# Is taekwondo a form of karate?



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 1, 2008)

Does your taekwondo school say, "karate" on the door?  More importantly, do _you_ consider what you do to be a subset of karate or a distinct martial art?  Does your taekwondo school say, "karate" on the door?  

I am not asking for a definitive answer on this.  I realize that there will be different perspectives, so I am not looking for a "correct" answer.  

What I _am_ looking for is your _perspective_ as to why.  Perspective of karateka is welcome too. 

Well, its a public forum, so anyone's perspective is technically welcome.

I would appreciate as much respect of each others' views on this, as this is a potentially contentious subject.  If you don't agree with someone else, agree to disagree agreeably.  As I said, I'm not looking to settle the issue, but to gain insight into the perspective of the participants' view.

Daniel


----------



## igillman (Oct 1, 2008)

Karate has had an influence on TKD mainly due to the occupation of Korea by Japan in the early to mid 20th century. However my own impression is that TKD has become something different from karate and different enough to not be called a form of Karate. The boundary between being close enough to something to be called "a form of" and far enough away not to be called "a form of" is a very flexible one, it is subjective and open to interpretation.

Our school does not have the word Karate anywhere and the instructors will tell you (if you ask) that this is Tae Kwon Do and not Karate.

Is TKD a form or Karate? - No but you have to define "a form of" for a definitive answer.
Has Karate influenced TKD? - Yes but the extent was minimised after the Japanese left Korea and Korea gained its national identity back.


----------



## Kwanjang (Oct 1, 2008)

Interesting topic CT! In the early days we would use the term Korean Karate for marketing pourposes. At one of my locations my main sign says in BIG red letters. KARATE. I generalize for marketing and educate when they are in the door.


----------



## Ninjamom (Oct 1, 2008)

> Karate has had an influence on TKD mainly due to the occupation of Korea by Japan in the early to mid 20th century. However my own impression is that TKD has become something different from karate and different enough to not be called a form of Karate. The boundary between being close enough to something to be called "a form of" and far enough away not to be called "a form of" is a very flexible one, it is subjective and open to interpretation.
> 
> Our school does not have the word Karate anywhere and the instructors will tell you (if you ask) that this is Tae Kwon Do and not Karate.
> 
> ...


^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^

What he said.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 1, 2008)

Kwanjang said:


> Interesting topic CT! In the early days we would use the term Korean Karate for marketing pourposes. At one of my locations my main sign says in BIG red letters. KARATE. I generalize for marketing and educate when they are in the door.


With the exception of Jhoon Rhee, every taekwondo school and one tang soo do school (TKA) I've studied at had 'karate' on the door in BIG red letters or in the case of TKA, in the course description.  In fact, until we moved, our dojang said 'karate kendo' over the door and in neon letters in the windows.  The new location says, "Korean Martial Arts," as that is the formal name of the business and we have since added Hapkido to the curriculum.

Daniel


----------



## Kwanjang (Oct 1, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> The new location says, "Korean Martial Arts," as that is the formal name of the business and we have since added Hapkido to the curriculum.
> 
> Daniel


 
Curious to how that is wourking out- From a purley Mktg standpoint. I personally like it.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 1, 2008)

Kwanjang said:


> Interesting topic CT! In the early days we would use the term Korean Karate for marketing pourposes. At one of my locations my main sign says in BIG red letters. KARATE. I generalize for marketing and educate when they are in the door.


Now, aside from marketing, do you consider taekwondo to actually be a subset of karate or a separate martial art?



Kwanjang said:


> Curious to how that is wourking out- From a purley Mktg standpoint. I personally like it.


So far so good.  Not sure how much of a difference it has made, but I do think that it is more genuine.

Daniel


----------



## bostonbomber (Oct 1, 2008)

What does it matter?  It all came from Kung Fu anyways   (just joking!)


----------



## bluekey88 (Oct 1, 2008)

Well, at the school where I train, Taekwondo is painted in big white letters on the roof, but karate is painted in smaller red letters on the wall of one outside corner.  Techniqcally, not a discrepancy as we do explore Shotokan karate kata between sho dan and ee dan.

I do think taekwondo is not karate, they are close cousins.  However, that is based on many years of martial arts training that allows me to be aware of subtle distinctions in the delivery of techniques and an awareness of startegic and tactical differences.  To civilians (non-martial artists), they basically look the same.

Hell, the more I train, the more i see the similarities between arts and the less i see the differences.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## Kwanjang (Oct 1, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> Now, aside from marketing, do you consider taekwondo to actually be a subset of karate or a separate martial art?
> 
> Daniel


 
I will refer to Bluekeys post on this one


----------



## jim777 (Oct 1, 2008)

I personally think TKD is indeed a type of karate if not karate itself (which isn't a style but a subject heading anyway). Certainly it is closer to karate than the average stadium hot dog is to meat (or Miley Cyrus is to rock 'n roll). Is it different from GojuRyu? Yeah, but so are Seido, Kyokushin, Shotokon and Ishin Ryu. All the little different nuances don't get you past the fact that all the major points are there; kyohon (hand and foot techniques), kumite (sparring), and kata (forms, hyungs, poomse, etc). They are all of course a little different from style to style, but not night and day different; just different enough most of the time to make them distinguishable from one another. Some changes are even made just to make usre you see what might otherwise be extremely difficult to distinguish (like changing from a traditional gi to a v-neck dobok). Hapkido isn't karate, but no one would argue that it is, right ;-)

Of course, this is only my opinion and I'm not a zealot one way or the other.  I do study both TKD and Seido karate, so I do see a large amount of similarity.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 1, 2008)

I hold dan rankings in both Okinawan Goju-ryu karate and tae kwon do.  I would say although taekwondo clearly started out as a form of karate, it has sufficiently diverged enough in philosophy and technique to be its own animal.  Key differences include kicking technique even with regard to common attacks like the side kick or the roundhouse kick.  If you pay attention to the fine points like chambering and hip rotation, the differences are very pronounced even if superficially they look the same to the untrained eye.

That said, karate is not a dirty word, and I do think the TKD cognoscenti go too far in trying to bury the origins of the art.  There are many lessons TKD people can learn from karate people (the opposite is surely true too).  I look at it like spending time with my father.  I am different from him with different goals, different desires, even different skill sets.  But I would be a fool to not listen to my father when the subject is car maintenance or when personal finance.  Why then do so many TKD masters close their ears as soon as the words Japan or karate come up?


