# Why do we



## terryl965 (May 22, 2006)

Put so much into the history of Korean Martial Arts when it came from other countrys? How come we just don't go back to the originators and learn that style? How many style have come together to make Korean Martial Arts what it is today?
Terry


----------



## monkey (May 22, 2006)

Some do it to gain status in the art,much like karate.In the war time Japan was give 12 monks as gift (okinawa) to be exact.Later McCarther stopped the training of the arts( ordered in (ww1 time) & okinwans used farm tool, but heres a kicker!Teddy Rosevel & others let their wives & friends study from them.Now as for China they claim 2500 yr old but on A & E  the doc showed that Africa was the birth place to the empty hands - wepons ect. The nubians were great warriors & later it filterd to egyption ways & romen ect.Much like history -Its (his story) or whom ever may tell it.Not to many will state that Africans were a part of the civil war-not to many state the spanards were great pirates & often hired by roalty to conquer lands.Hence the philippino war with El Cortez & Lapu Lapu>


----------



## Makalakumu (May 22, 2006)

It's just Korean Nationalism, Terry.  The old masters passed it on to their American students and THEY continue it out of tradition.  The sad part is that alot of this stuff that is only half understood (if that) and it gets dropped in favor of some flashy made up stuff that suddenly seems more "Korean".


----------



## terryl965 (May 22, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It's just Korean Nationalism, Terry. The old masters passed it on to their American students and THEY continue it out of tradition. The sad part is that alot of this stuff that is only half understood (if that) and it gets dropped in favor of some flashy made up stuff that suddenly seems more "Korean".


 
Upnorth I appreciate you statement, but if it was dropped in favor od flashy made up stuff then how do we bring the true Korean way back so American can se what was truely an art form from the past. Last thing why did it just become Korean when did the other art influences stop and why?
Terry


----------



## Makalakumu (May 22, 2006)

One of the problems, Terry, IMO, is that I have no way to find out what is Korean and what is not anymore.  There has been so much change and flux and made up stuff and cooked history books that its very hard to separate the wheat from the chaf.  

But that is the nature of Korea.  If you look at the history of the region, it is the melting pot.  My impression is that the Koreans, after WWII, wanted to be more nationalistic and powerful, like their conquerers the Japanese.  Thus they attempted to solidify the melting pot into something Korean by any means neccessary.


----------



## terryl965 (May 22, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> One of the problems, Terry, IMO, is that I have no way to find out what is Korean and what is not anymore. There has been so much change and flux and made up stuff and cooked history books that its very hard to separate the wheat from the chaf.
> 
> But that is the nature of Korea. If you look at the history of the region, it is the melting pot. My impression is that the Koreans, after WWII, wanted to be more nationalistic and powerful, like their conquerers the Japanese. Thus they attempted to solidify the melting pot into something Korean by any means neccessary.


 
That is the same problem I have had for years wadding through the crap.
Terry


----------



## Makalakumu (May 22, 2006)

I really don't mean to present such a dim view, but I think that anyone who has practiced KMAs has come across this.  This doesn't mean that training in KMA's is worthless, I think there is a lot of value.  The bottom line is that I think that we need to look at our KMAs as the melting pots they are.  There is a lot of strength in that.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 22, 2006)

More on this whole melting pot concepts, but does anyone else out there feel that KMAs that "melt" more then others have more contentious discussions on MT?  I wonder if all of the lineage disputes are coming down to multiple attempts to "Koreanize" multiple non-Korean lineages?  Hapkido and Hwa Rang Do come to mind initially, but I'm sure other arts are like this too.

Another thing that I've noticed is that lower dans and gups really don't care about things like "Koreanized lineages" or other silliness.  I wonder at what level a student "Drinks the Kool-Aide" and suddenly the "melting pot" art isn't good enough anymore?  

Thoughts?


