Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:25, 26 July 2008

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Good luck, and have fun. --Redfarmer (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Karate

It is already mentioned in the article that karate has a chinese origin. What you said is that it is a chinese martial art, which is not true, just as it is not true that Capioera is an african martial art. It has african origins, but is South American. Also, your edit was written extremely poorly. Also, Karate means empty hand, not chinese hand. RogueNinja_talk 15:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

English

Look, English is obviously not your first language. However, if you want to edit on the ENGLISH wikipedia, you have to edit in ENGLISH. Your edits to Song Duk-ki DONT EVEN MAKE SENSE. THAT is why I am reverting them. If you phrased them in some way that was understandable, then I could edit or not edit them based on facts. As it stands, your edits are barely understandable. RogueNinja_talk 19:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Taekwondo Mediation

JLL has requested for formal mediation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Taekwondo

Please write "agree" on the above page if you would like to participate.

I know you're new to wikipedia so PLEASE read the rules in the help section on mediation and editing rules! You lose credibility for your position when you're not familiar with the rules.melonbarmonster (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Taekwondo. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 15:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Input requested

Please provide a summary at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Taekwondo - thanks much. KillerChihuahua 17:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:8989587182 1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:8989587182 1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

TKD

Please calm down, Mediators to not accept or reject edits, They are their to facilitate a discussion and help the involved editors form a consensus version, as the mediation stalled I was trying to do that on the talk page. My initial edits were to clean the article up then to attempt to merge your and JJL's versions into one that reflects both views, as an encyclopaedia wiki should report both sides of the argument as neither is definitively correct. Please try to keep calm as while you are obviously passionate abut this article you cannot shout down people you need to talk to them. --Nate1481(/_c) 10:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

This is Widely Accepted OFFICIAL information of TKD. However, JJL's edit is making TKD is 'purely karate' from extrimist sources. this is POV troll. again, by the WP:RS, Articles should not be based primarily on extremist sources.

A Study on Shaping of the Taekwondo, In Uk Heo

• Name : A Study on Shaping of the Taekwondo
• Author : In Uk Heo
• Date : 2004
• Publisher : Korea Society for History of Physical Education, Sport, and Dance Homepage
• Publishing Info : Academic Journal of physical education. Vol.9, 79 page
• Keyword : Taekwondo

형성과정으로 본 태권도의 정체성에 관하여

허인욱(고려대학교)

1. 머리말

태권도 역사와 관련된 논문들은 크게 두 가지로 나뉜다. 삼국시대부터 내려오던 전통적인 무예임을 주장하는 것이 한 가지이고, 다른 한 가지는 태권도의 시작이 가라테(空手)로부터 시작됐다는 데에 중점을 두어 서술하는 것이 그것이다. 현재는 후자가 젊은이들을 중심으로 호응을 얻어가고 있는 듯하다.
전자는 삼국시대 花郞이 하던 한국의 전통무예가 면면히 이어져서 현재의 태권도가 되었다는 견해이고, 후자는 일본에 유학하면서 카라테(空手)를 수련한 사람들에 의해 해방 후 국내에 보급했고, 이후 시간이 흐르면서 韓國化 되었다는 것이다. 물론 이 견해 또한 현재의 태권도는 競技跆拳이 되면서부터 카라테로부터 탈피했다는 견해를 제시해 현재의 태권도는 우리나라 무예임을 강조하고 있다.
하지만, 후자의 견해는 그 동안에 무비판적으로 태권도는 화랑이 하던 무예라는 인식을 가지고 수련하던 이들에게 충격을 주었으며, 더구나 일본으로부터 온 것이라는 사실 때문에 태권도의 전통성 및 정통성에 많은 상처를 주었다. 그리고 이에 대한 논란이 아직까지 지속되고 있는 실정이다.
따라서 이 글에서는 후일 '태권도'라는 명칭으로 통합되는 기간도장(靑濤館·松武館·武德館·YMCA拳法部·朝鮮硏武館)을 세운 선대 선생들의 무술 경력을 통해 태권도 형성에 영향을 미친 무예에 대해 살펴보고, 한국 전통무예와의 관련성도 살펴보고자 한다.

