# Hosinsul



## FizzyCal (Feb 28, 2012)

I have several questions regarding TKD training, however I'll just start with this one.

Traditionally, prior to the Unification of the original kwons, it stands to reason that each kwon incorporated its own set of requirements for mastery of its martial art. At some point, after the unification, I would assume that a standard was established as what must be learned to master the art of TKD.

At my TKD school, our instructor also incorporates some methods, theories, and techniques from other MA's that he has earned instructor rank in as well. So many times I'm not sure what is purely TKD or a mix of TKD with other styles theories. For me, I would like to know what is purely TKD. For instance, we do what we call wrist grabs, which I know many TKD schools incorporate as Hosinsul, or self-defense. The confusion for me is that I'm fairly confident that what we are learning is either partially Philipino or Silat or maybe both. At times my instructor will say things like, "well the indonesian systems may do it this way." or "the philipino systems may do it this way. And this is true for more than just the writst grabs.

My question is, are there resources available where I could research and find a more pure TKD comparison to what we are doing in class? My reason is that if someday I were to teach my own kids or some other person and I say I am practicing TKD I want to be knowledgable enough to say this is purely TKD.

Don't know if this makes sense to anyone or not. Perhaps it doesn't matter what style it's from as long as I've learned something... I'd just like to know for myself. If anyone has any idea I'd appreciate any input.


----------



## dancingalone (Feb 28, 2012)

First, I would suggest that the term 'pure TKD' might be somewhat of an oxymoron given the eclectic history of the art.  I also suspect the answer to your question greatly depends on which style of TKD you study and which affiliations you have.

But no need to rehash the historical stuff.  You can find ample threads on here about given a few minutes of searching.

I own this book which was written by a Kukkiwon 9th dan, Dr. Daeshik Kim:  http://www.amazon.com/Hosinsul-conc...r_1_15?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330459398&sr=1-15  I suppose it comes as close to what I would ambiguously imagine _pure TKD_ to be as any other hosinsul I've seen.


----------



## Jason Striker II (Feb 28, 2012)

For a good intro on the background of TKD, try these articles:

http://kimsookarate.com/articles/history1.html


----------



## Gemini (Feb 28, 2012)

In regards to the hand techniques you are describing, they are taught at Yong-In which is associated with the Kukkiwon. At a higher level, I do believe at one point there was a single standard as you are referring, but I doubt that would be the case any longer. Each organization that will have a set syllabus that outlines what the teach. I think many of them are still very similar, but no longer any single "go to" source.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Feb 28, 2012)

FizzyCal said:


> 1. Traditionally, prior to the Unification of the original kwons, it stands to reason that each kwon incorporated its own set of requirements for mastery of its martial art. At some point, after the unification, I would assume that a standard was established as what must be learned to master the art of TKD.
> 
> 2.  For me, I would like to know what is purely TKD.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jason Striker II (Feb 28, 2012)

Earl Weiss said:


> FizzyCal said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Traditionally, prior to the Unification of the original kwons, it stands to reason that each kwon incorporated its own set of requirements for mastery of its martial art. At some point, after the unification, I would assume that a standard was established as what must be learned to master the art of TKD.
> ...


----------



## andyjeffries (Feb 28, 2012)

Earl Weiss said:


> 1. All the Kwans did not unify. Some resisted and Moo Duk Kwon was known for this, Many have unified to some degree in one form or another under the KKW.  So, no standard was established.



I don't think it's unreasonable that the OP referred to the "unification of the original kwons[sic]", given that there was a Unification Declaration Ceremony held at the Korea Amateur Sports Association auditorium in 1965.  It may not be all the kwans, but it's fair to refer to it as the unification as that's what the agreement was caused.  It feels like splitting hairs to say one kwan didn't therefore it's not unification.

It seems that the reason (at least the one given at the time) the Moo Duk Kwan didn't unify was that Choi Hong Hi was in charge of the KTA at the time. As far as I can tell, the Moo Duk Kwan is the only kwan that didn't unify under the KTA but you say "some".  Can you provide more information on others that didn't unify?

Also, can we please all agree that it's kwan not kwon.  I may just be being anal about spelling, but kwon and kwan are two different things and it's making my internal OCD twitch go off like crazy


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 28, 2012)

FizzyCal said:


> I have several questions regarding TKD training, however I'll just start with this one.
> 
> Traditionally, prior to the Unification of the original kwons, it stands to reason that each kwon incorporated its own set of requirements for mastery of its martial art. At some point, after the unification, I would assume that a standard was established as what must be learned to master the art of TKD.
> 
> ...


