Disappearing History...

[exile]

You've got to understand where the material you are learning comes from in order to build a similar understanding for yourself.

...

This understanding absolutely essential to building a better level of skill because it guides your advanced training.

...

The problem with changing the history to fit the current national mood is that eventually the taekwondoin runs into neat little walls that limit what you can actually do and how much skill you can actually attain...

The bottom line is that the history really does matter.

Quoted for truth. I'd like to take the same ideas that maunakumu has put forth and apply them now from the other direction: not so much what you'll get wrong if you don't get the history right, but what you could be getting if you did get the history right.

Virtually all of the current or previous TKD hyungs to Shodan, from the kichos (simply duplicates of the Shotokan Taikyoku katas that are at least as old as Gichin Funakoshi's Shotokan classes in Japan, or his son's, and possibly a good deal earlier, from the Itosu era) and the Pyung Ahns in schools that still do them (identical, move for move, to the Japanese Heian series, which are identical to the Okinawan Pinans but with the order of the first two reversed, as per an earlier post) through the Palgwes and the Taegeuks, are either (i) literal replications of Okinawan/Japanese forms, or (ii) novel combinations of subsequences which are literal replications of subsequences from Okinawan/Japanese forms (in many cases, identifiable as one of the Pinan/Heian series). There is a huge amount of research that's been done on bunkai for these forms, and some novel photographic evidence bearing on that research; thus, Gennosuke Higake in his recent book Hidden Karate: the True Bunkai for the Heian Katas and Naihanchi, displays a photograph on the very cover of the book of Funakoshi in decidedly combat-style sparring with Hironori Otsuka, the founder of Wado-ryu karate. You can see precisely the so called 'double-block' move from Pinan Shodan/Heian Nidan used with the rising block deflecting a straight punch from Otsuka and the 'inside outward block' actually applied as a strike to the jaw/throat region. And it was serious business: Otsuko's head is clearly being struck or jerked backwards either as a result of the strike or a desperate effort to get out of its way. The standard bunkai for this move, as Iain Abernethy has discussed at length, looks nothing like this, but instead involves a very complex and impractical use that assumes pretty much complete compliance from the attacker. Not bloody likely, eh?!

The payoff for the student of TKD who recognizes the origins of TKD in Japanese karate is that it gives you, for free, a combat-applicable entrée into the bunkai for Palgwe Sa Jang, whose first six moves are identical to the first six in Heian Nidan, the very one that Higake shows Funakoshi applying to something very close to a real fighting situation. And there are dozens of other cases where streetwise applications of movement sequences from Shotokan or other kata forms, reflecting responses to the realities of violent combat situations regardless of the particular style of MA you're applying, can be lifted 'off the shelf' and added to your SD arsenal. It's just common sense to minimize the amount of effort you have to spend reinventing the wheel, eh? And considerations of rationality would suggest that if history-smart practical MAists have been able, from a mixture of research on karate's past and savvy reverse engineering, to unearth effective and damaging applications of kata, then TKDists and TSDists, whose forms overwhelmingly originate in those kata, can profit in a major way from those insights. But if you have the idea that the KMAs arose out of thousands of years of isolated development from the ancient heroic Three Kingdoms soil, then you're hardly likely to see much relevance in the enormous productive work that's already come out of the 'bunkai-jutsu' framework amongst contemporary karateka. Which would definitely be your loss!

Here's a parallel: one of the things that modern calligraphers, typesetters and book designers were long impressed with was the perfection of appearance of pages in Mediæval manuscripts, regardless of the dimensions of the book in question. How did the ancient scribes know exactly where to set out the blocks of texts that they produced in their scriptoria? It was a complete mystery, until in the 1950s and 60s the Dutch type designer and scribe Jan Tschichold, on the basis of a long period of historical research and experimentation, derived a canon—a mechanical graphic procedure—that would allow you, for any double-page book opening, to draw a series of pencil lines, drop certain perpendiculars, and on the basis of those pencil lines identify exactly where the writing blocks should be set—a simple trick (once you knew how it worked, as always) which had been standard knowledge in the Middle Ages. This (re)discovery in effect revolutionized modern book design... and it grew directly from his immersion in the history of his art. There's plenty of real wisdom and knowledge back there, gained from generations of 'shop practice', if we're willing to look carefully and critically for it, and not accept fantasy substitutes.

