The Lost Art of Tang Soo Do

[Makalakumu]

I am posting this thread to discuss some of the material in my book. I spent so much time writing it and I'm really excited to start getting some feedback on the material. The basic premise of my book is thus...

Tang Soo Do is a popular Korean martial art that has practitioners from all around the world. The art has incorporated elements of Chinese, Okinawan and Japanese martial arts in a synthesis that has become very popular. It is my belief that the art of Tang Soo Do is a lot broader and deeper then many of its practitioners realize. The forms that we practice are filled with a variety of self-defense techniques that are completely ignored in most schools. This book will present a teaching methodology that will allow students and teachers to not only access the content of the forms, but to effectively practice this content so that it is usable in self-defense situations.

For those of you who have read the book, what do you think about the methodology described? How do you think this material would change the way TSD is practiced? If you are teaching TSD, would you consider adopting this curriculum?

 

[Makalakumu]

Additionally, I am going to post the forward of this book because it was written by one of our MT members SJON. I really appreciate his review and contribution and I think that these comments are a good way to start the conversation about my book.

Forward


Modern training in the Korean martial arts places great emphasis on the collection of techniques and pre-established sequences according to a belt grading syllabus. While this structure is useful for categorizing and sequencing the material which the art consists of, it is rarely anything more than a list of contents, rather than presenting an actual didactic proposal complete with all its elements.

Students often have difficulty understanding how the arts’ components fit together. Typically, there is a dissociation between basic technique, forms, step sparring, free sparring and self-defense work. This is particularly incomprehensible – even allowing for the inclusion of sport sparring – when one considers that the original purpose of the arts is that of self-defense. Why, for example, is the striking portion of the syllabus apparently approached as a separate entity to the self-defense portion? How are forms and free sparring related? How can the instructor reconcile such apparently disparate methods for the expression of fighting technique?

John Kedrowski is a professional educator, and he brings an educator’s vision to his presentation of Tang Soo Do. In this book – the first of its kind, as far as I am aware – he offers a solid, coherent proposal for effective teaching of the art for self-defense. He identifies needs and establishes clear objectives, contents and methodology – the basic elements of any serious pedagogical model. He informs his knowledge of Tang Soo Do with his experience of other empty-hand and weapons-based arts, and his detailed research into the origins of his primary art. He presents all of this in an accessible, structured package which will transform the way Tang Soo Do and its hyungs are studied.

This is not a hyung analysis manual, although the author bases his approach firmly on the interpretation of the forms for practical self-defense application. He does not limit his modus operandi to analysis of hyung sequences, but presents an innovative methodology for linking the training of basic technique, forms and sparring. This book redefines Tang Soo Do training in a fashion which is both subtle and radical, remaining faithful to its fundamental concepts while presenting a highly functional framework which I believe will become an industry standard in years to come.

Simon John O’Neill
Author of The Taegeuk Cipher

 

[terryl965]

John one thing I noticed was in the book it is for a better word, what you believe to be the true teaching of TSD? Is this the case and if so what makes your way the better way for Martial Artist? I mean TSD was being tought by alot of folks in the eighties and then it started to die out for a few years only to be coming back stronger than ever.

Your syllibus is that yours, I tend to like to hear more of a wider range with the application of said forms. I would also like to point out that It is my belief that the art of Tang Soo Do is a lot broader and deeper then many of its practitioners realize. This can be said of many arts out there, so many practitioners do not relize what it is they are learning, how can you over see if your syllibus is used. I mean what action will you take to make sure it is being held to your standards? All in all I like the book well written and I do have some question written down at home so maybe I will add them tonight for you.

 

[Makalakumu]

John one thing I noticed was in the book it is for a better word, what you believe to be the true teaching of TSD? Is this the case and if so what makes your way the better way for Martial Artist? I mean TSD was being tought by alot of folks in the eighties and then it started to die out for a few years only to be coming back stronger than ever.

I don't see what I wrote as presenting the "true" way of practicing TSD. It's a different interpretation, an interpretation that I think is well grounded in the history of Karate. I think that the art of TSD, as it is currently practiced, is great for children and families who are interested in getting some exercise and creating a positive spirit. As far as self defense is concerned, it leaves much to be desired. This book has the potential to bring back the hard core self defense nature of the art.

Your syllibus is that yours, I tend to like to hear more of a wider range with the application of said forms. I would also like to point out that It is my belief that the art of Tang Soo Do is a lot broader and deeper then many of its practitioners realize. This can be said of many arts out there, so many practitioners do not relize what it is they are learning, how can you over see if your syllibus is used. I mean what action will you take to make sure it is being held to your standards? All in all I like the book well written and I do have some question written down at home so maybe I will add them tonight for you.

I have no plans in regards to standardization of my syllabus. There's really no way that it's possible. The pieces that I created are meant to be rearranged and altered. It's one of the ways a living art grows. The important thing is that the general categories and the philosophy behind them are maintained. The idea of practicing realistic basics with resistance in order to improve fighting technique is a good example. The goal was to give another option to practicing form technique up and down the floor and calling that basics.

 

[Makalakumu]

Thank you everyone who has responded privately. I am glad that you are finding value in my work. Anyway, I wanted to list some of the topics covered in my book for everyone else.

1. I take a look at the effort to introduce the study of bunkai into TSD.

2. I take a critical look at the Hwang Kee's training at the time of the founding of the Moo Duk Kwan in order to trace back where some of the curricular elements came from.

3. I analyze Shotokan and how the grappling elements were subsequently removed over time.

4. I analyze older styles of karate and talk about how they could influence TSD.

5. I suggest a curriculum that draws on some of the lessons of the past in order to give TSD an upgrade.

 

[kbarrett]

I personally don't think Tang Soo Do is not a lost art, I think it's an evolving art and always has been. As for the teaching children and familes, I think that it really depends on the instructor whether he/she teaches hard core training or not. I've always believed it's about the qulaity of instruction that makes the difference, not how hard you run your students into the ground, or how much they know, Hyung bunkai is important ,but everybody sees something different, so no one person's interpretation would be wrong. (this is my opinion only)

Ken

 

[Don Daly]

It sounds like this book is a definite step in the right direction. I think the Ho Sin Sul applications of the Hyung have been neglected, especially in the '80s-'90s due to the sport influences of Tae Kwon Do tournaments. I hope that you have not neglected researching the Tae Kyun roots which supply much of the traditional applications of the Korean basic techniques. Remember, Hwang Kee used the Okinawan katas, but modified them to go along with his previously known techniques from Tae Kyon, Soo Bahk and Tang Kung Fu. However, as you point out, by adapting the Okinawan Katas, he was also teaching techniques that have Aiki-Jujitsu (or Hapkido) applications. Even Soo Bahk has grappling techniques, and as Tae Kyun is being exhibited more freely in Korea,
people are realizing that takedowns, sweeps, and leg-throws are very much part of its kicking techniques.