Taekwondo's core goes beyond technique

[crushing]

I think it is Japanese Karate that was imported and then changed as time went on to be more politically acceptable.

Which is Okinawan. . .which is Chinese. . . which is Indian. . .which is Greek. . . .

Descendent? Influenced? Peers? Silos?

Very interesting discussion. Seems like I've read this stuff before. . . .nevermind that was about pasta and Marco "Choi" Polo.

Thanks for the great reads!

 

[punisher73]

Karate was brought from Okinawa to Japan by Funikosha in 1925. All the major Kwan Jang Nims studied Shotokan, before Korea regained its independence in 1945, then TKD was officially formed in 1955 from those Shotokan roots. That means Shotokan had only 20 years to develop itself from an Okinawan to a Japanese artform before Korea regained its independence. Since then, TKD has had 68 years to transform itself into a Korean artform, independent of the Japanese streams that spawned it.

I would agree that it has changed and evolved, but take credit for the change instead of saying that it was an ancient artform and try to remove the japanese base altogether.

 

[exile]

Been following this discussion, and enjoying the mostly well-informed posts presented on the lack of historicity in modern TKD. I must disagree with this statement, though - I think it hits close to the mark, but misses it slightly.

In ancient Silla, there really was a group called the Hwa Rang that practiced martial skill, studied Confucian classics,and observed notable ethics and service to King and Country, and many of them did become famous generals and political leaders. The northern kingdom of Gokuryeo really did defeat a 300,000 + man army of Sui warriors (mostly in a single battle, BTW), and hold off invasion after invasion, eventually precipitating the fall of the Sui Empire to the Tang after years of losses due to war. Silla then unified all the Korean penninsula with Tang help, but then really did battle the Tang right off the peninnsula and gain 300+ years of independence. The succeeding Koryeo empire really did withstand six separate Mongol invasions spanning some 30 years (a feat no other kingdom managed), before falling to the Horde (not through battle, but through internal rebellion and a back-door deal, BTW). The Choseon Koreans really did battle Japan to a standstill and eventually forced them off the penninsula during the Imjin Waerun, and one Korean Admiral really did use incredible engineering and tactical skill to achieve more lopsided victories against far superior numbers than any naval force before or after (rightly becoming a national hero).

You see, Korea really did have a great history that included many astounding martial high points, incredible tales of bravery and sacrifice, and filled with the types of things easily making martial legends. The problem is that, between the Confucian culture of the Yi and the Japanese Occupation, NONE of that glorious history is preserved in any of the current martial practices.

But I think that that's where this sense of disappointment I was talking about arises from. There is this huge wedge of time that separates the really ancient warrior culture of ancient Korea—and at that point, it wasn't really Korea but a whole swathe of northern Asia—from the corresponding 'chivalric' era in Japan. It's as though we had to go back, not to the Middle Ages, but to the early Roman imperial era, in order to flesh out those heroic longings. And that's really probably way too far back. We ourselves, for example—how much easier is it to connect with Henry V at Agincourt, compared with Cinncinatus going back to his plow 1,600 years earlier than the St. Cripian's Day speech. We can relate to the Tokugawa castle lords, and all that heraldry, we think we really do understand it from our own ancestral mediæval picture. But the part of your note I've bolded is the crucial bit: it doesn't add up to an accessible heroic past. My own sense is, it's just too long ago.

(i.e., look at the stances and motions in the Muye Dobo Tongji, and it is instantly apparent that they bare no similarity to current practice.)

Right. Adrogué identifies those postures as probably closest to Long Fist chuan fa of any of the currently available candidates. Whatever it was, it sure wasn't anything at all like what we find in current KMAs...

THAT is the division and the link between what I hear Exile saying (there is a total lack of historical roots [i.e., 'lineage'] linking TKD and its techniques to ancient Korean practices) and what LF is saying (that Korea has a glorious martial past, and the culture/pride that inspired it is still 'alive 'n kick'n' in TKD).

On another note, if you really want to start a fight, consider again the Muye Dobo Tongji (an 18th century Korean military handbook providing a snapshot of current sword, spear, flail, etc. and hand-to-hand practices for soldiers to learn and officers to drill/train). While most remember it as a manual of current Korean military practices, many don't realize that it also contains a training guide for four different Japanese sword ryuha, to prepare Korean soldiers to face what most considered to be the likeliest source for a future invasion/attack. If you look at the diagrams and read the descriptions, you will see precious little in that manual that remotely resembles current practices by any of the 'old school' Japanese arts. In other words, even a documented lineage is no guarantee that your current martial practices are related to what was done on a battlefield centuries ago.

