So, what is the connection? I've trained in both Shotokan and Tang Soo Do. Many of the forms repeat and I feel that this is not a coincidence. I have heard rumors that they trained under the same instructor.
Gichin Funokoshi and Hwang Kee
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
Brother John
Senior Master
I've heard that master Kee was a student of Master Funakoshi.
Your Brother
John
Your Brother
John
OP
OP
I was taught that Master Itosu was an instructor of both Master Gichin Funokoshi and Master Hwang Kee. Many of our forms are attributed to Master Itosu. The three basic forms though, Hwang Kee states he created. These are the same basic forms in Shotokan...
glad2bhere
Master Black Belt
Hmmmmm. I don't think thats gonna work.
I have TANG SOO DO by Kang Uk Lee and compared those forms against the ones in Hwang Kees' book. Likewise I checked both against Funakoshis' master text. Discounting for the increased emphasis on kicking, the basic organization and execution of the forms are most definitely after the fashion of Shotokan. Had Hwang Kee studied directly under Itosu I am sure that the kata would bear a stronger resemblance to the pre-Shotokan kata. This is the one reason that I object to those revisionists who report that the Okinawan Kata originated in Korea and transmitted through trading interests during the 18th and 19th centuries. Its not that I mind them making up their material. I like a good story as much as anyone. What I object to is the sloppy manner in which they fail to check their stories against simple history. Did they think we wouldn't check the stories aginst the facts? FWIW.
Best Wishes,
Bruce
I have TANG SOO DO by Kang Uk Lee and compared those forms against the ones in Hwang Kees' book. Likewise I checked both against Funakoshis' master text. Discounting for the increased emphasis on kicking, the basic organization and execution of the forms are most definitely after the fashion of Shotokan. Had Hwang Kee studied directly under Itosu I am sure that the kata would bear a stronger resemblance to the pre-Shotokan kata. This is the one reason that I object to those revisionists who report that the Okinawan Kata originated in Korea and transmitted through trading interests during the 18th and 19th centuries. Its not that I mind them making up their material. I like a good story as much as anyone. What I object to is the sloppy manner in which they fail to check their stories against simple history. Did they think we wouldn't check the stories aginst the facts? FWIW.
Best Wishes,
Bruce
OP
OP
Bruce
How can we verify these claims. There are so many versions. Do you know of any scholarly attempts to differentiate between the two?
upnorthkyosa
How can we verify these claims. There are so many versions. Do you know of any scholarly attempts to differentiate between the two?
upnorthkyosa
glad2bhere
Master Black Belt
"....How can we verify these claims. There are so many versions. Do you know of any scholarly attempts to differentiate between the two?...."
Between which and which?
Best Wishes,
Bruce
Between which and which?
Best Wishes,
Bruce
OP
OP
There are several claims here in this thread.
1. Gichin Funokoshi and Hwang Kee studied with Master Itosu.
2. Hwang Kee learned the forms from a book.
3. Hwang Kee was a student of Gichin Funokoshi.
4. The Okinawan Kata originated in Korea.
5. Hwang Kee created many of the Kata.
How do we differentiate between these claims, sir? Any sources?
upnorthkyosa
1. Gichin Funokoshi and Hwang Kee studied with Master Itosu.
2. Hwang Kee learned the forms from a book.
3. Hwang Kee was a student of Gichin Funokoshi.
4. The Okinawan Kata originated in Korea.
5. Hwang Kee created many of the Kata.
How do we differentiate between these claims, sir? Any sources?
upnorthkyosa
Zepp
Master of Arts
Hwang Kee learned many of the forms used in TSD from training at the Chung Do Kwan. That is where he trained under Korean instructors, such as Won Kuk Lee, who learned these forms when they studied in Japan and Okinawa.
That is why forms such as the Pyong-an/Pinan series, the Chul-gi/Naihanchi(?) series, and Pal-sek/Bal-sek/Bassai are seen in Shotokan Karate, TSD, and older styles of TKD.
That is why forms such as the Pyong-an/Pinan series, the Chul-gi/Naihanchi(?) series, and Pal-sek/Bal-sek/Bassai are seen in Shotokan Karate, TSD, and older styles of TKD.
glad2bhere
Master Black Belt
I think all of these questions are very important to clarify for the next generation. Where I get stuck is in the conflict that arises in HOW those questions get addressed. I think before we can go to work we need to clarify what tools we are going to use for the job and what we want the final product to look like. At the risk of getting "too heavy" I would like to mention how I see addressing these issues.
