# Taekkyon



## terryl965 (May 8, 2008)

This is taken from the Kukkiwon Text Book:

I thopught this might be an interesting subject and we could expand on it.As the art of taekkyon was popularized in Koguro, it was also handed down to Silla which is justified by the following points of views;

1) Hwarang (or sonrang) in Silla has the same meaning with the word 
"sonbae" in Koguryo by indicating both the youth Warrior's corp from their etymological origins.

2) Bothhwarang and sonbae had the same organizations and hierarchical structure with each other.

3) According to historical records, as sonbaes in Koguryo used to compete in taekkyon games at the time of their national festivals, hwarang in Silla also played taekkyon games (subak, dokkyoni or taekkoni) at such festivals as "palkwanhoe" and "hankawi" , thussystematically developing the ancient fighting techniques into the taekkyon (or sonbae) as the basis of martial arts by around A.D. 200. From the 4th century the hwarangs took the takkyon lesson as a systemized martial art at their learning house to make it also popularized among ordinary people, so much so that their techniques where depicted on the mural paintings of ancient warrior tombs.
 Again, it is also true that taekkyon, coming down to Silla, was further developed into a school of martial art with the division of techniques, I.E. bare-handed techniques and foot techniques, which can be proved by the fact that both hand and foot techniques are clearly shown in teh ancient sculptures and buddhistic statues.

What is everyone thought on this?


----------



## tellner (May 8, 2008)

My thought is that this has been dealt with in excruciating detail in other threads. Exile has done yeoman service in debunking the myths. Every time he does you or someone else reposts them uncritically in another thread.


----------



## YoungMan (May 8, 2008)

What do I think? I think Korea has spent the last 40 years or so bringing Taekwondo back in line with how martial arts used to be in Korea. Similar to a man stricken with amnesia slowly rediscovering who he really is.
Taekwondo today is very much the descendent of Taekkyon, if the techniques I have seen are any indication.
And the fact that this issue won't die, despite exile's best efforts to kill it, are an indication that many of us are not satisfied with his answers and "proof". We are not delusional or revisionist, we see things that just don't jibe with his version of history.


----------



## arnisador (May 8, 2008)

I don't think it's just _his _version...it's the accepted version by academics who have studied it.


----------



## tellner (May 8, 2008)

YM, Exile has provided the best research anyone has. He's got documentation out the wazoo. He's got historical documents, tons of refereed academic papers, and top notch scholarship. It even includes the considered statements of the Taekyon community then and now. All you have is derisive quotation marks and blind faith that whatever the Korean government tells you must be the Truth.

"I want it to be true because it makes me feel good about myself" is no substitute for evidence. His position is backed by the evidence. You and the rest of your crew have offered nothing but wishful thinking.


----------



## terryl965 (May 9, 2008)

So you believe all of this to be made up, I guess that is that then. We all know somebody inerpitation has more value than anything else. This is why I post things like this, people will and can take a statement and make it fit into anything and believe it. I know one old Korean here in the DFW area that can speak from what his GM told him amd his linage but why beleive soem Korean guy that grew up there because you know all these anericans and eroupe people are absolutely right. I am not trying to start WW3 here just looking into the other side of things.


----------



## JWLuiza (May 9, 2008)

I really don't have a bone to pick with either side here, but from MY EXPERIENCE (not generalizable to anyone else's) older Koreans were either lied to or lied about martial arts in Korea in the post-war era.

Let's move on to other discussions because we're beating a dead horse and no one is changing their mind.


----------



## tkd1964 (May 9, 2008)

The problem that history has right now is that Half of Korea is shut off. Only half is available to historians now. The best place to look at the history are the Temples which have volumes of historical writings. As for North Korea, I don't know how many temples are left and for that matter, how much information is left. The people are left clueless there and the leader is looked to as a God. I would suspect that the ancient history would have been destroyed. Juche is the only religion. 

Mike


----------



## YoungMan (May 9, 2008)

That's a good point. Unfortunately, many of the resources we might otherwise use to prove or disprove history are off limits to us because they are now in North Korea. Alays been my dream to visit the Kumgang Mountains; but because they are in the North that's unlikely.


----------



## jim777 (May 9, 2008)

JWLuiza said:


> Let's move on to other discussions because we're beating a dead horse and no one is changing their mind.


 
Amen to that!  We should sponsor a 'history discussion-free' summer  :lol:


----------



## exile (May 9, 2008)

Sigh... I'm not sure why I'm doing this, because it's not going to change anything, apparently. One of the working diagnostics of insanity is the belief that if you do the same thing you've done repeatedly before, you'll get a different result _this_ time. Since I'm not insane, that must mean I _don't_ really expect a different outcome in this discussion... which I do think is true.

Nonetheless, some kind of response seems called for, because silence is often taken to give consent, and what the KKW has in its textbook is not history but a 'folk history' story calibrated to the ambitions of the ROK and expoiting the nationalist resonances of the work _taekkyon_. The point is developed in detail in Eric Madis' excellent study of the emergence of this constructed history in his article 'The evolution of Taekwondo from Japanese Karate' (for sources of all the citations below, please see this post). Given the degree of personal resentment expressed by people in these discussions who somehow dislike the fact that a large number of trained historians have examined this constructed history and found it historically baseless&#8212;and who then somehow connect those historians' documented, well-supported conclusion with the fact that I've only been training in TKD for five years or so&#8212;I feel as though I have to say something explicitly that should be obvious: _I'm just the messanger._ None of the research I report here is my original research. Whether or not you like my take on how TKD should be seen, or dislike my indifference to the Korean nationalist, political and economic agendas where these lead to pressure to dilute the combat content of the art, or anything else about me personally, _it's not me you're aguing with, it's a whole slew of historians and investigators, some of them very senior Kwan era Korean Gms including Kim Pyung-soo and S. Henry Cho, as well as the current leadership of the new Taekkyon movement._ Many of these people lived for extended periods in Korea and interviewed the 20th century taekkyon pioneers themselves. Many of them are not just literate in the relevant languages&#8212;Chinese, Korean and Japanese&#8212;but are trained in the examination of ancient documents and in the problems of translation, which are in many cases enormous. And many of them are very advanced practitioners of the KMAs as well. 

I've assembled a good chunk of the documentation in the post I linked to above; it's there for anyone to read _and refute, if you can do it._ Robert Young and Stan Henning, for example, have assembled considerable evidence, now actually pretty much taken for granted amongst art historians and archæologists , that the physical data that the KKW textbook cites has nothing to do either with MAs or with Korea in particular; that the figures referred to are prototypical _guardian_ figures of a sort found throughout China, Tibet, and even India. Moreover, as Lee Yong-bok&#8212;Son Duk Ki's senior student, and founder of the Taekkyon Research Association; in other words, not some late-coming American dude with nothing better to do than muddy the waters, eh?&#8212; has written in his own 1990 book,  `the guardians originally held a spear in their hands, but when the images were transplanted [from China and India], artists did not replicate the weapons. The resulting clenched hands resemble closed fists, thus appearing as empty-hand martial arts poses.' [p.47] The Sanskrit names of these guardian deities figures are _Vajradhara_, and their iconography precedes the appearance of the Korean sculptures by millenia. And that's just a small sample of what turns up when careful, _non-agenda-driven_ research based on a wide and deep knowledge of Asian material and literary culture is applied to these physical materials. Young's and Henning's work puts these supposed pieces of evidence of ancient KMAs under the microscope and leaves pretty much nothing left at the end. Nonetheless, the KKW goes on making the same claims, over and over again, repeatedly ignoring the fact that these supposed sculptural depictions of KMAs represent merely a late eastern manifestation of a pan-Asian guardian figure type which appears long before, and far away from, the earliest kingdoms of the Korean peninsula.

