What are some differences between Karate and Taekwondo?

[Earl Weiss]

Getting back to the OP, as many have stated due to the variety of things referred to as Karate generalizations are difficult. Since you apparently have strong CDK roots which would have strong Shotokan roots we can use that for comparison. A major difference would be the "Strongly rooted" idea of Shotokan with the legendary story of it's founder on a roof in a typhoon versus TKD making power even while jumping. There is some disagreement on what Funakoshi wanted for stance length and depth, but many Karate practitioners favor longer, deeper and less mobile stances and more linear attacks as compared to TKD shorter stances and variety of circular techniques. .

 

[chrispillertkd]

I am well aware. I didn't think the OP was interested in a long history lesson. The short version remains, as I said, that TKD did not have a single founder.

I was replying to your assertion that the name Taekwon-Do was "supported by a majority of people working towards unification." That's simply not accurate. Repeated attempts were made to use a different appellation, in fact. Gen. Choi was the one who forced the use of the name. Which, parenthetically, would be an odd thing for him to do if he hadn't been the one to coin the term a decade before.

As for the OP's interest in Taekwon-Do history, I cannot say one way or the other but thread drift is inevitable and the topic had been broached as soon as someone started talking about who founded the art.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

Diagramming isn't easy when you have a lot of detail. I guess I'd do it from the Kwan founders. Therefore, General CHOI's Oh Do Kwan would be an offshoot of Chung Do Kwan.

In what sense was the Oh Do Kwan an "offshoot" of the Chung Do Kwan since there is no actual record of Gen. Choi being a member of the Chung Do Kwan as anything other than honorary Kwan Jang?

Honestly, the only people I have heard say this have Chung Do Kwan roots and seem to gloss over the fact that GM Lee, Won Kuk wasn't involved at all in the unification process. Despite this a few of them even claim he's the "real" founder of Taekwon-Do because the Chung Do Kwan was the first Kwan to open, even though he taught Tang Soo Do. And even though the Song Moo Kwan opened first

Pax,

Chris

 

[Dirty Dog]

I was replying to your assertion that the name Taekwon-Do was "supported by a majority of people working towards unification." That's simply not accurate. Repeated attempts were made to use a different appellation, in fact.

I didn't say it was adopted instantly and enthusiastically. If a majority had refused to adopt it, it wouldn't have been adopted.

Gen. Choi was the one who forced the use of the name.

I don't think he "forced" anything of the sort. Persuaded, certainly. Badgered, possibly. Bribed, who knows? But forced?
General Choi was a lot of things, but Dictator of the KTA wasn't one of them.

Which, parenthetically, would be an odd thing for him to do if he hadn't been the one to coin the term a decade before.

Not really. Anyone who supported the use of the term would do the same. It really says nothing about the origins of the term.

As for the OP's interest in Taekwon-Do history, I cannot say one way or the other but thread drift is inevitable and the topic had been broached as soon as someone started talking about who founded the art.

Sure. Because the internet.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Only unproven to the extent that you fail to accept evidence as proof.

That would be because evidence is NOT proof. Especially anecdotal evidence. I'm pretty sure you're aware of that.

The difference between your analogy vis a vis claims of TKD being 2000 years old is that Nam Tae Hi was around at the time of the naming, claimed to have helped General Choi research and come up with the name and submit it for acceptance.

Thank you for offering support for my statement that the name taekdondo is not, in fact, the invention of General Choi, any more than the art of taekwondo was developed by one person.

 

[Earl Weiss]

That would be because evidence is NOT proof. Especially anecdotal evidence. I'm pretty sure you're aware of that.



Thank you for offering support for my statement that the name taekdondo is not, in fact, the invention of General Choi, any more than the art of taekwondo was developed by one person.

I am aware that proof is what the trier of fact decides it is. First hand accounts are in fact evidence that can be deemed proof. You simply have decided independant first hand accounts and reports do not rise to whatever level you would deem to be proof.

The name TKD was General Choi's invention just as was the new system to carry the name. Inventions and discoveries are rarely the work of a single person, and General Choi never claims he was acting alone. (This would be like saying Edison did not invent the light bulb because he had assistance) To the contrary, he credits being a General and having resources at his disposal and that is why he was the founder. He did not start with a bunch of white belts. Instead he used the resources to recruit top Martial Art Talent, noteably the 29th infantry among (other recruitmant like Jhoon Rhee), and then used that talent to develop the system and instructors. This made the development and spread much more rapid than history reports for earlier modern systems like Judo , Shotokan, and Aikido.

