Taekwondo's core goes beyond technique

[Last Fearner]

This thread is in response to comments made by exile in another thread.

Exile and I do not usually see eye-to-eye on matters of Taekwondo content, philosophy, ethics, history and origins, and I would prefer to leave it at that, but not when I'm being talked down to, and insulted. To the members of MT, I apologize for the length of this post, and if parts sound rather arrogant, but I am greatly offended when someone holds their point of view up as being right over legitimate, knowledgeable instructors, while questioning the "credibility" of those who present a different point of view.

Well, one of the less pleasant aspects of reality is that frequent repetition of one's cherished beliefs, in the face of abundant contradiction, doesn't generally make those beliefs true; nor does it succeed in dispelling the contradictory evidence.

Very astute observation, exile - - if only you would turn it around and apply that logic to the highly frequent repetition of your own cherished beliefs (which are not as accurate as you might believe). The type of “contradictory evidence” that you cling to so fervently, is the type that used to frequently convict innocent people of murder and rape until DNA evidence proved otherwise.

You can draw whatever conclusions you want, based on whatever “evidence” you choose to focus on, but until you open your mind to the truth of what Taekwondo is, your verdict is always going to be biased, and you are going to continue to hold your scientifically educated research piously above others who, in my personal opinion, have a much clearer understanding of the nature, philosophy, technical application, and history of the art of Taekwondo.

The irrelevance of almost all aspects of what was done in 'old Korea' to contemporary Korean MAs is abundantly documented in a list of historical studies that keeps getting longer as scholarly investigation proceeds, with so far not a single bit of challenge from any carefully reviewed piece of historical research,

There are several flaws in the above statement. First, is the term “irrelevance.” What is relevant and what is not relevant historically speaking is not for you to say, nor for those who are conducting similarly biased and misguided research into this topic. What I discuss is relevant because it addresses an aspect of Korean Taekwondo that you are clearly unaware of, or refuse to recognize, but your repeated refusal does not change the truth. Secondly, you say “almost all aspects.” Here again, where is your authority to say which aspects are relevant, and which are not, especially if you admit that some are.

Finally, you mention a “list of historical studies,” and “scholarly investigations.” I have had my share of college education, and the scientific approach to empirical evidence which has very little to do with such an abstract, and philosophical concept as the Martial Art. Who conducts these historical studies, and are they legitimate masters of Taekwondo, or are they asking the Masters for the answers? I have had personal conversations with Koreans who have dedicated their entire lives to studying, and teaching of their native art, yet I have never seen one of them participate in these “scholarly investigations.”

One particularly Grandmaster, who I have known and trained with, is considered so senior and respected in one Kwan, that I have observed every 8th and 9th Degree in the room, that most would consider to be the top experts, stand and bow to him, and when he spoke, they all shut up and listened. Some of these Korean Grandmaster of Taekwondo, you probably have never heard of, let alone met or interviewed, and even if you did, I am certain they would not tell you very much of what they know.

It took me decades to get into the confidence of late night meetings where I was the only American in a hotel room of 8th and 9th Dan Korean Grandmasters. They took me into their confidence on many things, but I still know they held back on some things, and there are other GMs like them that I have never met. I am not saying this to brag about myself, but to emphasize that there is a vast amount of in-depth knowledge about Taekwondo that is beyond the scope of these alleged scholarly studies. So I know the depth of this art, and its history, but I also know that you won't find it in a book, or some “scholarly” scientific journal.

To put it simply, the thing that you don't seem to understand, exile, is that the term “Taekwondo” was offered up to the Korean people, historians, and Kwan founders as a name to represent much more than you and your experts have garnered from your studies. If I were to list everything that is in the content of Taekwondo education, a very small minority of that curriculum would be about fighting techniques, and even less would be about any hyungs that were re-worked from the kata where you focus so much attention. Karate Kata do not define Taekwondo.

The core philosophy of what makes Taekwondo what it is comes from centuries of the Korean plight. The character building and ethics were well documented as part of Korean culture in the Hwarang, which is carried over into today's Taekwondo. The list of building blocks goes on and on, and has nothing to do with what influence occurred during the Japanese occupation except that the Korean people once again survived enemy oppression and hostilities.

For you, or anyone else to say a generalized, blanket statement such as “Taekwondo is this,” or “Taekwondo is not that,” or “Taekwondo is based in Karate” implies that you own the rights to the term “Taekwondo” - - that you created Taekwondo, and/or fully understand it to the extent that you are the one authority who can say what it is or is not Taekwondo, and where all of the elements that make up Taekwondo come from.

All of which is not the case, and while you will likely dodge the bullets and say that is not what you are saying, it is the implication based on comments like “Taekwondo is a Karate based art.” I do not deny the influence that Karate and other Japanese systems had on those individuals of the Kwan era, but Taekwondo was not born then, contrary to novice belief. The name was chosen at that time, but the concept, essence and core of Taekwondo goes far beyond those individuals, and that technical content that those Kwan founders were limited to at that time in history.

