# When is Tang Soo Do no longer Tang Soo Do?



## Master K

Hi Everyone,

There are two people that I communicate with. One sent me a video of himself performing Pyung Ahn Eedan. The other sent me a video of Lo Hai.

As I watched the practitioner perform Pyung Ahn Eedan, I realized that his Tang Soo Do distinctly looked more Japanese then the one I practice. And I noticed that there were very few to zero pauses in the form. It was like watching someone literally "run" through the form.

As I watched the form Lo Hai performed by another Tang Soo Do practitioner, I realized that his Tang Soo Do was extremely different from my Tang Soo Do. I must admit that I had a difficult time identifying the form. The practitioner had performed the movements with soft circular blocks similar to Gung Fu. There were a couple of instances where he had inserted a hard strike that resembled the hard strikes of Tang Soo Do. But the form for the most part looked a lot like a Taijiquan form.

Now I am not saying that either of the Tang Soo Do practitioners are bad. In my opinion, they are just different. So, the conclusion that I came to was that my Tang Soo Do is different from their Tang Soo Do. This led to the questions... When does Tang Soo Do stops being Tang Soo Do and reverts/morphs/converts into another style?

Any thoughts or ideas?

Thanks,
Patrick K.


----------



## mjd

Tang Soo Do is a progressive style, which means it will evolve over time, but don't confuse this with the linage factor, 

Linage factor:
The difference multipied by the generations of instructors from that particluar linage. The linage factor occurs with all styles and organzations and carries the atributes from physical and personal trates of those instructors, kind of like genes past down family members. 

Quality Factor:
the quality factor which encompases the degree of technical knowledge, passed down form instructor to instructor.

Interpatation factor:
and last but not least you had the interputation and degree of detail passed down throught he linage.

All of this determines how much or many differenecs occur or how the orginal knowlegde is perserved. you can see this at any tournament that has the same style with school from differnt orgs compete against each other.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tang Soo Do is part of the greater syncreticism of the Okinawan arts.  There are all sorts of interpretations depending on the interpreters martial training and environment.  With that being said, I'm not sure if you can really define a fine line between what is Tang Soo Do and what is not.  

This does not mean that some distinctions are impossible however.  I would say that if you were practicing versions of the old Okinawan forms, attempting to use information and concepts from those forms for self defense, and that you were calling it Tang Soo Do, then it is Tang Soo Do.

With that being said, I think you can clearly see that there are some things that are not Tang Soo Do.


----------



## JT_the_Ninja

What they said, mostly.

It's Tang Soo Do so long as the aim is self-defense which hurts. It's Tang Soo Do so long as the techniques are similar or exactly like the ones in the hyung. It's Tang Soo Do as long as it's called "Tang Soo Do." Take your pick, any attempt at definition is going to have its exceptions.


----------



## Muwubu16858

Tang Soo Do is generic like Karate. You teach yourown style of Tang Soo Do, but its still Tang Soo Do, nonetheless. Now as for your sect/kwan, that changes by the generation. Moo Duk Kwan, for example, is nothing like when it was taught 50 years ago. it's normal for the way we do things to change, but the name stays the same.


----------



## Miles

This is a fascinating question so I'd like to give it a "bump" and chime in from a non-TSD perspective.  

I teach Kukki-TKD.  In this "style" (for lack of a better term) there is a push for standardization.  There are pros and cons to standardization which were discussed in a thread in the TKD section of MT.  

From my albeit limited perspective, I do not see the same push for standardization in TSD and from the comments thus far, it appears that most TSD-in are content with the concept of Ryu Pa. 

Miles


----------



## JT_the_Ninja

Miles said:


> This is a fascinating question so I'd like to give it a "bump" and chime in from a non-TSD perspective.
> 
> I teach Kukki-TKD.  In this "style" (for lack of a better term) there is a push for standardization.  There are pros and cons to standardization which were discussed in a thread in the TKD section of MT.
> 
> From my albeit limited perspective, I do not see the same push for standardization in TSD and from the comments thus far, it appears that most TSD-in are content with the concept of Ryu Pa.
> 
> Miles



You haven't seen ITF-style TSD, then. *Everything* is standardized, with the possible exception of weapon ho sin sul (possible because there _are_ standard techniques to use, but really it's whatever you can do fast enough to defend yourself that passes at a test). 

In fact, one of the founding concepts of the ITF (ITSDF, if you will) was standardization, making sure the same traditional instruction was given at each school in the federation, to the greatest extent possible. 

I'm not against standardization, completely. There are some people who just like to do their own thing, changing the way things are taught, "tournament-ifying" the hyung, and that just strikes me as ridiculous. Keep it standard, teach what's been proven, get results.


----------



## Miles

JT_the_Ninja said:


> You haven't seen ITF-style TSD, then. *Everything* is standardized, with the possible exception of weapon ho sin sul (possible because there _are_ standard techniques to use, but really it's whatever you can do fast enough to defend yourself that passes at a test).


 
Actually JT, I think that most organizations regardless of art strive for standardization for their member schools.  

My point was that as an art, TSD seems to have more room for differences and that it may have been GM Hwang Kee's intent that it should be that way.

Miles


----------



## Master K

Allow me to play devil's advocate with some of those that have responded.  How many of you would consider Tae Kwon Do to be Tang Soo Do?  How many of you would consider Shotokan/Shotokai Karate to be Tang Soo Do?  Would you consider those examples to be Ryu Pa?

Thanks,
Patrick K.


----------



## WMKS Shogun

Interesting food for thought: Tang Soo Do (along with Kong Soo Do) was just a name for the Karate taught in Korea during and shortly after the Japanese occupation. Hwang Kee is one of the few who refused to change the name of what he was teaching (Tang Soo Do) , though he did later change it to Soo Bak Do Moo Duk Kwan. Also, other federations have broken away from Moo Duk Kwan but still kept the name Tang Soo Do. Some emphasized different aspects of the training. If there used to be so many schools that used the name Tang Soo Do, (including Jhoon Rhee, the proclaimed 'father of Tae Kwon Do in the USA' ) it is only natural to assume that many of them have diverged from what they were originally taught.  (Sorry if this made little sense, it is 2 AM as I write this).


