# Why did Hwang Kee resist General Choi's attempt to unify the kwans?



## Makalakumu (Apr 18, 2008)

This question is always something that I've wondered but I have only been able to find conflicting sources in regards to it.  Why did Hwang Kee resist General Choi's attempt to unify the kwans?  I've read that during this period, he faced threats, intimidation, his house was vandalized, people tried to steal his danbon lists, students of his were attacked, etc.  If this was the environment of the times, there must have been a good reason to face all of that...


----------



## terryl965 (Apr 18, 2008)

And do you really expect to get a clear answer here?


----------



## exile (Apr 18, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> upnorthkyosa said:
> 
> 
> > This question is always something that I've wondered but I have only been able to find conflicting sources in regards to it.  Why did Hwang Kee resist General Choi's attempt to unify the kwans?  I've read that during this period, he faced threats, intimidation, his house was vandalized, people tried to steal his danbon lists, students of his were attacked, etc.  If this was the environment of the times, there must have been a good reason to face all of that...
> ...



Well, miracles _do_ happen sometimes!

I've also wondered that. HK's house wasn't just vandalized; it was set fire to and partially burned down. 

I've always assumed that it was something about HK's personalitysome kind of almost perverse stubbornness, a refusal to cave in to institutional bullying and abuse of power. Somehow, it strikes me as a very Korean thingwho else in Asia stood up to the Mongols _and beat them?_ Or offered such ongoing, continuous armed opposition to the Japanese, thrashing them soundly in at least one spectacular naval battle? He has always seemed to me to embody what I've thought of a cultural value amongst Koreansresistance to the imposition of authority by forcethat lies under the surface of deference and politeness. Probably other things were involved as well; but that's where I've always thought the driving energy for his behavior must have come from, giving some thrust to the edge of his belief that this was not a good thing for Korean martial arts. He may have thought that a homogenized KMA was the wrong way to go, prefering instead a kind of do-your-own-thing approach similar to what he may have learned about Chinese systems, where, relatively speaking, wonderful anarchy reigned...


----------



## terryl965 (Apr 18, 2008)

exile said:


> Well, miracles _do_ happen sometimes!
> 
> I've also wondered that. HK's house wasn't just vandalized; it was set fire to and partially burned down.
> 
> I've always assumed that it was something about HK's personalitysome kind of almost perverse stubbornness, a refusal to cave in to institutional bullying and abuse of power. Somehow, it strikes me as a very Korean thingwho else in Asia stood up to the Mongols _and beat them?_ Or offered such ongoing, continuous armed opposition to the Japanese, thrashing them soundly in at least one spectacular naval battle? He has always seemed to me to embody what I've thought of a cultural value amongst Koreansresistance to the imposition of authority by forcethat lies under the surface of deference and politeness. Probably other things were involved as well; but that's where I've always thought the driving energy for his behavior must have come from, giving some thrust to the edge of his belief that this was not a good thing for Korean martial arts. He may have thought that a homogenized KMA was the wrong way to go, prefering instead a kind of do-your-own-thing approach similar to what he may have learned about Chinese systems, where, relatively speaking, wonderful anarchy reigned...


 
This is about what I have heard as well


----------



## Master K (Apr 18, 2008)

You should read the book, "The History of the Moo Duk Kwan" by Hwang Kee if you haven't already.  It has the MDK party line in there.


----------



## exile (Apr 18, 2008)

Master K said:


> You should read the book, "The History of the Moo Duk Kwan" by Hwang Kee if you haven't already.  It has the MDK party line in there.



Right, but the problem is, that book was published in 1995, thirty years after the fact, and there was plenty of time for post hoc rationalizing and getting one's story straight with... well, the current party line, as you say. The question UpN was asking, I think, is, what was really going through HK's mind at the time, when it wasn't at all clear how events were going to unfold. And the trick here is that so many of the participants at the time were either Choi-supporters or future KKW adherents, both of whom could be predicted to attribute the worst motives to HK.

So who has authority, and a lot of firsthand knowledge, and doesn't fit into that camp? I can think of one genuine TKD leader/pioneer who you could expect to get a straight story from: Gm. Kim Pyung-soo, who fell into neither of those camps, and who you'd expect to have a more objective view of what was going on. It would be very, _very_ interesting to get his take on UpN's question...


