Facts, Fiction, Lies and actual accounts

[Kong Soo Do]

I would like to restate what we have said here. Please add I did not get everything!

Major influence of TKD is Karate. Shotokan is probably the major one but other styles came into play.
That founders of the major kwans trained in Karate rising to different ranks. We believe based on Internet research that at least 2 achieved Dan rank under Funakoshi.

That TKD was established post WW2. I think that it is fair to say that it has also been influenced by Korean martial arts culture which predates the Japanese occupation. To what extent is debatable but to say that it had no influence would be unfair.

Can we all agree that this is some what accurate?

Generally speaking, what you've listed is fine. I'd put Shotokan as a major player but also add Shudokan and Shito Ryu to the list as far as GM Yoon is concerned.

It was called by various names in the mid-to-late 40's and early 50's. Kong Soo Do, Kwon Bup, Tang Soo Do etc. Pre-WWII Korean arts may have had an influence, but as you mention, it is debatable as to the extent. I would say that any influence it may have had in no way, shape or form gives credence to TKD being an 2000 year old indigenous KMA. That is marketing.

 

[Gorilla]

Kong Soo Do....for the record I have nerver heard a Korean Grand Master state that TKD is 2000 years old...my statements on TKD in this thread largely agree with our GM taught...

That is not to say that others have not said it...but that is not my experience.

It is funny our Shotokan Sensei admires TKD as sport. He is fascinated by the adaptations that Korean culture has given to Shotokan.

When you train in both it is amazing how alike they are.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Kong Soo Do....for the record I have nerver heard a Korean Grand Master state that TKD is 2000 years old...

Unfortunately I have. And it isn't limited to TKD, I've also seen this in TSD. I've still got the flyer around somewhere from the local TSD school (now closed) that offered this up as a historical fact for TSD.

As I've said before, TKD (and TSD) is about 60 years old...and there is nothing wrong with that. That fact should be proudly stated without any thought of embellishment. If some wish to include a Taekyon influence then fine, they just don't need to say that 1 + B = orange. They need to be happy for what it is, and build upon that.

 

[granfire]

Unfortunately I have. And it isn't limited to TKD, I've also seen this in TSD. I've still got the flyer around somewhere from the local TSD school (now closed) that offered this up as a historical fact for TSD.

As I've said before, TKD (and TSD) is about 60 years old...and there is nothing wrong with that. That fact should be proudly stated without any thought of embellishment. If some wish to include a Taekyon influence then fine, they just don't need to say that 1 + B = orange. They need to be happy for what it is, and build upon that.

Shucks, I have seen 4000....

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Kongsoodo,

Before it gets buried again, I asked some questions to you and gave you some responses regarding your statements on Kukkiwon pumse. I'm not sure if you've seen them; the original was on page two and I reposted it on page three. I don't know if you've just missed them, but I am interested in your response.

Thank you,

We've gone three pages and you still have not responded. Since you frequently appeal to personal experience and first hand knowledge, am I to assume that in this case you have none?

You took a swipe at the pioneers of an art that I have practiced for almost forty years. Which is fine; this is the internet and people do that. But if you're going to do that, then please have the courtesy to respond the questions that I asked you on the topic.

First and foremost, what firsthand, if any, experience do you have with the forms that you say are just reworked karate kata?

 

[Kong Soo Do]

We've gone three pages and you still have not responded. Since you frequently appeal to personal experience and first hand knowledge, am I to assume that in this case you have none?

You may make whatever assumption you'd like. I was involved in other threads yesterday and didn't follow this one very closely.

You took a swipe at the pioneers of an art that I have practiced for almost forty years. Which is fine; this is the internet and people do that. But if you're going to do that, then please have the courtesy to respond the questions that I asked you on the topic.

To begin with, you keep using that phrase, 'took a swipe'. No, I made an assestment based upon my perception that doesn't always agree with your perception. It isn't always going to be favorable to 'seniors and pioneers' as I don't choose to venerate them as some have chosen to do. I see the positive they've done (in whatever art) as well as the negatives, political in-fighting, lying, cheating etc. Btw, I'd have a respectful, but straight-forward discussion with any of them FTF. And I have.

First and foremost, what firsthand, if any, experience do you have with the forms that you say are just reworked karate kata?