2. 5대관과 태권도 형성

태권도가 발생하게 되는 그 시발점으로 볼 수 있는 이들은 靑濤館을 세운 李元國, 朝鮮硏武館의 全祥燮, YMCA拳法部의 尹炳仁, 松武館의 盧秉直, 武德館의 黃琦를 들 수 있다. 이들의 무술 수련에 대한 기존 연구 성과를 정리해 보면 다음과 같다.

靑濤館: 해방직후 창설된 5대 도장 중 가장 먼저 창설된 청도관은 글자 그대로 '푸른 파도'를 의미하며 청년 기상과 활동력을 상징으로 삼았다. 청도관 창설자인 '李元國'은 19세 때인 1926년 일본에 건너가 공수도의 본관인 松濤館에 입문, 일본 공수도의 대가인 '후나고시 기친(船越義珍)'으로부터 카라테를 배웠다. 이곳에서 그는 송무관 창설자인 노병직 관장과 함께 카라테를 배운 것으로 알려지고 있다. 1944년 9월 15일 서대문구 옥천동에 있던 영신학교 강당을 빌어 우리나라 최초로 '唐手道'라는 이름으로 개관을 하였다.

朝鮮硏武館: 1946년 3월 3일 '田祥燮'에 의해 서울에서 개관했다. 청소년 시절 유도를 수련했던 전상섭은 일본 유학시절 카라테를 배웠다. 1943년에 귀국한 그는 서울 소공동에 위치한 유도학교 조선연무관에서 유도와 카라테를 가르치던 중 해방을 맞자 지체 없이 '조선연무관' 간판을 내걸고 관원을 모집하였다. 6.25전쟁 중 행방불명되면서 조선연무관은 사실상 해체되고 '智道館'으로 관명을 바꿨다.

松武館: 1946년 '盧秉直'에 의해 개성에서 개관했다. 송무관 창설자 노병직 관장은 청도관 창설자인 이원국과 일본 유학생 시설, 松濤館의 '후나고시 기친(船越義珍)' 밑에서 함께 카라테를 배웠다. 해방 직전 고향인 개성에 돌아온 그는 당시 활터였던 觀德停에서 젊은이들에게 카라테를 가르치기 시작한 것이 송무관을 창설한 계기가 되었다.

武德館: 해방 직후 서울 용산역 부근의 교통부 청사를 빌어 '黃琦'에 의해 '운수부우회 당수도부'로 출발했다. 지금의 교통부인 운수부 부설 형식으로 당수도장이 생긴 것이 그 효시지만 창설 연대는 정확히 알 수 없다. 다만 1946년 이후로 보는 시각이 일반적이다. 1935년 남만주 철도국에 입사했는데, 이곳에서 우연히 중국 무예인 양국진을 만나 중국무술을 배웠다고 한다.

YMCA拳法部: 조선연무관에서 전상섭과 함께 拳法을 가르치던 '尹炳仁'에 의해 1946년 서울 종로에 위치한 기독교 청년회관(YMCA)에서 개관했다. 어린 시절을 滿洲에서 보내면서 만주무술을 익힌 윤병인은 만주에서 일본으로 건너가 유학생활을 하면서 '도야마 간켄(遠山寬賢)'과 무술을 교환하여 배웠다고 한다.

