Is taekwondo a form of karate?

[slingblade01]

Is TKD a form of Karate???

It depends on what YOU are doing, specifically what flavor of TKD you are doing.

Simply put, look at the poomse (kata) and sparring that you practice.
The answer may not be black and white.

If you are practicing the pyong-ahn (pinan) poomse, you are doing kwan flavored karate.

If you are practicing the Tae-gueks, you are KKW TKD. In my opinion KKW TKD is a unique martial art. It could be argued that many of the strikes, blocks, and stance are borrowed from (and true), but this is equally argued with similarities in karate, kenpo, and kung -fu.

Where it gets gray, is if you are doing ITF or Pal-Gwe poomse.

Just my $.02

 

[exile]

Is TKD a form of Karate???

It depends on what YOU are doing, specifically what flavor of TKD you are doing.

Simply put, look at the poomse (kata) and sparring that you practice.
The answer may not be black and white.

If you are practicing the pyong-ahn (pinan) poomse, you are doing kwan flavored karate.

If you are practicing the Tae-gueks, you are KKW TKD. In my opinion KKW TKD is a unique martial art. It could be argued that many of the strikes, blocks, and stance are borrowed from (and true), but this is equally argued with similarities in karate, kenpo, and kung -fu.

Where it gets gray, is if you are doing ITF or Pal-Gwe poomse.

Just my $.02

OK, this is a perfect illustration of the problem of identity that I trying to get at earlier. Let's assume that slingblade's overall take on things here is correct. What if you're at a KKW school where the chief instructor runs the Taegeuks and the Palgwes both, as I've heard of in a few places? What if you're at a school where both the KKW forms and the ITF forms are required for rank (as I think the Moo Sul Kwan that matt.m and zDom studied in does)? Are you really doing different MAs each time you change the form you're doing, so that you may wind up doing karate, TKD and something in the grey area, all in one hour-and-a-half long training session? Does this seem intuitively plausible? Do people with this kind of mix of forms think of themselves as doing multiple arts in the course of that hour plus?

I'm not really arguing against anything you're saying here, slbd, but the consequence of the kind of position you're taking—which is certainly a stance one might reasonably take, based on institutional history—seems to lead to a kind of schizophrenic conclusion, on the assumption that the differences in hyungs really define differences in the identity of the art. Or take another angle: suppose that a careful bunkai study of the old Kwan forms, the Pyang-Ahns, the Palgwes, the Taegeuks and the Ch'ang Hon forms leads to exactly the same fighting methodology and tactical arsenal? Can we really say that different embodiments of the same fighting methods constitute wholly distinct arts? If they're all teaching us to do the same things in response to the same threats, are they really different?

You see the kind of thing I'm concerned about here....?

 

[terryl965]

Is TKd Karate, no it is not TKD is TKD but the roots are very strong and it is tied into Karate. Now to complicate things Korean Karate is Karate, not to get it confused with Shotokan. You see all Arts in one way ot another tie into each other, we must remember Karate means The Art of hand and foot and Tae Kwom Do means The Art of hands and foot. One is from Korea and the other is from Okinawa.

Now to reallly get confused why does it matter, does it effect your training if it is valled Karate-Korean Karate-Tae Kwon Do or just a martial art.

 

[exile]

Is TKd Karate, no it is not TKD is TKD but the roots are very strong and it is tied into Karate. Now to complicate things Korean Karate is Karate, not to get it confused with Shotokan. You see all Arts in one way ot another tie into each other, we must remember Karate means The Art of hand and foot and Tae Kwom Do means The Art of hands and foot. One is from Korea and the other is from Okinawa.

Now to reallly get confused why does it matter, does it effect your training if it is valled Karate-Korean Karate-Tae Kwon Do or just a martial art.

I agree with all this, Terry, and I don't think it's going to affect the way we train—at least, I don't think there's any good reason it should do. But the reason it's interesting is because of what it all says about how we think about what it is we do. We make these distinctions that we think are solidly based, but in many cases it's very difficult to show just what that basis is, if you look at actual behavior. That could mean that a lot of the time, there's way less at stake in various disagreements, resentments and rivalries than people think there is...

 

[Cirdan]

Short answer: TKD is Koreanized Shotokan with the serial numbers filed off.

It is about as much Karate as Judo is Ju Jutsu.

 

[exile]

Short answer: TKD is Koreanized Shotokan with the serial numbers filed off.

It is about as much Karate as Judo is Ju Jutsu.

From the historical point of view, that's about the best two-sentence summary of the relationship I've seen yet.