----------



## JT_the_Ninja

Patrick K. said:


> Allow me to play devil's advocate with some of those that have responded.  How many of you would consider Tae Kwon Do to be Tang Soo Do?  How many of you would consider Shotokan/Shotokai Karate to be Tang Soo Do?  Would you consider those examples to be Ryu Pa?
> 
> Thanks,
> Patrick K.



(1) Not I. For the most part, they practice different hyung, have different stances, and even wear different uniforms. 

Then there's tournament TKD, which is even less like traditional TSD in that it's become no longer a martial art but a sport. I don't train in TSD to be able to win a tournament fight. I don't train to become the best. I train to improve myself (one word) and improve my self (two words). Sure there's the self-defense part, but the philosophy is of improving the self as opposed to destroying the enemy. It's Mr. Miyagi vs. the Kobra Kai.

Granted, there are some more traditional schools that blur the line, but even so, TKD and TSD are two distinct arts.

(2) Same goes for karate and TSD, though with the addition of different striking principles. In karate, kicks are low, used minimally for strikes to the knee, foot, leg, what have you. In TSD, foot techniques are just as important as hand techniques. The philosophies have diverged enough that I see TSD and karate as two similar, but distinct, martial arts.

(3) Not familiar enough with the concept of Ryu Pa to make a judgment call there. I personally don't think so, since TSD also incorporates a few things from Chinese martial arts, as well as, by necessity, whatever forms of KMA were around at the time, which would have influenced the founders of modern TSD.


----------



## Tlaloc

JT_the_Ninja said:


> Then there's tournament TKD, which is even less like traditional TSD in that it's become no longer a martial art but a sport. I don't train in TSD to be able to win a tournament fight. I don't train to become the best. I train to improve myself (one word) and improve my self (two words). Sure there's the self-defense part, but the philosophy is of improving the self as opposed to destroying the enemy. It's Mr. Miyagi vs. the Kobra Kai.



Agreed.

Another thing about this debate. As far as I know, TSD is a derivation from other styles of martial arts.  Take the pyung forms; they're pretty much copies of the old heian forms practiced in other martial arts (shotokan karate I believe?).  

I personally think it's all a matter of tradition and preserving the philosophy of TSD, but there is obviously some flexibility as to was it really is. And also, there have probably been millions of debates about this exact subject, and I seriously doubt there is any completely correct way of looking at it. It's a bit open ended, as most major things in life are/should be.


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil

Greetings to everyone​ 
Patrick,
This is a question that so many are asking, but to understand the true answer, all one has to do is read KJN Hwang Kees book; TANG SOO DO-SOO BAHK DO.

Lets all open our books to page5 at move to the bottom right side of the page and read:
1. Tang Soo Do (weaponless fighting) began with the first human on earth.
2. Regardless of when and where, combat ultimately originated with Tang Soo Do.
3. Tang Soo Do is the ultimate art because weapons are temporary instruments at any time and place. 
(turn to page 6)​4. Tang Soo Do itself has no rules and regulations, and is free. It is infinite in technique
5. Tang Soo Do is the instinctive martial art of the human, which is the ability to use the body like a weapon.
6. Tang Soo Do is an art eternally inseparable from the human body

Located just below these statements on page 6, and one picture on page 7 we see three pictures that depict different ideas of what KJN Hwang Kee viewed as examples of Tang Soo Do.

Picture #1. What appears to be a Neanderthal Man defending himself against a leopard. (The caption states: Illustration of ancient wild animals fighting)
Picture #2. What might be two Chinese warriors on horseback. One holding a spear, the other is holding what is known as a Kwon-Dao. (The caption states: Illustration of ancient fighting techniques)
Picture #3. This is a picture of a Sherman Tank (Caption states: Illustration of modern fight techniques)

To sum up what I get out of this, and what I got from brief conversations with KJN Hwang Kee back in 1984, it was he belief that tang Soo Do began with the first conscious action of the first human being that raised his or her hand in defense against man or beast.

Hwang Kee did not create any of the hyung that were originally used to incorporate Tang Soo Do as his system. They all, without exception, came from Okinawan Karate. He learned them from other Korean instructors who traveled to Japan during the Japanese Occupation of Korea and earned their knowledge and rank from Funakoshi (Founder of Shotokan).

Lets now move to page #8:
Chapter II
Tang Soo Do
Culture and History:​ 
This page starts with:

It is regrettable that it is necessary to mention that some leaders in the martial arts invented the origin of their art, which is not proper or reasonable , neither for their own honor nor as an introduction for their students.

This is a key statement, as KJN Hwang Kee is clearly admitting here that what he taught came from other sources and was assembled by him and given his own flavor.

KJN Hwang Kee brought in his own unique characteristics to make the system his own. If I choose to bring back the principles and concepts taught in the generations of systems that pre-date Tang Soo Do (as KJN Hwang Kee taught it) would what I teach still be considered (by KJN Hwang Kee) TANG SOO DO???

If we read what KJN Hwang Kee wrote, and respect his open minded way of perceiving what HE considered to be TANG SOO DO, what I teach has to be TANG SOO DO.


If I train with senior ranking masters and grandmasters from many systems (that all use the same hyung/kata), learn all of their principles and concepts and determine that there are some that work far better than others and choose to teach those principles and concepts in my school, I see that as being true, and responsible to myself and to my students.

If I find through the course of my journey that there is a better way to execute a technique, or a way that works better is certain situations, and I choose to ignore it and just keep on doing what has been passed down to me by my seniors because I am told too, I see that as being false to myself, and more importantly to those who trust in me to deliver the very best material that I know exists!!!

