A Brief History of Taekwon-Do by General Choi

[KarateMomUSA]

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?:asian:

I find little wrong with what Puunui writes. I think a shortcoming may be his dislike for Gen Choi based upon what some people have told him, many of which may have been motivated by different reasons to dislike Gen Choi, especially given the terrible politics of those times. In the end few reasonable people can deny the positive influence & far reaching effect Gen Choi & his original TKD have had on so many people around the world.
I have nothing but respect for the Kukki Pioneers & am very grateful for what they have given to so many around the world. Korea & all TKDin owe them a debt of gratitude, one that is also owed to Gen Choi by south Korea, which someday he will be credited for. There is nothing to prevent the Kukki TKD Pioneers from being listed & credited.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

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.

Absolutely! Context is very key. On emust understand the nasty Korean politics if there are to get a better grasp on why things was so distorted & confusing.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

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.

Master Weiss as you & others may know, in the law, often eye witness testimony is less reliable as witnesses have different abilities to remember & different perceptions. I think that this does play a part here, but more importantly is the split that started to happen in the early 1960s with the Original TKD & the TaeSuDo guys. This split was patched up somewhat in 1965 when Gen Choi was elected 3rd president of the Korean TaeSuDo Assoc. He was able to get them to adopt his name, but they simply would not follow him or adopt his system or focus. He no longer possessed the power to force his way. hence the confusion, as the 2 TKDs took different roads on their respective development. Since Gen Choi become an enemy of the state in many eyes & he worked against their efforts, he became a target & he belittled them.
There really is no reason any longer for anyone to continue with this fighting.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

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?

I am not sure what you have a problem with. Of course they wanted to make a Korean martial sport. He is right, you can read it in Yook's interview of GM Lee Chong Woo, a vitally important Kukki TKD leader, maybe their most influential martial artist. Dr Kim Un Yong & his writings & interviews he granted all confirm this. Steve Capener, PhD, former WTF employee confirms this as well. His research & writings are available on the internet. Also the Modern History addresses this was well.
I have little problem with that. I am just disappointed of the lack of respect for Gen Choi & his valuable contributions all around the world. That is simply not right, any way you cut it.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

How do you cite a conversation with a master?

There is an actual formal way that you do it, with the format depending on the style used, like APA etc.
Basically you say from interview or discussion with so & so or personal communication on such & such a date.
Again I find little that I would disagree with, from the info provided by Puunui. His is highly informed, well read & has been generous with his contributions. He has opened my eyes to valuable new info.
It is more of his apparent dismissal of things associated with Gen Choi.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

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.

Yes that would be Juan, the IOC President. I think he was from Spain & Dr Kim had a great relationship with him. Dr Kim says without this person as President of the IOC, there would be no TKD in the Olympics.

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

Thank you Sir. I would like to add that history is about what happened, when did it happen & who made it happen. Personal perspective goes more to the why & how, which of course is always subjective.
Additionally I am not sure how many historians have written about TKD's history. Dr Kimm He Young is a PhD in History & has been involved in scholarly research for some 40 years on this subject. I think his work will be most comprehensive & fill in a lot of holes, settling many battles, that really have been fought for no good reasons, especially for non-Koreans.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

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.

Yes of course, but then also add in the context of the times that this all happened, to get more insight as well weigh or evaluate the info.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

This is the last time I am responding to this. :
Quote:Originally Posted by KarateMomUSA
The biggest problem is with the confusion that while all TKD had the same roots, karate, they developed differently along 2 major routes, simply stated as Chang Hon or Original TKD & Kukki or Olympic TKD or even simpler, but maybe less accurate ITF & WTF.


Chang Hon is NOT original Taekwondo. Original Taekwondo is Chung Do Kwan Taekwondo. When the name was developed in December 1954 and finally approved by President Rhee in April 1955, the two groups that adopted the name were the Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan. But at the time the Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan's curriculum were the same. This is why Chung Do Kwan members' dan rank was accepted while others from different Kwans were not.

