# kwan significance?



## woot (Feb 6, 2007)

Is there a real significance to tae kwon do schools belonging to one kwan or another?  And can a school decide what kwan they belong to or is it tied to the instructors lineage?

I started in tae kwon do at a fairly young age, and for several years I had never heard of belonging to this kwan or that kwan.  I never really knew what kwan meant or which one we belonged to.

The reason I ask is because I know of a school that used to claim to be one, but now claims to be another.


----------



## exile (Feb 6, 2007)

woot said:


> Is there a real significance to tae kwon do schools belonging to one kwan or another?



I belive so. Different kwans took different positions on the technical content of TKD, and certain instructors in each of those kwans almost certainly attempted to preserve that technical content even after the KKW effectively replaced the kwans as the arbiter of that technical content. Some kwans were much more insistent on perserving the karate-based combat systems they had been teaching based on their founders' training in one or another of the Japanese schools (under Okinawan masters).




woot said:


> And can a school decide what kwan they belong to or is it tied to the instructors lineage?



The latter, I'd say. If you say you're Ji Do Kwan, Song Moo Kwan, Moo Duk Kwan or whatever, it's taken as shorthand for your lineage being traceable back to one of the original Korean kwans. 



woot said:


> I started in tae kwon do at a fairly young age, and for several years I had never heard of belonging to this kwan or that kwan.  I never really knew what kwan meant or which one we belonged to.
> 
> The reason I ask is because I know of a school that used to claim to be one, but now claims to be another.



The difference might have been a change in the instructional staff. If the chief instructor was X Kwan, the school can be considered X Kwan as long as s/he teaches out of her/his lineage's curriculum and technical repertoire. If the instructor leaves and another chief instructor is appointed from a different lineage, that would change the lineage of the school, so to speak. Just speculation on my part...


----------



## IcemanSK (Feb 6, 2007)

I would add to Exile's thoughts, here. First, let me say that I'm sorry info about you school's kwan lineage wasn't available to you early on. 

I think it's important to have & know one's lineage because it gives a sense of where we came from in our MA studies. I really got an understanding of this when I got a visual history lesson from GM Park, Hae Man last year. It's not just my little dojang on the corner, me & my students, or even my instructor....but a whole group of folks that have gone before me that make up what I've learned.

Switching kwans? I'm not sure why your instructors would do that. Unless there was a falling out with the head of the kwan. I'm sorry that happened as well.

I see knowledge of one's kwan background as very valueable  to one's MA education.


----------



## exile (Feb 6, 2007)

IcemanSK said:


> I think it's important to have & know one's lineage because it gives a sense of where we came from in our MA studies. I really got an understanding of this when I got a visual history lesson from GM Park, Hae Man last year. It's not just my little dojang on the corner, me & my students, or even my instructor....but a whole group of folks that have gone before me that make up what I've learned.



Very true, Iceman. It's good to know where your own system fits in in the larger flow of MA history and development.



IcemanSK said:


> I see knowledge of one's kwan background as very valueable  to one's MA education.



True againfor one thing, knowing your kwan/lineage history can help you understand why you do things a certain way in your own school, why certain hyungs are emphasized, and so on.


----------



## matt.m (Feb 6, 2007)

I believe in traceable lineage.  At least to a generality.  Moo Sul Kwan was founded in Cape Girardeau, MO by GGM Lee H. Park.  He chose Moo Sul kwan to honor Won-Kwang Wha, his hapkido instructor in Korea that was the founder of MuSul Kwan.

However, Lee also was a 5th dan in Yudo from the Korean Yudo academy. He studied alongside He-Young Kimm and Bong Yul Shin.  Furthermore, it was believed that Lee learned Chang Moo Tae Kwon Do.  Upon a little research, GM Hildebrand told me that GGM Park ended his training with Chang Moo but was unable to find out which of the 5 kwans he began with.  I do know that it was the ITF forms that were originally taught.

We do both sets the Tae Guek and Chang Hon forms....

However, back to point.....you have to know how it began to set plans and continue towards the future.


