# Kong Soo Do



## puunui (May 24, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I would suggest, rather than hijacking multiple threads, simply take it  to email, PM or start your own thread.  But stick with what's really  bugging you, our difference of opinion on SD vs. sport training.



Ok, started a new thread entitled "Kong Soo Do". If you have any factual responses to my posts in other topics regarding this subject, please place it here. 

What "bugs" me is people who put forth erroneous facts out in the public. I spent a lot of time doing historical research, real research, and I guess on some level it is offensive to see people who have not done as much work put out erroneous opinions as facts. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> No, I used almost nothing from the web  actually.  I think you are now engaging in debators tactics because you  are a bit bent-out-of-shape by our disagreement on self defense vs.  sport training.  This is why your spreading out your comments in  different threads (which actually don't have much to do with what your  talking about).



The only person who seems a bit bent out of shape is you. You are the one getting all mad, and have turned to attacking me instead of responding to my facts with facts of your own. 

As for nothing from the web, I saw your webpage. Your statement is incorrect. I even see stuff that I posted on the web on your webpage. There is also information posted by friends of mine on the web on your webpage. I know this because we were the ones who initially posted the information on the web. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> I used the JAMA publications, interviews (in person or written), as many  various older books on TKD, HKD, Shuri Te, Shorin Ryu, Shotokan etc as I  could put my hands on.



Which various older books did you consult on Taekwondo and Hapkido? I have a pretty large book collection, chances are that I have all the books you are talking about above. But I am just interested in the korean books. Did you happen to reference any of GM LEE Kyo Yun's books? He has wrote several over the years. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> I spoke with different practitioner here in the  U.S. as well as overseas.



Any from Korea? 




Kong Soo Do said:


> As I mentioned in the other thread you've  hijacked, I'm comfortable with their evaluation and comments.  If you're  not...well that's a shame.  But you pouting isn't going to change what  we do or how we do it.



I'm not pouting, although you seem to be getting more and more upset the more I introduce facts to the discussion. Instead of attempting to attack me personally, why not respond to the facts I have presented with facts of your own? That way, perhaps the discussion can lead to a meaningful place.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 24, 2011)

> What "bugs" me is people who put forth erroneous facts out in the public. I spent a lot of time doing historical research...]


 
The facts are that Korea has done numerous historical rewrites. If your research on a particular point differs from mine, it would be because you have chosen to believe a particular version in preference to another. I applaud your taking the time to do research of your own, I wish more people did. 




> &#8230;it is offensive to see people who have not done as much work put out erroneous opinions as facts.


 
I feel exactly the same way about your statement that sport training equates to effective self-defense training. It does not.




> The only person who seems a bit bent out of shape is you. You are the one getting all mad, and have turned to attacking me instead of responding to my facts with facts of your own.


 
And how have I gotten bent out of shape? You were the one that basically hijacked two (or three?) different threads by ping-ponging questions about the label we've chosen to use for what we teach. I asked you to take it to email, PM or start a thread. 

Which one of these did you consider an attack?




> I even see stuff that I posted on the web on your webpage. There is also information posted by friends of mine on the web on your webpage. I know this because we were the ones who initially posted the information on the web.


 
What we posted was quite a bit of names and dates. Are you saying you&#8217;re the only one in the world to put the name of a martial artist and his birth/death dates on the web? You&#8217;re trying to represent commonly found information as your own. That is disingenuous.




> I'm not pouting, although you seem to be getting more and more upset the more I introduce facts to the discussion]


 
Once again, not upset in the least. And you are not introducing facts into the discussion, you are introducing your opinion. And that's fine. I am introducing my own as well.

The real crux of the matter is that it seems to bother you that we chose the name Kong Soo Do to represent what we teach i.e. self-defense. The term Kong Soo Do is basically the Korean version of Karate i.e. empty hand way or way of the empty hand. Karate does now have a sport methodology of training. In my opinion, that is very unfortunate. But the facts are that it originally was meant for civilian self-defense. The various originators of karate didn't decide to come up with a system of self defense to win trophies or ribbons. They came up with a system of defense in order to protect themselves. Sport came later. 

The type of TKD that I learned contained joint locks (manipulation and destruction), chokes, throws, cavity pressing etc in addition to the normal BKP. The reason it contained this information is because that is what was taught to the various Kwan founders from the various styles of Karate they studied i.e. Shotokan, Shito Ryu, Shuri Ryu etc. Many of these individuals used it in their vocation. Many used it in personal self-defense. Others didn&#8217;t' use it at all. 

Regardless of the fact that sport was introduced, it was self-defense first and foremost. And it is my professional opinion that self-defense and sport training are on the opposite sides of the spectrum. And since real world data clearly indicates that how we train is how we respond, the sport model fails on many levels. I have already gone into great detail on the how&#8217;s and whys, but would be more than happy to do so again. 




> Sport training can be geared towards point sparring or submission contests or towards demonstrations i.e. forms (sometimes set to music or with glow-in-the-dark weapons etc). Although contact/submission matches are physical, they aren't self-defense oriented. Here's why;


 
A referee is involved for the purpose of enforcing pre-determined rules that were mutually agreed upon by each opponent.


There are often timed rounds with a short break in-between where a player can catch his/her breath, get a drink of water, get some advice from a trainer.

The match is in a well-lit, dry, level, soft venue.
The opponent is unarmed.
The opponent is alone with little chance others will join in.
Some sort of safety gear is usually involved i.e. cup, mouth piece, gloves etc.
The opponent usually isn't trying to kill, maim or severely injure you.
If you've had enough, you can call a time out or tap out or simply quit and walk away.
The prize is a ribbon, plastic trophy or maybe cash.
Such training could utilize refined motor skills. It could employ a particular strategy i.e. wear the opponent down, put them against a corner and tie them up with a submission etc. Such strategy may involve making the match go long on time.



As a comparison, self-defense training is for situations;

Where there is no referee enforcing rules. You are likely alone and/or at some sort of a place or position of disadvantage.
There are no rules.
There are no breaks, water, advice or anything to assist you.
The assault can occur in a parking lot, elevator, side street, your car, your bedroom, in the woods etc. I will likely occur in dim light conditions in any type of weather.
The attacker may be armed, and should be assumed to be armed.
The attacker may have friends more than willing to jump in.
There is no safety gear, but likely a plethora of person-unfriendly objects like broken glass, traffic, walls etc.
The attacker is looking to cause as much damage to you as humanly possible in the shortest amount of time possible.
To quit is to die (or something possibly worse i.e. rape, love one killed etc)
The goal is survival, the method is whatever it takes.
SD training relies solely on gross motor skills. If it isn't a gross motor skill, it isn't a self-defense technique. Under duress you will lose the ability to operate with refined motor skills. You may have tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, loss of dexterity in your extremities etc. SD training does everything possible to address these situations and deal with them.


SD training deals with the O.O.D.A. loop and flinch response. SD training is often outside the Dojo/Dojang. It should often be in street clothes. Shoes. Dim light conditions. Position of disadvantage. Sloping surfaces, grass, asphalt, close quarters etc.[/quote]





> Many believe that years of training are necessary in order to defend themselves or &#8216;master&#8217; the art. On this I&#8217;ll call B.S. This is not a correct statement and is not backed up by real world data. For example; the edged weapon defense developed by Darren Laur and promoted by Peter Boatman is very probably the best system of edged weapon defense, bar none, in the world. It is certainly the best documented in actual LEO edged weapon encounters.





> Fact: Prior to the implementation of this program, officers in Great Britain were injured in 87% of the edged weapon encounters.
> Fact: After implementation, the injury rate dropped to 17%.
> Fact: This program is taught to line officers in a single 8 hour course and focuses on gross motor skill responses.
> Fact: Refresher training was annually but increased to 18 months since it was demonstrated to be effective long after the initial training and was retained in long term memory.
> ...


 
I found that when I used the term TKD, most people automatically got the picture of flashy, acrobatic kicks and tippy tap sparring. This is not disrespect intended to the TKD instructors here, but it is what it is and this is often the perception people have. 


When the term TKD is used, do most people think of;

Throwing an attacker?
Using a joint lock or destruction?
Using a choke?
Grappling (realistic and not MMA)?
Ground fighting (realistic and not MMA)?
Cavity pressing?
Sealing the artery?
Misplacing the bone or tendon?
It has been my experience that people do not think of these things and TKD as going hand-in-hand. Yet that is the type of training I've received (and others). Since my student base has always been heavy on L.E., Corrections, E.P. agents and off-duty military I have seen the need NOT to use the term TKD. It turned off these people from the very start without them actually seeing what it was we offered. Again, no offense to TKD instructors and this may not be your experience. But it was mine (and others).


Having been a S.O.G. team commander I am aware of the needs of the military. Having been an E.P. agent I'm aware of the needs of corporate security. Since I'm in L.E. and instruct in all high liability areas I'm aware of the needs of L.E. and Corrections. And please note, this doesn't make me special or better than anyone and is not presented as such. I'm not bullet proof and I don't wear a big 'S' on my chest. But I want to establish that I am have been and am in a high liability vocation and teach for that vocation(s). This is why I firmly have the stance that I do in regards to sport training not being the best bet for L.E. or military use. 

I found that reverting to the term Kong Soo Do, which over half of the Kwans used originally was a much better link to the self-defense aspects of the art. 

And once again, if you&#8217;re historical perspective doesn't totally jive with mine then so be it. It doesn't change the reason we have reverted to this label. It doesn't change what and how we teach. It doesn't change my perspective on SD vs. sport training. Who wore safety gear or who 'desperately' wanted sport aspects introduced do not change the fact that Kong Soo Do comes from Karate which originally was designed for personal civilian SD.


----------



## puunui (May 24, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> The facts are that Korea has done numerous historical rewrites. If your research on a particular point differs from mine, it would be because you have chosen to believe a particular version in preference to another. I applaud your taking the time to do research of your own, I wish more people did.



Korea? Who is that exactly? And I am not choosing a particular version in preference to another. What I said was, which you ignored, that all of the pioneers pretty much have the same basic story, that the story does not change. The sole exception might be General Choi, but you don't even cite to or mention him in your historical works. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> I feel exactly the same way about your statement that sport training equates to effective self-defense training. It does not.



What you consider self defense and what I consider self defense are probably two different things. Special Ops, bodyguard, or even police work is not "self defense", at least from the perspective of most students. Ordinary students do not get paid to put themselves in harm's way. That is the offensive use of the martial arts, not self defense. Nothing wrong with that. Self defense involves avoiding those types of situations altogether, something that you and your "students" do not do. In fact, you do the opposite you put yourself into situations where the probability of a hostile life threatening situation is much greater, especially when compared to the 3 to 8 year old that is the typical student in a Taekwondo school. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> And how have I gotten bent out of shape? You were the one that basically hijacked two (or three?) different threads by ping-ponging questions about the label we've chosen to use for what we teach. I asked you to take it to email, PM or start a thread. Which one of these did you consider an attack?



Read your post again. Instead of responding to my facts with facts of your own, you choose to focus on me instead of the subject matter. And you are still doing it. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> What we posted was quite a bit of names and dates. Are you saying youre the only one in the world to put the name of a martial artist and his birth/death dates on the web? Youre trying to represent commonly found information as your own. That is disingenuous.



I posted all kinds of facts in response to your posts. Why not respond to those instead of this sort of vague accusation? That way we can talk about the same thing. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> The real crux of the matter is that it seems to bother you that we chose the name Kong Soo Do to represent what we teach i.e. self-defense. The term Kong Soo Do is basically the Korean version of Karate i.e. empty hand way or way of the empty hand.




When did the term Karatedo come into being, and under what circumstances? 





Kong Soo Do said:


> Karate does now have a sport methodology of training. In my opinion, that is very unfortunate. But the facts are that it originally was meant for civilian self-defense. The various originators of karate didn't decide to come up with a system of self defense to win trophies or ribbons. They came up with a system of defense in order to protect themselves. Sport came later.




What is your evidence or facts that Karatedo (Kong Soo Do) was meant for "civilian self defense"? I've already posted numerous times facts, which show otherwise. "self defense" in Japanese is goshinjutsu, or Hoshinsool in Korean, not Karatedo or Kong Soo Do. The term Karatedo came about because the Okinawan Karate pioneers in Japan wanted Karate to be accepted along the same lines as Kendo and Judo. This is why a standardized uniform was adopted, as well as a rank system. If Karate were for self defense only, there would be no need for rank or a standardized uniform, which is why there wasn't any in Okinawa. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> The type of TKD that I learned contained joint locks (manipulation and destruction), chokes, throws, cavity pressing etc in addition to the normal BKP. The reason it contained this information is because that is what was taught to the various Kwan founders from the various styles of Karate they studied i.e. Shotokan, Shito Ryu, Shuri Ryu etc. Many of these individuals used it in their vocation. Many used it in personal self-defense. Others didnt' use it at all.




So because you learned it (from who, GM Dunn? Does he even live near you?) then the Kwan founders must have known it too right? Is that what your research turned up? 




Kong Soo Do said:


> Regardless of the fact that sport was introduced, it was self-defense first and foremost. And it is my professional opinion that self-defense and sport training are on the opposite sides of the spectrum. And since real world data clearly indicates that how we train is how we respond, the sport model fails on many levels. I have already gone into great detail on the hows and whys, but would be more than happy to do so again.




How would you know if "sport", especially competition under the WTF Rules is on the opposite side of the spectrum when it is clear that you have never seen a competition under the WTF Rules? For your information, trophies are not given out at WTF tournaments and there are no glow in the dark nunchaku either. But now you are trying to hijack the topic by moving the discussion away from the origin and use of the term Kong Soo Do. If you want to discuss this, please start another thread. 
 



Kong Soo Do said:


> I found that when I used the term TKD, most people automatically got the picture of flashy, acrobatic kicks and tippy tap sparring. This is not disrespect intended to the TKD instructors here, but it is what it is and this is often the perception people have.




People have all sorts of misconceptions about the martial arts. Instead of avoiding the whole thing by using a term which they are probably not familiar with (Kong Soo Do), I choose instead to try and educate people. That is what martial arts instructors do. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> It has been my experience that people do not think of these things and TKD as going hand-in-hand. Yet that is the type of training I've received (and others). Since my student base has always been heavy on L.E., Corrections, E.P. agents and off-duty military I have seen the need NOT to use the term TKD. It turned off these people from the very start without them actually seeing what it was we offered. Again, no offense to TKD instructors and this may not be your experience. But it was mine (and others).




Then it is your job to educate them about why their preconceived notions are erroneous and invalid. 

 


Kong Soo Do said:


> Having been a S.O.G. team commander I am aware of the needs of the military. Having been an E.P. agent I'm aware of the needs of corporate security. Since I'm in L.E. and instruct in all high liability areas I'm aware of the needs of L.E. and Corrections. And please note, this doesn't make me special or better than anyone and is not presented as such. I'm not bullet proof and I don't wear a big 'S' on my chest. But I want to establish that I am have been and am in a high liability vocation and teach for that vocation(s). This is why I firmly have the stance that I do in regards to sport training not being the best bet for L.E. or military use.




But then again, all of that is not self defense. The Seal Team that killed Osama Bin Laden, they weren't engaged in a self defense scenario. It certainly wasn't "civilian" self defense, which is another of your basic premises. Again, you, like that Seal Team, chose to put yourself in harm's way, breaking rule number one of most martial arts instructors -- which is avoidance of a potential hostile situation if at all possible. 
 


Kong Soo Do said:


> I found that reverting to the term Kong Soo Do, which over half of the Kwans used originally was a much better link to the self-defense aspects of the art.




None of the original five kwans originally used the term Kong Soo Do to describe their art. The Chung Do Kwan and Song Moo Kwan used the term Tang Soo Do, the Moo Duk Kwan used the term Hwa Soo Do, and the YMCA Kwon Bup Bu and the Chosun Yun Moo Kwan Kwon Bup Bu used the term Kwon Bup. The term Kong Soo Do wasn't used until the 1950's. 

 


Kong Soo Do said:


> And once again, if youre historical perspective doesn't totally jive with mine then so be it. It doesn't change the reason we have reverted to this label. It doesn't change what and how we teach. It doesn't change my perspective on SD vs. sport training. Who wore safety gear or who 'desperately' wanted sport aspects introduced do not change the fact that Kong Soo Do comes from Karate which originally was designed for personal civilian SD.



No facts are being changed except by you. Just because you insist on saying that Kong Soo Do was for personal civilian use self defense does not make it so. Again, the term Karatedo (Kong Soo Do) was changed from Toudejutsu in an effort to get Toudejutsu accepted by Japan, specifically the Japanese intelligencia, in much the same way that Kendo and Judo was accepted. Tang (China) was changed to Kong (Empty) in part to emphasize Karate's competition niche, which is striking without weapons. Japan already had a weapon based competitive martial art (kendo) as well as a weaponless grappling martial art (Judo); what it didn't have was a competitive martial art based on empty handed striking. 

People in Japan weren't interested in self defense when Karate was being introduced because Japan is a relatively crime free safe place. One of the first times i went to Japan and rode the bullet train, I saw five year old girls catching the train by themselves. That is how low on the scale the concept of "self defense" is to the Japanese people. Even now in predominantly Japanese neighborhoods in Hawaii, people still don't lock the doors to their homes. The martial arts almost died out because there was simply no need for it in Tokugawa Japan. 

But they were interested into physical contests, through Judo and Kendo, Sumo, and other sports. The Okinawan instructors, notably Funakoshi Sensei and Mabuni Sensei (not Manbuni) recognized this. So they set about to change and modernize Karate into something that was acceptable to the Japanese people, who again were not interested in self defense as a whole. So they created a standardized uniform, modeled from Judo, adopted a ranking system also from Judo, and even adopted a rule set that again came from Judo, the ippon concept where you "win" if you have one clean blow, just like you win if you have one clean throw in Judo. Funakoshi Sensei respected Judo's Kano Sensei so much that he bowed at the entrance of the Kodokan each time he passed it. Of course he respected Kano Sensei -- for giving him the blueprint for transforming Toudejutsu into a modern Japanese sport, in the same fashion the Jujitsu and Kenjutsu were transformed into the sporting Do counterparts. 

And by the way, this isn't about you. I am not even trying to convince you or to get you to change your position, if for no other reason than because you are "pot committed" to where you are. The real audience is the readers. They are the "jury" so to speak, and they get to decide the validity of the position of each side, based on the evidence presented.


----------



## Dan Anderson (May 24, 2011)

Hi Guys,

A different slant.  I began my martial arts training in Kong Su Do.  The founder of the school in Portland, Oregon was a medical student, Moon Yo Woo.  He called his school the Yan Mu Kwan.  His lead student in Portland, Bruce Terrill, taught Kong Su until 1969.  I began Kong Su in 1966 and have resurrected my training in it a couple of years ago.  I have received a 3rd degree black belt in Kong Su.

According to research done in Dragon Times, Kong Su was brought to Korea by students who went to university in Japan.  Kong Su is the pronunciation of the ideograms kara te.  The Kong Su I learned was very close to Shotokan karate.

I now teach Kong Su at my school.  I don't know if the original Kong Su is still alive somewhere in the US or Korea ever since the advent of taekwondo but I do know several people are using the term to differentiate between taekwondo and what they do.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 24, 2011)

> And I am not choosing a particular version in preference to another.


 
Yes, I think that you are. 



> What I said was, which you ignored, that all of the pioneers pretty much have the same basic story, that the story does not change.