Very true....

Yes and no. It changed yes. But I doubt the changes were primarily motivated by being politically acceptable. Things evolve with time. The arts practiced in one nation (even if imported from another) will take the flavor of that culture.

Karate was brought from Okinawa to Japan by Funikosha in 1925. All the major Kwan Jang Nims studied Shotokan, before Korea regained its independence in 1945, then TKD was officially formed in 1955 from those Shotokan roots. That means Shotokan had only 20 years to develop itself from an Okinawan to a Japanese artform before Korea regained its independence. Since then, TKD has had 68 years to transform itself into a Korean artform, independent of the Japanese streams that spawned it.

I agree that it has become very different in many ways. My critical point, the essential thing, is that the combat technique set of Okinawan karate is still there, in the TKD hyungs, which—as Kwan Jang puts it so well—represent respliced Okinawan kata sequences. In other words, as a guide to application, the Okinawan/Japanese origins of TKD guarantee that we have a kind of off-the-shelf set of bunkai incorporating the strategic principles and effective tactical resources of O/J karate. My main interest in TKD is street defence, and in practice—as an effective combat system—I think the optimal application of TKD will probably look a lot like an application of Shotokan karate....

 

[Kwan Jang]

I'm truly not trying to bash Gen. Choi, but I feel a correction is due for Punisher's statement about his rank. Gen. Choi was given a honorary 4th dan at the unification of the Kwans which he was later stripped of by the KJN of Chung Do Kwan when he tried to pass it off as legit and then demanded to be promoted to a legitimate (non-honorary) 6th dan. This happened while he was still a powerful force in Korea and well before his exile. Any promotion to 9th dan (to the best of my knowledge, though I am open to correction if someone can produce documentation or independent sources) was by either his own "authority" or that of his students and org.

 

[Ninjamom]

I would agree that it has changed and evolved, but take credit for the change instead of saying that it was an ancient artform and try to remove the japanese base altogether.

I agree that it has become very different in many ways. My critical point, the essential thing, is that the combat technique set of Okinawan karate is still there, in the TKD hyungs, which—as Kwan Jang puts it so well—represent respliced Okinawan kata sequences. In other words, as a guide to application, the Okinawan/Japanese origins of TKD guarantee ....etc etc

I agree with you both on this.

But I think that that's where this sense of disappointment I was talking about arises from. There is this huge wedge of time that separates the really ancient warrior culture of ancient Korea—

I'm thinking out loud here, but perhaps it isn't the length of time between the martial heritage and current practice, so much as the depth to which the culture was beaten down. If this were still Choseon Korea, I think everyone would agree that TKD is derived from Okinawan roots, and no one would care. But it's not, and I think many still alive bear the scars (whether they admit it or not) of the Japanese Occupation.

Even without the Occupation, Korean history includes at least one chapter where it (Koguryeo) ruled a good swath of the eastern world. Now, there are foreign troops in the country, largely to defend against the other half of the divided nation.

 

[foot2face]

I'm a bit disappointed in the way this conversation has unfolded. Many are so quick to point out the "Korean government lies" but are so willing to accept the anti-post-Kwan TKD propaganda that is just as dishonest. To assert that all of the changes were made for Nationalist and sports purposes is incredibly naive. Do you really believe that the TKD masters and soldiers who were responsible for the changes to TKD, many during times of war when TKD was proving itself as a deadly system, made these changes simply so they can feel good about their history or make a game of it? There is no doubt that fervent nationalism is a part of TKD history but it was not the only factor, there were many meaningful combat related changes made.

 

[Ninjamom]

OK, one more then I'll stop.

.....There is this huge wedge of time that separates the really ancient warrior culture of ancient Korea .......... from the corresponding 'chivalric' era in Japan. .......it doesn't add up to an accessible heroic past. My own sense is, it's just too long ago.

While the examples you give are certaqinly accurate for comparing the Silla Hwa Rang and the Tokugawa Shogunate, please remember that the Japanese and Koreans (mostly within the confines of their current geographical boundaries) faced each other in the mid Choseon period during the Imjin Waeran (1592-1598). Seven years of constant warfare saw some heroic martial history of legendary proportions, from Admiral Yi Sun Shin and the famed 'Turtle Boats' to the most recent historically-verified 'warrior-monks' taking to the battlefield to rescue home and heartland.