----------



## woot (Feb 7, 2007)

According to information that I have read (and please correct me if any of it is incorrect) when TKD was formed all of the different kwans agreed to consolidate and only be known as Tae Kwon Do.  I had thought that at that point the different kwans no longer existed.

Before that, Gen. Choi was Oh Do Kwan, then became an honorary member or president of Chung Do Kwan until he had his falling out with the KTA.

I haven't yet found the answer to when he formed the ITF, that he claimed to be of one kwan or another.  I have noticed that most Chung Do Kwan schools use WTF forms.  So, If a school claims to be Chung Do Kwan, should they be WTF?  Even though at one time Gen. Choi was Chung Do Kwan and created the ITF forms.  Or does that matter?


----------



## zDom (Feb 8, 2007)

woot said:


> According to information that I have read (and please correct me if any of it is incorrect) when TKD was formed all of the different kwans agreed to consolidate and only be known as Tae Kwon Do.  I had thought that at that point the different kwans no longer existed.
> 
> Before that, Gen. Choi was Oh Do Kwan, then became an honorary member or president of Chung Do Kwan until he had his falling out with the KTA.
> 
> I haven't yet found the answer to when he formed the ITF, that he claimed to be of one kwan or another.  I have noticed that most Chung Do Kwan schools use WTF forms.  So, If a school claims to be Chung Do Kwan, should they be WTF?  Even though at one time Gen. Choi was Chung Do Kwan and created the ITF forms.  Or does that matter?



I have this information somewhere, but its late... if someone doesn't post by then I'll try to dig it up and post.

But, off the top of my head:

Oh Do Kwan was the military version of Chung Do Kwan (i.e., for those in the military)

Not long after the agreement to form WTF, the kwans all were assigned numbers intended to replace their names.

The Chung Do Kwan DOES use WTF poomsea, as far as I know, but I don't think they are a sport oriented kwan, if that's what you mean.

I think it took a couple of years between the formation of the WTF and the development of the Taeguek (WTF) poomsea.

GM Uhm of the Chung Do Kwan was one of the guys who came up the WTF poomseas (er.. or was it Hae Man Park, his student)

Anyway, the Chung Do Kwan guys were definately involved in coming up with the WTF (Taeguek) forms in the first place  of that I am pretty sure.


----------



## wade (Feb 8, 2007)

Geeze, I am so lost here. I have no idea what my "kwan" linage is. Does this mean I have to turn in my rank and start over? DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!! I mean, I can do it but when you (meaning me) are old and fat you (once again meaning me) don't look good wearing a white belt. A little help here, eh? Even a yellow belt is looking good about now. To be honest, My original instructor, who I haven't seen since 1977, never told me squat about where he came from or who his instructors were. I've been with GM Choi ever since but he is not my original Master and we really don't talk that much because I'm not family to him.


----------



## Last Fearner (Feb 8, 2007)

This is a long one, so I apologize in advance for the length!



woot said:


> Is there a real significance to tae kwon do schools belonging to one kwan or another?


 
Exile, Iceman, matt, and zDoom have answered well. Yes, there is significance, but the exact significance might be changing over the years. I compare it to the genealogy of your family tree. It's kind of like knowing who your ancestors were. Most people know their parents, but probably know less about their grandparents, and even less about their great-grandparents. Where did they come from? What was their nationality or race? How did they make a living? What were their personal philosophies, religious beliefs, and ideals?  How much of that is the way you live your life, or teach your children?

A lot of this is handed down generation after generation, and your parents probably taught you much of what their parents and grandparents taught them with a little of their own personal beliefs thrown in.

Your "Kwan" is your family. It is the historical foundation and beginnings from which your art's bloodline is derived. One difference is that your family tree spreads out the further back you go. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on. It is difficult to pick a particular starting point there, and the culmination of varying ethnic heritages, religions, customs and cultures makes it a melting pot in many cases. With a Taekwondo Kwan, you can link yourself to the one person who started the Kwan back through each generation of instructors. Most students are "descended" from one or more Kwans whether they realize it or not. They might not be studying pure kwan knowledge, but it likely came from somewhere back there.