 

[chrispillertkd]

I didn't say it was adopted instantly and enthusiastically. If a majority had refused to adopt it, it wouldn't have been adopted.

Not adopted instantly and enthusiastically is quite an understatement. I'm sure you know the history of the conflict within the Korea Tae Soo Do Association and, for example, GM Jong Woo Lee's reaction to the renewal of the use of "Taekwon-Do."

As for whether or not it would have been used if a majority refused to adopt it, I honestly have my doubts about that.

I don't think he "forced" anything of the sort. Persuaded, certainly. Badgered, possibly. Bribed, who knows? But forced?
General Choi was a lot of things, but Dictator of the KTA wasn't one of them.

You're obviously just arguing semantics at this point. You can force people to do what you want without being a dictator. It's a fairly common use of the word. Gen. Choi forced the Tae Soo Do association to start using the term Taekwon-Do in his position as President.

Not really. Anyone who supported the use of the term would do the same. It really says nothing about the origins of the term.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Given the fact that pretty much everyone, whatever else they think about him, agree that Gen. Choi came up with the name I feel no reason to doubt him on this point. As for whether or not anyone who liked the term Taekwon-Do would have done the same, that seems quite a bit of conjecture on your part. Especially since the KTA had already switched names.

Sure. Because the internet.

I'm not really sure why you've been belligerent to people who you disagree with recently. It's a bit unbecoming in a moderator.

People bringing up topics that are related to a post's main point isn't exactly unheard of. That's not a case of "Because the internet," it's a matter of human nature. It's how people think and act. You, in fact, were the one who made the claim that Gen. Choi didn't found Taekwon-Do. If you have such a problem with posts in this thread not sticking to the original question then you shouldn't have said anything because by doing so you just contributed to the "problem" of talking about Taekwon-Do history. You were then the one who said there's no proof that he coined the term Taekwon-Do. For someone who doesn't want thread drift you've done your share of contributing to it. If you don't think the OP is interested in Taekwon-Do history then why not stop contributing to the conversation yourself?

Pax,

Chris

 

[TrueJim]

Gen. Choi forced the Tae Soo Do association to start using the term Taekwon-Do in his position as President...

I for one am enjoying this debate. I have a sincere question though...

If General Choi was able to force the Tae Soo Do association to adopt the term Taekwon-Do, why was he unable to get the Tae Soo Do association to adopt his Chang Hon teul?

As I understand it, in January 1965 Choi returned from Malaysia and was once-again appointed head of the KTA. As you say, he lobbied strongly to get the KTA to return to the name Korea Taekwon-Do Association. But concurrently, he also strongly lobbied the KTA to adopt the Chang Hon teul, but the other kwan leaders refused. I was under the impression that was a contributing factor to Choi leaving the KTA in March 1966 to found the ITF.

Why do we suppose Choi was able to convince the KTA to do the one thing, but not the other? I.e., adopt the Taekwon-Do name, but not the Chang Hon teul?

 

[chrispillertkd]

I for one am enjoying this debate. I have a sincere question though...

If General Choi was able to force the Tae Soo Do association to adopt the term Taekwon-Do, why was he unable to get the Tae Soo Do association to adopt his Chang Hon teul?

As I understand it, in January 1965 Choi returned from Malaysia and was once-again appointed head of the KTA. As you say, he lobbied strongly to get the KTA to return to the name Korea Taekwon-Do Association. But concurrently, he also strongly lobbied the KTA to adopt the Chang Hon teul, but the other kwan leaders refused. I was under the impression that was a contributing factor to Choi leaving the KTA in March 1966 to found the ITF.

Why do we suppose Choi was able to convince the KTA to do the one thing, but not the other? I.e., adopt the Taekwon-Do name, but not the Chang Hon teul?

It's a good question. Simply from a pragmatic perspective I would imagine it had something to do with having only so much political pull. As I pointed out, it was absolutely true that Gen. Choi was not a dictator. He had a vision for what he wanted, and if you read his autobiography he clearly expresses the frustration he had with other Kwan Jang who, in his perspective, held on to katrate instead of really signing on to a Korean martial art. In fact, when he organized the "Taekwon-Do Goodwill Tour" he said that many people in the Tae Soo Do association were upset about how he could lead a demonstration team for "Taekwon-Do." At the same time when he was approached by people from Hwang Ki's Soo Bahk Do association, saying they'd like to have members on the tour his reply was, basically, "You don't even do Taekwon-Do." I think in the end there may have been one Moo Duk Kwan member on the team but you can see how his actions would have ruffled not a few feathers in both the Soo Bahk Do association and the Tae Soo Do association itself (many of whom felt like they were getting along just fine before Gen. Choi got back to Korea).

