Preception of True TKD

[exile]

I think "true" TKD is a myth. As is "true" karate, or "true" Jujitsu or any other system.

They are what you make them, and all cover a range. More often then not the people that claim "True ____" are simply trying to put themselves above everyone else and bipass the critizism of there system by saying it only applys to everyone else.

What is "true" football? American Football? Canadian? Rugby? Soccer? Any of the countless other variations that existed but didn't get standardized from the same time period or before?

Andrew—which of the posts are you referring to? The original post from Terry doesn't refer to `true TKD' anywhere:

I would love to hear everyone opinion about traditional TKD before the Kukkiwon and before the sport aspect came into play. How much was really influenced by Okinawa Karate and how much was influenced by Japanese Karate.

Master Southwick brought up some great points about the Poomsae having Japanese Patterns to them and even using Japanese wording for the patterns themself.

What do all you feel about this and does it show a lack of respect towards the Okinawa and Japanese roots from the Koreans towards there initial training.

Just thought I would see what everyone has to say.

And I can't find any other post in the thread which refers to `true TKD'. Terry's question was about the origins of TKD, its historical roots in Okinawan-based arts and Korean (and other) attitudes towards those roots, which is a separate question. I agree, the notion `true [fill in MA style here]' is basically whatever you want it to be, but the issue here seems quite a bit different...

 

[Kacey]

I think he's referring to the title of the thread.

 

[exile]

I think he's referring to the title of the thread.

Ahh, right you are, Kacey—I lost track of that....it's just that none of the discussion in the thread itself seems to have been about the trueness of anything in particular... but you're correct, it's there in the title, duhhh....

 

[Andrew Green]

Just wording, which I took from the title. I'd go with the same about "traditional ____" if you prefer. There is no such thing. There has always been a range of reasons why people practiced, how they practiced, and what they practiced.

There is no "true" or "traditional" form, just a big mush of different things. IMO the idea of a "true" or "traditional" version of a style is a modern idea that doesn't really reflect the reality of what people did 50 years ago.

 

[Brad Dunne]

{Preception}..........The operative word. What I may see/perceive, will more often be different than what someone else may see/perceive. Andrew was correct in the sense that it's what the individual makes out of it. But, we can do a basic point - counterpoint on the art as a whole, which has already been established with the "sport vs non-sport" equation. So based upon that generalization, I'll deal with the non-sport variable. For argumental sake, I'll refer to it as "Original TKD". The aspects that made up many of the beginning kwans teachings came not only from shotokan, but from a variety of other disciplines. Going back and reviewing the original hyungs/katas, we can see their influences and this has also been stated before. In addition to the "karate" influences, there was also Aiki-Jujitsu/Hapkido and Judo in the mix. These disciplines have also been authorized-accepted, based upon discussions from other MA sites and from personal acknowledgement from mine and other's Korean instructors. What has happened is that the old guard has been removed from the instructional process and the new teachers have not been privy to the original concepts. This does include the Koreans themselves, because they are the one's who actually changed things.

So my generalized preception of TKD is this................it has become a hobby, a sport, a way to get in shape and someplace to put the kids after school.
What it has not become is a viable instrument for self defense for the "majority" of folks spending time and money for training.

 

[Andrew Green]

So my generalized preception of TKD is this................it has become a hobby, a sport, a way to get in shape and someplace to put the kids after school.
What it has not become is a viable instrument for self defense for the "majority" of folks spending time and money for training.

Not become, always was

 

[exile]

Just wording, which I took from the title. I'd go with the same about "traditional ____" if you prefer. There is no such thing. There has always been a range of reasons why people practiced, how they practiced, and what they practiced.

