# Hwang Kee's possible teachers or influences?



## reeskm

TSD Texan started a thread about our individual lineages to Hwang Kee, which was getting a bit off topic into the usual interest in Toyama Kanken and Shudokan.

So, I forked that thread and started a new one. I aim to discuss what I know with others regarding Manchuria and Hwang Kee's early life, including what I know about the period here.

This is what I was going to post in the lineage thread that is considerably off topic:

I have spoken to a student of Ki Whang Kim (KWK), who claimed that he did not teach full time in Korea when he returned there after WW2. Instead, he had a government position (office job) and would go to all the dojangs and train with others and teach others forms and techniques when he had the time. This student of KWK was of the opinion that he helped polish the forms in the early Moo Duk Kwan, but we should be careful about how we (as aspiring historians) take such a statement for granted.

My personal feeling is that people were relatively friendly and helpful in the begging, and freely and happily shared technique with each other. Everybody was eager to learn from anybody with experience. I don't like to just assume that this person or that person was the only person responsible for someone else's technique. That is not how we learn - we get a little from everybody - but for sure we can say that the inflence on early MDK wasn't only "Shotokan"!

As for Yamaguchi, this is very hard to say. He appeared together with Hwang at many FAJKO/AKF/WUKO (now WKF) events in the mid 60s to early 70s, but after that there is no evidence of how well they knew each other. I don't think a lot of people would disagree with me when I say that, other than philosophy, there is no goju technique in MDK, at least not now!

Besides, there were so many other people in Manchukuo with a Karate or MA background from 1920s-1945.

So Nei Chu (famously jailed for his leftist leanings)
Mitsusuke Harada (just a boy at the time, mind you)
Yamaguchi Gogen (Military Intelligence in Manchukuo, imprisoned by the Russians)
The Koreans we know: Yun Byung-In, Yun Kwei-Byung, Chun Sang Sup, Hwang Kee
Masayoshi Kori Hisataka (station master on the SMR!)
Kinjo Hiroshi (I believe he worked with the SMR's railway police, but can't find it on the web again - search IRKRS websites for more)
Isao Obata (See Nov 1992 Black Belt Mag for story - was army officer in Manchukuo)
A university in Manchuria hosted many martial artists, including Ueshiba, and which taught colonial students in Aikido, Kendo and Judo. When the russians were on their doorstep, the University books and course materials were moved to south korea to a now prominent university in Seoul... (Read Wikipedia and put it together! It's hiding in plain sight.)
Kotaro Yoshida lived in Manchuria on and off over the years.
Gigo Funakoshi and Morihei Ueshiba trained special forces agents for missions into Manchuria at the Nakano-ryu (Nakano School)
Takatoshi Nishizono (Wado) trained Sakura Squadrons in Manchukuo when he was stationed there, and wrote a famous essay about it.
And then you have all the "others"... Manchukuo was running amok in "Tairiku Ronin" during this period. Not to mention many young men and karateka were sent here as part of their military duty. Dark times, a swirling dark pool of intrigue up to the Amur River. Black dragons lived here during this time... Some things will never be known about this period, and who was there!


----------



## TSDTexan

Well the Gogen YamaguchI is a soft link. HK called him his dear personal friend.

Common sense dictates that, if the thing you most have in common with a personal friend is martial arts, it follows that forms and techniques are going to be discussed and perhaps even debated. That requires a certain level of proficiency on the part of all parties.

Other facts:

The deep friendship started when they knew each other in Manchuria.

While TSD doesn't show specifics of gojo techniques... the "Middle House" style that HK pursued is definitely of the "hard-soft" philosophy that goju holds.

A good write up on the middle house path that HK was pursuing, that culminated in his art of Tang Soo (Su-bahk) further evolved from karate roots.
Background of Chil Sung Hyung | Wasatch Martial Arts Academy
My master went through great pains to track down some first edition works of Gogen's and the correspondence between the philosophy of Gogen (in his writings) and HK's before (1957) he decodes the book "muye dobo tongji". is errie.

The official position of the MDK is that HK learned his forms in Manchuria. If this is true, Gogen Yamaguchi is one of the few karate instructors known to working for the Manchuria Railroad at the same time and places as HK. (If not the only one)

He remains the strongest candidate.

There remains no explanation for Okinawan Created Forms to have a presence in Manchuria, other than their export from Okinanawa by way of Japan, at that point in time.


----------



## TSDTexan

This is what I meant to say, but I ran out of edit time:

There remains no better explanation for Okinawan Created Forms to have a presence in Manchuria, specifically, at the Railway Co, other than their export from Okinanawa by way of Japan, at that point in time.


----------



## reeskm

Thanks for your reply TSDTexan. Sorry for not writing back sooner. I got busy with life! LOL

It is possible they were friends during that time. You hit the nail on the head - I agree there are similarities in philosophy between Hwang and Gogen. However, for whatever reason Hwang chose not to include any classic Goju curriculum in his system, or so it seems.