I have yet to encounter a single citation or evidence of documentation, in any MartialTalk thread or elsewhere, that suggests anything other than the basis of TKD firmly and squarely in theOkinawan/Japanese combat arts grouped together under the name karate,

Well, exile, perhaps this is one of your research flaws by looking for the answers on Martial Talk (no offense to this forum). However, I have made reference to the truth in threads on MT before, only to be addressed in a condescending manner by you, although you undoubtedly feel that I am arrogant and narrow minded for stating my position I see similar qualities in you (and Master Stoker wonders why genuine Grandmasters are not attracted to this or any other internet forum).

I do think the historical issue has to be revisited in light of the above, for two reasons:

first, because repeated recycling of MA folklore as fact, with no apparent awareness of just how large the burden of proof now is on such claims, reflects rather poorly on the overall credibility of those making such claim;

Here is where some of your subtle insults of instructors like me becomes annoying by blatantly saying that those who disagree with your position automatically have poor credibility because you believe our arguments have been disproven. Some of folklore is “fact” and the lack of “apparent awareness” rests solely on your shoulders, exile (and I mean this with considerable respect) until you gain a better understanding of the definition of the term “Taekwondo” and the complete philosophy that it entails, I suggest you don't try to hold your limited understand, and the "experts" you quote as being undeniably right.

second, because to the extent that the technical core of the KMAs can indeed be (and has been) shown to arise from O/J karate, and to the extent that the technical core of karate are the kata (just as the borrowed and remixed sequences in the kata are the basis of TKD hyungs)

From what I have seen in many of your own questions about how to do specific Taekwondo techniques which you have posted on MT, exile, I would question the depth of your understanding of the “technical core of the KMAs,” specifically of Taekwondo. The “technical core” of Taekwondo is a culmination of both old and new influences, and has been under development since the decision to pull together all of Korea's indigenous Martial Art training and give it the name Taekwondo.

Your confusion is understandable, however. Typically, when something has old content, and it is met with newer influences, one can trace a logical order of events. However, since the Japanese occupation of Korea, and suppression of Korean culture, language and Martial Art created a unique circumstance in history, the Kwan era produced a spark of creativity that gives the appearance of established origins and sources for the later known Taekwondo. However, the little known truth, and barely understood reality is that Taekwondo was a term given to a multitude of concepts, including the efforts of Korean Martial Art Masters to bring together any and all of the knowledge that existed before the occupation. If the name Taekwondo represents the pre-WWII era as its roots (which it does), then the occupation and early kwan eras are additional influences to the core of Taekwondo's roots even though the name did not exist until later.

Although there are natural similarities to all unarmed combat systems, I have studied both Karate and Taekwondo, and there are more differences than just added kicks, and absolutely nothing proves that even the vast majority of what is taught in Taekwondo can be shown to “arise” from Okinawan or Japanese Karate (the Kwan era and Kwan content is a different story). You say that the kata are the “technical core” of Karate, and then attempt to correlate this with Taekwondo hyungs, but the truth is that the forms of Taekwondo do not represent the “technical core” of the Korean Art in the same way as your reference to Karate kata.

Furthermore, from a Taekwondo perspective, the borrowed concept of kata, is merely a framework for practicing techniques - Taekwondo techniques - and developing skills very different than the approach at the core of Karate kata. Taekwondo Poomsae are the result of redesigning the “content” of what goes into the framework of a pre-arranged pattern which has gradually evolved since Korean Martial Art broke away from the dictatorial control of Japanese influence, became named Taekwondo, and began to reflect the concepts of old and new Korean Martial Art within the generic diagrams that have been called tuls, hyungs and poomsae. The diagrams, philosophy, and technical content in today's Taegeuk are based on the philosophies of the I-Ching which is borrowed from Korea's Chinese neighbors, but that does not make Taekwondo Chinese either.

- As Henning in his 2000 JAMA article points out...
- see mycitation of some of the relevant history from Capener's study...
- Marc Tedeschi's massive Taekwondo offers similar conclusions...
- As Burdick documents in his 2000 JAMA article...
- the result, as Abernethy has noted...

Well now, if I were not a life-long, dedicate student of Taekwondo, with more than 42 years in the Martial Art, and 30 years of teaching Taekwondo, I might rush right out and buy every book by these “experts” and even beg to become a student of someone so knowledgeable as Mr Abernathy. However, since I don't encourage students to learn about Taekwondo from books, and since my sources of Taekwondo education comes from people who don't write books, but whose knowledge far surpass the entire collection listed above, I am not inclined to do so. I don't quote these “experts” as you do, exile, because I don't consider them any more of an expert than I am (sorry if that comes off pius, but reality is what it is).

I am sure you are genuinely in awe of these people who you have encountered in your years in Taekwondo, and you view them as knowledgeable because what they say makes sense to you, but with all due respect to their efforts and research, they are still seeking answers through trial and error based on their own limited skills, yet they don't compare to those that I have met who know the answers first hand.

