question about origins of Tae Kwon Do

[jasonearle]

I haven't look throught the whole thread to see if this topic has been discussed but I was just curious on the origin of Tae Kwon Do, more specifically, why it was originally created, what was its purpose at the time it came about? I've heard rumors that it was created when Samuri would come in on there horses, chopping of heads and they devised a way to kick them off of there horses. obviously there would be more to that, but is there any truth to that sort of story, since people tend to associate Tae Kwon Do with all the high flying kicks?

 

[Jimi]

I have no doubt that a Korean Soldier faced with a foe riding a horse would kick him out of the saddle. Other arts such as Okinawans also have this tale. Look into it more. PEACE

 

[Kacey]

Here is some source material for you:

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, Sans Serif][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, Sans Serif]WHEN AND WHERE DID TAEKWON-DO BEGIN?
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, Sans Serif]A combination of circumstances made it possible for me to originate and develop Taekwon-Do. In addition to my prior knowledge of Taek Kyon, I had an opportunity to learn Karate in Japan during the unhappy thirty-six years when my native land was occupied by the Japanese. Soon after Korea was liberated in 1945, I was placed in a privileged position as a founding member of the newly formed South Korean Armed Forces.

The former provided me with a definite sense of creation, and the latter gave me the power to disseminate Taekwon-Do throughout the entire armed forces, despite furious opposition.[/FONT]

From [FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, Sans Serif]"Taekwon-Do" (The Korean Art of Self Defense) also known as The Condensed Encyclopedia, as posted on this site.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, Sans Serif]
[/FONT]
Other links to the history of Taekwon-do, referring to the past rather than the current incarnation, include these:

The Origin of Taekwondo
The Art of Fist & Foot
Taekwon-do History

And from Wikipedia:

The oldest Korean ancestor of taekwondo is an amalgamation of unarmed combat styles developed by three rival kingdoms in the earliest days of known Korean history. Young men were trained in unarmed combat techniques to develop strength, speed, and survival skills. The two most popular of these techniques were called subak and taekkyon.

Enjoy!

 

[pstarr]

I am told (by Korean friends and I've also read it in several sources) that in Korea, kicking someone is not only painful but insulting as well, since the foot was/is considered the dirtiest part of the body...

 

[jasonearle]

very interesting information. I had no idea that Tae Kwon Do was not actually an art until 1955. It is consistent with the origins of most arts, or all from what I've seen, that it was used in batte situations. Does anyone know why they employed such high kicks, or is the "high kick" relationship to Tae Kwon Do wrong? Being such a popular art, I though it would be interesting to know a little more about it and address any misconceptions there might be about it. Some people make fun of it and say it isn't practical in a actual fight situation anymore. What are your opinions on that? I think any art can be useful, but some are maybe more showy then others at times and purely aimed at the competion side of it maybe as opposed to actual usefulness in a street fight per say. Agree or disagree?

 

[Marginal]

very interesting information. I had no idea that Tae Kwon Do was not actually an art until 1955.

It depends on who you talk to. South Korean apologists will insist that the art is thousands of years old.

Does anyone know why they employed such high kicks, or is the "high kick" relationship to Tae Kwon Do wrong?

It tends to be overstated.

Being such a popular art, I though it would be interesting to know a little more about it and address any misconceptions there might be about it. Some people make fun of it and say it isn't practical in a actual fight situation anymore. What are your opinions on that?

The same people who say that also deride all forms of TMA. TKD's not unique in that respect.

 

[pstarr]

It's effectiveness would depend on the ability of the teacher, how he teaches, and WHAT he teaches - that is, is he teaching merely "sport taekwondo" or the real thing? There's a real difference.

The relationship with high kicks has always been a trademark of taekwondo - primarily in competition. But in combat, such techniques weren't stressed.

