched.

Funakoshi, Gichin in both his autobiography, KARATE-DO: MY WAY OF LIFE and his masterwork, KARATE-DO KYOHAN relates that he took it upon himself to change the characters from the commonly used "Tang" (referring to Chinese origin) to "Tang"(referring to empty) in an effort to distance his art from Chinese martial tradition and make it more universal to the world as a path of personal development. My personal opinion is that it also didn't hurt as he sought to introduce his art to the Japanese educational system the way one of his teachers, Itosu, had done in Okinawa.

Again, I say the Tang (chinese) kanji and the Kara (empty) kanji are not the same. The Kara (empty) kanji CAN NEVER be read as tang.......ku, sora, kara yes but NEVER as tang.

As far as Funakoshi "changing" the way it was written and his reason for doing so.......well Funakoshi was not the first. In fact several others like Itosu, Hanashiro and several others wrote Karate using the Ku kanji instead of the Tang Knaji years before Funakoshi.
Funakoshi "borrowed" what they had done in an effort to make Karate more appealing and popular to Japan.....a counrty about to engage in a war with China.

If you want to read better and more accurate info on Karate history I suggest you look at Pat McCarthy's works instead of John Sells.

Dear Robert:

Good points! I liked McCarthys' and Bishops' work both but seemed to come back to Sells over and over. Call it a personal preference, then. :idunno:

Where I would like to see the discussion go is not so much as "where we been" as much as "where we can go" when it comes to studying this relationship between Chinese and Korean traditions. Needless to say we need not limit ourselves to TSD (though this IS a TSD group). As you can see I don't really support the idea of identifying a Korean activity that happens to use Japanese/Okinawan kata to relate to Chinese material as a way of making a case for a relationship between Korean and Chinese arts. There ARE relationships and I think that includes some of the stuff that TSD people are already doing. I think examining the similarities in execution for Taek Kyon and Northern Chinese Kicking styles would be one place. Maybe some of the Chin Na sub-sections of Northern Chinese Boxing styles as compared to the sort of grappling, joint-locks and throws one sees in TSD would be fruitful. But I think pursuing the Okinawan side of what someone such as Hwang Kee used instead of the MYTBTJ side is probably not as productive for maintaining the true integrity of the Korean arts. Thoughts?

BTW: I didn't comment on your earlier remark about people professing a 2000 year heritage for TSD but I am right there with you. I wish folks would let that go. I trace Korean martial tradition back as far as the end of the Yuan (Mongol) dyn and the beginning of the Yi dyn in the 14th century. Its reasonably well-documented and most other popular martial traditions don't go back anywhere near that far. Talking about connecting with the HwaRang from the Three Kingdoms period SOUNDS nice, but really isn't academically practical. I think they should give that line a rest and focus on more well-founded lines of tradition. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Dear Robert:

Good points! I liked McCarthys' and Bishops' work both but seemed to come back to Sells over and over. Call it a personal preference, then. :idunno:





I beg to differ on this point. I think just the opposite is the case.

The information from Bishop's book was compiled from interviews of famous and not so famous teachers he did while actually living in Okinawa.



As for McCarthy's works.....I knew him when he lived in Japan and while visiting his home on several occasions saw the stacks of translations of various MA related documents (Bubishi; etc) both he and his wife Yuriko worked on.

Most of which went into the books he has written since 1994.



If you could give some specific examples (pages, paragraphs or otherwise) from either of the above mentioned authors works that would

corroborate where and what they "go back to" in Sells works I would be grateful.



To be brutally honest I have not seen much that John Sells or George Alexander for that matter have really broken the ground on as far as MA research. Neither speaks Japanese well enough to translate the language therefore making any “translated” work more susceptible to error and inaccuracies.

Dear Robert:

I think you may have mis-read my post. What I was wanting to communicate was that I have regard for both McCarthy and Bishop but it is "I" who find myself returning to Sells and that is why I made the comment about the preference. Each author, in his turn has been praised and villified on various Nets with the single most antagonistic being on SABAKI and on E-BUDO. Everybody has their favorite. I have also seen sharp criticism of the late Don Draegers' writing though this seems somewhat unfair to me as he was very much a pioneer and most folks can enjoy critiquing his work from the historical vantage point he helped to construct. Humans-- ya gotta love 'em!

I am hoping we can get back around to discussing the relationship between Korean material and its Chinese precursors. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Dear Robert:

I think you may have mis-read my post. What I was wanting to communicate was that I have regard for both McCarthy and Bishop but it is "I" who find myself returning to Sells and that is why I made the comment about the preference. I see.



Each author, in his turn has been praised and villified on various Nets with the single most antagonistic being on SABAKI and on E-BUDO. Everybody has their favorite. I have also seen sharp criticism of the late Don Draegers' writing though this seems somewhat unfair to me as he was very much a pioneer and most folks can enjoy critiquing his work from the historical vantage point he helped to construct. True he was a pioneer.
I cant fault him for trying...... there were some honest mistakes in his works. If he were alive today no doubt he would rectify them.



