Preception of True TKD

[exile]

I believe that by denying the infuence or any part of a history of a martial art or system is wrong. Because by acknowledging the connection you can go back and research what the art was like when the founders of the systems were studying and what their influences might have been. For instance several founders of the early kwans studied Japanse karate, knowing this you can then read about the training that was going on during the years they trained, about the teachers of that time period and so on and so on, in the end I believe having a wider prespective instead of having the narrow party line view. Even trying to understand what the political situation was like back then helps shed light on how things were developed.

Absolutely, Mark—I couldn't agree more.

A friend sent me this site that shows a comparasion of the TKD forms. If you look at the forms on the right side (I forget the names) they are clearly versions of the Japanese karate katas (Heians/Pinans). If you look at the ITF forms you can see the influences of these katas.

http://www.natkd.com/tkd_forums.htm

with respect
Mark

Thanks for posting this link, Mark—but it doesn't seem to connect to anything now (at least when I'm trying it). Is it possible it was moved or something?

My TKD instructor learned the Pinan katas as part of his own (Song Moo Kwan) TKD training; once upon a time they were part of the TKD canon, but were dropped several decades ago. If you're iterested in combat applications of the Pinans, Iain Abernethy has a terrific video that covers all of the Pinan kata and uncovers some very direct and effective apps, at different fighting ranges (but mostly focusing on the typical very close quarters you get to quite quickly in a street attack) underlying the movement recorded in the Pinan forms.

 

[Mark Lynn]

A magazine that features a lot of articles on "Traditional karate" Dragon Times and which evoled into a magazine on martial disciplines of China, Japan, and Okinawa called Classical Fighting Arts has had a few articles on this subject.

In Dragon Times Volume 23 (the final issue before it changed to CFA) there is a part two of "TKD a Historical Appraisal" by Robert E. Dohrenwend, Ph.D.

Table 1 The Early Kwans (1944-46)
Chung Do Kwan Shotokan
Song Mu Kwan Shotokan
Yun Mu Kwan Shotokan (?)
Mu Duk Kwan Eclectic (mainly Shotokan from books)
Chang Mu Kwan Shudankan Chuan Fa
Chi Do Kwan Shito-ryu

One point he brings out is that of prejudice from the Japanese to foreigners in Japan "and this would definitely applied to Koreans.....Given the instructional tradtions in the Japanese martial arts, this fact alone would have acted to keep most Korean students from receiving full instruction in these arts. So there was a very small number of Koreans who founded the early kwans, introducing modern karate to Korea, and these remarkable men had reached intermediate, and in two cases, claimed high levels of instruction."

Mark

 

[Mark Lynn]

Absolutely, Mark—I couldn't agree more.



Thanks for posting this link, Mark—but it doesn't seem to connect to anything now (at least when I'm trying it). Is it possible it was moved or something?

My TKD instructor learned the Pinan katas as part of his own (Song Moo Kwan) TKD training; once upon a time they were part of the TKD canon, but were dropped several decades ago. If you're iterested in combat applications of the Pinans, Iain Abernethy has a terrific video that covers all of the Pinan kata and uncovers some very direct and effective apps, at different fighting ranges (but mostly focusing on the typical very close quarters you get to quite quickly in a street attack) underlying the movement recorded in the Pinan forms.

http://www.natkd.com/tkd_forms.htm

Sorry if I copied down the address wrong, but I just checked this one and it works.

I am going to have check out his video, I watched G. Dillman's video (1 of them) years ago and it really bored me. However I have seen some others and been to some seminars and I like the material.

 

[exile]

http://www.natkd.com/tkd_forms.htm

Sorry if I copied down the address wrong, but I just checked this one and it works.

That works fine—alas, I use a Mac and there's no way I can run .wmv video files. I'm gonna have to find a Windows machine to get these on.

I am going to have check out his video, I watched G. Dillman's video (1 of them) years ago and it really bored me. However I have seen some others and been to some seminars and I like the material.

Abernethy's videos are mesmerizing. If anything, the problem is that there's so much good stuff packed into them that you need to view them many times to get the full content. Abernethy's a true star of the realistic bunkai application movement, as I think of it, but he doesn't act like a star. His whole focus is the material, and making sure the reader/viewer really understands just what the mechanics of the application are. He'll demo the same technique several time, very slowly, in `frames', so you can see what separate movement are involved, then in flowing slo-mo, so you can see how the techs flow together, then at combat speed so you can see how you'd be applying the kata techs in real time. And his spoken explanations for what he's doing are crystal-clear...

