If there are no objections, I'll add some of my observations about this extended topic.
Ahhhh, back in the day. When the Korean Masters would go behind the bleachers of the gyms during tournaments and settle their differences right there on the spot.
I've seen that sort of thing myself. I could tell you some stories!!!
But, I wouldn't do it here.
So Wade... here's my question. I've not heard that much about the master karateka of Japan doing this behind-the-bleachers thing.... What was different about Korean martial artists??
Well Exile,... there are way too many people with a lot more knowledge about this than I can ever have so maybe one of them, like the Chief Master can give you a more educated answer than I can.
I'll give it a try.
Exile, the mid-1960's to the the early-1970's was a very violent time in the KMA's - particularly in Korea itself....
However; those really "in the know" don't like to talk about it at all, in my experience.
Wade is right, it is a sore subject and easily misunderstood as "talking trash".
Please remember that the Koreas were brutally occupied by the Japanese 1905-1945,...
then underwent an extemely brutal civil war....
followed by a separation of families by the North/South divide....
punctuated by South Korea's involvement in the Vietnam War...
Communist worries, Kwan rivalries, etc. took on a life/death importance.
My advice; tread softly and respectfully here. There are a lot of still open and bleeding wounds....
Jonathan has hit many of the key points, and done so rather tactfully. I agree that these issues can be rather sensitive to some, but there are things we can discuss, with the proper respectful approach, that should shed some more light on this issue.
When you look at the Korean people's make-up, as compared to the Japanese, consider the influences. Do you blame a child for the way they behave, or the parent. Many older Koreans grew up knowing only Japanese control, and abuses - a loss of identity during the occupation. This had its affects on the Korean people, and certainly, the Japanese people did not experience it from that perspective.
The Korean War (1950-53), not only created more strife, but developed a certain "military" mind-set. The Koreans had fought for centuries to remain free, independent, and alive. Then they were captives in their own land. Finally, they were set free, only to be in a conflict between communism and democracy. War, and military ways seemed to be the only strength, and chance of survival (especially from the South Korean's perspective.)
When the Martial Art was being revised to emerge in post WWII Korea, so was the identity of the nation. Realizing that the Martial Art was becoming a major influence on their culture, and national pride, they strove to make it more their own. There were three main ways for them to do this.
One was to look into their past, and find the root of Korean Martial Art before any occupational influences. Second, was to choose a new name for their Art, and train in it differently than others. Finally, was the drive to make Taekwondo popular world-wide. Thus, the push for International Taekwondo competitions, and eventually, the Olympics.
Another part of this drive was the demonstration of Taekwondo to foreign leaders. One of the best ways to do this, was to send their military General, Choi Hong Hi, as a representative to put on demonstrations, and teach some Taekwondo to foreign servicemen. The personal drive of Gen. Choi, and circumstances of subsequent war time, led Taekwondo (especially Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan) to be very connected to military training.
Naturally, the methods of the military are autocratic. Officers give orders, and soldiers obey. The classroom structure, and curriculum became very much oriented to preparing soldiers for battle. Subsequently, American soldiers who were stationed in Korea, took to the training rather well. When many of these soldiers (e.g.: Richard Reed with GM H.U. Lee of the ATA, and Edward Sell with GM Hae Man Park of the Chung Do Kwan) returned to America, their schools passed on a "military approach."
There is also something unique about the Korean culture in general. I'm not quite as familiar with the Chinese or Japanese cultures, but I am aware that they teach a very high degree of manners in social settings, and preciseness in details of such simple tasks as pouring tea. The Koreans have similar philosophies, but also have a strong sense of respect among elders to juniors. Not that this does not exist in other Asian countries, but from what I have witnessed, the Koreans approach it a bit different.
Not only is there the use of honorific terms when speaking to parents, bosses, teachers, and elders as opposed to your co-workers, friends, classmates, or juniors, but the enforcement of compliance was traditionally a bit more harsh. Things are changing in modern times, but 3-5 decades ago, it was very common for a junior to be harshly reprimanded for not showing proper respects. I won't go into great detail here, but I have seen many examples of a senior Grandmaster chastising a junior instructor, and that junior would stand with his head bowed in shame and not dare oppose the reprimand - - to do so, would bring dishonor upon himself among all of his Martial Art peers.
I tend to believe that the content of the art is best served by individual experimentation and development at the level of the school, rather than imposition of top-down control from large-scale organizations making curriculum decisions because of their own agendas (which may have very little to do with effective fighting skills and training)
I can see a slight difference here, but not entirely. I agree that the Korean approach is more of a flow from the top down. The high ranking Grandmasters, with the most years of experience, know what has been handed down to them, have tried and tested it for years, have made any adjustments that they feel are necessary, then pass that information down to be taught correctly.
On the other hand, in all my 30 years in the Korean Martial Art, I have never seen these kinds of organizational structures, and chains of command have any restrictive impact on the individual instructor to explore, and expand on the base curriculum. Typically, I believe it is to be interpreted as a "minimum standard" for what should be taught in the core of Taekwondo.
Beyond that, none of these higher ups tend to stifle creative developmnt. They just do not believe in any inexperienced junior black belts messing with the core of what Taekwondo is, and then teaching something different yet calling it "Taekwondo." For many of them, I hear comments like,
"Some ask, 'what style of Taekwondo do you study?' There is no 'style' of Taekwondo. Taekwondo is Taekwondo. You either teach it right, or you are not teaching Taekwondo."
This is their point of view, but it is not to say that there is absolutely no flexibility in the training. Beyond the basics, and the core, many things are adapted to, or modified within the over-all curriculum every year.
I hope this helps to shed some light without offending anyone.
CM D.J. Eisenhart
I often look up people's profiles because I want to know what MA background they're coming from—sometimes you can get a particular take on someone's ideas knowing just what they've studied, and for how long. I appreciated your answer, and the qualms you feel about going into certain of the details, and appreciate your forthrightness. The fact is, both your posts and Jonathan's really are very much to the point.
