A Brief History of Taekwon-Do by General Choi

[Daniel Sullivan]

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.

I don't know about that. You may be right, but the have/have not divide within Kukki taekwondo does not seem to manifest until you get past the sport/non-sport divide. Without the sport, there is no David Askinas, no USTU, and no USAT.

Not an indictment of the sport itself. But that is where the major divisions seem to be within Kukki taekwondo. There is of course, the divide between KKW/WTF and the ITF, which you may feel falls into the have/have not divide at its root.

But as Leadleg stated,

Yes they [USAT] 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.

The vast majority of people in taekwondo are unaffected because the vast majority have no competitive aspirations. I would venture (and could be wrong) that most students in taekwondo in the US haven't even heard of USAT. At least that is the impression that I have gotten over the years.

Daniel

 

[bluewaveschool]

I didn't know about the USAT or AAU before coming here. I did know ITF, WTF and ATA. I did not know about the KKW either.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I didn't know about the USAT or AAU before coming here. I did know ITF, WTF and ATA. I did not know about the KKW either.

Most people practicing Kukki taekwondo (and I'm going out on a limb, but I think I'm probably on the money) just call it WTF taekwondo and don't know that there's a Kukkiwon. I base that on the blank looks that people have given me when I have mentioned the Kukkiwon in conversation. These are people at taekwondo schools that practice Taegeuk poomsae and WTF sport, as well as all of the traditional parts. They just assume that it is the World Taekwondo Federation.

English speakers can much more easily wrap their heads around 'World Taekwondo Federation' than they can 'Kukkiwon.' I also question whether the school owners are even mentioning the Kukkiwon. Most TKD schools I have been to have big WTF flags drawing attention to the WTF on top of that.

Daniel

 

[puunui]

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?

The Tenets are General Choi's creation; it is only a part of his particular branch, although many have adopted it for curriculum filler purposes. The tenets, for example, are not in the Kukkiwon Textbook.

But try and read the part you quoted carefully once again, understanding that it is a translation of an article originally published in Korean for a korean speaking audience.

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 am one of those who wrote that in a book." -- Many people wrote the same thing in books, including the original Kukkiwon Textbook which GM Lee was the chief editor of. He is not saying that he was the first one or the only one.


"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." -- At the time, "it was well justified and accepted" because the fundamental difference between Taekwondo and other martial arts was the emphasis on kicks, which comes from Korean culture. They needed something to explain korean culture, so they went back and cited to points in Korean history which indicated martial arts and also kicking, through Taekkyon, which is a Korean game based on skill in kicking or leg techniques.


"However, although there was a resemblance, it is in fact different." -- meaning Taekkyon is different from Taekwondo in that Taekkyon is softer and emphasizes pushing rather than striking. Early Taekwondo competition did have some focus on pushing kicks, but this was eventually phased out in favor of striking. However, Taekkyon does emphasize a relaxed manner in developing techniques, as compared to the Japanese explosive muscle contraction style.


"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.” -- meaning even though we can say that Taekwondo partially flowed into Korea through Japan, there was a problem with Japanese karate because it is stiff and muscle oriented, which is not the Taekwondo way. Taekwondo therefore is a combination of the format of Japanese karate (standardized uniform, belt ranks, forms, and linear striking) but done in the korean way (relaxed explosiveness, rather than hard muscle tensing explosiveness, and emphasis on kicking).

In short, Koreans know that kicking is part of their culture, but how do you explain that to non-Koreans who want proof in the form of dates, documentation, and other "evidence"? So they did the best that they could, which is look at the historical records and books to explain their cultural affinity for kicking competitions.

Is it persuasive? Maybe not. But that is all they have to go on, which GM Lee admits was not much, especially since Taekkyon itself as an art is so poorly documented. It is so poorly documented that they could not even find chinese hanmoon characters for Taekkyon,which is why we have Taekwon, the closest thing to taekkyon. If there were chinese characters for taekkyon, then the art name would be Taekkyondo, not Taekwondo.

If that effort results in people thinking that all of this was "lies", then so be it. You can't please everyone.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I like to think of taekwondo as being both a modern Korean art and the inheritor of Korean martial tradtion that predates it.

Personally, I think that too many people get caught up and sidetracked by this. I should know; I was one of them. Now? It doesn't bother me. Taekwondo is an art without a single founder. Connecting it to older KMA through the more advanced kicking techniques is certainly reasonable. Am I crazy about how it is presented? Not really, but no longer bothers me. It is such a minor detail in the grand scheme of things that getting worked up over it is kind of pointless.

