Taekwondo's core goes beyond technique

[Ninjamom]

I notice GM Son Duk Ki's uniform follows closer to the traditional hanbok than the gi.

Thanks for the pics, Robert!

ADDED ON EDIT: I had heard that Subak was originally a game as well (or had evolved into such by the 1800's). Anyone have any more information on this pro/con?

 

[SageGhost83]

I notice GM Son Duk Ki's uniform follows closer to the traditional hanbok than the gi.

Thanks for the pics, Robert!

ADDED ON EDIT: I had heard that Subak was originally a game as well (or had evolved into such by the 1800's). Anyone have any more information on this pro/con?

Interesting, I have heard that Subak was a game in the same vein as Taekkyon, too. I have also heard that it was a generic name like "hand-to-hand combat" or something. So many stories out there concerning Subak, until we get the hard evidence, who knows?

 

[exile]

Interesting, I have heard that Subak was a game in the same vein as Taekkyon, too. I have also heard that it was a generic name like "hand-to-hand combat" or something. So many stories out there concerning Subak, until we get the hard evidence, who knows?

That's the position of Marc Tedeschi, in his encyclopædic Taekwondo: Traditions–Philosophy–Technique (Weatherhill: 2004, p. 27), noting that in the earliest era,

Korean martial arts did not possess a single umbrella-name. Instead, it is believed that specific skills were grouped into technique areas, which were labelled using generic terms. Some of these terms are:

...
Su Bak (punching and butting)
...

Note that these are not the names of specific martial arts styles or systems, although they are often used incorrectly in this context.​

I'm not 100% convinced by Tedeschi's grouping translations, but it's food for a lot of thought. Etymologically, subak itself appears to derive directly from Chinese; the source, Chinese shoubo/shoupai is a generic term meaning boxing; it doesn't—as I've heard in some notably uninformed comments somewhere or other—mean unarmed combat generally (wrestling had a completely different name, kakjo, in Korean). Early Korean combat terms often are simply loans from Chinese (e.g., as Chinese chuan fa was borrowed into Korean as kwan bop; and no, Chinese did not borrow vocabulary from its own tribute states, of which Korea was merely one of many, at that time). It seems clear that the emphasis in subak was on strictly boxing, hand-striking techniques; as Henning notes in 'Traditional Korean Martial Arts' (Journal of Asian Martial Arts 9.1, p.10),

Although there are no descriptive Korean references to the martial arts prior to the Koryo History... its citations provide evidence that the Koreans had maintained a strict distinction between wrestling and boxing in the military​

where the boxing in question was just shoubai ---> subak. Note that this 'earliest descriptive reference' was published in 1451. There were no earlier records that mention the KMAs, period.

The point about subak as a sport is interesting; Henning notes further that the Veritable Records of the Yi Dynasty, also published in the fifteenth century, mention a 'military sport subak... probably akin to boxing' (p.10). And, chiming in with SageGhost's speculation, Henning mentions that

Outside the military, as in China, boxing was practiced by the common folk on festive occasions. For example, competitive boxing bouts were held in the seventh month... in Unjin County, near the border of North Cholla and South Chungchong Provinces
​

(p. 11). Given that Henning's work establishes that subak was simply the Korean loan form from Chinese for boxing, this passage makes it very clear that subak was a competitive folk sport as well as a military sport.

 

[SageGhost83]

That's the position of Marc Tedeschi, in his encyclopædic Taekwondo: Traditions–Philosophy–Technique (Weatherhill: 2004, p. 27), noting that in the earliest era,

Korean martial arts did not possess a single umbrella-name. Instead, it is believed that specific skills were grouped into technique areas, which were labelled using generic terms. Some of these terms are:​

...​

Su Bak (punching and butting)​

...​

Note that these are not the names of specific martial arts styles or systems, although they are often used incorrectly in this context.​