Right. Adrogué identifies those postures as probably closest to Long Fist chuan fa of any of the currently available candidates. Whatever it was, it sure wasn't anything at all like what we find in current KMAs...

FYI, that's what the Jixiao Xinshu (Chinese source for the diagrams in 1/4 of the Muye Dobo Tong Ji) identifies it as, as well. The MDTJ is very thorough in its footnotes and bibliographic annotations, giving Qi Ji Guang (Korean: Chuk Kye Kwang) and his New Manual on Martial Discipline (Chinese: Jixiao Xinshu; Korean: Kihyo Shinsu) credit for contributing much (but not all) to the section on fist methods.

For you harcore martial history buffs, the English translation of the Muye Dobo Tongji is available from Turtle Press in hardback, paperback, or reconstructed art video/DVD forms. The chapter of the Jixiao Xinshu on fist methods has been translated into English as a Master's Thesis in East Asian Studies by Clifford Michael Gyves, and may be borrowed on interlibrary loan. Since the Jixiao Xinshu (1560 AD, China) was a source document for the original MDTJ (1790 AD, Korea), it is interesting to see how much was changed, abridged, modified, and added between the two editions.

 

[exile]

I noticed that General Choi was brought up and how he had learned an older style of "korean martial art" from his calligraphy teacher.

That matter is dealt with very thoroughly in Robert Young's 1993 heavily documented and detailed history of Taekyon in the 1993 volume of the Journal of Asian Martial Arts. What emerges from the extensive investigation that he and others carried out is that there is very likely to have been no such person. Specifically, the individual named by Gen. Choi was unknown even to the very few remaining contemporary Taekyon practitioners, appears on no dojang records, and does not seem to have had any documentable existence. Interestingly, the official Taekyon site (there was a link to it posted in a recent thread, but I can't find it) also expressed considerable skepticism that Gen. Choi had actually studied taekyon.

Also, when Choi returned to Korea he was promoted by the Korean government to 9th degree. I think that the Koreans are doing the same thing that both the Japanese and Okinawans did when they tried to distance themselves from the Chinese connection. They all started rewriting their history citing ancient methods that were kept hidden for their arts. I think that ALL peoples had some type of indeginous fighting art but I do not think that it is what TKD is. I think it is Japanese Karate that was imported and then changed as time went on to be more politically acceptable.

Japanese karate was definitely imported from Okinawa, and underwent major changes once it started being taught in the Japanese university system there—not so much for reasons of political acceptability (though there were changes of nomenclature for that purpose, including the transliteration of kara te to read 'empty hand' rather than 'China hand', and several others), but because of the niche Funakoshi was marketing to—the Japanese Defense and Education ministries' interest in a kind of 'martial calisthenics', as vs. an effective civil combat system. Bill Burgar, in Five Years, One Kata, his book-length study of bunkai for Gojushiho, has a very incisive, insightful discussion of how this change led to the decline of serious bunkai study in Japanese karate.

 

[SageGhost83]

I'm a bit disappointed in the way this conversation has unfolded. Many are so quick to point out the "Korean government lies" but are so willing to accept the anti-post-Kwan TKD propaganda that is just as dishonest. To assert that all of the changes were made for Nationalist and sports purposes is incredibly naive. Do you really believe that the TKD masters and soldiers who were responsible for the changes to TKD, many during times of war when TKD was proving itself as a deadly system, made these changes simply so they can feel good about their history or make a game of it? There is no doubt that fervent nationalism is a part of TKD history but it was not the only factor, there were many meaningful combat related changes made.