 
No, that is not correct. Just using one example, the Han Moo Kwan claims to have never been part of the Jidokwan. Yet, I've seen in various periodicals (such as the JAMA) that the Jidokwan claims the Han Moo Kwan came from them. At some point, one needs to simply chose which seems the most reasonable, plausible story. But in truth, it really doesn't matter. Whether a persons lineage came through Shito Ryu or Shotokan it ultimately goes back to Itosu as a focal point. Beyond that, White Craine seems to be the common focal point. But in the end it doesn't matter from the perspective of self-defense. I've taken Korean history with a grain of salt and feel I'm much closer to whatever the truth is than people that claim TKD is 2000 years old.



> What you consider self defense and what I consider self defense are probably two different things.


 
I think that is something that we can fully agree upon. 



> Ordinary students do not get paid to put themselves in harm's way. That is the offensive use of the martial arts, not self defense. Nothing wrong with that. Self defense involves avoiding those types of situations altogether, something that you and your "students" do not do. In fact, you do the opposite you put yourself into situations where the probability of a hostile life threatening situation is much greater, especially when compared to the 3 to 8 year old that is the typical student in a Taekwondo school.


 
And thanks to Earl Weiss (sp?), I should probably start using the term Defensive Tactics. But as it is, SD can be offensive when necessary and appropriate. In the proper circumstances it can be pre-emptive. It can involve de-esculation. It can involve deliberate offensive tactics, again where necessary and appropriate. Don't get hung up on the term itself. Karate was designed for use by civilians in protecting themselves. Sport came later. We can go in circles on this point if you like, or simply agree to disagree.




> What is your evidence or facts that Karatedo (Kong Soo Do) was meant for "civilian self defense"?


 
Feel free to do a search for yourself. You'll be surprised to see what you find. Start with Itosu for starters. Then feel free to go forward or backwards as the mood strikes you. It certainly wasn't for competition. 



> The term Karatedo came about because the Okinawan Karate pioneers in Japan wanted Karate to be accepted along the same lines as Kendo and Judo. This is why a standardized uniform was adopted, as well as a rank system.


 
I'm well aware of the requirements place upon Funakoshi in order to get Karate into the Japanese mainstream. I've read about the various meetings that were sponsored (by a newspaper if memory serves, but don't remember off hand the individuals name). It does not negate the SD aspects that predate its inclusion on Japan.



> Then it is your job to educate them about why their preconceived notions are erroneous and invalid.


 
No, because many of their opinions are valid. TKD is replete with self-inflicted black eyes that I'm not associated with and I do not intend to have to explain it each and every time I interview a student. We prefer the method we've chosen. 



> None of the original five kwans originally used the term Kong Soo Do to describe their art.


 
Once again, we disagree. I'll post back when I can list specifically which ones and the terms they used. 



> The term Kong Soo Do wasn't used until the 1950's.


 
I'm thinking more around 1946 or 1947. But it really doesn't matter.



> Just because you insist on saying that Kong Soo Do was for personal civilian use self defense does not make it so


 
Sigh, just because you insist it doesn't does not make it so. 

For example (just one resource);

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/brief-history-kata

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/there-nothing-peaceful-about-pinans

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/no-first-attack-karate

One quote in terms of self-defense or defensive tactics or self preservation or whatever term you'd like to use;



> In his book 'Karate-do Kyohan' Gichin Funakoshi wrote, "When there are no avenues of escape or one is caught even before any attempt to escape can be made, then for the first time the use of self-defense techniques should be considered. Even at times like these, do not show any intention of attacking, but first let the attacker become careless. At that time attack him concentrating one's whole strength in one blow to a vital point and in the moment of surprise, escape and seek shelter and help."


 


> And by the way, this isn't about you. I am not even trying to convince you or to get you to change your position


 
It really isn't about you either. I don't know you. And whether we ever agree or not on terminology or history is a moot point. My focus is the 'personal protection' side of the arts and getting people to understand the difference between self defense and sport training methodology. 

I appreciate you providing a venue to do this.



> The real audience is the readers. They are the "jury" so to speak, and they get to decide the validity of the position of each side, based on the evidence presented.


 
Excellent, we have another thing that we totally agree on. I'm sure we have many others as well.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 24, 2011)

Dan Anderson said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> A different slant. I began my martial arts training in Kong Su Do. The founder of the school in Portland, Oregon was a medical student, Moon Yo Woo. He called his school the Yan Mu Kwan. His lead student in Portland, Bruce Terrill, taught Kong Su until 1969. I began Kong Su in 1966 and have resurrected my training in it a couple of years ago. I have received a 3rd degree black belt in Kong Su.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you Dan.  I've not met you but have heard a great many good things about you.  And to clarify, we are using the term KSD as a means to distinguish ourselves from what many now consider modern TKD.  We could have used something like 'Old School TKD' or 'Combat TKD' or some other catchy title.  We simply felt that Kong Soo Do best fit what we teach and our focus.  

Thank you again.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (May 24, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Thank you Dan.  I've not met you but have heard a great many good things about you.  And to clarify, we are using the term KSD as a means to distinguish ourselves from what many now consider modern TKD.  We could have used something like 'Old School TKD' or 'Combat TKD' or some other catchy title.  We simply felt that Kong Soo Do best fit what we teach and our focus.
> 
> Thank you again.


You are not he first to do this. We have a local tkd school who have removed the word "tkd" from their name because they teach "self defence" tkd and wanted to differentiate what they do from "modern sport tkd". I train at a school where the principle focus is self defence not sport and when sport tkdists come and train with us they get a real shock, not because we are better or worse (there is nothing wrong with sport tkd), but because tkd when trained for self defence is a completely different animal. I have said for a while now that "sport" tkd should be given a different name so the lamen on the street understands that there is sport tkd and then the martial art of tkd, two completely different things. As I said in another thread, put steven lopez (who Im a huge fan of and have the utmost respect for) in a ring with a traditional tkdist and have them "fight" and steven wouldnt last 5 minutes.


----------



## puunui (May 25, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Yes, I think that you are.



Because you are not understanding what I am writing. For example:



Kong Soo Do said:


> No, that is not correct. Just using one example, the Han Moo Kwan claims to have never been part of the Jidokwan. Yet, I've seen in various periodicals (such as the JAMA) that the Jidokwan claims the Han Moo Kwan came from them.



What I said was: "What I said was, which you ignored, that *all of the pioneers* pretty much  have the same basic story, that the story does not change. " As far I know, no pioneer has written an article for JAMA. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> At some point, one needs to simply chose which seems the most reasonable, plausible story.



Again, there is no need to do that, because, again, the pioneers' story is pretty much the same, at least the ones I have spoken to, including but not limited to a Kwan Jang who you claim a lineage through, GM LEE Kyo Yun. 



Kong Soo Do said:


> But in truth, it really doesn't matter. Whether a persons lineage came through Shito Ryu or Shotokan it ultimately goes back to Itosu as a focal point.Beyond that, White Craine seems to be the common focal point.



Itosu Sensei passed away by the time the name was changed from Toudejutsu (Tangsoosool) to Karatedo (Kongsoodo). Mentioning White Crane adds nothing to the discussion with respect to Kongsoodo as more than mentioning Itosu Sensei. 



Kong Soo Do said:


> But in the end it doesn't matter from the perspective of self-defense. I've taken Korean history with a grain of salt and feel I'm much closer to whatever the truth is than people that claim TKD is 2000 years old.



None of the pioneers speak about the 2000 year old thing, not really. When asked about history, they all pretty much begin with the original Kwan Jang studying in Japan and/or Manchuria. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> And thanks to Earl Weiss (sp?), I should probably start using the term Defensive Tactics. But as it is, SD can be offensive when necessary and appropriate. In the proper circumstances it can be pre-emptive. It can involve de-esculation. It can involve deliberate offensive tactics, again where necessary and appropriate.



What does any of that have to do with "Civilian Self Defense" and the niche you seem to occupy, which involve people who are paid to place themselves in danger (unlike civilians, whose first line of "self defense" is to avoid dangerous situations in the first place? 



Kong Soo Do said:


> Don't get hung up on the term itself. Karate was designed for use by civilians in protecting themselves. Sport came later. We can go in circles on this point if you like, or simply agree to disagree.



Karatejutsu (Toudejutsu/Tangsoosool) may have been "designed for use by civilians in protecting themselves, but not Karatedo (Kong Soo Do). You are confusing the two terms, by talking about Itosu Sensei, White Crane and whatever else. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> Feel free to do a search for yourself. You'll be surprised to see what you find. Start with Itosu for starters. Then feel free to go forward or backwards as the mood strikes you. It certainly wasn't for competition.



Again, Itosu Sensei had nothing to do with the name Karatedo (Kong Soo Do) because he had already passed away when the term was first used. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> I'm well aware of the requirements place upon Funakoshi in order to get Karate into the Japanese mainstream. I've read about the various meetings that were sponsored (by a newspaper if memory serves, but don't remember off hand the individuals name). It does not negate the SD aspects that predate its inclusion on Japan.



We are not talking about the "self defense aspects that predate its inclusion on Japan", because prior to Japan the art was called Toudejutsu (Tangsoosool), not Karatedo. The name Karatedo (Kong Soo Do) was created in Japan, by Funakoshi Sensei, after Itosu Sensei passed away. So the "self defense aspects that predate its inclusion on Japan" is irrelevant to purposes of the name Karatedo (Kong Soo Do). 




Kong Soo Do said:


> No, because many of their opinions are valid. TKD is replete with self-inflicted black eyes that I'm not associated with and I do not intend to have to explain it each and every time I interview a student. We prefer the method we've chosen.



Then you need to be educated. 





Kong Soo Do said:


> Once again, we disagree. I'll post back when I can list specifically which ones and the terms they used. I'm thinking more around 1946 or 1947. But it really doesn't matter.



Well, there was one person out there who truly believed that the Chosun Yun Moo Kwan called its art "Kong Soo Do" or "Kwon Bup Kong Soo Do", but later that person retracted that, ironically after he spoke to GM LEE Kyo Yun about the matter. GM Lee told him the name of the art back then was Kwon Bup, not Kong Soo Do. No one called their art Kong Soo Do in the 40's in Korea. It's really not in dispute. 





Kong Soo Do said:


> Sigh, just because you insist it doesn't does not make it so.
> 
> For example (just one resource);http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/brief-history-kata



I looked at this first article and it does not mention anything about the difference between Toudejutsu and Karatedo. So that article really does not help you. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> It really isn't about you either. I don't know you.



I'm just a guy that you quote information on your webpage using information that I posted on the internet.  




Kong Soo Do said:


> And whether we ever agree or not on terminology or history is a moot point.



It's not a moot point to me. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> My focus is the 'personal protection' side of the arts and getting people to understand the difference between self defense and sport training methodology.



Again, how would you know, since it is obvious that you have never been to a competition under the WTF Rules? Again, competition under the WTF Competition Rules do not award plastic trophies and do not utilize glow in the dark nunchaku. Bill Wallace and/or Joe Lewis as far as I know never competed nor coached at a competition under the WTF Competition Rules. You might be thinking about non contact point fighting, which is different from competition under the WTF Competition Rules.


----------



## Omar B (May 25, 2011)

Oh yeahhhhh, another epic argument thread!  

:ours a cup of coffee and waits::


----------



## miguksaram (May 25, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:
			
		

> I've taken Korean history with a grain of salt and feel I'm much closer  to whatever the truth is than people that claim TKD is 2000 years old.


I am curious as to what Korean history books you have read to derive to this conclusion.


----------



## miguksaram (May 25, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:
			
		

> TKD is replete with self-inflicted black eyes that I'm not associated  with and I do not intend to have to explain it each and every time I  interview a student. We prefer the method we've chosen.


You must have a lot of educated parents and kids who come in to your school if they are already questioning you about the validity of TKD.

So since your focus is on self-defense, what type of real world scenarios do you use?  Do you prescribe to any of the methods such as Paul Vulnak's PFS or the RMCAT or CRT?  Or do you mostly run predetermined scenarios such as "grab my wrist like this" or "punch towards like that"?

You also mentioned that sometimes a good offense is a valid self-defense move.  Can you explain when this would be acceptable?


----------



## miguksaram (May 25, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:
			
		

> My focus is the 'personal protection' side of the arts and getting  people to understand the difference between self defense and sport  training methodology.


  Ok, then who stands a better chance a person who does a few push-ups and then practices specific scenarios with non-resisting partners or someone who is being trained like an athlete, practicing kicking and punching repetitions and then placed against a live resisting opponent who is fighting back?  

According to this statement of yours, boxers, MMA fighters and Judo players would not be able to defend themselves since they practice for sport not "personal protection".


----------



## andyjeffries (May 25, 2011)

miguksaram said:


> You also mentioned that sometimes a good offense is a valid self-defense move.  Can you explain when this would be acceptable?



Say if someone has attacked someone nearby (establishing a perceived threat) and they then come for me and my family with us having no viable escape route - an offensive technique is valid-pre-emptive self-defence (and UK law allows for it).

"There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves: R v Deana, 2 Cr.App.R. 75."
UK's Crown Prosecution Service*

* I guess the US equivalent is the States Attornies?  This is the government body that decides whether a case should be prosecuted or not.

If you meant morally acceptable, I stand by the answer above - my children and wife come before some drunk violent idiot in the priority order!

(I don't want to get in to the debate about Kong Soo Do, but I feel that pre-emptive self-defence is very valid)


----------



## miguksaram (May 25, 2011)

andyjeffries said:


> Say if someone has attacked someone nearby (establishing a perceived threat) and they then come for me and my family with us having no viable escape route - an offensive technique is valid-pre-emptive self-defence (and UK law allows for it).


While I agree with your actions they are not entirely offensive.  The person, who you just witness attacking someone else, has now turned his aggression towards you and your family with intent to do harm.  You actions were defensive not offensive.  

In the scenario above you would be offensive if you struck the person who just attacked the other person without really knowing that you were next on the his hit list.  In which case, at least in Illinois, USA you could face criminal charges of assault.



			
				Andy Jeffries said:
			
		

> (I don't want to get in to the debate about Kong Soo Do, but I feel that pre-emptive self-defence is very valid)


I agree, if there was a threat of being harmed, pre-emptive self-defense would be best.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 25, 2011)

miguksaram said:


> I am curious as to what Korean history books you have read to derive to this conclusion.



You don't need to go to the history books for this, simply look at the information flyers at the front doors of some Dojangs.  And this isn't necessarily limited to TKD, the 'TSD Karate' Dojang...or would it be Dojo(?) that closed it's doors a year or so ago use to use this same tactic.

You and I have discussed this before on Martial Warrior as well.



> Ok, then who stands a better chance a person who does a few push-ups and  then practices specific scenarios with non-resisting partners...



I would not know as I don't train people this way.  



> ...or someone who is being trained like an athlete, practicing kicking and  punching repetitions and then placed against a live resisting opponent  who is fighting back?



Would this be the individual that;


Trains only for one type of fight (standing with no chance of going to the ground)?
Trains with a referee that enforces arbitrarily set rules?
Trains with rules that you and your opponent are required to abide by?
Trains in a well lit, level, dry surfaced environment?
Trains for a 'fight' that was set at a pre-determined time and place?
Allows a nice prep and warm up time before the 'fight' begins?
Allows you to quit if you've had enough?
Has a 'resisting' opponent that may be trying to score a point but isn't trying to harm, maim or kill you?
Got to be honest with you, I don't like the chances of either of your examples against a violent felon who is determined.  

I don't know...does anyone have any stories of high level black belts in (any) art getting their **** handed to them by a street fighter/ex-felon/determined attacker/someone that isn't as 'well trained' but really good with a few street proven movements?  Or do the high level black belts always win the day?



> According to this  statement of yours, boxers, MMA fighters and Judo players would not be  able to defend themselves since they practice for sport not "personal  protection". 	  	Today 09:32 AM



That is your statement, not mine.  My statement is that the training methodology is different and one is vastly more effective than the other.  And in many regards, based upon real world research, sport training is a detriment.  

It is a fact that you will revert to your training under duress.  If you're a boxer, and that is all you've trained for and someone takes you to the ground you will be at a disadvantage.  If you train for Judo and someone uses a weapon or improvised weapon while you're trying to grab and throw you'll be at a disadvantage.  MMA fighters are tough but the training is geared as I've listed above.  That's just the way it is.



> You must have a lot of educated parents and kids who come in to your  school if they are already questioning you about the validity of TKD.



Yes I do actually.  Many of the people I teach/have taught formerly trained in sport TKD at some point in their life.  Even the civilians didn't want this type of training.  NO ONE ever came in and was disappointed we weren't teaching sport.  

As I've mentioned multiple times, Royce Gracie has taught his BJJ at S.E.P.S.I. where I've also taught academies.  He had to adjust the training away from MMA BJJ and back to (for lack of a better term) 'street' BJJ for Officers.  Why?  Because the MMA BJJ is worse than useless for what Officer's need it for.  And this translates over to what civilians need as well.  As a result, there were two 'go-to' schools within four counties for realistic training; mine and Fred Crevello (sp?).  That's why I had students from the surrounding four counties.  This is not a boast!  This isn't a 'yea me' statement.  I just don't know any other way to make the point that there are educated people that know what they want and are serious enough to travel to get it.  

Puunui,

I didn't forget about you.  But since our conversation started I've received about a dozen PM's saying it is fruitless to talk with you, that it is a waste of time and some other things that I'd rather not mention.  I see us ping-ponging back and forth with each others comments and it really not swaying the other in any meaningful way.  

So with this in mind, I think I'll just do this;

"Puunui, you are absolutely right about everything you've spoken on.  In fact, I'm now convinced beyond question that you have been right about everything you've ever spoken on in every thread you've ever participated in and I'm confident you'll continue to be right in all future threads regardless of the subject.  This of course means that I've been completely wrong about everything as well.  Thank you very much for spending the time to correct me.  You're the very best."

Now that is out of the way you can sleep better at nights.  I know I will. 

Now of course I'm still going to teach the way I've always taught, and list my research the way I have, and use the name Kong Soo Do as I have been....but I'm now a much better martial artist for having been on this merry-go-round with you.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 25, 2011)

miguksaram said:


> In the scenario above you would be offensive if you struck the person who just attacked the other person without really knowing that you were next on the his hit list.  In which case, at least in Illinois, USA you could face criminal charges of assault.



I would have to question this Mig.  Most SD statutes allow you to come to the aid of another person.  If Illinois does not allow this, specifically in State Statute I would be shocked.


----------



## dancingalone (May 25, 2011)

> Yes I do actually.  Many of the people I teach/have taught formerly  trained in sport TKD at some point in their life.  Even the civilians  didn't want this type of training.


I'll confirm this happens.  I've had people come to my school asking to learn 'good' martial arts vs. commercialized martial arts.  

I don't see this as unusual either.  People switch martial arts schools and styles all the time due to things like finances, scheduling, personality conflicts, etc.  Why would a desire to focus on a specific segment of MA such as self-defense be any different?

Not everyone looking for MA instruction is a wet-behind-the-ears newbie.


----------



## Master Dan (May 25, 2011)

I think its a shame that TKD has such a weak or narrow opinion in the publics mind that we are now reverting back to the old days when the Masters had to put Korean Karate on thier dojangs so people would come in? Why did they come in because they first wanted to learn self defense not compete in sport Taekwondo but that is what was given to them and SD later.

