Good Tae Kwon Do History Books?

[Lee Ch'a]

I am currently training for my Red Belt, and for this test we must present a 2-3 minute speech on the history of Tae Kwon Do. I did see there was a thread here asking about Korean history books, but I am more specifically looking for quality information on TKD's history. I have already written my outline, but I would like further information to supplement in case I decide to change it up; besides, I just love learning about it!

I have searched online at the local library, but our system doesn't have many Martial Arts history or Korean history, and if I wish to order something via interlibrary loan, I need specific titles to make a request. Any suggestions would be much appreciated!

-Lee

[rlobrecht]

I just finished reading "A Killing Art: The Untold History of Tae Kwon Do" by Alex Gillis. He's a black belt in TKD, as well as a journalist. Most of his history is based on interviews he conducted with many of TKD's founding fathers. I enjoyed reading it, and learned some things. He's an ITF practicioner, so it definitely comes at it from a General Choi slant.

[Lee Ch'a]

Thanks very much! I'm going to work at the lib. today- I'll see if I can look it up. :)

[Balrog]

I just finished reading "A Killing Art: The Untold History of Tae Kwon Do" by Alex Gillis. He's a black belt in TKD, as well as a journalist. Most of his history is based on interviews he conducted with many of TKD's founding fathers. I enjoyed reading it, and learned some things. He's an ITF practicioner, so it definitely comes at it from a General Choi slant.

Ditto on this book. I've studied TKD for 27 years and heard bits and pieces of the history. Mr. Gillis put it all together in one package, and in so doing, he turned over some rocks and exposed some not-so-nice things. It's a good read.

[Kong Soo Do]

A very informative articles is in a back issue of the Journal of Asian Martial Arts;

Burdick, Dakin (1997). People and Events of Taekwondo's Formative Years (http://journalofasianmartialarts.com/). volume 6, issue 1. Journal of Asian Martial Arts (http://www.martialtalk.com/wiki/Journal_of_Asian_Martial_Arts). http://journalofasianmartialarts.com/.

[Lee Ch'a]

Thanks for the book suggestion, I've now got it on request at the library!
And Kong Soo Do- thank you for the links!

[miguksaram]

There is an report called the Modern History of Taekwondo. You can look it up on the internet. It is one of the more factual papers that have been released about the individual Kwans as well as the development of organized TKD.

I would refrain from using Burdick's article as a source as I believe it has already been shown to have some major flaws in it. As far as The Killing Art is concerned it is an interesting read, but definitely a Choi slant to it. Good luck with your report.

[Kong Soo Do]

I would refrain from using Burdick's article as a source as I believe it has already been shown to have some major flaws in it.

Interesting. Could you elaborate on these major flaws? Where has it been shown?

[miguksaram]

If I remember correctly he referenced a lot of material that was later discovered to be incorrect. Glenn can elaborate on the details of it.

[Kong Soo Do]

If I remember correctly he referenced a lot of material that was later discovered to be incorrect. Glenn can elaborate on the details of it.

It would indeed be interesting to see what data Glenn could provide. However, Glenn has been gone sine the 14th of last month. To my knowledge he did not indicate if or when he would return. But perhaps it is a moot point? The article referenced appeared in the JAMA which is suppose to provide scholarly research that is peer reviewed prior to publication. This does not mean that some details are inaccurate. However, in my own research I have often seen...shall we say 'intentional discrepancies' when it comes to certain details of history. Glenn may be able to provide verifiable data to support an accurate view, or it may be a case of 'he said they said' or personal opinions. In this light, a peer reviewed article may by necessity hold more weight than the view of an internet poster. But it is always good to keep an open mind and await any data offered for review.

[Dirty Dog]

I just finished reading "A Killing Art: The Untold History of Tae Kwon Do" by Alex Gillis. He's a black belt in TKD, as well as a journalist. Most of his history is based on interviews he conducted with many of TKD's founding fathers. I enjoyed reading it, and learned some things. He's an ITF practicioner, so it definitely comes at it from a General Choi slant.

Small correction. Mr Gillis makes it clear in his book that he practices in both Kukkiwon and ITF style schools. I would say his book may well be the least slanted I've seen.

[miguksaram]

Small correction. Mr Gillis makes it clear in his book that he practices in both Kukkiwon and ITF style schools. I would say his book may well be the least slanted I've seen.

I wouldn't say that. It seemed to be very pro ITF in my opinion.

[ETinCYQX]

Small correction. Mr Gillis makes it clear in his book that he practices in both Kukkiwon and ITF style schools. I would say his book may well be the least slanted I've seen.

Yup. He says at the end that he trains in a WTF school with his daughter now.

Also, while it was a little anti-Olympic specifically, Mr. Gillis was far from putting Gen. Choi on a pedestal IMO.

[andyjeffries]

However, Glenn has been gone sine the 14th of last month. To my knowledge he did not indicate if or when he would return.

I haven't heard specifically from him, but I know he was away on vacation then at the US Hanmadang, so that might explain why he's been quiet. Fingers crossed he returns soon as I'm very much interested in hearing specifics of the problems with Burdock's article and McGillis' book (although I agree it's very much got a Pro-ITF stance).

[andyjeffries]

Yup. He says at the end that he trains in a WTF school with his daughter now.

Also, while it was a little anti-Olympic specifically, Mr. Gillis was far from putting Gen. Choi on a pedestal IMO.

I agree that he doesn't seem very polite about Choi Hong Hi throughout the book, Choi != ITF. The whole thing very much seems to have an ITF flavour...

[andyjeffries]

As an example (and this is from memory - I am re-reading it at the moment but only a couple of chapters in), I remember him using General Choi most of the time but "Mickey/Mikey Kim" for Dr Kim more often than not. To use the title for one side, but a nickname for the other seems disrespectful.

[Kong Soo Do]

http://www.budosportcapelle.nl/gesch.html

Above is a link to Mr. Burdick's JAMA article on TKD's history. I read Glenn's post here on MT regarding the article. Too be honest, I wasn't impressed. I don't say that to be unkind. But I look at the totality of the evidence presented. Mr. Burdick listed about 60 references that went into the development of the article. The JAMA is peer reviewed prior to an article being published and has to be proof read by several other established authors. Glenn on the other hand doesn't offer any references to support his opinion. Rather, he's the only one in the thread and he responds to his original post twice with no one else contributing. I don't find this very substantial.

Is Mr. Burdick's article 'cast in stone' and above reproach? Probably not. But with Korean history one can only go so far towards total accuracy. And to be fair, with any history. I think he's probably done as good a job as any, if not most with the sometimes changing material of the Korean MA's. On the whole I'd feel more comfortable with going with Burdick's article over a three-post internet thread.

[miguksaram]

When you say "peer review" who were the peers? What knowledge of Korean history or KMA history did they have to legitimize this writing. Without being a scholar in Korean history, but one who is studying let me point out mistakes within the first few parts of the article.


Although Taekwondo is a modern art, many Korean practitioners claim that the art began in the Koguryo dynasty (c. 37 B.C.). They claim that various Koguryo dynasty royal tombs contain murals of men practicing Taekwondo. Interpretation of these postures, which seems to be mere wishful thinking, apparently began with Tatashi Saito's "Study of Culture in Ancient Korea."
First of all if you could point me to this book of Saito's I would appreciate it. Thus far the only reference I can find are located in TKD websites, which are most likely citing Burdick's work. Secondly the proponent of this ancient history of TKD was Gen. Choi, who admitted that it was made up in order to promote TKD. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line the lie became truth to many people.


The Hwarang fighting order of the Silla dynasty, also known as the Flower Knights, were famous for their practice of the martial arts under the name of Hwarang-Do.Hwarang warriors, were skilled in martial arts but they were skilled in armed combat. Unarmed combat was a small set of their overall training. Just like our special forces today.

According to the WTF, "Many scattered evidences described in the Samguk Yusa, two oldest documents of Korea history show that Hwarang also practiced Taekwondo in their basic training of the body."
Perhaps the WTF have since changed their History on their website because it does not mention the Samguk Yusa. However, for the record, the Samguk Yusa are not two separate books. It is one book that was written by a Buddhist mone, Ir-yeon in the 13th century. It is mix of legends, folktales and history. It was to be in part a reinterpretation of the Samguk Sagi which was written by Kim, Bu-sik nearly a century earlier. I have the Samguk Yuksa and have read it and can tell you that it does not mention the term Taekwondo anywhere in the book.


During the Koryo Dynasty (835-1392 A.D.), Tae Kyon was renamed Subak. Subak probably peaked in popularity between 1147 and 1170, in the reign of King Uijong.
Taekkyon was never renamed Subak. Taekkyon is Taekkyon. Subak is an entirely different beast.

So this is just the beginning of some of the inaccuracies posted. I believe something that Glenn mentioned was one of the sources that Burdick used was incorrect and had since changed its inaccuracies, yet Burdick has not. This is not in any way, shape, or form saying Burdick is an idiot, I'm just saying that using his works as a way to site TKD history is not the best choice.

[Kong Soo Do]

For any references I'd suggest going to the source itself. He lists 60 references and his email is available. As far as peer reviewed, the JAMA states all articles are peer reviewed. You'd have to contact them or Burdick for the particulars if it is of interest to you.

I think a LOT of this is personal opinion on anyone/everyone's part since histories have been rewritten and politics and 'one-upmanship' has reigned supreme. Let's all be honest on this point please. Looking at Glenn's offering on a different board brings many inaccuracies as well, or perhaps personal biased is more appropriate. For example, he mentions the Kwans were absolutely abolished in 1972. Perhaps on paper, but not in reality. The HMK, as just one example still uses the Kwan, Kwan rank and Kwan heirarchy to this day. I believe Glenn is KKW-biased and it shows. He seems a bit confused on who created TSD as well. Does this mean Glenn is an idiot? No. Same as Burdick, they've probably done their best to provide an honest assessment with what they had to work with. Korean martial history is nebulous at best and your perspective depends on who you've talk with and in the end, who you want to believe. If Burdick is biased in a particular direction, I've not noted it. Glenn is KKW biased and interprets and presents data in that light. His choice, but not necessarily the correct one on every account. In reference to the translation he assisted with, it is based on two individuals without any references or documentation. Therefore it is these individuals opinion, but not necessarily fact. It could be, and then again it might be opinion based to favor themselves or an agenda. Burdick is perhaps the same way? I don't know Burdick. But I have had interaction with Glenn and I'm less than impressed. Again, not to be mean or offensive but it is what it is. Simply put, I'd have to be suspect of anything he says or is involved in based upon what I've seen him state in print and the way he presents it. He is biased and anyone that disagrees with him seems to become his automatic enemy. Which to be honest, makes me very sad for him. That just isn't the way to be and goes against the tenents of TKD.

