Hwang Kee's Training...Thoughts?

[Makalakumu]

I came across a book The History of the Moo Duk Kwan that was written in 1995. In it, it states that Hwang Kee learned all of our forms from books. It also lays out a pretty shaky foundation for some actual real training...perhaps two years of formal training. This is what the MDK is founded upon, apparently.

I asked my seniors about this and the discussion degenerated very quickly. Some felt that this was embarrassing and others felt that Hwang Kee deserved respect as the founder and as the great martial artist he developed into and others felt that the fact that he built such a huge and successful organization was respect worthy in and of itself. This argument got very loud and very heated and I was embarrassed to have started such a row in the end.

My thoughts...

I'm not sure what I think yet. I never knew the GM so I can't comment on him personally and I wouldn't anyway because I do respect him. I think the fact that he "came clean" in his books is a move in a positive direction. The MDK has not always been forthcoming regarding the history of its techniques. In fact, they deliberately mislead people when I was a gup...saying things like all of our forms came from China...which I knew was not possible because I had previous training in Shotokan Karate before TSD. Mostly, I just trained and never thought about it. I respected my teacher and I loved the martial arts that he taught.

Now, as I run my own school, think through its curriculum, attempt to make sense of it and deliver a logical and rational product I find myself contemplating this more and more. There are huge gaps in understanding that I (and my teacher) have been struggling to fill. We have crossed trained, we have added and subtracted things, changed things, trying to make sense of everything we've been taught. So much so, in fact, that in 2000 my instructor diverged from the MDK and Tang Soo Do kind became a genaric label for what we do.

Way of the China Hand...aka...Karate-do.

Why discuss this at all? We seem to be doing fine despite our dubious origins. I think the answer is that people should have some explanation for the gap filling that they see me doing in our art. I don't want people to think that I'm making a mishmash of a product and ruining it. There is a reason behind it all...

Thoughts???

 

[Makalakumu]

I think it should also be noted that what Hwang Kee did is not unique for that time and it isn't even uncommon today. Lots of people found (and have founded) their own systems off of dubious claims and foundations. The difference is that today, the internet exists to spread ridicule. People can bash the founder of the art from far away and semi-anonymously and that can have an impact in the real world. I do not think that the MDK, if it were started today, would have gotten as big as it did before the information age.

With that being said, the question of lineage comes up. I still trace my lineage to my upline because all of those guys, right up to the top, were martial artists of the highest caliber. I have met everyone up to Master Seiberlich, who trained directly with Hwang, and I've seen what they can do. I don't think that there is any reason to be embarressed by this lineage and I think that it is something to be proud of. This is important to me because I think that it raises some important questions about curriculum and organization.

Thoughts???

 

[kid]

The training you received and what you teach or how you teach is different than what Hwang Kee had put out with MDK. What I mean is that you have brought other techniques into your teaching style. You’re not teaching a standard art, it’s your own and we make it our own. To me lineage and all that is trivial, I want to learn why a technique was developed, how to use it, and when to use it. Some may argue that you need to trace it back to understand it; but, that doesn't give much relevancy to the present situations.

 

[Makalakumu]

One my my seniors describes Hwang Kee's training as "on the job" training. He may not have been a very experienced martial artist when he began the MDK, but after years and years and years, he learned and innovated a number of things. Hwang Kee has a book that describes the deep philosophy of his art. It is called the Moo Do Chuk Hal. You can now purchase this book of the SBDMDK website. The federation finally released the translation that Master Segarra worked so hard on.

http://www.soobahkdo.com/Library/Publications/2006_Book_Price_List_PUBLIC.htm

The bottom line is that the MDK didn't start with alot of connections to deeper traditions, but developed connections as it went along. There are alot of things that the USSBDMDK federation have never experienced. The Masters who have trained in Korea with the originators of this thing, have had a completely different experience.

I was told my Master Segarra that if you wanted to get a feeling of what all that was about, then you had to read the Tao Te Ching and the I Ching. I will see if I can get a copy of the Moo Do Chuk Hal for our dojang...

 

[IMP]

Wait... who's Hwang Kee?

 

[Makalakumu]

Wait... who's Hwang Kee?

Oh boy! I am glad that I have this forum. This gives me a chance to get a little more information across.

IMP - Hwang Kee is the founder of our art. He started TSD. He is my teachers teachers teachers teacher.

 

[IMP]

How many years ago is that?

 

[IMP]

How many years ago is that?

Nevermind.