Now decades later masters and dojang owners have had to learn that a 100% focus on only sport TKD does not pay. I watch my GM council a master that had a hudge dojang maybe 10,000 square feet all matted for sport TKD had lost 75% of his students in the last several years because he was forcing everyone to do only sport TKD.

Nothing wrong with those who want to do full contact sport tkd but I agree with Kong Su Do that sport TKD is not true good SD and in fact if the person your defending your self agains is so lame that your going to use head kicks and all the sport technique you should be talking to them or some thing else?


----------



## miguksaram (May 25, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> You don't need to go to the history books for this, simply look at the information flyers at the front doors of some Dojangs.  And this isn't necessarily limited to TKD, the 'TSD Karate' Dojang...or would it be Dojo(?) that closed it's doors a year or so ago use to use this same tactic.



But wait you said was 





			
				KSD said:
			
		

> I've taken Korean history with a grain of salt and feel I'm much closer   to whatever the truth is than people that claim TKD is 2000 years old.


How can you say you don't need to go into Korean history books when you are claiming to know Korean history better than those people who tout the 2000 year old history? (I assume you mean Koreans).  That makes no sense.  Please elaborate on your knowledge source of Korean history if not by Korean history books.



			
				KSD said:
			
		

> You and I have discussed this before on Martial Warrior as well.


Are you referring to the 2007 discussion about TSD? If so that is hardly the same discussion we are having here.



			
				KSD said:
			
		

> I would not know as I don't train people this way.


Then how do you train them to be "street" effective?  Do you utilize those programs I mentioned in my last post?





			
				KSD said:
			
		

> Would this be the individual that;
> 
> 
> Trains only for one type of fight (standing with no chance of going to the ground)?
> ...



Not what I asked.  I asked if you felt was better prepped than the other?  However, the underlying question is how do you teach for the streets that makes your methods superior than someone who trains for both art and sport?



			
				KSD said:
			
		

> I don't know...does anyone have any stories of high level black belts in (any) art getting their **** handed to them by a street fighter/ex-felon/determined attacker/someone that isn't as 'well trained' but really good with a few street proven movements?  Or do the high level black belts always win the day?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



See above.  I am interested in what you are offering in your training that would better prepare a student.  How real world are you?


----------



## miguksaram (May 25, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I would have to question this Mig.  Most SD statutes allow you to come to the aid of another person.  If Illinois does not allow this, specifically in State Statute I would be shocked.



Note the 'could' in the sentence.  Nothing is definite.  How do we know that the guy attacking the person was not the victim of an assault turning the tide on the attacker?  Why good Samaritan laws are around, doesn't mean they will automatically void you of any responsibility.


----------



## miguksaram (May 25, 2011)

Master Dan said:


> I think its a shame that TKD has such a weak or narrow opinion in the publics mind that we are now reverting back to the old days when the Masters had to put Korean Karate on thier dojangs so people would come in? Why did they come in because they first wanted to learn self defense not compete in sport Taekwondo but that is what was given to them and SD later.



They did this because the general public didn't know what Taekwondo was.  They knew, or at least heard of, karate.  General public did not make any connection to sports back then.

BTW...how is your history research going?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 25, 2011)

According to this source, the names for the modern forms of karate-do "Empty Hand Way" and "China Hand Way" originated in Okinawa.  They did not originate in Japan or Korea.

http://seinenkai.com/



> [SIZE=+2]*Master Chojun Miyagi At The Meeting In 1936*[/SIZE]
> [SIZE=+1]Translated by Sanzinsoo[/SIZE]
> Remarks: This is a part of the meeting  records. It appears as an appendix in the book, "Karatedo Dai Hokan"  written by  Kanken Toyama. Pages 377-392 (Tsuru Shobo, 1960).​  [SIZE=+1]*"The Meeting of Okinawan Karate Masters"*[/SIZE]
> * Time and Date: 4:00 pm, October 25, 1936
> ...




Tang Soo Do and Kong Soo Do are Okinawan in origin.  They came to Korea via Japan.


----------



## Carol (May 25, 2011)

miguksaram said:


> Note the 'could' in the sentence.  Nothing is definite.  How do we know that the guy attacking the person was not the victim of an assault turning the tide on the attacker?  Why good Samaritan laws are around, doesn't mean they will automatically void you of any responsibility.



Absolutely.  Much is dependent on the situation.  I'm not a lawyer so take this with a few grains of salt (and tequila, and lime...LOL)

Common-law self-defense is typically focused around the AOJ triad.  Did the person have the Ability to seriously injure me?  The Opportunity to seriously injury me?  Am I in Jeopardy?  (meaning....is the attack imminent?)

Two guys scrapping with each other does not necessarily satisfy the AOJ triad.  Sometimes its better to be a good witness than to be a good Samaritan.


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 25, 2011)

miguksaram said:


> .......Do you prescribe to any of the methods such as Paul Vulnak's PFS or the RMCAT or CRT? Or do you mostly run predetermined scenarios such as "grab my wrist like this" or "punch towards like that"?...
> 
> quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## Earl Weiss (May 25, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I don't know...does anyone have any stories of high level black belts in (any) art getting their **** handed to them by a street fighter/ex-felon/determined attacker/someone that isn't as 'well trained' but really good with a few street proven movements? Or do the high level black belts always win the day?


 
I teach TKD and Ju Jitsu at a local Park District. Hosted a couple PPCT courses and some LEOs attended. Some of the LEOs also worked security for the park. 

There was also a Sytema class at the Park district. The LEOS did not like the guy becuase he would say stuff like this is how you use a knife against someone like a cop wearing  a bullet proof vest. They would train with weapons like trenching shovels.  As the story goes this guy had some issue with (as far as I know ) unknown people and asked a buddy of his to accompany him to some meeting or confrontation. 

The police found both of them dead. One was beaten to death. I think the other also had some stab wounds.  There were hints of "Russian Mob" involvement.


----------



## Carol (May 25, 2011)

Pepper spray got the upper hand against a Canadian 5th degree BB trying to stop a robbery:

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Pepper+spray+takes+black+belt/4737526/story.html#ixzz1Lbke8i4P


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 25, 2011)

Mig, you're missing the point.  My comment was;



> _I've taken Korean history with a grain of salt and feel I'm much closer to whatever the truth is than people that claim TKD is 2000 years old._


 
Your question was;



> I am curious as to what Korean history books you have read to derive to this conclusion.


 
I responded with;



> _You don't need to go to the history books for this, simply look at the information flyers at the front doors of some Dojangs. And this isn't necessarily limited to TKD, the 'TSD Karate' Dojang...or would it be Dojo(?) that closed it's doors a year or so ago use to use this same tactic._




_My point being that some Dojangs perpetuate a historical myth for the sake of commercialism.  A prospective student is more likely to read the flyer on the door than he/she is to delve into a historical treatise on TKD.  Many websites perpetuate the same thing so again, a prospective student is more likely to read the website of the school and go no further.  TSD in our area has done this as well.  And it is a shame because there is not a problem with the truth i.e. TKD/TSD being decades old rather than centuries.  It does not take away from these arts and should not be put forth by some as if it does 'enhance' the art._

_I know your spouse is Korean, and it seems sometimes you take it personally when anyone casts doubts (or simply says it like it is) on the practices of SOME Koreans...and many non-Koreans.  I assure you that this is not meant to indict the entire culture and should not be taken that way.  I know Koreans (and others from that part of the world) that are wonderful, hospitable, honest etc.  The actions of a few trying to 'enhance' a particular art do not reflect on everyone.  Just wanted to clarify this with you because we've had many excellent discussions and I'd like to see that continue._

_



			I am interested in what you are offering in your training that would better prepare a student. How real world are you?
		
Click to expand...

_ 
_I would be happy to discuss this with you.  For starters, if you're interested, you can take a look at my section, 'Reality Check'.  This has some information in it that touches on the training._

_In short, we train;_


_In as many different environments as possible i.e. full light, dim light, asphalt, grass, sand, sloping surfaces, stairs, elevators, between cars, with furniture, inside a vehicle, from standing, from grappling, from the ground, single and multiple opponents, improvised weapons etc._
_We use specific drills that we feel have a high percentage of success._
_We pad up such as RED MAN or Bluers suit (can't remember the name off-hand) and go as full tilt as is safety possible._
_We use specific scenarios that have happened in real life i.e. home invasion, mugging at the ATM etc._
_That is just a quick sampling for the moment. _


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 25, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> According to this source, the names for the modern forms of karate-do "Empty Hand Way" and "China Hand Way" originated in Okinawa. They did not originate in Japan or Korea.
> 
> http://seinenkai.com/
> 
> ...


 

Thank you.  I've read this quite a will ago but could not remember the particulars.  Worth a re-read


----------



## puunui (May 25, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> According to this source, the names for the modern forms of karate-do "Empty Hand Way" and "China Hand Way" originated in Okinawa.  They did not originate in Japan or Korea. http://seinenkai.com/



Shoot I wrote a long post about this, but I guess it didn't get posted. I'll try again. 

I spoke with Charles Goodin Sensei, who runs the webpage above. Nice guy, I can speak to him about the martial arts all day everyday for the rest of my life. We are pretty much on the same page as far as research goes. Same methodology, same basic approach. He was very happy to learn that I plan on adding to the collection he donated to the UH library with my own excessive library of materials when I pass away. 

Anyway, we talked about the article. First thing is this meeting happened in 1936, one year after Funakoshi Sensei wrote and published his book Karatedo Kyokan. The meeting itself was a reaction to Funakoshi Sensei's changing of the characters from toudejutsu to Karatedo. It was a "Hey, this is what is going on in Japan, so better get on the bandwagon." type of thing. If you notice, none of the Japan Karate pioneers are present, other than Motobu Sensei.

Goodin Sensei said that the Okinawan instructors at the time took offense at the idea of appending the Do to the art name. He said that Do was a Japanese concept, and that use of the character and the changing of the name was a sellout to Japan. The Okinawan instructors felt that Toudejutsu, which was often shortened to Toude or simply Te, was Okinawan and more akin to Chinese ideas of the martial arts, not Japanese samurai ideas. 

So they didn't really want to do it. 

As for this: Chomo Hanashiro: In my old notebooks, I found using the kanji (= Chinese   character), "Empty Hand" for karate. Since August 1905, I have been   using the kanji "Empty Hand" for karate, such as "Karate Kumite." 

Goodin Sensei said some interesting things. He said that the term "karate", meaning empty hand, was already in use in Japan, but it was not attached to any particular art. Instead, it was a term used to describe empty handed techniques. For example, in Kenjutsu, if someone grabs the scabbard of your sword, there are defenses to that. This would be generically called "karate" techniques or empty handed techniques. This use of the term karate had no affiliation to any Okinawan martial art. It is Gooden Sensei's belief that is what Hanashiro Sensei was talking about when he said he was using the term "empty hand" for sparring and the like, because there were books published in japan around 1905 about Karate (empty handed techniques). That is what Hanashiro Sensei is talking about. 

At the same time, Japan back in the 1920's and 1930's (like today) had a preoccupation with western sports such as baseball and also western boxing. The Japanese loved babe ruth for example, and would follow his exploits and such. This affinity with competition sports lead the Japanese government to send Judo's Kano Sensei to join the Olympic movement. 

Goodin Sensei believes that these two factors greatly influenced Funakoshi Sensei in choosing the name Karatedo as well as his efforts to mirror and follow Judo's roadmap to success so to speak. At the time, there was no Japanese equivalent for Boxing. There was an equivalent for western fencing (kendo) and greco roman wrestling (Judo), but none for Boxing. So as a marketing plan, the name Karatedo was chosen for its familiarity from the Japanese perspective and also as the Japanese empty handed punch equivalent to western boxing. Hence the name, Empty Hand. 

Regarding Jujitsu, he said that would be considered an "empty hand" technique or Karate technique from the early 20th Century japanese perspective. 

As for this statement: "I think the name "Karate-Do" is better than  just "Karate." However, I  will reserve decision on this matter, as I  think we should hear other  people's opinions. We had a controversy on  this matter at the meeting  of Okinawa Branch of Dai Nippon Butokukai. We  shelved this  controversial problem. *In the mean time, we, members of  Okinawa Branch, use the name "Karate-Do" written in Kanji as "The Way of  Chinese Hand.*"

I would like to read the original description in kanji because it seems that there is an inconsistency in the use of the term, because on one hand it states that the Okinawa Branch of the Butokukai had a "controversy" on the matter of using the Do term, and "shelved this controversial problem" but then it goes on to say "we, members of the Okinawa Branch, use the name Karate-do". So it is not clear from this translation what they are talking about. It would make more sense if it said that "in the meantime, we members of the Okinawa Branch, use the name "Karate" or even "Karatejutsu".... 

But even if the Okinawa Branch of the Butokukai did use the name Chinese Hand Way, it did not influence GM LEE Won Kuk in selecting that name for his art. I specifically asked him where he got the name from, and he stated it was his idea. When I asked him if they used the name Karatedo (Tang Soo Do) in Japan, he said no one used that name, that when Funakoshi Sensei changed to Empty Hand, he also change the suffix to Do, so the name went from Toudejutsu (Tangsoosool) to Karatedo (Kong Soo Do). So there is no connection between the name mentioned at the 1936 meeting and what GM LEE Won Kuk did in Korea.

Let's hope this one goes through. I don't want to have to type this all over again.


----------



## puunui (May 25, 2011)

PS: During our conversation, Goodin Sensei gave me the name and number of a martial arts scholar that lives on the same island that we do. He said that compared to this person, he is like a 3rd grader and this person is a Ph.D. Feels like one of those "when the student is ready, the master will appear" type scenarios for me, which is good because I have been feeling stagnated lately. So thank you Maunakumu, if it weren't for your posting, I wouldn't have lucked into an introduction and referral to a martial arts historical treasure chest like I did. Please feel free to contradict and/or challenge me at any time, because who knows where it will lead me next.  I knew there was a reason I felt like I was supposed to post on MT, just didn't know why until now....


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 25, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> The type of TKD that I learned contained joint locks (manipulation and destruction), chokes, throws, cavity pressing etc in addition to the normal BKP. The reason it contained this information is because that is what was taught to the various Kwan founders from the various styles of Karate they studied i.e. Shotokan, Shito Ryu, Shuri Ryu etc. Many of these individuals used it in their vocation. Many used it in personal self-defense. Others didnt' use it at all.


I learned many of these things in taekwondo as well, though they were culled from hapkido.

You stated (I think) that you use the term 'Kong Su Do' to differentiate yourself from modern TKD.  I am going to ask the following, and if they have been answered previously, my apologies, but many of the posts in this thread are just way too long, no offense, and I'm not going to hunt through manifold threads to search it out.

1. What forms do you use?

2. How thorough is your hoshinsul (SD) and where does it come from?  A follow up, is it primarily striking based or does it more resemble HKD?

3. What is the nature of your sparring?

4. Aside from sparring (which really does not equate to SD), how does your system train students for self defense?  (realistic scenarios, role playing, etc.)

Thank you in advance for your answers.

Regarding the name, way of the empty hand, you could pretty much do anything you feel like without a weapon and the name would fit.  As for the historical reasons being discussed, I leave that to more educated minds with regards to the subject than my own.

Daniel


----------



## puunui (May 25, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> _My point being that some Dojangs perpetuate a historical myth for the sake of commercialism.  A prospective student is more likely to read the flyer on the door than he/she is to delve into a historical treatise on TKD.  Many websites perpetuate the same thing so again, a prospective student is more likely to read the website of the school and go no further.  TSD in our area has done this as well.  And it is a shame because there is not a problem with the truth i.e. TKD/TSD being decades old rather than centuries.  It does not take away from these arts and should not be put forth by some as if it does 'enhance' the art._



You might look at that way, but personally, I don't think a flyer stating that something is 2000 years old would be the deal maker for me, even if I were a newbie or his/her parent looking for a school to join for the first time. No one really reads those flyers. 

As for the centuries old thing, we discussed this previously and I believe there is a misunderstanding, a cultural misunderstanding that is going on. When I see someone write "Taekwondo is 2000 years old", how I interpret that is that the cultural affinity for the Korean people for kicking goes back that long. Kicking is what defines Taekwondo, and to a certain degree, Korean culture has evidence of this through Taekkyon (a Korean kicking game) and also also things such as that drum dance in which a person with a very long streamer on his hat twirls around in a large circle around the musicians and does roundhouse spin hooks kicks all the way around. i don't know if you know what I am talking about but if you ever visit Korea, which I believe all Korean Martial Arts practitioners should do at least once in their lives, you will see it demonstrated at the Folk Village. No one questions that Kicking is the Korean Martial Arts' unique feature, and no one questions that Taekwondo has evolved away from its Okinawan/Japanese Karate roots. However, I don't see why there is such a fuss if it is stated that the kicking part of Taekwondo was inspired by or came from Korean culture which is thousands of years old.


----------



## puunui (May 25, 2011)

miguksaram said:


> You must have a lot of educated parents and kids who come in to your school if they are already questioning you about the validity of TKD.



I think a more obvious point would be to look at the numbers of students who are filling Taekwondo schools, in comparison to those heading to a sparsely populated "hard core" self defense program. Even MT describes Taekwondo as the fastest growing martial art (or words to that effect). Obviously, Taekwondo instructors must be doing something right and giving the public what they want, even if it is the opinion of Kong Soo Do the students in Taekwondo schools cannot defend themselves. The "self defense" box on the student initial sign up questionnaire just may be the least checked box in the majority of today's martial arts schools, at least the financially successful ones.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 25, 2011)

puunui said:


> I spoke with Charles Goodin Sensei, who runs the webpage above. Nice guy, I can speak to him about the martial arts all day everyday for the rest of my life. We are pretty much on the same page as far as research goes. Same methodology, same basic approach. He was very happy to learn that I plan on adding to the collection he donated to the UH library with my own excessive library of materials when I pass away.



Thanks for this.  The library has some information on the Korean branches of karate, but it's pretty sparse compared to the information on other things.  Ultimately, I think your addition could bring a lot of clarity to the evolution of "Korean" karate.



puunui said:


> Anyway, we talked about the article. First thing is this meeting happened in 1936, one year after Funakoshi Sensei wrote and published his book Karatedo Kyokan. The meeting itself was a reaction to Funakoshi Sensei's changing of the characters from toudejutsu to Karatedo. It was a "Hey, this is what is going on in Japan, so better get on the bandwagon." type of thing. If you notice, none of the Japan Karate pioneers are present, other than Motobu Sensei.
> 
> Goodin Sensei said that the Okinawan instructors at the time took offense at the idea of appending the Do to the art name. He said that Do was a Japanese concept, and that use of the character and the changing of the name was a sellout to Japan. The Okinawan instructors felt that Toudejutsu, which was often shortened to Toude or simply Te, was Okinawan and more akin to Chinese ideas of the martial arts, not Japanese samurai ideas.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your careful post about your conversation.  It brings up the sticky point about usage of various terms in the past.  The context makes all of the difference when it comes to understanding.  It sounds like the Japanese and Okinawans at the time had a broader vision of "empty hand" meant.  This actually helps clarify the connection between Dan Zan Ryu (a system in which I cross train) and karate.  Okazaki Sensei would have seen no distinction between jujutsu, karate, and quanfa that he was learning in Hawaii at the turn of the last century.  



puunui said:


> As for this statement: "I think the name "Karate-Do" is better than  just "Karate." However, I  will reserve decision on this matter, as I  think we should hear other  people's opinions. We had a controversy on  this matter at the meeting  of Okinawa Branch of Dai Nippon Butokukai. We  shelved this  controversial problem. *In the mean time, we, members of  Okinawa Branch, use the name "Karate-Do" written in Kanji as "The Way of  Chinese Hand.*"
> 
> I would like to read the original description in kanji because it seems that there is an inconsistency in the use of the term, because on one hand it states that the Okinawa Branch of the Butokukai had a "controversy" on the matter of using the Do term, and "shelved this controversial problem" but then it goes on to say "we, members of the Okinawa Branch, use the name Karate-do". So it is not clear from this translation what they are talking about. It would make more sense if it said that "in the meantime, we members of the Okinawa Branch, use the name "Karate" or even "Karatejutsu"....
> 
> But even if the Okinawa Branch of the Butokukai did use the name Chinese Hand Way, it did not influence GM LEE Won Kuk in selecting that name for his art. I specifically asked him where he got the name from, and he stated it was his idea. When I asked him if they used the name Karatedo (Tang Soo Do) in Japan, he said no one used that name, that when Funakoshi Sensei changed to Empty Hand, he also change the suffix to Do, so the name went from Toudejutsu (Tangsoosool) to Karatedo (Kong Soo Do). So there is no connection between the name mentioned at the 1936 meeting and what GM LEE Won Kuk did in Korea.