Each of the many Kwans that sprang up immediately after the end of WWII, and the liberation of Korea were individual "families" of students who followed a particular Master Instructor. These Masters were the most experienced, and prominent teachers of Martial Art at that time. Although they all had very similar origins in their own beginnings of Martial Art education, they each had different perspectives, methodologies, and motivation for teaching. The Kwan is designed to preserve and promote the original values and motivating purpose of its founder. How much that occurs today is questionable. That does not mean that the core knowledge of the Kwan, or its founder, is lost. It just means that purpose changes over time, and individual morals and values might be affected by modern understanding of the world, and personal insights and enlightenment.




woot said:


> I started in tae kwon do at a fairly young age, and for several years I had never heard of belonging to this kwan or that kwan. I never really knew what kwan meant or which one we belonged to.


Don't be dismayed! When I began Taekwondo in 1976, it was with the ATA. The president at that time was 9th Dan GM Kang, Suh Chong. These days, the person that most people know as President and founder of ATA was GM. Lee, Haeng Ung. However, he was originally the ATA vice-president as an 8th Dan. GM Kang and GM Lee both interacted with Gen. Choi, Hong Hi, and all of them had their beginnings in the Chung Do Kwan which was the first Kwan formed in 1944.

I had no idea in my early days what a Kwan was, or what affiliation we had, if any, to any of the kwans, but I can tell you that the ATA did not exactly reflect what the Chung Do Kwan or the Oh Do Kwan was. The ATA originally used Gen. Choi's Chang Hon system of forms which is based on Shotokan forms from Choi's Karate training in Japan, but that's where much of the comparison ended. The ATA was neither Oh Do Kwan, Chung Do Kwan, nor Shotokan Karate. The ATA became a Kwan of its own with a unique approach to teaching Taekwondo, especially after GM Haeng Ung Lee took it over as president in 1978, the year I became a 1st Dan.




woot said:


> can a school decide what kwan they belong to or is it tied to the instructors lineage?
> 
> The reason I ask is because I know of a school that used to claim to be one, but now claims to be another.


It is both lineage, and current affiliation. If an instructor learned Taekwondo from a particular Kwan Master/Grandmaster, and they are currently recognized as an instructor in good standing, then their school can be "recognized" as a legitimate representative of that Kwan. On the other hand, if an instructor were to break ties with that Kwan, and begin training with a Grandmaster of a different Kwan, they might change affiliation (or, like Iceman stated, if the school is sold or replaces the head instructor with someone from a different kwan, then it might change affiliations).

This happened to me as I moved on from the ATA in the mid 1980s. The only Grandmaster anywhere near me was a Korean in Jidokwan. He sold his school to his senior Black Belt, and I worked with him for 15 years. I learned all about the Jidokwan, how they teach, think, act, and what their overall motivation is. After certain disagreements, and coming to an impasse with this Korean, I left teaching in 1999. The following year, I met with my original instructor from the ATA who is now with the U.S. Chung Do Kwan. Since 2000, I have been learning the ways of CDK, Sr. GM Edward Sell, and his teacher, GM Hae Man Park (just like my TKD brother, Iceman - :ultracool ).

Without going into too much detail here about the ITF/WTF, keep in mind that these are two different types of organizations. When it was decided that the Korean government would recognize only five of the many, many Kwans that sprung up in the 1940s and 50s, they wanted a new name as an "umbrella" for all Korean Martial Art. Taekwondo was chosen. The Kukkiwon was planned as a central headquarters in Korea, but was a building - - and academy for students in Korea. They desired a world-wide organization to govern the art as it spread abroad, to set standards for Black Belt and instructor credentials, and to record those ranks. The International Taekwondo Federation (ITF) was created for that purpose, and Gen. Choi was elected as its first president (meaning that there were intended to be more presidents in succession).

