Youll find all the forms from TSD apart from the chil sung/yuk ro sets in various styles of Karate. Tsd most resembles(imho) styles like Shotokan and Wado.
Shotokan looks very differant to me. I have never seen Wado-ryu but from what i understand it doesnt have much in common with Shotokan. So i dont really know how it can be like both. In which aspect do you mean they are similar? The method of training is similar i suppose maybe with just differant emphasis on differant aspects like sparring, techniques, 1 step etc. But i wouldnt say the style of fighting is the same, like said, Shotokan has a very deep low stance, whereas TSD fight using a backstance, to manouver easily and avoid the front foot being sweeped.
They are similar in that we use the same forms and basics, like you said training methods are pretty much the same. Your right that we fight differently, ive sparred a few Shotokan guys and they usually prefer to use thier hands. There are lots of differences but many similarities. I think TSD has more in common with the Japanese Karate styles as opposed to the Okinawan. I mentioned Shotokan and Wado becuase they both use the same forms as us. Although I believe Wado Ryu was created by one of Funakoshis students so they should be similar. I would say TSD and Karate are different interpratations of the same material. Of course you will find many similarities to Kung fu, ive studied a bit of Tiaji and Bagua and could see similarities but they are not as apparant as in Karate.
Actually, to clarify, at the time of the opening of the Moo Duk Kwan, the Korean public actually didn't like it because it wasn't Japanese enough. After 36 years of occupation, the Koreans had been assimilated into Japanese culture so much already. All they knew for 36 years was Karate, Judo, and Kendo, so that when GM Hwang Kee opened his school, it wasn't very popular. This was the reasoning behind using the Okinawan karate forms, as well as borrowing the term "Tang Soo Do" from his friend Won Kuk Lee. The original name that GM Hwang Kee used for his art was "Hwa Soo Do", which wasn't very Japanese at the time (most schools were using "Tang Soo Do" or "Kong Soo Do") and so it didn't fly with the public. After the Korean government was done attempting to reestablish the Korean identity, the newer generations of Koreans are more hostile to anything Japanese, even more than the older generation, hence the recent shifts in history to adopt either a more Chinese version of history or a more ancient Korean version of history. Also his claims about his studying a Tae Kyon master from a distance are highly debatable. Also there are debates about whether he trained at the Chung Do Kwan for some time. This discussion boiled down to the subject of "what do you consider origin." I believe that origin of martial arts styles is based on a direct link, teacher to student, that can be traced as a family lineage. I also believe that this origin is defined by the point where the art first came into existence. Therefore, I really don't believe the 2000 year old history of TSD, or any mainstream modern Korean martial art. Before November 1945, TSD MDK did not exist. Afterwards, it did exist. Plus you can only trace back any MDK practitioner as far as GM Hwang Kee. On the flip side, there are some (those who I debated with on this thread) who believe that "origin" should be extended to include "roots." Although there is no direct link between Tae Kyun, ancient Subak and TSD, the roots and similarities exist. The problem with this definition is well then at what point do you stop tracing roots and defining origin? As some members already quipped, martial arts spread from China to Okinawan/Japan to Korea, so is TSD Chinese? But then martial arts spread from India to China, so is it now Indian?? Therein lies the paradox, but I can understand where this argument comes from. I believe it may hold some credence, but not as much as the definition of origin that I adhere to.
I'm curious, what exactly did they tell you was "Soo Bahk"? Because Founder GM Hwang Kee never learned any ancient subak system. Plus the kung fu he studied under Yang Kuk Jin was Northern Chuan Fa (which I suppose could have some elements of Southern Kung fu, but to give TSD 10%??)... Well the execution of technique will ALWAYS be different between TSD and Karate - you could take two different TSD schools and execution will be different and each school will have its own idiosyncracies. Look at it from a little broader focus - the similarities between TSD/Korean MA and Japanese/Okinawan Karate: 1.) Basic stances: Front stance, back stance, horse stance - every Karate and every Korean MA has these. 2.) Down blocks in front stance, high rising blocks, middle blocks, knife hand blocking, chambered punching, spear hands - the practice of these techniques going up and down a room in lines assembled by ranking 3.) Traditions like putting flags up in front of a room, joonbee stances, doboks that are actually gis, using a general 10 rank belt system (thx to Jigoro Kano) 4.) Forms (the biggie) - Pyung Ahn hyung was invented by Anko Itosu (Okinawan Karate master) in the early 1900s (also known as Heian in Japanese, Pinan in Okinawan). Bassai, Jinto, Kusanku, Rohai - all the way up to Sip Soo and Suparinpei - all are Okinawan Karate kata. Kyokushin, Shotokan, Shuri-Te, and many other styles practice some or all of these. 5.) One steps, self defense (hosinsul or bunkai or whatever they call it) are similarly done. No other countries share as much homology as Japan/Okinawa and Korea. China, Thailand, Indonesia, Russia, Western arts - they are all drastically different in basic technique, prearranged patterns, and general practice ettiquette/culture. Of course, each separate Karate style, TSD association, all the way down to individual schools, will all do these things their own special little way. But the fact of the matter is that they ALL do these things regardless. The link between Japan/Okinawan arts and Korean arts is much, much stronger and more evident than any other linkages. Korea and China, yeah there is some influence, look at Chil Sungs and Yuk Ros, there are internal techniques. Modern Korea and ancient (ie three kingdoms) Korea, about the only thing there is just higher kicking (from looking at TaeKyun, pretty much the only accessible form of Korean MA that can truly claim direct lineage to ancient Korea).