I recall that during the war in Vietnam, there were two or three Korean units (the White Horse Division being the one that comes to mind) that specialized in taekwondo. The uniform of the day was a karategi (they hadn't invented the V-neck uniforms yet) and morning drills consisted of kicks and punches. These ROK soldiers were tough s.o.b.'s and the NVA and VC were terrified of them. None of these camps were ever attacked by enemy forces!
A good friend of mine who did three tours with the U.S. Special Forces said that the only nights he slept soundly were the nights he spent in the Whitehorse Camp...

Whatever happened to THAT kind of taekwondo?

 

[FearlessFreep]

I read a pamphlet about TKD written in maybe 69 or 72 that descibed it as the most effective form of unarmed combat. I think it *can* be that but I don't think many people teach it with that in mnd anymore.

 

[pstarr]

I don't think that any particular martial discipline should be touted as THE most effective martial art...but it's a shame that the "real" taekwondo seems to have vanished.

 

[TraditionalTKD]

It changed because it's priorities changed. Don't misinterpret. Traditional Tae Kwon Do-ITF and WTF-still exists. Unfortunately, it became degraded as Tae Kwon Do pursued Olympic glory and the process of self defense, self improvement, and body conditioning took second place to winning medals.
Traditional Korean Tae Kwon Do is still alive, but tournament TKD is what many people see.

 

[matt.m]

It's effectiveness would depend on the ability of the teacher, how he teaches, and WHAT he teaches - that is, is he teaching merely "sport taekwondo" or the real thing? There's a real difference.

The relationship with high kicks has always been a trademark of taekwondo - primarily in competition. But in combat, such techniques weren't stressed.

I recall that during the war in Vietnam, there were two or three Korean units (the White Horse Division being the one that comes to mind) that specialized in taekwondo. The uniform of the day was a karategi (they hadn't invented the V-neck uniforms yet) and morning drills consisted of kicks and punches. These ROK soldiers were tough s.o.b.'s and the NVA and VC were terrified of them. None of these camps were ever attacked by enemy forces!
A good friend of mine who did three tours with the U.S. Special Forces said that the only nights he slept soundly were the nights he spent in the Whitehorse Camp...

Whatever happened to THAT kind of taekwondo?

Even though Moo Sul Kwan got its Tae Kwon Do roots from Chang Moo Kwan taekwondo brought over from Korea by GGM Lee H. Park we are essentially a WTF and Kukkiwon affiliated school. In St. L, GM Hildebrand has both ITF and WTF poomse for cirriculum. In our Cape Girardeau school however, they only have three ITF forms in their cirriculum. They are Chong -Gi, Toi - Gye and Ga-Beak.

Anyway, back on point. Our organization does have excellent sparring, however first and foremost Tae Kwon Do is taught for self defense and self improvement, hoshin,.

A lot of our drills we practice get used in sparring, however if you watched our folks spar it is in a manner of "Controlled or contest battle" not olympic style sparring. you certainly would not see our kicking being of olympic style either.

The Cape G school does an excellent job at nationals and jr. nationals, our demo team in Cape looks great. However, the core of Moo Sul Kwan is self improvement and self defense. I am a firm believer that all aspects of Tae Kwon Do is put together much like a university cirriculum where that all parts are needed to get the full effect and benefit of the education. Like a major, minor, and university requirements you need poomse, one steps, basics, and sparring is icing on the cake.

Later all,

Matt

 

[cali_tkdbruin]

very interesting information. I had no idea that Tae Kwon Do was not actually an art until 1955...

Well, actually that's when various kwons united and formed into what we refer to as Taekwondo. Those in Tang Soo Do, another well known Korean MA, decided to remain outside this unification.

(BTW, just stating the obvious, Chuck Norris is a Tang Soo Do practitioner)

 

[zDom]

Whatever happened to THAT kind of taekwondo? ... it's a shame that the "real" taekwondo seems to have vanished.

It's still out there.

 

[Last Fearner]

Greetings Jason! I would like to offer my reply to your questions here. My response is a bit long, but this is a serious topic (which I do not take lightly), so perhaps you will find it is worth the time to read.

