History of Tea Kwon Do

[Kong Soo Do]

I remember a few years ago walking through a shopping center with my son while my wife was clothes shopping. I noticed a big 'Karate' sign towards the end of the row of stores. We walked over to take a look but the school was closed. It turned out to be a Tang Soo Do school. I took a look at the flyer on the door and it had a small history section which stated that 'Tang Soo Do was a 2000 year old indigenous Korean martial art'.

Korean arts such as Tang Soo Do, Tae Kwon Do, Hapkido have established themselves around the world as viable martial arts. And they have somewhat individualized themselves from their parent arts (be it Japanese or Chinese). Why try to distance themselves so much that things get embellished? For example, this TSD school had the big neon 'Karate' sign but no mention of what went into the making of TSD as far as other arts. And why? There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that which came before. It in no way diminishes the art in question. TSD, TKD and HKD are able to stand on their own merits. Embellishments of any kind are not needed. There is nothing wrong with simply stating that several Korean masters, with varied MA's backgrounds got together and developed TKD in the 50's. In reality, that should enhance the art of TKD as a lot of input went into the development of the art.

Just my thoughts.

 

[puunui]

Well I am not sure why the pioneers just don't say, hey we learned karate from Japan and thought it was lacking a very useful weapon such as the legs which gives shorter individuals and advantage over a taller person punching. So we got together and developed Taekwondo(Just an Example). I belong to Hawaiian Kenpo and Eskrima(Doce Pares) which for all intents purpose was developed in the 40's and 30's. Nobody seems to care and nobody seems to question its legitimacy as an art. In my mind Taekwondo is a new art developed by the pioneers and constantly evolving to make it better. I for one don't see anything wrong with that.

I don't know if they say it exactly like that but if you speak with the pioneers they all admit the fact that their teachers learned karate in Japan and/or chuan fa in manchuria. They freely admit it. It is not some huge big secret. There are enough books, magazine interviews internet webpages or whatever out there that confirm that as well. But the steps and kicking portion is decidedly korean. I think what is going on is that people focus only on the karate portion and think that is the whole of taekwondo. But the steps and the kicking are not, which is the portion that made it into the Olympics. If anything, karate took notice of taekwondo kicks and are adapting it to karate, but I don't see anyone trying to force karate practitioners to admit that. Think about it.

 

[puunui]

I remember a few years ago walking through a shopping center with my son while my wife was clothes shopping. I noticed a big 'Karate' sign towards the end of the row of stores. We walked over to take a look but the school was closed. It turned out to be a Tang Soo Do school. I took a look at the flyer on the door and it had a small history section which stated that 'Tang Soo Do was a 2000 year old indigenous Korean martial art'.

That is just marketing. Who cares about that?

Korean arts such as Tang Soo Do, Tae Kwon Do, Hapkido have established themselves around the world as viable martial arts. And they have somewhat individualized themselves from their parent arts (be it Japanese or Chinese). Why try to distance themselves so much that things get embellished? For example, this TSD school had the big neon 'Karate' sign but no mention of what went into the making of TSD as far as other arts. And why? There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that which came before. It in no way diminishes the art in question. TSD, TKD and HKD are able to stand on their own merits. Embellishments of any kind are not needed. There is nothing wrong with simply stating that several Korean masters, with varied MA's backgrounds got together and developed TKD in the 50's. In reality, that should enhance the art of TKD as a lot of input went into the development of the art.

Many instructors who came to the United States did use the Karate name, again for marketing purposes. But still others intentionally chose not to do that and instead only used the name Taekwondo. I have never ever been a member of a school that used the name karate instead of taekwondo. And in the schools that I have joined, there was no written materials or discussion or testing on the history of Taekwondo. That seems to be a relatively new thing. It certainly wasn't done in Korea, the teaching of history of Taekwondo to students and it certainly wasn't the selling point there either. In fact, the second and third generation instructors didn't ask their instructors anything, and to tell you the truth, have a difficult time discussing history other than their own personal training.