I know it is easy to scoff at a statement like that, or write it off that I am being arrogant, or that I am just blowing smoke, but you would have to have encountered the people that I have, gained their trust, and heard it first hand to understand.

- All of this documentated history, much of it peer-reviewed,

Yes, “peer-reviewed” is a nice term when applied to the medical and scientific communities. However, when an advanced abstract concept such as the Martial Art is barely understood by most who spend a lifetime seriously studying it, I find the “peer-reviewed” evidence to be much like the blind leading the blind and proof-reading their work for approval (no offense to those who are visually challenged).

I am sure, with your background and education, exile, you are personally impressed with the credentials, methodology, and concept of this “peer-reviewed” system, but I also did peer-reviews of fellow college students works for grade requirements, and that held little weight compared to a professor's review. In other words, from my perspective, you've got well-intentioned people trying to figure out an art of which they themselves are not masters, guessing at what the “evidence” means to them, and similar colleagues giving them the thumbs up on their research which, in turn, makes sense to them - - Flawed from the beginning, in my opinion.

So far as I can tell, the chief source for the idea of TKD as having any origins in 'old Korea', whatever that means,

Well, exile, if you don't know what that means, then I question how you could understand the complexity of where Taekwondo comes from.

the writings of General Choi...

I could take an entire new thread to answer the comments you make about General Choi, the early “kata” he and others taught, and the argument over tae kyon vs taekkyun, but it would do little good as you typically call people like General Choi liars when there is a change in their story, or a discrepancy you do not understand (modified stories don't always indicate lies).

Suffice to say, in his 1965 English translation of his book on Taekwondo, General Choi states that he first learned “T'ae kyon” (the kicking method) from his calligraphy teacher, Mr. Han in 1936. He describes Mr. Han as a “well-known teacher,” and a “veteran of the ancient T'ae kyon.” What did Mr Han teach young Choi, Hong Hi? Do you know? Were you there, or are you just willing to call Gen. Choi a liar based on your opinion which is based on the modern research of so-called “experts”?

Has anyone proven that Mr. Han did not exist, or that he did not know any kind of Korean Kicking techniques? If Mr. Han was a “veteran” of Korean Kicking in 1936, where and when did he learn it, and from what T'ae kyon teacher in the early 1900s and even further back, before the Japanese occupation and influence? General Choi is not the only authority to have brought up the fact that T'ae kyon, Subak, and other native skills survived the occupation in secrecy.

No one is saying that all of the modern fancy jumping, flying and spinning kicks of today's Taekwondo was part of this early T'ae kyon kicking self defense system, but this is part of the ”technical core” from which the kicking aspect of modern Taekwondo originates. That is just one thing that makes Taekwondo what it is, and it did not come from Karate, or from Japan.

Take a look at the following comments by Lawrence Kane and Chris Wilder,... (Kane's input is especially important because his specialization is in crowd-violence control, especially in large sports arenas, so situations in which multiple attackers are involved is something he has a particular professional interest in):

Lawrence Kane is not the only one who has had extensive experience in crowd-violence control, and judging by the following comments, your “experts” are not so expert.

Rule 3 of Kata Interpretation: There is Only One Enemy at a Time

In reality, from a street-fighting point of view, it is pretty much impossible to make a kata that is designed to fight against multiple attackers at once. One person cannot simultaneously execute many different techniques against multiple opponents except in well-choreographed movie stunts. The vast majority of kata techniques are designed to deal with a single attacker who is directly in front of the attacker. Although there are certain movements where the imaginary enemy strikes from behind, there is always only one opponentat a time.

In reality, exile, there is not always only one opponent at at time. I have been in many situations with multiple attackers, and had to take down multiple opponents simultaneously. Also, it is not even difficult, let alone “impossible” to create a poomsae (kata) designed to fight multiple attackers at once. Although basic forms of Taekwondo are not intended for such complex training, the creation of such a form is quite possible.

The quote that “One person cannot simultaneously execute many different techniques against multiple opponents except in well-choreographed movie stunts” shows me how inexperienced and wrong these “experts” are. I have personally used multiple simultaneous techniques to multiple attackers, and through no super-human abilities that I possess. Apparently these authors just don't know how to do it effectively, but it is wrong of them to blanketly say that it can't be done in reality.

Finally, the statement that in “kata” (or Taekwondo hyung) “there is always only one opponent at a time.” is false. I could cite multiple examples of double simultaneous blocks to multiple attackers, as well as combination blocks and strikes to different opponents, in different directions, at the same time. While there are not a lot of them (that is not what forms primarily teach, they do exist - - so this "expert" is mistaken.

Are K&W denying that there are ways of applying the techs they extract from kata to multiple attack situations? Not at all! Notice their followup comments on the problem:

Dealing with multiple attackers is very challenging.... if one is forced to fight, he or she can realistically only engage one opponent at a time...