Now anyone can go to the library and get the same material I have. And you can form your own conclusions based on the logic of the case. I've repeatedly identified these materials, who's said what, what their evidence is, and so on. *YoungMan*, so far as I can tell, has read none of this stuff and pretty clearly has no intention of doing so; and for some reason _still_ persists in confusing the late 20th/early 21st century material he's seen with the technical content that Song Duk-ki three quarters of a century ago taught to a small handful of students (including Gm. Kim Pyung-soo, who is one of the biggest debunkers of ancient KMAs or TKD linked to taekyon), in spite of the fact that the World Taekkyon Headquarters description of Taekkyon explicitly identifies the high complex techniques *YM* keeps alluding to as _tournament practice_, NOT the traditional TKD contest methods that Stuart Culin describes in detail in his 1895 ethnography of Korean games and folk sports. And which have little or nothing to do with the Taekkyon that is now a modest tournament sport in Korea, practiced by people who not only never learned from, but possibly never even _heard_ of Song Duk-ki, as per Rob McLain's post here. But surely the rest of you, and other readers, should see the value of familiarizing yourselves with the hard-won results of all this research before deciding to buy the KKW fable hook, line and sinker? I mean, if you were going to get into a debate about the causes of WWI, or the fall of the Roman Empire, or the emergence of democracy in ancient Greece, you would familiarize yourself with the best, most carefully vetted and scrutinized research that had been produced up to that time, no? Even if time yielded further evidence on any of these historical phenomena, would you actually neglect any of what had been done to this point on the grounds that, well, new evidence might change the story, so...? I have a hard time believing that. So why is this particular bit of history any different? Yet repeatedly in these discussions of taekkyon, KMA history and so on, I see the same thing: don't bother us with this stuff, and besides, if you'd been doing TKD for as long as we have, you'd know better. 

The point is&#8212;again&#8212;this isn't a matter of MA training or practice or knowledge of technique. It's matter of history, made difficult by gaps in documentation, by the effects of the Occupation and the War, and by the aggressive sponsorship of a particular version of events on the part of the current government of Korea, going back to the first post-Occupation regime. (Remember that, as Gen. Choi reported, it was Syngman Rhee himself&#8212;the military dictator, who so far as anyone knows had no knowledge of any Korean MA whatever&#8212;who insisted that the famous demo in which Nam Tae-hi, among other things, broke a stack of 13 roofing tiles, was a speciman of _taekyon_, and insisted it be publicized as such in spite of the fact that Gen. Choi himself and the other participants had identified it as _tang soo do_, one of the common names for the Kwan era art that the founders taught). 

So my response to the issues raised by the KKW stuff cited in Terry's OP is, if you want to see what people who have devoted years of careful research to the subject have discovered, _read what they have to say._ If you disagree, or have counterevidence, _present_ it. And try to understand that the content of their arguments, evidence and results _has nothing to do with me personally._ I'm just someone who happened to read what they had to say, assessed it based on my general understanding of how premise, data and conclusion should be related in rational reasoning, and found it far, far better in quality than the boilerplate propaganda that the WTF and KKW and their local branch plants have been putting out&#8212;and therefore thought it worthwhile to bring to the attention of people who may be interested in these questions. You don't like that conclusion? Fine: argue against it if you can, but please, _leave me out of it_, OK?


----------



## arnisador (May 9, 2008)

JWLuiza said:


> but from MY EXPERIENCE (not generalizable to anyone else's) older Koreans were either lied to or lied about martial arts in Korea in the post-war era.



Yes, I think this is it--and a fervently held belief is all too easily mistaken for a correct belief.

People have lots of opinions on lots of things. We usually settle the matter publicly by accepting scholarly research by disinterested academics; of course, one can still believe what one wants to believe privately. But if you use prayer to treat your child's appendicitis you'll be on the wrong end of faith in a point of view vs. the acceptance of scientifically settled methods.

My mother sincerely believes that negative numbers hadn't been invented yet when she was in school in the 1950s. She's not trying to be facetitious. I've read technical appers from the 1700s that used them and scholarly works placing them back to at least circa 1300. Who knows who's right? I know that when I teach them in class I quote the historians, not my mother.



YoungMan said:


> That's a good point. Unfortunately, many of the resources we might otherwise use to prove or disprove history are off limits to us because they are now in North Korea.



I have wondered about this before. The big picture is very well understood, but is there reason to suspect that there are interesting pieces of the puzzle hidden in (or destroyed by) North Korea that would significantly enlighten us?


----------



## Dave Leverich (May 9, 2008)

Excellent post Exile.


----------



## terryl965 (May 9, 2008)

Look nobody here is trying to start a war of word, because I can not win. I am not smart enough to put down on paper what I need to say in person. So with this in mind I only have one question to all thee if everything is fabricated then why does so many of you and your Master and GM follow the Kukkiwon or the WTF? This puzzle me alot, the art is a fantastic art if tought right, but if you cannot believe one second of anything than why do it?

On a different note and perhaps a better question over the last 4 years here I have been told that I could not be MDK TKD because it never really exsisted, now four years later I am being told I am right.

All I know is this history is made up by people all the time to make it more than what it was but sometimes just sometimes maybe a tidbit here and a tidbit there can help open one mind to what the history was.

I am a Kukkiwon school does that mean I believe everything they say sure I do just like I believe everyhting our government says:rofl:. I follow the guidelines of the KKW because my GM did but I do my training based on what I have learned over the 45 years I have been involved in the Martial Arts. I believe we all walk down the same road and wants what is best for each of us, but the facts are this we train and train and tain our minds as much as our body, it will keep what is needed and discard the rest.

I hope one day before I die all the facts will come out about TKD and TSD and all the Korean arts so I could die in peace. LIKE THAT WILL EVER HAPPEN.


----------



## tellner (May 9, 2008)

*I. You Can Talk to a Grandmaster in DFW*

Terry, first of all you have to kick that "Master" and "Grandmaster" habit of thought.

Seriously.

A Black Belt is a guy who knows how to punch and kick people in certain prescribed ways. That's it. Period. That is the entire meaning of the scrap of cloth and expensive piece of fake parchment. And all it really does is say that a bunch of other guys with fancier pieces of fake parchment think that he can.

It doesn't make him a priest, a doctor, a lawyer, an artist or a historian. It doesn't make him less fallible than you or me. In fact, it makes him more fallible and less trustworthy the higher he climbs the pole. The more of his life he invests in the organization and the more titles he accepts the more of his self image gets tied up with the style and its rituals, legends and framing stories. 

The organization has its own agenda. Like most organizations a big part of it is promoting itself and convincing everyone that it is the coolest thing in the world, different than everything else and the most worthwhile thing a person could be involved in. It gets you to follow along, play its games and convince you that you could be ever so much cooler if you were part of it.

