A Brief History of Taekwon-Do by General Choi

[KarateMomUSA]

ITF Taekwondo is NOT original TKD. GM Lee had nothing to do with the ITF. Gen. Choi founded a NAME, and even that's up for debate if you ask GM Son. He called what he was doing, what the Chung Do Kwan people taught his Oh Do Kwan, TKD. TKD had already been founded, he just changed the name to give it a nationalistic name. Having read GM Son's book Korean Karate: The Art of Tae Kwon Do (remember him, kicked Choi out on his rear?) and compared the pictures to what I do, appears to be that someone had learned TKD before the 1954 naming committee came around. There are some differences for sure, but given that what is most likely my lineage, original ATA, was founded by a Chung Do Kwan guy, it's pretty close. Unless you want to say that GM Son changed his ways to teach what Gen. Choi was teaching.

Ok not to be disagreeable, but you can be right. Many people will trace much of what became TKD to the CDK, there is little doubt about that.
However when I use the term "Original TKD" I am referring to Gen Choi's TKD that they started to develop in the ROK Army. By that I mean it was the ORIGINAL or 1st system of Korean Martial Art to apply the name TKD to it, continuously from 1954/5 to present day.
So it can really boil down to both semantics & definitions of how the term is applied or used.
Now additionally we know that the CDK was an original kwan & that it was very influential in producing member students who would evntually play a role in the Tang Su Do & Kong Su Do movements. We also know from the Modern History that they also adopted the name Tae Soo Do & applied it to the martial sport rules that they were developing in 1961.
There is also some evidence to suggest that the Song Moo Kwan may have opened before the CDK, by a couple of months. But even if that is accurate, the SMK did not play a big role in the early days of unification of Tae Soo Do to TKD. While its founder Grandmaster Ro Byung Jik was the 4th president of the KTA, he followed Gen Choi, but only lasted about a year. The Modern History said he was more comfortable with his own kwan.
But in both cases, if you take this route & it is a good route to take, it will lead you further back to Shotokan & Funakoshi Sensei, as he was both of their teachers. So if you say that either of these original & early kwans was the root for TKD, you have to go back to their teacher, don't you?
What is also important to understand is that Grandmaster Lee Won Kuk, the CDK founder was arrested & jailed in 1949. His family was harrassed by the use of nasty Korean politics. When he was released in 1950, he & some of his family fled to Japan to escape further political persecution. So we see him involved for 4, 5-6 years tops, in Korean karate, leaving way before TKD & those unification efforts. He really wasn't directly involved in TKD. His students were very much so, even making up most of the eventual instructor core in the military ODK. The ODK was not only staffed by CDK students.

As to GM Son, yes he did revoke Gen Choi's honorary certificate after they had a falling out. Prior to that they were closer & did work together. But as we know from other debates, GM Son was out of the CDK, replaced by masters would who eventually play huge roles in TKD's unifcation. GM Son kicked those people out, not Gen Choi. But we know his order had little effect & that those he did try to kick out, were members that were highly influential, were following & working with Gen Choi & we know how important they were for TKD.

Now if you mean the ATA that was formed in the States back in the 1960s by Eternal Grandmaster Lee. Was he not a student of Grandmaster Kang Suh Chong, a student of the CDK that opened the Kuk Mu Kwan, which was where he taught Grandmaster Lee?

As to the naming of TKD, I have not found 1 credible source that supports GM Son's claim. Even his Korean karate book written in the 1960s, does not mention it at all, nor does he have that claim recorded in any interview or written work that he produced. While I am aware of that claim, I would love to see some evidence of that assertion.

 

[Earl Weiss]

''''''''''but given that what is most likely my lineage, original ATA, was founded by a Chung Do Kwan guy, it's pretty close. Unless you want to say that GM Son changed his ways to teach what Gen. Choi was teaching.

Yep, HU Lee wasa CDK guy. ATA doid the Chang Hon Patterns for a long while. To this day those progeny that did not change do the Chang Hon Patterns with a CDK Flavor. I have a video of a ATA demo in North Korea, I think it's from 1999 or perhaps early 2000, with HU Lee Watching along with General Choi. So they obviously still had a relationship.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Yes Sir, good points. By open minded, I mean more fair. I am the 1st to say that TKD came from karate, but is not karate, it is Korean TKD. I am also very clear that the path taken, was actually 2 major ones, original, ITF, Chang Hon TKD or Olympic, WTF, Kukki TKD.
Therefore at some point, probably the 1960s, the histories will diverge! It is not a lie or fabrication by the other side, but rather 2 different stories to be told,.

