Tang Soo Do vs. TKD?

[Blue Panther]

Tang Soo Do / Tae Kwon Do....are they one in the same? If not, what differentiates them? Is TSD primarily focused on kicks like TKD? Tell me what the difference is....

[shesulsa]

Bluepanther,

I'm going to move this to the Korean Martial Arts - General subforum where you'll get a lot more focused replys from KMAists who know.

:)

[bluekey88]

While I'm not TSD guy, I'll see if I can answer this question. TKD and TSD are cousins. They both stem from Shotokan Karate roots. from what I see, TSD is closer to it's Shotokan roots than modern tkd (of any style). TSD still uses Japanese based kata as it's forms. There is a greater emphasis on hand techniques tahn in WTF style TKD. Sparring tends to be point-stop sparring with light to moderate contact. TSD schools also seem to teach more weapons based stuff (though this may be a regional thing and not a style ting).

TKD uses it own forms (Taeguk forms in the WTF, Chang-hon forms in the ITF...I beleive), WTF sparring is full-contact continuus, no hand contact to head. ITF sparring is light to moderate continuous with hanf contact to head.

I would say TKD really emphasises kicking, TSD less so (but that may also depend on the school).


Hope this makes sesne.

Peace,
Erik

[Yeti]

While I'm not TSD guy, I'll see if I can answer this question. TKD and TSD are cousins. They both stem from Shotokan Karate roots. from what I see, TSD is closer to it's Shotokan roots than modern tkd (of any style). TSD still uses Japanese based kata as it's forms. There is a greater emphasis on hand techniques tahn in WTF style TKD. Sparring tends to be point-stop sparring with light to moderate contact. TSD schools also seem to teach more weapons based stuff (though this may be a regional thing and not a style ting).

TKD uses it own forms (Taeguk forms in the WTF, Chang-hon forms in the ITF...I beleive), WTF sparring is full-contact continuus, no hand contact to head. ITF sparring is light to moderate continuous with hanf contact to head.

I would say TKD really emphasises kicking, TSD less so (but that may also depend on the school).


Hope this makes sesne.

Peace,
Erik
From my experience that about sums it up, although I would say both arts emphasize kicking at about the same level.

At least where I studied TSD, there seemed to be much more of an emphasis on self defense in the form of one-step sparring than in the TKD schools I studied at (Both ITF and WTF). Each class devoted considerable time to one-steps (20-30 minutes in a 1.5 hour class). TSD also seemed to place a heavier emphasis on breaking - again, from my personal experience.

I'm sure these things will vary from school to school and from Federation to Federation as well.

[exile]

There's a lot of variation here, clearly. My instructor teaches a primarily hand-tech, combat-oriented version of TKD; we don't regard one-step sparring as SD—what attacker on the street is going to move in on you with a lunge punch to the midsection from eight feet away? We emphasize instead fighting applications of hyung movement sequences (not the `official' KKW bunkai for these forms) and are encouraged to work out apps for moves that involve locks, traps, partial throws and so on, all setting up strikes. Our lineage—Song Moo Kwan—maintained its technical connection to Shotokan karate for a long time and not all SMK practitioners accepted the `WTF-ication' of TKD. Kicks are used as finishing strikes, and are aimed low, with the primary purpose limb destruction.

It's not the commonest interpretation of TKD out there, but there is, as I say, a lot of variation and I think it's probably unwise to generalize too much about what TKD `is'. There's a kind of main line, but there plenty of outliers that are well `off the curve'...

[Yeti]

There's a lot of variation here, clearly. My instructor teaches a primarily hand-tech, combat-oriented version of TKD; we don't regard one-step sparring as SD—what attacker on the street is going to move in on you with a lunge punch to the midsection from eight feet away? We emphasize instead fighting applications of hyung movement sequences (not the `official' KKW bunkai for these forms) and are encouraged to work out apps for moves that involve locks, traps, partial throws and so on, all setting up strikes. Our lineage—Song Moo Kwan—maintained its technical connection to Shotokan karate for a long time and not all SMK practitioners accepted the `WTF-ication' of TKD. Kicks are used as finishing strikes, and are aimed low, with the primary purpose limb destruction.

It's not the commonest interpretation of TKD out there, but there is, as I say, a lot of variation and I think it's probably unwise to generalize too much about what TKD `is'. There's a kind of main line, but there plenty of outliers that are well `off the curve'...
First of all, I have to admit that I'm jealous of your TKD training. I wish more schools trained that way. You're one of the lucky ones!

I would definitely agree that the "traditional" one-steps are not a valuable use of time to learn self defense. I should have been a little more elaborate in my description. At the dojang I trained in, our one-steps were "alive". We started closer - actually making contact with each strike and kick from day one. What a way to condition your forearms! Then, after we were proficient at that, we were allowed to mix it up. We moved, we didn't stay stationary. We could throw any attack, not just a lunge punch. That was the fun part. You didn't know what was coming. But...the same techniques for defense worked with minor variations here and there. Definitely not your momma's one-steps!

And I for one think the term 'limb destruction' is totally under-utilized in today's age!

[exile]

First of all, I have to admit that I'm jealous of your TKD training. I wish more schools trained that way. You're one of the lucky ones!

Yeti, I'm the first to agree with you. I honor my instructor, Allen Shirley, who's taught me from this point of view and who reflects, I think, the kind of concern with street-effectiveness that, as I understand it, was kind of a hallmark of the Song Moo Kwan practitioners.