However I've recently been enlightened on the forms - are they Okinawan in origin? Yes. But, it is quite clear that all Korean kwans trace their styles to much more modern Japanised karate than Okinawan styles. If there was any Karate instruction being taught in Manchuria, I would expect it to be the pre-war styles from mainland Japan.

What are your thoughts on the other people/possibilities I listed in my OP?


----------



## dancingalone

I think looking into the karate roots is a dead end for MDK people.  I don't believe GM Hwang had any significant amount studies with any Okinawan karate expert - as evidenced by the MDK karate forms.  It's much more illustrative to look at the forms Hwang Kee actually created such as the Chil Sung and Yuk Rho forms.  It's obvious he loved Chinese martial arts.  

Why not explore there if we want to retrace Hwang Kee's footsteps?  Tan Tui, Tai Chi Chuan, and Northern Shaolin.


----------



## TSDTexan

dancingalone said:


> I think looking into the karate roots is a dead end for MDK people.  I don't believe GM Hwang had any significant amount studies with any Okinawan karate expert - as evidenced by the MDK karate forms.  It's much more illustrative to look at the forms Hwang Kee actually created such as the Chil Sung and Yuk Rho forms.  It's obvious he loved Chinese martial arts.
> 
> Why not explore there if we want to retrace Hwang Kee's footsteps?  Tan Tui, Tai Chi Chuan, and Northern Shaolin.



Very subjective... as to what significance amount it was. HE admits in his books the okinawan origins of certain TSD forms.

Option A. The TSD organization removes them or owns up to the history behind the being included in the cannon of forms.


----------



## dancingalone

TSDTexan said:


> Very subjective... as to what significance amount it was. HE admits in his books the okinawan origins of certain TSD forms.
> 
> Option A. The TSD organization removes them or owns up to the history behind the being included in the cannon of forms.



Oh, I wasn't trying to litigate whether the forms came to TSD by way of Okinawa or not.  I think the preponderance of evidence shows they didn't, but that is a tired topic that I am happy to bow out of.

I am saying it is more interesting to look at the Chinese arts, if one wants to get to the heart of what GM Hwang's personal martial art was.  Studying some of the Jing Wu tan tui applications seems like an obvious first stop to me without a lot of investment in "switching" styles.


----------



## reeskm

dancingalone,
I don't think it will ever be a dead end topic. It will continue to come up for a very long time. In fact, I think the more people talk about it the more information will come up. It may be possible nothing will come out of it, but in time I think there will be more information. I think, compared to 15 years ago, there is more awareness now of this issue than ever before.

As for the Chinese connection, that is also quite the mystery. I think Hwang changed his story so much over the years that it is nearly impossible to truly know what he really did. That is what makes him very fascinating. Plus, there is so much misinformation and mistakes out there, it will take a long time to correct them all.

For example, despite all the excellent research and huge respect I have for Eric Madis' _Storming the Fortress _series, he makes one important mistake. He claims that Hwang Kee worked at the railroad station in ChaoYang. However, there is more than one ChaoYang in china, and he actually missed a character off the end of the train station name. He knows this as we've written about it - but his article is published and now confusing many. The actual train station that he worked at was ChaoYangChun (Chao Yang River) station. This is crucial - and the proof is in the photograph he and a friend took in front of the train station platform sign. These two locations are hundreds of miles apart.

So who the heck was teaching Guoshu in ChaoYangChun? Did Hwang actually learn anything at all there? Or did he make up a white lie and actually trained elsewhere in China? That is the ultimate question.


----------



## dancingalone

reeskm said:


> dancingalone,
> I don't think it will ever be a dead end topic. It will continue to come up for a very long time. In fact, I think the more people talk about it the more information will come up. It may be possible nothing will come out of it, but in time I think there will be more information. I think, compared to 15 years ago, there is more awareness now of this issue than ever before.



It's a dead end in the sense that all the MDK karate forms with one exception I can think of (Rohai) lead you back to Shotokan karate.  It doesn't matter who we speculate taught GM Hwang, what friends he had, what he wrote about in his books, etc.  The DNA in the actual forms practiced unquestionably came from Shotokan.  Not Shorin-ryu (pick any flavor - Kyan, Nagamine, Motobu), not Okinawan kenpo either.  Definitely nothing from Naha like Goju-ryu.