Bottom line is to go with whatever history you think is the most accurate. I'll go with one that is peer reviewed and documented. Is it 100%, nope. But then nothing on this topic is going to be.

Also please note, I use Glenn's first name but not his last. Nor do I use his screen name here or on my board. I have nothing against Glenn and my intent is not to dishonor him. My comments are solely on what he has stated or what I perceive to be his intend or bias and not him personally.

[miguksaram]

For any references I'd suggest going to the source itself. He lists 60 references and his email is available. As far as peer reviewed, the JAMA states all articles are peer reviewed. You'd have to contact them or Burdick for the particulars if it is of interest to you.
Thanks.


I think a LOT of this is personal opinion on anyone/everyone's part since histories have been rewritten and politics and 'one-upmanship' has reigned supreme.
Which is why I am studying then one reference to Korean history. We have to look at the time frame from which this was written and then compare it to information available today. Example if I was to ask a map maker to make me a map of the world before Columbus took off, there would be no North America because they felt that you would just fall off the edge of the world. If I asked that same map maker to to make me a new map after Columbus's and other explorers' travels I would expect to see some new information that included more accurate accounts of what the world looked like. Trouble is that once the people got their information from the map maker originally refused to go back and check if it was still correct after new facts were available. They continue to spew that the earth is flat. (Yes a dramatic comparison, but I hope you see what I am getting at)


Let's all be honest on this point please. Looking at Glenn's offering on a different board brings many inaccuracies as well, or perhaps personal biased is more appropriate. For example, he mentions the Kwans were absolutely abolished in 1972. Perhaps on paper, but not in reality. The HMK, as just one example still uses the Kwan, Kwan rank and Kwan heirarchy to this day.
I believe Glenn stated that Kwans do have their HQ's and still issue rankings but they are more social clubs than anything else. They do not have their own curriculum, unless HMK is the exception, they all follow KKW standards for testing. I personally have a 1sd Dan CDK ranking signed by Uhm, Woon-kyu. However, I did not study anything different than KKW standards.


I believe Glenn is KKW-biased and it shows. He seems a bit confused on who created TSD as well.Are you talking about Taesoodo or Tangsoodo?
Does this mean Glenn is an idiot? No. Same as Burdick, they've probably done their best to provide an honest assessment with what they had to work with.
Which is my point. Burdick's info may have been close to accurate based on what we had available back then but not anymore. Would you still trust a map made in early 1400's to get you across the ocean?


Korean martial history is nebulous at best and your perspective depends on who you've talk with and in the end, who you want to believe. There is information out there on Korean martial art history, but one must be willing to sift through a lot of things to find more exact truths. This type of research goes beyond just KMA. You have to deal with actual Korean history as well.

In reference to the translation he assisted with, it is based on two individuals without any references or documentation. Therefore it is these individuals opinion, but not necessarily fact. It could be, and then again it might be opinion based to favor themselves or an agenda. Could be. The only way is to contact them personally and find out. Plus you have to take in account that Glenn also gets personal information directly from the pioneers that have lived it. So I guess a little bit of faith does have to come into play. After all the ITF people put faith in what Choi said to be their gospel.


Burdick is perhaps the same way? I don't know Burdick. But I have had interaction with Glenn and I'm less than impressed. Again, not to be mean or offensive but it is what it is. Simply put, I'd have to be suspect of anything he says or is involved in based upon what I've seen him state in print and the way he presents it. He is biased and anyone that disagrees with him seems to become his automatic enemy. Which to be honest, makes me very sad for him. That just isn't the way to be and goes against the tenents of TKD.
I would disagree with that. I have disagreed with him on items in the past. It has always come down to who had more facts on their side. There are others that have the same experience.


Bottom line is to go with whatever history you think is the most accurate. I'll go with one that is peer reviewed and documented. Is it 100%, nope. But then nothing on this topic is going to be.
Then perhaps you should be the one asking who were the peers that reviewed it. If you are going to use it as gospel, then you should at least have a better idea on what type of scrutiny was placed on it. Personally I enjoy trying to do the research myself. :)


Also please note, I use Glenn's first name but not his last. Nor do I use his screen name here or on my board. I have nothing against Glenn and my intent is not to dishonor him. My comments are solely on what he has stated or what I perceive to be his intend or bias and not him personally.
Ok.

[Kong Soo Do]

Thanks.


Which is why I am studying then one reference to Korean history. We have to look at the time frame from which this was written and then compare it to information available today. Example if I was to ask a map maker to make me a map of the world before Columbus took off, there would be no North America because they felt that you would just fall off the edge of the world. If I asked that same map maker to to make me a new map after Columbus's and other explorers' travels I would expect to see some new information that included more accurate accounts of what the world looked like. Trouble is that once the people got their information from the map maker originally refused to go back and check if it was still correct after new facts were available. They continue to spew that the earth is flat. (Yes a dramatic comparison, but I hope you see what I am getting at)


This is a fair consideration. But if this is the case, why try to slam someone when they've offered good information at the time it was offered? To start a thread and list the person by name and then present post after post of what really amounts to personal opinion, bias or nitpicking isn't really helpful. Nor is disparaging them and their work, particularly when they aren't here to respond. It speaks of agenda or personal conflict.


I believe Glenn stated that Kwans do have their HQ's and still issue rankings but they are more social clubs than anything else

Here are the actual quotes, my bad in that it was 78, not 72;


August 7, 1978 can be considered a historical date for Taekwondo, because it was on this day that the Kwans
finally compromised and closed the Kwan system...


"Taekwondo will strive hard to unify and will eliminate the different Kwan of the last 30 years".


I would submit that a Kwan that issues rank, has a Kwan ranking heirarchy that may differ (and often does) from the KKW is more than a social club. Regardless of the interpretation, Kwans were not eliminated or closed down. This is what I mean by having a particular bias towards a particular organizations. It isn't factual information.


Are you talking about Taesoodo or Tangsoodo?

In regards to this, the comment was Tang Soo Do.


There is information out there on Korean martial art history, but one must be willing to sift through a lot of things to find more exact truths.

I agree. But it is also true that it is difficult to decipher fact from opinion on this topic. As I've mentioned, personal agenda, bias and one-upmanship can clearly be seen in many interviews, books, 'official' histories etc.

We can go around and around on this, but as I've mentioned before, no one is likely to be 100% correct and it is up to the interpretation of the individual as to the specif conclusion they reach.


I would disagree with that. I have disagreed with him on items in the past. It has always come down to who had more facts on their side. There are others that have the same experience.

That's fine and you are entitled to your view. Apparently there are a plethora of people who do not share this assestment. And it has not been my experience with him. He has no problem with a four year old being (for all intent and purposes) a black belt, but finds someone with nearly 40 years of actual experience holding a 7th as questionable? Me thinks he's been offended and it shows. O'well, doesn't really matter in the end.

Bottom line again, pick a version and go with it. :uhyeah:

[Kong Soo Do]

I would refrain from using Burdick's article as a source as I believe it has already been shown to have some major flaws in it.

Not to pick on you Jeremy, but as a point, if you're going to suggest against someone's post you should at least link to a resource to offer credence. In this way an individual can make an informed decision themselves. Here are a couple of Glenn's offerings to be considered with all of the other information offered in this thread;

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?92169-The-History-of-Taekwondo-by-Dakin-Burdick&highlight=Burdick

http://tkd.stanford.edu/documents/tkd_history.pdf

In this way any individual has multiple resources to compare and contrast. They can then go with one, many, none or a combination as they see fit. :)

[miguksaram]

Not to pick on you Jeremy, but as a point, if you're going to suggest against someone's post you should at least link to a resource to offer credence. In this way an individual can make an informed decision themselves. Here are a couple of Glenn's offerings to be considered with all of the other information offered in this thread;

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?92169-The-History-of-Taekwondo-by-Dakin-Burdick&highlight=Burdick

http://tkd.stanford.edu/documents/tkd_history.pdf

In this way any individual has multiple resources to compare and contrast. They can then go with one, many, none or a combination as they see fit. :)

This will be my last posting in this particular thread on this subject. First I do most of my postings while tests are being ran at my job, so I don't usually go into deep explanations on things. Secondly the OP never even bothered to ask why I made the comment so I really never bothered to answer. Like most I am sure he will surf the next see pretty much the same history over and over, mostly based on the article that Burdick wrote, or on what Choi wrote, and then base his truth on that. Please note that I never said do not read the article. I advised not to use it as a source due to the flaws. Since you have already pointed him to Glenn's input I will not bother doing so. I submitted a brief insight to why I feel it is not correct, but I am not going to go much deeper than that because to do so would take more time than I am willing to devote. (I have a newsletter, 3 articles, and a curriculum to write in the next couple of days).

Finally anyone who is serious about TKD history needs to study Korean history. This will be the only way to sift fact from hype. Thank you good night and God bless.

[Kong Soo Do]

Thank you for the reply Jeremy. My point is that if one is going to take the time to make a remark, one should back it up with something substantial. Not just for the OP but for all that read the thread. If one doesn't have the time necessary to do this then perhaps they need to refrain from posting.

Best of luck with your projects :)

[miguksaram]

Thank you for the reply Jeremy. My point is that if one is going to take the time to make a remark, one should back it up with something substantial. Not just for the OP but for all that read the thread. If one doesn't have the time necessary to do this then perhaps they need to refrain from posting.

Best of luck with your projects :)
Since there is a lull in testing today let me revisit this once more. If you are going to use the advice of backing up your opinion then this is a two way street. You recommended Burdick's article but did not provide the reason why outside of it was published in AJMA and it was reviewed by his peers. Since you have been involved in Korean arts have you done any historical research that you personally can testify that Burdick's article is dead on?

Also, on a side note of history, are you the same person that was being discussed on bullshido at one point?

[Kong Soo Do]

Yes I've done research on my own in regards to looking into our lineage. On many points, Burdick agrees with other authors I've read.

I've never been a member of bullshido.

[miguksaram]

Yes I've done research on my own in regards to looking into our lineage. On many points, Burdick agrees with other authors I've read.
What other authors might they be?

I've never been a member of bullshido.
You are not the same David Shultz that they were discussing on that board?