I am hoping we can get back around to discussing the relationship between Korean material and its Chinese precursors. Thoughts?
I cant see much of a relation between the so called Korean Arts and Chinese Arts........that is unless you throw in Japan and Okinawa as a spring board.
Tae Kwon Do, Tang Soo Do, Kum DO, Hapkido........all HUGELY influenced if not almost completely from Japan and Okinawa to say the very least.....I dont see much direct Chinese connection in the arts mentioned above.....which seem to be the most popular "Korean" Arts

Dear Robert:

Yes, I know what you are saying. Each time one of these Korean arts come up for conversation it is invariably from the perspective of the Japanese influences. To my way of thinking its not that there aren't connections but rather that folks always seem to focus on the Japanese side of the house. Gumdo is an excellent example. Easily 90% of the folks who train in this art follow the Japanese Kendo traditions which have been imported. Start talking about the swordwork found in the MYTBTJ and conversation dries up. The same holds true for the Tan Tui, Yang TCC and KWON BUP that supposedly influence Hwang Kee. Nobody wants to talk about THAT. They would much rather discuss the more distant material from Okinawa and Japan. There are at least four major Chinese boxing traditions influencing modern Korean martial arts including Long Fist, Praying Mantis, Tan Tui and their Chin Na aspects. There are a host of lesser influences such as the traditions from the Son Monasteries, the SHIP PAL GI, the hosts of Chinese military advisors that pre-dated Japanese incursions and the more obscure influences of Korean nationals with the Manchurian influnces across their northern borders. Nobody wants to talk about these. Getting people to talk about training in the recognized Korean weapons is like pulling teeth. They would much rather train in nunchukas, escrima sticks, Japanese and Chinese staff or some exotic weapon they stumble across in a MA supply store. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Dear Robert:

Yes, I know what you are saying. Each time one of these Korean arts come up for conversation it is invariably from the perspective of the Japanese influences. To my way of thinking its not that there aren't connections but rather that folks always seem to focus on the Japanese side of the house. Gumdo is an excellent example. Easily 90% of the folks who train in this art follow the Japanese Kendo traditions which have been imported. Start talking about the swordwork found in the MYTBTJ and conversation dries up. The same holds true for the Tan Tui, Yang TCC and KWON BUP that supposedly influence Hwang Kee. Nobody wants to talk about THAT. They would much rather discuss the more distant material from Okinawa and Japan. There are at least four major Chinese boxing traditions influencing modern Korean martial arts including Long Fist, Praying Mantis, Tan Tui and their Chin Na aspects. There are a host of lesser influences such as the traditions from the Son Monasteries, the SHIP PAL GI, the hosts of Chinese military advisors that pre-dated Japanese incursions and the more obscure influences of Korean nationals with the Manchurian influnces across their northern borders. Nobody wants to talk about these. Getting people to talk about training in the recognized Korean weapons is like pulling teeth. They would much rather train in nunchukas, escrima sticks, Japanese and Chinese staff or some exotic weapon they stumble across in a MA supply store. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

That's all well and good but this topic is about the Chinese connection of Tang Soo Do. Since Tang Soo Do was imported to Korea via Japan via Okinawa they cannot be left out of the discussion.
In fact, many Chinese aspects of Tang Soo Do/Karate Do/Tode have been lost or discarded. Case in point........the Chi Na aspects that are found in the kata of Tang Soo Do/Karate Do/Tode are not practiced in Japan by Karate practitioners but are still widely practiced in Okinawa and are called "tuite".

"......That's all well and good but this topic is about the Chinese connection of Tang Soo Do. Since Tang Soo Do was imported to Korea via Japan via Okinawa they cannot be left out of the discussion.
In fact, many Chinese aspects of Tang Soo Do/Karate Do/Tode have been lost or discarded. Case in point........the Chi Na aspects that are found in the kata of Tang Soo Do/Karate Do/Tode are not practiced in Japan by Karate practitioners but are still widely practiced in Okinawa and are called "tuite"....."

Dear Robert:

I keep rechecking my posts to see if there is some reason you are responding in such strong, perhaps even dogmatic, terms. Nor am I completely sure that the points you are laying out as statements are necessarily supported by history.

I don't know that anyone agrees that "Tang Soo Do was imported" such that it follows that Japan and Okinawa CANNOT be left out of the discussion. Couldn't you say that the influences of Japan and by extension Okinawa might bear as much discussion as do the Chinese influences? Why avoid giving the Chinese influences their propers especially inasmuch as the focus of the discussion is on Chinese influences?