I'm not 100% convinced by Tedeschi's grouping translations, but it's food for a lot of thought. Etymologically, subak itself appears to derive directly from Chinese; the source, Chinese shoubo/shoupai is a generic term meaning boxing; it doesn't—as I've heard in some notably uninformed comments somewhere or other—mean unarmed combat generally (wrestling had a completely different name, kakjo, in Korean). Early Korean combat terms often are simply loans from Chinese (e.g., as Chinese chuan fa was borrowed into Korean as kwan bop; and no, Chinese did not borrow vocabulary from its own tribute states, of which Korea was merely one of many, at that time). It seems clear that the emphasis in subak was on strictly boxing, hand-striking techniques; as Henning notes in 'Traditional Korean Martial Arts' (Journal of Asian Martial Arts 9.1, p.10),

Although there are no descriptive Korean references to the martial arts prior to the Koryo History... its citations provide evidence that the Koreans had maintained a strict distinction between wrestling and boxing in the military​

where the boxing in question was just shoubai ---> subak. Note that this 'earliest descriptive reference' was published in 1451. There were no earlier records that mention the KMAs, period.

The point about subak as a sport is interesting; Henning notes further that the Veritable Records of the Yi Dynasty, also published in the fifteenth century, mention a 'military sport subak... probably akin to boxing' (p.10). And, chiming in with SageGhost's speculation, Henning mentions that

Outside the military, as in China, boxing was practiced by the common folk on festive occasions. For example, competitive boxing bouts were held in the seventh month... in Unjin County, near the border of North Cholla and South Chungchong Provinces​

(p. 11). Given that Henning's work establishes that subak was simply the Korean loan form from Chinese for boxing, this passage makes it very clear that subak was a competitive folk sport as well as a military sport.

Ok, that's where I heard it. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Exile. You are the best!

 

[Last Fearner]

Edit:

On second thought....

Never mind!

I've ticked too many people off with some of my posts lately, so I'm just going to leave it alone!

Sorry for the offense to Bob, Shesula, Exile, the staff at MT, and others

Bye all!

 

[Last Fearner]

Exile, I won't debate the issue further, becase you and I just get too intense about what we believe, and I have offended too many here already. I think we are both right from different perspectives, but I am not as skilled as some in conveying the proper tone as I do in person. Anyhow here is a link as to why I am not as confident in peer-reviewed material as you are.

http://advan.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/31/2/145

Respects, and take care
Chief Master D.J. Eisenhart

 

[exile]

At that times people learned techniques from their experiences of fighting against the beasts whose defensive and offensive motions were also the subject of analysis. It is believed that this was exactly the true grounding of today's Taekwondo. Whose names have descended from "subak","Taekkyon", "takkyon" and so on.”

According to the scholars of history, a man of virtue who never recoils from a fighting means the word "sonbae", which is a member of the warrior's corps. Later a history book on the old Chosun dynasty described the lift of Koguryo days, saying; "people gathered on march 10 every year at a site of ritual, where they enjoyed a sword dance, archery, subak(taekyon) contests and so on" , implying that subak(Taekwondo) was one of the popular events for the ritual in the Koguryo days. It also said "sonbaes lived in groups, learning history and literary arts at home and going out to construct roads and fortresses for the benefits of society, always devoting themselves to the nations.”

A 'history book' is cited, no name provided, no information which would allow any verification, with subak mentioned, and '(taekyon)' inserted in parentheses—without any identification of the relationship between that insertion and any textual source that this unnamed 'history book' is basing its claims on?? What is this 'history book', who is the author, what is the date, and whose interpolation is the name taekyon at that point in the text? Is it in the book? An editorial comment by the KKW publicist who wrote the cited piece? Who knows? And in either case, what is the KKW's story based on? The fact that a given source that you cite says X is not in itself any better evidence than you yourself citing it, if neither you nor your source can provide the evidence base. Here, one person is citing someing written by another person, who in turn is appealing to something allegedly written by someone else... and at no point do we actually have an evidence, based on either material culture, or earlier documentation based on the firsthand experience of someone who was eminently in a position to know, letters, or memoirs of participants in the events under consideration, or... any of the primary materials of well-supported history...

Instead, what we have is an unnamed, unattributed, undated 'history book', with not a single relevant fact in the cited passage, referred to by a Korean government agency that, in one incarnation or another, has been pushing an 'ancient Korean' source of TKD for most of the past forty years. And this is evidence?. What is the book, when was it written, what are its documentary sources? I've cited the records that people who aren't pushing a party line rely on to establish their conclusions: named, dated sources and documents, old or modern. An allusion to an apparently anonymous 'history book' doesn't count as evidence.

