# Tang Soo Do and Soo Bahk Do



## MBuzzy (Mar 21, 2007)

I know that this has the tendancy to be a rather political topic....

but, I would like to have a discussion on the historical situation and reasons as to why Soo Bahk Do and Tang Soo Do split - if you believe that is even the case.

Also, what are the technical differences between Tang Soo Do and Soo Bahk Do?  There tend to be some differences in the Hyung (such as the Chil Sung and Yuk Ro series), but are there other differences in the actual performance of the arts?

I am really curious to get the input of some of the historical and technical experts on this site.


----------



## exile (Mar 21, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> I know that this has the tendancy to be a rather political topic....
> 
> but, I would like to have a discussion on the historical situation and reasons as to why Soo Bahk Do and Tang Soo Do split - if you believe that is even the case.
> 
> ...



It's bound to be political, MB, because the these names were used politically from the get-go, to identify different factions in the factional rivalry amongst the Kwans after the end of the Occupation, with the different Kwan founders competing for recognition by the Korean amateur sports federations. My understanding is that Hwang Kee chose the name Korean Subakdo Association for the union of his Korean Tangsoodo Association with the Korean Kongsoodo Association (which he formed in order to get recognition by the Korean Amateur Sports Association), thinking that subak was the name of an actual ancient combat system, a common error at the time (and later) discussed by Marc Tesdeschi (see my posts #21,22 in the thread http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=752684#post752684 for more details on this point). KASA rejected Kee's initiative, however; subsequently the KSA merged temporarily with  Gen. Choi's organization to form the Korean Taesoodo Association, but Choi's growing power through his prestige in the military dictatorship of Gen. Parck Chung-hee left him in a position to control the KTA, and Kee withdrew, with support from the Chongdo Kwan. He maintained the label Tang Soo Do (originally a name literally translating`karate-do' under the `China hand' transliteration, used generically by many of the Kwan founders for their art) for his organization, to distinguish it from the label Tae Soo Do (which became Taekwando under disputed conditions), and after the split within the MDK left Korea. 

The crucial point, as I understand these events, is that the identification of Subak with the label used for unspecified fist strikes in early KMAs was largely driven by political maneuvering, playing on nationalist sentiments in an effort to win adherents and political advantage with the Korean government. There is no more reason to believe that Kee's subak was an ancient martial combat system than there is to believe that what goes by the name Shaolin Kempo Karate actually preserves the (currently completely unknown) methods taught by the (possibly completely legendary) Bhodhidharma to the Shaolin monks at the supposed dawn of Asian MAs. On this analysis, Subakdo and Tangsoodo represent just differently labelled variants of the same MA, corresponding to the evolving thinking of Hwang Kwee and his associates during the decade following the Korean War...


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 21, 2007)

IMHO, there are two very interesting tangents that this discussion can move along and both of these are very relevant to discussing the differences between the two.  

The first regards the differences between Tang Soo Do and Soo Bahk Do in the past.  IMO, these revolved around internal Moo Duk Kwan politics.  According to my teacher and my teacher's teacher (who is very highly ranked in the MDK) TSD was changed to SBD because the US federation wanted to basically start over.  They were looking to standardize the curriculum so that every school across the country would be doing something that was recognizable as Hwang Kee's linage.  Thus, the chil sung, yuk ro and hwa soo forms were introduced.  It was Hwang's wish to end the political bickering and competition between the organizations that had popped up.  It was also his wish to reshape the art into something that was more obviously Korean.

With that being the said, the future of the USSBDMDK federation looks very interesting.  In all of their new promotional videos, none of their practicioners are practicing pyung ahns, bassai, naihanchi or any of the other Okinawan hyung anymore.  They are mainly focusing on the hyung that Hwang created and they are teaching the associated mythology behind each of those hyung.  To take this further, when my teacher left the federation, the USSBDMDK federation was in the process of introducing a whole new set of basics meant to dovetail with these new hyungs.  From conversations I've had with my former seniors, I think that we can expect that new Ill Soo Shik and Ho Sin Shul will be introduced and these will use concepts taught in the chil sung and yuk ro forms.  What is not being said directly, but is strongly rumored, is that the old okinawan forms will be dropped.  

IMHO, I think that in 10 years, the arts will not just look recognizably different, they will hardly share anything in common.  What do all of you think about this?


