A Brief History of Taekwon-Do by General Choi

[KarateMomUSA]

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.

Yes & it does depend on how one defines original.
I can make an argument that the CDK is the original TKD, or GM Lee's teachers in Japan. (Which is what some karate people say)
I can make an argument that the SMK is the original TKD.
I can make an argument that the Tae Soo Do guys in the 1960s are the original TKD.
I can make an argument that the 5 original kwans were the original TKD.
I can make an argument that the 5 original kwans & the ODK, or 6 early kwans were the original TKD.

I simply say that Gen Choi coined the name TKD & applied it continuously to the system he was developing, which started in the ROK Army. I never said it was the true TKD, the better TKD, the real TKD or anything like that. It is simply a statement of fact, documented even by the Modern History.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

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.

True & also what the ITFers do today is also not what they were doing in the 40s, 50s & 60s either. ITF TKD came into its present formstarting mostly by 1972, according, to some & then the 1980s, with some modifications taking hold in the 90s.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

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).

I would say that most of them early on were all doing basically the same things, more or less, which was basic karate, with some Chinese influence, as well as some judo, as 1 of the 5 original kwans opened in a Judo/Yudo school.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

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.

Yes thank you for the additional info. Now I did read that he was jailed, along with his family. If I recall correctly it was of an interview that he gave, so it was coming from him.
The point remains that GM Lee was on the scene in Korea from 1944/5 to 1950, 6 years tops, which I clearly stated. It was his students at the CDK which ran with the ball he put into play. While he did return to Korea in 1967 & give a seminar, teach & correct etc, Kukki TKD was developing from the new sports rules that they put into place & the form sets that they were developing & would later develop.
GM Lee, who I personally have the utmost respect for, was not on the scene in Korea from 1950, 5 years before the name TKD even came into being. I have never wrote a disrespectful word about him or any other TKD leader. I have stated that it was his students that were so influential. I also remember clearly saying that GM Lee & his family were also subject to the nasty Korean politics & that was not fair at all.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

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.

I agree & that is why I think all of them should be honored & the different paths of development delineated so all can trace their roots & thank those that made it possible for them to do the TKD they do today, tomorrow & forever into the future.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

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

Good point. Now while I would not agree or think of it that way, it is a distinction that has to be made by showing what the differences were.
Now in all fairness, all martial arts have something in common. After all there are only so many ways to kick, punch, throw & fight someone. While we have similarities, we also have many, many differences.
The differences in Korea & for TKD, came in over the passage of time & the incorporation of new techniques, sports rules, uniforms, philosophies, foot movements, terminology, patterns, etc, etc. In the end, for some it may still seem similar, while others we say no way, it is 100% different! A lot of it is like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
These paths of development occurred not only over time, but on 2 major roads with were different, even though they are the same in many ways as well.

 

[chrispillertkd]

I would say that most of them early on were all doing basically the same things, more or less,

I'm primarily interested, for the sake of this conversation, in what the Chung Do Kwan was doing that qualified it as Taekwon-Do. Bluewave school said:

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.

So, according to him the Chung Do Kwan was teaching Taekwon-Do before Gen. Choi. Fair enough. But he has yet to answer my question of how what was being taught at the CDK was different enough from Shotokan to warrant being its own style of martial arts.

Then Glenn said:

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 "Taekwon-Do" has wider stances, similar to JKA stances for example.

So there's another vote for Taekwon-Do being taught as early as 1944. Great.

But when I asked how what GM Lee learned in Japan differed from what he taught at the CDK Glenn said that he didn't remember although he had asked GM Lee about this. He mentioned an analogy between a parent and a child as to how Taekwon-Do is different from karate, which I rather like. But in order for that analogy to be useful it would need to accompany a mention of how, in fact, Taekwon-Do differed in the the first place. So, while it might be true that what GM Lee taught in the CDK as Tang Soo was in fact different from Shotokan there's no evidence for this.

which was basic karate, with some Chinese influence, as well as some judo, as 1 of the 5 original kwans opened in a Judo/Yudo school.

As far as I know, Byung In Yoon's YMCA Kwon Bup Bu was directly influenced by Chinese martial arts. The Chang Moo Kwan, as a successor to the YMCA Kwon Bup Bu, was too, as was the Kang Duk Won. Yon Kwai Byeong studied Chuan Fa in Manchuria, apparently, but I don't know if any of that information was filtered into the Ji Do Kwan. In any event, that hardly qualifies as "all" IMO.

As for the influence of Judo I'd be very interested in seeing how the Ji Do Kwan was influenced by that art. Chun Sang Sup taught at the Yun Moo Kwan judo school when he returned to Korea but I know of no evidence to indicate that he incorporated Judo into the Kong Soo Do he taught. It would be pretty cool if he had though!

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

A lot of it is like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I hope not, as this is a self evidently false statement

Pax,

Chris

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

True & also what the ITFers do today is also not what they were doing in the 40s, 50s & 60s either. ITF TKD came into its present formstarting mostly by 1972, according, to some & then the 1980s, with some modifications taking hold in the 90s.