David Schultz, 8th Dan
Mr. Schultz has training in American, Canadian, Israeli, Japanese, Okinawan and Korean Martial systems. Mr. Schultz instructs both Police & Corrections Academies specializing in the areas of Firearms and Defensive Tactics. He is the co-owner of the American Taekido Dojang where he teaches off-duty Officers as well as private citizen. Mr. Schultz teaches personal self-defense seminars as well as abduction prevention classes in schools.

Mr. Schultz is a fifth generation student of Han Moo Kwan Tae Kwon Do under Master Michael Dunn, holding the rank of Fifth Dan. Mr. Schultz also holds a Third Dan in HoShinDo Hapkido, also under Master Dunn.

Mr. Schultz is recognized as the Head Master and Co-Founder of the Taekido Martial discipline along with Master Dunn, specifically ‘Moo Shin Do’ which means ‘Way of Martial Defense’. Mr. Schultz holds an Eighth Dan in Moo Shin Do Taekido. Both Mr. Schultz and many of his students have used the Taekido system numerous times in the lawful performance of their duties to control violent felons and to protect themselves and others from violent assault.

Mr. Schultz is the Founder and President of the International League of Martial Artists, Inc. as well as the technical Director of the American Taekido Federation ( a member body of the W.I.F.). Mr. Schultz also holds the position of the Florida State Representative for the World Il-Do-Kwan Federation. He is a member of the W.I.F. Master Technical Advisory Council. Master Schultz is a 2004 Inductee of the WIF International Hall of Fame.

[Kong Soo Do]

Couldn't tell you Jeremy, as I said, I'm not a member of Bullshido so wouldn't know what is discussed there. Looking at what you've quoted, it looks to be maybe five or six years old??? Why would you be posting something that old here in a discussion on Korean history books?

[The Last Legionary]

This isn't CessPoolCuddlerShido. Don't make it so.
Talk about the dishonorable, disgraceful and other dumbasses in the Horror Stories area or start your own "Investigashun".
Otherwise, youre just disrupting this or other threads and will get modsmacked for trolling, which lets the frauds and ********ters win.

[jks9199]

A word to the wise:

Martial Talk has policies against harassing members, fraudbusting, and generally being obnoxious. We allow limited and polite discussion of qualifications in areas like Horror Stories and Investigations. But every member is expected to have read the Rules, and to abide by them. If you really don't like each other, use the Ignore button. But at least pay lip service to the slogan "Friendly discussion about the Martial Arts."

What Martial Talk is not and WILL NOT be is Bullshido. They have their site, they run it the way they like, and if you like that atmosphere -- go there.

In short, and in case I'm unclear:

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversations polite and respectful.


jks9199
Super Moderator

[miguksaram]

Couldn't tell you Jeremy, as I said, I'm not a member of Bullshido so wouldn't know what is discussed there. Looking at what you've quoted, it looks to be maybe five or six years old??? Why would you be posting something that old here in a discussion on Korean history books?.
I am simply asking a question. Though I am curious as to how you know the age of the discussion. I was simply doing a search on different Korean arts and ran across this. Anyway, whatever, I am still wondering which authors you have read that would coincide with Burdick's article.

JKS and Legionary, I am not trolling or starting a fight, I am simply asking a question as if this was the person they were talking about. Trust me, if I wanted to "bust" him on anything I would just simply do it within conversations to point out fraudulent or wrong information that he would post, if he did.

[Kong Soo Do]

The point, which you fail to acknowledge, is that this is a thread about Korean history books. If you were truly interested, a pm would have been the proper way to ask. Unless you feel you need an audience?

With this in mind, please feel free to join Martial Warrior where we can devote an entire thread to you (and Glenn) busting me. And of course, we can make it a two-way conversation as I have some questions for each of you as well. This way you have your audience (anyone can view the thread) and neither of you have to hijack anyone elses thread here on MT. That's a pretty fair offer, I'll expect you and Glenn to join shortly so we can begin our discussion.

Btw, I tried to simply pm this offer to you Jeremy, but your pm is full. I'll see you on MW.

[miguksaram]

Didn't realize my PM was full. It is empty now.

It was not my intention to hijack the thread, as the original question was posted as a side note.

That said, yes, it is a discussion on Korean history books, to which you have not answer my question yet. What books have you read that have supported the findings of Burdick? Since you are taking the side of Burdick as being a reliable source, have you personally checked his references to see if they were reliable?

[puunui]

When you say "peer review" who were the peers? What knowledge of Korean history or KMA history did they have to legitimize this writing. Without being a scholar in Korean history, but one who is studying let me point out mistakes within the first few parts of the article.

In Mr. Burdick's case, his "peers" are those who conduct research in a similar fashion that he does, namely, they take bits and pieces and tidbits from this or that written source and attempt to piece them together into their version of what happened. The problem that they face is that they, like you state, do not have a sufficient background in Korean history and culture to make the sort of leaps in logic required to understand what the writers of the original quoted sources were saying. And in many cases, they completely misconstrue what was being said. These peers of Mr. Burdick also overly rely on two main sources, Corcoran and Farkas' encyclopedia, and General Choi's writings, which creates all sorts of problems.

My peers, on the other hand, have read what is out there but then take it a step further by actually doing first hand research by interviewing and reviewing as many original documents as possible. And what we have found out is that the stories of these pioneers, including but certainly not limited to Kukki Taekwondo pioneers, have a very consistent story. They basically all say the same thing about the major points in Taekwondo history. Over and over this has proven to be true.

In other cases, Mr. Burdick and his peers make assumptions that are simply not true. One example is that Mr. Burdick says that Master PARK Yeon Hee says a certain thing. I used to sit next to Master Park at the USTU Annual and Mid Year Meetings, and got to know him. Once I asked him about that particular blurb quoted by Mr. Burdick in his book, and he said he didn't know what I was talking about. He then went on to explain his perspective on history, which again is remarkably consistent with the other seniors.



So this is just the beginning of some of the inaccuracies posted. I believe something that Glenn mentioned was one of the sources that Burdick used was incorrect and had since changed its inaccuracies, yet Burdick has not.

The biggest issue with Mr. Burdick's work is that it lacks a central core and theme. Rather, he just force fits random information and misinformation together in a chop suey fashion. The result does not lead the reader to anywhere important. I mean if you have absolutely no information on Korean martial arts history, then reading Dakin's stuff is, I suppose, better than nothing. But if you take a step further from that perspective, then you quickly realize that Mr. Burdick's work is not the sort of framework to build one's understanding of Taekwondo history.

[puunui]

There is an report called the Modern History of Taekwondo. You can look it up on the internet. It is one of the more factual papers that have been released about the individual Kwans as well as the development of organized TKD.


I have been told that the english translation of "A Modern History of Taekwondo" has revolutionized the world's understanding of Taekwondo history. Up until that translation was presented, no one in the english speaking world had a clear written reference to what actually happened, from the pioneer's first hand perspective. The most important thing that I got of the Modern History book is the sense of unity that the pioneers strove for. Those pioneers who made the biggest contributions were the ones who worked well with their peers. Those that had the most problems were the ones who had an individualistic, selfish perspective. The best thing about the Modern History is that it gives us real life examples about how these real life situations were resolved, and the approaches that were taken. Different people took different approaches to different situations. Some worked, others did not. These lessons are applicable today, in USAT, PATU, ETU, WTF, Kukkiwon or other organizations. How do you get a large group of leaders with diverse backgrounds working together? What are some of the important points to remember from the pioneer's experiences? Not everyone got what they wanted, but perhaps they did get things in exchange. These are the things that I am looking at and studying when I read and re-read the Modern History translations. I want to understand the process and I want to understand some of the techniques and principles used by the pioneers which are applicable to today's organizational environment.

Put another way, those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. We are moving towards a new era at the USAT. Hopefully we all learned from the mistakes that we all made and this time get together and take Taekwondo to a better more unified place, just like the pioneers did in Korea. I used to think that the events from 2004 until the present was a waste of time, but now I think that the experience was necessary for the continued growth, maturity and development of those who hopefully will approach the coming rebuilding with a fresh perspective and a new willingness to cooperate.

[puunui]

That said, yes, it is a discussion on Korean history books, to which you have not answer my question yet. What books have you read that have supported the findings of Burdick? Since you are taking the side of Burdick as being a reliable source, have you personally checked his references to see if they were reliable?

I have about 95% of the sources quoted by Mr. Burdick in my library. There are a couple of obscure books and non-martial arts books that I don't have. But I basically can tell you where Mr. Burdick got most of the information in his article, down to the page and paragraph of the original quoted source. And I did in fact, I had a very protracted point by point public discussion with Mr. Burdick soon after the article came out. The end result was a concession by Mr. Burdick that he is not an original researcher and that he relies on original researchers like myself and others to publish or post things, so he can include it in his historical articles. He has quoted me at least once in one or more of his works.

Compared to the past, historical debates about Taekwondo history has really died down. Just read the Modern History translation and you will get a very good framework upon which to build on. It only gives a broad overview, and because of that, people can add their own perspective or branch quite easily. I have seen many people do just that, point to the section in the Modern History book that applies to them, and then expand on a particular point, with their own or their instructor's or lineage's information.

Or if you don't wish to do that and instead want to believe some other version, for whatever reason, then do that. I have already stated my interest and focus in studying martial arts history, especially Taekwondo's history. If other people have a different focus and a different perspective, then go for it.

And just for comparison, I also study Hapkido history, but I get a very different perspective. Taekwondo's story is about a group of diverse practitioners from different schools and different instructors coming together to form a unified art and a unified organization. Hapkido is almost the exact opposite, which is one major root and one major school spreading out into a very diverse and very non-unified art. People who fight for individuality in Taekwondo or uniformity in Hapkido are those who choose to swim against the current and as a result, suffer the most problems. Conversely, those who go with the flow and shoot for uniformity and unity in Taekwondo and/or individual expression in Hapkido experience the least issues. Just my perspective on two very different arts, going in very different directions. That is why I study both, because I get conformity and a sense of belonging from Taekwondo, while at the same time experience individuality and creativity in Hapkido.

But that's just me. If you have a different perspective and a different approach, then you are welcome to it.

[puunui]

So this is just the beginning of some of the inaccuracies posted. I believe something that Glenn mentioned was one of the sources that Burdick used was incorrect and had since changed its inaccuracies, yet Burdick has not. This is not in any way, shape, or form saying Burdick is an idiot, I'm just saying that using his works as a way to site TKD history is not the best choice.


