Article on the History of TKD

[arnisador]

I wish I knew enough to contribute more to this debate. But, I am certainly finding it rewarding to read it, and am glad that all this detailed info. is available now on the site. People can make up their own minds.

I do not believe there is any doubt among the few disinterested academics who have studied it that TKD grew out of Japanese Karate shortly after WWII, as HKD grew out of Japanese jujutsu. It's well-documented.

 

[terryl965]

All I know is opinion is just that opinionsverkill::deadhorse
This horse had benn beaten so much it is now a T-bone steak

 

[exile]

All I know is opinion is just that opinions...

Terry, the same thing can be said of the opinion that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, vs. the opinion that the earth is flat and the sun and planets revolve around it. Or the opinion that tuberculosis is caused by evil spirits, as vs. the opinion that it's caused by a bacillus. Or... anything anyone can think of, no matter how absurd. Saying that two different views of a set of facts are both opinions is just restating what we know full well: that we aren't omniscient. It's just the place where we get started in seeking the truth. And over time, if we seek it, we find more and more of it. Do we know more about the universe than people did 1,000 years ago? And if so, how did we get there except by entertaining, challenging and testing our different opinions in the court of evidence and reasoning? We got where we are today from where we were then by subjecting various different opinions to severe scrutiny and seeing how they played out, which one met the most severe tests and which ones faltered, for five hundred generations.

There are opinions which lead to correct predictions or retrodictions, that fit comfortably into emerging networks of fact as we uncover these, and which match well with what we have already established in other domains beyond reasonable doubt. We don't know in advance what's right, but reality leaves its footprints on the world, and discussion and debate are there precisely to track down those footprints. What we're discussing and arguing about here isn't like arguing about whether chocolate or vanilla ice cream tastes better; it's about how things happened in the world. It's very hard and messy to establish that, but the only way we make progress of the kind I was talking about is continuing to argue and debate, and seek to uncover facts that can bear one way or the others on our proposed models of the sequence of events. Unless we want to adopt in advance the position that every feel-good myth we run across has as much claim to credibility as the most careful investigation (after all, both kinds of things are just opinions, eh?), we have to keep studying and discussing these things and seeing what emerges. If you're going to dismiss continued inquiry into open questions where fresh information, and new linkages among previous bits of knowledge are continually emerging (just look at the publication dates on those articles I cited earlier to see how recent some of these findings are) as beating a dead horse, then what is the point of thinking critically about anything?

 

[terryl965]

Terry, the same thing can be said of the opinion that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, vs. the opinion that the earth is flat and the sun and planets revolve around it. Or the opinion that tuberculosis is caused by evil spirits, as vs. the opinion that it's caused by a bacillus. Or... anything anyone can think of, no matter how absurd. Saying that two different views of a set of facts are both opinions is just restating what we know full well: that we aren't omniscient. It's just the place where we get started in seeking the truth. And over time, if we seek it, we find more and more of it. Do we know more about the universe than people did 1,000 years ago? And if so, how did we get there except by entertaining, challenging and testing our different opinions in the court of evidence and reasoning? We got where we are today from where we were then by subjecting various different opinions to severe scrutiny and seeing how they played out, which one met the most severe tests and which ones faltered, for five hundred generations.

There are opinions which lead to correct predictions or retrodictions, that fit comfortably into emerging networks of fact as we uncover these, and which match well with what we have already established in other domains beyond reasonable doubt. We don't know in advance what's right, but reality leaves its footprints on the world, and discussion and debate are there precisely to track down those footprints. What we're discussing and arguing about here isn't like arguing about whether chocolate or vanilla ice cream tastes better; it's about how things happened in the world. It's very hard and messy to establish that, but the only way we make progress of the kind I was talking about is continuing to argue and debate, and seek to uncover facts that can bear one way or the others on our proposed models of the sequence of events. Unless we want to adopt in advance the position that every feel-good myth we run across has as much claim to credibility as the most careful investigation (after all, both kinds of things are just opinions, eh?), we have to keep studying and discussing these things and seeing what emerges. If you're going to dismiss continued inquiry into open questions where fresh information, and new linkages among previous bits of knowledge are continually emerging (just look at the publication dates on those articles I cited earlier to see how recent some of these findings are) as beating a dead horse, then what is the point of thinking critically about anything?