*Integrity is something that we all talk about, but, in this world, few truly follow through with. I bring integrity to the table EVERY DAY, to EVERY CLASS, to EVERY STUDENT*

If anyone thinks that what I teach is not *TANG SOO DO*, walk into my dojang and prove me wrong

Here is the final piece to the answer for the question that you have asked:

Tang Soo Do is no longer Tang Soo Do when you choose to lie down and die without putting up a fight. 
Never retreat in battle!!!​ 
*If you raise you hands in defense against man or beast, you are performing TANG SOO DO*

*I dont care if you learned the technique from Hwang Kee, Tatsuo Shimabuku, Gichen Funakoshi, Mohammad Ali, or the street fighter down the block!!!*

KJN Hwang Kee said it as clearly as I need it to be said. He stated, in his mind, that he:
1. doesnt know who was the first Tang Soo Do practitioner,
2. what country he/she was born in,
3. who he/she was defending against,
4. why he/she was being attacked,
5. if he/she chose to use a stick or a rock as defensive tools,
6. and so on

*Its all TANG SOO DO. The questions to ask are:*
1. Who do you choose to follow, and for how long?
2. At what point in your training have you learned enough to move to the next step and bring together all that you know and devise your own way?
3. If you do devise your own way, should your instructor feel insulted, and kick you out for doing things differently that he does them?
4. Should such decisions end long standing relationships?

So many questions, so little time

Do you catch my drift???​ 


Yours in TANG SOO DO,


Master Jay S. Penfil


*TANG SOO!!!*


----------



## Chizikunbo

Nice Post Sir!

I agree 100%


----------



## JT_the_Ninja

What about the hyung GM Hwang Kee invented himself? Just to play devil's advocate here.


----------



## Chizikunbo

JT_the_Ninja said:


> What about the hyung GM Hwang Kee invented himself? Just to play devil's advocate here.



According to Grandmasters own words, they (Chil Sung, Yuk Rho, Hwa Sun, Ship Dahn Kuhm) are still Tang Soo Do, but maybe Tang Soo Do _and_ Soo Bahk Do...I think GM used the terms quite interchangeably, except that TSD  became generic where SBD  stayed specific...


----------



## JT_the_Ninja

My comment was more pointed at Master Jay's comment about all TSD hyung being Okinawan in origin. Then again, I don't do chil sung or yuk ro hyung...

...but even so, isn't there a Chinese-based hyung? And shouldn't there also be some Korean influence, since that's where he lived?


----------



## Chizikunbo

JT_the_Ninja said:


> My comment was more pointed at Master Jay's comment about all TSD hyung being Okinawan in origin. Then again, I don't do chil sung or yuk ro hyung...
> 
> ...but even so, isn't there a Chinese-based hyung? And shouldn't there also be some Korean influence, since that's where he lived?


There were two Chinese forms, Yang Ryu Tae Keuk Kwon (Yang Style Ultimate Supreme Fist - Yang Tai Chi Chuan), and So Rim Jang Kwan (Shoalin Long Fist)...Also GM studied Dahm Doi Ship Ee Rho (12 Springing Legs of Shoalin)...and most of what is still considered TSD (not SBD) today, IS Okinawan in origin...I dont think Master Penfil's post was supposed to be an end all rule, but an observation as to the Tang Soo Do he practices ;-)
--josh


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil

JT,
With respect to the Chil Sung and Yuk Ro series, they are considered Soo Bahk Do, not Tang Soo Do.

I learned the first four hyung while I was in the Federation. When we left the Federation I discontinued teaching them, and I have not spent time learning the last three or any of the Yuk Ro Hyung. This doesnt mean that I dont want too, or that I wont. I just feel that with all that I have at this time to work with, 

The important thing for me, that I see lacking in most associations is the depth of understanding that one should strive to develop. Too many practitioners learn the rudimentary movements, and never get any further. They want to learn more, so they add another hyung to their curriculum. They memorize a new pattern of movements and THINK that they have grown MORE is not always better.

I knew a guy a couple of years ago that taught Kuk Sul Won. He was a Som-Dan. He invited me and some other instructors to a testing and demonstration that was held here in my area. The grandmaster came in from Texas. We went, we saw, and we left extremely disappointed. The testing requirements for each rank were some vast in number of techniques, that none of the students had the time to truly understand any of them. They were able to grunt through the testing with the bare minimum of ability one could imagine everyone passed.

He invited us down to his school to do some training with us. My training partner, Sifu Bruce Silver (Classical Wing Chun) was there. The instructor asked Bruce to spar. Bruce tried to decline in order to spare him the embarrassment of being beaten on his own floor in front of his students. He insisted, and Bruce beat him from one side of the room to the other several times. At the end, he was on the floor crying like a baby, in front of his entire student base. He stated that he was training for 16 years, and new over a thousand techniques. How could you beat me so badly? Bruce explained to him that he would have been much better off learning a dozen techniques properly, and how to apply them than simply memorizing a thousand techniques that he couldnt use to save is life.

In this case, less is more (better)

If I take the time to learn a new hyung, and it doesnt really have anything new to teach me; just another combination of the same techniques over and over again, what am I really learning?

There was a time when those who trained with the hyung that we use only learned between one and maybe five hyung in their whole life. These practitioners were not competing in tournaments with the knowledge that they gained from their training, they were going out in the world and using it to save their lives or the lives of their loved ones. They could not afford to have, simply a superficial understanding of the techniques comprised in their hyung. They had to have such a deep understanding, and ability to put them into action that, if they missed, it meant loss of life

Think of it this way; would you rather:
A) Poses the ability to defend yourself and your loved ones against anything that attacks you, 
B) or fill your head with so much material that when that point in time comes (G-d-forbid) that you MUST have the necessary skill level to survive the attack or die, you are too confused by the volume of moves to choose from, and the necessary muscle memory was never instilled in you? 

A or B??? You choose


I have to start class now.


Yours in Tang Soo Do,


Master Jay S. Penfil


TANG SOO!!!


----------



## JT_the_Ninja

Good points all, Master Jay. I've seen videos of stuff like that happening. 