I don't know if such a strong statement could be made regarding the usage of TSD.  I think that at the time that LWK trained in Japan, there was a lot of discussion about what to call the art and the matter certainly wasn't settled when Funakoshi wrote his book.  When there is no distinctive break in usage, it's easy to get confused when pinned into a definitive statement.  I'd like to see the original character's as well.  Next time I visit the library, I'll see what I can find.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 25, 2011)

puunui said:


> PS: During our conversation, Goodin Sensei gave me the name and number of a martial arts scholar that lives on the same island that we do. He said that compared to this person, he is like a 3rd grader and this person is a Ph.D. Feels like one of those "when the student is ready, the master will appear" type scenarios for me, which is good because I have been feeling stagnated lately. So thank you Maunakumu, if it weren't for your posting, I wouldn't have lucked into an introduction and referral to a martial arts historical treasure chest like I did. Please feel free to contradict and/or challenge me at any time, because who knows where it will lead me next.  I knew there was a reason I felt like I was supposed to post on MT, just didn't know why until now....



No problem and you're welcome.  PM me if you'd ever like to share a cup of coffee or punch me or both!


----------



## puunui (May 25, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Now of course I'm still going to teach the way I've always taught, and list my research the way I have, and use the name Kong Soo Do as I have been....but I'm now a much better martial artist for having been on this merry-go-round with you.



I have no doubt that you will teach the same way that you've always taught, that you will list your "research" the way you have and will continue to the same things as you always have, just like your new PM buddies do. If they are supporting and reassuring you, then no doubt that their approach to the martial arts and to life is substantially similar to your approach. We are defined by the friends that we keep, birds of a feather, and so forth. And sorry you didn't get anything out of the discussion, but I certainly have, thanks to Maunakumu. There he was trying to hurt me, and instead ended up helping me. I expect to be off on a whole new learning experience very shortly.


----------



## puunui (May 25, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> No problem and you're welcome.  PM me if you'd ever like to share a cup of coffee or punch me or both!




That's ok. Go hang out with Kong Soo Do. I think you and he have more in common than you and I.


----------



## puunui (May 25, 2011)

Dan Anderson said:


> A different slant.  I began my martial arts training in Kong Su Do.  The founder of the school in Portland, Oregon was a medical student, Moon Yo Woo.  He called his school the Yan Mu Kwan.  His lead student in Portland, Bruce Terrill, taught Kong Su until 1969.  I began Kong Su in 1966 and have resurrected my training in it a couple of years ago.  I have received a 3rd degree black belt in Kong Su.




I have Master Woo's book, "Kong Su". Two copies actually, one with and one without the dust jacket. The pictures look very generic and you cannot tell which Kwan he is from.


----------



## puunui (May 25, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> The library has some information on the Korean branches of karate, but it's pretty sparse compared to the information on other things.  Ultimately, I think your addition could bring a lot of clarity to the evolution of "Korean" karate.



UH has to wait though. I plan on living at least another 40 years. Perhaps we won't have any books by then. It may be all ipad and kindle at that point.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 25, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> 1. What forms do you use?
> 
> 2. How thorough is your hoshinsul (SD) and where does it come from? A follow up, is it primarily striking based or does it more resemble HKD?
> 
> ...


 
Thank you Daniel,

1.  For me personally, I like Sanchin, Seisan and Sanseiryu as well as the Pinan series.  The only one of these that I practice anymore (as a form) is Sanchin.  It was my first and therefore just has a special place for me.  The others are utilized for their bunkai.  

It is not what I teach to students though (well, Sanchin I do...it is great for focus, conditioning etc).  Over the years we developed a single form that covers 25 movements.  These movements are a 'skeleton' of principles that cover common forms of attack (both empty hand and weapon defense).  We then tailor the form to each student based upon their particular strengths and/or physical limitations.

2.  For me personally it comes from multiple sources.  First, from the arts I have trained in.  Secondly, from the combatives or defensive tactics course I have earned an instructors rating.  Thirdly, from other HL professionals that I have had the opportunity to train with and lastly from real world altercations.  If I wouldn't use it personally, I don't teach it.  

TKDish or HKDish?  That answer would depend on the background of the particular TKD'er or HKD'er.  We believe (when appropriate) that a strike should precede the attempt to lock, throw etc.  By strike I mean it could be a 'stun' or it could be meant to cause damage.  Again, as appropriate to the situation.  The follow up depends on position and individual strengths.  For example, I personally use joint locks in a major way, usually finger, wrist or elbow (into the shoulder and beyond of course).  Joint locking for me is just natural as I've used it so often over the last three decades.  I cannot recall ever kicking a person.  But multiple times I've knee spiked people.  As far as strikes, I have hardly ever used closed hands (for specific reasons), instead I prefer palm heel or edge-of-hand strikes (and forearms).

3 & 4..  We don't spar in the conventional sense.  When we pad up we are in a scenario setting.  The scenario isn't over until the attack has ceased (by whatever means is appropriate).  So it isn't so much moving back and forth looking for an opening (such as in a boxing match or competition) but rather trying to deesculate, looking for cover/concealment, looking to disengage, looking for improvised weapons, looking for danger cues, nuetralizing the attack as quickly as possible etc.  All as would be appropriate to the situation i.e. car-jacking, mugging at the ATM, attacked while jogging or answering your door etc.  

Firearms training is also covered extensively.

http://excoboard.com/martialwarrior/148268

The link is to my teeny-tiny board.  It is just a place for some of us to gather and talk (although anyone is welcome).  The link above is specifically to my section, 'Reality Check' where I put my thoughts for anyone that may be interested.  It is by no means complete, but I add to it as I'm able.  We also have an SD section there as well with information that we utilize.

I hope this was helpful?


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 25, 2011)

puunui said:


> That's ok. Go hang out with Kong Soo Do. I think you and he have more in common than you and I.


 
Well, I think that there may be many things that we have in common and would enjoy discussing.  A disagreement on some topics doesn't have to mean disagreement on all topics.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 25, 2011)

puunui said:


> I think a more obvious point would be to look at the numbers of students who are filling Taekwondo schools, in comparison to those heading to a sparsely populated "hard core" self defense program. Even MT describes Taekwondo as the fastest growing martial art (or words to that effect). Obviously, Taekwondo instructors must be doing something right and giving the public what they want, *even if it is the opinion of Kong Soo Do the students in Taekwondo schools cannot defend themselves*. The "self defense" box on the student initial sign up questionnaire just may be the least checked box in the majority of today's martial arts schools, at least the financially successful ones.


 
Everyone needs a niche.  Many people taking a martial arts class aren't necessarily looking for self-defense.  Certainly not the children.  Many people simply want a hobby.  Some just want to get active and do something physical.  Some would like to test themselves in competiton and some are looking for a means to defend themselves.  None of these reasons are wrong.

And to be clear on the part I put in bold, I think there are many TKD instructors that offer excellent SD programs.  I learned from one such instructor.  But I also know that there are those that 'think' they teach SD but really don't have a full understanding of SD principles or think sport methodology covers SD.


----------



## Dan Anderson (May 25, 2011)

puunui said:


> I have Master Woo's book, "Kong Su". Two copies actually, one with and one without the dust jacket. The pictures look very generic and you cannot tell which Kwan he is from.



You have any idea where I could get another copy?  I have only one.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## puunui (May 25, 2011)

Dan Anderson said:


> You have any idea where I could get another copy?  I have only one.




It is a pretty rare book, almost 50 years old. I would keep the one you have in a safe place.


----------



## puunui (May 25, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Well, I think that there may be many things that we have in common and would enjoy discussing.  A disagreement on some topics doesn't have to mean disagreement on all topics.




My main interest in these types of discussions is in discovering the truth and getting accurate facts. From my perspective, you are interested in something else. That makes us philosophically incompatible, as incompatible as those that sent PMs to you. They, like you, are more interested in staying where they are and defending that place. I am most happy when I am constantly moving forward. If I am in the same place as I was yesterday, then that means I have made no progress. My friends are all the same way. It's the birds of a feather thing again.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 25, 2011)

> Originally Posted by *Kong Soo Do*
> 
> 
> _Well, I think that there may be many things that we have in common and would enjoy discussing. A disagreement on some topics doesn't have to mean disagreement on all topics._


 


puunui said:


> My main interest in these types of discussions is in discovering the truth and getting accurate facts. From my perspective, you are interested in something else. That makes us philosophically incompatible, as incompatible as those that sent PMs to you. They, like you, are more interested in staying where they are and defending that place. I am most happy when I am constantly moving forward. If I am in the same place as I was yesterday, then that means I have made no progress. My friends are all the same way. It's the birds of a feather thing again.


 
Well once again you're right as rain.  Thanks for thinking about it though


----------



## Master Dan (May 25, 2011)

miguksaram said:


> They did this because the general public didn't know what Taekwondo was. They knew, or at least heard of, karate. General public did not make any connection to sports back then.
> 
> BTW...how is your history research going?


 
Yes I understand the general public did not know what TKD was back then so Karate was used to get them in the door my premise back then people wanted self defense that was there motivation to come in at least in general some did want to be top sport fighters but SD was a secondary focus for all. My point is now Masters feel a need to once again use a different name related to TKD to once again get the general public to come in for what they percieve as wanting to learn as opposed to what they think is only TKD sport?


----------



## puunui (May 26, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Well once again you're right as rain.  Thanks for thinking about it though



Last question on the topic of Kong Soo Do: Who promoted GM Dunn to 8th Dan?


----------



## ralphmcpherson (May 26, 2011)

I really find it funny how some people become so obsessed with the history and politics of the art. GM kwok gim kim promoted such and such to 7th dan but fell out with some other kwan but GM dim sim went to okinawa with GM ul soon hook where the founders of such and such an art would meet under a tree to dicuss the third move in taugek 3 etc etc. Sometimes I think if people spent more time training and less time analysing each historical detail then tkd would be in better shape than it is currently. I can see why my GM ceased any involvement with all these orgs and politics.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 26, 2011)

ralphmcpherson said:


> I really find it funny how some people become so obsessed with the history and politics of the art. GM kwok gim kim promoted such and such to 7th dan but fell out with some other kwan but GM dim sim went to okinawa with GM ul soon hook where the founders of such and such an art would meet under a tree to dicuss the third move in taugek 3 etc etc. Sometimes I think if people spent more time training and less time analysing each historical detail then tkd would be in better shape than it is currently. I can see why my GM ceased any involvement with all these orgs and politics.


For some people, historicity of the art is their thing.  If anything, discussion boards lend themselves very well to such topics.

As they say, different strokes.

Daniel


----------



## miguksaram (May 26, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Mig, you're missing the point.  My comment was;


It wasn't that I was missing your point, it was your point was being made clear.  You talked about Korean history.  If you were talking about Korean Martial Art history then that is different and honestly I would agree with you.  However, you will find more and more that it is non-Korean instructors who tend to keep the 2000 year old myth alive.  Most of the Koreans, at least the ones that I have met, are quite upfront about their roots.



			
				KSD said:
			
		

> I know your spouse is Korean, and it seems sometimes you take it personally when anyone casts doubts (or simply says it like it is) on the practices of SOME Koreans...and many non-Koreans.


Actually you couldn't be further from the truth. First off I don't take any of this personally unless some brings into the conversation about my personal life.  Secondly, I have been one of the major proponents of setting the record straight about Korean Martial Art history.  I have called out BS on a lot of Korean and Non-Korean Masters out there.


			
				KSD said:
			
		

> I assure you that this is not meant to indict the entire culture and should not be taken that way.  I know Koreans (and others from that part of the world) that are wonderful, hospitable, honest etc.  The actions of a few trying to 'enhance' a particular art do not reflect on everyone.  Just wanted to clarify this with you because we've had many excellent discussions and I'd like to see that continue.


Though your intentions may not be to single out all Koreans, the postings that are done here tend to be generalized and not specific.  Just like your comment about Korean history.   This is not just aimed at you but others as well that say things like Koreans tend to rewrite their history or Koreans perpetuate the 2000 year old myth.  While there may be some that do, they have become few and far between.  



			
				KSD said:
			
		

> I would be happy to discuss this with you.  For starters, if you're interested, you can take a look at my section, 'Reality Check'.  This has some information in it that touches on the training.
> 
> In short, we train;
> 
> ...



Cool.  Your school sounds like a unique one and the it sounds like a nice system you have going, but ask yourself this...how many schools train that way?  My overall point about the whole sport aspect is that more schools train in scenarios with non-resistant opponents in an environment where they know what the "attacker" is going to do.  People in "sports" train just the opposite.  While limited with rules they are still facing non-resistant opponents, they are conditioning their bodies to accept the shock of being hit or thrown and they are preparing their minds to overcome fight/flight reaction.  So to me that seems to be a better type of training than the other.  While applaud you for taking it to the next level, not all schools are like that and to say sport training has not defensive value is just wrong.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 26, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Thank you Daniel,
> 
> 1. For me personally, I like Sanchin, Seisan and Sanseiryu as well as the Pinan series. The only one of these that I practice anymore (as a form) is Sanchin. It was my first and therefore just has a special place for me. The others are utilized for their bunkai.
> 
> It is not what I teach to students though (well, Sanchin I do...it is great for focus, conditioning etc). Over the years we developed a single form that covers 25 movements. These movements are a 'skeleton' of principles that cover common forms of attack (both empty hand and weapon defense). We then tailor the form to each student based upon their particular strengths and/or physical limitations.


Ah.  So you really are doing Korean karate., not taekwondo.



Kong Soo Do said:


> 2. For me personally it comes from multiple sources. First, from the arts I have trained in. Secondly, from the combatives or defensive tactics course I have earned an instructors rating. Thirdly, from other HL professionals that I have had the opportunity to train with and lastly from real world altercations. If I wouldn't use it personally, I don't teach it.
> 
> TKDish or HKDish? That answer would depend on the background of the particular TKD'er or HKD'er. We believe (when appropriate) that a strike should precede the attempt to lock, throw etc. By strike I mean it could be a 'stun' or it could be meant to cause damage. Again, as appropriate to the situation. The follow up depends on position and individual strengths. For example, I personally use joint locks in a major way, usually finger, wrist or elbow (into the shoulder and beyond of course). Joint locking for me is just natural as I've used it so often over the last three decades. I cannot recall ever kicking a person. But multiple times I've knee spiked people. As far as strikes, I have hardly ever used closed hands (for specific reasons), instead I prefer palm heel or edge-of-hand strikes (and forearms).


No arguements with any of that; I was just curious as to where you sourced your material.



Kong Soo Do said:


> 3 & 4.. We don't spar in the conventional sense. When we pad up we are in a scenario setting. The scenario isn't over until the attack has ceased (by whatever means is appropriate). So it isn't so much moving back and forth looking for an opening (such as in a boxing match or competition) but rather trying to deesculate, looking for cover/concealment, looking to disengage, looking for improvised weapons, looking for danger cues, nuetralizing the attack as quickly as possible etc. All as would be appropriate to the situation i.e. car-jacking, mugging at the ATM, attacked while jogging or answering your door etc.


Very nice.  I generally like to clarify where people are coming from when they say 'self defense.'  I have seen it said many times, including on this board, that 'sparring is self defense,' when really it isn't.  It simply allows you to try out techniques in a freeform setting.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Firearms training is also covered extensively.


None of that in my classes, mainly because I am not qualified to instruct anyone in fireamrs.  

Well, not entirely true; I can go through the gun catalogue with you and "instruct" you which firearm looks the coolest.  I prefer large caliber chromed out pistols; I find that they enhance one's appearance and give you that slick, video game look. 



Kong Soo Do said:


> http://excoboard.com/martialwarrior/148268
> 
> The link is to my teeny-tiny board. It is just a place for some of us to gather and talk (although anyone is welcome). The link above is specifically to my section, 'Reality Check' where I put my thoughts for anyone that may be interested. It is by no means complete, but I add to it as I'm able. We also have an SD section there as well with information that we utilize.
> 
> I hope this was helpful?


I will have to read through your site; haven't had time to as of yet, but you did answer all of my questions. 

Thank you,

Daniel


----------



## miguksaram (May 26, 2011)

Master Dan said:


> Yes I understand the general public did not know what TKD was back then so Karate was used to get them in the door my premise back then people wanted self defense that was there motivation to come in at least in general some did want to be top sport fighters but SD was a secondary focus for all.



This makes no sense.  How could people not know what TKD is but  yet would join a Korean Karate class because of an interest in the sport  aspect.  Martial art tournaments were very few and far between to generate any real interest in the sport aspect.  In fact during the mid 60's  and early 70's you would see TKD people entering into the big karate tournaments such as Long Beach Internationals or AKA Grand Nationals, and one more ran by a Korean GM who still has it today, but I cannot think of it off hand.  Regardless, the point is that "sport" was not common and "sport" TKD even less.



			
				Mst. Dan said:
			
		

> My point is now Masters feel a need to once again use a different name related to TKD to once again get the general public to come in for what they percieve as wanting to learn as opposed to what they think is only TKD sport?



Which masters are doing this? How many schools in your area are TKD schools but calling it a different name?  Any masters changing their art's name because of preconceived notions of what the public thinks are either frauds in their own right or have no confidence in their TKD abilities to begin with.  

Any TKD masters that are good teach TKD, not some eclectic name with a TKD curriculum.  

Oh and before anyone goes off and says I'm calling KSD a fraud or crappy teacher you can just stop there.  From what I gather in his posts about what he teaches, it is not TKD.  It is more of a modern fighting system which stemmed from his TKD background.  However, his curriculum does not strike me as TKD.  If he wants to give it some ancient name so be it.

On that note...you still didn't answer my question about the history research you were going to do to help prove the point about claims that Korean governmental positions were handed out by who could fight better.


----------



## miguksaram (May 26, 2011)

KSD said:
			
		

> I know your spouse is Korean...and you take this personally


Before I forget, let me just clear something up once and for all.  If anyone of you knew my wife you would know that my defense of what some people write about Koreans has nothing to do with her nationality.  While she still maintains a Korean culture type of mind she is the first to stand up against other Koreans that spew out BS about their history or culture.  