----------



## exile (Mar 21, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> IMHO, I think that in 10 years, the arts will not just look recognizably different, they will hardly share anything in common.  What do all of you think about this?



Sounds to me as though the SBD crowd is repeating the history of TKD: strip the art of its Okinawan base, create new patterns and attempt to leech its technical base of the elements originating in karate. In other words, treat the martial art as a set of political and cultural symbols, instead of a practical fighting system whose components should be subject solely to the criterion of combat effectiveness. 

I'm coming to think of national level MA organizations as damnable self-serving _rackets_ that push agendas based on anything you can think of except martial content. I suspect that the average SBD practitioner is like any other MAist: they've no interest whatever in nationalist propaganda or who was unjustly slighted in the organization's first _re_organization forty years ago, or any other crap like that. What they really want is to better understand the combat techs concealed in their hyungs or patterns or  etc., learn better how to apply those techs to things like unarmed combat against weapons, and get a better handle on the best training methods for difficults elements of their combat toolkit. Is that what outfits like the USSBDA (or the TKD analogues or any other such orgs for any other MA) are working hard to give them? Doesn't sound like it to me...


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 21, 2007)

In terms of how they will look in 10 years, I believe that if the SBDMDK officially adopts GM Hwang Kee's hyungs and officially eliminates all of the Okinawan based forms, TSD and SBD will bear no more similarities than Tae Kwon Do and TSD, i.e. they share some of the same basic maneuvers, but still have enough differences to make them different styles completely.

I heard that there was a political battle because the SBD MDK tried to get everyone to remove any mention of Soo Bahk Do OR Moo Duk Kwan from schools, uniforms, etc.  I know that the vast majority of their material is copywrited and I believe pretty strongly enforce.  Is there much truth to this and how did it come about?


----------



## WMKS Shogun (Mar 23, 2007)

I believe the primary reason that Hwang Kee changed the name and added the forms, etc. is because of the tendancy of many instructors to change forms, add techniques, and throw out others. Basically, as I understand it, he wanted to make it all fully standardized and so he called for all instructors and dojangs loyal to him to change the name and join the SBD MDK federation. As far as differences, it depends on the school. Some TSD dojangs have kept it traditional, others have changed much over the years. By the same token, adding the Chil Sung Hyungs,  Ruk Yo Hyungs, etc. has changed SBD from the original TSD.


----------



## exile (Mar 23, 2007)

So here's my question: to what degree does changing the forms of an MA actually change the technical content of that art, to the point where it is no longer the same as an otherwise identical art which uses different forms?

Please note: I'm not talking about MAs as institutional, or even corporate entititles. I'm talking about what their content as fighting systems&#8212;repertoires of combat knowledge that the user can, and trains to, draw upon in a real-time violent encounter&#8212;is.

In the _really_ old days, when the forms themselves (as Iain Abernethy, Bill Burgar and others have documented) were taken to be the fighing systems (Naihanchi, or Bassai, were regarded not as forms within a MA but as the MAs themselves), the answer is pretty clear: change the forms and you have a very good chance of changing the fighting system. No argument there.

But nowadays, forms are rarely taught as the basis of combat; bunkai are rarely pursued in great detail (in most schools; there are obvious exceptions, I'm lucky to belong to one!) and training tends to follow the old kihon line-performance routine, rather than reflect the combat applications built into the kata/hyungs/patterns/etc. themselves and extracted by careful analysis and testing according to the `decoding' principles of the MA in question. They're mostly add-ons used primarily as the main grading criterion for belt testing and rank advancement. So does the art itself&#8212;its intrinsic content&#8212;really change all that much if a given school or group of schools drops hyungs A, B and C in favor of X, Y and Z but leaves the rest of the technical content in place?

I happen to believe that hyungs, like kata, are really the heart of any KMA, don't get me wrong. I don't thing they're utilized nearly _enough_, in most places. But given that they aren't, how much real difference will there be between TSD and SBD if the only thing that changes is which hyungs are invoked for grading purposes? That's not a rhetorical question; I'm really curious as to what people think...