----------



## Manny (Oct 1, 2008)

Back in the mid 80's whrn I got hook in TKD in the door and windows of my fisrt dojan it stated Tae Kwon Do/ Karate Koreano (Tae Kwond Do/ Korean Karate) and my sambuim told me he must to put this to encourage pepople to aproach and take TKD classes cause Tae Kwon Do wasn't recognized by the average people and KARATE was an established word and every one knew karate was a martial art, and because Kaeate was catchy.

Nowadays in my new dojan it sates Tae Kwon Do/ Korean Martial Art.

Yes the karate influenced Tae Kwon Do, in fact Tang Soo Do the old brother of TKD is based in some shotokan karate.

As much as I love the martial art more than the olimpic sport I remember the old good years when  Tae Kwon Do had more hand/strike/punching techniques and a lot of more self defense.

Manny


----------



## exile (Oct 1, 2008)

Great thread, CT and all you followup posters!  I think this is the first time I've seen the issue posed in quite this way, which brings up some fairly difficult issue involving the idea of what 'identity' means in the martial arts.

Based on what I've been able to learn about its historyand most of you folks I think have a pretty good idea of where I'm coming from on this point, based on your participation in previous discussions/arguments/shouting matches/riots on the topicI think it's fair to say that TKD and TSD are the Korean flowering of karate. They share many of the same individual techniques. Many of the hyungs are taken over unchanged from Shotokan (the Kichos are the Taikyoku katas, the Pyang-Ahns are the wonderful, ever-green Pinan/Heian forms, and in schools Koreanized versions of classic kata such as Rohai and Empi are on the syllabus) or else are in effect mixmastered and recombined Shotokan forms (the Palgwes in particular). A lot of the training methodskihon line drills and so onare very similar to karate methods.... and so on.

But as many of you have pointed out, there are many differences as well: a karate performance of one of the Pinan kata is almost certainly going to look very different from a TKD/TSD performance of the corresponding Pyang-Ahn form. The mechanics of the kicks are quite different, and their role in the curriculum. There are small differences in the way the hands move in blocking and so on (Stuart Anslow's book has a nice chapter on technical differences beween ITF TKD and Shotokan). 

Here's the way I would try to answer the question, if it were practical. Take two groups of very well-trained karateka and TKDists, respectively, with members of both groups having received many years of realistically pressure-tested training in close-quarter street combat. Put them in situations where two members, one from each group, are paired, and in which each of them respectively is confronted by an assailant using the same violent initiations in each case, the same sequences of violent actions, at very close quarters (where most street altercations begin). Here's my question: _will a well-informed observer be able to tell which of the two defenders is the karateka and which the TKDist? _ In any give case? In the majority of cases? In the great majority of cases? We're talking unchoreographed, totally brutal-realistic street defense here, remember...

My feeling is, the less able that observer is to do better than a random guess, the less distinction there really is between the arts, taken out of the school/demo context. The more they overlap in content, and the more the difference between  them are strictly stylistic and only dojo/dojang-visible. And the flip side: the more it's true that successful observers are successful in identifying which of the two is a practitioner of which art just by watching each of the pair fight an attacker using the same attack moves on them respectively , the more the difference between the arts is substantive, not cosmetic.

Do any of you-all have any thoughts on this? I _suspect_ that the numbers would be no better than chance, but that's obviously nothing more than a gut-reation-based guess...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 1, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> Does your taekwondo school say, "karate" on the door? More importantly, do _you_ consider what you do to be a subset of karate or a distinct martial art? Does your taekwondo school say, "karate" on the door?
> 
> I am not asking for a definitive answer on this. I realize that there will be different perspectives, so I am not looking for a "correct" answer.
> 
> ...


Two things are at play here: Karate is just a word Americans understand to mean martial art. Secondly TKD does just happen to be a subset of Karate, the sport.
Sean


----------



## miguksaram (Oct 1, 2008)

There is no question that the roots of TKD are in Karate.  When it was first introduced, it was called Korean Karate simply because "Karate" was more of a household name.  So for marketing purposes that was the best way to go.  Even now you can still find schools that have been established for a while still say Korean Karate.  I do Shorei-ryu Karate now and there is a world of difference in what we do and what I do in my TKD.  Neither one is better than the other, just different.

The kwan leaders were karate-ka.  However, as it has been said already, TKD has become its own seperate art (via good or bad depending on you perspective).


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 1, 2008)

exile said:


> My feeling is, the less able that observer is to do better than a random guess, the less distinction there really is between the arts, taken out of the school/demo context. The more they overlap in content, and the more the difference between them are strictly stylistic and only dojo/dojang-visible. And the flip side: the more it's true that successful observers are successful in identifying which of the two is a practitioner of which art just by watching each of the pair fight an attacker using the same attack moves on them respectively , the more the difference between the arts is substantive, not cosmetic.
> 
> Do any of you-all have any thoughts on this? I _suspect_ that the numbers would be no better than chance, but that's obviously nothing more than a gut-reation-based guess...


My thanks for an excellent response.  I quoted this part because it addresses the way in which I am asking regarding the similarities and/or differences, which is in regards to technique, forms, application, and sparring.

I recall many years back being in a 'karate' class at a local community center.  The only thing I remember from that childhood class is that we did Pinan forms.  Our discussions about the Kukkiwon and a comment made by Miguksaram that the old kwan leaders were just practicing Shotokan got me into my library and I dug out a 1982 printing of 'Karate Basic Manual, by A Pfluger' and started looking at the forms and techniques as detailed in the book, as I remember little from my childhood classes.

Without a solid articulated boon hae in taekwondo class, just looking at the photographs and reading the descriptions, I see a lot of similarities in both forms and in technique, with subtle nuances differentiating the two.  The biggest difference that I saw, and by no means is this an up to date book, was that not one single kick was higher than chest level, and there were very, very few that were even that high.  Another difference was the huge emphasis on hand techniques, something I feel is sorely lacking in KKW taekwondo; can't speak for ITF or other styles of TKD.

After reading, I realized that my taekwondo looks a lot more like the guys in these pictures than it does like the pictures in say, Jennifer Lawler's book, 'The Secrets of Taekwondo' or anything in TKD Times, or even GM Kim's form and technique.

That got me wondering if this is a residual from my childhood training or if I just don't generally kick as high as GM Kim and happen to enjoy punching.  The conversation of the 'Restructuring of the Kukkiwon' thread also was thought provoking, and so, here I am with this thread.