Instead the signature adaptations from Japanese karate are front and center in the MDK hyung.  We can easily compare them thanks to resources like Youtube.  So I'm not sure what kind of information could come forth that would change that.  Perhaps you could fill me in if I am overlooking something?





reeskm said:


> As for the Chinese connection, that is also quite the mystery. I think Hwang changed his story so much over the years that it is nearly impossible to truly know what he really did. That is what makes him very fascinating. Plus, there is so much misinformation and mistakes out there, it will take a long time to correct them all.
> 
> For example, despite all the excellent research and huge respect I have for Eric Madis' _Storming the Fortress _series, he makes one important mistake. He claims that Hwang Kee worked at the railroad station in ChaoYang. However, there is more than one ChaoYang in china, and he actually missed a character off the end of the train station name. He knows this as we've written about it - but his article is published and now confusing many. The actual train station that he worked at was ChaoYangChun (Chao Yang River) station. This is crucial - and the proof is in the photograph he and a friend took in front of the train station platform sign. These two locations are hundreds of miles apart.
> 
> So who the heck was teaching Guoshu in ChaoYangChun? Did Hwang actually learn anything at all there? Or did he make up a white lie and actually trained elsewhere in China? That is the ultimate question.



That's interesting reading.  Thank you.

I guess I have a different perspective as a non-MDK person.  To me, who GM Hwang learned from and what he learned is less important than looking at what he likely regarded as his opus magnum, namely his original forms, the Chil Sung and the Yuk Rho.  The stamps of Tan Tui, Tai Chi, and Northern Shaolin are all over those forms, just like Shotokan left an impression on the MDK hyung.  I merely suggest going with the flow - if a MDK practitioner wants to retrace the martial footsteps of his founder, I don't think that the road map is particularly hard to find or follow.

Best wishes.


----------



## reeskm

Nothing should be _unquestionable_, Dancingalone. I question it all.

The forms as we practice them today are only a very small part of the old curriculum. Fact is, there isn't enough information in looking at the modern forms to tell the whole story. True enough, some of the story is there. For example, we do things similar but not exactly the same as Shotokan does. It's the subtleties that are important. There is a big misconception that it all goes back to Shotokan, because it doesn’t tell the whole story. For example, Shotokan does not have any form similar to Taeji Hyul. Also, they have been doing Meikyo instead of Rohai for a very long time. Why would Hwang decide to keep all the old Okinawan names for these forms instead of using Shotokan's newer names that Funakoshi popularized even in his 1935 edition of the Karatedo Kyohan? No, I think that Shotokan is not the only influence on Hwang's style.

Actually, I don't even like the Chil Sung hyung. I know I am not alone there. I am not really sure they are really that important at all. Sure, they might give some clues as to where Hwang came from or what he studied before. The only problem is they are so different from the Tang Soo Do and that most people just go through the motions. I'm not satisfied with that at all. Plus, there is no information at all on how he came up with them, applications, the proper way to do them. You pretty much have to be part of the Soo Bahk Do association and even then I'm not so sure they have all the answers. Chil Sung raises more questions than it answers, and despite all the speculation, nobody really knows what, if anything, the Sorim Jangkwon and Taegukkwan hyungs looked like in the Moo Duk Kwan.

So to clarify, looking at the forms is fraught with issues. It's been diluted and passed down through too many people, and with no video footage or good pictures of Hwang performing the forms, we are forced to rely on speculation and other people's random opinions on how good he was, who he learned it from, and so on. I'm just not willing to take what others say about it as the real story.


----------



## reeskm

Dancingalone,
I thought you might appreciate this, since you are interested in looking at Hwang's origins based on the forms taught in the MooDukKwan.

They come from someone on Facebook, who bought a copy of Hwang's textbook (sorry don't know whether or not it was the english or korean version, or exactly which reprinting - but clearly the Hwa Soo Do/Tang Soo do Kyo bon book). He bought the book for his own teacher as a gift as his teacher had just reached 5th Dan or something, and it is a very expensive collectible now. Inside the front cover were these pages, and so clearly this book previously belonged to either Myung Seok Seo or one of his senior students.

Seo seems to have been very much a forms collector, like Mabuni. His forms curriculum is crazy agressive by today's standards. It includes forms that have long since stopped being taught in most TSD schools. I think it speaks for itself.

Best regards, and I really do like to have the chance to debate with you. Don't bow out!


----------



## dancingalone

reeskm said:


> Nothing should be _unquestionable_, Dancingalone. I question it all.



A healthy attitude, but when we turn skeptical eye towards the MDK karate hyung, I don't think there's much debate.  Look at the typical substitutions of sidekicks, the reversal in order of Pinan 1 & 2, etc.  The phrase about walking, talking, and quacking ducks come to mind here.




reeskm said:


> The forms as we practice them today are only a very small part of the old curriculum. Fact is, there isn't enough information in looking at the modern forms to tell the whole story. True enough, some of the story is there. For example, we do things similar but not exactly the same as Shotokan does. It's the subtleties that are important.



Such as?  Do tell.  Also how do you know these nuances came directly from Hwang Kee and were not introduced later and by someone else?



reeskm said:


> There is a big misconception that it all goes back to Shotokan, because it doesn’t tell the whole story. For example, Shotokan does not have any form similar to Taeji Hyul.



