Differences between Tang Soo Do and Tae Kwon Do

[miguksaram]

Ok..maybe I missed something in both of the "masters'" posts, but I yet to hear either one of them explain the difference between TKD and TSD.

 

Part of being a 'master' is knowing when not to put your foot in your mouth. Recognizing that fact, I chose to comment on only the things which I could talk about intelligently, namely that in my experience I noticed that progression from 10th Gup to Cho Dan happens faster in most TKD than TSD, and that most of the TKD I've been exposed to has much less emphasis on hand techniques than TSD.

 

My biggest gripe was the fact that people trying to answer the question took it to a level of my art is better than yours. This last post you made was great. It informed more about the TSD and, as a practitioner of both arts, help me see more of how the arts evolved seperately. Thank you.

I believe it to be true that TSD predates TKD, but I don't bother arguing that because there are certain TKD practitioners that adamantly dispute this at all costs (see Glen at tkd digest), so yes I agree with you, but I won't bother arguing with anyone who disputes this.

 

I am part of that list as well. If ever you want some great information on WTF TKD. That is definetly the list to be on.

[try81]

Edited July 20, 2005 by try81

[miguksaram]

You are missing my point. Hwang Kee may have learned these forms from a Japanese master, but they are most likely Chinese in origin. Karate, JuJitsu, Aikido, Hapkido, TSD, TKD have all been derived from Shaolin Wu-Shu. Martial Arts were born on the east Asia mainland and took seperate paths; one to Korea and the other to Japan. Those forms "created" by Master Itos most likely were replications of movements from hyungs created centuries before he ever existed.

 

This is not true for all martial arts. For instance Aikido and Hapkido are branches of the Daito-ryu Akijitsu. Which is a hybrid of different Jujitsu arts from Takeda O'Sensei. It is common belief that Shaolin is the birthplace of ALL martial arts, this is simply not true. While it did spawn many of the arts, not every art has Shaolin roots. BTW...Wushu is relatively new I believe you were wanting to reference the origins of these arts to Shaolin Kung Fu not Wushu. Anyway, there are many other arts that are Asian in nature but do not have any roots to Shaolin. I find it very amusing that people think that the Chinese had no form of combative system until a monk came around and showed them.

 

The forms that were created by Itosu, were just that, CREATED by Itosu. His techniques may have been derived from Chuan'fa, but the forms are his. If you look at the many forms of Chinese kung fu, you will not see many resembling that of Itosu's.

[try81]

BTW...Wushu is relatively new I believe you were wanting to reference the origins of these arts to Shaolin Kung Fu not Wushu.

Edited July 20, 2005 by try81

[tommarker]

Guys, I think we're officially splitting hairs here.

 

In contemporary usage, when you mention "wushu" to a martial artist, they are going to think of the highly stylized and sanitized Government version of Chinese Martial Arts. Technically it does mean martial arts, that's why they chose the term

 

I think we can all agree that TSD hyungs have a distinctly Chinese influence, regardless of who learned what and where.

 

We're all here to learn new things, and there's no reason to either get defensive about what you've learned, or go after people with "outdated" info. Remember we're all dealing with a lot of hypothetical and theoretical info here. None of us can say for sure how the forms got to the point they are at now, and we have to accept that on some level.

 

Personally, I don't think it matters a whole heck of a lot since the forms have evolved SO much even over the last 50 years that they've taken on their own life within each ryu.

[try81]

We're all here to learn new things, and there's no reason to either get defensive about what you've learned, or go after people with "outdated" info. Remember we're all dealing with a lot of hypothetical and theoretical info here. None of us can say for sure how the forms got to the point they are at now, and we have to accept that on some level.

 

.

 

Tom

 

How can you say I have "outdated info" when your own Grandmaster says the exact same things I have been saying all along.