 

[FieldDiscipline]

I trained with an excellent Shotokan school some years ago when I was unable to find a TKD dojang.

I remember noticing similarities with kata and poomse even then, I seem to recall the 1st kata was move for move identical to Taeguek 1 Jang until about half way through when 1 jang changes. Unless my memory fails me and it was Chon-Ji instead of a Taeguek, but either way...

 

[exile]

I trained with an excellent Shotokan school some years ago when I was unable to find a TKD dojang.

I remember noticing similarities with kata and poomse even then, I seem to recall the 1st kata was move for move identical to Taeguek 1 Jang until about half way through when 1 jang changes. Unless my memory fails me and it was Chon-Ji instead of a Taeguek, but either way...

This is very common. There are big chunks of the Pinans strewn throughout the Palgwe series, which we do at my school instead of the Taegeuks, as colored belt forms. And the first `training' forms, the kichos, in (WTF) TKD are essentially identical to certain early Shotokan forms. In a lot of cases, the bunkai you would have learned for the standard shotokan kata can be transfered over whole to the TKD poomse.

One of the things I'm very, very curious about in early kwan practice was the degree to which the kwan masters were aware of the kinds of bunkai (or boon hae, as Iceman has pointed out for the corresponding Korean term) that are latent in the poomsae which they came up with by recombining component subsequences—the ones corresponding to `complete' fighting scenarios—of the various katas they'd learned in Japan. I've been involved in various threads where this was discussed; some people doubt that the kwan founders developed a detailed understanding of what the Okinawan mastered had intended each of these subsequences to teach, and instead took them at the literal level that people like Abernethy, Rick Clark, Bill Burgar and many others have shown to be seriously impractical for actual combat use. I have no idea if that's so or not... that's another reason I'm really interested in what the actual content of kwan training was in the late 1940s and early 1950s...

 

[matt.m]

Me, myself....I believe true tae kwon do is what you make it as well. You approach tae kwon do with humility and the understanding and desire to follow the tenants of tae kwon do and it not only will become yours but it will be true tae kwon do.

Do you have honor? Do you have Perserverance and show humility, and integrity? If so then are you not following what Tae Kwon Do is supposed to be?

Knowing history and who contributed what and where influences come from and where they don't is great. Don't get me wrong, I am all about the proper formulation of accurate history. However, in the 80's my history teachers in grammer school said that "In the North it is called the Civil War and in the South it is called the War of Northern Aggression."

Did the war really happen? Yes, it did. Were their positives and negatives on both sides? Yes.

I have seen black belts from other schools that are fabulous olympic style sparring practitioners. However, they would do poomse.....well, I will leave that alone. Were they good at olympic style sparring? Yes, very good. Should we say that it isn't Tae Kwon Do? No, not considering that it is an aspect of olympic sports. I only compete in poomse because of medical limitations, does this mean I am not learning and performing true, traditional tae kwon do. Certainly not. The olympic aspect is just a tamed down version from competitions in the past.

When GGM founded Moo Sul Kwan in Cape Girardeau, MO his training was tough and hard. He expected a lot from his students. This is no wander when you look at his first wave of students technical expertise in hapkido and tae kwon do. However, he had told the story "On a cold day in korea when we didn't want to train in korea then we would sit outside barefoot in the snow and study pressure point charts." How many of us have had to do that as a part of tae kwon do training in America?

 

[Last Fearner]

I wish I had the time to give this thread the attention it deserves. I could probably write an entire book on this subject, and still, not everyone would get the meaning of this one perspective about influence versus origin.

First, I want exile to know that I respect you and your point of view on this issue, and I like you a lot. You are a knowledgeable Martial Artist and an asset to this forum, and you have always shown me courtesy, even when we disagree. For this, I thank you.

To address your first concern:

I want to begin by questioning the use of scare quotes here around the work proof.... Scare quotes aren't necessary: if you have enough evidence, you have what historians regard as proof, period

Perhaps you misunderstood the purpose for my use of the scare quotes. There is a broader definition for the term "scare quotes," and more than one reason for using them. The usage that you seem to be referring to is when you express doubt about the validity of a word, or to criticize its use. The other part the definition is "to emphasize a word or phrase or to indicate its special status." (Heritage Dictionary, 2000)

My intention was merely to point out that the term "proof," while important to research, can be misleading and often holds a variety of levels of standards depending on the evidence offered. It is the same dilemma that exists in a court of law. Is this a criminal trial where a burden of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" must be met, or a civil case where a mere preponderance of the evidence (slightly more than 50%) tipped one way or the other is enough to satisfy the question of guilt or innocence. Then there is the issue of the quality of the evidence offered.

