So, what is the connection? I've trained in both Shotokan and Tang Soo Do. Many of the forms repeat and I feel that this is not a coincidence. I have heard rumors that they trained under the same instructor.

I've heard that master Kee was a student of Master Funakoshi.

Your Brother
John

I headrd that Hwand Kee actually studied the forms out of a book! A for runner of the distance learning programs! Wheather iti s true or not I am not sure - There was a article in Black Belt magazine a few years back

Todd

I was taught that Master Itosu was an instructor of both Master Gichin Funokoshi and Master Hwang Kee. Many of our forms are attributed to Master Itosu. The three basic forms though, Hwang Kee states he created. These are the same basic forms in Shotokan...

I do'nt think Hwang Kee ever studies with masterIttosa, he probably got them from G. Funakoshi and attributed them to what he considered the original source.

Do klnow if Hwang Kee ever traveled to Okinawa?
Todd

Hmmmmm. I don't think thats gonna work.

I have TANG SOO DO by Kang Uk Lee and compared those forms against the ones in Hwang Kees' book. Likewise I checked both against Funakoshis' master text. Discounting for the increased emphasis on kicking, the basic organization and execution of the forms are most definitely after the fashion of Shotokan. Had Hwang Kee studied directly under Itosu I am sure that the kata would bear a stronger resemblance to the pre-Shotokan kata. This is the one reason that I object to those revisionists who report that the Okinawan Kata originated in Korea and transmitted through trading interests during the 18th and 19th centuries. Its not that I mind them making up their material. I like a good story as much as anyone. What I object to is the sloppy manner in which they fail to check their stories against simple history. Did they think we wouldn't check the stories aginst the facts? FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Bruce

How can we verify these claims. There are so many versions. Do you know of any scholarly attempts to differentiate between the two?

upnorthkyosa

"....How can we verify these claims. There are so many versions. Do you know of any scholarly attempts to differentiate between the two?...."

Between which and which?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

There are several claims here in this thread.

1. Gichin Funokoshi and Hwang Kee studied with Master Itosu.
2. Hwang Kee learned the forms from a book.
3. Hwang Kee was a student of Gichin Funokoshi.
4. The Okinawan Kata originated in Korea.
5. Hwang Kee created many of the Kata.

How do we differentiate between these claims, sir? Any sources?

upnorthkyosa

Hwang Kee learned many of the forms used in TSD from training at the Chung Do Kwan. That is where he trained under Korean instructors, such as Won Kuk Lee, who learned these forms when they studied in Japan and Okinawa.

That is why forms such as the Pyong-an/Pinan series, the Chul-gi/Naihanchi(?) series, and Pal-sek/Bal-sek/Bassai are seen in Shotokan Karate, TSD, and older styles of TKD.

I think all of these questions are very important to clarify for the next generation. Where I get stuck is in the conflict that arises in HOW those questions get addressed. I think before we can go to work we need to clarify what tools we are going to use for the job and what we want the final product to look like. At the risk of getting "too heavy" I would like to mention how I see addressing these issues.

On the one side the most common way of transmitting history is oral tradition. In a lot of discussions someone will say, "my teacher says....." and then fall back on the Confucian Model of NOT questioning ones' teacher as a way of accepting such history on faith. This kind of history can be very entertaining and thought provoking and is readily accessible, but there is usually not much in the way of hard evidence to support it. That doesn't mean it can't be true. It just means that it is very often taken on faith.

On the other side is sound research supported by documentation. In genealogy (one of my hobbies) if it can't be documented it is immediately suspect. That doesn't mean something DIDN'T happen, only that the WAY it happened is in question. For the TSD people there is a lot of question about how Hwang Kee developed his curriculum. For Hapkido people there is a lot of question about Choi Yong Suls' background. In fact, if you look at the most recent copy of TKD TIMES you will see a rather large article on my teacher, Kwang Sik Myung. The text mentions that Choi Yong Sul developed his art after an extensive retreat into the mountains of Korea. No mention is made of his lengthy stay in Japan during the Occupation. One is oral tradition, and the latter is documented fact.

Soooo.... how do we want to grab this elephant? Challenging oral traditions can be done reasonably easily, but one runs the risk of injuring the (usually) romantic notions of the way people WANT to believe about something and that can make for hard feelings. Sorta like some of whats going on in the Christian community right now with the Dead Sea and Nag Hamadhi scrolls, yes? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Quote)I think all of these questions are very important to clarify for the next generation.[Quote]

With respect...

Why is it so important.. it seems to me that we will never know for sure, and that the constant stripping away of the history does nothing to help the art itself. I've read on another thread, the tearing down of Funokoshi...other about whether their version is the correct growth of the art.....it gets in the way of the art.

The curriculum is what it is, no matter the art.

I don't see as much importance on, if it is the same as when the 'masters' taught it.

If it is effective, then train....

Simply put, understanding roots of one's art, helps with training in that art. When you understand the roots, you can expand your knowledge base to encompass the "feeder" arts thereby gaining a deeper understanding of your primary art.

