A Brief History of Taekwon-Do by General Choi

[KarateMomUSA]

People People People, comeon everyone knows that puunui is always right about the history and was told just about everything from somebody. I find some of these thread just plain funny since the actual people that supposely said this or that are not here to say whether they did or did not say it. History was fabricated by all sides to give TKD some credibility out in the world, the only problem is later certain people started to say so and so is not telling the truth but my potion is the truth now. I own a pretty good library of TKD books with there own version of what they believe to bethe truth we all must decide which version we will believe in since we all must take one side or another.

You know the old story put seven people in seven different rooms and ask the same question and get seven defferent answers to your question. Keep the thread going because I do find it very informative and entertaining.:asian:

Yes & don't you think it is about time to start sorting through all the fabrication?
History is what happened, who made it happen, where did they make it happen & when did they make it happen.
These simple concepts are fairly easy to piece together since they happened less than or around 70 years ago.
I think once people see it charted out, much of the confusion will be cleared up & some of the fighting between groups will decline, as there is enough credit to go around & TKD's development took 2 major paths, so after a common start, their respective histories will differ, not through lies, but simply 1 side had little to do with the other!

 

[Earl Weiss]

People People People, comeon everyone knows that puunui is always right about the history and was told just about everything from somebody. I find some of these thread just plain funny since the actual people that supposely said this or that are not here to say whether they did or did not say it..:asian:

I think the issue is more along the lines of quoting portions of written, published statements and those portions leaving a certain impression, when the entire item would leave a different impression or in the case of some things considering the source and what effect it later had. (i.e.stating former CDK head who was removed expelling people and revoking certificates without also stating that this person was removed resulting in him possibly being motivated in anger for that and other reasons and the people he "expelled" remaining with the CDK, even replacing him. )

 

[puunui]

More importantly this section is oreceded at page 14 which recounts TK-D being a version of an ancient form of unarmed combat practiced in the orient and now "perfected in it' present form in Korea"

You mean this:

*

What exactly is the meaning of Taekwon-Do? To put it simply, Taekwon-Do is a version of an ancient form of unarmed combat, practiced for many centuries in the Orient.

However, this art of self defense or unarmed combat came to be perfected in its present form in Korea. No doubt this art was adopted in many Eastern countries notably in Japan and China with, of course, their national characteristics and denominations.

In, they have given the name of Kwon-Tao or Chan-fuah. For Japanese, it is Karate or Kempoh.

*

I don't think, reading the passage in its entirety, helps you.

 

[puunui]

See so GM Lee, who I admire & who I feel should be publicly credited with his vitally important role in Kukki TKD, but he also was the one who crafted the fabrication about TKD being 2,000 years old & back in 2002 felt it was time to set the record straight, by disclosing the fact, karate men made TKD. It is not 2,000 years old. And how they did it was by emphasizing the new sports rules that they devised. It is plain to see.

Like I said, if it would make you happy, then feel free to tell the world that GM LEE Chong Woo did steal the 2000 year old lie about Taekwondo's origins from General Choi, that in fact it was General Choi, not GM LEE Chong Woo, who created the lie that Taekwondo is 2000 years old.

 

[puunui]

People People People, comeon everyone knows that puunui is always right about the history and was told just about everything from somebody. I find some of these thread just plain funny since the actual people that supposely said this or that are not here to say whether they did or did not say it.

We are talking about what General Choi wrote in his 1965 book, not what one of the pioneers told me. Hannabal Lecter said if you cannot keep up with the conversation, it's best not to try to jump in.

I own a pretty good library of TKD books with there own version of what they believe to bethe truth we all must decide which version we will believe in since we all must take one side or another.

A good library of TKD books. I guess that one depends on who you are comparing your book collection to.

You know the old story put seven people in seven different rooms and ask the same question and get seven defferent answers to your question. Keep the thread going because I do find it very informative and entertaining.:asian:

But in this case, your old story is inapplicable because we are talking about what General Choi wrote in his 1965 book, not what someone told somebody else.