What is a greater concern is your idea that the Chinese influences have somehow been lost or discarded and, if practiced, are only followed by practitioners in Okinawa. Where would you have gotten such an idea? To my ears it sounds as though you are working awfully hard to diminish the Chinese influences in deference to Japanese material. The Chinese methods of kicking, striking, grappling and weaponry have been documented in Korean martial science for some 500 years as were the export of Chinese martial practice to both Okinawa and Japan in the 14th century. In this way "The way of the Chinese Hand" has been intermixed for centuries with most martial traditions of the Asian continent. If you are particularly concerned with the recent use of the term "Tang Soo Do" well I can understand your reluctance, but I really think you need to broaden your perspective some.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Firstly, I would prefer you don’t address me by my first name. Called me old school but I don’t know you and have never given you permission to do so.

Secondly, it would seem you try to change topic occasionally by referring to other Korean arts.

I have brought a TSD connection to Japanese/Okinawan arts because they ARE directly related. You seem to prefer to try and make a diatribe about other Korean arts.



Dear Robert:

I keep rechecking my posts to see if there is some reason you are responding in such strong, perhaps even dogmatic, terms. Nor am I completely sure that the points you are laying out as statements are necessarily supported by history. My statements are based on facts.

Fact 1)

The Pinans, Kusanku as well as other Okinawa kata are practiced in TSD as well as TKD

Fact 2)

The Pinans were invented by Itosu.....an Okinawan.

Fact3)

Karate was introduced to Japan by several Okinawans around 1921

Fact 4)

I have yet to see any concrete evidence that TSD or TKD existed before 1921

Fact 5 )

The founder of TKD studied Karate in Japan





I don't know that anyone agrees that "Tang Soo Do was imported" such that it follows that Japan and Okinawa CANNOT be left out of the discussion. Sorry to say but if people believe some of the hogwash that has been thrown around for the history of TSD I doubt they will.



Couldn't you say that the influences of Japan and by extension Okinawa might bear as much discussion as do the Chinese influences? Why avoid giving the Chinese influences their propers especially inasmuch as the focus of the discussion is on Chinese influences? I would say given my response above that Japan/Okinawa have more influence than China.

Which kata practiced in TKD or TSD came directly from China?
If there are any do they out number the ones brought from Okinawa via Japan?






What is a greater concern is your idea that the Chinese influences have somehow been lost or discarded and, if practiced, are only followed by practitioners in Okinawa. Where would you have gotten such an idea?. To my ears it sounds as though you are working awfully hard to diminish the Chinese influences in deference to Japanese material.I think you need to re-read that section of my post again.

OK......lets look at it this way.

I have been living in Japan for going on 20 years. I am fairly active in the MA community here, specifically Karate. To date I have yet to see any real Chinese influence on Japanese Karate, the Japanese have seen to that by changing much if not almost of of what they were taught......Okinawan Karate very obviously has a connection......but Japanese karate..... not hardly. Don't belive me? Ask a a Chinese MA person living in Japan what they think..........I have.

Therefore, if people that do TSD are doing a more Okinawan/Chinese version then I can see a connection. If they mimic the Japanese version I can’t.



The Chinese methods of kicking, striking, grappling and weaponry have been documented in Korean martial science for some 500 years as were the export of Chinese martial practice to both Okinawa and Japan in the 14th century. In this way "The way of the Chinese Hand" has been intermixed for centuries with most martial traditions of the Asian continent. If you are particularly concerned with the recent use of the term "Tang Soo Do" well I can understand your reluctance, but I really think you need to broaden your perspective some.

Which can be seen in many Okinawan systems to this day.......not so much in the Japanese systems of Karate. Therefore since elements of Chinese MA did go to Korea by way of Okinawa where they were called Karate/Tode (Tang kanji) among other things and then on to Japan in the 1920s to be called Karate (Ku kanji) and eventually to Korea to be called Tang Soo Do I'm wondering just how much "Chinese-ness" is left in TSD. If there is please enlighten me with specific examples.

Just as an added little example of the non-Chinese but heavy Japanese influence on TSD........the belt ranking system.

Gees, but you seem to be working awfully hard at being contencious.

Let me say this one more time for the kids in the cheap seats.

1.) Nobody is denying a connection of Japanese traditions to Tang Soo Do.
If the title of this thread were, say "Tang Soo Do and the Japanese Connection" you would be right on the money. The title of the thread is "Tang Soo Do and the Chinese Connection".

2.) I am sure you read my earlier post (May 26) providing three major areas through which the Chinese martial traditions are transmitted to Korean traditions, including Tang Soo Do. I'm not sure why you need for me to reinterate the information here. Why not just page back and re-read what you might have skipped-over earlier.

3.) Your belief that the only artifacts to be found in Tang Soo Do that may bespeak Chinese influence might be the totality of a practiced hyung suggests that you may need to broaden your understanding of the transmission of martial traditions. The term "bup" ("method") is used to identify a particular approach to accomplishing a goal. The practice of stringing such methods together to produce a hyung is a relatively modern innovation.

