# The Korean roots of TKD



## Rumy73 (Feb 10, 2013)

While in part influenced by karate and kung fu, TKD has Korean DNA. 

http://youtu.be/wUPeq47bRjk


----------



## arnisador (Feb 10, 2013)

In the late 1940s it was 100% Japanese Karate. (A few variants had some kung fu as well.) It was taken in different directions but the techniques, forms, uniforms, terminology, etc. all came directly from Japan.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Feb 10, 2013)

arnisador said:


> In the late 1940s it was 100% Japanese Karate. (A few variants had some kung fu as well.) It was taken in different directions but the techniques, forms, uniforms, terminology, etc. all came directly from Japan.



TKD could not have been 100% Japanese Karate in the 1940's since it  didn't exist. There was no such thing. 
Research did not come up with a name for "the new art" until 1954. 

Then again it depends on how you define TKD.


----------



## Rumy73 (Feb 10, 2013)

arnisador said:


> In the late 1940s it was 100% Japanese Karate. (A few variants had some kung fu as well.) It was taken in different directions but the techniques, forms, uniforms, terminology, etc. all came directly from Japan.



You are very misinformed, sir.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 10, 2013)

Perhaps you can support this with a better source than an excerpt from Human Weapon?  That show, while pretty cool over all, didn't always do as much research as might be desirable... or cross check the statements made by featured sources?

Pretty much everything I've seen supports that, yes, there was an indigenous Korean foot game/dance -- but that the functional fighting applications were pretty much lost, if they were ever solidly there.  TKD has pretty strongly been shown to have largely originated from Shotokan karate, adapted to serve Korean nationalist needs.  That's not to say it hasn't developed in its own directions since then.


----------



## sopraisso (Feb 10, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> While in part influenced by karate and kung fu, TKD has Korean DNA.
> http://youtu.be/wUPeq47bRjk


Funny post.
Makes an absolute (but completely vague) statement and drops a video  that doesn't even present factual evidence to support the statement.
Btw, what is the conceptual accuaracy of "Korean DNA"?




Rumy73 said:


> You are very misinformed, sir.


I believe he was talking about the schools that gave birth to what  would be later called taekwondo. I wouldn't say 100%, sure, but it was a very large part. Notice how it makes more sense now you  know that:


arnisador said:


> In the late 1940s it was 100% Japanese Karate. (A few variants had some kung fu as well.) It was taken in different directions but the techniques, forms, uniforms, terminology, etc. all came directly from Japan.




I would add just one thing:
Off course what was teached in the various pre-"taekwondo" kwans would hardly be "pure karate" -- instead it would have the personal variations of the kwans' founders, notably in the cases where those founders actually studied other styles (Chang Moo Kwan founder Byung-In Yoon, for example). Even so, after the (complicated) merge of kwans under the same name, most of what could be seen was largely shotokan karate. I honestly would call "artificial changings" to what has been changed in the latest decades on KKW taekwondo, and we can clearly see how much a great part of those changes are just to make taekwondo less looking like karate (see changes in uniforms, forms, small changes in techniques and basic motions, etc.). The funniest part is that what today most resembles taekkyon is the WTF olympic sparring (surely not a coincidence), that is _a lot different_ even from Kukkiwon Taekwondo itself, if we compare the fight principles of both. By the way, _most_ of those fight principles in the non-sport venue of taekwondo remain the same of karate, what is even more evident in ITF Taekwon-Do.


----------



## Aiseant (Feb 11, 2013)

Funny enough : if you consider how man years japanese people spent in Korea, there could not be such thing as purely japanese karate 
Saying there is no karate in taekwondo is as wrong as saying that there is no taekwondo (of taekyon, or any korean art) in karate. 

All the countries of the area had martial arts, and they all mixed a little bit in each other, Korea was a very busy road to go to/from japan, china, mongolia etc.
Please don't be so final in your statements about martial arts origins : a long time passed, a lot of people were involved and everything evolved, and I truly don't believe all those countries lived in a autarky.

I do believe there's (at least) karate in taekwondo I learnt, and I live happy with that. 
People pretending that taekwondo is a purely korean art can be called misinformed if you like, I don't care and just would like them to explain how anything can be 'pure' in a country that just left 50 years of violent and repressive occupation.
People pretending that taekwondo is a purely japanese art can be called  misinformed too if you still like it, I don't care and just would like them to  explain me why, in this case, I'm able to say "wow, that's a korean art" when I watch Taekwondo, Taekkyon, Hapkido, Tang soo do and so on. There's definitively something common between them, and different from other arts. If you call it Korean DNA, it seems ok for me.

Who cares about 'purity' ? Mixed and rich sounds very fine for me. I'm sometimes lurking in karate lessons to learn some stuffs ... and aïkido, and jujitsu and so on, and all of those knowledge are part of *my* taekwondo anyways.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 11, 2013)

Aiseant said:


> Funny enough : if you consider how man years japanese people spent in Korea, there could not be such thing as purely japanese karate
> Saying there is no karate in taekwondo is as wrong as saying that there is no taekwondo (of taekyon, or any korean art) in karate.



Really? What evidence can you present that Gichin Funakoshi (or any of the other Masters of that time period) studied any Korean art? You do know that you actually have to study this, right? It doesn't become a part of your art by osmosis.

The founders of the kwans that joined together to create taekwondo taught what they learned in Japan (primarily), with some influence from Chinese arts. This is a matter of record.



Aiseant said:


> People pretending that taekwondo is a purely japanese art can be called misinformed too if you still like it, I don't care and just would like them to explain me why, in this case, I'm able to say "wow, that's a korean art" when I watch Taekwondo, Taekkyon, Hapkido, Tang soo do and so on. There's definitively something common between them, and different from other arts. If you call it Korean DNA, it seems ok for me.



Um, because you're seeing them NOW, after they've gone through 50 years or so of modification from their Japanese origins. Modifications that were specifically intended to make the arts "more Korean" and distance them from their Japanese origins.

Taekwondo is primarily derived from Shotokan.
Tangsoodo is even more closely related to Shotokan than is taekwondo, even using the same forms.
Hapkido is primarily derived from Daito Ryu.

This really isn't a matter for debate. All you need to do is study the history of taekwondo.

Taekkyons survival of the occupation is still very much subject to debate.


----------



## Aiseant (Feb 11, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> This really isn't a matter for debate. All you need to do is study the history of taekwondo.



In fact, it is a matter for debate, as I studied history of taekwondo and korean martial art, and have been led to a different opinion than yours 

It's very easy to say that something is true or wrong and no one can  contradict you because we weren't there at this time. This argument  works both ways. I truly have no idea how to scientifically measure the  influence on martial arts of more than 2000 years of melting pot, to demonstrate that it had influence or it had none at all is not possible.


There was a time when suggesting that anything japanese might have been maybe a long long time ago even just a tiny bit influenced by anything from Korea would have been a great offense. The same sentence with korean instead of japanese is also true, and it's still the case sometimes, depending on whom you're talking to. 
In this kind of situation, I find it difficult to listen to a thesis without pondering it with other's opinions. The way history is presented is so drastically different depending on the speaker that it should really make us cautious.

I'm curious about weither or not people from chinese arts feel concerned about the debate ... I feel this debate is always Korea vs Japan (not very healthy ...) when a lot of other influences were in place.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 11, 2013)

Aiseant said:


> In fact, it is a matter for debate, as I studied history of taekwondo and korean martial art, and have been led to a different opinion than yours



OK, so enlighten us. Present your historical evidence that supports the idea that Korean historical martial arts influenced the Japanese martial arts.


----------



## Cyriacus (Feb 11, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> Perhaps you can support this with a better source than an excerpt from Human Weapon?  That show, while pretty cool over all, didn't always do as much research as might be desirable... or cross check the statements made by featured sources?



Personally, id argue that Human Weapon did a very good job of researching and representing the modern sport fighting side of things, and just touched on history after the fact. Its a pretty functional formula, i think.


----------



## Aiseant (Feb 11, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> OK, so enlighten us. Present your historical evidence that supports the idea that Korean historical martial arts influenced the Japanese martial arts.



I have no idea why you're on such an edge, and wonder if you've read the rest of the post


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 11, 2013)

Aiseant said:


> I have no idea why you're on such an edge, and wonder if you've read the rest of the post



I have read it. I didn't see any historical basis for your claims that indigenous Korean martial arts influenced the development of Japanese martial arts. 

The historical record is pretty clear. Japanese martial arts can be traced back through Okinawa and China. Korean martial arts (as they exist today) can be traced directly to Japan and (to a much lesser degree) China.

So again I ask: do you have any historical basis for your claim, or is it merely something you've dreamed up?

And for the record, I am not on edge. You're presenting a claim that is in direct opposition to the hisorical record. If there's any basis for it, I'd love to know what it is. If it's just something you've dreamed up, then I'll just laugh and go on.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Feb 11, 2013)

arnisador said:


> In the late 1940s it was 100% Japanese Karate. (A few variants had some kung fu as well.) It was taken in different directions but the techniques, forms, uniforms, terminology, etc. all came directly from Japan.



Having now re considered this post Vis  a Vis "Roots"  it's not all that inaccurate. However to say the roots were "Japanese Karate" does not really go far enough back since they extend furter to the Okinawan roots of Shorin and Shorei with Shorin being the Okinawan derivation of Shaolin. 

Most credible accounts indicate that indigineous Korean MA's were wiped out during occupations and ressurrection of those arts was a reinvention with little prrof of historical ties much like the reinvention of Pankration.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Feb 11, 2013)

sopraisso said:


> By the way, _most_ of those fight principles in the non-sport venue of taekwondo remain the same of karate, what is even more evident in ITF Taekwon-Do.



As a counterpoint there are 2 major conceptula difference between what many consider Hallmarks of Karate and ITF / Chang Hon, tose are: 
Karate uses the idea of being "Deeply Rooted" as a requirement for making power. Chang Hon, / ITF does not always require this even using techniques to demonstrate tremendous power while airborne; and
Karate is known for the "Level Headed" movement when advancing or retreating, while The Chang Hon Sine wave uses the leg knee flexion to employ more of the body's musculature for powwer in hand techniques (In sports disciplines referred to as "Closed Chain" linking) resulting in an up and down motion of the body.


----------



## Rumy73 (Feb 11, 2013)

The post was deliberately simple to provoke discussion. The video does a nice job of illustrating Taekkyeon's long history. Now about all of you who want to chaulk TKD's existence up to karate, you are mistaken. I family that lived under the Japanese occupation. While the Japanese would like to have believed they snuffed out Korea's culture, this is was wishful thinking. Just like slaves on Haiti appeared to be practicing Catholicism, they really repurposed the veneer of it to celebrate African religions.  Koreans, save a small minority if collaborators, kept their culture alive. I would happily offer scholarly sources but none of you read Chinese, Korean or Japanese.