I am convinced that most of these so called history information put out by dojang wasn't written by the head instructor in question (if they were Korean born) but rather by students who felt it added something to the marketing plan. Most likely it was an american born student who conceived of that idea, just like it was probably an american born co author who put those obligatory historical blurbs in their instructor's book.

 

[oftheherd1]

I don't recall ever hearing JG Rhee talking about the history of Tae Kwan Do. He may have, but if so, I don't recall. I also never participated in nor viewed any competitions in the Washington, DC area. But some of our students who did, often commented on the fact that they were disadvantaged by the Karate students who would get too close for leg techniques and use hand techniques to score points.

We understood a difference between the styles was TKD emphasis on kicks, and Karate emphasis on hand use. We felt in a real fight the greater length and strength of legs would give an advantage. In competition, as it was then, apparently it did not, or our students were not well coached, or something else was going on. I don't know what the competition rules were, or if that may have prevented using kicks to keep opponents at distance.

Not sure what any of that has to do with provable history of TKD.

 

[terryl965]

I am glad to see some input from the lovely folks here on MT. The views and comments are what I expected and I at least appreciate the responses so far. I also believe that alot of older gentlemen that came over in the beginnings really did not go into history of TKD but rather the philosophy behind the concept of TKD.

Master Southwick and puunui have given alot of good information for us to pounder over, I also believe that we as a whole will never ever really get a truth about TKD history. All the men that came together to form the new name and lay the foundation of what is TKD can not even agree with the past. So what doea that in itself tell us, what we have though is a productive art/sport that is by far the most prctice art/sport in the world. TKD is a lifestyle that can forever change a person life for the better and can lift the spirit of competition for those willing to put in the time. As a G.M. once said to me Tae Kwon Do is so complicated that to the human eye it is simple, people will mock you for not understanding and people will love you for giving them what they have benn missing. Only time will tell if we instructors and student will change the outlook of TKD, only we can make the changes so others can see and only we can blossom with the unity of TKD.

I for one thank each and everyone of you for particpating in a thread and keeping it simple and to the point, I hope there comments will keep coming and I hope others will jump in with there views.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I know I am opening a can of worms:

Let me start of by saying in some of the other threads people have said that TKD history was not accurate, saying it nicely.

I would like to hear what they believe to be fractual and the reference in which they used to come to there decission?

I would also like to know seniors names if you are going to say my seniors said so, if you can say senior you should be able to provide a name for us. I am really interested in the Korean history, culture and event of TKD. I would also like this not to be calling people out for what they are saying but rather a decussion about what is or could be fractual in TKD.

Hopefully we can get into some deep topics matter and how it came to be.


I will start out with the old line it is a 2000 year old art derived from tekkyon the childern game. How there is early drawing on caves showing this and how it needed to be kept a secret during occupation. I will differently come back when the thread gets going and add my two and a half cents and what is really my fractual experiences and you have told me or given me those facts.

Someone once said that before an intelligent discussion can take place people must first agree on how terms in the discussion are defined. To date, there has been little agreement.
Now, as I get older memory fades so the dates may not be exact but as I recall the naming committee came up with the name TKD in 1954 and it was officialy adopted in 1955. Before then thename TKD did not exist.

So the first issue would be to define "TKD". Was the kicking and punching stuff done prior to 1954/1955 TKD or a forrunner of TKD?

If pre 1954/1955 stuff was TKD then does anyone with a link to a Korean Kicking and punching before 1954/1955 get to call what they are doing TKD?

Would this be an insult to those who chose not to accept the moniker at that time?

 

[terryl965]

Someone once said that before an intelligent discussion can take place people must first agree on how terms in the discussion are defined. To date, there has been little agreement.
Now, as I get older memory fades so the dates may not be exact but as I recall the naming committee came up with the name TKD in 1954 and it was officialy adopted in 1955. Before then thename TKD did not exist.

So the first issue would be to define "TKD". Was the kicking and punching stuff done prior to 1954/1955 TKD or a forrunner of TKD?