It is in the forms, techniques, application, and sparring that I am interested in the relationship or lack thereof, so if anyone can articulate some of those differences, I would appreciate the feedback.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 1, 2008)

> Here's my question: _will a well-informed observer be able to tell which of the two defenders is the karateka and which the TKDist? _ In any give case? In the majority of cases? In the great majority of cases? We're talking unchoreographed, totally brutal-realistic street defense here, remember...



An interesting question, Exile.  Truthfully, I believe the average karateka or taekwondoin will look exactly alike in a street fight with flailing punches and wild, too high kicks.  That's rather more a function of poor training than style as I suspect kung fu people would react similarly.

But what about highly trained people?  Really for most taekwondoin this is where their self-defense or one-step sparring will come into play.  I've seen the CS Kim tang soo do one steps and they're full of what I consider impractical responses to a step through punch, relying on kicking as a counter to what really should be close range fighting at that point.  At the risk of controversy, I suspect most TKD have similar material.

My Goju karate teacher taught a variety of self defense techniques all based on movements in our kata and they incorporated classical locks, takedowns, and throws after an entry technique such as a punch or open hand strike.  He had few kicking applications and none used 'modern' technique like the sidekick; they were invariably front kicks.

Will a karate guy look different from a TKD guy in a real fight?  Perhaps not.  Should they?  Perhaps so.


----------



## exile (Oct 1, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> But what about highly trained people?  Really for most taekwondoin this is where their self-defense or one-step sparring will come into play.  I've seen the CS Kim tang soo do one steps and they're full of what I consider impractical responses to a step through punch, relying on kicking as a counter to what really should be close range fighting at that point.  At the risk of controversy, I suspect most TKD have similar material.



I don't think it actually is that controversial, fortunately, da&#8212;most of us has seen alleged applications in which the assumption is that your attacker obediantly stands there, stock-still, after throwing a punch that you supposedly block while you move forward into a lung punch which he is happy to just there and receive. The phrase, 'What planet did these guys have their last bar fight on???' comes to mind...



dancingalone said:


> My Goju karate teacher taught a variety of self defense techniques all based on movements in our kata and they incorporated classical locks, takedowns, and throws after an entry technique such as a punch or open hand strike.  He had few kicking applications and none used 'modern' technique like the sidekick; they were invariably front kicks.



Low side kicks to the _inside_ of the attacker's knee joint, while you've got them immobilized with a pin, are a genuine fight ender (and they're not going to have much left of their career as a quarter-mile sprinter either, once you're done with them). For the close-in work that most fights require, a knee attack to a soft target is probably the main player&#8212;a knee to the abdomen followed by a hard side kick down to the inside of their knee joint is a very effective way to make them rethink their original intention to hassle you. If you can break a couple of boards consistently with that kick, you're going to be true _hell_ on the ligaments in their knees when you deliver that kick. 



dancingalone said:


> Will a karate guy look different from a TKD guy in a real fight?  Perhaps not.  Should they?  Perhaps so.



See, this is what I really wonder about&#8212;I don't know what the answer is! A skilled technician, equipped with the full range of TKD techs, is probably sharing 80% or more of those techs with a skilled karate technician. The spectacular kicks are going to be hard to get in in most real-life situations where the fight comes to you; you have to train, I think, for the nasty close-in scenario&#8212;something boxers do routinely, which is why they're so formidable. 

My instinct is that two really good, practical MAists of the TKD and Karate types will actually react to a grab-and-roundhouse, a double-grab/headbutt, or a shove-and-kick attack in much the same way. But I could be wrong... my guess is that if I watch pairs of fighters undergoing this kind of standard attack initiation , the TKDist will respond in a very similar manner to the karateka. I'm reasonably sure that the respective performances of the TKD and Karate person will be much closer to each other than either is to an Akidoka. What about Long Fist Chuan Fa? Fukien White Crane? Southern Mantis? I've no idea really...

... and this gets to what I think is the really deep question underlying Celtic Tiger's OP question: what give a MA its particular identity? Is it its history? Its curriculum? Its forms? Its technique set? Something about the way practitioners perform its techniques? Its strategy/tactics? People seem to have a clear sense that, say, TSD and TKD really are different MAs and both are distinct from Shotokan. OK, but exactly what are the differences? Are they functions of the abstract technique set, or are they matters of execution, or the practical combat strategy? Or are they more matters of history and marketing? People perceive vast distances in many areas&#8212;language, ethnicity and so on where objective measures show almost everything in common. What is the real basis of the _identity_ that we attribute to different MAs, such that we talk about these two as being different arts, these two as being different styles, and these two just being two different schools?


----------



## Kacey (Oct 1, 2008)

Ch'ang  H'on (ITF) TKD was founded by Gen. Choi, Hong Hi, who had a II Dan in Shotokan Karate.  The forms, especially at the lower gup ranks, are amazingly similar, and the influence of Shotokan is clearly visible, especially at the beginning; the original edition of the Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do written by Choi, Hong Hi, includes the Shotokan patterns within the volume.

Many US schools in the 1960s - and some as recently as the 1980s - used "Karate" in their school name, as people had some idea what Karate was, while Taekwon-Do was a mystery - it was a marketing device.  I've even met students (and the occasional instructor) who knew the Ch'ang H'on forms and ITF curriculum, but who had been taught from day one that they were doing Karate.

That said, I think that each style has gone it's own way, and while TKD's roots in Shotokan are clearly visible, I think they are both their own, independent styles at this point - rather the way Spanish and Italian can clearly be traced back to Latin, but are each their own independent language at this point.


----------



## slingblade01 (Oct 1, 2008)

Is TKD a form of Karate???

It depends on what YOU are doing, specifically what flavor of TKD you are doing.

Simply put, look at the poomse (kata) and sparring that you practice.
The answer may not be black and white.

If you are practicing the pyong-ahn (pinan) poomse, you are doing kwan flavored karate.

If you are practicing the Tae-gueks, you are KKW TKD. In my opinion KKW TKD is a unique martial art. It could be argued that many of the strikes, blocks, and stance are borrowed from (and true), but this is equally argued with similarities in karate, kenpo, and kung -fu.

Where it gets gray, is if you are doing ITF or Pal-Gwe poomse.

Just my $.02


----------



## exile (Oct 1, 2008)

slingblade01 said:


> Is TKD a form of Karate???
> 
> It depends on what YOU are doing, specifically what flavor of TKD you are doing.
> 
> ...