As to the issue of "Ancient Taekwondo," I am going to simplify an otherwise lengthy response by saying the following:

A. I believe that unarmed combat skills have been established as being present in the Chosen Peninsula during the three kingdoms period. I believe that these skills were used effectively by average citizens for self defense, and as a form of resistance to military aggression. These skills were likely reproduced in sport games, which became more popular as the demand for combat usage declined.

B. I accept the inference that these unarmed combat skills were most likely handed down in various forms from those who migrated into the peninsula and became a part of the unique culture of these indigenous people during the 1st century AD. I further believe that these combat skills were handed down from one generation to the next creating a teacher/student relationship.

C. Lastly, I believe that the moral culture, perseverance, and integrity of these early Korean ancestors was unique, and their efforts to unify the three kingdoms and repel attacks from foreign armies using their unarmed combat skills as part of their arsenal qualifies what they did as the true essence of a "Martial Art." I believe that the unique characteristics displayed among these early inhabitants were later recorded within the Hwarang-do, and exemplify the true Martial Spirit and tenets which are the bedrock of today's Taekwondo.

All of these three things combined, convince me that the reports of early skills of unarmed combat in Korea is genuine, and qualifies as a Martial Art. I believe that these skills have been called many things over the centuries, and have evolved in their overall development. In 1955, the Korean Government supported the efforts to unify what existed at that time, and give a name to the national Art. This means, first and foremost, that the reality of the ancient skills which existed before, was being recognized and renamed. The name they chose was "Taekwondo" thus this is the name of the ancient skills, regardless of what those skills were. This new name was also used and applies to the modern application, and development of Korean Martial Art for future use in self defense, sport, health and fitness.

It is a modern National Art as well as an ancient one. The name "Taekwondo" applies to both. The influence of Japanese Martial Art upon the Kwans is absolute, but the modern instruction of Taekwondo, as taught by Korean standards, is not a duplication of Japanese Martial Art, but a culmination of the ancient origin of Taekwondo in old Chosen, and the modern knowledge of current self defense skills.

This whole discussion of Shotokan forms and their similarity to Taekwondo tuls or poomsae, is not a new revelation (although I realize new students are just discovering this). It is no secret about where Gen. Choi and the other Kwan leaders trained during the occupation, nor where they got the idea for these patterns. The point that seems to be ignored is that these forms, while important as a tool, and a deep rooted philosophy in teaching Taekwondo, do not make up the core of what Taekwondo is, nor do they identify the origin of the art. To my understanding, the concept of forms such as the Shotokan patterns did not exist in Korean Martial Art prior to the occupation, thus they are clearly not part of what Taekwondo truly is.

The modern poomsae of Taekwondo are an add-on that can have as much meaning and purpose as it does in Japanese Karate, and the concept is clearly borrowed from the Japanese system, but this is just one method of teaching what is essentially either Japanese knowledge, or Korean knowledge using a similar methodology. I support the use of forms, and believe they are an invaluable tool in teaching, but I also know that if you strip away all of the forms from Taekwondo, I can still teach students every aspect of what Taekwondo truly is, in physical self defense, exercise, mental discipline, moral culture, and spiritual enlightenment.

The substance of Taekwondo is not what comes from these forms, but rather the concept of forms are used to display the substance of whatever art they are applied to. The system and patterns of forms come from Shotokan, thus the obvious resemblance, but Taekwondo itself does not come from the Japanese Martial Art. The name "Taekwondo" applies to whatever the Korean people define it as since their history was originally independent and separate from the Japanese culture, and their ancient fighting skills lacked a nationally recognized name until 1955.

I don't know if my meaning is clear, or understood by others, but it will never change the fact that some people are focused on recent events, and others view Taekwondo as belonging to a nation of people who survived for centuries through the power of a skill and philosophy that did not come from Japan. What happened during the occupation was a sharing of knowledge, and the ancient Korean Taekwondo of the past can absorb any or all of what it is exposed to to become the Taekwondo of the present and future. Yet the core and roots of Taekwondo are unique, and does come from Korea's history prior to 1910.