----------



## tkd1964 (Apr 18, 2008)

The funny thing is that in 1959, he was selected as secretary general of the KTA before it's short demise.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 18, 2008)

tkd1964 said:


> The funny thing is that in 1959, he was selected as secretary general of the KTA before it's short demise.


 
I've read that before and I've always been a little taken aback.  There was something more going on then what we've always been told.


----------



## Master K (Apr 18, 2008)

Honestly, I don't think you will be able to get to the truth, since it was so long ago.  Most people have adopted the party line based on their background and what was taught to them.  You may be able to go a little deeper if you have some great relationships with the korean martial arts pioneers at the time.  And the info you receive may still be filtered.

For instance, my instructor will tell me things that he wouldn't tell my juniors.  At the same time my instructor will tell me seniors things that he wouldn't share with me.  

Best of luck to you!


----------



## terryl965 (Apr 18, 2008)

Master K said:


> Honestly, I don't think you will be able to get to the truth, since it was so long ago. Most people have adopted the party line based on their background and what was taught to them. You may be able to go a little deeper if you have some great relationships with the korean martial arts pioneers at the time. And the info you receive may still be filtered.
> 
> For instance, my instructor will tell me things that he wouldn't tell my juniors. At the same time my instructor will tell me seniors things that he wouldn't share with me.
> 
> Best of luck to you!


 

This is so true, over thirty years and still I have heard five six seven variation to storys so which one is truth and which ones are fabricated?


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 21, 2008)

I imagine ego was at least part of the answer.  Hwang was a kwan founder after all.  General Choi, although from a different school than the Moo Duk Kwan, was certainly much more junior than Hwang Kee.


----------



## exile (Apr 21, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> I imagine ego was at least part of the answer.  Hwang was a kwan founder after all.  General Choi, although from a different school than the Moo Duk Kwan, was certainly much more junior than Hwang Kee.



True, but there must be more to the story. Nam Tae-hi and Byung Jik Ro were also more senior than Choi in the KMAs, yet both of them threw in their lot with the unification effort; in fact, BJR actually jettisoned the Shotokan curriculum of the Song Moo Kwan in favor of the Ch'ang Hon set, and there are still some SMK lineages which teach the current ITF curriculum! Even though other lineages reinstated the Shotokan-based forms, the fact that it happened at all is pretty good evidence that it wasn't the General's relative juniority in the KMAs, compared with some of the other leaders, which was the sticking point. The thing is, HK was the _only_ one who held out. I think all the Kwan founders probably had pretty healthy senses of self-esteem... so why did they accept the unification under the TKD brand, and why did HK _not??_. One feels there's something else theresome specific personal antagonism between HK and Gen. Choi, maybe, or something else of that kind? 

I agree, we're unlikely to find out at this point (though I bet Gm. Kim Byung-soo could enlighten us a good deal about this, as I say)... but the question is one you can't help pondering, just looking at the early history of TKD/TSD...


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 21, 2008)

exile said:


> so why did they accept the unification under the TKD brand, and why did HK _not??_. One feels there's something else theresome specific personal antagonism between HK and Gen. Choi, maybe, or something else of that kind?



From a martial point of view, Hwang Kee's vision was quite different from that of Choi's or Byung Jik Ro's.  Both were Shotokan-trained guys if I recall correctly.  Hwang Kee always slanted a bit more towards the kung fu/ chuan fa side.  He briefly taught an art he call hwa soo do, which I understand was Korean chuan fa, but it failed commercially and he had to close his school.  Later, he taught "tang soo do" which owed more than a little to the Japanese technique General Choi and Byung Jik Ro favored.

I doubt this clash of 'styles' was the main reason Hwang Kee eventually resigned from the KTA and left for America, but it's something to throw out there.


----------



## exile (Apr 21, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> From a martial point of view, Hwang Kee's vision was quite different from that of Choi's or Byung Jik Ro's.  Both were Shotokan-trained guys if I recall correctly.



Yes, they both studied in Funakoshi's dojo.



dancingalone said:


> *Hwang Kee always slanted a bit more towards the kung fu/ chuan fa side. * He briefly taught an art he call hwa soo do, which I understand was Korean chuan fa, but it failed commercially and he had to close his school.