OK, this is a perfect illustration of the problem of identity that I trying to get at earlier. Let's assume that slingblade's overall take on things here is correct. What if you're at a KKW school where the chief instructor runs the Taegeuks and the Palgwes _both_, as I've heard of in a few places? What if you're at a school where both the KKW forms _and_ the ITF forms are required for rank (as I think the Moo Sul Kwan that matt.m and zDom studied in does)? Are you really doing different MAs each time you change the form you're doing, so that you may wind up doing karate, TKD and something in the grey area, all in one hour-and-a-half long training session? Does this seem intuitively plausible? Do people with this kind of mix of forms think of themselves as doing multiple arts in the course of that hour plus?

I'm not really arguing against anything you're saying here, slbd, but the consequence of the kind of position you're taking&#8212;which is certainly a stance one might reasonably take, based on institutional history&#8212;seems to lead to a kind of schizophrenic conclusion, on the assumption that the differences in hyungs really define differences in the _identity_ of the art. Or take another angle: suppose that a careful bunkai study of the old Kwan forms, the Pyang-Ahns, the Palgwes, the Taegeuks and the Ch'ang Hon forms leads to exactly the same fighting methodology and tactical arsenal? Can we really say that different embodiments of the same fighting methods constitute wholly distinct arts? If they're all teaching us to do the same things in response to the same threats, are they really different?

You see the kind of thing I'm concerned about here....?


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 1, 2008)

Is TKd Karate, no it is not TKD is TKD but the roots are very strong and it is tied into Karate. Now to complicate things Korean Karate is Karate, not to get it confused with Shotokan. You see all Arts in one way ot another tie into each other, we must remember Karate means The Art of hand and foot and Tae Kwom Do means The Art of hands and foot. One is from Korea and the other is from Okinawa.

Now to reallly get confused why does it matter, does it effect your training if it is valled Karate-Korean Karate-Tae Kwon Do or just a martial art.


----------



## exile (Oct 1, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Is TKd Karate, no it is not TKD is TKD but the roots are very strong and it is tied into Karate. Now to complicate things Korean Karate is Karate, not to get it confused with Shotokan. You see all Arts in one way ot another tie into each other, we must remember Karate means The Art of hand and foot and Tae Kwom Do means The Art of hands and foot. One is from Korea and the other is from Okinawa.
> 
> Now to reallly get confused why does it matter, does it effect your training if it is valled Karate-Korean Karate-Tae Kwon Do or just a martial art.



I agree with all this, Terry, and I don't think it's going to affect the way we trainat least, I don't think there's any good reason it _should_ do. But the reason it's interesting is because of what it all says about how we think about what it is we do. We make these distinctions that we think are solidly based, but in many cases it's very difficult to show just what that basis is, if you look at actual behavior. That could mean that a lot of the time, there's way less at stake in various disagreements, resentments and rivalries than people think there is...


----------



## Cirdan (Oct 2, 2008)

Short answer: TKD is Koreanized Shotokan with the serial numbers filed off.

It is about as much Karate as Judo is Ju Jutsu.


----------



## exile (Oct 2, 2008)

Cirdan said:


> Short answer: TKD is Koreanized Shotokan with the serial numbers filed off.
> 
> It is about as much Karate as Judo is Ju Jutsu.



From the historical point of view, that's about the best two-sentence summary of the relationship I've seen yet. 

The remaining mystery is tied up in the question of just what that 'Koreanization' involved. There were some technical changes, but there was also a attitude changeKoreans for the most part, and many others who aren't Koreans, insist that TKD is now a fundamentally different thing from Shotokan. The question I keep coming back to is, _are_ you going to see any real difference when it comes time to have to defend yourself from a standard-issue jerk who throws a punch at your face from a foot and a half away? That's not meant to be a rhetorical question. A lot hangs, I think, on the answer, so far as the OP question is concerned...

The interesting thing is that a lot of Tang Soo Do people seem to identify what they do as Korean karate as a matter of course, whereas many TKD people vehemently reject that label as an accurate description of what they do...


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 2, 2008)

> ... and this gets to what I think is the really deep question underlying Celtic Tiger's OP question: what give a MA its particular identity? Is it its history? Its curriculum? Its forms? Its technique set? Something about the way practitioners perform its techniques? Its strategy/tactics? People seem to have a clear sense that, say, TSD and TKD really are different MAs and both are distinct from Shotokan. OK, but exactly what are the differences? Are they functions of the abstract technique set, or are they matters of execution, or the practical combat strategy? Or are they more matters of history and marketing? People perceive vast distances in many areas&#8212;language, ethnicity and so on where objective measures show almost everything in common. What is the real basis of the _identity_ that we attribute to different MAs, such that we talk about these two as being different arts, these two as being different styles, and these two just being two different schools?




From my perspective the line of descent in terms of fighting strategy was broken before the Shotokan/TKD connection.  This gets back to the myriad bunkai discussions we have had on MT.  TKD as it is taught today and probably even going back to the kwan days never had bunkai within it, because the founders of TKD never had in depth exposure to the concept.  That's not their fault since most Shotokan people never learn bunkai either.

We all have heard the argument that the essence of karate is kata.  Well it is, but let's be more specific.  It's not the mere dance that comprises the philosophy and strategy; it's the example lessons in movement, timing, targeting, and even raw technique expressed in the bunkai that goes to the core of karate as a fighting method.  So karate "style" is really a meaningless word unless your teacher has transmitted at least a good part of bunkai to you.  Sure you have learned some style-specific basics like the two handed push common in Goju kata, but unless you learned how to use the tech through kata application, it's really just so much pushing and waving in the air.  You might be doing something, but you're not doing Goju-ryu karate.

This is part of the reason why I believe TKD has evolved into its own art.  The fine work of pioneers like Mr. Anslow notwithstanding, TKD has no widely accepted bunkai like a more focused art like Goju-ryu karate does.   

So, no, I don't believe a highly trained karate-ka in goju-ryu will look like a tae kwon do fighter.  I think the same argument could be made for most Okinawan karate styles as well as they too are full of bunkai.  Shotokan fighters may be closer, but they should not be if their teachers follow Funakoshi's Karate Kyohan closely.  You only have to look at the short section on the throws of Shotokan to grab a hint into what Funakoshi's karate was before it became sportified by his Japanese students.


----------



## miguksaram (Oct 2, 2008)

exile said:


> From the historical point of view, that's about the best two-sentence summary of the relationship I've seen yet.
> 
> The remaining mystery is tied up in the question of just what that 'Koreanization' involved. There were some technical changes, but there was also a attitude changeKoreans for the most part, and many others who aren't Koreans, insist that TKD is now a fundamentally different thing from Shotokan. The question I keep coming back to is, _are_ you going to see any real difference when it comes time to have to defend yourself from a standard-issue jerk who throws a punch at your face from a foot and a half away?