I am currently training in tai chi and jujutsu concurrently with TSD in order to accomplish the above goal.

upnorthkyosa

Okay, I guess I can see some of that....

When I started Shotokan, it was only "the art I was learning" then I came here. I found so much about Funokoshi, that I felt "connected" to some sort of family I guess... but it didn't change the way I learned.

Now I am starting in Hapkido...did some research here and found a bees nest of factions...

Makes me want to NOT know.....

I think Hapkido specifically and KMA in general are both excellent examples of what happens when people lose touch with their roots.

Used to be that people liked to say that there WERE no Korean martial traditions, that the traditions that were around before they extinguished were nothing more than bad copies of neighboring martial traditions. The Japanese traditionalists went even farther and said that all Korean traditions were just Japanese traditions repackaged. Even the Koreans themselves were reluctant to delve into their own traditions. It was just easier to use the Japanese stuff, or (even worse) make things up on the spot! So today we have things like TSD and TKD and HKD but everyone treats these activities as though they would not have existed without the Japanese and that is a real slam against the Korean culture. Just because the Koreans didn't get all anal-retentive about organizing styles and a sword culture and a separate socio-economic strata based on a warrior class does not mean the Koreans did not have their martial traditions.

There is one other point too that needs to be made. People really RESIST giving the Koreans their due. In fact even the KOREANS resist delving into their own martial traditions. Over here in the States people often ask "whats the point?" which is to be expected. We don't have a deep and abiding love of our own shallow and short-lived traditions so how could we possibly understand traditions that go back 4 and 5 hundred years? But how does that excuse the Korean nationals who let their traditions deteriorate through apathy and disinterest? You know how sometimes people say "youth is wasted on the young?" Well, sometimes I feel like Korean martial traditions are wasted on the modern Korean martial artist. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

I guess though the problem is Korean traditions can only be verified back to the 40's. Anything else and you get into that shadowy realm of -learned from some peoplew living up in the mountains when i was a kid. Recreating something out of a book of historical records may or may not be accurate (depending on you have anything to base the movements off-except your modern 'ideas').

So really where do you go to delve into Korean tradfitions? No disrespect intended
Todd

Ok, those are good points. And honestly if I just wanted to sit and whine I suppose I could complain all day about how the Koreans let their stuff deteriorate in deference to the Yangban tradition. OK, fair enough. Buts lets take a look at some and maybe through a little different pair of eyes.

First off, lets remember that resources such as the MU YEI TOBO TONG JI, the CEREMONY OF THE ROBE and more modern manuals regarding Korean traditions are still around to be studied. The MYTBTJ takes us a ways back before 1940; actually all the way to 1795. And early part of it take us back a century or so before that! Sure we have lost a lot of materials but there are still materials around. Can't figure what the weaponry looked like? There is the National museum in Seoul. Can't remember what a technique was? Its not like the Chinese versions were all that different, folks.

Secondly supportive or ancillary materials to fill in the blanks are still around. If you don't understand the KWON BUP chapter in the MYTBTJ General Qis' manual with the Boxing Canon that MYTBTJ chapter was based on is still around. And there are still folks practicing Chen TCC which relates closely to the material in both resources. And if you don't want to go back a few centuries for your history there are still military manuals albeit few and far between which detail the martial traditions at the turn of the 19th century. And its not like reconstructing traditions out of books is anything new. Many of the Southern Chinese traditions did this, the Okinawans had the BUBISHI and the Japanese did all sorts of recombinant things right after the Meiji Restoration when it seemed like Western versions of things were errdicating the ancient Japanese culture.

Thirdly, though the Koreans do not have patrilinear succession like the Japanese that doesn't mean that teacher relationships can't be traced. In my own case the sword that I practice can be traced through my teacher, KJN Koo through HIS teachers to the 6 originators of the Korean Kumdo Assn ("Tae Han Gum Sa") and through THEIR teachers to Kong Won Nok who trained in both Korean and Japanese sword and opened an unaffiliated school (Choson Mu-do Kwan) about 1921. Now, I didn't wait for BLACK BELT magazine to decide to figure it was profitable to run an article to find this information out. I went back and started bugging my teachers looking for leads and then started doing research. Thats what needs to be done!! My labor onlty took me back to before 1921, but thats 80 years better than if I sat on my keester and waited for some BS out of one of the Pacific Rim glossies, yes?

Fourth and last, there are still traditions and records and arts that continue today whose records will take you back to where you want to go--- but you have to want to go there. For instance, the KUK SOOL WON people suggest that In Hyuk Suh studied some Praying Mantis in Korea. You need to find published material on who is in the lineage who was a Korean mover and shaker for that arts' lineage. Its published on the Internet! Then start checking dates and places and figure how these two items factor together. There are still Ship Pal Gi practitioners in Korean. Whats stopping people from checking these folks out? There are at least three major Chinese Boxing organizations in Korea. How come no one is checking them out for what they can learn?