 

[terryl965]

History is just that History, those that will not accept it will be doomed for life, those that will embrace it will be part of life. Those that just do not give a damm are the ones that have no worries in there life.

 

[Miles]

A nice sentiment, no doubt. But you're saying that you'll swallow lies willingly. It's too much trouble to say "But see! The Emperor isn't wearing any clothes!" Convenience is nice. But so is personal integrity. And if you start excusing lies in the little insignificant things like martial arts you'll excuse them in the important ones.

I neither appreciate you putting words in my mouth nor the shot at my personal integrity.

I never said I'd swallow lies, willingly or unwillingly. I'm willing to keep an open mind.

I enjoy these history threads, heck, I enjoy learning history. What I did say is that it makes no difference to my practice, today, in 2009, whether TKD comes from Korea, Japan, Okinawa, Mongolia, or from Vulcan. I enjoy training for training's sake.

Except that none of these is actually true. Da-Mo did not bring the martial arts to China. In fact, he may never have actually existed. Okinawan boxing was influenced by China, but the stories about Okinawans peering through fences and stealing the Chinese secrets are not true. Your "senior" is wrong. The Koreans did not learn their Karate from Okinawa. The records of where they studied in Japan and from Japanese teachers are still there for anyone to see.

Da Mo/Boddidharma-Classical Fighting Arts Issue#4, Cameron Logman's Article entitled, "Warrior Arts of India" (pg 53, Par #4): "Much has been written about India's influence over the Chinese martial arts. Some of it is true and some is unfounded. For instance, there is no scholarly consensus that Bodhidharma introduced Indian martial arts to China. The list of travelers from India to China is not limited to Bodhidharma, but includes a wide variety of merchants and numerous Buddhist scholars such as Ajitasena, Amoghavajra, Bodhivardhana and Buddhapala. If India has had a direct influence on Chinese martial arts, it would be historically inaccurate to place that burden only on a single traveler such as Bodhidharma. Still, it is indisputable that Indian influence on China has been enormous."

If it wasn't Bodhidharma, maybe it was someone else.

I never said anything about Okinawans peering through fences. Okinawan goju-ryu grandmaster Morio Higaonna wrote an entire chapter (#2) in his book, "The History of Karate" on Kanryo Higaonna, an Okinawan who spent 15 years studying Chinese martial arts in China.


Mark Bishop, in his book, “Okinawan Karate-Teachers, Styles and Secret Techniques” states that Norisato Nakaima studied Chinese boxing and weaponry in China (page 19). Bishop mentions on page 27 that Chojun Miyagi tried to trace the steps of his teacher, Kanryo Higaonna and along with Gokenki (a Chinese man living in Okinawa) went to Fuchou, China and trained for approximately one year. Finally, Bishop tells of Kanbun Uechi who also studied Chinese boxing in Fuchou before returning to Okinawa where he taught Pangain-noon now popularly stylized as Uechi-ryu.


Harry Cook in his book, "The Precise History of Shotokan", page 2 states that "Chinese (Ming Dynasty) envoys arrived in Okinawa in 1372. I would think that the Okinawans, over the next say 500 years, would have had enough exposure to Chinese influences of all sorts to include learning martial arts.

As far as Koreans learning from Japanese-that is just silly semantics. Funakoshi was Okinawan. Mabuni was Okinawan. Kanken Toyama was Okinawan.Yes, Koreans learned karate in Japan, but the founders of several Kwans, notably Lee, Won Kuk, Chun, Sang Sup, and Yoon, Byung In learned alongside their Japanese colleagues. They were learning an Okinawan martial art before their colleagues turned it into something uniquely Japanese. They returned to Korea and taught what they learned. If you want a reference, check out:
http://kimsookarate.com/intro/history.html
These founder's students created something uniquely Korean.