 
When the chips are down and the arms are up, you won't be able to tell a shotokan stylist from a TKD stylist from a Hung Gar stylist. Fundementally a kick is a kick and a punch is a punch.  If we want to be very technical then you can look at how a TKD person will chamber for a round kick as opposed to a shotokan person.  




> The interesting thing is that a lot of Tang Soo Do people seem to identify what they do as Korean karate as a matter of course, whereas many TKD people vehemently reject that label as an accurate description of what they do...


 
As well as they should.  For the most part TSD hasn't really changed from its original roots.  Where as TKD has made a lot of significant changes both from a tecnincal stand point as well as forms stand point and even fighting stand point.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 2, 2008)

> When the chips are down and the arms are up, you won't be able to tell a shotokan stylist from a TKD stylist from a Hung Gar stylist. Fundementally a kick is a kick and a punch is a punch.



For low level fighters you are probably correct.  Not so true if one has trained long enough to engrain the methods of the style into oneself...  Hung gar has some methods of power generation that goes beyond the usual hip twist & shoulder turn methods.  Hung gar people also use the horse stance as a matter of course.


----------



## slingblade01 (Oct 2, 2008)

exile said:


> OK, this is a perfect illustration of the problem of identity that I trying to get at earlier. Let's assume that slingblade's overall take on things here is correct. What if you're at a KKW school where the chief instructor runs the Taegeuks and the Palgwes _both_, as I've heard of in a few places? What if you're at a school where both the KKW forms _and_ the ITF forms are required for rank (as I think the Moo Sul Kwan that matt.m and zDom studied in does)? Are you really doing different MAs each time you change the form you're doing, so that you may wind up doing karate, TKD and something in the grey area, all in one hour-and-a-half long training session? Does this seem intuitively plausible? Do people with this kind of mix of forms think of themselves as doing multiple arts in the course of that hour plus?
> 
> I'm not really arguing against anything you're saying here, slbd, but the consequence of the kind of position you're taking&#8212;which is certainly a stance one might reasonably take, based on institutional history&#8212;seems to lead to a kind of schizophrenic conclusion, on the assumption that the differences in hyungs really define differences in the _identity_ of the art. Or take another angle: suppose that a careful bunkai study of the old Kwan forms, the Pyang-Ahns, the Palgwes, the Taegeuks and the Ch'ang Hon forms leads to exactly the same fighting methodology and tactical arsenal? Can we really say that different embodiments of the same fighting methods constitute wholly distinct arts? If they're all teaching us to do the same things in response to the same threats, are they really different?
> 
> You see the kind of thing I'm concerned about here....?


 
I don't disagree with what you are saying. I gave a "simple" answer to a "simple" question. Another example might have been with Pyang-Ahns and Olympic sparring. What do you do with that?

The real question is, where do you draw the line(s) of differentiation from Kung-fu to TKD. What makes a martial art unique? Some might argue that TKDs kicks qualify it to its own identity. None of the modern kicks existed during the era of the Pyang-Ahns. Furthermore, several of the Kwang-Jangs maintained close ties to Japan (karate). Once the rules-set started changing and likewise the poomse started changing, a unique martial art started evolving.

But where do you draw the line? Or do you never draw a line?
Who cares! It's just a bunch of semantics.

Do what you want and call it what you want. But most of all, enjoy it!


----------



## exile (Oct 2, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> *When the chips are down and the arms are up, you won't be able to tell a shotokan stylist from a TKD stylist from a Hung Gar stylist. Fundementally a kick is a kick and a punch is a punch.*  If we want to be very technical then you can look at how a TKD person will chamber for a round kick as opposed to a shotokan person.



This is what I've suspected for a while...   



miguksaram said:


> As well as they should.  For the most part TSD hasn't really changed from its original roots.  Where as TKD has made a lot of significant changes *both from a tecnincal stand point *as well as forms stand point and *even fighting stand point.*



Wrt to the stuff I've bolded, what are the main changes IYO?


----------



## miguksaram (Oct 2, 2008)

exile said:


> Wrt to the stuff I've bolded, what are the main changes IYO?


 
Well obviously the forms have changed both fundemenally (patterns) to technical execution.  Where once forms were done from a lowered stance such as palgues, from 1st form to black belt forms, now they do not really emphasize lower stances until later on in the last few taeguks and then black belt forms.  Now I know they have forward stances in the beginning forms but there are no horse stances or back stances until later on.  

Secondly art the technical stand point of kicking and punching techniques.  Now mind you I am going off of my Shorei-ryu experience and comparing it to my TKD experience.  First and foremost are the round kicks.  The executing a TKD round kick with the knee angled as opposed to "table topping" it.  I was told this was done for faster execution of the kick.  Also chambering of punches, we tend to chamber the punches from higer area than that of TKD.  

Finally a fighting stand point.  If you look at straight competition fighting then the obvious thing is the dropping of the hands in TKD fighting vs. side fighting of sport karate fighting.  It seems TKD fighters have developed a more upright stance in fighting where as TSD or Karate fighters will still develope more "boxer" looking stances.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 2, 2008)

> Karate fighters will still develope more "boxer" looking stances



I enjoyed reading your post but I will differ with your opinion here.  Traditional karateka do not employ a boxing guard or stance at all since their goals are entirely different from a boxer's.  Boxers don't have to worry about low blows or kicks and they can only punch in return.  For example, my sensei favors a balanced receiving stance not unlike that used in sword arts or in Aikido.  This allows him maximum mobility to intercept or meld with a variety of attacks.  He also keeps his hands open instead of close, since that allows him to use the hikite arm at a moment's notice.

By shorei-ryu, do you mean the Robert Trias art?  I know some in his lineage still use that name.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 2, 2008)

exile said:


> This is what I've suspected for a while...



I said this above, but I think it's worth repeating.  I don't think trained fighters of different arts, even if they are striking-oriented, should look alike at all.


----------



## miguksaram (Oct 2, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> I enjoyed reading your post but I will differ with your opinion here. Traditional karateka do not employ a boxing guard or stance at all since their goals are entirely different from a boxer's. Boxers don't have to worry about low blows or kicks and they can only punch in return. For example, my sensei favors a balanced receiving stance not unlike that used in sword arts or in Aikido. This allows him maximum mobility to intercept or meld with a variety of attacks. He also keeps his hands open instead of close, since that allows him to use the hikite arm at a moment's notice.
> 
> By shorei-ryu, do you mean the Robert Trias art? I know some in his lineage still use that name.


