Taekwondo's core goes beyond technique

[Ninjamom]

SUMMARY SO FAR: exile (as have others) has made many excellent, well-documented, well-researched posts showing historical evidence for the lack of connection between Korean arts, ancient and modern. LF has made many impassioned pleas from personal knowledge and experience proffering a rich historical connection between Korean arts, ancient and modern.

Can I take a step back and suggest that we are mostly arguing about two different things? I would like to put up two short lists, and invite others to add, subtract, and/or throw rocks as appropriate. Here is ‘The TKD World According to Ninjamom’:

I. PART ONE: There is NO Historical Evidence or Indication that ANY of these elements of Taekwondo are related to ANY ancient Korean martial practices:

>...a. Specific techniques: Specific kicks, specific strikes, and even the names for these strikes and kicks translated into Korean, appear to be direct imports from Shotokan karate. This means their applications/usage is also derived directly from Shotokan.

>...b. Specific Stances: Specific stances, including their names, translated into Korean, appear to be directly imported from Shotokan karate. The closest to an ancient reference for a stance used in modern TKD that I have found is the horseriding stance. I have found this one stance documented in the Muye Dobo Tongji, but interestingly, only in the chapter dedicated to Japanese sword techniques.

>...c. Specific forms/poomsae: The first Taekwondo forms practiced in the 1950’s were direct imports of the Shotokan forms. I think everyone on this thread agrees to this fact. These forms evolved from their Japanese roots. New ones were created in Korea, inspired by ancient arts, manuals, and elements of Korean culture.

>...d. Uniforms, Belts, and Other Superficial Elements: The uniform used in modern Taekwondo is based on the Japanese gi, not the traditional Korean hanbok. The use of colored belts to signify rank and advancement is a Japanese innovation, not even found in Shotokan’s Okinawan roots. The placement of flags or a central focus for bowing at the front of a class is imported from Shotokan, as is the convention of lining up by belt-rank.

>...e. Organizational Structure: World governing bodies over regional bodies over local member associations, over local schools/kwans/dojangs/dojo is probably more a Western innovation for practical reasons than a Japanese/Shotokan connection, but it is definitely NOT rooted in ancient Korean martial practice.

When most outsiders look at TKD, these are the things they see. When most students sign up for martial arts instruction, these are the things they want. When I practice TKD on a day-to-day basis, these are the things I experience. If these are the only elements of Taekwondo, then there is no link from this modern art to any ancient Korean martial practice.

BUT WAIT, There’s MORE!

II. PART TWO: There are UNDENIABLE links between these elements of modern Taekwondo practice and ancient Korean culture:

>...a. Confucian respect: The teacher/student relationship in Taekwondo did not need to be imported from anywhere. The ancient roots to this ‘culture of respect’ run as deep in Korea as Confucianism and Buddhism. It is characterized in modern Taekwondo’s emphasis on respect for the Instructor and for fellow-students. It is observed in a simple bow, but manifested in daily attitude and loyalty to school, art, and teacher.

>...b. Love of Country: The Confucian ideal of Patriotism is deeply embedded in modern Taekwondo practice, as well. (Why else would a bunch of Yanks, Brits, Aussies, and other-assorted folks care at all (let alone so passionately) about whether an art is Korean, Japanese, or anything else?). It is shown in ancient Korea through the national symbols – the ‘everwhite’ Mount Jangbaek, root of the GoChoseon nation; Keumgangsan, the immoveable mountain; Mugungwa, the flower symbolizing Korean independence, uniqueness, and survival/defiance in the face of occupation (think ‘Edelweiss’ in the ‘Sound of Music&#8217. It is shown in modern Taekwondo practice through the respect given in any nation to the Korean flag, in the use of Korean terminology and counting, and to the extent that the individual school incorporates it, other elements of Korean philosophy and culture.

>...c. Service: The earliest Korean people, Baedal, believed they were founded by the son of God for two purposes: the instruction in the law of heaven (i.e., God’s law), and the benefit of all mankind. This element of the Korean culture has survived intact for nearly 5000 years. This is why the ancient Silla HwaRang were organized for community service (benefit of mankind). The incorporation of this element of ancient Korean culture is at the discretion of the individual dojang, but because this thread runs so deeply in Korean culture, I will be bold to say that, if you have a Korean instructor, your dojang honors community service. Our dojang hosts community events, donates money from our tournaments to community charities, reviews our school students’ report cards and rewards their progress, and awards individual students for their activities outside the dojang in service to the community.

>...d. Scholarship: While this dates to later Korean neo-Confucianism (15th century and later), the love the Korean culture has for scholarly activities is undeniable. In modern Taekwondo practice, this is part of the reason why you must study terminology and cultural elements for your black belt test, or (as I assume most here have to do) write an essay on Taekwondo history, practice, importance, or other topic. It is why most dojangs also incorporate some teaching on Korean philosophy, or at least the purposes of martial training. This is why the World Headquarters for the WTF sponsors essay contest for students and organizes cultural trips to study TKD in Korea at Korean universities.

When Last Fearner discusses his Taekwondo, I think he is incorporating many more of this second category of cultural elements in his working definition of TKD. In truth, he can rightly say that the culture that spawned the Hwa Rang, the Koguryeo Empire, and Admiral Yi Sun Shin also gave birth to modern Taekwondo practice. This is the major link that I see. It is the only link that I see. But it is still a link, and a vital one at that.

Personally, I see Taekwondo as an element of Korean culture. Its modern forms and features are unrelated to ancient martial practices. However, it has given me a desire to understand and learn more about the Korean people and culture that has made modern Taekwondo a distinctly ‘Korean’ martial art.

I hope this makes sense. I also hope you excuse this overly-long post.

 

[Errant108]

Great post, Mom.

 

[exile]

Great post, Mom.

Absolutely, completely, totally....

One of the very best—is greatest too strong a word???—posts I've ever read on MT, on any topic.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

That is a great post Ninjamom!

 

[Marginal]

When Last Fearner discusses his Taekwondo, I think he is incorporating many more of this second category of cultural elements in his working definition of TKD. In truth, he can rightly say that the culture that spawned the Hwa Rang, the Koguryeo Empire, and Admiral Yi Sun Shin also gave birth to modern Taekwondo practice. This is the major link that I see. It is the only link that I see. But it is still a link, and a vital one at that.

It's just Korean post-colonialism he's offering.