You both got to this point (remember the Rashamon analogy?) and it probably should have ended there. But continues because of this:

2 seperate groups to be credited & thanked.

I clearly see this & have been very consistent in my praise of the Kukki TKD pioneers. They all deserve credit & thanks from Korea & all TKD students, now & in the future. But they never will now or in the future, unless we name them.
Surely no one can have a problem with this approach, can they?
Am I being too naive?

In and of itself, no, but to demand it from another poster on a forum is another matter. If they want credit and thanks from outside of their own organization, they or their students can write books detailing their work and efforts in the establishment and proliferation of taekwondo. Nothing stopping you from writing such a book, in fact.

Primary issue that you have with Puunui is that he has stated reasons why he does not wish to credit Choi as you feel Choi should be credited. Regardless of the feelings of ITF folks, he is not going to change his viewpoint on the subject.

Might be best if individuals receive credit and thanks within their own organizations. Honestly, it isn't as if there are legions of people waiting with baited breath for all of this to be sorted out. Outside of taekwondo, nobody cares. And in my observation, the people making an issue out of credit always seem to be ITF, so its kind of a one sided issue. Choi receives tons of credit, by the way. Between four separate ITF groups, numerous independent but ITF descended groups, and various people who just latch onto his name because it is intellectually easier, he is lauded all over the web as the "Father of Taekwondo." If anything, he receives way more individual credit than any other individual in taekwondo, possibley in KMA.

To read some of your posts, youd think Choi was some unsung hero outside of a small group of people and that simply is not the case.

You see for me, it is now the 2nd decade of the 21st century. We still see to be fighting 20th century battles & few of us have been even hurt directly from those past wars, so why are we fighting?
We are all TKDin!
We owe it to each other & our Art, to be fair, polite & open to share.

'We' aren't. A small sub-group fights over this stuff. The rest of us are happy to discuss it when it comes up but really don't dwell on it.

Think about the founders of our country. Which do you think was more important to them; credit or a nation of people 200+ years later enjoying the benefits of living in a free democratic republic?

Likewise, those who pioneered and established taekwondo were, for the most part, more interested in establishing an art and sport that would benefit people around the world for generations to come than they were in getting their names painted all over Blackbeltmag. If that was indeed what they had wanted, I'd guarantee that they would be mentioned extensively in the KKW site's TKD history section.

General Choi established a comprehensive and well constructed martial art of Chang Hon Taekwondo, either on his own or with assistance from others. But from what everyone on both sides of the aisle say, he was a one man show with regards to authority and credit. In the end, when he died, his organization fell apart precisely because was a one man show. Why do you expect the organization that prospered without him to credit him for anything when they aren't even crediting their own founders?

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

ITF Taekwondo is NOT original TKD.

Another point not worth arguing over. The term original can be applied in a number of ways; first to wear the name, first to exist, or original by virtue of practicing what was generally practiced at the time that it was put together.

As vids on another thread indicate, Kukki taekwondo is not what was being practiced in the forties and fifties, and probably sixties as well. If you don't practice the way that they practiced in the late forties and in the fifties, then what you're doing isn't original anyway, regardless of what organization you are affiliated with.

And I have seen enough videos of ATA taekwondo to say that it is far removed from anything 'original' with regards to what was 'originally' practiced. And no, that is not a criticism of the ATA.

In fairness to Karatemom, she is not the first person that I have heard use the term 'original' taekwondo to describe ITF TKD. I don't care. I know that Kukki taekwondo as I train in it, is modern taekwondo. If someone else wants to call whatever it is that they do 'original' then so be it. Doesn't change the fact that the Kukkiwon is the largest single organization or that it is the taekwondo that was included in the olympics. Nor does it change the fact that the Kukkiwon can trace itself to the CDK just as the ITF can. Common root, different paths.

Choose. But choose wisely.