The remaining mystery is tied up in the question of just what that 'Koreanization' involved. There were some technical changes, but there was also a attitude change—Koreans for the most part, and many others who aren't Koreans, insist that TKD is now a fundamentally different thing from Shotokan. The question I keep coming back to is, are you going to see any real difference when it comes time to have to defend yourself from a standard-issue jerk who throws a punch at your face from a foot and a half away? That's not meant to be a rhetorical question. A lot hangs, I think, on the answer, so far as the OP question is concerned...

The interesting thing is that a lot of Tang Soo Do people seem to identify what they do as Korean karate as a matter of course, whereas many TKD people vehemently reject that label as an accurate description of what they do...

 

[dancingalone]

... and this gets to what I think is the really deep question underlying Celtic Tiger's OP question: what give a MA its particular identity? Is it its history? Its curriculum? Its forms? Its technique set? Something about the way practitioners perform its techniques? Its strategy/tactics? People seem to have a clear sense that, say, TSD and TKD really are different MAs and both are distinct from Shotokan. OK, but exactly what are the differences? Are they functions of the abstract technique set, or are they matters of execution, or the practical combat strategy? Or are they more matters of history and marketing? People perceive vast distances in many areas—language, ethnicity and so on where objective measures show almost everything in common. What is the real basis of the identity that we attribute to different MAs, such that we talk about these two as being different arts, these two as being different styles, and these two just being two different schools?

From my perspective the line of descent in terms of fighting strategy was broken before the Shotokan/TKD connection. This gets back to the myriad bunkai discussions we have had on MT. TKD as it is taught today and probably even going back to the kwan days never had bunkai within it, because the founders of TKD never had in depth exposure to the concept. That's not their fault since most Shotokan people never learn bunkai either.

We all have heard the argument that the essence of karate is kata. Well it is, but let's be more specific. It's not the mere dance that comprises the philosophy and strategy; it's the example lessons in movement, timing, targeting, and even raw technique expressed in the bunkai that goes to the core of karate as a fighting method. So karate "style" is really a meaningless word unless your teacher has transmitted at least a good part of bunkai to you. Sure you have learned some style-specific basics like the two handed push common in Goju kata, but unless you learned how to use the tech through kata application, it's really just so much pushing and waving in the air. You might be doing something, but you're not doing Goju-ryu karate.

This is part of the reason why I believe TKD has evolved into its own art. The fine work of pioneers like Mr. Anslow notwithstanding, TKD has no widely accepted bunkai like a more focused art like Goju-ryu karate does.

So, no, I don't believe a highly trained karate-ka in goju-ryu will look like a tae kwon do fighter. I think the same argument could be made for most Okinawan karate styles as well as they too are full of bunkai. Shotokan fighters may be closer, but they should not be if their teachers follow Funakoshi's Karate Kyohan closely. You only have to look at the short section on the throws of Shotokan to grab a hint into what Funakoshi's karate was before it became sportified by his Japanese students.

 

[miguksaram]

From the historical point of view, that's about the best two-sentence summary of the relationship I've seen yet.

The remaining mystery is tied up in the question of just what that 'Koreanization' involved. There were some technical changes, but there was also a attitude change—Koreans for the most part, and many others who aren't Koreans, insist that TKD is now a fundamentally different thing from Shotokan. The question I keep coming back to is, are you going to see any real difference when it comes time to have to defend yourself from a standard-issue jerk who throws a punch at your face from a foot and a half away?

When the chips are down and the arms are up, you won't be able to tell a shotokan stylist from a TKD stylist from a Hung Gar stylist. Fundementally a kick is a kick and a punch is a punch. If we want to be very technical then you can look at how a TKD person will chamber for a round kick as opposed to a shotokan person.

The interesting thing is that a lot of Tang Soo Do people seem to identify what they do as Korean karate as a matter of course, whereas many TKD people vehemently reject that label as an accurate description of what they do...

As well as they should. For the most part TSD hasn't really changed from its original roots. Where as TKD has made a lot of significant changes both from a tecnincal stand point as well as forms stand point and even fighting stand point.

 

[dancingalone]

When the chips are down and the arms are up, you won't be able to tell a shotokan stylist from a TKD stylist from a Hung Gar stylist. Fundementally a kick is a kick and a punch is a punch.

For low level fighters you are probably correct. Not so true if one has trained long enough to engrain the methods of the style into oneself... Hung gar has some methods of power generation that goes beyond the usual hip twist & shoulder turn methods. Hung gar people also use the horse stance as a matter of course.