That's my impression too. For a long time&#8212;up to his last writings, in 1995, in fact&#8212;he maintained that he'd learned the Pinan katas, which became the Pyung-Ahns in TSD, from CMAists in Manchuria!?! :erg: 



dancingalone said:


> Later, he taught "tang soo do" which owed more than a little to the Japanese technique General Choi and Byung Jik Ro favored.
> 
> I doubt this clash of 'styles' was the main reason Hwang Kee eventually resigned from the KTA and left for America, but it's something to throw out there.



Interesting idea, da. The notion that he didn't want the Korean national MA to reflect techniques associated with the hated occupier? It's true that the Ch'ang Hon set contains a lot of material from Shotokan (there was a very good 1988 _Black Belt_ article probing the CH sets and giving some very clear examples); if so, HK might have rejected the unified form of this emergent KMA for that reason (the irony is, of course, that TSDers seem much less uptight about the JMA origins of their art than a lot of TKDers). 

Or, maybe it was an æsthetic thing? He just preferred the look of the chuan fa based styles?

Or, ... 

...???


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Apr 21, 2008)

Interesting excerpts from "A Modern History of Taekwondo" by KANG Won Sik and LEE Kyong Myong.

Regarding the Korea Kong Soo Do Assoc:



> However, less than one month after the founding of the new Association, Moo Duk Kwan President HWANG Kee withdrew from the Association because he was not given a position on the Central Testing Committee. After one month following HWANG Kee's withdrawal, Chung Do Kwan President SON Duk Sung withdrew for the same reason. Therefore, the attempt for the complete unification of all the Kwans was another failure. After HWANG Kee returned to Seoul, he personally organized the Korea Tang Soo Do Association and was eager to join the Korea Amateur Sports  association. After YOON Kwe Byung and RO Byung Jick realized the seriousness of the situation, they submitted a petition to stop the Korea Tang Soo Do Association from joining the Korea Amateur Sports Association. This impediment was successful.



Thats not going to have pleased him any...  This was also the beginning of the end of the organisation.

The 1959 Korea Taekwondo Association seems to have failed due to Hwang Kee's unhappiness at the name TKD.  It seems a bit unfair to blame it all on him though!  I quote:



> Black figures (complainers) later spoke ill of the 1959 Korea Taekwondo Association. Some said, "With the Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan's power, CHOI Hong Hi fulfilled his aspiration for his own personal Association."





> The relationship between HWANG Kee and CHOI Hong Hi was bad.
> HWANG Kee objected to CHOI Hong Hi being the president of the Korea Taesoodo Association because he said the art and organization would not develop with CHOI Hong Hi in charge.



This was after Hwang had messed about with Declaration of Unification, so is quite understandable from Choi.  With Choi's relative inexperience compared to the other Kwan Jang's, it is quite easy to jump to a conclusion why Hwang Kee disliked Choi.  It would be interesting to know how long their dislike had gone on.

Hwang Kee and Yoon Kwe Byung's letter of resignation from the later Korea Tae Soo Do Assoc:



> Resignation Letter
> 
> For the following reason, we resign from the Moo Duk Kwan and Jidokwan:
> 1. The doctrines and operational systems are totally wrong in the way of martial arts ideology.
> ...


----------



## terryl965 (Apr 21, 2008)

FieldDiscipline said:


> Interesting excerpts from "A Modern History of Taekwondo" by KANG Won Sik and LEE Kyong Myong.
> 
> Regarding the Korea Kong Soo Do Assoc:
> 
> ...


 

Very interesting, will need to simmer over it before posting.


----------



## exile (Apr 21, 2008)

Very useful material, FD... boy, never underestimate the power of bad blood to throw a spanner into big institutional works. Elements of envy and jealousy might come into play here... and is it possible that HK suspected that the other Kwan Jangs had some kind of invisible private club going that he wasn't a member of, based on their common experience as expatriates in the Japanese martial arts world of the 1930s? Like an English executive finding out that all the other big shots in the head office of the company are old Oxonians, except for him or her? 

Probably we'll never know, but one could easily imagine HK suspecting the 'old boys' of getting together to support each other and marginalize him because of some 'in the trenches together' mindset based on their shared studenthoods in Japan two decades plus earier...