Whoa, hold on there. The term `traditional' is loaded, certainly. But that doesn't mean it can't have a specific meaning in a particular context, one that gives rise to a specific claim or question. What Terry is asking about, as I read him, is whether the denial of the Okinawan/Japanese basis for TKD, as reflected in the fighting practices in the Korean MAs from the kwan era on, has led to, or at least been implicated in, the dilution of the martial content of TKD, so that its practice as a hard self-defense system has been systematically watered down in order to make the specifically Korean point-fighting foot-tag style of MA we see in the Olympics the main public image of TKD. And he's also asking whether this constitutes a kind of disrepect toward the demonstrable sources of the bulk of TKD's combative content. It may be true, as you say, that `there has always been a range of reasons why people practiced, how they practiced, and what they practiced', but that's not relevant to the specific question Terry is asking: whether the TKD that was practiced during the kwan era—brutal, hard, street-oriented and rooted in the nasty techniques encoded in the hyungs—was able to be replaced by the high-kick/low hands foot-tag of modern TKD at least partly because of a kind of deliberate amnesia about the origins of the art in (ultimately) Okinawan combat methods. That's a specific question and deserves a specific answer.

There is no "true" or "traditional" form, just a big mush of different things. IMO the idea of a "true" or "traditional" version of a style is a modern idea that doesn't really reflect the reality of what people did 50 years ago.

We have contemporary accounts of how martial artists of 50 years ago viewed TKD; we know what, on the basis of their own training, under Funakoshi or his students or other Okinawan karate masters teaching in Japan, their exposure to the Japanese MA they spent years studying probably taught them (diluted, compared with Matsumura, Itosu and Chotuko Kyan knew, but much, much harder than anything that goes on in most current dojangs, if Choi's training regimen for the ROK armed forces is any guide). If—and yes, it is an `if', but I think it can be argued strongly—modern TKD begins as at least 90% a product of the Okinawan/Japanese close-quarters arts that go under the label karate, then why is it incorrect for Terry to identify that version of TKD—the one that hopped across the Sea of Japan and became the ancestor of the modern `national martial art of Korea'—as `traditional'?

And even if you object to the term, and we replace `traditional' with `ancestral' or `founding' or whatever, doesn't Terry's question still merit an answer?

 

[rmclain]

I would love to hear everyone opinion about traditional TKD before the Kukkiwon and before the sport aspect came into play. How much was really influenced by Okinawa Karate and how much was influenced by Japanese Karate.

Master Southwick brought up some great points about the Poomsae having Japanese Patterns to them and even using Japanese wording for the patterns themself.

What do all you feel about this and does it show a lack of respect towards the Okinawa and Japanese roots from the Koreans towards there initial training.

Just thought I would see what everyone has to say.

I don't think this shows any disrespect for the root arts the Koreans were studying following WWII. Arts will evolve naturally through time and people's perceptions of the art and what they would like to do with it. What is taught now as Taekwondo, has an identity unique from the kwan-era arts.

What is disrespectful is using art as property for politicians and businessmen's agendas.

I have information about what the kwans were practicing during the 1950's and 1960's from someone that was there. I have one interview with a Korean martial artist from those times and it is pending publication with Black Belt Magazine right now. I'd be happy to send an electronic copy to the MartialTalk Magazine with photos. There will be more detailed interviews and stories coming as well.

My own system preserves the requirements of the Chang-moo Kwan and Kangduk-Won. Some of these I demonstrated during my visit to Mr. Stoker's dojang during the visit he was kind enough to host.

R. McLain

 

[matt.m]

Not become, always was

Andrew, I for one find myself agreeing with a lot of your opinions on this board. However, to say that tkd is just a hobby to spend money on and it isn't a great means of self defense in my opinion is just laughable.

Sorry, not to attack but I have read countless times and have talked to countless Korean and Vietnam Marine Corps veterans who have said without thought or stutter that the N. Korean/N. Vietnamese feared or respected what the Marines were capable of in hand to hand.....they were horrified of the ROK Marines fighting abilities.

I am sorry but a properly trained tae kwon doist will have little trouble defending themselves if they are and were properly taught and didn't get cycled through a black belt factory. The striking techniques are just too powerful, the combinations are just too formidable to be disregarded.