Daniel

 

[chrispillertkd]

ITF Taekwondo is NOT original TKD. GM Lee had nothing to do with the ITF. Gen. Choi founded a NAME, and even that's up for debate if you ask GM Son. He called what he was doing, what the Chung Do Kwan people taught his Oh Do Kwan, TKD. TKD had already been founded, he just changed the name to give it a nationalistic name.

Out of curiosity, how did the Tang Soo which GM Lee taught in the Chung Do Kwan differ from Shotokan? What were the technical differences? What were the forms that the Kwan used that were different from those he learned in Japan? I'm very interested in hearing what it was that GM Lee founded that was unique enough to be its own style (the detail of the name used to describe it aside, obviously).

Having read GM Son's book Korean Karate: The Art of Tae Kwon Do (remember him, kicked Choi out on his rear?)

GM Son also kicked out some pretty high ranking KKW guys "on their rear" but no one cares about that. Uhm Woon Kyu, Hyun Jong Myun and Nam Tae Hi also got "expelled" from the Chung Do Kwan by GM Son but it's quite apparent that his actions don't warrant any real concern given the effect it had on these individuals.

and compared the pictures to what I do, appears to be that someone had learned TKD before the 1954 naming committee came around. There are some differences for sure, but given that what is most likely my lineage, original ATA, was founded by a Chung Do Kwan guy, it's pretty close. Unless you want to say that GM Son changed his ways to teach what Gen. Choi was teaching.

Hmm, I guess I'm not really following you. Are you saying that, since you hold the Chung DO Kwan to be the origin of Taekwon-Do, GM Son founded Taekwon-Do? Or GM Lee? Or both?

Pax,

Chris

 

[puunui]

What is also important to understand is that Grandmaster Lee Won Kuk, the CDK founder was arrested & jailed in 1949. His family was harrassed by the use of nasty Korean politics. When he was released in 1950, he & some of his family fled to Japan to escape further political persecution. So we see him involved for 4, 5-6 years tops, in Korean karate, leaving way before TKD & those unification efforts. He really wasn't directly involved in TKD.

Wrong. GM LEE Won Kuk (who wasn't jailed but instead held for questioning and tortured using electrice shock treatments to his fingertips and other methods, along with GM SON Duk Sung) returned to Korea in 1967 and gave a series of seminars to correct what had become what GM Lee considered a perversion of the forms. Because of Korea's fascination with things Japanese during the 60's, and because of those exchange trips that Taekwondoin were taking to Japan, the stances became wider and longer. GM Lee returned those to the original Okinawan short narrow stances, which are carried on to this day in the Kukkiwon poomsae, which were in part created at the exact same time that GM Lee visited, in 1967. I have lots of photos from those 1967 seminars, with GM Lee wearing a dobok and teaching, with the pioneers (including members of the Oh Do Kwan) in their dobok learning from him. That picture with General Choi sitting quietly and humbly with his eyes down at the table with GM Lee hold a microphone comes from that time.

Mr. Vitale, you need to show a little more respect for GM LEE Won Kuk. If it weren't for him, Taekwondo would be radically different today. Perhaps General Choi would not have had any role whatsoever. It was through GM Lee that General Choi was allowed to infect the Chung Do Kwan and by extension, Taekwondo.

We talked about all of this before by the way.

 

[puunui]

Out of curiosity, how did the Tang Soo which GM Lee taught in the Chung Do Kwan differ from Shotokan? What were the technical differences? What were the forms that the Kwan used that were different from those he learned in Japan? I'm very interested in hearing what it was that GM Lee founded that was unique enough to be its own style (the detail of the name used to describe it aside, obviously).

Who cares what the differences are. All of it is Taekwondo, whether you are practicing what was done in 1944 or what is done in 2011. What GM Son is doing is Taekwondo to the same extent and validity as what Master Jimmy Kim is doing. That's the way the pioneers wanted it, and therefore, that is the way it is.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Mr. Vitale, you need to show a little more respect for GM LEE Won Kuk. If it weren't for him, Taekwondo would be radically different today. Perhaps General Choi would not have had any role whatsoever. It was through GM Lee that General Choi was allowed to infect the Chung Do Kwan and by extension, Taekwondo.

We talked about all of this before by the way.