 

[jim777]

Post of the year NinjaMom

 

[Errant108]

It's just Korean neocolonialism he's offering.

Neocolonialism?

Perhaps the term you're looking for is post-Colonialism.

 

[terryl965]

Neocolonialism?

Perhaps the term you're looking for is post-Colonialism.

I do not understand I thought we was talking about Tae Kwon Do History

 

[Marginal]

Neocolonialism?

Perhaps the term you're looking for is post-Colonialism.

You are correct, sir.

Terry,

IMO... The concept of post-colonialism ties back into why the history of TKD was presented as being thousands of years old in the first place. Quite a few countries started breaking out histories and feats to showcase their cultural distinctiveness, to prove that the nation and people were not inferior to their conquerors once the occupiers withdrew and they were left to rebuild their nations. They were trying to knit together a national identity that would neatly wash away the Japanese annexation of Korea. How better to accomplish that then to show the world the rich string of pearls listing Korean accomplishments both militaristic and cultural? Gaps in the string were filled, and meshing a 2000 year history of various military achievements into TKD made a handy thread to give the Korean list a narrative unity.

If one wants to call TKD an umbrella term for every time a Korean waved a spear at a foreigner or had an idea, have at it. The problem with that approach is that it essentially renders TKD as any kind of a descriptive term for the MA that is practiced now meaningless.

 

[Ninjamom]

You guys are WAY too kind! It is always nice to receive a compliment, but to receive compliments from folks that I admire and respect so much makes it mean that much more to me.

I am honored and privileged to share this board with you all.

 

[Last Fearner]

Chief Master D.J. Eisenhart

Glad to see you are back with us

Thank you, Master Stoker!

I personaaly would like to thank you for taking the time to answer everyone question and explaining your thoughts.

You are welcome.

I would hope we can all move forward on this subject with the respect all have shown so far.

I hope so too!

Let me ask you a quick question if TKD was brought together in the fifties when all the Kwans was united how can it roots be TKD? I can see Okinawa Karate or Taekyon, but TKD roots started when they all came together under one umbella.

Master Stoker, I think you hit the key point in the first part of your question - - “if TKD was brought together in the fifties.” This is the crux of the discrepancy over defining what Taekwondo is, thus where and when it originated. From my perspective, there are three ways in which you can define Taekwondo.

The first one is the most common interpretation, which is the Kwan era development. In this interpretation, researchers focus on the fact that the term Taekwondo was first coined in 1955 (as far as we know), and was used by many of the main Kwan Founders to describe their curriculum.

The difference here being that the Kwan leaders were teaching a variety of influences from various Japanese and Chinese backgrounds, and didn't change their curriculum to conform to a mold that “Taekwon-do” represented, but rather accepted the term to represent every Korean teacher's interpretation of Korean Martial Art. General Choi, on the other hand, felt that his unique mixture of his early kicking training in “T'ae Kyon” plus what he learned in Shotokan Karate gave birth to a new concept which he labeled as “Taekwon-do.”

The second definition of the term “Taekwondo” comes from the official reorganizing, and re-naming of Korea's indigenous Martial Art. Here, all one has to do is to verify that Korea had ancient warriors who defended their country with a variety of skills, including unarmed combat, and that those warriors studied a program which included spiritual enlightenment, social and moral obligations, and a code of ethics that combined with a variety of techniques to form a native Korean Martial Art.

At the core of the technical content, research indicates that these historical Martial Artists used some hand fighting, some kicking, and some grappling or wrestling skills. Exactly what techniques were used is not completely recorded and preserved for us to copy an exact classroom curriculum, but the major portion of a Martial Art is not the number of techniques one can demonstrate. Taekwondo is drawn from the more important aspects of being a “Martial Artist” by this definition, which was recorded in the code of the Hwarang (I'll get to that subject later).

We, as Taekwondoists, don't have to duplicate the exact method of stomping, kicking, or knocking down of our opponents in the same way that early Tae Kyeon fighters did centuries ago in order to retain the concept of kicking as a primary method of self defense. Techniques evolve, and methodology is updated, but the core concept of Korea's National Martial Art of “Taekwondo” does, in fact, come from its predecessor, Tae Kyeon, even if modern versions do not appear to apply the kicks in the same way.

When the Korean government asked, in 1955, “what is in our native history as far as warrior training, unarmed combat, and Martial Art?” they found evidence of Subak, Tae Kyon, Hwarang, Tangsudo, and other native arts. They decided to extract this and exclude any recent Japanese influence for the purpose of identifying their past arts, re-grouped all of them together and said this history belongs to us as a nation, and we will call our past indigenous Martial Art training, collectively as an all inclusive title of native Korean Martial Art, by the new term of “Taekwondo.”

Now, add back in to that everything that those current Kwan teachers had learned in their lifetime, then you have “Taekwondo” plus! The “plus” is anything relevant to self defense training - - as someone has said here before, “if it was used on me yesterday, it is Taekwondo today!”

This brings me to the third definition of Taekwondo, which is the personal definition. This is where each practitioner defines “Taekwondo” to describe what it means to them. There is no right or wrong answer here, but there is both good and bad that comes from this definition, and a misuse of this personal identity can result in a false representation of true Taekwondo.

The good is that Taekwondo is a living, growing, changing art that adapts to the modern times, and to each individual who practices it. The bad thing is that people can be poorly trained, or not trained in Taekwondo at all, misuse any knowledge they have, and redefine the term “Taekwondo” to mean whatever they want it to mean. They can remove the moral and ethical elements, apply the fighting skills to street combat, gang member, and criminal activities, and still call what they do “Taekwondo” because they studied from some 8th or 9th degree Korean.

I teach the native Korean Martial Art that stems from, and is based in the Korean culture, social attitudes, philosophy, and code of conduct found in the Hwarang, and the technical concepts of Subak, and Tae Kyeon. I practice my own interpretation for me, as everyone does, and I adopt any modern knowledge that improves on the core principles of my original, native Korean Martial Art.

Next question General Choi was not the only one that help with this process, who would you say was side by side with him to make this as one? Who was behind the doors pushing for this to come as it did?

This question can be simple or complex, but I will simply say that every person in Korea's history who contributed to defending the country, preserving the culture, and teaching the skills of Martial Art brought this unique concept to the 20th century. Those of the Kwan era, and all of us as students and teachers, each did our part to carry it through to the 21st century, adding to it, and making it what it is today, but we did so standing on the shoulders of those who lived before the Japanese occupation, and those who survived that horrible time.

