Korean Martial Arts Throughout The Years

[Hwoarang]

Hello there!

I've been practicing TaeKwon-Do ITF for the last 3 years.

I am 4th Gup, Blue belt. Lately, i've been researching Korean Martial Arts.

Since i couldn't find any books about Korean Martial Arts, the only chocie left for me is the internet.

Unfortunatly, i found out that a lot of the material on the internet isn't accurate and sometimes even false.

I was hoping that someone could direct me to a source, which contains information about the korean martial arts, and how they developed throughout the years.

The thing is that i know there are a lot of martial arts, such as Hwa Rang Do, Tang Soo Do, TaeK Kyon and others.

i would like to know what came first, and which arts where affected by others, and how.

Plus, i would like the source to contain information about each art, including it's principles, and it's style.

oh and one last thing: the source has to be a reliable one

well....hmm....that's it, i guess....

thanks for the help!

yours,

Hwoarang Guy

[SBN Doug]

That's it Hwoarang, you keep reaching for those stars!

Sorry, I'm not making fun. I would love to see something like that as well. However, in the years I've been on this forum, I haven't seen any source that wasn't refuted by another.

You're venturing into a very ambiguous domain. Good luck.

[EternalRage]

Hey Hwoarang,

How is it you couldn't find a book on Korean Martial Arts???? There's so many from Ohara Publications and Unique Publications... unless you are talking about a comprehensive history/summary book of every Korean martial art.

Anyway, it is very hard to find consistent information on each of the Korean Martial Arts. You will find that many of the Korean arts claim that they originate in the Silla Dynasty and the Hwarang (Korea's elite royal class). They might even reference of two statues depicting marital arts-like poses that date back to that time. All of that is crap. The ancient arts have been lost over generations.

Be skeptical of any history presented that is pre-Japanese occupation Korea. Most of the more reliable information will be found post-Japanese occupation (starting in 1945), at which point many of the different styles of Korean martial art came into the public domain. The info is generally reliable because primary sources (people who were actually there at the time) are still alive. HOWEVER, this isn't to say there aren't marked controversies.

You can generally accept the founder of each art and the date that it was opened to the public (in post occupation Korea) - those things are generally not disputed. The first five kwans to open were the Chung Do Kwan, Chang Moo Kwan, Ji Do Kwan, Moo Duk Kwan, and the Song Moo Kwan. Another 9-10 opened afterwards. The Korean government ordered all Kwans to merge in the mid 1950s under the TaeKwonDo banner. The non-TKD arts that exist today are there because they refused to join (ie Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan)

When it comes to influences of other martial arts on Korean martial arts, sometimes this information can get tricky, especially around TKD. The Korean government wanted to "purge" martial arts of all external influences, however, no matter how much they claim that they are separate, it is impossible to "purify" the arts. During occupation, Japanese/Okinawan Karate influenced Korean arts (underground due to bans by the Japanese) heavily. To separate the two is all but impossible, since Karate/Judo/Kendo were the only arts available, and even after immediate liberation, masters found it hard to market their arts unless some resemblance to Karate was evident. As far as Korean styles influencing each other, since most of the original kwan masters studied Karate formally (except for Hwang Kee of the Moo Duk Kwan) - many things are similar between the original kwans. Of course, the styles you see today have evolved since then.

Most other basic information on Korean Styles can be found in threads on this forum, other forums, as well as basic googling. I practice Soo Bahk Do (Tang Soo Do) Moo Duk Kwan. A good source on this style is Soo Bahk Do Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan Volume 1, written by Hwang Kee, the founder of the Moo Duk Kwan.

Be careful what you read - the Korean styles (especially the Kukkiwon and Korean government - you probably have seen this since you are ITF) organizations have been vying for dominance since there are now many to choose from - it is easy for them to misconvey a fact here or there to gain the historical advantage.

[Sam]

one thing - you can search this site there is alot of info - but a lot of info in contradicted else where as korean history IS MASSIVELY convoluted.

[tufrthanu]

I tend to take Eternals viewpoint and focus on when an art went public. Which would mean 99 percent of the korean arts were started in 1944 or later. I would tend to ignore most martial arts history...they all seem to involve a monk in a temple somewhere. Unverifyable so. Obviously Korea was influenced by japanese and chinese MA. But you will never get any side to admit that. I'm sure japanese and chinese MA have been influenced by Korean MA as well. In the end...you should look at your styles history as a veracity test of your instructor. Does he say oh so and so created the style in 1962 from watching various other styles and training with so and so in this style (has to be a verifiable modern style) and created our style? Or does he say they got it from a 3000th generation monk who prayed to the ki gods for the perfect art. Otherwise just go in and leanr your techniques and forget about the history...it's pretty much pointless anyway. You won't defend yourself from a mugger by saying..Ah my martial art was created in the Silla Dynast...ack, arg .

[Aodhan]

I've got a fairly nice essay stored somewhere around here, I'll see if I can dig it up. It's (mostly) correct, although with anything, there is room for debate.

Aodhan

[Sam]

tufrthanu point is a very good one to heed... a lot of them refer to ancient "foot fighting" and millenia old Taek Kyong..... It does exist... it just didnt backthen.....

[Aodhan]

Ok, heres the link to the article:

https://www.copperdragon.org/tkdhist.htm

It's a good read, and gives a lot of excellent references in the bibliography.

Aodhan

[Sam]

yeah it is a good read.... probably one of the better ones around. very well written... and covers most of the details without going into specifics that arent founded by fact..... thanks for that.

[Aodhan]

yeah it is a good read.... probably one of the better ones around. very well written... and covers most of the details without going into specifics that arent founded by fact..... thanks for that.

Yeah, it was published in one of the better journals (It's listed, don't remember which one.) I was lucky enough to be pointed to it by a newsgroup that has sadly fallen into disrepute and troll infested.

Aodhan