That is because the Korean government does lie...every government lies - especially when issues of national pride are at stake (if you don't believe me, then open a japanese textbook and read the portion that is dedicated to world war 2). What propaganda? Oh, you mean the facts that have been uncovered by the careful and academically sound efforts of professionals who just want to get to the cold hard truth? Doesn't sound like propaganda to me. Of course I am willing to accept it - it is backed up by careful research and hard evidence, not my-master-said-so-it-must-be-true logic :wink1:. The TKD that we practice today is not the same TKD that was practiced by Korean soldiers during the war. Their TKD was much closer to Shotokan karate in appearance and methodology. Seeing as how all of the founders held pretty high rank in Shotokan, then more likely than not, what they used in the Korean war was Shotokan or at least Korean Shotokan, especially given the time at which all of this was happening. If the TKD that was practiced during the war was much closer to Japanese karate than even the TKD that we practice today, and the TKD that we practice today has been heavily altered due to the changes made to get it into the olympics, then what exactly were the deadly changes made by the soldiers? You have Korean Shotokan on one end of the spectrum and what we practice today on the other end of the spectrum. In between, you have the myriad changes that were being made for reasons already known. Either the soldiers didn't really make any significant changes at all during that time, or the original product was so effective in their hands that they didn't need to make any changes to it. I would like to believe the latter because those ROK marines are pretty good. Mosts of those so-called 'deadly changes' were made very recently, heck, the naming of the art is a very recent thing. As for nationalism, we must not forget the massive effort to purge Korea of all things Japanese following the end of the occupation, nor should we forget the government's role in not just that, but also the effort to rebuild the Korean national culture and identity with *what they had available to them at the time*. Sports? We must not forget the profound effects that the major push to get TKD into the olympics had on our art, either. Now, to deny the sportification of TKD and the many core changes that it had on the TKD that we now practice today would be even more naive. Sorry, I love TKD, but when something is proven false, I've gotta call Shenanigans. Nothing against our art, I just don't buy into fabricated, revisionist histories.

 

[SageGhost83]

I think it is Japanese Karate that was imported and then changed as time went on to be more politically acceptable.

Well yeah, that's kind of the point that I was making. The Japanese definitely did this (well, at least as far as importing is concerned. There were politically correct changes, but not anywhere near to the extent of TKD and for obvious reasons) - what I am saying is that the Koreans did it too and that this is how TKD was born! It wasn't some ancient method that was created on the peninsula and passed down from generation to generation as some would have you believe, it was imported to the peninsula very recently as Japanese karate and changed over time to be more politically correct, and to get it into the olympics as a matter of national pride. There is definitely a progession there...Okinawan Te - Japanese Karate - Korean Taekwondo. It is not a coincidence. It is about acknowledging the *actual* roots of the style, not the romantic fantasies of a past that didn't really exist.

 

[SageGhost83]

My god!!! Have we really reached 940 views for this thread!? Man, I thought that this was more of a Taekwondoin-to-Taekwondoin issue. I didn't know that so many people were interested :lol:!

 

[foot2face]

Your comments represents exactly what I referred to in my earlier post. You misinterpreted or over valued good historical evidence and developed a false opinion.

Seeing as how all of the founders held pretty high rank in Shotokan,

They didn’t, 1/3 of the founding Kwans had no Shotokan lineage. Chang Moo Kwan and Kang Duk Kwan both shared a Shudokan and Chun-fa background. Moo Duk Kwan founder Hwang Kee”s formal training was most likely in a CMA.

…the TKD that we practice today has been heavily altered due to the changes made to get it into the olympics, then what exactly were the deadly changes made by the soldiers?

Many of the changes that are wrongfully judged to be only sport oriented go back long before the Olympic quest for gold became part of TKD. There is evidence that the high kicks go back to the mid-late 50s, shortly after the Korean War. Full-contact sparring with protective gear can be traces back to the early 60s, when TKD was earning a fierce reputation in the Viet Nam War. It generated from dissatisfaction with the no/light-contact sparring generally practiced at the time. Many practitioner at the time, most of them soldiers, developed a preference for force on force training and believed sparring should more resemble a mock fight with practitioners havening to throw and land full power blows as well as defend against them. This is very similar to bogu kumite practiced by some Okinawan systems. Coincidently, or perhaps not so coincidently, Toyama Kanken, founder of Shudokan and instructor of Yoon Byung-in (founder of what became CMK) and Yoon Kwe-byung( of JidoKwan) was among the first of the Okinawan master who called for the use of kendo chest protectors while engaging in full-contact sparring.

 

[SageGhost83]

Your comments represents exactly what I referred to in my earlier post. You misinterpreted or over valued good historical evidence and developed a false opinion.

They didn’t, 1/3 of the founding Kwans had no Shotokan lineage. Chang Moo Kwan and Kang Duk Kwan both shared a Shudokan and Chun-fa background. Moo Duk Kwan founder Hwang Kee”s formal training was most likely in a CMA.