Exile, I appreciate your erudite post. I can study art, mathematics, and physics. Nevertheless, I still can't draw a straight line, do calculus, or figure out Einstein's theory. But, I can move my 3rd dan 300lb student when he's holding a kicking shield. So I guess I've learned a little something over the past 34 years. Apparently even someone without integrity can throw a punch or kick.

 

[Makalakumu]

Apparently even someone without integrity can throw a punch or kick.

I wouldn't say that, Miles. I've met you and I know you're a good guy. This discussion isn't personal, but it's easy to take some of the broad characterizations personally. Everyone has different ways that they practice, but they also have many stark similarities. I think the best thing to do in this situation is read the post for what it is and check out what you do in relation to the post.

That said, I have no doubt that you can blast the hell out of someone with a kick. All other people are trying to say is that there is more to the art. The disconnect between the true history and the current formation of the art is an impediment for a modern practicioner to see this. Fortuneately, you've got people like Master Penfil that can open your mind to a certain extent. You know, from the seminar that we both attended that there is more to the art.

Therefore, I would emphatically state that the history is important. Not only to make sense out of the current state of TKD curriculum, but also as a road map to revamping it into something new. And I can see this going both ways. A sport TKD practicioner could practice TKD and be a lot more effective if it was trained more like boxing. In fact, I think if it was taught like that, you probably clean the clock of someone who spend a lot of time doing poomse and other things.

On the other hand, if you insist on practicing hyung and other non-sparring related elements, you are going to be left with a mixed and matched system where the elements bear little relationship to one another. A teaching method will not exist like this forever because there is no philosophic depth. This kind of TKD has to change or it will die out.

Miles, I'm writing a book on exactly that. I train in TSD but there is still enough similarity for it to apply to "traditional" TKD. When you take the history into account what does this do for a teaching curriculum? This is the fundamental premise of my book.

 

[exile]

As far as Koreans learning from Japanese-that is just silly semantics. Funakoshi was Okinawan. Mabuni was Okinawan. Kanken Toyama was Okinawan.Yes, Koreans learned karate in Japan, but the founders of several Kwans, notably Lee, Won Kuk, Chun, Sang Sup, and Yoon, Byung In learned alongside their Japanese colleagues. They were learning an Okinawan martial art before their colleagues turned it into something uniquely Japanese. They returned to Korea and taught what they learned. If you want a reference, check out:
http://kimsookarate.com/intro/history.html
These founder's students created something uniquely Korean.

Miles, I don't think the semantic difference here is at all trivial.

From the moment he arrived in Japan, Funakoshi was busy repackaging karate for mass consumption; the training he was providing in his university classes was fundamentally different from what he himself received in Okinawa. When GF learned karate from Itosu and others, his primary training was in the performance, study and application of kata, particularly Naihanchi; on some accounts, his primary training consisted of close to a decade of focused study of a very small number of kata, and unravelling the deepest applications he find of the techs there. Apparently, Motobu thought he hadn't gotten nearly close enough to the really deep bunkai for Naihanchi, and says so in one of his books in so many words—there was no love lost between them—but the point is that that's what Okinawan-style training in karate consisted in. That's how Itosu learned from Matsumura, how Motobu and others learned—along of course with fairly brutal sparring and challenge matches.

In Japan, all of that changed. Study of bunkai was minimal, in no small part because, as Higaki and others report, there was a kind of gentleman's agreement amongst the Okinawan expatriates not to supply the 'oral explanations', i.e., the true bunkai, for the kata—which gradually came to be far more about passing rank tests than anything to do with CQ combat—to the Japanese students. The emphasis was on kihon techs, line drills and progressively less realistic sport sparring, and things continued that way into the 30s, when the Kwan founders and other Korean MAists came to Japan to study. They were not learning the art as practiced and taught in Okinawa; they were getting the karate that Funakoshi had undertaken to the Japanese Defense and Education ministries to teach, whose intent was instilling group spirit and obedience for the most part to young men who would soon be joining the Japanese military. Unlike what happened in the Korean War era ROK, hand-to-hand combat was not the primary purpose, or of great interest, to the Japanese military; reflexive action, obedience and fitness was. If you want more details on this, check out the following by Rob Redmond, who probably knows as much about Funakoshi's pre-war career as anyone (though he mises some tricks here), or even better, Gennosuke Higaki's book, which is linked to GF's teaching through his own master, Shozan Kubota. The primary difference seems to have been the small-scale, far more SD-oriented training that the Okinawans practiced, and that our own member Kwan Jang, who has studied the Okinawan version close-up, has written about in a number of posts.