----------



## tkd1964 (Apr 22, 2008)

exile said:


> True, but there must be more to the story. Nam Tae-hi and Byung Jik Ro were also more senior than Choi in the KMAs,
> ...


 
_I'm sorry, Exile, but where do you get that GM Nam has more seniority then Gen. Choi?  Or are you speaking of training in one of the Kwans? _


----------



## exile (Apr 22, 2008)

tkd1964 said:


> _I'm sorry, Exile, but where do you get that GM Nam has more seniority then Gen. Choi?  *Or are you speaking of training in one of the Kwans? *_



That's what I was referring to, including his role in military training, both before and after the Korean War. That I believe is also the reason why it was THN, not Gen. Choi himself, who did the famous 1954 demo for Syngman Rhee.


----------



## YoungMan (Apr 22, 2008)

From what I've read, Hwang Ki refused to join Gen. Choi's call for Kwan unification for several reasons:

1. He didn't want Tang Soo Do to become a government subsidized school, the way he saw the others becoming.
2. He was tired of being disrespected and ordered around by Gen. Choi. I don't think he saw Choi as a real martial arts instructor, more of a military leader, and it rankled him to think he should have to follow whatever Choi said.
3. The fact that his rank and those of his students would not be recognized if he didn't follow Choi and join the unification efforts didn't help either.
4. I think he saw his Tang Soo Do or Soo Bak Do as the natural extension of traditional Korean martial arts, and as such he shouldn't have to join the others.


----------



## KELLYG (Apr 22, 2008)

i don't understand all about the history of taekwando and what happened and when it happened.  It may be as simple as two groups of type a personality alpha males that could not bring themselves to be governed by any one other than themselves.


----------



## cdunn (Apr 22, 2008)

exile said:


> Very useful material, FD... boy, never underestimate the power of bad blood to throw a spanner into big institutional works. Elements of envy and jealousy might come into play here... and is it possible that HK suspected that the other Kwan Jangs had some kind of invisible private club going that he wasn't a member of, based on their common experience as expatriates in the Japanese martial arts world of the 1930s? Like an English executive finding out that all the other big shots in the head office of the company are old Oxonians, except for him or her?
> 
> Probably we'll never know, but one could easily imagine HK suspecting the 'old boys' of getting together to support each other and marginalize him because of some 'in the trenches together' mindset based on their shared studenthoods in Japan two decades plus earier...


 
It is possible to imagine things in this way. But, I wonder. What follows is wholely my opinion, but...

Kwan Jang Nim Hwang traversed a very difficult path in the process of reaching the point where he could functionally found a martial arts school, let alone one of the larger ones in Korea at the time. The mere existence of the Moo Duk Kwan at all is a testament to a phenominal will power. He had Hwa Soo Do blow up in his face, with all the loss that entails. The instructor he tried to learn what he was told was Taekkyon from rejected him, and concretely so, and instead he tried to _steal_ the martial art. The taijiquan instructor he claimed to have trained under, he also claimed to have been rejected by as a student many times before finally accepting him. He claimed to have worked out the Shotokan forms from a text - an act that we today urge students to never do, because of the sheer difficulty of the act. 

It is nearly impossible to sort out what of this history is hard fact, what of it is fact viewed through a filter, and what is purely legend. But in any case, he effectively lifted himself to the level of the other Kwan founders by his own bootstraps. Whatever other talents you may have, you cannot do such a thing without being very, very certain of your course. 

And then he was asked to ceed the entirety of his creation over to this new Tae Kwon Do, a new national sport which would be remade, through Choi, in the image of what the Korean government wanted. An image that, I suspect, he could see even at that point, was radically different from what he had worked so hard to make.

We see that he tried to compromise, to work from within. If he had been a part of the central testing committee, there is a chance he could have worked to maintain what he thought as important by making them requirements to advance. But he could not, and he plainly thought that Choi's goals were backwards. And so, he chose to stand behind what he had made, probably doubly sealed in his choice by the factors of 'bad blood' and 'good old boys clubs'. And when a man like that stakes his course, God had better be on your side if you plan on changing it. 

But again, that's just my opinion. And I would probably rather see the founder of my art in a positive light.