 

[puunui]

I think the issue is more along the lines of quoting portions of written, published statements and those portions leaving a certain impression, when the entire item would leave a different impression or in the case of some things considering the source and what effect it later had. (i.e.stating former CDK head who was removed expelling people and revoking certificates without also stating that this person was removed resulting in him possibly being motivated in anger for that and other reasons and the people he "expelled" remaining with the CDK, even replacing him. )

Actually, that was stated in the newspaper article:

LEE Won Kuk's sister in
law, MOON Myung Ja, also frequently flew back and forth between Korean and Japan. I don't know why she
visited Korea so often. JUNG Yong Taek and MOON Myung Ja were jealous of the Chung Do Kwan's growth and
devised a plan to split the Chung Do Kwan. At last, they formed an illicit connection with discontented members
of the Chung Do Kwan and returned to Korea. They obtained not a nomination certificate (Im Myung Jung), but
a notice statement (Ji Ryung Jung) signed by LEE Won Kuk. On June 4, 1959, the notice statement was given
to UHM Woon Kyu.

*
But I feel very sorry for those who received
just a notice statement (Ji Ryung Jung) and not a nomination certificate (Im Myung Jung) from him. If he
thought about all the other Taekwondo schools and the Chung Do Kwan's future, he would not do such a
betrayal. I want the wise citizens of Korea to judge this matter. When I found out about these matters, I
expelled them from the membership on behalf of my name. All the more, the Chung Do Kwan will unite ever
more and practice rigorously for tournaments in the future, so please do not be disturbed by this whole action.
1. Expelled members: HYUN Jong Myun - UHM Woon Kyu - NAM Tae Hi
2. Cancellation of Honorary 4th Dan certificate and Honorary Kwan Jang position: CHOI Hong Hi
June 15, 1959
Kwan Jang SON Duk Sung

 

[terryl965]

A good library of TKD books. I guess that one depends on who you are comparing your book collection to.

Well we all know you have the best collection of anybody because you are so wonderful and great.


We are talking about what General Choi wrote in his 1965 book, not what one of the pioneers told me. Hannabal Lecter said if you cannot keep up with the conversation, it's best not to try to jump in.

Well I and a few others here can but you say otherwise on everything, so why bother. Sometimes you sound like you are the only person on this forum that knows anything.

But in this case, your old story is inapplicable because we are talking about what General Choi wrote in his 1965 book, not what someone told somebody else.

But even with the book you still tell people they are wrong, so why even bother to debate or say anything. I know for a fact nothing is ever gonna change your mind about anything because once again you are the upmost authority on TKD in the world.


See it does not matter if it is Earl, Karatemom or anybody else that say or quotes anything you always tell them they are wrong about it. Maybe they like to see if they can make you see something but I for one am enjoying the back and forth, what he said or wrote that is going on. Every once in a while I will just chime in to say something and go back to reading. Have a wonderful day :asian:

 

[StudentCarl]

What I am not open to is your paraphrasing of what GM LEE Chong Woo said. He didn't say what you say he said. He said this:

[Reporter’s Question]: Many Taekwondo textbooks set the time of Taekwondo’s beginnings as the pre- Three-Kingdoms Period. Even with all the historical assumptions,
it seems somewhat extreme.

[Chong Woo Lee’s Response]: “I am one of those who wrote that in a book. To
be frank, we did not have much to come out with. At an early stage in the course of our
introducing Taekwondo to foreign countries, when we said ‘Taekwondo was a Korean
traditional martial art’, it was well justified and accepted. However, although there was a
resemblance, it is in fact different. Should we consult [Taekwondo’s] historical origins, it
could be persuasive to say that Japan adopted their martial arts form from the Chinese
martial arts, and it flowed into Korea later. Japanese people scientifically developed
them by making many modifications from the Chinese martial arts. It seems that there
remained a problem. Japanese people put emphasis on muscle strength rather than on
flexibility in the course of developing the form of exercise. Accordingly, you cannot
avoid the body movement being stiff.”

“With this, we started competitions in order to make Taekwondo a combative
sport. On the other hand, the Japanese kept Karate as an exercise form to be done by
oneself without competition. The Chinese developed a flexible exercise with interacting
[with a partner] hand movements. In this context, Taekwondo is not inclined to either
side, but lies somewhere in the middle. To make it easy to understand, it is neither right
nor left. Neither this nor that. Meanwhile, because we held competitions, we were able
to improve drastically. As a result, China and Japan are learning from us now.
Furthermore, their martial arts did not gain popularity, whereas in Taekwondo, young
children enjoy hitting and getting hit rather than fighting by themselves.”

