"History of Taekwon-Do: Setting the Record Straight"

[TrueJim]

FYI, for those of you who haven't seen this article yet, it was in the news yesterday:

History of Taekwon-Do: Setting the Record Straight - Gainesville martial arts | Examiner.com

(When browsing the news just now, I was actually looking for something else. Kukkiwon's Facebook page says the Kukkiwon Demo Team is visiting the U.S. right now, and I was trying to figure out where in the U.S....no luck though.)

 

[arnisador]

A lot of stuff about 1966 but not much on the history overall.

 

[Metal]

A lot of stuff about 1966 but not much on the history overall.

And I have never ever heard about rumors of a trip to North Korea in 1966. Basically all sources that I read so far talked about introducing TKD to North Korea in 1980 and that being the final point from where on Choi was looked at as a traitor.

Anyway, would have been great if some of the historical works which were wrong would have been listed. I haven't seen any yet...

 

[Gnarlie]

There have been quite a few TKD histories published in recent years, with varying levels of sensationalism, scientific accuracy and evidence. My approach is to read each and collect only proveable facts from each. Viewed as a collection, that amounts to surprisingly little information overall, and each new publication only adds new opinions and spins which further muddy the waters. Very little new information comes to light, mainly because there is little documentation, and the people who lived through the early phase each have their own agenda when they talk about it.

The main question in my mind is why does it matter? Why does it matter if my art is traditional, or modern? Why does it matter who has the claim to the original, the supposed real deal? Does an appeal to tradition make an art more valid?

People talk of the importance of an art being 'battlefield tested', which frankly I believe is a weak argument. Unless you yourself have experience of using your art in a military context, IMO you're practicing a civilian hobby. It's certainly not an argument that can be used to differentiate one form of Taekwondo from another, as they all have shared roots. There is, for example, nothing I have seen in ITF Taekwondo that isn't part of Kukki TKD. That said, if you believe Taekwondo to be intended for war, then I believe you misunderstand the philosophical aspects of the art. If an art is intended to help build a more peaceful world, then why is 'battlefield testing' even an issue?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

People talk of the importance of an art being 'battlefield tested', which frankly I believe is a weak argument. ... That said, if you believe Taekwondo to be intended for war, then I believe you misunderstand the philosophical aspects of the art. If an art is intended to help build a more peaceful world, then why is 'battlefield testing' even an issue?

I think the people who make that argument are also misunderstanding the nature of war. Soldiers on the battlefield use rifles, artillery, grenades, tanks ... unarmed combat comes way, way, way down the line. There may be some isolated instances where a soldier has lost all his other weapons, from his rifle to his entrenching tool, and has to defend himself unarmed long enough to find a weapon, but I doubt it happens often enough to amount to any kind of systematic "battlefield testing." A soldier is more likely to use his unarmed training fighting in the local bar while on leave than on the battlefield.

 

[Instructor]

In reality, unarmed combat is fairly rare, even historically, on the battlefield. Let's face it there are more economical ways to kill the enemy than with your bare hands. Even a garden variety spear is preferable.

 

[Gnarlie]

I think the people who make that argument are also misunderstanding the nature of war. Soldiers on the battlefield use rifles, artillery, grenades, tanks ... unarmed combat comes way, way, way down the line. There may be some isolated instances where a soldier has lost all his other weapons, from his rifle to his entrenching tool, and has to defend himself unarmed long enough to find a weapon, but I doubt it happens often enough to amount to any kind of systematic "battlefield testing." A soldier is more likely to use his unarmed training fighting in the local bar while on leave than on the battlefield.

True, although the early forms of TKD included some semblance of bayonet and rifle close quarters stuff. From what I've managed to collect, stuff similar to TKD's knife and short stick work. Still, I eschew the validity of claims of battlefield testing unless that testing has been done personally by the practitioner. Experience of success stays with the individual, not with the art.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

There have been quite a few TKD histories published in recent years, with varying levels of sensationalism, scientific accuracy and evidence. My approach is to read each and collect only proveable facts from each. Viewed as a collection, that amounts to surprisingly little information overall, and each new publication only adds new opinions and spins which further muddy the waters. Very little new information comes to light, mainly because there is little documentation, and the people who lived through the early phase each have their own agenda when they talk about it.