I think the most telling point is the fact that Mr. Burdick's last work was in 1997, and since the Modern History translation came out, he has not written any updates and has pretty much disappeared from the Korean Martial Arts scene completely. Since the Modern History translation has come out, it has been quoted in numerous books, magazines, webpages and in posts on bulletin boards. I see quotes from the Modern History all over the place. When doing the translation, I embedded all sorts of hidden links, things like certain phrasing, the romanization of people's names and so forth. I can basically tell when someone is taking information from the Modern History translations.

[puunui]

I believe Glenn stated that Kwans do have their HQ's and still issue rankings but they are more social clubs than anything else. They do not have their own curriculum, unless HMK is the exception, they all follow KKW standards for testing. I personally have a 1sd Dan CDK ranking signed by Uhm, Woon-kyu. However, I did not study anything different than KKW standards.


I never said the Kwan were abolished. And I would never had said that because I have been a Chung Do Kwan regional director for almost 25 years now. And as far as I far as I know, at the time of my appointment up until very recently, I was by far the youngest and also the only non-Korean to be appointed to such a position, over many senior Korean born practitioners in my area, including my own teacher. Today all of the remaining kwan operate the same way, they all have adopted the Kukkiwon curriculum and issue Kukkiwon certification first and foremost. They still issue kwan dan certification and other types of certificates, but these are secondary to the Kukkiwon. So as a compromise, the Kukkiwon allows the Kwan to exist and even gives Kwan Jang (Kwan presidents) special privileges such being allowed to promote members outside of Korea. Kukkiwon regulations states that an instructor can only promote someone to Kukkiwon rank inside their own country, barring certain special circumstances. The kwan jang are allowed to promote outside of Korea as an acknowledgment to the fact that the seniors in in other countries need to get promoted too, and the only ones who have the authority are the Kwan Jang from their particular kwan.

However, we have reached a point in Taekwondo history where the majority of the Kwan Jang's first generation students who are still active are at the Kukkiwon 9th Dan rank. Those with direct Kwan relationships are becoming fewer and fewer, and one Kwan, the Kang Duk Won, has ceased to exist with the passing of GM LEE Kum Hong. Soon other Kwan with follow suit and in 25 or 30 years, we might not have any kwan left.

You get a taste of this from the Modern History book, and this is again another example of a compromise solution to having a unified curriculum and dan certification, and yet allowing for the needs of the Kwan. Two competing interests, and in this case the agreed solution to honor Kwan Jang while making the Kukkiwon and its mission first and foremost in Taekwondo.

[puunui]

For any references I'd suggest going to the source itself. He lists 60 references and his email is available. As far as peer reviewed, the JAMA states all articles are peer reviewed. You'd have to contact them or Burdick for the particulars if it is of interest to you.

No need to contact JAMA, if you own a copy of the actual issue, like I do. With respect to "peer review" JAMA states in the front each issue: "each submission will be reviewed by at least two members of our editorial board". Looking at the long list of the JAMA editorial board reveals no one who I recognize as having authored any sort of Korean Martial Arts history article or book. There is one member of the board that Dr. Willy Pieter. I remember Dr. Pieter from his days on the USTU Sports Medicine Committee back in the 80's and have his book regarding coaching in both english and german which he autographed for me. Dr. Pieter is involved in mostly biomechanical research regarding Taekwondo; he is not into history. In fact, in his book, there is not a single sentence devoted to history. Therefore the "peer review" for Mr. Burdick's history article was done by people who have not engaged in any type of Korean Martial Arts historical study or research.

Also included in every issue of JAMA is a "Disclaimer" which states in part: "Responsibility for opinions expressed and for the accuracy of facts published in articles and reviews rests solely with individual authors." This tells me that JAMA does not "guarantee" or in anyway verify the contents contained in Mr. Burdick's article, or any article published by JAMA.

Given these sets of facts, I would submit that the JAMA "peer review" process adds nothing to the legitimacy or accuracy of any work published by JAMA, which in this case is correct, given the numerous factual errors in Mr. Burdicks' work, something which he has admitted to me personally, during the course of our public discussions on this article, fourteen years ago.

Again, if you have nothing else available to you, then go ahead and read Mr. Burdick's article. But there are more accurate published works out there, "A Modern History of Taekwondo" being just one. The follow up work "The History of Our Taekwondo", published by the same authors, is another. Dr. Un Yong Kim's autobiography is yet another.

[puunui]

I think a LOT of this is personal opinion on anyone/everyone's part since histories have been rewritten and politics and 'one-upmanship' has reigned supreme. Let's all be honest on this point please. Looking at Glenn's offering on a different board brings many inaccuracies as well, or perhaps personal biased is more appropriate. For example, he mentions the Kwans were absolutely abolished in 1972. Perhaps on paper, but not in reality. The HMK, as just one example still uses the Kwan, Kwan rank and Kwan heirarchy to this day. I believe Glenn is KKW-biased and it shows. He seems a bit confused on who created TSD as well. Does this mean Glenn is an idiot? No. Same as Burdick, they've probably done their best to provide an honest assessment with what they had to work with. Korean martial history is nebulous at best and your perspective depends on who you've talk with and in the end, who you want to believe. If Burdick is biased in a particular direction, I've not noted it. Glenn is KKW biased and interprets and presents data in that light. His choice, but not necessarily the correct one on every account. In reference to the translation he assisted with, it is based on two individuals without any references or documentation. Therefore it is these individuals opinion, but not necessarily fact. It could be, and then again it might be opinion based to favor themselves or an agenda.

I hear this type of "opinion" from people who only read other people's historical works and never engaged in any historical research of their own. But again, if you speak to the pioneers who actually lived through this and were present when these events happened, then a very clear and consistent picture emerges. Each has their own perspective, but the main story remains the same.

As for bias, I recently had a very interesting conversation with a long time Taekwondo practitioner. I was on the east coast during the summer and walked past a martial arts supply store. I walked in and learned that it was being run by a senior ITF member. This person has been featured in martial arts magazines in the past so I recognized both his face and his name. We started talking about Taekwondo and he revealed some very interesting facts.

He said that he was present during the 1954 demonstration in which GM NAM Tae Hi broke 13 roofing tiles in front of ROK President RHEE Syng Man. This ITF senior was GM Nam's direct student at the time. After GM Nam broke the tiles, President Rhee exclaimed "That's Taekkyon!". Everyone's response to that, including General Choi, was "What's Taekkyon?". No one there had heard of Taekkyon before President Rhee mentioned it. So General Choi started doing research to find out what Taekkyon was. They were also intensely interested in finding the chinese characters (hanja) for Taekkyon, because in Korea at the time, everything was written in primarily hanja, as opposed to hangul. When they were unable to find the chinese characters for Taekkyon, the committee was formed to look for a suitable substitute. What they came up with was "Taekwon" which was supposed to represent Taekkyon. The name of the art was supposed to originally be "Taekkyon" or Taekkyondo but only after the search for the hanja proved fruitless did they come up with Taekwon. It took four months for President Rhee to finally approve of the name in April 1955.

The point? Taekwondo was not founded on April 11, 1955, but rather was supposed to be a continuation of Taekkyon, which some argue is 2000 years old. And number two, General Choi never studied Taekkyon under HAN Il Dong, his alleged calligraphy teacher, because he never heard of Taekkyon until President Rhee mentioned it in 1954.

And because I heard this from an ITF senior, does that mean that the ITF is also "kukkiwon biased", like I allegedly am? I think not. The more probable answer is what I have been saying all along, which is that speaking to the people who were actually there will result in a much clearer and much more consistent picture of history than reading some third hand misconstrued article, no matter how many cites it contains.

[puunui]

August 7, 1978 can be considered a historical date for Taekwondo, because it was on this day that the Kwans
finally compromised and closed the Kwan system...

"Taekwondo will strive hard to unify and will eliminate the different Kwan of the last 30 years".

I didn't write or say that. The authors of the Modern History book wrote the first quote, and the second quote comes from the Proclamation signed by the Kwan jang. You have a problem with it, please take it up with them, since your problem is with them, not me.



I would submit that a Kwan that issues rank, has a Kwan ranking heirarchy that may differ (and often does) from the KKW is more than a social club. Regardless of the interpretation, Kwans were not eliminated or closed down. This is what I mean by having a particular bias towards a particular organizations. It isn't factual information.

If this is the basis for you claiming that I am "biased", then again, your anger and hostility is directed at the wrong person. I didn't write that stuff above. You took that from the Modern History translation. I didn't write the Modern History book, the current Kukkiwon president (GM KANG Won Sik) and the chief book writer for the WTF (GM LEE Kyong Myong) did.

[Miles]

I frankly don't understand why some folks would prefer a history or histories written by American/Canadian authors with relatively little or no experience concerning a Korean art over that of a native Korean author or authors with 40+ years experience in the art and access to resources and people who were present at the formative time. Of course, I am biased.

If you were Russian and interested in the history of American baseball, would you prefer a Russian or Bulgarian account of the game or would you seek out an American text written by someone who perhaps managed a professional MLB team?

[miguksaram]

I frankly don't understand why some folks would prefer a history or histories written by American/Canadian authors with relatively little or no experience concerning a Korean art over that of a native Korean author or authors with 40+ years experience in the art and access to resources and people who were present at the formative time. Of course, I am biased.

If you were Russian and interested in the history of American baseball, would you prefer a Russian or Bulgarian account of the game or would you seek out an American text written by someone who perhaps managed a professional MLB team?

Yeah but the Canadian/American authors have tons of magazine article quotes from someone who knew someone who talked to someone who was told by someone who may or may not have been there. Those pesky Koreans only go off of actually living the experience or talking directly to those who lived the experience.

[puunui]

He seems a bit confused on who created TSD as well.


I'm not confused about who "created" Tang Soo Do -- it was GM LEE Won Kuk, the founder of the Chung Do Kwan. GM Lee was the first to use the term Tang Soo Do in Korea, in 1944. His students, GM RO Byung Jick and GM HWANG Kee, also used the term to describe their art. I was the first to state this, at a time when it was accepted by a lot of people that GM HWANG Kee was the founder or creator of Tang Soo Do. But now it is generally accepted that GM Lee founded and/or created Tang Soo Do, not GM Hwang. Even Mr. Burdick stated that GM Hwang was the founder of Tang Soo Do in his early works.

[puunui]

In reference to the translation he assisted with, it is based on two individuals without any references or documentation. Therefore it is these individuals opinion, but not necessarily fact. It could be, and then again it might be opinion based to favor themselves or an agenda.

