[Tang Soo Do] Question on Moo Duk Kwan/Soo Bahk Do Tang Soo Do

I know that Tang Soo Do is widely known as a "Koreanized" version of Japanese Karate-Do. Could someone tell me if Yang style Tai Chi and Northern & Southern Kung Fu moves are still notice able in Moo Duk Kwan?

 

There's actually a similar thread on warrior scholar.

The Chinese influences are argued to come out in the Yuk Ro and Chil Sung forms, which are the founder's interpretations of the Muye Dobo Dong Ji (Korea's oldest surviving book about martial arts). Since Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan comes from offshoots of the original Moo Duk Kwan, some TSD MDK schools have opted to keep these forms, others have not. Furthermore, how much Kung Fu influence is used in TSD MDK also varies from association to association.

I can tell you that in the original Moo Duk Kwan, the founder's, we practice those forms and have alot of circular philosophies in sparring and other parts of training, but however, there is nothing that we specifically label as "Tai Chi technique" or "kung fu technique." So I guess my answer is maybe, I don't really know. At one point in time the Yang 108 form and Long Fist used to be part of the MDK's curriculum, but it has long since phased out of many, many schools.

 

Ive studied a bit of Taiji(about a year) and I know the first two Chil Sung forms. Some of the moves from Chil Sung Il Ro can be found in the Sun and Yang style forms I learned at Taiji(cant remember the form names). I dont come from a MDK school(WTSDA) so I cant really comment more on that. The highest form in my association is supposedly a Shaolin form but no one knows it and there is much debate among TSD folks about this forms origins.

 

In Grand Master K U Lee's book it says a short paragraph on each set of forms about their origin. I will sum each up.

Kee Cho-Basic forms for begginers

Pyung Ahn-130 yrs old, symbolises the turtle.

Ba Sa Hee-450 yrs old, practiced by the shaolin monks at So Lim Sa temple in China. Symbolises the Cobra.

Chil Sung-Devised by Hwang Kee in the late eighties.

Naihanji-950 yrs old during the Song dynasty by the founder of Kang Woo Ryu, symbolises the horse.

Ship Soo/Jit Dae-Originates from the Ha Book region of China. Characterised by its slow dignified movements. Symbolises the bear.

Jin Do-300 yrs old, from the Ha Nam region of China, belonging to the So Lim school. Symbolises the Crane.

Kong San Goon-Devised by Ggung and Ssang Gween from the Ha Nam region. Symbolises the eagle.

Ro Hai-From the So lim school.

 

A visiting JJJ instructor came to watch our weapons work. One comment was that our Jang Bong forms were a lot more rounded and flowing than the Japanese staff training that he had been involved with. He suggested that it was the Chinese influence.

My instructor teaches Tai Chi as well, so the concepts and the ideas are always creeping in - but I don't know if that is TSD generally or just HIS skill-set.

 

These descriptions are so innaccurate, it's painful.

Kang Uk Lee was merely parrotting the propoganda that was spewed for so many years.

A simple study of Okinawan Shorin styles contradicts all of these descriptions, with the exception of the Chilsung hyung, which were created by Hwang Kee.

It is these forms that will exhibit the greatest CMA influence.

 

How so? From what i understand Okinawan Karate was created through chinese influence so perhaps the also use the same forms.

 

But they dont.

That's the whole thing.

That information is completely inaccurate.

Some Goju-ryu forms have been traced to Five Ancestor Fist. None of the Shorin-ryu forms listed above have been located in any CMA tradition.

 

Forgive me if i dont buy into this without any evidence given.

 

You want me to feed it to you?

OK.

Fine.

Give me a minute.

Or you could just do the research yourself and find the same things.

 

I have to agree with Madmonk here, I went through the same process of finding out the official form history is not true.

 

OK, cross-referencing Kang Uk Lee's book with Mark Bishop's second edition "Okinawan Karate".

Let me preface that while Lee's book is a picture book demonstrating the hyung, Bishop's is a historical scholarly work researching several different systems of Okinawan karate. I recommend it to any practitioner of Korean Karate.

基初形/기초형/Kicho Hyung While these were created by Hwang Kee, they are almost move for move the same as Funakoshi's Taikyoku Kata.

平安形/평안형/Pyungan Hyung Created by Itosu, by dividing an unknown kata called Channan. Lee's description is fairly accurate, though the Turtle symbology is completely off base, and is the result of later MDK mythology.

拔砦/발채/Balchae Incorrectly referred to by Lee as "Ba Sa Hee". The earliest record of this kata, Passai, is that it was taught by Kokan Oyadomari. It is known Oyadomari learned techniques from Chinese living in Tomari, however, there is no indication that he learned this kata from them. It may be his own creation. There is no evidence supporting that it was ever practiced by monks at the southern Shaolin temple as indicated by Lee. Also, the Cobra symbolism is totally absent in Okinawan teaching.