 
I can see what you are saying here.  Perhaps boxer stance isn't quite the right imagery, but it was the closest I could think of. 

Yes, our lineage is through Trias.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 2, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Is TKd Karate?  No it is not.  TKD is TKD, but the roots are very strong and it is tied into Karate. Now to complicate things Korean Karate is Karate, not to get it confused with Shotokan. You see all Arts in one way ot another tie into each other.


There is definitely a common thread between many arts.



terryl965 said:


> we must remember Karate means The Art of hand and foot and Tae Kwon Do means The Art of hands and foot. One is from Korea and the other is from Okinawa.


Actually, Karate originally meant 'China hand', but its tranlation was later changed by (I believe) Funakoshi to 'empty hand.'  Karate do is simply 'way of the China/empty hand.  Tang Soo Do, if I'm not mistaken, translates to 'way of the China hand.'  



terryl965 said:


> Now to reallly get confused why does it matter, does it effect your training if it is valled Karate-Korean Karate-Tae Kwon Do or just a martial art.


While it doesn't directly affect my training, it does point me in different directions in terms of enriching the art I practice, adding to my knowlege of general MA history and to taekwondo history in specific, and lastly, if I'm a geek about anything, its martial arts.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 2, 2008)

exile said:


> Wrt to the stuff I've bolded, what are the main changes IYO?


The essence of my question!  



miguksaram said:


> Well obviously the forms have changed both fundemenally (patterns) to technical execution. Where once forms were done from a lowered stance such as palgues, from 1st form to black belt forms, now they do not really emphasize lower stances until later on in the last few taeguks and then black belt forms. Now I know they have forward stances in the beginning forms but there are no horse stances or back stances until later on.
> 
> Secondly art the technical stand point of kicking and punching techniques. Now mind you I am going off of my Shorei-ryu experience and comparing it to my TKD experience. First and foremost are the round kicks. The executing a TKD round kick with the knee angled as opposed to "table topping" it. I was told this was done for faster execution of the kick. Also chambering of punches, we tend to chamber the punches from higer area than that of TKD.
> 
> Finally a fighting stand point. If you look at straight competition fighting then the obvious thing is the dropping of the hands in TKD fighting vs. side fighting of sport karate fighting. It seems TKD fighters have developed a more upright stance in fighting where as TSD or Karate fighters will still develope more "boxer" looking stances.


And a response from a mechanics/technical standpoint!  

Many thanks to you both!

Daniel


----------



## exile (Oct 2, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> Well obviously the forms have changed both fundemenally (patterns) to technical execution.  Where once forms were done from a lowered stance such as palgues, from 1st form to black belt forms, now they do not really emphasize lower stances until later on in the last few taeguks and then black belt forms.  Now I know they have forward stances in the beginning forms but there are no horse stances or back stances until later on.



Rightto my eyes, the changes in the techs embodied in older vs. current hyungs is the most obvious line of separation between the karate-like aspects of TKD and its current KKW version...



miguksaram said:


> Secondly art the technical stand point of kicking and punching techniques.  Now mind you I am going off of my Shorei-ryu experience and comparing it to my TKD experience.  First and foremost are the round kicks.  The executing a TKD round kick with the knee angled as opposed to "table topping" it.  I was told this was done for faster execution of the kick.  Also chambering of punches, we tend to chamber the punches from higer area than that of TKD.
> 
> Finally a fighting stand point.  If you look at straight competition fighting then the obvious thing is the dropping of the hands in TKD fighting vs. side fighting of sport karate fighting.  It seems TKD fighters have developed a more upright stance in fighting where as TSD or Karate fighters will still develope more "boxer" looking stances.



OK, thanks for amplifying thisI had taken 'fighting' in your earlier post to refer to SD fighting, but I see now you meant competition fighting. Yes, no question, the differences _there_ are major.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 2, 2008)

I have thanked and repped everyone who responded.  I really appreciate all of your responses and I _really_ appreciate the very mature and polite way that this potentially contentious subject has been discussed.

The responses given, as I am sure responses to come, have been very helpful to me and have been very thoughtful and articulate.  

My thanks to you all!

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 2, 2008)

exile said:


> OK, thanks for amplifying thisI had taken 'fighting' in your earlier post to refer to SD fighting, but I see now you meant competition fighting. Yes, no question, the differences _there_ are major.


I knew what he meant, but the point fighting/competition is actually the one area that I wasn't as concerned with, though since we're on the subject, does ITF style sparring differ from TSD, or Shotokan, Kyokushin, Ishin Ryu, or other karate styles in any substantive way?  

WTF sparring seems to me to be an attempt at reviving T'aekyeon, though I freely admit that do not have the knowledge to state if that is an accurate assessment.

Daniel


----------



## exile (Oct 2, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> I have thanked and repped everyone who responded.  I really appreciate all of your responses and I _really_ appreciate the very mature and polite way that this potentially contentious subject has been discussed.
> 
> The responses given, as I am sure responses to come, have been very helpful to me and have been very thoughtful and articulate.
> 
> ...



And thanks to you, CT, for formulating it in such a direct and thought-provoking way. 

It's funny, because the thread started up just at a point when, as a result of some of the other discussions going on, I was beginning to chew over in my mind this whole question of what gives a MA the particular identity it has, and whether or not there's a useful distinction between what a MA 'is', in the critical sense, vs.  what we _think_ it is. I see some important boundariesI doubt anyone would want to see aikido and kyokushin karate as slightly different versions of each other! :lol:but when you get into the Korean, Japanese, Okinawan and some of the CMA striking arts, a lot of the issues that people have been talking about in this thread come up. 

And you're dead right about the nice tone of the discussion.... well done, all!


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 2, 2008)

interesting side note, here in texas, most of the schools from the Allen Steen line cal themselves AKA's

American Karate Academy's

most likely for marketing purposes, but also because when Jhoon Rhee came over, TKD was not really a seperate entity. So his students called it what he called it: Korean Karate.

From the perspective of a non-martial artist, there are only 2 martial arts:

karate 
kung fu

everything else is a form of those.

From the perspective of a martial artists, i think TKD "was" a form a karate, but it had evolved and grown to be it's onw seperate being.

Modern KKW TKD is NOT a form of karate, since karate is a self defense art and KKW TKD is a sport art, IMO


----------



## Deaf Smith (Oct 2, 2008)

Korean Karate is what I've heard many times. It sure does not upset me. 

