Taekwondo's Shotokan connection.

[bushido_man96]

Stricly speaking Subak isn't exactly the same as Tae Kyon. From what I understand, Subak was a parent style that split into a Tae Kyon kicking element and a Yoo Sul Juijitsu style. So there could be some truth in Choi's words. The Hwarang were supposed to have employed Subak as their method of unarmed fighting.

That makes a bit more sense. What is the source for your information concerning this, DWx?

Maybe some Korean styles were exported. Particularly during the days of the Three Kingdoms and after the unification Korea was pretty powerful. And each of the Three Kingdoms themselves had allies in China and Japan. For example, I think it was the Silla dynasty that was allied to the Chinese Tang dynasty.

My main concern is where the proof is. When you look into the Chinese and Japanese styles, you can see evidence of when such things would have taken place. Within TKD, it doesn't seem to come to the forefront as much.

[bushido_man96]

One thing when reading anything written in TKD early days is that they were very anti-Japan / pro-Korea so Choi probably exaggerated the influence of certain factors such as the Korean side of the history compared the Japanese influence.

I understand this. And I can understand why the Koreans had done what they did in propogating TKD. However, with this knowledge in mind, I think it is necessary to look around this, and find out as much as we can that is authentic information about TKD.

[DWx]

Stricly speaking Subak isn't exactly the same as Tae Kyon. From what I understand, Subak was a parent style that split into a Tae Kyon kicking element and a Yoo Sul Juijitsu style. So there could be some truth in Choi's words. The Hwarang were supposed to have employed Subak as their method of unarmed fighting.

That makes a bit more sense. What is the source for your information concerning this, DWx?

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subak

TKDTutor: http://tkdtutor.com/02Taekwondo/TaekwondoHistory/05Kingdoms05.htm

Both of these have their own references on the bottom.

Maybe some Korean styles were exported. Particularly during the days of the Three Kingdoms and after the unification Korea was pretty powerful. And each of the Three Kingdoms themselves had allies in China and Japan. For example, I think it was the Silla dynasty that was allied to the Chinese Tang dynasty.

My main concern is where the proof is. When you look into the Chinese and Japanese styles, you can see evidence of when such things would have taken place. Within TKD, it doesn't seem to come to the forefront as much.

That could be a by-product of the political history of the country. When Japan tried to eradicate certain cultural aspects and Korea tried to revive/create others, the history got so screwed. The Kwan leaders and indeed the President at the time wanted the country to believe TKD was their own and not a by-product of some Japanese or Chinese system so anything which referred to origins aside from Korean was most likely kept quiet. Its one of the reasons they were so adament that TKD stemmed from Tae Kyon when a lot of it didn't. I don't think it really matters a great deal about the ancient orgins of TKD when looking at what TKD is today. IMO there is so little that comes from ancient Korean styles (and what did was exaggerated so much), IMO its better to look at what can be attributed to what happen from the 1950s onward.

One thing when reading anything written in TKD early days is that they were very anti-Japan / pro-Korea so Choi probably exaggerated the influence of certain factors such as the Korean side of the history compared the Japanese influence.

I understand this. And I can understand why the Koreans had done what they did in propogating TKD. However, with this knowledge in mind, I think it is necessary to look around this, and find out as much as we can that is authentic information about TKD.

That's the problem with history though. How can you know whether something is authentic history or authentic information? Probably a bit too philosophical for this topic, but if you've ever read something like 1984 by Orwell or Farenheit 451 by Bradbury, both authors touch upon the idea that history is what you make it. If the Koreans wanted to promote the idea of a purely Korean style, much of the information out there is likely to be infulenced by this. Any first hand accounts or writings from the time (such as the Encyclopedia) offer a biased representation of what actually happen. Modern attempts to delve into the real origins of TKD are going to be affected by this because where do you get your sources from if not the original documents and first hand accounts? 1950s Korea did not have the same transparency as we do today so even though Mr X may have learnt some Karate during his time in Japan, he could, if he wanted to, pretend it all came from Tae Kyon and that the Japanese influence was insignificant. I suppose you could try trace back lineages of individual persons but you have to either rely on their own information (which again may be affected by personal agendas) or by what others have been told or believe to be true. However sometimes the others will be misinformed. Your average ITF practitioner will claim that all TKD was born solely from the work of Gen. Choi which is true in the case of Oh Do Kwan TKD but not of TKD as a whole. Whereas on the other hand a lot of WTF practitioners will have never heard of Gen. Choi at all and will be convinced that TKD came directly from Tae Kyon. So how do you know what's right? You can go down the middle route which is generally accepted as being the truth but even then there are discrepencies. The thing with TKD history is it is so wrapped up in WII politics and Korea's national identity thereafter that IMO makes its history so hard to follow.