----------



## IcemanSK (May 22, 2006)

I agree that the Koreans have "Koreanized" (yeah, its a word now) a lot of history. But its what made Korea still a defineable country after all these years. They've been over-run & occupied countless times, but they never assimilated into the other cultures. Rather they asimilated the other cultures into them & made it their own. No other culture in the world has managed to do this. Do I wish we had more accurate history? Yes! But I still marvel at how Koreans asimiliate things into their culture. Like they did with judo during the occupation. They made it their own (Yudo) & to this day, as long as a Korean beats a Japanese player in competition, its like they won a gold medal in the Olympics.


----------



## Paul B (May 22, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> ..snip.. I wonder if all of the lineage disputes are coming down to multiple attempts to "Koreanize" multiple non-Korean lineages? Hapkido and Hwa Rang Do come to mind initially, but I'm sure other arts are like this too.


 
I think it is simply about "turf" and $..and that's about it. I've yet to meet a Korean GM who isn't fiercly patriotic..the result of having lived through the occupation or the aftermath I'm sure. Who wouldn't be? On the other hand I don't think that excuses them from "cooking the books" on occasion.



			
				upnorthkysa said:
			
		

> ...Another thing that I've noticed is that lower dans and gups really don't care about things like "Koreanized lineages" or other silliness. I wonder at what level a student "Drinks the Kool-Aide" and suddenly the "melting pot" art isn't good enough anymore?


 
No we don't, or perhaps more accurately..we shouldn't. I would be hard pressed to say if we think it's the Art that let's us down..or our own projections of what we think our Art really is.


----------



## matt.m (May 22, 2006)

You know I am a firm believer that in terms of hapkido, the Japanese influence is held tight for truth.  The reason for this is because it is exactly that, it's true.

However, I believe the reason why the koreans and americans who practice the arts of tkd and hapkido for instance have made it their own.  For instance many hapkido and aikido techniques are predominately the same.  Hapkido has a more powerful execution of the same technique though.  So it seems to me the reference and acknowledgement of Japanese influence is honored favorably, however you must realize that it is the difference that makes it what it is as well.


----------



## mystic warrior (Jul 1, 2006)

terryl965 said:
			
		

> Put so much into the history of Korean Martial Arts when it came from other countrys? How come we just don't go back to the originators and learn that style? How many style have come together to make Korean Martial Arts what it is today?
> Terry


Because lot of people get suckered into the thought that they are apart of some thing bigger than themsleves. And it makes people feel good.
And the reason we can not go back to the people that invented the art.
Is because most of them are dead or darn near close.
Well it was I think on this forum they came up with like a hundred arts.
The question you should be asking your self is. Which is more important to know. The tech. that might save your life some day in a real fight.
Or the fact that your art may or may not be related to the hwa rang of korea.
Think on that for a min and tell what your answer is.


----------



## rmclain (Jul 1, 2006)

terryl965 said:
			
		

> Upnorth I appreciate you statement, but if it was dropped in favor od flashy made up stuff then how do we bring the true Korean way back so American can se what was truely an art form from the past. Last thing why did it just become Korean when did the other art influences stop and why?
> Terry


 
The problem with this is that there is really no one around still teaching the arts that were dropped in lieu of modern taekwondo.  So, most of the "masters" around today would just be guessing (at best) and making something up and sticking an "Old Korean" label on it.  Isn't that what Hwarango-do (among others) has already attempted to do?

Even the "Grandmasters" still around that claim link to an old (before KTA/WTF) kwan I've met or researched don't even teach anything from the old days - they just use the old name because they may or may not have started at the old kwan.  But, an examination of their curriculum clearly shows just another re-packaged WTF school (Palgue & Tae Guek forms mostly).  It appears they stopped teaching the old curriculum and conformed to the modern KTA/WTF curriculums.

Also, realize that art evolves - depending on the environment and needs.  For example:  South Korea was a horrible war-torn country for awhile where you could be shot on any street corner if someone claimed you were a communist.  Naturally, the martial art training was more brutal during that time, for survival.  Nowadays, people in America (and S. Korea) don't have to worry about that.  So, the arts have changed a bit as a result too.

