This topic is one of my favorite (or at least more obsessive) hobbyhorses, and there are some great points in the previous posts. My own TKD style, Song Moo Kwan, was founded by Ryo Pyung Chik, who like Lee Won Kuk, the Chung Do Kwan's founder, reached dan ranking in Shotokan under Gichin Funakoshi, and Yoon Pyung In, who founded the Chang Moo Kwan, reached fifth dan in Shudokan karate under Kanken Toyama. The original hyungs of the Moo Duk Kwan were explicitly identified by Hwang Kee as deriving from Anko Itosu. There are large chunks of the Palgwes that come straight out of the Pinyan/Heian katas (the opening sequences of Palgwe Oh-Jang are move-for-move identical to the first three moves of Pinyan Shodan). There is thus a huge amount of technical content which we can positively identify as Okinawan/Japanese in origin.
On the other hand, FieldDiscipline's suggestion that `the larger part of Taekwondo [is] from older Korean styles (Tae Kyon, To-San etc). Both Choi and Lee both learned Tae Kyon as children' has to be viewed with some skepticism, I think. The fact is that we don't actually know what the technical content of the `tae kyon' that these masters learned actually
was; in fact we don't know how old this elusive `tae kyon' actually is, because there's no way to link the name to any well-documented martial art from an earlier time. The documentation just isn't there. There is a pan-Siberian/northern Asian tradition of leg-wrestling and kicking games/contests, and some writers have suggested that `tae kyon' is actually the Korean manifestation of this practice, rather than being a structured fighting art. I'd say the (heavy) burden of proof is on those who think that TKD was significantly (or even mildly) influenced by tae-kyon, let along the essentially legendary hwarang-do or whatever. Last Fearner and I have debated this point before and I'm pretty sure he disagrees with me, but I think the jury has to be regarded as still out on the role of indigenous Korean fighting systems, whereas the huge contribution of Okinawan-derived combat arts is indisputable). And if you want evidence of Gen. Choi's view of the `true' content of TKD, just look at the content of the Chang Hon suls he created, bearing in mind that he repeatedly emphasized the core role of these forms for learning TKD: if you take just about any hyung at random, you'll find that almost all of the striking techniques are hand/arm moves, with kicks a very conspicuous minority—yet tae kyon was supposed be a largely kicking art! So it seems to me that the General's own living testament to the foundations of the art recognizes the central role of the upper-body strikes that Funakoshi emphasized in his repackaging of Itosu's earlier repackaging of the well-mixed fighting systems used in 19th c. Okinawa.
Kacey said:
I think that not acknowledging the historical influences and sources for any art is disrespectful - which is not the same and learning the differences and acknowledging any changes (good or bad) which may have been made. Like languages, martial arts are (or should be) alive - that is, they evolve through their practitioners, as people grow in their understanding of the art(s) they practice. Knowing where an art started is the key to understanding those changes, and therefore the art itself, and is, I think, a key factor
Agreed 100%, Kacey. In the case of TKD, the reluctance to acknowledge the Japanese influence is clearly based on hatred for the Japanese occupation (and, I suspect for many Koreans, the occupiers themselves). Stuart Anslow in his new book points out that Choi's earliest work emphatically cites the role of Japanese karate in the formatin of TKD; he then cites three or four publications at successively later dates showing in each case a further retreat from this position, with Choi's last statements on the topic emphatically denying
any connection with Shotokan or other Okinawan-based fighting arts. The smooth progression from emphatic acknowledgement to brusque denial is quite striking and makes it pretty clear that there was some kind of momentum building up continuously from the late 1950s on against the idea that TKD had historical origins in Japanese MA. I've sometimes wondered if the intensity of the Korean War, and the patriotic fervor it triggered, contributed in some way to this hardening of attitude towards TKD's Japanese past...
terryl said:
I understand the sport side not being precieved about Self Defense but traditional TKD is loaded with it, with that being said what do you believe to be the strongest asset of TKD.
I believe you're absolutely right about the content of tranditional TKD, Terry—the modern realistic bunkai/boon hae movement makes clear the harsh street-effectiveness of the fighting principles and tactics embodied in the hyungs, if we learn to read them correctly—and I think that straightforward, powerful approach to self-defense is the thing that gives TKD its great strength as a MA. The Korean armed forces who've used TKD to defense themselves in two major wars—effectively enough to make their enemies openly fear their use of their H2H fighting skills—would probably agree on that one.
zDom said:
I like what the Koreans had done with the Japanese arts in the '40s-'60s: I think they really came up with something great.
But the recent changes just don't make sense to me, aesthetically or on a practical level.
Again, complete agreement, zD. I think Olympic style sparring can be useful training things like balance and accuracy; but the point-scoring system reward moves which I find byzantine in their complexity, relative to what you need to do in a violent encounter on unfriendly ground.
From what I preceive TKD to be is also two seperate animals....You have the traditional art and you have the olympic competitive sport. I wholeheartedly believe that true tkd uses poomse to reinforce basic moves, combinations, self defense techniques, all done with grace and properly channeled energy for maximum effective power.
Exactly right, and the only thing further that I'd add is that to take advantage of the techniques Matt refers to, it's probably necessary to do serious combative sparring, along the reality-based lines that Iain Abernethy outlines in the final chapter of his book
Bunkai-Jutsu, and which he now has a terrific DVD out on. We need a new word, maybe—what IA is talking about here is nothing like the ordinary kumite or Olympic-style tap-exchanges that so much MA tournament sparring consists of. It's as close as you can get to an all-out street fight as possible without getting the participants injured, but it covers the gamut of issues—from adrenal shock to on-the-fly adjustments in tactics during the chaos of a real punch-up—that come into play when you start imagining just how you would use your MA abilities if the worst came to worst. I think that kind of training is going to become more and more a feature of TKD training (and, from what I've read,
used to be the case, in advanced training in Korea during the kwan-era).