Between people trying use this to discredit anything I say or use the fact that I am involved in karate so how can I know about TKD, need to just STFU and stick to the facts of whatever debate we may be having because honestly it is just f'n annoying.  Those who try to use these two excuses really have no clue about me or my background in the martial arts.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 26, 2011)

Master Dan said:


> My point is now Masters feel a need to once again use a different name related to TKD to once again get the general public to come in for what they percieve as wanting to learn as opposed to what they think is only TKD sport?


I disagree.  The general public is fairly ignorant of the sport of taekwondo and of martial arts in general.  Taekwondo has no problem getting the general public in the door.  If anything, taekwondo on your shingle these days will bring in way more of the general public than anything else, including karate.  About the only add on naming that I see done is to get somone who can grapple and then claim MMA as an additional program, and that is not overly common from what I have seen.  

I think that school owners who use names distinct from taekwondo do so because they do not feel that their curriculum is best described by that name or are trying to reach a niche market.  The poster, Kong Soo Do, has basically described a karate program: he uses pinan forms coupled with an eclectic SD system and a sparring rule set that is different from that of WTF taekwondo.  Historical reasons behind the choice of name aside, it makes sense for him to use a different term, and Kong Soo Do is a fitting moniker.  

In other words, they didn't change the name to get people in the door, but in order to not bait and switch.  Honesty in advertising.

Daniel


----------



## puunui (May 26, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> For some people, historicity of the art is their thing.  If anything, discussion boards lend themselves very well to such topics.As they say, different strokes.



When I was a guep or even low dan holder, I wasn't interested in history all that much. I would scan the obligatory blurbs in books and magazine articles, but that is about it. I wasn't all that focused on kwans, dates, etc. because it didn't interest me at the time and I was focused on training and learning. Back then, there was an extreme shortage of information, unlike today, so you had to really work hard to get anywhere above mediocre. The hard part was getting the information. 

When I was in college, I used to play cards with my friends Peter, whose father was Ka of Kajukenbo, and Kevin, whose father was one of the first Kajukenbo black belts. Kevin's father later switched to Shotokan after Kanazawa Sensei came. Kevin's father was my Shotokan teacher, which is how I met Kevin, who introduced me to Peter, who was his high school classmate. 

Anyway, we were playing cards one day and we talked about Kajukenbo history. They both laughed and said that the standard history had serious factual errors and they started naming them off. I later met Peter's father, as well as some of the other Kajukenbo co-founders, and they painted a very different picture. 

It got me thinking about Korean Martial Arts history, so I re-read more closely the magazine articles and books that I had, with the understanding that it may be completely off base. I also realized that water from as near to the source as possible was the cleanest. 

For me, the study of history is a vehicle in which to meet pioneers and study with them. A lot of the time it may not involve actual technical instruction, but rather the steps they took during their journey as well as their developing philosophy. I find that history discussions is a good door opener for me. I notice that if you show an existing accurate knowledge base on history, correctly pronouncing names, etc., then the pioneers open up tremendously, in much the same way that Hattori Hanzo opened up to Uma Thurman when he realized she knew a lot. 

Personally, it has been my experience that the pioneers all have a strikingly similar view of history. They all same the same thing about people, events, etc. They also experienced success in the same fashion, by cooperating with each other. Of course certain ones took the lead on certain areas, according to their interest and ability, but they all worked together to get the ball moving so to speak. For them, Taekwondo was and is a team sport and the ones who thought that it was an individual sport, were eventually shut out and excluded from the process. 

There is a book out there called The Law of Success by Napoleon Hill. He was commissioned by Andrew Carnegie to research the principles of success by speaking with the movers and shakers of the day, which were his friends. Mr. Hill spoke to people such as John Rockefeller, Henry Ford, King Gillette, Theodore Roosevelt, etc. and other pioneers of the day over a twenty year period. He distilled from those discussions 15 general principles of success, which was published privately. 

I tried, unknowingly, to do the same thing by meeting the pioneers. Their story is quite remarkable when you think about it, children really of a war torn country who banded together and created the beautiful thing that is Taekwondo. 

But that is why I study history, not for history itself, but to gain accurate information about what exactly was involved in making the Korean Martial Arts the success that it is today, so that perhaps in the future I can or could do something to help continue that success, for at least one more generation.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 26, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> http://excoboard.com/martialwarrior/148268
> 
> The link is to my teeny-tiny board. It is just a place for some of us to gather and talk (although anyone is welcome). The link above is specifically to my section, 'Reality Check' where I put my thoughts for anyone that may be interested. It is by no means complete, but I add to it as I'm able. We also have an SD section there as well with information that we utilize.


I had a moment to check out your board.  I read the story at the top that you had written about sport and self defense.  The spirit of the article I agree with, though there were some particulars were I would differ with you.  

Daniel


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 26, 2011)

miguksaram said:


> If you were talking about Korean Martial Art history then that is different and honestly I would agree with you. However, you will find more and more that it is non-Korean instructors who tend to keep the 2000 year old myth alive.


 
I'm sure there are many around the world outside of Korea that 'enhance' TKD/TSD (or any other) for commercial gain.  My mind went to the the two Dojangs in my area (one TSD and the other TKD) that were Korean owned and did the 2000 year old thing.  But your certainly correct that others have followed in the foot steps of a few.  



> I have been one of the major proponents of setting the record straight about Korean Martial Art history. I have called out BS on a lot of Korean and Non-Korean Masters out there.


 
Very good then.  My perception had been otherwise but you've cleared it up and I consider it a non-issue now 



> Cool. Your school sounds like a unique one and the it sounds like a nice system you have going, but ask yourself this...how many schools train that way?


 
I can only speak for my area, but in general I'd say very few.  In our area we have a Uechi Ryu Dojo that I've heard good things about, Fred Crevello's Jujutsu that is top notch and an Aikido school that has been around for as long as I can remember that good things are spoken of about them.  I'm sure there has to be others???  But there are McDojos/McDojangs as far as the eye can see as well unfortunately.  And to be fair, there are not limited to just the TKD schools.  There is another Uechi Ryu school that has obtained a very bad reputation all the way back to Okinawa (literally).  



> While applaud you for taking it to the next level, not all schools are like that and to say sport training has not defensive value is just wrong.


 
On this point I will have to respectfully disagree with you for the reasons I've mentioned in this thread (and I think a few others).  Are sports competitors very conditioned?  Yes, well...many of them.  Can they perhaps take a punch?  Sure, no disagreement there.  Are they as prepared against an aggresive, determined attacker that does not abide by their rules or code of conduct?  I would strongly say 'no'.  

You mentioned in a previous post about 'doing a few push ups' etc.  And I would agree with you on this point.  My personal view is that one needs to be well conditioned in general and not just becuase of a defensive situation that may occur.  

Karl Gotch (catch-as-catch-can submission wrestling) use to teach in our area.  Prior to him even teaching a student the first thing, they would have to be able to perform 500 hindu squats and 250 hindu push ups.  I personally like that philosophy from a 'being well conditioned' stand point.

To that end, before I issue a BB anymore, the student needs to be able to perform a 1-20-1 pyramid with at least 4 of 8 different exercises.  Personally, I do squats/plea squats/lunge/calf raise/push up (various types such as hindu,dive bomber,sphinx,military etc)/pull up and/or chin up/dip and hanging crunch.  Although I will allow substitution exercises due to injury or physical limitation I don't age discriminate.  (Karl Gotch set the world record of 9001 hindu squats in 4 1/2 hours when in his 60's).

Just wanted to touch on the physical side for a moement.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 26, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I had a moment to check out your board. I read the story at the top that you had written about sport and self defense. The spirit of the article I agree with, though there were some particulars were I would differ with you.
> 
> Daniel


 
And I would be happy to discuss them with you if you like. 



> Ah. So you really are doing Korean karate., not taekwondo.


 
CMA's were actually my beginning, followed by OMA's and then KMA's.



> Very nice. I generally like to clarify where people are coming from when they say 'self defense.' I have seen it said many times, including on this board, that 'sparring is self defense,' when really it isn't. It simply allows you to try out techniques in a freeform setting.


 
Agreed.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 26, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> And I would be happy to discuss them with you if you like.


Most were fairly minor niggles.  Only two really stood out; 

never seen jutsu translated as method; skill, art, or science.  Not sure of the Japanese reading of the hanja, but in KMA method is beop, while skill/art/science is sul, which uses the Korean reading of the hanja/kanji used for jutsu.
There is no grading in olympic taekwondo.  If she was a second dan, it would have been in Kukkiwon Taekwondo, which does include a great number of hand techniques.  The girl in your article would have spared under WTF rules, which do allow punches, though only straight punches to the torso if I am correct.  I believe that backfists were scored at one pont as well (if they still are, someone please correct me).  Unless all those trophies were from forms competition, she would have had to have used her hands at some point.
Otherwise, as I said, I liked the spirit of the article.

Daniel


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 26, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Most were fairly minor niggles. Only two really stood out;
> 
> never seen jutsu translated as method; skill, art, or science. Not sure of the Japanese reading of the hanja, but in KMA method is beop, while skill/art/science is sul, which uses the Korean reading of the hanja/kanji used for jutsu.
> There is no grading in olympic taekwondo. If she was a second dan, it would have been in Kukkiwon Taekwondo, which does include a great number of hand techniques. The girl in your article would have spared under WTF rules, which do allow punches, though only straight punches to the torso if I am correct. I believe that backfists were scored at one pont as well (if they still are, someone please correct me). Unless all those trophies were from forms competition, she would have had to have used her hands at some point.
> ...


 
Thank you.  I'll take a look at the 'Jutsu' translation.  In regards to the second point, I appreciate the correction on the olympic/KKW point.  In regards to the 'hands-on' comment, what I was refering to was grasping someone for a grapple or balance displacement.  She did indeed use hand strikes.  I'll have to make that clarification in the article.  Thank you.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 26, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Thank you.  I'll take a look at the 'Jutsu' translation.  In regards to the second point, I appreciate the correction on the olympic/KKW point.


I'm no linguist, but I have done a goodly amount of research into terminology.  Pretty sure about jutsu.  

One consideration is that just because it has do at the end does not mean sport.  Hapkido traditionally had no sporting element and went through a good number of name changes before hapkido was landed on.  Likewise, Aikido does not traditionally have a sportive element either.  Pretty sure that Toshihiro Obata's Shinkendo doesn't either.  The more well known non-kendo based Korean sword arts have a 'do' suffix, such as Haidong Gumdo, and most of these are not sport oriented.  



Kong Soo Do said:


> In regards to the 'hands-on' comment, what I was refering to was grasping someone for a grapple or balance displacement.  She did indeed use hand strikes.  I'll have to make that clarification in the article.  Thank you.


Grappling and unbalancing is indeed a new ball game for someone who's only trained in strikes.  Should have been a good eye opener for her though; you learn pretty quick that there is more to defend against than just strikes.

Daniel


----------



## ralphmcpherson (May 26, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I disagree.  The general public is fairly ignorant of the sport of taekwondo and of martial arts in general.  Taekwondo has no problem getting the general public in the door.  If anything, taekwondo on your shingle these days will bring in way more of the general public than anything else, including karate.  About the only add on naming that I see done is to get somone who can grapple and then claim MMA as an additional program, and that is not overly common from what I have seen.
> 
> I think that school owners who use names distinct from taekwondo do so because they do not feel that their curriculum is best described by that name or are trying to reach a niche market.  The poster, Kong Soo Do, has basically described a karate program: he uses pinan forms coupled with an eclectic SD system and a sparring rule set that is different from that of WTF taekwondo.  Historical reasons behind the choice of name aside, it makes sense for him to use a different term, and Kong Soo Do is a fitting moniker.
> 
> ...


I can see where you're coming from Daniel and things may be different over there but I would say over here people are also quite ignorant of martial arts in general, but most people know tkd as "the one with all the fancy kicks and their hands down when they fight". I was surprised even my father described it as this when I first started and he knows very little about martial arts. People also use the internet a lot now when looking to start in a martial art and to say the general feeling on the net regarding tkd is negative is probably an understatement. I know a few people who have googled "is tkd good for real life self defence?" when looking for a martial art to start and  the general cosensus was "no". Our club has had to really distance itself from this perception in recent years.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (May 26, 2011)

puunui said:


> When I was a guep or even low dan holder, I wasn't interested in history all that much. I would scan the obligatory blurbs in books and magazine articles, but that is about it. I wasn't all that focused on kwans, dates, etc. because it didn't interest me at the time and I was focused on training and learning. Back then, there was an extreme shortage of information, unlike today, so you had to really work hard to get anywhere above mediocre. The hard part was getting the information.
> 
> When I was in college, I used to play cards with my friends Peter, whose father was Ka of Kajukenbo, and Kevin, whose father was one of the first Kajukenbo black belts. Kevin's father later switched to Shotokan after Kanazawa Sensei came. Kevin's father was my Shotokan teacher, which is how I met Kevin, who introduced me to Peter, who was his high school classmate.
> 
> ...


I liken it to guitar. I have been a guitar teacher for years and have played guitar my whole life and spent many years playing in bands, but I wouldnt have a clue when the guitar was invented, who invented it, why it was invented, what country it was invented in etc. And I can honestly say I have never had a student of mine ask me any of these questions. For me, martial arts are the same. I am there to train and get as good as I can, but have little or no interest in the origins of my art. I used to think it was because I am a relative beginner, but since then Ive met too many high dan holders who also have no interest in these matters. In fact, I had a good talk with my instructor (7th dan) recently and was surprised I know heaps more about the history/origins/politics in tkd than he did, and all that knowledge has come from what I read here. Basically, other than the fact tkd is korean, he knew nothing at all about it. I had to explain to one of our 5th dans what the difference between ITF and WTF is. Some would say they are ignorant, but as long as they know the material, are good instructors and good martial artists I dont think it really matters whether or not they know who the kukkiwon president is or what year tkd was invented or what the kwans are etc


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 26, 2011)

If your club is teaching taekwondo, then it should be called taekwondo.  If you want to qualify it (traditional, practical, whatever) in order to better describe what you do, then that is fine.  But if it is taekwondo, it should be called that.  

What Kong Soo Do describes is definitely not taekwondo.

Daniel


----------



## ralphmcpherson (May 26, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> If your club is teaching taekwondo, then it should be called taekwondo.  If you want to qualify it (traditional, practical, whatever) in order to better describe what you do, then that is fine.  But if it is taekwondo, it should be called that.
> 
> What Kong Soo Do describes is definitely not taekwondo.
> 
> Daniel


I agree. Clubs in my area now write SELF DEFENCE and then write tkd in small print underneath if they want to move away from the connatations associated with tkd. One tkd club in my area even sent out flyers where nowhere on the entire flyer was the word 'taekwondo' used but if you go to their premises they have tkd emblazoned on the front of the building but its in an industrial estate so you only see that once you have joined or have come along for a free lesson where they will see first hand that its not the sport stuff. I agree though, if its tkd then they should call it that.


----------



## Carol (May 27, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I'm no linguist, but I have done a goodly amount of research into terminology.  Pretty sure about jutsu.



Absolutely correct.

In Japanese the character &#34899; (ju·tsu, [SIZE=+1]&#12376;&#12421;&#12388;[/SIZE]) means art or skill.  

The same kanji &#34899; can indeed be used to mean "method" or "means".  However...when it carries this meaning, it is pronounced _su_·_be_ [SIZE=+1]&#12377;&#12409; [/SIZE]

Here is an example of the kanji as jutsu:
 [SIZE=+1]&#25163;&#34899; shujutsu -- literally translates to art/skill with one's hands...it is the Japanese word for surgery. Senjutsu (war arts/skills) is the Japanese word for tactics.

[/SIZE]Here is an example of the kanji as sube:
&#32654;&#12375;&#12356;&#34899;&#12288;Utsukushii Sube (Beautiful Method) -- name of a Japanese film.
You can see in the title when the trailer starts, the hiragana [SIZE=+1]&#12377;&#12409; [/SIZE]over the kanji show that &#34899; meaning "method" that is pronounced "sube" and not "jutsu"

[yt]U-ZbrtxK-fQ[/yt]

Same Kanji, two different pronunciations, two different meanings.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 27, 2011)

Carol said:


> Absolutely correct.
> 
> In Japanese the character &#34899; (ju·tsu, [SIZE=+1]&#12376;&#12421;&#12388;[/SIZE]) means art or skill.
> 
> ...


Why Carol, you demonstrate your linguistic-jutsu in such an effective sube!

Daniel


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 27, 2011)

Carol said:


> Absolutely correct.
> 
> In Japanese the character &#34899; (ju·tsu, [SIZE=+1]&#12376;&#12421;&#12388;[/SIZE]) means art or skill.
> 
> ...



Thank you for this


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 27, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> One consideration is that just because it has do at the end does not mean sport.  Hapkido traditionally had no sporting element and went through a good number of name changes before hapkido was landed on.  Likewise, Aikido does not traditionally have a sportive element either.  Pretty sure that Toshihiro Obata's Shinkendo doesn't either.  The more well known non-kendo based Korean sword arts have a 'do' suffix, such as Haidong Gumdo, and most of these are not sport oriented.
> 
> Daniel



Thank you, and I agree.  We played around with names for a while many years ago.  Initially there was concern with the 'Do' but in the end we felt the same as you.  I think in the past that there were profound differences between a 'Do' and a non-Do art but really not so much anymore.  

And Kong Soo Do just wasn't really much in use.  Oh, there were some KSD here and there, but it wasn't really 'out there' so-to-speak.  We felt it would be a good niche to label what we teach, allow us to put in all the locks, throws, chokes, cavity pressing etc, respect the Okinawan/Japanese connection and not step on anyone's toes at the same time.

I mean what was the alternative?  Old School TKD?  Combat TKD?  I dunno, KSD just seemed simpler and a better fit.

Although I did consider "Bait, Tackle and Kung Fu Emporium.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 27, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Thank you, and I agree. We played around with names for a while many years ago. Initially there was concern with the 'Do' but in the end we felt the same as you. I think in the past that there were profound differences between a 'Do' and a non-Do art but really not so much anymore.
> 
> And Kong Soo Do just wasn't really much in use. Oh, there were some KSD here and there, but it wasn't really 'out there' so-to-speak. We felt it would be a good niche to label what we teach, allow us to put in all the locks, throws, chokes, cavity pressing etc, respect the Okinawan/Japanese connection and not step on anyone's toes at the same time.
> 
> ...


As I said before, I think that it is appropriate regardless of your choice of forms; empty hand way is nicely generic and covers strikes, grapples, locks, etc.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (May 27, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> What Kong Soo Do describes is definitely not taekwondo.



I am curious why you think that.  To me, TKD has become as generic of a term as karate has given the wide range of what it encompasses, ranging from modern Olympic sparring competitions to old school Japanese kata practitioners.  

If Kong Soo Do had wanted to call his system Tae Kwon Do instead, I wouldn't bat an eyelid over it.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 27, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I am curious why you think that. To me, TKD has become as generic of a term as karate has given the wide range of what it encompasses, ranging from modern Olympic sparring competitions to old school Japanese kata practitioners.
> 
> If Kong Soo Do had wanted to call his system Tae Kwon Do instead, I wouldn't bat an eyelid over it.


Nor would I, though I disagree that taekwondo has become as generic a term as Karate.

Taekwondo is much more monolithic than karate, at least at this point in time.  Really, there are four main styles; Kukki taekwondo, Chang Hon taekwondo, Jhoon Rhee, and Songahm taekwondo.  The rest are spin offs of one of these.  Of the four, two (Jhoon Rhee and Songahm) are spin offs from Chang Hon.