Yes, I do. As well as forms from other arts. That is exactly why I take the position I've taken. In my opinion, and based upon my experience, they are 'childrens' karate forms. In otherwords, they have taken, what I refer to as childrens karate, and put together a set of forms based upon that limited perspective. And these forms have suffered further by attempts to disregard what information they contain and make them even flashier. For example, you may see in competitions someone performing a very high kick, when the form called for a mid-level kick. Why? Well cause it 'looks' better of course and may impress the judges. Regardless of the fact that a very high kick is generally a very low % in terms of effectiveness and the mid-level kick would have been effective due to the set up that preceded it.

More so, I always make a point to ask (for any art that uses forms) what a particular movement means. What it's practical combative purpose is suppose to be. The general response is a blank stare. But if I get lucky enough, occassionally I get someone that can explain, in their experience, what a movement is suppose to be. 99.9% of the time though it is what I call a 'childrens karate' answer. 'Oh, that's a high block' or 'that's a low block to defend against a kick' etc. Really? You don't see the shoulder lock takedown in that movement or the balance displacement principle it is explaining? How about the movement that is suppose to block my incoming kick with your forearm? Do you really want to pit the radial bone, the smallest in the forearm against my shin bone? Does that sound like a fair trade-off? Wouldn't that movement perhaps be a little more condusive to perhaps a hammer fist strike to the attacker's lower body from a grappling position?

That is why I catagorically state that TKD kata 'can' effectively show the principles of locks, throws, ground-fighting, balance displacement etc etc etc etc. But the majority of TKD practitioners don't know its there. They don't know its there becasue their instructors don't know the information is there. The instructors don't know it's there because in my opinion, most of the seniors/pioneers didn't know it was there...though some did. But that type of stuff isn't as easily taught, particuarly to children who quite frankly don't really need to know how to choke someone out or rip the muscle off the bone. So it isn't commercially viable.

If someone is into TKD for sport, fellowship, social networking, discipline or a hobby then they really wouldn't be interested in the 'deeper' stuff. But for those that are, TKD can be virtually the same as 'practical' Karate, Jujutsu, Hapkido etc.

That's my perspective of the forms. Bottom line is that there is much more to them than just a boring, cookie-cutter, class-filler requirement to get the next colored belt.

 

[Sukerkin]

Interesting points, KSD.

To term TKD as being founded on 'childrens karate' is not something I have heard before but does gel with what I have read on the real history of the art i.e. that it is a 20th century adaptation of a Japanese art rather than some mythical 1st Century art.

It's an unfortunate way to phrase it tho, as I am sure that almost all TKD students would take exception to their art being called that and thus will shut their ears (or eyes in this case ) to the valid point you are making.

 

[dancingalone]

The influence of the Pinan/Heian kata created by ITOSU "Anko" has been profound throughout taekwondo. However, these forms WERE intentionally created by him to be children's forms. Not necessarily Tiny Tigers stuff, but definitely for primary school - junior high age minors where Itosu didn't believe the more dangerous applications should be taught.

The Pinan kata were created from older, supposedly more serious forms like Kusanku or possibly Channan, a now lost kata. They were supposed to be freshly made without history to them, but anyone with knowledge from the older form would be able to translate many of the same dangerous techniques back into the Pinan forms and practice or teach them at the higher level.

And I think that is the point Kong Soo Do is making. The Pinan kata and their progeny don't have to be practiced at the base level. But by and large that is the case now, though it's not necessarily a phenomenon limited to TKD only. Japanese karate suffers from the same issues. Frankly so does Okinawan karate when it is taught and practiced at a hobbyist level, which is unfortunately most often the case.

Such is the state of things, but I don't see this as a permanent condition necessarily. We can all grow and evolve over time. If anyone within TKD is interested in the older knowledge it's out there to search into. Places like MT serve as seeding hoards, almost like how the US Department of Agriculture stores older varieties of plant seeds so that their genetic diversity is not lost, displaced by modern hybrid varieties of plants. People can read about such things in MT and if it pricks their interest, they know the next steps to take if they want.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

You may make whatever assumption you'd like. I was involved in other threads yesterday and didn't follow this one very closely.

My conclusion goes beyond your lack of answering. Your posting content also indicates that you have little or no actual experience with these particular forms and probably little to none with actual Kukkiwon taekwondo.

To begin with, you keep using that phrase, 'took a swipe'. No, I made an assestment based upon my perception that doesn't always agree with your perception. It isn't always going to be favorable to 'seniors and pioneers' as I don't choose to venerate them as some have chosen to do. I see the positive they've done (in whatever art) as well as the negatives, political in-fighting, lying, cheating etc. Btw, I'd have a respectful, but straight-forward discussion with any of them FTF. And I have.