----------



## Rumy73 (Feb 11, 2013)

The post was deliberately simple to provoke discussion. The video does a nice job of illustrating Taekkyeon's long history. Now about all of you who want to chalk TKD's existence up to karate, you are mistaken. I family that lived under the Japanese occupation. While the Japanese would like to have believed they snuffed out Korea's culture, this is was wishful thinking. Just like slaves on Haiti appeared to be practicing Catholicism, they really repurposed the veneer of it to celebrate African religions.  Koreans, save a small minority if collaborators, kept their culture alive. I would happily offer scholarly sources but none of you read Chinese, Korean or Japanese.


----------



## Instructor (Feb 11, 2013)

History is written by the victor...  Oft times, history is destroyed by the occupier.  I believe that TKD is built from Japanese Shotokan, that is obvious.  But I also do not think it is fair to discount that the Korean's had native arts that involved some pretty spectacular kicking.  The arts may have vanished during the occupation but the kick's clearly remain.

One thing I think that set's Hapkido apart is that Hapkido practitionaers generally agree that Hapkido's roots are Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu.  It's something we are generally proud of.  But strangely many Daito Ryu people are uncomfortable with Hapkido's link.

So we are forever being reminded that TKD is from Shotokan but asked to forget that Hapkido was from Daito Ryu...

It just demonstrates that history is a complicated subject.  What really happened is sometimes difficult or impossible to nail down with any certainty.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 11, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> The post was deliberately simple to provoke discussion. The video does a nice job of illustrating Taekkyeon's long history.



Well, no, it does nothing of the sort. Apparently, by your standards, I could use old re-runs of *Kung Fu* as historical evidence.



Rumy73 said:


> Now about all of you who want to chaulk TKD's existence up to karate, you are mistaken.



So you keep  asserting, but Truth By Blatant Assertion doesn't really carry much weight.



Rumy73 said:


> I family that lived under the Japanese occupation. While the Japanese would like to have believed they snuffed out Korea's culture, this is was wishful thinking. Just like slaves on Haiti appeared to be practicing Catholicism, they really repurposed the veneer of it to celebrate African religions.  Koreans, save a small minority if collaborators, kept their culture alive. I would happily offer scholarly sources but none of you read Chinese, Korean or Japanese.



Of course not. You're the only person here who can read anything other than English. :rofl:


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 11, 2013)

Aiseant said:


> In fact, it is a matter for debate, as I studied history of taekwondo and korean martial art, and have been led to a different opinion than yours
> 
> It's very easy to say that something is true or wrong and no one can contradict you because we weren't there at this time. This argument works both ways. I truly have no idea how to scientifically measure the influence on martial arts of more than 2000 years of melting pot, to demonstrate that it had influence or it had none at all is not possible.
> 
> ...



I think the differences between Korean and Japanese MA will always be clouded. During the Japanese occupation of Korea, they tried very hard to erase anything Korean from the culture, and change it all to Japanese.  The Japanese had been mostly successful in doing the same to the Okinawans, but they had more time to accomplish it.  They took over Okinawa about 250 years ago.

That the Koreans had some form of MA, besides sword use is probably correct.  I can't quote sources, but I do recall reading while in Korea, of some unarmed as well as armed methods that had been set down in 'books' in older Korea.  Again, I don't recall what time period. 

However, conflicts between Japanese revisions of history betwee them and China, them and Korea, and them and the USA are well known, even to this day.  Korea and Japan continue to take every opportunity to play one-upmanship even these days, on any subject they think they can.



Earl Weiss said:


> Having now re considered this post Vis a Vis "Roots" it's not all that inaccurate. However to say the roots were "Japanese Karate" does not really go far enough back since they extend furter to the Okinawan roots of Shorin and Shorei with Shorin being the Okinawan derivation of Shaolin.
> 
> Most credible accounts indicate that indigineous Korean MA's were wiped out during occupations and ressurrection of those arts was a reinvention with little prrof of historical ties much like the reinvention of Pankration.



Korean culture anything, were certainly surpressed.  That is a matter of living memory amonst many people.  It seems it was outlawed for Koreans to practice their own MA, and only a few were allowed to learn Japanese MA.  Just one more problem in deciding an origin of any MA.



Earl Weiss said:


> As a counterpoint there are 2 major conceptula difference between what many consider Hallmarks of Karate and ITF / Chang Hon, tose are:
> *Karate uses the idea of being "Deeply Rooted" as a requirement for making power.* Chang Hon, / ITF does not always require this even using techniques to demonstrate tremendous power while airborne; and
> *Karate is known for the "Level Headed" movement when advancing or retreating,* while The Chang Hon Sine wave uses the leg knee flexion to employ more of the body's musculature for powwer in hand techniques (In sports disciplines referred to as "Closed Chain" linking) resulting in an up and down motion of the body.



Interesting.  It is similar to some of the things I remember being taught when I studied under Jhoon Goo Rhee.



Rumy73 said:


> The post was deliberately simple to provoke discussion. *The video does a nice job of illustrating Taekkyeon's long history.* Now about all of you who want to chaulk TKD's existence up to karate, you are mistaken. I family that lived under the Japanese occupation. While the Japanese would like to have believed they snuffed out Korea's culture, this is was wishful thinking. Just like slaves on Haiti appeared to be practicing Catholicism, they really repurposed the veneer of it to celebrate African religions. Koreans, save a small minority if collaborators, kept their culture alive. *I would happily offer scholarly sources but none of you read Chinese, Korean or Japanese.*



Bolded:  I guess you must have left that part out of the video you linked to.  I missed that.  The few mentions of ancient warriors aren't specific to anything.  Have you read Dr. He-Young Kim's first book on Hapkido?  He traces Hapkido all the way back to infinity and beyond.  Touching on all the Korean dynasties, especially Hwa Rang Do, along the way.  Yet all the Hapkido GM acknowledge its roots in Japanese MA.

Bolded and underlined:  How do you know that?  Have you asked all members?  I am pretty sure there are members who can read and understand all the languages you mentioned.  Hangul is an alphabet.  I read it.  But I don't recall many words any more.  And I never really knew more than probably 500 words back when I knew more.  So, if you are sure about Chinese and Japanese, leave those there, but take out the reference to reading Korean.  But I think you will get in trouble all the way around.  I have seen other members post about being from Korea, China, and Japan.  They speak and read their native languages.  You just make yourself look very foolish, and worse.

And be careful about mention of MA here only on your own authority.  This is called Martial Talk for a reason.

All that said, please continue to contribute.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 11, 2013)

sopraisso said:


> The funniest part is that what today most resembles taekkyon is the WTF olympic sparring (surely not a coincidence), that is _a lot different_ even from Kukkiwon Taekwondo itself, if we compare the fight principles of both.



 Hmm, I don't know about this. The WTF doesn't allow many of the techniques that are/were used in Taekkyon competitions. No sweeping, grabbing, throwing, pushing, etc. You can kick, sure, but other than that not so much in the resemblance department. Lots of other MA's allow you to kick your opponent, too.



> By the way, _most_ of those fight principles in the non-sport venue of taekwondo remain the same of karate, what is even more evident in ITF Taekwon-Do.



Interesting. Besides the "one punch, one kill" theory (taken over in the ITF as _Il Kyuk Pil Sung_ by Gen. Choi) what fighting theories do you mean?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## arnisador (Feb 11, 2013)

The modern Korean arts of TKD and Hapkido were formed from Japanese arts learned by Koreans studying in Japan in the first half of the 20th century:
http://www.kidokwan.org/articles/the-evolution-of-taekwondo-from-japanese-karate/

Just as the Okinawans changed kung fu and the Japanese changed the Ryukyuan arts, TKD and Hapkido are now much changed as well. Look for articles by Steven D. Capener and Dakin Burdick.


----------



## Master Dan (Feb 11, 2013)

Opinions are like certain parts of the body everybody has one? I have trained with many in my life time and some who were dedicated to the Korean party line then after aging and much experience with the best national and global authorities on both sides all arts have said regardless each ethnic society Koreans included took what they had and made it thier own so modern TKD is unique and thier own because they made it that way better than others.

At the end of the day what difference does it make? Your health, well being, ability to defend your self is whats important not paper on the wall or some plastic trophy medal or for that matter a librarian certificate of authenticity related to what terms you use. Words do not add one day to your life.

We are all the sum totall of the person or person's who trained us and what thier knowledge base was. On paper I am TKD but I have Judo, Karate, Hapkido, Kempo Kyusho Jitsu, Shotokan as well as some CMA mixed in that are all part of TKD and TKD part of them if you can see the bigger picture.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Feb 11, 2013)

arnisador said:


> The modern Korean arts of TKD and Hapkido were formed from Japanese arts learned by Koreans studying in Japan in the first half of the 20th century:
> http://www.kidokwan.org/articles/the-evolution-of-taekwondo-from-japanese-karate/
> 
> Just as the Okinawans changed kung fu and the Japanese changed the Ryukyuan arts, TKD and Hapkido are now much changed as well. Look for articles by Steven D. Capener and Dakin Burdick.



Dakin Burdick had an excellent article years ago in the JAMA.  Marc Tedishi also has quite an extensive historical background in his books on HKD and TKD.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 11, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Dakin Burdick had an excellent article years ago in the JAMA. Marc Tedishi also has quite an extensive historical background in his books on HKD and TKD.




Hmm, if it's the article by Dakin Burdick I'm thinking of he had some pretty basic historical errors in it regarding Gen. Choi. Things like when he visited North Korea the first time, which are pretty well known. Burdick states that Gen. Choi went to NK in 1966, which was the cause of his falling out of favor with the SK government. This is an error of over a decade. Caveat emptor, and all that, when reading history even by people who are well regarded because if someone gets something that basic wrong they could very well be getting other more complicated things wrong, too. Of course, that's not limited to MA history articles. I have spotted more than a few errors in scholarly works over the years. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 12, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> You are very misinformed, sir.



no he isnt, he is 100% corrrect, this was all hammered out 100's of times over the years, with fanboys like you getting wupped everytime.

TKD started out as 100% japanese karate, and nothing more.


----------



## Rumy73 (Feb 12, 2013)

Twin Fist said:


> no he isnt, he is 100% corrrect, this was all hammered out 100's of times over the years, with fanboys like you getting wupped everytime.
> 
> TKD started out as 100% japanese karate, and nothing more.



Fanboys? Wupped? Very humorous. Now be off to your remedial English class!


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 12, 2013)

apparently you need some remedial history of martial arts.

you fanboys are funny.....


----------



## Instructor (Feb 12, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Dakin Burdick had an excellent article years ago in the JAMA.  Marc Tedishi also has quite an extensive historical background in his books on HKD and TKD.



I invested in Tedeshi's massive tome titled Hapkido: Traditions, Philosophy, Technique.  It's an incredible work.  I've never seen a book explore a martial art so completely.  My only complaint is the darn thing is too heavy.  You really need a book rest to read it for long.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Feb 12, 2013)

Instructor said:


> I invested in Tedeshi's massive tome titled Hapkido: Traditions, Philosophy, Technique.  It's an incredible work.  I've never seen a book explore a martial art so completely.  My only complaint is the darn thing is too heavy.  You really need a book rest to read it for long.



