# Kicho History



## MBuzzy (Aug 6, 2007)

Can anyone provide some insight into the true history of the Kicho Hyungs?  I was recently told that they were "created" by GM Hwang Kee.  I do not know how to interpret this...Either he "imported" them from another style, "translated" them (as he was said to have done with the  Yuk Ro Hyungs), or this is just a misunderstanding on someone's part.

I began to have a discussion about this topic with Exile, so hopefully we can finish the discussion here!  I would love to hear from some of our Masters here who are very educated on the history of our style.  Thank you!  TANG SOO!


----------



## JT_the_Ninja (Aug 7, 2007)

I'd be willing to bet that, if they were his creation, they were based off of the Japanese forms he learned and incorporated into his style. They're similar enough. 

I'd also be interested to see if anyone knows more/differently, though.


----------



## exile (Aug 7, 2007)

JT_the_Ninja said:


> I'd be willing to bet that, if they were his creation, they were based off of the Japanese forms he learned and incorporated into his style. They're similar enough.
> 
> I'd also be interested to see if anyone knows more/differently, though.



I don't know if the any of the TSD versions of the Kichos are different from the SMK TKD versions I learned, but the ones presented in Kang Uk Lee's book are move-for-move identical. And the TSD/TKD Kicho Il Jang is move-for-move identical to the elementary Shotokan kata _taikyoku shodan_, while Kicho Ee Jang is identical to _taikyoku nidan_ except that moves 68 in the Korean forms have rising blocks where the Shotokan forms have the same high punches that appear in the rest of the kata.

I have been pawing around various sources trying to get a handle on the history of the Taikyoku seriesthere were originally sixbut unfortunately, the Über-source on Shotokan history, Harry Cook's _Shotokan: a Precise History_, widely regarded as the best history of any karate style ever written, is... unavailable. I don't get this: it was privately printed in 2001, sold out almost immediately, and then... no more printings! Why doesn't he do another printing? I called Dragon Publishing, which distributed the book, and they told me that they have no idea if there will ever be any more copies... I'm really baffled: why write a book that everyone wants and then make it inaccessible to them? But that's the way it is, so we have to make to with the bits and pieces that are currently out there. What I've found so far is that the _Taikyoku_ series was used by Funakoshi as a `training' set to lead students up the the Pinan/Heian katas, but that he did _not_ invent them himself; they were apparently practiced in Okinawa for a long time before he came on the scene. 

So unless HK's versions of the Kichos were profoundly different from what everyone is doing now, it seems to that, as JT says, he basically got them off the discount kata shelf and incorporated them into his own system. We need some input from the historically well-informed people over on the Karate forum... anyone out there?


----------



## crushing (Aug 7, 2007)

MBuzzy, I have heard the same, but haven't found any other source other than the word of mouth to support this.  In fact, the story I heard is that the 'Kee-chos' were even named for Master Kee.

I guess it is a fortunate (or unfortunate) coincidence that Master Kee's name means 'basic'.


----------



## MBuzzy (Aug 7, 2007)

As soon as all of my stuff gets here and unpacked, I'll have to check and see if I can find where it says that Hwang Kee created them - if it does at all.....


----------



## stoneheart (Aug 7, 2007)

The Kicho forms undoubtedly are the _taikyoku _forms from Shotokan.  Some other Korean systems (not from the Hwang Kee lineage) use them also, occasionally with an move changed here and there.  Chayon-ryu has five different Kibon hyungs that are h-pattern variations, and I believe even Kuk Sool Won has Kicho forms.


----------



## Muwubu16858 (Aug 7, 2007)

In my notes from my teacher, he says that the 3 Tang Soo Do Kicho Hyungs were originally called Tae Geuk Cho Dan, Ee Dan and Sam Dan. They were written using the same characters for the Shotokan Taikyoku Kata, and he said he learned this from GM Oh Sae Joon, adding that Hwang Kee changed the name early on in Moo Duk Kwan history.