I would definitely agree that the "traditional" one-steps are not a valuable use of time to learn self defense. I should have been a little more elaborate in my description. At the dojang I trained in, our one-steps were "alive". We started closer - actually making contact with each strike and kick from day one. What a way to condition your forearms! Then, after we were proficient at that, we were allowed to mix it up. We moved, we didn't stay stationary. We could throw any attack, not just a lunge punch. That was the fun part. You didn't know what was coming. But...the same techniques for defense worked with minor variations here and there. Definitely not your momma's one-steps!

This is the way real training for practical app must be approached, I believe, if it's going to be useful to you for close-quarters self protection. The key idea is just what you said: `you didn't know what was coming'. That's kind of the basis of the training philosophy of people like Iain Abernethy and a lot of that progressive bunkai training group of karatekas in the UK (which now includes a number of TKDists as well). You train under as realistic conditions as you can, including unpredictability of strikes. You allow at least symbolic attacks to very weak areas, including groin and eyes (where placement of a striking limb very near the very weak target stands in for the full-scale hard strike that you withheld :) ) You aim, especially, for a fighting capability in which every single move either checkmates your oppo outright or sets up a forced mate—a series of moves which leaves a noncompliant assailant no choice but to comply, leaing to that wipe-out move you bring to bear at the very end.


And I for one think the term 'limb destruction' is totally under-utilized in today's age!

Again, complete agreement. A well-aimed, forcefully applied strike to a joint or weak point is going to take you assailant right out of the fight. Part of the reason that what you say is true is that people don't think of their arts as systems for imposing unacceptable levels of damage on an attacker. We're living in different times from the creators of these formidable fighting systems, and we don't really think about them the way those guys did... for them, it was survival at stake. For us, not so much...

[Brad Dunne]

I would definitely agree that the "traditional" one-steps are not a valuable use of time to learn self defense....................

Must disagree with this position with reservation(s). One steps are beginners tools, which gets people acquainted with limbs coming at them. Now as you advance in skill, then more active involvement becomes a desired and benificial by product of the initial one steps. Depending upon your individual instructor/school, this can be taken to whatever level that's suitable for the students, but it all has evolved from the initial one step training.

[exile]

Depending upon your individual instructor/school, this can be taken to whatever level that's suitable for the students, but it all has evolved from the initial one step training.

Of course it can be; but it isn't always. There's a whole gamut of possibilities, and a lot of TKD schools, unfortunately, probably stay at the one-step/`sparring' end of the spectrum (in the usual sense of sparring). It's true that there are some schools which place a high priority on close-quarter combat under conditions as realistic as possible. But there's a lot of variation from school to school. I suspect that's also true with Tang Soo Do. My impression is that you'll find hardcore combat training in a random TSD dojang more frequently than a random TKD dojang—TKD comes with this pre-attached Olympic sparring expectation that TSD doesn't, and that'a a big part of the problem (from my point of view, anyway).

My preference would be to avoid one-steps altogether, for the same reason that when I used to teach skiing, we never used to have students learn to turn with their skis in a `V' position. They learned parallel turns from the get-go. Trying to `ease' them into it with snowplow-like ski positions just drove bad habits in, and it could take forever for them to unlearn them. I'd much rather see students learn realistic combat principles, and the many ways those principles can be applied tactically, from day one. Even as beginners, they can appreciate the way a back stance helps apply body weight to keep an attacker anchored while you apply a hand tech to strike a weak point at very close quarters.

I've watched a fair amount of TSD, and the moves and combinations of moves look, technically, an awful lot like TKD... makes sense, given the history...

[Brad Dunne]

Of course it can be; but it isn't always. There's a whole gamut of possibilities, and a lot of TKD schools, unfortunately, probably stay at the one-step/`sparring' end of the spectrum (in the usual sense of sparring).

I have never seen, (that dosen't mean it never happens) one steps utilized from sparring distances. That is somewhat counter productive IMO. But regardless of where and how attacks are forthcoming, if you are facing your attacker and you are prepared for a form of attack, then you are doing one step SD. Just because an instructor likes to shuffle the deck (which I think is good training), your still doing the same basic drill, but with more flavor. I must assume that there are also training against grabs and takedowns, what label does those fall under? To me their still under the one step umbrella. Semantics aside, facing an attacker and prepared for assualt is one steps, they really can't be done away with. I can understand your skiing reference as to bad habits being introduced, but I fail to see any connection to that with one steps.

Back to the original subject of TSD/TKD. I'll use my kwans background. Reviewing the given history, the head of the kwan is listed as TSD and TSD is referenced along with (TKD) throughout the given paragraph(s). I've often wondered, because most of the initial training that was offered, was TSD in context, with the new TKD forms added, could therefor we also be certified as a TSD practicioner? I realize that both disciplines have long since gone their seperate ways, but in the beginning they were in some instances one and the same.

[exile]

I have never seen, (that dosen't mean it never happens) one steps utilized from sparring distances. That is somewhat counter productive IMO.

There are any number of training manuals out there showing one-steps as starting at sparring range, with `uke' stepping in to attack and `tori' defending, the usual middle lunge punch from the former and whatever the standard response is supposed to be from the defender. For self-defense purposes, yes, definitely counterproductive.


But regardless of where and how attacks are forthcoming, if you are facing your attacker and you are prepared for a form of attack, then you are doing one step SD.