Daniel

 

[puunui]

I like to think of taekwondo as being both a modern Korean art and the inheritor of Korean martial tradtion that predates it. Personally, I think that too many people get caught up and sidetracked by this. I should know; I was one of them. Now? It doesn't bother me. Taekwondo is an art without a single founder. Connecting it to older KMA through the more advanced kicking techniques is certainly reasonable. Am I crazy about how it is presented? Not really, but no longer bothers me. It is such a minor detail in the grand scheme of things that getting worked up over it is kind of pointless.

Whenever I speak about these kinds of things, the biggest obstacle that I face is the inability to get others to see things from a perspective other than their own. This or that does not make sense, from their point of view. But understanding it from the other person's point of view, especially when trying to figure out what they did or why, is really the key.

I like to use movie analogies and there is one from the movie Contact with Jodie Foster which hammers this point in. So the Vegans faxed down all these construction documents interlaced with scenes of Adolf Hitler giving the opening speech at the 1936 Olympic Games. Pages and pages of that stuff but they couldn't figure out the primer, the code to unlock the secret of the documents. The reason was because they were thinking like a human on earth, and not a vegan, who think multi dimensionally. Once you get that, then it all came together. But you have to think like a Vegan when trying to figure out the Vegan documents; thinking like a human, from your own perspective, will lead you nowhere.

Look at all of the hostility and anger that was generated when I tried to explain how the pioneers thought about things. There was denial, demands for proof, all kinds of stuff, irrespective of the fact that everything I said made sense and explained away huge holes in everyone's understanding. After a while, I get tired of having to deal with all that crap. If people don't want to understand how the pioneers thought when they were creating Taekwondo, then don't.

Were the pioneers perfect? Of course not, they made mistakes, acted self serving sometimes, but they all had the same goal that they were shooting for, which was to create something unique and special to give to the world. I want to understand their highest ideals, because that is the place where Taekwondo was created. It was their contribution and gift to the human race and to the world, and I personally want to understand their motivations and their efforts and struggles to give us that gift.

If others don't want to hear it, then fine, we can talk about something else. Or we don't have to talk at all.

 

[dowan50]

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:

Thank You for putting into words which many of us have thought for some time. No one is saying all USTU bad or all Pioneers and I want to hear both the published and very much want to hear what is not published because at the end of the day you consider both and how much importance you put on the verbal comes from knowing the person and if you do not know them then try to get an consensus of how consistently they express themselves or give out information. It is rare that anything is either all black or all white. Lack of empathy for another person's perspective is short sighted and lacks the understanding of true martial art spirit. It just the same as needing to fully understand an opponent as to not offend by understanding where a person is coming from. I have watched this person go after people borderline on stalking saying things that are so unacceptable it violates the moral code and integrity of the very Pioneers he claims to worship.

It is unacceptable to consider every person who may have a belief different as trailer trash, uneducated, low income or low rank juvenile's. The very most important part of what the Pioneers gave to us was a feeling of love same as father to child. How can you say your father is a lier or cheat or what ever to a family member and not expect them to defend or be upset? And if they do not cross over to his side he will state well your this or that and I going to take my toys and play somewhere else?

I have watched some truly great men over the last two decades reach out to slowly help people to unlearn what they have learned only out of love for them not to make a point and it has paid off over time. I am also amazed how patient some Korean born masters are with other Korean instructors when they have acted out badly even hitting the news and the comment was well he is still immature and learning and we have wondered if we would have been given the same consideration.

What does it profit a man if he gains all knowledge and has not love??????

We have watched his behavior and he seems to relish hurting people especially if they have disagreed with him. There are many old USTU people who do not agree that it was all good or that purely sport TKD is the golden idol to be sacrificed to. But USTU and USAT are just old news and fighting over historical details just has no relevance related to the needs of the public we are trying to help. But that is me and to others on their quest for pin point accuracy of their origins or legacy I understand you have that need for you and that is fine. The attitudes of that person or groups are inferior due to their beliefs has started wars and we should all be sharing and enjoying the diversity.

I can only say live long and prosper

 

[puunui]

whatever

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Come on everyone. Lets back away from the personal stuff and stay focused on the topics. There's already been a general mod warning to the TKD section and at least one locked thread.

I'm not a moderator, so take it for what its worth.

Daniel

 

[terryl965]

puuniu your last real statement about the vegan, let me ask you this. How should one look at what is being said without any proof? I am asking because you have brought up a great point in the fact that most people cannot see past what they can read, I am probaly one of them. I know my perspective comes from some of the people I have trusted in for years, now to hear that this was never the way in the beginning goes against what I have put into blind faith. Mow you are saying something that goes against what I have been told but at the same time saying that what I have put into blind faith may or may not have been the original intent. How are we suppose to look at what is being said with blind faith again? I am open to learning and trying to understand but there has been so many lies or fabrication of TKD history that we will probaly never be able to find out the entire truth and if this is the case than how does the ART/Sport grow into one common TKD for all to love and enjoy thoughout there lifes?