...

Stepping sideways from the '2000 year history' story line, this quotation is an interesting comment about the development of the sport aspect of Taekwondo vs. Japanese and Chinese arts. As the author was involved at the time, his credibility for this is strong. I am interested in the thinking of the pioneers about developing a martial sport. This is the first I've seen written about it.

Puunui, would you please share the source and tell of any other sources you know relating to the thinking and choices made to move in the direction of sport and competitive sparring?

Thanks,
Carl

 

[chrispillertkd]

He's quoting from a 2002 interview with GM Lee, Cong Woo that appeared in Shin Dong-A. You can read it here:

http://www.tkdreform.com/yook_article.pdf

Interesting stuff about GM Lee being involved in gagee-chigee ("branch trimming") in some TKD matches.

Pax,

Chris

 

[puunui]

I am glad that GM Hong spoke positive things about Gen Choi. I also know that Gen Choi's patterns that he named after great Korean patriots & significant events in Korean history resonated with many Koreans & I am happy to hear that their 1st president is 1 of them. However this appears to be another mistake in the Modern History, as EuiAm was not named after President Rhee. There was another pattern that was never introduced that had a different name, that was never implemented as President Rhee was disposed off. The name escapes me at the moment. Eui Am Tul was not even introduced till the 1972 textbook. It was 1 of the last 4 to be added.

GM Hong never said that Eui Am was named after President Rhee. It has that General Choi "also made the Eui Am Hyung."

This is what GM Hong said about General Choi in the Modern History book: In the 1950's, CHOI Hong Hee's Chang Hon Ryu forms Ge Baek and Choong Moo used at the Oh Do Kwan was included in this [1962] promotion test. HONG Jong Pyo criticized CHOI Hong Hi and the Chang Hon Ryu: "CHOI Hong Hi is a historical figure, and he was brave, but at one time, he had a strong connection with former ROK President RHEE Syng Man and tried to kiss up to him with those forms. He also made the Eui Am Hyung."

 

[puunui]

Well we all know you have the best collection of anybody because you are so wonderful and great.

Actually, I already wrote in another post that Dr. Kimm has more Korean Martial Arts books than I do. But he did say I have a "good collection". I wonder what he would think about your collection.

Well I and a few others here can but you say otherwise on everything, so why bother. Sometimes you sound like you are the only person on this forum that knows anything.

I can't help how you feel. I also apologize if you feel displaced as one of the leaders of Kukki Taekwondo on here.

But even with the book you still tell people they are wrong, so why even bother to debate or say anything. I know for a fact nothing is ever gonna change your mind about anything because once again you are the upmost authority on TKD in the world.

All I did was post what was written in General Choi's book, in it's entirety. If you have the book in your good collection, you can look it up yourself. If you have an issue with what is written, your issue is with General Choi, not me. I'm just posting what he wrote.

See it does not matter if it is Earl, Karatemom or anybody else that say or quotes anything you always tell them they are wrong about it. Maybe they like to see if they can make you see something but I for one am enjoying the back and forth, what he said or wrote that is going on. Every once in a while I will just chime in to say something and go back to reading. Have a wonderful day :asian:

The problem from my perspective is too many people think "research" means booting up google and typing "taekwondo history". Then to make matters worse, they misread what is written, and go off on a wild tangent based on that erroneous assumption and misunderstanding. Then when I point to the original source and quote it in its entirety, the person gets all defensive and goes with some long winded argument (without facts) about why they are correct.

If it upsets you that much, then I won't share anymore historical information. I did the research for me anyway, to further my own personal understanding and not for sharing with the world. I'll stop and then you can continue "believe" whatever you want and be happy.

 

[puunui]

Puunui, would you please share the source and tell of any other sources you know relating to the thinking and choices made to move in the direction of sport and competitive sparring?Thanks,Carl

I could, but all it would do is make terry upset. He has a good taekwondo book collection, perhaps he can refer you to one of the books he owns.

 

[terryl965]

I could, but all it would do is make terry upset. He has a good taekwondo book collection, perhaps he can refer you to one of the books he owns.