Sorry Sir but this is spin or perspective. What is Original TKD is the TKD of Gen Choi. While he may have offered it as an umbrella name it simply was not accepted by those not following him. So we know that the ODK was staffed with important instructors from the CDK. However what was becoming TKD 1st, was the system that they were developing in the military under Gen Choi's leadership. At 1st it was mostly the patterns. So it was Gen Choi & his soldiers that were developing that Original TKD. of course many of those soldiers were from the CDK & yes they did not have to retest for their rank.
Kukki TKD came from the TaeSuDo guys. they united around the sports competition rules that they devised & competed under the name Tae Soo Do. In 1965 they took the name, made their new forms, replaced by the Taeguek Poomsae later on. So Kukki TKD did not come from the CDK, it came from the 9 kwans that united & signed the agreement in Aug of 78. Original TKD or the Korean martial art that 1st used the name TKD is from the ODK. The roots are shared, but the paths of development were different.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

There are way more than seven Koreans that studied abroad. Off the topic of my head: 1) LEE Won Kuk; 2) CHUN Sang Sup; 3) YOON Byung In; 4) HWANG Kee; 5) RO Byung Jick; 6) YOON Kwe Byung; 7) CHOI Hong Hi; 8) KIM Ki Whang; 9) OYAMA Masatatsu; 10) Oyama Sensei's Korean teacher in Goju Ryu; 11) Judo practitioners who brought Judo to Korea; 12) Kumdo practitioners who brought Kumdo to Korea; 13) the members of GM YOON Kwe Byung's Kanbukan (Korean Martial Arts Gym) in Japan; 14) CHOI Yong Sool; 15) the other Daito Ryu guy whose name I can never remember; 16) other Koreans who studied under TAKEDA Sokaku Sensei listed in Takeda Sensei's enrollment books; 17) Mr. Kim, who allegedly taught General Choi in Japan; 18) Kung Fu practitioners who brought Kung Fu to Korea; 19) Sensei Richard Kim;

Ok yes of course there were more than 7, but I am talking about the 7 that played a part in TKD, not hapkido, judo, kumdo etc. Nor am I talking about the karate guys that stayed karate. So I agree with your listing of the 1st 7, as they were the 7 Koreans that worked with the 6 early kwans or 5 original kwans, the founders & 1st generation leaders.

The name was first used by the Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan, not only in the military. In fact, the Chung Do Kwan Jang was present and was a member of the naming committee so of course he was going to use the name. The Chung Do Kwan dan certificates issued by GM Son had the name "Taekwondo" on it. And as was recently shown, the "Korea Taekwondo Association" name was still being used prior to the official changing from Taesoodo to Taekwondo, in August 1965. If you wish to give credit, give credit to the Chung Do Kwan and its members, including but not limited to its members in the Oh Do Kwan, for first using the name.

Yes of course, we are making progress & yes I would include those in the CDK who were following Gen Choi.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

The pioneers aren't interested in credit. The idea of credit takes away from the idea that everyone contributed to Taekwondo's creation and development, and therefore no one person should be singled out. If the pioneers wanted credit, they would have put their names in prominently in all of the Kukkiwon and WTF publications. The closest thing to anyone receiving any credit is indirectly through the names and philosophy behind the three highest Kukkiwon poomsae, Chonkwon, Hansu and Ilyeo, which are indirect references to the Chang Moo Kwan (Chonkwon), Chungdokwan (Hansu) and Jidokwan (Ilyeo).

Yes & like GM Lee said, we had to sacrifice our teachers for the national good. In other words, hide the karate connection. We will see names being listed & people being credited, it is a matter of time. South Korea is setting that up already.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

Quote:
Originally Posted by KarateMomUSA
No we are or some are only talking about a piece of what he wrote in his book, that he called a brief history of TKD. You do not talk about how he states he is the father of TKD, how he created it, how he combined karate with his knowledge of Taek Kyon to make his TK-D. Gen Choi never said that TKD was 2,000 years old! GM Lee Chong Woo, along with countless others who repeated the standard template that TKD was 2,000 years old that the KTA, KKW & WTF still put forth to this day!

Look at the title of this subject. We are talking about what General Choi wrote in the "A Brief History of Taekwon-Do" section of his 1965 book, not that other stuff you are mentioning. But if you want to quote the dustcover and whatever else from the 1965 book (as opposed to paraphrasing), then be my guest.
Ok, enough. I'm done.

OK your done? How about addressing my point?
The point is again, that yes Gen Choi did go back 1,300 years, not 2,000 years, to show that Korea had fighting arts in the past. But that was for the national pride. He clearly shows in that SAME BOOK, that he founded or created TKD, was referred to as the Father of TKD & he combined his karate training with his Taek Kyon knowledge to make his TKD!
The difference with the KTA, KKW & WTF is not the 700 year difference, but the fact that they never make the karate connection or talk about the karate roots.
So why do you not respond to this?

