Interesting Resource.

For anyone interested in the history and origins of TKD or taking a Dan grade soon - I found this interesting resource while surfing and thought I'd share:-

Influences on TKD

 

Only applicable if you practice heavily Shotokan-influenced ITF Tae Kwon Do. Kukkiwon Taekwondo is much more Taekkyon influenced. As soon as I saw "Taekwon-Do", I knew it was going to be tilted toward ITF.

 

Can you tell me how the forms, techniques and philosophy of Kukkikwon TKD differs to ITF and WTF?

 

both ITF and Kukkiwon are heavily Shotokan influenced. Kukkiwon has some taek'kyon but not a whole lot, Taek'kyon concepts are very different from TKD.

TKD has alot of tang soo do, majority of the senior Grandmasters

have foundation in tang soo do or started out in one of the original kwans.

 

Not necessarily. ITF style is much more linear and obviously influenced by Shotokan, particularly in the free fighting, as it allows face punches. Kukkiwon does not allow face punches, as Taekkyon does not either. The sparring of Kukkiwon and Taekkyon are very similar (very fluid, emphasis on fluid circular kicking, continual movement).
Kukkiwon TKD is influenced by Shotokan in forms. But I think as time goes on you will see new forms with a much more Taekkyon influence and less Shotokan. It is already beginning to happen. In fact, there is quite a bit of interplay already in Korea between Taekkyon and Taekwondo.

 

Both ITF and WTF are heavily derived from Shotokan. ITF remains closer to Shotokan in its focus on self defense and the greater use of the hands. WTF is farther away from Shotokan due to the use of the Jidokwan sparring rules (which favors high kicking) and the heavy focus on sport. Both maintain the same technical core of Shotokan. I'm not touching the Taekkyun thing, as we've already been down that road countless times and debunked that claim with hard evidence over and over again.

 

Bingo

 

Kukkiwon TKD has punches to the face. WTF competition rules do not.

No they are not.
Infact even kyokushin karate rules are closer to WTF sparring than Taekkyon.

 

I've watched Kukkiwon-style free fighting (not necessarily Olympic style) and Taekkyun free fighting. The two are very similar. The ITF's problem is that they think their history is the history of Taekwondo as a whole. It's not.

 

We've already been down this road with you countless times before. As always, please provide (legitimate)evidence to back up any beefs or claims that you have (and no - "because my teacher said so" or "because I want it to be true" does not qualify as legitimate evidence). Repeating the same debunked claims over and over again will not magically make them become true. If you can provide something substantial to back your claims, then I would be more than willing to accept your views. The problem is that you stick to the same ones, even after they have been debunked. And please don't provide videos of the TKD-inspired neo-Taekkyon that is floating around on Youtube, either. Those vids have been debunked too. well, the floor is yours, Youngman.

 

You're asking about documentation regarding arts that are indigenous to Korea. If some kid in America picks up a bat and ball and learns baseball from his father or friends, is there documentation of that? The idea of providing documented proof that Taekwondo descended from Taekkyun is a Japanese concept. Although, since the ITF is based largely on Choi's Shotokan practice and insists that its version of TKD is the correct one, one should not be surprised at this attitude from them.
I just know that my Tae Kwon Do instructor taught us many techniques that seem to be descended from Taekkyun.

 

See here's the thing YoungMan, the kid that picks up the bat and ball can say "I learned to play from my dad.".

We can then ask the father where he learned to play.

The father may have been taught to play by Yogi Berra, and so we can say that the child's playing style has a link to Yogi Berra.
Alternatively, he may reply that he taught himself to play after watching Babe Ruth. Here we can't say there is a direct link to Babe Ruth, as he never studied directly under him, but we can say that his style has been heavily influenced by Babe Ruth.

We now can show the influence and link between the kid and either Yogi or Babe. No documents needed, we have been able to define a link.

Now do the same for TKD and Taekkyon.

 

Yes, I am asking for documentation. You are so sure about that TKD is linked to Taekkyon and you argue the point so much that one would think that you had something substantial to back it all up. I'm not going to touch your baseball analogy - it's waaay too easy to pick apart, so I'll hold my tongue and move on to the rest of your post.

Wow! really, Youngman!? Now you're trying to turn it into a nationalist/racial/ethnic thing!? The idea of providing documented proof is part of the pursuit of truth and accuracy, and it applies equally across the board, regardless of what you are dealing with.

Where do you get this idea from? It's ALL TKD! One org just focuses on the martial ART of TKD, and the other just focuses on the martial SPORT of TKD. You are practicing the same thing as ITF, there is just a greater focus on the sport and a different set of forms in your org, and a greater focus on self defense and the Chang Hon forms in the other org. Same art, different focus. You won't find any basic attacks in WTF that aren't in ITF, or vice versa (ok, maybe a few sporty things in WTF due to the sport focus, but it is still the same core art).