Also good for deadlifting and squats!


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 12, 2013)

Twin Fist said:


> TKD started out as 100% japanese karate, and nothing more.



You just wrote two Kwans out of history.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 12, 2013)

not really.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 12, 2013)

Twin Fist said:


> not really.



You've said several times that Taekwon-Do was just Shotokan in the beginning. (You also seem to think that any development of the style isn't Taekwon-Do, at least you've said as much in the past, IIRC.) But the fact is that there were at least two Kwans that were influenced by Chinese arts and they were part of the unification movement to form Taekwon-Do. QED, your statement isn't accurate. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 12, 2013)

Twin Fist said:


> no he isnt, he is 100% corrrect, this was all hammered out 100's of times over the years, with fanboys like you getting wupped everytime.
> 
> TKD started out as 100% japanese karate, and nothing more.



So the kwans founded by men who had studied Chinese arts and Judo in addition to Karate don't count?

While the roots of TKD are primarily in the Karate yard, there are at least a few planted firmly in other places. Like China.


----------



## clfsean (Feb 12, 2013)

Since a couple of you have mentioned it... could I see some of the CMA influence in TKD? Seriously. I don't see any there, especially now. But even in some of the separate kwan videos (MDK I think) that's supposed to have a CMA influence. I'm just not seeing it there.

Thanks!!


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 12, 2013)

clfsean said:


> Since a couple of you have mentioned it... could I see some of the CMA influence in TKD? Seriously. I don't see any there, especially now. But even in some of the separate kwan videos (MDK I think) that's supposed to have a CMA influence. I'm just not seeing it there.
> 
> Thanks!!



You won't see it now, after 50 years of evolution. And the CMA influence was never a very large factor. Neither was the judo influence. 

But it's undeniable that some of the kwan founders trained in those arts, and therefore it would be foolish to deny that they had at least some impact on the earliest days of TKD, even if the art has since moved in completely different directions.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 12, 2013)

clfsean said:


> Since a couple of you have mentioned it... could I see some of the CMA influence in TKD? Seriously. I don't see any there, especially now. But even in some of the separate kwan videos (MDK I think) that's supposed to have a CMA influence. I'm just not seeing it there.
> 
> Thanks!!




In both Chunkwon and Hansoo (black belt poomse in KKW Taekwondo) there are techniques that are obviously borrowed from CMA. In fact, I learned those techniques when I was in Northern Praying Mantis (which makes sense since both Yoon, Byung-In and Hwang, Kee studied CMA in northern China). Please note, however, that this conversation deals primarily with the "roots" of Taekwon-Do and over the years techniques have been adapted and changed. Also, with the KKW's attempt to standardize all the Kwans differences between them have been lessened over the years. 

I will revise my previous statement about two Kwans having a CMA influence, however. It was actually _three_. The Moo Duk Kwan from Hwang, Kee and both the Chang Moo Kwan and the Kang Duk Won from Yoon, Byung-In. I believe some of the older Chang Moo Kwan and perhaps some Kang Duk Won schools taught forms that were specifically learned and passed on by Yoon, Byung-In which he had learned in his CMA training (though they are not part of the KKW curriculum). 

That all being said, the influence of CMA on the Moo Duk Kwan is much more apparent when you examine the Tang Soo Do line of that lineage as opposed to the Taekwon-Do line.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Rumy73 (Feb 12, 2013)

chrispillertkd said:


> In both Chunkwon and Hansoo (black belt poomse in KKW Taekwondo) there are techniques that are obviously borrowed from CMA. In fact, I learned those techniques when I was in Northern Praying Mantis (which makes sense since both Yoon, Byung-In and Hwang, Kee studied CMA in northern China). Please note, however, that this conversation deals primarily with the "roots" of Taekwon-Do and over the years techniques have been adapted and changed. Also, with the KKW's attempt to standardize all the Kwans differences between them have been lessened over the years.
> 
> I will revise my previous statement about two Kwans having a CMA influence, however. It was actually _three_. The Moo Duk Kwan from Hwang, Kee and both the Chang Moo Kwan and the Kang Duk Won from Yoon, Byung-In. I believe some of the older Chang Moo Kwan and perhaps some Kang Duk Won schools taught forms that were specifically learned and passed on by Yoon, Byung-In which he had learned in his CMA training (though they are not part of the KKW curriculum).
> 
> ...



Very interesting.


----------



## clfsean (Feb 12, 2013)

chrispillertkd said:


> In both Chunkwon and Hansoo (black belt poomse in KKW Taekwondo) there are techniques that are obviously borrowed from CMA. In fact, I learned those techniques when I was in Northern Praying Mantis (which makes sense since both Yoon, Byung-In and Hwang, Kee studied CMA in northern China).



Cool... I'll youtube them. 

I know back when I was in TKD, it was the numbered pyungahns (pinans), then the named kata from the Shorin based JMA/OMAs.


----------



## arnisador (Feb 12, 2013)

chrispillertkd said:


> You've said several times that Taekwon-Do was just Shotokan in the beginning. (You also seem to think that any development of the style isn't Taekwon-Do, at least you've said as much in the past, IIRC.) But the fact is that there were at least two Kwans that were influenced by Chinese arts and they were part of the unification movement to form Taekwon-Do.



Most of what became TKD (vice TSD) were 100% Karate, but not all were--though they were still mostly Karate. The statement is largely accurate.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 13, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Most of what became TKD (vice TSD) were 100% Karate, but not all were--though they were still mostly Karate. The statement is largely accurate.



Saying something is 100% of whatever (Shotokan, for instance) can't be _largely_ accurate. It's either accurate or not because you've made no allowances for variation. TF has stated before that he thinks Taekwon-Do is just Shotokan and any development of the art or any variation of that isn't Taekwon-Do. Perhaps this is because his initial contact with Taekwon-Do was through Jhoon Rhee's Chung Do Kwan lineage which _was_ basically Shotokan. But as you can see from this thread it's innacurate. 

I'd have no problem with someone saying the majority of what was being taught in Taekwon-Do at the beginning was Shotokan or Shotokan-based. But that wasn't what he said.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Earl Weiss (Feb 13, 2013)

In General Choi's 1965 book he mentions the Shorin and Shorei roots although he uses the Korean terms for those roots which escape me at the moment, with Shorin being the Okinawan derivation of Shaolin the Chinese roots are more evident.  Since Shotokan was rooted in the Shorin and Shorei systems of Okinawa, the statement of Shotokan origins can be viewed as an oversimplification. 

It would be like saying the roots of the space shuttle could be found in German rocketry ignoring the much earlier use of rockets by the Chinese. 

But what does it matter that the roots were Chinese or not.  Sure, the Chinese may have been the first, but the Russians were the first to put an object and man in space and the Americans were the first and only to put a man on a spacial body other than earth. 

It's not what it was, it's what it is.


----------



## Instructor (Feb 13, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> In General Choi's 1965 book he mentions the Shorin and Shorei roots although he uses the Korean terms for those roots which escape me at the moment, with Shorin being the Okinawan derivation of Shaolin the Chinese roots are more evident.  Since Shotokan was rooted in the Shorin and Shorei systems of Okinawa, the statement of Shotokan origins can be viewed as an oversimplification.
> 
> It would be like saying the roots of the space shuttle could be found in German rocketry ignoring the much earlier use of rockets by the Chinese.
> 
> ...



You said this so much better than I could.  Nice work.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Feb 13, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> In General Choi's 1965 book he mentions the Shorin and Shorei roots although he uses the Korean terms for those roots which escape me at the moment, with Shorin being the Okinawan derivation of Shaolin the Chinese roots are more evident.  Since Shotokan was rooted in the Shorin and Shorei systems of Okinawa, the statement of Shotokan origins can be viewed as an oversimplification.
> 
> It would be like saying the roots of the space shuttle could be found in German rocketry ignoring the much earlier use of rockets by the Chinese.
> 
> ...



Mr. Weiss, I agree with you on this a great deal.  It truly doesn't matter, as you have pointed out.  

I do enjoy, on the other hand, looking at other styles that are the roots of my particular style.  I am aware of the dangers of reverse engineering, or putting meaning where this is none, but I do find many things very insightful.  At this time, I can only make connections, on a technical level, with JMA/OMA's and other KMA's.  A while back there was some discussion on here, that we found some links to Goju with a Malaysian CMA, but that doesn't translate well with traditional TKD.  

I know there have been some detractors of this type of cross examination between styles on here, but since I do not have the luxury of cross training in another style due to the fact that I live in rural America, with no other traditional schools near me, this is what I find myself doing.. .  I did train with some OMA/JMA practitioners while in college, and gained a great deal of insight into my own art through that training.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 13, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> It's not what it was, it's what it is.



People like knowing where things come from, what the history behind people, places, and events is. It's why people research their family trees. This isn't any different. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Instructor (Feb 13, 2013)

I am certainly glad I didn't let who my family was decide who I am...


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 13, 2013)

You family doesn't determine who you are. But it can influence who you become.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 14, 2013)

and if you bury your head and ignore the reality of your roots, your whole experience of learning is a fraud.

"learning"

look it up

now does the (almost 100%) japanese origin of the art matter today? not to the technician. And it doesnt matter where it came from when you throw that kick. And it is certainly it's own beast today...but to anyone aspiring to be a TRUE martial "artist" i would think it does matter where your art came from. 

IMO


----------



## Rumy73 (Feb 14, 2013)

How can something that came from China, to Okinawa, to Japan, then to Korea be 100% Japanese?


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 15, 2013)

immeadiate source.

 the okinawan karate that the japanese adopted bore little to NO resemblence to the original chinese product.  likewise the japanese changed much of the okinawan version, and finally, the koreans just copied everything, up to and including the kata, and called it a "lost" korean art.... and went so far as to create false history to back up the claim......this is all historical fact, and isnt even up for debate


----------



## arnisador (Feb 15, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> How can something that came from China, to Okinawa, to Japan, then to Korea be 100% Japanese?



The term "Japanese karate" has a meaning. It doesn't mean it was wholly native to Japan--it means what was taught and practiced there.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 15, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Rumy73 said:
> 
> 
> > How can something that came from China, to Okinawa, to Japan, *then to Korea be 100% Japanese*?
> ...



I don't think he asked the question that people think he asked.  From China to Okinawa to Japan: you are saying that the term has meaning because it was taught and practiced there, but he didn't ask how something that went from China to Okinawa to Japan can be called Japanese; what he's asking is how it can be called 100% Japanese after it then went to Korea and was taught and practiced in Korea, not in Japan.

Modern taekwondo is not kwan era taekwondo, nor is it taekwondo as seen in the sixties.  The forms are different, regardless of which federation you are looking at, and in the case of the KKW forms, any Japanese kata have been replaced twice; first by Palgwe pumse and then by the Taegeuk pumse.  Tournament rules were established that reflect Korean preference for kicking, and Korean terminology and philosophical perspectives were infused.