이런 기존의 성과를 살펴보면, 李元國·盧秉直은 후나고시 기친(船越義珍)으로부터 카라테를 배웠음을 알 수 있다. 전상섭 또한 '미야기 쵸오준(宮城長順)'과 '도야마 간켄(遠山寬賢)'에게 카라테를 배웠다고 한다. 당시 각 관에서 鐵騎·十手·五十四步·鷺牌·公相君 등의 형을 수련하고 있었다는 데서도 카라테를 배웠음을 알 수 있다. 이 점은 1962년 11월 11일 최초의 승단심사의 과목(표 1. 참조)을 통해서도 알 수 있다. 따라서 태권도 형성에 카라테의 영향이 없음을 말하는 것은 결코 올바른 태도는 아닌 것으로 보인다.
그런데, 앞선 연구와 심사 내용을 통해 태권도 형성에 카라테 기법의 영향만이 전적으로 있었던 것은 아니었음도 볼 수 있다. 심사 지정형을 보면, 카라테 형이 아닌, YMCA권법부의 短拳型·長拳型·八騎拳型 등이 있었으며, 吾道館의 花郞型·忠武型·乙支型 등의 창작 품새도 포함되어 있기 때문이다.
또한 무덕관을 세운 황기는 중국무술(國術)을 배웠다고 하고, YMCA권법부를 연 윤병인의 경우에도 만주에서 무예를 수련했다고 하고 있어, 카라테로부터의 영향만을 언급할 수는 없다.
무 덕관을 세운 황기는 남만주 철도국에 시절에 중국 무예인 양국진을 만나 중국무술(國術)을 배웠다고 한다. 물론 황기의 중국무예 수련에 대해서는 태권도 원로들이 그의 경력을 방증할 만한 증거가 없다고 하니, 조심할 필요는 있어 보인다. 하지만 그가 카라테의 형들을 책을 통해 배웠다는 제자들의 증언을 통해 카라테를 처음부터 알고 있었던 것은 아님을 알 수 있다.
앞서 YMCA권법부를 개관한 윤병인도 '도야마 간켄(遠山寬賢)'과의 교환을 통해 카라테 기법을 알고 있었으며, 실제로 지도하기도 했다. 그러나 윤병인의 기술의 큰 줄기는 만주에서 익힌 무예였다. 윤병인이 6.25 기간에 실종되기 전까지 제자들에게 가르친 권법의 형은  短拳(攻擊型·防禦型), 長拳(攻擊型·防禦型), 토조산(攻擊型·防禦型), 太祖拳, 八騎拳(攻擊型·防禦型) 형 등이다. 이 형은 현재도 전수되고 있다고 한다. 이 외에도 棒術이나 刀術 등의 무기술도 가르쳤다고 한다.
윤병인의 무예에 대해서는 일반적으로는 '주안파'라고 알려져 있다. 그러나 이는 '拳法'이라는 단어의 중국 발음인 'Chuan Fa'를 말하는 것으로 특정 무술 문파를 지칭하는 것은 아니라 포괄적인 범위의 무예를 배웠음을 말할 뿐이다.
앞서 언급했듯이 윤병인이 제자들에게 가르친 형은 短拳, 長拳, 토조산, 太祖拳, 八騎拳 형 등이다. 이중 장권이나 태조권 등의 무술명은 현재 중국에 전수가 되고 있는 무술의 명칭이긴 하나, 실제 기술상의 내용은 현재 전해지는 同名의 중국 무술과는 상관없는 별개의 것들이어서, 그 계통을 찾기가 쉽지는 않다. 이 중 팔기권은 기법상 長春에서 전수되고 있는 八極拳의 형 중에 '八極對打(八極對接)'과 유사한 면이 보이기 때문에 팔극권을 배운 것이 아닌가 보기도 한다. 윤병인이 만주에서 무예를 배우던 시기는 1930년대 정도인데, 이 때는 神槍 李書文의 개문제자인 　殿閣이 滿洲國의 皇帝 溥儀에게 팔극권을 전수하는 등 장춘 지역에서 큰 세력을 형성하고 있었다. 이 때문에 견해에 따라서는 윤병인의 무예를 八極拳으로 보기도 하는 것이다. 하지만 그의 무예가 팔극권으로 한정할 수 있는가 하는 점에서는 조심스러울 필요가 있어 보인다. 확인 가능한 일부로 전체를 재단하는 우를 범할 수도 있기 때문이다.
長春 지역에서 행해지는 팔극권의 형에는 金剛八式·八極小架·八極長拳·八極對打·劈掛掌·八極軟架·六合大槍·劈掛單刀·劈掛雙刀·八極劍·行者棍·六大開(혹은 六打開)·八極應手拳·八大招式·六　頭 등이 존재한다고 한다. 기법상 일부 비슷한 팔기권 외에 명칭상으로 유사성을 엿볼 수 있는 것은 장권이 있으나 기법상으로는 거리가 있는 듯하다. 이외에는 명칭상으로도 동일한 것을 찾아보기가 힘들다. 이는 윤병인이 당시 만주에서 행해지던 다양한 무예를 익혔지 않았나 하는 생각을 갖게 하는데, 이에 대해서는 차후에 좀 더 연구가 필요해 보인다.
여하튼, 해방 즈음의 시기에 나중에 태권도로 통합되는 '館'을 세운 이들의 무예는 오키나와로부터 유래된 카라테를 중심으로 해서 만주의 무예 또한 포함되어 있음을 알 수 있다.