[bushido_man96]

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subak

TKDTutor: http://tkdtutor.com/02Taekwondo/TaekwondoHistory/05Kingdoms05.htm

Both of these have their own references on the bottom.

The Wikipedia information is sited by some TKD organizations, so I have to view the information with some skepticism. I didn't see the sources for TKDTutor.

I don't think it really matters a great deal about the ancient orgins of TKD when looking at what TKD is today. IMO there is so little that comes from ancient Korean styles (and what did was exaggerated so much), IMO its better to look at what can be attributed to what happen from the 1950s onward.

I agree. TKD has no ancient origins. Now, that isn't saying that ancient Korea didn't have its own indigenous fighting styles; I am sure they did, as would any other country and civilization that has gone to war. It is wrong to attempt to extrapolate an art that isn't even 100 years old from ancient Korea. That is why I am focusing my searches on the Kwans, as opposed to anything relating to Taek Kyon or Su Bak.

That's the problem with history though. How can you know whether something is authentic history or authentic information? Probably a bit too philosophical for this topic, but if you've ever read something like 1984 by Orwell or Farenheit 451 by Bradbury, both authors touch upon the idea that history is what you make it. If the Koreans wanted to promote the idea of a purely Korean style, much of the information out there is likely to be infulenced by this. Any first hand accounts or writings from the time (such as the Encyclopedia) offer a biased representation of what actually happen. Modern attempts to delve into the real origins of TKD are going to be affected by this because where do you get your sources from if not the original documents and first hand accounts? 1950s Korea did not have the same transparency as we do today so even though Mr X may have learnt some Karate during his time in Japan, he could, if he wanted to, pretend it all came from Tae Kyon and that the Japanese influence was insignificant. I suppose you could try trace back lineages of individual persons but you have to either rely on their own information (which again may be affected by personal agendas) or by what others have been told or believe to be true. However sometimes the others will be misinformed. Your average ITF practitioner will claim that all TKD was born solely from the work of Gen. Choi which is true in the case of Oh Do Kwan TKD but not of TKD as a whole. Whereas on the other hand a lot of WTF practitioners will have never heard of Gen. Choi at all and will be convinced that TKD came directly from Tae Kyon. So how do you know what's right? You can go down the middle route which is generally accepted as being the truth but even then there are discrepencies. The thing with TKD history is it is so wrapped up in WII politics and Korea's national identity thereafter that IMO makes its history so hard to follow.

So is there any point in studying any history, then? Of course there is, because eventually, enough proof can probably work its way forward, and we can see the differences. This is happening in some spots with the studies that have been done with TKD. Hopefully, it continues to happen.

I wonder, if the ITF and WTF merge, if anything relating to this will change? You have mentioned the differences in history between the WTF and the ITF, so I wonder.....

[unknownstyle]

well if you say that it has ties to shotokan thrn you also must acknowledge shorinryu which was funakoshis based style, then you must acknowlegde kempo cung fu because it played alot into the devolopment of shorin ryu. all systems i believe cxame from the same place, they are all just inturpratations of what fighting is

[bushido_man96]

You could say that, I guess. However, there comes a point when one systems ideals overshadow those of another, older system. We don't have a copy of a copy here. I'd say TKD is closer to Shotokan than Shorin Ryu.

[unknownstyle]

i would say the same, the blocking methods and stances are very much alike in shotokan and tkd, niether of which really look like that of a shorinryu stylist. but the kata of shotokan is the same as the kata of shorinryu just with different names and slight variations to meet the stances and concept portrayed in shotokan

[bushido_man96]

Ah, I see. In the ITF style of TKD, the forms have some similarities to some Shotokan forms, but are different still. So, there is even more evolution.