Now, I think I could be forgiven for concluding that you have some special point to prove by belaboring the connection of Tang Soo Do with Japanese traditions. Thats fine. Unfortunately I already have a reasonable appreciation for the Japanese aspects of Korean traditions. I also have an aversion to feeding straightlines to people who seem to have little interest in doing anything other than acrimonious exchanges. You are certainly welcome to continue here on the "friendly net". However, you will need to continue without benefit of my attention as of this post.

Regards.

Gees, but you seem to be working awfully hard at being contencious.

Let me say this one more time for the kids in the cheap seats.

contencious??? or is that contentious??

Let me also say it for those in the nose bleed section where the O2 level seems to be thin just incase they or anyone else missed my question.

I am still waiting for someone to show me the Chinese-ness/connection of TSD.......kata, technique or otherwise.

My contention is the main if not only "Chinese connection" to TSD is via Okinawa and Japan. Can anyone show me otherwise. I am mean after all that’s why we are here on this thread to discuss the "Chinese connection" of TSD. If there is a connection please post it so dumb folks like me can learn somthing.





If the title of this thread were, say "Tang Soo Do and the Japanese Connection" you would be right on the money. Nobody seems to be supporting the opposite.........therefore should I conclude I might be correct?.........at least until I am proven wrong.........





3.) Your belief that the only artifacts to be found in Tang Soo Do that may bespeak Chinese influence might be the totality of a practiced hyung suggests that you may need to broaden your understanding of the transmission of martial traditions. I am all ears........what are the Chinese connections to TSD if not the kata/hyung and possibly the techniques there in?

It would seem that Kata/Hyung are extensively practiced in both TSD as well as TKD. They also seem to be mainly from an Okinawan origin that in some cases originated in China but now differ from their Chinese version in Okinawan, Japanese and Korean arts.

Since Okinawans generally practice the techniques that make up Kata/Hyung and not just the kata/hyung themselves it might be safe to say that they could very possibly be aspects of the original Chinese arts. But I guess according to you I need to broaden my "understanding of the transmission of martial traditions". So, you read my Bio on here and think you can judge my level of understanding? Quite frankly you have had a condescending attitude towards me in the last couple of you posts then when it comes time to support what you say on this topic is about storm out.

In order to "catch up" with the other 4 Korean kwan Instructors that were teaching Japanese Karate as Tang Soo Do, Hwang Kee began adding Okinawan techniques and forms from book(s) located where he workded. He even began awarding black belts to his students a year after he began teaching the Okinawan forms even though he had never tested for one.





Just out of curiosity what do people reading this thread think about someone learning from a book and then testing/giving ranks? Is this the only place he learned Okinawan forms from?

I for one find it rather odd……..anyone else think so?

I am not going to work harder at your education than might you but I will put your feet on the correct path. It will be up to you to walk it. Here is a start.

Step 1.) Pull up J. Szymanskis' website (INSIDE CHINA) and read his article on the relationship among the methods of Taizu Long Fist, Chen TCC and the JIN XIAO SHIN SHU of Gen. Qi.

Step 2.) Beg, borrow or steal a copy of the MU YEI TOBO TONG JI and read the KWON BUP chapter (Book 4, Chap 1.)

Step 3.) Utilizing the insights you have garnered from the first two steps, examine Hwang Kees book, or failing to find a copy, grab a copy of TANG SOO DO ("The Ultimate guide to the Korean Martial Art") by Kang Uk Lee. The hyung in Lees' book are indeed the kata derived from Okinawan interpretation of Southern Chinese Boxing methods. Practice identifying the methods in you are now familiar with in the forms derived from Okinawan traditions. The excution is somewhat different but with practice you will begin to recognize the methods.

Step 4.) Now do the same thing for the TAE KUK hyung practiced in Tang Soo Do and reportedly derived from Yang TCC. The 29 Methods "borrowed" by Gen. Qi from Taizu LF Boxing 32 Methods and transmitted to Yang TCC through Chen TCC are RIGHT THERE! Still Not enough?

Step 5.) Now do the same thing with "Shaolin Chang Chuan" hyung practiced in Tang Soo Do. The same methods albeit reorganized are likewise found right there.

Step 6.) Finally, examine the biomechanics of individual kicks and the overall kicking curriculum as it relates to Okinawan teaching and then as it relates to Northern Chinese traditions Cha Quan. The use of hip and body axis regarding northern Chinese kicking execution is distinctly different from southern Chinese, Okinawan and Japanese.

I am afraid this is as much as I can do for you.

I am not going to work harder at your education than might you but I will put your feet on the correct path. It will be up to you to walk it. Here is a start.


Again with the condescending attitude…….it’s getting old.



Thanks for the suggested reading list……not really what I was looking for in an answer though since it will take a good deal of time to track down the books,read them, digest them and the come back here with a reply.

I was actually interested in something a bit more specific when I was referring to an example of how Chinese influenced TSD. Something like a specific technique or kata/hyung. Do you have anything like that?