On the one side the most common way of transmitting history is oral tradition. In a lot of discussions someone will say, "my teacher says....." and then fall back on the Confucian Model of NOT questioning ones' teacher as a way of accepting such history on faith. This kind of history can be very entertaining and thought provoking and is readily accessible, but there is usually not much in the way of hard evidence to support it. That doesn't mean it can't be true. It just means that it is very often taken on faith.
On the other side is sound research supported by documentation. In genealogy (one of my hobbies) if it can't be documented it is immediately suspect. That doesn't mean something DIDN'T happen, only that the WAY it happened is in question. For the TSD people there is a lot of question about how Hwang Kee developed his curriculum. For Hapkido people there is a lot of question about Choi Yong Suls' background. In fact, if you look at the most recent copy of TKD TIMES you will see a rather large article on my teacher, Kwang Sik Myung. The text mentions that Choi Yong Sul developed his art after an extensive retreat into the mountains of Korea. No mention is made of his lengthy stay in Japan during the Occupation. One is oral tradition, and the latter is documented fact.
Soooo.... how do we want to grab this elephant? Challenging oral traditions can be done reasonably easily, but one runs the risk of injuring the (usually) romantic notions of the way people WANT to believe about something and that can make for hard feelings. Sorta like some of whats going on in the Christian community right now with the Dead Sea and Nag Hamadhi scrolls, yes? Thoughts?
Best Wishes,
Bruce
On the one side the most common way of transmitting history is oral tradition. In a lot of discussions someone will say, "my teacher says....." and then fall back on the Confucian Model of NOT questioning ones' teacher as a way of accepting such history on faith. This kind of history can be very entertaining and thought provoking and is readily accessible, but there is usually not much in the way of hard evidence to support it. That doesn't mean it can't be true. It just means that it is very often taken on faith.
On the other side is sound research supported by documentation. In genealogy (one of my hobbies) if it can't be documented it is immediately suspect. That doesn't mean something DIDN'T happen, only that the WAY it happened is in question. For the TSD people there is a lot of question about how Hwang Kee developed his curriculum. For Hapkido people there is a lot of question about Choi Yong Suls' background. In fact, if you look at the most recent copy of TKD TIMES you will see a rather large article on my teacher, Kwang Sik Myung. The text mentions that Choi Yong Sul developed his art after an extensive retreat into the mountains of Korea. No mention is made of his lengthy stay in Japan during the Occupation. One is oral tradition, and the latter is documented fact.
Soooo.... how do we want to grab this elephant? Challenging oral traditions can be done reasonably easily, but one runs the risk of injuring the (usually) romantic notions of the way people WANT to believe about something and that can make for hard feelings. Sorta like some of whats going on in the Christian community right now with the Dead Sea and Nag Hamadhi scrolls, yes? Thoughts?
Best Wishes,
Bruce
OP
OP
Simply put, understanding roots of one's art, helps with training in that art. When you understand the roots, you can expand your knowledge base to encompass the "feeder" arts thereby gaining a deeper understanding of your primary art.
I am currently training in tai chi and jujutsu concurrently with TSD in order to accomplish the above goal.
upnorthkyosa
I am currently training in tai chi and jujutsu concurrently with TSD in order to accomplish the above goal.
upnorthkyosa
Okay, I guess I can see some of that....
When I started Shotokan, it was only "the art I was learning" then I came here. I found so much about Funokoshi, that I felt "connected" to some sort of family I guess... but it didn't change the way I learned.
Now I am starting in Hapkido...did some research here and found a bees nest of factions...
Makes me want to NOT know.....
When I started Shotokan, it was only "the art I was learning" then I came here. I found so much about Funokoshi, that I felt "connected" to some sort of family I guess... but it didn't change the way I learned.
Now I am starting in Hapkido...did some research here and found a bees nest of factions...
Makes me want to NOT know.....
glad2bhere
Master Black Belt
I think Hapkido specifically and KMA in general are both excellent examples of what happens when people lose touch with their roots.
Used to be that people liked to say that there WERE no Korean martial traditions, that the traditions that were around before they extinguished were nothing more than bad copies of neighboring martial traditions. The Japanese traditionalists went even farther and said that all Korean traditions were just Japanese traditions repackaged. Even the Koreans themselves were reluctant to delve into their own traditions. It was just easier to use the Japanese stuff, or (even worse) make things up on the spot! So today we have things like TSD and TKD and HKD but everyone treats these activities as though they would not have existed without the Japanese and that is a real slam against the Korean culture. Just because the Koreans didn't get all anal-retentive about organizing styles and a sword culture and a separate socio-economic strata based on a warrior class does not mean the Koreans did not have their martial traditions.