----------



## exile (Apr 22, 2008)

cdunn said:


> It is possible to imagine things in this way. But, I wonder. What follows is wholely my opinion, but...
> 
> Kwan Jang Nim Hwang traversed a very difficult path in the process of reaching the point where he could functionally found a martial arts school, let alone one of the larger ones in Korea at the time. The mere existence of the Moo Duk Kwan at all is a testament to a phenominal will power. He had Hwa Soo Do blow up in his face, with all the loss that entails. The instructor he tried to learn what he was told was Taekkyon from rejected him, and concretely so, and instead he tried to _steal_ the martial art. The taijiquan instructor he claimed to have trained under, he also claimed to have been rejected by as a student many times before finally accepting him. He claimed to have worked out the Shotokan forms from a text - an act that we today urge students to never do, because of the sheer difficulty of the act.
> 
> ...



Wow... that is is really, _really_ good thinking, CD. It makes _so much_ sense... 

If it's true, unfortunately, it's almost certainly not going to be possible to ever get hard verification for, by the very nature of things. But it's a great hypothesis and place to start looking for evidence from. Terrific post!


----------



## cdunn (Apr 23, 2008)

7





exile said:


> If it's true, unfortunately, it's almost certainly not going to be possible to ever get hard verification for, by the very nature of things.


 
Unless someone finds a diary, I doubt that any reason for his actions will ever be something that we can find hard evidence for. But it is the best I can do with the circumstantial evidence that I know of. 

That resignation letter, though... It's awful blunt and to the point. I would be inclined to take it at face value, unless we have evidence of something else. 

The next questions are: What, exactly, was the chartered purpose of the Central Testing Committee? Do we have any records of the changes that KJN Hwang made to the Declaration of Unification for the Korea Kong Soo Do Association?

I think it should be possible to construct an image of what KJN Hwang wanted from the actions he was taking to create it. We know what Choi wanted - He mostly got it. I suspect that when those are constructed, you've set the stage that might begin with a line like: 'Two households, alike in dignity...'


----------



## exile (Apr 23, 2008)

cdunn said:


> 7
> 
> Unless someone finds a diary, I doubt that any reason for his actions will ever be something that we can find hard evidence for. But it is the best I can do with the circumstantial evidence that I know of.
> 
> ...



...'From ancient grudge break to new mutiny...' Nice, CD!

The letter of resignation... can you tell me where that is? I don't have a copy of the 1995 MDK history book, and it's not available anywhere, so far as I can tell, so if it's in there, I've not seen it. Could you summarize what he says there?


----------



## e ship yuk (Apr 23, 2008)

exile said:


> The letter of resignation... can you tell me where that is? I don't have a copy of the 1995 MDK history book, and it's not available anywhere, so far as I can tell, so if it's in there, I've not seen it. Could you summarize what he says there?




I believe Field Discipline quoted it earlier...



FieldDiscipline said:


> Hwang Kee and Yoon Kwe Byung's letter of resignation from the later Korea Tae Soo Do Assoc:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## exile (Apr 23, 2008)

e ship yuk said:


> I believe Field Discipline quoted it earlier...



Ah, OK, thanks... not enough sleep last night (or _ever_, come to think of it). FD, was that the whole of the letter? And can you say where it was published? I've not come across it before...

Thanks to all for this outstanding thread, btw!


----------



## cdunn (Apr 23, 2008)

FD's quote is, indeed, the letter I am referring to. I am assuming that is the whole thing. 

(Which puts it up there with such classics as: 'I resign as HC of the NYJ.' - on the back of a napkin.)


----------



## zohran (Apr 23, 2008)

Moo Duk Kwan's Hong Chong Soo, who advised Hwang Kee for 36 hours straight on this issue, stated: "The day after the Unification Declaration Ceremony was held, Hwang Kee told me that the declaration was invalid. I could not understand Hwang Kee and told him 'Why do you say that? You are one of the most famous martial artists in the country and you should not say that the Unification Declaration is invalid.' I advised him a lot to try and get him to change his position. Finally, he asked me to call Choi Hong Hi for him. When I gave Hwang Kee the telephone, he told Choi Hong Hi that the declaration was invalid and he hung up the telephone before Choi Hong Hi could respond." 
  The relationship between Hwang Kee and Choi Hong Hi was bad. Hwang Kee objected to Choi Hong Hi being the president of the Korea Taesoodo Association because he said the art and organization would not develop with Choi Hong Hi in charge. 