You are asking the wrong question.  It wasn't taekwondo until after the unification process had begun.  The question would be, 'what kwan is my master's lineage, and is there a way to find out what that kwan's pre-unification syllabus was?'

Alternatively, you could go with the 'taekwondo was supposed to be taekkyeon-do' angle, in which case the answer to your question is 'taekkyeon is "pure" (whatever that really means) pre-unifcation taekwondo' and then you can go find a Taekkyeon dojang.


----------



## FizzyCal (Feb 28, 2012)

I know that only 9 kwons came together to under the title of TKD and after some backed out.

And what most of the kwans taught had japanese or okinawan origins.

What I mean by "pure TKD" (and I don't really want to get hung up on semantic terms here) is that I'm presupposing that once there was an art called TKD there must have been originally a set of guidelines that one must know or have mastered to have recieved rank in "Tae Kwon Do".

Our school doesn't really belong to any organization. It's just what was taught from Pat Burleson on down.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 28, 2012)

andyjeffries said:


> It seems that the reason (at least the one given at the time) the Moo Duk Kwan didn't unify was that Choi Hong Hi was in charge of the KTA at the time. As far as I can tell, the Moo Duk Kwan is the only kwan that didn't unify under the KTA but you say "some". Can you provide more information on others that didn't unify?


Well, Moo Duk Kwan did unify, at least mostly.  It was Hwang Kee that didn't and a less-than-half percentage went off with him to be Moo Duk Kwan practicing under the heading of either Tang Su Do, Subak Do, or some other nomenclature.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 28, 2012)

FizzyCal said:


> I know that only 9 kwons came together to under the title of TKD and after some backed out.


The only 'backing out' that I know of is MDK, but they did not back out entirely; see my previous post.



FizzyCal said:


> And what most of the kwans taught had japanese or okinawan origins.


I suppose; I'll leave that discussion to more informed minds than my own.  But if you go that route, then the most likely answer is Shotokan, which was relatively recent at that time, so you'd have to go back to the parent arts of Shotokan.  



FizzyCal said:


> What I mean by "pure TKD" (and I don't really want to get hung up on semantic terms here) is that I'm presupposing that once there was an art called TKD there must have been originally a set of guidelines that one must know or have mastered to have recieved rank in "Tae Kwon Do".


Nope.  The kwan leaders got together and spent several years determining that set of guidelines.  Gen. Choi separated from the others during this process, presumably taking his followers with him, and developed his Chang Hon taekwon do while the unified kwans developed Kukki taekwondo.  

So, if you want the purest form of taekwondo that has the greatest connection to the nine kwans, pick up a Kukkiwon text book and you will have in your hands.  Taekwondo as an art was developed between 1945 and 1973 or so.  Not sure when General Choi completed his Chang Hon system, but its development took place between 1945 and whatever date that was.  



FizzyCal said:


> Our school doesn't really belong to any organization. It's just what was taught from Pat Burleson on down.


Is the unaffiliated status of your school the reason that you are asking?  Regardless, Pat Burleson was taught by someone, and if you trace it back far enough, you'll get to one of the nine kwans.


----------



## dancingalone (Feb 28, 2012)

FizzyCal said:


> Our school doesn't really belong to any organization. It's just what was taught from Pat Burleson on down.



My TKD roots are from the same line.  I'm afraid this form of TKD has always been adulterated with stuff from judo and TKDized hapkido from at least the 1970s.  I can try to find my old journal if you want a peek into this stuff - no Silat though. 

If you're looking for a authentic kwan era self-defense syllabus, I'm not aware such a thing exists.  SD and hosinsul seems to have been one of those things that missed formal codification in the TKD unification efforts.  If you read about the Korean fighting units that participated in the Vietnam war, it sounds like they used basic stuff like knifehands and such when they had to resort to unarmed combat.


----------



## dancingalone (Feb 28, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Regardless, Pat Burleson was taught by someone, and if you trace it back far enough, you'll get to one of the nine kwans.



Chung Do Kwan.

Jhoon Rhee
Allen Steen
Pat Burleson


----------



## FizzyCal (Feb 28, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> You are asking the wrong question. It wasn't taekwondo until after the unification process had begun. The question would be, 'what kwan is my master's lineage, and is there a way to find out what that kwan's pre-unification syllabus was?'