Here is the site of my club/federation. http://www.uktsdf.org.uk/techniques/forms.htm Here it says where the forms have derrived from. There is no mention of Japanese influence at all. They are all said to be either directly from Hwang Kee or from China. I'm confused.
Dont worry about being confused, its normal when learning TSD history. There is no mention of Japanese influence on your website purely because of Korean national pride(see dc combatives post earlyer). Your site has the "official" history that most tsd orgs will tell you is true. You cant blame the Koreans for not recognising Japanese influence considering the history between them. Unlikely but they would probably move through the ranks quite fast. They would have to learn to move differently ie hip movement on blocks are different but theyd know all the katas. Eternalrage, the Soo bahk in the orgs name refers to Soo Bahk Do as opposed to Subak. The org teaches pretty much the same curriculum as the MDK i believe. seanyseanybean, you are very lucky training with Grand Master Kang Uk Lee. I have heard he is the worlds most senior(dan number wise) TSD instructor.
I just watched some clips of Karate Katas and most were the same and some were slightly differant. They are even pronounced the same Pyung Ahn/Pinan. So what is the point in TSD hyungs? because we are not learning Karate, so why do we learn Karate forms?
It was mainly because they were allready popular in Korea when GM Hwang started teaching. His original style(hwa soo do) used chinese forms. If you look at the ITF TKD forms you will see a resemblence to ours/karates, they seem to have the same moves but in a different order. Remember Tang Soo Do is the Korean pronounciation for Okinawan Karate(China Hand Way), Kong Soo do being the korean for empty hand way. Some TSD orgs practice TSD only forms. The Chil Sung and Yuk Ro sets are usually practiced by the Moo Duk Kwan and orgs that have Moo Duk Kwan or Soo Bahk Do in their names. I believe the Moo Duk Kwan plan to phase out the Pyung Ahns etc in favour of the Chil Sungs.
I didn't know Tang Soo Do has Suparinpei. Has it always had it or is it a recent addition of some school? It would be historically very interesting if it has been there from the start with the other imported forms.
seanybean, as much as the Koreans refuse to admit it, when doing TSD, you are pretty much doing karate. The difference lies in the focus and underpinings of the different styles as reflected by the culture and attitudes of the individual masters that gave us the art. Remember, these arts are similar enough that in the 60's and 70's, all the way up to the early 90's, many TSD schools advertised themselves as "Korean Karate". CS Kim still calls many of his schools "Kim's Karate". Granted, that was done as much to give the public a name they recognized as opposed to a Korean term they'd never heard before, but I think it says something that Koreans in America would use the word to get their point across in advertising. Really, I have to tell you guys that I'm amazed at the level of ignorance surrounding the creation of TSD, and many of the other arts. Some people take that "blind faith in the master" thing a little too far, especially when the story ignores the undisputed history of a nation. This bickering about the birth of TSD is almost as funny as the infighting that used to go on in Issinryu about which techniques were the "real" techniques of Shimibuka. And it all goes back to the night Shimibuka in a drunken stupor decided to promote three American Marines to high level blackbelts. Those guys came back to the states and their branches have been fighting ever since. The best part is that particular incident is still a running joke among the Okinawan masters. Look, it's real simple: TSD has very close Okinawan roots, roots Hwang Kee could not acknowledge because of the history between Japan and Korea. TSD differs from most Karate styles as a result of the culture it stems from, ie the emphasis on kicking as well as certain other outside influences on the founder. GM Kee never took the MDK into TKD when the South Korean gov't wanted to unify the Kwans into one national art, making him a sort of a martial arts outcast in Korea at the time. He stuck to his guns, built a world-class organization, and promptly went politcal on his own people which has given us the fractured state of TSD governing bodies today. The question is: what do we need to know from this? I would submit we need to recognize that Hwang Kee developed a distinct style of martial art called TSD. It has various influences, from China, Korea, and Okinawa, to include similarity in technique, practice, and forms known commonly as "karate". Last, we need to understand that saving face is much more important than telling the truth, and that many of the "official" histories of TSD's origin are, just as many other art's history's are, fabrications and half-truths at best and should be taken with a grain of salt. Now that that's settled, anyone want to talk about how we got the Bible?