That's a quote out of the following article:

http://www.fullcontact.co.uk/webs/historydetail.aspx?HistoryID=4



I've seen the above history around a few different places. It's the only place where i have seen the resignation letter mentioned.  It's a good read and gets juicy around section 6.  I agree that political and personal reasons were the reason of the rift.  Political reasoning is easy enough to figure out, but without more knowledge of HK's persona at that time......time machine anyone???


----------



## exile (Apr 23, 2008)

cdunn said:


> FD's quote is, indeed, the letter I am referring to. I am assuming that is the whole thing.
> 
> *(Which puts it up there with such classics as: 'I resign as HC of the NYJ.' - on the back of a napkin.)*



Right, except that Belichik then made that long slightly incoherent speech letting everyone know pretty much just what was bugging him (everything, apparently) about the Jets job... HK never did anything comparable, so far as one knows, lol.


----------



## tkd1964 (Apr 23, 2008)

e ship yuk said:


> I believe Field Discipline quoted it earlier...


 
Since the beginning of the Kong soo Do Association to now there have been quabbles. GM Kee and Gen. Choi didn't get along but this resignation letter was from the time Gen. Choi was in Malaysia and had nothing to do with the KTA. If you feel you will lose power you will complain or quit which is what these masters did. It seemed to have worked out for the better with the Soo Bak Do ***. and GM Kee.

Mike


----------



## cdunn (Apr 23, 2008)

exile said:


> Right, except that Belichik then made that long slightly incoherent speech letting everyone know pretty much just what was bugging him (everything, apparently) about the Jets job... HK never did anything comparable, so far as one knows, lol.


 
I dunno. Sometimes not saying much at all says way more than a rambling philosophical tract. That letter reads to me as:

"You want me to do everything that's important in martial arts the wrong way. I cannot and will not do so."

Given who he wrote that letter with, I think we have to take it at its declared value. The Jido Kwan Jang, after all, was the same man who prized unity enough to attempt to keep the Moo Duk Kwan from legally forming up in 1959/60, a bare 2/3 years before this resignation letter. I have to believe that KJN Hwang was firmly convinced that both Choi's technical direction and his 'nationalization' of the art was inherently in error. From the Jido Kwan member I've talked a bit here and there, I can't help but expect that over time, KJN Yoon came to see the same thing that KJN Hwang did, especially after living with it. 

I would like to think that it goes far beyond a mere disagreement over some hyung and maybe some dollar signs. I would like to think that Hwang Kee saw Choi threatening the very existance of the martial art that was, in effect, the product of his entire life, his magnum opus. And he chose to defend it. He fought for it because he felt he was right to do so. Because that's what he had always done.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 23, 2008)

zohran said:


> Moo Duk Kwan's Hong Chong Soo, who advised Hwang Kee for 36 hours straight on this issue, stated: "The day after the Unification Declaration Ceremony was held, Hwang Kee told me that the declaration was invalid. I could not understand Hwang Kee and told him 'Why do you say that? You are one of the most famous martial artists in the country and you should not say that the Unification Declaration is invalid.' I advised him a lot to try and get him to change his position. Finally, he asked me to call Choi Hong Hi for him. When I gave Hwang Kee the telephone, he told Choi Hong Hi that the declaration was invalid and he hung up the telephone before Choi Hong Hi could respond."
> The relationship between Hwang Kee and Choi Hong Hi was bad. Hwang Kee objected to Choi Hong Hi being the president of the Korea Taesoodo Association because he said the art and organization would not develop with Choi Hong Hi in charge.
> 
> 
> ...


 
THAT was an interesting article.  I have not seen that information before.  Can anyone back this up?


----------



## exile (Apr 23, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> THAT was an interesting article.  I have not seen that information before.  Can anyone back this up?



UpN, the source of that article (unattributed in the cited site, alas) is this monograph by Kang Won-sik and Lee Kyong-myong. It's one of the main documents bearing the... um, _interpersonal_ history of TKD. Not much on the technical history, which for me is the really important angle, but the article faithfully excerpts stuff from KWS and LKM's chronicle..