I haven't look throught the whole thread to see if this topic has been discussed but I was just curious on the origin of Tae Kwon Do,...

Yes, this topic has been discussed here at MT many times over, but continues to be of great interest to Taekwondoists, as the origins and purpose are discussed among most all Martial Artists about their historical lineages.

... more specifically, why it was originally created, what was its purpose at the time it came about?

To answer this question, I believe we must be more specific. If we ask, "when did the name "Taekwondo" first come into use," most will agree that it was submitted by the late General Choi, Hong Hi (founder and president of the International Taekwondo Federation) at a meeting of several post-war Kwan leaders, politicians, and historians in April of 1955. There is some debate as to whether or not the term was first thought of by Gen. Choi, or if someone suggested it to him, and he passed it on at that meeting. Since Gen. Choi is credited for "submitting" the term "Taekwon-do" he has been called the "Father of Modern Taekwondo" - - a title which might imply more than is actually reflected in historical events.

Beyond the term of "Taekwondo" there is the question of the techniques contained within the art. It should first be understood that any true Martial Art philosophy, and curriculum contains a great deal more than the methods of unarmed fighting. It should also be understood that all Martial Art self defense tactics and techniques have undergone changes from the earliest days of record, until today, and continue to adapt. Korean Martial Art is known for its forceful, deliberate, and destructive power, but also contains the lesser known subtleties of grappling, pressure points, joint locks, avoidance and coordinated energy as evident in the yudo, hoshinsul, and hapkido aspects.

The famed Kicking skills which have multiplied, and increased in range, complexity, and elaborate execution over the past two thousand years, has been a part of Korean Martial Art since the beginning of the Three Kingdoms Period between 37 B.C., and the 1st Century A.D. Hand techniques were also included back in the early days of Subak, and taekyon, thus the core elements of what is now called Taekwondo have existed for a much longer time than some critics give credit.

... I've heard rumors that it was created when Samuri would come in on there horses, chopping of heads and they devised a way to kick them off of there horses. obviously there would be more to that, but is there any truth to that sort of story, since people tend to associate Tae Kwon Do with all the high flying kicks?

Why were the kicking techniques developed? Most historians of Asian Martial Art would agree that villagers were often under attack from war-lords, and invading armies. These soldiers had weapons, were skilled in combat, and often rode in on horses. However, most serious students of the Korean History would discount that the kicking itself was specifically designed to remove a soldier from his horse. I don't think anyone can say with any certainty that this never, ever occurred, but I am not aware of any record that indicates this was a practice, or the original intent.

Most likely, kicking itself, was used, and perfected by the early practitioners of Korean Martial Art because it was noted that the Korean people are typically of smaller stature, and less trained in combat as their surrounding enemies. They were mostly poor farmers who had little weapons, and even less knowledge of how to use them. Villages would often build up piles of rocks at their outskirts, and use them to throw at invading armies. The basic, unarmed combat of hand-to-hand, and grappling was probably carried with the early settlers of the peninsula as they migrated south from Northern China, Manchuria, and Mongolia nearly seven thousand years ago.

The kicking skills arose out of necessity for a weaker people to fight against trained soldiers. The leg is known to be the strongest limb of the body, with the longest reach. A person can grab an attacking soldier's weapon (or the arm that controls it), and hold on tight while delivering crippling kicks to the legs, and mid-section. Early use of kicks to the head were probably more common to an injured opponent who was bent over, kneeling, or laying on the ground. As training in the subak, and Taekyon was refined (especially among the Knights of the Hwarang) a fighter is often compelled to push the limits of their skills. Learning to kick multiple times to body and head, spinning, jumping, and flying kicks were natural progressions.

