How did General Choi create Taekwondo, if it was a unification of styles?

The different kwans (schools) of martial art styles (Tang Soo Do, Taekkyon, etc.) were unified under the name Taekwondo. A name which General Choi supposedly came up with.

Fine, he named it. But how then does it make any sense whatsover, having the good general talking about himself being the "founder" of Taekwondo, when the styles of martial arts were already defined and in existence? He did not "create a new korean martial art".

You can invent new karate styles (Katas, method of training), without inventing Karate - actual techniques..

Your thoughts?

 

I was under the impression he ripped it all from karate.

 

Choi asserts that he wanted to "improve Karate"

How did he rip it all from Karate, when the Kwans had more than one style?

 

Because Choi's taekwondo was basically just mixed up parts of shotokan karate with little visible influence of any traditional Korean arts.

Look at videos of early TKD - as early as you can find - and they just look like the videos of 1940s shotokan karate: a bit rigid and robotic with deep stances and kata that look just like the heian kata from Japan.

Taekwondo has evolved its own identity in the intervening years, but as far as I've been able to tell, at it's inception it was just Korean shotokan.

 

I don't dispute that.

Who came up with the "Kwans unified story"-- despite Shotokan karate, all that remains?

The Kwans did exist and they taught more than karate http://taekwondo.wikia.com/wiki/Nine_Kwans

For instance the style of Chung do Kwans influences are as reported: Taekkyon

Karate

Kung Fu

 

Your premise is faulty. Typical "Straw man" logic ploy. He did not simply seek to create a united nations of styles. What he did was not unique. Kano, Funnakoshi, Ueshuiba and others had done it before him. He readily admits and states that no one person can claim to have created or discovered the wheel or fire, but likely there were concurrent discoveries in various places.

For younger people it may be hard to comprehend how travel was difficult as was communication. As such MA systems developed in a very fragmented fashion. Now, like Kano and Funakoshi before him if you want to teach on a large scale and have standards across geographic expanses so people can train the same way wherever they are you need a system with set standards.

How he did this was to use the government and Military resources to form the 29th infantry division and recruit top MA talent using their talent and knowledge to develop the system, become instructors and do demos, again using these resources to dispatch and recruit the instructors and demonstrators.

One of the tactics was to use the new Kwan Name "Oh Do Kwan" for the military Kwan. By using that name which meant "The gym of My Way / The Gym for all of us" It was a gym for all to belong and not feel as though it were a gym that previuosly was a rival to their original Kwan but building something for all.

 

Why are you blurring the rather obvious distinction between creating a martial art compared to promoting it? They are distinctions in this case. General Choi did not employ techniques of Taekwondo not already seen from Karate. His claim of creation is clearly false. And he did make this claim in the interview with him,which was put on Youtube. As well as giving his regards in letters as: "Founder of Taekwondo"

 

Any sort of creativity is generally part new creation, part borrowing from and being influenced by the past, part inspiration, part re-ordering, part taking a new angle on something already existing, etc etc.
The phrase "there's nothing new under the sun" and all that.
There are many avenues to being "creative".

Did TKD spring from the mind of Choi without any prior influence? No. Absolutely not.

Did he bring together several influences and ideas, sprinkle them with inspiration, inject some creativity and then have the fortitude and energy to organise it all into something new so it became greater than the sum of its parts? So that in many ways it warranted I new identity? Yes. Absolutely.

 

I am trying to clarify an indefinite question you posed.

For instance you speak about distinctions with regard to creating a Martial art as opposed to promting it.

Since you feel so definite about the distinction please provide examples of people who "Created" martial arts, and the art they created.

 

Personally I'd have no problem calling TKD korean (or koreanised) karate, and indeed that is what it was known as for some time and by some people. Especially in the early days and when trying to promote it in relation to something people already knew.

 

I don't need examples to know how some invented/highlighted techniques, while others acted as "poster boys", using their status to promote the art (we of course thank General Choi for this).

Learning the history of taekwondo is part of ITF studies, and hearing the influental figure speaking in terms of" creating a new korean martial art", is a disgrace to the japanese and chinese originators of the Karate techniques Taekwondo "stole", while nothing substanstial was added.

I don't like to be told and hear praisings of someone as the founder, if this person had nothing to do with the arts combat techniques, yet pretending as if this was the case.

 

I didn't say you needed examples, I am saying I need examples so I can get a better understanding of your perspective.

So, now that you have elaborated, please provide examples of who

"invented/highlighted techniques" and the arts they created.

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

The names of people inventing/highlighting techniques are not important. All that is required for my argument is that some did, some didnt. General Choi did not add anything technique wise to the martial art of Taekwondo. The blocks, kicks, and strikes are indistinguishable from Karate techniques, which some people invented/highlighted in the past. The names of those originators are not relevant.

 

Hang on...didn't you and me have a head to head a few months back because I basically lump many styles of karate and TKD together into one group of "poorly transmitted okinawan inspired martial arts"?
And you disagreed?
Your tune seems to have changed and you seem as sure that this tune is the right one as you did the last tune.

 

Without specific examples all we have is your belief about unspeified someones who did or did not do something. .

Your failure to respond to a simple request for examples speaks volumes.

You feel it appropriate to ask a question that lacks specificity and expect others to provide answers.

 

Yeah,but some of us like historical nit picking.

It's like.....genetic or something.

 

Source?

No, I don't recall this at all.

I can mention a bunch of names such as Yoshitaka Funakoshi, attributed to developing higher leg techniques in Karate. All of this can be a complete myth. It wouldn't matter. Somebody did, and Karate was not preceeded by a identical martial art, which the japanese ripped off and took as their own. This was however the case of what became known as Taekwondo.

All historic reports indicate that several japanese figures developed Karate techniques.