 

[KarateMomUSA]

If you are referring to the Kukkiwon website, then this was probably the best way to have handled it. If they had gone into greater detail, then people would complain that this, that or the other person was left out, slighted, or in some way not treated well, so its best that they simply kept it brief.

Daniel

Sorry but think of what you are saying. They can go on for pages about 2,000 years ago, but then just a brief paragraph or 2 about the all important formative years! It is pretty clear to me that they simply looked to hide the karate roots.

 

[miguksaram]

I find little wrong with what Puunui writes. I think a shortcoming may be his dislike for Gen Choi based upon what some people have told him, many of which may have been motivated by different reasons to dislike Gen Choi...

Which could be but when you hear one person tell you that another person is an @$$hole he may biased. When you have two or three people telling you another person is an @$$hole, they may bandwagoning, but when you have several people telling you that someone is an @$$hole, then it is good chance that person is an @$$hole.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Sorry but think of what you are saying. They can go on for pages about 2,000 years ago, but then just a brief paragraph or 2 about the all important formative years! It is pretty clear to me that they simply looked to hide the karate roots.

When you say 'go on for pages,' it sounds like they go on and on. But really they don't; the history on the KKW site is only seven pages long, and each 'page' is only a column just under half a page in width, so they aren't even full pages.

In any case, you haven't been complaining about them hiding karate roots, but about General Choi's contributions not being recognized.

As far as five pages worth of Korea's martial past, this used to bug the tar out of me. If you go digging through Daniel Sullivan's old posts in this section, you can see for yourself just how much. It took me a long time to wrap my head around the notion that they were not implying that the modern striking art practiced today was practiced centuries ago, but that they were applying the term 'taekwondo' retroactively. The Japanese did so with 'jujutsu' in (I believe) the 1800's, retroactively applying the term to older arts practiced by the samurai.

The term is just a term. Taekwondo encompasses fighting with the hands and feet, not exactly a new concept.

As I said in a previous post, I am not crazy about the way that they present it, but I'm not bothered by it any longer.

Daniel

 

[andyjeffries]

Which could be but when you hear one person tell you that another person is an @$$hole he may biased. When you have two or three people telling you another person is an @$$hole, they may bandwagoning, but when you have several people telling you that someone is an @$$hole, then it is good chance that person is an @$$hole.

After reading A Killing Art I came away with the feeling he was an @$$hole. That book seemed fairly biased to General Choi too (always using his title of General Choi, but referring to ex-WTF President Dr Un Yong Kim as Mickey Kim).

Don't get me wrong, he did a lot to popularise Taekwon-do, but I think the same thing would have happened if he hadn't, it would have just happened later... If Dr Kim had the skills to get Taekwondo in the Olympics he would have been equally capable of popularising the art.

 

[miguksaram]

After reading A Killing Art I came away with the feeling he was an @$$hole. That book seemed fairly biased to General Choi too (always using his title of General Choi, but referring to ex-WTF President Dr Un Yong Kim as Mickey Kim).

Don't get me wrong, he did a lot to popularise Taekwon-do, but I think the same thing would have happened if he hadn't, it would have just happened later... If Dr Kim had the skills to get Taekwondo in the Olympics he would have been equally capable of popularising the art.

I do enjoy the book Killing Art the same way I enjoyed Race against Evil By David Bannon. For those not familiar with Race Against Evil it was an autobiography of a man who claimed to be an interpool agent and all the cool missions he was on. It was like reading a James Bond book with out the cool weapons and hot ladies jumping all over him. However, the book were all lies and the author was eventually busted on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_"Race"_Bannon).

Anyway, my point is Killing Art rings of the same cloak and dagger tale. Though the author tries to play a "unbiased" roll it is clear this is a pro-Choi book.

 

[dancingalone]

Though the author tries to play a "unbiased" roll it is clear this is a pro-Choi book.

I didn't get that impression at all. Personally, I came out of reading the book with fairly negative feelings for Choi and his son. The narrative Gillis gives shows many of the early TKD figures as be flawed individuals, sometimes criminally so.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

Which could be but when you hear one person tell you that another person is an @$$hole he may biased. When you have two or three people telling you another person is an @$$hole, they may bandwagoning, but when you have several people telling you that someone is an @$$hole, then it is good chance that person is an @$$hole.