Sure.  No doubt MDK is not 100% Shotokan.  Just the karate forms inherited with the notable exception of Rohai as I mentioned above.  Kicho 1-3 = Taikyoku.  Pyung Ahn = Heian.  Naihanchi = Tekki. Jin Do = Gankaku (this is a really good example as Chinto has multiple versions in the various lineages of Shorin-ryu, but the MDK version is almost verbatim the version Funakoshi's students say he taught them).  Kong Sang Koon = Kanku Dai.  Palsek, Yunbi, Seisan, and so on.  Again, the only exception seems to Rohai.

Hmm, I find myself arguing a point that I think should be accepted as true from the start, so if you still disagree, that's fine.  No need for me to say anything else on this point.

What is Taeji Hyul anyway?  I'm intrigued because as I posted I believe Hwang Kee's own private martial arts was a blend of Chinese arts including Tai Chi and Northern Shaolin.



reeskm said:


> Also, they have been doing Meikyo instead of Rohai for a very long time.



Who?  Shotokan?  Yes, that's true.  You might have overlooked what I actually wrote.  Rohai seems to be the sole example of a MDK form that came from another karate source.  Perhaps the Toyama Sensei connection through those Korean gentlemen that studied with him.



reeskm said:


> Why would Hwang decide to keep all the old Okinawan names for these forms instead of using Shotokan's newer names that Funakoshi popularized even in his 1935 edition of the Karatedo Kyohan? No, I think that Shotokan is not the only influence on Hwang's style.



Same reason why the Chung Do Kwan also used the Korean analogs of the Okinawan names instead of using Funakoshi's new nomenclature (something that not even his own students followed for every kata)?  No one wanted to admit the Japanese connection.  Lee, Won Kuk was considered a 'traitor' in some Korean circles after all just because he elected to move back to Japan.  

Again, the 'history' isn't important.  Nor the names used.  I'd rather look at the actual movement within the forms and that is telling IMO in the similarities.



reeskm said:


> Actually, I don't even like the Chil Sung hyung. I know I am not alone there. I am not really sure they are really that important at all. Sure, they might give some clues as to where Hwang came from or what he studied before.



Eh?  The Soo Bahk Do people who arguably can claim the highest amount of orthodoxy (such as that means anything) to GM Hwang's teachers would disagree.  They believe his forms are the truest expression of his art.



reeskm said:


> The only problem is they are so different from the Tang Soo Do and that most people just go through the motions. I'm not satisfied with that at all. Plus, there is no information at all on how he came up with them, applications, the proper way to do them. You pretty much have to be part of the Soo Bahk Do association and even then I'm not so sure they have all the answers. Chil Sung raises more questions than it answers, and despite all the speculation, nobody really knows what, if anything, the Sorim Jangkwon and Taegukkwan hyungs looked like in the Moo Duk Kwan.



True.  Which is why I think if one really, really wants to retrace what Hwang Kee thought and did, one should seek out expert instruction in Tam Tui, Tai Chi Chuan, and Northern Shaolin.  It's not extremely hard to find either with noted lineage holders willing and eager to share their knowledge.  We don't even have to visit China any longer either for these arts.  Looking at the Jing Wu for their version of Tam Tui seems easiest to me for a US-based MDK person.  



reeskm said:


> So to clarify, looking at the forms is fraught with issues. It's been diluted and passed down through too many people, and with no video footage or good pictures of Hwang performing the forms, we are forced to rely on speculation and other people's random opinions on how good he was, who he learned it from, and so on. I'm just not willing to take what others say about it as the real sto
> ry.



I wouldn't go through Hwang Kee's students for knowledge of Chinese martial arts.  I'd go to people who actually practice Chinese arts.  Ultimately, you'll arrive at a similar place GM Hwang was in before he picked up karate forms (from a book, from Won Kuk Lee, from someone else - you pick which story you prefer).


----------



## dancingalone

reeskm said:


> Dancingalone,
> I thought you might appreciate this, since you are interested in looking at Hwang's origins based on the forms taught in the MooDukKwan.



I do, thank you.  I am off to teach class but I will try to get online again later tonight or tomorrow.


----------



## reeskm

dancingalone said:


> The DNA in the actual forms practiced unquestionably came from Shotokan. Not Shorin-ryu (pick any flavor - Kyan, Nagamine, Motobu), not Okinawan kenpo either. Definitely nothing from Naha like Goju-ryu.



Upon reading this another time, I have to say you are right there. But what about Shudokan (Toyama), Wado or Shitoryu influences? What about the fact that philosophically he was very similar in mind to Yamaguchi Gogen? Much to debate


----------



## dancingalone

As always the listing of forms is interesting.  Too bad many of the higher dan forms are unknown to me and video probably doesn't exist for them if anyone still practices them.