I am hoping to can give me a way to fully understand what it is that you have learned over the years. I would love my childern to learn and see other perspective than mine because once you get closed minded it is not the most perfect way of living your life. Any help and or thought would be appreciated.:asian:

 

[dancingalone]

puuniu your last real statement about the vegan, let me ask you this. How should one look at what is being said without any proof? I am asking because you have brought up a great point in the fact that most people cannot see past what they can read, I am probaly one of them. I know my perspective comes from some of the people I have trusted in for years, now to hear that this was never the way in the beginning goes against what I have put into blind faith. Mow you are saying something that goes against what I have been told but at the same time saying that what I have put into blind faith may or may not have been the original intent. How are we suppose to look at what is being said with blind faith again?

Perhaps we shouldn't ever use faith in connection with history. Critical thinking means more than absorbing blindly what we read or what we hear. A first step towards understanding controversial subjects is to read as many sources as possible, including first hand accounts, with credible opposing viewpoints. Next, understanding context is vital - in TKD, this invariably means knowing at least some about the Korean culture along with how it was affected through the epochal events of WWII and the Korean war.

To be fair, it seems like puunui has done his homework in much of this.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I will take puunui's analogy in a different direction.

In one of the Star Trek episodes someone got killed and they were trying to prosecute one of the crew members for murder.

They had some technology where they could tap into the witnesses memories.

The result was that different people had different perceptions of the occurrence. They weren't lying, they actualy thought that different things happened.

Now, add to that a factor of someone who had been disenfranchised or was unhappy for another reason. Their perceptions would be affected as well.

 

[terryl965]

Perhaps we shouldn't ever use faith in connection with history. Critical thinking means more than absorbing blindly what we read or what we hear. A first step towards understanding controversial subjects is to read as many sources as possible, including first hand accounts, with credible opposing viewpoints. Next, understanding context is vital - in TKD, this invariably means knowing at least some about the Korean culture along with how it was affected through the epochal events of WWII and the Korean war.

To be fair, it seems like puunui has done his homework in much of this.

But to be honest here, he is asking us to believe converstation he has had without any written proof of those converstations. So for me to believe the founding fathers wanted a sport base ma is believing that without seeing proof, is that not blind faith?

Believe me when I say I am not trying to stir the pot here just asking question so I can better understand his views and try to understand why we have so much inconsistatsy in the TKD I do. Also it seems no two Koreans from different kwans come up with the same accounts during the conception of TKD, why forge into an new era of ma with fabrication of how long it has been around? Why now are some of these GM coming forward and saying this never happen and so and so is not being truthful? I am not and will not put any names to anything but will say over the years I have talked to some people and have gone back and kept notes and years later there story has change, why? Was the beginning truth and now they are changing or was the beginning ot truthfuland now they want to head down that rightgous pass.

I have read alot of books over the year and have had converstation with people about the context of said books but to be honest, they are for the most part sub par in my opinion. I am trying to keep an open mind though

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

The confrontational tone of many of the posts by many involved has not helped.

I approach these discussions as discussions. If I am asked, I will do my best to cite a source, but to be honest, much of the information that I have was collected over the course of decades, and comes from things that I have read, conversations that I have had, and things that I have heard. I can only assume that others are in the same boat that I am.

How do you cite a conversation with a master? Realistically, you cannot. The books that we cite often contain referrences to conversations that somebody had with somebody else. The person relating the conversation cannot cite it; they had it. If they go on to publish a book, I can cite their book, but just because they were published doesn't make their account of a conversation any more or less reliable than Puunui's account of conversations. It simply means that they wrote down the details of their conversation and published a book.

As far as things that can be cited, if you have the ability to cite your comments, then by all means do so. But lets not take ourselves overly seriously; this is not the gathering of the preeminent MA historians. This is an open forum where we discuss taekwondo topics. Some of use are much more well versed and have a much more solid factual base than others.

If someone is offering a different perspective, take it in and consider its merit, even if it is opposed to your own. If you have questions about it, then simply ask without any snyde commentary. If you are the one being questioned, simply answer without any snyde or belittling commentary.

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

But to be honest here, he is asking us to believe converstation he has had without any written proof of those converstations. So for me to believe the founding fathers wanted a sport base ma is believing that without seeing proof, is that not blind faith?