I've yet to see, in any book which contained a description of something called `one-steps' in TKD or karate, a depiction of an attack beginning at close range, with the defender doing a trap or lock on a grab, followed by an elbow strike the the throat or a partial takedown followed by a hard low side kick to the side of the attacker's knee joint. Where those kind of techs are depicted—if they are—is typically in some other section called `Self Defense' or Ho Sjin Sul or whatever. The techs typically depicted in the one-step section and those in the SD section are often wildly different.



Just because an instructor likes to shuffle the deck (which I think is good training), your still doing the same basic drill, but with more flavor. I must assume that there are also training against grabs and takedowns, what label does those fall under?

As I say, Ho Shin Sul—to some degree of realism or other.


To me their still under the one step umbrella.

I'm just reporting what I've observed vitually all of the TKD literature I've seen. Marc Tedeschi's comprehensive manual on TKD is just one example that comes to mind, with an enormous number of combinations of techs. As far as I can remember, I've never seen anything like—using the familiar karate terms again—oyo based on realistic bunkai presented as part of the `one step' discussion. What I have seen, over and over and over again in the one-step sections of TKD, and in various classes I've observed at other dojangs, is a six-to-eight foot separation between the participants, a conventionalized move in from the attacker and a conventional block/counter from the defender.


Semantics aside, facing an attacker and prepared for assualt is one steps, they really can't be done away with. I can understand your skiing reference as to bad habits being introduced, but I fail to see any connection to that with one steps.

Semantics is just `meaning'. I'm inferring the meaning of `one-step' from the way I've seen it used in virtually every case I've encountered: prearranged sequences of literal interpretations of movements (`blocks' treated as just that, blocks; `punches' and other strikes as just that (a punch is never part of a neck twist, etc.)). If you're using one-step to mean something closer to realistic Ho Shin Sul, fine, but I think that's definitely not the most common way the term `one-step' is used.

[Brad Dunne]

Sparring range to me is the distance between opponents at a tournament, which should be approx 5 to 6 ft from each other. Bow/fighting position/fight. Can this distance be applied on the street........of course. Can your attacker get closer to you before committing, again of course. Does this really happen on the street?........You bet!

Your opinion, influenced by your instructor (understandable), dictates the dislike for one steps. "The techs typically depicted in the one-step section and those in the SD section are often wildly different". The only difference is the distance between the opponents. You throw a "lunge punch" at me from 5 feet away, you throw a punch/kick from arms length away, you grab my shirt and throw an elbow, you attempt a takedown, anything and everything I choose to do is now defined as self defense. I don't care if it started from the other side of the street, it all falls under the same venue. They, meaning the person(s) who initiated the terms being used, were only segmenting the aspects associated within the self defense envelope.

[exile]

Sparring range to me is the distance between opponents at a tournament, which should be approx 5 to 6 ft from each other. Bow/fighting position/fight. Can this distance be applied on the street........of course. Can your attacker get closer to you before committing, again of course. Does this really happen on the street?........You bet!

Your opinion, influenced by your instructor (understandable), dictates the dislike for one steps. "The techs typically depicted in the one-step section and those in the SD section are often wildly different". The only difference is the distance between the opponents. You throw a "lunge punch" at me from 5 feet away, you throw a punch/kick from arms length away, you grab my shirt and throw an elbow, you attempt a takedown, anything and everything I choose to do is now defined as self defense. I don't care if it started from the other side of the street, it all falls under the same venue. They, meaning the person(s) who initiated the terms being used, were only segmenting the aspects associated within the self defense envelope.

Sigh... all I'm saying, Brad, is that the way a lot—maybe most—of the TKD literature uses the term `one-step', the moves are not carried out at a range where physical assaults usually begin, nor with the techniques that a typical untrained but dangerous attacker will use. The techs I see used in one-steps are not going to work against a roundhouse from an assailant who's practically toe-to-toe with you and has grabbed your shirt, or is about to attempt a head-butt to your face. The CQ techs that you need to respond to such situations are—to the extent that they're covered at all—commonly taught as parts of Ho Shin Sul discussions and look very different from standard textbook one-step exchanges. If you teach such techniques under the heading `one-step', or even grappling apps under that heading, fine. I'm not quarrelling about that. I'm just saying that virtually no TKD literature I know of uses the term `one-step' in that way, and when I made my original comment, I was alluding to the way one-step training is carried out as evidenced, say, in Teseschi's book and many similary (very good) ones. That's all I was doing...

[Brad Dunne]

Bigger Sigh!........

"the moves are not carried out at a range where physical assaults usually begin, nor with the techniques that a typical untrained but dangerous attacker will use"...............

All I can say to that statement is..............actually there's nothing to say. Your position and mine differ, we'll just leave it at that........:asian:

[Chizikunbo]

Tang Soo Do / Tae Kwon Do....are they one in the same? If not, what differentiates them? Is TSD primarily focused on kicks like TKD? Tell me what the difference is....

TSD and TKD are NOT the same. I practiced WTF under GM Won Kim here in missouri for a while back before he passed, and it was VERY different. Things I noticed were TKD uses more narrow and higher stances, and TSD uses the traditional lower stances which are really good for developing leg muscles. TSD generates its power from the waist, more so than in most arts; as it is put in the Song of Thirteen Influences (Sip Sam Seh) "The Source of the Will Is In The Waist". TKD seems to focus alot of kicks, in particular fast, high kicks, whereas TSD as taught by Hwang Kee had many kicks but they are "different". TSD as I know it includes a TON of grappling, nerve strikes, throws, joint locks, etc. Things that are not usually seen in TKD (or most TSD for that matter) but it IS there in there...Of course there is the uniforms where TKD does the whole v-neck thing, and TSD is traditionally a midnight blue trimmed dobahk...
Tang Soo Do, I feel has MUCH stronger hand techniques (soo kong kyuk)(based on my limited understanding of Tae Kwon Do)...
Hope that helps,
--Josh

[Last Fearner]

Tang Soo Do / Tae Kwon Do....are they one in the same? If not, what differentiates them? Is TSD primarily focused on kicks like TKD? Tell me what the difference is....