Many of the changes that are wrongfully judged to be only sport oriented go back long before the Olympic quest for gold became part of TKD. There is evidence that the high kicks go back to the mid-late 50s, shortly after the Korean War. Full-contact sparring with protective gear can be traces back to the early 60s, when TKD was earning a fierce reputation in the Viet Nam War. It generated from dissatisfaction with the no/light-contact sparring generally practiced at the time. Many practitioner at the time, most of them soldiers, developed a preference for force on force training and believed sparring should more resemble a mock fight with practitioners havening to throw and land full power blows as well as defend against them. This is very similar to bogu kumite practiced by some Okinawan systems. Coincidently, or perhaps not so coincidently, Toyama Kanken, founder of Shudokan and instructor of Yoon Byung-in (founder of what became CMK) and Yoon Kwe-byung( of JidoKwan) was among the first of the Okinawan master who called for the use of kendo chest protectors while engaging in full-contact sparring.

Okay, Shudokan and Chuan-Fa. Where is the ancient korean connection that so many people are in such a hurry to claim? My main point is that we should acknowledge the japanese/okinawan roots and not deny them, and you have actually demostrated that quite nicely for me. What actual *techniques* did the soldiers contribute to the style? I understand about the brutal training that they engaged in, but what actual techs came out of it? I am not being a smart aleck, I really want to know. We all know the reputation of the Korean soldiers who fought in Nam, but what actual techniques were created and contributed to the style via these soldiers? As for the kicking, the koreans have always favored foot games within their own culture, perhaps this was an example of the style growing and forming its own korean flavor? I look forward to hearing from you.

 

[SageGhost83]

How ironic, I am the one who is accused of having a false opinion. We put romanticism above hard evidence and we wonder why our style is one of the most criticised style in the world .

 

[SageGhost83]

By the way, f2f, that last post wasn't directed at you. More of an "in general" thing.

 

[SageGhost83]

I've got a good question for you - has anyone seen Last Fearner since this thread has started? Foot2face is the only one who has presented a good counter viewpoint to the prevailing sentiment in here and it is backed up by actual places, names, and dates without having to resort to the "my instructor told me so and he is very highly ranked" line (not to say that the other posts weren't good). His posts are very well articulated and I am looking forward to his response, but I am thinking that maybe there are not enough people who share his viewpoint elaborating on here to make it extra interesting. Or maybe I have been coming off the wrong way and scaring them away. When did "Taekwondo's core goes beyond technique" become "SageGhost83 makes an *** of himself in a public internet forum" :rofl:?

 

[Kwan Jang]

I have also noticed that I haven't seen LF around lately. though I don't spend a lot of time here myself. I have always enjoyed his posts and sharing knowledge with him even if I don't agree with his viewpoint on this particular issue.

 

[IcemanSK]

LF has not posted much lately.

 

[terryl965]

I've got a good question for you - has anyone seen Last Fearner since this thread has started? Foot2face is the only one who has presented a good counter viewpoint to the prevailing sentiment in here and it is backed up by actual places, names, and dates without having to resort to the "my instructor told me so and he is very highly ranked" line (not to say that the other posts weren't good). His posts are very well articulated and I am looking forward to his response, but I am thinking that maybe there are not enough people who share his viewpoint elaborating on here to make it extra interesting. Or maybe I have been coming off the wrong way and scaring them away. When did "Taekwondo's core goes beyond technique" become "SageGhost83 makes an *** of himself in a public internet forum" :rofl:?

No Lf feels like nobody respects his viewpoint and that they are always bashing him. I for one can appreciate his views even though sometime we do not agree with each other, he has alot of value here as well in the TKD community and wish he would spend more time explaining his tought for all of us.

LF if you are reading and not responding please do so we can hear your entire view point.

Sageghost83 you have not done anything except express your views. Thank you for being asound member here.

 

[Marginal]

OK, one more then I'll stop.

While the examples you give are certaqinly accurate for comparing the Silla Hwa Rang and the Tokugawa Shogunate, please remember that the Japanese and Koreans (mostly within the confines of their current geographical boundaries) faced each other in the mid Choseon period during the Imjin Waeran (1592-1598). Seven years of constant warfare saw some heroic martial history of legendary proportions, from Admiral Yi Sun Shin and the famed 'Turtle Boats' to the most recent historically-verified 'warrior-monks' taking to the battlefield to rescue home and heartland.

Warrior monks? IIRC, it was mainly peasants led by a group of government officials (mainly Confucian scholars rather than warrior monks) that contributed most to the fighting force that was operating inland.