Now, lest I have agitated people with my diatribe I submitt that this is only something you need TRY . Nothing says that you can't ever go back to "my teacher says...." and fabled stroies of learning MA from irregular meetings with ghosties and ghoulies in mountain vastness. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Ok

Here is a catch (as I see it from sitting on my kester). Ship Pal Gi can I assume is Korean for Kung fu?? In the Case on InHyuk son, he might have studied Kung Fu (or might not have), But his claims and the offical verison says "This art is hundreds of yrs old, Korean and highly secretive (till Gm decided to teach openly). In the offical stylistic history there is no mention of Kung fu, re of recombinimng elements to retrace footsteps.
Earlier you posted mention the newest TKD times, with GM ?? patriotic view on the origin of HKD/ If your teacher is spreading the B.s. how can you follow threads?
Todd

"......Here is a catch (as I see it from sitting on my kester). Ship Pal Gi can I assume is Korean for Kung fu?? In the Case on InHyuk son, he might have studied Kung Fu (or might not have), But his claims and the offical verison says "This art is hundreds of yrs old, Korean and highly secretive (till Gm decided to teach openly). In the offical stylistic history there is no mention of Kung fu, re of recombinimng elements to retrace footsteps.
Earlier you posted mention the newest TKD times, with GM ?? patriotic view on the origin of HKD/ If your teacher is spreading the B.s. how can you follow threads?........"

Bingo!!! You hit the nail right on the head!!! That is exactly--- precisely--- the whole point I have been working to make for years now!!

If we don't sit ourselves down, do some authentic historical research and get it out where people can experience it, what do you think is going to be remembered when our turn as keepers of the arts is over? I get roasted routinely for taking the likes of Joo Bang Lee and In Hyuk Suh to task and wanting them to come clean and represent Korean martial traditions as they REALLY were. Problem is that these folks have been beating their respective drums for so long there is almost no way that you are going to get them to come clean. What would it take?

History would sound something like, "well, ya see.... once upon a time there were a bunch of these kids who wanted to make some bucks off of the KMA. Problem was that they couldn't decide who was going to be in charge and call the shots. So, they split-up and went their separate ways and have been bending the truth ever since." The thing that ticks me off is that while these guys are whip-stitching stuff together and calling it centuries old traditions the REAL traditions are being ignored or not being given their due.
So, what do you have? People like Ji Han Jae who studied with Choi until 1957 then went off with his 3rd BB and opened his own school. You have GM Myung who won't even acknowledge Ji but has a wall full of paper with Jis' signatures on them. You have Choi at the top of the heap and nobody can figure out WHAT the heck HIS story is. And if we don't do more than pass this mess on to others it simply becomes more deeply ingrained in the art, right? And while all of this is going on you have material like Ship Pal Gi (traditional 18 weapons) derived from its Chinese counterpart, or Tantui which have both been with Korean culture a whole lot longer than Daito-ryu derivations. The trick is that you have to be willing to dig and to read, then read and dig some more. You have to be willing to stop listening to the standard historical line and start asking intelligent questions. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce
Todd

Let me start by saying that it's hard for someone who is dead to defend them self, I started training in TSD in the 1979 and I was told that TSD was from Soo Bahk Do, or Tae Kyuan and that TSD incorperated the superb foot techniques into its style. Grand Master Hwang Kee states that Tang Soo Do is a genaric term or a korean term for the word Karate, or China Hand Way.

Chung Do Kwan - founded in 1944 by Won Kyuk LEE who'd studied Shotokan karate, called his art Tang Soo Do.
Moo Duk Kwan - founded in 1945 by Hwang KEE. Kee had studied Tai Chi and some types of Kung Fu with Kuk Jin YANG in China and opened a school . His first two attempts were unsuccessful, he then met with Won Kyuk Lee and visited the Chung Do Kwon periodically. Lee claims Kee was his student, Kee says no, Kuk Jin Yang was his only teacher. Kee says he learned the Shotokan forms from Gichin Funakoshi's books. Kee started teaching the Shotokan forms and his school became successful. Kee was close friends with some noted Japanese karate people as well. Regardless of the source of his skills, what Kee taught was obviously very influenced by Japanese karate. Kee originally called his art Hwa Soo Do, then Tang Soo Do, then Soo Bakh Do.
Song Moo Kwan - founded in 1946 by Byung Jick RO, who'd studied Shotokan karate, called his art Tang Soo Do. So you see Won Kyuk Lee was a second Dan in Shotokan and later made 4th Dan. We all know Hwang Kee studed from a book and the only books in the late 30's was by three Masters. So Hwang Kee said that he trained in Kung Fu or as we know now Tai Chi Chuan and Long Fist, and as a boy Tae Kyun and that Tae Kyun was used in games like a sport and in street fighting. and from a shotokan book. For me
I love TSD and that's why I train not because some old guy 60 years ago went to China and trained in Kung Fu and secretly trained from a book and friends. TSD is Shotokan Karate and the Korean style kicking and when you put those two together you get a superior style. just my 2 cents worth.

Master Reed

The only problem is there was no Tae Kyon. It is a term General Choi heard from his calligraphy (I believe), in reference to a historical art. Choi thought the name would inspire the koreans.