Modern taekwondo most certainly has Korean roots, but it also has roots in Japan, Okinawa and China.  As for the Korean roots, most are postwar.  Which shouldn't raise any eyebrows, as it is a postwar art.  There are kwan founders who claimed knowledge of Taekkyeon.  Personally, I'm willing to take them at face value; I know how to play baseball, football, and basketball, but I have no pedigree.  If the US were occupied and a foreign culture imposed upon it and football were made illegal, after the occupation ended, I could teach youngsters how to play football, but there would be no record of me ever having played on a professional or amateur team.  I simply know how to play it because it is what we played for enjoyment.  

That said, Taekwondo, modern or otherwise, is not taekkyeon, and has no direct root to any specific prewar KMA.  It is a postwar Korean art whose development reflects the changes and the state of Korea at the time that it was systematized.  While there are apparently a few people who have links to Taekkyeon and who teach it as Taekkyeon, and while there may be unarmed ancient KMA preserved in sources such as the Muyedobotongji that people may have or may yet reconstruct, Taekwondo is not such an art.  It is the KMA of modern Korea.  

It is Korean inasmuch as NFL football is American football and not Rugby football.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Feb 15, 2013)

Twin Fist said:


> immeadiate source.
> 
> the okinawan karate that the japanese adopted bore little to NO resemblence to the original chinese product.  likewise the japanese changed much of the okinawan version, and finally, the koreans just copied everything, up to and including the kata, and called it a "lost" korean art.... and went so far as to create false history to back up the claim......this is all historical fact, and isnt even up for debate


For me the issue is that SOME Koreans made stuff up. Others clearly disclosed it.  Of course the guy who disclosed it many chose to basically ignore later so why not ignore that as well.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Feb 15, 2013)

My view is that (some) Koreans (and others) never needed to embellish, exaggerate, rewrite or otherwise make anything up to begin with.  Every modern art came from something before it.  Politics and national pride aside, TKD should have fully embraced its Japanese Karate roots.  Mainly because those Japanese roots were fairly shallow with a much longer root going back into Okinawan Karate and into China.  In my opinion, it would have lent greater credibilty to TKD, particularly early on when it was establishing its own identity.  Indeed, many early pioneers (and even some later ones) referred to their art under (Korean) Karate.  

TKD, as far as its roots in Karate, has nothing to be ashamed of in any regard.  Indeed, it could/should be a feather in its cap because of the rich history Karate has established.  Trying to change things up, after the fact, only takes away from TKD as an art.  Perhaps they felt it was necessary to estblish TKD as a legitimate art?  But in reality, sticking with the facts of the matter would have done that as well as TKD standing the test of time and evolving into its own entity.


----------



## Rumy73 (Feb 15, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> My view is that (some) Koreans (and others) never needed to embellish, exaggerate, rewrite or otherwise make anything up to begin with.  Every modern art came from something before it.  Politics and national pride aside, TKD should have fully embraced its Japanese Karate roots.  Mainly because those Japanese roots were fairly shallow with a much longer root going back into Okinawan Karate and into China.  In my opinion, it would have lent greater credibilty to TKD, particularly early on when it was establishing its own identity.  Indeed, many early pioneers (and even some later ones) referred to their art under (Korean) Karate.
> 
> TKD, as far as its roots in Karate, has nothing to be ashamed of in any regard.  Indeed, it could/should be a feather in its cap because of the rich history Karate has established.  Trying to change things up, after the fact, only takes away from TKD as an art.  Perhaps they felt it was necessary to estblish TKD as a legitimate art?  But in reality, sticking with the facts of the matter would have done that as well as TKD standing the test of time and evolving into its own entity.



These points are reasonable, but before we get too judgmental about Korea downplaying karate's impact, let's remember all institutions and nations create myths about themselves.


----------



## Rumy73 (Feb 15, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> My view is that (some) Koreans (and others) never needed to embellish, exaggerate, rewrite or otherwise make anything up to begin with.  Every modern art came from something before it.  Politics and national pride aside, TKD should have fully embraced its Japanese Karate roots.  Mainly because those Japanese roots were fairly shallow with a much longer root going back into Okinawan Karate and into China.  In my opinion, it would have lent greater credibilty to TKD, particularly early on when it was establishing its own identity.  Indeed, many early pioneers (and even some later ones) referred to their art under (Korean) Karate.
> 
> TKD, as far as its roots in Karate, has nothing to be ashamed of in any regard.  Indeed, it could/should be a feather in its cap because of the rich history Karate has established.  Trying to change things up, after the fact, only takes away from TKD as an art.  Perhaps they felt it was necessary to estblish TKD as a legitimate art?  But in reality, sticking with the facts of the matter would have done that as well as TKD standing the test of time and evolving into its own entity.



These points are reasonable, but before we get too judgmental about Korea downplaying karate's impact, let's remember all institutions and nations create myths about themselves.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 15, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> These points are reasonable, but before we get too judgmental about Korea downplaying karate's impact, let's remember all institutions and nations create myths about themselves.



True enough. In this case, I suspect it boils down to a backlash against the culture that did it's best to detroy Korean culture. A lot of effort went in to distancing Korea from Japan.


----------



## Rumy73 (Feb 15, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> True enough. In this case, I suspect it boils down to a backlash against the culture that did it's best to detroy Korean culture. A lot of effort went in to distancing Korea from Japan.



You hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 15, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> True enough. In this case, I suspect it boils down to a backlash against the culture that did it's best to detroy Korean culture. A lot of effort went in to distancing Korea from Japan.



while this is true, and even to a degree understandable, lying, an repeating the lies is NOT understandable. And should not be condoned...


----------



## arnisador (Feb 15, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> True enough. In this case, I suspect it boils down to a backlash against the culture that did it's best to detroy Korean culture. A lot of effort went in to distancing Korea from Japan.



Agreed--and understandable, albeit taken to an extreme.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Feb 16, 2013)

Let's take it a step further...

I/we can kinda-sorta understand the distancing from Japanese 'stuff' including the Karate connection from those directly affected by it and directly after it.  But that was then, this is now.  We all know better now...well at least most of us 

But that was 68+ years ago.  Time to let it go and move on with factual information.  Yet sadly, still today rewrites happen from 'some' quarters.  The Japanese attacked the U.S. in Pearl Harbor.  And it sucked.  But that isn't the Japan of today.  To hold a grudge now, about a different time/place/generation isn't a valid position.  Now if Japan was still Imperialistic and looking to take over the Pacific, then yeah, perhaps we could justify some 'hate'.  Is Japan trying to take over Korea today?  They may be vying with each other economically, but what countries aren't.  

Bottom line is TKD should now celebrate the rich history of its lineage as well as what it has accomplished on its own.  Those that perpetuate myth, distortion, lies etc after the fact in this day and age, particularly those that were never affected in the first place need to be corrected for the good of the art as a whole.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Feb 16, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Let's take it a step further...
> 
> I/we can kinda-sorta understand the distancing from Japanese 'stuff' including the Karate connection from those directly affected by it and directly after it.  But that was then, this is now.  We all know better now...well at least most of us
> 
> ...



While I agree that false histories are unnecessary, there are ongoing issues between Japan and Korea. Of course, they are geographically close rivals, but there are also tensions over other issues, such as the Dokdo/Takeshima territorial dispute, the naming of the Sea of Japan/East Sea, and the "comfort women," among others. Many problems may have started with the Japanese colonization of Korea, but they don't end there. I don't want to make it sound like all Koreans hate Japan, but there is still some bitterness for many.


----------



## sopraisso (Feb 16, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> As a counterpoint there are 2 major conceptula difference between what many consider Hallmarks of Karate and ITF / Chang Hon, tose are:
> Karate uses the idea of being "Deeply Rooted" as a requirement for making power. Chang Hon, / ITF does not always require this even using techniques to demonstrate tremendous power while airborne; and
> Karate is known for the "Level Headed" movement when advancing or retreating, while The Chang Hon Sine wave uses the leg knee flexion to employ more of the body's musculature for powwer in hand techniques (In sports disciplines referred to as "Closed Chain" linking) resulting in an up and down motion of the body.



Dear Earl,
I concede on regarding to your remark. Those are surely concepts not present in karate. Anyway, I still believe most of other principles remain the same between both arts, what would not be totally a surprise, anyway: efficient striking arts tend to be based on similar principles on body mechanics (ex.: use of hips for power generation, prevalence of striking techniques, way of performing such techniques). Anyway, we can particularly see the similarities in important things (imo) like the forms and general way of regarding the techniques themselves. Most techniques in taekwondo/taekwon-do syllabus have a similar counterpart in karate, and in my opinion this is no coincidence. Honestly, I believe we have more to agree than to disagree here: I don't have an extreme position in this topic (and I don't think you do), I just wanted make a counterpoint, as well, to the "Korean roots" thing.
Furthermore, I agree with your point in your other previous post (mentioning Okinawan and Chinese roots). Anyway, I believe tkd's origins were even largely and notably influenced by some of the "Japanese ways" of performing karate -- what doesn't even feels very pleasant to me: I prefer the "Okinawan ways", so to speak. This "specific" Japanese influence would've been mainly due to the learning of karate by Koreans in mainland Japan universities, mostly in Funakoshi's shotokan. Despite Funakoshi's shorin/shorei's roots, I believe more modern Anko Itosu's methods and even the Japanese context (karate being badly looked by Japanese people, the need to stabilish a "peaceful art" in a new society, etc.) were highly influent to make a deep change in karate how it was teached in Japan in that period. Please, take what I'm saying with a grain of salt, I'm quite in a hurry now and I may be expressing not in the best way I could.
Best regards.


----------



## Spookey (Jun 1, 2013)

I would love to hear a discussion on how Taekwon-Do has effected modern Japanese Karate!

Now, im not talking about the "hwa-rang introducing martial arts to China" theory....Im talking about how well into the 1970's most of Japan's Karate was still very Okinawan. Hip level snappy side kicks, hands chambered to the hips during kicks, and sparring conducted from traditional stances.

Today the sparring of the JKA has a more side facing bouncing posture, hooking kicks and reverse turning kicks, lead leg sliding side kicks, and jumping back kicks are very prevalent. Perhaps the Nishiyama era. Would this be around the same time as the proliferation of the 12 Original Masters of Taekwondo.

Point is we all know where we came from, and this is very important as stated. Even more so is the importance of looking how far we have come! Korea is at the highest level of International Competition for Judo, while the proliferation of Taekwondo continues to grow in Japan. 

The reality is, that we as the new generation (students, instructors, and masters) as those who have not been oppressed by anyone in our lifetime (speaking of the westerners) should be assisting in creating a strong even footing for the present to allow for a better future.

Regards


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 5, 2013)

Jaeimseu said:


> While I agree that false histories are unnecessary, there are ongoing issues between Japan and Korea. Of course, they are geographically close rivals, but there are also tensions over other issues, such as the Dokdo/Takeshima territorial dispute, the naming of the Sea of Japan/East Sea, and the "comfort women," among others. Many problems may have started with the Japanese colonization of Korea, but they don't end there. I don't want to make it sound like all Koreans hate Japan, but there is still some bitterness for many.