 

If you or your instructor Mr. Sai Genna has the book "Traditional Tang Soo Do Vol. 2" look at page 159

 

1st thing: There is a picture of Shaolin students doing a hyung that is extremely similar to Pyung Ahn E Dan. This was witnessed by Grandmaster J .C. Shin (MKD Dan #689) Robert Beuadwin (Dan #5XXX - 7th Dan) and Charles Vaugh (5th Dan)

 

GM Shin says they were doing a form very similar to Pyung Ahn E Dan

 

2nd Thing. On the exact same page - 159

 

This is written by GM Shin:

 

"During the late 1700's, China sent a military attache named Kong Sang Koon and several other Chinese to Okinawa. Besides his political duties, Kong Sang Koon also taught Chinese Martial Arts at Shuri village, which later became famous for the many renowned masters produced there. Among Kong Sang Koon's many students, "Tode" Sakugawa(1733-cir. 1815) was the most noted master. Sakugawa later passed his knowledge onto Soshu Matsumara (1797-1889)

 

Soshu Matsumura became on of Okinawa's most celebrated masters. He travelled throughout southeren China studying Chinese Martial arts AND BROUGHT HIS KNOWLEDGE BACK TO OKINAWA. One of the forms he was responsible for spreading was "Jae Nam"

 

Around 1870, one of Matsumura's students, Anko Yasutsune Itosu (1832-1916), callled Itos in Korean, reorganized Jae Nam into two "Pinan" forms. He did this because he intended to teach the Pinans to school children and believed the older, Jae Nam, form was too long and complicated for children. The Pinans eventually evolved into five sepaerate forms (earlier someone one this forum claimed there was no evidence that the Pyung Ahn's were one form)

 

Gichan Funakoshi (1868-1957) who was originally a student of Soshu Matsumura and, after Matsumura's death, studied under Master Itosu, made revisions in the Pinans and renamed them"Heian". Funakoshi is credited with introducing the Okinawan fighting arts to Japan and is known as the founder of modern Japanese Karate. It is interesting to note that Itosu originally taught Pinan I and II in the reverse order they are taught today. Gicgen Funakishi is given credit foir reversing the order."

 

Those are not my facts, but those of J C Shin

 

As for the comment of the many Wushu forms, none of them resemble Pyung Ahns, Ask JC Shin, Rober6t Beaudwin, Larry Dercole, and Charles Vaughn what they saw at Shaolin in 1984.

[TangSooGuy]

Tom Y-

 

What you say is true, up to a point, but Tom M is right- we're really splitting hairs...

 

GM Shin states that "martial arts originated not in any one place, but all over the world as needed by primitive peoples."

 

Just wanted to clear that up, as your post does seem to imply that all martial arts started in China...

 

 

 

That said, The Shaolin temple probably is the cradle of Chinese and Asian martial arts...

 

I happen to agree that most of the forms did have a Chinese origin...but trying to tell a karateka that is sometimes as bad as trying to tell a Korean stylist that everything they do didn't originate in Korea...

 

As for the origin of the forms created by Itosu....it is said that they wre originally one form- Jae Nam...

 

Truthfully they wre probably created from a combination of Jae Nam and Kong Sang Koon, also with similarities to Bassai Dai and its' predecessor, Pal Che...

 

So While Itosu did create the Pinan forms, and Funakoshi rearranged them, Itosu didn't come up with them from scratch, and there is a Chinese influence that if you look hard you can trace back to Kong Sang Koon...

 

Almost all martial arts are influenced in one way or another from the Chinese arts...getting people to admit that is the hard part.

 

However, there is an equal amount of influence from Japanese and Okinawan methods...

 

Truthfully, I think the prevalence of TKD has had a Korean influence on all modern martial arts, but most people probably wouldn't want to go there...

 

tommarker is right about the argument, though...I think you guys are just looking at it from different angles..

 

To distill it down:

 

1) No, not ALL martial arts originated in the Shaolin Temple in China

 

2) Yes, the forms DO have a Chinese influence...

[TangSooGuy]

I'd tend to agree witht that....again, in general... the problem with classifying it that way is that not all TSD schools or TKD schools will follow this pattern.