The "two individuals" who wrote "A Modern History of Taekwondo" as well as the follow up work "The History of Our Taekwondo", are GM KANG Won Sik, who is currently serving as the Kukkiwon president as well as the Song Moo Kwan Jang, and GM LEE Kyong Myong, a very prolific writer is the main author of the books issued by the WTF, and I believe also the KTA and Kukkiwon. They include direct references to documents, minutes of meetings, photographs, and other materials that are freely and liberally sprinkled throughout the book. So while it may be your "opinion" that the book is "without any references or documentation", the "facts" prove otherwise. I don't know of anyone who questions the truth of the Modern History book, other than you. After ten years, is probably the most quoted reference in english that is out there. I see quotes, references, and facts gleaned from the Modern History translation in all sorts of magazine articles, books, internet webpages, etc. including but not limited to your webpage as well, which you may or may not be aware of. I, for example, popularized the romanization "GM YOON Kwe Byung" when in fact GM Yon romanizes his name GM YON, Kwai Byong. It is one of many identifiers that I placed in the Modern History translation.

[Kong Soo Do]

I frankly don't understand why some folks would prefer a history or histories written by American/Canadian authors with relatively little or no experience concerning a Korean art over that of a native Korean author or authors with 40+ years experience in the art and access to resources and people who were present at the formative time. Of course, I am biased.

If you were Russian and interested in the history of American baseball, would you prefer a Russian or Bulgarian account of the game or would you seek out an American text written by someone who perhaps managed a professional MLB team?

Possibly because non-Korean sources may be less biased. Certain Korean sources may be willing to compromise intellectual honesty and integrity in order to put themselves or their group in a better light for profit or gain. This isn't always the case of course, and one needs to be careful of too broad a brush stroke. But as I've mentioned here and in other threads, histories and relationships have been rewritten and/or are in dispute. One needs to be able to critically discern and even then one may be in error. I know certain individuals claim to know seniors, and they may indeed. But one would have to take them at their word. In order to take them at their word, one would have to judge their words according to what they have stated before as well as if they have anything to gain or lose in the discussion. After this, one would have to judge the alleged source of the information. Is is a solid source? More importantly, can it be verified? An alleged personal conversation that allegedly took place on a subject of possible controversy isn't reliable evidence as it can't be verified. And again, even if it can be verified, does the source have anything to lose or gain? Is there an agenda present? One needs to see a large picture and look at as many sources as possible rather than focus solely on a supposed conversation in private as the originator may have an agenda. One also needs to judge whether or not the person reporting the alleged conversation has an agenda or bias.

By the way Glenn, if you look at your profile, you'll see a link to a discussion that covers the questions you've raised in another thread that was locked here on MT. You must have missed it, as well as the email and PM I've sent you. As you are the one that raised the questions, and we did not have the opportunity to discuss them in full, I'm positive that you'll shortly join that conversation to stand by what you've stated and asked as well as being educated. I look forward to talking with you there.

[puunui]

Possibly because non-Korean sources may be less biased. Certain Korean sources may be willing to compromise intellectual honesty and integrity in order to put themselves or their group in a better light for profit or gain. This isn't always the case of course, and one needs to be careful of too broad a brush stroke. But as I've mentioned here and in other threads, histories and relationships have been rewritten and/or are in dispute. One needs to be able to critically discern and even then one may be in error. I know certain individuals claim to know seniors, and they may indeed. But one would have to take them at their word. In order to take them at their word, one would have to judge their words according to what they have stated before as well as if they have anything to gain or lose in the discussion. After this, one would have to judge the alleged source of the information. Is is a solid source? More importantly, can it be verified? An alleged personal conversation that allegedly took place on a subject of possible controversy isn't reliable evidence as it can't be verified. And again, even if it can be verified, does the source have anything to lose or gain? Is there an agenda present? One needs to see a large picture and look at as many sources as possible rather than focus solely on a supposed conversation in private as the originator may have an agenda. One also needs to judge whether or not the person reporting the alleged conversation has an agenda or bias.

Do you have any specific facts to support your position, or are you going to simply rely on pure argument and unsupported opinion?



By the way Glenn, if you look at your profile, you'll see a link to a discussion that covers the questions you've raised in another thread that was locked here on MT. You must have missed it, as well as the email and PM I've sent you. As you are the one that raised the questions, and we did not have the opportunity to discuss them in full, I'm positive that you'll shortly join that conversation to stand by what you've stated and asked as well as being educated. I look forward to talking with you there.

whatever.

[miguksaram]

Possibly because non-Korean sources may be less biased. Certain Korean sources may be willing to compromise intellectual honesty and integrity in order to put themselves or their group in a better light for profit or gain.

This line of logic refutes itself. If the Korean source is faulty, how can the non-Korea source be less faulty? How can they get their information without inevitably coming from a Korean source? It has already been shown where one person used non-Korean resources as references and the end result was an incorrect report.

[puunui]

This line of logic refutes itself. If the Korean source is faulty, how can the non-Korea source be less faulty? How can they get their information without inevitably coming from a Korean source? It has already been shown where one person used non-Korean resources as references and the end result was an incorrect report.

I think that when people make arguments like "non-korean sources for taekwondo history are better than korean sources", I don't think that they realize the point you are trying to make above. I mean really, who can dispute what is written in the Modern History book? Even General Choi is quoted in that book.

[Kong Soo Do]

This line of logic refutes itself. If the Korean source is faulty, how can the non-Korea source be less faulty? How can they get their information without inevitably coming from a Korean source? It has already been shown where one person used non-Korean resources as references and the end result was an incorrect report.

Jeremy, you've missed the point I made because you've switched wording from my quote to your reply. I did not say a specific or particular Korean source was or was not faulty, I stated that non-Korean sources may be less biased. There is a big difference from what I've stated and what you've understood. If we're going to have an honest discussion on KMA history we need to understand that at the beginning there was a very wide separation of initial training. Some had Shuto Kan, some Shotokan, some Shito Ryu etc. Some had as high as 7th Dan's in those Karate systems, others had lower Dans and some were a bit more nebulous as far as credible rank. In addition to this, there was a large number of personalities involved in the formation of the KMA's with TKD being at the forefront of our discussion. To put it straight out there, not all of them were happy campers. Not all were of the same quality as far as training. Not all were dedicated to solely advancing Korean arts in-and-of-themselves. In other words, some had less noble agendas. And that was just what can be considered the first generation. We had several organizations come and go with org-hopping. To large extent, much of this is to be expected and they can't be faulted. It was a hectic era and many can be credited with doing exceptionally well with what they had to work with.

Then we have the second and third generations that were a large part of the TKD explosion worldwide. Again, credit where it is due, the were very successful in this pursuit. However, once again not all were of the same quality. Some were fantastic, and let's be honest, many were sub-par but found a willing Western populace with 'yellow fever' willing to subscribe to the mystic Eastern martial phenom. And again we need to accept the fact that many of this generation had disputes with seniors and contemporaries alike. I've spoken already many times of the YMK/JDK/HMK situation. One says this, another says that, hurt feelings and harsh words result in not really knowing exactly the truth. Is it really a big deal if HMK was directly a part of the YMK with no ties to the JDK? Conversely, is it a really big deal if HMK was indeed a part of the JDK and not the YMK and the history was rewritten due to a personal dispute between Korean GM's? Depends upon whom you ask I suppose. But that is but one simple example and the ultimate answer ultimately depends upon whom you wish to believe.

The point is that we shouldn't try to white wash dirty laundry. Things happened. People got mad at other people. Some jumped ship. Some left and went home taking their toys with them. Some got undeserved advancements for the sake of getting the art 'out there'. And some put in some really hard work and put their heart into making it a wonderful and respected art. But we need to be honest that for those of use from the second generation on out probably will never know for sure what is the entire, whole truth. In many cases the truth is buried with some of the first generation (and some beyond). It all boils down to which senior or which group we wish to put our faith in. It simply 'is what it is'.

As far as my comment on bias, I stand by that. I'm fifth gen in HMK. But I hold no allegiance to the HMK. That isn't said disrespectfully towards the HMK. But I don't hold to them for rank advancement. They have no sway over what and how I teach or the fact I've combined other arts into the training. As a result, I can comment on them from an unbiased perspective. If they've done something wonderful, I'm free to compliment them. If they've done otherwise, I'm likewise free to comment to the negative. And many other non-Korean sources can do likewise as well, and perhaps even on a larger scale. And this doesn't exclude any Korean source that is likewise in a position to report from an unbiased perspective. Many Korean GM's and Masters have left particulars organizations and have reported honestly about them now that they are no longer beholding to them for rank advancement. As with anything, one has to consider the source there as well. Bottom line is that one can only research so far before having to make a decision as to what is going to be believed regardless of whether it was read or related first-hand. Either venue can be factual...either can be agenda-laden.

[puunui]

Once again we have little or no facts and instead pure argument and unsupported opinion. And what little facts are mentioned, came oddly enough, from the Modern History translation. Or rather I should say a poor misunderstanding of the Modern History translation, specifically these quotes:

***
Jidokwan's representing annex was the Han Moo Kwan. But, LEE Kyo Yoon said hes Han Moo Kwan root is not
Jidokwan, but rather the Choson Yun Moo Kwan. This shows the debate of the origins of the school.

***

Even now, LEE Kyo Yoon denies that the Han Moo Kwan was a split from the Jidokwan. After the
Chosun Yun Moo Kwan's CHUN Sang Sup was kidnapped to North Korea during the Korean War, everything
was in chaos, so LEE Chong Woo opened the Jidokwan, and he himself opened the Han Moo Kwan. Therefore
Han Moo Kwan's root is not Jidokwan, but rather from the Chosun Yun Moo Kwan. This is LEE Kyo Yoon's
claim.

***

But even that is not such a big deal to me. Basically, what GM LEE Kyo Yun is saying is that he learned from the Chosun Yun Moo Kwan and his teachers were GM CHUN Sang Sup and also GM YOON Byung In, and that he is not a student of GM LEE Chong Woo or the Jidokwan. What is also a fact was that GM LEE Kyo Yun and GM LEE Chong Woo did not like each other, which is probably why GM LEE Kyo Yun opened up his own dojang in the first place. Where's the big controversy or the huge bias and agenda? Frankly, I don't see it. And more revealing, Dakin Burdick doesn't even mention the above, so why it is being mentioned within the context of which is better, Modern History or Dakin Burdick article? If it weren't for the Modern History translation, Kong Soo Do wouldn't even know about this little slice of historical fact. Certainly Dakin Burdick and his "unbiased" non Korean point of view didn't know about it. In fact, I don't believe Dakin even mentions GM LEE Kyo Yun by name in his article.