If what the ITF does now is something that was codified in 1972 and is different from the previous decades, then you really shouldn't call it original, because it isn't.

If memory serves, Karl Benz built the first car and the company, Mercedes Benz, was named for his daughter. But that does not make "Mercedes" cars built today the "original automobile."

Call what you do Chang Hon taekwondo (That is the formal name for it, is it not?). Everyone will know what you're talking about and you'll avoid pointless arguments over the usage of the term 'original' taekwondo.

Daniel

 

[KarateMomUSA]

I'm primarily interested, for the sake of this conversation, in what the Chung Do Kwan was doing that qualified it as Taekwon-Do. Bluewave school said:
So, according to him the Chung Do Kwan was teaching Taekwon-Do before Gen. Choi. Fair enough. But he has yet to answer my question of how what was being taught at the CDK was different enough from Shotokan to warrant being its own style of martial arts.
Then Glenn said:
So there's another vote for Taekwon-Do being taught as early as 1944. Great.
But when I asked how what GM Lee learned in Japan differed from what he taught at the CDK Glenn said that he didn't remember although he had asked GM Lee about this. He mentioned an analogy between a parent and a child as to how Taekwon-Do is different from karate, which I rather like. But in order for that analogy to be useful it would need to accompany a mention of how, in fact, Taekwon-Do differed in the the first place. So, while it might be true that what GM Lee taught in the CDK as Tang Soo was in fact different from Shotokan there's no evidence for this.

Yes I see & these are good points. I think it would be better & easier to follow if we didn't lump so many things in a post. It can be viewed as too contentious & partisan bickering. It also affors the opportunity for some things to be ignored or even just lost in the verbiage.
So to me it really boils down to what is TKD, how do you define it & what does someone mean by original TKD.
Until parameters for concepts are better defined, replies will be all over the place & some people will just "tune out".

 

[KarateMomUSA]

As far as I know, Byung In Yoon's YMCA Kwon Bup Bu was directly influenced by Chinese martial arts. The Chang Moo Kwan, as a successor to the YMCA Kwon Bup Bu, was too, as was the Kang Duk Won. Yon Kwai Byeong studied Chuan Fa in Manchuria, apparently, but I don't know if any of that information was filtered into the Ji Do Kwan. In any event, that hardly qualifies as "all" IMO.
As for the influence of Judo I'd be very interested in seeing how the Ji Do Kwan was influenced by that art. Chun Sang Sup taught at the Yun Moo Kwan judo school when he returned to Korea but I know of no evidence to indicate that he incorporated Judo into the Kong Soo Do he taught. It would be pretty cool if he had though!

I would say that a lot of this was emphasized less, when they rallied around the new sports rules that they created. As Puunui wrote elsewhere on the Poomsae, some of these things were preserved there by the Kwan leaders or reps at the time when they all got together & created the Taeguek Poomsae.
As far as Judo goes, I am sure that knowing students, there was probably some cross training & sharing with each other, especially since they were under the same roof. However unless your individual school worked these things, they would have also suffered from some fading away.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

I'm primarily interested, for the sake of this conversation, in what the Chung Do Kwan was doing that qualified it as Taekwon-Do.

Maybe if you broke it off into a different topic, it would get the attention is deserves.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

If what the ITF does now is something that was codified in 1972 and is different from the previous decades, then you really shouldn't call it original, because it isn't.

My use of the label "original" has been previously defined by myself in rather strict & narrow terms. While you make a good point, you appear to be using a more common usage definition of original. Hence we are talking about almost 2 different things or concepts.
All TKD of today can be traced back to the martial arts that 7 known Koreans brought back with them to Korea, from the time they lived abroad during the occupation period. Of course during the development of all TKD, various Korean cultural aspects & preferences were added to the mix in varying degrees, depending on the numerous paths of development taken. Naturally certain of these aspects can be traced back several thousands of years.

To restate, my use (arbitrary indeed) of the label original was defined as Gen Choi's system that he was developing 1st in the military (ROK Army) from the early days AND had the name TKD applied to it from 1954/5 forward, with an uninterrupted use or used continuously. So it was the 1st system to call itself TKD continuously, hence original, not better, true, authentic or any other divisive label.

By codified I mean the fact the system was almost entirely documented by the 1972 textbook on TKD put out by Gen Choi. It was referred to as the bible of TKD. I think it was probably the most comprehensive martial art book at that time, certainly the most comprehensive TKD text. It was of course superseded by the 15 Volume Encyclopedia of TKD that Gen Choi wrote by 1983, but did not get published till 1985, due to the interference of the nasty Korean politics. While the system was being developed post WWII, its roots are also karate & the long & proud Korean culture, but the system was developing & evolving until 2002, when Gen Choi passed away. Its future development is now entrusted to many individuals & groups of individuals. As such, it is inevitable that the standardization & cohesiveness that was worked so hard by Gen Choi, will eventually loosen as the fragmentation continues, also largely the fault of Gen Choi.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

Call what you do Chang Hon taekwondo (That is the formal name for it, is it not?). Everyone will know what you're talking about and you'll avoid pointless arguments over the usage of the term 'original' taekwondo.