I would still like to point out, though, that many non-ITF TSD schools still teach the chil sung and yuk ro forms...I competed in a tournament with a TSD 2nd dan this past May who did one of the chil sung hyung (ee ro or sam ro) for the forms competition. Cool guy, about 2 or 3 years my junior...loved talking about how he was awesome at power breaking and speed breaking. 
We found some thrown-away unbroken boards at one point, so we practiced a bit for our breaks. I needed some encouragement that I was going to be able to put my instep through a board, and he wanted to show me how he could speed-break a board with a one-finger attack (two fingers out, though, so he didn't look like he was giving the finger). He held the board for me, and I did my spinning 360-degree jump round kick, broke it nicely. Felt good, especially because I practice that move purposefully before _every_ class, when I have time. Then he held out a board (a kids board, slightly smaller than our 9"x12"x1" boards), and proceeded to break his finger jamming it into the board. So he could only do two stations for the breaking and missed out placing (we had a 3-way 3rd-place tie). I stuck to what I've been practicing and got 2nd. Shows the difference between knowing a lot and practicing a lot.


----------



## zDom

I remember not long after my friend, Tim Wall, joined up with the U.S. Chung Do Kwan , GM Ed Sell asked him,

"Why do you guys wear Tang Soo Do uniforms?"


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil

How is GM Sell doing?

The last time we were together was at the EFC convention in Ft. Lauderdale in 1989 or 1990.

Are you still a member of his association?

Do you train in Ann Arbor with the Hefner's?

I was in their school last April. I had gone with my girlfriend to Ann Arbor for dinner. After dinner we went for a long walk around town and found the school. We had a good conversation with one of the Hefner's (I don't recall his first name).

We were watching the class (along with twenty or thirty other spectatators. He walked up to me from out of left field, greeted me and than asked; so where do you teach? I found that pretty impressive. there must have been at least 50 students training on the floor. He looked at me from across the room and was able to determine that I was an instructor...


----------



## zDom

(response via private message so as not to highjack)


----------



## VNoble21532

I am doing my best to try to understand what was in Grandmaster Hwang Kee's head when he set all of this in motion. I think that those principles are TSD in a pure form. The forms have great significance, and we must all realize that there are Chinese, Japanese, Okinawan, Korean, and now American influences. We can never agree as long as we choose to argue about this stuff. 
I'm not real smart, and neither do I have any answers to this TSD question. I do feel that we should take a step backwards towards the beginnings when we were more together and the feeling of TSD was fresh. I liked it when we referred to each other as blue belts. We WERE fresh.

V. Noble

TANG SOO!!


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil

What KJN Hwang Kee passed down to us in TSD was the shell of the system originally taught in Okinawa...

This is an old conversation that has often times upset many who have ONLY trained in TSD and never cross trained in any systems that came before TSD.

Hwang Kee trained under Lee Won Cook after Master Lee returned from Japan. While in Japan, Master Lee, along with General Choi Hong Hi and other Korean practitioners trained in Shotokan under Funakoshi, Gichen. They earned their Nidan (2nd degree black belt) ranking prior to returning to Korea.

Master Lee founded the Chung Do Kwan. He was teaching Shotokan as he had learned it from Funakoshi, but called it Chung Do Kwan. 

Funakoshi was a student to Anko Itosu, one of Okinawa's most prominent instructors, and the creator of Pinan/Pyong Ahn series, as well as Bassai-Sho and Naihanchi Nidan and Sandan.

Funakoshi had never learned the Bunkai for the kata. He was not interested in the Bunkai. His intention was to teach a system that would promote good health and character. He was firmly against fighting.

Funakoshi's senior student was Shiguro Egami. Egami authored the book "Karate-Do Beyond Technique". In this book Egami wrote; the master (referring to Funakoshi) never taught us Bunkai, as he had himself, not learned it from Itosu prior to coming to Japan.

This is an important piece of the puzzle that you are trying to put together. If you follow the lineage of our system, and when I say; "our susyem", I am referring to all of the instructors in the line dating back to those who created the forms/Hyung/Kata that were incorporated by Hwang Kee in his original curriculum, the Bunkai was cut off with Funakoshi. Lee could not teach it to Hwang Kee because he couldn't learn it from Funakoshi. Hwang Kee couldn't teach it to usm as he never learned it from Master Lee.

If you want to learn the Bunkai you must find those who train in the older systems from Okinawa that have passed it down in their lineage. That is what I have been doing for the past 39 years.

Contact me if you are interested in discussing this further...


----------



## Dana

Jay wrote:  "Hwang Kee trained under Lee Won Cook after Master Lee returned from Japan. While in Japan, Master Lee, along with General Choi Hong Hi and other Korean practitioners trained in Shotokan under Funakoshi, Gichen. They earned their Nidan (2nd degree black belt) ranking prior to returning to Korea."

You know, I could certainly be wrong, but there is some unsubstantiated information in this quote.  First, where is is documented that GM Hwang studied at the TSD CDK?  I know that one CDK practitioner (GU) stated this after his "Interview" with Lee, Won Kuk, but I've never seen this anywhere else.  I'd love to know if this is corroborated elsewhere.

Also, the only person who said General Choi trained SDK with Funakoshi was General Choi, who conveniently "lost" his supposed 2nd dan certificate so no one ever saw it.  Again, I'd love to know if this was corroborated anywhere.

Now, I'll concede the major point of lineage!!!  

Dana


----------



## chrispillertkd

Dana said:


> Also, the only person who said General Choi trained SDK with Funakoshi was General Choi, who conveniently "lost" his supposed 2nd dan certificate so no one ever saw it. Again, I'd love to know if this was corroborated anywhere.


 
Actually, Gen. Choi said that he learned karate while in Japan from a fellow Korean while living in Kyoto. He did say that he had occasion to train at the Shotokan, and I have seen a picture of him there. But he never claimed to be a student of Funakoshi's as far as I know.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Victor Smith

Hi Jay,

My latest research suggests there is a solid reason why Funakoshi didn't teach bunkai, that being bunkai wasn't the way most Okinawan karate was practiced.  I'd refer you to my blog posts on this issue and let them provide the fuel behind my contentions.

http://isshin-concentration.blogspot.com/2010/04/itosu-anko-new-direction-for-toudi.html
http://isshin-concentration.blogspot.com/2010/05/itosus-reflections-game-is-afoot-watson.html
http://isshin-concentration.blogspot.com/2010/05/itosus-reflections-watson-look-for.html
http://isshin-concentration.blogspot.com/2010/05/itosus-reflections-it-is-not-bunki-say.html
http://isshin-concentration.blogspot.com/2010/06/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html 
  Hope this is useful,


----------



## 195

Tang Soo Do is just another name for martial arts. If you think specifically in terms of "what is tang soo do and what isnt" than you will always be limited. If you let go of this idea you find that Tang Doo Do is everything, not just martial arts. It is a way of being.