If pre 1954/1955 stuff was TKD then does anyone with a link to a Korean Kicking and punching before 1954/1955 get to call what they are doing TKD?

Would this be an insult to those who chose not to accept the moniker at that time?

Sir you would be absolutely right with the dates, I am going to ask that each and everyone of us just give what we believe to be right in the formation of TKD. If you would like to go back 2000 plus years and call that TKD or that is what you have been told than all means include it. I am more of trying to understand why and when did the actual facts whichever they may or may not be come to be. Man that was a mouthful.

 

[MSUTKD]

The history of taekwondo is a story now and nothing more; it is regurgitated construct obscured in politic. People try to “prove” history using logical arguments but really this is not proof but rather assertion. Invalidating a source because of personal bias, by logical argument, destroys the premise one is attempting to form.

I would say that a good analogy is the news. Let us compare FOX news and ABC. They both report the same event but each has reference point from which to present the information. Who is correct? Which one should write the history books? It is not “fact” that they profess but “point of view”. Each side has preconceived notions that filter which “facts”, quotes and sources are actually included; ethically that is bias.

The most respected historians try to tell a good story; all are biased but some are much better at getting a point across. Histories that speak to people are the ones that are remembered, even if they are false. Unfortunately also, histories that are propagandized become dogma and help to obscure information.

I do not believe that most authors try to do this in a diabolical way but rather because they are human and loyalties and experiences form their beliefs. I would think that if we approach each other’s view of history openly, instead of try to prove something that cannot be proved, we might find the common ground; the information that is the same on all sides. For it is that information that I believe is closer to the truth.

To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity.
Roy P. Basler

 

[MSUTKD]

P.S.

The above post does not specifically attack any individual but rather endorses the idea that the study of history is not really all science. All sides show evidence of these actions not just one side.

 

[Manny]

There is nothing wrong with simply stating that several Korean masters, with varied MA's backgrounds got together and developed TKD in the 50's. In reality, that should enhance the art of TKD as a lot of input went into the development of the art.

Just my thoughts.

For me this is the hystori of taekwondo, I don't need to know something else, it's quite simple, in the mid 50's masters of diferentes martial arts and bakcgrounds (chinese,japanese,korean) got together because the president of Korea at that time wanted to unify all the korean martial arts (lyke TSD,Kown Bop,etc,etc) in just one to make this martial art national sport, in these meetings and aproachings gen.Choi was the leader and the name of Taekwondo was taken.

Manny

 

[puunui]

Now, as I get older memory fades so the dates may not be exact but as I recall the naming committee came up with the name TKD in 1954 and it was officialy adopted in 1955. Before then thename TKD did not exist.

Not according to General Choi's books (with the exception of maybe his autobiography). But if you look at the photo of that meeting, it is dated December 19, 1954. The April 11, 1955 date that everyone quotes is the day that ROK President RHEE Syngman approved of the name.

So the first issue would be to define "TKD". Was the kicking and punching stuff done prior to 1954/1955 TKD or a forrunner of TKD? If pre 1954/1955 stuff was TKD then does anyone with a link to a Korean Kicking and punching before 1954/1955 get to call what they are doing TKD? Would this be an insult to those who chose not to accept the moniker at that time?

Depends on how the name was chosen, and why. My understanding was that there was a demonstration in 1954 which ROK President Rhee witnessed, and he exclaimed "That's Taekkyon!". So General Choi set up his naming committee whose purpose was to look up the hanja for Taekkyon. Finding none, they went with Taekwon, which was the closest approximation in the committee's eyes to Taekkyon. Looked at from that perspective, then you would include the history of Taekkyon when discussing Taekwondo.

Over and above that, there was nothing magical about 1955 which suddenly changed everything. Therefore, I don't see why we should be using that particular date as the start of anything. It's not like a whole new art was unveiled at that date. In fact, if I recall correctly, the first Chang Hon forms were not developed until 1957, two years later.