From what I have read so far about this Hwang Kee cat it seems as if he just read a book or two then decided he was going to teach Tang Soo Do. Sorry to say I but if it’s true I find it rather disturbing.




Step 6.) Finally, examine the biomechanics of individual kicks and the overall kicking curriculum as it relates to Okinawan teaching and then as it relates to Northern Chinese traditions Cha Quan. The use of hip and body axis regarding northern Chinese kicking execution is distinctly different from southern Chinese, Okinawan and Japanese.


Actually I lived in China for several years. I did notice that in some cases the kicking was the same as some Okinawa schools and in some it was different. It mostly depended on the school, teacher, style etc........I saw what were commonly called Northern style aspects in some southern schools and vice versa. The same is true in Okinawa. Some schools use very southern Chinese style kicking methods while others use northern style. That was really due to teacher, style, and in some cases the size and population of the dojo.

…………. Itosu was instrumental in developing and modifying Okinawan material and is generally identified as the originator of the last three Pinan Kata (the first 2 are often ascribed to his teacher, Kyan, Chotoku) either deriving them from the no-longer-extant Channon kata or possibly from material found in the KuShanKu kata. In any event he seemed determined to find a more user friendly (and less combative) alternative to the traditional introductory kata Naifanchi, which he is likewise associated with having reportedly split the original kata into two pieces and adding the third version as well.





Kyan was Itosu’s teacher???? Really?? This is the first I have ever heard of it. It’s rather odd since Itosu was almost 40 years older than Kyan. Itsu as far as I have ever read only claimed one teacher, named Matsumura.........I have looked through most of the Karate material I have in English and Japanese and can find no reference to Kyan being Itosu’s teacher.

Bruce,

I need to ask you to try and tone down the condescension. There are ways of getting your point across without inflaming or being challenging.

Robert,

Based on your time in Okinawa, what would you say the primary differences between our execution are versus the execution of the Okinawans?

Bruce,


Robert,

Based on your time in Okinawa, what would you say the primary differences between our execution are versus the execution of the Okinawans?As far as kicks?



I have noticed that there are basically 3 different types of kicking methods regardless of place, style or teacher, north or south.

1) Low

2) Mid level and High level

3) High with spins, jumps etc…

I have seen all 3 types in China and Japan (two places I have lived and trained for some time) as well as Korea which I visit from time to time when I need to get my spicy food fix.

If you break down each kick into different types they could be done in this manner:

1) power

2) thrust

3) flicky

4) toes pointed

5) toes not pointed

Both groups are very generalized.

On the whole Okinawans tend to kick low to mid level……some Shorin Ryu groups do kick high but I think it is more due to teacher, space available

, and possibly age.

Chinese tend to be a mixed bag of just about everything under the sun but mainly, not entirely, it is determined by style.

From my exposure to Korean arts I have seen both low and high kicks. The higher kicks tend to be incorporated with jumps, spins and what not, however outside of TSD and TKD I have seen some practitioners do low kicks

I just watched a video on this website http://www.greatwarriorpak.com/ of Mr. Pak in 1986……it was very interesting to see the Kata he performed. Especially since the beginning of it looked almost identical to a fairly rare kata I know called Motobu Passai (not to be confused with the 50 or so other versions)....after the first few moments it changed radically though.

Kodanjaclay,


Can you tell me the name of the Kata your teacher is doing in the video I mentioned? Thanks in advance.

I would love to, unfortunately, I do not know that hyung. TSD, and I'm certain many others are similar in this respect, has many forms that are required; however, there are also quite a few that are not required and are sometimes assigned to help focus on a particular aspect of training for a particular student, or school. For example, I know a guy who has a school, and he does all the same hyung we do, and then he also does more of the Kwon Bup hyung than anyone else I know.

Sorry, I know it does not help much. I have not had the opportunity to ask Master Pak.

master frank. hello. i am associated with the international tang soo do moo duk kwan association in PA. grandmaster pak was just up for our annual tournament. my instructor is master kovaleski.

it's nice to see the same association brothers who share the same love for TSD. my rank is E Dan.

Dear Frank:

Most certainly I would bow to anyone whose skill levels include the ability to peer into my heart and identify "condescending" (spec: "patronizing") in my contribution to Robert. Now in fairness, I noticed that you did not guide Robert regarding the wealth of information I gave him, nor the step-by-step instructions for proceeding with his research. I suppose I might have been remiss in not taking each and every Boxing method incorporated by Gen Qi in his chapter on Boxing chapter (1 through 29), but frankly I have reservations about getting to close to someone who abreacts to being addressed by his first name without first giving his permission. :idunno: You know what you can do, though Frank. You can go check with Julian. I am quite sure that as a ranking person of standing in the MA community he should be able to provide doting guidance to you regarding the relationships among the Chinese and Korean traditions. Afterall, why bother with someone who is only a mere 4th dan in YMK Hapkido and took 4 years to correlate the material I shared with Robert when you can go straight to a guy who holds standing in two organizations and may have the ear of Korean nationals who undoubtedly know much more than I. Of course, these are just suggestions. You have no reason to hear them as constructive suggestions and I have every reason to believe that you will find SOME way of hearing them as toxic responses rather than the suggestions in which they were meant. Too bad really.