However, the conflict between the Kwan leaders, the newly formed KTA (Korea Taekwondo Association) and General Choi led him to leave Korea, and set up his own organization headquarters in Canada. Choi had founded the Oh Do Kwan, which was the military Kwan, but I would not say that it was a mirror image of the Chung Do Kwan applied to the military. Although Choi had an early education and certification from the founder of the Chung Do Kwan, Choi's Oh Do Kwan was a distinct representation of Choi's personal experience with Taekyon, Shotokan, and his own ideas.

When Gen. Choi went to Canada, he took the name "International Taekwondo Federation" (ITF) with him. Rather than creating a "split" organization (as the ITF is today) The KTA at the Kukkiwon headquarters decided to come up with a new name for their international governing body, and they chose to call it the World Taekwondo Federation (WTF). Thus, the new ITF departed from being a Korean based link to the Kukkiwon and Black Belt certification authority, to being the personal, international "Kwan" of Gen. Choi. which covers his curriculum of Taekwon-Do from white belt to 9th Dan Black Belt.

The WTF remained as a certification board for Black Belts only, and had nothing to do with color belt instruction. The WTF also managed competition rules and guidelines. As the sport aspect of Taekwondo became more popular, and it became part of the Olympics, it was decided that the focus and responsibilities of the WTF would be shifted to that of regulating the sport related issues. It was determined that this additional "link" from the Kukkiwon to National Governing bodies in countries around the world was not really necessary, therefore we can now deal directly with the Kukkiwon for Black Belt training and certification.

Also, which Poomsae (forms) that a school uses does not indicate affiliation with the WTF or ITF. The Kwanjangnim decides what poomsae best suits his student's needs, and most instructors in that Kwan are encouraged to be consistent with and support that choice. Many instructors will teach more than one set of Poomsae (Hyung or tuls). So many things have changed that the terminology confuses people. It's like saying "sunrise" and "sunset" from days when people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. The WTF is not an organization you can join, and the only link that an instructor, a school, or a Kwan has to the WTF is if they are certified as a referee/coach for competitions through whatever national governing body is recognized by the WTF in their country.

This does not make them a "WTF" school. Kukkiwon Ranks used to be stamped as coming from the Kukkiwon and the WTF, but that is no more. The WTF has nothing to do with rank promotions anymore. It is the Kukkiwon as far as Korean certification is concerned. The common phrase that someone is a "WTF 9th Dan" is outdated (even if their older certificate says it). It is now a "Kukkiwon 9th Dan." I can attend "WTF" recognized tournaments, and still be a part of whatever Kwan with which I am affiliated. It does not change what I teach, or how I teach it, and, by the way, zDoom is correct - - Chung Do Kwan is *not* a "sport oriented" kwan.

I hope I haven't rambled on too much, or offended anyone, but when this subject comes up, I like to be clear on my perspective so that others can take in the whole picture when considering what everyone has to say.

Thank you,
CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## woot (Feb 8, 2007)

> *by: Last Fearner*
> I hope I haven't rambled on too much, or offended anyone, but when this subject comes up, I like to be clear on my perspective so that others can take in the whole picture when considering what everyone has to say.


 
Not at all.  That's the kind of stuff I want to find answers to.  You have given me a wealth of information.  It has sparked some more questions, but I want the whole picture.

I honestly know I have a great teacher.  He just doesn't talk about this kind of stuff.  I have kind of an obsesive personality and when I get interested in something I want to know it ALL.


----------



## Dave Leverich (Feb 8, 2007)

CME, many thanks again for sharing the wealth of knowledge.
My own 'picture' gets clearer every day.


----------



## IcemanSK (Feb 8, 2007)

As always CM Eisenhart hit the nail on the head. To add a question from what he said aboutChung Do Kwan not being a "sport-oriented" kwan.....Is there such a thing as a "sport-oriented" Kwan? I'm guesing not. Just that some individual instructors see it as more important than others or want to focus on it (regardless of Kwan background).

In response to Master Wade. Sir, my understanding was that you learned TKD in the military in (or for) combat in Vietnam. (Am I correct, sir?) I could completely understand why your instructor would dispense with such info as to lineage during wartime instructor. (I'll bet you never had time to sew on your "perfect side kick" patch on your belt, either:ultracool ).