R. McLain


----------



## mystic warrior (Jul 1, 2006)

rmclain said:
			
		

> The problem with this is that there is really no one around still teaching the arts that were dropped in lieu of modern taekwondo. So, most of the "masters" around today would just be guessing (at best) and making something up and sticking an "Old Korean" label on it. Isn't that what Hwarango-do (among others) has already attempted to do?
> 
> 
> R. McLain


first off no
And what are you talking about as regards to hwa rang do


----------



## rmclain (Jul 2, 2006)

I suppose I should have clarified my response a bit.  I was mostly speaking about the kong soo do/tang soo do arts and the relationship to modern taekwondo.   If you know of someone teaching something different from the  ITF or WTF forms/curriculum I would like to see information about them.  Of course, any Moo Duk Won school would not be teaching ITF or WTF - I am speaking about the others.

I didn't respond in regards to hapkido, tae kyun, or yudo. 

Modern Hwarango-do was really based on Hapkido.  I know the founder, Dr. Joo-Bang Lee, claimed links to some 57th generation monk, but that can be taken with a grain of salt.  Either way, they have a very good and skillful martial art to their credit.  I just used this art as an example of someone using an old name to link themselves with something in history.  

R. McLain


----------



## matt.m (Jul 18, 2006)

I guess to expand on my earlier ideas......I think it is important to know where you come from to understand what you are all about, so to speak.

European ideaology was big on this kind of stuff.  You had to prove nobility linage just to joust etc.  

Marine Corps history was pounded in our head during boot camp, so I guess that is why it is a big deal to me.  Just as I know the hapkido lineage of Moo Sul Kwan, as well as the Judo lineage.


----------



## Last Fearner (Aug 17, 2006)

I have a different perspective on the history of Korean Martial Art than many others, and specifically what is known as "Taekwondo" today. In my research, and my personal viewpoint, Korean Taekwondo did not come from any other country - - quite the opposite! The phrase that comes to my mind is "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

I think many people researching the history of the Martial Art, in general, and specifically Korean Martial Art, get too hung up on labels, and what outside influences occurred along the way. It is the roots that matter the most to the history, not what damage occurred to the tree as it grew, or who hung various ornaments on it, or chopped off a limb here or there, etc.

To me, the following quote has a strong meaning for this discussion:



			
				matt.m said:
			
		

> Marine Corps history was pounded in our head during boot camp, so I guess that is why it is a big deal to me.


 
The U.S. Marines originated as part of the U.S. Military Forces. What sources gave substance to the early patriots, and "minute men" who defended this country likely came from other countries, and the early U.S. Generals' knowledge of military tactics did as well. However, as this country grew, and developed it's *own concept* of a military, the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force became unique. The Marines, for instance, are what I consider true American Soldiers. Yet, the Marines of today, are not the same as they were just a century ago. We study our adversaries, and learn from our allies, but that does not change who we are, or where we came from.

Now, granted, America itself is a "melting pot" of people, cultures, knowledge, and traditions. For that matter, virtually every country in the world is to some extent. Therefore, are we to say that no country can claim national lineage to their traditions because they might have been "influenced" by some neighboring country, or by the people who conquered the land thousands of years ago, and the others thousands of years before that?

Martial Art history is a controversial topic simply because so many people define the term differently. Many identify a particular "style" by what type of techniques dominate their curriculum. Others label them by what forms they practice. These things are such miniscule portions of the whole that makes up the concept of "Martial Art." Most seem to be focusing on fighting skills rather than the philosophy, self defense in general, and the similarities that all Martial Art schools share.

I don't buy into this theory that the "Martial Art" began in Africa, or Egypt, simply because that is not what I believe the whole "Martial Art is. They are talking about unarmed combat skills. Fighting skills (with or without weapons) has existed in virtually every culture, and continent since the first humans set foot on the soil.

In my view, the term "Martial Art" refers to a specific culmination of mind, body, and spirit, that developed over the past several thousand years, equilaterally throughout Asia, with some influences between countries, but mostly as a *"mutual discovery"* of natures forces, rather than an *"invention"* by any one man (or woman), or any one nation.