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 23, 2007)

exile said:


> I happen to believe that hyungs, like kata, are really the heart of any KMA, don't get me wrong. I don't thing they're utilized nearly _enough_, in most places. But given that they aren't, how much real difference will there be between TSD and SBD if the only thing that changes is which hyungs are invoked for grading purposes? That's not a rhetorical question; I'm really curious as to what people think...


 
This is a good question and I think the answer lies in hyungs themselves.  TSD, as it was traditionally taught, is horribly incongruent.  The usage and philosophy behind almost every aspect is disconnected.  From basics, to Hyung, to Ill Soo Shik, to Ho Sin Shul, to Deh Ryun, none of these peices connected, in any meaningful way, to one another.

Changing the forms in SBD changes this.  Because now, the basics, the Ill Soo Shik, the Ho Sin Shul, and the Deh Ryun (to an extent) can be reframed around the techniques and principles that the new forms are trying to show.  Philisophically, the system will be more sound.

But, will it be more effective?

That's a question that I can't answer.  I don't know what everyone is bringing to the table and I have no idea how one would test it.  SBD is a free radical, newly repackaged, and in some ways, fresh.  But, would you trust your LIFE with it?


----------



## exile (Mar 23, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> This is a good question and I think the answer lies in hyungs themselves.  TSD, as it was traditionally taught, is horribly incongruent.  The usage and philosophy behind almost every aspect is disconnected.  From basics, to Hyung, to Ill Soo Shik, to Ho Sin Shul, to Deh Ryun, none of these peices connected, in any meaningful way, to one another.



You know what? I feel exactly the same way about TKD as it is currently taughtbut the Olympic competition cachet tends to obscure this fact so far as TKD is concerned, because the default, for a long time, has been the martial sport aspect of TKD. But if you ask, OK, forgetting about the sparring foot-tag aspect, what about TKD as a _combat_ discipline, then the answer will wind up being a close or identical parallel to what you've just said.




upnorthkyosa said:


> Changing the forms in SBD changes this.  Because now, the basics, the Ill Soo Shik, the Ho Sin Shul, and the Deh Ryun (to an extent) can be reframed around the techniques and principles that the new forms are trying to show.  Philisophically, the system will be more sound.



You're talking about soundness in terms of consistency, I take it... 



upnorthkyosa said:


> But, will it be more effective?
> 
> That's a question that I can't answer.  I don't know what everyone is bringing to the table and I have no idea how one would test it.  SBD is a free radical, newly repackaged, and in some ways, fresh.  But, would you trust your LIFE with it?



Right. And the answer is, I think, yes_IF_. If

(i) the new forms really do incorporate sound combat principles as their foundation and effective tactical expressions of those principles; and

(ii) if SBD practitioners train those principles and their tactical expression with maximum realism consistent with the need to keep your training partners from winding up in the ER. 

If the answer to both (i) and (ii) is `yes', and legitimately so, then yes, I would trust my life to it in a situation where my life depended on it. But the open question, as you know, is, is that the correct answer to these two questions?


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 23, 2007)

exile said:


> You're talking about soundness in terms of consistency, I take it...


 
No.  I'm talking about soundness of delivery.  I'm talking about pedegogy.  As in, do the objectives of the art line up with its conventions.  This is classic constructivism...aka...backward design.



> Right. And the answer is, I think, yes_IF_. If
> 
> (i) the new forms really do incorporate sound combat principles as their foundation and effective tactical expressions of those principles; and
> 
> ...


 
I can't answer this yet.  The changeover isn't complete.  It's still a mix of what was misunderstood and reused and what is totally new.  I often wonder if Hwang Kee was incompetent when I look at the system, but then it creeps in my head that it might be like this ON PURPOSE in order to teach some important lesson.  I tend to settle on the latter, because he beleived that even the highest ranks of SBD had something to learn.  

Other minds will develop this further, leading the way.

It's Ryu pa.


----------



## exile (Mar 23, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> do the objectives of the art line up with its conventions.



That's exactly what I meant by consistency. 




upnorthkyosa said:


> I can't answer this yet.  The changeover isn't complete.  It's still a mix of what was misunderstood and reused and what is totally new.  I often wonder if Hwang Kee was incompetent when I look at the system, but then it creeps in my head that it might be like this ON PURPOSE in order to teach some important lesson.  I tend to settle on the latter, because he beleived that even the highest ranks of SBD had something to learn.
> 
> Other minds will develop this further, leading the way.