This has always been a persistent problem in researching early kwan era curriculum.  In the end, I'm always forced to conclude that you can follow the evolution up two paths:  back to circa 1940s (roughly) Japanese karate with smatterings of influence from CMA (some kwans like the MDK and Chang Moo Kwan/Kang Duk Won had more of it) and judo.


----------



## dancingalone

reeskm said:


> Upon reading this another time, I have to say you are right there. But what about Shudokan (Toyama), Wado or Shitoryu influences? What about the fact that philosophically he was very similar in mind to Yamaguchi Gogen? Much to debate



Honestly, I don't see any Wado or Shito-ryu in Tang Soo Do today.  Don't know much about Yamaguchi either, so I am not sure what parts of martial arts philosophy me he shared with Hwang. To Okinawan Goju-ryu people, he was somewhat of a character and not exactly a respected resource to consult.   

I'm happy to believe that the version of Matsumura Rohai taught popularly came from Toyama, but there's no factual link I am aware of other than Toyama's list of shihan instructors included a few Koreans on it.  I also don't have anyone handy and expert in Shudokan karate (kind of a complicated discussion in of itself due to Toyama's disbelief in styles themselves) that I can ask to review the MDK version of Rohai to see if it could stem from their version.

I do think it's interesting that Rohai 1-3 was listed in that syllabus you posted.  Some lines of Shito-ryu teach the Itosu Rohai series along with Matsumura Rohai.  However, every TSD stylist I am familiar with only does the one Rohai.  Itosu Rohai has been lost from TSD if it was ever taught in the first place as a mainstream occurrence.


----------



## reeskm

(Post edited to clarify and enhance)

Yes, I generally agree with all your comments regarding forms.
That's why I have avoided bringing up the forms in order to understand Hwang. Because there is just not enough analysis and research done.

Regarding Yamaguchi and Hwang
- in terms of philosophy shared with Yamaguchi (I am unaware of other styles of Goju to be able to comment accurately) Hwang decided to adopt a master's (shihan or sahbom) belt with a red center stripe. I know that in modern day goju this is reserved for 7th dan an up, but this "hard outside, soft inside" concept and specifically the use in the master's level black belts is one example. Do other goju styles use this belt concept? I know that for masters, KU also uses a black belt with red center. This is one example of shared philosophy.
Mind you, this could be a coincidence.
- we know that Yamaguchi and Hwang knew each other. The question is, how well and how long did their friendship or aquantaince go back.
- they both shared a love for mysticism, spirituality, chinese influenced elements and philosophies like daoism, and for Manchuria if that means anything. I would say that both of them were "characters" and put a lot of effort into popularizing and "marketing" karatedo
- They were both members of WUKO in the 70's and seem to have had an association before that in the 60's. They often show up at international events (Philipines, Japan) together.

Regarding Toyama and the Koreans
Toyama had no problem teaching koreans and he lists them in his books. This is well known and easy to verify. The difficulty here is that there is no link to Hwang directly.
- Kinjo Hiroshi is listed in Toyama's master's list, and was vice-president of the Kanbukan (Yun Kwei-Byung was Pres.)
- Yun Kwei-Byung was the founder of the Jidokwan and very closely connected to Hwang. However, this connection is only obvious in photographs of them together and then with their connection post korean war
- Yun Byung-In shows up in photographs with Hwang pre-Korean war, but because of his early dissapearance not much more is known about their personal relationship
- Chun Sang Sup was not related to Toyama based on most accounts (being Shotokan from Takushoku Univ.), but he was related to the other students of Toyama and also shows up in photos with Hwang pre-Korean war.
- Ki Whang Kim was also a student of Toyama in his list, but did not actively open a dojang in Korean post-liberation. He took up a government job, but from time to time dropped in on his old friends and aquantainces to train with them. Apparently he was in demand as an expert when you needed help with your technique. When he got in serious trouble around the time of the Park coup, Hwang rescued him by sponsoring his visa. He then joined the MDK, and moved to the USA with MDK rank certification (which he had no reason to have before that time). How much he taught Hwang is still only based on random comments from his students, but clearly he did teach at many places but not for a living. I'm sure he would have been popular at the Jidokwan as well.

Hwang and the Shotokan stylists
I still don't think Shotokan is the only influence, but I admit it is very strong. Here are my comments on it.

Most notable in photos of H.C. Hwang as shown in the MDK books published in the 90's. Also, Kang Uk Lee's style is extremely close to orthodox shotokan. However, it is not the whole of the curriculum.
- I used to think that the "true blue tang soo do kick" peet chagi (reverse round kick) was only a korean kick (think Taekyun) and unique to MDK TSD. I was dead wrong. This has been an advanced kick known to the Shotokan to at least the very early 1950s, and possibly earlier. I found footage available through Don Warrener/Rising Sun Productions that clearly shows a high level Shotokan master demonstrating this kick in B&W on film circa 1951 or so. I can dig it back up if you want and discuss it later. Naturally, this is also a favorite kick of the Kyokushinkai which apears in many Kyokushin text books circa 1970.
- One of the one steps is a very clear homage and a spitting image of Gigo Funakoshi. It involves blocking with the left hand open in front of the face, and a groin strike with the right hand, nukite (kwan soo).
- during warm ups, when we do stretch kicks, the kicking position is from a front stance, with a front stretch, and hands both down on each side of the body in hammer fists. This is pure shotokan, based on my experience training with my JKA friends in town.
- most of the gicho/taikyoku and heian/pyung ahn forms are shotokan derived, or at the very least pure orthodox itosu-ha.