I'm not dumping on Tae Kwon Do here. This is how groups work and how they pat themselves on the back and make members feel special and reward dedication to the organization's goals. A Master or Grandmaster is simply someone who has risen high enough in the organization to bask in a larger share of reflected glory. Odds are he believes more of the framing stories and has internalized more of the groups goals than an outsider or regular members who have gotten past the starry eyed stage.

Do you want a chance at figuring out the truth? Not capital "T" Truth, just the little everyday who did what to whom for how many cookies sort of truth? You have to reject the argument from authority. That's the non-negotiable first step. 

*II. Did We Just Make It All Up?*
For the love of Mike, guys, you aren't them. They aren't you. I'm sure they are wonderful guys, great coaches, top flight teachers and men who could kick my monkey *** without raising their heart rate. It just doesn't signify. 

The guys you are personally loyal to didn't make up the stories. A bunch of guys who are mostly dead did that decades ago and thousands of miles away. I'm not attacking you for what they did. I am saying that their stories are not true. They made them up for the same reasons that people make up stories. They want to get people to think in a certain way, believe things, be loyal to some ideal or person, believe that Korean Martial Arts are the biggest, baddest, best and ballsiest in the the world and that it's an honor and privilege to be part of them. 

So they wrote out the Japanese origins of Yudo and Gumdo and Tae Kwon Do.

They made up stories about the mythical Hwarang. 

They took an old kicking and balance sport called Taekyon and said that since it's Korean and involves kicking it must be thousands of years old and be the basis for the purely Korean martial art that had just been invented. Even the Taekyon players don't believe that. 

By your own admissions the story about TKD's origins has changed a number of times. But instead of saying "It's changed. It's a story. Stories change. Let's move on now and not pay the stories any extra mind," you say "The Grandmasters and the Masters who Unified the Kwans were doing something mysterious. It's a Mystery What Mere  Disciples Wot Not Wot Of." 

You've been given plenty of evidence that the stories are stories. Not true. Made up. Not based on facts. Let it go. 

*III. It's Not True. It Can't Be True. You Can't Prove It*
YM, you keep putting proof in quotation marks. "I don't accept his 'proof'". So let me do what any thinking person would do and throw it back at you.

What are your standards? What would you accept as proof? Why do you believe what you believe? What do you know and how do you know it? Why should anyone accept what you believe?

You've got a story you want people to believe. That means that the burden of proof is on you. If you're an honest man you will hold yourself to a _higher_ standard.

So far all you've done is say "My Grandmaster told me this" and "The Korean government says so". We've already established that your teacher is a great guy with a fantastic amount of skill at his martial art. It doesn't have anything to do with the matter at hand., And we know that the Korean government has told lots of stories to pump up feelings of nationalism. That's what governments do to make their citizens feel special and make the rest of the world take them seriously. 

We're talking about evidence here. So far the evidence disproves the stories. It's been compiled by guys who have spent years studying history, Korean culture, martial arts and the appropriate languages. They've got evidence from many sources including primary documents, interviews, well-established history compiled by people who don't have a horse in the race and more. 

So far you, Terry, TKD64 and the rest have marshaled nothing of the sort in defense of your position much less any sort of scholarly critique of the evidence that they have complied. It's all been "My Grandmaster and the Korean government tell me it's true, so it must be true." 

The closest you'll get is "There might be evidence somewhere in North Korea that we can't get at that would prove my point." 

I'm sorry, that doesn't wash. You have to go with the evidence that you have. When we get at those North Korean records they will probably say that Kim Il Sung invented Tae Kwon Do. They might say something else. Until then we have to go with what we have. What we have does not support your views.


----------



## terryl965 (May 9, 2008)

First off Tellner the GM is not mine so that is a wrong statement as far as his name it is GM Won Chik Park and GM Roy Kurban who by the way is an American who train with Park in Korea so they have been there and done that. I never ever say My Gm said this or that, exile knows this and so does the other, like I said in an earlier post all I am doing is putting out things that other people have wrote about and other orgs. No where did I say I believed anything so you are wrong again. What I said was I guess everybody is wrong but a few people draw your own coclusion here.

What does this subject when other sides are presented make so many people angry. I want a real Ameriacan TKD society that will keep up the original training of old style TKD or what I have learned from being over there training and here with a few people.

I hope this can keep going with intelligent converstation about what other folks say about history of the korean arts not that they are right or wrong but to bring more to the table so we can grow into a art of passion and SD principles.

Thankyou as always for your input into these matters.:asian:


----------



## exile (May 9, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> What does this subject when other sides are presented make so many people angry.



I agree, Terry, and as per my previous post, find this sort of thing very baffling. There's a question about history there that we're all interested in getting a solid, dependable answer to. There shouldn't be any basis for personal resentment, or anger, or a lot of the negative emotions that seem to surface over what should be a strictly academic issue. My best guess is that people in TKD are insecure about their art at some level and feel the need to connect it to something ancient, which plays into the ROK's interest in clothing its (economically and politically) extremely profitable Olympic cash cow in venerable robes... part of saleable mystique, I'd call it. But why TKDists are insecure about their art in a way that I don't see so much among , say, Shorin-ryu or Northern Mantis or Eskrima practitioners... that's a good question, and it's connected, I think, to something to do with the disrespect that TKD has gotten in terms of its combat utility. And we know where that disrespect came from&#8212;the lot of us have certainly talked enough about it! I think that that's what *Tellner's* point about people getting 'invested' in what should be a purely historical question reflects.

Which brings us to the next point, one that is totally connected the previous one, IMO:



terryl965 said:


> I want a real Ameriacan TKD society that will keep up the original training of old style TKD or what I have learned from being over there training and here with a few people.



I again agree completely, and I'll say this: if we had such an organization and it worked the way both you and I would want it to work, I'd bet high that a decade or so down the line, very few people would be worrying about the historical antecedents or sources of TKD. Because we'd have a working SD system that we were confident in, and sure of, and that had a distinct identity from a Korean martial sport trying to keep its combat legitimacy even as its scoring system became further and further removed from the street. It would make an incredible difference in the nature of the conversations we have about TKD, I'm pretty sure of that!


----------



## rmclain (May 9, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> So with this in mind I only have one question to all thee if everything is fabricated then why does so many of you and your Master and GM follow the Kukkiwon or the WTF?


 
The Grandmaster I study under didn't follow WTF or Kukkiwon.  In fact, he left Korea for the US in 1968 to escape the pressure to join with the modern TKD movement.  Lots of people called him a "traitor" or "you're not a Korean" for not following the modern TKD movement.  Many of the WTF and Kukkiwon people still don't like him.

As for Grandmaster Park Won-chik: He showed me alot of respect (I think because of my teacher-he's senior to Grandmaster Park), so I don't want to say anything negative about him.  He was originally a Ji Do Kwan student, but doesn't teach anything from the old Jido-Kwan curriculum (I have his student manual at my dojang for reference) - just Olympic TKD requirements, etc.  He probably doesn't know much about the history of the Jido-Kwan as well as the old instructors didn't really discuss this much, besides the name of Chang-sang Sup or Yoon Kwe-byung (Yoon Ui-byung).  I know Grandmaster Park is part of an honorary Jido-Kwan organization - the key being "honorary."