Tae kyon doe'snt appear again until the middle 80's - to bolster the claims of tkd history

Perhaps more than any other Asian nation, the martial arts of Korea present confusing and often contradictory accounts of their history and development. A Tae kwon do master says one thing, a hapkido master claims another, while a tang soo do master insists upon something completely different. And so very few can prove their lineage reaches more than 50 or 60 years back into the nation's history. The only fighting art mentioned in Korea's oldest records, was an ancient, comprehensive system with roots in northern China. Evidence supporting the contention that su bahk do originated outside Korea is provided by Chinese records that sho buo (Chinese pronunciation of Su Bahk) as an ancient martial art in the northern part of the country. Su Bahk spread into korea and found rapid acceptance first in military and then in the populace. The system became divided into striking skills called (tae Kyon) and grappling skills called (YU Sul), but yu sul died out on the korean peninsula. And tae kyon survives as the only fighting system descended from the ancient art of su bahk. So at this point we would need some tangible evidence for corroboration, or at very least, testimony from people who are not promoting their own martial arts. Master Chung Kyeong-hwa is the head of the korean traditional tae kyon federation, and if you look at the technicques you can see this is not japanese Karate.

Great post! For my part, if one were to split Su Bahk into two components, Taek Kyon would definitely have more concussive techniques than grappling. In this way then, I would count Ssireum as the more grappling modern art. True there are not the many elegant wrist throws, but there are certainly any number of throws, locks, pins and chokes (though not allowed in competition). Thank you for not advocating Yudo as a modern alternative. I also applaud your call for independent documented history rather than oral tradition. We truely need much more of this. Thanks.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Dear Kai:

"......Tae kyon doe'snt appear again until the middle 80's - to bolster the claims of tkd history...."

I may be wrong but I think there is considerable documentation regarding Taek Kyon. I would check JOURNAL OF ASIAN MARTIAL ARTS. They ran a couple of articles over the years regarding the formation of TKD as well as the history of Taek Kyon (See: Vol 6, #1 & Vol 6, #4 respectively). Both articles have significant bibs to follow-up on. I think you may find the commentary on pg 84 of the second article especially interesting. It concerns the banning of su bahk by King Chung Mok during the 14th century in response to the damage done to communities by excessive betting practices. Of course, the degree to which one wishes to bind the history of one art with that of another is probably a personal choice. For my part I suspect that su bahk and "Su Bahk Light" (aka Taek Kyon) probably co-developed in much the same way as serious military arts such as "war games" are often reflected in lighter civil activities such as paintball competition. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Fortunately I'm a pack rate and I save most of my old martial art magazines, I have some Traditional Tae Kwon do Magazines from the summer 1975, and they have an article about the last surviving practitioner of this ancient art. At 82 years of age Song Duk Ki lived in soul and he tells the story about Taekyon, Mr. song was born in Sa Chick Don, Seoul, in 1893. While only 13 years old he began studying Taekyon this would be in 1906 way before Japanese karate showed up. He learned from Mr. Lim Hue at the time one of the most powerful men in Korea, and a well known TaeKyon instructor. In Taekyon, He said there are no hyungs (forms). And there are no dobok (uniforms); He goes on to say that there is round house kick, crescent kick, stomach punch and jumping front snap kick with both feet and the basic Taekyon has eighteen movements. When Mr. song was young, there were traditional martial-arts tournaments called Tan Oh Nol (youth festivals) beneath the four mountains: Wang San Nok San, Nam San and Sah San. This style was entirely prohibited in 1920 by the Japanese. however in 1958, the Korean President, Lee sung Man, attended a demonstration of Taekyon by Mr. Song and a friend, and Taekyon was reborn. This friend subsequently died, leaving Mr. song the only living practitioner of this ancient art form.
Mr. Song went on to teach young people. this was in 1975 so later on in April of 1994 Karate kung-fu Illustrated Magazine there is more on this Taekyon and chung Kyeong-hwa and the he is the head of the Traditional Tae Kyon National Federation in Chungiu. I think to say that these people have no traditional martial art is wrong when they have been doing it for thousands of years.

At the risk of starting a war here I need to ask a question. In advance, may I ask that if this is going to start some sort of political discussion, please ignore this request. Politics is really NOT where I want to go, but I am not a TSD person and am having a hard time.

In the course of a number of strings people discuss the relationship between Dang Soo Do and Shotokan. I am becoming confused as to whether DSD practitioners see their art as an extension or modification of Shotokan, or as a separate art though heavily influenced BY Shotokan. For those of you who train in this art this may be a no-brainer, but to someone who does not it seems as though folks continually slide back and forth between these two poles. Help? Anyone?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Hello,

Tang Soo Do is an art all its own, though it is heavily influenced by Shotokan.

If you take a Someone who is Shotokan and someone who is Tang Soo Do and have them in class together, you would see a very interesting class...

You could compare just Bassai, and that would take 20 min. One could tell they were the same form, but different aspects are emphisised and done much differently...

Hope this helps...

M.Tabone

Actually I looked back over some old issues of the Journal Asian Martial Arts. The article stated that by the 20th century all Korean traditions had died out. The book MU YEI TOBO TONG JI was mostly a reprinted Chinese text, and the only surviving records from pre "modern" times to survive have to do with taxes and such.

