Good Tae Kwon Do History Books?

[puunui]

August 7, 1978 can be considered a historical date for Taekwondo, because it was on this day that the Kwans
finally compromised and closed the Kwan system...

"Taekwondo will strive hard to unify and will eliminate the different Kwan of the last 30 years".

I didn't write or say that. The authors of the Modern History book wrote the first quote, and the second quote comes from the Proclamation signed by the Kwan jang. You have a problem with it, please take it up with them, since your problem is with them, not me.

I would submit that a Kwan that issues rank, has a Kwan ranking heirarchy that may differ (and often does) from the KKW is more than a social club. Regardless of the interpretation, Kwans were not eliminated or closed down. This is what I mean by having a particular bias towards a particular organizations. It isn't factual information.

If this is the basis for you claiming that I am "biased", then again, your anger and hostility is directed at the wrong person. I didn't write that stuff above. You took that from the Modern History translation. I didn't write the Modern History book, the current Kukkiwon president (GM KANG Won Sik) and the chief book writer for the WTF (GM LEE Kyong Myong) did.

 

[Miles]

I frankly don't understand why some folks would prefer a history or histories written by American/Canadian authors with relatively little or no experience concerning a Korean art over that of a native Korean author or authors with 40+ years experience in the art and access to resources and people who were present at the formative time. Of course, I am biased.

If you were Russian and interested in the history of American baseball, would you prefer a Russian or Bulgarian account of the game or would you seek out an American text written by someone who perhaps managed a professional MLB team?

 

[miguksaram]

I frankly don't understand why some folks would prefer a history or histories written by American/Canadian authors with relatively little or no experience concerning a Korean art over that of a native Korean author or authors with 40+ years experience in the art and access to resources and people who were present at the formative time. Of course, I am biased.

If you were Russian and interested in the history of American baseball, would you prefer a Russian or Bulgarian account of the game or would you seek out an American text written by someone who perhaps managed a professional MLB team?

Yeah but the Canadian/American authors have tons of magazine article quotes from someone who knew someone who talked to someone who was told by someone who may or may not have been there. Those pesky Koreans only go off of actually living the experience or talking directly to those who lived the experience.

 

[puunui]

He seems a bit confused on who created TSD as well.

I'm not confused about who "created" Tang Soo Do -- it was GM LEE Won Kuk, the founder of the Chung Do Kwan. GM Lee was the first to use the term Tang Soo Do in Korea, in 1944. His students, GM RO Byung Jick and GM HWANG Kee, also used the term to describe their art. I was the first to state this, at a time when it was accepted by a lot of people that GM HWANG Kee was the founder or creator of Tang Soo Do. But now it is generally accepted that GM Lee founded and/or created Tang Soo Do, not GM Hwang. Even Mr. Burdick stated that GM Hwang was the founder of Tang Soo Do in his early works.

 

[puunui]

In reference to the translation he assisted with, it is based on two individuals without any references or documentation. Therefore it is these individuals opinion, but not necessarily fact. It could be, and then again it might be opinion based to favor themselves or an agenda.

The "two individuals" who wrote "A Modern History of Taekwondo" as well as the follow up work "The History of Our Taekwondo", are GM KANG Won Sik, who is currently serving as the Kukkiwon president as well as the Song Moo Kwan Jang, and GM LEE Kyong Myong, a very prolific writer is the main author of the books issued by the WTF, and I believe also the KTA and Kukkiwon. They include direct references to documents, minutes of meetings, photographs, and other materials that are freely and liberally sprinkled throughout the book. So while it may be your "opinion" that the book is "without any references or documentation", the "facts" prove otherwise. I don't know of anyone who questions the truth of the Modern History book, other than you. After ten years, is probably the most quoted reference in english that is out there. I see quotes, references, and facts gleaned from the Modern History translation in all sorts of magazine articles, books, internet webpages, etc. including but not limited to your webpage as well, which you may or may not be aware of. I, for example, popularized the romanization "GM YOON Kwe Byung" when in fact GM Yon romanizes his name GM YON, Kwai Byong. It is one of many identifiers that I placed in the Modern History translation.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I frankly don't understand why some folks would prefer a history or histories written by American/Canadian authors with relatively little or no experience concerning a Korean art over that of a native Korean author or authors with 40+ years experience in the art and access to resources and people who were present at the formative time. Of course, I am biased.

If you were Russian and interested in the history of American baseball, would you prefer a Russian or Bulgarian account of the game or would you seek out an American text written by someone who perhaps managed a professional MLB team?

Possibly because non-Korean sources may be less biased. Certain Korean sources may be willing to compromise intellectual honesty and integrity in order to put themselves or their group in a better light for profit or gain. This isn't always the case of course, and one needs to be careful of too broad a brush stroke. But as I've mentioned here and in other threads, histories and relationships have been rewritten and/or are in dispute. One needs to be able to critically discern and even then one may be in error. I know certain individuals claim to know seniors, and they may indeed. But one would have to take them at their word. In order to take them at their word, one would have to judge their words according to what they have stated before as well as if they have anything to gain or lose in the discussion. After this, one would have to judge the alleged source of the information. Is is a solid source? More importantly, can it be verified? An alleged personal conversation that allegedly took place on a subject of possible controversy isn't reliable evidence as it can't be verified. And again, even if it can be verified, does the source have anything to lose or gain? Is there an agenda present? One needs to see a large picture and look at as many sources as possible rather than focus solely on a supposed conversation in private as the originator may have an agenda. One also needs to judge whether or not the person reporting the alleged conversation has an agenda or bias.

By the way Glenn, if you look at your profile, you'll see a link to a discussion that covers the questions you've raised in another thread that was locked here on MT. You must have missed it, as well as the email and PM I've sent you. As you are the one that raised the questions, and we did not have the opportunity to discuss them in full, I'm positive that you'll shortly join that conversation to stand by what you've stated and asked as well as being educated. I look forward to talking with you there.

 

[puunui]

Possibly because non-Korean sources may be less biased. Certain Korean sources may be willing to compromise intellectual honesty and integrity in order to put themselves or their group in a better light for profit or gain. This isn't always the case of course, and one needs to be careful of too broad a brush stroke. But as I've mentioned here and in other threads, histories and relationships have been rewritten and/or are in dispute. One needs to be able to critically discern and even then one may be in error. I know certain individuals claim to know seniors, and they may indeed. But one would have to take them at their word. In order to take them at their word, one would have to judge their words according to what they have stated before as well as if they have anything to gain or lose in the discussion. After this, one would have to judge the alleged source of the information. Is is a solid source? More importantly, can it be verified? An alleged personal conversation that allegedly took place on a subject of possible controversy isn't reliable evidence as it can't be verified. And again, even if it can be verified, does the source have anything to lose or gain? Is there an agenda present? One needs to see a large picture and look at as many sources as possible rather than focus solely on a supposed conversation in private as the originator may have an agenda. One also needs to judge whether or not the person reporting the alleged conversation has an agenda or bias.

Do you have any specific facts to support your position, or are you going to simply rely on pure argument and unsupported opinion?

By the way Glenn, if you look at your profile, you'll see a link to a discussion that covers the questions you've raised in another thread that was locked here on MT. You must have missed it, as well as the email and PM I've sent you. As you are the one that raised the questions, and we did not have the opportunity to discuss them in full, I'm positive that you'll shortly join that conversation to stand by what you've stated and asked as well as being educated. I look forward to talking with you there.

whatever.

 

[miguksaram]

Possibly because non-Korean sources may be less biased. Certain Korean sources may be willing to compromise intellectual honesty and integrity in order to put themselves or their group in a better light for profit or gain.

This line of logic refutes itself. If the Korean source is faulty, how can the non-Korea source be less faulty? How can they get their information without inevitably coming from a Korean source? It has already been shown where one person used non-Korean resources as references and the end result was an incorrect report.

 

[puunui]

This line of logic refutes itself. If the Korean source is faulty, how can the non-Korea source be less faulty? How can they get their information without inevitably coming from a Korean source? It has already been shown where one person used non-Korean resources as references and the end result was an incorrect report.

I think that when people make arguments like "non-korean sources for taekwondo history are better than korean sources", I don't think that they realize the point you are trying to make above. I mean really, who can dispute what is written in the Modern History book? Even General Choi is quoted in that book.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

This line of logic refutes itself. If the Korean source is faulty, how can the non-Korea source be less faulty? How can they get their information without inevitably coming from a Korean source? It has already been shown where one person used non-Korean resources as references and the end result was an incorrect report.

Jeremy, you've missed the point I made because you've switched wording from my quote to your reply. I did not say a specific or particular Korean source was or was not faulty, I stated that non-Korean sources may be less biased. There is a big difference from what I've stated and what you've understood. If we're going to have an honest discussion on KMA history we need to understand that at the beginning there was a very wide separation of initial training. Some had Shuto Kan, some Shotokan, some Shito Ryu etc. Some had as high as 7th Dan's in those Karate systems, others had lower Dans and some were a bit more nebulous as far as credible rank. In addition to this, there was a large number of personalities involved in the formation of the KMA's with TKD being at the forefront of our discussion. To put it straight out there, not all of them were happy campers. Not all were of the same quality as far as training. Not all were dedicated to solely advancing Korean arts in-and-of-themselves. In other words, some had less noble agendas. And that was just what can be considered the first generation. We had several organizations come and go with org-hopping. To large extent, much of this is to be expected and they can't be faulted. It was a hectic era and many can be credited with doing exceptionally well with what they had to work with.

Then we have the second and third generations that were a large part of the TKD explosion worldwide. Again, credit where it is due, the were very successful in this pursuit. However, once again not all were of the same quality. Some were fantastic, and let's be honest, many were sub-par but found a willing Western populace with 'yellow fever' willing to subscribe to the mystic Eastern martial phenom. And again we need to accept the fact that many of this generation had disputes with seniors and contemporaries alike. I've spoken already many times of the YMK/JDK/HMK situation. One says this, another says that, hurt feelings and harsh words result in not really knowing exactly the truth. Is it really a big deal if HMK was directly a part of the YMK with no ties to the JDK? Conversely, is it a really big deal if HMK was indeed a part of the JDK and not the YMK and the history was rewritten due to a personal dispute between Korean GM's? Depends upon whom you ask I suppose. But that is but one simple example and the ultimate answer ultimately depends upon whom you wish to believe.

The point is that we shouldn't try to white wash dirty laundry. Things happened. People got mad at other people. Some jumped ship. Some left and went home taking their toys with them. Some got undeserved advancements for the sake of getting the art 'out there'. And some put in some really hard work and put their heart into making it a wonderful and respected art. But we need to be honest that for those of use from the second generation on out probably will never know for sure what is the entire, whole truth. In many cases the truth is buried with some of the first generation (and some beyond). It all boils down to which senior or which group we wish to put our faith in. It simply 'is what it is'.

As far as my comment on bias, I stand by that. I'm fifth gen in HMK. But I hold no allegiance to the HMK. That isn't said disrespectfully towards the HMK. But I don't hold to them for rank advancement. They have no sway over what and how I teach or the fact I've combined other arts into the training. As a result, I can comment on them from an unbiased perspective. If they've done something wonderful, I'm free to compliment them. If they've done otherwise, I'm likewise free to comment to the negative. And many other non-Korean sources can do likewise as well, and perhaps even on a larger scale. And this doesn't exclude any Korean source that is likewise in a position to report from an unbiased perspective. Many Korean GM's and Masters have left particulars organizations and have reported honestly about them now that they are no longer beholding to them for rank advancement. As with anything, one has to consider the source there as well. Bottom line is that one can only research so far before having to make a decision as to what is going to be believed regardless of whether it was read or related first-hand. Either venue can be factual...either can be agenda-laden.

 

[puunui]

Once again we have little or no facts and instead pure argument and unsupported opinion. And what little facts are mentioned, came oddly enough, from the Modern History translation. Or rather I should say a poor misunderstanding of the Modern History translation, specifically these quotes:

***
Jidokwan's representing annex was the Han Moo Kwan. But, LEE Kyo Yoon said hes Han Moo Kwan root is not
Jidokwan, but rather the Choson Yun Moo Kwan. This shows the debate of the origins of the school.

***

Even now, LEE Kyo Yoon denies that the Han Moo Kwan was a split from the Jidokwan. After the
Chosun Yun Moo Kwan's CHUN Sang Sup was kidnapped to North Korea during the Korean War, everything
was in chaos, so LEE Chong Woo opened the Jidokwan, and he himself opened the Han Moo Kwan. Therefore
Han Moo Kwan's root is not Jidokwan, but rather from the Chosun Yun Moo Kwan. This is LEE Kyo Yoon's
claim.

***

But even that is not such a big deal to me. Basically, what GM LEE Kyo Yun is saying is that he learned from the Chosun Yun Moo Kwan and his teachers were GM CHUN Sang Sup and also GM YOON Byung In, and that he is not a student of GM LEE Chong Woo or the Jidokwan. What is also a fact was that GM LEE Kyo Yun and GM LEE Chong Woo did not like each other, which is probably why GM LEE Kyo Yun opened up his own dojang in the first place. Where's the big controversy or the huge bias and agenda? Frankly, I don't see it. And more revealing, Dakin Burdick doesn't even mention the above, so why it is being mentioned within the context of which is better, Modern History or Dakin Burdick article? If it weren't for the Modern History translation, Kong Soo Do wouldn't even know about this little slice of historical fact. Certainly Dakin Burdick and his "unbiased" non Korean point of view didn't know about it. In fact, I don't believe Dakin even mentions GM LEE Kyo Yun by name in his article.

 

[miguksaram]

Jeremy, you've missed the point I made because you've switched wording from my quote to your reply. I did not say a specific or particular Korean source was or was not faulty, I stated that non-Korean sources may be less biased.

No there was no misunderstanding. Even if I use your wording the line of logic still makes no sense. How can a Non-Korean sources inevitably get their information from Korean sources. The only difference is which tier they received it. Did they get it directly from the source vs. somone who is 2nd - 8th generation under the source? So how is it they can be less biased? They could be less removed from the truth. I could safely say any non-Korean source who starts any type of Korean MA history research already has a dog in the fight. This inevitably leads them to follow a biased path in their research. Example...why would an ITF really bother getting history from Modern History when it disputes a lot of what has been written by Choi's POV? They would much rather get their history from other ITF sources.

There is a big difference from what I've stated and what you've understood. If we're going to have an honest discussion on KMA history we need to understand that at the beginning there was a very wide separation of initial training. Some had Shuto Kan, some Shotokan, some Shito Ryu etc. Some had as high as 7th Dan's in those Karate systems, others had lower Dans and some were a bit more nebulous as far as credible rank.

Honest discussion? Was I being dishonest before? First and foremost, name me which Korean pioneer took Shito-ryu Karate? Because I honestly do not recall any of them studying that art. There were no 7th dan instructors in Karate. Even Yoon, Byoung In was listed as 5th dan in Shudokan. I believe Lee, Won-kuk held 4th dan in Karate. So you will have to point to the Korean that held a 7th dan in Karate.

To put it straight out there, not all of them were happy campers. Not all were of the same quality as far as training. Not all were dedicated to solely advancing Korean arts in-and-of-themselves. In other words, some had less noble agendas. And that was just what can be considered the first generation. We had several organizations come and go with org-hopping.

Yes, not all the Kwans dove right into the unification process. There was never a dispute saying that it was sunshine and roses. Both the Moodukkwan and the Jidokwan at one time or another dove in, got out, dove in got out and then finally dove in. I believe it was only Hwang-ki's school that split sides during the whole process where some of his students went with the unification and the others went along with him. But I am curious as to where you get your view point of less than noble intentions and which Kwan leader in particular you are referring to when mentioning it.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Busy day so I only have a moment to touch on some of your post;

First and foremost, name me which Korean pioneer took Shito-ryu Karate? Because I honestly do not recall any of them studying that art.

YOON, Kwe-Byung studied Shito Ryu Karate under Mabun Kenwa Sensei while he was he Chief Master of the Han Mu Kwan in Toyko in the late 40's. I've seen him listed from 4th to 7th in Shudokan depending upon the source. How accurate that is depends again upon whom one wishes to believe. Regardless of what rank he may have held, it is apparent that he was held in very high esteem by many Japanese seniors and contemporaries.


As a side note, the YMK/JDK/HMK thing isn't that big of a deal, at least not to me. It merely serves as one example that came to mind as I posted. I first heard of the schism from GM Lee Chong Woo in an interview from World Taekwondo in 1997 which was reprinted by Al Cole on one of the JDK sites.

All for now

 

[SahBumNimRush]

First I would like to make clear I am by no means a historian, but I do very much enjoy learning about Asian history and martial arts history.

I also had never heard of any TKD ties to Shito Ryu, but after Kong Soo Do claimed YOON, Kwe-Byung's ties to Shito Ryu, I did a quick search on the net (I know, I know, such a reliable source.. .). Lacancha did have some information about YOON, Kwe-Byung's ties to Shito Ryu.

http://www.lacancha.com/gwebyungyoon.html

The source is credited to Kim Soo, of whom I know little about, so I cannot speak to his credibility. However, it is interesting to see a source claiming the tie.

 

[miguksaram]

Busy day so I only have a moment to touch on some of your post;



YOON, Kwe-Byung studied Shito Ryu Karate under Mabun Kenwa Sensei while he was he Chief Master of the Han Mu Kwan in Toyko in the late 40's.

Can you point me to the source for this. All the sources that I have point him as a member of Shudokan, not Shito-ryu. Shito-ryu was taught at Kansai Univeristy, but Yoon, Kwe-byung studied at Nihon University.

I've seen him listed from 4th to 7th in Shudokan depending upon the source. How accurate that is depends again upon whom one wishes to believe.

The only source I could find that listed him as a 7th dan is from your instructor's site. There is a list of 5th-8th dans that he handed out that you can find in Toyama, Kanken's book Karate-Do Tai Hokan. Yoon, Kwe-byung is not listed there. Kim, Ki-whang and In, Byun-yoon are.

 

[miguksaram]

First I would like to make clear I am by no means a historian, but I do very much enjoy learning about Asian history and martial arts history.

I also had never heard of any TKD ties to Shito Ryu, but after Kong Soo Do claimed YOON, Kwe-Byung's ties to Shito Ryu, I did a quick search on the net (I know, I know, such a reliable source.. .). Lacancha did have some information about YOON, Kwe-Byung's ties to Shito Ryu.

http://www.lacancha.com/gwebyungyoon.html

The source is credited to Kim Soo, of whom I know little about, so I cannot speak to his credibility. However, it is interesting to see a source claiming the tie.

Thank you. I am going to email them and ask where they received the source. I am interested because that would be the only place I have found any link between TKD and Shito-ryu.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Can you point me to the source for this. All the sources that I have point him as a member of Shudokan, not Shito-ryu. Shito-ryu was taught at Kansai Univeristy, but Yoon, Kwe-byung studied at Nihon University.

I believe this has already been provided in an above post by Master Rush. You may want to discuss this with Glenn as we've talked about the ShitoRyu connection with Yoon, Kwe-Byung some months back and he didn't appear to have an issue with it.

The only source I could find that listed him as a 7th dan is from your instructor's site.

I was unaware that my instructor had a website? You might mean mine perhaps? Interestingly enough, the above link from Master Rush is somewhat different that it was a few years ago. I remember that it did indeed list Yoon as a 7th, though I don't remember now if it specifically listed Shudokan. That would be the natural assumption rather than Shito Ryu. But, things change in the KMA's. Perhaps the entry was updated within the last few years as a source was found to be inaccurate.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Thank you. I am going to email them and ask where they received the source. I am interested because that would be the only place I have found any link between TKD and Shito-ryu.

I look forward to hearing what they have to tell you, as this is the only sited source I've seen this link between TKD and Shito-ryu also.

 

[miguksaram]

I believe this has already been provided in an above post by Master Rush. You may want to discuss this with Glenn as we've talked about the ShitoRyu connection with Yoon, Kwe-Byung some months back and he didn't appear to have an issue with it.

So that is your only source as well?

I was unaware that my instructor had a website? You might mean mine perhaps? Interestingly enough, the above link from Master Rush is somewhat different that it was a few years ago. I remember that it did indeed list Yoon as a 7th, though I don't remember now if it specifically listed Shudokan. That would be the natural assumption rather than Shito Ryu. But, things change in the KMA's. Perhaps the entry was updated within the last few years as a source was found to be inaccurate.

Perhaps your site then..http://iksda.8m.com/rich_text_5.html.

 

[miguksaram]

I look forward to hearing what they have to tell you, as this is the only sited source I've seen this link between TKD and Shito-ryu also.

Well the contact email for the the site is no longer valid, so I sent and email the GM Kim, Soo. I hope he will be able to assist. I will let you know if I hear anything.