Anyone who wants to establish that taekyon, or any other putatively ancient activity, is linked to Taekwondo in any way has to do the following in order to make the case:

(i) provide actual evidence of the ancientness of the activity;

(ii) document that it had some kind of martial content;

(iii) show that it was indeed transmitted over the time period in question;

(iv) show that it was actually learned by any of the people who founded the first modern KMA schools in Korea, the Kwans; and

(v) show that any of the techniques that were part of this supposedly ancient art (as per (ii)) were actually incorporated in the technique set of TKD.

And this unattributed allusion from the nerve center of the Korean 'party line' on its 'ancient warrior art' is supposed to even begin to satisfy (i)—(iv)??

You see, SageGhost - I am not standing alone on this issue. There are many top level expert authorities who hold the same view as I do, and for good reason.

Many?? An unsupported claim by the KKW is 'many'? And the KKW is an 'expert authority'? Without a single piece of actual historical documentation for its claims? That's what we're supposed to take seriously, when not one of the points in (i)—(v) has even begun to be addressed?

This is supposed to be an argument on behalf of 'ancient taekyon' as an influence on modern TKD??

 

[exile]

Exile, I won't debate the issue further, becase you and I just get too intense about what we believe, and I have offended too many here already. I think we are both right from different perspectives, but I am not as skilled as some in conveying the proper tone as I do in person. Anyhow here is a link as to why I am not as confident in peer-reviewed material as you are.

http://advan.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/31/2/145

Respects, and take care
Chief Master D.J. Eisenhart

But look, of course peer review is no guarantee of infallibility—who could believe it was? In the same way that vaccination against flu is no guarantee that you won't get flu, or—maybe a better analogy—a screening test for a particular cancer does not guarantee that you don't have that type of cancer. The point is not that peer-review guarantees truth, but that it minimizes the chance of fallacy, misattribution, empirical errors and so on.

I spend many hours every academic year as a referee for a number of major publications in my own field. And most of my colleagues do as well. Our purpose in doing so is to try to make sure that what goes 'on the record' is as well-supported as it can be. But a much greater amount of stuff than I'd like that I think is dead wrong, or at least very questionable, still gets published. No process can guarantee truth, but peer review minimizes the chance that flagrant error will creep into the final product. Every time I read something in a top-level journal that I think has serious problems, my response is, just picture what it would be like without the vetting that peer review provides.

Now the people who have written on the subject, many of them both historical scholars and well-trained MAs with advanced rank (so please, let's not have any of this 'they may know history but they don't know TKD' kind of dismissal; Manuel Adrogué, who is has one of the strongest positions on the whole issue, is a fifth-dan TKD under a Korean Gm., and I very much doubt his next dan promotion will cause him to embrace a Three Kingdoms lineage for TKD) have produced translations of crucial documents—of which there are in fact very few bearing on the issue; there are, e.g., literally no actual descriptions of any KMA technical content, what people are actually doing, until the 14th century—and identified key players and ethnographic and historical sources contemporary with the various practices they refer to, as well as reviewing Chinese and Japanese sources, in the original language of these records, and bringing them to bear on the Korean-internal evidence. And they have professional knowledge of the background history of the Asian societies and cultures to which the MAs belong. Does this guarantee that they are correct? How could it guarantee that, and who ever said it did?? What it does guarantee is that every submission is held up to scrutiny by a group of people who have professional competence in the area and are—if I and my colleagues are typical, which we are—happy to explain in detail just where the submission has gone wrong, why so-and-so is ignoring a crucial bit of evidence that invalidates his or her assumption in arguing such and such a point, and so on. Factual claims that are unsupported by demonstrable evidence proportional to the strength of those claims are red-circled and nixed: if you can't provide a ground of empirical support, you don't get the make the claim. That's what distinguishes scholarly history from, say, the approved Korean government line on the history of TKD. The submission will be corrected or revised to answer the objections raised; if that can't be done, the submission simply doesn't appear. (Editors are also charged with the task of correcting for biased refereeing, and the ones who last in their jobs do that task very well, so checks and balances are in place in the established journals which academic institutions agree are the 'A' list publications in each field, the ones that are make-or-break for tenure and promotion, in the normal course of things.) What does appear in print has been given a major acid test (based on the facts and reasoning presented, with the reputation or academic rank or whatever playing no role in the double-blind reviewing process), and no significant flaws have emerged. Anyone who wants to dispute the results had better be able to emerge unscathed from a pretty stern going-over at the same level of critical intensity. That's the point of peer review.