Thank you all in advance and one thing I can truely say TKD is more than an Art it is a way of life.

Absolutely, 100% true, Master Stoker!!!

 

[Last Fearner]

The majority of modern scholarship IN KOREAN, has asserted that at best the Hwarang were a youth training corp, akin to the boy scouts.

Well, Errant, welcome to the discussion. I believe your reference to “the majority of modern scholarship IN KOREAN” is rather vague, but it matters not. First, Since you draw the comparison between the Hwarang and the boy scouts, let me point out a few facts to you. I would consider comparring the Hwarang to the Boy Scouts as more of a compliment, and a support of its acurate lable of a Martial Art or military training corps. I grew up in the boy scouts, more than 15 years from age 5 to 21. My father was a scoutmaster, and I eventually became one also.

The Boys Scouts were first started in England by Sir Robert Baden-Powell, a British soldier who became a General, and was knighted in 1909. The express purpose of the Boy Scouts was to prepare young boys for man-hood, teach them proper social skills, survival skills, and to be outdoorsman and frontiersman. It was based on the American models of the “Sons of Daniel Boone” and the “Woodcraft Indians.”

When I was in the Army, I found that almost everything we did in Basic Training, to prepare for combat, I had already done in the Boy Scouts. Dressing in uniform, passing inspections, marching, long hikes, bivouacs, camping skills, and even shooting firearms. The only difference was the size and destructive capability of the weapons. As Robin Williams said in the movie “Good Morning Vietnam,” the only difference between the Army and the Boy Scouts is “The Boys Scouts don't have heavy artillery.” I was a field artillery surveyor, so I can attest to that.

The most unflattering scholarship adds that there are major overtones of what we today would consider homosexuality and pederasty to the Hwa Rang.

I don't know what proof you have of this, but I think others have already addressed your comments by stating that we should not apply today's judgments on past cultures. Furthermore, the actions of some do not reflect the core beliefs of all, and the Hwarang training was about preparation for life and combat, not sexual preferences. Anyone's attempt to diminish the reputation and contributions of the Hwarang to modern Martial Art based on such judgments, should reconsider the validity of such arguments.

They were not a warrior class in any way, shape, or form.

Really? If that were so, then please explain the wording of the Hwarang Code.

Code of the Hwarang
(Sesok Ogye)

• Loyalty to king
• Obedience to parents
• Trust among friends
• Never retreat in battle
• Justice in killing

In all my years in the Boy Scouts, I don't remember any motto, oath, or code that dealt with never retreating in battle nor discussing the justifications of killing in the context of a warrior - - a Martial Artist, who has the ability to do so at a whim, but the responsibility not to. These youth were training for combat, plain and simple, and many were noted to have become soldiers and generals based on this training as a first step to their military training.

Further, they died out more than a thousand years before Taegwondo developed, and no lineage of their technique or manual existed, therefore there can be no attribution of the Hwarang having any influence on any of the post-Occupation KMA, other than in the form of "inspiration".

Well, Errant, that is your personal supposition. Yes, all those people died long ago. However, what they believed in, and the focus of their training was well documented. The Hwarang contributes less to the technical aspect of modern Taekwondo than it does the moral, ethical, social, and “artistic” aspect (the “do”), but to reduce its influence to mere “inspiration” is lacking insight - - to say the least.

As for Taegyeon's influence on Taegwondo, it has been repeated over and over from Song on down that none of the founders of the Gwan had any Taegyeon experience.

Regardless of who says it, one must provide proof that individuals such as General Choi had no native Martial Art training as a youth, unless you intend to call reputable people liars based on your doubts. Nevertheless, your focus of Tae Kyeon's direct connection to the Kwan Taekwondo only serves to deny the truth that Tae kyeon existed as a kicking art in Korea's past, belonged to the country of Korea, and was renamed Taekwondo, by the Korean government, as it began a new chapter in history.

more importantly, Taegyeon technique cannot be found in Taegwondo. Taegyeon has very distinctive movement, application, and mechanics.

Now it seems that you claim some clear understanding about Tae Kyeon's technical curriculum as it was taught before the occupation, during the occupation, and since then. If id didn't survive, how would you know this? Tae Kyeon promoted kicking, the use of the legs as weapons, regardless of what kicks or at what targets.

If ten thousand Tae Kyeon masters existed at the start of the occupation, and all of them survived to pass on their authentic knowledge of ancient Tae Kyeon, that does not mean that the next generation of students or instructors must kick the same way, or refrain from enhancing the art with additional kicks. The new name of Taekwondo reflects the changes and combination of curriculum for modern times, so don't bother looking for the differences, just focus on the fact that Tae Kyeon was Korean Kicking, and Taekwondo carries that concept on in a modern method.

What Taekwondo is based in, comes from something other than, and much older than kata...This is not to say that practical application of Taekwondo techniques is not important, but Korean Taekwondo derives this knowledge and practices it in methods which differ from Kata practice.

What is that? If you have documentation supporting this supposition, I would love to read it.

Well, Errant, perhaps therein lies your problem. You would love to “read” about it. Learning the philosophies, and techniques of Taekwondo does not come from books, and my insights into this art did not come from a conversation over the internet. If you want to learn what the core training of Taekwondo is, and how we teach it differently than focusing on Kata like Karate, I suggest you first become a student of Taekwondo, then study from a genuine Master for three or four decades. Even if it were possible for me to tell you the answer you seek here, I wouldn't. It took me three decades to learn it, and I think it should take others just as long.

It is my personal opinion that your academic education might be vast and the experts you often quote are legitimate historians, but I believe that your lack of years and advanced rank in Taekwondo prevent you from having gained an enlightened insight as to what Taekwondo really is, and what the term means beyond a limited definition. No disrespect intended, but my experience as a teacher for 30 years is that most color belt student don't grasp the concept of Taekwondo the same as a Black Belt, nor a Black Belt the same as a life-long teacher, Master or Grandmaster of this art.

This is a combination of two fallacies.

Fallacies are flawed logic used to circumvent arguing based in logic and fact.

Thanks for your explanation of what a fallacy is, but not necessary. The comment you quoted neither circumvents the argument, nor does it contain any false notions, incorrect beliefs, nor is it deceptive.

You use the fallacy of ad hominum...

