# diferences........



## Manny (Mar 11, 2011)

What are the diferences beetwen Tang Soo Do and Soo Bhak Do? I know grandmaster Hwang Khee started with TSD (it seems he wasn't the creator of TSD but Lee Won Kook) however he latter changed the name to Soo Bhak Do because he found ancient book and took some techs from there that coupled with some Taekyon.

However I am a little confused, and want to know if SBD was an improvement of TSD or it was a new martial art, and if so what make Hwang Khee to change radically his TSD to SBD.

I will apreciate if you can tell me the diferences beetwen both MAs.

Manny


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Mar 11, 2011)

It is merely a name.  HWANG Kee initially used Hwa Soo Do to describe his art (The way of the flowering hand), but as you could imagine it wasn't very attractive sounding and he began using what many of the original kwan's were using at the time; TSD.  The Kwans either used Kong Soo Do or Tang Soo Do to describe their art prior to the unified name under Tae Soo Do and then TaeKwonDo.  

Soo Bahk Do was a term HWANG Kee later used to separate himself from the TSD > TKD movement, because he was against the unification, which is a topic for another discussion.

You can determine the timeline of when the founders of other schools/orgs broke away from HWANG Kee by what name they use.  For instance my association uses Moo Duk Kwan Tae Kwon Do, meaning that my KJN was part of the Moo Duk Kwan that supported the KTA and the unification. 

Others use Tang Soo Do, and broke away before HWANG Kee began using Soo Bahk Do.

As far as techs go, the Moo Duk Kwan was/is an evolving art just as TKD has been.  HWANG Kee, as I understand it, encorporated techs he found in the Moo Ye Do Bo Tong Ji, and therefore encorporated more of the Chinese influence that you see from SBD today.  The Yuk Ro and Chil Sung forms are an example of this.  The elusive Hwa Sun form is another, but I have never seen this form.  

My association only practices the Shotokan form sets, and looks very similar, as I've been told, to old Shotokan mixed with the kicking mechanics that Korean MA's are known for.

Hope this helps, and doesn't muddy the water too much.. .


----------



## DMcHenry (Mar 11, 2011)

I agree with Master Rush, but even when SBD does the same forms done in TSD, they can look like very differnt styles.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 11, 2011)

There are more similarities then differences.  I would say that the two arts haven't deviated very much in terms of general teaching methods.  They do have some specific ways of doing things that are distinct.  One point I think is worth making is that Soo Bahk Do is part of a Federation and the schools are more uniform then Tang Soo Do schools.  I've been to TSD schools that varied from being almost exactly the same as Tae Kwon Do to those that are almost identical to Shotokan.  My dojo and my upline is definitely more Okinawan in flavor.  So, yeah, TSD can be very hard to classify.


----------



## puunui (Mar 11, 2011)

SahBumNimRush said:


> It is merely a name.  HWANG Kee initially used Hwa Soo Do to describe his art (The way of the flowering hand), but as you could imagine it wasn't very attractive sounding and he began using what many of the original kwan's were using at the time; TSD.  The Kwans either used Kong Soo Do or Tang Soo Do to describe their art prior to the unified name under Tae Soo Do and then TaeKwonDo.  Soo Bahk Do was a term HWANG Kee later used to separate himself from the TSD > TKD movement, because he was against the unification, which is a topic for another discussion.




I would say that the three names used by GM Hwang signified three different phases of the evolution of his personal style. The first phase, the Hwa Soo Do phase, was mainly what he learned in Manchuria. The second phase, the Tang Soo Do phase, was mainly what he learned through the Chung Do Kwan curriculum. The third phase, the Soo Bahk Do phase, was his evolution and study of those old books that he found, which led to the creation of the Chil Sung forms and so forth. 

Also, GM Hwang wasn't against unification, he was against General Choi.


----------



## puunui (Mar 11, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> My dojo and my upline is definitely more Okinawan in flavor.  So, yeah, TSD can be very hard to classify.




Your "dojo"? Judging from the pictures in your book, I would say that your style is more post WWII Japan Shotokan than Okinawan. But even that isn't so accurate because I don't remember having our hips as square as yours are when blocking while studying Shotokan. But the your stance is wider than what GM LEE Won Kuk taught and even what the Moo Duk Kwan was doing in the late 50's, as shown in the book Tang Soo Do Kyobon by GM HWANG Kee.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 11, 2011)

puunui said:


> Your "dojo"? Judging from the pictures in your book, I would say that your style is more post WWII Japan Shotokan than Okinawan. But even that isn't so accurate because I don't remember having our hips as square as yours are when blocking while studying Shotokan. But the your stance is wider than what GM LEE Won Kuk taught and even what the Moo Duk Kwan was doing in the late 50's, as shown in the book Tang Soo Do Kyobon by GM HWANG Kee.



That is how I was originally taught. Now the stance height shifts depending how I'm thinking about the hyung. I don't have one way of doing it any more. 