內步進/내보진/Naebojin Incorrectly pronounced by Lee as Naihanji, which would be closer to the Okinawan pronounciation. Lee states that is is 950 years old, created during the Song Dynasty by the founder of the Kang Woo Ryu...I have no clue what the Kang Woo Ryu is, and likely wouldn't be able to tell you much unless you supplied me with Chinese characters.

First off, when we speak of this form in it's historical context, we are only speaking of the first part. Part 2 and 3 were created later.

The earliest record we have of it being practiced is by Sokon Matsumura, who was born in 1796. Do the math. Matsumura frequently traveled to China, so it is possible he learned the form there, or from one of the Chinese on Okinawa. More likely, he created it from his own practice.

Itosu, who created the Pyungan Hyung, also created the second and third parts of this hyung.

Oh...and the Horse Thing?

Doesn't have a damn thing to do with the form.

The closest you can get to that is that Funakoshi changed the name from Naebojin (which means Internal Stepping and Entering) to Tekki, which means Iron Horse, in reference to the posture.

Do you want me to continue?

 

There was no claim to chinese heritige with the basic forms, just a simple way to practice the first techniques.

You dont seem to be contesting this one so i will move on, although I dont know how or why you are dismissing the turtle symbolism. How do you know!? presumably because the book you read doesnt mention it.

Again i dont see how this shows that the form isnt chinese?! you said it yourself, he learned the techniques from chinese, there may be no indication that he learnt it in kata/hyung but you fail to provide any indication of otherwise.

GM Lee's book states that Kang Woo Ryu is a school of martial arts. Thats all i know im afraid.

Okay, so plenty of evidence to suggest it is of Chinese origin...

...not sure how you came to that conclusion.

Just because it isnt in the Okinawan interpretation of the forms it doesnt mean it wasnt in the source. Perhaps the Okinawans ignored or took out the animal referances.

I am still failing to see any evidence to contest GM Lee and the Moo Duk Kwan.

I am open minded and i am not blindly defending my instructor, i honestly am very interested in what you have to say, but your evidence so far is not enough to make me change my mind.

I hope this debate stays friendly

 

How do I know?

Not only does the book not mention them, there is no mention of them in any other teaching tradition of these forms, be it Okinawan, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese. The first record of it that I recall was in the 수박도대감, the Soobakdo Daegam.

You're misunderstanding here.

I am not saying that the form is not Chinese, or that in was not at least Chinese influenced.

What I am saying is that the attributions in Kang Uk Lee's book that they can be traced to Shaolin or Kang Woo Ryu, whatever that may be, are completely without base.

Research the history of these forms. Read Patrick McCarthy. Read Iain Abernethy. Read Harry Cook. Read Funakoshi, Nagamine, and Motobu.

There is no historical base for Lee to be making the claims he does, especially for Naihanji's 950 year old history.

If he has some source that has escaped some of the most noted scholars of Okinawan karate, I would be extremely impressed.

The claims in his book are not supported by any scholarship. The burden of proof is on him.

Chinese styles do not use the term Ryu to denote a school or system.

Again, I'm not debating a Chinese origination for Shorin-ryu forms. What I am saying as that the detailed claims and dates found in Lee's book are not backed up by scholarship.

Because that's often what the Okinawans would do. They would study under a Chinese fighter, and then create their own kata based on what they had learned. See: Iain Abernethy

You're reaching here. The animal references aren't found anywhere else.

Please. One; the modern Moodukkwan has retracted many of its older statements, including at one point that all the forms were Korean in origin. The modern Moodukkwan manuals differ greatly from the original Kyobun.

I'm not a nice person.

 

At least we're agreed on something


Just kidding. I appreciate your time to debate. Hmmm, i am out of my depth to be honest as i dont know the history of Okinawan Karate in any detail at all. I will certainly look into it though, maybe i will speak to some of the senior students at my class and see what they know. Unfortunatly i daren't question GM lee about it through fear of being made to do a billion push ups by the senior BB's, it is very traditional and i dont want to offend. Please add to the debate if you have any more relevent info.

 

I presume then that you have evidence for the content of post #4.

 

No we're not. :Angel:

No problem. Any time.

Don't worry. You in good company. Not many do.

It's all about the way you ask the questions.

If you are genuinely openly interested in something, then you should be cool.

If you go at them confrontationally, you might have problems.

 

Tang Soo Do came from Moo Duk Kwan....so it must have similar movements..

 

Dangsoodo did not come from Moodukkwan.

 

Curiously, I just finished reading a book entitled "Shotokan's Secret". It not lays out the actually history of all Tang Soo Do's original forms, but goes much deeper into the history of why Karate was created (and for what purpose), and why asians never talked about the true history of Karate (and Tang Soo Do). There is an aspect of Oriental behavior which westerners have no precedence on how to behave. It involves the "Offical story" told by all people, and the "real story" which they all know, but never say, usually due to nationalism and the need to fit in. Read the book, It will answer all those little nagging questions about the often challenged history of TSD (and Japanese Karate, as well!). Lots of mis-information out there. As much as I enjoy Kang Uk Lee and Ho Sik Pak, they truly are just saying what theyve been told.