Part of what allowed for the name to be changed by the KTA was the suggestion of Kim, Yong-Taek who was a lawyer and spokesman for Moo Duk Kwan. He suggested that since they were concurrently trying to unify between the Tae Soo Do and Soo Bahk Do associations they should use Taekwon-Do since it was a name that wasn't used by either party, thus avoiding competition, and was already internationally recognized. Even so, the vote to switch names back to Taekwon-Do only passed by one vote.

In 1966 shortly after the formation of the ITF, both Lee, Woo Jong and Uhm, Woon Kyu approached Gen. Choi about unifying the ITF, KTA, and Soo Bahk Do. After quite a bit of haggling they agreed to unite and combine the patterns at a ratio of 4:4:2 (ITF:KTA:Soo Bahk Do). That was at the suggestion of Lee, Jong Woo who then told Gen. Choi that the KTA would represent Soo Bahk Do as well do they'd really have a ration of 4:6 (ITF:KTA).

Not really surprising there was no permanent union between the ITF and KTA after that, even though the initial agreement stuck for a little while.

As an interesting aside, Gen. Choi actually wanted to have Choi, Young Eui as the next KTA president since he thought he would better implement policies set by the ITF. Choi, Young Eui is, of course, the given name of Masutatsu Oyama, founder of Kyokushinkai karate.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Tony Dismukes]

(This would be like saying Edison did not invent the light bulb because he had assistance)

Well, Edison didn't invent the light bulb, at least not single-handedly. I believe there were roughly 22 inventors of light bulbs before him. Edison (and his then-employee Lewis Latimer) held patents on several important incremental improvements to the light bulb that were developed in Edison's lab by a team working under his guidance. Those incremental improvements were enough for Edison to start selling his lighting commercially. Around the same time (within the same year) Hiram Maxim started his own company selling light bulbs based on his own patents and those of William Sawyer. Also, in Britain, Joseph Swan was developing practical light bulbs at the same time. In Britain, Edison's and Swan's companies ended up merging. In the U.S. there was litigation for some years to determine whether Edison's patents were valid or based on the prior art of Sawyer.

Edison gets credited with being the "inventor" of the light bulb because
a) the folks on his team who may have done as much or more work on his patents as he did were his employees and not in a position to contend for credit and
b) Edison was a better self-promoter than the others who developed practical bulbs around the same time

What comparisons may be drawn between Edison and Choi is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I for one am enjoying this debate. I have a sincere question though...

If General Choi was able to force the Tae Soo Do association to adopt the term Taekwon-Do, why was he unable to get the Tae Soo Do association to adopt his Chang Hon teul?

A. Because it's easier to learn a name than new stuff.
B. One need look no further than the KKW for a similar issue. They unified TKD under their banner while accepting all sorts of pattern systems for BB Rank and only later after developing a couple of pattern systems began to limit rank to those using the new patterns. Unlike General Choi the KKW took a much longer view. General Choi PO'd lots of people by only accepting CDK rank and I think one or two others requiring everyone else to est for rank.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I'm not really sure why you've been belligerent to people who you disagree with recently. It's a bit unbecoming in a moderator.

I don't think there's anything "belligerent" in what I've posted. Especially in this particular case, where I was agreeing with you that a certain amount of topical drift is virtually inevitable. Apparently I'm agreeing belligerently? Or would agreeably belligerent be a better term?

People bringing up topics that are related to a post's main point isn't exactly unheard of. That's not a case of "Because the internet," it's a matter of human nature.

Which is pretty much saying the same thing.
Just to be clear, this is me agreeing with you, again. Probably belligerently, though.

It's how people think and act. You, in fact, were the one who made the claim that Gen. Choi didn't found Taekwon-Do.

That would be because he didn't. He was one of a number of contributors to the development of taekwondo (note the difference between taekwondo, a non-belligerent umbrella term for the entire range of systems with common roots, and Taekwon-Do, a term generally used to refer to a specific subset of taekwondo, in particular the subset with roots in the ITF (which General Choi certainly should be credited with founding)).