That book is part of the largest collection of rare books on karate in the world. They have a copy of it at UH Manoa in the Hawaii Karate library. This treasure grove of books is why I'm studying Japanese and is the biggest reason why I need to pull back for a 2nd edition or maybe just start over.  After spending a few days up there, it became obvious how much I still have to learn. Aloha.


----------



## Manny (Mar 11, 2011)

puunui said:


> Also, GM Hwang wasn't against unification, he was against General Choi.


 
Can you be more especific? Why GM Hwang was against Gen Choi? please forgive my lack of knowledge abou this.

Manny


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Mar 12, 2011)

puunui said:


> I would say that the three names used by GM Hwang signified three different phases of the evolution of his personal style. The first phase, the Hwa Soo Do phase, was mainly what he learned in Manchuria. The second phase, the Tang Soo Do phase, was mainly what he learned through the Chung Do Kwan curriculum. The third phase, the Soo Bahk Do phase, was his evolution and study of those old books that he found, which led to the creation of the Chil Sung forms and so forth.
> 
> Also, GM Hwang wasn't against unification, he was against General Choi.



Yes, for the sake of a blanket statement, HWANG did not join the unification because he was against CHOI (who headed up the unification).


----------



## puunui (Mar 16, 2011)

Manny said:


> Can you be more especific? Why GM Hwang was against Gen Choi? please forgive my lack of knowledge abou this. Manny



We talked about this during the debates with karatemomusa. Here is a quote from the modern history book about it:

*****

On March 18, 1965, there was a Unification Declaration Ceremony held at the Korea Amateur Sports
Association auditorium. Moo Duk Kwan's HWANG Kee was there and agreed to the Declaration at the time.
However, the very next day, HWANG Kee stated that the Unification Declaration was invalid.
Moo Duk Kwan's HONG Chong Soo, who advised HWANG Kee for 36 hours straight on this issue, stated: "The
day after the Unification Declaration Ceremony was held, HWANG Kee told me that the Declaration was invalid.
I could not understand HWANG Kee and told him 'Why do you say that? You are one of the most famous
martial artists in the country and you should not say that the Unification Declaration is invalid.' I advised him a
lot to try and get him to change his position. Finally, he asked me to call CHOI Hong Hi for him. When I gave
HWANG Kee the telephone, he told CHOI Hong Hi that the Declaration was invalid and he hung up the
telephone before CHOI Hong Hi could respond."
The relationship between HWANG Kee and CHOI Hong Hi was bad.
HWANG Kee objected to CHOI Hong Hi being the president of the Korea Taesoodo Association because he said
the art and organization would not develop with CHOI Hong Hi in charge.


----------



## Manny (Mar 17, 2011)

puunui said:


> We talked about this during the debates with karatemomusa. Here is a quote from the modern history book about it:
> 
> *****
> 
> ...




So it wasn't the Gen.Choi fault, but what in hell made Hwang Kee said the unification declaration was invalid? just because he wanted that way and nothing else?.

Manny


----------



## puunui (Mar 17, 2011)

Manny said:


> So it wasn't the Gen.Choi fault, but what in hell made Hwang Kee said the unification declaration was invalid? just because he wanted that way and nothing else?.
> 
> Manny




I think it was General Choi's fault. He had personal issues with a lot of the pioneers.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 19, 2011)

puunui said:


> I think it was General Choi's fault. He had personal issues with a lot of the pioneers.



Do you have any idea about the nature of the personal issues?  I've heard rumors that it was a political disagreement, but I have no way of knowing if that is true.


----------



## puunui (Mar 23, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> That is how I was originally taught. Now the stance height shifts depending how I'm thinking about the hyung. I don't have one way of doing it any more.




So you don't teach your forms the same way to your students?


----------



## puunui (Mar 23, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> Do you have any idea about the nature of the personal issues?  I've heard rumors that it was a political disagreement, but I have no way of knowing if that is true.




It says it in the Modern History book. Most of the pioneers disliked General Choi because he lied about his martial arts background and was autocratic in his approach. He was a general in the army, and lacked the give and take compromise attitude or approach needed in a political environment. GM Hwang was for the most part a very progressive thinker, who ran the Moo Duk Kwan differently than the others. The Moo Duk Kwan was set up like a corporation, with a Board of Directors which voted on things. It was very democratic. Some say that GM Hwang made it this way because his senior students were only a few months junior to him in terms of Karate or Tang Soo Do experience. This was different than the Kwan Jang of the other original five Kwans, who learned in Japan and/or Manchuria and were dan holders when they came back to Korea to open their schools. The Moo Duk Kwan Board of Directors concept backfired on GM Hwang when the Moo Duk Kwan board voted to go forward with the Taekwondo unification movement, with or without GM Hwang. At that point, GM Hwang attempted to turn the Moo Duk Kwan into a personal possession and reclaim it as his own, but by then it was too late, because the majority of Moo Duk Kwan members had already moved on. GM Hwang explains it somewhat in the History of the Moo Duk Kwan book, but indirectly. The Taekwondo Moo Duk Kwan movement was spearheaded by GM HONG Chong Soo (Moo Duk Kwan #10), who I believe was closer to GM KIM Ki Whang as far as teacher / student than to GM Hwang. GM Hong used to invite GM Kim to his dojang and I believe GM Kim actually used to teach at GM Hong, at least for a little while. That is how GM Kim got into the Moo Duk Kwan. I don't know if GM Hwang practiced with GM Kim as well but it wouldn't surprise me if he did. You have to learn from someone, and from what I have heard about GM Hwang, he was very knowledgeable and a skilled martial artist. Everyone needs a teacher, including GM HWANG Kee.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 23, 2011)