Oh, and here is another freebie. As you folks are discussing the kicking material across the Chinese, Okinawan and Japanese traditions you may want to go very lightly on the idea of a spin kick and roundhouse kick (mawashi geri). There is no provenence for either of these techniques other than in post-WW II generation of MA (excepting Wu Shu) until one examines Chang Chuan with its low forward and reverse sweeping kick. In like manner the high heel hook kicks and head high side kicks are all modern innovations founded in civil (IE. Taek Kyon) rather than martial arts (IE. Su Bahk). If one is to be guided by the material found in traditional Okinawan kata or the spirit boxing of Southern China one must agree that such techniques are no where to be found and arguably can only be attributed to later modifications of the forms. FWIW.

Regards,

Bruce

"....Itosu was instrumental in developing and modifying Okinawan material and is generally identified as the originator of the last three Pinan Kata (the first 2 are often ascribed to his teacher, Kyan, Chotoku)..."

Quite right. My Bad (See: Sells pg 51). Should have been "Matsumura" not "Kyan"). Thanks.

Regards,

Dear Frank:

Oh, and here is another freebie. As you folks are discussing the kicking material across the Chinese, Okinawan and Japanese traditions you may want to go very lightly on the idea of a spin kick and roundhouse kick (mawashi geri). There is no provenence for either of these techniques other than in post-WW II generation of MA (excepting Wu Shu) until one examines Chang Chuan with its low forward and reverse sweeping kick. In like manner the high heel hook kicks and head high side kicks are all modern innovations founded in civil (IE. Taek Kyon) rather than martial arts (IE. Su Bahk). If one is to be guided by the material found in traditional Okinawan kata or the spirit boxing of Southern China one must agree that such techniques are no where to be found and arguably can only be attributed to later modifications of the forms. FWIW.

Regards,

Bruce

Here is another freebie........some of the "modern" kicks, roundhouse for example, were brought from Thailand and introduced into Japanese Karate during its pre/post WWII.

Where is the Chinese connection? The Yang style Hwang Kee learned while in Manchuria (and other parts of China), his view of the MYDBTJ...Ondrej, care to continue?

Just out of curiosity what do people reading this thread think about someone learning from a book and then testing/giving ranks? Is this the only place he learned Okinawan forms from?

I for one find it rather odd……..anyone else think so?

Even though I LOVE TSD, I have ALWAYS had a problem with this (Hwang Kee NEVER earned a Black Belt in ANY style!)! :(

Where is the Chinese connection? The Yang style Hwang Kee learned while in Manchuria (and other parts of China), his view of the MYDBTJ...Ondrej, care to continue?
Sorry I don't know what MYDBTJ stands for.....

Also, what from the Yang style did he teach or add to TSD?

Just out of curiosity what do people reading this thread think about someone learning from a book and then testing/giving ranks? Is this the only place he learned Okinawan forms from?

I for one find it rather odd……..anyone else think so?

Even though I LOVE TSD, I have ALWAYS had a problem with this (Hwang Kee NEVER earned a Black Belt in ANY style!)! :(


hard to say. you don't have to earn a black belt in order to become proficient in a particular style. do i believe he was qualified to test? yes i do. do i think he learned all from books? no i don't. someone would have needed to instruct him.

it's a hard question to answer but one thing is for certain. he is the reason that TSD is being taught today, and for that we should be thankful.

The Moo Yee Do Bo Tong Ji (The new nation was called Koryo, from which the modern name Korea has been derived. In the subsequent Yi dynasty, King Jung-Jo ordered Duk-Moo-Yi to write a book of martial arts techniques. This book is known as the "Moo-Ye-Do-Bo-Tong-Ji". Gradually, with the influence of Confucianism the practise of martial arts in Korea declined. The impact of this development was increased when the Japanese invaded Korea in 1910 and banned the practise of all martial arts.). And he studied Yang Style Tai Chi Chuan while in China....

Just some odd bits:

1.) The hyung executed by Mr. Pak in the video does use the typical preparatory movements consistent with Tiger style boxing such as "lad worshipping Buddha" Qi Gong which are also recorded by Steve DeMasco in his tape BLACK TIGER FORM. Where things breakdown is the introduction of the exotic kicking material to what would otherwise be a hand-oriented form.