So the Kwan founders didn't get karate anything like what was still being taught in Okinawa. They got the diluted, reduced version that Funakoshi quite consciously provided to his large classes, with minimal personal supervision or introduction to the combat techs inherent in the forms. That's a big difference from what was being taught on the Ryukyu Islands at the same time.

 

[Miles]

I disagree Miles. Eventually, a student comes to the point where you need to really see into the mind of your teacher. You've got to understand where the material you are learning comes from in order to build a similar understanding for yourself.

I can appreciate this John. At this point in my training, my teacher (a career US Army Combatives Instructor, retired) and I are of the same mind.

Yet, these blatent lies about the history persist and waste a lot of a students time that could be spent getting better in the ring. And they also pass on load of false confidence that the art could actually be used outside of the TKD ring.

This is where I am coming from-let's spend more time training.

The bottom line is that the history really does matter. If you don't understand where the art came from, then you aren't going to understand the context to which the art applies.

(My advance apologies for what is going to be severe thread drift!!!)

But if the context has changed (i.e. we are not in 1850 Okinawa or even 1945 Post-WWI Korea but in 2009 USA/Europe), then the art must change, right?

So why are so many folks locked into learning applications for 1850 Okinawa? If you are training in the martial arts for self-defense, don't you think the student's time is better served practicing and discovering responses to today's habitual acts of violence?

In that case, why not get info from the FBI as to the most common street crimes and practice responses? Wouldn't that be much more efficient than trying to figure out boonhae from the Korean interpretation of an Okinawan kata? In fact, why bother with a martial art at all-just get a weapon.

I don't train for solely for self-defense. However, I do believe that full-contact sparring, even with rules of no punching to the face, is better training for self-defense than drills with a compliant partner. In my opinion, facing someone trying to knock me out while I try to knock him out, even within a restricted rule-set, is self-defense related.

 

[exile]

So why are so many folks locked into learning applications for 1850 Okinawa? If you are training in the martial arts for self-defense, don't you think the student's time is better served practicing and discovering responses to today's habitual acts of violence?

Except that the techs that people such as Burgar, Abernethy, Clark, McCarthy for Karate and StuartA and SJON (Simon O'Neil) for TKD have recovered from both KKW and ITF hyungs appear to be totally realistic in the context of the late 20th/early 21st century urban world. The conclusion that seems most reasonable is that these habitual acts of violence—the typical violence initiators—have not changed at all. Grabs, shoves and other attack startups, the kind of thing that there are layers and layers of defenses for built into the katas (and the derivative hyungs of the KMAs), still represent the statistically commonest initiators of street violence. More on sources shortly...

In that case, why not get info from the FBI as to the most common street crimes and practice responses? Wouldn't that be much more efficient than trying to figure out boonhae from the Korean interpretation of an Okinawan kata?

That's exactly the kind of place that people like Patrick McCarthy, Bill Burgar (Five Years, One Kata) and J.W. Titchen (Heian Flow System) have appealed to in framing the applications they offer for various kata. Titchen in his book spends close to 40 pages reviewing statistical data from the US Justice Department and FBI and the British Home Office, with massive documentation from a library's worth of official reports, on the numerically typical kinds of assaults that are carried out both with weapons and without. And his conclusions, like that of the others experts who have undertaken quantitative studies of HAOVs along with bunkai applications, is that the applications retrievable from karate kata, using fairly straightforward 'decoding' principles of kata interpretation, exactly meet the particular HAOVs revealed by statistical analyses. The katas involved in many cases go well back deep into the 19th century, as you point out. So it seems most reasonable to conclude that things in the way of street violence haven't changed much since then. Face to face, there are only certain ways to initiate an attack on someone, and probably most of them had already been discovered by by 1850!

