Since Taekwondo is not actually Karate
based, but a culmination of techniques, including striking with the hands and feet, as they did in old Korea, as well as throwing and grappling, anything goes when it is all put together.
Well, one of the less pleasant aspects of reality is that frequent repetition of one's cherished beliefs, in the face of abundant contradiction, doesn't generally make those beliefs true; nor does it succeed in dispelling the contradictory evidence. I sometimes wish it were otherwise, but it doesn't seem to work that way, and certainly not on this particular issue.
The irrelevance of almost all aspects of what was done in 'old Korea' to contemporary Korean MAs is abundantly documented in a list of historical studies that keeps getting longer as scholarly investigation proceeds, with so far not a single bit of challenge from any carefully reviewed piece of historical research, though the issue has arisen many times. I have yet to encounter a single citation or evidence of documentation, in any MartialTalk thread or elsewhere, that suggests anything other than the basis of TKD firmly and squarely in theOkinawan/Japanese combat arts grouped together under the name karate, certainly none offered by anyone making claims along the lines I've quoted above, although there have been a number of discussions in MT threads devoted to just this point. I've provided my sources and
their sources in detail, and have yet to be provided with a single actual piece of what a MA historian would regard as evidence on behalf of the above claim. Please note, f2f, I have no wish to derail this thread at all, but I do think the historical issue has to be revisited in light of the above, for two reasons:
- first, because repeated recycling of MA folklore as fact, with no apparent awareness of just how large the burden of proof now is on such claims, reflects rather poorly on the overall credibility of those making such claim; and
- second, because to the extent that the technical core of the KMAs can indeed be (and has been) shown to arise from O/J karate, and to the extent that the technical core of karate are the kata (just as the borrowed and remixed sequences in the kata are the basis of TKD hyungs), to that extent facts about the fighting strategy built into the kata are relevant to the subject of this thread (taking into account the original context of my comments cited in the OP): is combat against multiple opponents a core element of the technique set of the karate based arts—something that their creators intended to train you for?
So far as the historical issue is concerned, I've provided my references on this point repeatedly in the past; they're listed
here and
here. As Henning in his 2000 JAMA article points out, the earliest actual documentation for empty-hand techniques in Korean is the
Muye Dobu Ton Ji, a compendium of 'classical Korean martial arts', as it's often described, which Stan Henning and Manuel Adrogués have shown to be a literal translation of a Chinese martial arts manual written twoand a half centuries earlier by a Chinese general,
The New Manual of Effective Discipline. Adrogués has shown that the techniques depicted appear to be very close, or identical, to Long Fist chuan fa, and correspondingly very different in character from almost anything in the technique set of modern Shotokan/TKD/TSD, beyond the parallels imposed by having two arms and legs and trying to damage an attacker similarly equipped. The much-invoked taekkyon turns out to have offer virtually no basis in historically attested fact for the claims that it contributed high/complex kicks to the modern TKD repretoire; see mycitation of some of the relevant history from Capener's study
here, and note the correction in Henning's article to claims about 'taekkyon' citing ancient sources which turn out to represent a misreading of the characters in these texts, where the actual word in question is
takkyon push shoulders, apparently a generic term for unbalancing technique (Marc Tedeschi's massive
Taekwondo offers similar conclusions, though he still mistakes the word in question). So far as I can tell, the chief source for the idea of TKD as having any origins in 'old Korea', whatever
that means, is the writings of General Choi, about whom his contemporary Gm. Kim Pyung-Soo comments, in the January issue of
Black Belt, that
'in the early days he 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.' (my emphasis) As Burdick documents in his 2000 JAMA article, during the early phases of the Japanese occupation of Korea starting in the late 19thc., the only martial art that Koreans were permitted to study was the
Japanese fighting system jiujutsu, andthis too was suppressed later on as Japanese militarism found it expedient to eliminate combat skills in the indigenous population of occupied territory regardless of the origin of those skills. All of this documentated history, much of it peer-reviewed, constitutes the burden of proof that claims about the basis of TKD in 'old Korea' have to face, and have failed to face so far.
So far as the grappling aspect goes—sure. The ancestral Okinawan sources of TKD had a heavy component of grappling, the result, as Abernethy has noted, of the influence of Minamoto era bujutsu (which some sources have claimed to be related to Daito-ryu Aikijutsu, a still controversial claim, I know). And throws, locks and controlling moves were a common part of the training of Japanese MA practitioners in the 20s and later on, due to the exposure many of them had had to jiujutsu. So yes, there was a lot of vertical grappling technique built into the TKD technique set, and no, there is not the slightest shred of evidence that any of it came from 'old Korea'. Note Gm. Kim's remark that
Yes, today the truth is coming out. Still some people try to make up some mysterious stories—claim their art is 2000 years old or from a monk in the mountains or something. But, if people are educated about history and lineage, they cannot be fooled. I believe Korea, like many other countries, had some type of martial arts being practiced before the 20th century. But after the Japanese occupation of Korea(1909-1945), indigenous martial arts were gone and influences from other places (Japan, Okinawa, China) were being taught.