Ian:jediduel:

 

[4everwhitebelt]

Dear Sir, i am a little confused to the statement of intetionally being misled as to hyung origins in sbdmdk..... i have an orginal copy of VOL 1 TANG SOO DO (SOO BAHK DO).. that is the title, written by Kwan Ja Nim Hwang Kee... this was first published in 1978 , and in it,pg 372 the pyung ahn forms as being originated into present from around 1880's by " an okinawan master, Mr. Idos".... not sure hwere the belief that the pyung ahn forms was chinese was from, but not from the offical MDK. As far as Tang Soo Do vs. Soo Bahk DO, my understanding is that all were under KJM Hwang Kee in the Moo Duk Kwan originally, but politics regarding, but not limited to his succession caused some masters to leave and form there own federations..... so saying that Tang Soo Do is 70% SBD and 30 Northern Chinese etc. doesn't make a lot of sense as SBD as instructed, and written in Vol1, Vol2, and the Gup manuals acknowledge many techniques that are taught are not Korean in origin.... that is why the words "living art" are used because the art is ever-growing, ever evolving, but i havr=e never heard of not paying respect to any technique or hyungs origins whether they are created by the KJN, or chinese, japanese, okinawan or korean. any questions, please feel free to respond, SIncerely Rune Arden

 

[Makalakumu]

Dear Sir, i am a little confused to the statement of intetionally being misled as to hyung origins in sbdmdk..... i have an orginal copy of VOL 1 TANG SOO DO (SOO BAHK DO).. that is the title, written by Kwan Ja Nim Hwang Kee... this was first published in 1978 , and in it,pg 372 the pyung ahn forms as being originated into present from around 1880's by " an okinawan master, Mr. Idos".... not sure hwere the belief that the pyung ahn forms was chinese was from, but not from the offical MDK. As far as Tang Soo Do vs. Soo Bahk DO, my understanding is that all were under KJM Hwang Kee in the Moo Duk Kwan originally, but politics regarding, but not limited to his succession caused some masters to leave and form there own federations..... so saying that Tang Soo Do is 70% SBD and 30 Northern Chinese etc. doesn't make a lot of sense as SBD as instructed, and written in Vol1, Vol2, and the Gup manuals acknowledge many techniques that are taught are not Korean in origin.... that is why the words "living art" are used because the art is ever-growing, ever evolving, but i havr=e never heard of not paying respect to any technique or hyungs origins whether they are created by the KJN, or chinese, japanese, okinawan or korean. any questions, please feel free to respond, SIncerely Rune Arden

Alot of this stuff predates the publication of those books. The bottom line is that it wasn't until 1995 that Hwang Kee publically via publishing that he learned the kata from books.

 

[IMP]

Is Hwang Kee still alive today?

Ian

 

[MSTCNC]

Is Hwang Kee still alive today?

No... GM Hwang Kee passed away in mid-July of 2002...

 

[Master Jay S. Penfil]

John,
What you are doing, with regard to your constant search for answers is what our training and our lives are all about…

There were, in the past years, too many followers who were willing to blindly follow those who would spin what ever “truth” they wanted their followers to follow. (Does this make sense?)

When we, as Americans are told something, we have a habit of asking for the proof to back it up. When people are “programmed” to just listen and then follow without the right to “ask questions” it is easy for those in charge to direct you where ever they want you to go.

In post WWII Korea many of the leaders (both political and martial arts) wanted to do away with the Japanese influence in the country. They were so angry at the Japanese for all that they had been subjected to that they wanted to Korean-ize everything. That is how General Choi Hong Hee got started with the Tae Kwon Do movement in the first place.

I was not around in the time that Hwang Kee started the Moo Duk Kwan, or devised his story/history as to where he was taught everything that he incorporated into Tang Soo Do, but I did have the opportunity to meet and train with him briefly. He was a great man, and an excellent example of what we should all be striving to become in our martial training.

It is true that the applications taught by the Moo Duk Kwan for the hyung that we have all been taught didn’t make sense. The alignment was correct in most every technique that Hwang passed down. I know this because my own instructor, KJN C.I. Kim taught them to me as Hwang taught them himself. KJN Kim was, and is to this day, a man who respects Hwang Kee and what he taught with all of his heart.

There have been many changes by organizational leaders with regard to structure that are in fact flawed, and take the practitioner executing these techniques off center and off balance. With the body lines being so far off track that at the point of impact, their own structure will be breeched and collapsed. When I am with you in November we will go over the structures and make sure that they are correct. The applications that I will be teaching will translate directly from the hyung to street defensive tactics.


With regard to your own personal journey, you are on the right road.

Stays focused and keep a clear mind.




Yours in Tang Soo Do,


Master Jay S. Penfil



TANG SOO!!!