Exile over the last two months there are 19 threads about the history of TKD and in every single one it comes to the same conclusion. Wjay are we beating this dead horse over and over again. Can we all get over this and talk about TKD technical side for a change. And bo the thing about the earth eing flat has been proven wrong but the history of TKD there os no real proof just opinions about what really happened.

The reasone I say beating a dead horse, no matter what the thread is about you come in with some tidbit of history and railroad the entire thread. All the articles that you have cited give someone take on what was written and by a few people words that have changed over the years. Do you even relize how many times General Choi said certain things and GM Uhm and GM Parks or GM Kurban or GM Sells. I am sorry but this is just plain and simple seems like a vandetta you have against TKD. Your vase knowledge comes from people who writes books after talking to a few elders in TKD, no matter what I say or a few others about what we have witness means anything to you all you do is come back with the same old argument time and time again.

I like you and enjoy your post for the most parts and enjoy talking to you about TKD but your what five years of training does not compare to some of us that have been doing this for forty years. I am not putting you down or anybody else but I have seen things and witness first hand what I talk about. My knowledge is vast and my art of TKD is a mirror of it formal self, we need to look to the future and not the trainted past to bring back what I consider real TKD.

This is like all those people that say I am WTF certified they have no clue, except you got one for the brief one year they did certification you are Kukkiwon there is a dufferent but only to the ones that have been around long enough to have gone though it.

U bid everyone a great night and looking forward to some great topics over techinal side of TKD and not the trainted past of said Art. :asian:

 

[exile]

Exile over the last two months there are 19 threads about the history of TKD and in every single one it comes to the same conclusion. Wjay are we beating this dead horse over and over again. Can we all get over this and talk about TKD technical side for a change. And bo the thing about the earth eing flat has been proven wrong but the history of TKD there os no real proof just opinions about what really happened.

The same thing happens in history as in astronomy, Terry. Historians try to figure out why Mayan civilization collapsed or why the South decided to secede or why Hitler invaded Russia. It's the same process of inquiry. The only place you can actually prove anything is in math and logic. Everything else is putting together arguments for the most plausible hypothesis, the one that matches the facts best. History is hard; people spend decades learning how to use data and evidence to construct the strongest possible hypotheses. That what discussions of history are for.

The reasone I say beating a dead horse, no matter what the thread is about you come in with some tidbit of history and railroad the entire thread.

Look at the title of this thread, Terry, or the one about the 'origin of fancy kicks', or many of the others... history is what they're about. I didn't revive this thread, but the OP was about Capener's essay. And the whole followup discussion is really all about what counts as a valid argument, in the context of his article.

All the articles that you have cited give someone take on what was written and by a few people words that have changed over the years. Do you even relize how many times General Choi said certain things and GM Uhm and GM Parks or GM Kurban or GM Sells. I am sorry but this is just plain and simple seems like a vandetta you have against TKD.

My arguments (or really, my assembly of the arguments of a number of MA historians; I'm nothing more than the messenger) against the formative role of taekkyon in TKD is a vendetta against TKD? How does that follow?

Your vase knowledge comes from people who writes books after talking to a few elders in TKD, no matter what I say or a few others about what we have witness means anything to you all you do is come back with the same old argument time and time again.

When the Taekkyon people and some of the Kwan era grandmasters themselves deny the role of Taekkyon as the source of TKD's kicking techs, don't you think there's another side to it that deserves exploration? There are other ideas to pursue in looking at where these kicks came from, such as the CMA connection, direct or indirect. How does the suggestion that these other avenues might fit the facts better amount to a vendetta against TKD?