3. 태권도 형성과 한국전통무예

태권도의 전통무예론에서 가장 많은 예를 드는 것 중에 하나가 택견으로부터 이어진 무술이라는 점을 강조한다. 더군다나 태권도라는 명칭을 작명한 최홍희가 태권도의 명칭을 택견에서 가져왔기 때문에 택견과의 관계가 자연스레 거론될 수밖에 없었다.
해방 후 각 관의 창시자들은 택견에 대해 잘 알지 못하고 있었던 것으로 보인다. 택견에 대해 언급을 하고 있는 이원국의 말을 보자.

도장을 열기 전 한달 쯤 전인 8월 어느 날 이옹은 장충단 공원에서 김씨 성을 가진 노인이 땅바닥에 2m쯤 간격으로 작은 구멍 세 개를 삼각형으로 파놓고 이를 차례로 짚고 뛰면서 발차기 연습중인 것을 목격했다.

김 노인에게 물으니 그것이 이라 했다. 이옹은 그 뒤에도 몇차례 그를 만나면서 우리 고유무술에 태껸이란 것이 있음을 알았으나 김노인이 얼마 뒤 모습을 나타내지 않아 만남은 지속되지 못했다. 그는 {그것이 과의 처음이자 마지막 만남이었다}고 말했다.

이원국은 택견의 동작을 보긴 했지만, 몸에 익히지 않았음을 알 수 있다. 택견과의 관계에 대해 가장 적극적으로 설명하고 있는 것은 최홍희이다. 그는 그의 자서전에서

(한일동) 선생은 또한 주로 발만 쓰는 택견 무술에 조예가 깊으신 분으로 아버님 못지 않게 나의 약질을 염려해 틈이 날 때마다 무용담을 들려주며 담력을 키워주고, 원시적이긴 했지만 택견의 초보적인 기술도 몸소 가르쳐 주었다.

라고 하면서 택견 기술을 습득하고 있었던 것처럼 기록하고 있다. 이 점은 이에 앞서 저술한 {태권도교본}에서도 동일하게 나타나고 있다.

나는 선천적으로 약체로 태어났기 때문에 택한 무술은 6세기 때 신라에서 기원한 택껸과 1922년 5월 일본에 소개된 당수였다……그 후 근 10년 간 발만 쓰던 택껸과 주로 손의 기술에만 의존하던 가라데를 종합 연구하여 오늘과 같이 체중에 구애됨이 없이 남녀노소 누구나 다 할 수 있는 현대적이며 과학적인 무도로 발전시킨 다음……이름을 태권도로 단일화하게 되었다.