Jhoon Rhee who was Chung Do Kwan, founded by Won Kuk Lee, but we use the Chang Hon forms, which is Oh Do Kwan (and unless your Korean Military that's not true Oh Do Kwan either), but that's what Choi told him to teach. So my suspicians are that most of the original Chung Do Kwan stuff has been lost to our lineage somewhere along the way (I could be wrong). So I guess I'm in limbo somewhere, which is why I'm really, really curious about what should be taught in a TKD curriculum. I know my instructor is curious about some of the same stuff but as a 6th degree black belt with instructor ranks in other MA's, I don't think he's real concerned (but I'm not going to presume to speak for him).


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 28, 2012)

I don't think Chang Hon was original Oh Do Kwan nor CDK.  I was under the impression that Choi developed these forms later.  I was under the impression that the CDK and OhDoKwan were using Pinan forms originally, but I certainly could be wrong there.

Regardless, what should be taught in a taekwondo curriculum will depend upon what organization you are in and the preferrences of the school owner.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Feb 28, 2012)

andyjeffries said:


> As far as I can tell, the Moo Duk Kwan is the only kwan that didn't unify under the KTA but you say "some".  Can you provide more information on others that didn't unify?



The Jidokwan  (Chosun Yun Moo Kwan Kong Soo Do Bu) and the Moo Duk Kwan initially opposed the unification process, although both had supporters and detractors.  Specifically, SANG Sup Chun's dan bon #1, KWE Byung Yoon, opposed the Jidokwan's unification, if I remember correctly.  Ultimately, I believe all of the Jidokwan unified and part of the Moo Duk Kwan unified under the name Taekwondo.


----------



## puunui (Feb 28, 2012)

Earl Weiss said:


> 1. All the Kwans did not unify. Some resisted and Moo Duk Kwon was known for this, Many have unified to some degree in one form or another under the KKW.  So, no standard was established.



Actually the kwan did unify, including the Moo Duk Kwan. The Moo Duk Kwan was organized differently than other kwan, which were much more top down organizations led be the kwan jang. The Moo Duk Kwan instead had a board of directors which voted on decisions. The Moo Duk Kwan board of directors voted to join, or rather, to continue with the unification process and GM HWANG Kee did not want to, due to his hostile relationship with General Choi.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 28, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I don't think Chang Hon was original Oh Do Kwan nor CDK. I was under the impression that Choi developed these forms later. I was under the impression that the CDK and OhDoKwan were using Pinan forms originally, but I certainly could be wrong there.



The Oh Do Kwan did teach the old karate kata initially. But Gen. Choi began developing his tul rather early. There were three patterns developed by/in 1955 (Hwa-Rang, Choong-Moo, and Ul-Ji). Ge-Baek was developed in 1961. Sixteen more patterns were finished by 1962. Four more were finished by 1972 and Ju-Che, the last pattern to be developed was done sometime prior to 1985. 

So, it depends on what you mean by "later." The Oh Do Kwan was founded in 1954. By the next year he had three new tul. Gen. Choi's philosophy on why there are 24 patterns is interesting and you don't just dash off two dozen of them. It takes a while to develop. If you look through the various editions of his textbooks you can see changes that Gen. Choi made in patterns he had already developed besides just coming up with new ones.  

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui (Feb 28, 2012)

SahBumNimRush said:


> The Jidokwan  (Chosun Yun Moo Kwan Kong Soo Do Bu) and the Moo Duk Kwan initially opposed the unification process, although both had supporters and detractors.  Specifically, SANG Sup Chun's dan bon #1, KWE Byung Yoon, opposed the Jidokwan's unification, if I remember correctly.



It was originally called Kwon Bup Bu, not Kong Soo Do Bu in the beginning. And Dr. YON Kwai Byeong wasn't the kwon bup dan holder at the Chosun Yun Moo Kwan. I think that was honor went to GM CHUN Sang Sup's brother, GM CHUN Il Sup. Or it might have been GM BAE Young Ki. Either one of those two. I don't think Dr. Yon got any rank for GM Chun.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Feb 28, 2012)

puunui said:


> It was originally called Kwon Bup Bu, not Kong Soo Do Bu in the beginning. And Dr. YON Kwai Byeong wasn't the kwon bup dan holder at the Chosun Yun Moo Kwan. I think that was honor went to GM CHUN Sang Sup's brother, GM CHUN Il Sup. Or it might have been GM BAE Young Ki. Either one of those two. I don't think Dr. Yon got any rank for GM Chun.



Thank you for the clarification, you are much closer to the original sources than I am.  I'll have to check back with my sources, I thought that YON kwai Byeong was listed as dan bon #1 under the Yun Moo Kwan Kwon Bup Bu according to the Modern History of Taekwondo, but I was going from memory on that.. .


----------



## puunui (Feb 28, 2012)

mastercole knows more about jidokwan history than i do. He can answer who number one is.