In fact, why bother with a martial art at all-just get a weapon.

It's not either/or. But empty-hand training is exactly what you need when confronted with a rapidly developing attack at very close range—if only to give you time to produce a weapon, in case you think it necessary.

I don't train for solely for self-defense. However, I do believe that full-contact sparring, even with rules of no punching to the face, is better training for self-defense than drills with a compliant partner.

Drills with a compliant partner are a good way to start, to get the sense of the technique down, as long as you progressively move to non-compliant training that increasingly simulates a violent street attack by someone seeking to do critical damage to you. After all, that's what training for the worst case is all about.

 

[MBuzzy]

Miles, I don't think the semantic difference here is at all trivial.

From the moment he arrived in Japan, Funakoshi was busy repackaging karate for mass consumption; the training he was providing in his university classes was fundamentally different from what he himself received in Okinawa. When GF learned karate from Itosu and others, his primary training was in the performance, study and application of kata, particularly Naihanchi; on some accounts, his primary training consisted of close to a decade of focused study of a very small number of kata, and unravelling the deepest applications he find of the techs there. Apparently, Motobu thought he hadn't gotten nearly close enough to the really deep bunkai for Naihanchi, and says so in one of his books in so many words—there was no love lost between them—but the point is that that's what Okinawan-style training in karate consisted in. That's how Itosu learned from Matsumura, how Motobu and others learned—along of course with fairly brutal sparring and challenge matches.

In Japan, all of that changed. Study of bunkai was minimal, in no small part because, as Higaki and others report, there was a kind of gentleman's agreement amongst the Okinawan expatriates not to supply the 'oral explanations', i.e., the true bunkai, for the kata—which gradually came to be far more about passing rank tests than anything to do with CQ combat—to the Japanese students. The emphasis was on kihon techs, line drills and progressively less realistic sport sparring, and things continued that way into the 30s, when the Kwan founders and other Korean MAists came to Japan to study. They were not learning the art as practiced and taught in Okinawa; they were getting the karate that Funakoshi had undertaken to the Japanese Defense and Education ministries to teach, who intent was instilling group spirit and obedience for the most part to young men who would soon be joining the Japanese military. Unlike what happened in the Korean War era ROK, hand-to-hand combat was not the primary purpose, or of great interest, to the Japanese military; reflexive action, obedience and fitness was. If you want more details on this, check out the following by Rob Redmond, who probably knows as much about Funakoshi's pre-war career as anyone (though he mises some tricks here), or even better, Gennosuke Higaki's book, which is linked to GF's teaching through his own master, Shozan Kubota. The primary different seems to have been the small-scale, far more SD-oriented training that the Okinawans practiced, and that our own member Kwan Jang, who has studied the Okinawan version close-up, has written about in a number of posts.

So the Kwan founders didn't get karate anything like what was still being taught in Okinawa. They got the diluted, reduced version that Funakoshi quite consciously provided to his large classes, with minimal personal supervision or introduction to the combat techs inherent in the forms. That's a big difference from what was being taught on the Ryukyu Islands at the same time.

Combine all of this with a very deeply rooted Korean culture (Asian in general to some extent) of the truth being "the story that is most widely accepted" and you have a very difficult problem. As Americans, we seek truth and the accurate history. Part of this is cultural. In Korea, if the grandmaster of an organization says "this is how it happened," that will generally be accepted without question. It is simply a matter of culture and respect. Even now, it is considered extremely rude to ever question an elder or doubt his or her account.