----------



## wade (Feb 8, 2007)

Thanks IcemanSK, I never thought about it that way but yes, all of my instructors were military. I've never had or trained under a civilian in the arts. Even GM Choi here in Portland was in the ROK Marines in Viet Nam. One of the reasons him and I get along even though I'm not one of his BB'. One of my early instructor trained under Sun Duk Son, another under Jun Ree, another under Eizeo Shimibukuro. My sword instructor was an Aikido stylist and we never did talk about who is instructor was. I trained with the ROK's in Nam and our common tongue was in Viet Namese, they spoke no English and at that time I spoke no Korean. So once again, it never came up. By the time I got to Ft. Bragg it was all about sport TKD and thats what we did. It didn't matter what style or system you started in if you wanted to play you had to do it under the Ft. Bragg TKD rules. The head instructor at the time was MsgSgt Owen McDonald and he was Okinawan Kenpo stylist but he taught TKD kicks and sparring rules because that's what the general wanted.


----------



## IcemanSK (Feb 8, 2007)

wade said:


> Thanks IcemanSK, I never thought about it that way but yes, all of my instructors were military. I've never had or trained under a civilian in the arts. Even GM Choi here in Portland was in the ROK Marines in Viet Nam. One of the reasons him and I get along even though I'm not one of his BB'. One of my early instructor trained under Sun Duk Son, another under Jun Ree, another under Eizeo Shimibukuro. My sword instructor was an Aikido stylist and we never did talk about who is instructor was. I trained with the ROK's in Nam and our common tongue was in Viet Namese, they spoke no English and at that time I spoke no Korean. So once again, it never came up. By the time I got to Ft. Bragg it was all about sport TKD and thats what we did. It didn't matter what style or system you started in if you wanted to play you had to do it under the Ft. Bragg TKD rules. The head instructor at the time was MsgSgt Owen McDonald and he was Okinawan Kenpo stylist but he taught TKD kicks and sparring rules because that's what the general wanted.


 
FT. Bragg?! My dad served there w/ the 82nd Airborne just before Vietnam (the day he cleared post was the day they sent the 1st of the 82nd to Vietnam in '64). Yeah, I don't see Airborne talkin' details like kwan lineage.


----------



## Miles (Feb 9, 2007)

One's kwan lineage is akin to your family tree.  This has been de-emphasized in Korea since the Kwan Unification Act.  Kwan lineage is emphasized more outside of Korea.

Miles


----------



## wade (Feb 9, 2007)

Family tree, ahhhhh, then that helps explain my problem with my linage. I was in an orphanage in new Orleans when I was very young and then moved into the foster home system as I got older. Since I have no idea what that one is I guess it stands to reason that I would be in the same boat with the other. Thanks, now that I understand the problem I can let it go and move on.


----------



## Brad Dunne (Feb 9, 2007)

Something for your review..........Some may find this interesting.

http://tkd.stanford.edu/documents/tkd_history.pdf


----------



## Miles (Feb 10, 2007)

wade said:


> Family tree, ahhhhh, then that helps explain my problem with my linage.




Wade, you mentioned GM Choi of Portland, OR.  If this is GM Tae Hong Choi, your kwan is Jidokwan which is one of the most influential kwans.

Miles


----------



## wade (Feb 10, 2007)

Hmmm, yep, that be him. He doesn't talk to me much if at all, but yes, that's him. Thanks. He is the one who promoted me to 4th, 5th and 6th. I owe that man a hell of a lot.


----------



## IcemanSK (Feb 13, 2007)

Miles said:


> One's kwan lineage is akin to your family tree. This has been de-emphasized in Korea since the Kwan Unification Act. Kwan lineage is emphasized more outside of Korea.
> 
> Miles


 
I don't mean to be flippant, but it's the only way I can describe my thought. Is this like the Star Trek "borg" idea? Assimiliate, so there's no distictiveness? "We're all one?"