When you consier that Hwang also shows up in photos next to Won Kuk Lee and Byung Jick Ro, often on their grading photos and sitting next to them in a suit as equals, it shows that Hwang really got around. He most certainly knew and trained with everybody. At the same time I can't support the argument that he was just a green belt like WKL says. I think more likely he never received rank from WKL, they had a falling out, and WKL later in his life basically tried to discredit Hwang by dismissing him as an occaisional trainer who only put in enought time at his school to be a green belt.

That, and the fact so many have reverance for Hwang as a truly skilled artist, are the reasons why I have never believed these random comments about Hwang being some guy that just copied other people's stuff and came on the scene at the last minute. There are many indications he did not. He was more of a tairiku ronin, traveling around and dabbling in almost any martial art that he could find along the way.


----------



## dancingalone

reeskm said:


> Regarding Yamaguchi and Hwang
> - in terms of philosophy shared with Yamaguchi (I am unaware of other styles of Goju to be able to comment accurately) Hwang decided to adopt a master's (shihan or sahbom) belt with a red center stripe. I know that in modern day goju this is reserved for 7th dan an up, but this "hard outside, soft inside" concept and specifically the use in the master's level black belts is one example. Do other goju styles use this belt concept? I know that for masters, KU also uses a black belt with red center. This is one example of shared philosophy.



You're much more likely to see those fancy red/white or red/black or solid red belts among Shorin-ryu practitioners.  Not saying some Okinawan Goju people don't use them, but in my personal experience it's more rare.  The hard/soft dichotomy is something common with all Okinawan karate styles.  Goju (hard/soft), Pangainoon (half-hard, half-soft), and Hanko-ryu (early name for Shito-ryu, "half-hard").  One of those stereotypes Okinawan stylists like to harbor about their Japanese stylist cousins is that the latter group tend to be all hard and all linear.  Obviously, it's a stereotype though. 



reeskm said:


> - they both shared a love for mysticism, spirituality, chinese influenced elements and philosophies like daoism, and for Manchuria if that means anything. I would say that both of them were "characters" and put a lot of effort into popularizing and "marketing" karatedo



Trying to be kind here and not trying to be THAT guy, but I'm not a fan of Goju-kai - Yamaguchi's spin on the Goju-ryu.  There's more to it than that, but I'll let it go.  




reeskm said:


> Toyama had no problem teaching koreans and he lists them in his books. This is well known and easy to verify. The difficulty here is that there is no link to Hwang directly.



Yep.



reeskm said:


> When you consier that Hwang also shows up in photos next to Won Kuk Lee and Byung Jick Ro, often on their grading photos and sitting next to them in a suit as equals, it shows that Hwang really got around. He most certainly knew and trained with everybody. At the same time I can't support the argument that he was just a green belt like WKL says. I think more likely he never received rank from WKL, they had a falling out, and WKL later in his life basically tried to discredit Hwang by dismissing him as an occaisional trainer who only put in enought time at his school to be a green belt.
> 
> That, and the fact so many have reverance for Hwang as a truly skilled artist, are the reasons why I have never believed these random comments about Hwang being some guy that just copied other people's stuff and came on the scene at the last minute. There are many indications he did not. He was more of a tairiku ronin, traveling around and dabbling in almost any martial art that he could find along the way.



No argument from me on these points.  I would say though that the source of GM Hwang's karate knowledge is much more mysterious than Won Kuk Lee's or Byung Jick Ro's.  Hence why this topic continues to be discussed today decades after he has passed away.  On a practical level, it really doesn't matter.  TSD stylists can continue to train hard and just enjoy the fruits of their labor.  If they ever want to explore their karate further with their cousins in the Japanese and Okinawan arts, well the world is their oyster now with the internet and with international travel easy and available.

What I think however (worth about what you paid for it) is that Hwang Kee's progeny should be looking at the Chinese arts if they want any part of the legacy that has been denied them due to political and economic pressures, as well as just plain bad luck, that made Hwa Soo Do unpopular in the first place.  I believe that if GM Hwang had lived even longer and had been able to keep the MDK from fracturing, you might in fact have more widespread dissimulation of what those Chil Sung/Yuk Rho forms are supposed to mean.