 

[exile]

I have information about what the kwans were practicing during the 1950's and 1960's from someone that was there. I have one interview with a Korean martial artist from those times and it is pending publication with Black Belt Magazine right now. I'd be happy to send an electronic copy to the MartialTalk Magazine with photos. There will be more detailed interviews and stories coming as well.

My own system preserves the requirements of the Chang-moo Kwan and Kangduk-Won. Some of these I demonstrated during my visit to Mr. Stoker's dojang during the visit he was kind enough to host.
R. McLain

rmcl, I would love to see the interview you refer to—it's exactly the kind of thing I'd like to see a lot more of in the MA mags and TKD literature. Will you indeed be posting this interview to the MT mag?

 

[exile]

Andrew, I for one find myself agreeing with a lot of your opinions on this board. However, to say that tkd is just a hobby to spend money on and it isn't a great means of self defense in my opinion is just laughable.

Sorry, not to attack but I have read countless times and have talked to countless Korean and Vietnam Marine Corps veterans who have said without thought or stutter that the N. Korean/N. Vietnamese feared or respected what the Marines were capable of in hand to hand.....they were horrified of the ROK Marines fighting abilities.

I am sorry but a properly trained tae kwon doist will have little trouble defending themselves if they are and were properly taught and didn't get cycled through a black belt factory. The striking techniques are just too powerful, the combinations are just too formidable to be disregarded.

Just to second Matt's point, it seems to be necessary to point out—yet again—that the TKD that Gen. Choi required the ROK armed forces to learn was sufficiently damaging to VC combatants going up against the Korean troops in Vietnam that a VC field directive captured in July of 1966 specifies that VC fighters `never defy Korean soldiers without discrimination, even when [they] are not armed, for they are all well trained with Taekwondo' (cited in Stuart Anslow's new book Ch'ang Hon Taewondo Hae Sul: Real Applications tpo the ITF Patterns). There are very well-documented records of individual battles that justified this extreme caution, e.g., the one in which the ROK Marines used TKD techniques in hand-to-hand combat against North Vietnamese troops to kill between two and three hundred enemy soldiers at Tra Binh Dong in 1967, an outcome which resulted in the promotion of every member of the ROK 11th Marine Company one full rank (a detailed account of the battle is given in an issue of the U.S. Marine Corps Gazette, also reproduced in Anslow's book).

It's true that if you don't train for realistic combat, you won't be able to use TKD—or Goju Ryu, or EPAK, or etc.—effectively in combat. But plenty of people, including Matt himself, have trained this way, particularly in earlier phases of TKD before it became so concentrated on sport sparring, and more are doing so all the time as reality-based training methods are increasingly adopted in the TMAs, a development which has been going on for some time now in the UK in particular. Someone who trains TKD specifically to damage an attacker, and who has no qualms about doing so, is verly likely capable of injuring an attacker much more seriously than the words `hobby' and `sport' suggest.

It's probably best not to be quite so quick to make those kinds of generalizations over the whole realm of TKD students until you've looked at the evidence a bit more broadly, eh?

 

[Andrew Green]

Andrew, I for one find myself agreeing with a lot of your opinions on this board. However, to say that tkd is just a hobby to spend money on and it isn't a great means of self defense in my opinion is just laughable.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I'd say that is the same now as it was then. Some people do it for a hobby, some for health, and a few for self-defence.

There is effective TKD now, and there was then. But I would disagree that peoples reasons differ. We got the same span of reasons now as there was 50 years ago. Just more people doing it.

 

[FieldDiscipline]

A detailed history of the kwans... Would be a book well worth a read.

 

[exile]

A detailed history of the kwans... Would be a book well worth a read.

Did you catch rmclain's post above? It sounds like he he has some materials that would be a great foundation for a book like that...

 

[FieldDiscipline]

Yeah I did thanks.

It'd be a great shame if all of the founders of TKD were to die before a comprehensive history of their lives works was recorded.

 

[exile]

Yeah I did thanks.