Puunui has passed along information that falls into 3 categories:

• statements that seem to be factual about TKD history and can hopefully be corroborated with different sources eventually if one is prepared to do the research and interviewing of living sources themselves
• recollections of opinions and personal thoughts or personal facts as passed to him from Korean TKD seniors
• his own interpretations of the meaning of the information in groups 1 and 2 which does seem to have a strong 'KKW is the true path' bias

I have not read anything outrageous that I would classify in the first group. I have seen nothing that makes me raise an eyebrow making me want to prove him wrong even if I had the connections and wherewithal to do (which I don't).

Of his writings I actually find the second group the most interesting as they're information I've seen nowhere else. The point about Lee, Won Kuk training with Funakoshi, Gigo primarily and deriving his influence from Waka Sensei and thus possibly giving TKD a strong link to Okinawan karate rather than Japanese karate was very interesting to me. And if these bits can't be 'proven', I'm OK with it. Most of these older Koreans aren't going to go on record in a book about various matters like General Choi anyway. If their attitude was anything like my father's, they will never speak publicly about distasteful (to them) subjects, but privately, you just might get the good scoop on things if you're in the trusted circle. At the very least, hearing bits of subjective and second or third hand information like this will help you fill in the gaps and get you to a place where you can ask GOOD questions when given the opportunity to do so from another authoritative source.

As for his 'KKW is the right path' mentality, I'm not bothered by it. It's his opinion and he's entitled to it. We are all partisan in our own ways.

 

[StudentCarl]

We are all partisan in our own ways.

Not only does that shape our interpretation of what we see and hear, it shades our memories over time. As a teacher dealing with people, I see that credibility is earned. When what you say proves out to be right, you gain credibility. Without that, I think it goes back more to faith--where we tend to agree with those whose statements fit best with our own ideas.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

One of the problems that I see in these conversations is that many of the responders reinterpret and rephrase what they are responding to, and/or take statements in a spirit in which they were not intended.

The 'partisanship' for lack of a better term, tends to exaggerate that. In one thread that was locked, the OP related an experience from high school about how a Korean student's roundhouse kick make him think very differently about taekwondo. The thread descended into a debate about whether or not the OP was a bully, and then into members attacking one another's credentials. The whole point of the OP was pretty much ignored.

These discussions can go much, much further if people can, um, kick it down a notch and at least try to see what the other person is getting at and what their perspective is.

Daniel

 

[terryl965]

OK I am an old dog trying to understand a new trick, I am a very visual person. With this being said how do someone like me come to understand what it is someone is trying to say to the contrary of what I have learn?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

OK I am an old dog trying to understand a new trick, I am a very visual person. With this being said how do someone like me come to understand what it is someone is trying to say to the contrary of what I have learn?

One question is whether or not you feel that to understand it, you have to agree with it.

For example, in an earlier thread, Puunui made the statement that Ron Samarach (SP?) had contributed more to taekwondo than any single individual aside from Un Yong Kim. I understood what he said and why, as he places a great deal of emphasis and importance on taewkwondo in the olympics and the olympic movement itself. Now, I didn't agree, but I understand.

At the complete opposite end of the spectrum, I understand Twin Fist's fairly negative view regarding WTF sparring and "olympic" taekwondo. I don't entirely agree with him, but I understand his point of view.

There are many historical events upon which historians don't agree. But each understands the positions of their dissenting collegues.

Understanding, of course, is a two way street. We both need to understand each other's perspective in order to have meaningful discussion.

Lastly, we all need to take in the perspectives of others without taking it personally when those perspectives differ from our own. For example, if my GM says thus and so, but someone else says, no, a book by such and such historian says differently, I can't take that as a personal afront to my GM or to myself.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the General or his account of taekwondo, and I've said pretty much everything that I have to say regarding MT etiquette.

Daniel

 

[puunui]

OK I am an old dog trying to understand a new trick, I am a very visual person. With this being said how do someone like me come to understand what it is someone is trying to say to the contrary of what I have learn?

Take what you learned out of the picture and try to understand the statement in a context free place first. Once you have an understanding of what the other person's point is, then you can compare it to what you have learned. Or at least that is what I do, in pretty much all learning situations.

For example, ten years ago, the distance between the front heel and back toes in walking stance was one fist length. Now it is one foot length. I understand that it is one foot length now. I also understand that at the Kukkiwon Instructor Course ten years ago, it was one fist length. The adjustment has been difficult for me, because I have done so many repetitions doing the one fist length. But I saw GM LEE Chong Kwan teach one foot length, when he taught one fist length ten years ago, and I figure if he can change, so can I, or so I must. I don't argue in my head about the reasons why one fist length is better than one foot length. That is what they are doing now, and it is pointless for me to fight that. In ten years, when they change it again, I will have to change again. Doing this I realized, keeps me young in mind and spirit.