[miguksaram]

Jeremy, you've missed the point I made because you've switched wording from my quote to your reply. I did not say a specific or particular Korean source was or was not faulty, I stated that non-Korean sources may be less biased.
No there was no misunderstanding. Even if I use your wording the line of logic still makes no sense. How can a Non-Korean sources inevitably get their information from Korean sources. The only difference is which tier they received it. Did they get it directly from the source vs. somone who is 2nd - 8th generation under the source? So how is it they can be less biased? They could be less removed from the truth. I could safely say any non-Korean source who starts any type of Korean MA history research already has a dog in the fight. This inevitably leads them to follow a biased path in their research. Example...why would an ITF really bother getting history from Modern History when it disputes a lot of what has been written by Choi's POV? They would much rather get their history from other ITF sources.


There is a big difference from what I've stated and what you've understood. If we're going to have an honest discussion on KMA history we need to understand that at the beginning there was a very wide separation of initial training. Some had Shuto Kan, some Shotokan, some Shito Ryu etc. Some had as high as 7th Dan's in those Karate systems, others had lower Dans and some were a bit more nebulous as far as credible rank.
Honest discussion? Was I being dishonest before? First and foremost, name me which Korean pioneer took Shito-ryu Karate? Because I honestly do not recall any of them studying that art. There were no 7th dan instructors in Karate. Even Yoon, Byoung In was listed as 5th dan in Shudokan. I believe Lee, Won-kuk held 4th dan in Karate. So you will have to point to the Korean that held a 7th dan in Karate.


To put it straight out there, not all of them were happy campers. Not all were of the same quality as far as training. Not all were dedicated to solely advancing Korean arts in-and-of-themselves. In other words, some had less noble agendas. And that was just what can be considered the first generation. We had several organizations come and go with org-hopping.
Yes, not all the Kwans dove right into the unification process. There was never a dispute saying that it was sunshine and roses. Both the Moodukkwan and the Jidokwan at one time or another dove in, got out, dove in got out and then finally dove in. I believe it was only Hwang-ki's school that split sides during the whole process where some of his students went with the unification and the others went along with him. But I am curious as to where you get your view point of less than noble intentions and which Kwan leader in particular you are referring to when mentioning it.

[Kong Soo Do]

Busy day so I only have a moment to touch on some of your post;


First and foremost, name me which Korean pioneer took Shito-ryu Karate? Because I honestly do not recall any of them studying that art.

YOON, Kwe-Byung studied Shito Ryu Karate under Mabun Kenwa Sensei while he was he Chief Master of the Han Mu Kwan in Toyko in the late 40's. I've seen him listed from 4th to 7th in Shudokan depending upon the source. How accurate that is depends again upon whom one wishes to believe. Regardless of what rank he may have held, it is apparent that he was held in very high esteem by many Japanese seniors and contemporaries.


As a side note, the YMK/JDK/HMK thing isn't that big of a deal, at least not to me. It merely serves as one example that came to mind as I posted. I first heard of the schism from GM Lee Chong Woo in an interview from World Taekwondo in 1997 which was reprinted by Al Cole on one of the JDK sites.

All for now :)

[SahBumNimRush]

First I would like to make clear I am by no means a historian, but I do very much enjoy learning about Asian history and martial arts history.

I also had never heard of any TKD ties to Shito Ryu, but after Kong Soo Do claimed YOON, Kwe-Byung's ties to Shito Ryu, I did a quick search on the net (I know, I know, such a reliable source.. .). Lacancha did have some information about YOON, Kwe-Byung's ties to Shito Ryu.

http://www.lacancha.com/gwebyungyoon.html

The source is credited to Kim Soo, of whom I know little about, so I cannot speak to his credibility. However, it is interesting to see a source claiming the tie.

[miguksaram]

Busy day so I only have a moment to touch on some of your post;



YOON, Kwe-Byung studied Shito Ryu Karate under Mabun Kenwa Sensei while he was he Chief Master of the Han Mu Kwan in Toyko in the late 40's.
Can you point me to the source for this. All the sources that I have point him as a member of Shudokan, not Shito-ryu. Shito-ryu was taught at Kansai Univeristy, but Yoon, Kwe-byung studied at Nihon University.

I've seen him listed from 4th to 7th in Shudokan depending upon the source. How accurate that is depends again upon whom one wishes to believe.
The only source I could find that listed him as a 7th dan is from your instructor's site. There is a list of 5th-8th dans that he handed out that you can find in Toyama, Kanken's book Karate-Do Tai Hokan. Yoon, Kwe-byung is not listed there. Kim, Ki-whang and In, Byun-yoon are.

[miguksaram]

First I would like to make clear I am by no means a historian, but I do very much enjoy learning about Asian history and martial arts history.

I also had never heard of any TKD ties to Shito Ryu, but after Kong Soo Do claimed YOON, Kwe-Byung's ties to Shito Ryu, I did a quick search on the net (I know, I know, such a reliable source.. .). Lacancha did have some information about YOON, Kwe-Byung's ties to Shito Ryu.

http://www.lacancha.com/gwebyungyoon.html

The source is credited to Kim Soo, of whom I know little about, so I cannot speak to his credibility. However, it is interesting to see a source claiming the tie.
Thank you. I am going to email them and ask where they received the source. I am interested because that would be the only place I have found any link between TKD and Shito-ryu.

[Kong Soo Do]

Can you point me to the source for this. All the sources that I have point him as a member of Shudokan, not Shito-ryu. Shito-ryu was taught at Kansai Univeristy, but Yoon, Kwe-byung studied at Nihon University.


I believe this has already been provided in an above post by Master Rush. You may want to discuss this with Glenn as we've talked about the ShitoRyu connection with Yoon, Kwe-Byung some months back and he didn't appear to have an issue with it.


The only source I could find that listed him as a 7th dan is from your instructor's site.

I was unaware that my instructor had a website? You might mean mine perhaps? Interestingly enough, the above link from Master Rush is somewhat different that it was a few years ago. I remember that it did indeed list Yoon as a 7th, though I don't remember now if it specifically listed Shudokan. That would be the natural assumption rather than Shito Ryu. But, things change in the KMA's. Perhaps the entry was updated within the last few years as a source was found to be inaccurate.

[SahBumNimRush]

Thank you. I am going to email them and ask where they received the source. I am interested because that would be the only place I have found any link between TKD and Shito-ryu.

I look forward to hearing what they have to tell you, as this is the only sited source I've seen this link between TKD and Shito-ryu also.

[miguksaram]

I believe this has already been provided in an above post by Master Rush. You may want to discuss this with Glenn as we've talked about the ShitoRyu connection with Yoon, Kwe-Byung some months back and he didn't appear to have an issue with it.
So that is your only source as well?


I was unaware that my instructor had a website? You might mean mine perhaps? Interestingly enough, the above link from Master Rush is somewhat different that it was a few years ago. I remember that it did indeed list Yoon as a 7th, though I don't remember now if it specifically listed Shudokan. That would be the natural assumption rather than Shito Ryu. But, things change in the KMA's. Perhaps the entry was updated within the last few years as a source was found to be inaccurate.
Perhaps your site then..http://iksda.8m.com/rich_text_5.html.

[miguksaram]

I look forward to hearing what they have to tell you, as this is the only sited source I've seen this link between TKD and Shito-ryu also.
Well the contact email for the the site is no longer valid, so I sent and email the GM Kim, Soo. I hope he will be able to assist. I will let you know if I hear anything.

[puunui]

YOON, Kwe-Byung studied Shito Ryu Karate under Mabun Kenwa Sensei while he was he Chief Master of the Han Mu Kwan in Toyko in the late 40's. I've seen him listed from 4th to 7th in Shudokan depending upon the source. How accurate that is depends again upon whom one wishes to believe. Regardless of what rank he may have held, it is apparent that he was held in very high esteem by many Japanese seniors and contemporaries.

How is it apparent that Dr. Yon was held "in very high esteem by many Japanese seniors and contemporaries"? Where does that come from?



As a side note, the YMK/JDK/HMK thing isn't that big of a deal, at least not to me. It merely serves as one example that came to mind as I posted.

I would say it is a big deal for you, since you mention it so often.



I first heard of the schism from GM Lee Chong Woo in an interview from World Taekwondo in 1997 which was reprinted by Al Cole on one of the JDK sites.

You mean this page in this history section? http://taekwondojidokwan.com/ If so, then you learned about it recently. And it doesn't mention any "schism" in the article. However, the Chosun Yun Moo Kwan/Jidokwan section from the Modern History book immediately follows the GM LEE Chong Woo interview. Perhaps you were reading that and misunderstood that to be GM Lee's interview. But funny how you once again cite to a Korean source for information, instead of a non-Korean one, which you claim is less apt to be "biased".

[puunui]

I also had never heard of any TKD ties to Shito Ryu, but after Kong Soo Do claimed YOON, Kwe-Byung's ties to Shito Ryu, I did a quick search on the net (I know, I know, such a reliable source.. .). Lacancha did have some information about YOON, Kwe-Byung's ties to Shito Ryu.

http://www.lacancha.com/gwebyungyoon.html

The source is credited to Kim Soo, of whom I know little about, so I cannot speak to his credibility. However, it is interesting to see a source claiming the tie.

Well, at least we now know where Kong Soo Do got his information from, spelling errors and all:

GM Kim Soo: He was known as YOON, Kwe-byung or by his original name "Yoon, Ui-byung". He was the Chief Master at Han Mu Kwan in Tokyo in 1947 which had ties to Grandmaster Kanken Toyama's Shuto-Kan. In addition to studying under Grandmaster Kanken Toyama, he also studied under Mabun Kenwa the founder of Shito-Ryu.

Kong Soo Do: YOON, Kwe-Byung studied Shito Ryu Karate under Mabun Kenwa Sensei while he was he Chief Master of the Han Mu Kwan in Toyko in the late 40's.

Here's my input: When Dr. Yon Kwai Byeong was a high school student in Osaka, he studied Karate under MABUNI Kenwa Sensei. I do not know if he was calling his art Shito Ryu or something else at the time. This was in the late 30's or so. Dr. Yon went on to college at Nihon Daigaku in Tokyo, he began studying under TOYAMA Kanken Sensei. In 1940, Dr. Yon along with other Korean expats started the Kanbukan (Han Moo Kwan in Korean) which was a place where Koreans living in Japan could train in the martial arts. Many styles were represented, including Shotokan, and others. Dr. Yon moved back to Korea in 1949 I believe, where he was briefly a member of the Chosun Yun Moo Kwan under GM CHUN Sang Sup before the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950. When GM Chun was lost or missing in the war, Dr. Yon was approached by the seniors, including GM LEE Chong Woo, to take over as the Chief Instructor. Also, because they were no longer training out of the Yun Moo Kwan (which was a judo school), they decided to change the name to Jidokwan. Dr. Yon remained the Jidokwanjang until the mid 1960's. Dr.. Yon, like his teacher MABUNI Kenwa Sensei, was very much into sparring and competition oriented martial arts. In fact, it was on one of his exchange trips (with GM HWANG Kee) to Japan where the first hogu were brought back to Korea. Dr. Yon also gave many scholarships to primarily Jidokwan member to Korea University, where he was teaching. Many famous champions were part of this scholarship program, names many would instantly recognize today.

