Gichin Funokoshi and Hwang Kee

[maunakumu]

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

[Brother John]

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

Your Brother
John

[The Kai]

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

Todd

[maunakumu]

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

[The Kai]

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

Do klnow if Hwang Kee ever traveled to Okinawa?
Todd

[glad2bhere]

Hmmmmm. I don't think thats gonna work.

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

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[maunakumu]

Bruce

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

upnorthkyosa

[glad2bhere]

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

Between which and which?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[maunakumu]

There are several claims here in this thread.

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

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

upnorthkyosa

[Zepp]

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

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

[glad2bhere]

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

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

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

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

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[oldnewbie]

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

With respect...

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

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

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

If it is effective, then train....

[maunakumu]

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

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

upnorthkyosa

[oldnewbie]

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

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

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

Makes me want to NOT know.....

[glad2bhere]

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

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

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

Best Wishes,

Bruce