Real funny thing is, Taekwondo Moo Duk Kwan, which I trained in at SFA, used TOTALY Shotokan kata. Yes I learned Bassai-Sho with a few slight changes! Our punching was Shototkan. Only the kicking was pure Korean style kicks and of course, Korean words were used.

I sure don't sweat the term Karate. Most of the public thinks all asian arts are 'Karate'.

Deaf


----------



## YoungMan (Oct 2, 2008)

No, Taekwondo is NOT a form of karate. Originally, there was a stronger karate influence because of the Japanese occupation. However, as Koreans rediscovered themselves and their culture, those influences were swept away in favor of what we would consider Korean influences.

1. The Palgue, Taegeuk, and Koryo forms contain only middle and high kicks, and are executed more fluidly and with longer actions than karate forms. Additionally, there are no snap kicks, only thrust kicks.

2. The sparring is much more fluid, a la Taekkyon, than karate sparring. I've seen karate sparring, and it seems very rigid, in close, and haphazard. Aditionally, Taekwondo sparring is much more upright, very similar to way Taekkyon fighters spar.

3. Much more inclusion of Taekkyon circular, spinning, high, jumping, and jump spinning kicks that you don't see in karate.


----------



## exile (Oct 2, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> 1. The Palgue, Taegeuk, and Koryo forms contain only middle and high kicks, and are executed more fluidly and with longer actions than karate forms. *Additionally, there are no snap kicks, only thrust kicks*.



I'm surprised to hear you say thatwe do the Palgwes exclusively as our colored belt forms, and the front kicks (e.g., those in Palgwe I Jang, Palgwe Sa Jang, Palgwe Yuk Jang, and Palgwe Chil Jang (my personal favorite)) all have front _snap_ kicks. The other kicks in the Palgwes are are side kicks, and yes, they're the signature side thrust kicksbut the front kicks are all performed as snaps.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 3, 2008)

At one point, yes it was then it evlolved into it's own art.  Much like Shorin-ryu went to Japan and became "more japenese" and became Shotokan.  Shotokan went to Korea and evolved to it own thing through Gen. Choi to reflect Korean ideas. (yes, I realize there was more to it than that, just trying to simplify it)

If you look at Isshinryu it looks VERY different than Shorin-Ryu where alot of it came from, yet in Okinawan it is still classified as a substyle of Shorin-ryu.  So, TKD could be considered an offshoot of karate even though now in many branches it bares little resemblance to it's parent.

It doesn't matter in the end, it only becomes important when you are trying to trace the family tree of your roots.


----------



## exile (Oct 3, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> *If you look at Isshinryu it looks VERY different than Shorin-Ryu where alot of it came from, yet in Okinawan it is still classified as a substyle of Shorin-ryu. * So, TKD could be considered an offshoot of karate even though now in many branches it bares little resemblance to it's parent.



That's a very nice example, punisher... to some eyes, the difference between Isshinryu and Shorin-ryu might be as great as that between TKD and Shotokan, but the classification of the first two as different branches of karate is going to be way less contentious than grouping TKD and Shotokan together under that heading. So _much_ history and symbolic meaning comes into it...



punisher73 said:


> It doesn't matter in the end, it only becomes important when you are trying to trace the family tree of your roots.



But I think it does say something about how our perception of things, and our sense of what they really are, are affected by all kinds of background assumptions... always worth bearing in mind when the discussion gets really heated, eh?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 3, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> 1. The Palgue, Taegeuk, and Koryo forms contain only middle and high kicks, and are executed more fluidly and with longer actions than karate forms. Additionally, there are no snap kicks, only thrust kicks.


No snap kicks in taekwondo or karate?  There are snap kicks in the taekgeuks.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 3, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> At one point, yes it was then it evlolved into it's own art. Much like Shorin-ryu went to Japan and became "more japenese" and became Shotokan. Shotokan went to Korea and evolved to it own thing through Gen. Choi to reflect Korean ideas (yes, I realize there was more to it than that, just trying to simplify it).
> 
> If you look at Isshinryu it looks VERY different than Shorin-Ryu where alot of it came from, yet in Okinawan it is still classified as a substyle of Shorin-ryu. So, TKD could be considered an offshoot of karate even though now in many branches it bares little resemblance to it's parent.


That is generally how I perceive the origins.  I appreciate.



punisher73 said:


> It doesn't matter in the end, it only becomes important when you are trying to trace the family tree of your roots.


Very true, and that is kind of what I'm trying to do.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 3, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> If you look at Isshinryu it looks VERY different than Shorin-Ryu where alot of it came from, yet in Okinawan it is still classified as a substyle of Shorin-ryu.  So, TKD could be considered an offshoot of karate even though now in many branches it bares little resemblance to it's parent.
> 
> It doesn't matter in the end, it only becomes important when you are trying to trace the family tree of your roots.



Yeah, I always thought the classification of Isshin-ryu as a shorin-ryu style as somewhat arbitrary.  The art certainly owes a lot to its Goju-ryu roots as well with a few shared kata albeit altered from the original.  I frequently share bunkai with some Isshin-ryu friends when asked about various empty hand kata.  Much of the Goju bunkai is still applicable, so in case it does help to know the history of your system and where you can go for more education or help.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 3, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> it does help to know the history of your system and where you can go for more education or help.


I agree.  This is the main reason for my posting this topic. 

Daniel


----------



## jim777 (Oct 3, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Korean Karate is what I've heard many times. It sure does not upset me.
> 
> Real funny thing is, Taekwondo Moo Duk Kwan, which I trained in at SFA, used TOTALY Shotokan kata. Yes I learned Bassai-Sho with a few slight changes! Our punching was Shototkan. Only the kicking was pure Korean style kicks and of course, Korean words were used.
> 
> ...



Exactly; Karate isn't even an art, it's a subject heading.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 3, 2008)

jim777 said:


> Exactly; Karate isn't even an art, it's a subject heading.


Now, just playing devil's advocate, there are those who say that taekwondo is an umbrella term as well.

Daniel


----------



## arnisador (Oct 6, 2008)

Well, you don't have to be a TKD black belt to compete in Olympic TKD, do you? A karateka could? That'll make it more generic, I'm afraid. 

A lot of TSDers who know I'm a martial artists but not a KMAer have initially described themselves as TKDers and then explained at greater detail what exactly they were. It's a classic: "Where are you from?" "Buffalo." "Me too? Where in Buffalo?" "Well, actually it's West Seneca." "Me too! Where in West Seneca?" "Well, actually Ebenezer (a village within it)."