I agree with you 100%. About ten years ago I did as indepth of a study as I could with all the material I had collected or could find (or with people I could interview). It raised more questions that it answered. Just within the Yon Mu Kwan/Jidokwan/Han Mu Kwan slice of the TKD pie I found glaring contradictions between various GM's. It boils down in some cases to 'who do you believe' or 'who do you want to believe'? Which of course throws accuracy right out the proverbial window. Between re-written histories and agendas it is hard to nail down many absolutes. And that is a shame.

The main question in my mind is why does it matter?

From a pure training perspective, it probably doesn't matter at all. But from an informational perspective I can understand people wanting to know their 'roots'. Doesn't define them or how they should act, but it can provide a connection with those that came before you. And really, it should be the good, bad and ugly rather than whitewashed or inflated. As an example (and this goes for TSD) we can look at the 2000 year old indigenous art thing that some elements keep trying to foster. Why not be proud of the fact that TKD is still relatively a young art yet it is probably the most widely practiced worldwide? Seems that would be a better feather in the cap.

People talk of the importance of an art being 'battlefield tested', which frankly I believe is a weak argument.

Also agree. I like the way Abernethy Sensei describes Karate (and this can also apply to TKD) as a civilian self defense art. To be useful on the battleground would involve a whole host of training elememts that aren't practical for a (more or less) unarmed civilian self defense art.

Good post

 

[Dirty Dog]

There have been quite a few TKD histories published in recent years, with varying levels of sensationalism, scientific accuracy and evidence. My approach is to read each and collect only proveable facts from each. Viewed as a collection, that amounts to surprisingly little information overall, and each new publication only adds new opinions and spins which further muddy the waters. Very little new information comes to light, mainly because there is little documentation, and the people who lived through the early phase each have their own agenda when they talk about it.

The main question in my mind is why does it matter? Why does it matter if my art is traditional, or modern? Why does it matter who has the claim to the original, the supposed real deal? Does an appeal to tradition make an art more valid?

People talk of the importance of an art being 'battlefield tested', which frankly I believe is a weak argument. Unless you yourself have experience of using your art in a military context, IMO you're practicing a civilian hobby. It's certainly not an argument that can be used to differentiate one form of Taekwondo from another, as they all have shared roots. There is, for example, nothing I have seen in ITF Taekwondo that isn't part of Kukki TKD. That said, if you believe Taekwondo to be intended for war, then I believe you misunderstand the philosophical aspects of the art. If an art is intended to help build a more peaceful world, then why is 'battlefield testing' even an issue?

Unarmed combat in war is rare and becoming more so all the time. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
There are stories with pretty good documentation about GM Nam Tae He being caught behind enemy lives during the Korean War. In the dark, the only good way to tell which side you were on was by feeling the haircut. According to the stories, there were a lot of people with tracheal injuries by morning.
Newsweek published documents from the Vietnam war that (amoung other things) showed that the VC troops were specifically instructed to avoid hand to hand combat with South Korean units.
So...


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.

 

[Gnarlie]

Unarmed combat in war is rare and becoming more so all the time. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
There are stories with pretty good documentation about GM Nam Tae He being caught behind enemy lives during the Korean War. In the dark, the only good way to tell which side you were on was by feeling the haircut. According to the stories, there were a lot of people with tracheal injuries by morning.
Newsweek published documents from the Vietnam war that (amoung other things) showed that the VC troops were specifically instructed to avoid hand to hand combat with South Korean units.
So...


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.

I agree, I have also heard these stories, including one associated with a GM Nam Tae Hee interview regarding the efficacy of Pyonsonkkeut Tzireugi as a piercing weapon - ie physically piercing the front of the chest below the solar plexus with the fingertips. Hmm. I have seen people do Pringle can lids in controlled circumstances, but I don't believe everything, written or spoken, unless it can be corroborated in some scientific way, and stories are just stories, no more, no less.

As for the VC being advised to avoid hand to hand - it makes strategic sense to avoid risking fighting an enemy of unknown skill at close quarters, when you can hide in the landscape, snipe and use traps at no personal risk. I think that warning says more about the VC's battle savvy than it does the Korean forces skills. Depends how you want to read it.