The Korean people have had their own unique struggles since the peninsula was first settled some 5,000 years ago, and they have had their own unique methods of mental, spiritual, and physical ways of dealing with their enemies throughout their history. Korean Martial Art originated, developed, and was utilized in forms of striking (foot and hand techniques), holding (grappling, joint locks, and pressure points), and throwing skills, uniquely in their own land.

While research, observation of skills from other countries, and an occupation which attempted to wipe out the entire Korean culture and recorded history has had lasting affects on their native Martial Art, I do not believe it is unreasonable to state that Korean Martial Art was, is, and always will be unique to their country. Therefore, it should not be viewed as a descendant of any other country's Martial Art any more than the Native American "Indians" way of life should be considered descended from the "white man's" culture. European influences are evident in among Modern Native American tribes, but their traditions go back to before the invasion of the white man.

In my opinion, Korea is not trying to "Koreanize" anything. To me, that term means taking something that is not yours, and calling it yours. What I see happening (and it is a matter of perspective, rather than plain "truth") is that they are attempting to "wash away" the stains from an occupying nation. Most nations acknowledge their appreciation of the culture from other nations, and absorbing some things into your own is natural. However, I feel that too many people are focusing on "recent historical events," instead of seeing the big picture, which involves the re-emergence of what existed before, and re-naming it for modern times (yes, with some outside influences, but not replacing the core or the Korean roots).

The term "Taekwon-do," or "Tae Kwon Do" is used by many to identify "their art," "their organization," or "their founder's lineage." The Korean people have chosen the term "*Taekwondo*" to represent all that was, and is, of *Korean* Historical birth in the Martial Art. Other techniques, forms, and terms might exist within this modern structure, but it is no more or less of a "melting pot" than every other system of Martial Art in the world today.

This is my viewpoint, as I believe it is shared by many of the Koreans who wish to promote what is rightfully theirs from their nation's history (not re-written but the old uncovered and revealed with acknowledgments of natural changes, over time, to keep up with current application of ancient skills). I am aware that there are many Koreans, and others who do not wish to acknowledge the outside influences (especially from Japan), but even in acknowledging these recent influences, does not mean that Taekwondo itself, is not of ancient Korean origin since the term (not General Choi's version, but Korea's national art) was meant to give a new name to the ancient skills.

CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## pstarr (Aug 18, 2006)

Certainly, I can appreciate with your viewpoint regarding the native martial disciplines of Korea, but taekwondo, by that name, was created by Choi Hong Hi out of Shotokan karate which he learned in Japan (and achieved nidan ranking).

     The original taekwondo forms were actually Shotokan forms.

     A contemporary of Choi's, Hwang Kee, also trained in Japan and called his art tangsoodo.  Both of them had hopes of getting their respective disciplines accepted by the Korean military prior to the Korean Conflict.  The war caused the military to shelve the idea and when the dust settled in 1955, it was Choi who got there firstest with the mostest (and he was a general, to boot) and the rest is history.

     Certainly, there are numerous native Korean combative arts but most of them have probably died out.  It would be interesting to do some research and determine if there are any current practitioners of those arts.


----------



## rmclain (Aug 18, 2006)

The only thing ancient about Taekwondo is their practicioners can use any human natural motion for fighting - just like people that have come before for thousands of years.  To try to hang onto some ancient structured Korean martial art (of any name) is really silly, if you understand even a little about Korean history.

A note about Choi Hong-hi and Taekwondo:  Choi Hong-hi promoted his new system, "Taekwondo," through the military, that's true.  One little detail left out...anyone in the Army with prior training at one of the kwans was recruited to promote CHoi Hong Hi's Taekwondo with the promise of a good assignment and not being sent to the DMZ.  Refusal to help promote it,..you get sent to the DMZ - not a nice place at that time.  This is partly why "Taekwondo" became most widely known and practiced in Korea.

Later, with as much bickering from people that donned business suits instead of doboks, it is no wonder that several organizations sprung up, struggled for power, and tried to make Taekwondo into an ancient martial art to suit their own purposes.