The Japanese government is continually trying to rewrite their history to justify their actions against Korea, China and other nations it abused.  They say that the comfort women joined willingly, this is complete and utter crap!  Those women were promised training and jobs in nursing as well as being seamstresses to make uniforms.  The purposely took only younger, unmarried women, used them and then killed them or discarded them if they became sick or pregnant.  Now they try to justify it or claim it really never happened.  So yes there is a bit pissed-offness felt from Koreans.

The pioneers never once denied where they learned their marital arts.  If you want to understand more about the history, then there needs to be more in depth look at the political and social climate during the time when the "2000 year old" art was invented.  I also suggest reading books like "Under the Black Umbrella" which will give you some insight on why Koreans feel the way they do.  That will give you more insight on all this debate that is currently going on.


----------



## Rumy73 (Jun 10, 2013)

miguksaram said:


> The Japanese government is continually trying to rewrite their history to justify their actions against Korea, China and other nations it abused.  They say that the comfort women joined willingly, this is complete and utter crap!  Those women were promised training and jobs in nursing as well as being seamstresses to make uniforms.  The purposely took only younger, unmarried women, used them and then killed them or discarded them if they became sick or pregnant.  Now they try to justify it or claim it really never happened.  So yes there is a bit pissed-offness felt from Koreans.
> 
> The pioneers never once denied where they learned their marital arts.  If you want to understand more about the history, then there needs to be more in depth look at the political and social climate during the time when the "2000 year old" art was invented.  I also suggest reading books like "Under the Black Umbrella" which will give you some insight on why Koreans feel the way they do.  That will give you more insight on all this debate that is currently going on.



This is true to a point. Japan has made apologies about the war. Even so, many Koreans, my wife included, deny their existence. When I showed her one day a list of efforts Japan has made, she scoffed and said the apologies did not come from the proper authority, mind you many came from prime minsters. She is typical of most people in how she receives and appraises information. Hence most Koreans refuse to move forward. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 11, 2013)

I believe these are main reasons.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...denies-wartime-comfort-women-were-forced.html
or this:
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201305270109
I think this is a very telltale quote right here form the article:


			
				Hashimoto said:
			
		

> Hashimoto told reporters on May 13 that the comfort women system, in which women, mainly Koreans, were forced to provide sex to Japanese troops, was a necessary part of the war.



Perhaps this 2012 Youtube clip: 




Then there is the whole Dokdo Island controversy.  The problem is that the Japanese government is still denying or worse justifying their atrocities to the Koreans and other nations.  The sad part is that many of the surviving comfort women will be passing away.  Who will mourn them when the vast majority had no families?  Who will do ceremonial burial rituals?  No one.  They will be a small notation in the history books for Korea, while they will not even be footnote in Japan's history books.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 11, 2013)

So now we're trying to justify rank shopping/changed martial arts history/lying/dishonest practices/greed/ego because of comfort women from 70+ years ago?


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 11, 2013)

I'm going to expound on my above question.

Racial bigotry, be it black and white or Japanese and Korean is simply an ugly crutch used by some to justify inappropriate actions.  And many of those lying their arses off were not affected by 'comfort women' or a dispute over some islands in any way, shape or form.  Have the Koreans ever raped their prisoners?  Have they ever tortured prisoners or civilians?  Have they ever committed immoral acts against the 'enemy' or civilians.  Yes on all accounts and they still do today in NK.  All cultures can be guilty of that.

Doesn't make lying or being dishonest suddenly reputable.  And Korean women weren't the only ones made into sex slaves now were they?  People tend to forget their WWII history.  

Does the Japanese government lie?  Show me a government that doesn't.  Sad to say.  But it isn't an excuse for dishonorable actions within the martial arts.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 11, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I'm going to expound on my above question.
> 
> Racial bigotry, be it black and white or Japanese and Korean is simply an ugly crutch used by some to justify inappropriate actions.  And many of those lying their arses off were not affected by 'comfort women' or a dispute over some islands in any way, shape or form.  Have the Koreans ever raped their prisoners?  Have they ever tortured prisoners or civilians?  Have they ever committed immoral acts against the 'enemy' or civilians.  Yes on all accounts and they still do today in NK.  All cultures can be guilty of that.


Right...NK is well known for many atrocities to its civilians.  Never said they weren't.  SK is also responsible for many atrocities to its own people in the beginning of their democratic state after the Japanese occupation.  Never said they were angels.  People here are trying to understand why or how these fallacies in the TKD history began.  I am trying to help in answering this by providing reference material that may help someone begin to understand the why.  Do the atrocities just the lies in martial arts perhaps not, but then again, you are more hell bent on pointing out that Koreans are liars than you are to try to figure why something like this would happen in the first place.




			
				KSD said:
			
		

> Doesn't make lying or being dishonest suddenly reputable.  And Korean women weren't the only ones made into sex slaves now were they?  People tend to forget their WWII history.


 I mentioned in my posting 





			
				me said:
			
		

> ...to justify their actions against Korea, China and other nations it abused.


 I acknowledge that Korea was not the only country that they did this against, though vast majority were Koreans.  



> Does the Japanese government lie?  Show me a government that doesn't.  Sad to say.  But it isn't an excuse for dishonorable actions within the martial arts.


They lie, they also justify, and they change their history books to show that they were in the right.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 11, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> So now we're trying to justify rank shopping/changed martial arts history/lying/dishonest practices/greed/ego because of comfort women from 70+ years ago?


I am not trying to justify that at all.  I was merely expanding on Jaemisu's point.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 11, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> While in part influenced by karate and kung fu, TKD has Korean DNA.
> 
> http://youtu.be/wUPeq47bRjk


Since I came late to the party I will start from the beginning and if I am repeating info already posted I apologize. 

I just finished doing a thesis on Shotokan in which I submitted that without Gichin Funakoshi there would have never been any Taekwondo.  With in that I referenced the following from the Korean Taekkyon Federation 





			
				Taekkyon Federation said:
			
		

> Moreover, new martial arts called Taekwondo is establisted after Korean War and there were confusion between Taekkyon and Taekwondo.  But these two martial arts have nothing in common and are completely different.


 (Ref.  http://www.taekkyon.or.kr/en/)

While there are a couple of the pioneers who claim ties to Taekkyon, these ties have never been established and even denied from certain Taekkyon higher ups.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 11, 2013)

miguksaram said:


> ...you are more hell bent on pointing out that Koreans are liars than you are to try to figure why something like this would happen in the first place.



This is incorrect and always has been.  I've never broad-brushed Koreans as a whole.  But I have pointed out the instances where some have and then shaken my head when some try to scramble to somehow justify deceitful, immoral, dishonest or dishonorable actions.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 11, 2013)

Aiseant said:


> All the countries of the area had martial arts, and they all mixed a little bit in each other, Korea was a very busy road to go to/from japan, china, mongolia etc.



I believe the problem is that while all countries have some sort of indigenous military fighting system, not all countries established a systematic unarmed combative system, like karate, kung fu, etc.  We tend to think of martial arts as a set system of established criteria like that of wado-ryu or taekwondo.  In this essence Korea lacked in this area, having only a couple of indigenous arts like ssirum, taekkyon.  Most anything else would have been strictly military combative systems which was 90% armed combat and 10% unarmed.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 11, 2013)

miguksaram said:


> Since I came late to the party I will start from the beginning and if I am repeating info already posted I apologize.
> 
> I just finished doing a thesis on Shotokan in which I submitted that without Gichin Funakoshi there would have never been any Taekwondo.  With in that I referenced the following from the Korean Taekkyon Federation  (Ref.  http://www.taekkyon.or.kr/en/)
> 
> While there are a couple of the pioneers who claim ties to Taekkyon, these ties have never been established and even denied from certain Taekkyon higher ups.



Good post and I agree.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 11, 2013)

Deleted post....just not worth the posting.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 11, 2013)

Aiseant said:


> Funny enough : if you consider how man years japanese people spent in Korea, there could not be such thing as purely japanese karate
> Saying there is no karate in taekwondo is as wrong as saying that there is no taekwondo (of taekyon, or any korean art) in karate.


If you look at Korean history, interaction with Japan, during any peace time with them, was limited to certain kingdoms.  Those interactions were based on merchant exchanges.  As I pointed out earlier, there were no unarmed combative system around save ssirum and taekkyon.  So I doubt there was much influence of unarmed Korean arts making its way to Japan.  Not saying entirely impossible, but very highly unlikely.  

I do not know what percentage of those transactions between Japan and Korea came from interactions from Okinawa, where karate was developed.  So it would again, very difficult to firmly say, Korea had any influence on Japanese unarmed combat.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 11, 2013)

Aiseant said:


> In fact, it is a matter for debate, as I studied history of taekwondo and korean martial art, and have been led to a different opinion than yours



I recommend reading more Korean history.  This will help more than martial art history.  Reason being you will get more in-depth look at political relations between the two countries as well as better feel for the culture during ancient times.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 11, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Dakin Burdick had an excellent article years ago in the JAMA.  Marc Tedishi also has quite an extensive historical background in his books on HKD and TKD.


Burdick's article was flawed, and while it does have some good information in there, I would not use it as be all end all soruce of Korean martial art history.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 11, 2013)

chrispillertkd said:


> You've said several times that Taekwon-Do was just Shotokan in the beginning. (You also seem to think that any development of the style isn't Taekwon-Do, at least you've said as much in the past, IIRC.) But the fact is that there were at least two Kwans that were influenced by Chinese arts and they were part of the unification movement to form Taekwon-Do. QED, your statement isn't accurate.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



That is correct, Chang Moo Kwan and Moo Duk Kwan (though this on is iffy on the Chinese influence).  Also Chang Moo Kwan was influenced by Shudokan not Shotokan.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 11, 2013)

miguksaram said:


> Burdick's article was flawed, and while it does have some good information in there, I would not use it as be all end all soruce of Korean martial art history.



I don't recall it being cited as the be-all-to-end-all source.  It is a source though as is Tedeshi and those that others have mentioned.  It needs to be realized that an exact and precise time line of events is quite difficult since histories have been changed or the attempt has been made.  It boils down to a senior changing facts around to fiction and then teaching it to those who in turn pass on the changes.  Could have been nationalistic pride, could have been ego, could have be x,y and z.  Those in the lineage then report fiction as fact and stick to it regardless of what anyone else brings to the table.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 12, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I don't recall it being cited as the be-all-to-end-all source.


No but everybody and there mother always refer to this report as THE report to go to for history information.  


			
				KSD said:
			
		

> It is a source though as is Tedeshi and those that others have mentioned.  It needs to be realized that an exact and precise time line of events is quite difficult since histories have been changed or the attempt has been made.  It boils down to a senior changing facts around to fiction and then teaching it to those who in turn pass on the changes.