I am not sure what you mean. I think all of us are bias in some form. I leave that to others to judge for themselves. If you are speaking in a derogatory fashion about Gen Choi & his personality that is OK as well. But that does not take away from his many accomplishments & what he gave to & left for so many around the world.

 

[KarateMomUSA]

When you say 'go on for pages,' it sounds like they go on and on. But really they don't; the history on the KKW site is only seven pages long, and each 'page' is only a column just under half a page in width, so they aren't even full pages.

Valid point, but you must include the all important context, pages about history that has little to do with the present day formation of a modern Korean martial art/sport & a brief paragraph or 2 about the all important formative years when they actually created TKD. That is done n purpose, as a main architect states in his own words (GM Lee). I say it was to promote their national agenda & hide the hated Japanese karate connection.

In any case, you haven't been complaining about them hiding karate roots, but about General Choi's contributions not being recognized.

Both! The karate roots are real & can't be hidden. Then by extension people like Gen Choi & the 6 others that studied martial arts abroad & brought it back to Korea & played a role in opening those 6 early kwans will be credited. Just to make it clear, I think all 7 Koreans were dissed, not just Gen Choi. All 7 deserve credit, as do their 2nd generation leaders that have also been dissed. Once you tell the truth about the formative years, you can't help but credit people like Gen Choi. Some may deserve more credit than others, but that is another topic. I am just for giving credit where credit is due. I find nothing wrong with that & am amazed about the lengths that some people will go to, just to stop some from getting deserved credit. Now just to restate & make clear, TKD has shared roots from a common start. Once the paths of development took 2 major roads, Gen Choi of course would not play a part in the Kukki TKD creation & in fact it would be historically accurate to tell how he even interfered with that development.

As far as five pages worth of Korea's martial past, this used to bug the tar out of me. If you go digging through Daniel Sullivan's old posts in this section, you can see for yourself just how much. It took me a long time to wrap my head around the notion that they were not implying that the modern striking art practiced today was practiced centuries ago, but that they were applying the term 'taekwondo' retroactively. The Japanese did so with 'jujutsu' in (I believe) the 1800's, retroactively applying the term to older arts practiced by the samurai.
The term is just a term. Taekwondo encompasses fighting with the hands and feet, not exactly a new concept.
As I said in a previous post, I am not crazy about the way that they present it, but I'm not bothered by it any longer.

Again it is the imbalance with so much detail given to the past with little direct connection compared to the formative years when TKD was being "formed". This must be & I believe will be rectified when historians record TKD's history. I am much more concerned with giving credit to the many that deserve it. To me that is just right, plain & simple. How can we not want to credit those that made possible what we & so many do today? Why would we not want to list these Korean heroes so they can receive proper thanks?

 

[KarateMomUSA]

After reading A Killing Art I came away with the feeling he was an @$$hole. That book seemed fairly biased to General Choi too (always using his title of General Choi, but referring to ex-WTF President Dr Un Yong Kim as Mickey Kim).

Again even if Gen Choi had traits that were not to be admired, that does not take away from his many contributions. I know of no human that is perfect. We also have to remember that to many in the south, Gen Choi was a traitor for bringing TKD to the north of Korea. This also can play a big role in shaping people's opinion about him, so poliitcal context is a must. I think the book was well researched & that it did confirm many things, like Dr Kim being a KCIA operative that went by the name of "Mikey Kim". That is a very important point as it speaks to how Korean politics shaped TKD's development & the recording of its history, at least in the short term.

Don't get me wrong, he did a lot to popularise Taekwon-do, but I think the same thing would have happened if he hadn't, it would have just happened later... If Dr Kim had the skills to get Taekwondo in the Olympics he would have been equally capable of popularising the art.

There is little doubt that this feeling is correct. Or at least I share it with you. However history is in large part the recording of what happened, where did it happen & who made it happen. For TKD's history, Gen Choi did play a role. His role was important in the formative years for all TKD, as they all share those common roots. His role for Kukki or Olympic sport TKD is basically zero, if not even negative, as he was a drag on its development. However once the split happened, he presided over the development of another form of TKD, which of course history shows us was the style or branch of TKD that was 1st labeled as such.