The following answer is from my experience and personal perspective.

You will likely get a different answer to this question depending on who you ask. Everyone's personal experience is different. The truth is never discovered by most people, and obscured in an over-abundance of opinions to the rest.

My answer to your question of similarities and differences between TSD and TKD will depend greatly on the instructor, the school, and your definition of the term "Taekwondo." Each TSD and TKD instructor will teach differently according to influences from their teacher, other sources, and personal preferences. No exact description fits the whole.

To quote the "The Overlook Martial Arts Dictionary" (The overlook Press, 1983 by Emil Farkas and John Corcoran, and with major contributions from Jhoon Rhee, and Ed Parker, along with Hee Il Cho): definition - "Tang Soo Do: Korean. "art of the Chinese hand." A Korean combative differing only slightly from tae kwon do."

Others have chosen not to define "Tang" as the "Chinese" translation, but use other interpretations to avoid the connection to China.

If you are not familiar with the history (which varies widely in interpretation) you could read the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_Soo_Do

For my personal experience, most of these Korean based Martial Art programs were born out of necessity for survival, thus they have that in common. They each use some amounts of striking, throwing, and holding (grappling techniques) as a means to the end of successful self defense. The overall characteristic is self-improvement with spiritual enlightenment to learn about the universe, and live in harmony with nature, and your environment.

The tools that are used in training (eg: forms, one-steps, self defense, board breaking, and free sparring) might vary slightly, but are used in balance depending mostly on the instructor's preference rather than an over-all rule of the art. Many Tangsudo (Tang Soo Do) practitioners will participate in competition, but will assert that this is limited and for a higher purpose than just "sport." They might believe that "Taekwondo" has gone too far into sport, and compromised the real "essence" and virtue of the art. This is, of course, not indicative of all Taekwondo, nor absolute about those who compete in Olympics, but is a case by case reality for those whose focus is out of balance.


Those practitioners of long ago, who learned native Korean Martial Art in ancient times, passed on their knowledge to each subsequent generation. Those students often gathered skills and borrowed from Chinese or Japanese Martial Art. There is no way to determine exactly what came from where and at which time. There were those who studied Korean kicking and grappling (Hwa Rang Do, Moo Sul, Kyuck Too Ki, Soo Bahk Ki, Soo Byuck Ki, Tae Kyun etc), but also took an interest in the "Chinese hand" (Ken-fat, Kara-te, etc). What those particular individuals taught in Korea became known as "Tang Soo Do" - - one of the many varied curriculums of that time.

Thus, the basic curriculum of Tangsudo, and Taekwondo are very similar depending on how you define "Taekwondo" and which school you are observing.

Define "Taekwon-Do" as the modern modification of Japanese Shotokan Karate into a Korean Martial Art, and you have one limited perspective based on recent events, and a handful of individuals' input.

Define "Tae Kwon Do" as simply another name for Tangsudo (Tang Soo Do), and you are seeing the limited perspective of political controversy, and lacking an understanding of the broader meaning behind the term.

However, in my opinion, if you define "Taekwondo" as the rebirth of ancient Korean Martial Art, with modern application (which includes an awareness of other Martial systems, including Kara-te, Karate-do, Judo, Aikido, etc), then you understand that Taekwondo is not limited to one source, nor one founder, but also does not come from any other country, and is not a descendant of Chinese, or Japanese Martial Art.

Knowledge is eternal (from the beginning of time), and the people of ancient Korea possessed this knowledge and made it their own native art, then they had it suppressed and replaced with a foreign curriculum. That period in history can never be replaced, and that forced curriculum will never be removed from the minds of those who digested it, but it is not in their hearts, and it is not the foundation of their art. Back to the roots, we revive the old and make it new again.

Tangsudo (Tang Soo Do) was one perspective of Korean Martial Art - - Taekwondo is all perspectives of Korean Martial Art brought together. Some schools of "Tae Kwon Do" do not accurately represent that fact. The reality is, with the progress of improving each person's understanding of the Martial Art as a whole, there becomes less of a distinction between doing it correctly, under one name or another name. Then there are those who misrepresent the Martial Art all together. To make any assessment about Taekwondo because of them is to not understand true Taekwondo.

CM D.J. Eisenhart

[Tlaloc]

To make any assessment about Taekwondo because of them is to not understand true Taekwondo.


For some reason, I read this and was reminded of the Confucian saying "The Dao that can be spoken of is not the true Dao"

[tsd]

Tae Kwon Do is a sport. Tang Soo Do is not.

[exile]

Tae Kwon Do is a sport. Tang Soo Do is not.

What about people who train TKD as a close-quarter self-defense combat system sharing 95% or so of its techs with Shotokan karate, including traps, sweeps, locks, armbars to set up finishing hand or elbow strikes to the head and throad, and use low kicks to damage an attacker's limbs to the point where he can no longer stand up—all of these implicit in both ITF and KKW hyungs? Would you include that under the heading `sport'?