This isn't a question of veneration. If you're going to make a negative assessment of the experience of established people you are taking a swipe. Which, as I said, is fine (really); this is the internet. People do that on the internet.

But if you're going to do that, don't be cagey about your own experience.

Yes, I do.

And that experience would be? I asked you what experience you had, not if you had any.

As well as forms from other arts. That is exactly why I take the position I've taken. In my opinion, and based upon my experience, they are 'childrens' karate forms. In otherwords, they have taken, what I refer to as childrens karate, and put together a set of forms based upon that limited perspective. And these forms have suffered further by attempts to disregard what information they contain and make them even flashier. For example, you may see in competitions someone performing a very high kick, when the form called for a mid-level kick. Why? Well cause it 'looks' better of course and may impress the judges. Regardless of the fact that a very high kick is generally a very low % in terms of effectiveness and the mid-level kick would have been effective due to the set up that preceded it.

More so, I always make a point to ask (for any art that uses forms) what a particular movement means. What it's practical combative purpose is suppose to be. The general response is a blank stare. But if I get lucky enough, occassionally I get someone that can explain, in their experience, what a movement is suppose to be. 99.9% of the time though it is what I call a 'childrens karate' answer. 'Oh, that's a high block' or 'that's a low block to defend against a kick' etc. Really? You don't see the shoulder lock takedown in that movement or the balance displacement principle it is explaining? How about the movement that is suppose to block my incoming kick with your forearm? Do you really want to pit the radial bone, the smallest in the forearm against my shin bone? Does that sound like a fair trade-off? Wouldn't that movement perhaps be a little more condusive to perhaps a hammer fist strike to the attacker's lower body from a grappling position?

That is why I catagorically state that TKD kata 'can' effectively show the principles of locks, throws, ground-fighting, balance displacement etc etc etc etc. But the majority of TKD practitioners don't know its there. They don't know its there becasue their instructors don't know the information is there. The instructors don't know it's there because in my opinion, most of the seniors/pioneers didn't know it was there...though some did. But that type of stuff isn't as easily taught, particuarly to children who quite frankly don't really need to know how to choke someone out or rip the muscle off the bone. So it isn't commercially viable.

If someone is into TKD for sport, fellowship, social networking, discipline or a hobby then they really wouldn't be interested in the 'deeper' stuff. But for those that are, TKD can be virtually the same as 'practical' Karate, Jujutsu, Hapkido etc.

That's my perspective of the forms. Bottom line is that there is much more to them than just a boring, cookie-cutter, class-filler requirement to get the next colored belt.

Thus far, none of your posts, including the one above, indicate that you actually have any first hand experience with these particular forms. In fact, this posts reinforces that.

Some of the things that you say, such as comments about the radial bone of the forearm being used to strike an opponent's shin bone is an example of this.

While your assessment of small bone vs. large bone is accurate on its own, I was never taught to use any of the blocks in the pumse in such a manner by any of my instructors.

I'm not going to go through your response any further than I have, as you have yet to directly answer my question and what answers you have given tell me that while you are experienced, your experience lies outside of Kukkiwon taekwondo.

Incidentally, I could go though Youtube videos and watch ATA Songahm forms and then go pose questions to ATA practitioners of unstated rank and probably get the same results that you did. Since I don't actually train in Songahm taekwondo or have any of their training material, those results would be meaningless.

If I asked an ATA instructor what a particular movement in their forms 'means' I'm probably going to get a basic answer. I'm not their student and they have no reason to go into detailed answers about permutations of or alternate uses of a particular movement.

They are not obligated to educate me when I am not a part of their school nor practice their particular art, and am probably just picking their brain for my own reasons and not out of any genuine interest in the art.

 

[d1jinx]

Daniel, consider your source. I think you could find your answers you were looking for here:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?98993-Who-is-David-Schultz&highlight=david+shultz

If you really dont feel like looking through the tons of BS, you would be safe in coming to the same conclusion I have, no merit and irrelevent.

 

[dancingalone]

Thus far, none of your posts, including the one above, indicate that you actually have any first hand experience with these particular forms. In fact, this posts reinforces that.