Well, I've done the best I can to explain this in a larger sense. I hope it does not confuse others as to the true meaning.

Thanks for your time
CM D.J. Eisenhart

 

[exile]

I wish I had the time to give this thread the attention it deserves. I could probably write an entire book on this subject, and still, not everyone would get the meaning of this one perspective about influence versus origin.

First, I want exile to know that I respect you and your point of view on this issue, and I like you a lot. You are a knowledgeable Martial Artist and an asset to this forum, and you have always shown me courtesy, even when we disagree. For this, I thank you.

To address your first concern:


Perhaps you misunderstood the purpose for my use of the scare quotes. There is a broader definition for the term "scare quotes," and more than one reason for using them. The usage that you seem to be referring to is when you express doubt about the validity of a word, or to criticize its use. The other part the definition is "to emphasize a word or phrase or to indicate its special status." (Heritage Dictionary, 2000)

My intention was merely to point out that the term "proof," while important to research, can be misleading and often holds a variety of levels of standards depending on the evidence offered. It is the same dilemma that exists in a court of law. Is this a criminal trial where a burden of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" must be met, or a civil case where a mere preponderance of the evidence (slightly more than 50%) tipped one way or the other is enough to satisfy the question of guilt or innocence. Then there is the issue of the quality of the evidence offered.

As to the issue of "Ancient Taekwondo," I am going to simplify an otherwise lengthy response by saying the following:

A. I believe that unarmed combat skills have been established as being present in the Chosen Peninsula during the three kingdoms period. I believe that these skills were used effectively by average citizens for self defense, and as a form of resistance to military aggression. These skills were likely reproduced in sport games, which became more popular as the demand for combat usage declined.

B. I accept the inference that these unarmed combat skills were most likely handed down in various forms from those who migrated into the peninsula and became a part of the unique culture of these indigenous people during the 1st century AD. I further believe that these combat skills were handed down from one generation to the next creating a teacher/student relationship.

C. Lastly, I believe that the moral culture, perseverance, and integrity of these early Korean ancestors was unique, and their efforts to unify the three kingdoms and repel attacks from foreign armies using their unarmed combat skills as part of their arsenal qualifies what they did as the true essence of a "Martial Art." I believe that the unique characteristics displayed among these early inhabitants were later recorded within the Hwarang-do, and exemplify the true Martial Spirit and tenets which are the bedrock of today's Taekwondo.

All of these three things combined, convince me that the reports of early skills of unarmed combat in Korea is genuine, and qualifies as a Martial Art. I believe that these skills have been called many things over the centuries, and have evolved in their overall development. In 1955, the Korean Government supported the efforts to unify what existed at that time, and give a name to the national Art. This means, first and foremost, that the reality of the ancient skills which existed before, was being recognized and renamed. The name they chose was "Taekwondo" thus this is the name of the ancient skills, regardless of what those skills were. This new name was also used and applies to the modern application, and development of Korean Martial Art for future use in self defense, sport, health and fitness.

It is a modern National Art as well as an ancient one. The name "Taekwondo" applies to both. The influence of Japanese Martial Art upon the Kwans is absolute, but the modern instruction of Taekwondo, as taught by Korean standards, is not a duplication of Japanese Martial Art, but a culmination of the ancient origin of Taekwondo in old Chosen, and the modern knowledge of current self defense skills.

This whole discussion of Shotokan forms and their similarity to Taekwondo tuls or poomsae, is not a new revelation (although I realize new students are just discovering this). It is no secret about where Gen. Choi and the other Kwan leaders trained during the occupation, nor where they got the idea for these patterns. The point that seems to be ignored is that these forms, while important as a tool, and a deep rooted philosophy in teaching Taekwondo, do not make up the core of what Taekwondo is, nor do they identify the origin of the art. To my understanding, the concept of forms such as the Shotokan patterns did not exist in Korean Martial Art prior to the occupation, thus they are clearly not part of what Taekwondo truly is.

The modern poomsae of Taekwondo are an add-on that can have as much meaning and purpose as it does in Japanese Karate, and the concept is clearly borrowed from the Japanese system, but this is just one method of teaching what is essentially either Japanese knowledge, or Korean knowledge using a similar methodology. I support the use of forms, and believe they are an invaluable tool in teaching, but I also know that if you strip away all of the forms from Taekwondo, I can still teach students every aspect of what Taekwondo truly is, in physical self defense, exercise, mental discipline, moral culture, and spiritual enlightenment.