----------



## mastercole (Feb 29, 2012)

Hoshinsul term is now mom-makki. Mom-makki is like the applications of Poomsae and in some cases the same. They both are open to creativity and individual interpretation.  Mom-makki can be anything from a release from a chock, to avoiding a strike by shifting the body, to counter attack. It is considered individual research, just like Poomsae applications.


----------



## mastercole (Feb 29, 2012)

SahBumNimRush said:


> Thank you for the clarification, you are much closer to the original sources than I am.  I'll have to check back with my sources, I thought that YON kwai Byeong was listed as dan bon #1 under the Yun Moo Kwan Kwon Bup Bu according to the Modern History of Taekwondo, but I was going from memory on that.. .



Jidokwan was unlike other Kwan in that it did not matter when a person was listed in the Dan register, the actual Dan rank mattered. Practitioners could pass others in seniority in the dojang if they passed them in Dan rank.

GM PAE Yong Ki was Jidokwan student #1 and no one ever passed him.  He trained with GM Chun before GM Chun started his club at the Judo school.  

GM YON Kwai Byeong might have actually out ranked GM Chun.  We don't know what Dan GM Chun held from Funakoshi Sensei, but we hear about GM YON being listed as a Shihan (Sabum) in Yoyama Sensei's book. We do not believe that GM Chun was a Shihan under Funaloshi Sensei.

GM Chun hired GM YON Kwai Byeong as a Sabum right after GM YOON Byung In left that same job to open his own club called the YMCA Kwon Bop Bu (Chang Moo Kwan).  GM Yon and GM Chun learned their karate from different teachers.

As for the name of GM Chun's karate club, I get two different answers from the seniors that actually trained there. GM LEE Kyo Yoon states "Chosun yunmookwan kwonbop bu." He is the only one that has told me that directly. However, he called his Han Moo Kwan the Kong Soo Do Bu when he first opened it.

My teachers - teacher, GM LEE Chong Woo the main proponent of Jidokwan, tells me that it was called "Chosun yunmookwan kong soo do bu."  Other seniors have told me the same.  My teacher, GM CHONG Chun Sup told that that it was called "Chosun yunmookwan kwonbop kong soo do bu."


----------



## Earl Weiss (Feb 29, 2012)

FizzyCal said:


> What I mean by "pure TKD" (and I don't really want to get hung up on semantic terms here) is that I'm presupposing that once there was an art called TKD there must have been originally a set of guidelines that one must know or have mastered to have recieved rank in "Tae Kwon Do".
> 
> .



As stated by others and as I should have stated better; that while some Kwans resisted, some longer than others they may (or did as stated by some) agree to come under the KKW flag. 

Now your supposition about  an original set of guidelines is correct but problematic as well. When the unification efforts started one of the things that General Choi  did was impose testing / retesting requirements for all but Chung Do Kwan Black belts (maybe another Kwan as well but I forget. ) The reason was due to the large variations among the different Kwan BBs. This PO'd a lot of people, having their rank questioned and having to re test. 

For many years you could be doing any number of pattern systems and get a Dan Ceritficate thru the KKW. (I will leave it to Glenn and Master Cole to elaborate on current requirements.)  So, there was no uniformity as to the system let alone Ho Sin Sul.   This was the greates strength of the KKW, the inclusivenss, yet to an extent a weakness since you could have a KKW Dan certificate, and go to another KKW gym and not have a clue what their pattern system was.  The ITF was a closed system in that they only recognized their system for rank.  TYhis was the greatest strength yet, being closed to offshoots was it's gretaest weakness.

Finished Steve Jobs Biography. Could not help but see parallels between Jobs theory of Apple Hardwre and Software, and General Choi as compared to Bill Gates and Microsoft  and the KKW.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Feb 29, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> The Oh Do Kwan did teach the old karate kata initially. But Gen. Choi began developing his tul rather early. There were three patterns developed by/in 1955 (Hwa-Rang, Choong-Moo, and Ul-Ji). Ge-Baek was developed in 1961. Sixteen more patterns were finished by 1962. Four more were finished by 1972 and Ju-Che, the last pattern to be developed was done sometime prior to 1985.
> 
> So, it depends on what you mean by "later." The Oh Do Kwan was founded in 1954. By the next year he had three new tul. Gen. Choi's philosophy on why there are 24 patterns is interesting and you don't just dash off two dozen of them. It takes a while to develop.Pax,
> 
> Chris