That is just flat out wrong, and shows a lack of genuine experience and expertise. While attempting to position yourself to deal with one attacker at a time is ideal and recommended, to say that fighting more than one at a time is not realistic is wrong.

But if there's someone out there who actually has some explicit information about just how the content of the TMAs, and their intended training methods, were designed to defend you against four really pissed-off regulars in a West Yellowstone biker bar you wandered into by mistake, well then by all means let's talk about that, eh? One of the problems with this sort of discussion is that it often never quite gets down to concrete details, and we're left challenging generalities with other generalities.

Here are some concrete details, exile - - I don't teach people how to do what I can do over the internet, and I don't teach it to beginner students, lest they quit and become internet gurus claiming to be something they are not. I think it is ironic that you joke about “secret hand-shakes” and secret knowledge withheld for only high ranks because you would be surprised at what many Korean Grandmasters talk about pertaining to not sharing all of what they know with outsiders. There are many instructors, myself included, who reserve some of the most advanced training for dedicated Black Belts just so we don't create killers with bad attitudes and no ethics.

It takes years to develop the basics to the point that combinations flow smooth, and advance concepts such as multiple targets, and multiple attackers can be addressed. Many students quit before the reach that stage, and others train from instructors who never learned it, then write books about how it can't be done so others can read their words of wisdom and quote them in internet forums.

- Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I am merely speaking what I believe to be the truth, and I feel someone has to say it. It is not being said out of disrespect, ego, bragging, or any attempt to insult or belittle anyone, but rather to set the record straight when others repeatedly hold false evidence up as the one and only truth, and call into question the credibility of those of us who have legitimate credentials, and an in-depth understanding of the art of Taekwondo simply because we state things with which they disagree.

Respectfully,
Chief Master D.J. Eisenhart

 

[terryl965]

C.M Eisenhart, I do enjoy your threads and Exile at the same time. I hope we all can agree that there is more than one authorities word on what is and what is not TKD. You have been fortunite to talk and train with some of the best peole in the world and you are going to take what they have to say as the gospel truth. I see nothing wrong with that. Exile has meet some very inpressive people as well and he chooses to take much of what they say as the gospel truth.

I on the other hand have trained in Korea and some very high ranking GM myself and take what they say with a gain of salt and I respect them for there skills and there knowledge of there interpetation of TKD, you see we have way to many GM in the world that spead what they want us to know and what they do not want us to know. I have sat in meeting with thm as well and have heard things that I have given my world to never say. Does this mean they are absolutely right (yes in ther e minds they are).

At best we can all agree to dis-agree with each other ways of thinking bur until the GM with all the right answer come forward and tell what they know we are all in a guessing game to what TKD is and what it will become, evolution wil work it way though the art just like everything else and in twenty five years we will be told something else. I like you have been around TKD for a long time and have heard what is and what is not by some pretty high people, but does it really matter, if it did they would step up from behind closed doors and make this known to the general TKD community once and for all.

I refuse to believe all of my training and all of my student training rest in the hands of a few GM that will not come out for the Betterment of TKD, we must put a side our differences and grow and unite as one for the common good of the Art we so pasonate about.

Looking forward to some great debate and common courtesy from all.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I am with Terry here in that Tae Kwon Do has many different teacher's and quite a few of them teach rather differently. I do not think there is one absolute truth when it comes to Tae Kwon Do and how it is taught and practiced. My teacher's certainly never were all on the same page 100% of the time and they in turn had differances of opinion with other teacher's.

Now as to both you and Exile I feel that you both have some excellent advice and comments. I do feel that Exile in many way's gets to the truth of the matter particularly on certain subjects and I enjoy his posts. I enjoy your posts based on your experience in Tae Kwon Do as well.

Though it is important to keep thing's within the frame work of friendly martial arts discussion as that is what MartialTalk is all about.

 

[exile]

Just a few quick points in response to LF's post:

• First, the history of TKD, or MAs, or anything else, is history; being a practitioner of TKD, or anything else, gives you no expertise at all, whatsover, about the history of that thing. Astronomers frequently have no clue about the ancient history of astronomy; lawyers typically have no idea where the legal content they learned in law school came from, how it evolved in earlier stages of human society. Technical expertise in TKD guarantees absolutely nothing about the degree to which your picture of the history of TKD corresponds to the best-case account of that history.
• That being the case, everyone who makes a historical claim can be expected to be held to a standard of evidence. All of my sources meet that standard. To date, LF, you have yet to cite a single bit of checkable fact that contradicts their claims; they on the other hand can provide ample checkable documentation for every statement they make. The fact is that their expertise is not predicated on claims of great experience, or of rank, or any ad vericundiam argument; it's based on available documentation, archaelogical research, and the rest of the means by which history seeks to separate well-founded hypotheses from wishful fantasy—in all aspects of human life.
• Given that the interpretation of KMA history that they provide is abundantly documented, with each statement supported by publically accessible records, and that you have yet to cite a single demonstrable fact in contradiction, the picture that emerges from my sources' extensive, peer-reviewed research represents the burden of proof on you to contradict. You can claim all the special knowledge you like, but evidence you can't produce isn't evidence. If you can't show how the picture painted by the historians I've cited is mistaken, then you haven't met that burden of proof in the slightest. That doesn't stop you from believing what you want, of course, but anyone looking for the more likely of the two narratives with an open mind will simply choose to believe the vastly better supported historical picture based on the past decade and a half of disinterested, careful, professional research by people trained in historical research methods, as laid out for all to see in their sources.