----------



## YoungMan (Oct 6, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> Now, just playing devil's advocate, there are those who say that taekwondo is an umbrella term as well.
> 
> Daniel


 
Umbrella term perhaps in the sense that you can be Kukkiwon-style, ITF, ATA, WTA, or perhaps independent. If you practice Tang Soo Do, Hapkido, or some other Korean style, though, that's not Taekwondo.


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 6, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> Umbrella term perhaps in the sense that you can be Kukkiwon-style, ITF, ATA, WTA, or perhaps independent. If you practice Tang Soo Do, Hapkido, or some other Korean style, though, that's not Taekwondo.


 
Society has made it a genetic term not the TKD'ers that I know. We do TKD weather anybody likes it or not. Now are roots are heavy Karate influence and we all know that.


----------



## Zendokan (Oct 6, 2008)

I'm back and after this post I'm going to get banned, I'm sure of it, but this has to be said.
Is taekwondo a form of karate? No, tang soo do is a form of karate, infact it was karate. 
The "TSD fighting form" was the "TKD style" that General Choi wanted and designed. So why did the "old school TKD" changed in "olympic TKD", well TKD was used as a cultural propaganda tool and the process to get TKD as an olympic sport ( which started maybe already in the early seventies) changed it from a martial art to a competition sport.
The sport TKD resembles in nothing anymore to the vision of General Choi, no kicking below the waste, no punches to the face, hell there are almost no punches at all and there's no guard (everyone keeps there hands down) because of the side-stand.

To restore TKD to his old glory, we have to start training Savate, which in fighting style resembles for 95% "old school" TKD, add the Palgwé forms (loose the Tageuks, center of gravity is too high), loose the chestprotector and helmet (footprotecters, a shell and boxing gloves are enough). At that moment can we speak again that TKD belongs to the karate family whilest now it's just a poor offshoot of the karate family.

But this will not be possible before TKD loses the "olympic" status and popularity.

Like I said, most of you aren't going to like this post, heck I don't even like this post, but it's minutes for midnight if TKD wants to become again a respectable martial art.


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 6, 2008)

Zendokan said:


> I'm back and after this post I'm going to get banned, I'm sure of it, but this has to be said.
> Is taekwondo a form of karate? No, tang soo do is a form of karate, infact it was karate.
> The "TSD fighting form" was the "TKD style" that General Choi wanted and designed. So why did the "old school TKD" changed in "olympic TKD", well TKD was used as a cultural propaganda tool and the process to get TKD as an olympic sport ( which started maybe already in the early seventies) changed it from a martial art to a competition sport.
> The sport TKD resembles in nothing anymore to the vision of General Choi, no kicking below the waste, no punches to the face, hell there are almost no punches at all and there's no guard (everyone keeps there hands down) because of the side-stand.
> ...


 
Why would nobody like your post it was well written and has some interesting views. We love to debate the position of each other and not a flame war. So as long as your post are like this you are doing fine.


----------



## Zendokan (Oct 6, 2008)

Thank you very much Terryl965,

I have seen the politics of the KKW to promote the olympic and destroy the old school. Propaganda and Politics are best left out any martial arts practise, but in the case of TKD it wasn't.

Alot of good TKDers left TKD and went to Savate (here in Belgium it's easy to find since we're a neighbour of France), Muay Thai or Kyokushin Karate.
If we could create a movement to attracked these people back to TKD it would be a win situation.


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 6, 2008)

Zendokan said:


> I'm back and after this post I'm going to get banned, I'm sure of it, but this has to be said.
> Is taekwondo a form of karate? No, tang soo do is a form of karate, infact it was karate.
> The "TSD fighting form" was the "TKD style" that General Choi wanted and designed. So why did the "old school TKD" changed in "olympic TKD", well TKD was used as a cultural propaganda tool and the process to get TKD as an olympic sport ( which started maybe already in the early seventies) changed it from a martial art to a competition sport.
> The sport TKD resembles in nothing anymore to the vision of General Choi, no kicking below the waste, no punches to the face, hell there are almost no punches at all and there's no guard (everyone keeps there hands down) because of the side-stand.
> ...



edited because i read your post a few more times and it started to make more sense

I agree. Choi wanted a strong SD art. The KKW people wanted a sport.

I agree


----------



## tko4u (Oct 6, 2008)

ive always been told that it was a form of korean karate


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 7, 2008)

Zendokan said:


> I'm back and after this post I'm going to get banned, I'm sure of it, but this has to be said.
> Is taekwondo a form of karate? No, tang soo do is a form of karate, infact it was karate.


I would agree regarding TSD.  



Zendokan said:


> The "TSD fighting form" was the "TKD style" that General Choi wanted and designed. So why did the "old school TKD" changed in "olympic TKD", well TKD was used as a cultural propaganda tool and the process to get TKD as an olympic sport ( which started maybe already in the early seventies) changed it from a martial art to a competition sport.
> The sport TKD resembles in nothing anymore to the vision of General Choi, no kicking below the waste, no punches to the face, hell there are almost no punches at all and there's no guard (everyone keeps there hands down) because of the side-stand.


We used a similar stance in fencing.  The idea being to present a smaller profile, which in a fight is a good idea.  But the hands down thing is irritating and fairly worthless.



Zendokan said:


> To restore TKD to his old glory, we have to start training Savate, which in fighting style resembles for 95% "old school" TKD, add the Palgwé forms (loose the Tageuks, center of gravity is too high), loose the chestprotector and helmet (footprotecters, a shell and boxing gloves are enough). At that moment can we speak again that TKD belongs to the karate family whilest now it's just a poor offshoot of the karate family.


When I started out in taekwondo, we didn't use any of the Olympic gear; just insteps, hand/wrist guards (not boxing gloves, but they served the same purpose), a cup and a mouth piece for sparring.  To be fair, at that time, Taekwondo wasn't in the Olympics.  Of course we also practiced on sprung hardwood.  



Zendokan said:


> But this will not be possible before TKD loses the "olympic" status and popularity.
> 
> Like I said, most of you aren't going to like this post, heck I don't even like this post, but it's minutes for midnight if TKD wants to become again a respectable martial art.


Banned??  And why wouldn't I like your post?  I find your post well written and honest.

Daniel


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 7, 2008)

tko4u said:


> ive always been told that it was a form of korean karate


 
In the beginning it was Korean Karate so you are right


----------