It'd be a great shame if all of the founders of TKD were to die before a comprehensive history of their lives works was recorded.

Right, and there's not an awful lot of time left. I suspect that there was a significant shift in attitudes between the kwan founders, who worked out their approach to the KMAs during the dark days of the occupation—when Korean cities were rife with crime and desperation and life was incredibly cheap, and no one was looking out for you—and their later students, many of whom will have spent a significant chunk of their professional lives in the increasingly strong economy of a resurgent ROK, under the wing of a single centralized regulating authority. That difference in perspective is almost certainly going to be a distorting lens so far as student memories and impressions of their instructors' ideas and methods. So without some serious documentary work and oral history, we're going to be losing some of the most crucial information irretrievably in the near future, I fear—e.g., in what specific ways did the kwans differ from each other in their technical content and training methods. How did rivalries between the diffenent kwans lead to differences or special emphases in training or combat? And so on—stuff that could shed a lot of light on why we do things the way we do...

 

[terryl965]

I don't think this shows any disrespect for the root arts the Koreans were studying following WWII. Arts will evolve naturally through time and people's perceptions of the art and what they would like to do with it. What is taught now as Taekwondo, has an identity unique from the kwan-era arts.

What is disrespectful is using art as property for politicians and businessmen's agendas.

I have information about what the kwans were practicing during the 1950's and 1960's from someone that was there. I have one interview with a Korean martial artist from those times and it is pending publication with Black Belt Magazine right now. I'd be happy to send an electronic copy to the MartialTalk Magazine with photos. There will be more detailed interviews and stories coming as well.

My own system preserves the requirements of the Chang-moo Kwan and Kangduk-Won. Some of these I demonstrated during my visit to Mr. Stoker's dojang during the visit he was kind enough to host.

R. McLain

Master McLain is right he did come in and demostrate to us his Chang-Moo Kwan and it was a pleasure and he is very knowledgtable and we appreciated his kindness and his student showing us there tremendous program.

 

[exile]

Master McLain is right he did come in and demostrate to us his Chang-Moo Kwan and it was a pleasure and he is very knowledgtable and we appreciated his kindness and his student showing us there tremendous program.

So can we please get him to post that interview he mentioned in connection with kwan practices in the immediate post-WW2 era in Korea? FieldDiscipline and I and probably quite a few others would really like to get hold of some of that information...

 

[Brad Dunne]

What it has not become is a viable instrument for self defense for the "majority" of folks spending time and money for training.

"Not become, always was" (AG)

Andrew, I beg to differ........ My statement above is directed at the "sport" aspect of modern/todays TKD and the operative word there is "majority", for there will always be those that can and have the inate abilities to defend themselves will a modicum of training. Old school as I like to call it, was driven from a pure self defense platform. In fact, the majority of the kwans associated with the development of TKD where Tang Soo Do, which folks agree was Korean Karate. Even today, the TSD folks are considered Korean karate, which is a major step IMO, above todays TKD. A lot of the history as we know it, is available for review and folks have already pointed this out. It would be nice if we could get a summary from the kwan heads, but that is highly doubtful for two reasons. One, most are probably deceased, so anything we could get would again be 2nd or 3rd hand "I was told". Not much different from what we already have to review. Secondly, the ego manifestation will not allow real truth to come forth. Folks like to label this under a political guise, but we all know what it really is. I would suggest, that if possible, find a source that still teaches the old school curriculums. I realize that they are almost impossible to find in this day and age, but if you could find such a venue, I'm sure your point of view would be changed as far as your "Not become, always was".

 

[Last Fearner]

Well, my position on some of these topics being discussed in this thread is no secret, and most of you know how I feel. The same old arguments, opinions, and lack of verifiable "proof" to back claims seems to keep everyone guessing, and relying on sparse details to form their own beliefs, or mimic those that they have heard from others.

Some interesting points have been brought up, and who knows, maybe we will eventually stumble onto something that changes most everyone's perceptions about Taekwondo. Anyhow, since you asked, Master Stoker, here is some of my thoughts on this topic.