 

[Makalakumu]

Combine all of this with a very deeply rooted Korean culture (Asian in general to some extent) of the truth being "the story that is most widely accepted" and you have a very difficult problem. As Americans, we seek truth and the accurate history. Part of this is cultural. In Korea, if the grandmaster of an organization says "this is how it happened," that will generally be accepted without question. It is simply a matter of culture and respect. Even now, it is considered extremely rude to ever question an elder or doubt his or her account.

Craig, is this an aspect of Korean culture or is it an aspect of the particular cultural block stretching from China over Korea to Japan? I would guess at the latter, but I get the feeling that it is more prevelant in Korea.

 

[StuartA]

I think the story that the Koreans "took what they learned from the Japanese & made it their own, & took it around the world" is a better story for Korean national pride. Proven in combat in Vietnam alone should be proof that it works. And the best part is, It's true!

Yup.. it doesnt need the extra BS to give it relevance and credibility, as you say, it has that already. In fact, once the 2000 year history is disproven, it simply takes credibility away!

Stuart

 

[StuartA]

Once you start believing lies because it's convenient you will believe any number of them

And as they say.. a lie becomes bigger by the telling and if told enough eventually becomes the truth.. at least I think thats what they hoped!

I understand the 'National Pride' thing in the early days, but those days are gone and it just makes TKD look bad to not give its history out correctly. As Iceman says, its real history is pretty decent anyway!

Stuart

 

[Makalakumu]

Miles - here's an interesting thought I've had for some time. Lets say we dump the history and just consider TKD as a modern combat sport. Lets say we grab a competition rule book and design a curriculum based off of common sparring stances, high percentage techniques and combinations, lots of drilling and lots of sparring. Dump everything else. No poomse, no ill soo shik, no ho sin shul.

My guess is that you would produce a competitive fighter far beyond the caliber of fighter that a traditional TKD curriculum would produce.

It's these kinds of questions that lead me ask why we practice what we practice. What's the purpose of forms without application? What's the purpose of ill soo shik and ho sin shul that have no relationship to either sparring or forms? What's the purpose of practicing basics that have no relationship to sparring, ill soo shik, ho sin shul, or hyung? IMO, this is an ecclectic mess.

Miles, as a professional educator, I've learned that the way curriculum ties together is very important to its effectiveness. If the elements are disjointed, then you end up practicing them separately, with no relation. It spreads your time too thin and the skill level you attain in any of the elements is retarded.

There is a way to practice all of the elements together so that they interact synergistically and you get better at everything at a greater rate. It's all about alignment. When your curriculum is aligned toward a set of goals and the elements are zero-summed to fit those goals, you create synergistic learning opportunities.

So, what if TKD were trained like boxing? Boxing has alignment of its basics, combos, drills, and sparring toward a specific set of goals. The result is that the system produces high level practicioners who acheive great results.

 

[StuartA]

To paraphrase Bruce Lee (a philosophy major), "Before I studied martial arts, a punch was just a punch, a kick just a kick. When I started training, a punch was no longer just a punch, a kick was no longer just a kick. Now that I've gained experience, a punch is just a punch a kick is just a kick."

That quote has more to do with the poectic license styling of Martial Arts than history I think, Im sure Bruce Lee looked into the history of things (as far as he could for his day) and didnt swallow BS lightly!

My take on history is that it doesn't really matter. It doesn't make my punches any stronger or my kicks any harder.

In a way I agree, but only if thats all your interested in, but even by doing that, you are taking the lessons from history already, as thats why kicks became faster/stronger etc. cos of thr history of the art. However, the main point is not about whether history needs to be told, but if it is (and it certainly is by most if not all orgs to give credence to what they teach) then ensure its the true history!

My senior Glenn U. convincingly argues that the Koreans took information from the Okinawans (i.e. not Japanese) and made it their own.

That I'd be interested in hearing.. just to hear his reasoning!

I don't see General Choi in the Kukkiwon's version of history. I also don't see Kwan founders GM Lee, Won Kuk, GM Chun, Sang Sup, GM Hwang Kee, GM Yoon, Byung In, GM Ro, Byung Jik, GM Park, Chull Hee, GM Lee, Kyo Yoon, or GM Lee, Yong Woo in the Kukkiwon's version of history.