I seem to be missing something, but who's Mr. Vitale?

Daniel

 

[chrispillertkd]

Who cares what the differences are.

I'm interested. I don't know if I'd say I "cared," but I am interested. Perhaps others are curious, too. This is a public BBS. People are free to ask questions here, Glenn. Besides, bluewaveschool brought it up so I was wondering what he saw as the defining characteristic(s) that set Taekwon-Do apart from Shotokan. Hence, my question.

All of it is Taekwondo, whether you are practicing what was done in 1944 or what is done in 2011.

So, is what the JKA doing Taekwon-Do, too?

What GM Son is doing is Taekwondo to the same extent and validity as what Master Jimmy Kim is doing. That's the way the pioneers wanted it, and therefore, that is the way it is.

Perhaps.

Pax,

Chris

 

[puunui]

So, is what the JKA doing Taekwon-Do, too?

No, because what the JKA is doing today is different than what was being done in 1944. What GM Lee learned under FUNAKOSHI Yoshitaka Sensei is not what the JKA curriculum is about, and in fact the JKA under Nakayama Sensei went out of their way to exclude and remove Yoshitaka Sensei's influences and teachings. But what the JKA is doing maybe similar to "Taekwon-Do"; to me ITF "Taekwon-Do" is closer to what the JKA is doing than Kukki Taekwondo, but I haven't really looked at it all that in depth. I do notice that ITF "Tae
kwon-Do" has wider stances, similar to JKA stances for example.

 

[chrispillertkd]

No, because what the JKA is doing today is different than what was being done in 1944. What GM Lee learned under FUNAKOSHI Yoshitaka Sensei is not what the JKA curriculum is about, and in fact the JKA under Nakayama Sensei went out of their way to exclude and remove Yoshitaka Sensei's influences and teachings.

So, was what Funakoshi was teaching at the Shotokan in '44 Taekwon-Do, then?

But what the JKA is doing maybe similar to "Taekwon-Do"; to me ITF "Taekwon-Do" is closer to what the JKA is doing than Kukki Taekwondo, but I haven't really looked at it all that in depth. I do notice that ITF "Taekwon-Do" has wider stances, similar to JKA stances for example.

Wider stances than KKW TKD? Yes, but that would only be for gunnun sogi and annun sogi, really. Many of the other stances are quite similar. (Though we don't have any that cross the feet like the ohja sogi. Well I don't really consider kyocha sogi to be "crossed," at least not in the same way.)

Pax,

Chris

 

[puunui]

So, was what Funakoshi was teaching at the Shotokan in '44 Taekwon-Do, then?

I don't know which Funakoshi Sensei you are referring to, but what Gichin Sensei and Yoshitaka Sensei were doing was Karate, which is what they called it and which is what GM LEE Won Kuk called it when he was studying there. What GM LEE Won Kuk was teaching in 1944 is considered Taekwondo by the pioneers, and by GM Lee. I once asked GM LEE Chong Woo what was the martial arts school name where he studied during the 1940's. He wrote on a piece of paper "Chosun Yun Moo Kwan Taekwondo Bu" in hangul. I understand that to mean that everything from the earliest days is considered Taekwondo, and it is all considered Taekwondo from the date that the Kwan first began in the 1940's. I still have that piece of paper. Even General Choi says the same thing, and he includes the Okinawan practitioners who invented the Okinawan kata as practicing Taekwon-Do.

Wider stances than KKW TKD? Yes, but that would only be for gunnun sogi and annun sogi, really. Many of the other stances are quite similar. (Though we don't have any that cross the feet like the ohja sogi. Well I don't really consider kyocha sogi to be "crossed," at least not in the same way.)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I understand Sogi, but that is about it.

 

[chrispillertkd]

I don't know which Funakoshi Sensei you are referring to, but what Gichin Sensei and Yoshitaka Sensei were doing was Karate, which is what they called it and which is what GM LEE Won Kuk called it when he was studying there. What GM LEE Won Kuk was teaching in 1944 is considered Taekwondo by the pioneers, and by GM Lee.

How did what GM Lee taught at that time differ from what he learned in Japan?

Pax,

Chris

 

[puunui]

How did what GM Lee taught at that time differ from what he learned in Japan?