Thread Title: "Preception of True TKD"

Since the term "True Taekwondo" was brought up earlier, I would like to address that, and how I feel it relates to "Traditional Taekwondo." However, I will hold that for the end of my post.

Original Question:

I would love to hear everyone opinion about traditional TKD before the Kukkiwon and before the sport aspect came into play. How much was really influenced by Okinawa Karate and how much was influenced by Japanese Karate.

If this question is the main focus of Master Stoker's quest for opinions, I will respond by saying this. How much was influenced by Okinawa Karate, and by Japanese Karate? All of it, and none of it. Here is what I mean by that. I have made my opinion fairly clear before that there are three distinct eras of Taekwondo's history.

First is that time period of Korea's development, from the 1st century B.C. until the Japanese occupation in 1910. Most historians believe that the term "Taekwondo" was not used during this time period to describe the unarmed combat that was used in the old Chosen peninsula, however, if there is any doubt that a unique native unarmed combat existed, you only need to observe the fact that the Korean people are still here to know this.

They were not soldiers, warriors, or armed militia by trade, and survival from the 1st through the 19th century depended greatly on their Martial Art skills. If you are hung up on the fact that the term "Taekwondo" did not exist at that time, consider the fact that they were not even called "Koreans" then, but the ancestors of today's Koreans were not Japanese, even if Japan did occupy the country and attempt to assimilate the population.

The second era of Taekwondo's history is that time period during the occupation when most of the aforementioned "Kwan founders" were born, grew up, and started learning about the Martial Art in the first place. Naturally, there was not much option during this time period but to become a student of "Japanese Martial Art," and gain any certification of "Dan" rank from a Japanese system. These students of Shotokan, and other variations were undoubtedly 100% influenced by Japanese and Okinawan Martial Karate, judo, jujutsu, etc. The operative word here is "influenced." This condition of being "forced" to learn Japanese culture did not change Korean history, nor did it make the future creation of Taekwondo of Japanese origins. However, the influence on these people, and their own personal skills is undisputable

Now, if you were to begin the historical development of Korean Martial Art in 1910, and end it in 1945 when the main Kwans were started, and you called this Martial Art "Taekwondo," then I would say that Taekwondo was originally a "repackaging" of Japanese Martial Art under a new name. However, this is not what happened. Korean Martial Art did not begin in 1910, and did not stop developing in 1945. Japan's occupation had a huge influence on Korea's Martial Art, but that does not make Taekwondo a descendent of Japanese Martial Art (as much as people would like to draw that false conclusion).

I do not judge the content of an entire Martial Art by the "forms" they use, nor the terminology exchanged, nor the documentation of its participants' ranks. For example, I might have a diploma from a ballet school, but if I prefer to dance to rock and roll, and that is what I teach, then the paper certificate only shows what else I know. Forms are only tools for training and practicing skills. Skills that existed long before the Japanese influence. Japan has their native Martial Art, China has their's, and Korea has its own. Each will eventually be influenced by the other. The "occupation era" was just part of the historical process. If we were to never have had that occur, Korean Martial Art would still have striven for perfection of skills to a modern day application, and could have been called anything, so why not "Taekwondo."

I agree that it would be nice to learn as much of the "recent" history of the Kwans, their founders, and their generations of students, and what they taught, but I have a more intriguing question. Who were the teachers, and Masters of the earlier Korean Martial Art which was passed down through the centuries, and slipped through the fingers of the Japanese occupiers. Skills that have been called Taekyon, Subak, and Hwarangdo, etc. When General Choi Hong Hi said in his 1965 publication of "Taekwon-do," that his "well-known" calligraphy teacher, Mr. Han Il-Dong, was also a "veteran" of the "ancient T'ae-Kyon," from where did this come?