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 23, 2008)

Still, its an interesting read.  I'm only partially through it.  My first impression is that "those days" were the "wild west" of Korean Martial Arts.  Everybody and their brother seemed to be setting off and attempting to form this or that school.  The schools that got big were the ones that had the best marketing schemes.  

Once that happened, the fat cats who had the power of the government behind them, swooped in and attempted to form a monopoly.  They pulled most people in and left out those who did not really accept the vision of what was happening.

One thing I am left wondering is whether or not the fact that Hwang Kee learned the bulk of his MA from books had any effect on what happened.  The article that Exile posted states that Lee Won Kuk and others visited the Moo Duk Kwan and were not impressed by the testing requirements.  I get the feeling, when looking at what both articles said, that many just saw it as a belt factory.  

With that being said, I have to wonder how much the defacto karate/judo/japanese ranking affected the kwan unification process.  Hwang Kee certainly had one of the weakest CVs of all the GMs present.  That had to play some part...


----------



## exile (Apr 23, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Still, its an interesting read.  I'm only partially through it.  *My first impression is that "those days" were the "wild west" of Korean Martial Arts. * Everybody and their brother seemed to be setting off and attempting to form this or that school.  The schools that got big were the ones that had the best marketing schemes.



My impression also, to a 'T'. 



upnorthkyosa said:


> Once that happened, the fat cats who had the power of the government behind them, swooped in and attempted to form a monopoly.  They pulled most people in and left out those who did not really accept the vision of what was happening.



And they did it repeatedly. Once Gen. Choi fell from grace, having served the function of  forming a central TKD dirctorate, they exiled him and found another convenient apparatchik to serve the same role.



upnorthkyosa said:


> One thing I am left wondering is whether or not the fact that Hwang Kee learned the bulk of his MA from books had any effect on what happened.  The article that Exile posted states that Lee Won Kuk and others visited the Moo Duk Kwan and were not impressed by the testing requirements.  I get the feeling, when looking at what both articles said, that many just saw it as a belt factory.
> 
> With that being said, I have to wonder how much the defacto karate/judo/japanese ranking affected the kwan unification process.  Hwang Kee certainly had one of the weakest CVs of all the GMs present.  That had to play some part...



And that would only exacerbate the factors that *cdunn* was talking about... unbelievable defensiveness and reactiveness involved there, I think. This ties into the suspicion I wrote about earlier that HK may have been been reacting to the elitist assumptions of the 'Good old boys' who'd received the 'approved' Japanese karate accolade. I think probably _all_ these factors came into play... absolutely expolosive chemistry, when you think about it. HK, the self-made man of the early Kwan era, vs. the club swanks lounging around in their Funakoshi/Toyama-certified BBs, and all of the background that *cd* envisioned... it's hard to imagine any other outcome, if you think about it from that angle.


----------



## zohran (Apr 23, 2008)

Thanks for the true link on the excerpt exile...i knew i had seen the .pdf somewhere...


----------



## exile (Apr 23, 2008)

zohran said:


> Thanks for the true link on the excerpt exile...i knew i had seen the .pdf somewhere...



You're more than welcome, z. It's a key source... but you have to watch out for the undercurrent of anti-HK and anti-Choi bias in the reportage. The authors are WTF/KKW stalwarts. Their perspective is that of the modern Korean TKD directorate. Still, there's some potentially very useful background here...

... dammit, what we _really_ need is a time machine, eh!?


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Apr 24, 2008)

Ah ha!  I'm glad you found a link to that exile.  

That is indeed the whole letter.


----------



## exile (Apr 24, 2008)

FieldDiscipline said:


> Ah ha!  I'm glad you found a link to that exile.
> 
> *That is indeed the whole letter.*



Whew... talk about _brusque_, eh? 

HK was clearly _very_ pissed off at that point...


----------



## SageGhost83 (May 7, 2008)

It seems that Hwang Kee saw something in the general that he didn't like. I am glad that Hwang Kee stayed true to what he was doing and rejected the Kwans. Now Tang Soo Do is not divided like its sister art.


----------



## MBuzzy (May 8, 2008)

SageGhost83 said:


> It seems that Hwang Kee saw something in the general that he didn't like. I am glad that Hwang Kee stayed true to what he was doing and rejected the Kwans. Now Tang Soo Do is not divided like its sister art.