puunui said:


> So you don't teach your forms the same way to your students?



No, not exactly the same.  It's recognizable as the same form, but if the application is different or it is tailored to the particular student, I want them to practice that.  Eventually, I believe, that all our hyung should be personalized.


----------



## puunui (Mar 24, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> No, not exactly the same.  It's recognizable as the same form, but if the application is different or it is tailored to the particular student, I want them to practice that.  Eventually, I believe, that all our hyung should be personalized.




But how do you know what application a particular student needs? Wouldn't it be better to teach a standardized method and then go off on variations, rather than varying everything from the beginning?


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 24, 2011)

puunui said:


> But how do you know what application a particular student needs? Wouldn't it be better to teach a standardized method and then go off on variations, rather than varying everything from the beginning?



As I've come learn, the original hyung that I learned were not standardized in any way.  Every TSD dojang I've come across pretty much practices a form that is recognizable, but is not exactly the same as ours.  Sometimes, there are HUGE differences, as in entire sections are lopped off.  The concept of standardization is very loose.  

That said, I start with what my teacher taught, which is naturally modified by the way I move.  Our body types are quite different.  Then, I attempt to tailor variation of applications to various students with their input.  Eventually, they make the hyung their own.  That is the ultimate goal.


----------



## puunui (Mar 24, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> As I've come learn, the original hyung that I learned were not standardized in any way.  Every TSD dojang I've come across pretty much practices a form that is recognizable, but is not exactly the same as ours.  Sometimes, there are HUGE differences, as in entire sections are lopped off.  The concept of standardization is very loose.




That is disappointing to hear. I would think that there would be standardization amongst Tang Soo Do practitioners, at least with respect to the forms.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 24, 2011)

puunui said:


> That is disappointing to hear. I would think that there would be standardization amongst Tang Soo Do practitioners, at least with respect to the forms.



On one hand, it explains why the USSBDMDK was so big on standardization.  They wanted everyone in the country to be able to show the exact same art.  When we were in the Federation, this didn't even seem possible because people were doing things differently on the Coasts then we were doing in the Midwest.

On the other hand, the variation gives us more to talk about.  As long as we understand what is going on and aren't just making aesthetic changes, this could be a positive method of evolution for the art.  I think of all the variation in singular kata of the same name that exist and I think a good case could be made that the art of karate in general grew like this before things were systematized.

Sometimes, I feel, that we engage in too much historical preservation and not enough growth in this art.  I think the lack of standardization may open up more doors for creativity!


----------



## puunui (Mar 24, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> On the other hand, the variation gives us more to talk about.  As long as we understand what is going on and aren't just making aesthetic changes, this could be a positive method of evolution for the art.  I think of all the variation in singular kata of the same name that exist and I think a good case could be made that the art of karate in general grew like this before things were systematized.
> 
> Sometimes, I feel, that we engage in too much historical preservation and not enough growth in this art.  I think the lack of standardization may open up more doors for creativity!




This goes to one of the fundamental issues surrounding the martial arts, does the art shape you or do you shape the art? Different arts have different approaches. Personally, I think that it is better to shoot for a recognized standard. If you belong to a recognized style or organization, then the organization will put forth the standard. After a long period of time, decades, you get close to that standard. I don't think you ever reach that standard, which for me would be a state of perfection, but the standard is there nonetheless. But in shooting for that standard, your own personality and spirit if you will comes through. So in that sense, your personal style within the style will come through, but through the biomechanics of the particular style. 

Then you have the other end of the spectrum, the Jeet Kune Do approach for want of a better term, where individuality becomes the accepted policy, wherein there is either no standard or very loose standards. However, what I find with this type of situation or practice is that the basics often get lost and those who are too young or still in the beginning stages of development feel they can and should take creative license with what they learned or perhaps more accurately, with what they once were shown. Then you end up with the situation that you have observed in Tang Soo Do, wherein whole sections of forms are lopped off and perhaps even substituted with some movements from another totally different philosophically incompatible style.


----------