R. McLain


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki (Aug 19, 2006)

> A contemporary of Choi's, Hwang Kee, also trained in Japan and called his art tangsoodo.



Well...that is incorrect.  Hwang Kee never trained nor lived in Japan.  Hwang Kee worked for the Railroad following graduation from Secondary School.  In particular, he worked for the Survey Department.  This was a good job and allowed him to travel whereever the Rail Road went to.  At that time, the Japanese were occupying his country as well as Manchuria.  Hwang Kee traveled to Manchuria as part of his job.  While in Manchuria near the Chinese border, Hwang Kee encountered a Mr. Yang and studied a form of Tai Chi under him for approx. 2 years.  That is all the formal training Hwang Kee ever received.  Upon liberation, Hwang Kee opened the Moo Duk Kwan teaching an art he called Hwa Soo Do.  However, the school never took off.  Two failed attempts later, he encountered Lee Won Kuk one day and over lunch the suggestion was made by Lee for Hwang Kee to change to Tang Soo Do (Lee himself was a student of Karate under Funakoshi).  Hwang Kee was familiar with Karate due to his having access to text books in a library near his office at work.  It was from studying these books that Hwang Kee learned the forms used in Tang Soo Do (I.E. Pyong Ahns, Bal Sae, Naebujin, etc.).  This formula of using Tang Soo Do (Karate) forms and principals from Chinese Martial Arts (Tai Chi - Shaolin) led to the Moo Duk Kwan becoming very successful.

In closing, many myths have been told about the personal history of Hwang Kee.  I've encounted most of them over the years.  Ten years ago I began trying to eliminate this misinformation form the collective knowledge.  Unfortunately, there are still many out there that prefer their 'versions' over the 'facts'.  Nonetheless...Hwang Kee never studied in Japan...and never had a Japanese Karate teacher.


----------



## Last Fearner (Aug 22, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> Certainly, I can appreciate with your viewpoint regarding the native martial disciplines of Korea, but taekwondo, by that name, was created by Choi Hong Hi out of Shotokan karate which he learned in Japan (and achieved nidan ranking).
> 
> The original taekwondo forms were actually Shotokan forms.


 
Hi, pstarr.

I can understand why you say this, but it is a common misconception, and mostly due to the narrow scope of historical events.  I will try to explain (as best I can in a relatively short post) why the statement that "taekwondo, by that name, was created by Choi Hong Hi out of Shotokan karate..." is incorrect.

First, there is a difference between what is labeled as the hyphenated "Taekwon-do" of General Choi's teaching, and the Korean National Martial Art of "Taekwondo."  It seems insignificant, or like splitting hairs to those who are not really aware of what occurred (or have a single, one-sided, handed-down version), but it means a world of difference in the whole, historical development of events.

Think of what Taekwondo is today!  Not only the techniques, but the philosophy, culture, traditions, and way of life.  General Choi did not invent those things, nor did he create the first school that taught them along with self defense skills.  As for the skills, think of what is contained in Taekwondo - - striking with the feet (Gen. Choi did not invent that), Striking with the hands, knees, elbows, etc. (Gen. Choi did not invent those), pressure points, joint locks, take-downs, throws, and grappling (although Gen. Choi's teachings contained some of each of these, he did not invent them, nor did he have an equal balance of each).  Many, so-called, taekwondo schools today do not have the proper balance of the ancient skills.

General Choi made statements in his life-time, that he was the first to bring the "hand" and "foot" techniques together, but historical records has shown this to be untrue.  Many Masters before him, including his own teachers, used both hand and foot fighting skills in combination.  As for the term of "Taekwon-do," there is a dispute as to whether or not Gen. Choi "thought this term up" himself, when he submitted it in 1955, or if someone suggested it to him.  I don't know if there is any record of Gen. Choi having used the term, or promoted his "Oh Do Kwan" with that term *prior to* the 1955 meeting.

The relevant point is, the meeting in 1955 was a group effort, between the Kwan leaders, and the Korean Government, to find a "new name" for their ancient national art - - this means *ALL* of the skills that were formerly taught in Korea prior to the occupation, and every *modern* application of that ancient knowledge.  Everyone at that meeting represented different factions, yet were working for one common cause.  