There is one other point too that needs to be made. People really RESIST giving the Koreans their due. In fact even the KOREANS resist delving into their own martial traditions. Over here in the States people often ask "whats the point?" which is to be expected. We don't have a deep and abiding love of our own shallow and short-lived traditions so how could we possibly understand traditions that go back 4 and 5 hundred years? But how does that excuse the Korean nationals who let their traditions deteriorate through apathy and disinterest? You know how sometimes people say "youth is wasted on the young?" Well, sometimes I feel like Korean martial traditions are wasted on the modern Korean martial artist. FWIW.
Best Wishes,
Bruce
Used to be that people liked to say that there WERE no Korean martial traditions, that the traditions that were around before they extinguished were nothing more than bad copies of neighboring martial traditions. The Japanese traditionalists went even farther and said that all Korean traditions were just Japanese traditions repackaged. Even the Koreans themselves were reluctant to delve into their own traditions. It was just easier to use the Japanese stuff, or (even worse) make things up on the spot! So today we have things like TSD and TKD and HKD but everyone treats these activities as though they would not have existed without the Japanese and that is a real slam against the Korean culture. Just because the Koreans didn't get all anal-retentive about organizing styles and a sword culture and a separate socio-economic strata based on a warrior class does not mean the Koreans did not have their martial traditions.
There is one other point too that needs to be made. People really RESIST giving the Koreans their due. In fact even the KOREANS resist delving into their own martial traditions. Over here in the States people often ask "whats the point?" which is to be expected. We don't have a deep and abiding love of our own shallow and short-lived traditions so how could we possibly understand traditions that go back 4 and 5 hundred years? But how does that excuse the Korean nationals who let their traditions deteriorate through apathy and disinterest? You know how sometimes people say "youth is wasted on the young?" Well, sometimes I feel like Korean martial traditions are wasted on the modern Korean martial artist. FWIW.
Best Wishes,
Bruce
The Kai
Master of Arts
I guess though the problem is Korean traditions can only be verified back to the 40's. Anything else and you get into that shadowy realm of -learned from some peoplew living up in the mountains when i was a kid. Recreating something out of a book of historical records may or may not be accurate (depending on you have anything to base the movements off-except your modern 'ideas').
So really where do you go to delve into Korean tradfitions? No disrespect intended
Todd
So really where do you go to delve into Korean tradfitions? No disrespect intended
Todd
glad2bhere
Master Black Belt
Ok, those are good points. And honestly if I just wanted to sit and whine I suppose I could complain all day about how the Koreans let their stuff deteriorate in deference to the Yangban tradition. OK, fair enough. Buts lets take a look at some and maybe through a little different pair of eyes.
First off, lets remember that resources such as the MU YEI TOBO TONG JI, the CEREMONY OF THE ROBE and more modern manuals regarding Korean traditions are still around to be studied. The MYTBTJ takes us a ways back before 1940; actually all the way to 1795. And early part of it take us back a century or so before that! Sure we have lost a lot of materials but there are still materials around. Can't figure what the weaponry looked like? There is the National museum in Seoul. Can't remember what a technique was? Its not like the Chinese versions were all that different, folks.
Secondly supportive or ancillary materials to fill in the blanks are still around. If you don't understand the KWON BUP chapter in the MYTBTJ General Qis' manual with the Boxing Canon that MYTBTJ chapter was based on is still around. And there are still folks practicing Chen TCC which relates closely to the material in both resources. And if you don't want to go back a few centuries for your history there are still military manuals albeit few and far between which detail the martial traditions at the turn of the 19th century. And its not like reconstructing traditions out of books is anything new. Many of the Southern Chinese traditions did this, the Okinawans had the BUBISHI and the Japanese did all sorts of recombinant things right after the Meiji Restoration when it seemed like Western versions of things were errdicating the ancient Japanese culture.