I'm not really taking sides in this spat, but I am curious about this line of contention on a certain level. Does it matter if KSD knows the KKW poomsae or not, pertinent to his discussion here? He only says that the level of forms study with TKD as it currently exists does not include (for the most part) thinks like bone and tendon displacement, grappling, or weapon to target tactical considerations. With a surface glance, that seems like a true enough statement - this is not an area of strength for TKD, though it could be if the right people in positions of leadership made it an area for emphasis.

 

[d1jinx]

Interesting points, KSD.

To term TKD as being founded on 'childrens karate' is not something I have heard before but does gel with what I have read on the real history of the art i.e. that it is a 20th century adaptation of a Japanese art rather than some mythical 1st Century art.

It's an unfortunate way to phrase it tho, as I am sure that almost all TKD students would take exception to their art being called that and thus will shut their ears (or eyes in this case ) to the valid point you are making.

I'm sure there are some ROK Marines from the Veitnam War out there who would beg to differ about it being "childrens karate". The NVA would spread flyers saying

Captured Viet Cong orders now stipulate that contact
with the Koreans is to be avoided at
all costs unless a Viet Cong victory is
100% certain. Never defy Korean soldiers without
discrimination, even when
are not armed, for they all well trained with Taekwondo.
An excerpt from an
enemy directive seized. - July 22, 1966 Time -

 

[dancingalone]

I'm sure there are some ROK Marines from the Veitnam War out there who would beg to differ about it being "childrens karate". The NVA would spread flyers saying "avoid ROK Marines at all cost".

"Children's karate" can still be deadly. A knife hand to the throat, simple as it is, can still kill.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Kong Soo Do....for the record I have nerver heard a Korean Grand Master state that TKD is 2000 years old...my statements on TKD in this thread largely agree with our GM taught...

That is not to say that others have not said it...but that is not my experience.

Until the internet, I had never heard the claim that modern TKD was older than about fifty years. After the internet.... well it's pretty amazing some of the assertions made on school websites.

It is funny our Shotokan Sensei admires TKD as sport. He is fascinated by the adaptations that Korean culture has given to Shotokan.

When you train in both it is amazing how alike they are.

There is definitely similarity between the two, though also a lot of difference. Structurally, Shotokan was definitely a strong influence.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Interesting points, KSD.

To term TKD as being founded on 'childrens karate' is not something I have heard before but does gel with what I have read on the real history of the art i.e. that it is a 20th century adaptation of a Japanese art rather than some mythical 1st Century art.

It's an unfortunate way to phrase it tho, as I am sure that almost all TKD students would take exception to their art being called that and thus will shut their ears (or eyes in this case ) to the valid point you are making.

Thank you and I understand what you're saying. I just don't know another way to put it. I know it is going to raise some ire, sometimes the truth hurts. However, as a clarification, though I phrased it as being based (in general) upon Itosu's 'childrens' version of Karate, and I stand by that statement, it wasn't meant to demean the TKD practitioner or say that 'they' are children. But they aren't training in the full scope of what TKD actually is/could be either from the ignorance of their instructors or by design of some of the pioneers that did know the difference. And by 'ignorance' I'm not suggesting 'stupidity', there is a difference in the terms. Some will automatically disregard my posts, and respond with snide comments (and already have), but some will perhaps look a little deeper. When they do, their going to have their minds blown at what the art can and does have in it for the taking. In otherwords, the majority of TKD practitioners (and 'modern Karate to some extent) are spendig 100% of their time training 5% of what the art can offer. They don't have anyone to show them (or wants to show them) the other 95%. And again, if they're just into TKD for sport, socialization or whatever (something other than SD) then the other 95% would hold little value for them.

Daniel & D1jinx, feel free to dismiss the point I'm trying to convey. Minimize it, twist it into a 'swipe' at TKD or whatever else you'd like to do, dismiss it as irrelevent or of no merit. No one is forcing you to do anything you're not comfortable with doing. But while some look at a form as a boring, cookie-cutter class-filler (as I've already mentioned)...I see a form as a plethora of practical, focused movements that go well beyond simple block/punch/kick. Not every situation calls for b/p/k. Having a wider response inventory is always a plus.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I'm not really taking sides in this spat, but I am curious about this line of contention on a certain level. Does it matter if KSD knows the KKW poomsae or not, pertinent to his discussion here? He only says that the level of forms study with TKD as it currently exists does not include (for the most part) thinks like bone and tendon displacement, grappling, or weapon to target tactical considerations. With a surface glance, that seems like a true enough statement - this is not an area of strength for TKD, though it could be if the right people in positions of leadership made it an area for emphasis.