The substance of Taekwondo is not what comes from these forms, but rather the concept of forms are used to display the substance of whatever art they are applied to. The system and patterns of forms come from Shotokan, thus the obvious resemblance, but Taekwondo itself does not come from the Japanese Martial Art. The name "Taekwondo" applies to whatever the Korean people define it as since their history was originally independent and separate from the Japanese culture, and their ancient fighting skills lacked a nationally recognized name until 1955.

I don't know if my meaning is clear, or understood by others, but it will never change the fact that some people are focused on recent events, and others view Taekwondo as belonging to a nation of people who survived for centuries through the power of a skill and philosophy that did not come from Japan. What happened during the occupation was a sharing of knowledge, and the ancient Korean Taekwondo of the past can absorb any or all of what it is exposed to to become the Taekwondo of the present and future. Yet the core and roots of Taekwondo are unique, and does come from Korea's history prior to 1910.

Well, I've done the best I can to explain this in a larger sense. I hope it does not confuse others as to the true meaning.

Thanks for your time
CM D.J. Eisenhart

And thanks to you, Master Eisenhart, for your thoughtful comments—which, as always, are thought-provoking and insightful. I want to think more about and digest what you've written here. The case of TKD is certain complex and mulitfaceted... the potential book you refer to writing at the very beginning would certainly be a very valuable addition to what is now an all-too-sparse literature on TKD history (I know that Doug Cook is writing one on that topic, but there aren't many full-length treatments of KMA history that I've been able to find).

On with this great discussion!

 

[Brad Dunne]

:asian: I bow in respect, to the full simplicity and truthfullness of the following:

"What Taekwondo truly is......... Physical self defense, exercise, mental discipline, moral culture, and spiritual enlightenment". (CM D.J. Eisenhart)

 

[MSUTKD]

History, a distillation of rumor. - THOMAS CARLYLE

ron

 

[exile]

I think there are some fundamental issues that are tied up with the history of TKD and its relevance to the practice of TKD. The contrast Last Fearner drew in his post was between influence on the one hand and origin on the other. The opposition I'm concerned with is a little different, but it possibly comes down to the same thing: my take on the question is that the history of a MA may be relevant to its technical interpretation, but doesn't necessarily exhaust its technical content. In simple cases, yes, the MA has inherited from the practitioners of the past an overall strategy, a set of tactics, and a repertoire of techs that implement those tactics; so if you had a complete technical history of the MA, it would match up perfectly with what people do, or can do, with that art. But in complicated cases—and I think KMAs have very tangled histories—that's not the case in any straightforward way. The role of hyungs is a striking example of this in TKD for reasons that I'll get to later on.

But because the history of an MA may offer clues about that technical content, I'm anxious to get the best possible sense of just how plausible this or that given interpretation of a particular story about the development of that MA is—how much credence, regardless of our own preferences, can we give that story, based on the existence (or not) of evidence which should lead us to favor that story as vs. many others for which we have no analogous evidence. This is what historians worry about all the time, but I'm not interested in the history of TKD for academic reasons; I want to know certain specific things about its past because of very practical concerns—what light will that knowledge shed on how I train TKD, how I identify the resources of that art so I can take advantage of them?

Some of what appeared to be an issue between me and LF involved the way I interpreted his use of quotation marks around the word proof; I now understand that he was using them to indicate emphasis, to highlight the somewhat problematic status of the notion of proof when applied to real-world events, as opposed say to a logical or mathematical proof which, if reasoned correctly, is final and admits no uncertainty. And I heartily agree! In science, and that much more in history, there is no absolute proof, just relative degrees of plausibility. So amount of evidence can prove that something did or did not happen; there are always `escape hatch' scenarios that none of the available evidence rules out, though they may not seem very likely. So no issue here, and I thank LF for taking my concerns seriously and clarifying his intentions so courteously, and I'm on the same page with him here.

The substantive issues that we seem to go keep circling on this and other threads has to do with the following issues:

(i) what were people using to defend themselves on the Korean peninsula in deeply ancient times? How much do we know, and what can we confidently infer from all of the evidence we have—documentary, archaeological, whatever?

(ii) how much of the practice we're trying to discover in (i) came down to modern times, in anything like its ancient form?

(iii) how much of the `relic knowledge' alluded to in (ii) was incorporated into the modern form of the MA, as reflected in the teachings and training methods of the people who we can identify as the modern sources of that art?