Thirdly, though the Koreans do not have patrilinear succession like the Japanese that doesn't mean that teacher relationships can't be traced. In my own case the sword that I practice can be traced through my teacher, KJN Koo through HIS teachers to the 6 originators of the Korean Kumdo Assn ("Tae Han Gum Sa") and through THEIR teachers to Kong Won Nok who trained in both Korean and Japanese sword and opened an unaffiliated school (Choson Mu-do Kwan) about 1921. Now, I didn't wait for BLACK BELT magazine to decide to figure it was profitable to run an article to find this information out. I went back and started bugging my teachers looking for leads and then started doing research. Thats what needs to be done!! My labor onlty took me back to before 1921, but thats 80 years better than if I sat on my keester and waited for some BS out of one of the Pacific Rim glossies, yes?
Fourth and last, there are still traditions and records and arts that continue today whose records will take you back to where you want to go--- but you have to want to go there. For instance, the KUK SOOL WON people suggest that In Hyuk Suh studied some Praying Mantis in Korea. You need to find published material on who is in the lineage who was a Korean mover and shaker for that arts' lineage. Its published on the Internet! Then start checking dates and places and figure how these two items factor together. There are still Ship Pal Gi practitioners in Korean. Whats stopping people from checking these folks out? There are at least three major Chinese Boxing organizations in Korea. How come no one is checking them out for what they can learn?
Now, lest I have agitated people with my diatribe I submitt that this is only something you need TRY . Nothing says that you can't ever go back to "my teacher says...." and fabled stroies of learning MA from irregular meetings with ghosties and ghoulies in mountain vastness. FWIW.
Best Wishes,
Bruce
First off, lets remember that resources such as the MU YEI TOBO TONG JI, the CEREMONY OF THE ROBE and more modern manuals regarding Korean traditions are still around to be studied. The MYTBTJ takes us a ways back before 1940; actually all the way to 1795. And early part of it take us back a century or so before that! Sure we have lost a lot of materials but there are still materials around. Can't figure what the weaponry looked like? There is the National museum in Seoul. Can't remember what a technique was? Its not like the Chinese versions were all that different, folks.
Secondly supportive or ancillary materials to fill in the blanks are still around. If you don't understand the KWON BUP chapter in the MYTBTJ General Qis' manual with the Boxing Canon that MYTBTJ chapter was based on is still around. And there are still folks practicing Chen TCC which relates closely to the material in both resources. And if you don't want to go back a few centuries for your history there are still military manuals albeit few and far between which detail the martial traditions at the turn of the 19th century. And its not like reconstructing traditions out of books is anything new. Many of the Southern Chinese traditions did this, the Okinawans had the BUBISHI and the Japanese did all sorts of recombinant things right after the Meiji Restoration when it seemed like Western versions of things were errdicating the ancient Japanese culture.
Thirdly, though the Koreans do not have patrilinear succession like the Japanese that doesn't mean that teacher relationships can't be traced. In my own case the sword that I practice can be traced through my teacher, KJN Koo through HIS teachers to the 6 originators of the Korean Kumdo Assn ("Tae Han Gum Sa") and through THEIR teachers to Kong Won Nok who trained in both Korean and Japanese sword and opened an unaffiliated school (Choson Mu-do Kwan) about 1921. Now, I didn't wait for BLACK BELT magazine to decide to figure it was profitable to run an article to find this information out. I went back and started bugging my teachers looking for leads and then started doing research. Thats what needs to be done!! My labor onlty took me back to before 1921, but thats 80 years better than if I sat on my keester and waited for some BS out of one of the Pacific Rim glossies, yes?
Fourth and last, there are still traditions and records and arts that continue today whose records will take you back to where you want to go--- but you have to want to go there. For instance, the KUK SOOL WON people suggest that In Hyuk Suh studied some Praying Mantis in Korea. You need to find published material on who is in the lineage who was a Korean mover and shaker for that arts' lineage. Its published on the Internet! Then start checking dates and places and figure how these two items factor together. There are still Ship Pal Gi practitioners in Korean. Whats stopping people from checking these folks out? There are at least three major Chinese Boxing organizations in Korea. How come no one is checking them out for what they can learn?
Now, lest I have agitated people with my diatribe I submitt that this is only something you need TRY . Nothing says that you can't ever go back to "my teacher says...." and fabled stroies of learning MA from irregular meetings with ghosties and ghoulies in mountain vastness. FWIW.
Best Wishes,
Bruce
The Kai
Master of Arts
Ok
Here is a catch (as I see it from sitting on my kester). Ship Pal Gi can I assume is Korean for Kung fu?? In the Case on InHyuk son, he might have studied Kung Fu (or might not have), But his claims and the offical verison says "This art is hundreds of yrs old, Korean and highly secretive (till Gm decided to teach openly). In the offical stylistic history there is no mention of Kung fu, re of recombinimng elements to retrace footsteps.