Oh Jeeze! Another exile, ad infinitum! Actually, the term is ad hominem (not hominum), and I am not directing the argument away from logic to play on emotions or personal considerations. I am giving the reason that I believe exile does not understand my position.

to tell Exile that he cannot argue with you because he lacks understanding. You justify your argument by using the fallacy of appeal to authority, using your rank to solidify your position.

You seem to misunderstand. I never said that exile could not argue with me (that's a fallacy on your part). What I was explaining was that I believe the academic knowledge of exile and his experts are legitimate, but lead to narrow conclusions because they lack an advanced understanding of the art of Taekwondo, and that I believe the advanced understanding comes to an individual only after decades of training and guidance from an instructor who has attained an enlightened mind, yet it might never come to an individual. This is not a fallacy either. It is an explanation as to why people don't always completely understand the art of Taekwondo.

I am not holding my rank up as proof of my understanding, but by achieving my rank legitimately, I have spent many years under the instruction of insightful Masters in order to gain this advanced understanding. Therein lies the correlation between my rank, and my own personal experience which resulted in an understanding that is not commonly attained at a low rank. This is not an insult or about my ego, nor is it an ad hominem attack on anyone. It is just my personal observation about those who have more experience over those that don't.

I believe exile's inability to see connections between modern Taekwondo and ancient Korean Martial Art is because he lacks a full understanding of what Korean Taekwondo is (that's logic, even if you disagree with it), and I further believe his lack of full understanding is due to lack of time studying the art as well as his limited sources of information (again based in logic - not fallacy). Martial Art education is an education of life - not just fighting, and Taekwondo teaches to seek enlightenment. When the light comes on, you begin to understand. No one knows when the light will come on for each person.

 

[terryl965]

Thank you Chief Master Eisenhart For answering all the question and taking the time to do it. :asian:

 

[Last Fearner]

This was not Joseon, but rather Gojoseon.

Are you kidding me??? Sir, I would like to respond to your comments with polite, passive replies, but it appears that you are not offering a different point of view, or even questioning my answers, but rather you are correcting me as a professor over a student, setting the record straight. Are you trying to come off here as some kind of intellectual expert on Korea while correcting me on something that is not wrong?? I can't believe that no one else catches your mistakes and jumps in here with a correction. This is as bad as SageGhost's claim that the “han” of hangeuk (meaning the country of Korea) came from the “Han” of the Chinese Han Dynasty. I proved that wrong, and those proposing the alleged “smoking gun” just quietly swept that error under the rug.

Errant, here's a little history lesson for you. “Choseon” (Joson or Joseon as an alternative spellings) was the name given to the peninsula at the time of its founding by the legendary Dangun (also “Tan'gun”) , and was called Choseon throughout Korea's early development (pre-Three Kingdoms period) up until the Yi Dynasty (1392 to 1910).

http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Places/Place/325083

“Legend has it, that Korea was first established by Tan'gun Wang'gom in 2333 B.C., who named the new kingdom Choson, "Land of the Morning Calm", and established his capital at Asadal, today's P'yong'yang.”

After the Kingdoms were united, there came the Silla Dynasty. Following that was the Koryeo (Ko - lryaw - often spelled Koryo) Dynasty. Koryeo, derrived its name from the former Koguryeo Kingdom, and is where we get the Western pronunciation of today's “Korea.” Then, in 1392 came the Choseon, or “Yi” Dynasty (“Yi” after its founder, Yi Songgye). He named it Choseon (or Joseon) after the original Choseon of the legendary Dangun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Korea

“Main article: Joseon Dynasty
In 1392 a Korean general, Yi Seonggye, was sent to China to campaign against the Ming Dynasty, but instead he returned to overthrow the Goryeo king and establish a new dynasty. He named it the Joseon Dynasty in honor of the previous Joseon before (Gojoseon is the first Joseon. "Go" was added to distinguish between the two).”

You see, Errant, it was in contrast to this new, Choseon Dynasty, that Koreans began to refer to the original Choseon as “Kochoseon” (or ”Gojoseon”) meaning “old Choseon” (or ”ancient Joseon). So don't correct me on the use of the term Choseon as it was, in fact, originally applied to the territory at that time that I referenced. You don't have an “old Choseon” until a new Choseon comes along, and I was not talking about a modern perspective of us looking back through two Choseon periods. It was originally called “Choseon” (Joseon) just as I said, so please get your facts straight, sir.

Please cite sources for this, preferably sources in Korean.

Please indicate exactly what part you want sources cited, and what do you mean by “sources in Korean?” You want sources only written in Hangukmal? Why? A reliable source is sufficient, regardless of the language. Please specify what you think is wrong in my statement so that I don't have to waste time citing every piece of common knowledge, or things that you can find in most history books on Korea.

Also note that Subak did not mean grappling, but rather hand striking.

Please note that I did not say “Subak” meant “grappling.” I was referring the “hand-to-hand combat in that sentence, while some experts do believe that Subak training also included grappling. The “meaning” of the word Subak was never mentioned, so why are you attempting to correcting it?

The Hwarang were not knights.

I can't even begin to list the number of expert citations that use the term “knights” in connection with the Hwarang youth group (nor am I going to waste my time doing so). Anyone, of any expertise on this subject knows that the term “knights” as applied here does not have the same connotation as that of a royal knighthood from a sovereign. This is not a Korean term, and they did not use it at that time, however, check the dictionary for multiple meanings:

“knight: A man belonging to an order or brotherhood. A defender, champion, or zealous upholder of a cause or principle” (American Heritage Dictionary, 2000).

I would say that the Hwarang youth definitely fit this description - - and then some.

The earliest reference to Taegyeon is in 1790 and all historical evidence only supports it being practiced during the Yi Dynasty. Do you have sources to site for this information?

I didn't specify when they first started kicking each other, nor did I say when it was first recorded in history, so I don't see what you are challenging, nor what you need a citation for.

There is no historical basis for the claim that Korean martial arts were outlawed during the Japanese occupation. No document has ever been uncovered in Japan or Korea stating that they were outlawed.

You know, Errant, I have often wondered this myself, and I would love to see any official document that was printed and distributed during the occupation that specifically states the outlawing of native Korean Martial Art. However, this is really not the point here. I am not going to waste my time linking numerous sources and citations of experts and personal accounts of those who lived through the occupation and stated that the native Martial Art was banned. I am not avoiding providing citations where needed, but you seem to be blanketly contradicting everything I say, without actually proving that I said anything wrong. You can do your own homework on this, as it is stated over and over by survivors of the occupation.