That "seem to be" descended from Taekkyun. So, you are saying that since, by your judgment, your instructor taught you something that "seems to be" descended from Taekkyun that saying that TKD actually is descended from Taekkyun is a hard fact...And you're willing to defend it... What exactly has he taught you that seems to be descended from Taekkyun? Are you aware that the Korean Taekkyun Research institute has denied ANY and ALL historical links to TKD? Wouldn't they be the foremost authority on Taekkyun, Youngman?

Look, I am not trying to pick on you or anything, I am just trying to point out that the 2000 year history and the Taekkyun connection are erroneous according to what hard evidence we actually do have. As I have also stated above, I am an open minded person and if you have anything, ANYTHING, that even remotely lends weight to your claims (that we haven't already debunked, that is) then please present it. If you don't have anything to back up your claims, and your claims have been debunked, then how on earth can you still believe them with a straight face? Anyways, the floor is yours, Youngman. We are waiting.

 

After reading though the article in the link provided above, I'm not to sure that it is a good article to use as a reference. Although laid out well and having reference material listed it is quite vague in its actual attempt to address the question posed. The reference material used is also only of minor value as it does not appear to be from any qualified research into the topic.

As a lot of politics, ego's and patriotism has lead to the spreading of many myths relating to the founding of tkd and it's linage, I'm of the opinion of using the Ockham's razor (...all things equal that the simplest solution is usually the correct one!)

Being that

1; Korean traditional martial arts systems were clearly not popular and look upon poorly by the Korean society in the late 19th century well prior to Japanese occupation.
2; Korean troops/conscripts in the Japanese Imperial military were given the basic karate training as all other troops.
3; Tkd follows the basic dan/kyu system which is Japanese ranking system (not restricted only to martial arts either) and the teaching format is a copy of what the karate pioneers had developed early in the 20th century for use by the Japanese education system.
I feel unless you find verifiable documentation to show otherwise that it is best to assume that tkd is heavily influence by karate and is best look at as a karate derivative with some traditional Korean influences.

Way to many instructors and school founders have made misleading and false statements about the development of tkd and their students have very rarely questioned what they have been told. This has lead to my belief that we will never sort it out fully particularly as both Korean governments have taken official positions on this which are clearly more nationalistic that academic.

From my poor attempts at studying Korean mudo, I have found little evidence to lead me to credit much indigenous development of martial arts at all in the Korean peninsula. Mostly it was imported directly with troops from China and Japan. This occurred both peacefully as diplomatic missions and during conflicts. China treated Korea as a tributary for most of it's history and also sent troops and weapons to assist in fighting of repeated Japanese invasions.

I think it preferable for everyone to look a the many styles of martial arts and see the common themes and techniques as these tend to be reduced to basic bio-mechanical motions which have been found effective repeatedly in physical conflict by many people over time in many different places around the world. So lets forget about who founded what etc, beyond what is clearly evident and focus only the developing ourselves and our combative skills.




(Sorry for dragging on a bit there.......

 

Forget I ever said anything. Galileo recanted his theories about physics when forced to to do so by the Catholic Church, even though he knew in his heart he was right.

 

IMO the reason why these debates are so controversial is because of the politics involved & the repeating of silly mantra by both sides. The answer lies in looking at what happened, when it happened & who made it happen. But 1st we have to dispell some common misperceptions, mis-statements of fact & out right lies.