_(Note:  I have not read Tedeshi's book so this reply is not about his work.)_ It does not boil down to people changing facts, it boils down to the need for deeper research and researching outside of the topic itself.  There were  several kwan founders still alive that could have been contacted to get direct information about origins.  There were plenty of senior students to contact as well, which have been very forth coming about the real history.  Plus research should be done outside of just immediate circle of thought.  When I first became interested in TKD history I started to look through Korean history in order to sift out what some facts and what some fiction is.



			
				KSD said:
			
		

> Could have been nationalistic pride, could have been ego, could have be x,y and z.  Those in the lineage then report fiction as fact and stick to it regardless of what anyone else brings to the table.


Really?  How many seniors have you discussed the history with?  Perhaps I was just lucky, but all the ones I have talked to have always been quite open with information on what the past was really like.  I guess it is because I am an Asiaphile (as you eloquently put it on your other site) that opened the doors for me. Regardless, the truth has always been out there.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 12, 2013)

miguksaram said:


> No but everybody and there motheralways refer to this report as THE report to go to for history information.


Everybody always refers to it as the history?  Really? I've only seen it even mentioned here a small handful of times over the last couple of years.  You should really refrain from using general, broad brush strokes to make a point.  Your statement isn't accurate. 



> (Note: I havenot read Tedeshi's book so this reply is not about his work.)


I'm surprise you haven't. Perhaps you should.



> It does not boil down to people changing facts, itboils down to the need for deeper research and researching outside of the topicitself.


 
We are in 100% disagreement here.  It does boil down to people (TKD seniors)changing facts.  As just one example, GM Woo claims that the HMK came from the Jidokwan. GM Lee claims he has nothing to do with the JDK and comes straight from the YMK.  Who's right?  Who are you going to believe.  Apparently there was a falling out at that time.  So is Woo claiming something that isn't true or is Lee distancing himself because he got bent out of shape?  Or was there an agenda one way or the other?   A LOT of TKD history boils down to 'who do you want to believe'?  



> There were plenty of senior students to contact aswell, which have been very forth coming about the real history.


 
Really?  And just how do you KNOW it was the REAL history? Unless you were there and personally know for a fact...you're relying on what someone else has told you.  And what they told you may be 100% accurate or 100% BS or a 50/50 split.  So you don't KNOW, you are just choosing to BELIEVE.



> How many seniors have you discussed the historywith?


 
More than you know. 



> Perhaps I was just lucky, but all the ones I have talked to have always been quite open with information on what the past was really like.


 
And again...you don't know, you're just choosing to believe what you've been told.   



> I guess it is because I am an Asiaphile


 
Hmm, someone is a little bent outta shape.  If the shoe fits I suppose.  Anyone that tries to find justification for buyinga Hapkido BB after  a single weekend of training with no prior experience because the instructor is Korean would qualify in my book.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 12, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Everybody always refers to it as the history?  Really? I've only seen it even mentioned here a small handful of times over the last couple of years.  You should really refrain from using general, broad brush strokes to make a point.  Your statement isn't accurate.



Read other forums and you will see it mentioned in there as well.  Talk in the circles of those who try do research in TKD history and you will hear them reference it.  Look on the internet at some of the people doing research and they will reference him as well.  No not every person on the planet use him, but damned if it doesn't seem like it.




			
				KSD said:
			
		

> I'm surprise you haven't. Perhaps you should.


I am interested in doing so in the future, but at this time I am in the middle of 'Sources of Korean Traditions Vol. 1' and then have three other books to get through after that.  Plus still trying to digest the four books I just finished in the last year and comparing notes with what I am finding in the books I am picking up now.  Plus planning another trip to do some more research at actual areas in Korea where some of the events are happening.  Eventually I will get to his but won't be happening any time soon.




			
				KSD said:
			
		

> We are in 100% disagreement here.  It does boil down to people (TKD seniors)changing facts.  As just one example, GM Woo claims that the HMK came from the Jidokwan. GM Lee claims he has nothing to do with the JDK and comes straight from the YMK.  Who's right?  Who are you going to believe.  Apparently there was a falling out at that time.  So is Woo claiming something that isn't true or is Lee distancing himself because he got bent out of shape?  Or was there an agenda one way or the other?   A LOT of TKD history boils down to 'who do you want to believe'?


So then what did you find out when you questioned the two?  When you did the research on the arts themselves and compared to each other, what did you discover?  




			
				KSD said:
			
		

> Really?  And just how do you KNOW it was the REAL history? Unless you were there and personally know for a fact...you're relying on what someone else has told you.  And what they told you may be 100% accurate or 100% BS or a 50/50 split.  So you don't KNOW, you are just choosing to BELIEVE.


Ok..let me reword it.  There were plenty of seniors that did not dispute that TKD origins came from Japanese karate.  There were plenty of seniors and founders who would divulge that they studied karate and that what they studied they used to develop their own art.  My point is not what you chose to believe or not believe, my point is doing due diligence in research prior to writing an article on history.  




			
				KSD said:
			
		

> More than you know.


~sigh~ I am sure



			
				KSD said:
			
		

> And again...you don't know, you're just choosing to believe what you've been told.



Right, that and the fact I have been doing more in depth research and comparing their information to other sources to derive at a more accurate conclusion.  So yes, I have been lucky that thus far, their stories check out and so I tend to believe them.   




			
				KSD said:
			
		

> Hmm, someone is a little bent outta shape.  If the shoe fits I suppose.  Anyone that tries to find justification for buyinga Hapkido BB after  a single weekend of training with no prior experience because the instructor is Korean would qualify in my book.


Not bent out of shape, just find a bit cowardly that you would speak that way about me on one forum and then act like a totally different person on another.  It just shows the depth of your character, or perhaps the shallowness of it.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 12, 2013)

I speak to you on the other forum the same way I speak to you here.  When you're shoveling BS I call you on it.  I've done so here and I've done so there.  And since you've lowered yourself to basically name-calling...yeah, you're bent out of shape.  Thing is that you had ample opportunity elsewhere to speak out on this and choose not to do so.  And bringing it up here probably isn't in the realm of the TOS.  Nor is name calling and talking about others character.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 12, 2013)

I apologize to the group for once again getting into a pissing contest with KSD.  I am reminded why I have not posted on this site for some time.  At this junction, if anyone is interested in discussing more on this subject I will be glad to continue.  Else, many blessings.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 12, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I speak to you on the other forum the same way I speak to you here.  When you're shoveling BS I call you on it.  I've done so here and I've done so there.  And since you've lowered yourself to basically name-calling...yeah, you're bent out of shape.  Thing is that you had ample opportunity elsewhere to speak out on this and choose not to do so.  And bringing it up here probably isn't in the realm of the TOS.  Nor is name calling and talking about others character.


Actually, I have not shoveled  bs.  Ummm...where did I call you a name?  I spoke of your character, but I do not believe I called you a name in my postings in this thread.  But hey whatever, as usual it has been a waste of time trying to discuss anything of actual depth with you that doesn't end up with you just calling Korean seniors liars and never really providing any substance.  Good day.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 12, 2013)

miguksaram said:


> I apologize to the group for once again getting into a pissing contest with KSD.


Jeremy, we have had several good conversations in the past.  It is you however that chooses to get pissy.  You were the one that brought up another board, which isn't policy here.  And if I remember correctly, you were never actually named at all.  It is you that chose to identify yourself with the description.  If you have an issue, I have a PM or contact me on the other board.  This thread isn't the place.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 12, 2013)

miguksaram said:


> But hey whatever, as usual it has been a waste of time trying to discuss anything of actual depth with you that doesn't end up with you just calling Korean seniors liars and never really providing any substance.  Good day.


  Never a waste of time when considering others opinions, comments, experience etc.  One may or may not agree with any particular conclusion but agreement isn't required.  And obviously some Korean seniors have lied or distorted or confused the truth.  That isn't exactly a news flash.  You can accept it, ignore it, disregard it or whatever you wish.  Good day to you as well.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 12, 2013)

Spookey said:


> I would love to hear a discussion on how Taekwon-Do has effected modern Japanese Karate!


  From a sporting perspective, I'd say it has definitely made a mark.  Sport TKD in some locales can offer a successful business model.  If a JMA (or any other really) adapts a successful business model they could have a chance for the same level of success.  It isn't a 100% sure thing.  From an art perspective, I see JMA/OMA remaining true to their core principles, at least in my area and circles.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jun 12, 2013)

History interests me a great deal.  History of martial arts and TKD, in particular, really interests me.  I enjoy learning from my peers on this forum about it.  I am not a historian.  I think that it has been made clear by many that certain sources are not as reliable as they are popular (Burdick comes to mind quickly).  It can also be difficult to weed through folk lore, cultural perspective, and contradictory perspectives since we are on the outside looking in.  

Jeremy has a very valid point, in that, if you want to know about a particular subset of history, it is extremely difficult to fully understand it without understanding the culture's broader history.  Korean history provides a context to have a better understanding of the history of a korean art.  

My KJN was born in 1934, and he began practicing martial arts when he was 8 years old.  This puts his martial arts training starting around 1942.  He has mentioned practicing martial arts with his father in the family tomb in secrecy, since martial arts training was forbidden under Japanese rule. 

From David's POV, I wasn't there in the early 1940's.. . So I don't KNOW that it's true, but I CHOOSE to believe my KJN.  This tells me that there was some martial arts training going on during the Japanese Occupation that wasn't strictly Karate, otherwise, why the need to practice in secrecy?

I will admit, it isn't something my KJN speaks of often; just bits of history I have caught over the past 28 years.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 12, 2013)

SahBumNimRush said:


> This tells me that there was some martial arts training going on during the Japanese Occupation that wasn't strictly Karate, otherwise, why the need to practice in secrecy?


  Judo and Kendo appeared to do well during this time.  It would seem to me that if martial arts were passed down father to son in Okinawa that it would not be beyond the realm that they could do the same in Korea.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jun 12, 2013)

That's what gets me, if arts were passed from father to son in Korea, why is there such a lack of recognition of such things?  It makes sense that, just as OMA's, most of it was oral tradition, but why is there such a lack of support for KMA being practiced during the Japanese occupation?  It had to be in secret, otherwise you could be put to death.  

I do not deny that the forms and the majority of the technique we see in early TKD/TSD/KSD/etc.. . is undeniably Karate.  My KJN never put a name to the martial arts he practiced with his father, but I can only assume that it wasn't Japanese Karate, otherwise why would there be a need to practice in secret?  Details one day I may have the opportunity to ask about.. .


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 12, 2013)

SahBumNimRush said:


> That's what gets me, if arts were passed from father to son in Korea, why is there such a lack of recognition of such things?  It makes sense that, just as OMA's, most of it was oral tradition, but why is there such a lack of support for KMA being practiced during the Japanese occupation?  It had to be in secret, otherwise you could be put to death.
> 
> I do not deny that the forms and the majority of the technique we see in early TKD/TSD/KSD/etc.. . is undeniably Karate.  My KJN never put a name to the martial arts he practiced with his father, but I can only assume that it wasn't Japanese Karate, otherwise why would there be a need to practice in secret?  Details one day I may have the opportunity to ask about.. .