(iv) what is the relationship between the inventory of resources that are present in the modern form of the MA (including any relic knowledge as per (iii)) and the available technical content of that MA?

The last of these questions, (iv), is in some way the trickiest, because there is an implicit `should' implied in it: it could be paraphrased, `Given what we have now, and what we are reliably sure we had in the past, what should we regard as the available content of this art? What should we be doing such that we can say, we do just this art?'. This is an issue that arises in a very practical way when it comes time to judge what the role of the hyungs is in our overall take on TKD.

LF has a number of suggestions about the best answers to at least several of these questions:

A. I believe that unarmed combat skills have been established as being present in the Chosen Peninsula during the three kingdoms period. I believe that these skills were used effectively by average citizens for self defense, and as a form of resistance to military aggression. These skills were likely reproduced in sport games, which became more popular as the demand for combat usage declined.

B. I accept the inference that these unarmed combat skills were most likely handed down in various forms from those who migrated into the peninsula and became a part of the unique culture of these indigenous people during the 1st century AD. I further believe that these combat skills were handed down from one generation to the next creating a teacher/student relationship.

C. Lastly, I believe that the moral culture, perseverance, and integrity of these early Korean ancestors was unique, and their efforts to unify the three kingdoms and repel attacks from foreign armies using their unarmed combat skills as part of their arsenal qualifies what they did as the true essence of a "Martial Art." I believe that the unique characteristics displayed among these early inhabitants were later recorded within the Hwarang-do, and exemplify the true Martial Spirit and tenets which are the bedrock of today's Taekwondo.

All of these three things combined, convince me that the reports of early skills of unarmed combat in Korea is genuine, and qualifies as a Martial Art. I believe that these skills have been called many things over the centuries, and have evolved in their overall development. In 1955, the Korean Government supported the efforts to unify what existed at that time, and give a name to the national Art. This means, first and foremost, that the reality of the ancient skills which existed before, was being recognized and renamed. The name they chose was "Taekwondo" thus this is the name of the ancient skills, regardless of what those skills were. This new name was also used and applies to the modern application, and development of Korean Martial Art for future use in self defense, sport, health and fitness.

It is a modern National Art as well as an ancient one. The name "Taekwondo" applies to both. The influence of Japanese Martial Art upon the Kwans is absolute, but the modern instruction of Taekwondo, as taught by Korean standards, is not a duplication of Japanese Martial Art, but a culmination of the ancient origin of Taekwondo in old Chosen, and the modern knowledge of current self defense skills.

So LF's view is that there is indeed certain plausibility to the idea that we already have a specific and robust set of skills unique to the Korean peoples of the Three Kingdoms era, and that these were preserved and transmitted, though we don't necessarily have a definitive picture of just what their technical content as combat arts was, in terms of striking, unbalancing, grappling and other relevant methods of self defense. LF, is this a responsible summary/paraphrase of your take on my questions (i)—(iii)? The crux of the problem, and some of the disagreement between us, is I think highlighted in LF's statement `This means, first and foremost, that the reality of the ancient skills which existed before, was being recognized and renamed. The name they chose was "Taekwondo" thus this is the name of the ancient skills, regardless of what those skills were. This new name was also used and applies to the modern application, and development of Korean Martial Art for future use in self defense, sport, health and fitness.'
The difficulty I see is this, even granting the reality of these unique ancient arts: if their detailed technical content isn't known, then their is the danger of thinking that because the name Taewondo was intended to apply to include these arts, we therefore can assume that that ancient content still resides in the actual practice of TKD as determined, say, by the Kukkiwon curriculum. So LF's point really rests on the degree to which we can be reliably confident that these ancients skills persisted and were part of current practice at the time that TKD was named as such. I base my somewhat bleak judgment of this degree on the work of people like Stan Henning and other MA historians who have the language and philological skills to undertake research with the relevant ancient Korean, Chinese and Japanese documents that bear on the point; I've cited Henning's conclusions in earlier posts, and it seems to be that, based on the surviving evidence, he makes a convincing case. So that's the basis for my persistent doubt about our ability to reliably identify the actual content of ancient Korean MAs and chart their survival and incorporation in modern Korean MA practice. And that's one of the main reasons why I think the history of the early Kwans—which would give a snapshot of that practice at the time the name `Taekwondo' was officially introduced—is so important.