The main goal of forming the 29th Infantry division and the Oh Do Kwan was to recruit top martial art talent to develop a unify ssystem, develop instructors for that system and then help dispatch people to demonstrate and spread the system. Since the CDK was the largest gym and the heaviest population of the ODK it was only natural that CDK material would be what was initialy used.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 29, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> The Oh Do Kwan did teach the old karate kata initially. But Gen. Choi began developing his tul rather early. There were three patterns developed by/in 1955 (Hwa-Rang, Choong-Moo, and Ul-Ji). Ge-Baek was developed in 1961. Sixteen more patterns were finished by 1962. Four more were finished by 1972 and Ju-Che, the last pattern to be developed was done sometime prior to 1985.
> 
> So, it depends on what you mean by "later." The Oh Do Kwan was founded in 1954. By the next year he had three new tul. Gen. Choi's philosophy on why there are 24 patterns is interesting and you don't just dash off two dozen of them. It takes a while to develop. If you look through the various editions of his textbooks you can see changes that Gen. Choi made in patterns he had already developed besides just coming up with new ones.
> 
> ...


That is what I meant by later; the CKD and SMK opened their doors in 1944, and from what I understand, most of the Oh Do Kwan were CDK practitioners.  I was thinking in terms of 1944 marking the beginning of the kwan era, with General Choi beginning to develop the Chang Hon system in the fifties.

It seems from what you say that the Chang Hon System was developed over a period from 1955 to 1985.  I'm not sure of the exact date that the Taegeuk pumse were introduced, but I had thought it to be in the early to mid seventies, and I do not know when the yudanja pumse were finalized.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 29, 2012)

mastercole said:


> Hoshinsul term is now mom-makki. Mom-makki is like the applications of Poomsae and in some cases the same. They both are open to creativity and individual interpretation. Mom-makki can be anything from a release from a chock, to avoiding a strike by shifting the body, to counter attack. It is considered individual research, just like Poomsae applications.


Mom makki; body defense if I am not mistaken.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Feb 29, 2012)

mastercole said:


> Jidokwan was unlike other Kwan in that it did not matter when a person was listed in the Dan register, the actual Dan rank mattered. Practitioners could pass others in seniority in the dojang if they passed them in Dan rank.
> 
> GM PAE Yong Ki was Jidokwan student #1 and no one ever passed him.  He trained with GM Chun before GM Chun started his club at the Judo school.
> 
> ...



Thank you very much sir for the "clarification."  While I'm not a historian, I do find Taekwondo's history fascinating.  **As a side note, I'm on my second read of the article you sent me, and I will be getting back to you shortly about my thoughts, thank you very much!**


----------



## FizzyCal (Feb 29, 2012)

From some research that I did last night, it is believed that a few of the kwans, such as Kong Soo Do (Tang Soo Do) did in fact include their own hosinsule. And is believed that Gen. Choi studied Hapkido under Master Chung Ki Tae in 1972 and later incorporated some of those concepts as hosinsul. So other than a few exceptions in individual kwans, hosinsul was something added later to TKD and is essentially Hapkido. Then again, maybe it depends on where the information comes from.

Just trying to figure out what is and is not TKD. My obsessive nature makes me do it. So while trying to separate what we do in class as TKD concepts or other MA concepts, it seems that it really doesn't matter if it comes from Hapkido, Silat, Jiu Jitsu, or Philipino styles. But that the important thing is that some grappling and joint locking is incorporated into the training.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 29, 2012)

FizzyCal said:


> From some research that I did last night, it is believed that a few of the kwans, such as Kong Soo Do (Tang Soo Do) did in fact include their own hosinsule. And is believed that Gen. Choi studied Hapkido under Master Chung Ki Tae in 1972 and later incorporated some of those concepts as hosinsul. So other than a few exceptions in individual kwans, hosinsul was something added later to TKD and is essentially Hapkido. Then again, maybe it depends on where the information comes from.



I know that the Chang Hon Hoshinsul was culled from hapkido, but Earl or Chris probably could give you more specifics.



FizzyCal said:


> Just trying to figure out what is and is not TKD. My obsessive nature makes me do it. So while trying to separate what we do in class as TKD concepts or other MA concepts, it seems that it really doesn't matter if it comes from Hapkido, Silat, Jiu Jitsu, or Philipino styles. But that the important thing is that some grappling and joint locking is incorporated into the training.


If you want to know what is and is not taekwondo, pick up a Kukkiwon textbook.  I'd also say to pick up an ITF textbook, but the ITF 'text book' is a sixteen volume encyclopedia set from what I understand.  Certainly worth picking up if you want to delve deeper into Chang Hon taekwondo, but if your main interest is separating taekwondo from whatever else, the KKW book will do nicely.