[Last Fearner]

Tae Kwon Do is a sport. Tang Soo Do is not.

There are competitions for Taekwondo to be played as a sport. Some instructors, and schools focus only on the competition side of Taekwondo. For that reason, their students would know no other reality but Taekwondo as a sport, unless they research outside their "sport school"

I have heard the contention of Tang Su Do (Tang Soo Do) followers that they tend NOT to focus on sports, but it is true that some do compete. This assertion of what TSD is not, has no bearing on what TKD is.

With all due respect, tsd, anyone who blanketly says that "Tae Kwon Do is a sport," has never studied Taekwondo. If you are a student of a genuine Taekwondo Dojang, under the instruction of a qualified teacher, you might begin to understand, after a decade or two, what Taekwondo is. However, if you are not a Taekwondo Master or Grandmaster, please refrain from saying what Taekwondo is or is not, because that would be speaking from beyond your education on the subject.

One can not accurately define what one does not truly understand. :asian:

[tsd]

If I have offended you, I apoligize. I have not trained in Tae Kwon Do only Tang Soo Do, so I should have clarified my answer. The standard answer for the difference between TKD and TSD that I have heard are.......Tang Soo Do is not a sport, it will never be in the Olympics where as TKD is a sport and is included in the Olympics.

This was no value judgement on TKD. All Martial Arts are valuable....the path of each is rich for all of us.

Humblest Apoligies

[exile]

If I have offended you, I apoligize. I have not trained in Tae Kwon Do only Tang Soo Do, so I should have clarified my answer. The standard answer for the difference between TKD and TSD that I have heard are.......Tang Soo Do is not a sport, it will never be in the Olympics where as TKD is a sport and is included in the Olympics.

This was no value judgement on TKD. All Martial Arts are valuable....the path of each is rich for all of us.

Humblest Apoligies

Wait, tsd, let's not go to the other extreme!

First of all, you have a perfect right to have an opinion and to voice it. That is the fundamental premise of Martial Talk, I believe. I myself was a bit sharper with you in my previous reply than I should have been, because, while it bothers me to keep seeing this view of my art circulated, I understand that what you were doing was nothing more than repeating a very widespread—but unfortunately somewhat parochial—view of TKD. The fact is, there are plenty of people who have trained in a very limited, focused approach to TKD who probably would be in complete agreement with you (though they might well have never heard of TSD and wondered what that was all about). You should be aware that there is a major division between TKD as a combat art, one which resembles Shotokan karate to a great degree and shares many of the same kata and fighting interpretations for those kata moves, on the one hand, and TKD the Olympic sport, which operates under a scoring system that produces sparring matches with with no content relevant to self-defense combat. A lot of people think TKD is only the latter—but there are many myths and half-truths in the MAs, particularly about the supposed limits or failings of particular styles, and this is just one of them.

Second, while I think your previous post incorporated a mistakenly narrow view of TKD, I would encourage you to keep posting, based on study and understanding of the history of the Korean MAs. Once upon a time, all the modern KMAs were called tang soo do or kong soo do, based on two different transliterations of kara te, `China hand' or `empty hand'. The kwan founders of the modern KMA were, every one of them, primarily trained in varieties of Japanese karate, and that's what they taught when they came home to Korea at the end of the 1930s. My own lineage in TKD, Song Moo Kwan, is a literal translation into Korean of Shoto Kan, for example, so named by Byung Jik Ro in honor of Gichin Funakoshi's training home and training hall, where he learned the karate that became the foundation of his school of KMA. In the Song Moo Kwan, people learned tang soo do—(Korean Shotokan) Karate. What happened, in very broad brushstrokes, is that the Kwan founders, under considerable pressure from the Korean defense ministry in the late 1940s and just before the Korean War, were under serious pressure to come up with a uniform syllabus and grading scheme, and agreed to form a unified organization to promote this über-syllabus—all except for Hwang Kee, founder of Moo Duk Kwan, who was also teaching karate, which he had studied in Manchuria under Gogen `The Cat' Yamaguchi, under the name tang soo do. Eventually the MDK split into a faction that went with the other Kwan leaders, and a faction that stayed with HK. The former became, after many false starts, the modern KTA and went the martial sport route (though the North American descendents of some of these Kwans, such as Song Moo Kwan, have stayed close to the tang soo do (karate) origins of TKD). But the HK faction of MDK stayed aloof from that tendency to a much greater extent—although, tsd, I note that there are an awful lot of Tang Soo Do tournaments listed on the Web! Is it not the case that TSD also has a sport component, I wonder? :wink1:

The point is that TSD and TKD were once one and the same thing, and not all of TKD went the sport route. The `traditional' self-defense varieties of TKD look, so far as I can tell, an awful lot like TSD. And again, from what I can tell, the technical content of the two arts is virtually identical.

In any case, please keep posting and do not feel you have to apologize. You didn't do anything you need to apologize for. If you're wrong about something, fine, you're wrong. Happens to me, and everyone else I know, all the time. Just keep an open mind and keep the historical record in mind, and learn what you can from the discussion.

[tsd]

Exile,

Thanks for the encouragement. And I would not let an RSVP stop me from posting. Every rsvp is an opportunity for thought and lessons.
You are correct in that I was only "spouting a party line".

When perspective students ask about TSD they always ask what is the difference between TSD and TKD and I respond......they are very much the same except for the "sport" aspect. The question is how to respond in a way that is applicable for the possible student. (This is almost always a parent asking about their childs training). I never respond until I discover if the parent has trained in the MA. This will allow me frame my response.