----------



## reeskm

dancingalone said:


> In the end, I'm always forced to conclude that you can follow the evolution up two paths:  back to circa 1940s (roughly) Japanese karate with smatterings of influence from CMA (some kwans like the MDK and Chang Moo Kwan/Kang Duk Won had more of it) and judo.



Agreed here. I've been to a Chang Moo Kwan lineage school in Edmonton and was very interested in how they did things. I think I posted on here before about my experience.

The judo connection has only just started to become more interesting to me.
- The MDK curriculum as published in the 1990's colored belt book series (Under the Soo Bahk Do Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan assoc.) contains ho sin sool (go shin jutsu) self defense techniques categorized by type of wrist grabs: cross hand, same side, behind the back, two hands on one, two hands on two, etc. This very much reminds me of the very old kodokan judo goshinjutsu curriculum, derived from jujutsu, and which probably has dissapeared from modern judo.
- they way we fold our dobok is without question the orthodox kodokan judo way. This I only figured out last month. I always wanted to understand the way we korean stylists fold our uniform and now it is clear to me. We don't make a dogi-maki (rolled), we don't usually make a square uniform fold - almost all "traditional" korean taekwondo or tang soo do schools do it the kodokan judo way fold for fold.


----------



## reeskm

dancingalone said:


> You're much more likely to see those fancy red/white or red/black or solid red belts among Shorin-ryu practitioners. Not saying some Okinawan Goju people don't use them, but in my personal experience it's more rare. The hard/soft dichotomy is something common with all Okinawan karate styles. Goju (hard/soft), Pangainoon (half-hard, half-soft), and Hanko-ryu (early name for Shito-ryu, "half-hard"). One of those stereotypes Okinawan stylists like to harbor about their Japanese stylist cousins is that the latter group tend to be all hard and all linear. Obviously, it's a stereotype though.



Thank you Dancingalone. I knew some of this but not all of it. That is incredibly interesting and very helpful. I'll look into it further. In very earlier interviews and literature, Hwang Kee was described as an "Okinawa-te practitioner".

I suppose you know that Richard Kim was a shorin-ryu stylist? That might explain why KU uses the black belt with red stripe like I mentioned earlier? I will email Patrick McCarthy about it.
(_Martial Arts: Traditions, History and People_ by Corcoran and Farkas lists Shorin-Ryu styles on page 71, and says that Richard Kim is *Shorinji-Ryu* -- "This style is taught in the U.S. by Richard Kim of San Francisco" -- and also "(Shorinji-ryu) Japanese style of of karate-do founded by Kori Hisataka after WW2. Hisataka named this style after its two main sources of stylistic inspiration: shorin-ryu karate and Shorinji kempo.

Hisataka has long been on my list of people that I suspect had a serious influence on MDK and Hwang. I have too many reasons to list here.

One of the most intersting things about our MDK style (and like you said Chang Moo Kwan) is the off the center line and non-linear techniques. This is a key principle to many martial arts, and I definitely agree it is common in Chinese MA as well. I believe this is one of the major elements that differentiates us from that Shotokan style we are often accused of being. I've always had a sneaking suspicion that there are definite non-linear kendo, hapkido & aikido (same thing really) and judo techniques in our art as well.

Yes, one of the biggest issues facing MDK is the fracturing. My teacher was American and came from that generation where everybody was more interested in the blood and guts sparring and tourneys than they were on the more internal aspects of the art. I'm sure a lot of it was never passed on like it could have been. And I know that most of the american and european MDK schools went through the exact same thing. No problem - you just have to do your research and study and bring some of it back!


----------



## reeskm

I want to add Doshin So (Michiomi Nakano) to my OP in the list of people in Manchukuo with MA experience. 

He lived there from 1928-1946. I forgot to add him but he's been on my "interesting" list for a long time.
As a half-joke, Shorinji Kempo's cult like organizational methods just seem to be too familiar! LOL


----------



## reeskm

dancingalone said:


> You're much more likely to see those fancy red/white or red/black or solid red belts among Shorin-ryu practitioners.



I had to re-read this. I think we misunderstood each other. I was referring to the belt not with alternating stripes (like Judo white/red belt or shorin-ryu belts) but the type where there is one main solid colour and a complete stripe runing through the center.

The Goshin Goju Ryu Belt System
Belts of Dan 6-9 at this website illustrate the type of belt I am referring to.

When I wrote Hanshi McCarthy the only thing he mentioned was that he believed this style of belt (with the stripe running through the center) was borrowed from Yuishinkan.
"I did know this about Gojukai … but it’s relatively new and “borrowed” from the Yuishinkai. I am also aware of MDK/TSD, too."

Long weekend time! Have a great one!


----------



## reeskm

TSDTexan,



TSDTexan said:


> Of course it could have been just Yoon Byung-In.
> But I have a Toyama tradition dojo in my town, and the Sensei does a LOT of things the way TSD does...