  The lack of representation may stem from the lack of documentation.   Which makes it one of those vicious circle things;  martial art passed on in secrecy due to the climate of the times yet can't really be verified years/decades later because of the secrecy.  Many questions are then raised;  did such training happen?  If so, how wide spread was it?  What did the training consist of i.e. what art?  Would it have been one specific art or several different arts?  What was the level of proficiency being passed on?  How much, if any influence did it have on the formation of TKD?


----------



## Gorilla (Jun 12, 2013)

It is interesting my kids lineage to Funakoshi is shorter in Tkd than in Shotokan.  They hold BB's in both!

Song Moo Kwan....Funakoshi - Ro - Lee - Shin
Shotokan....Unknown

Shotokan and Song Moo Kwan (TKD) virtually the same at their base!!!!

Would you post your thesis I would love to read it!!!!




miguksaram said:


> Since I came late to the party I will start from the beginning and if I am repeating info already posted I apologize.
> 
> I just finished doing a thesis on Shotokan in which I submitted that without Gichin Funakoshi there would have never been any Taekwondo.  With in that I referenced the following from the Korean Taekkyon Federation  (Ref.  http://www.taekkyon.or.kr/en/)
> 
> While there are a couple of the pioneers who claim ties to Taekkyon, these ties have never been established and even denied from certain Taekkyon higher ups.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 13, 2013)

SahBumNimRush said:


> That's what gets me, if arts were passed from father to son in Korea, why is there such a lack of recognition of such things?  It makes sense that, just as OMA's, most of it was oral tradition, but why is there such a lack of support for KMA being practiced during the Japanese occupation?  It had to be in secret, otherwise you could be put to death.


The first question is what was it that your instructor's dad pass down to him?  If it was strictly unarmed combat, was it hanpil, kwon bup, taekkyon or was it karate that the father may have learned?  

Some things to keep in mind, the main people who clearly understood military arts were military families and upper caste people.  Their children were trained in them as a part of their overall status training or trade training.  Keep in mind that whatever your dad did for a living, most likely the sons would follow.  Low level merchants/farmers/peasants/slaves, were not privy to a lot of military training.  For the most part they did a rotation in serving in the military.  While they served other families had to work harder to help provide for them through the military taxes imposed.  So when the lower caste people were not serving in the military, for the most part they were working with not much time to anything else.  Plus their exposure would not have been as extensive.  So the whole handing down military knowledge from father to son would not have been as prevalent as it may have been in other countries.    



> I do not deny that the forms and the majority of the technique we see in early TKD/TSD/KSD/etc.. . is undeniably Karate.  My KJN never put a name to the martial arts he practiced with his father, but I can only assume that it wasn't Japanese Karate, otherwise why would there be a need to practice in secret?  Details one day I may have the opportunity to ask about.. .


Because Japan had a very strict rule on Koreans practicing martial arts.  Only a privy few had permission to do so.  Others would be imprisoned immediately and labeled rebels.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 13, 2013)

Gorilla said:


> Would you post your thesis I would love to read it!!!!


Send me your email to [Personal Contact Information deleted per TOS] and I will send you a copy.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 13, 2013)

When it comes to family training, there would not be any records saying father taught son.  After all its family, why would you record that you taught your son this or that.  Again, you have to consider, for the most part, that there was not a "style" like that of mantis kung fu or Shorin-ryu.  So there would be no title to pass on.  I would liken it to modern day dad teaching his kid the fundamentals of baseball.  Eventually the kid will start training for in a more formal setting and perhaps records could be found there, but not in private training with a parent.


----------



## Gorilla (Jun 13, 2013)

The Shotokan Training and the TKD training has made them very well rounded strikers!  The trips/throws with the hand techs in Shotokan mixed with the great kicking of Tkd and you throw in a little Judo and you have complete Martial Artisit!

Remember I am looking at it from more of Sport perspective.

To me it is clear that Korean martials and Japanese Martial Arts are very similar and share common roots!


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jun 13, 2013)

miguksaram said:


> When it comes to family training, there would not be any records saying father taught son.  After all its family, why would you record that you taught your son this or that.  Again, you have to consider, for the most part, that there was not a "style" like that of mantis kung fu or Shorin-ryu.  So there would be no title to pass on.  I would liken it to modern day dad teaching his kid the fundamentals of baseball.  Eventually the kid will start training for in a more formal setting and perhaps records could be found there, but not in private training with a parent.



That's kind of what I'm getting at.  It was serious training, but with no emphasis put "style" or "rank."  Just because it was not recorded, doesn't mean it didn't take place.  I'm okay with that, but it gets me when people try to state that it did not happen because no one wrote it down.  Again, IMO, it boils down to context, cultural and historical perspective.  

To use your analogy, I wouldn't log baseball stats with my son during training, who would?  Does that mean that I didn't work with him?


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jun 13, 2013)

miguksaram said:


> The first question is what was it that your instructor's dad pass down to him?  If it was strictly unarmed combat, was it hanpil, kwon bup, taekkyon or was it karate that the father may have learned?



If for no other reason than to give me insight into early KMA's, it would be interesting to know the answer to that question, but as you stated previously, it was likely done without a name.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 13, 2013)

SahBumNimRush said:


> If for no other reason than to give me insight into early KMA's, it would be interesting to know the answer to that question, but as you stated previously, it was likely done without a name.


True, it may have just been his own fighting concepts.  Again, for the record, I am not dismissing that family training did not happen in Korea.  I am just saying that it would not be as wide spread as some would have you believe.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 13, 2013)

SahBumNimRush said:


> If for no other reason than to give me insight into early KMA's, it would be interesting to know the answer to that question, but as you stated previously, it was likely done without a name.



It may have been done without a name, or even perhaps just a family name.  But it would have had a source.  And it would be interesting, even if from just a historical perspective, to know the source(s).  Further, would the source(s) have changed with the region?  We know in China that the arts differed from the northern parts of China to the southern parts, at least in some regards.  Would/could this have been the case in Korea as well?  If Okinawans learned from the Chinese and brought it back, why not the Koreans during various parts of their history?  While one or more Koreans could have traveled via ship to southern Chinese ports, those in northern Korea could have made the trip via a land route.  For that matter, vice-versa.  The point is that there could have been much taught father to son that while not officially sponsered or recognized, still could have existed.  Even with the Japanese occupation which would have driven such training underground, martial arts in that era was a personal, secret thing not to be shared lightly.  These factors could have limited the passing of these arts severely or perhaps even drove them to extinction (near).  

From a purely statistical perspective, I'd find it unlikely that the Okinawans imported Chinese arts but the Koreans didn't at least have similiar influence on a father-to-son (or close knit group) basis.  Although travel wasn't as speedy as today, we're still talking a close geographical area.  Theorectical of course, but interesting to contemplate.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 13, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> It may have been done without a name, or even perhaps just a family name.  But it would have had a source.  And it would be interesting, even if from just a historical perspective, to know the source(s).  Further, would the source(s) have changed with the region?  We know in China that the arts differed from the northern parts of China to the southern parts, at least in some regards.  Would/could this have been the case in Korea as well?  If Okinawans learned from the Chinese and brought it back, why not the Koreans during various parts of their history?


Korea, unlike China was a bit more consistent in its geography which is mostly mountainous.  Plus, again, there was very little in the ways of a systematic style of unarmed combat that was utilized (exceptions being mentioned before of taekkyon, ssirum).  The differences would lie in actual military combat systems derived from various kingdoms of Silla, Koguryo, and Paekche.  These systems, we very heavily influenced by Chinese military arts.  This is seen through several manuals such as Muyedobotongji, Muyejebo, and a couple of other manuals whose names I can't recall at this moment.  Kwon-bup, which is very similar to Chuan'fa was included in these studies, however, more emphasis was geared towards armed combat.  


> While one or more Koreans could have traveled via ship to southern Chinese ports, those in northern Korea could have made the trip via a land route. For that matter, vice-versa.  The point is that there could have been much taught father to son that while not officially sponsered or recognized, still could have existed.Even with the Japanese occupation which would have driven such training underground, martial arts in that era was a personal, secret thing not to be shared lightly.  These factors could have limited the passing of these arts severely or perhaps even drove them to extinction (near).


Again, while possible, it is very highly unlikely due to the culture of Korea during that time frame.


----------



## Rumy73 (Jun 13, 2013)

miguksaram said:


> Korea, unlike China was a bit more consistent in its geography which is mostly mountainous.  Plus, again, there was very little in the ways of a systematic style of unarmed combat that was utilized (exceptions being mentioned before of taekkyon, ssirum).  The differences would lie in actual military combat systems derived from various kingdoms of Silla, Koguryo, and Paekche.  These systems, we very heavily influenced by Chinese military arts.  This is seen through several manuals such as Muyedobotongji, Muyejebo, and a couple of other manuals whose names I can't recall at this moment.  Kwon-bup, which is very similar to Chuan'fa was included in these studies, however, more emphasis was geared towards armed combat.
> 
> Again, while possible, it is very highly unlikely due to the culture of Korea during that time frame.



My reason for starting this post was that Koreans are ultimately the owner of their martial arts.


Most of the commentary and positioning concerning the level of that influence Japan has had on Korea is faulty. People take the tack that since A looks like B, B is just A with a different name. More specifically Taekwondo was copied from Karate, because it had elements that look(ed) similar. This is an oversimplification and culturally insensitive at best. Taekwondo is most likely a coalescence of many things. It likely mainly pulls from historic Korean practices, and was enhanced by drawing from Japanese and Chinese modalities. Neighbors influence one another! Taekwondo has not remained static; it has evolved greatly since its inception after WWII. It will likely continue to develop.

Understanding how outside ideas influence cultures is fascinating. It is often mistake to think that when a culture adopts an outside idea, it adopts it wholesale. It is also a mistake to believe that only stronger cultures impact weaker ones: Imperial Japan over Korea. I imagine the Japanese learned more than just a thing or two while in Korea.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 13, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> My reason for starting this post was that Koreans are ultimately the owner of their martial arts.
> 
> 
> Most of the commentary and positioning concerning the level of that influence Japan has had on Korea is faulty. People take the tack that since A looks like B, B is just A with a different name. More specifically Taekwondo was copied from Karate, because it had elements that look(ed) similar. This is an oversimplification and culturally insensitive at best. Taekwondo is most likely a coalescence of many things. It likely mainly pulls from historic Korean practices, and was enhanced by drawing from Japanese and Chinese modalities. Neighbors influence one another! Taekwondo has not remained static; it has evolved greatly since its inception after WWII. It will likely continue to develop.



I think I see where you are coming from but let me try to say it in another way and let me know if I am correct in my interpretation.  What TKD is today, has become an indigenous Korean art.  While its beginnings may have stemmed from other countries, it has since evolved into it something entirely different and to say that today's TKD is just rehashed Japanese karate would be incorrect.  It would be like saying today automobile is just a rehashed horse and buggy.  While the auto concept may have stemmed from the horse and buggy, it has become something entirely different.  Am I on the right track?



