Well the founder has to be GOD plain and simple for without him no Martial Arts.47MartialMan said:
Who is the Founder of TKD...Debate!
- Thread starter Spookey
- Start date
47MartialMan
Master of Arts
Can't be God.....I met some Christians that believe that martial arts are unholy.....
MichiganTKD
Master Black Belt
In my opinion, the Founder is the person who organizes the curriculum, developes the technique, creates the rules, and provides the overall framework for a style or art. There is no denying that Gen. Choi was influential in Tae Kwon Do's development. Not because he was supremely talented, but because his military rank and ambition allowed him to push for and get things accomplished that others perhaps wouldn't have been able to do.
However, there is a difference between promoting an art and creating one. In my opinion, as I stated previously, I think Gen. Choi took credit (perhaps more than he should have) for establishing an art that, essentially, already existed. It seems to me that his forms consisted of approximately 1/2 Shotokan and the other half of various techniques already included in the other Kwans' curricula. You cannot create what already exists. In my opinion, the real credit for developing the basis of what we call Tae Kwon Do goes to Won Kuk Lee, Chung Do Kwan founder. He is the one who devised many of the principles Tae Kwon Do uses today. He was also the first instructor to get Tang Soo Do accepted by the military and police in Korea. The fact that "Tang Soo Do" became "Tae Kwon Do" doesn't change the fact that GGM Lee was the originator of many of the foundations of Tae Kwon Do, and that his students (Choi, Nam, and Uhm among them) would go on to grow and evolve Tae Kwon Do into what it is today.
Choi was the founder of ITF style Tae Kwon Do, not necessarily the art itself.
However, there is a difference between promoting an art and creating one. In my opinion, as I stated previously, I think Gen. Choi took credit (perhaps more than he should have) for establishing an art that, essentially, already existed. It seems to me that his forms consisted of approximately 1/2 Shotokan and the other half of various techniques already included in the other Kwans' curricula. You cannot create what already exists. In my opinion, the real credit for developing the basis of what we call Tae Kwon Do goes to Won Kuk Lee, Chung Do Kwan founder. He is the one who devised many of the principles Tae Kwon Do uses today. He was also the first instructor to get Tang Soo Do accepted by the military and police in Korea. The fact that "Tang Soo Do" became "Tae Kwon Do" doesn't change the fact that GGM Lee was the originator of many of the foundations of Tae Kwon Do, and that his students (Choi, Nam, and Uhm among them) would go on to grow and evolve Tae Kwon Do into what it is today.
Choi was the founder of ITF style Tae Kwon Do, not necessarily the art itself.
- Thread Starter
- #45
Miles,
Per my understanding the private instructors of the ITF gained recognition internationally. If I am incorrect, please list nation and demo team (by year of first contact) to validate your point!
Secondly, I have text (in English) titled "Taekwon-Do the Art of Self Defense" written by General Choi (copyright 1965) which plainly displays the original Chang Hon Hyungs (it does however give reference to the Heian Katas and also contains a few as "supplimental" for TKD training based on the role they played in the creation of TKD). The book was published 1965, was in English, and contained the early Chang Hon Hyungs!
I am still waiting for someone to dispute the points I am raising and hoping for a true debate!
TAEKWON!
Spookey
Per my understanding the private instructors of the ITF gained recognition internationally. If I am incorrect, please list nation and demo team (by year of first contact) to validate your point!
Secondly, I have text (in English) titled "Taekwon-Do the Art of Self Defense" written by General Choi (copyright 1965) which plainly displays the original Chang Hon Hyungs (it does however give reference to the Heian Katas and also contains a few as "supplimental" for TKD training based on the role they played in the creation of TKD). The book was published 1965, was in English, and contained the early Chang Hon Hyungs!
I am still waiting for someone to dispute the points I am raising and hoping for a true debate!
TAEKWON!
Spookey
47MartialMan
Master of Arts
This is a book? What is the title and/or publisher?Spookey said:
47MartialMan
Master of Arts
Is such a "biased reference"?
- Thread Starter
- #49
Sir,
Nam Tae Hi was most certainly a student of the Chung Do Kwan. However, I have never seen one lick of info stating that Choi Hong Hi ever was a student. Furthermore, I challenge you to show me otherwise.
Choi Hong Hi was awarded an "Honorary" Black Belt by the Chung Do Kwan and nothing more.
Chung Do Kwan was TSD prior Choi's involvement...Yup, they were still doing Korean Karate!
TAEKWON!
Spookey
Nam Tae Hi was most certainly a student of the Chung Do Kwan. However, I have never seen one lick of info stating that Choi Hong Hi ever was a student. Furthermore, I challenge you to show me otherwise.
Choi Hong Hi was awarded an "Honorary" Black Belt by the Chung Do Kwan and nothing more.
Chung Do Kwan was TSD prior Choi's involvement...Yup, they were still doing Korean Karate!
TAEKWON!
Spookey
47MartialMan
Master of Arts
Who is this directed to?Spookey said:
And do you have a good links?
- Thread Starter
- #51
Mr. 47,
The post was properly titled " Note to MichiganTKD"...