See this is the crap you do puunui and have always done everywhere, act like a baby when someone does not agree with you or have there own opinion about anything. Share your knowledge but remember spme people may view things different than you.

Me feel displace hardly, maybe you need to feel good by making other people feel bad. I have been around a longtime and it would take more than some person saying things to displace me from anywhere. Once again please keep telling and giving your views about TKD and how General Chui and other lie and only your people can tell the truth.

Last thing before I leave I am far from an expert on anyhting beside my family and my school, what other people do is great, I just wish some of you USTU past people could get over the fact that others may have a different view than all of you.:asian:

 

[terryl965]

Chong Woo Lee’s Response]: “I am one of those who wrote that in a book. To
be frank, we did not have much to come out with. At an early stage in the course of our
introducing Taekwondo to foreign countries, when we said ‘Taekwondo was a Korean
traditional martial art’, it was well justified and accepted. However, although there was a
resemblance, it is in fact different. Should we consult [Taekwondo’s] historical origins, it
could be persuasive to say that Japan adopted their martial arts form from the Chinese
martial arts, and it flowed into Korea later. Japanese people scientifically developed
them by making many modifications from the Chinese martial arts. It seems that there
remained a problem. Japanese people put emphasis on muscle strength rather than on
flexibility in the course of developing the form of exercise. Accordingly, you cannot
avoid the body movement being stiff.”

I guess I am confused if one of the Tenets is Integrity in TKD why say something is 2000 years old when it is not, because they felt it was justify and accepted makes it OK?

 

[puunui]

See this is the crap you do puunui and have always done everywhere, act like a baby when someone does not agree with you or have there own opinion about anything. Share your knowledge but remember spme people may view things different than you.

You can believe that it is because you or "someone" doesn't agree with me or has their own opinion, if that is what you want to believe. I will say that I have probably learned more from these exchanges than you have. But see, that is the thing that you never understood about me, that I wasn't here to convince you or anyone else to see things my way. My purpose for posting here is to learn.

 

[terryl965]

You can believe that it is because you or "someone" doesn't agree with me or has their own opinion, if that is what you want to believe. I will say that I have probably learned more from these exchanges than you have. But see, that is the thing that you never understood about me, that I wasn't here to convince you or anyone else to see things my way. My purpose for posting here is to learn.

Ok then I apologies to you, it just did not seem that way to me.:asian:

 

[puunui]

I just wish some of you USTU past people could get over the fact that others may have a different view than all of you.

Believe me the "USTU past people" are acutely aware that others have a different view.

Even though Taekwondo is unified, there is one area where it is decidedly divided and separated, and it isn't sport vs. non-sport. Where the real divide is is in the same place where the divide exists in almost every area out there, including martial arts. The true divide is between those that have, and those that do not. But more specifically, it the great divide between those that know how to have, and those that do not.

My erroneous assumption was that everyone should have and I used to try as much as possible to make sure everyone does have. But the problem is that a lot of people don't want to have, that they are most happy when they don't have and can complain about it. Try giving to someone like that, and it is so foreign to their current belief system that they immediately reject it and think that there is something wrong with you for trying to give them something. They keep wondering "What is the catch?"

A friend of mine who, like me, tried to help as many as possible. That person once commented to me that he was beginning to understand why some of the seniors chose not to give certain students Kukkiwon dan certification, or if they did give Kukkiwon certification, it was only very low dan.

I think that the past ten years and the next twenty years have and will radically change Taekwondo, as more of the haves leave the art through death or retirement, while the have nots take over the world. David Askinas is a perfect example of a have not who is forever changing the face of Taekwondo, at least in the US.

There is a part of me that really wants to believe that it can turn around, that there is hope and we can restore what was lost over the last seven years. But the facts are overwhelming in the other direction, and at this point, I am just lying to myself. Your last few posts have really driven that nail in, and something the seniors have known for quite a while now. I just didn't want to believe it.

I guess there is nothing left to do but to sit in my warm lifeboat and watch all the have nots freeze to death as the Titanic goes down. All that can be saved have already been saved and we just have to accept the inevitability of the situation for the rest, whether they know it or not.