As I say, one may wish things were otherwise, but they aren't.

I think that speaks to what substantive content there is in the OP. Much of the rest of it seems to me to be, in effect, blaming the messenger—a tempting option when confronted by evidence that one has no actual counter for; it's a very common (but I think ultimately self-defeating) kind of response, and I'm confident, from my experience on the board, that Martial Talk readers will have no trouble recognizing it as such.

 

[SageGhost83]

I have to go with exile on this one. Exile's views are supported by proven facts which were gathered by highly educated professionals who have done the cold hard research and gathered the information from the very place of the art's origin. They didn't just blindly accept the revisionist history or folklores, they got right to the cold uncomfortale truth of the matter and published the results for all to see sans the nationalist agenda. Exile is merely sharing what is supported by *fact* as opposed to unprovable supposition. Those facts have been proven and they hold true regardless of if Stuart Anslow, Ian Abernathy, Lee Won Kuk, or Kim Soo are presenting them. Just because someone is a high ranking member within an art doesn't mean that they automatically know everything about the art and its history. Do you know how many high ranking people don't know the bunkai to the katas/forms? Rank does not automatically make someone correct. Doing actual unbiased research and knowing the facts is what makes someone correct. I love Taekwondo too, however, I know better than to believe most of the lies that are taught as truths within our beloved art (like TKD being 2000 years old, for instance). If I just went by everything that my instructor (who is a korean immigrant) said, then I would probably believe that TKD is 2000 years old, too. I learned the truth by going out on my own, just like our good friend exile, and actually reading the work of those who have spent many years painstakingly researching the *actual* history of the style. I have also been corrected many times on MT. It is about reality, not romanticism. By the way, if you have a beef with somebody then you should handle it in private, one-on-one with the individual. It is not very tactful to start a public thread with the sole purpose of going after another member, I am pretty sure that the moderators will have something to say about this. If you are going to get into a p*ssing contest with someone, then at least have the decency to keep it in the restroom. What exactly are you trying to prove, anyways? If you are truly secure in what you do, then you won't care what others think. Not trying to offend you, and if I did, then I apologize - just telling it like it is.

 

[Cirdan]

You know, EVERY time I question some TKD myth I get the awnser "Master told me so and he is NOT lying" This appears to go all the way to the top. Where did the myths come from anyway eh?

 

[tellner]

On one side we have evidence, research, inference, logic, primary and secondary sources and painstaking peer-review by scholarly experts in the field.

On the other side we have "My Master told me so, and he can break 41 bricks at a time, so he must be right," and "The Korean government says so, so it must be true".

A rational, skeptical person with a desire to find out the truth will pick one by using his or her forebrain. A Kool-Aid guzzling True Believer will use wishful thinking and pick the other out of blind loyalty. Call me a bitter old cynic, but I'll take the first, thank you very much. I've got a great deal for those who go for door number two. It seems that a Nigerian Oil Baron has died, and his widow needs to get $61,000,000 out of the country...

 

[granfire]

Uhm...what?

 

[Tez3]

This is one of those threads where the posts are so long I cannot read them on screen so have to print. I will read with an open mind but I'm not encouraged by the way the OPs opening lines seem to be combatative and against one person but we'l see!

 

[foot2face]

From my perspective it looks like there are “kool-aid guzzlers” on both sides. Although Exiles information is excellent and indisputable (for the most part) in reality it only represents an infinitesimally small portion of TKD history. Just because someone’s assertions have not been “painstaking peer-review(ed) by scholarly experts” doesn’t mean that they’re untrue, just as peer-reviewed works are not necessarily the final word on any given topic. Instead of condescendingly refuting the experience and opinions’ of others simply because it dose not match what we’ve read in a book (no mater how seemingly credible) or lashing out at someone because they put forth assertions that contradict our life-times worth of experience and knowledge, cant we just debate one another in a mature, humble manner. Isn’t it better to keep an open mind and take everything with a grain of salt?