Miles,
I find it hard to believe that in my hand I hold a Korean Publication that was written by a man deamed a "traitor" by the RoK Government. Even harder to believe is that there was an earlier text written by a man in good standings with the RoK that has yet to have been disclosed!
After all, wouldn't such a text have allowed the RoK to discredit Choi's claims once and for all?
TAEKWON!
Spookey
The post was properly titled " Note to MichiganTKD"...
Miles,
I find it hard to believe that in my hand I hold a Korean Publication that was written by a man deamed a "traitor" by the RoK Government. Even harder to believe is that there was an earlier text written by a man in good standings with the RoK that has yet to have been disclosed!
After all, wouldn't such a text have allowed the RoK to discredit Choi's claims once and for all?
TAEKWON!
Spookey
47MartialMan said:
Depends on what you're trying to prove to an extent I beleive. What it mainly illustrates is that TKD had its roots in Shotokan with the oldest set of Hyungs practiced. If you're trying to prove that this demonstrates the absolute formative root of TKD...
That's when personal reality steps in and things become a train wreck.
Well kicking for christ is one of the biggest MA organization in the united states, and if I not mistaken they believe in GOD. Most Monks believe in Budda and that would be almost the same. If I'm not mis taken alot of different styles believe in some sort of higher spirtit, that would be there GOD kinda. Now your comment I have meet devil worshipers that believe MA is unholy what is your point.47MartialMan said:
See without God we would not be here you know the heavens and the earth. So in my opion without GOD no MA.
I do see what some of you are getting you stated TKD plain and simple the founding father OH yea that would be GOD! No matter how you put it if you go back far enough it leads back to GOD. To let you know it was from Okinawa that TKD mostly came from a little batch of land, which had a karate base from japan as we all know which karate came from the kung fu base which came from some other place which came from someother place so see TKD is just one person justification of a elder Art that he learned from somebody else. In my opion it is pointless to argue over who started the Art every person that is from a different organization has there way of th starting pont of TKD. Most would say Choi others say no who are you going to believe, I was not there at that time and most liking non of us was, only the one's that was there know for sure.
Miles
Senior Master
1. I believe you have the book which I referenced earlier-it was 1965 and it did contain the Pyung Ahn/Heian forms. I believe 1965 predates Gen Choi's visit to North Korea (which may have caused him to be viewed as a traitor) I have no knowledge that the ROK government ever determined in a court of law that he was a traitor, do you?)Spookey said:
2. I don't understand why you have a hard time believing that someone other than Gen Choi could have written a book, in Korea, in Korean, which Westerners are not aware of. Perhaps even Gen Choi could have written a book, in Korea, in Korean, which predates his 1965 book which you have.
3. As far as discrediting Gen Choi-I don't think the KTA or the ROK Government have ever bothered. The entire movement by the KTA was toward unification-all the Kwan Jang, except Gen Choi and GM Hwang Kee participated. No one person was given credit for the popularization of Taekwondo though Gen Choi seems to want to take credit for it as well as the naming of the art and founding the art. I tend to think it was much more of a group effort.
Sorry, have not had a chance to respond to your earlier post, will do so after work!
(Darn, I hate it when work gets in the way of the important things!)Miles
- Thread Starter
- #55
Sir,
1. Prior to General Choi's cirriculum of Taekwon-Do (copyright 1965) which did indeed contain the Chang Hon Hyungs, there is no documentation of a pre existing Taekwon-Do (be it hyung or cirricullum).
2. Prior to General Choi there was no other Kwan practicing a "uniquely Korean" art. As previously stated they were practicing pre existing arts...
3. If you are credited with the name and documentation shows that you are the first to create the material (ie hyungs), and the first to create a cirricullum for progress through said material, it should well be argued that you created it!
I have been provided with no information to dispute these points and therefore will continue to hold these beliefs as self evident until provided with documentation to the contrary!
TAEKWON!
Spookey
(Miles, have a great day at work my friend)!
1. Prior to General Choi's cirriculum of Taekwon-Do (copyright 1965) which did indeed contain the Chang Hon Hyungs, there is no documentation of a pre existing Taekwon-Do (be it hyung or cirricullum).
2. Prior to General Choi there was no other Kwan practicing a "uniquely Korean" art. As previously stated they were practicing pre existing arts...
3. If you are credited with the name and documentation shows that you are the first to create the material (ie hyungs), and the first to create a cirricullum for progress through said material, it should well be argued that you created it!
I have been provided with no information to dispute these points and therefore will continue to hold these beliefs as self evident until provided with documentation to the contrary!
TAEKWON!
Spookey
(Miles, have a great day at work my friend)!
Zepp
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2003
- Messages
- 1,561
- Reaction score
- 22
Spookey my friend, you're making a few too many assumptions.
Don't you mean, there's no formally published documentation in English which you've been able to find? As one possible example: We know that both the RoK military and Seoul police learned hand-to-hand techniques from kwan instructors in the late 40's and 50's. Wouldn't you think they probably had some form of documantation to assist them in their training?