To say that all TSD or all TKD schools are the same is like saying all women or methodists or muslims are the same. It is a sweeping generalization that serves propogandists, not a rich culture or society.

But to say that at the root, all martial arts have some concept of Do and Harmony is not a dis-service. It is the truth I have come to know.

[terryl965]

Tae Kwon Do is a sport. Tang Soo Do is not.

This is the most mes conception with most people in the Arts, TKD was and still is a combat Art yes we have a sport side but so does TSD and Karate and MMA and Judo and Ninjutsu and all other Arts as well.

I hope your mind and soul grows over the years to see this statement is just a bit off.
Thank you
Master Stoker

[exile]

Exile,

Thanks for the encouragement. And I would not let an RSVP stop me from posting. Every rsvp is an opportunity for thought and lessons.
You are correct in that I was only "spouting a party line".

When perspective students ask about TSD they always ask what is the difference between TSD and TKD and I respond......they are very much the same except for the "sport" aspect. The question is how to respond in a way that is applicable for the possible student. (This is almost always a parent asking about their childs training). I never respond until I discover if the parent has trained in the MA. This will allow me frame my response.

To say that all TSD or all TKD schools are the same is like saying all women or methodists or muslims are the same. It is a sweeping generalization that serves propogandists, not a rich culture or society.

But to say that at the root, all martial arts have some concept of Do and Harmony is not a dis-service. It is the truth I have come to know.

Very good comparisons, tsd. There is a huge range of opinions, perspectives and priorities concealed under these monolithic labels. Categorizing is a crucial part of our mental toolkit, it's a big component of our higher-order thinking ability; but like anything else that's a good servant, it generally makes for a bad master.

And I don't really think you were `spouting' a party line—that too is too loaded a term. The fact is, a lot of TSD people in a sense seem to define themselves as not-TKD, and this is a very convenient basis for a distinction. It oversimplifies the situation seriously, as we all agree, but it does make the maintenance of a familiar distinction clearer.

I have to say, my own view of TKD is an art which is a lot closer to the way TSD people seem to approach various aspects of their own art than what I think of as the Korean take on TKD. In my experience, TSD people have for the most part a much greater awareness of the `bunkai' aspect of their hyungs, and a much greater openness to the `upright grappling' components reflected in those hyungs—the pins, locks, taps and other controlling moves that are part of setting up finishing strikes. TSD people seem to be much more aware of the role of these moves in controlling the body configuration of an attacker so that what looks like a middle knife-hand block is actually a strike to the attacker's lowered, vulnerable throat—lowered, because the preceding `block' was actually a wrist trap + armbar/pin on the attacker's grabbing or punching elbow, and the pressure from the armbar has forced their head down, so that the middle `block' terminates exactly where their neck now is. Looking at some of upnorthkyosa's posts and video links, and much of the discussion around these, and the posts from Master Penfil, it's very clear that many TSDers are quite familiar with the concept of bunkai and how to evalute alternative bunkai in terms of the realism and effectiveness of the oyo they determine.

Another respect in which some of us TKDers are envious of TSD is the latter's retention of the older Okinawan/Japanese kata—the Pinans, Bassai, Naihanchi, Rohai and others—as normal components of the syllabus. The ROK's TKD-control organizations have been on a systematic campaign over the past several decades to purge TKD of its Okinawan/Japanese heritage, a game they've played in a variety of contexts—from active mythmongering about the status of certain archæological sites on the Korean peninsula (as documented in Burdick's 2000 expansion of his 1997 Journal of Asian Martial Arts article, available at http://www.budosportcapelle.nl/gesch.html) as evidence for a putative unbroken link between modern KMAs and martial practices of the Three Kingdoms era, to first, the removal of the Pinan (Pyung-Ahn) hyungs from the TKD curriculum and tournament competition, and the subsequent marginalization of the Palgwes, which incorporate large chunks of the Pyung-Ahns and other O/J katas. Up to the present, at any rate, the TSD orgs seem to place much higher value on the Okinawan/Japanese MA foundations of TSD and the maintenance of its historical roots in traditional kata. Clearly, I'm not speaking for everyone who objects to the depiction of TKD as solely a martial sport. But a lot of those who do, I suspect, admire TSD's maintenance of its Okinawan/Japanese sources.

[Last Fearner]

If I have offended you, I apoligize.
On the contrary, you have not offended me. I understand that you have been told something about Taekwondo that makes sense, and gives an easy reference to explain one difference between many TSD and TKD schools.


I have not trained in Tae Kwon Do only Tang Soo Do, so I should have clarified my answer. The standard answer for the difference between TKD and TSD that I have heard are.......Tang Soo Do is not a sport, it will never be in the Olympics where as TKD is a sport and is included in the Olympics.

Most of us in Taekwondo have heard statements like this which can be misleading, thus we might be quick to make a correction, but please do not feel as though I am upset with you or offended by your comments. Even in the above quote, the distinction that TSD does not tend to be involved in competitions, but TKD is often involved in the sport aspect, is stated with the misleading comment that "TKD is a sport."

I appreciate your taking time to clarify the meaning behind your earlier post, and I also wish to clarify that it is this incorrect statement that confuses some people. TKD is not a sport. It is a term used to describe a variety of historical contributions to what we accept as a National Martial Art in Korea. TKD can, and is played with rules as a sport, and that aspect is often referred to as the "National Sport of Korea." However, the term "Taekwondo" has many definitions depending on what is the context and intent of the user of this word, and which era in history to which it is being applied.