Grandmaster Kurban studied with Grandmaster Park in Korea for about 1 year in the 1960's while on military duty.  He probably trained again with Grandmaster Park when Grandmaster Park came to the US in the 1970's.  But, I believe Grandmaster Kurban was already a champion on the tournament circuit by that time.  Grandmaster Kurban is a truly nice guy if anyone gets to meet with him.

But, back to topic...

R. McLain


----------



## terryl965 (May 9, 2008)

rmclain said:


> The Grandmaster I study under didn't follow WTF or Kukkiwon. In fact, he left Korea for the US in 1968 to escape the pressure to join with the modern TKD movement. Lots of people called him a "traitor" or "you're not a Korean" for not following the modern TKD movement. Many of the WTF and Kukkiwon people still don't like him.
> 
> As for Grandmaster Park Won-chik: He showed me alot of respect (I think because of my teacher-he's senior to Grandmaster Park), so I don't want to say anything negative about him. He was originally a Ji Do Kwan student, but doesn't teach anything from the old Jido-Kwan curriculum (I have his student manual at my dojang for reference) - just Olympic TKD requirements, etc. He probably doesn't know much about the history of the Jido-Kwan as well as the old instructors didn't really discuss this much, besides the name of Chang-sang Sup or Yoon Kwe-byung (Yoon Ui-byung). I know Grandmaster Park is part of an honorary Jido-Kwan organization - the key being "honorary."
> 
> ...


 
Speaking of GrandMaster Kurban he is the one that sponsor GM Park to cone to the United States and they are long time friends. Thanks for the info. as always.


----------



## SageGhost83 (May 9, 2008)

exile said:


> I agree, Terry, and as per my previous post, find this sort of thing very baffling. There's a question about history there that we're all interested in getting a solid, dependable answer to. There shouldn't be any basis for personal resentment, or anger, or a lot of the negative emotions that seem to surface over what should be a strictly academic issue. My best guess is that people in TKD are insecure about their art at some level and feel the need to connect it to something ancient, which plays into the ROK's interest in clothing its (economically and politically) extremely profitable Olympic cash cow in venerable robes... part of saleable mystique, I'd call it. But why TKDists are insecure about their art in a way that I don't see so much among , say, Shorin-ryu or Northern Mantis or Eskrima practitioners... that's a good question, and it's connected, I think, to something to do with the disrespect that TKD has gotten in terms of its combat utility. And we know where that disrespect came fromthe lot of us have certainly talked enough about it! I think that that's what *Tellner's* point about people getting 'invested' in what should be a purely historical question reflects.


 
I also think that a lot of the anger and insecurity comes from the same reason why TKD is always, ALWAYS, identified as "The Korean martial art" - nationalism, ethnocentrism, and dare I say it - racism. What other style goes so far out of its way to identify its nationality or ethnicity? Or what other style makes such a concentrated effort to deny its actual roots because they happen to be connected to another group of people? It seems that the actual art of Taekwondo gets lost in all of this and the focus shifts to nationalism and ethnocentrism. What is wrong with just admitting the art's actual roots and practicing it for the love the art? Why get so heavily invested in another nation's struggle that you are not a part of, and why aid in nationalist and ethnocentrist agendas? I for one am secure in my TKD and don't need to deny the facts or try to change what I practice just because it was influenced by the "wrong" nation and/or ethnicity.


----------



## exile (May 9, 2008)

SageGhost83 said:


> I also think that a lot of the anger and insecurity comes from the same reason why TKD is always, ALWAYS, identified as "The Korean martial art" - nationalism, ethnocentrism, and dare I say it - racism. What other style goes so far out of its way to identify its nationality or ethnicity? Or what other style makes such a concentrated effort to deny its actual roots because they happen to be connected to another group of people? It seems that the actual art of Taekwondo gets lost in all of this and the focus shifts to nationalism and ethnocentrism. What is wrong with just admitting the art's actual roots and practicing it for the love the art? *Why get so heavily invested in another nation's struggle that you are not a part of, and why aid in nationalist and ethnocentrist agendas?* I for one am secure in my TKD and don't need to deny the facts or try to change what I practice just because it was influenced by the "wrong" nation and/or ethnicity.



Beautifully put, SG, especially the part I've bolded. This is the part I find so perplexing. The thing Terry has alluded to several times in a number of threads is the we need to make TKD our own. Whatever role it has in Korea shouldn't, and _can't_, be the same role it has for us... we're not part of Korean culture or history, and what is meaningful and urgent to the people there is a kind of distant footnote, if that, in our own immediate experience. _And vice versa_.

I'm not saying that we don't connect with people in Korea at some fundamental level of humanity, where they were subject to horrible abuses by a military regime that carried out some of the most horrible war crimes in history. But that isn't the same thing, not by a long shot, as taking over the role of apologists for the ROK sporteaucrats and pocket-liners that are playing this kind of nationalist anthem for all it's worth (to _them_, which is a $$lot$$, apparently)...


----------



## tkd1964 (May 9, 2008)

tellner said:


> *I. You Can Talk to a Grandmaster in DFW*
> 
> 
> A Black Belt is a guy who knows how to punch and kick people in certain prescribed ways. That's it. Period. That is the entire meaning of the scrap of cloth and expensive piece of fake parchment. And all it really does is say that a bunch of other guys with fancier pieces of fake parchment think that he can.
> ...


 
Then why is it when exile constantly brings up GM Kim, it's taken as gods word. according to you, I should be less trusting of him. 

And in my post, all I was stating was the fact that the ancient history of Korea can not be completely compiled since the country is split in two. My brother has been to NK and you will not be able to explore it's history other than the Juche propaganda. Is there more history on the ancient Korean arts that people have yet to find. No one will know until the North is an open country.


----------



## exile (May 9, 2008)

tkd1964 said:


> Then why is it when exile constantly brings up GM Kim, it's taken as gods word. *according to you, I should be less trusting of him. *



Not at all, tkd. What tellner was saying is that people who are advanced within a particular structure tend to reinforce the 'charter legends' of that structure. Reread what he's saying and you'll see that that's the core of his point. And the thing about Gm. Kim is that he gave up the role of organization man in order to carry out and disseminate his own researches on the history of TKD, against the wishes of the Korean TKD directorate. Read what Rob Mclain has said in his own post in this thread&#8212;Gm. Kim is the instructor he's talking about. That's exactly the reason that Gm. Kim's view has much greater credibilty than that of the KKW insiders&#8212;he doesn't _have_ a stake in their creation myth, because he's not invested in the Korean TKD sporteaucracy. It's no different than the the point of the rhetorical question, who is more trustworthy on the hazards of secondhand smoke&#8212;a researcher whose lab funds and experimental resources were supplied by the Tobacco Institute, or a researcher operating on an NIH oncology grant? A study on the environmental impact of the internal combustion engine paid for by General Motors, or one carried out by an NSF grant recipient with the usual no-strings-attached protocols that the NSF operates by? This is the same kind of situation.

And that, btw, is a far different view of things than saying I take Gm. Kim's comments as 'god's word'. That kind of distortion doesn't help your own cause one bit. I asked in my earlier post that people not take this to be about me personally; I'm going to ask you again to bear in mind that this is not about me.