I have General Choi's textbook. I don't see the aforementioned GMs in his book either.

Fair enough and I'm not standing in defence of Gen Choi, but the defence of the truth and all those that played an active part in TKD's history should be acknowledged for who they were/are and what role they played.

Stuart

 

[MBuzzy]

Craig, is this an aspect of Korean culture or is it an aspect of the particular cultural block stretching from China over Korea to Japan? I would guess at the latter, but I get the feeling that it is more prevelant in Korea.

I have heard that it is an aspect of all Asian cultures, but I only have firsthand experience with the Koreans. It is certainly very deeply entrenched in their culture. I would assume that it comes from earlier Chinese influences though. China, Korea, and Japan are very similar in their feelings of honor, respect, and feelings toward their elders or superiors. I believe that much of this attitude comes from those attributes. Questioning a superior is considered disrespectful and always has been.

 

[tellner]

Miles, I don't want you to take this wrong, but when it comes to separating truth from make believe it doesn't matter if someone appreciates it or not. History and science are not popularity contests. If what people discover causes pain I can only suggest that you invest less of your self-image in believing the lies.

The story of Da-Mo is actually relatively recent as these things go and has been debunked a long time ago. China had armies long before it was China, long before there was Buddhism. Ergo it had martial arts. Even if Da-Mo existed, which is sort of doubtful, he didn't create the Chinese martial arts as a form of exercise for lazy monks. There was Indian influence on Chinese culture over the millennia and vice versa. But the stories you've been told simply aren't accurate.

There was Chinese influence on Okinawan boxing. The Okinawa Te I did years back (Uechi Ryu) has obvious Southern Crane roots. But that's just one or two schools and a certain amount of influence. The direct line of descent and ancient legitimacy isn't there. The "peering through the fence" bit is one of the more popular myths about how take-your-pick stole the secrets of Chinese Kung Fu from the Masters even though he was a despised foreigner.

The founders of TKD almost all learned Japanese Karate, not Okinawan boxing. As others have pointed out, what they learned wasn't Okinawa Te anymore. It was repackaged with a new curriculum. And Funakoshi explicitly redesigned his martial art to appeal as a sport and self-development tool for an urban educated population. He was very up-front about the whole thing. Much as I despise the man personally you would be well advised to check out Rob Redmond's Shotokan Site.

Those are the facts. They might not make you happy. But that's what happened to the very best of our knowledge. The Korean government had to expunge every possible mention of Japanese influence. So they came up with a long series of lies. There was the Okinawan lie. There was the 1300 year old Taekyon as the true origin of TKD lie. There was the cave-paintings lie. There was the Hwarang lie. We have just about zip evidence for the historical existence of the Hwarang in any form let alone as a soldier caste not to mention the fables about them being super-warriors. It was just a convenient bit of propaganda. And the 2000 year old TKD legends? They can't be taken seriously.

The Korean government has lied to you through your teachers. If history really didn't matter to you the way you say it doesn't you'd say "Oh well, just more official BS," shrug and continue on. The fact that you are hurt by the revelations and immediately defend the stories shows that it does matter to you.

TKD started off as a Korean form of Shotokan with some Chinese and local influences. It changed into a modern form of kick-boxing with a distinctly Korean flavor. That's nothing to be proud or ashamed of. It says nothing about the quality of the system or its suitability for any particular application. It's simply how it happened. What matters is what you do with it.

 

[tellner]

I understand the 'National Pride' thing in the early days, but those days are gone and it just makes TKD look bad to not give its history out correctly.

If people keep repeating the lies even after they've been debunked it leaves the false impression that TKD practitioners are liars. That's not true and not good for the reputation of the system or the people who practice it.

Besides, the Korean government has money. And there are lots of Koreans. If they want national identity and pride let them carry their own water. There's no reason to make yourself look foolish or credulous for their benefit.

 

[StuartA]

If people keep repeating the lies even after they've been debunked it leaves the false impression that TKD practitioners are liars. That's not true and not good for the reputation of the system or the people who practice it.