One who undergoes the reality of an occupying force in their country does not need a written document or decree to verify that they are not permitted to do something. If Japanese soldiers and officials told them they could not teach or practice their own Martial Art, then they didn't do it. This personal experience has been repeated by many, thus documentation is just for your own personal confirmation, and might not even exist. Continue the search for proof, if you wish, but I find it presumptuous to deny it occurred simply because there no written decree can be found decades later.

Who taught subak? It never made it out of the Samguk Shidae and there are no sources providing any information as to what it actually entailed.

http://www.napataekwondo.com/tkdhistory/

The Japanese colonial government, using military force, banned all cultural activities, including team sports and the practice of martial arts. In an attempt to destroy the Korean identity, the Japanese banned the teaching of the Korean language in schools and attempted to change Korean family names. Some martial arts instructors continued to practice their skills in secrecy, and in this way the Korean martial arts were kept alive. One man in particular, Master Song Duk Ki, learned Subak during the later part of the Joseon dynasty from Master Yim Ho, and continued to teach during the Japanese occupation.

http://www.taekkyon.or.kr/en/

During the Japanese colonial period, Taekkyon has been banned and therefore has almost vanished. Fortunately one old-man called Song Duk-Ki(1893~1987) did survive and could hand it down to us.

I don't know if there are others who knew Subak before the occupation, or taught if after, or who they learned if from throughout history, but it does not take a rocket scientist to know that if “unarmed” hand-to-hand combat existed in Korea's history, and we teach “unarmed self-defense” today, that we can call it “Subak” because that is what “Subak” means.

Much of the "survivors" have had their accounts discredited by Korean scholars, including professors in Taegwondo.

Vague references. Please tell me who has been discredited by whom, and what is the evidence of such conclusions. What was said by the survivor that was alleged to be a lie, and what proof was used to discredit them?

This is not common knowledge. This is myth.

If you are going to call something a myth, or call someone a liar, please provide the specifics of your proof, and don't tell me the burden of proof is on me. Everything I said has been said by experts before, and is considered common knowledge among Korean Martial Artists, whether you agree with it or not. If you disagree, prove it wrong.

My art is not Taegwondo, and I challenge anyone who says so.

Errant, I never said “your art” was “Taegwondo,” but if you are not studying “Taekwondo,” then why are you arguing the definition or interpretation of what Taekwondo is or is not. My statement indicated a truth that many do not grasp because they are focused on a specific curriculum, technical content, and believe in labeling an art as a “style” with organizational ties and registered trademark names.

The sky and the land belong to all of us, but we mark off territories. If a river runs through the country of Korea, it is Korea's river, even if the water flows from outside the country. They have the right to name that river anything they want. The history of Korean Martial Art belongs to the nation. They have a right to name it whatever they want.

If you or any organization wants to claim a special curriculum as being your unique “style” and call it something else, that's up to you, but the term “Taekwondo” was, and is a new name for all of Korea's ancient Martial Art skills and philosophies, whether you like it or not.

 

[Last Fearner]

SUMMARY SO FAR:

I. PART ONE: There is NO Historical Evidence or Indication that ANY of these elements of Taekwondo are related to ANY ancient Korean martial practices:

II. PART TWO: There are UNDENIABLE links between these elements of modern Taekwondo practice and ancient Korean culture:

When Last Fearner discusses his Taekwondo, I think he is incorporating many more of this second category of cultural elements in his working definition of TKD. In truth, he can rightly say that the culture that spawned the Hwa Rang, the Koguryeo Empire, and Admiral Yi Sun Shin also gave birth to modern Taekwondo practice. This is the major link that I see. It is the only link that I see. But it is still a link, and a vital one at that.

Personally, I see Taekwondo as an element of Korean culture. Its modern forms and features are unrelated to ancient martial practices. However, it has given me a desire to understand and learn more about the Korean people and culture that has made modern Taekwondo a distinctly ‘Korean’ martial art.

I hope this makes sense. I also hope you excuse this overly-long post.

Ninjamom, I agree with everyone else that this is one of the best posts on this subject, and you are exactly right that there are two different things being discussed. This is the distinction that I attempt to make so that everyone does not accept one perspective as the only perspective. My perspective is that there is more than one legitimate perspective.

 

[Tez3]

Just a very small point but while we are discussing historical accuracy can I just remind you that Lord Baden Powell started the Boy Scout movement in Great Britain (or the United Kingdom) not just England. I'm not hijacking the thread to give you a long expanation of why non Brits manage to upset us by getting our nationalities wrong but in the light of this particular discussion on historical accuracy I thought I'd point it out...again.
And in the interests of accuracy why are you all writing Korea instead of the more correct and I believe preferred Corea?

 

[exile]

If you are going to call something a myth, or call someone a liar, please provide the specifics of your proof, and don't tell me the burden of proof is on me. Everything I said has been said by experts before, and is considered common knowledge among Korean Martial Artists, whether you agree with it or not. If you disagree, prove it wrong.

If you had actually read any of the critical histories of Taekyon, LF, including the work of Young, Henning and Capener, instead of ignoring the actual documentation they possess in favor of nasty insinuations about such historians based, so far as I can see, on nothing, you'd realize that that the specifics have already been provided in many threads—including the words of Song Duk Ki himself—to show that Taekyon has nothing whatever to do with TKD beyond the fact that legs were involved in both activities. I've had a rather hectic time of it lately here, but since you persist in ignoring the historical evidence (which you imply you've read, but whose import you refuse to confront so totally that I think it's a safer bet that you haven't) I'm going to have to reassemble some of the material I've already posted, including not just Song Duk Ki's testimony but the comments by Lee Yong-Bak, Chairman of the Korean Taekyon Research Association, one of the handful of living Koreans who actually learned Taekyon from Song Duk Ki and probably the outstanding Korean expert on Taekyon—and yes, we'll also take a look, I think, at what LYB and other Taekyon proponents and historical researchers say about the existence of General Choi's supposedly famous instructor 'Han Il dong'. The fact is that Errant's comments are right on target and you have not even begun to meet the burden of proof that you need to to establish the relevance of Taekyon itself for any aspect of the TKD technique set at any point in its history. And one of the reasons why this discussion cannot seem to get beyond this point is that you consistently refuse to address the documentary history, instead relying on an authority over historical matters you have not earned; rather, you insist that matters of historical fact are somehow revealed to you (in a manner that escapes, and apparently does not require, external verification to carry conviction).

because they lack an advanced understanding of the art of Taekwondo, and that I believe the advanced understanding comes to an individual only after decades of training and guidance from an instructor who has attained an enlightened mind, yet it might never come to an individual.