> Understanding how outside ideas influence cultures is fascinating. It is often mistake to think that when a culture adopts an outside idea, it adopts it wholesale. It is also a mistake to believe that only stronger cultures impact weaker ones: Imperial Japan over Korea. I imagine the Japanese learned more than just a thing or two while in Korea.



There were many exchanges between Japan and Korea during the 3 kingdom periods.  Many artisan skills that were developed by Korea was transported to Japan during these exchanges.  Example would be rice paddy cultivation, architectural and arts.


----------



## Rumy73 (Jun 13, 2013)

miguksaram said:


> I think I see where you are coming from but let me try to say it in another way and let me know if I am correct in my interpretation.  What TKD is today, has become an indigenous Korean art.  While its beginnings may have stemmed from other countries, it has since evolved into it something entirely different and to say that today's TKD is just rehashed Japanese karate would be incorrect.  It would be like saying today automobile is just a rehashed horse and buggy.  While the auto concept may have stemmed from the horse and buggy, it has become something entirely different.  Am I on the right track?
> 
> 
> 
> There were many exchanges between Japan and Korea during the 3 kingdom periods.  Many artisan skills that were developed by Korea was transported to Japan during these exchanges.  Example would be rice paddy cultivation, architectural and arts.



Sort of. I see it as a mix of traditional Korean arts and outside influences that have evolved into something unique to Korea.


----------



## Rumy73 (Jun 13, 2013)

miguksaram said:


> I think I see where you are coming from but let me try to say it in another way and let me know if I am correct in my interpretation.  What TKD is today, has become an indigenous Korean art.  While its beginnings may have stemmed from other countries, it has since evolved into it something entirely different and to say that today's TKD is just rehashed Japanese karate would be incorrect.  It would be like saying today automobile is just a rehashed horse and buggy.  While the auto concept may have stemmed from the horse and buggy, it has become something entirely different.  Am I on the right track?
> 
> 
> 
> There were many exchanges between Japan and Korea during the 3 kingdom periods.  Many artisan skills that were developed by Korea was transported to Japan during these exchanges.  Example would be rice paddy cultivation, architectural and arts.



For the second of your points, yes!


----------



## Gorilla (Jun 13, 2013)

Taekwondo is Shotokan Karate that has grown up in Korea becoming a Korean Art. It is still close enough to it's begining to similar in many ways to Shotokan!

As time moves on it will become more and more unique!

Unless of course they start to influence each other!  Which I think might happen!


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jun 13, 2013)

I have to agree gorilla, I have been doing shotokan for a while now (along with tkd) and I have found the transition almost seamless. They are very very similar.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 14, 2013)

Gorilla said:


> Taekwondo is Shotokan Karate that has grown up in Korea becoming a Korean Art. It is still close enough to it's begining to similar in many ways to Shotokan!
> 
> As time moves on it will become more and more unique!
> 
> Unless of course they start to influence each other!  Which I think might happen!


To say it is just Shotokan karate actually leaves out other influences.  You have Chuan'fa, Shudokan (which are verified), and taekkyon (not verified) influences as well.  Also, I should add to my point that the TKD that I refer to is KKW TKD, and not ITF TKD.  KKW TKD as an art has become its own thing.  While forms look similar to that of karate they are not karate forms.  Karate has become its own art, yet there are some forms that are similar to chinese boxing forms, yet, we do not say that karate is just rehashed kung fu.  It has become its own thing as well.

For ralphmcpherson, please correct me if I'm wrong, but you study the ITF TKD?  If so that would explain the almost seamless transition between shotokan and TKD.  ITF people correct me if I'm wrong, but ITF has kept a very close tie to its roots of karate at least closer than that of KKW.  (Note: This is not to say one is better than the other just trying to point out a difference is all).


----------



## Gorilla (Jun 14, 2013)

Agreed other influences but the major one is Shotokan Karate!





miguksaram said:


> To say it is just Shotokan karate actually leaves out other influences.  You have Chuan'fa, Shudokan (which are verified), and taekkyon (not verified) influences as well.  Also, I should add to my point that the TKD that I refer to is KKW TKD, and not ITF TKD.  KKW TKD as an art has become its own thing.  While forms look similar to that of karate they are not karate forms.  Karate has become its own art, yet there are some forms that are similar to chinese boxing forms, yet, we do not say that karate is just rehashed kung fu.  It has become its own thing as well.For ralphmcpherson, please correct me if I'm wrong, but you study the ITF TKD?  If so that would explain the almost seamless transition between shotokan and TKD.  ITF people correct me if I'm wrong, but ITF has kept a very close tie to its roots of karate at least closer than that of KKW.  (Note: This is not to say one is better than the other just trying to point out a difference is all).


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 14, 2013)

Gorilla said:


> Agreed other influences but the major one is Shotokan Karate!


Agreed


----------



## clfsean (Jun 14, 2013)

Gorilla said:


> Taekwondo is Shotokan Karate that has grown up in Korea becoming a Korean Art. It is still close enough to it's begining to similar in many ways to Shotokan!
> 
> As time moves on it will become more and more unique!
> 
> Unless of course they start to influence each other!  Which I think might happen!



Back in 80's I would train with my best friend at his Shotokan school. When it was forms practice time, the only time we deviated was when he did Tekki kata, I didn't & my kicks were better. Otherwise my Pyung-ahns were almost identical to his Heians.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 14, 2013)

clfsean said:


> Back in 80's I would train with my best friend at his Shotokan school. When it was forms practice time, the only time we deviated was when he did Tekki kata, I didn't & my kicks were better. Otherwise my Pyung-ahns were almost identical to his Heians.


That would be because the Pyung-ahns were based off of Heinans.  If I remember correctly GM Hwang Ki interpreted them from a book and the worked with GM Lee Won-kuk as well, prior to the formation of TKD so the forms would have been Shotokan forms.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 14, 2013)

miguksaram said:


> For ralphmcpherson, please correct me if I'm wrong, but you study the ITF TKD? If so that would explain the almost seamless transition between shotokan and TKD. ITF people correct me if I'm wrong, but ITF has kept a very close tie to its roots of karate at least closer than that of KKW. (Note: This is not to say one is better than the other just trying to point out a difference is all).



I think this is a reasonable position. The roots of ITF and KKW TKD are if not totally at least primarily identical. The influence of Karate can certainly be seen in the Chang Hon tul. I also think it's true that you can see a greater influence of Karate in the Palgwe poomsae (the original KKW forms) than in the Taegeuk poomsae. My understanding has always been that changing the forms was done for many reasons, but that two of those were to make TKD 'more Korean' and to develop forms with input from all of the original Kwans, since developers of the Palgwe poomsae did not include the Moo Duk Kwan or one other (sorry, memory fails me...). 



miguksaram said:


> That would be because the Pyung-ahns were based off of Heinans. If I remember correctly GM Hwang Ki interpreted them from a book and the worked with GM Lee Won-kuk as well, prior to the formation of TKD so the forms would have been Shotokan forms.



There's always been a lot of debate about how much of the forms were taken from books, but it's pretty obvious that the Pyung-ahn and Heinan forms are the same.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jun 14, 2013)

miguksaram said:


> To say it is just Shotokan karate actually leaves out other influences.  You have Chuan'fa, Shudokan (which are verified), and taekkyon (not verified) influences as well.  Also, I should add to my point that the TKD that I refer to is KKW TKD, and not ITF TKD.  KKW TKD as an art has become its own thing.  While forms look similar to that of karate they are not karate forms.  Karate has become its own art, yet there are some forms that are similar to chinese boxing forms, yet, we do not say that karate is just rehashed kung fu.  It has become its own thing as well.
> 
> For ralphmcpherson, please correct me if I'm wrong, but you study the ITF TKD?  If so that would explain the almost seamless transition between shotokan and TKD.  ITF people correct me if I'm wrong, but ITF has kept a very close tie to its roots of karate at least closer than that of KKW.  (Note: This is not to say one is better than the other just trying to point out a difference is all).


No I dont do itf tkd. We are independent but do palgwe forms and would best be described as "old school", which is probably why it seems so similar to shotokan karate.


----------



## Gorilla (Jun 14, 2013)

ralphmcpherson said:


> No I dont do itf tkd. We are independent but do palgwe forms and would best be described as "old school", which is probably why it seems so similar to shotokan karate.



The difference for us has been the focus...Shotokan (punching)...TKD(kicking)...  The kids train 2hours a day in each...

It is funny the influence has been on both sides...Tkd is influencing the karate school...and karate influencing the Tkd school it has been cool to watch...


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jun 14, 2013)

miguksaram said:


> ITF people correct me if I'm wrong, but ITF has kept a very close tie to its roots of karate at least closer than that of KKW. (Note: This is not to say one is better than the other just trying to point out a difference is all).



No, not really.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Gorilla (Jun 14, 2013)

I think that Karateka and Taekwondoin should be proud of their shared heritage!!!! It started in war and occupation but out of that debacle came something great TKD!!!!!

it is a truly modern art!!!  its major influence is Shotokan but it's has grown up in Korea and it is truly a Korean Art Today!!!!  Something that all Koreans can be proud of!!!!  I thank them for spreading it to the world!!!


----------



## Gorilla (Jun 16, 2013)

The great thing about this is that TKD is growing up in many countries and being influenced by many cultures!

The same thing is going on in Karate!!!!


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 16, 2013)

We can talk about roots ad nauseum, Back thru Shotokan, Shorin, Shorei and Shaolin.  However we need to keep in mind that roots are only part of plant development . Due to disease all French wine comes from plants grafted on to American grape plant roots.        http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1eqcxr/til_in_the_1863_an_american_aphid_infestation/      Many things affect how the plant develops. A substantial factor is large  amounts of manure.  Draw your own parallels


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 17, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> We can talk about roots ad nauseum, Back thru Shotokan, Shorin, Shorei and Shaolin.  However we need to keep in mind that roots are only part of plant development . Due to disease all French wine comes from plants grafted on to American grape plant roots.        http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1eqcxr/til_in_the_1863_an_american_aphid_infestation/      Many things affect how the plant develops. A substantial factor is large  amounts of manure.  Draw your own parallels



My vote for best post in the thread! :boing1:


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 17, 2013)

ralphmcpherson said:


> No I dont do itf tkd. We are independent but do palgwe forms and would best be described as "old school", which is probably why it seems so similar to shotokan karate.


I see.  Yes, the Palgwe forms still had strong ties to the Shotokan forms.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 17, 2013)

Gorilla said:


> The difference for us has been the focus...Shotokan (punching)...TKD(kicking)...  The kids train 2hours a day in each...
> 
> It is funny the influence has been on both sides...Tkd is influencing the karate school...and karate influencing the Tkd school it has been cool to watch...


Successful cross pollination is always a good thing.


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 5, 2013)

*Admin's note:*

Please keep this discussion on topic.  The off-topic posts were merged with this thread.  

-Ronald Shin
-MT Assistant Administrator


----------