I know, I just started a small campaign to get the TKD orgs to correct Do-Sans birth date to the correct year :angel:

Stuart

 

[arnisador]

If what people discover causes pain I can only suggest that you invest less of your self-image in believing the lies.

It's amazing to me how invested many Americans are in this story. I understand why it's culturally important for the Koreans, esp. since the Japanese colonization, but Americans?

The story of Da-Mo [...] has been debunked a long time ago.

If nothing else, there simply isn't a shred of evidence to support it...let alone all the conflicting evidence, as you indicate.

There was Chinese influence on Okinawan boxing. The Okinawa Te I did years back (Uechi Ryu) has obvious Southern Crane roots.

Uechi is almost literal Southern Chinese Kung Fu, brought to the Ryukyus about a hundred years ago, but all extant styles of Okinawan Karate show Chinese influence. If nothing else, many of the kata are clearly based, in name and pattern, on Southern Chinese forms.

The founders of TKD almost all learned Japanese Karate, not Okinawan boxing. As others have pointed out, what they learned wasn't Okinawa Te anymore. It was repackaged with a new curriculum. And Funakoshi explicitly redesigned his martial art to appeal as a sport and self-development tool for an urban educated population. He was very up-front about the whole thing.

Even if the fact that the TKD founders studied Japanese Karate and originally began teaching what they referred to (in Korean) as Karate wasn't so well documented, the similarities in things like the patterns, uniforms, specific techniques (e.g the punch), etc., would be compelling evidence. That the Okinawan systems were modified in Japan is also very well documented and also apparent upon inspection of the arts.

The Korean government has lied to you through your teachers.

Yes, but in fairness many of the founders also were nationalists at heart and bear some culpability for spreading falsehoods in the name of national pride and unity. Was it worth it at the time? I don't know the answer.

TKD started off as a Korean form of Shotokan with some Chinese and local influences. It changed into a modern form of kick-boxing with a distinctly Korean flavor. That's nothing to be proud or ashamed of. It says nothing about the quality of the system or its suitability for any particular application. It's simply how it happened.

Full agreement, and I don't get why this is so complicated though I know it always is. The TKD article at Wikipedia has zealous defenders of the Koreancentric position. To an extent it's like this in many arts but TKD is among the most myth-laden (apart from ninjutsu). The story is simple: Shotokan was brought back to Korea. It was mixed with some slight Chinese influences and filtered through a vision of lost KMAs and Korean culture, then prodded to become more sports-oriented, and ended up as a different art, Tae Kwon Do. Other KMAs grew with greater Chinese influence (Tang Soo Do) or jujutsu influences (Hapkido).

Looking a Kumdo and Yudo, which are barely modified versions of Japanese Kendo and Judo, respectively, why is this hard to believe?

The articles by S. Capener, R. Dohrenwend, D. Burdick, and S. Henning are good starts.

 

[Makalakumu]

It all starts with changing your practice. Then you can branch out and talk to others. When the 100th monkey starts doing it, the myth will die out.

 

[Miles]

Miles, I don't want you to take this wrong, but when it comes to separating truth from make believe it doesn't matter if someone appreciates it or not. History and science are not popularity contests. If what people discover causes pain I can only suggest that you invest less of your self-image in believing the lies. .

Tellner, I don't want you to take this wrong, but my self-image is fine. I can discuss things civilly because I understand the limitations of the medium.

Those are the facts. They might not make you happy.

They don't make me happy or unhappy. I don't teach history, I enjoy reading about it though and so I appreciate your input as well as that of the other posters.

If history really didn't matter to you the way you say it doesn't you'd say "Oh well, just more official BS," shrug and continue on. The fact that you are hurt by the revelations and immediately defend the stories shows that it does matter to you. .

I am not hurt by any revelations. I've not defended any stories, just offered another perspective. I offered to the OP that neither the Kukkiwon nor Gen Choi acknowledge officially the efforts of the Kwan Jangs.

What matters is what you do with it.

On this we agree.