 

[exile]

From my perspective it looks like there are “kool-aid guzzlers” on both sides. Although Exiles information is excellent and indisputable (for the most part) in reality it only represents an infinitesimally small portion of TKD history. Just because someone’s assertions have not been “painstaking peer-review(ed) by scholarly experts” doesn’t mean that they’re untrue, just as peer-reviewed works are not necessarily the final word on any given topic.Instead of condescendingly refuting the experience and opinions’ of others simply because it dose not match what we’ve read in a book (no mater how seemingly credible) or lashing out at someone because they put forth assertions that contradict our life-times worth of experience and knowledge, cant we just debate one another in a mature, humble manner. Isn’t it better to keep an open mind and take everything with a grain of salt?

I understand your take on the question, f2f, and what you're trying to do. And I respect it, believe me. But there's something which I think needs to be taken into account here in considering your point, which is the very nature of the question at issue, the facts of the matter. What are we discussing here? It's simply the history of the development of the KMAs, a human institution, if you like, no different in nature from the history of the NY stock market, or the history of museums, of socialism, or of particle physics. We're talking about what happened, and why, over a long period of time. That history cannot in any way be reconstructed on the basis of anyone's lifetime of experience, as you allude to it, especially of someone who did not play a role in the pivotal events which are the heart of the question. Look back at my post that the OP complains about to see the testimony of Korean grandmasters, or the testimony that Robert Young reports firsthand in his 1993 JAMA article which contains similar testimony from other pivotal figures in the development of TKD, for evidence from those who were actually there, about the role that putatively ancient KMA didn't play in the development of TKD. The crucial point is that what is at issue is a question that can only be answered on the basis of evidence that spans the long timespan implicated in the claim that TKD has 'ancient' or even 'old' (as in 'old Korea[n]') content. Individual knowledge from a single lifetime's experience cannot by its very nature answer that question, particularly, of course, an experience which began well after the developments in question had occurred.

Given that, you have to ask yourself what is most plausible. That's always the question, no? We approach all answers to a question with a basic skepticism: show me why I should believe what you're saying! And in some cases we get (i) vague answers, requiring a kind of unearned belief in the authority of the respondent; in others, we get (ii) a long series of citations of evidence, of every kind which has bearing on the question, which all converge on a single story. Sometimes, of course, we're left in between. In the present case, though, we have a significant body of evidence from a number of researchers who have the training in languages, philological methods for the understanding of ancient documents, detailed background in the archaeological picture of northern Asia, and valuable firsthand testimonies from some of the modern creators of the art itself—and they all converge on a particular story, a story compatible with all available evidence. On the other hand we have, let's say, a version of (i).

Now it's true, as you say: there may be a lot more out there that we don't know. On the basis of what we do know, though, the picture based on (ii) has met the necessary standards of evidence; that in (i) has failed to meet it almost completely. The point is the same as in the following picture: it's true that WWI may have been caused by a complex of factors, involving competing colonial empires, the complex structure of alliances in early 20th c. Europe, and maybe a dozen other factors, in various weightings, which are of course themselves debatable. Or it could have been caused by a command, telepathically implanted in the minds of the commanding officers of the various European armies by aliens hidden amongst Earth's poplulation, to fight to the death amongst each other as part of a generously funded research project on the alien species' home planet. Can you logically rule out the latter? Suppose you encountered someone who insisted that this latter idea had to be true, because they knew it for a fact, because no one had shown it wasn't possible, etc. etc. Where would you say the burden of proof fell? On the exhaustive historical analyses that have so far been carried out, and given us a very detailed picture, and plausible overview, of the political, social and economic factors which lead to WWI, based on the massive documentation of the past century and a half, letters from the principals to each other, independently developed economic models of the European colonial powers at the time, intelligence documents which have become available during the past generation, etc? Or on the view that it was all the fault of conscienceless alien scientists practicing mind control over Earthling generals, kaisers and presidents?

The point is, always, where does the burden of proof lie? And as I say, don't blame the messenger who points out that the totality of evidence, detached from nationalist and political agendas which can be themselves identified and analyzed, points unequivocally in one direction rather than the other. We aren't looking at a symmetrical situation here. What evidence we have—and there is now quite a bit, though of course there will, we hope, be more in the future—points in to the recent creation of the KMAs on the basis of Okinawan and Japanese combat techniques. This doesn't necessarily implicate what was subsequently done with that Korean adoption of karate. It just point to the source of the KMA technique set, at the begining of that development, in O/J karate. What I would hope is that those who have some interest in the factual status of the question actually go to the various sources I've cited—a number of the most important ones are given citations here—and then decide for yourselves if claims about the origins of Taekwondo in 'ancient Korea', 'old Korea' or some similar description have the status of anything more than historical fantasies.

This is strictly an empirical question. It hangs completely on the evidence. Clumsy personal attacks based on hostility to the way that evidence plays out ought to have nothing to do with the discussion, eh? On this point, I think we agree completely.

 

[Makalakumu]

Never mistake humility with falsehood. That which you omit in favor of other's favor is a lie.