I like you and enjoy your post for the most parts and enjoy talking to you about TKD but your what five years of training does not compare to some of us that have been doing this for forty years.

But Terry, this is an issue of what happened in history, not 'years of training'. It's not about how to execute a turning kick correctly; it's about what was happening on the Korean peninsula in the 19th century, in the 1920 and '30s, at the end of the '40s. There are historical sources that require very specialized knowledge to pursue; that's what historians acquire and that's what they apply to their fields. A pilot who's been flying for forty years is going to be a great pilot, but the history of aircraft is something else completely. There are outstanding military historians who never fought in combat. The greatest architectural historians never designed a building in their lives... the two issues are completely different.

I am not putting you down or anybody else but I have seen things and witness first hand what I talk about. My knowledge is vast and my art of TKD is a mirror of it formal self, we need to look to the future and not the trainted past to bring back what I consider real TKD.

I'm not sure what you're getting at specifically here. What's at issue in all these discussion is stuff that happened in the couple of decades leading up to the Kwan era. If there's something about that you know in particular that bears on this question, why not lay it out for us? The more input there is to this kind of discussion, the more informed our conclusions can be. But if you don't make clear just what you're getting at, how can it further the conversation?

 

[terryl965]

Exile I will say this you stick to your guns no matter what, history about TKD is like a bad day at the dentist. It brings nothing byt pain. I will shoot you a pm after Yolanda proofs read it for me. I am out of this converstation. I cannt type what I can say so will be talking to you at the meet and greet for a long time.

 

[YoungMan]

If I may offer some input:
Korean martial arts (taekkyon, taekwondo, subakhi etc.) have been around in one form or another for at least 2000 years and are an integral part of Korean culture and identity. They are bigger than one man and always have been. One man does not define the various arts and never has. Furthermore, they are by nature physical arts of the people of Korea. Meaning you can argue about articles and proof, this author said this, this book said that, until you're blue in the face. Your reducing the arts to something they were never meant to be.
My point for all this is this: Taekkyon may have been suppressed but it didn't die; just because one man may have been the most well known proponent of taekkyon doesn't mean he was the only one; an activity that is the property of the Korean people cannot be reduced to magazine or book articles and "he said" arguments. And articles about what Taekwondo or its forebears is or is not written by British karate students should be taken with a grain of salt. If I want to learn about aikido, best not to talk to kung fu students.

 

[tkd1964]

Mike, how could it have been 'famed throughout the Goryo dynasty?' The first evidence we have for its existence is a mention in the Book of Treasures in 1790!

This is from the KTA site. From what they write and have found, 1790 was not the first time it was mentioned. (by KTA I mean the Korea Taekkyon Association, not the Korea Tae Kwon Do Association)





Before the 6th century Taekkyon was habitually practiced by ruling classes and from the 9th to 12th century, got very popular even among the common people. By quoting Koryusa (Korean history book written in 15th century) Taekkyon are widely encouraged and practiced from the king himself to farmers. This trend continued until the early stage of Chosun Dynasty.

I will be glad when Dr. Kimm finally comes out with his TKD history book. He just finished the one on Hapkido which i will be reading soon. We can all agree that we have strong opinions on this and maybe in 100 years, the facts will come out. :highfive:

 

[exile]

If I may offer some input:
Korean martial arts (taekkyon, taekwondo, subakhi etc.) have been around in one form or another for at least 2000 years and are an integral part of Korean culture and identity.

YM, just try looking at some of the evidence, OK? There's a ton of it. And the evidence suggests that for almost its whole history KMAs have been derivative from CMAs. You're kind of begging the question when you refer to 'one form or another', because what this whole discussion is about is, what were those forms, and when??. It makes a big difference—it's the whole point at issue! People have been fighting for as long as humanity has been around, probably, but what were they 'using' to fight with? What was the population on the Korean peninsula actually doing? That's what people are trying to examine in detail. Saying that 'Korean martial arts (taekkyon, taekwondo, subakhi etc.) have been around in one form or another for at least 2000 years' is like coming to an argument about whether Basque is related to the languages of the Caucasus and saying, 'Well, people in Europe have been talking for thousands of years.' By itself, it's a truism; the point at issue is, just what were they talking?