During the Japanese occupation when Korea was annexed as part of Japan (1910-1945), the native Martial Art of Korea was banned, but was still practiced by older Masters in less populated areas. In the bigger cities, and at the universities, Japanese Martial Art (under headings of Judo, Jujutsu, and Karate) were practiced, and some Koreans were allowed to train. As the war came to an end, and shortly thereafter, several schools (known as Kwans) run by Korean Instructors were formed. Because of the political struggles, social turmoil, and painful memories of widespread abuses by the Japanese soldiers, Koreans were determined to cleanse their country of Japanese influences, and revive their native language, culture, history (what little was left intact), and their native Martial Art.

There is no doubt that the organizational structure, ranking systems, methodologies, and even terminology from Japanese Martial Art had a great influence on the early Kwans that formed in this post-war period. However, time of healing, historical research, and National Pride allowed the Korean people to regain their identity, confidence, security, and re-establish their Native Martial Art lineage. By 1955, too many various schools, under a wide range of names, with a great deal of obvious Japanese and even Chinese influence were flourishing, and causing much confusion, and dismay over the attempts to revive the Korean culture.

There became a widespread movement to organize all of the main Kwans under the leadership, not of one person, but of one governing body, with elected officials. There was the need of a new name, so that all could be in agreement that this would represent the ancient history of the past, as well as the new birth of emergence into the future of Korea. The Korean Government adamantly pushed for the unification, and re-naming. The term "Taekwon-do," as submitted by Hong Hi Choi (founder of the "Oh Do Kwan"), did little to change what was taught in each of the various kwans, but was chosen as the new identity of Korea's National Martial Art. Some instructors did not comply, and do not claim to be under this umbrella, but it is merely intended to be a title to describe ALL of what is practiced in the realm Korean Martial Art - old and new.

Much of what people see today is the commercially hyped up presentation geared at kids, families, exercise, and sport competitions. This does not mean that the genuine, hard-core training of pure Taekwondo (Subak, Taekyon, Hwarang-do, Hapkido, etc) does not exist, because it does. It is just less visible to the average person.

Think about this - - I am but one of many instructors who some might call "hard-core, old school," but I am also progressive in that I adjust my teachings to fit the circumstances, and modern developments. I have run several schools in Michigan over the past three decades, yet how many of you have ever set foot in one of my classes (or I in one of yours), or have any idea how I teach. I have seen many instructors who are dedicated to authentic ancient Korean Martial Art, and reality training for self defense, just like me, but most people only see what is put in front of their face - - movies, TV shows, commercials, tournaments, flashy demonstrations designed to increase enrollment (rather than scare people off), and the local schools in their own area.

Genuine, and highly skilled Taekwondo instructors are out there, they just might be harder to find. Many of those involved in Olympic training still have hard-core schools, and most of these athletes are no one to mess with in a real fight.

This is my perspective
CM D.J. Eisenhart

 

[jasonearle]

Great Response Last Fearner! It's always nice to know where things came from. I totally agree with you on the fact about not seeing the underlying art and only seeing what is on TV, in the media, or at tournaments. I've seen a lot of flashiness in martial arts schools around here. If that's all I see that that's all I can assume they know how to do unless I actually interact with them in some way either through just good old discussion or visiting their school. We have that sort of thing going on with our school sometimes too. Sometimes you see things done in the air and don't see the underlying principles or how effective they really are on a person. Attending the classes is the best way to see that and not at a tournament where there are rules and politics and lots of people trying to show off sometimes.
I know that I've heard alot of people around here ridiculing Tae Kwon Do's "high kicks" without really understanding why they might be there. I would be one who would not be in favor of using high kicks as a primary move because I prefer to use the weapon closest to the target to not waste time and to not leave myself open since there are alot of pressure points and good targets in the legs and the groin is more open as well. but I don't completely discard it as being ridiculous or inneffective. Its best to understand and then make decisions about things instead of making snap judgements before you understand. I don't study Tae Kwon Do and I probably never will but it doesn't mean I shouldn't study its philosophy or try to understand it.

 

[zDom]

In general, I consider most of the high kicks to be "finishing" techniques -- something to use when they are already stunned with a previous strike.