----------



## Rumy73

Miles said:


> Actually JT, I think that most organizations regardless of art strive for standardization for their member schools.
> 
> My point was that as an art, TSD seems to have more room for differences and that it may have been GM Hwang Kee's intent that it should be that way.
> 
> Miles


 

My understanding is that GM Hwang Kee actually wanted a unified approach. This was one of the impetus behind the founding of Soo Bahk Do.


----------



## puunui

Dana said:


> You know, I could certainly be wrong, but there is some unsubstantiated information in this quote.  First, where is is documented that GM Hwang studied at the TSD CDK?  I know that one CDK practitioner (GU) stated this after his "Interview" with Lee, Won Kuk, but I've never seen this anywhere else.  I'd love to know if this is corroborated elsewhere.




Is this Vallaincourt? You can find a reference to it also in General Choi's autobiography if you don't want to believe me.


----------



## kbarrett

Tang Soo Do has been and always will be Tang Soo Do, it may change over time and place, and will differ from association to association, and with more schools take little kid it may not be the same as it once was, but no the less it's still Tang Soo Do.  I think Master Jay S. Penfil say's it the best, read what he wrote and your answer will be right in front of our faces.

Ken Barrett


----------



## Black/Red Block

I loved Tang Soo Do when I used to train in it. I was "pushed out" when my Instructor advised me I should take up an "Black Belt Instructor's Course" for a special price of "£10,000.00" He started to introduce this programme and that programme, Direct Debits etc. Increased the grading fees soooooo much it was embarrassingly expensive

He became a McDojo, A belt factory, A Pyramid selling system where the product was Martial Arts. He was looking at the money removing the Ethics of Tang Soo from the style. I can't forgive him for this.

So in answer to your question "When is Tang Soo Do no longer Tang Soo Do?"

Its when the Instructor(s) see it as a money cow and lower the standards etc. and look at what's in it for them not what can they give to the art!


----------



## DennisBreene

Hwang Kee actually described aspects of Tang Soo Do as water flowing downhill (I paraphrase). The water forms rivulets and flows around obstructions, converging and diverging in its path. Master Hwang expected those that followed him to adapt to changing needs and encouraged it.
Dennis





Miles said:


> Actually JT, I think that most organizations regardless of art strive for standardization for their member schools.
> 
> My point was that as an art, TSD seems to have more room for differences and that it may have been GM Hwang Kee's intent that it should be that way.
> 
> Miles


----------



## DennisBreene

I've always wondered why schools insisted on numbering their one-step-sparring and self defense techniques. We were not taught that way and I don't have the disconnect of remembering technique #3 before employing it. The technique flows from the attack and the defense flows as the attacker flows. Simple and straight forward as you master a technique. And I agree that less is usually more. That is the Tang Soo Do I learned. Much repetition of graduating difficulty. You didn't test until Master Roberts told you to test and he did not tell you to test until you were ready.
Dennis





Master Jay S. Penfil said:


> JT,
> With respect to the Chil Sung and Yuk Ro series, they are considered Soo Bahk Do, not Tang Soo Do.
> 
> I learned the first four hyung while I was in the Federation. When we left the Federation I discontinued teaching them, and I have not spent time learning the last three or any of the Yuk Ro Hyung. This doesn&#8217;t mean that I don&#8217;t want too, or that I won&#8217;t. I just feel that with all that I have at this time to work with,
> 
> The important thing for me, that I see lacking in most associations is the depth of understanding that one should strive to develop. Too many practitioners learn the rudimentary movements, and never get any further. They want to learn more, so they add another hyung to their curriculum. They memorize a new pattern of movements and THINK that they have grown&#8230; MORE is not always better.
> 
> I knew a guy a couple of years ago that taught Kuk Sul Won. He was a Som-Dan. He invited me and some other instructors to a testing and demonstration that was held here in my area. The grandmaster came in from Texas. We went, we saw, and we left extremely disappointed. The testing requirements for each rank were some vast in number of techniques, that none of the students had the time to truly understand any of them. They were able to grunt through the testing with the bare minimum of ability one could imagine&#8230; everyone passed.
> 
> He invited us down to his school to do some training with us. My training partner, Sifu Bruce Silver (Classical Wing Chun) was there. The instructor asked Bruce to spar. Bruce tried to decline in order to spare him the embarrassment of being beaten on his own floor in front of his students. He insisted, and Bruce beat him from one side of the room to the other several times. At the end, he was on the floor crying like a baby, in front of his entire student base. He stated that he was training for 16 years, and new over a thousand techniques. How could you beat me so badly? Bruce explained to him that he would have been much better off learning a dozen techniques properly, and how to apply them than simply memorizing a thousand techniques that he couldn&#8217;t use to save is life.
> 
> In this case, less is more (better)
> 
> If I take the time to learn a new hyung, and it doesn&#8217;t really have anything new to teach me; just another combination of the same techniques over and over again, what am I really learning?
> 
> There was a time when those who trained with the hyung that we use only learned between one and maybe five hyung in their whole life. These practitioners were not competing in tournaments with the knowledge that they gained from their training, they were going out in the world and using it to save their lives or the lives of their loved ones. They could not afford to have, simply a superficial understanding of the techniques comprised in their hyung. They had to have such a deep understanding, and ability to put them into action that, if they missed, it meant loss of life&#8230;
> 
> Think of it this way; would you rather:
> A) Poses the ability to defend yourself and your loved ones against anything that attacks you,
> B) or fill your head with so much material that when that point in time comes (G-d-forbid) that you MUST have the necessary skill level to survive the attack or die, you are too confused by the volume of moves to choose from, and the necessary muscle memory was never instilled in you?
> 
> A or B??? You choose&#8230;
> 
> 
> I have to start class now.
> 
> 
> Yours in Tang Soo Do,
> 
> 
> Master Jay S. Penfil
> 
> 
> TANG SOO!!!