----------



## SageGhost83 (May 9, 2008)

I think that it would be interesting to find out more about the ancient history of Korea. However, that ancient history would not include TKD - a style that was born in the 50's for crying out loud. I am sorry, no matter how much people push and push and try to force us to believe that TKD is from ancient Korea in the face of overwhelming evidence provided to the contrary of such a line of reasoning, the sillier and more immature they make themselves look. I would be willing to have a more open mind about it if the pro-myth crowd at least could provide more substantial evidence than "the korean government says so" or "Sanbunim said so" or even "I have trained for such a long time and I think so". Don't give me the KKW line either, how are they going to come out with such a line when the Taekkyon organization itself denies the link? It is amazing what some orgs would do just to spread propaganda. Actually, it is quite sad. 2 + 2 does not equal 5 no matter how badly one may wish it to.


----------



## YoungMan (May 10, 2008)

Taekwondo is not 2000 years old, and most people realize that. I am fully aware that it is only about 50-60 years old. However, some of us do believe that it is descended from native Korean arts that go back centuries, with influences from Japanese and Chinese arts.
Think of it like this: I am 39 years old. My family, however, may go back over 100 years on one side, and 70-80 years on another. I am the current incarnation of where my family came from, descended from my great grandfather, but not him.
Taekwondo is not Taekkyon, but I've seen too many similarities between the two not to think they are related.


----------



## tkd1964 (May 10, 2008)

SageGhost83 said:


> I think that it would be interesting to find out more about the ancient history of Korea. However, that ancient history would not include TKD - a style that was born in the 50's for crying out loud. I am sorry, no matter how much people push and push and try to force us to believe that TKD is from ancient Korea in the face of overwhelming evidence provided to the contrary of such a line of reasoning, the sillier and more immature they make themselves look. I would be willing to have a more open mind about it if the pro-myth crowd at least could provide more substantial evidence than "the korean government says so" or "Sanbunim said so" or even "I have trained for such a long time and I think so". Don't give me the KKW line either, how are they going to come out with such a line when the Taekkyon organization itself denies the link? It is amazing what some orgs would do just to spread propaganda. Actually, it is quite sad. 2 + 2 does not equal 5 no matter how badly one may wish it to.


 
I thought we were talking about Taek Kyon:wink2:.


----------



## terryl965 (May 10, 2008)

tkd1964 said:


> I thought we were talking about Taek Kyon:wink2:.


 
Me too


----------



## SageGhost83 (May 10, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> Taekwondo is not 2000 years old, and most people realize that. I am fully aware that it is only about 50-60 years old. However, some of us do believe that it is descended from native Korean arts that go back centuries, with influences from Japanese and Chinese arts.
> Think of it like this: I am 39 years old. My family, however, may go back over 100 years on one side, and 70-80 years on another. I am the current incarnation of where my family came from, descended from my great grandfather, but not him.
> Taekwondo is not Taekkyon, but I've seen too many similarities between the two not to think they are related.


 
Well, superficially yes - they are both kicking arts and there are only so many different ways that you can execute a kick. Using this logic, we can also make the same argument for TKD being related to Savate, Capoeira(sp?), certain Chinese martial arts, or heck, any martial art that contains kicking techniques in it. I understand your line of reasoning, but it is just too much of a broad generalization to link the two solely on those similarities alone when it has been exhaustively demonstrated over and over again that there is no link between the two and the Taekkyon side denies the connection too. Taekwondo uses amazing acrobatic kicks while traditional Taekkyon used mostly low, stomping kicks. If they were related, in the way that you mention, then wouldn't Taekwondo at least feature far more low, stomping kicks? Modern Taekkyon revival doesn't count because it was heavily inspired by Taekwondo and not vice versa, so it goes without saying that there are going to be higher kicks in it. Pardon me for getting off topic, tkd1964. It is just one of those issues that has a way of rearing its ugly little head from time to time. Consider it dropped, at least on my end:asian:.


----------



## SageGhost83 (May 10, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> I've seen too many similarities between the two not to *think* they are related.


 
And therein lies the key - what you think versus actual evidence. Look, to each his own opinion, and I definitely respect yours even if I don't always agree with it. However, that is the thing - it is an issue of fact, not opinion. I think lots of things based on my experiences, but when actual evidence comes up that debunks my opinions, then I must acknowledge said evidence or I would be living dangerously in denial. Nothing against you, and I do value your input even if I come off as sounding otherwise, but it is the nature of the subject that we are dealing with. History requires facts and evidence, not mere opinion.


----------



## YoungMan (May 11, 2008)

Actually, I was taught low kicks many years ago that are very similar to the low kicks Taekkyon does (sweeping kicks to the calves and ankles as opposed to power kicks such as karate does).
I also tend to believe that Taekkyon would be much less open to change (i.e. trading with Taekwondo and learning it's kicks). The kicks I see Taekkyon students doing match the published accounts I've read (Robert Young, Dakin Burdick etc.), which leads me to believe Taekkyon did/does more than simply low kicks. Anyway, how could it pick up those kicks from TKD if TKD didn't do them?
I've also read several accounts of Won Kuk Lee being a Taekkyon student as a teenager. The official accounts say that he left for Japan at age 19 to attend school. They never say what he did BEFORE he left for Japan. I've also read at least one account in TaekwondoTimes (I forget who it was) that stated GGM Lee did teach some Taekkyon as part of his curriculum. Lee stated he learned from a "Mr. Kim". This would have been around 1920 in Seoul.


----------



## exile (May 11, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> Actually, I was taught low kicks many years ago that are very similar to the low kicks Taekkyon does (sweeping kicks to the calves and ankles as opposed to power kicks such as karate does).
> I also tend to believe that *Taekkyon would be much less open to change* (i.e. trading with Taekwondo and learning it's kicks).



Why? As Rob McLain pointed out, current Taekkyon was reconstructed; the one person we _know _of who had any students at the critical time, Song Duk-ki, had only a few, we know who those are, none of them were first generation Kwan era instructors, and most of the people doing Taekkyon are doing a version that came into being between the '80s and the present day.  How could it have _failed_ to change?




YoungMan said:


> The kicks I see Taekkyon students doing match the published accounts I've read (Robert Young, Dakin Burdick etc.),



Yes, such similarities as described in Young, for example?

_Tae kyon fighters move with a rhythm which beginning students sometimes learn while traditional Korean drums and bamboo flutes keep time.... similar movements have been found in the tal chuan, the centuries-old Korean mask dance (Lee Y. B., 1988, interview).... Tae kyon's kicks have proved so effective that the style does not even include among its hand strikes a traditional jab or reverse punch... *however, the kicks themselves bear little resemblance to the typical spinning and jumping maneuvers glorified in tournaments and film. Instead, taekyon leg techniques are simple and direct, focusing upon linear moves but including limited usage of circular and spinning kicks. Lee Yong-bok says, 'Taekyon has traditionally emphasized stepping and stomping techniques directed at the opponent's legs and feet.* (1992, interview).​_
(p. 66) Are we talking about the same Robert Young here?? 