 

[puunui]

I don't see how any of the below adds to the present discussion. But here is what would: Assume you could write Taekwondo's history which would be placed in the Kukkiwon Textbook and all WTF published materials. What would you include? How would you explain Korea's acknowledged affinity for kicking? I explained my position, and I think it is time you explained yours.

The history of taekwondo is a story now and nothing more; it is regurgitated construct obscured in politic. People try to “prove” history using logical arguments but really this is not proof but rather assertion. Invalidating a source because of personal bias, by logical argument, destroys the premise one is attempting to form.

I would say that a good analogy is the news. Let us compare FOX news and ABC. They both report the same event but each has reference point from which to present the information. Who is correct? Which one should write the history books? It is not “fact” that they profess but “point of view”. Each side has preconceived notions that filter which “facts”, quotes and sources are actually included; ethically that is bias.

The most respected historians try to tell a good story; all are biased but some are much better at getting a point across. Histories that speak to people are the ones that are remembered, even if they are false. Unfortunately also, histories that are propagandized become dogma and help to obscure information.

I do not believe that most authors try to do this in a diabolical way but rather because they are human and loyalties and experiences form their beliefs. I would think that if we approach each other’s view of history openly, instead of try to prove something that cannot be proved, we might find the common ground; the information that is the same on all sides. For it is that information that I believe is closer to the truth.

To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity.
Roy P. Basler

 

[Earl Weiss]

Over and above that, there was nothing magical about 1955 which suddenly changed everything. Therefore, I don't see why we should be using that particular date as the start of anything. It's not like a whole new art was unveiled at that date. In fact, if I recall correctly, the first Chang Hon forms were not developed until 1957, two years later.

Well, then perhaps there needs to be agreement on what has to come first.

Like what came first, the chicken or the egg?

The point is not so much what perspective anyone chooses except to point out that without first defining the perspective, exactly what the history of any perspective is will vary depending on that perspective.

For instance if you were to include the roots of a system as part of the system's history then you could claim most systems have a history going back thousands of years to the first physical altercations.

On the other hand one could take the position that the history of a system begins when the system is founded with all sorts of debates as to whether it was a new system or just an evolution of prior systems, as well as when the founding occurred? The naming? The codification?

Pick your poison. Just be clear as to exactly what "History" you are referring to. Roots, Founding, Naming , Codification, or whatever.
Does the system need to be fully developed before you give it a name, or can you decide on a name for a system and then develop it?

 

[puunui]

Well, then perhaps there needs to be agreement on what has to come first.

Like what came first, the chicken or the egg?

The point is not so much what perspective anyone chooses except to point out that without first defining the perspective, exactly what the history of any perspective is will vary depending on that perspective.

For instance if you were to include the roots of a system as part of the system's history then you could claim most systems have a history going back thousands of years to the first physical altercations.

On the other hand one could take the position that the history of a system begins when the system is founded with all sorts of debates as to whether it was a new system or just an evolution of prior systems, as well as when the founding occurred? The naming? The codification?

Pick your poison. Just be clear as to exactly what "History" you are referring to. Roots, Founding, Naming , Codification, or whatever.
Does the system need to be fully developed before you give it a name, or can you decide on a name for a system and then develop it?

Your argument is a red herring. As far as I know Taekkyon was already developed, well before 1955. And ROK President Rhee was the one who defined it for us, when he called the Tang Soo Do he witnessed to be Taekkyon, and General Choi went scrambling to look for the hanja for Taekkyon. Obviously ROK President Rhee was running the show, and from his perspective, Taekkyon was a native korean martial art going back well before 1955. The fact that the hanja chosen for Taekkyon was Taekwon really has no relevance or bearing on the discussion, since even General Choi was bowing down to President Rhee's authority at that point.

 

[MSUTKD]

I don't see how any of the below adds to the present discussion. But here is what would: Assume you could write Taekwondo's history which would be placed in the Kukkiwon Textbook and all WTF published materials. What would you include?

Excellent question but please allow me a bit of time.