[puunui]

The only source I could find that listed him as a 7th dan is from your instructor's site. There is a list of 5th-8th dans that he handed out that you can find in Toyama, Kanken's book Karate-Do Tai Hokan. Yoon, Kwe-byung is not listed there. Kim, Ki-whang and In, Byun-yoon are.

There is a list of titles but not dan ranking contained in Toyama Sensei's book which you can find on his wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanken_T%C5%8Dyama

It does list GM KIM Ki Whang on there; however in the original book, GM Kim's name is not listed. Both GM YOON Byung In and GM Yon Kwai Byeong are listed as shihan. However, the title shihan (sabum in korean) was not regarded as a "high" title. The Butokukai, for example, recognized Renshi, Kyoshi and Hanshi as titles, but not shihan. So I question how "high" or in how much esteem the Shihan were held.



In Hei Jin (Yun Byon In)
Shihan
Seoul, Korea Dojo







In ? Hei (Yun Uoi Byon)
Shihan
Tokyo Kanbukan (Korean Martial Hall) Director

[oftheherd1]

No there was no misunderstanding. Even if I use your wording the line of logic still makes no sense. How can a Non-Korean sources inevitably get their information from Korean sources. The only difference is which tier they received it. Did they get it directly from the source vs. somone who is 2nd - 8th generation under the source? So how is it they can be less biased? ...

I have not followed this discussion much, inasmuch as it seemed there was a lot of attempts to split hairs and engage in less than convivial discussion. But I was just too curious about the above paragraph and the original one by you; not to ask about and comment about some things. First, I guess I am just dense, but your 3rd sentance above just doesn't compute with me, considering your apparent defense of Korean sources as less biased, or at least no more biased than non-Korean sources. Why would it be important that non-Korean sources could not get the information from Korean sources?

As to your comment on following logic, I am baffled, but then I make no claim to being a philosopher. However, imperically, I can tell you that I have often seen literature from Korean schools attempting to show Korean martial arts history back to Hwa Rang Do, or beyond, in Korea. Although there were certainly martial arts, I am not sure how much survived Japanese occupation. Dr. Kimm, in his first book on Hapkido, makes the same claims for Hapkido. Yet I think it is pretty well accepted that Hapkido was founded by GM Choi, based on training he received in Japan. I have read some who state that is understandable considering the resurgence of nationalism after the end of WWII, and then the end of the Korean War. That is believable, but I was not there to know, nor can I quote any sources that I can prove are reliable.

Yes, not all the Kwans dove right into the unification process. There was never a dispute saying that it was sunshine and roses. Both the Moodukkwan and the Jidokwan at one time or another dove in, got out, dove in got out and then finally dove in.

Your choice of words makes it seem the different Korean martial arts schools willingly came together to become TKD only. I had heard differently, but can't recall at this time where I heard it. It may have been in the 79-81 timeframe when I was searching for a Mu Duk Kwan school in Seoul, Korea. I couldn't find one and began asking around why. As I recall hearing, the Korean Government was attempting to unify all Korean martial arts under the TKD umbrella and governance. Most found themselves unable to resist the pressure. The then Korean president's brother was affiliated with the Korean Hapkido Federation, and helped them resist. Tang Soo Do also resisted for a long time, but apparently came under TKD influence, but retained some autonomy. If I have made any errors, I hope you or someone will correct me so I will know better.

...

Just some thoughts sir, and hoping you can clear up my confusion.

Just for the record, assuming as I must, without any reason to think otherwise, that the four main principles in the discussion on Korean Martial Arts history have researched from sources they have then evaluated for, and are having some honest disagreements, I have enjoyed reading the information provided.

[miguksaram]

Just some thoughts sir, and hoping you can clear up my confusion.

How can a Non-Korean sources inevitably get their information from Korean sources.
This is from me not proof reading my statements prior to posting. What it should have read is How can Non-Koreans sources NOT inevitably get their information from Korean sources. My point was that all non-Korean sources' information has roots in Korean sources, so to say that a Non-Korean source is more reliable or less biased makes no sense because their information comes from a Korean source.


However, imperically, I can tell you that I have often seen literature from Korean schools attempting to show Korean martial arts history back to Hwa Rang Do, or beyond, in Korea. Although there were certainly martial arts, I am not sure how much survived Japanese occupation. Dr. Kimm, in his first book on Hapkido, makes the same claims for Hapkido. Yet I think it is pretty well accepted that Hapkido was founded by GM Choi, based on training he received in Japan. I have read some who state that is understandable considering the resurgence of nationalism after the end of WWII, and then the end of the Korean War. That is believable, but I was not there to know, nor can I quote any sources that I can prove are reliable.
Yes. The whole notion of TKD coming from the Hwarangdo and Taekkyon, was started, I believe, by Gen Choi. This was due to President Rhee's comment "That is Taekkyon" which he made at the first demonstration of Taekwondo. From there the fabrication began. Many schools jumped on the bandwagon with this from both sides of the fense. Why? I can only speculate. I would guess mostly that it was due to pride more than anything else. However, from my experience, many of the Korean masters were very open to their training and history if you were sincere enough to ask. They would never talk about the mystical Hwarangdo connection and instead tell you about the actual source. I have never read Dr. Kimm's book so I cannot comment about what history he put in there. Glenn would be a much better source on that.


Your choice of words makes it seem the different Korean martial arts schools willingly came together to become TKD only. I had heard differently, but can't recall at this time where I heard it. It may have been in the 79-81 timeframe when I was searching for a Mu Duk Kwan school in Seoul, Korea. I couldn't find one and began asking around why. As I recall hearing, the Korean Government was attempting to unify all Korean martial arts under the TKD umbrella and governance. Most found themselves unable to resist the pressure. The then Korean president's brother was affiliated with the Korean Hapkido Federation, and helped them resist. Tang Soo Do also resisted for a long time, but apparently came under TKD influence, but retained some autonomy. If I have made any errors, I hope you or someone will correct me so I will know better.I cannot speak about what happened with HKD group as I have not really done in depth history research on that. However, for TKD, we can establish that at one point all of the kwans were in. However there were a couple of times when both the Jidokwan and the Moodukkwan jumped out of the unification process. The overall Jidokwan group did finally join, though there were some members that did break away to do their own thing. As for the Moodukkwan, Hwang-ki decided that unifying under TKD did not seem like the best idea for him and his school. However, many of his seniors disagreed with that notion. As a result, there was a split in his group. Many of his seniors joined the TKD movement, while Hwang-ki and the others remained a separate entity. I hope this helps.

[oftheherd1]

First, thanks for your reply.


This is from me not proof reading my statements prior to posting. What it should have read is How can Non-Koreans sources NOT inevitably get their information from Korean sources. My point was that all non-Korean sources' information has roots in Korean sources, so to say that a Non-Korean source is more reliable or less biased makes no sense because their information comes from a Korean source.

I thought that might have been what you meant, but didn't want to put words in your mouth. I understand your point, but I think some Japanese sources have been quoted here on MT for different Koreans being students in Japan prior, during, or just after WWII. Granted, one has to be just a cautious about believing Japanese history about Korea. School rosters seem less political, but I would hope to independently verify those too if possible. I have never seen it mentioned, but there might be some records from China on the subject as well.

Yes. The whole notion of TKD coming from the Hwarangdo and Taekkyon, was started, I believe, by Gen Choi. This was due to President Rhee's comment "That is Taekkyon" which he made at the first demonstration of Taekwondo. From there the fabrication began. Many schools jumped on the bandwagon with this from both sides of the fense. Why? I can only speculate. I would guess mostly that it was due to pride more than anything else. However, from my experience, many of the Korean masters were very open to their training and history if you were sincere enough to ask. They would never talk about the mystical Hwarangdo connection and instead tell you about the actual source. I have never read Dr. Kimm's book so I cannot comment about what history he put in there. Glenn would be a much better source on that.

Basically, he promotes the history of Korean martial arts, specifically Hapkido, going back to Hwarang-Do in the Silla Dynasty.

I cannot speak about what happened with HKD group as I have not really done in depth history research on that. However, for TKD, we can establish that at one point all of the kwans were in. However there were a couple of times when both the Jidokwan and the Moodukkwan jumped out of the unification process. The overall Jidokwan group did finally join, though there were some members that did break away to do their own thing. As for the Moodukkwan, Hwang-ki decided that unifying under TKD did not seem like the best idea for him and his school. However, many of his seniors disagreed with that notion. As a result, there was a split in his group. Many of his seniors joined the TKD movement, while Hwang-ki and the others remained a separate entity. I hope this helps.

Well, I cannot, as I said, show or quote sources on that. I cannot even recall who I heard it from. I don't recall ever asking my GM about it. He was explicit on the history of Hapkido going back to GM Choi, based on GM Choi's study in Japan. The history of TKD and HKD didn't seem important. We were separate and that was just it.



Again, thanks for your reply. As I said, I have enjoyed everyone's postings on TKD history. It is interesting, just not from the point of a TKD student, since I am not.

[Kong Soo Do]

First, thanks for your reply.

Again, thanks for your reply. As I said, I have enjoyed everyone's postings on TKD history. It is interesting, just not from the point of a TKD student, since I am not.

Your very welcome. I'm glad that I could contribute in some small way. At the very least, a seeking individual will have plenty of resources in which to research this subject and come to their own informed decisions. I've enjoyed it as well.

[kbarrett]

Actually none of the Korean martial arts of today can trace their history before 1944, that was when GM Won Kuk Lee first brought "Okinwan Karate" to Korean calling his art "Tang Soo Do" Chung Do Kwan. Then came GM Hwang Kee teaching Hwa Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan (it failed) he started teaching Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan in 1947 (now it's Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan). Then ther was GM Choi Yong -Sool teaching Hapkido, and a few others teaching "Kong Soo Do", these where the martial arts in Korean at that time, and none can really trace their history before this time, no matter how badly they want to. Teak Kyeon and Yul Sul where both part of the old "Subak" before they split into different styles, all martial arts are deadly, no one martial art is more lethal than another, the history of today martial arts should be separate then the martial arts of yesterday because they have very different beginning they just aren't one in the same at all.