----------



## exile (Feb 13, 2007)

IcemanSK said:


> I don't mean to be flippant, but it's the only way I can describe my thought. Is this like the Star Trek "borg" idea? Assimiliate, so there's no distictiveness? "We're all one?"



Iceman, I don't think there's anything flippant in the least about your comment. It sums up my own thinking about `Kwan unification' exactly. The pressure to give up the individual curricula and technical bases of the different kwans came from the desire of the ROK military for a combative standard. To me, it flies in the face of what nature is constantly reminding us: monoclonal environments are much more fragile than those with a lot of diversity. In a diverse environment, competing ideas get tested and pushed to improve by the competition; by constrast, when there's forced conformity, with top-down control of technical development, things are much less likely to stand or fall on their own merits. Not so good for the art, IMO...


----------



## Last Fearner (Feb 14, 2007)

exile said:


> ... In a diverse environment, competing ideas get tested and pushed to improve by the competition; by constrast, when there's forced conformity, with top-down control of technical development, things are much less likely to stand or fall on their own merits. Not so good for the art, IMO...


 
I believe I understand what you are saying here, exile, and I agree with the concept.  One thing to consider though is the philosophy of "united we stand, divided we fall."  If it is the perception of the Korean Taekwondo leaders that too much conflict (not healthy competition) between the Kwans is self destructive, and all could work towards a common goal, then better to have a unified effort under one leadership.

On the other hand, what does it really change to have this authoritarian power in Taekwondo.  The military is not exactly democratic.  I think instructors will still do as they please within their own dojang, they will simply adjust to the requirements of the whole organizational body instead of being left to wander off in any direction.  Perhaps the spirit of healthy competition will come about in Korea as a comparison to what others in countries around the world are doing.  They can unify and be challenged to be better by pitting their skills against the international community of diversity.  Just a thought!

Also, I don't really believe in the idea that the Kwans are somehow being assimilated into one.  It is difficult to make people forget who their parents and grandparents are.  You will not get these Kwan members, even in Korea, to ignore who it was that first taught them as a white belt, and guided them to Black Belt.  Their lineage is set for life, and they will always pass this on to their students, even if behind closed doors.  Some people do not realize how strong, and deep-rooted the sentiments are about the Kwans to those in a Kwan.  Surprisingly enough, it has a lot less to do with what curriculum is being taught than who has power in political decisions, who runs the show, and who is making the money.

In America, it could be compared to the political parties of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, etc.  You could tell them they must "unite" under one leader, but they will still be Republicans and Democrats at heart.  Behind closed doors, no one is going to make these Kwan leaders stop promoting their own Kwan, their own people into power, and their own agenda.  It may appear more unified on the surface, but deep down, they will always hold true to their Kwan - - their family.

That's been my experience.
CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## rmclain (Feb 14, 2007)

woot said:


> Is there a real significance to tae kwon do schools belonging to one kwan or another? And can a school decide what kwan they belong to or is it tied to the instructors lineage?
> 
> I started in tae kwon do at a fairly young age, and for several years I had never heard of belonging to this kwan or that kwan. I never really knew what kwan meant or which one we belonged to.
> 
> The reason I ask is because I know of a school that used to claim to be one, but now claims to be another.


 
It is sort of "rediculous" for a school to hang on to an old kwan name, if they are not passing along the curriculum from that kwan.  If the instructor originally trained in the old system but no longer teaches it - sure, show credit to the school that you originally came from and your lineage.  This would be the respectful thing to do.

But, to still use a kwan name and instruct a different curriculum is stupid.

I see this alot among TKD schools.  Claims of "we're Jido-kwan," or "we're Changmoo-kwan," etc., when they are simply a sport-oriented WTF school teaching the Palgue or Tae Guek forms and tournament competition.  I haven't met any instructor doing this that even knows the name of the person that founded the kwan they claim, let alone the curriculum.

R. McLain


----------



## wade (Feb 21, 2007)

Thank you rmclain. I think that is where I am at now. I don't think I really have a claim to a quan because of the way I was trained and the way I teach. I really am an orphan, and you know, I think I like it this way.


----------