But we are not talking about 'understanding' the art of Taekwondo. We are talking about unraveling the history of the art. Expertise in the use of the gladius does not give you knowledge of Roman military history. Expertise in the use of the katana does not mean that your opinion on the development of samurai budo during the Castle Era carries any weight on its own. Being a gifted painter does not give you the slightest insight into the way Picasso's use of the bull icon in his paintings evolved. In each of these cases, there are two different things involved. And you consistently seek to conflate them.


Finally, just as in the case with me, Steve Capener, the MA historians I've cited, and various others who have challenged your picture of the historical development of the KMAs and have provided detailed arguments and evidence that you refuse to confront, you seek both to change the content of the argument with Errant and dismiss the relevance of his knowlege by unfounded, derogatory implications:

You would love to “read” about it. Learning the philosophies, and techniques of Taekwondo does not come from books, and my insights into this art did not come from a conversation over the internet.

—implying, of course that the issue is the 'philosophy and techniques' of TKD, rather than its history (and therefore that the relevant content of Errant's comments come from 'conversation over the internet'—whereas they appear to be founded on the same historical studies, with fully public sources, documentation and results, that mine are). Errant is challenging you on the historical evidence. He is not talking about whatever personal views of the philosophy of the art you have, any more than, say, Manuel Adrogué, a very competent historical scholar specializing in the Muyi Dobo Tong Ji, who has written probably the best analysis of its history and content extant in his 2003 Journal of Asian Martial Arts, does not try to back up his opinion by appealing to some special, priviledged 'understanding' he acquired in the course of earning his fifth dan in TKD; rather, Adrogué appeals to philological evidence of a very detailed kind to document his demonstration the the MDTJ provides no support in the least for any 'indigenous' ancient KMA, or any preview of 'modern' Taekyon, or TKD, or anything at all supporting 'ancient' indigenous MAs. He understands that when history is the issue, what counts is historical evidence, and all the appeal to special 'understanding' of TKD is, in that domain, irrelevant. What on earth does one's philosophy, or technical experties, or 'understanding' of TKD have to do with the empirical, strictly historical issue of whether the TKD roundhouse or rear-leg side kick came into TKD's technique set on the basis of a line of transmission going back to the last practitioners of Taekyon in the early middle 20th century?? None, any more than a complete native speaker competence in the Basque language, and a certain perspective on its literary culture, would give you the slightest basis for a sound judgment about whether Basque is ultimately related to the languages of the Caucasus.

Later on today, I'll post the assembled documentation on Taekyon I've promised, even though it shouldn't be necessary at this point. And then, perhaps, it will be useful to review the question of what is involved when practitioners claim that their particular 'understanding' of their MA, or of a phrase like 'martial art(ist)', or anything else, has some universal truth that trumps others' understanding, without either specifying the content of that understanding or explaining clearly just why any detached, objective observer would find reason to agree with that claim.

 

[exile]

OK, so now, let's get specific. Last Fearner responded to a post of Errant's in which the latter challenged pretty much every assertion that LF had made about TKD history, identifying these as myths, and here is LF's response:

If you are going to call something a myth, or call someone a liar, please provide the specifics of your proof, and don't tell me the burden of proof is on me. Everything I said has been said by experts before, and is considered common knowledge among Korean Martial Artists, whether you agree with it or not. If you disagree, prove it wrong.

In fact, as I indicated in my previous post, the proof that LF asks for has already been pointed out, many times, on MT, in many threads, and LF has never addressed it (in what follows, all references, unless separately provided, are given here). LF doesn't identify what 'experts' he's talking about who've 'said everything [he's] said', but the experts that have actually published detailed, documented surveys of the history of Taekyon and its relationship to TKD have agreed with nothing that LF has said. And among those experts are Song Duk-ki, the man named a Human Cultural Asset by the Korean government in 1987 for preserving, on his own, the 20th century link to the 19th century foot-fighting game taekkyon. Song Duk Ki was recognized in his lifetime as the undisputed master and authority on Taekyon, and what did he have to say about it that bears on LF's completely unsupported assertion that

Tae kyeon existed as a kicking art in Korea's past, belonged to the country of Korea, and was renamed Taekwondo, by the Korean government, as it began a new chapter in history.

?? Well, as Errant noted, you have to know Korean to find out, because Song Duk Ki published a book in Korean, Jeon tong mu sul tae kyon (1983: Seo Rim Mun Hwa Sa)which, while LF apparently has not read (reading it would require a knowledge of Korean), the historian and journalist Robert Young, and the KMA researcher, WTF coach and Korean university professor Steven Capener have both read—one of the virtues of the fluency in Korean that Errant was referring to, you see—and this is what SDK had to say:

• Taekyon was never thought of as anything other than a game, which was played as a gambling activity on a regular basis (if LF wishes to verify this statement, he can check up on p.8 of the original Korean text);
• it was played exclusively around Seoul (same page);
• as of 1958, there were exactly three other serious taekyon practitioners in Korea besides SDK, one of whom, his own teacher, was in his late 80s at least at that point and largely inactive (check out p. 21 for SDK's assssment of the situation; he was unaware of the third one, apparently).

(Capener 1995, Young 1993). SDK's book noted that there had been classes, taught on an informal basis, that had been taught by a few 19th century figures, to a few students (SDK's teacher had taught taekyon to a grand total of 10 students since 1880, and apart from SDK, none of these were active by the time of the famous demonstration for Syngman Rhee in 1958. As Capener points out, Yi Yong Bok's history of Taekyon, published in 1995 and making heavy use of interview material with SDK, reports the latter's lament that, as Capener puts it, 'in spite of searching in "100 directions", he was unable to locate even one person versed in t'aekkyon with whom he could demonstrate.' As Capener goes on to note trenchantly, '[And this] in spite of hundreds of t'aegwondo schools throughout the country', which had grown up in what was, as SDK himself points out, an essentially complete vacuum so far as knowledge of taekkyon was concerned.