Hardly a spat, but the reason that I asked the question was completely unrelated to anything that you mentioned; I asked because he said that the Taegeuk pumse were just 'reworked karate kata.' Presumably Shotokan. If you don't have any familiarity with the forms, then you have no basis to make the statement.

When these debates have come up about Chang Hon and Shotokan forms, I see people discussing things about similarities in specific parts of the forms. While I'm not going to make any statements about ITF forms being reworked Shotokan forms, it is obvious that the people making these statements are familiar with both sets of forms. I'm not getting that vibe here.

Now, had he said that the forms were strongly influenced by Shotokan forms, which I think would have some validity, we'd be having a different discussion. But his statement implies a level of plagiarism. Perhaps that was not his intent, but that is the logical conclusion of the statement.

Regarding some of his comments about not being able to get answers about the meaning of specific elements of the pumse, since he obviously isn't trained in them (otherwise, he wouldn't be asking people the question), he again, has no basis to make the observations about what the forms may or may not contain.

I have no doubt that he is an experienced practitioner of some kind of karate. I also have no doubt that he has learned a good amount of joint locks, throws, and takedowns, and other techniques common to hapkido and jujutsu.

But regarding Kukkiwon taekwondo, and taekwondo in general, his posts indicate an outside-looking-in perspective, which is not a good perspective from which to make definitive statements about another art.

 

[d1jinx]

Until the internet, I had never heard the claim that modern TKD was older than about fifty years. After the internet.... well it's pretty amazing some of the assertions made on school websites.


There is definitely similarity between the two, though also a lot of difference. Structurally, Shotokan was definitely a strong influence.

every tkd book i have gives history accounts of the roots of tkd, and its evolution over time to what it is today. And every book, says the date that the name Taekwondo was given, the merging of the kwans and the founding of the Kukkiwon.

all other accounts are either stories told to students due to lack of knowledge (ie. MADE UP) or lack of translation (ie Korean master who cant fully articulate the whole story or want to) or Lack of desire to take the time to tell a story in which 85% of students DONT CARE.

Any "official" book from the TKD Academy does NOT say TKD is 40000000000000000000000000000000000 years old.


Ask any American to recount the history of our country and you will get many answers that vary from the truth. However its all documented. so does that mean our histiry is made up because the majority of citizens do not know it yet walk around and live as Americans evey day????

Daniel, these comment werent directed at you, only to add to your statement.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Daniel & D1jinx, feel free to dismiss the point I'm trying to convey. Minimize it, twist it into a 'swipe' at TKD or whatever else you'd like to do, dismiss it as irrelevent or of no merit. No one is forcing you to do anything you're not comfortable with doing. But while some look at a form as a boring, cookie-cutter class-filler (as I've already mentioned)...I see a form as a plethora of practical, focused movements that go well beyond simple block/punch/kick. Not every situation calls for b/p/k. Having a wider response inventory is always a plus.

This is, to quote you, 'pure crap.' Implying that we don't see forms as anything but class filler is disingenuous. Anyone who reads my posts know that this is incorrect.

 

[d1jinx]

Daniel & D1jinx, feel free to dismiss the point I'm trying to convey. Minimize it, twist it into a 'swipe' at TKD or whatever else you'd like to do, dismiss it as irrelevent or of no merit. No one is forcing you to do anything you're not comfortable with doing. But while some look at a form as a boring, cookie-cutter class-filler (as I've already mentioned)...I see a form as a plethora of practical, focused movements that go well beyond simple block/punch/kick. Not every situation calls for b/p/k. Having a wider response inventory is always a plus.

If you truly see Poomse as a way to learn how to defend yourself then you truly have never studied TKD from a real master. Poomse in TKD werent designed to teach you how to defend yourself and rather than give and explaination and contribute to your "learning of TKD", I would prefer you find a TKD master and take a few decades of classes to learn the real meaning behind them. But it might be in a book somewhere to save you some time.

It shows how much peole dont know and understand TKD when the look at the poomse and say "those aren't real practical forms". your right. they arent. Doesn't stop them from having a purpose and meaning.

 

[d1jinx]

But regarding Kukkiwon taekwondo, and taekwondo in general, his posts indicate an outside-looking-in perspective, which is not a good perspective from which to make definitive statements about another art.

AMEN, and to any TKD reader, it shows.