Student's interest in their lineage

[tshadowchaser]

This thread and some discussion I was having with a few friends a while back inspired me to ask my class the other night what my lineage was in the various arts I have studied including TKDMDK.
I have mentioned various instructors and places from time to time but never really insisted that the students learn some of the names. I was surprised at how in depth some of the answers where and shocked at how some of my lineage was completely unknown even after that section of my history had been covered a few times.
Homework for the class I gave them a few names and/or a system and told them they needed to find out who trained that person and so on and something about the system if they knew nothing about it. I'm kind of interested in hearing what they bring back.
Now I am pretty sure they may not find out much about a couple of the people I named but at least they now know I think it is important that they have some idea where the things they are learning came from

 

[Earl Weiss]

GM NAM Tae Hi always shows up to the Chung Do Kwan meetings in the United States. He is listed as an advisor to the US Taekwondo Chung Do Kwan Union, which is the official Chung Do Kwan organization in the US. The official Chung Do Kwan curriculum is the Kukkiwon curriculum.

Seems the CDK is still a very tight group. A few years back I was invited by GM Park Jong Soo who was in town for the wedding of Han Cha Kyo's daughter to meet for coffee during the break between the ceremony and the reception. GM Nam was there as were a bunch of CDK guys all of whom went out for coffee and some snacks. They were all wearing CDK lapel pins. (I have no clue who they all were though most were intorduced to me or spoke to me. Most of the conversations were in Korean. )

 

[Earl Weiss]

Nor should they since GM Lee developed a whole new system that they studied from. They may claim roots in CDK but I doubt they would ever claim they are CDK.

Though I thought GM Lee was part of the ODK.

I can't say if he was "Part of the ODK" but before he developed his own system he was teaching the Chang Hon system.

Apparently he was tight with General Choi for a long time. I have a video of HU Lee and General Choi in NK where the ATA did a demo in NK circa 1999 or so.

Mr. Talbot, your post highlights my point. I have heard people say "we are CDK TKD" yet they may be doing a system other than th original CDK system, and I gues if the CDK system is now the KKW system that would most certainly qualify as well, but I can't help but think that if you are part of the CDK affiliation and doing the KKW system saying you do CDK TKD would be a misnomer.

 

[miguksaram]

I think thats how I feel. At this stage of my training I dont see how knowing who taught my GM will make me a better tkdist or fighter. Maybe in the years down the track that may change.

Right, which goes to my what I was saying earlier. A lot of people in the beginning and middle stages of martial arts are more concerned with learning width of knowledge than depth. At this stage of my learning the ratio of width to depth as changed. I want to get deeper in to lineage and history.

 

[miguksaram]

Mr. Talbot, your post highlights my point. I have heard people say "we are CDK TKD" yet they may be doing a system other than th original CDK system, and I gues if the CDK system is now the KKW system that would most certainly qualify as well, but I can't help but think that if you are part of the CDK affiliation and doing the KKW system saying you do CDK TKD would be a misnomer.

I would tend to agree with this, but look at it this way. If you are born and raised in America, then you are an American. Yet we have people who tout about being Italian or Irish when asked what nationality they are. While they recognize that they are American and live the American way, they still have pride in their lineage. I believe this is true with those who would spout being CDK or any other kwan affiliation.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I would tend to agree with this, but look at it this way. If you are born and raised in America, then you are an American. Yet we have people who tout about being Italian or Irish when asked what nationality they are. While they recognize that they are American and live the American way, they still have pride in their lineage. I believe this is true with those who would spout being CDK or any other kwan affiliation.

I think you give way to much credit to many of those practicing TKD. They are not as knowledgeable as you are. That is why I often pose the questions when I hear someone say We do CDK TKD. Notice that they phrase it as what they do, not what group they belong to. Then I query as to what standards or practices they follow.

If they are doing only the Chang Hon pattern set, then they are not doing CDK.

Now, it is not my intent to make them look or feel silly. I tend to approach it on a low key fashion.

 

[puunui]

Nor should they since GM Lee developed a whole new system that they studied from. They may claim roots in CDK but I doubt they would ever claim they are CDK. Though I thought GM Lee was part of the ODK.

ATA's GM LEE Haeng Ung was a Kuk Mu Kwan member. All the Osan Chung Do Kwan instructors were. The Kuk Mu Kwan was based in Incheon (where General MacArthur landed), which was a landing point for refugees from what is now North Korea. This included GM Lee's family, who was from Manchuria or thereabouts. GM KANG Suh Chong was teaching the ROK Navy's UDT Teams in Incheon, and opened it up to civilians as well. GM Lee and others learned from him, and then got jobs at Osan AFB, where they started up the Osan Chung Do Kwan, where people like GM Edward Sell and GM Bruce Twing learned. GM Chuck Norris was also a member of the Osan Chung Do Kwan briefly before switching to the Osan Moo Duk Kwan. When the ATA was first founded, GM Kang was the first president.

Kwan membership isn't about technical things, but rather it is about relationships. Kwan members see their kwan as their family and treat other kwan members as family. Another way to look at it is like a school alumni association. We go to college and major in different things but that really doesn't matter; what matters is that we all belong to the school. Looked at from that perspective, then anyone whose lineage comes through one of the five original kwans is in my opinion one of the original kwan members. At least that is how the Chung Do Kwan treats it. So even though people do ITF forms or ATA forms, or the pyong ahn forms, it doesn't matter. What matters is your root and your family. That's why people like GM NAM Tae Hi and even GM KANG Suh Chong consider themselves to be Chung Do Kwan members. Even GM SON Duk Sung says he is a Chung Do Kwan member. Those people especially, since they were original students of GM LEE Won Kuk.