May 99 isssue of Black belt had a article "the twisted history of tang soo do' in which the author trieed to track down the history of TSD forms. It concludes with admission from the 1995 book" the Making of Tang Soo Do" that the form were learned from a book.
There is also a couple of articles from Classicsl Fighting Arts magazine that are interesting.
As for the previiuos post about the 85 yr old last practioner of Tae Kyon? If he was the last how long did it take him to train a successor? At 85yrs old?
If this rubs you the wrong way please ignore
Thanks
Todd

Thanks, Todd.

"....Actually I looked back over some old issues of the Journal Asian Martial Arts. The article stated that by the 20th century all Korean traditions had died out. The book MU YEI TOBO TONG JI was mostly a reprinted Chinese text, and the only surviving records from pre "modern" times to survive have to do with taxes and such......."

I've talked with Mr. DiMarco a few times and he is a bit of a stickler for accuracy. Its hard for me to think he would let a generalization slip by his pen. Then, again, context is everything, so maybe there are a few assumptions that were made. Let me toss a couple of these thoughts out.

1.) I can't think of anyone who is well read who would agree that "all Korean traditions had died out." Korean archery, wrestling, sword and MThand all continued through the 17 and 1800-s all the way up through the Occupation, WW II, the Korean War and afterwards. I think the point that people keep sticking on is that they are looking for some kind of lineage of "style" like the Japanese had/have. The message that I get is that if there is no such lineage then the art didn't exist.

2.) The Japanese took over security for Korea in 1907 and began the Occupation in 1910. Effectively what this meant was that they controlled key points in the country such as Seoul and Pusan, from which they worked influence over the rest of the country. Had you asked the Japanese governor-general if there were any Korean MA, he probably would have done a quick look around Seoul, and finding nothing would have decided, "nope, Korean MA have died out."

3.) Rural Korea until after WW II tended to be a pretty untamed place. Up until WW II there were still reports of tigers wandering into the Seoul and having to be dispatched. Away from the cities, unless there was a specific issue going on (the Kwangju Student Uprising, 1930, comes to mind) the Japanese seemed content to rule by dictum. Personally (Warning!! Personal Opinion Follows) I suspect this is why the Koreans have some shame about the Occupation. It was not bad enough that their own government sold the country out, but I think the people actually appreciated getting away from the abuse of the Yangban and generations of slave and peasant culture. But what that may have meant was that away from the cities the populace could follow what they liked. For instance, In Sun Seo and In Hyuk Suh both report that their grandfather came back from duty in the palace to teach his material in the local village. I would bet a lot of this sort of thing went on.

4.) And yes, just about any text of significance would be written in Chinese as the medium of educated communication. In time, I am sure many texts that have come down to us are now out in Han ja or even Hangul. Remember in the West there was a time when well-read individuals needed knowledge of Latin and Greek to study. FWIW.

BTW: Just for grins it may not be such a bad thing to take a look at those tax and census records including the slave records from the Buddhist Monasteries. At least one could track the demographics of the people as they moved around prior to 1950, yes?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

I guess if the book is a copy of a earlier chinese text it could be a little hard to use it to verify a indigenous art??

"......I guess if the book is a copy of a earlier chinese text it could be a little hard to use it to verify a indigenous art??....."

I think I am getting a little confused here. I don't know about anyone else but there are a few words that get thrown around that convey more energy than information and I think one of these might be "indigenous". If I remember correctly that word bespeaks being produced "naturally" within a country. I'm not sure anyone is saying that the Korean "invented" the use of weapons. Rather, I think what is being presented is the idea that the Koreans have had and do have a standing culture of martial science and tradition. People of the Pacific Rim have been passing traditions back and forth for centuries. Of course, Nationalism rears its ugly head and suddenly one culture or another want people to believe they were the well-spring from which everyone else drew their water. I've heard both the Japanese and Koreans take this position. At best, its annoying, and at worst historically inaccurate. However, the Koreans did and do have a tradition of martial prowess and I think it helps when that acknowledged. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

I guess the thing is tho' for waht it's worth the physical roots can be traced in KMA, and they are'nt Korean. The traditions that are mentioned might have inflluenced the philosophical, and natioalistic aspects.

Even Herb Perez maintains that Tae Kyon did not influence TKD!

If you goto my site ( www.angelfire.com/fl5/okinawagojuryu ) you will find an article on the history of TSD that I put together a while ago .
Also , after you ck that out , please go here to view some good discussion :
http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25109

David Somers

Thanks, David, but your gifts raise the very point that I am working to make.