This is the same as if someone's father is a farmer, but tells everyone his father is a doctor. You should show respect for your father and let people know who he is, not make up some strange story. The same is for martial arts lineage. Your direct instructor is your martial arts father; his teacher is your grandfather, etc. This is your family line in the martial arts. It doesn't matter where the art comes from. Martial art belongs to the people that practice and preserve it, not to “this country" or "that country".
And this from one of the pioneers of TKD in Korea. So much for the bitter old ghost of hack nationalist revisionism, eh?
So the huge weight of evidence is that, as Gm. Kim says, during the Kwan era, when TKD began to develop into a Korean flavor of karate on the basis of its Okinawan/Japanese sources, the content of MA instruction was based on the classic Okinawan kata as rearranged and modified, in some cases, by Funakoshi and other Shotokan instructors. Early on, as both Iain Abernethy and Bill Burgar have pointed out, a single kata might be regarded as constituting an entire 'style', or combat system or martial art, on its own. Was this technical core of karate aimed at handling multiple attackers? Take a look at the following comments by Lawrence Kane and Chris Wilder, Goju-ryu instructors, in their pioneering work on practical combat applications of kata (Kane's input is especially important because his specialization is in crowd-violence control, especially in large sports arenas, so situations in which multiple attackers are involved is something he has a particular professional interest in):
Rule 3 of Kata Interpretation: There is Only One Enemy at a Time
...The origin of kata... was in two-man tandem sparring. Consequently the bunkai are also one-on-one. The dancelike direction shifts [along the embusen line in kata---exile] were created to keep the movement concise, not imply multiple attackers....
In reality, from a street-fighting point of view, it is pretty much impossible to make a kata that is designed to fight against multiple attackers at once. One person cannot simultaneously execute many different techniques against multiple opponents except in well-choreographed movie stunts. The vast majority of kata techniques are designed to deal with a single attacker who is directly in front of the attacker. Although there are certain movements where the imaginary enemy strikes from behind, there is always only one opponentat a time.
(
The Way of Kata, YMAA, 2005: pp.113–114) Are K&W denying that there are ways of applying the techs they extract from kata to multiple attack situations? Not at all! Notice their followup comments on the problem:
Dealing with multiple attackers is very challenging.... if one is forced to fight, he or she can realistically only engage one opponent at a time... Defense against a large group is generally handled by strategically engaging one person at a time in a manner that confounds the others' ability to reach you.
Your response is a form of triage, striking for the greatest impact or taking on the most dangerous threat first...Defeat one adversary at a time. Employ applications from your kata to strike vital areas, spending the absolute minimum amount possible time dealing with each attacker. Do not ever let your enemies surround you, entangle you or drive you to the ground.
(pp.114–116). The point is that you have to use techs from the kata to give yourself an opening to escape, but as they note repeatedly throughout their book, the sub-sequences of kata are intended to finish off a lone attacker so that he won't get up again, at least in time to resume the fight; and to do that, you work on him until he's down for the count. The living technique handbook that are kata, or hyungs, or any other formal MA pattern, are not designed for, and do not teach, multiple-attack defense strategies, where as the authors note, you cannot afford to spend anything like the amount of time the katas want you to in order to a thorough job on one attacker to whom you can devote your full attention—you have to deal with the nearest attacker, keep the others away from you, and look out for the quickest possible exit—and to get all that, you have to add on strategies and training that is supplementary to, and not part of the core technique set, of karate or other karate-based TMAs.
My original comment, which f2f quotes, is that `my impression is that none of the traditional MAs, much less the martial sports derived from those arts, were intended to provide combat techniques specifically designed to handle multiple attackers.' So far as I can see, the properties of kata, and their derivative Korean patterns that Kane & Wilder discuss in connection with multiple attackers, are consistent with this impression. As for the supposed mysterious techniques that are only taught to very advanced dan ranks, I'm afraid the facts involved in the historical discussion alluded to earlier give me, and any other appropriately skeptical reader who'd like to see some evidence, little reason to extend the benefit of any doubt to such statements. But if there's someone out there who actually has some explicit information about just how the content of the TMAs, and their intended training methods, were designed to defend you against four really pissed-off regulars in a West Yellowstone biker bar you wandered into by mistake, well then by all means let's talk about that, eh? One of the problems with this sort of discussion is that it often never quite gets down to concrete details, and we're left challenging generalities with other generalities. Maybe if the discussion were more specific, involving real scenarios (and bearing in mind,
please, that the issue is what the TMAs, as reflected in their methods, were intended to train you to handle), we could get more of a grip on f2f's query?
foot2face said:
Exile and I both share an affinity for practical SD oriented TKD, however our philosophies and methods tend to be on opposite ends of the spectrum. We've often disagreed on what we believe TKD to be. I must admit our earlier encounters were a bit contentious but later discussions have become quite enjoyable. When I read his post in another forum I wanted to bring it here and include it in our ongoing conversation regarding the evolution of TKD and our differing understandings.
I'm happy to read this, and can say the same thing in return, f2f, and appreciate your using my previous comment as a springboard for this very interesting and fruitful new topic.