How would you explain Korea's acknowledged affinity for kicking?

Um, I think you have the wrong person here. I never said anything about Korea's affinity for kicking. I think that in the Taekwondo part, the game of taekkyon of course. But, that is obvious.

 

[puunui]

I think that in the Taekwondo part, the game of taekkyon of course. But, that is obvious.

What isn't obvious is the fabricated history or distorted propaganda part. Hopefully that will be addressed in your forthcoming rendition of taekwondo history. I was asked to teach the history part of one or more of the Kukkiwon Instructor Course held in the US but I couldn't commit the time that much in advance. I don't know how much lecturing I would have done; I think it would have been more productive if we just opened it up to questions.

I sat in on the history lecture at the Oakland course and there was some very sincere participants asking very sincere questions about the interrelation between the Hwarang and Soobak and that sort of stuff. I wanted to jump up from the head table and say, "forget about all of that" and would was said basically what I wrote here, there all of that was basically a way to explain Korea's love of kicking with examples of military or martial arts activity in Korea, that the specific minute details of those references weren't the important thing.

The truth of the matter is that all martial arts history is vague. Funakoshi Sensei even says so in his own autobiography, that no one knows this stuff. It wasn't a scholarly, documented thing, in Okinawa or Korea.

There is a chinese scholar living in Hawaii whose position I understand is that the generalized history, especially the ancient stuff, is all wrong. I am told that he has studied in great detail the original chinese books that the Muyedobotongji were based upon. When he got transferred out of China for his work with the US Government and shipped to Japan, it is said that he taught himself Japanese and went to work on the Japanese martial arts texts and references. There are some really hard working and brilliant people out there who blow me away. I don't even pretend to be in their league. I was given his telephone number as well as permission to use a name as a referral. I think I will be learning a lot once I establish a relationship with this eminent scholar. Hopefully I will be able to keep up.

 

[MSUTKD]

The truth of the matter is that all martial arts history is vague. Funakoshi Sensei even says so in his own autobiography, that no one knows this stuff. It wasn't a scholarly, documented thing, in Okinawa or Korea.

My point from the start.

 

[MSUTKD]

I was asked to teach the history part of one or more of the Kukkiwon Instructor Course held in the US but I couldn't commit the time that much in advance. I don't know how much lecturing I would have done; I think it would have been more productive if we just opened it up to questions.

I really wish that had been the case.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Your argument is a red herring. As far as I know Taekkyon was already developed, well before 1955. And ROK President Rhee was the one who defined it for us, when he called the Tang Soo Do he witnessed to be Taekkyon, and General Choi went scrambling to look for the hanja for Taekkyon. Obviously ROK President Rhee was running the show, and from his perspective, Taekkyon was a native korean martial art going back well before 1955. The fact that the hanja chosen for Taekkyon was Taekwon really has no relevance or bearing on the discussion, since even General Choi was bowing down to President Rhee's authority at that point.

It is not an argument or red herring so much as laying out different perspecives. As we know the demo was mostly Chung Do Kwan guys doing what was basicaly Shotokan.

So from your perspective then is it fair to say President Rhee declared that if a Korean did Shotokan it was to be called Taekkyon? Are Shotokan practitioners in Korea called TKD practitioners? Would they like to be?

 

[puunui]

So from your perspective then is it fair to say President Rhee declared that if a Korean did Shotokan it was to be called Taekkyon? Are Shotokan practitioners in Korea called TKD practitioners? Would they like to be?

I think I said my position already but I can say it again. We don't have to define it because it was defined for us by President Rhee. The date 1955 has no special significance because before and after that date people were still doing the same thing, which you characterize as Shotokan. And the name Taekwondo was selected because there was no hanja for Taekkyon, which is the name that the President wanted, which is probably why it took almost four months before he approved the name Taekwon. Taekwondo stands for Taekkyon, and if that is the case, then there shouldn't be a problem using Taekkyon's history when discussing Taekwondo, since Taekwon is Taekkyon in hanja, if that makes sense.