They are bigger than one man and always have been. One man does not define the various arts and never has. Furthermore, they are by nature physical arts of the people of Korea. Meaning you can argue about articles and proof, this author said this, this book said that, until you're blue in the face. Your reducing the arts to something they were never meant to be.

What is the connection between these comments and the points at issue? I see this paragraph as a kind extended way of saying, don't bring facts into it, I've made up my mind. No one is saying that one man defines the various arts, though Song Duk-ki comes about as close as you can; his relevance is the light his memoirs shed on the state of taekkyon during a certain critical time window. The fact that martial arts are physical arts is a part of the definition of 'martial art'; how is it relevant to the question? If someone claimed that the TMA of Korea was Pankration, and you challenged them, they could say exactly the same thing; exactly how would it be relevant to the discussion? And how is discussing the development of any given MA 'reducing' that MA to anything? Again, if I get into a debate with someone about whether Basque has any living relatives, am I 'reducing language to something it was never meant to be?' What am I reducing it to?? You yourself are insisting on a particular history for TKD, one which involves taekkyon as a crucial element; I'm marshalling arguments and evidence for a different history. How is what I'm doing 'reducing' TKD any more than you are? That's like saying to someone who argues that the Mayans developed pyramids independently of the Egyptians, when you believe the opposite, that 'your problem is that you're turning pyramids into something they were never meant to be.'

My point for all this is this: Taekkyon may have been suppressed but it didn't die; just because one man may have been the most well known proponent of taekkyon doesn't mean he was the only one; an activity that is the property of the Korean people cannot be reduced to magazine or book articles and "he said" arguments.

I'm not reducing anything to books or articles. I'm applying specific bodies of information and knowledge contained in books an articles to the problem of just what activities were the property of the Korean people, and what the relationship is between those activities. And whether you like it or not, YM, there is actually a lot of evidence bearing on this point, which is not of the he said/she said variety. The origin of the Muye Dobu Tong Ji in a work of Chinese military techniques written centuries before has been shown by a comparison between the two works, where the former is an almost word-for-word transliteration of the latter. The lack of any documentation for the technical content of the KMAs until almost a millenium and a half after the Three Kingdoms era isn't he said/she said: historians trained in Korean philology and archival research have combed through the surviving records and know what is, and is not in them. The fact that Song Duk-ki complained of not being able to find even one experienced taekkyon practitioner to assist in the famous demonstration before Syngman Rhee isn't he said/she said: who is saying that he actually was able to find other practitioners?? The fact is, virtually none of the argument is of the he said/she said variety. You're using that formulation to refer to the fact that there are people on one side and people on the other side of the question, debating what happened. Very, very different. Way back when, Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton had a famous, acrimonious debate about the nature of cosmic rays: Millikan insisted that they were energetic photons, Compton argued that they were charged particles. Would you call that kind of argument 'he said/she said'? Well, this is the same kind of debate. 'He said/she said' is when he said she cut him off in traffic and he rearended her car because he couldn't stop in time, and she says he was tailgating her and she had to slow down suddenly... and there are no witnesses. This is hardly that sort of case, eh?

And articles about what Taekwondo or its forebears is or is not written by British karate students should be taken with a grain of salt. [/B]If I want to learn about aikido, best not to talk to kung fu students.

I know of exactly one British karate writer on MA history, Harry Cook. And you will notice, YM, that I have cited nothing by him. As I've pointed out to you several times already, my sources are MA historians who in many cases have extensive CVs in the KMAs. I've already brought this to your attention in another thread, after you made the same complaint there, and instead of supplying the names of the people you were referring to you chose not to respond. So now I'll do it again: what karateka in the list of well-documented historical sources that I supplied are British karate writers?