A front snap kick to the face or upward heel kick to the chin are also a very viable kicks, IMO, as they allow you to keep your hands in guarding position, are very fast and are hard to grab.

On the other hand, with a great low feint, it is possible to hit somebody with ANY high kick.

And usually one is all it takes unless you have a very tough opponent. I've seen a lot of people go down with one solid kick even though both the foot and head were well-padded.

Heck, I've even seen some sloppy head kicks finish someone off in UFC matches.

The trick is knowing *when* to use a high kick. That's the "art" part you are supposed to work on as a black belt once you have mastered the basic of being able to execute a high kick.

 

[zDom]

because it was noted that the Korean people are typically of smaller stature, and less trained in combat as their surrounding enemies.

Smaller than who? I thought Koreans were generally TALLER than the Japanese, for example.

 

[TraditionalTKD]

Koreans do tend to be bigger than other Orientals, possibly a result of the proximity to Northern China and Manchuria. They also tend to be physically more similar to Americans. My Instructor has stated this is one reason why Tae Kwon Do has found favor with Americans. The techniques seem to be compatible with the American physique.

 

[Last Fearner]

Smaller than who? I thought Koreans were generally TALLER than the Japanese, for example.

After an exhaustive search of the internet, I found a lot of varying answers, and misleading information. While many of the Asian population is reputed to be very close for "average" heights, all races have a "bell curve" that puts a certain number above, and below the average. My estimate is that Chinese in particular, will have a wide range, and have often shown great numbers of people at a height that Koreans rarely reach. Furthermore, my comments were about ancient times. Koreans were mostly isolated, and maintained a smaller stature for a longer period. In recent times, they have begun to "catch up" with other Asians, and Americans, but they are still not the same. Read the following article:
http://homepage.ktnet.com/newsletter/200501/web_05.html

Here is an interesting article about the effect of malnutrition on North Koreans. http://archives.seattletimes.nwsour...web/vortex/display?slug=korea14&date=20040214

I believe South Koreans are getting larger by the generation, but a couple of thousand years ago (as Taekwondo developed) they were most likely among the shortest in Asia. The Chinese, who are land-connected to Korea, were a common foe early on, and are more likely to have taller people among their population than Koreans. As for the Japanese, I believe the two nations as a whole are currently close for an average height (5'7" to 5'8"), but consider those who would have been chosen for combat in ancient times. Consider the Japanese Sumo wrestler, and the Samurai. The average Korean (especially thousands of years ago), who defended his village and country from invasion were not typically tall, large, muscular, trained soldiers.

Koreans do tend to be bigger than other Orientals, possibly a result of the proximity to Northern China and Manchuria. They also tend to be physically more similar to Americans.

From my experience, the Koreans appear to be smaller than most of their "potential enemies" on the battlefield. As far as being similar to Americans, I find that to be a stretch of reality! (get it? "stretch" of reality!) :lfao:

I am at the upper end of average size for an American (5' 10 1/2" see http://www.wonderquest.com/dinosaur-shoe-sidesaddle.htm second Q&A on page) yet I can show you photo after photo of me with Korean Grandmasters who don't come close to my size. When I was in Korea, there were not many Koreans that I saw who were built like "Americans," although today's milk, beef, and fast-food fed Asians are beginning to produce larger off-spring. I wanted to buy a traditional Korean outfit (which I eventually found one that fit - the largest that the shop had), but every clothing shop I entered, these small Korean men would say "Nooo, you too big. Nothing fit!" I went bowling with some Korean Grandmasters, and the bowling Alley did not have any house shoes my size (10 1/2 - 11) I think the largest they had was a size 9.

This has just been my observations. Perhaps I am wrong, and they are hiding all of their big people somewhere!

Last Fearner

 

[cali_tkdbruin]

Thanks for the response. My Sabumnin, 7th dan, a Korean kat here in Southern Cali is at least 6ft 3in. He's just a big guy with impressive MA skills. That's all, I respect the man. He gets on me when I don't do it (TKD) right. I enjoy the training so much.