I asked him about that actually, but can't remember his answer with respect to individual techniques. It's on tape though. I remember that he felt that there were enough differences in his own method that he chose to change the name of the art from Kongsoodo to Tangsoodo and also the name Songdokwan (Shotokan) to Chung Do Kwan. Specifically on the name change from Shotokan to Chung Do Kwan, he said that the parent is different from the child, hence the different name. He said that much of it was the same just like much of the name is the same, but there were also differences hence the different first character. I know that he disagreed with Gichin Sensei's methods, mainly because he felt the son Yoshitaka Sensei had the better style and method. Yoshitaka Sensei and GM Lee were also about the same age, so he felt more comfortable learning the son's style. He also said that his own students were much more interested in and practiced kicking much more than was ever emphasized or taught in Japan. He also considered NAKAYAMA Sensei to be his junior, in age and also karate experience. So to answer to your question, there are differences but there are also similarities from what he learned in Japan to what was taught and practiced in Korea.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

Yep, HU Lee wasa CDK guy. ATA doid the Chang Hon Patterns for a long while. To this day those progeny that did not change do the Chang Hon Patterns with a CDK Flavor. I have a video of a ATA demo in North Korea, I think it's from 1999 or perhaps early 2000, with HU Lee Watching along with General Choi. So they obviously still had a relationship.

OK I thought he was a student of GM Kang Suh Chong at the Kuk Mu Kwan, not the CDK. The Kuk Mu Kwan was a sub-kwan under the CDK. I didn't realize he was training at the CDK.

 

[chrispillertkd]

I asked him about that actually, but can't remember his answer with respect to individual techniques. It's on tape though. I remember that he felt that there were enough differences in his own method that he chose to change the name of the art from Kongsoodo to Tangsoodo and also the name Songdokwan (Shotokan) to Chung Do Kwan. Specifically on the name change from Shotokan to Chung Do Kwan, he said that the parent is different from the child, hence the different name. He said that much of it was the same just like much of the name is the same, but there were also differences hence the different first character. I know that he disagreed with Gichin Sensei's methods, mainly because he felt the son Yoshitaka Sensei had the better style and method. Yoshitaka Sensei and GM Lee were also about the same age, so he felt more comfortable learning the son's style. He also said that his own students were much more interested in and practiced kicking much more than was ever emphasized or taught in Japan. He also considered NAKAYAMA Sensei to be his junior, in age and also karate experience. So to answer to your question, there are differences but there are also similarities from what he learned in Japan to what was taught and practiced in Korea.

Interesting. I'm not surprised about the cultural emphasis on kicking, of course. It would be nice to know specifics abotu what he said regarding differences, however. If something is a different style, after all, it should have some sort of differentiation from the style(s) it came from.

Pax,

Chris

 

[KarateMomUSA]

In and of itself, no, but to demand it from another poster on a forum is another matter. If they want credit and thanks from outside of their own organization, they or their students can write books detailing their work and efforts in the establishment and proliferation of taekwondo. Nothing stopping you from writing such a book, in fact.
Primary issue that you have with Puunui is that he has stated reasons why he does not wish to credit Choi as you feel Choi should be credited. Regardless of the feelings of ITF folks, he is not going to change his viewpoint on the subject.
Might be best if individuals receive credit and thanks within their own organizations.

Good points. Let me clarify if I may:
It is not so much that Gen Choi needs to be credited, but all the Koreans who brought martial arts to Korea & opened those original & early kwans. Likewise, they & their students that played major roles in not only developing TKD, but spreading it around the world also need to be thanked & recorded in history.
It really has little to do with what me, you, Puunui or anyone else thinks or feels, but that the history of TKD needs to expand so it can be more comprehensive.
Thats my point!
Remember that the history of TKD as still reported officially via the KTA, KKW & WTF is still talking about 2,000 years ago.
And we know that the ITF version is Gen Choi did everything, which is also false. He had a team of very talented martial artists that need to be credited & thanked as well. These men, Chang Hon, Kukki & Indie TKD leaders were in effect goodwill ambassadors for Korea. They truly deserve the thanks of their nation & all TKDin, now & in the future.
I for one do not think that it is too much to ask. It would also be nice for them to hear it themselves, before they leave us for the next place.
WHAT GOOD IS IT to hear in a eulogy at their funeral. They should hear it with their own ears now, see it with their own eyes, feel it in their hands when they shake the hands of the officials that thanks them, as well as feel it in their hearts. It is the least we can do for those that did for us & made possible what so many love today & will come to love tomorrow & all the other tomorrows.