You mentioned `backwards design', what I would probably label `reverse engineering'. Is it not possible, once what you're calling the changeover has been instituted, to look at the final system and determine if indeed it is coherent,  in terms of my (i) and (ii), just by studying the forms and comparing them to the (presumably explicit) principles of the `new' version and seeing if there's goodness of fit between the two? Retrospective telepathy is pretty much out of the question, so it doesn't do much good to try to second-guess what HK himself was thinking. But the results of that thought, plus the later modifications that are apparently being imposed on SBD, should be evaluable on their own merits, no?

This is a test not only for SBD, but, I believe, for every MA. I think the current progressive bunkai-based karateka have done a brilliant job of applying this test to O/J karate and coming up with a positive answer, based on hard analysis of the combat applicability of the kata. I think the work has begun to be done for TKD by Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neil. But presumably it's one that every MA is subject to.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 25, 2007)

exile said:


> You mentioned `backwards design', what I would probably label `reverse engineering'.


 
There may be some parity between the terms, but, as I would define them, they are still different.  I see "reverse engineering" as what a person would do when they are looking at a finished product and attempting to figure out how it works or how to build it.  Typically, an MAist who practices kata and was not taught the combat applications, is left with this approach.

"Backward Design", on the other hand, is a method of pedegogy.  This convention builds a system around it's enduring understandings (objectives).  The assumption being made here is that "forward design" starts with the system and builds toward the enduring understanding.  

The merits of these two approaches is debateable, but I definitely prefer backward design when I teach.  And I think that backward design is going to produce more knowledgeable and capable martial artists.



exile said:


> Is it not possible, once what you're calling the changeover has been instituted, to look at the final system and determine if indeed it is coherent, in terms of my (i) and (ii), just by studying the forms and comparing them to the (presumably explicit) principles of the `new' version and seeing if there's goodness of fit between the two? Retrospective telepathy is pretty much out of the question, so it doesn't do much good to try to second-guess what HK himself was thinking. But the results of that thought, plus the later modifications that are apparently being imposed on SBD, should be evaluable on their own merits, no?


 
It may be possible to evaluate the system, based on your (i) and (ii), if the evaluator has had experience with those criteria in the past.  Most people who start a MA do not have this experience.



exile said:


> This is a test not only for SBD, but, I believe, for every MA. I think the current progressive bunkai-based karateka have done a brilliant job of applying this test to O/J karate and coming up with a positive answer, based on hard analysis of the combat applicability of the kata. I think the work has begun to be done for TKD by Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neil. But presumably it's one that every MA is subject to.


 
Again, I think it really depends on the evaluators credentials.  If a person who has experience in real combatives training and its use can come into your dojang, look at your system and feel like it could be effective, then, I would be more apt to trust the results.


----------



## MBuzzy (Aug 24, 2007)

exile said:


> So here's my question: to what degree does changing the forms of an MA actually change the technical content of that art, to the point where it is no longer the same as an otherwise identical art which uses different forms?


 
After training in a certified Soo Bahk Do Dojang now for a month or so, I can say that these forms really do change the root of the art.  There was definately a time when Tang Soo Do and Soo Bahk Do were the same style and indistinguishable.

But since they have split, Soo Bahk Do has made a number of changes that I hadn't realized....and I feel that the majority of this comes from the forms.  The Yuk Ro and Chil Sung Forms have a completely different feel to them and seem to be more Chinese in basis rather than Japanese.  It seems to me that this influence has infiltrated all levels of the style.  In fact, I have had to in essence "re-learn" a great deal of things - even how I execute certain kicks and attacks.  The Ill Soo Sik are also based directly on the forms, a large number of which come from those forms that GM Hwang Kee created.  Even the basics have changed.  We have been working on sets of basics that come DIRECTLY from Chil Sung forms and Yuk Ro forms....which if you have done or seen the forms, are not traditional basics.

Therefore, in my opinion, as UpNorth said....in 10 years, I do not believe that Soo Bahk Do and Tang Soo Do will bear much resemblance.  In fact, I don't know how much longer it will be possible for one style to cross train into the other without a MAJOR change in their technique and vast additions to their knowledge in terms of the standardized curriculum.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 24, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> Therefore, in my opinion, as UpNorth said....in 10 years, I do not believe that Soo Bahk Do and Tang Soo Do will bear much resemblance. In fact, I don't know how much longer it will be possible for one style to cross train into the other without a MAJOR change in their technique and vast additions to their knowledge in terms of the standardized curriculum.