 

[slingblade01]

OK, this is a perfect illustration of the problem of identity that I trying to get at earlier. Let's assume that slingblade's overall take on things here is correct. What if you're at a KKW school where the chief instructor runs the Taegeuks and the Palgwes both, as I've heard of in a few places? What if you're at a school where both the KKW forms and the ITF forms are required for rank (as I think the Moo Sul Kwan that matt.m and zDom studied in does)? Are you really doing different MAs each time you change the form you're doing, so that you may wind up doing karate, TKD and something in the grey area, all in one hour-and-a-half long training session? Does this seem intuitively plausible? Do people with this kind of mix of forms think of themselves as doing multiple arts in the course of that hour plus?

I'm not really arguing against anything you're saying here, slbd, but the consequence of the kind of position you're taking—which is certainly a stance one might reasonably take, based on institutional history—seems to lead to a kind of schizophrenic conclusion, on the assumption that the differences in hyungs really define differences in the identity of the art. Or take another angle: suppose that a careful bunkai study of the old Kwan forms, the Pyang-Ahns, the Palgwes, the Taegeuks and the Ch'ang Hon forms leads to exactly the same fighting methodology and tactical arsenal? Can we really say that different embodiments of the same fighting methods constitute wholly distinct arts? If they're all teaching us to do the same things in response to the same threats, are they really different?

You see the kind of thing I'm concerned about here....?

I don't disagree with what you are saying. I gave a "simple" answer to a "simple" question. Another example might have been with Pyang-Ahns and Olympic sparring. What do you do with that?

The real question is, where do you draw the line(s) of differentiation from Kung-fu to TKD. What makes a martial art unique? Some might argue that TKDs kicks qualify it to its own identity. None of the modern kicks existed during the era of the Pyang-Ahns. Furthermore, several of the Kwang-Jangs maintained close ties to Japan (karate). Once the rules-set started changing and likewise the poomse started changing, a unique martial art started evolving.

But where do you draw the line? Or do you never draw a line?
Who cares! It's just a bunch of semantics.

Do what you want and call it what you want. But most of all, enjoy it!

 

[exile]

When the chips are down and the arms are up, you won't be able to tell a shotokan stylist from a TKD stylist from a Hung Gar stylist. Fundementally a kick is a kick and a punch is a punch. If we want to be very technical then you can look at how a TKD person will chamber for a round kick as opposed to a shotokan person.

This is what I've suspected for a while...

As well as they should. For the most part TSD hasn't really changed from its original roots. Where as TKD has made a lot of significant changes both from a tecnincal stand point as well as forms stand point and even fighting stand point.

Wrt to the stuff I've bolded, what are the main changes IYO?

 

[miguksaram]

Wrt to the stuff I've bolded, what are the main changes IYO?

Well obviously the forms have changed both fundemenally (patterns) to technical execution. Where once forms were done from a lowered stance such as palgues, from 1st form to black belt forms, now they do not really emphasize lower stances until later on in the last few taeguks and then black belt forms. Now I know they have forward stances in the beginning forms but there are no horse stances or back stances until later on.

Secondly art the technical stand point of kicking and punching techniques. Now mind you I am going off of my Shorei-ryu experience and comparing it to my TKD experience. First and foremost are the round kicks. The executing a TKD round kick with the knee angled as opposed to "table topping" it. I was told this was done for faster execution of the kick. Also chambering of punches, we tend to chamber the punches from higer area than that of TKD.

Finally a fighting stand point. If you look at straight competition fighting then the obvious thing is the dropping of the hands in TKD fighting vs. side fighting of sport karate fighting. It seems TKD fighters have developed a more upright stance in fighting where as TSD or Karate fighters will still develope more "boxer" looking stances.

 

[dancingalone]

Karate fighters will still develope more "boxer" looking stances

I enjoyed reading your post but I will differ with your opinion here. Traditional karateka do not employ a boxing guard or stance at all since their goals are entirely different from a boxer's. Boxers don't have to worry about low blows or kicks and they can only punch in return. For example, my sensei favors a balanced receiving stance not unlike that used in sword arts or in Aikido. This allows him maximum mobility to intercept or meld with a variety of attacks. He also keeps his hands open instead of close, since that allows him to use the hikite arm at a moment's notice.

By shorei-ryu, do you mean the Robert Trias art? I know some in his lineage still use that name.

 

[dancingalone]

This is what I've suspected for a while...

I said this above, but I think it's worth repeating. I don't think trained fighters of different arts, even if they are striking-oriented, should look alike at all.

 

[miguksaram]

I enjoyed reading your post but I will differ with your opinion here. Traditional karateka do not employ a boxing guard or stance at all since their goals are entirely different from a boxer's. Boxers don't have to worry about low blows or kicks and they can only punch in return. For example, my sensei favors a balanced receiving stance not unlike that used in sword arts or in Aikido. This allows him maximum mobility to intercept or meld with a variety of attacks. He also keeps his hands open instead of close, since that allows him to use the hikite arm at a moment's notice.