If you have such a problem with posts in this thread not sticking to the original question then you shouldn't have said anything because by doing so you just contributed to the "problem" of talking about Taekwon-Do history. You were then the one who said there's no proof that he coined the term Taekwon-Do. For someone who doesn't want thread drift you've done your share of contributing to it. If you don't think the OP is interested in Taekwon-Do history then why not stop contributing to the conversation yourself?

Just went back through everything I've posted in this thread. Nope. Cannot find a single thing I've said that can reasonably be taken as a complaint about thread drift. Other than agreeing with you when you brought it up, of course.

So where did this little rant come from?

Having said that, and not being interested in arguing in circles, or causing further drift, this is me belligerently leaving the conversation. Feel free to reply to this and have the last word.

 

[Earl Weiss]

.



That would be because he didn't. He was one of a number of contributors to the development of taekwondo (note the difference between taekwondo, a non-belligerent umbrella term for the entire range of systems with common roots, and Taekwon-Do, a term generally used to refer to a specific subset of taekwondo, in particular the subset with roots in the ITF (which General Choi certainly should be credited with founding)).

That's only your evidence - Anecdotal - Not proof I have to give you credit, aside from a long ago post on the net from someone who was closely allied with GM Sun, your is a lone voice casting doubt on who submitted the name. Do you have any source for your position? Curious minds want to know.

Further, the Knockoff name TKD versus TK-D was needed for the johnny come lately jealous usurpers to have something different so as to distance themselves from the Founder., (The lure is out, and motor set to troll.)

 

[Tez3]

In karate we 'kiai', in TDK they ...?

In karate we do right leg back to get into fighting stance, I think in TKD they may put left leg forward to go into fighting stance?

In karate we have 'Sensei' in TKD, they have?

This one I know, in karate we have kata, in TKD they have patterns.

Ok it's a reach trying to change it back to the OP but at this point it's all I have!

 

[Dirty Dog]

In karate we 'kiai', in TDK they ...?

Kiap. Still just means "yell", basically. Same as kiai.

In karate we do right leg back to get into fighting stance, I think in TKD they may put left leg forward to go into fighting stance?

I don't know that it's universal (is anything?) but I was taught back in the stone ages to move the right leg back.

In karate we have 'Sensei' in TKD, they have?

Sabum. Which means "teacher", same as Sensei.

This one I know, in karate we have kata, in TKD they have patterns.

We have poomsae, tul or hyung. All of which are variations that mean "forms" or "patterns". Same as kata.

 

[chrispillertkd]

I don't think there's anything "belligerent" in what I've posted. Especially in this particular case, where I was agreeing with you that a certain amount of topical drift is virtually inevitable. Apparently I'm agreeing belligerently? Or would agreeably belligerent be a better term?

Dismissive or argumentative would probably work just as well. Look, if you post something in such a way that the person you're replying to can't tell you're in agreement then you may want to consider the possibility that the turn of phrase you used was less than great, especially since it's normally used to indicate the reason for something is stupid. It just seems odd.

Which is pretty much saying the same thing.
Just to be clear, this is me agreeing with you, again. Probably belligerently, though.

In this case, yes. Even if you agreed with me previously (and I will certainly grant the benefit of the doubt) now you're just being kind of rude. Which, again, is great for a moderator.

That would be because he didn't. He was one of a number of contributors to the development of taekwondo (note the difference between taekwondo, a non-belligerent umbrella term for the entire range of systems with common roots, and Taekwon-Do, a term generally used to refer to a specific subset of taekwondo, in particular the subset with roots in the ITF (which General Choi certainly should be credited with founding)).

Great.

Just went back through everything I've posted in this thread. Nope. Cannot find a single thing I've said that can reasonably be taken as a complaint about thread drift. Other than agreeing with you when you brought it up, of course.

"I am well aware. I didn't think the OP was interested in a long history lesson. The short version remains, as I said, that TKD did not have a single founder."

Which, again, is an odd thing to say since you engaged in the discussion yourself.

So where did this little rant come from?

There hasn't been a rant so I couldn't say. If you think I've ranted at all that's something you've inferred that wasn't implied.

Having said that, and not being interested in arguing in circles, or causing further drift, this is me belligerently leaving the conversation. Feel free to reply to this and have the last word.