----------



## JT_the_Ninja (Aug 8, 2007)

Pretty much what I expected. Funnily enough, at my school we don't even use the word "gicho" much when referring to the gicho/kicho hyung. We just say "hyung il bu," "hyung e bu," "hyung sam bu."


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 8, 2007)

Ive never studied the Kichos, I come from a WTSDA background and practice the Sae Kye(sp?) hyung instead. Same H pattern but with kicks down the middle. For what its worth I seem to remember Kang Uk Lees book mentioning Hwang Kee created the Kichos but Ive also heard they are the same as the Shotokan ones.


----------



## exile (Aug 8, 2007)

Yossarian said:


> Ive never studied the Kichos, I come from a WTSDA background and practice the Sae Kye(sp?) hyung instead. Same H pattern but with kicks down the middle. For what its worth I seem to remember Kang Uk Lees book mentioning Hwang Kee created the Kichos but Ive also heard they are the same as the Shotokan ones.



As I say, they're virtually identical to the Taikyoku katas that were practiced in Okinawa _before Hwang Kee was born_. So it would have been quite a trick for him to have invented them...I cannot understand how these kinds of claims keep getting perpetuated. Mind you, Kang  Uk Lee also retails a lot of pseudohistory about ancient KMAsthe usual suspects: the Kogyuro tomb murals and Keumgang sculptures, the _Muye Dobo Tong Ji_to establish claims for TSD in the Three Kingdoms era, just as the WTF and a lot of popular stuff on TKD does for that art and as some writers do for Hapkido, all of it tripe, and thoroughly discredited as evidence for ancient KMAs (though it does, as Dakin Burdick's and Stanley Henning's works show in detail,  support a strong case for the ongoing role of Chinese fighting techniques on the Korean peninsula from ancient up to recent historic times). The claims about HK inventing the Kichos are just more of the same.


----------



## MBuzzy (Aug 8, 2007)

JT - basically that is just saying Form number one rather than Basic form number 1.  Basically no difference at all.  Same idea as Naihanchi being called Keema Hyung in your Organization.  Same forms, slightly different name.

Does anyone have any descriptions of the Taikyoky forms or a reference?  I would like to take some evidence in to my Dojang and see what the response there is....


----------



## exile (Aug 8, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> JT - basically that is just saying Form number one rather than Basic form number 1.  Basically no difference at all.  Same idea as Naihanchi being called Keema Hyung in your Organization.  Same forms, slightly different name.
> 
> Does anyone have any descriptions of the Taikyoky forms or a reference?  I would like to take some evidence in to my Dojang and see what the response there is....



Hey Craige, take a look at Cory Searcy's site at http://www.i-clps.com/karate/; he has all the Taikyoku. He attributes the form to Funakoshi, but a number of sources I've seen in the past identify these as preexisting Okinawan forms. Funakoshi actually seems to have created very little out of the blue.


----------



## JT_the_Ninja (Aug 8, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> JT - basically that is just saying Form number one rather than Basic form number 1.  Basically no difference at all.  Same idea as Naihanchi being called Keema Hyung in your Organization.  Same forms, slightly different name.
> 
> Does anyone have any descriptions of the Taikyoky forms or a reference?  I would like to take some evidence in to my Dojang and see what the response there is....



Yeah, although the forms are officially listed for us as "gicho hyung ___ bu." 

And when you think about it, these are just basic forms. I'm still willing to believe they were copied from a Japanese style, but no matter what the case, they'll be similar to other "basic" forms. Block, punch, block, punch -- all basic stuff.


----------



## exile (Aug 8, 2007)

JT_the_Ninja said:


> Block, punch, block, punch -- all basic stuff.



Those are the _movements_, true. But the _moves_ they correspond to are quite a bit different, and much more street-useful... the great thing about kata/hyungs is that even the basic ones contain a wealth of very street-smart techs.


----------



## JT_the_Ninja (Aug 9, 2007)

exile said:


> Those are the _movements_, true. But the _moves_ they correspond to are quite a bit different, and much more street-useful... the great thing about kata/hyungs is that even the basic ones contain a wealth of very street-smart techs.



All true; I was just making a general statement, abstracting a bit.


----------