 

[puunui]

Seems the CDK is still a very tight group.

To me, the closest and most active Kwan are the Chung Do Kwan, Moo Duk Kwan and Jidokwan.

 

[Cyriacus]

I dont know about other forms, but under the ITF, theory and history are both a part of gradings. Instructers will also sometimes mention who Instructed them, and who Instructed their Instructer.

Ive never really thought about it, i suppose. I just assumed that Lineage was just a normal part of training.

(Also, i know that it isnt just where i am, since its a part of all ITF gradings that ive seen or heard of. Who knows!)

 

[puunui]

That is why I often pose the questions when I hear someone say We do CDK TKD. Notice that they phrase it as what they do, not what group they belong to. Then I query as to what standards or practices they. If they are doing only the Chang Hon pattern set, then they are not doing CDK.

Why wouldn't be? The distinction between the Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan is almost non-existent. I don't know how many times I've asked a Chung Do Kwan senior what kwan someone was, and they have said "Oh Do Kwan, but Chung Do Kwan Oh Do Kwan same thing".

 

[Earl Weiss]

Why wouldn't be? The distinction between the Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan is almost non-existent. I don't know how many times I've asked a Chung Do Kwan senior what kwan someone was, and they have said "Oh Do Kwan, but Chung Do Kwan Oh Do Kwan same thing".

Because I have heard this from people I had known for a while. When they used the term they were not referring to an org. but a style. They were not people like GM Nam who certainly would know the distinctions. They seemed to thing the CDK was a style and that it was defined by the Chang Hon pattern set. As I understand it the Oh Do Kwan did different pattern sets at different points in time. Certainly some more recent people (no specifics here) who commented on being ODK sere not doing the Chang Hon pattern set. Frankly I never questioned exactly what their link to the ODK was.

 

[puunui]

Because I have heard this from people I had known for a while. When they used the term they were not referring to an org. but a style. They were not people like GM Nam who certainly would know the distinctions. They seemed to thing the CDK was a style and that it was defined by the Chang Hon pattern set. As I understand it the Oh Do Kwan did different pattern sets at different points in time. Certainly some more recent people (no specifics here) who commented on being ODK sere not doing the Chang Hon pattern set. Frankly I never questioned exactly what their link to the ODK was.

As far as I know Chung Do Kwan members consider all of it to be the "Chung Do Kwan style", including Chang Hon stuff. Or at least I do. Taekwondo is an art whose primary philosophy is one of inclusion, not division or exclusion. I recognize and understand that ITF members may have been taught a different philosophy. Also, Oh Do Kwan does not equal ITF. The Oh Do Kwan as far as I know still exists, with its headquarters in Seoul, Korea.

 

[Earl Weiss]

As far as I know Chung Do Kwan members consider all of it to be the "Chung Do Kwan style", including Chang Hon stuff. Or at least I do. Taekwondo is an art whose primary philosophy is one of inclusion, not division or exclusion. I recognize and understand that ITF members may have been taught a different philosophy. Also, Oh Do Kwan does not equal ITF. The Oh Do Kwan as far as I know still exists, with its headquarters in Seoul, Korea.

So, is it your philosophy that there are no different "Styles" of TKD? If so, what word would you use to describe the different technical parameters or systems that variuous groups under the TKD umbrella use?

 

[sfs982000]

My guess is that the majority of ATA are not aware of that fact. And some current and former ATA masters had different lineages prior to joining the ATA as well.

To answer the original question, I have always had an interest in my lineage, but as far as I know, none of my students expressed interest in their lineage.

As an ATA student, I would have to agree that most folks don't know that GM Lee had roots in CDK. It's not something that was mentioned in any of the initial literature that I recieved when I first started Songham TKD. I found out through talking on various forums trying to learn more about the history behind ATA.

 

[puunui]

So, is it your philosophy that there are no different "Styles" of TKD?

According to the pioneers, there is only one taekwondo, just like according to FUNAKOSHI Gichin Sensei, there is only one karate.

If so, what word would you use to describe the different technical parameters or systems that various groups under the TKD umbrella use?

One word? Developing.

 

[Manny]

My roots are Jido Kwan, my sambonim was Master Ramon Alvite Gazca 7th dan (director of Jido Kwan Veracruz) he is student of korean Grand Master An Dae Sup, tha'is is my lineaje. Right now I am under Hwarang Taekwondo, my sambonim is master Miguel A. Carrillo 7th dan who is student of Grand Master Ernesto Moras who is student from Dai Won Moon (Moo Duk Kwan Tae Kwon Do).

So basically i was forged at Ji Do Kwan and now my other lineaje is Moo Duk Kwan, these kwans were tought competitors back in the 80's, each one claiming to be the firsts TKD in Mexico.

manny

 

[Buka]

It's important for students to know the history of what they are doing, where it came from, where it started, how it evolved - it gives them perspective and appreciation. There is a certain modicum of class associated with that, as well there should be.
But as instructors, those that came before us matter not, only those that come after us, those we teach, are what really matter. Let's hope we all do a good job.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I appreciate the replies to the thread, it has been very educational. Thank you.