Pax,

Chris

 

[SahBumNimRush]

I have enjoyed the thread, and I've hesitated to put my .02 in, mainly because I believe that I practice a form of TKD that insn't necessarily congruent with what most people today think of as TKD (I suppose I really fit more in the TSD category if you needed to label me).

That being said, the karatekas that I have had trained with (shorin-ryu, kyokyushinkai, shorei-ryu, shotokan, and Isshin-ryu) have had far more similarities than differences when it comes to technique and approach.

I admit I have never had the fortune to train with anyone in Wado, Goju, or any of the other styles of traditional karate, but from what I've seen, there appears to be much more of a difference between Wado and Goju technique/approaches than the aforementioned karate styles compared to those of my particular style of TKD.

We practice the Kicho, Pyung Ahn (Pinan, Heian), Bassai, Naihanchi (Tekki), Chinto, Kong Sang Koon (Kanku/Kushanku) hyungs (katas).

Again, this may not give a clear answer to the OP, as I see "my style of TKD" to be an "antiquated" iteration of the modern art. Something of what TKD looked like in the 1960's? My KJN moved to the U.S. in the late 60's, and the art that he teaches hasn't significantly changed since that time.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

The biggest difference that I have seen is the emphasis on leg/lower body kicks in Karate and the emphasis of head kicks in TKD.

Another difference I have seen is that we have less stances than Karate. We have 3 basic stances (horse stance/side stance; Keema Jasae (kiba dachi), front stance; chonkul Jasae (zen kutsu dachi) , and cat stance; hoogul jasae (resembles something between kokustu dachi and a neko ashi dachi). We also have a cross legged stance and a crane stance and of course "ready stance." I believe karate has many more stances than this.

 

[chrispillertkd]

The biggest difference that I have seen is the emphasis on leg/lower body kicks in Karate and the emphasis of head kicks in TKD.

Now this is a great point. While ITF Taekwon-Do has a wide variety of low line kicks there are many instructors who do not emphasize them as much as middle and high kicks.

I would be very interested if someone could comment on whether or not the various karate styles include higher kicks and they are simply not emphasized or if they are absent altogether. I know some styles (Kyokushinkai comes to mind) have high kicks, some quite acrobatic, in fact, but my general impression of Okinawan styles is that they either do not have them or, if they do, they are an addition that was added after being influenced by other styles (that's just an outsider's impression so it could be totally wrong).

Another difference I have seen is that we have less stances than Karate. We have 3 basic stances (horse stance/side stance; Keema Jasae (kiba dachi), front stance; chonkul Jasae (zen kutsu dachi) , and cat stance; hoogul jasae (resembles something between kokustu dachi and a neko ashi dachi). We also have a cross legged stance and a crane stance and of course "ready stance." I believe karate has many more stances than this.

Are these the entirety of the stances used in your style of TKD? Do the older style forms you practice contain different stances than their Japanese/Okinawan counterparts?

Pax,

Chris

 

[dancingalone]

I have enjoyed the thread, and I've hesitated to put my .02 in, mainly because I believe that I practice a form of TKD that insn't necessarily congruent with what most people today think of as TKD (I suppose I really fit more in the TSD category if you needed to label me).

That being said, the karatekas that I have had trained with (shorin-ryu, kyokyushinkai, shorei-ryu, shotokan, and Isshin-ryu) have had far more similarities than differences when it comes to technique and approach.

I admit I have never had the fortune to train with anyone in Wado, Goju, or any of the other styles of traditional karate, but from what I've seen, there appears to be much more of a difference between Wado and Goju technique/approaches than the aforementioned karate styles compared to those of my particular style of TKD.

I have a Goju student that studied Tang Soo Do. He did a few Chil Sung forms created by Hwang Kee that clearly look like adaptations of Northern Shaolin with some Tai Chi thrown in. Odd stuff. I was curious about what he felt the intended applications were, but he had no idea. His old school just did the forms with little study as to what the motion meant.

I thought the movement expressed in those forms were very different (yet alike oddly enough) from the usual Shotokan-like movements I have come to associate with most Tang Soo Do or Korean karate styles. Lots of big, wind-milling arm movements that at the same time were expressed with abrupt chime like Shotokan, which is a departure IMO from Northern Shaolin.

Goju and Uechi will look very different from Tang Soo Do because they come from a different family tree altogether. (This is more for general consumption as I am certain Master Rush knows this already.) Meanwhile I think it reasonable to term Tang Soo Do as a cousin of sorts to Japanese styles like Shotokan.