Yes I can use that term & have. I see your point & it is a good one.
So to beat that poor horse again, pointless arguments can also be avoided if posters respond to the actual definition offered.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Maybe if you broke it off into a different topic, it would get the attention is deserves.

I'd settle for having my post answered

Pax,

Chris

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

My use of the label "original" has been previously defined by myself in rather strict & narrow terms. While you make a good point, you appear to be using a more common usage definition of original. Hence we are talking about almost 2 different things or concepts.
All TKD of today can be traced back to the martial arts that 7 known Koreans brought back with them to Korea, from the time they lived abroad during the occupation period. Of course during the development of all TKD, various Korean cultural aspects & preferences were added to the mix in varying degrees, depending on the numerous paths of development taken. Naturally certain of these aspects can be traced back several thousands of years.

To restate, my use (arbitrary indeed) of the label original was defined as Gen Choi's system that he was developing 1st in the military (ROK Army) from the early days AND had the name TKD applied to it from 1954/5 forward, with an uninterrupted use or used continuously. So it was the 1st system to call itself TKD continuously, hence original, not better, true, authentic or any other divisive label.

You had explained your definition,, so I have no question as to how you are using the term. A counter arguement was offered, however, by your debating partner that disputes the continuous use of the term.

Look, if it were not for the nature of the debate, I wouldn't have said anything, as I really don't care. I have very definite opinions of the term 'martial artist', namely that it is not a legitimate term and that a martial artist does not exist. I do not argue the point unless someone specifically asks how I define the term. Usually, I hold my keys unless they ask how I define a "true" martial artist. If you wish to comment on my opinion of the term, Martial artist, there is an appropriate thread on the subject here: http://www.martialtalk.com//forum/showthread.php?t=93159

But outside of a thread specifically about the term itself, arguing about it is not appropriate, as I know what is meant when someone uses the term.

The reason that I called the argument about the use of the term 'original' pointless is because you and Glenn already have ample material to argue about and because others apparently take issue with the term being applied to the ITF system.

Daniel

 

[KarateMomUSA]

I'd settle for having my post answered

Pax,

Chris

Yes I understand. But we must realize that complex issues have no real easy answers. It often gets more complicated as when such narrow aspects can only highlight the link to karate, which we know has been something that has been avoided for the most part by many, for obvious reasons.

It is pretty clear that the original & early kwans were basically doing basic karate. Each kwan added influences, preferences & focused emphasis on what they thought was important. They moved away from their common roots, in different ways & at different paces. But early on it was basic karate.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

You had explained your definition,, so I have no question as to how you are using the term. A counter arguement was offered, however, by your debating partner that disputes the continuous use of the term.

Yes & I think he made the mistake with trying to confine it to the ODK, when I was saying Gen Choi's TKD which they started to develop in the military.
I offered several concrete & specific instances that should it was only Gen Choi & his followers that used the name TKD continuously from 1954/5 that has so far gone unanswered.
I do realize that the ODK did sign on to the unification efforts in the 1960s.
That does not however negate the fact that Gen Choi & his followers continuously used the name TKD to label the Chang Hon system that they were developing.
I do not believe that any other group can state that. I am open to learn how I am missing someone or some group. But the Modern History makes it pretty clear that they rejected the name TKD in 1961, in favor of the new compromise name of Tae Soo Do. It was not till 1965 that Gen Choi was able to get them to change the name to TKD. The Modern History also makes clear that this was a cause of problems between Gen Choi & the 2nd generation leaders, causing them to eventually force him out of the KTA.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

But outside of a thread specifically about the term itself, arguing about it is not appropriate, as I know what is meant when someone uses the term.
The reason that I called the argument about the use of the term 'original' pointless is because you and Glenn already have ample material to argue about and because others apparently take issue with the term being applied to the ITF system.

Yes Sir it would make some sense to move that debate, but I kept it here as this is a debate about the history of TKD by Gen Choi. I am also aware that many people may not be as interested as others, myself included are about details of TKD's history. So I felt it may be best to limit it to this thread, which has been pretty extended with some good info.
Anyone can take issue with anything that is posted on a public discussion forum such as this. The debate is facilitated & info shared, when posters stay on point & respond with specific contrary info to counter or additional info to support.
It is pretty clear that while some may not agree, there really has not been evidence to counter. I think that Puunui's use of the Modern History supports my point. The Modern History does really confirm this. I can go back & bring forward the specific counter points I responded with, if needed, or those interested can simply go back a page or 2.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Yes I understand. But we must realize that complex issues have no real easy answers.

Sure, but my question was a relatively simple one. What was GM Lee teaching at the CDK that was different from what he learned in Japan? It's not a complex question, at all.

Pax,

Chris