Your heart surgery or lung biopsy reflects this same process of peer review in the medical profession (where it started, as I indicated in a prior post). It is state of the art, precisely because what comes out in medical research journals today, surviving the hardest vetting that can be brought to bear, is what determines how operations are conducted and diseases diagnosed tomorrow. Which would you prefer: subjecting yourself to a life/death medical situation where the procedure reflected the state of current knowledge based on peer reviewed research, or a procedure based on unattributed echoes of 'common knowledge' and preconceptions, without any effort to sort sound results from sloppiness, fraudulent data-creation, or the idées fixes of people with agendas to push? The whole point of peer review is that it weeds out as much error as possible; it does not guarantee that no error remains.

The Journal of Asian Martial Arts rejects 90% of its submissions. This in itself doesn't guarantee that the conclusions of the people who've published on this topic in JAMA have to be right; what it does suggest, extremely strongly, is that no challenge to their conclusions that hasn't passed the same level of intense scrutiny can have remotely the same credibility that their conclusions do. That's the whole intention of peer review: get the strongest result possible, and thereby force the level of the argumentation and debate that undergirds all progress in any field to the highest level possible. We know vastly more than we knew a thousand years ago because, repeatedly, ideas competed (in spite of powerful organization's efforts to impose a 'party line' on the field of inquiry) and the ones which tested out best—which met the canon of evidence better than their competitors—were adopted as the threshold for further thinking. Peer review has come to play an indispensible part of that process in the contemporary era. In the case of the point at issue, and the historical scholars I've cited in presenting my case, the burden of proof is on anyone who wishes to challenge their conclusions to show support for an alternative story—based on either new data or a more plausible interpretation of old data (as vs. a series of what if...? what if...? caveats that themselves have no independent motivation)—which passes the same level of scrutiny that their work has. So far, nothing that has been presented here on MT, or in the propaganda mills of the Korean TKD directorate or its American branch plants (the USA Taekwondo site I linked to earlier) has even begun to do that.

Anyone who wants to evaluate my last statement can simply go to the sources I've cited, and read them, and compare the work of people like Young, Capener, Burdick, Henning, Adrogué—and the others I've provided citations for—to the arguments that have been adduced in support of a generation-to-generation link between ancient KMAs (whose technical content, so far as empty-hand techs we still have no clue about, other than that, as Henning stresses, they were almost certainly heavily CMA-based) and modern TKD. Read the arguments on both sides, compare the strength, authenticity and explicitness of the evidence, the verifiability of the reasoning presented, and make up your own mind.

 

[tellner]

LF, you've been knocked down, touched "to the blood" repeatedly, put in joint locks and neck cranks and not once laid a glove on the guy. It's time to tap before you embarrass yourself any further. You've rejected evidence and logic in favor of "I want to believe" at every turn and have passed up a number of opportunities to say "You may have a point. I'm not a historian." Just let it go.

 

[Last Fearner]

I don't think my previous post in this thread conveyed what I was trying to say, but what I meant was that I have behaved very poorly in several of my posts. I got carried away, and let the heat of the discussion get to me. I am truly sorry for my conduct, which is not characteristic of me in real-life (not that this isn't real-life, but you know what I mean - - I think - I hope!)

Anyhow, to exile, even though I disagree in part with the application of your conclusions, I should not have responded to you in such a discourteous and disrespectful manner. I most sincerely apologize to you, sir! :asian:

Also, to all other individuals of whom I addressed harshly, and to the reading public and all the members here at Martial Talk, I apologize for my rude behavior, and I am sorry if I offended anyone.