(Eulogy = Solemn praise, not limited to a funeral or graveside reading. However far to often it is only said then. So much so, that most think it is only something said when someone passes from this life. It is not, not by definition!)

 

[KarateMomUSA]

And in my observation, the people making an issue out of credit always seem to be ITF, so its kind of a one sided issue. Choi receives tons of credit, by the way. Between four separate ITF groups, numerous independent but ITF descended groups, and various people who just latch onto his name because it is intellectually easier, he is lauded all over the web as the "Father of Taekwondo." If anything, he receives way more individual credit than any other individual in taekwondo, possibley in KMA.
To read some of your posts, youd think Choi was some unsung hero outside of a small group of people and that simply is not the case.

Again good points & this is part of the problem. What Gen Choi said & what the ITFers put out & have come to believe is not really correct. It is a 1 sided version that ignores the larger group, which has more influence & has become what the world has come to know when they think about TKD. This is both not fair & a source of great conflict & much hard feelings by many outside of the ITF group.
With this approach, working together is difficult. With these hard feelings, comes more hard feelings.
Since the history of TKD is so confusing, with much distortion, we must start to be more comprehensive, crediting the many that deserve being honored & thanked.
While Gen Choi was the leader of a developmental path for TKD, he did not do it by himself. While he was a talented & educated man that held power, he was a leader of his development, not the sole figure responsible.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

Think about the founders of our country. Which do you think was more important to them; credit or a nation of people 200+ years later enjoying the benefits of living in a free democratic republic?

Sir you are 100% right. These giants among men were doing what they had to do. They established something that was never in place before. They did it without a blueprint or guidance from some previous model, other than knowing what they did not want to repeat.
However they are honored all the time, throughout major holidays, monuments, schools, bridges & other things named after them. They appear in the textbooks in schools, on money, in movies, books etc.
They didn't do it for the glory, but they deserve the credit they got, they have been preserved forever in history. Their examples have become models to emulate & they have inspired untold numbers around the world.
I would venture a guess that we didn't do it only for them, but for us & those that will come into this world in the future.

(I love the Chang Hon Tuls. part of my admiration come from the fact that they are named after great Korean patriots & significant events in Korean history. When I perform them & when I read about these figures, they remind me of how much more I have to work, how much better I can be. This is TKD)

 

[KarateMomUSA]

General Choi established a comprehensive and well constructed martial art of Chang Hon Taekwondo, either on his own or with assistance from others. But from what everyone on both sides of the aisle say, he was a one man show with regards to authority and credit. In the end, when he died, his organization fell apart precisely because was a one man show. Why do you expect the organization that prospered without him to credit him for anything when they aren't even crediting their own founders?

I believe that there is truth in this. We do need to credit & thank his team as well. They have had a deep, positive effect on the lives of many.
As to the KKW:
I truly believe that the KKW is "The Mecca of TKD". It has as a main function of holding the honor of being the world TKD academy. As such, it has the privilege & responsibility of not only developing techniques & instructors, but educating the world of what TKD is.
How can they accomplish teaching the world, including students of TKD, of what TKD is, without teaching the history of TKD?
That history will of course include how TKD came about, who helped develop it, where & when did they do it & how was it spread to some 190+ nations of the world!
Once that is done, in an honest & comprehensive way, Gen Choi will get whatever credit he deserves, but so will all the others, who have largely remained nameless.
There is only 1 TKD.
We really do have more in common with each other, than that which sets us apart.
There is no reason why battles that go back to the turn of the last century, have to be fought today, by fellow martial artists who did not start the fights & may never even knew that they existed. Most people do not join TKD to learn history. So they often don't even know of the divisions & if they do, they don't know why, but they do know the other side is the bad guy(s).
We no longer have to fight, nor should we. I would venture a guess that most of us would have better relations with other martial arts, than those TKDin from another style of TKD. That is just not right, nor what the Pioneers wanted!