Now, it _could_ become as generic a term as karate, but at this point, it would be very hard to make a strong case that it is now.

But if he chose to call it taekwondo, that would be his choice, though he'd have to explain himself to any students who might already be familiar with TKD, perhaps already practicing and looking for a new place to train, and to people who see 'TKD' on the door and expect the typical TKD school environment.

Though I suppose that the addition of the catch phrase, "Stike fast, strike hard, no mercy!" under your taekwondo sign would give people a clue that it isn't the usual fare.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (May 27, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Taekwondo is much more monolithic than karate, at least at this point in time.  Really, there are four main styles; Kukki taekwondo, Chang Hon taekwondo, Jhoon Rhee, and Songahm taekwondo.  The rest are spin offs of one of these.  Of the four, two (Jhoon Rhee and Songahm) are spin offs from Chang Hon.



There are *many* more styles of TKD than four, and with quite a few claiming a lineage other than KKW, ITF, Jhoon Rhee, or ATA.  Example:  Chayon-ryu which is rather interesting in that 1) the GM was a member of a couple of the kwans that merged to form TKD 2) the GM has KKW rank yet teaches the karate forms along with the Palgwe series and a few kwon bup forms too. The Chayon-ryu people actually wear patches that say something like College of Tae Kwon Karate(?) on them.  

I've also run in small clusters here and there of "Chung Do Kwan" TKD schools unaffiliated with the KKW that still also practice the Japanese forms.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Now, it _could_ become as generic a term as karate, but at this point, it would be very hard to make a strong case that it is now.



I think it depends on your perspective.  I think you might be too focused on the groups you establish as the main ones.  I like to look in the margins myself.  I think the small groups with less than a hundred members can be as viable as the KKW with its millions.

The blandness of TKD as a descriptor will get there in time.  You see this manifestation right now on the board with people mixing kenpo into TKD.  Or with me, adding ideas from Okinawan karate and aikido into a nominally TKD class with the usual expectations of sparring and one steps and the Chang Hon hyung.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> But if he chose to call it taekwondo, that would be his choice, though he'd have to explain himself to any students who might already be familiar with TKD, perhaps already practicing and looking for a new place to train, and to people who see 'TKD' on the door and expect the typical TKD school environment.



I would say that the so-called typical TKD school environment does not exist.  What does that phrase mean anyway?  Is Mr. Weiss' program in the Chicago rec system the same thing as a Jean Lopez US team training situation?  Is the local ATA Tiny Tiger program the same as an adult Texas Texkwondo program?  Obviously not.  

This is why people place a premium on transferability (too much IMO, but that's another discussion we've already had) and certifications.  It's so they can match up what they've been training in before with possibly a new school if they move.  In fact, the very idea of certification acknowledges that there is variation, sometimes greatly so, in what is called "tae kwon do/taekwondo".



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Though I suppose that the addition of the catch phrase, "Stike fast, strike hard, no mercy!" under your taekwondo sign would give people a clue that it isn't the usual fare.



The saying wouldn't have been out of place in the JR dojang I grew up in.  No, we weren't bullies like Kreese, but we did beat the heck out of each other.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 27, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I would say that the so-called typical TKD school environment does not exist. What does that phrase mean anyway? Is Mr. Weiss' program in the Chicago rec system the same thing as a Jean Lopez US team training situation? Is the local ATA Tiny Tiger program the same as an adult Texas Texkwondo program? Obviously not.


By typical, I mean the environment that seems to pervade the majority of commericial schools, regardless of style or organization.  I've been in enough TKD schools around the country that I have been able to pick out enough common threads to establish a typical school (typical is neither good nor bad).  Seen a good many atypical schools too, though.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (May 27, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> By typical, I mean the environment that seems to pervade the majority of commericial schools, regardless of style or organization.  I've been in enough TKD schools around the country that I have been able to pick out enough common threads to establish a typical school (typical is neither good nor bad).  Seen a good many atypical schools too, though.



Ah.  Well, I would argue that commercial schools actually display more tightly connected characteristics than any discussion of styles or substyles.  I bet you can show a so-called typical children's class from commercial Shaolindo, karate, and taekwondo studios to a lay person, and the lay person wouldn't be able to tell them apart.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 27, 2011)

The genericness or lack thereof of taekwondo would be an interesting topic of discussion on its own.  T'would be interesting to see the responses.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 27, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> Ah. Well, I would argue that commercial schools actually display more tightly connected characteristics than any discussion of styles or substyles. I bet you can show a so-called typical children's class from commercial Shaolindo, karate, and taekwondo studios to a lay person, and the lay person wouldn't be able to tell them apart.


Absolutely, and that is what I meant.

Daniel


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 27, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> ...
> Taekwondo is much more monolithic than karate, at least at this point in time. Really, there are four main styles; Kukki taekwondo, Chang Hon taekwondo, Jhoon Rhee, and Songahm taekwondo. The rest are spin offs of one of these. Of the four, two (Jhoon Rhee and Songahm) are spin offs from Chang Hon.
> ...
> Daniel


 
Is Chang Hon the older form of TKD, or did he change to that for his current teaching?  

I studied under Jhoon Goo Rhee in the mid 60s, not advancing far.  I didn't really follow any MA until the mid-80s, when I took up Hapkido.  When I was sent to the N. VA area, one day I saw that Jhoon Goo Rhee was opening a new school and he would be present.  I decided to go to meet him again and see if he remembered me.  Not too surprisingly, he did not, but invited me to get back in his school.  ;-)

I then stayed to see demonstrations of some of the students.  To say I was surprised would be an understatement.  He sure didn't teach that when I went.  It was pretty traditional then, and pretty exacting.  He spent two or three nights teaching me how to walk by having me go up and down the studio keeping my feet lined up with the outside of two different tile lines.  That was interesting.  ;-)


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 27, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> Is Chang Hon the older form of TKD, or did he change to that for his current teaching?
> 
> I studied under Jhoon Goo Rhee in the mid 60s, not advancing far. I didn't really follow any MA until the mid-80s, when I took up Hapkido. When I was sent to the N. VA area, one day I saw that Jhoon Goo Rhee was opening a new school and he would be present. I decided to go to meet him again and see if he remembered me. Not too surprisingly, he did not, but invited me to get back in his school. ;-)
> 
> I then stayed to see demonstrations of some of the students. To say I was surprised would be an understatement. He sure didn't teach that when I went. It was pretty traditional then, and pretty exacting. He spent two or three nights teaching me how to walk by having me go up and down the studio keeping my feet lined up with the outside of two different tile lines. That was interesting. ;-)


I'm pretty sure that Jhoon Rhee was using Chang hon forms early on.  I have an old Jhoon Rhee book that details some of the forms and I recognize the names as Chang Hon.  The system itself predates Jhoon Rhee taekwondo, and was developed by General Choi and his contemporaries in the ITF.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (May 27, 2011)

> Is Chang Hon the older form of TKD, or did he change to that for his current teaching?


It really depends on which version of Jhoon Rhee TKD you are talking about.

Jhoon Rhee is one of the more senior graduates from the Chung Do Kwan from before the kwan unification period that led to taekwondo.  Thus he would have originally studied Korean karate/Shotokan kata initially.

He moved to the US and was involved with General Choi's ITF for a while before ultimately separating to do his own thing.  For years he used the Chang Hon patterns and he even wrote a series of books published by Ohara that detailed their execution.  People from Jhoon Rhee's lines perform the patterns without the characteristic ITF sine wave because he had separated from General Choi well before sine wave had evolved into today's interpretation.

Mr. Rhee also developed his own set of patterns to be performed to music.  The forms depart to an extent from other forms of TKD, representing Mr. Rhee's preferences such as a high guard, etc.  Most dojang currently affiliated with Mr. Rhee use his original creations in their curriculum up to/including 1st degree black belt.  Afterwards, they start working in the Chang Hon forms.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 27, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> The genericness or lack thereof of taekwondo would be an interesting topic of discussion on its own.  T'would be interesting to see the responses.
> 
> Daniel



In the general Korean section yesterday I started a thread similar to this i.e. what is the common/general perception of TKD, HKD and TSD.  

No wrong answers, just wanted to see if there were any common threads.


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 27, 2011)

Thanks Daniel Sullivan and Dancingalone.  All that I think I remember is that we did what were called H forms at the white belt level.  We may have had one at the 8th Green, but I am not sure.  I surely don't recall any of the names of any of the forms at 7th Green.


----------



## dancingalone (May 27, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> Thanks Daniel Sullivan and Dancingalone.  All that I think I remember is that we did what were called H forms at the white belt level.  We may have had one at the 8th Green, but I am not sure.  I surely don't recall any of the names of any of the forms at 7th Green.



Sounds like you were among his first students if you studied with Mr. Rhee in the sixties.  Did you do the Taikyoku kata?  Many people call those h forms.  The first step is 90 degree turn to the left with a down block, then step forward with a right lunge punch.

Mr. Rhee himself was the head examiner at my chodan examination.  The forms we used then were the Chang Hon forms, although the very first one was a simple 8-count one called ''Kahm Sam Nee Da" or Thank You/Courtesy/Appreciation.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 27, 2011)

I've had a similar transition in Tang Soo Do.  My lineage goes back to the Moo Duk Kwan, however, in 2000, my teacher split off from the organization and simply called his art Tang Soo Do.  If you go to his school now, you might be hard pressed to find anything that represents any stereotype of Tang Soo Do.  The opening and closing ceremony are the same.  The use of hyung and Korean terminology (sometimes) would be the same, but other then that, it's going to be very different then what a person expects when they think about Tang Soo Do.

The same goes for my school.  When I opened my first school in 2001, I started to evolve away from what my teacher taught.  Things change and I've become more of a student of karate in general.  I've come to the point where I see what I do merging with an older view of kara te do and I pretty much use the term interchangeable with Tang Soo Do.  When I want to give a nod back to my lineage, I talk about Tang Soo Do.  When I want to talk about the present or the future, use the term kara-te do and I explain that they really just mean the same thing in the end.

Kong Soo Do sounds like he is doing something very similar.  Thoughts?


----------



## dancingalone (May 27, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> Kong Soo Do sounds like he is doing something very similar.  Thoughts?



I always got the impression you were reconnecting with Okinawan karate and judo/jujutsu through your expression of Tang Soo Do.  Kong Soo Do's training methodology seems more like advancing TKD/karate by embracing modern training theories, including those that go by the so-called 'reality based self-defense' moniker.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 27, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I always got the impression you were reconnecting with Okinawan karate and judo/jujutsu through your expression of Tang Soo Do.  Kong Soo Do's training methodology seems more like advancing TKD/karate by embracing modern training theories, including those that go by the so-called 'reality based self-defense' moniker.



Well, yeah, that's what I'm about as well.  I don't get into the RBSD genre.  However, I think that by reconnecting with those old roots, we are a more well rounded self defense art.  That's the similarity.


----------



## puunui (May 27, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> If your club is teaching taekwondo, then it should be called taekwondo.  If you want to qualify it (traditional, practical, whatever) in order to better describe what you do, then that is fine.  But if it is taekwondo, it should be called that.
> What Kong Soo Do describes is definitely not taekwondo.



The problem is that what the International Kong Soo Do Association does doesn't look like Kong Soo Do either. I saw a video of GM Dunn (the head of the IKA) demonstrating that one form that they have developed and what he was doing looked more like some sort of cross between wing chun and empty handed filipino martial arts than karate. I didn't watch the whole thing, but what I saw looked like something else. I tried to look for it again, but can't find it.


----------



## dancingalone (May 27, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> Well, yeah, that's what I'm about as well.  I don't get into the RBSD genre.  However,* I think that by reconnecting with those old roots, we are a more well rounded self defense art.*  That's the similarity.



I can't agree more.


----------



## puunui (May 27, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I always got the impression you were reconnecting with Okinawan karate and judo/jujutsu through your expression of Tang Soo Do.



One other thing that came up in my recent conversation with Gooden Sensei was the fact that "jujitsu", in its original form was techniques designed to fight against a fully armored samurai. He said that the idea was to take your armored opponent down to the ground and then stab him with a spike in the neck, or other area where the armor didn't cover. So for example, a "jujitsu" chop to the neck evolved from an ice pick grip dagger stab to the neck. We also had other conversations in the past in which he said that he wasn't a big believer in the pressure point knockout concept that so many practitioners are enamored with at the present.


----------



## dancingalone (May 27, 2011)

puunui said:


> One other thing that came up in my recent conversation with Gooden Sensei was the fact that "jujitsu", in its original form was techniques designed to fight against a fully armored samurai. He said that the idea was to take your armored opponent down to the ground and then stab him with a spike in the neck, or other area where the armor didn't cover. So for example, a "jujitsu" chop to the neck evolved from an ice pick grip dagger stab to the neck. We also had other conversations in the past in which he said that he wasn't a big believer in the pressure point knockout concept that so many practitioners are enamored with at the present.



Many of the techniques coming out of jujutsu make more sense if we try to learn more about their original usage in Japan.  Otherwise we run the risk of using a technique for a scenario which it was not designed or taught for originally.  This may not be a bad adaption towards our times for our needs, but understanding the original context can only help in my opinion.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 27, 2011)

puunui said:


> One other thing that came up in my recent conversation with Gooden Sensei was the fact that "jujitsu", in its original form was techniques designed to fight against a fully armored samurai. He said that the idea was to take your armored opponent down to the ground and then stab him with a spike in the neck, or other area where the armor didn't cover. So for example, a "jujitsu" chop to the neck evolved from an ice pick grip dagger stab to the neck. We also had other conversations in the past in which he said that he wasn't a big believer in the pressure point knockout concept that so many practitioners are enamored with at the present.



Patrick McCarthy establishes a pretty clear connection between jujutsu and karate, so I think that as we analyze our kata/hyung, we definitely need to take this into account.  My jujutsu sensei talks about these simulated motions all of the time with various two person kata we practice.  

As far as pressure point knockouts are concerned, I think this depends on the lineage.  I tend to trust people who have learned directly from Oyata sensei.  I went to a seminar he put on and saw and experienced some of this first hand.  So, it's not all fake...but the practice does lend itself to be practiced by charlatans.


----------



## puunui (May 27, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> Patrick McCarthy establishes a pretty clear connection between jujutsu and karate, so I think that as we analyze our kata/hyung, we definitely need to take this into account.



Jujutsu of what era? The warring period prior to the unification of Japan by Shogun TOKUGAWA Ieyasu? The Tokugawa era? Meiji restoration? Post Meiji? Do you have an example of a Jujitsu technique that an armored Samurai on a battlefield would use against another armored Samurai that has a corresponding equivalent in a Karate Kata? 




maunakumu said:


> As far as pressure point knockouts are concerned, I think this depends on the lineage.  I tend to trust people who have learned directly from Oyata sensei.  I went to a seminar he put on and saw and experienced some of this first hand.  So, it's not all fake...but the practice does lend itself to be practiced by charlatans.



Gooden Sensei said that Oyata Sensei is really the only one to be pushing the pressure point knockout theory, that other teachers in Okinawa are not doing it.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 27, 2011)

puunui said:


> The problem is that what the International Kong Soo Do Association does doesn't look like Kong Soo Do either. I saw a video of GM Dunn (the head of the IKA) demonstrating that one form that they have developed and what he was doing looked more like some sort of cross between wing chun and empty handed filipino martial arts than karate. I didn't watch the whole thing, but what I saw looked like something else. I tried to look for it again, but can't find it.


 
This isn't the first time this observation has been made, though the other times were in regards to a training DVD that I did several years ago.  I would submit that it definately doesn't look like what many/most would think of TKD.  For me personally, I'm more edge-of-hand, elbows and knee spikes as far as striking.  My locks and throws definately have more of an Aikijujutsu flavor (since I trained in AJJ extensively).  But I would submit that any/all of it could fit under the label of Kong Soo Do.  

More later


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 27, 2011)

And I would put my hand out to Puunui with this;  you seemed to have a unique depth of knowledge on the history of the Korean arts.  And I'm going to take a step back as far as history and state that I'm always happy to discuss this and learn something new or different.

With that said, perhaps is Puunui is willing to assist, I can perhaps go into more depth as far as history and our lineage and correct anything that I've misunderstood or is innacurate.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 27, 2011)

puunui said:


> Jujutsu of what era? The warring period prior to the unification of Japan by Shogun TOKUGAWA Ieyasu? The Tokugawa era? Meiji restoration? Post Meiji? Do you have an example of a Jujitsu technique that an armored Samurai on a battlefield would use against another armored Samurai that has a corresponding equivalent in a Karate Kata?



McCarthy writes in his translation of the Bubishi, "Receiving his menkyo (teaching certificate) in Jigen-ryu ken-jutsu from Ijuin Yashichiro, Matsumura was responsible for sythesisizing the uique teaching principles of Jige-ryu to the Chinese and native Okinawan fighting traditions he had also studied.  By doing so, Matsumura established the cornerstone upon which an eclectic self defense tradition surfaced in and around the castle district, which in 1927 became known as Shuri-te (Shuri hand)."  Page 84.  

McCarthy goes on to add that all of his disciples were trained in this tradition, including Funakoshi Gichin and his teachers.  When Mr. McCarthy interviewed the eleventh generation Jigen-ryu headmaster of the time, he is reported to have said, "there can be no question that Jigenryu is connected to Okinawa's domestic fighting traditions; however, the question remains, which influenced which!"

The research from a book is the easy part.  The real meat of your question is much more difficult to answer.  In all honestly, I can only guess at a connection between specific kata and techniques.  In my lineage, Hwang Kee learned the kata from books and from students associated with the Chung Do Kwan.  I have seen no direct evidence that any of the applications were taught with the kata, so I have no way exploring the historicity of certain moves through that avenue.

However, if I were to make an educated guess, a guess that I have vetted with a sensei in jujutsu and aikijutsu, our version of Chinto kata has exactly the move we are discussing.  Near the end of the kata, there is a grabbing motion and a 360 degree turn followed by a simultaneous knife hand strike and kick.  This technique is similar to technique called shihonage, which is a common technique in aikijutsu and jujutsu styles.  The knife hand strike simulates the strike to the unprotected part of the neck and the kick could be deleted entirely or inserted in many places during the application sequence.  

At this time, I am unable to determine if this is an actual Jigen Ryu technique.  I suspect that it is and other people who have more experience then me, expect that it is as well.  Since Chinto is one of the forms handed down to our style by Matsumura, there is a chance that this technique could be a remnant of that style.



puunui said:


> Gooden Sensei said that Oyata Sensei is really the only one to be pushing the pressure point knockout theory, that other teachers in Okinawa are not doing it.



Pressure points are included in the Bubishi and were included in many of the old texts written by past masters.  No one in Hawaii teaches the way that Oyata teaches, to my knowledge, but on the mainland, when I lived in Minnesota, one of his top students (Mike Cline) lived in my state and many of his students filtered out from there.  

I had a good discussion with a former member of this board (Robert Rousselot - a long time student of Oyata sensei) that concurred with I have learned about the matter.  A lot of what we see as pressure point techniques are charlatanry.  The real stuff is simple and direct and it works.  

Here's an interesting video that shows that it's more then just Oyata Sensei teaching it in the karate world.