By shorei-ryu, do you mean the Robert Trias art? I know some in his lineage still use that name.

I can see what you are saying here. Perhaps boxer stance isn't quite the right imagery, but it was the closest I could think of.

Yes, our lineage is through Trias.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Is TKd Karate? No it is not. TKD is TKD, but the roots are very strong and it is tied into Karate. Now to complicate things Korean Karate is Karate, not to get it confused with Shotokan. You see all Arts in one way ot another tie into each other.

There is definitely a common thread between many arts.

we must remember Karate means The Art of hand and foot and Tae Kwon Do means The Art of hands and foot. One is from Korea and the other is from Okinawa.

Actually, Karate originally meant 'China hand', but its tranlation was later changed by (I believe) Funakoshi to 'empty hand.' Karate do is simply 'way of the China/empty hand. Tang Soo Do, if I'm not mistaken, translates to 'way of the China hand.'

Now to reallly get confused why does it matter, does it effect your training if it is valled Karate-Korean Karate-Tae Kwon Do or just a martial art.

While it doesn't directly affect my training, it does point me in different directions in terms of enriching the art I practice, adding to my knowlege of general MA history and to taekwondo history in specific, and lastly, if I'm a geek about anything, its martial arts.

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Wrt to the stuff I've bolded, what are the main changes IYO?

The essence of my question!

Well obviously the forms have changed both fundemenally (patterns) to technical execution. Where once forms were done from a lowered stance such as palgues, from 1st form to black belt forms, now they do not really emphasize lower stances until later on in the last few taeguks and then black belt forms. Now I know they have forward stances in the beginning forms but there are no horse stances or back stances until later on.

Secondly art the technical stand point of kicking and punching techniques. Now mind you I am going off of my Shorei-ryu experience and comparing it to my TKD experience. First and foremost are the round kicks. The executing a TKD round kick with the knee angled as opposed to "table topping" it. I was told this was done for faster execution of the kick. Also chambering of punches, we tend to chamber the punches from higer area than that of TKD.

Finally a fighting stand point. If you look at straight competition fighting then the obvious thing is the dropping of the hands in TKD fighting vs. side fighting of sport karate fighting. It seems TKD fighters have developed a more upright stance in fighting where as TSD or Karate fighters will still develope more "boxer" looking stances.

And a response from a mechanics/technical standpoint!

Many thanks to you both!

Daniel

 

[exile]

Well obviously the forms have changed both fundemenally (patterns) to technical execution. Where once forms were done from a lowered stance such as palgues, from 1st form to black belt forms, now they do not really emphasize lower stances until later on in the last few taeguks and then black belt forms. Now I know they have forward stances in the beginning forms but there are no horse stances or back stances until later on.

Right—to my eyes, the changes in the techs embodied in older vs. current hyungs is the most obvious line of separation between the karate-like aspects of TKD and its current KKW version...

Secondly art the technical stand point of kicking and punching techniques. Now mind you I am going off of my Shorei-ryu experience and comparing it to my TKD experience. First and foremost are the round kicks. The executing a TKD round kick with the knee angled as opposed to "table topping" it. I was told this was done for faster execution of the kick. Also chambering of punches, we tend to chamber the punches from higer area than that of TKD.

Finally a fighting stand point. If you look at straight competition fighting then the obvious thing is the dropping of the hands in TKD fighting vs. side fighting of sport karate fighting. It seems TKD fighters have developed a more upright stance in fighting where as TSD or Karate fighters will still develope more "boxer" looking stances.

OK, thanks for amplifying this—I had taken 'fighting' in your earlier post to refer to SD fighting, but I see now you meant competition fighting. Yes, no question, the differences there are major.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I have thanked and repped everyone who responded. I really appreciate all of your responses and I really appreciate the very mature and polite way that this potentially contentious subject has been discussed.

The responses given, as I am sure responses to come, have been very helpful to me and have been very thoughtful and articulate.

My thanks to you all!

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

OK, thanks for amplifying this—I had taken 'fighting' in your earlier post to refer to SD fighting, but I see now you meant competition fighting. Yes, no question, the differences there are major.

I knew what he meant, but the point fighting/competition is actually the one area that I wasn't as concerned with, though since we're on the subject, does ITF style sparring differ from TSD, or Shotokan, Kyokushin, Ishin Ryu, or other karate styles in any substantive way?

WTF sparring seems to me to be an attempt at reviving T'aekyeon, though I freely admit that do not have the knowledge to state if that is an accurate assessment.

Daniel