But your point is way wide of the mark in any case. Some of the best writing about Italian Renaissance art has been done by non-Italians. Some of the best work on European history has been done by non-Europeans. You seem to think that people assert claims about MA history on the basis of personal authority. Some do, but the ones whose arguments stick don't. They appeal to documented, available facts, and reasoning from those facts to the best conclusion. If Harry Cook were ever to get around to writing the history of TKD, at the level of his Shotokan: A Precise History, I would be willing to bet that by the time he finished with it, we would know vastly more, and be on a vastly more solid footing, than we currently are after decades of ROK revisionist history.

 

[FieldDiscipline]

Arrrrgh! Smaller paragraphs!

 

[SageGhost83]

Furthermore, they are by nature physical arts of the people of Korea. Meaning you can argue about articles and proof, this author said this, this book said that, until you're blue in the face. Your reducing the arts to something they were never meant to be.

Yes!!! I know YM! Who does Exile think he is - bringing actual proven facts into a debate about history! He should be burned at the stake! How dare he :lol::lol::lol:!

 

[YoungMan]

Taekkyon has no high kicks and is/was merely a kid's recreational activity?

Then how do you explain this?

Watch for a great takedown at about 4:45 during Taekkyon sparring.
This is a video by the Korean Tae-Gyeon Association in Korean.

Can you honestly say after watching this that there is no similarity between Taekkyon and modern Taekwondo, especially in the kicking department?

 

[FieldDiscipline]

I cant speak Korean so dont know what this all about but...

Very interesting. If this is genuine certified Taekyon as practised in the first half of the 20th century and it hasnt been changed to incorporate TKD techniques then you have something.

There are one or two things from that that I recognize from my instructor over the years, that I have never seen anywhere else.

 

[exile]

Taekkyon has no high kicks and is/was merely a kid's recreational activity?

Then how do you explain this?

Watch for a great takedown at about 4:45 during Taekkyon sparring.
This is a video by the Korean Tae-Gyeon Association in Korean.

Can you honestly say after watching this that there is no similarity between Taekkyon and modern Taekwondo, especially in the kicking department?

A video, all right. A video made in the early 21st century. In order for it to have any bearing whatsoever, you have to show that it is an example of the Taekkyon that was practiced by taekkyonists in the late 19th and early 20th century, when Song Duk Ki and others of his generation learned it! Why does this point apparently not get through?? The taekkyon which, according to the Taekkyon Research Association, consisted primarily of low kicks and stomps to unbalance the opponent was, as they themselves claim and Stuart Culin's 1895 ethnography of Korean games confirms, the taekkyon of a century ago; and here you are, showing us videos of a neo-taekkyon that came back from the brink of extinction in the shadow of an already established, flourishing TKD with thousands as many practitioners. And it has high, complex kicks. What is the relevance of taekkyon videos made during the past ten or five years or whenever the video was made to the art that supposedly influenced TKD in the Occupation era???.

The World Taekkyon Headquarters site, as I've already posted, identifies traditional taekkyon's core techniques as low pushing maneuvers aimed to unbalance the opponent—I'll try yet again: as the World Taekkyon Headquarters site puts it here,

The kicks are so legendary that, for hundreds of years the name of the art was synonymous with foot-fighting. However, the kicks bear little resemblance to the typical spinning and jumping maneuvers glorified in tournaments and film. Instead, Taekkyon leg techniques are simple and direct, focusing on linear moves but including limited usage of circular and spinning kicks. Taekkyon has traditionally emphasized stepping and stamping techniques directed at the opponent's lower legs and feet.​

But this bit of cheorographed display refutes that, of course. :lol:

And have you witnessed any sport karate sparring matches over the last little while? You'll see all kinds of fancy, high spinning kicks there—so I guess that means that TKD got those kicks, along with its original kata sets (still practiced in TSD and certain TKD lineages) from karate, eh? I mean, look at the Discovery Channel's video on XMA from a couple of years ago and check out the U.S. Karate championships sparring components—tornado kicks, high head shots... just what Olympic TKD does! Going by your own reasoning, that constitutes all the evidence necessary that TKD got its kicking from the same place it got the rest of its technical components, eh?

