Tang soo do and Shotokan

[OneKickWonder]

Studying Funakoshi's book, karate do kyohan, it is almost the same book as my tang soo do counterpart.

The main difference I see though is in approach to self defence scenarios. In particular one step sparring. There is see a fundamental difference.

At this point, perhaps I should mention I also trained aikido for a while, and tai chi in its combat aspect (kung fu).

Funakoshi describes various defences against various types of attack. The general idea with most of his defences seems to be to surprise the attacker by moving in the opposite direction to where instinct would normally drive you, it turning into the attack or towards the attacker rather than trying to move away. So far the two styles largely still match, but the Funakoshi describes very simplistic strikes to vital points, whereas tang soo do often favours aikido style joint manipulation and takedown techniques.

I think neither is wrong. They're just different possible solutions to the same challenges. I suspect that if done well, the tang soo do approach has the scope to be more effective, especially against a stronger attacker. But Funakoshi seemed to want to keep it simple and do things that are not too far removed from natural instinct. That carries the advantage of course that it's more likely to work under pressure and in blind panic than trying to establish an effective joint lock.

Aikido is, in my opinion, extremely effective at joint manipulation, diversion of force etc. But sadly lacks the effectiveness of hard striking, which I think are essential as a distraction if nothing else. I think tang soo do tries to effectively combine both strengths, but sometimes fails due to trying to teach too much in too little time. In aikido, you will spend many hours practicing one lock, but there's no striking. In karate I think lots of time goes into developing excellent striking techniques. Tang soo do tries to cover everything, but I wonder if in doing so, it spreads itself a bit thin perhaps.

This is why I'm thinking of doing some time with shotokan. I've had karate experience (wado ryu) but not shotokan. I've trained for a while in aikido and kung fu. But I've never had so much as a single class in the style that I think is the single biggest influence on my current style.

[bushido_man96]

Your Tang Soo Do is likely practicing what is closer to Hapkido joint locking techniques than Aikido. If you are looking to really focus on striking and kicking techniques, then the Shotokan class will probably offer plenty of what you want, along with some different perspectives on the same forms, which could make for some interesting comparisons. It would be a great study, for sure, comparing the two.

What lineage does your Tang Soo Do follow from?

[OneKickWonder]

What lineage does your Tang Soo Do follow from?

I'm a member of the WTSDA so the late GM JC Shin, who was a student of GM Hwang Kee.

[bushido_man96]

What lineage does your Tang Soo Do follow from?

I'm a member of the WTSDA so the late GM JC Shin, who was a student of GM Hwang Kee.

Very nice.

[MatsuShinshii]

Yeah, I wouldn't call it cross training... If the techniques are executed similarly, I'd call it more practice. But if there's enough of a distinction between the two styles, they might be off just enough to cause confusion.

If I wanted to branch out where I live, my only other choice is Uechi Ryu Karate. I think that might be different enough from my school to not be too confusing... But I do not have the time nor the money to be doing that now.

Uechi ryu, huh, you mustn't like your big toes anymore!!

We use the exact same kick although executed slightly differently. We call the technique Tsumasaki and Uechi practitioners call it Sokusen.

With all things conditioning and practice are key.

[Prototype]

Tang Soo Do has a bit more chinese martial arts, including a couple of forms. Other than that it's Korean Shotokan.

[JazzKicker]

I first got involved with World Tang Soo Do back in the mid 80's, after 3 years and a brown belt in Shito-Ryu (which is also pretty close to Shotokan). The forms were practically the same, kicking was the big difference. That, and TSD was less rigid and linear in movement.

I was at a college club, and the local Shotokan club was much different in terms of training, more traditional Japanese in structure.

At the time I didn't give much thought to the origins or commonality. GM Shin and their black belt manual barely acknowledged Hwang Kee, let alone Shotokan. The book said Tang Soo Do was a 2000 year old Korean martial art!

I understand late in life Hwang Kee finally admitted he'd taken the forms from Funakoshi's book.

[OneKickWonder]

I first got involved with World Tang Soo Do back in the mid 80's, after 3 years and a brown belt in Shito-Ryu (which is also pretty close to Shotokan). The forms were practically the same, kicking was the big difference. That, and TSD was less rigid and linear in movement.

I was at a college club, and the local Shotokan club was much different in terms of training, more traditional Japanese in structure.

At the time I didn't give much thought to the origins or commonality. GM Shin and their black belt manual barely acknowledged Hwang Kee, let alone Shotokan. The book said Tang Soo Do was a 2000 year old Korean martial art!

I understand late in life Hwang Kee finally admitted he'd taken the forms from Funakoshi's book.

The old 2000 year old line is often misquoted or misunderstood I think.

The manual says that martial arts evolved in every part of the world, and that tang soo do is the culmination of 2000 years of tradition. But I've never read a claim that 'tang soo do' is any older than 1950ish.

In fact, GM Shin didn't even call his style tang soo do initially. He called his school 'Shin Karate'.

Hwang Kee, one of Shin's instructors, and apparent founder of tang soo do as we know it today, has a questionable record. It looks like he had only 3 years tuition in kung fu, and learned the rest from books. Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows for sure. But things have moved on. Tang soo do now is a credible style. Somewhere along the line, someone seemed to have got something right.

[JazzKicker]

I'd have to refer to my old manual on the shelf at home for the specifics, but it (and Shin's later book) played up the 3 kingdoms, Hwa Rang, etc. but glossed over the 50's, other than there were multiple styles who's masters agreed to combine into Tae Kwon Do, while Hwang Kee wanted to stay traditional and independent.

The chartering of WTSDA was just before my time, but Shin's original organization was the US Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation. Yes, his school was called Shin Karate, but the style was indeed called Tang Soo Do. I think the original one in Burlington is still run by In K. Yu. The later one, in Trenton, moved long ago and is run by one of the senior masters, John Godwin. I trained with many of the Trenton area masters. Early on he had several Korean masters, too, but they all left and formed their own organizations.

[OneKickWonder]

I'd have to refer to my old manual on the shelf at home for the specifics, but it (and Shin's later book) played up the 3 kingdoms, Hwa Rang, etc. but glossed over the 50's, other than there were multiple styles who's masters agreed to combine into Tae Kwon Do, while Hwang Kee wanted to stay traditional and independent.

The chartering of WTSDA was just before my time, but Shin's original organization was the US Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan Federation. Yes, his school was called Shin Karate, but the style was indeed called Tang Soo Do. I think the original one in Burlington is still run by In K. Yu. The later one, in Trenton, moved long ago and is run by one of the senior masters, John Godwin. I trained with many of the Trenton area masters. Early on he had several Korean masters, too, but they all left and formed their own organizations.

There is indeed a lot of dubious stuff in his books. But the three kingdoms stuff is probably relevant, in that he's trying to explain that Korea has a long history of martial arts, as it had to because of feuding.

I think the point of it is that, given the recent politics, Korea was seen as insignificant by many in martial arts. There is a widespread notion that if it's not Chinese or Japanese, it's not traditional martial arts. But the point so often missed is that Korea has a long history of internal conflict, and more recent history of Japan trying and almost succeeding in eradicating all traces of Korean heritage during the occupation. Given Korea's history, and it's proximity to China and Japan, I think it's inconceivable that the Koreans didn't develop a good set of fighting skills. I think this may be Shin's motive in bigging up the Korean stuff, and who can blame him?

Besides all that, the man was a martial artist, not really so much a writer or historian.