As we basically understand (from what little resources are available) any fighting system which has ever been used in Korea throughout history has likely come from both natural development of a native people protecting themselves, and learned influences from outside sources which may have had successful advances in technical content. I would not say that it came from one source, but most likely began as a native system of defense for those who first migrated into the Chosen peninsula. As it grew and developed over centuries, it most likely received the heaviest influences from Korea's closest neighbor, China.

Korea's indigenous Martial Art curriculum may not have looked much like the modern curriculum of Karate, Judo, Kung-fu, Tang Su Do, or Taekwondo schools of today, but it was unique enough to draw attention from outsiders. The Hwarang Youth group held the core concepts of what I believe a Martial Art truly is. Combat skills change over time. They are modified and updated as needed, but the deep essence of character building, devotion to core beliefs, protection of one's country, one's self, and others is combined with this unique method of stances, blocks, hand and foot strikes, grappling and throws with an in-depth understanding of the human anatomy that makes it so effective.

Throughout Korea's history, this training method has been labeled by many names. Some of those names were vague, general terms that described peculiar movements more than the entire art, while other names rose to the top in common usage. Tang Su Do (or commonly "Tang Soo Do") was one of them. At one time in recent history, the naming of Korean Martial Art, and acceptance of common terms among fellow countrymen in Korea became a huge issue, and a National debate.

When the term "Taekwon-do" was first submitted (allegedly by General Choi, Hong Hi of the Oh Do Kwan and Korean military fame), it was voted upon and agreed to by a select few recognized and established leaders of Martial Art schools in the post WWII era. However, it was more or less forced down the the throats of everyone else, thus many did not accept the term since accepting it also implied consent to be regulated under the authority of the main Taekwondo governing body. Politics became more important than, and obtrusive to the original intent of unifying the various Kwans for the benefit of Korea's National Culture, pride, dignity, lost history, and new found freedoms.

To that extent, many people today rightfully consider that TSD and TKD were originally the same thing under two different names. To that definition, and focus on that specific point in history, I would agree. However, there was a desire of the founding Kwan leaders and Korean Taekwondo Grandmasters, as well as the Korean government to research and bring back the real heritage of their own ancestors. Those ancestors who fought off invasions from larger, stronger, and more well-organized armies for centuries.

With that intent the term "Taekwondo" was shifted by the authorities in Korea (both within the Taekwondo community and the government) to mean "all of Korea's historical Martial fighting skills, moral culture, and national unity which persevered from the days of the three kingdoms, through three major dynasties, and kept the Korean people intact through nearly 50 years of oppression, domination, torture, and a military occupation that allowed the Koreans to live, but attempted to wipe out their very identity. It is not the technical content, forms (kata/tul/hyung/poomsae) that identifies Taekwondo, but the existence of a nation that endured because of their fighting spirit, tenacity, honor, and perseverance.

Therefore, the temporary influence of Japanese Martial Art (Judo, Shotokan, etc) must be recognized for what it is to Taekwondo as a national historical art - - a period in history in which one national culture was force to share a page in the history books with another national culture. Like the curve of an archer's bow - - starting in one place, being warped off to another, then returning to its original path. One can look down from the top of the bow to the bottom, point to this curved direction and say "see the angle over there where the bow comes from?" without noting what is down further, beyond the curve created by the forced strain of the archer's draw.

Tang Su Do can be compared to Taekwon-do on a level of modern interest and application, where some TKD instructors are "hard-core, old-school, Reality Based" self defense, and others are completely sport, fitness, fun, or baby-sitting for "Karate-Kids." Some schools have a healthy balance of combat and sport, but the main difference between TSD and TKD, is dependant upon each instructor. The process of changes in politics and organizational structure, leadership, etc. is a path from Post WWII until today, that TSD and TKD have traveled separately but in many parallel ways.

The national term of "Taekwondo," on the other hand, is completely different from TSD, Shotokan, and any other Martial Art, because it is intended to not be limited to defining one system, but incorporating all of the systems of Korean Martial Art in one. It is to say that everything which has been used in Korea's history is the constant, unchanging core of this national art of Taekwondo, and everything that Taekwondoists observe others doing which might influence modifications in our strategy and technical curriculum are peripherals that change over time.

I hope this explanation gives you yet another perspective from which to draw when discussing the comparisons of TSD and TKD with your students.
:)

Respectfully,
CM D.J. Eisenhart

[Makalakumu]

There are always going to be schools/organizations that blur the distinction. This is because of the shared history that is pointed about above.

There are differences though, big differences, when you look at the general patterns.

The generalization that TKD is more of a sport and TSD is not, holds up under that level of scrutiny. In the big picture, the majority of TSD schools do not have sport focus that TSD does.

Another big difference is the fact that most TSD schools are still practicing the old shotokan forms. Most TKD schools have cycled through at least one series of new forms.

And then there are the rules for sparring. In most TKD schools, you see very few hand techniques, the head is not a target for the hands, and the players mostly use their feet. In TSD schools, the head is wide open and the tends to be more mixed.

Another difference is the focus on kicks. TKD will overwhelmingly use kicks. It will be 90% of what you do in most dojangs. And the variety of kicks will be extensive. TSD has many of these kicks, but they are not the focus of the art. Most TSD schools will spend substantially more time on other things.