Earlier you posted mention the newest TKD times, with GM ?? patriotic view on the origin of HKD/ If your teacher is spreading the B.s. how can you follow threads?
Todd
Here is a catch (as I see it from sitting on my kester). Ship Pal Gi can I assume is Korean for Kung fu?? In the Case on InHyuk son, he might have studied Kung Fu (or might not have), But his claims and the offical verison says "This art is hundreds of yrs old, Korean and highly secretive (till Gm decided to teach openly). In the offical stylistic history there is no mention of Kung fu, re of recombinimng elements to retrace footsteps.
Earlier you posted mention the newest TKD times, with GM ?? patriotic view on the origin of HKD/ If your teacher is spreading the B.s. how can you follow threads?
Todd
glad2bhere
Master Black Belt
"......Here is a catch (as I see it from sitting on my kester). Ship Pal Gi can I assume is Korean for Kung fu?? In the Case on InHyuk son, he might have studied Kung Fu (or might not have), But his claims and the offical verison says "This art is hundreds of yrs old, Korean and highly secretive (till Gm decided to teach openly). In the offical stylistic history there is no mention of Kung fu, re of recombinimng elements to retrace footsteps.
Earlier you posted mention the newest TKD times, with GM ?? patriotic view on the origin of HKD/ If your teacher is spreading the B.s. how can you follow threads?........"
Bingo!!! You hit the nail right on the head!!! That is exactly--- precisely--- the whole point I have been working to make for years now!!
If we don't sit ourselves down, do some authentic historical research and get it out where people can experience it, what do you think is going to be remembered when our turn as keepers of the arts is over? I get roasted routinely for taking the likes of Joo Bang Lee and In Hyuk Suh to task and wanting them to come clean and represent Korean martial traditions as they REALLY were. Problem is that these folks have been beating their respective drums for so long there is almost no way that you are going to get them to come clean. What would it take?
History would sound something like, "well, ya see.... once upon a time there were a bunch of these kids who wanted to make some bucks off of the KMA. Problem was that they couldn't decide who was going to be in charge and call the shots. So, they split-up and went their separate ways and have been bending the truth ever since." The thing that ticks me off is that while these guys are whip-stitching stuff together and calling it centuries old traditions the REAL traditions are being ignored or not being given their due.
So, what do you have? People like Ji Han Jae who studied with Choi until 1957 then went off with his 3rd BB and opened his own school. You have GM Myung who won't even acknowledge Ji but has a wall full of paper with Jis' signatures on them. You have Choi at the top of the heap and nobody can figure out WHAT the heck HIS story is. And if we don't do more than pass this mess on to others it simply becomes more deeply ingrained in the art, right? And while all of this is going on you have material like Ship Pal Gi (traditional 18 weapons) derived from its Chinese counterpart, or Tantui which have both been with Korean culture a whole lot longer than Daito-ryu derivations. The trick is that you have to be willing to dig and to read, then read and dig some more. You have to be willing to stop listening to the standard historical line and start asking intelligent questions. FWIW.
Best Wishes,
Bruce
Todd
Earlier you posted mention the newest TKD times, with GM ?? patriotic view on the origin of HKD/ If your teacher is spreading the B.s. how can you follow threads?........"
Bingo!!! You hit the nail right on the head!!! That is exactly--- precisely--- the whole point I have been working to make for years now!!
If we don't sit ourselves down, do some authentic historical research and get it out where people can experience it, what do you think is going to be remembered when our turn as keepers of the arts is over? I get roasted routinely for taking the likes of Joo Bang Lee and In Hyuk Suh to task and wanting them to come clean and represent Korean martial traditions as they REALLY were. Problem is that these folks have been beating their respective drums for so long there is almost no way that you are going to get them to come clean. What would it take?
History would sound something like, "well, ya see.... once upon a time there were a bunch of these kids who wanted to make some bucks off of the KMA. Problem was that they couldn't decide who was going to be in charge and call the shots. So, they split-up and went their separate ways and have been bending the truth ever since." The thing that ticks me off is that while these guys are whip-stitching stuff together and calling it centuries old traditions the REAL traditions are being ignored or not being given their due.