 

You'll find TSD schools that fit closer into the TKD mold you described, and you can still find "traditional" TKD schools that practice the original hyungs.

 

Any TKD schools that practice original hyungs are not practicing TKD, they are practicing the kwan system (Ie Chungdokwan, Jidokwan, Ohdokwan, etc) Also, I should mention that when refering to TKD I should be more specific and say WTF TKD or KKW TKD. I am not comparing to ITF TKD due to the fact that ITF TKD still holds to its tradtional karate roots.

 

So with that said, if the TKD school is not teaching Taeguks as their patterns then they are not practicing what is now considered WTF TKD or modern TKD. There is really no such thing as "Traditional" TKD. That would simply be Korean karate or original kwan system.

 

Just going off what I've seen....Most Chung Do Kwan schools for example that I've seen claim TKD as their style...

 

 

 

 

.

 

Why sad? This is a good thing. Do you know why TKD is so popular? Simply because it is well known through its sports affiliation with Olympics. This is not a bad thing. The bad thing is when you get chump instructors who * the art. If you have good TSD instructors who also do sport then this is good. It gets the art in the main stream and that in return helps in further development of the art itself. There has to be a balance naturally...too much sport or too much "tradition" will inevitably kill an art.

 

The addition of competition is not what I consider sad..I consider the loss of many hand techniques in today's schools due to the restrictions of competition sad...and that is what I have seen. i have met black belts from other schools that have never even seen some of the handtechniques I regularly teach in class.

I'd also say you're more likely to see more grappling and joint locking techniques in a TSD school as opposed to TKD, but that, too will depend on the instructor.

 

Well I agree with you that it depends on the instructor simply because neither of two arts had that in the original curriculum. It is definetly something that is brought in from an outside source.

 

Agreed. Again this is just from personal experience, not anything I'm saying is inherent to either art.

 

Just wanted to clarify a few points. Other than that, I'd have to agree with most of the points you made, and thanks for the response.

 

.

[rmclain]

Certainly the Chinese arts had an influence on the development of Okinawan arts. They had envoys visiting and teaching in Okinawa.

 

The Okinawan arts have a distinct way of being practiced that is quite different than the fluid motions of Chinese wushu-type arts.

 

If you practice Kong Son Kun and the Pinan(Pyung Ahn) forms you can readily see the techniques from Kong Son Kun used in the Pinan(Pyung Ahn) forms. So, I really have no doubt that they came from techniques from Kong Son Kun. There are some techniques in the Pinan forms that are not from Kong Son Kun that supposedly came from a series of forms known as, "Channan," according to George Alexander, who did extensive research in Okinawa on their history, lineage, and techniques. His book is:

 

Alexander, George W. Okinawa: Island of Karate. Lake Worth: Yamazato, 1991.

 

But, who knows? I've never heard of the form "Jae Nam." What is the meaning of that name?

 

R. McLain

[TangSooGuy]

Certainly the Chinese arts had an influence on the development of Okinawan arts. They had envoys visiting and teaching in Okinawa.

 

The Okinawan arts have a distinct way of being practiced that is quite different than the fluid motions of Chinese wushu-type arts.

 

If you practice Kong Son Kun and the Pinan(Pyung Ahn) forms you can readily see the techniques from Kong Son Kun used in the Pinan(Pyung Ahn) forms. So, I really have no doubt that they came from techniques from Kong Son Kun. There are some techniques in the Pinan forms that are not from Kong Son Kun that supposedly came from a series of forms known as, "Channan," according to George Alexander, who did extensive research in Okinawa on their history, lineage, and techniques. His book is:

 

Alexander, George W. Okinawa: Island of Karate. Lake Worth: Yamazato, 1991.

 

But, who knows? I've never heard of the form "Jae Nam." What is the meaning of that name?

 

R. McLain

 

To my knowledge, Chiang Nan/Channan/ Jae Nam basically amount to the same thing.

 

This site actually does a pretty good job of remaining unbiased:

 

http://www.budget.net/~dnolan/hancock2.htm