----------



## ShotoNoob

Master Jay S. Penfil said:


> Funakoshi was a student to Anko Itosu, one of Okinawa's most prominent instructors, and the creator of Pinan/Pyong Ahn series, as well as Bassai-Sho and Naihanchi Nidan and Sandan.
> 
> Funakoshi had never learned the Bunkai for the kata. He was not interested in the Bunkai. His intention was to teach a system that would promote good health and character. He was firmly against fighting.
> 
> Funakoshi's senior student was Shiguro Egami. Egami authored the book "Karate-Do Beyond Technique". In this book Egami wrote; the master (referring to Funakoshi) never taught us Bunkai, as he had himself, not learned it from Itosu prior to coming to Japan.
> 
> This is an important piece of the puzzle that you are trying to put together. If you follow the lineage of our system, and when I say; "our susyem", I am referring to all of the instructors in the line dating back to those who created the forms/Hyung/Kata that were incorporated by Hwang Kee in his original curriculum, the Bunkai was cut off with Funakoshi. Lee could not teach it to Hwang Kee because he couldn't learn it from Funakoshi. Hwang Kee couldn't teach it to usm as he never learned it from Master Lee.
> 
> If you want to learn the Bunkai you must find those who train in the older systems from Okinawa that have passed it down in their lineage. That is what I have been doing for the past 39 years....Contact me if you are interested in discussing this further...


|
Why I consider the Korean TKD & TSD under the umbrella of traditional karate....  This Master has done some research, in more detail than I was aware of....


----------



## Laplace_demon

Master K said:


> Allow me to play devil's advocate with some of those that have responded.  How many of you would consider Tae Kwon Do to be Tang Soo Do?
> .



I would in the case of ITF. The isolated techniques are largely the same, patterns are not.


----------



## ShotoNoob

THIS TIES TO MY POSTS AT THE "SHOTOKAN FOR SELF DEFENSE" THREAD.
/
WHAT IS THE 'ESSENCE" OF  TRADITIONAL KARATE
|
I questioned K-MAN about the "essence" of traditional karate.  The essence of traditional karate to me, is a conceptual definition first.  The essence of traditional karate is not about lineages, structure and lists of physical techniques.  Inclusion and divergences among kata, hyung, poomse, forms, etc.  various karate styles, Okinawan goju ryu  v.s japanese goju kai, etc.
|
Using the global question put forth in this thread, here is how I would lay the foundation for defining Tang Soo Do.  By it's *essence.*
|


reeskm said:


> Agreed ShotoNoob, it's interesting to think about the origins. Without a doubt Hwang Kee was influenced by dojo precepts (a.k.a. dojo kun or dojang hun) used in Japan and Okinawa by all the famous Japanese style founders such as Mabuni, Miyagi, Toyama and Funakoshi....
> 
> Don't confuse the _10 Articles of Faith on Mental Training_ with the _8 Key Concepts_.
> 
> There is also Hwang Kee's _5 Moo Do Values _(Moo Do for the Japanese stylists is Bu Do - Martial Way).
> 
> 5 Moo Do Values:
> 1. Lyok Sa (History)
> 2. Jong Tong (Tradition)
> 3. Ki Kahng and Chan Kyong (Discipline and Respect)
> 4. Chul Hak (Philosophy)
> 5. Ki Sool (Technique)
> 
> Again, for reference the 8 key concepts are:
> 1. Yong Gi (Courage)
> 2. Chung Shin Tong Il (Concentration)
> 3. In Neh (Endurance)
> 4. Chung Jik (Honesty)
> 5. Kyum Son (Humility)
> 6. Him Cho Chung (Control of Power)
> 7. Shin Chook (Tension and Relaxation)
> 8. Wan Gup (Speed Control)
> 
> I'm currently researching these origins. I put it on my back burner but this thread is useful! If you have any insights share away


|
For brevity, I limited my take on "essence" to the 5 Values and 8 Key Concepts.  These to me, define the training exercises, all the physical form should be based & built on these.
|
The problem comes in that these are generalizations, and deal with intangible mental skills which can only be inferred through the physical actions.  The benefit to these is that we see that physical form of the martial techniques is based on a subject these principles.  The physical form is secondary to intangible qualities of the human being.
|
BTW: Notice that "Technique" is only 1 of 5 Core Values.  This is why I took up a simpler form of traditional karate.


----------



## Oldbear343

JT_the_Ninja said:


> (1) Not I. For the most part, they practice different hyung, have different stances, and even wear different uniforms.
> 
> Then there's tournament TKD, which is even less like traditional TSD in that it's become no longer a martial art but a sport. I don't train in TSD to be able to win a tournament fight. I don't train to become the best. I train to improve myself (one word) and improve my self (two words). Sure there's the self-defense part, but the philosophy is of improving the self as opposed to destroying the enemy. It's Mr. Miyagi vs. the Kobra Kai.
> 
> Granted, there are some more traditional schools that blur the line, but even so, TKD and TSD are two distinct arts.
> 
> (2) Same goes for karate and TSD, though with the addition of different striking principles. In karate, kicks are low, used minimally for strikes to the knee, foot, leg, what have you. In TSD, foot techniques are just as important as hand techniques. The philosophies have diverged enough that I see TSD and karate as two similar, but distinct, martial arts.
> 
> (3) Not familiar enough with the concept of Ryu Pa to make a judgment call there. I personally don't think so, since TSD also incorporates a few things from Chinese martial arts, as well as, by necessity, whatever forms of KMA were around at the time, which would have influenced the founders of modern TSD.