But there's more. Capener notes that 'both t'aekkyon and p'yon ssaum [an organized rock-fighting game played between two village teams] are listed in a book called Korean Games written in 1895 by an American scholar named Stuart Culin who describes t'aekkyon as a game in which the object is to kick the opponent's leg out from under him or catch the opponent's kick and thrown him to the ground. He goes on to say that the game was also played in Japan' (my emphasis; ethnographies of Siberian and Inuit aboriginal groups report similar kinds of leg-wrestling/kicking/unbalancing games). And that point is underscored by the comment of Lee Yong-bok, who studied Taekyon with SDK and is regarded as his senior student, and who is the Chairman of the Tae Kyon Research Association, in a 1992 interview with Robert Young, that 'Tae kyon has traditionally emphasized stepping and stamping techniques directed at the opponent's lower legs and feet'. The reality then—as opposed to the wishful thinking that the above quotation from Last Fearner expresses—is that by the accounts of the people who actually practiced taekkyon and maintained it in a kind of 'museum' of folk practice through the 20th century, there was essentially no taekkyon activity going on, or being taught, at the time when the Kwan founders came home and started teaching the Japanese karate they had learned in Tokyo and elsewhere; that the taekkyon that SKD and the two or three other taekkyon practitioners alive at the time had learned was, by their own account, nothing but a folk game; and that the leg tactics of that game had nothing at all to do with the combat use of the feet in TKD (a point often echoed by those who have actually seen taekkyon demonstrated, e.g., Dave Beck, who notes here that 'from the examples I've seen most of the techniques are sweeps, reaps, kicks to unbalance, and throat strikes. The techniques differ from those in TKD.' But don't take his word for it; apart from Lee Yong-bok, another Taekyon Research Association member, Chung Kyeong-hwa, informed Robert Young, in a recorded interview in 1990, that he and other `experts deny that taekwondo has incorporated any taekyon techniques but are reluctant to publically say so in Korea because of the negative repurcussion of mud-slinging.' (Young, 1993))

So when LF says to Terry,

We, as Taekwondoists, don't have to duplicate the exact method of stomping, kicking, or knocking down of our opponents in the same way that early Tae Kyeon fighters did centuries ago in order to retain the concept of kicking as a primary method of self defense. Techniques evolve, and methodology is updated, but the core concept of Korea's National Martial Art of “Taekwondo” does, in fact, come from its predecessor, Tae Kyeon, even if modern versions do not appear to apply the kicks in the same way.

just what is he talking about? Taekkyon 'fighters'?? 'Centuries ago'? Contestants in village games (SDK's description, remember!) are heroic knightly 'fighters'?? And forget about 'centuries ago'; even the most recent forms of Taekkyon (whose connections with anything earlier are a closed book to LF, and everyone else, because there are no records of just what the original game was like) have, according to actual Taekkyon practitioners, no connections to the recognizably Shotokan/Shudokan techs of the original Kwans. (Bear in mind that LF, who chastises Errant for making statements based on a putative reading-knowledge-only of TKD, has been making all kinds of statements about a physical technique set that, so far as one can judge from his own previous statements, he has no practical knowledge of, certainly nothing to rival the leaders of the the current Taekyon group that includes the very small number of people SDK ever taught. Whose opinion has any weight at all here—SDK and his chief student, or a westerner born long after they were, who was nowhere at all during the events in question, has no firsthand knowledge of any of this, and does not even seem to be aware that SDK himself wrote a memoir making all these points clear, along lines which contradict pretty much everything that native-born American has been saying about Taekyon?? You see, this is game two can play at... :wink1. Or again: TKD came from Taekyon because they both involve kicking?? So does Long Fist Chuan Fa, with its full extension kicks, that is the empty hand art represented in the Muye Dobu Ton Ji, as well as the jujitsu that was taught in Korea since the early days of the Occupation. As Simon O'Neil points out, all we can infer from the prevalence in kicking in TKD is that Koreans like to kick. This is the basis for portentous historical claims of technical continuity over millenia?? Or take this bit: 'Techniques evolve and methodology is updated??' What is this supposed to mean? The current practitioners of taekkyon, as noted above, identify TKD as a completely different technique set from theirs, one that grew up and took hold in Korea at a time—to repeat, as apparently necessary—when the number of practicing 'Taekyon fighters'—was effectively nil, and when Song Duk Ki himself insists, in his own book on taekkyon, that the activity was a competitive game, not a martial art, fighting system or anything else of the kind. So far as I can see, the foregoing paragraph, making vague assertions as though there were some definite content, with no support or even clear meaning, is just the sort of thing that I was referring to when I referred to one of LF's previous posts as bluff: a confident statement offered as though it were strongly supported, but without any support given, or clear content that could interact with facts in any kind of interesting way.

Now let's come back to General Choi, and LF's comment to Errant that

Regardless of who says it, one must provide proof that individuals such as General Choi had no native Martial Art training as a youth, unless you intend to call reputable people liars based on your doubts.

This, it should be noted, is said about the guy who used his authority in the Korean military to strongarm leading members of rival kwans into switching sides and joining the Oh Do Kwan or face a distinctly hazardous posting at the DMZ, as vs. the soft berth he offered them if they, um, cooperated (see a more detailed description of how the General operated here (Gm. Kim Pyung-Soo was chief instructor of the Chong-Moo Kwan in the late 1950s); and who also, as Stuart Anslow noted in his recent book on the Ch'ang Hon hyungs, flagrantly contradicted himself in print—three separate interviews in Combat magazine over three decades—about the role of Shotokan karate in the formations of TKD, starting out with the assertion that it had been indispensible and concluding, in his last interview, that TKD and karate had essentially nothing to do with each other. And we're supposed to find it unthinkable that the General might have made up his taekyon training?? Especially when you consider that no one has been able to confirm the existence of the alleged 'famous' calligraphy teacher and taekyon practitioner Han Il-dong that Gen. Choi claimed had taught him taekkyon? Lee Yong-bok and Chung Kyeong-hwa of the Taekyon Research Association both told Robert Young, in his recorded interviews with them in 1990, that they had consulted the teaching records of the three instructors who had offered classes in taekkyon and found no one of that name on any of the lists, or any record of his existence, and he was unknown to any of the handful of surviving 20th century teachers linking the then-current taekkyon to the 19th century foot game. So yes, there is plenty of reason to be skeptical that such a person existed—especially because, as Capener pointedly notes, Song Duk-ki and others identified Taekkyon as entirely Seoul-based, whereas Han Il-dong supposedly learned and taught taekkyon in Hamgyongdo province, a place where there is no record of taekkyon ever having been played. Finally, there is that little problem with Gen. Choi's story—you know, the point that Gm. Kim Pyung-soo made in his Black Belt interview with our own Robert McLain, the bit where he says that