This is where young Choi Hong Hi began his Martial Art training; "thus it came about that in 1936 the author took up T'ae-Kyon, which was consisting solely of foot manoeuvres." Now, the questions are, was this a "sport game" or was it a method of unarmed combat, and did it come from older Korean history? Gen Choi called it "ancient" and said that Mr. Han was a "veteran" of T'ae-Kyon. Choi was born on December 22, 1918, and began T'ae-Kyon at the age of 17-18 in 1936. Who did Mr. Han learn T'ae Kyon from, and how many other T'ae-Kyon and Subak teachers were in Korea at that time that young Choi had not met?

The third era of Taekwondo's history is the post WWII formation of the Kwans, and the various organizations of Korean Martial Art (the KTA, ITF, WTF, the Kukkiwon, and all of the other national and international associations). This is not only where practitioners of Taekwondo have been influenced by Japanese and Chinese Martial Art that had already been made popular around the world, but every other form of unarmed combat that existed everywhere. Most Martial Artists of the later part of the 20th century have done their research to compare and contrast what they know and practice with what others know. This will undoubtedly change certain techniques, and current applications, but does not influence the core principles of the art, nor does it alter the "true" history of Korean Martial Art - - whether people want to accept, or acknowledge what that is or not.

Much of the world's history is tainted by personal perspectives, individual interpretations, and outright lies. Consider the Native American Indian history which was mostly recorded by the "White" European invaders. Many cultures have little written record of what happened in their past because they were illiterate, or it was unlawful for them to learn to read or write. Much like the African slaves who were raised in captivity in early American history. Their culture was handed down by word of mouth, artifacts, and spiritual songs.

This does not mean that these things did not happen because you can not find a specific standard of historical documentation, and I would not go so far as to discount it because of this lack of evidence. Folklore might be more accurate, in some cases, than the lies told by those who won wars, and dominate other cultures.

In his 1965 book, Choi says, "Taekwon-Do" is a modern version of the ancient art of self-defense known as T'ae Kyon." The Korean people know about their ancient Martial Art traditions, simply because it has been kept alive in the minds, hearts, and words of those who told their children, and grandchildren about it. Do we need to know every single detailed technique that was taught in ancient Taekyon and Subak in order to accept them as viable methods of training in self defense, moral integrity, and spiritual enlightenment? Do we nee to know these things in order to understand that Taekwondo is the modern manifestation of centuries of cultural struggle and oppression? I don't believe so.

By 1955, the pressure of Japanese occupation, and influence on the Korean culture, and history was finally lifted, but the pain was still there. South Korea had just established itself as a free Democracy (post Korean War), and it was ready to reclaim its past. A "new name" for the ancient traditional Martial Art was chosen, and that name was "Taekwondo." Those modern day Kwan leaders were influenced in their own personal skills by the Japanese occupation, and there is no doubt that this will forever change the perception of "Taekwondo" and all of Korea's history. For me, it is but one chapter in a book, that began a long time ago.

What is "Traditional Taekwondo" to me? It is the same as other National Martial Art traditions. We seek to improve ourselves, value and appreciate life, and strive to protect life and fight for justice through Martial Skills that nature provides us through the Grace of God. "Tradition simply means that it has been done before, and we honor that memory by doing it again. We do some things the same to remember the roots, and some the same because it is core knowledge that will always work, but we do many things different to grow with the times, lest we wither and die. Everyone who studies Taekwondo today has the option to train for reality (as tradition holds) or for sport, health, hobby, or any combination.

What is "True Taekwondo?" The same as any "True Martial Art." It is the proper training of the body, mind, and spirit in order to achieve successful results in life, self defense, and for preservation and perpetuation of the art for positive moral purposes. "Integrity" is the quality of strength achieved through the completeness of anything. A lack of integrity is the weakness which is derived from a flaw within. "True Taekwondo" is absolute integrity. It is not a lofty goal, or a hobby, or a sport, although we can participate in those things - - "True Taekwondo" is not a mask we wear, or a uniform we don, it is a path we follow - - it is a way of life ~ the warrior's life."

This is my humble opinion. :asian:
CM D.J. Eisenhart