I think my concerns about internet posting was having its greatest negative affect on me, as this dinosaur has not adjusted well to this modern medium. I have chosen to step back for a while so that I can center myself once again, and get my priorities straight. MT did just fine before I came along, and I am sure it will get along just fine without me. :mst:

The staff and members here are all wonderful people with many knowledgeable contributors. This is truly a great site among all others on the internet, and many people come here just to relax and have some fun among friends - - as it should be!
:cheers:

Take care all!

Respectfully,
Darwin J. Eisenhart

 

[SageGhost83]

You see folks, what is going on here is pretty simple. One individual (LF) decided to pick a "fight" with another individual (exile) and he got his behind handed to him. So now, that individual is posturing and trying to compensate by leveling snide comments at yet another individual (errant). Rather than just admitting that he was mistaken, he just keeps digging his shoes deeper and deeper into the pile of dog excrement that he willingly stepped into in the first place. In the realm of academia and history, one's belt rank in a martial art doesn't mean squat. Either you have the evidence and documentation to back up your claims or you are just spewing hogwash. Some people are tired of chasing fantasies and they want the truth, not something that is just there to make them feel better at night. It is pretty clear to see who has presented the most verifiable truth, and it is pretty clear to see who keeps arguing in favor of a fantasy in the hopes that doing so will make it come true when it really won't. Gentlemen, I believe that the horse has learned its lesson by now. No reason to continue beating it. Unless you think that the horse is a magical horse even though it has been proven to be a regular horse and you believe that beating it enough times will somehow make it a magical horse even though there is no such thing as a magical horse :wink2:.

It appears that someone thought that I was being rude in the above post, so to whoever decided to send the bad rep without even identifying themselves or at least PM'ing me, I am sorry that I came off as being so rude, it was not my intention at all. I was being tongue n' cheek - note the laughing smiley in the post title. I will definitely mind my words in the future:waah::asian:.

 

[Twin Fist]

What a long, convoluted story.....

ok, lemme get this right.

As of say 1950, there were pretty much NO native Korean Martial Arts being practiced, right?

TKD was just Shotokan under a new name. To me that is self evident from the kata.......

Now, i have read here on MT that Joo bang Lee's HRD is just In Huk Suh's KSW re-named. Is that right?

where did KSW come from?

Where did Hapkido come from?


my brain hurts now.........

 

[exile]

What a long, convoluted story.....

ok, lemme get this right.

As of say 1950, there were pretty much NO native Korean Martial Arts being practiced, right?

TKD was just Shotokan under a new name. To me that is self evident from the kata.......

Now, i have read here on MT that Joo bang Lee's HRD is just In Huk Suh's KSW re-named. Is that right?

where did KSW come from?

Where did Hapkido come from?


my brain hurts now.........

A good place to start on this is Robert Young's article on taekkyon, which has some very good source material on other KMAs (in the context of an extended demonstration that taekkyon has not contributed materially to the technique set of any of them). The specs are

Young, Robert W. 1993. The history and development of Tae Kyon. Journal of Asian Martial Arts 2.2, pp. 45-69.

Young's article has some problems, and needs to be read in the context of later studies of the issue, but it's a landmark study, based in many cases on recorded inteviews with the leaders of contemporary taekkyon.

 

[SageGhost83]

What a long, convoluted story.....

ok, lemme get this right.

As of say 1950, there were pretty much NO native Korean Martial Arts being practiced, right?

TKD was just Shotokan under a new name. To me that is self evident from the kata.......

Now, i have read here on MT that Joo bang Lee's HRD is just In Huk Suh's KSW re-named. Is that right?

where did KSW come from?

Where did Hapkido come from?


my brain hurts now.........