In the early days [General Choi] was teaching the same karate forms as the other kwans, such as Pyung Ahn, Bassai Tae, Kon Sang Kun, etc. Then in the late 1950’s he came up with a story about martial arts links to Korguryo dynasty, Silla Dynasty, 2000 years of tradition, etc. He created new forms and gave each form a name related to something in Korean history, such as a scholar’s name or a famous Korean patriot’s name. He called his system, “Taekwondo.” He was trying to get away from the connection to the Japanese - trying to make something patriotic. He wanted everyone to follow this new line and give up their previous training.​

(And General Choi is not alone in this practice; as we now know, after a lifetime of claiming that the Pyang-Ahn hyungs were completely independent of anything Japanese, and that they had originated in China where he had learned them, Hwang Ki in his last book admitted that he had learned them from... Japanese karate manuals he found in Korea! See John Hancock's memoir here for the whole (or at least part of the) unappetizing story. Why on earth should we be surprised when we find as much evidence as we have in the case of Gen. Choi that people fabricated stories out of whole cloth to support their ambitions and undermine their opponents? These people were plaster saints??)

So now: exactly which 'experts' have confirmed, with detailed evidence, LF's version of the story, as he claims they do? Who, exactly?? I've named my sources, and identified the basis for their sources and their claims to knowledge. 'Common knowledge?' This is actually kind of funny, because in connection with an earlier post of mine on the importance of the fact that the historical sources I cite have mostly appeared in peer-reviewed venues, LF comments dismissively that

Think about it - - “The Earth is flat” was peer-reviewed by other experts. “Blood Letting” to cure diseases was “peer-reviewed” by fellow experts in the medical field. Virtually everything we know today, replaced someone's “peer-reviewed” incorrect knowledge of the past.

To anyone who knows anything about the history of academic publishing, this comment is so absurdly off-base that it's actually funny. The first peer-reviewed journal ever was a medical journal, Medical Essays and Observations, published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh (see Benos et al., Advances in Physiology Education, 31.145–152, 2007), 200 years after the Copernican revolution, and you can bet the farm that they did not publish any peer reviewed article to the effect that the earth was flat. And MEO was a unique publication for generations; scientific publishing did not adapt the peer-review system on a wide scale until the early 20th century. What `The Earth is flat' reflected was not peer reviewed research, but exactly that 'common knowledge' that LF seems to believe is a substitute for critical examination of the facts.

The fact is, neither LF nor anyone else possesses a time machine, and therefore his assertions about what 'ancient Korean martial arts' consisted of has not even the smallest basis in fact, because there are no records of those arts. The earliest encyclopædic compendium of Korean MAs, the Muye Dobu Ton Ji, has been shown conclusively to consist almost entirely of a translation of a 250 year earlier Chinese military manual, The New Book of Effective Discipline, written by a Han general (as Henning (2000) and Adrogué (2003) could have told him), and the MDTJ's small chapter on empty-hand techniques is, unsurprisingly, almost certainly Long Fist chuan fa, just as the weapons techs reflect Chinese military practice (apart from a small appendix on Japanese sword techs). Assertions that TKD is the descendent of 'ancient' Korean techs have no support, run aground on the factual evidence we do possess, and are, ultimately, recyled myth, just as Errant asserts.

This is just a very small sample of the full range of evidence, focusing just on the issue of taekkyon. There is much more to be said about the real history of TKD, vs. the kind of nationalist mythmongering that Gen. Choi pioneered in the post-Korean War era, with undocumented and undocumentable references to military practice in the Three Kingdoms era, the Hwarang and all sorts of other stuff about which nothing whatever can be asserted plausible, because there is no evidence at all that sheds any light on unarmed martial combat from that era: no records, no documents, no manuals, not even crude pictures. But I think what I've noted above is representative of the issues, and gives a good idea of why LF's responses to Errant are completely inadequate to shift the burden of proof that he indeed does bear, and persistently refuses to meet by providing actual evidence for his position. The real problem with LF's posts, ultimately, is reflected in the following passage, in which LF refers to the academic credentials of my sources:

While I acknowledge the advanced education of these historians, researchers, and experts of yours, I also note that you present, as a part of their credentials, their “martial” experience. You list their ranks as evidence of their expertise and qualifications to define Taekwondo and tell the world what its origin is, however as a 6th Degree Black Belt in Taekwondo, with more than 40 years experience myself, I am less impressed than you by credentials of 2nd, 3rd and 4th dans with 20 years or less experience in the Martial Art.

Really? Well, then I suppose that compared with the opinions of Gm. Kim Byung Soo and Gm. Sihak Henry Cho, both of whom are Korean 9th Dans with well over a century of MA experience between them, both of whom were present at the beginning of the Kwan era and who saw that history firsthand, and both of whom dismiss the role of taekyon in the formation of TKD as nationalist mythology, LF's own opinion is pretty marginal, eh? By his own logic, no? But in fact, that logic itself has no credibility, because it confuses technical knowledge of an activity with knowledge of the history of that activity. Getting a dan rank does not give you the slightest authority in terms of the history of your art, any more than winning the Tchaikowsky Competition gives the winner a knowledge of the evolution of the piano. Rank in Taekwondo is rank in Taekwondo; it does not give you the language and historical research skills, or the factual base, necessary to carry out the difficult and exacting craft of historical research. LF has no more authority in that respect than anyone else who has not done the work that the people I cite have done, and made public; when it comes to historical analysis, those people are the 9th dans and LF is the white belt. Provide facts, provide evidence, provide documentation; those are what count, not your belt or dan rank, when it's a question of historical accuracy. And if you can't do that, don't pretend you can.

 

[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:.

 

[rmclain]

I would like to "throw in" that Grandmaster Kim Byung-soo was a personal friend of Song Duk Ki in Korea. Their photo, taken at Kyong Bok Palace, can be found in a museum in Seoul and was used at one of the Olympics (I forget which one). Kim Pyung-soo was also instrumental in getting Song Duk Ki recognized as a cultural asset for Korea. Here are some photos:

This photo was used at the Olympics: http://www.kimsookarate.com/gallery-old-days/songsoo.html

Some misc photos: http://www.kimsookarate.com/gallery-old-days/song-duk-ki.html

R. McLain