You made this in the former "Post your lineage to Hwang Kee" thread. Could you elaborate? I'm very interested in what you are saying here. I don't have a Toyama/Shudokan lineage dojo in my area. Information is quite scarce on the internet and youtube that seems to be of any help in helping me understand.


----------



## punisher73

In his latest book, The History of Moo Duk Kwan (1995), which is available through the United States Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation, Hwang Kee states on pages 15 and 16 that his knowledge and understanding of the majority of forms taught within Tang Soo Do, including the Pyong Ahn Hyung, came through reading and studying Japanese books on Okinawan Karate. Hwang discovered these books in the Library of the train station in Seoul where he worked in 1939 (Hwang, 1995). We can only speculate as to which books these were, but it is known that Funakoshi and others published books on Karate as far back as 1922. While the above information was withheld for 50 years, the clue could always be found within the forms themselves. It has been known for many years that the Karate-Ka in Japan switched the order of the first two forms from their original. Hence, anyone who trains in a traditional Okinawan school have the original order, while those that trace lineage through a Japanese school have Pinan No. 2 as their version of Pinan No. 1, and vice versa. Tang Soo Do practitioners need to take note here as their order is the same as used by the Japanese schools.

 I have seen this above quote in various places, this specific one was pulled from this website:  The Truth about Pyong Ahn Hyungs  –


----------



## reeskm

I'm glad you brought this up Punisher73, because I think this line of reasoning is often repeated but full of holes.

First of all, the statement from Hwang's _The History of the Moo Duk Kwan_ that you specifically quote is yet again another ridiculous white lie. Of course, it no doubt has some truth to it. But have you actually read copies of the books available in 1937, or published before 1937? Many of them are easy to access in digital form through the Hawaii Seininkai. The biggest way to blow this theory out the water is to notice that none of these books describe the Moo Duk Kwan kata syllabus (or any other style like Shotokan or Shitoryu) with enough photos or illustrations to be able to reconstruct the kata without an instructor. Even today's books have only managed to capture most of the details necessary (but not all!) that you need to perform the kata. (see below for a real example of this)

Secondly, the argument that Hwang read Funaoshi's Karate-Do Kyohan and then based his karate on it can't be true. The techniques and methods illustrated in the book are different.

Take, as an example, Funakoshi's _Karate-do Kyohan_ published in 1935. It was easily available in 1937. This was the second major book that Funakoshi published, and unlike later editions all the technical photos were of Funakoshi performing the moves himself. The first was ultra rare as the original manuscript that he wrote and the printing plates for it were lost in the 1922 Great Kanto Earthquake, which he mentions in this (1935) edition.

If you consult the Neptune Publications re-tranlsation, arguably the most word for word and picture for picture accurate translation to English, you can prove this to yourself.

For example, on Page 43, Funakoshi illustrates Heian Shodan. His ready stance is totally different than modern Shotokan and the famous Moodukkwan chunbee. Our chunbee is most similar to the Renbukai style. Toes straight, fists in front of the belt, one fist apart, etc. Funakoshi's has his feet very wide apart, toes pointing out at 45 degrees and fists in front of his thighs. Why then does Hwang not do it this way, if his model is Funakoshi's famous book?

Regarding an example of very few pictures, you can also look to Funakoshi's book. Heian Shodan is very well explained and illustrated with photographs. However, Heian Nidan has almost the same number of moves as shodan, but only 7 photographs. Other problems exist. Bassai Sho is not in the Kyohan at all. Kanku (kong sang koon) has only 8 photographs and is impossible to perform properly with only written words! Seisan has only 4 photos... I think you get the point.

It is possible he "learned" some things from the library at the Yongsan Rail yards, attached to the Imperial Japanese Army military base that he worked at (if it's true that he worked there at all like he claims), but I'm pretty sure he didn't learn Karate from books.

You do realize that the Ministry of Transportation was an arm of the Imperial Japanese Occupational Government in 1937, right? If anything, Hwang had a really good motivation to hide the names and identities of his teachers - or else, why wouldn't he just come out and say who it was? So, to confuse the rest of us, he just said "Oh, I learned it from books I found in the library" and continued his usual vague stories of his shady past.


----------



## dancingalone

reeskm said:


> It is possible he "learned" some things from the library at the Yongsan Rail yards, attached to the Imperial Japanese Army military base that he worked at (if it's true that he worked there at all like he claims), but I'm pretty sure he didn't learn Karate from books.



I think the simplest and most logical explanation is that Hwang Kee learned and/or refined his forms through his association with Lee Won Kuk though he probably also used books too at some point.  Hwang was already an experienced martial artist and would not have found it difficult to adapt the Chung Do Kwan style.  Any variance in forms and their method of execution came from Hwang's reinterpretation along with contributions from other Koreans that joined or affiliated with the Moo Duk Kwan.

Just my conjecture.


----------