It just concerns me for 2 reasons. 1. How can i put faith/effort/money into a system which is founded on "lies." I have been doing TSD for just over a year now and i am wondering if the history is fake, then maybe other aspects are fake? BTW, i really enjoy TSD and i feel i have benefitted alot from studying it. 2. Karate, as a whole, is generally not considered an effective style. Therefore does that mean TSD isnt effective?
First of all, just about every martial art has a history that is part fact and part fiction. Wing Chun claims to have been developed by a nun for example, yet we know that's not really true. Even the Bodiharma and Shaolin temple story is just a myth. There are probably kernals of truth in most of them, but as with any oral tradition, it changes over time. It's not really a big deal. Far more important are the arts philosophy's, strategy's, and approach to combat, and those things aren't generally founded on lies. Misconceptions and lack of understanding, yes, but deception no. "Effective" needs to be determined by evaluating the practitioner of an art. I know plenty of traditional stylists who are very good fighters, while I know just as many Reality Based Self Defense guys who couldn't fight their way out of a bathroom stall. TSD has some great qualities about it, and it gave me the foundation I needed to be successful in the other systems I've learned. But if you think you're going to do inside/outside block, middle punch, roundhouse kick to the head as counter in the real world, you're crazy. You have to evaluate your training with a critical eye. I read yesterday a TKD guy talking about how they do 3-5 techiques in a one-step but he knows that if any one of them connect the fight will be over. That poor guy has no idea. First, when's the last time you ever saw anyone load up and throw a real pretty middle punch in a front stance? So why are we learning to "counter" it? Then, if you really think one shot and done will put a guy away, you've obviously never seen a boxing match, mma event, or a street fight. Can it be done? Sure, no doubt. But those are the exceptions.
seanyseanybean wrote: This is the real issue with these things - the risk of disillusioning students when they realise that their official history is a load of bunk. But, look at it this way, at least with TSD you do now know the real history - it is a Korean version of Karate and there's nothing wrong with that - this is something which actually can't be said for several other arts, for eample there is a popular one in the UK (the subject of much internet debate) that can't be independently traced beyond a 1970's restaurant kitchen. By whom exactly? Why do you respect their opinion? Generally most people don't consider Brussell Sprouts as up to much, does this make them an ineffective vegetable for those people that do eat them? The question to ask is whether your school is a good TSD school or is it a crappy McDojo?
Yea i guess you are right. Thanks for your help. I really enjoy TSD and i have definately gained alot even in 1 year of training. Now i think about it, the BB's at my class are TOUGH, and i know they can handle themselves, so i guess i already know it is effective, so calling it 'Karate' wont make it any less so. As for Mcdojo or Dojo, i have no basis of comparison, but it definatley seems the real deal to me and i feel lucky to train there.
The false history doesn't detract from it as a fighting system or any of its techniques. It detracts from its worth as an art. But education will solve that, education of the newest generation of students. You see, the old generation, which was alive for the 1950s and present for the founding of the Moo Duk Kwan know the history. This generation is about to die out, and there will be no way to stop the false histories. Tell your training buddies about your efforts to uncover history. You can tell who is brainwashed and who truly cares about the art from what you hear. Try not to get in trouble with your instructors though. These changes don't come overnight. Firstly, have you ever heard of a man named Mas Oyama?? Kyokushin karate? The 100 man kumite? There is karate out there which is brutally effective. Search for this man and what he has done, you will find his strong reputation is unquestioned. Secondly, get yourself out of the mentality of "effective styles." These days you cannot judge styles. You can only judge what people do with them. Some people train hard, with full resistance, others slip into McDojoland. You will find this in everything from karate to TSD to BJJ to whatever.
I think it is referring to the ancient Subak. Besides, Soo Bahk Do is already based upon Northern Kung Fu so if they are referring to Soo Bahk Do in that history snippet, it is rather redundant...
Extremely interesting, this was once part of the Shotokan canon but was dropped in the 50's because the leaders of the time rarely practised it and it got to the point where they had basically pretty much forgotten how to do it. (According to Tatsuo Suzuki, Ohtsuka also dropped it from Wado on account of having forgotten it.) There is no documentation on the Shotokan version of the time and Shotokan groups that practise it today have essentially had to reimported it from ****oryo or Goju. Given it was undocumented and the rest of the Korean karate kata canon is ex-Shotokan (or early offshoots) rather than either ****o or Goju how does this square with Hwang Kee's claims to have learnt his kata from a Japanese book rather than have recieved instruction? It would be very interesting to watch any footage that might come to light of this, especially if it was from the 50's/60's as I imagine it would likely offer better insight into the original Shotokan performance of this kata than the current ****o or Goju versions.