This is a little over generalised IMHO - there are many ryu's/flavours of karate, and although some, like goju, use many low kicks, many others emphasise high kicks.... ☺


----------



## TSDTexan

Master Jay S. Penfil said:


> Greetings to everyone​
> Patrick,
> This is a question that so many are asking, but to understand the true answer, all one has to do is read KJN Hwang Kees book; TANG SOO DO-SOO BAHK DO.
> 
> Lets all open our books to page5 at move to the bottom right side of the page and read:
> 1. Tang Soo Do (weaponless fighting) began with the first human on earth.
> 2. Regardless of when and where, combat ultimately originated with Tang Soo Do.
> 3. Tang Soo Do is the ultimate art because weapons are temporary instruments at any time and place.
> (turn to page 6)​4. Tang Soo Do itself has no rules and regulations, and is free. It is infinite in technique
> 5. Tang Soo Do is the instinctive martial art of the human, which is the ability to use the body like a weapon.
> 6. Tang Soo Do is an art eternally inseparable from the human body
> 
> Located just below these statements on page 6, and one picture on page 7 we see three pictures that depict different ideas of what KJN Hwang Kee viewed as examples of Tang Soo Do.
> 
> Picture #1. What appears to be a Neanderthal Man defending himself against a leopard. (The caption states: Illustration of ancient wild animals fighting)
> Picture #2. What might be two Chinese warriors on horseback. One holding a spear, the other is holding what is known as a Kwon-Dao. (The caption states: Illustration of ancient fighting techniques)
> Picture #3. This is a picture of a Sherman Tank (Caption states: Illustration of modern fight techniques)
> 
> To sum up what I get out of this, and what I got from brief conversations with KJN Hwang Kee back in 1984, it was he belief that tang Soo Do began with the first conscious action of the first human being that raised his or her hand in defense against man or beast.
> 
> Hwang Kee did not create any of the hyung that were originally used to incorporate Tang Soo Do as his system. They all, without exception, came from Okinawan Karate. He learned them from other Korean instructors who traveled to Japan during the Japanese Occupation of Korea and earned their knowledge and rank from Funakoshi (Founder of Shotokan).
> 
> Lets now move to page #8:
> Chapter II
> Tang Soo Do
> Culture and History:​
> This page starts with:
> 
> It is regrettable that it is necessary to mention that some leaders in the martial arts invented the origin of their art, which is not proper or reasonable , neither for their own honor nor as an introduction for their students.
> 
> This is a key statement, as KJN Hwang Kee is clearly admitting here that what he taught came from other sources and was assembled by him and given his own flavor.
> 
> KJN Hwang Kee brought in his own unique characteristics to make the system his own. If I choose to bring back the principles and concepts taught in the generations of systems that pre-date Tang Soo Do (as KJN Hwang Kee taught it) would what I teach still be considered (by KJN Hwang Kee) TANG SOO DO???
> 
> If we read what KJN Hwang Kee wrote, and respect his open minded way of perceiving what HE considered to be TANG SOO DO, what I teach has to be TANG SOO DO.
> 
> 
> If I train with senior ranking masters and grandmasters from many systems (that all use the same hyung/kata), learn all of their principles and concepts and determine that there are some that work far better than others and choose to teach those principles and concepts in my school, I see that as being true, and responsible to myself and to my students.
> 
> If I find through the course of my journey that there is a better way to execute a technique, or a way that works better is certain situations, and I choose to ignore it and just keep on doing what has been passed down to me by my seniors because I am told too, I see that as being false to myself, and more importantly to those who trust in me to deliver the very best material that I know exists!!!
> 
> *Integrity is something that we all talk about, but, in this world, few truly follow through with. I bring integrity to the table EVERY DAY, to EVERY CLASS, to EVERY STUDENT*
> 
> If anyone thinks that what I teach is not *TANG SOO DO*, walk into my dojang and prove me wrong
> 
> Here is the final piece to the answer for the question that you have asked:
> 
> Tang Soo Do is no longer Tang Soo Do when you choose to lie down and die without putting up a fight.
> Never retreat in battle!!!​
> *If you raise you hands in defense against man or beast, you are performing TANG SOO DO*
> 
> *I dont care if you learned the technique from Hwang Kee, Tatsuo Shimabuku, Gichen Funakoshi, Mohammad Ali, or the street fighter down the block!!!*
> 
> KJN Hwang Kee said it as clearly as I need it to be said. He stated, in his mind, that he:
> 1. doesnt know who was the first Tang Soo Do practitioner,
> 2. what country he/she was born in,
> 3. who he/she was defending against,
> 4. why he/she was being attacked,
> 5. if he/she chose to use a stick or a rock as defensive tools,
> 6. and so on
> 
> *Its all TANG SOO DO. The questions to ask are:*
> 1. Who do you choose to follow, and for how long?
> 2. At what point in your training have you learned enough to move to the next step and bring together all that you know and devise your own way?
> 3. If you do devise your own way, should your instructor feel insulted, and kick you out for doing things differently that he does them?
> 4. Should such decisions end long standing relationships?
> 
> So many questions, so little time
> 
> Do you catch my drift???​
> 
> 
> Yours in TANG SOO DO,
> 
> 
> Master Jay S. Penfil
> 
> 
> *TANG SOO!!!*




Thank you for saying this.


----------



## TSDTexan

Master Jay S. Penfil said:


> What KJN Hwang Kee passed down to us in TSD was the shell of the system originally taught in Okinawa...
> 
> This is an old conversation that has often times upset many who have ONLY trained in TSD and never cross trained in any systems that came before TSD.
> 
> Hwang Kee trained under Lee Won Cook after Master Lee returned from Japan. While in Japan, Master Lee, along with General Choi Hong Hi and other Korean practitioners trained in Shotokan under Funakoshi, Gichen. They earned their Nidan (2nd degree black belt) ranking prior to returning to Korea.
> 
> Master Lee founded the Chung Do Kwan. He was teaching Shotokan as he had learned it from Funakoshi, but called it Chung Do Kwan.
> 
> Funakoshi was a student to Anko Itosu, one of Okinawa's most prominent instructors, and the creator of Pinan/Pyong Ahn series, as well as Bassai-Sho and Naihanchi Nidan and Sandan.
> 
> Funakoshi had never learned the Bunkai for the kata. He was not interested in the Bunkai. His intention was to teach a system that would promote good health and character. He was firmly against fighting.
> 
> Funakoshi's senior student was Shiguro Egami. Egami authored the book "Karate-Do Beyond Technique". In this book Egami wrote; the master (referring to Funakoshi) never taught us Bunkai, as he had himself, not learned it from Itosu prior to coming to Japan.
> 
> This is an important piece of the puzzle that you are trying to put together. If you follow the lineage of our system, and when I say; "our susyem", I am referring to all of the instructors in the line dating back to those who created the forms/Hyung/Kata that were incorporated by Hwang Kee in his original curriculum, the Bunkai was cut off with Funakoshi. Lee could not teach it to Hwang Kee because he couldn't learn it from Funakoshi. Hwang Kee couldn't teach it to usm as he never learned it from Master Lee.
> 
> If you want to learn the Bunkai you must find those who train in the older systems from Okinawa that have passed it down in their lineage. That is what I have been doing for the past 39 years.
> 
> Contact me if you are interested in discussing this further...