 
I find this to be a very interesting statement.  I'm wondering in what sense you mean that TSD is not divided?  I have always thought that with all of the many many offshoots of TSD, we are one of the more fragmented arts.  I mean, with TKD, at least they have the Kukkiwon.  There really is not governing body over any large portion of TSD.  We all have our own little organizations and empires.  If all of the Kwan Jangs were to unite, we would probably have one of the larger organizations in the world; but that will obviously never happen.

Thought Hwang Kee's resistance did keep our curriculum the way he saw fit, it did not keep us from becoming divided.


----------



## SageGhost83 (May 8, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> I find this to be a very interesting statement. I'm wondering in what sense you mean that TSD is not divided? I have always thought that with all of the many many offshoots of TSD, we are one of the more fragmented arts. I mean, with TKD, at least they have the Kukkiwon. There really is not governing body over any large portion of TSD. We all have our own little organizations and empires. If all of the Kwan Jangs were to unite, we would probably have one of the larger organizations in the world; but that will obviously never happen.
> 
> Thought Hwang Kee's resistance did keep our curriculum the way he saw fit, it did not keep us from becoming divided.


 
Ah yes, that was very misleading of me and I apologize. I meant more in the sense of ITF versus WTF. Every style has its multitude of organisations, but in TSD, it seems that it doesn't play as much of a role as it does in TKD, or at least it is more hidden and more downplayed. I have many friends in TSD and there is never really any mention of what organization one belongs to, whether what they practice is sport or traditional, etc.


----------



## tkd1964 (May 8, 2008)

SageGhost83 said:


> It seems that Hwang Kee saw something in the general that he didn't like. I am glad that Hwang Kee stayed true to what he was doing and rejected the Kwans. Now Tang Soo Do is not divided like its sister art.


 
Tang Soo Do did split after this( or should I say the Moo Duk Kwan) do to this meeting. Many Tang Soo Do Masters left GM Hwang and joined the KTA. That's why you had the Tae Kwon Do Moo Duk Kwan and the Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan.


----------



## SageGhost83 (May 8, 2008)

tkd1964 said:


> Tang Soo Do did split after this( or should I say the Moo Duk Kwan) do to this meeting. Many Tang Soo Do Masters left GM Hwang and joined the KTA. That's why you had the Tae Kwon Do Moo Duk Kwan and the Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan.


 
Oh crap, I didn't even think about that, how did I miss that one :duh::duh::duh:! I am still glad that he chose to reject the general and stay true to what he was doing.


----------



## tkd1964 (May 8, 2008)

It seems that GM Hwang had more issues then gen. Choi since we see that the letter was at  time that Gen. Choi was not involved with the KTA. 
He didn't like the 2nd generation instructors, plus the Ministry of education
disolved the Korean soo Bak Do Association. Lee Chong woo, Uhm woon Kyu, and Lee Nam Suk were the leaders within the KTA at the time GM Hwang had conflicts with them. Maybe he felt he was being Bullied into joining or he saw Tang Soo Do losing too much. Either way, you have what you have today due to GM Hwang staying seperate from the KTA.


----------



## MBuzzy (May 8, 2008)

SageGhost83 said:


> Ah yes, that was very misleading of me and I apologize. I meant more in the sense of ITF versus WTF. Every style has its multitude of organisations, but in TSD, it seems that it doesn't play as much of a role as it does in TKD, or at least it is more hidden and more downplayed. I have many friends in TSD and there is never really any mention of what organization one belongs to, whether what they practice is sport or traditional, etc.


 
I understand what you mean, I think that our "issues" are more internal than anything.  There is a lot of fragmentation within the style, but we tend to maintain an overall identity nonetheless, even between Soo Bahk Do and Tang Soo Do.  I think that owes a lot to the fact that there really isn't a sport aspect to TSD/SBD, for the most part the schools are traditional.


----------



## JWLuiza (May 8, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> II think that owes a lot to the fact that there really isn't a sport aspect to TSD/SBD, for the most part the schools are traditional.



You'd be suprised how many XMA people call what they do Xtreme Tang Soo Do. It hurts, just a little bit.


----------