Higaonna Sensei teaches this as part of Goju-ryu.  From what I've been able to gather from other Goju practitioners it's similar to what Oyata does.  It's another area that I'd like to know a lot more about.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 28, 2011)

While preparing the lineage of the Mu Shin Kwan (Kong Soo Do) several years ago, I found it challenging to actually obtain a clear and concise path of progression from one source to the other when it came to the Korean influence.  Speaking with Puunui this last week or so gave me the motivation to take a look at some of the information provided along with just a few of the resources I had on-hand (some is packed away).  I also went to the net to see what is 'out there'.  It seems to me just as confusing and contradictory as it was years ago when I started.

I would like to state upfront that this in NO way is meant to put Puunui on the spot or to suggest he is wrong in his facts.  I post this to indicate that there is quite a bit of information out there on the net, in print and by people's perspective, memory and experience that doesn't always jive.  Again, NO disrespect meant to Puunui or anyone, simply stating that sometimes you don't which book/article/person to believe. 

For example, I listed this in the official lineage;



> Gichin Funakoshi taught Shotokan Karate to Chun, Sang Sup at the College at Dong Yang Chuck Sik (Takushoku) University in Japan in the early to mid 1930's. Upon his return to Korea in 1940, he taught Kwon Bop Kong Soo Do at various locations. On March 3, 1946 he officially opened up the Chosen Yun Moo Kwan and began teaching Shotokan Karate under the Korean name of Kong Soo Do. Unfortunately he was abducted during the Korean War (1950 - 1953) and was never heard from again.
> 
> From 1947 to 1950 Chun, Sang Sup taught Kong Soo Do to Kyo Yoon Lee who founded the Han Moo Kwan in August of 1954. Both the Yun Moo Kwan and the Han Moo Kwan were among the original Kwans formed in Korea after World War II.   The name of the art eventually changed to Taekwondo. GM Lee is currently ranked at 9th Dan and is an instrumental part of the Kukkiwon.  *There is also evidence to connect Dr. Yoon Kwe Byung, a student of Kenwa Mabuni (a police officer) and founder of Shito Ryu to the lineage.  Dr. Yoon was the first president of the Jidokwan (some state the second).  The Han Moo Kwan officially disclaims connection to the Jidokwan, but other evidence suggests they had a close relationship, with the Jidokwan preceeding the Han Mu Kwan.  Indeed Dr. Yoon was the chief instructor of the Han Mu Kwan in Tokyo in 1947.*  Evidence also suggests that Shito Ryu had a profound influence on the arts taught.
> 
> GM Lee taught Kyu In Baik and In Hue Won. This style of Taekwondo was a very powerful art, no different than Shotokan Karate. However, during the late 1980's it began a transition to more of a sport related art.



In commenting on the part in bold above, According to a 1997 interview with Great-Grandmaster (also called Supreme Grandmaster) Lee, Chong Woo of the Jidokwan in 'World Taekwondo' magazine the following comments were made;



> After graduating from college, Chun, Sang Sup returned to Korea, and started to teach Taekwondo to black belt Judo trainees in the Yun Moo Kwan, which was located in Soo Song Dong, Seoul at the time. Lee, Kyung Suk was the grand master of the Yun Moo Kwan during that time and Cho Sun Yun Moo Kwan was a Judo dojang.
> 
> After the surrender of Japan in world war II in August 15th, 1945, Cho Sun Yun Moo Kwan moved there location from the Soo Song Dong to So Gong Dong, where the Japanese Gang Duk Kwan used to be located, and officially announced the opening of the Cho Sun Yun Moo Kwan as branch of the Korea Taekwondo.
> 
> ...



So according to Grandmaster Lee, Chong Woo, Grandmaster Lee, Kyo Yun (Yoon), founder of the Han Moo Kwan, joined the Jidokwan.

Interview

Yet according to other sources, such as the wikipedia source on Han Moo Kwan;



> Lee was a student at the Chosun Yun Moo Kwan Kwon Bop Bu, learning from its founder, Sang Sup Chun. Later, after the Korean War Armistice Agreement was signed in 1953, Lee started teaching the returning Yun moo Kwan Kwon Bop Bu members at the Hankuk Chaeyuk Kwan Dojang. He had conflicts with Chong Woo Lee and left to start his own annex Kwan by setting up a tent at a High School. Later, Chong Woo Lee changed the Yun mooKwan Kwon Bop Bu's name to Jidokwan. Kyo Yoon Lee states that Han Moo Kwan is from Choson Yunmoo Kwan Kwon Bop Bu, not Jidokwan



Wiki page

So was the Han Mu Kwan part of the Jidokwan?  Was the falling out between Chong Woo Lee and Kyo Yoon Lee the reason the story was changed later?  Or is Chong Woo Lee wrong?

Some sources credit Dr. Yoon Kwe Byung as being the first president of the Jidokwan while others the second.

For example, Puunui states in the thread, "What is tkd"? in post #38;



> Dr. YOON Kwe Byung (2nd President of the Jidokwan)



Dr. Yoon Kwe Byung

Jidokwan history

Also, Dakin Burdick states in his JAMA article (Taekwondo's Formative Years, vol. 6, number 1) that Dr. Yoon Kwe Byung founded the Jidokwan in 1946, pg. 36.

Looking at the term 'Kong Soo Do', according to Marc Tadeschi in the book, Taekwondo Traditions, Philosophy, Technique, he states that of the original Kwan:


Song Mu Kwan
Chang Mu Kwan
Yon Mu Kwan
Chidokwan
...all used the term Kong Soo Do in addition to Kwon Bup.  Furthermore, Dakin Burdick also cites several instances of the various Kwans using the term 'Kong Soo Do';



> ...while kongsudo would eventually go through the greatest changes of all, developing into tangsudo and taekwondo. (pg. 35)



On page 37, he discusses the efforts of the ROK to organize the various styles of kongsudo with the first conference on unification taking place in 1946 but not until the 1950's was the Korea Kongsudo Association formed.  

On page 38, he discusses how the organization fell into disarray due to dissension from within (which seems to be  a common theme) but that the Chongdokwan continued to use the term 'Kong Soo Do' up until 1962.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 28, 2011)

I split off discussions regarding pressure points and Tang Soo Do's jujutsu connection into new threads.

Tang Soo Do's Jujutsu connection

Skepticism of Pressure Point use in Karate


----------



## puunui (May 28, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> *There is also evidence to connect Dr. Yoon Kwe Byung, a student of  Kenwa Mabuni (a police officer) and founder of Shito Ryu to the lineage. *


First of all, Mabuni Senseiwas a police officer when he was 18 years old in Okinawa. I am sure he probably did train in Toudejutsu more for self defense purposes than competition since, there really was no competition back then. But his service as a policeman was probably different than what you might think of. Okinawa is an extremely non-violent place, and he would have acted more in the capacity of the sheriff or deputy in Mayberry RFD than a beat cop in Harlem. So I don't know how often, if ever, during his short career as a police officer, whether he actually had to use his martial arts for self defense.




Kong Soo Do said:


> *Dr. Yoon was the first president of the Jidokwan (some state the  second).  *


The Jidokwan traces its roots to the Chosun Yun Moo Kwan Kwon Bup Bu, which was founded by GM CHUN Sang Sup. During or after the Korean War, the name was changed to Jidokwan. The Jidokwan name was never used during the time GM Chun was in charge. Dr. Yoon, who took over the Kwan after GM Chun, could be the first or second president of the Jidokwan, depending on whether you count GM Chun as the first Jidokwan President or not. 





Kong Soo Do said:


> *The Han Moo Kwan officially disclaims connection to the  Jidokwan, but other evidence suggests they had a close relationship,  with the Jidokwan preceeding the Han Mu Kwan.  Indeed Dr. Yoon was the  chief instructor of the Han Mu Kwan in Tokyo in 1947.*



There is no connection between the Hanmookwan in Japan and the Han Moo Kwan in Korea. When Dr. Yoon lived in Japan, he founded a club which was called "Kanbukan" (Han Moo Kwan in Korean). It was not so much a formal school as it was a place for Korean borns living in Japan to train and work out. There were Shotokan members, as well as those who trained in Judo and I believe Aikido as well. The school still exists and is now called Renbukan. The Kanbukan and Renbukan's method of sparring was to use equipment and go full contact. They wore hogu, head gear, cup, as well as gloves, forearm pads, shin guards, similar to what Taekwondo competitors look like today and similar to the equipment which Mabuni Sensei is wearing in that famous picture from his book (which I have). Dr. Yoon, along with GM HWANG Kee, led the first Japan Korea sparring exchanges in the early 1960's. After the first one, they brought back four sets of chest protectors, which was adopted by the KTA for its tournaments. So Mabuni Sensei did have a profound influence on Taekwondo, that influence being in the competition format and not self defense. The Taekwondo pioneers have great respect for Mabuni Sensei and consider him a martial arts genius, for his input, into sparring. 



Kong Soo Do said:


> GM Lee taught Kyu In Baik and In Hue Won.



I believe GM Won's name is spelled GM WON In Hui. He was very active in the USTU as a referee. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> So according to Grandmaster Lee, Chong Woo, Grandmaster Lee, Kyo Yun (Yoon), founder of the Han Moo Kwan, joined the Jidokwan.



What GM LEE Chong Woo is saying is that GM LEE Kyo Yun was a student of GM CHUN Sang Sup at the Chosun Yun Moo Kwan, and later founded the Han Moo Kwan. GM Lee considers the Jidokwan as a continuation of the Chosun Yun Moo Kwan Kwon Bup Bu, so to him the Jidokwan and Yun Moo Kwan are the same thing. But to GM LEE Kyo Yun, he considers the Jidokwan and Yun Moo Kwan to be two separate things, because from his point of view, his only influence and his only teachers came from the Yun Moo Kwan, and not the later stages when it was called the Jidokwan. 



Kong Soo Do said:


> So was the Han Mu Kwan part of the Jidokwan?  Was the falling out between Chong Woo Lee and Kyo Yoon Lee the reason the story was changed later?  Or is Chong Woo Lee wrong?



The story wasn't changed. It is a difference in interpretation of the facts, but the facts remain the same, if that helps you. One thing to distinguish is to discern the difference between facts, and opinions. If it is an opinion, then try to find out the facts upon which the opinions are based. But always start with the facts. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> Some sources credit Dr. Yoon Kwe Byung as being the first president of the Jidokwan while others the second.



See above. 



Kong Soo Do said:


> Also, Dakin Burdick states in his JAMA article (Taekwondo's Formative Years, vol. 6, number 1) that Dr. Yoon Kwe Byung founded the Jidokwan in 1946, pg. 36.



I would disregard anything written from Dakin Burdick. He doesn't know what he is talking about. I already wrote posts about the inaccuracies of his information and perspective. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> Looking at the term 'Kong Soo Do', according to Marc Tadeschi in the book, Taekwondo Traditions, Philosophy, Technique, he states that of the original Kwan:
> 
> 
> Song Mu Kwan
> ...



Again, disregard what Dakin Burdick says. Reading his stuff will only lead to confusion. The Song Moo Kwan, Chang Moo Kwan and Chidokwan did use the term Kong Soo Do, in the 1950's. The Yun Moo Kwan used the term Kwon Bup and never used the term Kong Soo Do, when it was active, in the 1940's. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> On page 37, he discusses the efforts of the ROK to organize the various styles of kongsudo with the first conference on unification taking place in 1946 but not until the 1950's was the Korea Kongsudo Association formed.



That meeting occurred in April 1946. Attending were GM LEE Won Kuk and GM RO Byung Jick from the Tang Soo Do Chung Do Kwan and GM YOON Byung In and GM CHUN Sang Sup from the Chosun Yun Moo Kwan Kwon Bup Bu. GM Yoon was teaching at the Yun Moo Kwan until September 1946 when he opened his own school at the Seoul YMCA. They tried to see if they could combine and work together, but their styles were so different as to make them incompatible. GM Lee and GM Ro were pure Shotokan, while GM Yoon and GM Chun were more eclectic. The Korea Kong Soo Do Association was briefly around in the early 50's but disbanded early on. 



Kong Soo Do said:


> On page 38, he discusses how the organization fell into disarray due to dissension from within (which seems to be  a common theme) but that the Chongdokwan continued to use the term 'Kong Soo Do' up until 1962.



Dissension was a common theme in the early part of Taekwondo's history, when people were still doing their own thing. But that was later resolved and the kwans did unify, first under the KTA and then later the Kukkiwon.


----------



## hoshindo (May 28, 2011)

[The Korea Kong Soo Do Association ]

" So that's where Korean Karate came from"
    Korea Karate-do Association


----------



## puunui (May 28, 2011)

hoshindo said:


> [The Korea Kong Soo Do Association ]
> 
> " So that's where Korean Karate came from"
> Korea Karate-do Association



I think the popularity of the term "Korean Karate" in the US came from the two best selling books of the same name, written by GM SON Duk Sung and GM CHO Sihak back in the 1960's.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 28, 2011)

I appreciate it Puunui.  This gives an example of how contradictory it appears on the surface, and even on review.  For example, the different conflicts that arose during that time, what appears to be different stories etc.  And it is often difficult to know what is a good resource, and what isn't.  You say that Dakin Burdick isn't to be believed.  And I'm not doubting you, I don't know him.  But the JAMA is suppose to be a 'scholarly' work that is peered reviewed, so at least on the surface it looks like a trusted source.  He and Tedeschi agree on some points in regards to the term KSD.  

Sigh, just when you think you've got it nailed down...


----------



## puunui (May 28, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> And it is often difficult to know what is a good resource, and what isn't.  You say that Dakin Burdick isn't to be believed.  And I'm not doubting you, I don't know him.  But the JAMA is suppose to be a 'scholarly' work that is peered reviewed, so at least on the surface it looks like a trusted source.  He and Tedeschi agree on some points in regards to the term KSD.



The best sources are those with first hand first person perspectives. Dakin Burdick and Mark Tedeschi agree because they use the same source or each other -- Cocoran and Farkas. A lot of people cite their work, inadvertently and/or knowingly. Just because it is in JAMA doesn't mean that everything in there is accurate.


----------



## puunui (May 29, 2011)

A better name for what you are doing would be Kwon Bup, not Kong Soo Do. Kwon Bup, if you trace your lineage through Han Moo Kwan GM LEE Kyo Yun, would not be in doubt. The two individuals who used Kwon Bup for the name of their art, GM CHUN Sang Sup and GM YOON Byung In, were eclectic martial artists with a varied background which includes training in Manchuria as well as Japan. You also avoid the competition focus of both Dr. YOON Kwe Byung (who is not in your lineage) and also MABUNI Kenwa Sensei. You can legitimately say that your path is in a way a continuation of what GM Yoon and GM Chun were doing in the 1940's. No one is really using that art name anymore, so there wouldn't be any conflict with anyone, unlike Kong Soo Do, which is still being used by at least one group dedicated to the idea and goal of getting Karate in the Olympics.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 29, 2011)

puunui said:


> A better name for what you are doing would be Kwon Bup, not Kong Soo Do. Kwon Bup, if you trace your lineage through Han Moo Kwan GM LEE Kyo Yun, would not be in doubt. The two individuals who used Kwon Bup for the name of their art, GM CHUN Sang Sup and GM YOON Byung In, were eclectic martial artists with a varied background which includes training in Manchuria as well as Japan. You also avoid the competition focus of both Dr. YOON Kwe Byung (who is not in your lineage) and also MABUNI Kenwa Sensei. You can legitimately say that your path is in a way a continuation of what GM Yoon and GM Chun were doing in the 1940's. No one is really using that art name anymore, so there wouldn't be any conflict with anyone, unlike Kong Soo Do, which is still being used by at least one group dedicated to the idea and goal of getting Karate in the Olympics.



Kwon Bup = Fist Law?

In regards to GM Chun Sang Sup, do you have information on his training in Manchuria and Japan?

In regards to KSD, is it not still generic enough a label even without the sporting aspect (though we do have one school in the association that separates training and attends comps).   Taekwondo for example (although not as generic a term) can be used to cover both sport and SD types of schools.  And musing further to toss the thoughts on the table, GM Chun Sang Sup had Japanese training as you've mentioned above.  One of the things we liked about KSD is the connection with karate(do).  As an eclectic martial artist, one would wonder if GM Chun Sang Sup (had he survived) would have eventually changed and used the term TKD like the other Kwans.  And going further, even if he didn't use KSD (as you state and I don't dispute), he didn't initially use Kwon Bup either.  Rather, he used whatever his Manchurian/Japanese training was called and then changed to Kwon Bup.  Thus change seems to be one martial constant.  

What I'm saying is that the use of the term KSD in no way disrespects those that came before us in the lineage.  And since our training is now very different from our closest link in the lineage chain (Han Moo Kwan), it also shows respect to them by giving them the respectful identification yet not using their name directly.  Either as a 'Kwan' or as an art name.  Some using KSD with a sport influence shouldn't be a deal breaker as we've specified a further separation using the MSK KSD label to differentiate ourselves from other KSD schools.  This way, we stay nicely generic, step on no ones toes and maintain our own distinct identity to build on.

Your assistance allows me to restructure our lineage with this corrected information, and thank you.  As mentioned, any information on GM Chun Sang Sup's training would be an aid as well (and interesting).  Many thanks.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 29, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Kwon Bup = Fist Law?



I like it!  Korean Kempo!


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 29, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Kwon Bup = Fist Law?



Fist method in this context.

Daniel


----------



## mastercole (May 29, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> This isn't the first time this observation has been made, though the other times were in regards to a training DVD that I did several years ago.  I would submit that it definately doesn't look like what many/most would think of TKD.  For me personally, I'm more edge-of-hand, elbows and knee spikes as far as striking.  My locks and throws definately have more of an Aikijujutsu flavor (since I trained in AJJ extensively).  But I would submit that any/all of it could fit under the label of Kong Soo Do.
> 
> More later



I would not use the Kong Soo Do name, unless I was actually doing Kong Soo Do, and was an actual member. It has already been in use for a long, long time.

Recently while in Korea, I watched collegiate members of the "Dae Han Kong Soo Do Yun Meng" training in Seoul.  The coach told me they were training for some inner collegiate friendship game coming up in Daegu. I was very impressed and thought how good some of their kicking was and how much it looked like Taekwondo.  Then I watched a girl, looked to be a bantam weight, do Bassai Dai, also impressive, but different than Poomsae.  They were cool and gave me a uniform patch and pin.

To see photos from the Korea Kong Soo Do Associations recent event, check out this link. You can even read the KONG SOO DO in Hangul on the banners.

http://www.mookas.com/media_view.asp?news_no=11446


----------



## puunui (May 29, 2011)

mastercole said:


> I would not use the Kong Soo Do name, unless I was actually doing Kong Soo Do, and was an actual member. http://www.mookas.com/media_view.asp?news_no=11446



That's what I said. In Korea, the term Kong Soo Do is not an all encompassing generic term, but a specific term for a specific kind of art, which is focused on competition.


----------



## mastercole (May 30, 2011)

puunui said:


> That's what I said. In Korea, the term Kong Soo Do is not an all encompassing generic term, but a specific term for a specific kind of art, which is focused on competition.