For the most part, yes. Korean martial arts had gone into decline after the peninsula had been unified. As a matter of fact, the KMA were heavily suppressed by the leaders of Korea and the people considered the practice of Korean martial arts to be a barbaric practice. So a large portion of the old Korean arts went into decline and even vanished entirely. Then there was the Japanese occupation and what amounted to a major cultural genocide - whatever KMA were still around after the purge were systematically eliminated by the new Japanese purge. Very little, if anything, survived from the combination of Korea's own rejection of its martial arts due to a new wave of peace on the peninsula and Japan's cultural genocide of all things Korean. The vast majority of KMA today are derived from Japanese martial arts. TKD/TSD from Japanese Karate, Hapkido/Hwarangdo from Aikido, and Kumdo from Japanese Kendo. I'll let someone else tackle KSW for you, but from my knowledge, it is more of a modern eclectic system that was created in 1958 and draws from many different martial arts that were being practiced at the time, along with more modern stuff today. I wouldn't trust JBL, he is another Korean martial arts icon who has mastered the art of blatant contradiction. Basically, he took Hapkido, added a bunch of weapons and a myth about mountain monks to it then he changed the name. Taekkyon was still being played, but it was a game and not a martial art, so I don't think that we can technically count that as being an example of Korean martial prowess. It wasn't TKD's precursor, either. Did some ancient KMA survive? Probably on a smaller level and for a short while, but they certainly aren't around today because you can bet your dobok that the practitioners would've went straight to the government to reap the fame and fortune of being the ones to preserve authentic Korean martial arts from ancient times in a country that is still trying to re-establish its cultural identity. My brain hurts, too. Korean martial arts history is a headache in and of itself.

 

[Twin Fist]

you know, if it happens slowly enough, a brain bleed kinda tickles..............

 

[bluekey88]

For the most part, yes. Korean martial arts had gone into decline after the peninsula had been unified. As a matter of fact, the KMA were heavily suppressed by the leaders of Korea and the people considered the practice of Korean martial arts to be a barbaric practice. So a large portion of the old Korean arts went into decline and even vanished entirely. Then there was the Japanese occupation and what amounted to a major cultural genocide - whatever KMA were still around after the purge were systematically eliminated by the new Japanese purge. Very little, if anything, survived from the combination of Korea's own rejection of its martial arts due to a new wave of peace on the peninsula and Japan's cultural genocide of all things Korean. The vast majority of KMA today are derived from Japanese martial arts. TKD/TSD from Japanese Karate, Hapkido/Hwarangdo from Aikido, and Kumdo from Japanese Kendo. I'll let someone else tackle KSW for you, but from my knowledge, it is more of a modern eclectic system that was created in 1958 and draws from many different martial arts that were being practiced at the time, along with more modern stuff today. I wouldn't trust JBL, he is another Korean martial arts icon who has mastered the art of blatant contradiction. Basically, he took Hapkido, added a bunch of weapons and a myth about mountain monks to it then he changed the name. Taekkyon was still being played, but it was a game and not a martial art, so I don't think that we can technically count that as being an example of Korean martial prowess. It wasn't TKD's precursor, either. Did some ancient KMA survive? Probably on a smaller level and for a short while, but they certainly aren't around today because you can bet your dobok that the practitioners would've went straight to the government to reap the fame and fortune of being the ones to preserve authentic Korean martial arts from ancient times in a country that is still trying to re-establish its cultural identity. My brain hurts, too. Korean martial arts history is a headache in and of itself.

While I generally agree with the gist of this post...I wanted throw a monkey wrnech in the hapkido/aikdo history side of things.

There is a LOT of controversy over HKD history. But, as I understand things, HKD was not derived from Aikido. Rather they are close cousins (similar to TKD and Shotokan Karate). Aikido was derived primarily from Daito-ryu Akikijujitsu (DRJ). One of the founders of HKD also claims lineage from DRJ...but there is some controversy in the DRJ crowd over records. Anyhoo, given the "look" of HKD and it's similarity to Aikido (and the fact that ueshiba sensei never claimed to have taught any of the HKD guys) that it probably does derive from DRJ rather than Aikido.

It is also a possibility that KSW and Hwarangdo may be derived from HKD (there are records that the fouders of these arts studied HKD in the early days). Another controversial point. It is unlikely that either art actually dates back to the Hwarang warriors for all th eresons mentioned in this and other threads. I'll let HKD, KSW and HRD guys speak to the specifics (pro and con).

The bottom line is that it seems many KMA's suffer from very merky and controvertial historical issues.

Peace,
Erik

 

[YoungMan]

What is known is that Yong Sul Choi, Hapkido's founder, was taken to Japan during the Korean Occupation as a young boy to live at Sogaku Takeda's house. In what capacity we don't know. He lived there for quite a while. it was unlikely that Takeda would have taught him directly, as that most likely would have been frowned upon. Bottom line: Choi picked up Takeda's technique, but how is unknown.