So, how does this all answer the question TKD vs TSD? IMHO, if you want to learn how to use your feet like a boxer uses his/her hands, then a TKD school will probably do that for you. If you would like to be a bit more well rounded, then try TSD.

[exile]

And then there are the rules for sparring. In most TKD schools, you see very few hand techniques, the head is not a target for the hands, and the players mostly use their feet. In TSD schools, the head is wide open and the tends to be more mixed.

We aim for head, neck, groin. And it's not exactly sparring...

Obviously a certain amount of restraint is needed training this way.


Another difference is the focus on kicks. TKD will overwhelmingly use kicks. It will be 90% of what you do in most dojangs. And the variety of kicks will be extensive. TSD has many of these kicks, but they are not the focus of the art. Most TSD schools will spend substantially more time on other things.

We train kicks extensively because they're harder than other techs, given balance and coordination issues. But they make up the minority of our techs.


So, how does this all answer the question TKD vs TSD? IMHO, if you want to learn how to use your feet like a boxer uses his/her hands, then a TKD school will probably do that for you. If you would like to be a bit more well rounded, then try TSD.

You have to ask, certainly. But there are TKD dojangs which focus on the complete set of fighting techs, if you're persistent. It's true, though, that a given TKD school picked at random is probably a good deal more likely to be sport-oriented than a similarly chosen TSD dojang.

Still, the technical content of the two is almost completely congruent. The deciding issue is what kind of training regime the dojang owner determines for the syllabus.

[Makalakumu]

Exile - my comments were meant to be a general observation. I do understand that there are exceptions to the rule.


You have to ask, certainly. But there are TKD dojangs which focus on the complete set of fighting techs, if you're persistent. It's true, though, that a given TKD school picked at random is probably a good deal more likely to be sport-oriented than a similarly chosen TSD dojang.

I would say mostly likely. In fact, in my city, EVERY TKD dojang teaches Olympic TKD. It's not 9/10, its every single one. For those of you who practice in a dojang different form this, I think you truly are a rare breed...and I'm not being insulting. It's just my observation.


Still, the technical content of the two is almost completely congruent. The deciding issue is what kind of training regime the dojang owner determines for the syllabus.

The technical content has a lot of differences. TSD doesn't have as many kicks and doesn't focus on them to the almost complete exclusion of other techniques. Most TSD has more hand techniques and most TSD has a very basic joint locking and takedown syllabus. Most TSD still practices the old Shotokan forms.

With that being said, if you were to walk into a TSD and a TKD dojang, IMHO, the chances are is that you would find something a lot more distinct then what is presented above.

[exile]

Exile - my comments were meant to be a general observation. I do understand that there are exceptions to the rule.


We're probably a bit unusual, I'll certainly grant that—very happily!





The technical content has a lot of differences. TSD doesn't have as many kicks and doesn't focus on them to the almost complete exclusion of other techniques. Most TSD has more hand techniques and most TSD has a very basic joint locking and takedown syllabus. Most TSD still practices the old Shotokan forms.

We do some of those too—the Pinans (in their Pyung-Ahn guise), Rohai, and a couple of others. And we work on the joint-locks, traps and other controlling moves that are implicit in the hyungs. I can't say we're completely hyung-based in our curriculum, but a lot more so than the usual TKD school.


With that being said, if you were to walk into a TSD and a TKD dojang, IMHO, the chances are is that you would find something a lot more distinct then what is presented above.

I've seen a number of TSD classes and have always been impressed by the attention given to self-defense. My conclusion is that eventually TKD will go the way of judo entirely unless that part of the TKD world which still practices it as a karate-based SD system actually splits off from the Korean über-orgs which have dominated and diluted the art for their own purposes, and reconstitutes itself as a separate instantiation of the original art taught and developed in various forms in the old Kwan system—informed, in addition, by the work of the progressive realistic bunkai group and its TKD wing (Simon O'Neil, Stuart Anslow primarily).

I just wish I were a few decades younger... it's something I'd have been willing and able to get involved in in a big way...

[terryl965]

Upnorth you can still teach Olympic style TKD and also have a combat side of TKD as well, but for the most pert you are right 99.8 will and does teach just Olympic style.

[Makalakumu]

Upnorth you can still teach Olympic style TKD and also have a combat side of TKD as well, but for the most pert you are right 99.8 will and does teach just Olympic style.

I would never imply that it couldn't be done and hopefully, in the future, more dojangs would teach both.

In the end, I think that there is a place for one side or the other or dojangs that cross train.

It all depends on what you want...

TSD is a lot harder to generalize then TKD. You pretty much know what to expect when walking into most TKD studios. That IS NOT the case for TSD. The curriculum is very often instructor driven, even within TSD organizations that have some standardization. And this varies by degree. Some can be more instructor driven and some is less, relying more on standardization.

This kind of makes TSD training a crap shoot. You don't know what to expect until you walk through the door.

[terryl965]

I would never imply that it couldn't be done and hopefully, in the future, more dojangs would teach both.

In the end, I think that there is a place for one side or the other or dojangs that cross train.

It all depends on what you want...

TSD is a lot harder to generalize then TKD. You pretty much know what to expect when walking into most TKD studios. That IS NOT the case for TSD. The curriculum is very often instructor driven, even within TSD organizations that have some standardization. And this varies by degree. Some can be more instructor driven and some is less, relying more on standardization.

This kind of makes TSD training a crap shoot. You don't know what to expect until you walk through the door.


Very well said