This depends on what you consider to be "uniquely Korean." The Chong Hon forms might have unique elements in them, but Choi still created them using his knowledge of Karate (and maybe Tae Kyon, if you believe the stories). The other kwans may have started out practicing pre-existing arts, but it wasn't long before they began to develop what they had into something new. There are are no truly unique arts.
Being the first to publish a book on the art doesn't make you the art's creator. While Choi Hong Hi deserves credit for creating his own material and curriculum, that doesn't make him "the founder" of Tae Kwon Do.
Don't you mean, there's no formally published documentation in English which you've been able to find? As one possible example: We know that both the RoK military and Seoul police learned hand-to-hand techniques from kwan instructors in the late 40's and 50's. Wouldn't you think they probably had some form of documantation to assist them in their training?
This depends on what you consider to be "uniquely Korean." The Chong Hon forms might have unique elements in them, but Choi still created them using his knowledge of Karate (and maybe Tae Kyon, if you believe the stories). The other kwans may have started out practicing pre-existing arts, but it wasn't long before they began to develop what they had into something new. There are are no truly unique arts.
Being the first to publish a book on the art doesn't make you the art's creator. While Choi Hong Hi deserves credit for creating his own material and curriculum, that doesn't make him "the founder" of Tae Kwon Do.
- Thread Starter
- #57
Sir,
1. The Korean peninsula was under the oppressing rule of Japan until the end of
WWII (1947 I believe). All documentation thus far has shown that the original
five kwans all practiced the cirricullum of a pre-existing art (primarily TSD).
Furthermore, I challenge you to provide text specific to TKD predating the
book "Taekwon-Do the Art of Self Defense" by Choi Hong Hi!
2. "Uniquely Korean" is a phrase we have been using during the course of this
thread to indicate the art which was to unify the kwans that was not Karate,
Gung-Fu, ect. (pre-existing)
3. From all available points of resource yet to surface Choi Hong Hi was the first
person to present the art of TKD to the public. He presented an art in its
entirety (methodology, ettiquette, system of rank, cirricullum, ect.) this is
the reason I am compelled to believe he is the FOUNDER of Taekwon-Do!
TAEKWON,
Spooks
ps. I am sorry to post the same points over and over, I do feel it necessary to debate this issue until I am presented with facts leading to a different concusion.
1. The Korean peninsula was under the oppressing rule of Japan until the end of
WWII (1947 I believe). All documentation thus far has shown that the original
five kwans all practiced the cirricullum of a pre-existing art (primarily TSD).
Furthermore, I challenge you to provide text specific to TKD predating the
book "Taekwon-Do the Art of Self Defense" by Choi Hong Hi!
2. "Uniquely Korean" is a phrase we have been using during the course of this
thread to indicate the art which was to unify the kwans that was not Karate,
Gung-Fu, ect. (pre-existing)
3. From all available points of resource yet to surface Choi Hong Hi was the first
person to present the art of TKD to the public. He presented an art in its
entirety (methodology, ettiquette, system of rank, cirricullum, ect.) this is
the reason I am compelled to believe he is the FOUNDER of Taekwon-Do!
TAEKWON,
Spooks
ps. I am sorry to post the same points over and over, I do feel it necessary to debate this issue until I am presented with facts leading to a different concusion.
Miles
Senior Master
GM LEE, Kyo Yoon (founder of Taekwondo Han Moo Kwan) wrote a book published in 06/1965 in Korea, in Korean, the English translation of the title is "Taekwondo Textbook For A Million Taekwondoists." If there were a Million practioners of Taekwondo 9 months before the creation of the ITF (03/1966), were they all Gen Choi's students? I believe not. Could a Million people falsely believe they were practicing something other than Taekwondo? I believe not.Spookey said:
How was Gen Choi's art uniquely Korean whereas the practices by the other Kwan Jang were not? Gen Choi stated himself that the Oh Do Kwan accepted Chung Do Kwan rank at face value since their trainings were similar. Did you not state that your father had Chung Do Kwan rank?Spookey said:
I will posit that the free sparring, which is the trademark of Taekwondo, has been continuous full-contact since the early 1960's. This has not changed in Kukki-Taekwondo. When I started training, in the ITF in 1975, the sparring was point-not unlike NASKA.
Each instructor has their own interpretation of the curriculum and material. For example, I teach breakfalls and throws, but know several TKD instructors who do not.Spookey said:
As far as the name of the Art, you have not commented on why Gen Choi seeks to take credit for the work of the naming committee, on which sat his senior, GM SON, Duk Song?
Spookey, I don't think I am going to change your mind, nor do I think you will change mine. But, I am happy to explore these points with you since it is clear you love TKD as do I.Spookey said:
Miles
rmclain
Black Belt
Just as an "aside" from the discussion. I saw someone wrote something about sparring. The following is a photo from 1958 at a demo for S. Korean President Syngmann Rhee. They had a full contact sparring session as a demo with body padding. Apparently this was a new thing at that time.
R. McLain
http://www.kimsookarate.com/gallery-old-days/58_Demo/58_demo.htm
R. McLain
http://www.kimsookarate.com/gallery-old-days/58_Demo/58_demo.htm
Very nice picture have anymore please send.rmclain said:
