Hosinsul

[FizzyCal]

I have several questions regarding TKD training, however I'll just start with this one.

Traditionally, prior to the Unification of the original kwons, it stands to reason that each kwon incorporated its own set of requirements for mastery of its martial art. At some point, after the unification, I would assume that a standard was established as what must be learned to master the art of TKD.

At my TKD school, our instructor also incorporates some methods, theories, and techniques from other MA's that he has earned instructor rank in as well. So many times I'm not sure what is purely TKD or a mix of TKD with other styles theories. For me, I would like to know what is purely TKD. For instance, we do what we call wrist grabs, which I know many TKD schools incorporate as Hosinsul, or self-defense. The confusion for me is that I'm fairly confident that what we are learning is either partially Philipino or Silat or maybe both. At times my instructor will say things like, "well the indonesian systems may do it this way." or "the philipino systems may do it this way. And this is true for more than just the writst grabs.

My question is, are there resources available where I could research and find a more pure TKD comparison to what we are doing in class? My reason is that if someday I were to teach my own kids or some other person and I say I am practicing TKD I want to be knowledgable enough to say this is purely TKD.

Don't know if this makes sense to anyone or not. Perhaps it doesn't matter what style it's from as long as I've learned something... I'd just like to know for myself. If anyone has any idea I'd appreciate any input.

 

[dancingalone]

First, I would suggest that the term 'pure TKD' might be somewhat of an oxymoron given the eclectic history of the art. I also suspect the answer to your question greatly depends on which style of TKD you study and which affiliations you have.

But no need to rehash the historical stuff. You can find ample threads on here about given a few minutes of searching.

I own this book which was written by a Kukkiwon 9th dan, Dr. Daeshik Kim: http://www.amazon.com/Hosinsul-conc...r_1_15?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330459398&sr=1-15 I suppose it comes as close to what I would ambiguously imagine pure TKD to be as any other hosinsul I've seen.

 

[Jason Striker II]

For a good intro on the background of TKD, try these articles:

http://kimsookarate.com/articles/history1.html

 

[Gemini]

In regards to the hand techniques you are describing, they are taught at Yong-In which is associated with the Kukkiwon. At a higher level, I do believe at one point there was a single standard as you are referring, but I doubt that would be the case any longer. Each organization that will have a set syllabus that outlines what the teach. I think many of them are still very similar, but no longer any single "go to" source.

 

[Earl Weiss]

1. Traditionally, prior to the Unification of the original kwons, it stands to reason that each kwon incorporated its own set of requirements for mastery of its martial art. At some point, after the unification, I would assume that a standard was established as what must be learned to master the art of TKD.

2. For me, I would like to know what is purely TKD.

3. For instance, we do what we call wrist grabs, which I know many TKD schools incorporate as Hosinsul, or self-defense.

4. I want to be knowledgable enough to say this is purely TKD.

QUOTE]


I think your questions are founded upon flawed assumptions or premise.


1. All the Kwans did not unify. Some resisted and Moo Duk Kwon was known for this, Many have unified to some degree in one form or another under the KKW. So, no standard was established.

2. The conncept of defining "TKD" has been debated ad nauseum let alone "Pure TKD" If you look solely at how "Tae" and "Kwon" are defined then it would be consist exclusively of strikes.

3. Youer next issue would be defining "hosinsul' which may or may not be synonimous with "Self Defense" in different schools or systems.

4. Probably the most knowledgeable thing would acknowledge an inability to define "Pure TKD". If your system has an accepted syllabus, than techniques contained in that syllabus could be considered as part of your art. Who is to say if some refinement on a joint lock i purely anything, Ju Jitsu, Aikido, Hapkido, etc.

 

[Jason Striker II]

1. Traditionally, prior to the Unification of the original kwons, it stands to reason that each kwon incorporated its own set of requirements for mastery of its martial art. At some point, after the unification, I would assume that a standard was established as what must be learned to master the art of TKD.

2. For me, I would like to know what is purely TKD.

3. For instance, we do what we call wrist grabs, which I know many TKD schools incorporate as Hosinsul, or self-defense.

4. I want to be knowledgable enough to say this is purely TKD.

QUOTE]


I think your questions are founded upon flawed assumptions or premise.


1. All the Kwans did not unify. Some resisted and Moo Duk Kwon was known for this, Many have unified to some degree in one form or another under the KKW. So, no standard was established.

2. The conncept of defining "TKD" has been debated ad nauseum let alone "Pure TKD" If you look solely at how "Tae" and "Kwon" are defined then it would be consist exclusively of strikes.

3. Youer next issue would be defining "hosinsul' which may or may not be synonimous with "Self Defense" in different schools or systems.

4. Probably the most knowledgeable thing would acknowledge an inability to define "Pure TKD". If your system has an accepted syllabus, than techniques contained in that syllabus could be considered as part of your art. Who is to say if some refinement on a joint lock i purely anything, Ju Jitsu, Aikido, Hapkido, etc.

All correct. Esp. 1 & 2!

 

[andyjeffries]

1. All the Kwans did not unify. Some resisted and Moo Duk Kwon was known for this, Many have unified to some degree in one form or another under the KKW. So, no standard was established.

I don't think it's unreasonable that the OP referred to the "unification of the original kwons[sic]", given that there was a Unification Declaration Ceremony held at the Korea Amateur Sports Association auditorium in 1965. It may not be all the kwans, but it's fair to refer to it as the unification as that's what the agreement was caused. It feels like splitting hairs to say one kwan didn't therefore it's not unification.

It seems that the reason (at least the one given at the time) the Moo Duk Kwan didn't unify was that Choi Hong Hi was in charge of the KTA at the time. As far as I can tell, the Moo Duk Kwan is the only kwan that didn't unify under the KTA but you say "some". Can you provide more information on others that didn't unify?

Also, can we please all agree that it's kwan not kwon. I may just be being anal about spelling, but kwon and kwan are two different things and it's making my internal OCD twitch go off like crazy

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I have several questions regarding TKD training, however I'll just start with this one.

Traditionally, prior to the Unification of the original kwons, it stands to reason that each kwon incorporated its own set of requirements for mastery of its martial art. At some point, after the unification, I would assume that a standard was established as what must be learned to master the art of TKD.

At my TKD school, our instructor also incorporates some methods, theories, and techniques from other MA's that he has earned instructor rank in as well. So many times I'm not sure what is purely TKD or a mix of TKD with other styles theories. For me, I would like to know what is purely TKD. For instance, we do what we call wrist grabs, which I know many TKD schools incorporate as Hosinsul, or self-defense. The confusion for me is that I'm fairly confident that what we are learning is either partially Philipino or Silat or maybe both. At times my instructor will say things like, "well the indonesian systems may do it this way." or "the philipino systems may do it this way. And this is true for more than just the writst grabs.

My question is, are there resources available where I could research and find a more pure TKD comparison to what we are doing in class? My reason is that if someday I were to teach my own kids or some other person and I say I am practicing TKD I want to be knowledgable enough to say this is purely TKD.

Don't know if this makes sense to anyone or not. Perhaps it doesn't matter what style it's from as long as I've learned something... I'd just like to know for myself. If anyone has any idea I'd appreciate any input.

You are asking the wrong question. It wasn't taekwondo until after the unification process had begun. The question would be, 'what kwan is my master's lineage, and is there a way to find out what that kwan's pre-unification syllabus was?'

Alternatively, you could go with the 'taekwondo was supposed to be taekkyeon-do' angle, in which case the answer to your question is 'taekkyeon is "pure" (whatever that really means) pre-unifcation taekwondo' and then you can go find a Taekkyeon dojang.

 

[FizzyCal]

I know that only 9 kwons came together to under the title of TKD and after some backed out.

And what most of the kwans taught had japanese or okinawan origins.

What I mean by "pure TKD" (and I don't really want to get hung up on semantic terms here) is that I'm presupposing that once there was an art called TKD there must have been originally a set of guidelines that one must know or have mastered to have recieved rank in "Tae Kwon Do".

Our school doesn't really belong to any organization. It's just what was taught from Pat Burleson on down.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

It seems that the reason (at least the one given at the time) the Moo Duk Kwan didn't unify was that Choi Hong Hi was in charge of the KTA at the time. As far as I can tell, the Moo Duk Kwan is the only kwan that didn't unify under the KTA but you say "some". Can you provide more information on others that didn't unify?

Well, Moo Duk Kwan did unify, at least mostly. It was Hwang Kee that didn't and a less-than-half percentage went off with him to be Moo Duk Kwan practicing under the heading of either Tang Su Do, Subak Do, or some other nomenclature.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I know that only 9 kwons came together to under the title of TKD and after some backed out.

The only 'backing out' that I know of is MDK, but they did not back out entirely; see my previous post.

And what most of the kwans taught had japanese or okinawan origins.

I suppose; I'll leave that discussion to more informed minds than my own. But if you go that route, then the most likely answer is Shotokan, which was relatively recent at that time, so you'd have to go back to the parent arts of Shotokan.

What I mean by "pure TKD" (and I don't really want to get hung up on semantic terms here) is that I'm presupposing that once there was an art called TKD there must have been originally a set of guidelines that one must know or have mastered to have recieved rank in "Tae Kwon Do".

Nope. The kwan leaders got together and spent several years determining that set of guidelines. Gen. Choi separated from the others during this process, presumably taking his followers with him, and developed his Chang Hon taekwon do while the unified kwans developed Kukki taekwondo.

So, if you want the purest form of taekwondo that has the greatest connection to the nine kwans, pick up a Kukkiwon text book and you will have in your hands. Taekwondo as an art was developed between 1945 and 1973 or so. Not sure when General Choi completed his Chang Hon system, but its development took place between 1945 and whatever date that was.

Our school doesn't really belong to any organization. It's just what was taught from Pat Burleson on down.

Is the unaffiliated status of your school the reason that you are asking? Regardless, Pat Burleson was taught by someone, and if you trace it back far enough, you'll get to one of the nine kwans.

 

[dancingalone]

Our school doesn't really belong to any organization. It's just what was taught from Pat Burleson on down.

My TKD roots are from the same line. I'm afraid this form of TKD has always been adulterated with stuff from judo and TKDized hapkido from at least the 1970s. I can try to find my old journal if you want a peek into this stuff - no Silat though.

If you're looking for a authentic kwan era self-defense syllabus, I'm not aware such a thing exists. SD and hosinsul seems to have been one of those things that missed formal codification in the TKD unification efforts. If you read about the Korean fighting units that participated in the Vietnam war, it sounds like they used basic stuff like knifehands and such when they had to resort to unarmed combat.

 

[dancingalone]

Regardless, Pat Burleson was taught by someone, and if you trace it back far enough, you'll get to one of the nine kwans.

Chung Do Kwan.

Jhoon Rhee
Allen Steen
Pat Burleson

 

[FizzyCal]

You are asking the wrong question. It wasn't taekwondo until after the unification process had begun. The question would be, 'what kwan is my master's lineage, and is there a way to find out what that kwan's pre-unification syllabus was?'

Jhoon Rhee who was Chung Do Kwan, founded by Won Kuk Lee, but we use the Chang Hon forms, which is Oh Do Kwan (and unless your Korean Military that's not true Oh Do Kwan either), but that's what Choi told him to teach. So my suspicians are that most of the original Chung Do Kwan stuff has been lost to our lineage somewhere along the way (I could be wrong). So I guess I'm in limbo somewhere, which is why I'm really, really curious about what should be taught in a TKD curriculum. I know my instructor is curious about some of the same stuff but as a 6th degree black belt with instructor ranks in other MA's, I don't think he's real concerned (but I'm not going to presume to speak for him).

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I don't think Chang Hon was original Oh Do Kwan nor CDK. I was under the impression that Choi developed these forms later. I was under the impression that the CDK and OhDoKwan were using Pinan forms originally, but I certainly could be wrong there.

Regardless, what should be taught in a taekwondo curriculum will depend upon what organization you are in and the preferrences of the school owner.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

As far as I can tell, the Moo Duk Kwan is the only kwan that didn't unify under the KTA but you say "some". Can you provide more information on others that didn't unify?

The Jidokwan (Chosun Yun Moo Kwan Kong Soo Do Bu) and the Moo Duk Kwan initially opposed the unification process, although both had supporters and detractors. Specifically, SANG Sup Chun's dan bon #1, KWE Byung Yoon, opposed the Jidokwan's unification, if I remember correctly. Ultimately, I believe all of the Jidokwan unified and part of the Moo Duk Kwan unified under the name Taekwondo.

 

[puunui]

1. All the Kwans did not unify. Some resisted and Moo Duk Kwon was known for this, Many have unified to some degree in one form or another under the KKW. So, no standard was established.

Actually the kwan did unify, including the Moo Duk Kwan. The Moo Duk Kwan was organized differently than other kwan, which were much more top down organizations led be the kwan jang. The Moo Duk Kwan instead had a board of directors which voted on decisions. The Moo Duk Kwan board of directors voted to join, or rather, to continue with the unification process and GM HWANG Kee did not want to, due to his hostile relationship with General Choi.

 

[chrispillertkd]

I don't think Chang Hon was original Oh Do Kwan nor CDK. I was under the impression that Choi developed these forms later. I was under the impression that the CDK and OhDoKwan were using Pinan forms originally, but I certainly could be wrong there.

The Oh Do Kwan did teach the old karate kata initially. But Gen. Choi began developing his tul rather early. There were three patterns developed by/in 1955 (Hwa-Rang, Choong-Moo, and Ul-Ji). Ge-Baek was developed in 1961. Sixteen more patterns were finished by 1962. Four more were finished by 1972 and Ju-Che, the last pattern to be developed was done sometime prior to 1985.

So, it depends on what you mean by "later." The Oh Do Kwan was founded in 1954. By the next year he had three new tul. Gen. Choi's philosophy on why there are 24 patterns is interesting and you don't just dash off two dozen of them. It takes a while to develop. If you look through the various editions of his textbooks you can see changes that Gen. Choi made in patterns he had already developed besides just coming up with new ones.

Pax,

Chris

 

[puunui]

The Jidokwan (Chosun Yun Moo Kwan Kong Soo Do Bu) and the Moo Duk Kwan initially opposed the unification process, although both had supporters and detractors. Specifically, SANG Sup Chun's dan bon #1, KWE Byung Yoon, opposed the Jidokwan's unification, if I remember correctly.

It was originally called Kwon Bup Bu, not Kong Soo Do Bu in the beginning. And Dr. YON Kwai Byeong wasn't the kwon bup dan holder at the Chosun Yun Moo Kwan. I think that was honor went to GM CHUN Sang Sup's brother, GM CHUN Il Sup. Or it might have been GM BAE Young Ki. Either one of those two. I don't think Dr. Yon got any rank for GM Chun.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

It was originally called Kwon Bup Bu, not Kong Soo Do Bu in the beginning. And Dr. YON Kwai Byeong wasn't the kwon bup dan holder at the Chosun Yun Moo Kwan. I think that was honor went to GM CHUN Sang Sup's brother, GM CHUN Il Sup. Or it might have been GM BAE Young Ki. Either one of those two. I don't think Dr. Yon got any rank for GM Chun.

Thank you for the clarification, you are much closer to the original sources than I am. I'll have to check back with my sources, I thought that YON kwai Byeong was listed as dan bon #1 under the Yun Moo Kwan Kwon Bup Bu according to the Modern History of Taekwondo, but I was going from memory on that.. .