If you want to use video evidence for your position, all you have to do is supply some that were made in the Occupation era, and can be authenticated as such, when the Gms. who founded the Kwans would have been exposed to taekkyon, or during the 1950s, when their students would have been (if they'd been able to find anyone who still did it). Do you still not see that no matter how many contemporary videos of taekyon you post links to, you are not providing evidence for anything except contemporary taekyon, which cannot have had anything to do with the formation of TKD? Don't you see that you have to provide evidence for the taekyon practiced in the first half of the 20th century, at the latest, for it to have any bearing on where TKD's kicking techs, already reflecting high and increasingly complex kicks in the late 1960s, came from?

And just for your personal info, YM: traditional taekkyon did not involve stick-fighting or other weapons. Just thought you might want to be aware of that in evaluating the authenticity of the techniques displayed in this video, as vs. traditional taekkyon. Just to forestall any suggestions that Taekkyon was the source of Arnis techniques, for example...

 

[FieldDiscipline]

traditional taekkyon did not involve stick-fighting

I meant to pick that up....

 

[exile]

I meant to pick that up....

Yeah, and that's the thing about 'modern' taekkyon—it's sucked up all this stuff from other arts. Hell, the Korean Taekkyon Association didn't even exist until 1991!

 

[terryl965]

Yeah, and that's the thing about 'modern' taekkyon—it's sucked up all this stuff from other arts. Hell, the Korean Taekkyon Association didn't even exist until 1991!

This is not at all true, The Korean Taekkyon Assiciation has been around since 1964, it was not official name until 1991, this is what Grand Master Kim has stated anyway. From converstation I have had with him in the past, still I do not believe what they teach today to be pure Taekkyon from years past and either does he. Exile is right about one thing the video above has alot of TKD in there kicks but was the TKD added or was Taekkyon added to TKD we may never know the truth on that one.

 

[exile]

This is not at all true, The Korean Taekkyon Assiciation has been around since 1964, it was not official name until 1991, this is what Grand Master Kim has stated anyway. From converstation I have had with him in the past, still I do not believe what they teach today to be pure Taekkyon from years past and either does he. Exile is right about one thing the video above has alot of TKD in there kicks but was the TKD added or was Taekkyon added to TKD we may never know the truth on that one.

Terry, this is from the official Korea Taekkyon Association site itself.

During the Japanese colonial period, Taekkyon has been banned and therefore has almost vanished. Fortunately one old-man called Song Duk-Ki(1893〜1987) did survive and could hand it down to us. After independense of Korea, instead of Taekkyon, japanese style martial arts (like Judo and Karate etc.) are more popular as there are many masters who learned them.

Moreover, new martial arts called Taekwondo is established after Korean War and there were confusion between Taekkyon and Taekwondo. But these two martial arts have nothing in common and are compeletly different. Taekkyon was designated by the government "Important Intangible Cultural Asset No. 76" in June 1, 1983 owing to the elaborate efforts by Shin, Han-Seung(1928〜1987) who learned Taekkyon from Song, Duk-Ki and both masters became authorized beholder of Taekkyon skills.

Lee Yong-Bok, who learned Taekkyon from these two masters in 1984 has established "Korea Traditional Taekkyon Institute" to revive Taekkyon.

From this time on, the popularization of Taekkyon began and in June 30, 1985 first Taekkyon game revived after 80 years in Kooduk stadium located in Pusan.

In Jan. 1, 1991 the Korea Taekkyon Association was established and in Nov. 30, 1998 Taekkyon became the official member of "National Sports Council for All".