Master Jay S. Penfil said:


> What KJN Hwang Kee passed down to us in TSD was the shell of the system originally taught in Okinawa...
> 
> This is an old conversation that has often times upset many who have ONLY trained in TSD and never cross trained in any systems that came before TSD.
> 
> Hwang Kee trained under Lee Won Cook after Master Lee returned from Japan. While in Japan, Master Lee, along with General Choi Hong Hi and other Korean practitioners trained in Shotokan under Funakoshi, Gichen. They earned their Nidan (2nd degree black belt) ranking prior to returning to Korea.
> 
> Master Lee founded the Chung Do Kwan. He was teaching Shotokan as he had learned it from Funakoshi, but called it Chung Do Kwan.
> 
> Funakoshi was a student to Anko Itosu, one of Okinawa's most prominent instructors, and the creator of Pinan/Pyong Ahn series, as well as Bassai-Sho and Naihanchi Nidan and Sandan.
> 
> Funakoshi had never learned the Bunkai for the kata. He was not interested in the Bunkai. His intention was to teach a system that would promote good health and character. He was firmly against fighting.
> 
> Funakoshi's senior student was Shiguro Egami. Egami authored the book "Karate-Do Beyond Technique". In this book Egami wrote; the master (referring to Funakoshi) never taught us Bunkai, as he had himself, not learned it from Itosu prior to coming to Japan.
> 
> This is an important piece of the puzzle that you are trying to put together. If you follow the lineage of our system, and when I say; "our susyem", I am referring to all of the instructors in the line dating back to those who created the forms/Hyung/Kata that were incorporated by Hwang Kee in his original curriculum, the Bunkai was cut off with Funakoshi. Lee could not teach it to Hwang Kee because he couldn't learn it from Funakoshi. Hwang Kee couldn't teach it to usm as he never learned it from Master Lee.
> 
> If you want to learn the Bunkai you must find those who train in the older systems from Okinawa that have passed it down in their lineage. That is what I have been doing for the past 39 years.
> 
> Contact me if you are interested in discussing this further...




The only problem with this GM Hwang Keep repudiated the claim that He was a student of GM Lee, on several occasions. As you well know dropping in for a class or three really doesn't make you a student.

That's he attended a few classes, is about the only thing the CDK has on GM Kee.

Now, the reckoning within in my school's lineage, we recount our Okinawan Tang Soo lineage From Hwang Kee, through Yamaguchi, Kenwa Mabuni, Ankō Itosu, Matsumura Soko,Tode Sakugawa,Takahara Peichin, and so on, back into the Shaolin mists.

Now, the evidence is circumstantial, but we maintain there is a high probability that Lee met and trained in Karate under/with Yamaguchi Given while both were in Manchuria at the same time.


The clenched fist design known as the Karate school insignia of the Goju style as is printed here on the top was designed by the late Gogen Yamaguchi in 1932, founder of Goju-Kai Karate-Do...


Notice anything similar to a certain MDK trademarked logo?

Next we have Mabuni mentioned by name in Hwang's book...

Then we have the fact that Hwang Kee said that Yamaguchi was a personal friend.

An eye opening statement considering Koreans general hostility towards the Japanese.

Then the Mixed Hard/Soft styles of TSDMDK and GoJu... Not exactly on a technique by technique basis, but some shared thinking on a number of things regarding Hard/Soft, and philosophical.

In the end, we have to set a standard of evidentiary burden: "beyond all reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of evidence" by which we call it.

This is what I teach my students.
And my Master said (personal aside, how many of us have ever started a sentence with that clause) so...ahem, he said: 
Quote"

I'm comfortable with the position that there is a high probability that the ORIGIN of the Pyong Ahn series of forms that we practice in our Tang Soo Do were those of Gogin Yamaguchi.

Floyd wasn't interested in these sorts of things, however, He spoke well of Robert Shipley... whom, in this case seems to be a critical link...

A funny coincidence perhaps, the story of Yamaguchi being fed to a tiger by the soviets and killing it reminds me of the sign that most TKD school had back in the 70's of a tiger rampant being flying sidekicked by a dobok clad guy.


Admitting my bias up front, I'm pretty convinced that Tang Soo Do - Moo Duk Kwan is the "best" combat martial art. Floyd acquired the art as U.S. Airforce Security Police. He taught it to hundreds, perhaps several 1000 fellow security police. According to Floyd, Hwang Kee was very adamant that Tang Soo Do was a "MILITARY" style... that it was not about sport (winning vs losing) but strictly a matter of life vs death.

Thus it seems logical that a strong martial arts style that descended to Yamaguchi, including a mindset from a samurai tradition would support and encourage this type of attitude in its practitioners.

Floyd however, eschewed such speculations about the past in favor of training hard in the present. In the final analysis, I'm going with Floyd on this one. Does it really matter what dark and ancient mists certain elements of the Tang Soo Do we train in emerged from..? Would such knowledge make a stronger or faster middle punch..?"
End quote:

And there ya go. Take it for what its worth.

This is the reason why when I was a guppie, our school was only allowed to compete in Hyungs. And the same tradition, I uphold as well.


----------