And so far as Burdick is concerned, let's take a look at just what he _does_ say:

_The only uniquely Korean martial arts before the twentieth century were ssirum and t'aeggyon, and neither of these had a great impact on the early development of t'aekwondo. Ssirum was a form of wrestling that became popular as a sport by the thirteenth century. It is still practiced in Korea, but had no obvious effect on the development of t'aekwondo. T'aeggyon appeared in the early 1800s, about the same time that the Chinese martial arts became less popular, and in its modern form is an art emphasizing circular kicking, leg sweeps, and leg trapping followed by a throw. *There does seem to be some link between modern t'aeggyon and t'aekwondo, *since both arts emphasize circular kicking (roundhouse kick, spinning kicks [explicitly denied as part of *traditiona*l taekkyon, as per the statement from LYB cited earlier&#8212;exile]) rather than linear ones (side kick, front kick), but any influence that t'aeggyon may have had upon t'aekwondo's development was not evident in the techniques of the latter until the 1960s. _​
(my emphases). And of course, the whole point is that at that time, the 1960s, there was so little taekyon being practiced that Song Duk-ki couldn't find anyone to help him with his famous taekkyon demo (as he himself writes in his own book on taekkyon, published in 1983)! Burdick is noting what we all agree on: reconstructed taekkyon has some kicks that are very similar to some TKD kicks. But that's not what you're claiming, YM. You're asserting, against the testimony of the actual Taekkyon people themselves, that the kicks came to TKD _via _ taekkyon, in the Kwan era and shortly afterwards. And that's where you have no evidence to present. 



YoungMan said:


> which leads me to believe Taekkyon did/does more than simply low kicks. Anyway, how could it pick up those kicks from TKD if TKD didn't do them?



Um... I think you've lost track of what it is that Taekkyon has picked up from TKD, YM. No one is saying that Taekkyon picked up its low sweeps, leg-checking blocking kicks and stomps from TKD. Reread the previous quote from Young, including what Lee Yong-bok, Song Duk-ki's senior student, one of his very few and Chair of the Taekkyon Research Association, says about real taekkyon, traditional taekyon. I've highlighted them in red, just so there won't be any mistake. The point is that during the course of its reconstruction the '80s, nouveau Taekkyon picked up its complex spinning kicks from TKD, by which time those kicks were well established in competition TKD circles. _The low pushing and stomping maneuvers that were its trademark are the things it always had._




YoungMan said:


> I've also read several accounts of Won Kuk Lee being a Taekkyon student as a teenager. The official accounts say that he left for Japan at age 19 to attend school. They never say what he did BEFORE he left for Japan. I've also read at least one account in TaekwondoTimes (I forget who it was) that stated GGM Lee did teach some Taekkyon as part of his curriculum. Lee stated he learned from a "Mr. Kim". This would have been around 1920 in Seoul.



You can appeal all you like to evidence that you can't produce, YM, but this is all a version of the 'monks practicing in secret in the mountains who left no records', the kind of story which is in principle impossible to test. It's like saying that the pyramids were actually built by invisible aliens who left no traces of themselves and had the mental power to alter people's memories. Go ahead, prove it's not true. Provide some documentation. If you can't, there is absolutely no way to check the validity of the scenario(s) you're suggesting&#8212;and the burden of proof is on _you_, in this case. As it stands, neither third-hand sources that you can't pin down or produce, or your _impressions_ of what reassembled Taekkyon kicks look like, constitute anything like evidence that would hold up in court, or even get you a court date in the first place.


----------



## SageGhost83 (May 11, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> Actually, I was taught low kicks many years ago that are very similar to the low kicks Taekkyon does (sweeping kicks to the calves and ankles as opposed to power kicks such as karate does).
> I also tend to believe that Taekkyon would be much less open to change (i.e. trading with Taekwondo and learning it's kicks). The kicks I see Taekkyon students doing match the published accounts I've read (Robert Young, Dakin Burdick etc.), which leads me to believe Taekkyon did/does more than simply low kicks. Anyway, how could it pick up those kicks from TKD if TKD didn't do them?
> I've also read several accounts of Won Kuk Lee being a Taekkyon student as a teenager. The official accounts say that he left for Japan at age 19 to attend school. They never say what he did BEFORE he left for Japan. I've also read at least one account in TaekwondoTimes (I forget who it was) that stated GGM Lee did teach some Taekkyon as part of his curriculum. Lee stated he learned from a "Mr. Kim". This would have been around 1920 in Seoul.


 
Okay, first things first:
1. Traditional Taekkyon practiced stepping and stomping kicks, so unless your practice included stepping and stomping kicks, then you weren't doing Taekkyon kicks.
2. There are two forms of Taekkyon - traditional and modern revival. That alone should tell you that they are open to change.
3. Modern Taekkyon revival did borrow many techniques from TKD because those fancy flying kicks were not part of traditional Taekkyon. Modern Taekkyon is a "MODERN REVIVAL" and it came to fruition in a Korea that was and still is dominated by TKD. It is funny those kicks appear in the modern version but not in the traditional version, don't you think? Modern Taekkyon revival is not the same art as traditional Taekkyon. So you can't point to the modern version and say "look, there is proof" because it is not the traditional version that was being practiced back in the day. Plus, the Taekkyon guys have denied the link, themselves.
4. Exile has posted the article by Robert Young countless times. Don't try to put words in Robert Young's mouth. 
5. Never, ever, for the love of all that is holy YM, trust the articles in TKDT:boing2:! Okay, to be fair, they have a good one every now and then, but for the most part, the articles are...well, I'd better not say.

Okay, now that that is out of the way:

Unless you have some hard evidence to present to us on the matter, then all of what you are saying is merely supposition. They never say what he did before he left for Japan, that is true, however, just because they never said what he did before he left for Japan doesn't automatically mean that he must have done Taekkyon. As far as we know, he could have simply done *nothing*, after all, the Koreans did look down on the practice of martial arts as something barbaric. However, I can't say that that is a fact just because it *might* have been - facts require hard evidence to back them up and I don't have any hard evidence to back up a supposition that I made on my part. So that line of reasoning doesn't fly, either. Again, we are taking the hard evidence that we already have collected and we are going from there, not from suppositions that are not supported by any kind of evidence whatsoever.


----------



## YoungMan (May 12, 2008)

First of all, I do practice stepping and stomping kicks. I learned those many years ago. I don't mean Olympic sparring technique either, I mean stepping and sliding techniques learned before I ever knew of Olympic style (which I don't practice BTW). The video footage I've seen of Taekkyon clearly shows the sliding and stepping kicks I originally learned. Japanese karate doesn't do those kicks. It also shows the flowing back and forth partner sparring almost exactly like we used to do. 
Now before you start questioning the validity of Youtube clips, many martial art examples are on Youtube as well. You telling me they don't exist either?
Second, I don't read Tae Kwon Do Times. To me, it is a joke of a martial arts magazine. I agree, once in a great while they will have something interesting. Not very often though.
Third, I've never seen Taekkyon students doing the so-called TKD techniques you claim they got from them. That includes jumping side kick and flying side kicks. I have seen them do push kicks, wheel kicks, back roundhouse kicks, jumping back roundhouse, high front kicks and jumping front kicks. Primarily circular techniques as opposed to hard linear techniques. All of these are kicks Tae Kwon Do supposedly didn't do orginally, so how could Taekkyon copy them from Taekwondo? How can you copy from someone what they don't have? Moreover, how would Taekkyon have those kicks if they supposedly didn't have them? The published accounts I've read state that Taekkyon or it's precursors were known for circular and high/jumping kicks. Low kicks perhaps, but the high Taekwondo-like kicks as well.


