hi, i was just wondering: what is the difference between Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan, and Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan? I heard they were pretty much the same except TSD has a yellow belt between the white and the orange belts and soo bahk do doesnt, am i correct? im not really sure. any guidance would be great, thanks.
There's alot to be said about the origin's of this national art, this is what I have been told by my master, first told to me when I started my training at age five. In the time of the Yi Dynasty the Moo yei do bo tong ji (National MA manual) was published. Soo Bahk Do (Way of hand fighting, etc.) became widely used. In 1945 Korea was liberated from Japanese rule and the Moo Duk Kwan and four other martial arts schools formed, later MDK and Chi Do Kwan formed a Korean Soo Bahk Do association. Alot has been spoken of Tang Soo Do joining this association and then splintering off from it. Alot of the Korean arts are much the same, I cannot speak of the grading systems, but yes we do hold a yellow belt between white and orange.
Tang Soo Do and Soo Bahk Do are the same thing. Their was some posturing some years back between two of the organizations about who "owned" the name Tang Soo Do. Hwang Kee aquieseced and went back to Soo Bahk Do as a name. Heck you will see all sorts of names such as Tang Soo Do, Soo Bahk Do, Kang Soo Do, Tang Sau Do, etc. these are all derived from Hwang Kee's Moo Duk Kwan school. The only difference really is who owns the organization.
Yes "Soo Bahk Do" just means "hand and foot techniques" which were used long before hyungs were put together by various tutors, starting with Mr. Idos. After the WWII Japanese occupation of Korea ended a collection of SBD practitioners formed schools of Okinawan, Chinese, Traditional Korean fighting arts and tried to woo the USA troops and their money to their styles as a source of income, hence the bickering and constant fragmenting of schools that goes on to this day over who runs what and started this and that. It is a very Oriental thing about saving face and hereditory ownership. Just because a person may have trained from a direct lineage of a founder does not automatically make them the best person to pass on that knowledge or even understand the hidden knowledge of the hyungs and fighting arts. What works and does not work depends on the scenario and the skill level of application, remember an ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory!! Peace and Harmony.
Tang Soo Do and Soo Bahk Do were the same, not anymore, Soo Bahk Do under GM Hwang Kee and now his son GM H.C. Hwang has moved in a different direction from Tang Soo Do, with Soo Bahk Do now reworking what hyung they do, they will be fazing out the Pyon Ahns and other traditional Tang Soo Do Hyung and putting more emphisis on the Chil Sun and Yuk Rho Hyungs. While some Tang Soo Do schools do incorporate the Chil Sun and Yuk Rho Hyung in their sylibus many do not, it seems to do with how long ago the org. broke away from the MDK. The dropping of Tang Soo Do from the old Tang Soo Do/Soo Bahk Do MDK monicer may also be a way of distancing the MDK from the break away TSD orgs. and becoming a separate entity from the Japanese/okinawan based TSD and moving towards more Soo Bahk, Muyebu Tongji , Korean oriented system based on GM Hwang Kees studies of the Muyebu Tongji. b
Hi TSR, I remember when the UKITSDF under Kang.Uk.Lee. split from Kee Hwang, KU having a Dan Bon No:70 so a very high ranking Instructor and I believe a personal friend of KH. The split was over matters best explained by the UKITSDF, the transition for us here in the UK was not too dificult as some of us had never met KH or his son. The break away organisation still continued with the Chil-Sung Hyungs for a few years, and found a lot of students unable to grasp the tai chi like method so dropped them in favour of the simpler more Okinawan Pyung-Ahn hyungs, and slipped in the chil sung hyungs strategically when students climbed higher up the ranks. We in our set up still include up to chilsung Ohro amongst the many Hyung we practice. We find Chil-Sung Hyungs practiced in the manner of Tai Chi most beneficial, that does not detract from their devestating combat effectiveness. They are actually very effective in combat scenarios, well worth the practice. Remember the Chil-sung Hyungs are claimed to b the brainchild of Kee. Hwang. Peace and Harmony. BRITON
Translation of "Soo Bahk Do" We've been talking about the difference between Soo Bahk Do and Tang Soo Do in the "Moo Duk Kwan" thread, and recommend everyone to read that thread through. As far as BRITON's translation of "Soo Bahk Do," it actually means the "Way of the Striking Hand" in ancient Korean. (In modern Hangungmal, the word for hand is "Sohn." Yours is a more accurate description of Tae (Foot) Kwon (Fist) Do (Way). As far as the article that was posted from the UK Tang Soo Do... whoa. I find a lot of inconsistencies in that history...
Part of it is from GM Hwang Kee's Volume 1, other parts are not, so yea there's some inconsistencies. Picking out what I can: GM Hwang Kee studied Tae Kyun by watching a Tae Kyun master in secret. He learned Chuan Fa in China from Master Yang, Kuk Jin. The karate forms were learned from a book. I don't think he even was aware of the term "Soo Bahk Ki" until he read the Muye Dobo Dong Ji. On the contrary, most of the leaders of the kwans that emerged in the mid to late 1940s in Korea were former students of Shotokan Karate schools. GM Hwang Kee got the Pyung Ahns from a book so of course there was influence. Just look at TaeGeuks and compare them to old Karate forms - same moves just in a different order.
post by me:-Yes "Soo Bahk Do" just means "hand and foot techniques" which were used long before hyungs were put together by various tutors, starting with Mr. Idos. unquote You are quite right the "Soo Bhak Do" is refererred to as the ancient name for all open hand fighting arts in a generic sense. My translation got lost in generalisation, my apologese to all, I will certainly think more before typing. As far as the UKITSDF line on the history of TSD, I have learnt over the many years history written by owners of any said history always put in what makes them look important and leave out what may seem detrimental, that goes for all major organisations, take religious organisations as an example.
I won't argue that history is skewed, and I was simply surprised at the inconsistencies in the history I saw. As for the translation of "Soo Bahk Do," I have to come back to this, because you simply need to examine the Hanja (Chinese characters). I've shown these characters to many Chinese, and all those who can read the traditional have told me... "That one means 'Hand,' that one means 'Hitting/Striking', and that means 'path or way, but in the philosophical sense.'" I can only assume your interpretation of Soo Bahk Do may have come directly from the Soo Bahk Do Dae Kham Volume One, where the founder speaks of a "Soo Bahk Do" as those methods employed by our prehistoric ancestors to keep them safe from their environments. This was stated for the sake of arguing that it is natural and proper for people to learn the ways of open handed (or bare footed) defense, because such a necessity has been around since the Age of Instinctive Action. It is also natural and proper to learn Soo Bahk Do, because at any given moment, the most reliable weapons, or perhaps your only available weapons are your hands and feet. It's only an assumption where you got your understanding from, but if this isn't the case, I'd be curious to know where it came from.
Yes it was sourced from that tome and had little else to say on the matter. That is why I shy away now from historical retoric and prefer the Ju Jitsu attitude of adaptability to the present and do not particularly care who claims did this and that, the fact that it exists and youve discovered it is enough to inspire rather than dogmatise. The one expression I do like from that 1st volume is "Ryu Pa" I have had this explained to me as "water flows down divided" wether that translation is correct or not matters little to me, its` the sentiment of the interpretation I like and allows me to accept other viewpoints and behaviours from others as natural to them at that moment, [until it is not] and is not neccessarily my own.