2.) Regarding the idea of learning/teaching from books, I am afraid that if we teased out all of the teachers of MA who do this, albeit on the "QT", there would not be very many teachers left. I don't know of anyone who doesn't use books, tapes, DVD and magazine articles to suppliment their teaching. There is even the supposed tradition of confusing or obfuscating material in old texts and manuals to keep it from being stolen and used by competitors in the MA field. Its probably one of the more ingrained hypocrisies in the KMA that we tell everyone that MA can't be learned from a book and then turn around and learn and teach from books. For myself I use a rather large personal library to continue to delve deeper into the various influences that shaped the style of Hapkido that I practice. I don't teach from it but do use it to shed additional light on how what is done in the Yon Mu Kwan might be made more efficient or effective. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Just out of curiosity what do people reading this thread think about someone learning from a book and then testing/giving ranks? Is this the only place he learned Okinawan forms from?

I for one find it rather odd……..anyone else think so?

Even though I LOVE TSD, I have ALWAYS had a problem with this (Hwang Kee NEVER earned a Black Belt in ANY style!)! :(

If there's one thing I've learned In martial arts, it is that belt does not matter, at least in terms of knowledge. And, considering the long history of Martial arts in general, it's also a relatively new phenomenon (I haven't heard of any belt references older than Jigoro Kano).

Why care if Hwang Kee never had a black belt? The belt system is a man made system, and in reality has more to do with authority than it does with knowledge, even in its original two-belt form.

This thread started out well written, but got out of hand mid way through…

As a senior ranking master instructor in Tang Soo Do and an extensive history in a number of Okinawan and Japanese systems over the past 34 years, as well as being fortunate to have as MY direct instructor, Grandmaster C.I. Kim (MDK Pin #475) I have seen enough, and been taught enough to know that in the early part of Hwan Kee’s teaching history he focused greatly on Chinese hyung. Not everything that was taught in Korea was taught later as the Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan fed came into existence.

The hyung that Hwang chose to incorporate into Tang Soo Do are ALL from Okinawa, and the early attempts to hide that fact hurt Hwang Kee and his organization immensely.

In discussing the changes that were made to the hyung from the original version are to extensive to list here, but unique interpretations have been introduced by every KJN from each organization along the way. To say that any Tang Soo Do, Shotokan, Shudokan, S h i t o-Ryu, Tae Kwon Do, etc. organization is still passing down the “ORIGINAL” version of these hyung/kata is wrongful.

We want to show a “connection” between the Tang Soo Do that Hwang Kee pass down to us and China… this will not happen through the examination of the original hyung used to incorporate the system.

If you ever had a chance to train with KJN Hwang Kee, and you were able to feel his energy as he worked with you, what you would have felt was clearly a Chinese influence in his every move. I am not discussing the “Technique”; I am discussing the “Man”, and his “Presence”.

I have the honor and privilege of having Master Henry Murphy in my “up-line” under Grandmaster C.I. Kim. While in Korea, Master Murphy spent a great deal of time training with KJN Hwang Kee. It was at that time that KJN Hwang Kee was teaching the Chinese hyung in his main dojang and Master Murphy learned a complete series of eight hyung, including “So Rim Jang Kwon”.

Master Murphy came close to leaving us earlier this past year, and decided that his time here is finished he wants to pass these hyung on to those who are interested in carrying them on for generations to come. We are in the process of setting up seminar dates around the country to teach these hyung. We have contacted KJN Charles Ferraro to get things started. KJN Ferraro has established, through the Tang Soo Do Mi Guk Kwan, what we feel is the kind of association that KJN Hwang Kee would have wanted to see come from his followers.

If you want to see the Chinese influence that KJN Hwang Kee used to establish his teaching, this would be a good starting place.


Yours in Tang Soo Do,


Master Jay S. Penfil


TANG SOO!!!

I have the honor and privilege of having Master Henry Murphy in my “up-line” under Grandmaster C.I. Kim. While in Korea, Master Murphy spent a great deal of time training with KJN Hwang Kee. It was at that time that KJN Hwang Kee was teaching the Chinese hyung in his main dojang and Master Murphy learned a complete series of eight hyung, including “So Rim Jang Kwon”.

Master Murphy came close to leaving us earlier this past year, and decided that his time here is finished he wants to pass these hyung on to those who are interested in carrying them on for generations to come. We are in the process of setting up seminar dates around the country to teach these hyung. We have contacted KJN Charles Ferraro to get things started. KJN Ferraro has established, through the Tang Soo Do Mi Guk Kwan, what we feel is the kind of association that KJN Hwang Kee would have wanted to see come from his followers.

Master Penfil

How do the So Rim Jang Kwan hyungs compare to the versions of the Okinawan hyungs we practice. Would you say that they are more clear and concise in presented the information they contain. I ask this, because, gradually, as I have become more aware of the information in hyung, I have come to understand that "knowing" too many hyung may not be beneficial. If these hyung are truly the root of Hwang Kee's system, perhaps they should take precedence.

upnorthyosa

Master Penfil

How do the So Rim Jang Kwan hyungs compare to the versions of the Okinawan hyungs we practice.