If people want to discount TSD or even TKD as proceeding from Japanese traditions, thats one thing. If people want to step farther and discount TSD and TKD as not being an accurate representation of Korean traditions I will even go with that. Where I draw the line is when people start taking Korean martial science, and Korean martial traditions and discounting them in toto.We don't have to go back to the Three Kingdoms Period. One can start with the "house armies" of the Koryo Dyn, the Warrior Monks of the Mongol invasion and later of the Imjin Wars, the various standing armies and cadre of successive administrations in the Yi dynasty as affirmed by early Dutch experiences. In fact the Incident involving the USS Sheridan in response to the burning of an earlier American ship, records the military response to their actions including the use of firearms and swords. So do the persecutions of both Catholic and Protestant communities during the 1800-s. The revolt by the Korean army in 1894 likewise speaks to their weaponry and tactics. There are two things that are being discussed here and over on E-Budo. One is martial art and its successor, martial sport. The other thing is the nature of Korean martial tradition and martial science. The two subjects ARE related, but I think we are playing WAY to fast and loose blurring the lines between the two as we jump back and forth. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Like any other culture I am sure there instances of martial uporisings, does that mean there would be a systemized practice of the martial arts going on??


If I were to found my own little system and 90% percent came from my teacher, and 10% came out of noggin-Whom do I give credit to?
Todd

Dear Todd:

I think we are two different wave-lengthes here. If I am reading your posts correctly you seem to be concerned with some sort of attributions. Usually when I run into this kind of thinking it comes framed among concerns like "who invented...." or "who was the first....." or "whose idea was it....". As I write this I am thinking of your use of the word "system" in your last post. You may not be aware that Korean martial science doesn't follow this patri-linear succession. If you are trying to figure out who "invented" Korean sword, or "what sword styles" comprise Korean sword work you are asking the wrong questions. Think about using a rifle in the military. What "system" is that? Who "invented" it? Questions like this usually come out a culture that it concerned with proprietary ownership of some skill or method. The Japanese produced such a line of thought because they needed to oblige the Samurai class as it deteriorated in influence in the Tokugawa period and later in the Meiji Resoration. In our own culture we worry about such things because we want to make sure we get credit and royalties for our intellectual properties.

Now, to clarify where this is going for me, if you want to ask, for instance "Did Koreans have swords?" (yes--- five different achitectures) and did "they have methods for using them?" (yes --- for each of those architectures). We are asking something different. If you want to ask if the "Koreans practiced Korean sword up until 1907?" (yes, and well after that). But if you want to ask if the Koreans practiced Yon Mu Kwan TKD in the 1800-s you are asking a non-sequiter. Not necessarily because there was no TKD but mostly because the manner in which you are asking suggests that a kwan in a immutable agency, and we would have to go into your understand of what a "kwan" is.

I guess where I am going with this is that if you want to take a particular view of Korean martial science it would help to know what it is that you are positing. If you have some premise that you are defending or a position to advance I would like to hear it. So far your premises have been consistently inaccurate--- at least the way you are presenting them, and I can't really help because I am not sure what it is that you are trying to say. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Bruce ,

Was this conversation originally not about the relation of Hwang & Funakoshi , and how their 2 art's are similar ? I believe that was addressed in both the links I provided .

David

Dear David:

Yep, and for my part they were right on the money. Where I think the drift comes in is in the way some of the contributors were using some of the arguements in some of the posts and drawing some conclusions. The invoking the Hwa Rang warriors and that whole digression (on E-Budo) was a classic case of where a lot of these sorts of discussions go. I , for one, did sincerely appreciate your contribution, though.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

By kwon I assume you mean school, which would in rather limited definition be a way of doing things in a similiar method.
If you are talking non linear, why are there schools today or do Korean schools trace thier lineage?

A kwan, by definition is a constellation of people brought together by a shared goal and who likewise share an agreement on the venue or method for attaining that goal. It is not a "style" or a "gym" or a "ryu". A kwan need not reflect a martial background, and, in fact, for many years reflected either a political or intellectual approach. Some of the earliest kwans were little more than poetry sessions over tea. They came to the forefront during the Japanese Occupation as political movements to resist Japanese domination. Following the Second WW the term has come to be used quite a bit with the promotion of Korean martial arts.

".....If you are talking non linear, why are there schools today or do Korean schools trace thier lineage?..."

Fact is that people do a lot of dumb things, and nobody knows exactly why. Why do people use the term "supreme grandmaster" and "grandmaster" when there are no such positions in Korean culture? Why do people continue to use terms like "do-ju" and "do-ju-nim" when it is painfully apparent that these terms are derived from Japanese tradition rather than Korean? Why do Koreans espouse a hatred of Japanese culture and injury during the 20th century while continuing to use structures such as the dan/kyu (aka dan/guep) ranking system and the practice of Aikido, Judo and Kumdo in preference to Korean arts such as Hapkido, Ssireum, Taek Kyon, Archery, and Ship Pal Gi? Why is it that the Koreans have a culture that goes back 3-4 thousand years, and yet their own people do little to maintain or promote their culture, choosing instead to promote the same shallow Western pursuits as here in the States. Its not because there is no history. There is plenty written down and there for the investigation. Its not because it can't be found. If a simple 4th dan from the Midwest can pursue such research whats holding the Korean nationals back?