The issues raised in (iv) are touched on in the following part of LF's post:

This whole discussion of Shotokan forms and their similarity to Taekwondo tuls or poomsae, is not a new revelation (although I realize new students are just discovering this). It is no secret about where Gen. Choi and the other Kwan leaders trained during the occupation, nor where they got the idea for these patterns. The point that seems to be ignored is that these forms, while important as a tool, and a deep rooted philosophy in teaching Taekwondo, do not make up the core of what Taekwondo is, nor do they identify the origin of the art. To my understanding, the concept of forms such as the Shotokan patterns did not exist in Korean Martial Art prior to the occupation, thus they are clearly not part of what Taekwondo truly is.

The modern poomsae of Taekwondo are an add-on that can have as much meaning and purpose as it does in Japanese Karate, and the concept is clearly borrowed from the Japanese system, but this is just one method of teaching what is essentially either Japanese knowledge, or Korean knowledge using a similar methodology. I support the use of forms, and believe they are an invaluable tool in teaching, but I also know that if you strip away all of the forms from Taekwondo, I can still teach students every aspect of what Taekwondo truly is, in physical self defense, exercise, mental discipline, moral culture, and spiritual enlightenment.

If I'm reading this right, LF is saying that the techniques embodied in the Shotokan/Shudokan-derived hyung patterns (as revealed, say, by the sophisticated bunkai and oyo revealed in the work of the leading-edge kata analysts in the UK and elsewhere) are definitely part of the self-defense curriculum of TKD, and have a kind of intrinsic validity, in a way that the poomsae themselved don't have. This is reminiscent of some of the views on the `kataless karate' thread: the techs are valid, but you don't need the kata to teach them. I've argued on that thread that you actually do, but I don't want to get into that at this point, we've got enough on our plate as it is! :wink1: What I mostly want to do is make sure that I understand LF correctly. So LF: when, say, Iain Abernethy shows that the double overhead `block' and `uppercut' movements early in Pinan Shodan are best interpreted, from a combat standpoint, as a rising block to a roundhouse-type punch with a simultaneous trap by the `middle blocking' arm, leading to a lock and throw taking down the assailant, and when I find almost that exact same sequence in Palgwe Sa Jang, am I allowed, under your view of things, to take that combat tech, and the more general principles it embodies, to be part of what you're calling the substance of TKD? My impression from what you say above, or the following, suggests that you would indeed allow that:

The substance of Taekwondo is not what comes from these forms, but rather the concept of forms are used to display the substance of whatever art they are applied to. The system and patterns of forms come from Shotokan, thus the obvious resemblance, but Taekwondo itself does not come from the Japanese Martial Art. The name "Taekwondo" applies to whatever the Korean people define it as since their history was originally independent and separate from the Japanese culture, and their ancient fighting skills lacked a nationally recognized name until 1955.

Further to this, though, my impression is that different subgroups of Korean MAists have somewhat different definitions of what is the core of TKD practice. I'm not sure there is actual consensus there...

I don't know if my meaning is clear, or understood by others, but it will never change the fact that some people are focused on recent events, and others view Taekwondo as belonging to a nation of people who survived for centuries through the power of a skill and philosophy that did not come from Japan. What happened during the occupation was a sharing of knowledge, and the ancient Korean Taekwondo of the past can absorb any or all of what it is exposed to to become the Taekwondo of the present and future. Yet the core and roots of Taekwondo are unique, and does come from Korea's history prior to 1910.

This is a `big tent' view of TKD, and one I heartily sympathize with and approve of. I'd just like to make sure that the technical content that I see implicit in the poomsae that have evolved in TKD has a place under that tent....

I'm also interested in what you think about the relationship between TKD and Tang Soo Do. This question seems somehow to have an important place in the discussion, since originally the two split off, institutionally, from a single set of related fighting systems, and TSD practitioners (as Master Penfil has observed in several posts) explicitly embrace the bunkai associated with the Okinawan kata that have become almost literally incorporated into the technical content of their system.

Well, I've done the best I can to explain this in a larger sense. I hope it does not confuse others as to the true meaning.

Thanks for your time
CM D.J. Eisenhart

And thank you, very much, sir, for your time and care in explicating your thinking and analysis. As I said in my earlier post, that book would be a watershed contribution to our understanding of KMA. Sorry this is so long... but it's a BIG topic, and I think a critically important one.

 

[Kwan Jang]

The posts by both Last Fearner and Exile have been thought provoking and excellent. It reminds me why I spend time on this type of forum. Thank you gentlemen.