So, what do you have? People like Ji Han Jae who studied with Choi until 1957 then went off with his 3rd BB and opened his own school. You have GM Myung who won't even acknowledge Ji but has a wall full of paper with Jis' signatures on them. You have Choi at the top of the heap and nobody can figure out WHAT the heck HIS story is. And if we don't do more than pass this mess on to others it simply becomes more deeply ingrained in the art, right? And while all of this is going on you have material like Ship Pal Gi (traditional 18 weapons) derived from its Chinese counterpart, or Tantui which have both been with Korean culture a whole lot longer than Daito-ryu derivations. The trick is that you have to be willing to dig and to read, then read and dig some more. You have to be willing to stop listening to the standard historical line and start asking intelligent questions. FWIW.
Best Wishes,
Bruce
Todd
R
Reed
Guest
Let me start by saying that it's hard for someone who is dead to defend them self, I started training in TSD in the 1979 and I was told that TSD was from Soo Bahk Do, or Tae Kyuan and that TSD incorperated the superb foot techniques into its style. Grand Master Hwang Kee states that Tang Soo Do is a genaric term or a korean term for the word Karate, or China Hand Way.
Chung Do Kwan - founded in 1944 by Won Kyuk LEE who'd studied Shotokan karate, called his art Tang Soo Do.
Moo Duk Kwan - founded in 1945 by Hwang KEE. Kee had studied Tai Chi and some types of Kung Fu with Kuk Jin YANG in China and opened a school . His first two attempts were unsuccessful, he then met with Won Kyuk Lee and visited the Chung Do Kwon periodically. Lee claims Kee was his student, Kee says no, Kuk Jin Yang was his only teacher. Kee says he learned the Shotokan forms from Gichin Funakoshi's books. Kee started teaching the Shotokan forms and his school became successful. Kee was close friends with some noted Japanese karate people as well. Regardless of the source of his skills, what Kee taught was obviously very influenced by Japanese karate. Kee originally called his art Hwa Soo Do, then Tang Soo Do, then Soo Bakh Do.
Song Moo Kwan - founded in 1946 by Byung Jick RO, who'd studied Shotokan karate, called his art Tang Soo Do. So you see Won Kyuk Lee was a second Dan in Shotokan and later made 4th Dan. We all know Hwang Kee studed from a book and the only books in the late 30's was by three Masters. So Hwang Kee said that he trained in Kung Fu or as we know now Tai Chi Chuan and Long Fist, and as a boy Tae Kyun and that Tae Kyun was used in games like a sport and in street fighting. and from a shotokan book. For me
I love TSD and that's why I train not because some old guy 60 years ago went to China and trained in Kung Fu and secretly trained from a book and friends. TSD is Shotokan Karate and the Korean style kicking and when you put those two together you get a superior style. just my 2 cents worth.
Master Reed
Chung Do Kwan - founded in 1944 by Won Kyuk LEE who'd studied Shotokan karate, called his art Tang Soo Do.
Moo Duk Kwan - founded in 1945 by Hwang KEE. Kee had studied Tai Chi and some types of Kung Fu with Kuk Jin YANG in China and opened a school . His first two attempts were unsuccessful, he then met with Won Kyuk Lee and visited the Chung Do Kwon periodically. Lee claims Kee was his student, Kee says no, Kuk Jin Yang was his only teacher. Kee says he learned the Shotokan forms from Gichin Funakoshi's books. Kee started teaching the Shotokan forms and his school became successful. Kee was close friends with some noted Japanese karate people as well. Regardless of the source of his skills, what Kee taught was obviously very influenced by Japanese karate. Kee originally called his art Hwa Soo Do, then Tang Soo Do, then Soo Bakh Do.
Song Moo Kwan - founded in 1946 by Byung Jick RO, who'd studied Shotokan karate, called his art Tang Soo Do. So you see Won Kyuk Lee was a second Dan in Shotokan and later made 4th Dan. We all know Hwang Kee studed from a book and the only books in the late 30's was by three Masters. So Hwang Kee said that he trained in Kung Fu or as we know now Tai Chi Chuan and Long Fist, and as a boy Tae Kyun and that Tae Kyun was used in games like a sport and in street fighting. and from a shotokan book. For me
I love TSD and that's why I train not because some old guy 60 years ago went to China and trained in Kung Fu and secretly trained from a book and friends. TSD is Shotokan Karate and the Korean style kicking and when you put those two together you get a superior style. just my 2 cents worth.
Master Reed