The simple fact is that by establishing a lineage after the fashion of the Japanese Ryu an entrepeneur increases the chances that monies for seminars, certification and enrollment will funnel to ones' own door rather than anothers'. There is no historical provenence for the sort of lineages that one sees' touted in the media, magazines or books; not in Korea anyhow. In my own case I can trace my lineage--- if you want to call it that--- back to Yong Sul Choi. What does it mean? Little more than if I wish to, I can validate my students through my teacher by getting paper with his signature on it and in this way one of my students can claim a historical relationship with Choi. Whatever winds yer clock. As a Buddhist I have as much having taken my Precepts and now stand as yet the next generation of Buddhists after the founder of the monastery to which I belong. Meaning?

Now since I have gone this far, let me also say what this stuff is NOT.

Being a martial artist does not, in our modern day, mean that a person practices a martial science. It does not mean that one adheres to or espouses a martial code as a premise for ones' conduct. It does not mean that one practices the material used historically by Korean warriors, nor conducts their lives according to a code after the fashion in which they did. Martial arts in the context of todays experience means to use a buzzword or group of buzzwords, antics, dress or structure that suggests an image to ones' community. It is a commercial experience in which designated authorities sell various roles for people to put on. It is what I call "martial theatre". Nothing wrong with that, actually, until one decides to fall back on such theatre as though it were something more authentic. Then, it simply will not hold up. Nobody says people can't put on uniforms, do Okinawan kata, wave around Chinese staffs, use Japanese structure and what-not. All I am asking is that folks not confuse somebodys' imaginings about Korean martial culture with the historical reality. Hope this is of some help, FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

It is what I call "martial theatre". Nothing wrong with that, actually, until one decides to fall back on such theatre as though it were something more authentic. Then, it simply will not hold up. Nobody says people can't put on uniforms, do Okinawan kata, wave around Chinese staffs, use Japanese structure and what-not. All I am asking is that folks not confuse somebodys' imaginings about Korean martial culture with the historical reality. Hope this is of some help, FWIW


What makesthe Korean Arts Korean? It is the Korean culture, some things have been adopted from the Japanese due to the Occupation but arts like Taekwondo, Tang Soo Do, Hapkido are still Korean Arts, not too difficult.

Take care

Dear Bruce and David:

I think that what we as Tang Soo Do practitioners see is a style that has gone from Okinawin shuri-te and Shotokan and Shotukan and has become a style that is 80% kicks and much more open and versatile. I would also say that it's not about whether it came from Okinawa or China, but the fact that it has become a style that is universal and open to change. My first TSD Master did things that to this day after 25 years I haven't seen and so I know if you train hard and long you will achieve your goals. I know a lot of people think that Grand Master Hwang Kee misled them but during the colonial rule Koreans were deprived of many rights, including freedom of assembly and association, free speech and an independent press. A Japanese school system was introduced where subjects such as Korean history and language were dropped in favor of their Japanese equivalents.

Modern transport and communication networks were established across the nation. This facilitated Japanese commerce. Koreans were barred from engaging in similar activities. Many farmers were stripped of their land after failing to register their ownership with the colonial rulers. Joint ownership as it was common in Korea at the time was not recognized by Japan. After the former Korean emperor Gojong had died, anti-Japanese rallies took place nationwide on 1 March 1919 (the March 1st (Samil) Movement. A declaration of independence was read in Seoul. It is estimated that 2 million people took part in these rallies. This peaceful protest was brutally suppressed by the colonial rulers: an estimated 47,000 were arrested, 7,500 killed and 16,000 wounded.

So if I was Hwank Kee it might be hard for me to give them any credit at all.

I agree if I was supressed by another nation , I wouldnt wanna give them credit neither . I do disagree about TSD being more versatile however . There was much Hwang didnt learn , because he did not have a teacher .

David

Dear David:

This makes absolutely perfect sense to me and is exactly the point I am having such a hard time getting my head around.

a.) With all the terrible damage to Korean culture, why would any Korean in his right mind want to have ANYTHING to do with Japanese culture? When the Germans were kicked out of France, the French rounded up stragglers and collaborators and began executing them. Women who fraternized with Germans were shaved.

b.) IF a Korean WERE to accept some bits of Japanese culture why wouldn't this be marginalized to no more than a role as an additional influence on the those activities identified as traditional arts. For instance Hwang Kee examined both the MYTBTJ and the Okinawan kata. Why did he make the Okinawan kata the center piece of his art rather than the MYTBTJ?

c.) The Koreans have their own martial traditions and martial science. Why weren't arts like Aikido and Kendo, Karate and Kyudo sent packing? Why wasn't a greater emphasis placed on KOREAN traditions? I still can't figure this one out. Thoughts? Anyone?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

b.) IF a Korean WERE to accept some bits of Japanese culture why wouldn't this be marginalized to no more than a role as an additional influence on the those activities identified as traditional arts. For instance Hwang Kee examined both the MYTBTJ and the Okinawan kata. Why did he make the Okinawan kata the center piece of his art rather than the MYTBTJ?
It is hard to create a SysTem of martial Arts from drawings in a book, Which BTW I have never seen, except for clippings,If you know where one could get a copy let me know. Is theMYTBTJ written in a Language Hwang Kee could understand. How much was devoted to empty handed arts or military arts?

c.) The Koreans have their own martial traditions and martial science. Why weren't arts like Aikido and Kendo, Karate and Kyudo sent packing? Why wasn't a greater emphasis placed on KOREAN traditions? I still can't figure this one out. Thoughts? Anyone? [/QUOTE]
There were no Korean Traditions that is way they went with the art form of a hated occupier. Send karate packing, there goes TKD. Keep karate, modify karate, find some old documents place in a blender. Walla- Korean tradtional arts!