----------



## YoungMan (May 12, 2008)

Nobosy believed Copernicus, Galileo, or Einstein either.


----------



## exile (May 12, 2008)

> Second, I don't read Tae Kwon Do Times. To me, it is a joke of a martial arts magazine. I agree, once in a great while they will have something interesting. Not very often though.



I'm not sure why you think your reading preferences in MA magazines bear on the discussion, since none of the sources in this discussion, not one that I've referred to, are in _Taekwondo Times_. Which suggests that you either aren't reading sufficiently carefully or you're exploring some private track of thought that doesn't have any bearing on the discussion (something I initially suspected after you kept complaining about my references in discussions of this particular issue to 'British karate writers', in spite of the fact that I've never once invoked a British karate writer on the subject of taekkyon; this latest bit about _TKD Times_ sems to be more of the same). I won't venture to guess which one it is. But whichever it is, you don't seem to be aware that you've just massively contradicted a stack of your previous posts in which you insist that TKD must have gotten its kicking techs from Taekkyon because the  kicks from the two activities look so similar! Allow me quote you:

From your current post:


			
				YoungMan said:
			
		

> Third, *I've never seen Taekkyon students doing the so-called TKD techniques you claim they got from them. That includes jumping side kick and flying side kicks. I have seen them do push kicks, wheel kicks, back roundhouse kicks, jumping back roundhouse, high front kicks and jumping front kicks. Primarily circular techniques as opposed to hard linear techniques. *



From one of your earliest posts:


YoungMan said:


> Over the last several years, something I have tried to do is cross reference the content of Tae Kyon, since many people say it led to Tae Kwon Do, while just as many people say it didn't.
> *What I have is consistant proof through video footage and written text that Tae Kyon gave Tae Kwon Do many of the kicking techniques it now uses.
> Why do I make that statement?
> 1. Consistant footage on Youtube (a great resource btw) that shows Taekyon fighters doing the same kicking attacks (many of the same kicking anyway) modern TKD uses. These include: roundhouse, stepping attacks, spinning kicks, jumping kicks, and jump spinning kicks...*



I'm going to let readers judge for themselves exactly how consistent the story you were trying to tell _then_ and the one you're trying to tell _now_, are. :lol: But so far I'm concerned, this exercise in warp-speed backtracking is pretty much the reductio ad absurdum we wind up with, after spending a sufficient amount of time confronting you with the historical documentation that exists. I think, if you want to continue defending your point, you should decide which of these 180º-opposed stories you actually want to tell, and stick to it, eh? 



YoungMan said:


> Nobosy believed Copernicus, Galileo, or Einstein either.



Right. That's why Einsten won the 1921 physics Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect, and why Sir Arthur Eddington's 1919 eclipse measurements of the gravitational lensing effect of large masses was taken by the scientific world as definitive confirmation of Einstein's theory of General relativity published only _two years_ earlier.

_Eddington's observations published next year (Dyson, F.W., Eddington, A.S., & Davidson, C.R. 1920 A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919 Mem. R. Astron. Soc., 220, 291-333) confirmed Einstein's theory, and *were hailed at the time as a conclusive proof of general relativity over the Newtonian model. The news was reported in newspapers all over the world as a major story.* Afterward, Eddington embarked on a campaign to popularize relativity and the expedition as landmarks both in scientific development and international scientific relations._​
That's why the biggest prize in science after WWI was the construction of a theory of quantum mechanics compatible with special relativity...

No one believed Einstein, no indeed... :rofl:

BTW, your comments about Copernicus and Galileo have about the same relationship to the historical events as your remark about Einstein. As you can discover for yourself by doing a little actual research using real historical sources. Just like with taekkyon, eh?  

And finally, your comment suggests that you're comparing yourself with Copernicus, Galileo and Einstein. I'm sure you don't mean to do that, really... but the way you put it gives that impression. 

So let's leave the great scientists of the past and their achievements out of this, OK? What they said and what you said have nothing to do with each other. You've been talking about taekkyon, and what we have at the moment are two totally incompatible stories that you're trying to tell, something that none of the scientists you mentioned ever found themselves in the position of doing. You persist in bringing something you read, or something you heard, with no actual sources, as though we're supposed to take that as having any weight. And so on. Do you really think that any of this is going to count with an objective, detached reader as offsetting the huge amount of opposing, carefully documented historical material that&#8212;in spite of your references to Young and Burdick&#8212;there's no reason so far to think you've actually read?


----------



## terryl965 (May 12, 2008)

I can see we are all just going to go round and round and never make any forward progress. Well I will be looking into other avenues so we can really understand what it is we are all talking about, me it is about the history and timeframe of what has become TKD and what and who has had the biggest influence in beginning it to where it is today.


----------



## SageGhost83 (May 12, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> First of all, I do practice stepping and stomping kicks. I learned those many years ago. I don't mean Olympic sparring technique either, I mean stepping and sliding techniques learned before I ever knew of Olympic style (which I don't practice BTW). The video footage I've seen of Taekkyon clearly shows the sliding and stepping kicks I originally learned. Japanese karate doesn't do those kicks. It also shows the flowing back and forth partner sparring almost exactly like we used to do.
> Now before you start questioning the validity of Youtube clips, many martial art examples are on Youtube as well. You telling me they don't exist either?
> Second, I don't read Tae Kwon Do Times. To me, it is a joke of a martial arts magazine. I agree, once in a great while they will have something interesting. Not very often though.
> Third, I've never seen Taekkyon students doing the so-called TKD techniques you claim they got from them. That includes jumping side kick and flying side kicks. I have seen them do push kicks, wheel kicks, back roundhouse kicks, jumping back roundhouse, high front kicks and jumping front kicks. Primarily circular techniques as opposed to hard linear techniques. All of these are kicks Tae Kwon Do supposedly didn't do orginally, so how could Taekkyon copy them from Taekwondo? How can you copy from someone what they don't have? Moreover, how would Taekkyon have those kicks if they supposedly didn't have them? The published accounts I've read state that Taekkyon or it's precursors were known for circular and high/jumping kicks. Low kicks perhaps, but the high Taekwondo-like kicks as well.