While there are stylistic differences an some terminology differences, from what I've gathered from conversation with ITF folks, the technical set minus hoshinsul is pretty analogous and probably not all that radically different from the kwan era.  The main differences between kwan era TKD and modern era would be the way in which the techniques are practiced, as a lot of refinement has taken place over the past fifty to sixty years as a result of competition and continual improvement. 

But, as Chris pointed out, Chang Hon's last pattern was introduced in 1985.  I'm not sure when Kukkiwon taekwondo was finalized, but it was post 1970.  The word, taekwondo, was coined in, I think, 1954.  Prior to that, there was no uniform, codified standard.  You had five schools doing whatever they were doing.  The oh do kwan was mostly CDK members and the unification effort was only just beginning.

So the idea that pre-unification taekwondo was more 'pure' is a falacy; it didn't exist, though the term, 'taekwondo' was retrofitted to both kwan era KMA and all pre-occupation unarmed KMA.  As an art, taekwondo is a modern art that was pioneered in the fifties, sixties, and seventies.  If you want 'pure' taekwondo, you need to go to the sources.  The art is very young as martial arts go; less than a century, and it wasn't fully developed until about 25-35 years ago.   

Just to make it clear, I think that it is great that you are asking trying to gain knowledge into the art's origins.  I hope that I don't come across as looking down my nose at you.


----------



## Instructor (Feb 29, 2012)

Martial arts are constantly in a state of flux and change.  The best you can hope for in finding 'purity' is simply a snapshot of a certain school at a certain time, but it is only a snapshot.  If you put it into motion the way it is in reality you will see a dynamic environment whereupon each is learning from the other and the whole amalgam grows.

The interesting thing I think is to find the reasons behind the various techniques, how they came to be.


----------



## puunui (Feb 29, 2012)

mastercole said:


> As for the name of GM Chun's karate club, I get two different answers from the seniors that actually trained there. GM LEE Kyo Yoon states "Chosun yunmookwan kwonbop bu." He is the only one that has told me that directly. However, he called his Han Moo Kwan the Kong Soo Do Bu when he first opened it.



GM KIM Soo Jin from Atlanta, Georgia, who is one of the most senior Jidokwan members or the senior Jidokwan member in the US, says the school name was Kwon Bup Bu. So did GM LEE Chong Woo in at least one interview:

It was right after the Liberation. I suppose it was a dream of my adolescence around the age of seventeen, and I had the vague hope of becoming an unbeatable martial artist. When I heard there was a particular place in So-Gong-Dong, Seoul where they could train someone in the 18th method [known as a
Chinese form of martial arts] I went there. It was a Judo school during the Japanese occupation period, and they used to put out a sign saying, Chosun Yeon Mu Kwan in which they had a Judo Division and Kwon Bup Division. From then on, I learned Karate in the Kwon Bup Division. Kwon Bup is the same as Japanese Karate. Since the national pride was concerned, we called it Kwon Bup instead of calling it Japanese Karate. -- GM LEE Chong Woo

In the beginning, Judo was the major martial art course at Chosun Yeon Mu Kwan with a small section of Kwon Bup in it. However, the Chosun Yeon Mu Kwan was put into service during the Korean War. Byung Suk Lee, the President of Chosun Yeon Mu Kwan was a nationalist. So, people in the Kwon Bup Division moved out of the center to another location due to the delicate political circumstances. The Korea Gymnasium, which was located at Ulgiro 3rd Street, was then
the site of the Ji Do Kwan.

It took me over a year to become a first degree black belt, then 2nd degree black belt and 3rd degree black belt, and then the Korean War broke out. By the time Seoul was liberated, I was going to test for 4th degree black belt, but I had to have appendix surgery. So, I received my 4th degree black belt through a
recommendation while others took the performance test. After the Association was established, I received a 9th degree black belt. At the beginning, I received the 1st degree black belt in Kwon Bup and then I became a 9th degree black belt in Taekwondo. The name changed.




mastercole said:


> My teachers - teacher, GM LEE Chong Woo the main proponent of Jidokwan, tells me that it was called "Chosun yunmookwan kong soo do bu."



I asked GM LEE Chong Woo directly in his office at the Kukkiwon way back when, and he told me the name was "Chosun Yun Moo Kwan Taekwondo Bu". He even wrote it out for me on a piece of paper which I still have.