They even hold membership in the Olympic Karate movement, so they are internationally recognized.

http://www.wkf.net/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=54


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 30, 2011)

I appreciate all of the valued input that has gone into this thread.  I would like to quote GM Dunn's post on Martial Warrior to the instructors withing the IKSDA for their review;



> Nigel, not to worry,  your still our guy down under. Believe me, I know what your going  through. It's very hard to dislodge already existing mindsets when  dealing with martial arts. For KSD to make in roads, even here in the  states, is a daunting prospect and we've had/are having our share of  problems. Even as we speak, we are engaged in a discussion on the  term/title of Kong Soo Do and we are being educated by some fairly  knowledgeable folks. We have been advised that there is in fact a  sanctioned Korean KSD organization, that is basically a sports  orientated martial art on the same vain as TKD. This has given us pause  to re-evaluate us using KSD as a heading/label for what we are  attempting to accomplish, which is to offer a straight forward self  defense organizational platform for those that wish to disassociate  themselves from the stigma of sport and baby sitting.
> 
> So with this aspect now in place, I would like every member to give  their feed back on a new proposal. We had used the offering of TaeKido  in the past, but really could not find a meaningful word(s) association  for it. The term TaeKido is a derivative of blending the titles of  TaeKwondo and Hapkido together, thus giving us TaeKido. Now there are  other venues using this title, but they are totally associated with  Japanese arts backgrounds. Really don't know how they came to  incorporate the term, but they are single schools located in Australia  and Germany and would in no foreseeable way interchange with us, if we  decided to use this name again. My/our sole intention is to not infringe  historically on misusing terminology, that seems to bring out the ire  in those that focus on the history aspects of the arts. We surely wish  to not be labeled as folks, who don't know or understand the historical  attributes associated with martial arts and our own venue within them.  David has done a masterful job of researching history and offering a  lineage profile, but he/we have still managed to miss important aspects  that will/have negative computations if we continue to use them as they  are currently offered. I/we want folks to look at us and determine that  we offer sound historical relevance and a sound applicable martial arts  platform, that folks can readily identify with and have no reservations  about participating in.


As GM Dunn mentions, we previously used the term '*Taekido*' to describe our martial offering.  Taekido was simply a blending of Taekwondo and Hapkido (several of our folks have ranking in both).  On the surface, Taekido sounds pretty straight-forward.  The only problem we potentially saw was that 'Taekido' doesn't have any meaning translation-wise.  We weren't sure if it would be appropriate???  We considered *Taekido Karate* as well.  Something that doesn't step on anyone's toes or infringe on what they're doing, is sufficiently generic enough to use but specific enough to identify with and we can use to forward our specific SD goals. 

Or should we simply go back to Taekwondo and/or Hapkido?  Our lineage does go through the Han Moo Kwan, but doesn't necessarily look like HMK TKD since they now really focus on sport (for decades now).  We do/have used the Mu Shin Kwan which better describes what we do as far as TKD and/or HKD.

Your helpful comments and/or suggestions would be appreciated.  Thanks everyone.


----------



## puunui (May 30, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Or should we simply go back to Taekwondo and/or Hapkido?  Our lineage does go through the Han Moo Kwan, but doesn't necessarily look like HMK TKD since they now really focus on sport (for decades now).  We do/have used the Mu Shin Kwan which better describes what we do as far as TKD and/or HKD.



I think you should change the name to Kwon Bup. Kwon Bup Mu Shin Kwan. Even your form looks similar to what GM YOON Byung In taught. There is footage of GM KIM Soo practicing a two man set on the internet somewhere. Try looking at that.


----------



## puunui (May 30, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> In regards to GM Chun Sang Sup, do you have information on his training in Manchuria and Japan?




GM LEE Chong Woo says that GM Chun learned Shotokan Karate at Takushoku University in Japan. GM LEE Won Kuk said that GM Chun and GM Yoon would travel to Manchuria for training after WWII but before the Korean War. GM Lee said that they would frequently travel to Manchuria to train, that they were like brothers, and they were so close that it was difficult to tell which was which, because they were so similar. GM Chun might have learned Karate (Kong Soo Do) in Japan, but when he opened his school, it was under the name Kwon Bup, not Kong Soo Do, mainly I think because of GM Yoon, who taught at the Yun Moo Kwan for six months before opening his own club at the YMCA.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 30, 2011)

puunui said:


> I think you should change the name to Kwon Bup. Kwon Bup Mu Shin Kwan. Even your form looks similar to what GM YOON Byung In taught. There is footage of GM KIM Soo practicing a two man set on the internet somewhere. Try looking at that.


 
That's a good suggestion, and thanks to you it would be historically correct.  But my concern is that Kwon Bup isn't as well know outside of Korea as perhaps other labels.  Whereas something like 'Korean Karate' doesn't need much explanation (from a name recognitions stand point), Kwon Bup might leave a lot of people scratching their heads.


----------



## puunui (May 30, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> That's a good suggestion, and thanks to you it would be historically correct.  But my concern is that Kwon Bup isn't as well know outside of Korea as perhaps other labels.  Whereas something like 'Korean Karate' doesn't need much explanation (from a name recognitions stand point), Kwon Bup might leave a lot of people scratching their heads.



I don't think many people understand what Kong Soo Do is either, and I would think that would leave a lot of people scratching their heads as well. I think any name you choose will have people scratching their heads. they might understand what "kenpo" is, and I guess you could say that Kwon Bup is the Korean pronunciation for Kenpo, which is true.

Another suggestion would be Hoshinsul, which roughly translates to self defense. That might be an appropriate name for what you are doing.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 30, 2011)

puunui said:


> I don't think many people understand what Kong Soo Do is either, and I would think that would leave a lot of people scratching their heads as well. I think any name you choose will have people scratching their heads. they might understand what "kenpo" is, and I guess you could say that Kwon Bup is the Korean pronunciation for Kenpo, which is true.
> 
> Another suggestion would be Hoshinsul, which roughly translates to self defense. That might be an appropriate name for what you are doing.


 
We had considered Hoshinsul at one time.  The concern was using it as the actual name for the art.  

We could always return to TKD and/or HKD.  Hapkido is fairly well thought of as SD (there are exceptions of course, but by and large it is considered to be an effective for of personal protection).  As far as TKD...well, there is always something like 'old school' TKD or something to sort of give the person some indication that it isn't centered around competitions.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 30, 2011)

Post deleted:  Got the answer on a different board


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 30, 2011)

Our school owners discussed it via phone and/or on the net.  The concensus was that we're already established (or are becoming established) in our respective areas.  Some more than others of course.  We've been with this label for too long now to change it out.  Although the Yon Mu Kwan probably didn't use the term, and although there exists a KSD organization within Korean, everyone still feels it is a generic enough niche.  We have on the website already what our focus is so that those searching can readily know our goals.  That will ensure we aren't confused with the sport-centered Korean group using the label.  It will also serve to separate us from any other group using the label.  

Looking back at all the pages of this thread I've seen several people supportive and understanding of what we've done and what our goals are.

I'd like to thank Puunui and Master Cole for their valued input.  It was very seriously considered.  As Puunui once mentioned, we're into the pot so-to-speak i.e. commited to the name.  Besides, it's just not possible to change my screen name on Martial Warrior (just kidding)

Thank you for your input.


----------



## mastercole (May 30, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Our lineage does go through the Han Moo Kwan, but doesn't necessarily look like HMK TKD since they now really focus on sport (for decades now).  We do/have used the Mu Shin Kwan which better describes what we do as far as TKD and/or HKD.




Han Moo Kwan is a fraternal order, actually it is so small now that they do not have an annual gathering anymore. So when we speak about Han Moo Kwan these days, we are really talking about GM Lee.

Several times I have been to what could be considered the main Han Moo Kwan dojang in Seoul, the Dongdaemoon Dojang, and they are not focused on tournaments. What I did see there was Poomsae and Mommakki (Hoshinsul). 

Grandmaster Lee's focus is not on tournaments either. He writes very little about competitions. As a man in his 80's, he is very old school. I asked him personally about many things like Kwan's, competition, old and modern Poomsae, Kukkiwon, WTF, etc. 

GM Lee believes that the current Taegeuk Poomsae and Dan Poomsae created by the KTA Poomsae Committee, of which he was a member, are the most comprehensive forms ever created for any martial art. He said never in the history of martial arts had such a project taken place and the men on this team were the best and brightest martial artist of their time, well versed in Okinawan, Japanese, Chinese and Korean versions of martial arts. He said the knowledge brought together by this group was unparalleled in the history of marital arts.

No one was thinking of tournaments when they created the Taegeuk and Dan Poomsae, they were thinking of the scope of history and the sequence of development over time and nations to create a truly valuable set of forms. Sure Poomsae recently now has a WTF World Poomsae Championships, which is excellent as this sporting event is a show case for Taekwondo's martial art element of Poomsae.

Just like breaking. It has been around before tournaments, but, it appears in events today, like the Hanmadang. Let me tell you, I was pretty good at breaking at one time, but when I went to the Hanmadang in Dangjin, I was intimidated.  This was serious, psycho breaking stuff, no tricks, the Kukkiwon chose the materials, granite, oak and hardened tiles.  A number of guys failed on their breaks and I could see for some it was physically, devastatingly painful. I am almost never impressed by breaking, but I left the Hanmadang with a whole new view of that part of Taekwondo.

I will also say this about sparring.  Taekwondo has within it, many types of sparring. However, some people are critical the most well known type, Shihap Kyorugi, the type of Taekwondo competition found in the Olympics. But Shihap Kyorugi was invented with Self Defense in mind just as much as it was hoped to be an international sporting event. Our intelligent seniors made it both a self defense practice, and an international sporting event.

Here was their thinking, according to GM Chong Woo Lee, also in his 80's

- bare fist and foot to strike the target forces the use of correct shape of technique, not a covered hand and foot which changes the technique and allows it to be sloppy.

- full force blows, as used in self defense because we must learn to deliver them as well as roll with them to survive a fight

- limit techniques to the most basic gross motor striking skills, as fine motor skills usually go out the window in a fight, and the most dangerous and violent attacks that do the most damage to humans come from those gross motor striking skills, we must learn to defend against them

- limited target area, making that area easier to defend and harder to successfully attack, thereby forcing the attacking techniques to a higher skill level in order to defeat the well defended target area

- allowing knockout, thus adding intense psychological pressure. This places REAL fear into the equation, and fear is the emotional obstruction to a clear mindset, where decision to action has to occur seamlessly, without hesitation. Indecision is the Grim Reaper of self defense and fear brings it forth at the worst time

The International Olympic Committee considered these factors of realism (along with other factors) and accepted Shihap Kyorugi as an Olympic event.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 30, 2011)

mastercole said:


> Here was their thinking, according to GM Chong Woo Lee, also in his 80's
> 
> 
> - limit techniques to the most basic gross motor striking skills, as fine motor skills usually go out the window in a fight, and the most dangerous and violent attacks that do the most damage to humans come from those gross motor striking skills, we must learn to defend against them


 
Very good philosophy to train by!


----------



## miguksaram (May 31, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> I like it!  Korean Kempo!



Korean Kempo....Japanese Ch'uan fa....Chinese Kwon bup....


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 31, 2011)

miguksaram said:


> Korean Kempo....Japanese Ch'uan fa....Chinese Kwon bup....



I'm telling you..._*Bait, Tackle and Kung Fu Emporium*_!  Now that sings


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 31, 2011)

mastercole said:


> puunui said:
> 
> 
> > That's what I said. In Korea, the term Kong Soo Do is not an all encompassing generic term, but a specific term for a specific kind of art, which is focused on competition.
> ...


 
Regarding genericness or a lack thereof, the fact that one group in Korea uses the term does not make it any less generic, especially since they are itentifying themselves with karate, which *is *generic.  However you want to pronounce it, kongsudo and karatedo are the same term: &#31354;&#25163;&#36947;.

Given the myriad of ryu that make up karate, a Korean pronunciation of the same kanji doesn't make it anymore specific.

Perhaps adding a prefix to differentiate one from the other (as with Kukki Taekwondo, Chang Hon Taekwondo, Songahm Taekwondo or as with Isshin Ryu Karate, Shotokan Karate, Goju Ryu Karate, etc.) might be a good idea (could be as simple as _______kwan Kong Soo Do), but otherwise, lineage of the OP not withstanding, the term itself is certainly generic.

Daniel


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 31, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Perhaps adding a prefix to differentiate one from the other (as with Kukki Taekwondo, Chang Hon Taekwondo, Songahm Taekwondo or as with Isshin Ryu Karate, Shotokan Karate, Goju Ryu Karate, etc.) might be a good idea (could be as simple as _______kwan Kong Soo Do), but otherwise, lineage of the OP not withstanding, the term itself is certainly generic.
> Daniel



We came to the same conclusion last night as we discussed this topic.  So we started a simple thread just to discuss the naming of the Kwans within or under the IKSDA banner.http://excoboard.com/martialwarrior/148245/1799965


----------



## Rumy73 (Jun 2, 2011)

puunui said:


> Ok, started a new thread entitled "Kong Soo Do". If you have any factual responses to my posts in other topics regarding this subject, please place it here.
> 
> What "bugs" me is people who put forth erroneous facts out in the public. I spent a lot of time doing historical research, real research, and I guess on some level it is offensive to see people who have not done as much work put out erroneous opinions as facts.
> 
> ...


 

It is in poor taste and a lack of decorum to start a post specifically about another member. We can agree to disagree. Further, sometimes there isn't a right answer; instead there are only perspectives. 

Peace.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 2, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> We came to the same conclusion last night as we discussed this topic. So we started a simple thread just to discuss the naming of the Kwans within or under the IKSDA banner.http://excoboard.com/martialwarrior/148245/1799965


Is your school part of the IKSDA?  I was under the impression that it is not, but I may have missed that part of the discussion, given that it spans multiple threads.

Daniel


----------



## puunui (Jun 2, 2011)

Rumy73 said:


> It is in poor taste and a lack of decorum to start a post specifically about another member. .



It wasn't about a particular member. It was about the art and name Kong Soo Do, which is still being used in Korea.


----------



## puunui (Jun 2, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Regarding genericness or a lack thereof, the fact that one group in Korea uses the term does not make it any less generic, especially since they are itentifying themselves with karate, which *is *generic.




The group in Korea is identifying itself with the Olympic Karate movement. It is a specific thing, not generic, in much the same way that USAT and WTF identify specifically with competition Taekwondo. So in that sense, in Korea, the use of the term Kong Soo Do is specific, and not generic, even though from your perspective, looking at the character themselves and not at its usage in Korea, it may be generic. 

By the way, there is also at least one other association in Korea that actually does use the term "Karate" in its name, as opposed to kong soo do or tang soo do. Perhaps your argument or position would better fit what that group is doing, since they are actually using the name Karate, even though it is headquartered in Korea. 

I also have books in the Korean language entitled "Aikido" (written in hangul). Japanese and Chinese terminology is used in Korea for the martial arts.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 2, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Is your school part of the IKSDA? I was under the impression that it is not, but I may have missed that part of the discussion, given that it spans multiple threads.
> 
> Daniel


 
Yes sir, we are a member.


----------



## miguksaram (Jun 3, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I'm telling you..._*Bait, Tackle and Kung Fu Emporium*_!  Now that sings


Actually I was talking to a friend of mine who is a sushi chef and we toyed with the idea of a Sushi & Karate...Chef special comes with 2 sashimi pieces, 1 California roll, and 2 free lessons.


----------



## Carol (Jun 3, 2011)

miguksaram said:


> Actually I was talking to a friend of mine who is a sushi chef and we toyed with the idea of a Sushi & Karate...Chef special comes with 2 sashimi pieces, 1 California roll, and 2 free lessons.



*maps distance to Aurora, IL* 

SOLD


----------



## andyjeffries (Jun 3, 2011)

puunui said:


> I also have books in the Korean language entitled "Aikido" (written in hangul). Japanese and Chinese terminology is used in Korea for the martial arts.



Out of interest, how do they write Aikido in hangul?  There doesn't seem a direct translation for the "Ai" sound.

Do Koreans consider Yudo to be a Korean version of Judo then?  I understood that to just be a reading out of the same hanja characters in Korean?  If they use Japanese terms I wonder why they wouldn't just call it Judo (as they have hangul to be able to write that).


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 3, 2011)

andyjeffries said:


> Out of interest, how do they write Aikido in hangul? There doesn't seem a direct translation for the "Ai" sound.


I suspect that they render it &#50500;&#44592;&#46020;.



andyjeffries said:


> *Do Koreans consider Yudo to be a Korean version of Judo* *then?* I understood that to just be a reading out of the same hanja characters in Korean? If they use Japanese terms I wonder why they wouldn't just call it Judo (as they have hangul to be able to write that).


They do and it is.  Like kumdo and kendo, and while the term kumdo is also applied to non-kendo sword arts, most of the time it is romanized as gumdo or geomdo when discussed in English even though in hangeul, both are spelled the same.

The only reasons for spelling karate or aikido phonetically (the way we do) are either that there are already established arts and/or groups using the Korean readings of the hanja or that the school in question is teaching a non-Korean art and is using the language and terminology of the nation of origin, as is done with Asian arts in the US. 

Daniel


----------



## mastercole (Jun 3, 2011)

miguksaram said:


> Actually I was talking to a friend of mine who is a sushi chef and we toyed with the idea of a Sushi & Karate...Chef special comes with 2 sashimi pieces, 1 California roll, and 2 free lessons.



I like it!


----------



## mastercole (Jun 3, 2011)

andyjeffries said:


> Out of interest, how do they write Aikido in hangul?  There doesn't seem a direct translation for the "Ai" sound.
> 
> Do Koreans consider Yudo to be a Korean version of Judo then?  I understood that to just be a reading out of the same hanja characters in Korean?  If they use Japanese terms I wonder why they wouldn't just call it Judo (as they have hangul to be able to write that).



Korean, Japanese and Chinese mostly read the same Hanja, they just pronounce it differently.

A Korean who reads Hanja would say "Hapkido" when they read &#21512;&#27683;&#36947;, a Japanese reader would say "Aikido" for the same characters. 

If you are asking if Korean's write out the sound "Ai Ki Do" in Korean Hangul, I don't know, I never saw it that way, but I have not seen much on Hapkido either.


----------



## puunui (Jun 3, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I suspect that they render it &#50500;&#44592;&#46020;.



Close. They add one more character, the second one, which looks like the first above except without the short horizontal bar in the middle of the vertical bar. A I Ki Do.


----------



## andyjeffries (Jun 4, 2011)

puunui said:


> Close. They add one more character, the second one, which looks like the first above except without the short horizontal bar in the middle of the vertical bar. A I Ki Do.



Ah OK, that's interesting.  So &#50500;&#51060;&#44592;&#46020;.


----------



## puunui (Jun 4, 2011)

andyjeffries said:


> Ah OK, that's interesting.  So &#50500;&#51060;&#44592;&#46020;.




I think so. The third character might be the K type instead of the G type, with an extra horizontal line. Japanese pronunciation would be more k than g, vice versa for Korean pronunciation. So the hangul might reflect that. I need to go check.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jun 6, 2011)

miguksaram said:


> Actually I was talking to a friend of mine who is a sushi chef and we toyed with the idea of a Sushi & Karate...Chef special comes with 2 sashimi pieces, 1 California roll, and 2 free lessons.




It had better be some great sushi.. . I frequented a place called swordfish when I lived in IL, a good friend of mine lived in North Aurora, and it was his favorite Sushi place.  

That said, GREAT IDEA!


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jun 6, 2011)

I don't have much to add, but I would like to say this has been one of more informative thread discussions I've read in the KMA forum in a while!


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 6, 2011)

I'm both surprised and pleased that it has gone 10 pages with over 2300 views so far.  I appreciate everyone's contribution to the thread.


----------