 

[Marginal]

From my perspective it looks like there are “kool-aid guzzlers” on both sides. Although Exiles information is excellent and indisputable (for the most part) in reality it only represents an infinitesimally small portion of TKD history. Just because someone’s assertions have not been “painstaking peer-review(ed) by scholarly experts” doesn’t mean that they’re untrue, just as peer-reviewed works are not necessarily the final word on any given topic. Instead of condescendingly refuting the experience and opinions’ of others simply because it dose not match what we’ve read in a book (no mater how seemingly credible) or lashing out at someone because they put forth assertions that contradict our life-times worth of experience and knowledge, cant we just debate one another in a mature, humble manner. Isn’t it better to keep an open mind and take everything with a grain of salt?

Depends on the nature of the argument. One one side, you have people demonstrating that TKD was largely derived from JMA and then it evolved from there.

The other side says, Korea suffered terribly under the Japanese occupation therefore they get to rewrite their history to make themselves feel better about it. If they want to link TKD to loosely related martial traditions centuries gone, who are we to question it? It's their history, not ours.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Depends on the nature of the argument. One one side, you have people demonstrating that TKD was largely derived from JMA and then it evolved from there.

The other side says, Korea suffered terribly under the Japanese occupation therefore they get to rewrite their history to make themselves feel better about it. If they want to link TKD to loosely related martial traditions centuries gone, who are we to question it? It's their history, not ours.

True but we do not have to take it as actual history. :idunno:
Deconstructionism is a stock and true trade to create the history that you want to achieve. That in turn does not make it real or actual history!

 

[terryl965]

True but we do not have to take it as actual history. :idunno:
Deconstructionism is a stock and true trade to create the history that you want to achieve. That in turn does not make it real or actual history!

This is sooo true!!!!!!!

 

[tellner]

f2f, I'm afraid it doesn't wash. The sources that exile has cited did the research. They checked the facts. Their conclusions are the best history we have on the subject. It isn't a matter of that stuff being "a small part of Tae Kwon Do's history". It's a pretty fair summation of all of TKD's history; there isn't that much of it.

General Choi claims that his calligraphy teacher told him that Korean martial arts came from Tae Kyon? Once we put that claim under the microscope it cuts as much ice as a soap hacksaw. So do the cave paintings, the mythical Hwa Rang Super Warriors and all the rest. You're left with the reality. The only shame there is that the Korean government wasn't satisfied with the truth and decided to spread lies to make the country feel better about itself.

It's a real shame. The Korean martial arts have a lot to recommend them. That goes double because they got so much done in such a short time. The problem is that when people start lying everything they do is diminished.

It's like the old line from Abraham Lincoln:

How many legs does a dog have if we call the tail a leg?

Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

 

[SageGhost83]

Aside from the obvious nationalism and anti-japanese racism, I think I understand why Korea does this. Every Asian nation has a renowned warrior culture to export to the rest of the world. Japan has bushido, China has Kung Fu, The Phillipines has Arnis/Kali, etc. But what does Korea have? Whatever she had was abandoned after the three kingdoms period or wiped out by the Japanese occupation. So here is Korea, metaphorically naked in this area and feeling left out. They have learned other arts from other countries, namely Japan and China, and remixed them to fit their own styles and tastes. Now they push them off as being formed exclusively on Korean soil, and they attach false, romanticised stories to them in an attempt to compensate for their lack of a ready-made warrior culture to export to the rest of the world *cough* Joo Bang Lee *cough*. the sad part is that everyone sympathizes with Korea without them having to lie - we know what happened and we know why. There is no shame in admitting that most of your culture was systematically destroyed by an evil, invading force and that you had to rebuild it. However, there is infinite shame in openly lying about it and trying to force those lies on the rest of the world when most of us already know the truth. There is no need to lie. What is gained from it? A false sense of patriotism and pride? A bunch of people who blindly adhere to a legend out of loyalty alone? It is an insult to the style and it is an insult to the legacy of Korea. No, the styles are not ancient Korean martial arts, they are new Korean martial arts that were imported to the peninsula and remixed. So what is wrong with admitting that? They may have started out as styles from other countries, but *now* they are Korean and they are distinct from those other styles. Japanese Karate is no longer Okinawan Karate, Taekwondo is no longer Japanese Karate. However, the Japanese are willing to acknowledge that their karate came from another country that they are not particularly fond of and have always looked down upon. So why is it so hard for Korea to do that? Just be honest. We all know the truth, it has been uncovered by honest, reliable sources both within and outside of the country. It is not hearsay, it is proven fact that can be backed up by hard evidence. Facts are facts, you cannot deny them just because you don't like them and you want to make up new stories about the romantic past that you wish you had but know damn well that you didn't. I know the truth about Taekwondo, and it doesn't make me think any less of the style or its country. The blatant lying, however, leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.