----------



## puunui (Feb 29, 2012)

Earl Weiss said:


> For many years you could be doing any number of pattern systems and get a Dan Ceritficate thru the KKW. (I will leave it to Glenn and Master Cole to elaborate on current requirements.)  So, there was no uniformity as to the system let alone Ho Sin Sul.   This was the greates strength of the KKW, the inclusivenss, yet to an extent a weakness since you could have a KKW Dan certificate, and go to another KKW gym and not have a clue what their pattern system was.  The ITF was a closed system in that they only recognized their system for rank.  This was the greatest strength yet, being closed to offshoots was it's gretaest weakness.



The problem with that is that General Choi handed out ITF dan certificates to people who did not learn his system and did not adhere to ITF standards. For example, there is a shotokan dan holder here who was given an ITF 6th Dan certificate, even though he did not have ANY taekwondo training whatsoever. GM JUNG Woo Jin (from Taekwondo Times) gave General Choi and other pioneers a $500/month pension and for that General Choi promoted GM Jung to ITF 9th Dan, and not because of his knowledge (or lack thereof) of sinewave, for example. And what about the promotions of GM Chuck Norris and I believe GM Bob Wall to ITF 8th Dan? Do they have any knowledge or experience with the ITF system?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Feb 29, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> .
> 
> It seems from what you say that the Chang Hon System was developed over a period from 1955 to 1985..



Almost. The nucleus of the sytems is the patterns. The first 20 appear in the 1965 English text. I have heard that there may have been an earlier Korean one.  By the time the 1972 text was published 4 morre patterns were in it.    Ju Che replaced Ko Dang. As Mr. Spiller says it was before 1985.  It appears in the first encyclopedia. This was published in 1983 I believe . I woiuld have to check.  Although the Encyclopedia contains some refinements and expansions, it added little to the system as a whole as compared to the 1972 text.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Feb 29, 2012)

puunui said:


> The problem with that is that General Choi handed out ITF dan certificates to people who did not learn his system and did not adhere to ITF standards. For example, there is a shotokan dan holder here who was given an ITF 6th Dan certificate, even though he did not have ANY taekwondo training whatsoever. GM JUNG Woo Jin (from Taekwondo Times) gave General Choi and other pioneers a $500/month pension and for that General Choi promoted GM Jung to ITF 9th Dan, and not because of his knowledge (or lack thereof) of sinewave, for example. And what about the promotions of GM Chuck Norris and I believe GM Bob Wall to ITF 8th Dan? Do they have any knowledge or experience with the ITF system?



I have no first hand knowledge of much of what you say except that for the most part those without knowledge of the Chang Hon system and having ITF Dan certificates are scarce at best. 

Specificaly with regard to Chuck Norris, Bob Wall and one other, I do have knowledge of these certicficates which were unnumbered, and either noted as "Special" or "Honorary" in recognition of their contribution to Martial Arts.  I remeber when they were announced as such in the ITF Bulletin.


----------



## puunui (Feb 29, 2012)

mastercole said:


> Jidokwan was unlike other Kwan in that it did not matter when a person was listed in the Dan register, the actual Dan rank mattered. Practitioners could pass others in seniority in the dojang if they passed them in Dan rank.



This is similar to the KTA standard for seniority: "Inside the dojang, one must use polite     language towards the head of the dojang, instructors and his *seniors in rank,     regardless of their age*."


----------



## puunui (Feb 29, 2012)

Earl Weiss said:


> Specificaly with regard to Chuck Norris, Bob Wall and one other, I do have knowledge of these certificates which were unnumbered, and either noted as "Special" or "Honorary" in recognition of their contribution to Martial Arts.  I remeber when they were announced as such in the ITF Bulletin.




That's not how it was designated on the ITF webpage, which is where I believe I saw it. Is it still up on a webpage somewhere?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 1, 2012)

puunui said:


> there is a shotokan dan holder here who was given an ITF 6th Dan certificate, even though he did not have ANY taekwondo training whatsoever.



If you get a chance I would be interested in knowing the name, date, and Dan # on the certificate. If you don't wish to put it on the web you can send it privately.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 1, 2012)

puunui said:


> That's not how it was designated on the ITF webpage, which is where I believe I saw it. Is it still up on a webpage somewhere?



I think that web page is long gone. Don't recall exactly what it said. I think I read about it in the ITF newsletter. 

Friom ITF Newsletter #2 April 2000  " VIII Dan. April 13. Chuck Norris, Bob Chaney, Bob Wall - USA.  These were "Special Promotions" at a very important event for the ITF.   I recall now that they were a new animal called "Special" because "Honorary" at that time was a maximum of IV Dan. 