Also, master Penfil, does the hanja ideograms for So Rim Jang Kwan corresponds with "Shaolin Chang Quan" in Chinese?

does the hanja ideograms for So Rim Jang Kwan corresponds with "Shaolin Chang Quan"

That is correct.

thank you for the info. Is there any small videoclipfile floating around the web which shows some of those chinese-influenced Tang Soo Do hyungs? The ones I saw are mostly the Okinawan-derived ones.

As of this time, I have not yet had the opportunity to see these hyung. I am excited, and looking forward to taking part in these seminars and learning these hyungs.

As Mr. Kendrowski mentioned in his response; learning too many hyung can be a bad thing. I spoke in great detain with Master Murphy about the importance of hyung in our training, and the reason for choosing to ad a hyung or a series of hyung to ones training regiment when we first became involved with each other this past year. We are both on the same page on this issue.

Most practitioners that I meet and train with have a very superficial understanding of hyung. So many organizations have established their curriculum on learning a specific hyung or two per rank, and that means that they memorize the movements in their sequential order, do it repetitiously so they can perform it and look good at it, but never truly develop an understanding of the deeper aspects of the hyung or in many cases, the proper transitioning from technique to technique.

If we are simply learning a series of techniques to simply acquire more rank, we are fooling ourselves. When adding a new hyung to our curriculum we have to ask ourselves;

1) What NEW principles will this hyung introduce to our training to make us better?

2) What new techniques are being introduced in this hyung?

3) If the concepts, principles and general techniques in this hyung have already been introduced to us in other hyung that we are teaching, what value does this NEW hyung bring to the table that makes it worth introducing?

I will not waste my time, or the time of my students, introducing new hyung if the answers to these questions determine that we already have these bases covered.

Master Murphy has a very deep level of understanding for all of the hyung that he teaches, and through our conversations he has helped me to determine that the addition of these hyung will prove to enhance out training and bring us a deeper understanding of our Tang Soo Do, and Hwang Kee’s original vision that helped him to form his Do (“WAY”).

Once I have been able to work directly with Master Murphy I will be in a better position to answer questions on this subject…

If you have a school and would be interested in discussing the possibility of establishing your school as one of our host locations, please contact me at your convenience.


Yours in Tang Soo Do,


Master Jay S. Penfil


TANG SOO!!

Wow its amazing to see how things change and how many interpritations to TSD there are now, I started in 1972 at 6yrs old. At that time there were very few in the U.S doing TSD in fact Master Dale Drouilard was the first person to bring TSD to Michigan and I beleive the U.S, we had very few belts, No kiddy blackbelts ( Midnight Blue ) .

I now see umteen different groups doing their version, the one thing that I noticed that is way off from what we practiced is the wearing of a BLACK belt, that was a big no no in my day, it was a Midnight blue belt....Things have sure changed!


Rocky

I would like to poke my nose in here, and so you know I have a rather large nose.


First I would like to state I am not a TSD stylist. as a child I studied with my father who trained with Lynn jackson in Tang Soo Do, in Lorain, then Elyria Ohio, he began with mr jackson around 72, i still remember helping dye his belt after his promotion., and then watching him sew material onto his belt for the next rank.

I have read a decent amount and heard a decent amount of things about the founder and style most commonly called today, Tang Soo Do.

I certainly feel at some point there was a need or reason for the use of Tang, which referrs to the Tang Dynasty of china roughly beggining in 600 ad and ending in 900 ad, many great warriors and arts came from this time in china's history.

I do have a biased opinion of the founder studying Yang tai Chi to any decent level. As a CMA's I have seen the ways these arts are taught and the unfortunate pregudice of the Chinese teachers. The arts are taught three ways and only the first is known by the vast magority, this is what is reffered to as the public arts, and this is what just about everyone does or knows, only a select few ever make it to the Closed Door teachings, this is reserved for the top students who have dedicated themselves to their teacher and the art, the third way is the family style, don't confuse this with the term "gar" or the use of it today. this way is reserved only for family members and top disciples, and there are only a very, very small amount of people who learn this method.

for me to be told a foriegner trained for a small amount of time in tai chi and was good enough to teach it is very hard for me to beleive, even if he studied for 2 years (which I here more often it being 6 months) and 8 hours a day, he still would have only been learning the basics and intermediate aspects of the public form, we are not talking hun gar, wing chun or the like, which you could get sufficient at with that amount of time, but tai chi, i just find it real hard to beleive.

agian just my opinion.

Jay,
You are absolutely correct in what you have stated here…

Hwang Kee, at the time that he started teaching was most likely not at a level that one should be as a teacher. Much like the new school owners of today, he was just cutting his teeth on the arts at that time. What he did was build his house with hundreds and thousands of students over his history.

As stated, I did have the opportunity to train with him (briefly). In the time I spent with him I was able to see and understand why so many “thousands” of Tang Soo Do practitioners feel as strongly about him as they do…

He was an awesome individual, and a great teacher…


Yours in Tang Soo Do,


Master Jay S. Penfil


TANG SOO!!!