But that's beside the point. My three points were a) why does it matter where our art came from and whether it is battle tested and b) battlefield success is personal and not necessarily transferable - just because a hardcore trained first generation Korean soldier can do it, does that mean that modern day leisure Taekwondoin can too? Surely if you want it to be effective, you need to test it yourself? and c) Isn't Taekwondo intended to spread a culture of peace and harmony anyway, and if so, why then are its history and battlefield credentials even important?

It could be that people with undesirable tendencies and personality traits are attracted to the idea of fighting and violence (even under the guise of self defence), and then those tendencies are slowly trained out of them as they mature and improve themselves as a martial artist and person....

 

[Dirty Dog]

Well, neither of us was there, but the article I'm thinking of was in Time Magazine, which is a better source for journalism than most.

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.

is the reference I was thinking of.

It was knife to knife and hand-to-hand, and in that sort of fighting the Koreans, with their deadly
tae kwon do (a form of karate), are unbeatable. When the action stopped shortly after dawn, 104
enemy bodies lay within the wire, many of them eviscerated or brained.

These are from an article published in 1967 about the Battle of Tra Binh Dong. The reference to "within the wire" means those enemies found within the Korean camp.

 

[jks9199]

A friend of mine learned some form of Korean martial arts when he was young and his parents were stationed in S. Korea. What he showed me of it had some similarities to "normal" TKD, but also quite a few differences. Our best guess is that he learned something that was a blend of TKD and a family system that had been preserved. My point? TKD history is a mess, and there are likely to be lots of wrong turns and dead ends as you try to research it. Especially from the US, where half the time, the sign says "karate" but the actual teachings are TKD...

 

[Gnarlie]

Well, neither of us was there, but the article I'm thinking of was in Time Magazine, which is a better source for journalism than most.



is the reference I was thinking of.



These are from an article published in 1967 about the Battle of Tra Binh Dong. The reference to "within the wire" means those enemies found within the Korean camp.

I am curious as to why it would have been knife or hand to hand. Why wasn't one side armed? Surely the normal situation is that forces would be armed in a camp controlled by them? It just sounds fishy to me.

And I still think it makes strategic sense especially for a lone soldier not to engage hand to hand unless success can be guaranteed (improvised weapon / stealth) or there is no other option, so I am not sure TKD really influenced that decision. But as you say, we were not there.

As has been said, there's a lot of propaganda, nationalism and spin involved in the telling of this history, and it's pretty much impossible to prove anything other than written agreements.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[oftheherd1]

I am curious as to why it would have been knife or hand to hand. Why wasn't one side armed? Surely the normal situation is that forces would be armed in a camp controlled by them? It just sounds fishy to me.

And I still think it makes strategic sense especially for a lone soldier not to engage hand to hand unless success can be guaranteed (improvised weapon / stealth) or there is no other option, so I am not sure TKD really influenced that decision. But as you say, we were not there.

As has been said, there's a lot of propaganda, nationalism and spin involved in the telling of this history, and it's pretty much impossible to prove anything other than written agreements.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The bolded part is all too often true.

However, evidently you have never been in the military, much less in a combat zone. Many times there are relatively small outposts, or those that are not sufficiently defended to repulse a large concentrated attack, by a superior force, on a part of their perimeter. This is done for many reasons. There may not be enough troops for a defensive line across several countries as in WWII in Europe; then the best way to disrupt or defend against the enemy is to set up outposts which hopefully can be defended by artillery and air power. An unanticipated strong attack against a part of the perimeter of an outpost can result in penetrations of parts of the perimeter. Attacks of that nature weren't uncommon in Vietnam. Penetration of the perimeter were less common, but did occur. When it is attempted, or in fact occurs, there will be hand to hand combat. That may consist of troops with rifles, knives, grenades, clubs, or just their hands. They have one goal; survive.

Up to some time after the Tet of 68, and up into part of 69, the Korean divisions there had a reputation of fierce fighting and not losing. Nobody I ever heard of complained about Koreans near them other than enemy units. They also had a reputation of not only willingness, but a desire to engage the enemy, whether in large unit tactics, or small unit tactics. Whatever would get them a chance to engage and win. After 1970, the entire conduct of the Vietnam war changed and there was much less engagement by anyone.