It is true the Korea had some sort of fighting system(s) in place a very, very long time ago.
There is no verifiable link of any connection to TKD from any KMA of the past to. If there was, we can rest assurred the Korean govt would publicly shout it from the top of the mountains, as it has always been in their nationalist interests to do so.
The practice of MAs fell out of favor in Korea, long before the occupation period at the beginning of the 20th century by Japan. The source is the Korean govt itself.
There were not chains of MAs schools anywhere around the world like there are today in many places.
The only MAs allowed during the occupation by Japan were Judo, Kendo & archery, yes archery. MAs of the past were always closely connected to the military, hence the use of weapons in place during the time period. ie no guns during caveman days, bare hands, feet & clubs, spears etc
There were 7 Koreans that we know about that went abroad during the occupation to better their lives. While abroad, 6 in Japan, with 1 of them also going to China & 1 in China, they learned MAs, mostly karate & mostly in Japan, with some minor influence.
These men returned to Korea & opened the 5 original kwans or the 6 early kwans. They all taught pretty much the same thing.
Of these men, 1 fled to Japan to escape politcal oppression, 2 died, defected or were kidnapped to NK during the Korean War, 2 others had little to do with TKD, they stayed Tang Su Do karate or made Su bak Do.
The last 1, Gen Choi, used his soldiers under his command to help him create his system of SD.
They called this system TKD from late 54 to 55 & forward, never abandoning the name. It was solely limited to him & his followers.
It was almost all karate then.
Others in the civilian gyms were doing karate as well, calling it kong su do, tang su do, kwon bup or su bak do.
In 1957 they tried to form a TKD association, it failed.
In 1959 they formed the KTA.
May 16, 1961 the military coup occurred & the KTA was forced to regroup via a formal govt decree. They regrouped as the K Tae Su Do Assoc, with was a compromise name between the karate guys of kong su do or tang su do, TKD & Su Bak Do.
Su Bak Do quickly dropped out
In 1965 Gen Choi forces them th change the name back to TKD, but can not get them to adopt his system that he is devising to move away from the very clear karate roots THEY ALL HAD/HAVE!
The Tae Su Do guys push him out because of his terrible leadership style he tried to use in the civilain life that simply did not work any longer as he was no longer a powerful general able to order & get his way & help him form the ITF.
They still can not get along due to Gen Choi's personality & goal of developing TKD along his path.
They break in 1972.
The Tae Su Do guys continued with the name TKD that they were forced to use by Gen Choi's efforts. By now it was already approved by a 2nd ROK President (Gen Park, the military dictator), who was so very impressed when he travelled abroad to then West Germany & was unexpectedly greeting by German & American (GIs) at the airport holding Korean flags. He also realizes how pwoerful a propaganda tool (& also for the KCIA) that TKD holds, due almost singlehandedly by the obessive efforts of Gen Choi, his growing nemesis.
Sadly for us, 2 systems used the name TKD, causing much confusion.
Sadly Gen Choi mis-stated that they stole the name, as he clearly forced them to adopt the name in 65, he just failed in getting them to follow his system as his power to control & force was in decline.
Chang Hon TKD devised as a KMA of SD in the ROK Army continues to develop away from the karate roots.
Kukki TKD developed as a martial sport continues to develop away from the karate roots.
Neither side, post 1972 had anything at all to do with the other side & its respective development.
Both sides, because of bickering, internal conflicts, struggles for power AND political interference & control by SK govt for Kukki TKD AND against Gen Choi's TKD, mainly because of him becoming a leading political dissident of the brutal military dictatorship, call the other karate, not recgonizing their respective paths taken to go from the karate roots.
To some, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, they are all still doing karate & every possible combination of viewpoints.
For me, neither is karate & they, like all MAs have much in common.
Some focus more on the commonality, while other focus more on the differences, to each their own.

However this is what happened & when it happened, with some of the why it happened. I did not include names of those that played vital roles in making Kukki TKD, as they rarely credit anyone. Maybe some can add it. I can later. Please also tell me what I missed or what you feel is incorrect

 

Don't even try to play the Galileo card, Youngman. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You made a few claims, and people have called you out on them. All anybody has asked of you is to back up your claims with something of substance. You have yet to do so. Everytime you are given the chance to do so, you suddenly become quiet and/or abandon the thread.

Smokemare presented something to the TKD community. I think Smokemare did a good job with the project and respectfully welcome his work as a positive contribution to the art. Youngman, you can like it or not like it, it's totally your choice, but it most certainly doesn't call for you to take a potshot at the ITF and/or its members just because it doesn't fit in with your own beliefs.

 

Personally I don't see the point in getting all wound up about where a martial art comes from or what it was. We should be more worried about where it is and what it is.

Who cares if TKD has Karate, or Tae Kyon or any other influence? If it works reasonably well and it's a good art / sport then that should be good enough. If you did trace all the arts back and found the origins of every move in every art - what would you end up with? A bunch of guys who made moves up? If I made up a move today, it would have to be tested to see if it worked to be of any value. If I copied a move off some bizarre McDojo You Tube video - like the famous ' No Touch Knock-out' I would have to test it to decide it had any value. If it worked and worked well - then why not incorporate it? If it doesn't then why bother incorporating it?

 

Good points, but IMHO understanding where it comes from is vital to understanding its purpose & how to incorporate techniques that will help fullfill the purpose. In the case at hand, TKD was 1st developed in the ROK Army by soldiers under the command of Gen Choi who were looking to devise a system of SD for military survival. Much later another & different group that were calling what they were doing Tae Su Do, started a martial sport, but later applied the same name to it. This not only confuses people, but also helps us to lose sight of the original goal or purpose of TKD. In order to make TKD more effective for SD, we must 1st understand how & why it was developed. Then we can work on the best ways to get back to that basic purpose.