 
You don't read TKDT? Then why did you say, and I quote, "I've also read at least one account in TaekwondoTimes (I forget who it was) that stated GGM Lee did teach some Taekkyon as part of his curriculum." ? I won't even get into your major contradiction about Taekkyon, Exile already did the honors with that one. Hmmm, constantly going back and forth, contradicting yourself - those are all symptoms of.....wait a minute.....I knew I smelled something.....A LARGE PILE OF BS! There are so many points in your post that I could downright blow right out of the water right now that it doesn't even make sense to continue doing it. I am quite sure that the forum and the readers by this time have made up their minds about the subject. You absolutely refuse to accept that you have been had big time, and instead you continue to deny and challenge *actual evidence* from those who have nothing to gain from the situation but just want to get to the truth of the matter. Are you that deeply in denial!? At least have the courage to stick to one story and go down with the ship, your flip flopping is only making you look even worse than you already do. Your supposition holds absolutely no weight in the face of the hard evidence that has already been collected by people who are far more qualified on the subject of history than all of us put together. And Youtube? Are you freaking kidding me? You are trying to make a legitimate claim using Youtube? I won't even go into just how naive and juvenile that is, but man, that says a lot about you in and of itself. We should ignore the carefully researched efforts of scholars and historians in favor of friggin Youtube for crying out loud! I would've thought that you were making a joke if you weren't so insistent! Man, you would've been better off quoting TKDT than Youtube! Bad Youngman! No Youngman treats for you :lol:!


----------



## SageGhost83 (May 12, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> Nobosy believed Copernicus, Galileo, or Einstein either.


 
Dude, you are not even in their league. Not even close.


----------



## SageGhost83 (May 12, 2008)

SageGhost83 said:


> And Youtube? Are you freaking kidding me? You are trying to make a legitimate claim using Youtube?


 
Youngman, there is an absurd amount of Korean propaganda on Youtube, so they are not exactly the most trustworthy of all sources. Heck, my Korean friends and I laugh at it and it has become the butt of many of our jokes. We love to "discuss" it over a plate of Kalbi . Good times, my friend, good times.


----------



## SageGhost83 (May 12, 2008)

A really nice and intelligent person told me something about hogs and wrasslin, so I think that I will humbly bow out of this merry-go-round of nonsense, as well.


----------



## exile (May 12, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> I can see we are all just going to go round and round and never make any forward progress. Well I will be looking into other avenues so we can really understand what it is we are all talking about, me it is about the history and timeframe of what has become TKD and what and who has had the biggest influence in beginning it to where it is today.



Well, the thing is, in order to make forward progress you have to get a solid foundation, and that includes dealing with lingering ghosts, legends (urban or otherwise), and a lot of stuff that can limit your search for those other avenues you mention. I've suggested another avenue of that kind&#8212;a connection between TKD on the one hand and certain Chinese arts, like Long Fist, which have similar spectacular, full extension acrobatic kicks. And we know that some at least of the early TKD Kwan founders did study Chinese systems, and it's the hard northern external systems, the ones like Long Fist, that are geographically relatively close to Korea and Manchuria, that have those kicks. I've said it before&#8212;I think that the Koreans happen to like kicking, period, and that's the reason they incorporate a variety of  acrobatic kicks in their MAs&#8212;but it's at least possible that these neighboring CMAs, of the type I'm talking about, contributed something as well. It's something to investigate. Another possibility (which actually might be part of the first story) involves the role of Hapkido in the formation of TKD kicking. I don't know what the relationship between the two arts is, but at least one poster on MT has suggested that Hapkido kicking techniques were influential in the development of TKD's current kicking arsenal, and the relationship between the CMAs and Hapkido itself becomes part of the question. Finally, we know that tournament competition tends to promote spectacular kicks, when athletic difficulty is part of the point-scoring equation. It's not just TKD that shows this; it's happened in sport karate too and, interestingly enough, in Taekkyon, where the World Taekkyon Headquarters site specifically identifies many of the modern Taekkyon's high spinning kicks as the result of tournament competitive activities (remember that Taekkyon is now part of the official ROK sport council). So some (though probably not all) of the kicking components of TKD have arisen from the tournament career of TKD, maybe piggybacking on what I think is the long-time Korean interest in difficult leg techniques for their own sake. 

All of these are possible directions for further exploration. But as long as people have this imprinted equation _TKD kicking = Taekkyon influence_ in their minds, no matter how little good support there is for it, we won't be looking in those directions with much perseverence. So this kind of discussion is necessary, I think, just to clear the ground a bit.


----------



## terryl965 (May 12, 2008)

Every single thread on every single chat line ends in this same manner. Nobody ever getting anywhere. Why is that, what the hell is so hard to get the truth from people about an art that is only 50 freaking year old here. My God it is not like we are trying to go back 100,000 years and pinpoint the start of the mankind. I have never understood why anybody try to fabricate a art that is like the number one art in terms of people doing it. I would be like look what we have done it such a short period of time.


----------



## exile (May 12, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Every single thread on every single chat line ends in this same manner. Nobody ever getting anywhere. *Why is that, what the hell is so hard to get the truth from people about an art that is only 50 freaking year old here. My God it is not like we are trying to go back 100,000 years and pinpoint the start of the mankind. *I have never understood why anybody try to fabricate a art that is like the number one art in terms of people doing it. I would be like look what we have done it such a short period of time.



Politics, ideology, one catastrophe after another (Occupation, Korean War, the Park dictatorship, nonstop hunger and social disruption, fear of an even deadlier conflict with the North...) It's gotta have an effect, Terry.


----------



## terryl965 (May 12, 2008)

exile said:


> Politics, ideology, one catastrophe after another (Occupation, Korean War, the Park dictatorship, nonstop hunger and social disruption, fear of an even deadlier conflict with the North...) It's gotta have an effect, Terry.


 
Ok what about Honesty, integrity, humility and the rest of the codes. I guess that is only for students and not the actual people running it. My bad and I apologies for even thinking like that.:ultracool


----------



## exile (May 12, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Ok what about Honesty, integrity, humility and the rest of the codes. I guess that is only for students and not the actual people running it. My bad and I apologies for even thinking like that.:ultracool



Ah, but never underestimate the degree to which people's beliefs and even memories are molded by the needs of the moment. Looking at the incredibly conflicted history of TKD that we _do_ know about, back in Korea in the years following the Occupation, you'd have to say that those qualities you mentioned were in pretty short supply at times, eh? Not naming any names or pointing any fingers, but... :uhohh:


----------



## terryl965 (May 12, 2008)

exile said:


> Ah, but never underestimate the degree to which people's beliefs and even memories are molded by the needs of the moment. Looking at the incredibly conflicted history of TKD that we _do_ know about, back in Korea in the years following the Occupation, you'd have to say that those qualities you mentioned were in pretty short supply at times, eh? Not naming any names or pointing any fingers, but... :uhohh:


 
No you would never point or name a name not you exile


----------



## exile (May 12, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> No you would never point or name a name not you exile



Only when absolutely necessary, Terry! :angel:


----------



## SageGhost83 (May 12, 2008)

Oh, and by the way Youngman - none of what I typed was directed at you *personally*. It is all in the spirit of debate, so if I made you angry or if I crossed the line, that was definitely not my intent. Though we disagree, we are still brothers in TKD and I have the utmost respect for you:cheers:.


----------



## terryl965 (May 12, 2008)

SageGhost83 said:


> Oh, and by the way Youngman - none of what I typed was directed at you *personally*. It is all in the spirit of debate, so if I made you angry or if I crossed the line, that was definitely not my intent. Though we disagree, we are still brothers in TKD and I have the utmost respect for you:cheers:.


Very well said :asian:


----------



## YoungMan (May 12, 2008)

SageGhost,
It's very difficult to make me angry. I always enjoy good debate, even if I don't see eye to eye with the people I'm debating. Yes, in the end we are Taekwondo brothers.


----------