 
In a way, I feel that this will free TSD associations to pursue other paths, perhaps even par down the art to the roots.  I'm seeing more and more TSD organizations focusing on teaching and applications and I think that the separation from the GM is probably the impetus for this.


----------



## Dave Leverich (Aug 24, 2007)

This thread caught my eye, after speaking with my original instructor's instructor the other day. He got his 2nd degree in I believe 69-70 in ... TungSuDo MuDukKwan Taekwondo. That's what his certificate reads, signed by Hwang Kee.
He had a picture taken with the current president of the MuDukKwan 60th anniversary and mentioned the president was amazed to see the certificate (all in Korean given to a non-Korean, I think usually they only gave that variety to Koreans, where outsiders got them mostly in English).

Anyway, it was interesting to see it called both TKD and TSD and made me wonder when the MuDukKwan split happened (TKD/TSD split). I'll have to also check my friend GM Pierce's cert, as his was around the same time, and signed by GM Kee also.


----------



## Dave Leverich (Aug 24, 2007)

Ps. SM Rankins (instructor's instructor) first degree was in Soo Bakh Do I believe, again I'll have to see if I can get pictures for posterity.


----------



## MBuzzy (Aug 24, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> In a way, I feel that this will free TSD associations to pursue other paths, perhaps even par down the art to the roots. I'm seeing more and more TSD organizations focusing on teaching and applications and I think that the separation from the GM is probably the impetus for this.


 
In my opinion, this is a double edged sword.  The positive side is that TSD will continue to grow and evolve.  As SBD moves further away, I think people will feel less obliged to stick to what their old curriculum was, allowing for much more interpretation and evolution of the art.  

As it is now, within some organizations, it is difficult to get too far into the history because you may violate the "Official response."  Even with form history...I was recently having a discussion of the roots of SBD and TSD and some choose to downplay the Japanese heritage quite a bit.  

The negative side is that it makes me kind of a red-headed step child.  I've gone back and forth a few times now and it is nice to have the option when you move often.  As the two styles diverge though, cross training for me and those like me will grow much more difficult


----------



## terryl965 (Aug 24, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> In my opinion, this is a double edged sword. The positive side is that TSD will continue to grow and evolve. As SBD moves further away, I think people will feel less obliged to stick to what their old curriculum was, allowing for much more interpretation and evolution of the art.
> 
> As it is now, within some organizations, it is difficult to get too far into the history because you may violate the "Official response." Even with form history...I was recently having a discussion of the roots of SBD and TSD and some choose to downplay the Japanese heritage quite a bit.
> 
> The negative side is that it makes me kind of a red-headed step child. I've gone back and forth a few times now and it is nice to have the option when you move often. As the two styles diverge though, cross training for me and those like me will grow much more difficult


 
I would have to agree with this, why does it seem almost all Korean style of Arts downplay the Japanese influence. Would it not be better to just say yes it was brought to us by them but we have grown our interpentation of there art to fit our society and in the process have made it better to our country.


----------



## sabom_1 (Sep 5, 2007)

All,

Having practiced TSD for the past 23+ years, I have often debated this with numerous other TSD/SBD instructors. I think exile's summary is probably right on the mark.

Both TSD and SBD will continue to move down different paths, but share the same common link with regards to what formed the basis of each of the arts. I also think it will be very difficult for SBD to shed the connection to Okinawan / Japanese M/A. What I have found interesting is that a good deal of TSD instructors and schools have been going back to the Okinawan roots of TSD and studying the "bunkai" contained in the "traditional" hyung . Even 15 years ago, this would have been unheard of! Credit this to the evolution of the internet.

This topic will be a good one to discuss with Grandmaster Ah Po when he visits my dojang in October. I am sure with his long history with the USTSDSBDF he will be able to provide at least his perspective on this topic. Grandmaster Ah Po along with teaching two kodanja / yudanja clinics and a Gup clinic will also be holding a question and answer session. Information on this event can be found here http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54053 

Master Gene Garbowsky
www.southhillskarate.com


----------