But thank you terry for teaching me a lesson I should have learned a lot time ago.

 

[terryl965]

Believe me the "USTU past people" are acutely aware that others have a different view.

Even though Taekwondo is unified, there is one area where it is decidedly divided and separated, and it isn't sport vs. non-sport. Where the real divide is is in the same place where the divide exists in almost every area out there, including martial arts. The true divide is between those that have, and those that do not. But more specifically, it the great divide between those that know how to have, and those that do not.

My erroneous assumption was that everyone should have and I used to try as much as possible to make sure everyone does have. But the problem is that a lot of people don't want to have, that they are most happy when they don't have and can complain about it. Try giving to someone like that, and it is so foreign to their current belief system that they immediately reject it and think that there is something wrong with you for trying to give them something. They keep wondering "What is the catch?"

A friend of mine who, like me, tried to help as many as possible. That person once commented to me that he was beginning to understand why some of the seniors chose not to give certain students Kukkiwon dan certification, or if they did give Kukkiwon certification, it was only very low dan.

I think that the past ten years and the next twenty years have and will radically change Taekwondo, as more of the haves leave the art through death or retirement, while the have nots take over the world. David Askinas is a perfect example of a have not who is forever changing the face of Taekwondo, at least in the US.

There is a part of me that really wants to believe that it can turn around, that there is hope and we can restore what was lost over the last seven years. But the facts are overwhelming in the other direction, and at this point, I am just lying to myself. Your last few posts have really driven that nail in, and something the seniors have known for quite a while now. I just didn't want to believe it.

I guess there is nothing left to do but to sit in my warm lifeboat and watch all the have nots freeze to death as the Titanic goes down. All that can be saved have already been saved and we just have to accept the inevitability of the situation for the rest, whether they know it or not.

But thank you terry for teaching me a lesson I should have learned a lot time ago.

I have always believed we all are under one banner until the USAT and David broke me down with all the political BS that goes along with TKD. Sorry if I come across very hard at times with people but between whatever happen to USTU and believe me I really never understood what truely happen with so many story's) and what the USAT has done to make sur eonly the few have rights while everyone else have no say at all. Maybe I am bitter and maybe I am just tired of all the stories and maybe just maybe I am just fed up with the vision that all is well. When we all know it is not, I too would like to see TKD as a brotherhood working together without favortism but I am affraid that will not be in my lifetime. I have three wonderful son's that will have to carry the torch and try to bring unity for TKD and maybe one day when I look down from the heavens above I will see what I have been blinded by for the last couple of years.

Tkd has been a life changer for me, I have found peace in my little world and every once in a while I go out and see what I hate about TKD and that is the way certain orgs have ruinedit for me to enjoy, this is why I choose to stay in my little world shelter from the reality of it all.:asian: Who knows maybe you and some here might help me over come my bitterness one day and help me get back to the path of what it was that I fell inlove with so many years ago.

 

[leadleg]

I do not see how you can think that the usat can have that big of an impact on TKD.Yes they have made it hard for some people in the sport but if you take all the people who are training in TKD in the US the percentage of those affected by usat is very small.
Most everyone agrees the sport training of TKD is not as lucrative, enjoyable, or sustaining as regular training.
Without the balance of all things TKD together you obviously find imbalance in training, instructing, and students.
It is like the KKW without the WTF they balance each other.
Forget forcing unification, the strong will survive and one day that style will be what is left, same with the usat's,aau's and other political orgs who are run by these petty tyrants,they too will fall by the wayside and something better will come along.
If you want to be doomsday thinkers go ahead,but I know that our martial arts will prevail even if you may not recognise what they become.The instructors who are really trying to change lives,their own and their students by training their hearts and bodies will keep going without any org's.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

The problem from my perspective is too many people think "research" means booting up google and typing "taekwondo history".

That and doing research with a predetermined outcome in mind (general comment, not directed at anyone specifically). People often have a point that they wish to prove, so they will present 'proof' in the form of partial or inapplicable things found either on google or in publications.

There certainly is nothing wrong with trying to support one's points with some kind of source, but there also comes a point where people need to look at what is actually written and evaluate what it says rather than grasping for the minutia that will seemingly prove them right when copied and pasted in a quote.

Daniel