Ken

[mastercole]

Actually none of the Korean martial arts of today can trace their history before 1944, that was when GM Won Kuk Lee first brought "Okinwan Karate" to Korean calling his art "Tang Soo Do" Chung Do Kwan. Then came GM Hwang Kee teaching Hwa Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan (it failed) he started teaching Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan in 1947 (now it's Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan). Then ther was GM Choi Yong -Sool teaching Hapkido, and a few others teaching "Kong Soo Do", these where the martial arts in Korean at that time, and none can really trace their history before this time, no matter how badly they want to. Teak Kyeon and Yul Sul where both part of the old "Subak" before they split into different styles, all martial arts are deadly, no one martial art is more lethal than another, the history of today martial arts should be separate then the martial arts of yesterday because they have very different beginning they just aren't one in the same at all.

Ken

Ssirum and Taekkyon can both trace their histories back before 1944. Also, Taekkyon is not part of subak, where did you learn that at?

[rmclain]

Well the contact email for the the site is no longer valid, so I sent and email the GM Kim, Soo. I hope he will be able to assist. I will let you know if I hear anything.


Did you get in contact with Grandmaster Kim Soo?

I've personally been in his office in Houston, Texas and held the bong-sul book written by Yoon Kwe-byoung in Japan. He lists the dedication in the book to Mabuni Kenwa and Toyama Kanken. I don't remember if he called them his teachers in the dedication. But, Grandmaster Kim can tell you. Let me know if you have any trouble contacting him. He's traveling tomorrow from Busan to Houston.

R. McLain

[miguksaram]

Did you get in contact with Grandmaster Kim Soo?

I've personally been in his office in Houston, Texas and held the bong-sul book written by Yoon Kwe-byoung in Japan. He lists the dedication in the book to Mabuni Kenwa and Toyama Kanken. I don't remember if he called them his teachers in the dedication. But, Grandmaster Kim can tell you. Let me know if you have any trouble contacting him. He's traveling tomorrow from Busan to Houston.

R. McLain

Hello sir. No I have not heard from GM Kim Soo. However, I know he is an extremely busy man so I don't take it personally. ;) If you can find out that would be great. Thank you.

[Kong Soo Do]

Did you get in contact with Grandmaster Kim Soo?

I've personally been in his office in Houston, Texas and held the bong-sul book written by Yoon Kwe-byoung in Japan. He lists the dedication in the book to Mabuni Kenwa and Toyama Kanken. I don't remember if he called them his teachers in the dedication. But, Grandmaster Kim can tell you. Let me know if you have any trouble contacting him. He's traveling tomorrow from Busan to Houston.

R. McLain

This is very interesting, thank you. It would be very interesting to know the extent of the relationship between those three individuals.

[kbarrett]

Hi Master Cole,

Actually Ssirum was and still is Korean's original Wrestling martial arts, how ever Tae Kyon and Yu Sool where both part of the origianl Subak fighting art of Korea, subak dates back to 1170, tae Kyon and Yu Sool both came after they split apart from the original subak, I'd have do to research to remmber the exact date this separation took place. Tae Kyon remained a kicking and striking fighting art, while Yu Sool became more of a joint locking /grappling fighting art, when the Japanese occupation ended in 1945 there weren't any Korean fighting arts being taught at that time, Won Kuk Lee brought okinawan Karate to Korea calling it Tang Soo Do his Assoicaiton was the Chung Do Kwan which he established in 1945, at that time hwe call his martial art Chung Do Kwan Tang Soo Do, and other who had returned to Korea call their's either Kong Soo Do, Hapkido, Tang Soo Do, just to name a few. At that time Tae kyun wasn't being taught, I do believe however Yu Sool was starting to be taught once again in the late 1940's early 1950', it really wasn't until recently that (1990's) that Tae kyon starting taking a foot hold in Korean Martial Arts once again, and I learned all of this by studing and researching, I didn't just want ot practice Tang Soo Do I wanted to know everything about my MA and it's history, and the more I rearched the more I uncover about the origianl origins of Tang Soo Do and many other Korean MA.

[mastercole]

Hi Master Cole,
Actually Ssirum was and still is Korean's original Wrestling martial arts, how ever Tae Kyon and Yu Sool where both part of the origianl Subak fighting art of Korea, subak dates back to 1170, tae Kyon and Yu Sool both came after they split apart from the original subak, I'd have do to research to remmber the exact date this separation took place. Tae Kyon remained a kicking and striking fighting art, while Yu Sool became more of a joint locking /grappling fighting art,

Hello,

We (Taekkyon practitioners) learned that there is no clear relation between Taekkyon and Subyok, other than they are names from Korea's past. This is according to the foremost researcher and leader of Taekkyon in Korea, GM Yong Bok Lee.

Taekkyon and Ssirum are listed at the top of Korea's Ministry of Culture's traditional martial arts pyramid and have clearly defined roots and links to the ancient past. This was just recognized by UNESCO listing Taekkyon as a World Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, the first martial art in history to earn this designation.

As for Subyok? No one really knows exactly what it was. The only thing we do know is that it was "clapping/striking of the hands." There is an attempt in Korea to revive Subyok and today it has several hundred practitioners, but again, there is no evidence of the techniques, so we don't know exactly what Subyok was, at this time.

When you write yusul, it makes me think of "hapkiyusul", which I believe was brought to Korea from Japan by GM Yong Sul Choi.

[puunui]

Actually Ssirum was and still is Korean's original Wrestling martial arts, how ever Tae Kyon and Yu Sool where both part of the origianl Subak fighting art of Korea, subak dates back to 1170, tae Kyon and Yu Sool both came after they split apart from the original subak, I'd have do to research to remmber the exact date this separation took place. Tae Kyon remained a kicking and striking fighting art, while Yu Sool became more of a joint locking /grappling fighting art,

yusool is pronounced jiujitsu in japanese. I think that says more about yusool than these histories written on the internet or in the introduction section of korean martial arts books.


when the Japanese occupation ended in 1945 there weren't any Korean fighting arts being taught at that time, Won Kuk Lee brought okinawan Karate to Korea calling it Tang Soo Do his Assoicaiton was the Chung Do Kwan which he established in 1945, at that time hwe call his martial art Chung Do Kwan Tang Soo Do,

GM LEE Won Kuk came back to Korea from Japan in January 1944. He said he moved back to Korea because of american bombing raids on tokyo at the time. He said that when he was on the ship back to korea, an american fighter plane swooped down to look at the ship he was on, but didn't fire upon them. He first opened the Chung Do Kwan in September 1944, not 1945. The date 1944 is on the official Chung Do Kwan patch as well as on the certificates that the Chung Do Kwan still issues. As for Taekkyon, many people state that GM LEE Won Kuk studied Taekkyon in his youth, but that is not true. GM Lee actually says is that when he was young he had heard of taekkyon, but never saw it performed and never learned it. When he opened the Tang Soo Do Chung Do Kwan in September 1944, Taekkyon played no part in what he originally taught. However, he did state that his students were fascinated by and focused on kick training, due to the korean culture's emphasis on using feet to attack and defend. If you watch american kids fighting with no training, they will either put up their hands like a boxer and throw punches, or they will wrestle. In Korea, you see kicks instead of punching or wrestling.



I learned all of this by studing and researching, I didn't just want ot practice Tang Soo Do I wanted to know everything about my MA and it's history, and the more I rearched the more I uncover about the origianl origins of Tang Soo Do and many other Korean MA.

What did your research consist of? Have you spoken to any of the pioneers in an effort to understand the origins of your art?

[kbarrett]

I never go a chance to speak to any of the founders of the Chung Do Kwan or the Moo Duk Kwan, I wish I had, but my research comes from my instructors who have personally trained with the founders of the Moo Duk Kwan or Chung Do Kwan and others who where associated with both these groups. I also read articles by MG Won Kuk Lee, and ones done by GM Hwang Kee or his son GM H.C. Hwang, along with others that where part of both these groups, as for yu Sool being pronounced jujutsu in Japan I have herd that before, one thing of note regardless of which history you read about, what I've found interesting is that in the Muye dobo tonji martial arts manual of Korea, it's "kwan bup" that's pictured, with only a mention of the wrestling style of Ssirum of all the style that mite have been in Korea at that time that the one which was chosen to go in the muye gobo tonji manual.

Ken

[mastercole]

I never go a chance to speak to any of the founders of the Chung Do Kwan or the Moo Duk Kwan, I wish I had, but my research comes from my instructors who have personally trained with the founders of the Moo Duk Kwan or Chung Do Kwan and others who where associated with both these groups. I also read articles by MG Won Kuk Lee, and ones done by GM Hwang Kee or his son GM H.C. Hwang, along with others that where part of both these groups, as for yu Sool being pronounced jujutsu in Japan I have herd that before, one thing of note regardless of which history you read about, what I've found interesting is that in the Muye dobo tonji martial arts manual of Korea, it's "kwan bup" that's pictured, with only a mention of the wrestling style of Ssirum of all the style that mite have been in Korea at that time that the one which was chosen to go in the muye gobo tonji manual.

Ken

The mooyetobtongji is about Chinese martial arts. Kwonbop is how Korean people say Chuanfa. They are written with the same Chinese characters.

[puunui]

I also read articles by MG Won Kuk Lee

Are you talking about the one in Taekwondo Times? If so, there were numerous mistranslations in it. I personally asked GM Lee some of the same questions, and he sometimes he gave me completely different answers. For example, that tkdt article mentions Gojuryu, and GM Lee had nothing to do with Gojuryu. I think a lot of interviews suffer from mistranslation and also from the limitations of the interviewer in being able to ask the right questions at the right time and under the right circumstances.

[puunui]

The mooyetobtongji is about Chinese martial arts. Kwonbop is how Korean people say Chuanfa. They are written with the same Chinese characters.

There is someone here in Hawaii who has studied and translated the original chinese texts from which the mooyedobotongji was based. Kwon Bup is pronounced Chuan Fa in one dialect Chinese and is also Kenpo (pronounced "Kempo") in Japanese. When the n sound is next to the p sound in Japanese, the general rule is that the n sound gets converted into the m sound, thus kempo instead of kenpo. Pronouncing it Kenpo instead of Kempo is of sort like pronouncing it Gunbo instead of Gumbo.