Very recently in Feb. 2, 2001 the Korea Taekkyon Association entered officially into "Korea Sports Council" and this will certainly be the great turning-point for developing Taekkyon as Taekkyon(lead by Korea Taekkyon Associatin) has been approved as specialty athletics by "Korea Sports Council". Korea Taekkyon Association now has its subdivisions all over the countuy and supports more than 160 institutions, 110 university circles and 120 citizen clubs. It also has total about 10 nation-wide Taekkyon championship game every year.​

All I'm trying to do here is give reasons why a reader coming in without any preconceptions would find the burden of proof resting pretty much entirely on the proponents of TKD kicks from taekkyon. All I'm concerned about is finding out what really happened. I think, myself, that the pressure to associate TKD with taekkyon, which so far as I can tell started with Syngman Rhee himself, may have led us to overlook other connections, between TKD, Hapkido and those Northern CMA styles that have had fancy, complex, full extension kicks for generations (and which we know the Koreans to have been aware of, via the Muye Dobo Tong Ji). So with all that said, note the following points of interest in the KTA's description of their own art:

• The KTA says that it was the Japanese arts, not taekkyon, which influenced the postwar development of the KMAs, TKD in particular;
• they assert that TKD and taekkyon have no technical relations to each other;
• the first actual competitions on a national scale in Korea didn't even take place until 1985, and the KTA was formed six years later—no mention of an earlier avatar;
• finally, taekkyon has become a tournament sport—and we know what role kicks play in tournament competition, given half a chance!

Taking all of these points, straight from the horse's mouth so to speak, into consideration, it looks to me as though the KTA would hardly promote the techniques in their video as evidence of a connection with TKD, eh?

I don't understand the reluctance I seem to detect around here to exploring other sources for the TKD complex kicks (if anyone thinks that these couldn't simply have developed as a result of Koreans liking to kick and valuing athletic difficulty... I mean, that works for me). Twin Fists has suggested a connection with Hapkido in the 1960s, where HKD itself may well have been influenced by CMA techs. We know that at least a couple of the Kwan founders spent time traveling around Manchuria and northern China, where styles like Long Fist are famous for their acrobatic kicks. I gotta say, I don't see why people are so insistent on maintaining a source for TKD kicking for which the evidence is so slender, when there are other plausible candidate sources. Would it hurt to devote some attention to that line of possibility?

 

[YoungMan]

I would venture to say that Korean kicking, whether synthesized into Taekkyon, Taekwondo, Hapkido, or whatever seems to be a constant. However, of the three mentioned, Taekkyon seems to be the one most resistant to outside change because it sees itself as the original Korean art. Taekkyon does predate Taekwondo, and I could easily see them as saying those kicks originated from within Taekkyon.
I'm not saying that Taekkyon has always had all those kicks; but it seems to me that it would be the most likely original breeding ground for them. It is well known that Taekkyon and Taekwondo did some intermingling. It therefore stands to reason that as Taekwondo cast off its Japanese-influenced technique, it replaced those techniques with Korean-originated techniques, especially since those Taekkyon kicks and ways of moving are unique to it. Our free fighting was very similar to that as far as steps and flowing back and forth between partners. I definitely don't see that in Japanese karate, which tends to be much more rigid and linear.
Not to say that Taekwondo always had those, but if they did not descend from Taekkyon, they were at least highly influenced. especially since there were no longer Japanese overlords saying they couldn't do it.

 

[terryl965]

Exile I am not saying it did not become official at that time what I said was a very knowledgable GM stated it was arrange earlier and then came to be.

As far as what people put in a website I can show you suff from official websites statint that TKD has been around sine 600 BC and yet nobody believe it. Remember Bob alot comes and goes but only the one that was there really knows for sure and that is all we know.

This is also from there site

In Jan. 1, 1991 the Korea Taekkyon Association was established and in Nov. 30, 1998 Taekkyon became the official member of "National Sports Council for All".

So even this form of an ancient art has made it to the forefront by becomming a sport WOW.

See i will believe some others that let go of this and try to hold true for so long..


Lastly the old PKA Prfessional Karate Association went belly up but yet someone has come out and fromed a new one see here
http://professionalkarateassociation.com/ and this is not the same org as in the seventy or eighties but they would try to make you believe.