Even the newsletter had  no further explanation. But, since I hosted General Choi in June 2000 I was able to get more details which involved recognizing them for their Martial Arts contributions. There was also mention of Bob Wall producing a documentary on General Choi.  I do not know the status of such a project.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 1, 2012)

puunui said:


> The problem with that is that General Choi handed out ITF dan certificates to people who did not learn his system and did not adhere to ITF standards.



I'm somewhat suprised to see you refer to this as a "problem", since you've indicated in the past that you've done the very same thing any number of times with KKW Dan certificates. 

If it's a problem, why do you do it?


----------



## puunui (Mar 1, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> I'm somewhat suprised to see you refer to this as a "problem", since you've indicated in the past that you've done the very same thing any number of times with KKW Dan certificates. If it's a problem, why do you do it?



Try reading the part that I quoted, and not just what I wrote to understand what I was responding to. Master Weiss' hypothesis is that Kukki Taekwondo has looser standards but that led to large growth and that ITF on the other hand had stricter standards but that may have limited growth. The "problem" regarding his hypothesis, is that General Choi gave rank based on looser standards as well, and I gave some examples. The "problem" is not grandfathering in taekwondo practitioners who are using other curriculum into kukki taekwondo, in much the same way that houses built on a different set of standards from an older era need not be torn down simply because they fail to comply with today's building codes. 

Does that answer your question?


----------



## puunui (Mar 1, 2012)

Earl Weiss said:


> If you get a chance I would be interested in knowing the name, date, and Dan # on the certificate. If you don't wish to put it on the web you can send it privately.



I'll email you the name. I don't know the date or the certificate number. One of my students was training with this person and helped him move, and during the course of that, saw his ITF taekwondo certificate. He still lives here.


----------



## mastercole (Mar 1, 2012)

puunui said:


> GM KIM Soo Jin from Atlanta, Georgia, who is one of the most senior Jidokwan members or the senior Jidokwan member in the US, says the school name was Kwon Bup Bu. So did GM LEE Chong Woo in at least one interview:
> 
> &#8220;It was right after the Liberation. I suppose it was a dream of my adolescence around the age of seventeen, and I had the vague hope of becoming an unbeatable martial artist. When I heard there was a particular place in So-Gong-Dong, Seoul where they could train someone in the 18th method [known as a
> Chinese form of martial arts] I went there. It was a Judo school during the Japanese occupation period, and they used to put out a sign saying, &#8216;Chosun Yeon Mu Kwan&#8217; in which they had a Judo Division and Kwon Bup Division. From then on, I learned Karate in the Kwon Bup Division. Kwon Bup is the same as Japanese Karate. Since the national pride was concerned, we called it Kwon Bup instead of calling it Japanese Karate.&#8221; -- GM LEE Chong Woo
> ...



Certainly. I have even seen within a same interview where the words Kwonbop and Kong Soo Do are used interchangeably. Also in Funakoshi's writings, he has used the same words (kenpo & karate) interchangeably to refer to what he does. Just like seniors will speak of Taekwondo and ancient Korean martial arts in an interchangeable way, like GM Lee saying to you "Taekwondo Bu" and like some seniors will call Taekkyon as Taekwondo. I guess it is like us saying boxing, fisticuffs or duking it out, we know it means punching, others might not.

But exactly how it was phrased, or if it was exactly phrased at all, I don't know for sure. I do know that GM Kyo Yoon Lee specifically told me that Kong Soo Do was not in the name.

From time to time some people recommend that I go through the TaekwondoJidokwan.com website and "clean up and unify" the spelling of Korean to English terms, or edit certain words to clarify the true meaning. I have not done that, I let it stand as it was published, pretty much for this reason.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 1, 2012)

puunui said:


> I'll email you the name. I don't know the date or the certificate number. One of my students was training with this person and helped him move, and during the course of that, saw his ITF taekwondo certificate. He still lives here.



Well, if someone could get a look at the date and # that would be great. I'd like to see how he fits in with the chronology of other 6th Dans. From time to time tere ahve been issues with bogus certificates. Not saying his is. I think Iceman on this board was one I know of that was involved with such an issue.  Some certs were clearly bogus. Others were issued by ITF personnel and not logged properly. I think ITF made good on those when time came for the next rank.  You gave an interesting reason for te Woo Jin Jung. Cert. Any idea why this guy got one?


----------



## puunui (Mar 1, 2012)

Earl Weiss said:


> You gave an interesting reason for te Woo Jin Jung. Cert. Any idea why this guy got one?



I think it may have been because he had Shudokan dan rank certification from Sensei TOYAMA Kanken prior to his taekwondo "involvement". He's still alive and still teaching I think. Maybe I can go visit his class and ask him about it.


----------