Best Wishes,

Bruce[/QUOTE]

Dear Kai:

Maybe thats one of the places that we keep banging into this subject. I don't understand all this talk about creating a "system". When a person joins the Army, is that joining a "system". Is there a US-Marine-Corp-Ryu? I am rapidly coming to believe that Westerners have a very corrupted idea of Korean martial science and its pursuit, and I don't think that the Korean nationals themselves have helped any. As I mentioned earlier, there is no proprietary "system" of Korean martial arts. All this crap about this and that "style" was borrowed from the Japanese so as to keep the members of one organization or another sending their monies in a particular direction. What makes a "Korean art" a "Korean" art is the cultural underpinnings that hold it together. Swinging a hyup-do and swinging a naginata can be very similar mechanically. However, the Japanese naginata-ka is motivated by a different take on what makes a warrior and the code by which he acts. The same can be said of a Korean, or a Chinese or an Indonesian etc etc etc.

Take a look at the MYTBTJ (you can get a copy translated into English by Dr. Sang Kim in 2000 through Turtle Press). Its a manual that covers what the conscript army of Korea needed to know about fighting as of 1795 and was the 3rd revisions of this work going back as far as the end of the Imjin War in 1598. It identifies the weapons, how they are constructed and the techniques that are performed with them. There are even tapes done by the Kyong Dang reconstructing the various methods, forms and techniques. And if people don't want to go that route there are the Ship Pal Gi people who still train in the 18 traditional weapons. With so much material I simply don't understand why folks keep coming back to the Japanese material like its the only game in town.

I don't know if Hwang Kee could read Chinese or Hanja---- I don't know if he could read at all. Maybe he went with the Japanese stuff because it had better pictures. I just don't know. I DO know that the Kwon Bup chapter of the MYTBTJ is based on the 32 fighting techniques of General Qi-s JIN XIAO SHIN SHU and the postures were reorganized to be mutually nullifying in the MYTBTJ. The text tells us that much. And if Hwang Kee could organize hyung based on the KWON BUP material there is no reason he need ever have used the Japanese kata. It hard to know what went on in the head of a guy who died a while back. I guess what I am interested to know is why people are not doing more to follow Korean martial culture choosing instead to bend Japanese traditions to their agenda. FWIW.

BTW: I am leaving for Korea today and may or may not be able to check my e-mail for the next 12 days. If I can I will.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

mutually nullifying , What do you mean by this phrase?
Todd

Dear Todd:

By "mutually nullifying" I mean that the boxing methods originally taught by Gen Qi's staff to his rural conscripts were intended to be used to execute sound self-defense at those times at which a person was unable to use his primary weapon.

When incorporated into the MYTBTJ as as the Kwon Bup Chapter the individual methods were paired in such a way that one technique or method was cancelled out by its partner technique. Needless to say this produced a series of paired actions which exercized the conscripts but did not instruct them with material that resulted in a clear dominance over their opponent. Anyone seeking to use a boxing method would probably find learning techniques resulting in a clear winner and loser desireable, yes? FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

I headrd that Hwand Kee actually studied the forms out of a book! A for runner of the distance learning programs! Wheather iti s true or not I am not sure - There was a article in Black Belt magazine a few years back

Todd


There were some Shotokan books pre-dating the war, but I don't think you could have learned the forms from them.


Regards,


Steve

In his book the making of Tang Sos Do (I believe) by Hwang Kee he states he learned the forms from a text on Shotokan

There may have been Shotokan books out before the war , but none depicted Gojushiho , or Rohai ; and there is no Rohai in Shotokan . So Hwang had to learn these forms somewhere .

David

Funakoshis' KARATE-DO KYOHAN was published before WW II, I think. I know that ROHAI Kata is executed in Shotokan but I don't think it is called that. Funakoshi was known to have performed a great number of kata but not all of them were incorporated into his Shotokan curriculum (See: Old copies of DRAGON TIMES---- this material has been covered many times there). FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Within Shotokan , they do a form called Meikyo , that is based on the Itosu Rohai's . However the TSD version is based on Matsumura Rohai . I think I might of found one of the books he studied from , ck out this link http://seinenkai.com/articles/swift/swift-tidbits4.html . It was published prior to the formation of the MDK , it contains Gojushiho ; and the author was a student of Ohtsuku Sensei founder of Wado Ryu , as well as Funakoshi . I mention that he was a student of Wado Ryu , because TSD's blocking methods are very similar to that of Wado Ryu . Both styles tend to have a higher level - Middle block . I have many books from Okinawa , Japan , & published here in the US ; But , none other than this one was published prior to the formation of the MDK , that contain Gojushiho . This still leaves Rohai , which he might of learned from Byung In Lee , but who knows ?

David