Hand to hand combat can also occur when a unit is ambushed. If the ambushed unit does not surrender or retreat, and artillery and air power can't dislodge them, somebody is going to have to engage them and neutralize them. That may well result in hand to hand combat as well.

So, the bottom line is that yes, hand to hand combat can and does occur.

As to a lone soldier, that must be his choice, whether he prefers to engage in hand to hand combat, and possibly die, or surrender. Some may retreat, some may surrender; some prefer to engage, knowing they may die, while trying to complete a mission. The anecdote of the then Korean soldier is not implausible at all. Soldiers in combat get missions like that, or find themselves behind enemy lines. They have a choice first to evade, surrender, or fight. I think it is wrong to think the MA taught in those days was for trophies to display in a school. If he was well trained, and thought getting back to his unit was the thing to do, and was confident of his abilities, why not.

The other side was capable of thinking outside of the box as well. Military historian SLA Marshall commented on a patrol in Korea that was wiped out one night. An examination of the scene when the bodies were recovered disclosed that they had been fired on, and a brief firefight ensued, then the enemy ceased shooting. Members of the enemy ambush then quietly crawled up to the US soldiers in the dark, and killed them to a man. Marshall was angry, considering it to be a low, dastardly deed. I think most infantrymen, while not liking their own to be killed, would have thought it a clever, low risk way to kill enemy.

 

[Gnarlie]

The bolded part is all too often true.

However, evidently you have never been in the military, much less in a combat zone.

True, thankfully. Thanks for the clarification. It just didn't make sense to me that neither party would be armed in some way, and especially why the aggressor would choose to engage close when distance weapons were available.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Instructor]

Unarmed combat in war is rare and becoming more so all the time. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
There are stories with pretty good documentation about GM Nam Tae He being caught behind enemy lives during the Korean War. In the dark, the only good way to tell which side you were on was by feeling the haircut. According to the stories, there were a lot of people with tracheal injuries by morning.
Newsweek published documents from the Vietnam war that (amoung other things) showed that the VC troops were specifically instructed to avoid hand to hand combat with South Korean units.
So...


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.

That would be worth a read!

 

[Instructor]

I don't know if any of it is based on reality but in the movie Patton an american tank unit runs out of fuel. Get's caught by a German patrol and has a vicious firefight. Eventually both sides run out of ammunition and the fighting devolved to hand to hand combat. In the movie portrayal it looked like just one guy was alive in the end with dead everywhere.

 

[Dirty Dog]

It would be. Sadly, all I can find are quotes taken from the articles. It was the 1960's, after all. I also need to correct this post. The articles were in Time Magazine.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I don't know if any of it is based on reality but in the movie Patton an american tank unit runs out of fuel. Get's caught by a German patrol and has a vicious firefight. Eventually both sides run out of ammunition and the fighting devolved to hand to hand combat. In the movie portrayal it looked like just one guy was alive in the end with dead everywhere.

Just finished the book, 'Killing Patton'. The story, and many other things in the movie were factual. It was a brutal time.

 

[WaterGal]

I think the people who make that argument are also misunderstanding the nature of war. Soldiers on the battlefield use rifles, artillery, grenades, tanks ... unarmed combat comes way, way, way down the line. There may be some isolated instances where a soldier has lost all his other weapons, from his rifle to his entrenching tool, and has to defend himself unarmed long enough to find a weapon, but I doubt it happens often enough to amount to any kind of systematic "battlefield testing." A soldier is more likely to use his unarmed training fighting in the local bar while on leave than on the battlefield.

Hmmm, that's a good point. I mean, I've never served, so I could be talking out of my rear, but I've got some family/friends/etc who have in infantry or support MOSes, and it doesn't sound like its something they train much? I remember a friend's roommate who'd just gotten back from Afghanistan showing me some of the hand-to-hand moves he learned in basic and they weren't anything to write home about. But I doubt many mujahideen suicide bombers were getting close enough to do a rear naked choke or whatever on them, so.