When someone works for a Corporation, and submits a name at a staff meeting for a product or service, that name becomes the "intellectual property" of that Corporation, and no employee, or former employee (even the person who submitted the name) is allowed to use it without the corporations consent.

The Korean Government chose the name "Taekwon-do," as submitted by Gen. Choi, for the new name of their "National Martial Art."  What General Choi did in his own schools, was not established as "Taekwon-do" prior to that meeting.  It was the same concept as was done in the other "Kwans."  He applied his own personal insights, and teaching methods (including the Chang Hon forms based on Shotokan Karate) as his own unique "Oh Do Kwan" (appropriately "Gym of My Way).  As the term "Taekwon-do" became widely accepted (following the 1955 meeting), and Choi had the opportunity to teach what he did to the military, and demonstrate the way of the "Oh Do Kwan" around the world, in his travels, he made the connection between *his way of doing things*, and the term "Taekwon-do."

The Korean government, and the other Kwan leaders decided to remove him from his positions of authority (which they had generously granted him), and regain control of their art, and the term "Taekwondo" which represented, not the "Oh Do Kwan," but the five original Kwans, and any aspect of previous Martial Art indigenous to Korea.  For those who believe that the term "Taekwondo" does not represent anything prior to 1955 (suggesting that it is a "new art" created by one man), they do not understand the intention of the Korean people to re-name their ancient art as it was re-unified, and re-designed in the post-occupation era.

Yes, Gen. Choi had influences in these developments, and offered much leadership, and many good ideas.  Certain formats, forms, and teaching styles were shared by many, and adopted by others only to be changed for new ones.  No one can say for sure where Gen. Choi learned much of his methods as he was once taught by those who founded the first Kwan in 1944 (Chung Do Kwan), and who were senior to Choi Hong Hi when he was a 4th Dan, and not a even a member of the Korean Army yet, let alone a General.

If you look closely at the age, rank, and experience of all involved at that time, including young Choi Hong Hi, you might get a different perspective on who began what, and why the name "Taekwondo," as accepted by the Korean Government, has little to do with what young Choi Hong Hi, taught in his Oh Do Kwan lineage, or what he later attached to his own personal revelations in the Martial Art.  "Taekwon-do" (hyphenated), the "Oh Do Kwan," and the resulting departure of ITF from a Korean authorized World governing body, to Gen. Choi's personal, independent organization, were General Choi's creations.  Yet, those creations were not a "new Art."  They were mostly re-packaging of what already existed in the past, and in other kwans (including Japanese influence), and was a small sliver of what the Nationally recognized term of "Taekwondo" means to the Korean people.

They are simply not the same thing!  The term "Taekwondo" (as it is used in reference to Korea's National Art) should be understood as meaning "The newly revived, and re-organized *Ancient Maritial Art of Korea"*

With Respects,
CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Aug 22, 2006)

Last Fearner said:
			
		

> Hi, pstarr.
> 
> I can understand why you say this, but it is a common misconception, and mostly due to the narrow scope of historical events. I will try to explain (as best I can in a relatively short post) why the statement that "taekwondo, by that name, was created by Choi Hong Hi out of Shotokan karate..." is incorrect.
> 
> ...


 
While, as always, you make some tremendous posts and bring up great and often lesser-known facts, it is simply NOT possible, IMO, to see TKD as a "revived and reorganized Ancient Martial Art of Korea" rather than a heavily, heavily Shotokan influenced art that has taken on distinctly Korean attributes. I'm sorry, but I've spent years in both (Moo Duk Kwan, Oh Do Kwan and, yes, ATA) and JKA style Shotokan. Pre-Olympic TKD has more in common with Japanese (as opposed to Okinawan) Karate than it does to ANY OTHER ART, indigenous Korean arts not excepted. However; I do understand and sympathize with many Korean's reluctance (given the BRUTAL occupation of their country by the Japanese 1905-1945) to credit _Japanese _sources for their "National Martial Art".


----------