 

[foot2face]

I’m sorry Tellner, but I disagree. I believe that even Exile would admit that the information he provided represents only a small portion of TKD’s overall history. The events that led to the formation of TKD are exceedingly complex and so many details have yet to be revealed to the public. For you to come here with the little information you believe to be true and make a blanket statements like “It's a pretty fair summation of all of TKD's history; there isn't that much of it.” then go on to say that pretty much everything that doesn’t immediately coincide with your interpretation of the “facts” is a pack of lies, smacks of the type of intellectual inflexibility (which exist on both sides) that I point to in my earlier post. Despite your assertion that there is not that much TKD history, there remains a profusion of information that is still unknown to the masses and it’s very likely that all of our perspectiveson the art will change over the coming years as these details come to light and further our understanding. I hope my comments don’t come off as being mean spirited, please don’t take offence to them Tellner, I have no animosity for you. I respect your contribution to the conversation. I only mean to provide a differing opinion.:asian:

I’d like to address those who keep referring to the Korean governments lies. The matter is not that simple. The propaganda that has obscured much of TKD’s true history emanates from several parties, each with their own agenda. The KKW/WTF, the ITF and those who are devoted to the ways of the original Kwans have all contributed to the refuse that plaques those seeking answers about TKD‘s history. IT should be pointed out that the propaganda that steams form the original Kwans is very Karate-centric and tends to minimize or belittle philosophy and methods that stray from their typically JMA ways. This is why some remain skeptical of the type of information Exile provides, no matter how credible it may be. In fact many Kwan ere propagandists often use sound evidence like that which Exile writes of, to bolster their fallacious claims. They take advantage of the degradation in the quality of TKD instruction due to the immense popularity of the art and the focus of some only on the sport; unfortunately there are way too many under qualified teachers passing off rubbish as TKD. Kwan era propagandist often make claims like “ we practice real TKD…real TKD is Karate…any changes made to the system past 1955 were done solely for nationalistic purposes and did nothing but water down the art and turn it into a useless joke.” It’s falsehoods like this that lead some modern TKDist to hastily reject the information Exile points to.

Now for those who are of the belief that the facts are the facts, accept them and let go of the lies, Exiles provided information that is well researched and indisputable; look at it this way. In his earlier post Exile points to firsthand testimony from pivotal figures in the development of TKD. Ironically, most of the lies and misinformation about TKD were originally spread by those who were pivotal in its’ development. Can’t you see why some may be reluctant to embrace these new facts that are derived from the testimony of a few of TKD’s pioneering GMs?

Please understand, I’m not trying to refute the information Exile put forth, I couldn’t, I wouldn’t. I find it very insightful and helpful in allowing me to better understand my system. The only issue I sometimes have with it is with regards to it’s relevance, where dose it really fit into the lager picture of TKD history. I fear some may give it too much weight and develop an opinion of TKD that is just as off the mark as that of those who buy into all the propaganda. I just think it’s prudent to remind ourselves that what we think we know pales in comparison to what we don’t know. Again, I think it’s best to keep an open mind, take every thing with a grain of salt and be open to the possibility that what we know to be true now may not be true in the future.

 

[SageGhost83]

Now for those who are of the belief that the facts are the facts, accept them and let go of the lies, Exiles provided information that is well researched and indisputable; look at it this way. In his earlier post Exile points to firsthand testimony from pivotal figures in the development of TKD. Ironically, most of the lies and misinformation about TKD were originally spread by those who were pivotal in its’ development. Can’t you see why some may be reluctant to embrace these new facts that are derived from the testimony of a few of TKD’s pioneering GMs?

That doesn't change the fact that the style was derived from japanese karate and we *know* that. It even used the original Shotokan katas in its infancy. Most of the founders were trained in Japanese karate and the influence is readily apparent, too. I am open to the possibility that some indigeneous techniques may have been added into the mix, however, I am not going to buy into the Taekwondo-is-2000-years-old-and-was-practiced-by-the-Hwarang line. I agree that there are some specifics that we don't know. However, there is a lot of stuff that we *do* know, and the stuff that we *do* know negates the majority of so-called histories regarding our beloved KMA. That is where we call shenanigans - when histories are being presented to us that we know are not true based on the hard evidence that we actually *do* have. the stories of the founders changed because hard evidence was eventually found and they knew that they couldn't lie anymore. Joo Bang Lee had to come clean, Hwang Kee had to fess up, and GM Kim Soo came out and gave testimony, as well. What drives me crazy is that there is this attempt to deny the truth and try to force a new nationalist 'truth' onto the world just becuase the country in question doesn't want to accept the fact that their national sport was derived from a martial art that was prominent in a country that they hate. Lying sucks, especially when people come to you in good faith. Korea is awesome, there is no need for the propaganda.

 

[terryl965]

Oh come on people you know TKD is 10,000 years old with all the tradition of any Art. Sorry I knew that would get everyone attention, here is a bit of info. that we must all face we do not know and we will never know the whole truth the Koreans GM and government will not allow it. We must all look into the future and make TKD history ourself though our students and there actions. When it is all said and done every Art has taken from each other and thus so many simalarities are out there. I for one am tired of the past and looking forward to the future of TKD THE ART I LOVE.