어려서부터 익힌 택견이 태권도 발기술 형성에 지대한 영향을 미친 것처럼 서술하고 있는 것이다. 물론 이 언급이 사실인지의 여부는 불분명하다. 최홍희 자신이 택견의 발기술을 배운 적이 없다고도 증언한 적이 있기 때문에 이에 대해서는 조심할 필요가 있어 보인다.
하지만 짧은 시간동안 많은 발기술이 태권도에 가미된 데에는 우리나라에서 전래되어 오던 전통적인 발기술의 영향이 있었음은 충분히 생각해 볼 수 있다. 도올 김용옥도 저서 {태권도 철학의 구성원리}에서 60년대 초반에 이미 발차기 중심의 수련이 이루어지고 있음을 자신의 경험을 통해 언급하고 있다. 특히 그는 횡으로 양발 벌린 상태에서 그냥 발을 휙 돌려 발바닥으로 상대방의 따귀를 때리는 '안다리차기'와 발을 S字로 안으로 돌려 발등으로 반대편 턱주걱을 걷어올려 차버리는 연습을 많이 했다고 한다. 김용옥은 '안다리차기'를 택견의 '발따귀'와 동일한 것으로 인식하고 있으며, S자로 안으로 돌려 발등으로 반대편 턱주걱을 차는 기법은 현재 택견의 '째차기' 혹은 '내차기'와 유사한 동작을 말하는 것으로 보인다. 물론 이러한 모습이 택견의 영향인지 혹은 발을 사용하는 다른 전통무예의 흔적인지에 대해서는 명확히 결론을 내릴 수는 없다. 그러나 이런 점을 고려하지 않고, 태권도에 우리나라 무예의 영향은 존재하지 않았다고 하면서 전통무예와의 관련을 배제하는 논의 또한 문제점을 안고 있음을 알 수 있다.
현재 태권도와 전통무예인 택견과의 관계를 알 수 있는 것은 유단자 품새인 '고려'의 '오른(또는 왼) 아귀손 칼재비'의 존재를 통해서이다. '칼재비'는 아귀손으로 상대의 목을 쳐서 조아리는 방법도 있지만 낙턱이라 하여 아귀손으로 칠때 손목작용을 하여 턱을 위에서 밑으로 내려치는 방법이다. 쳐서 아래턱이 빠지도록 하는 방법도 있다고 되어 있는데, 이는 택견의 '칼잽이'와 용법이 동일하다. 택견의 손동작인 칼잽이가 태권도 품새에 삽입되어 있다는 점에서 분명 현재의 태권도는 택견의 영향이 작은 부분이나마 존재하고 있음은 분명하다.
즉, 적어도 현재 태권도 형성에 있어 카라테와 만주의 무예 외에 한국의 전통적인 무예의 영향 또한 존재하고 있음은 인정해야 할 듯 하다.

4. 맺음말을 대신해서-카라테와의 관련에 대해

태권도는 앞서 살펴봤듯이, 카라테와 한국전통무예, 만주 권법이 영향을 주어 현재에 이르게 되었다. 그런데 기존에는 삼국시대부터 내려오던 전통적인 무예임을 강조하였던 탓에 가라테(空手)로부터 유래되었다는 견해가 제기되면서 그 전통성과 정체성에 큰 상처를 받게 되었다. 이로 인해 현재 태권도의 해방 즈음 역사를 알게된 이들은 전혀 별개의 무술로 이해하던 카라테에 대한 복잡한 감정이 생겨났다. 그리고 이는 우리나라와 일본간의 특수한 역사적 배경으로 인해 혼란이 더욱 가중되고 있는 것이 현재의 실정이다.
이런 카라테에 대한 복잡한 감정과 관련하여 우리나라에 가장 먼저 카라테를 보급한 청도관의 이원국의 말을 음미해 볼 필요가 있다.
이 원국은 저서 {태권도교범}(1966)에서 그가 우리나라에 카라테를 보급한 이유에 대해 '카라테를 배우던 당시 오끼나와의 실정과 비교하여 무기가 없는 우리 한국이야말로 적수공권의 이 무도가 극히 긴요함을 절실히 느끼고 깨달은 바 있어 보급하였다'고 한다. 이는 이원국이 카라테를 일본 무술로 인식했다기보다는 일본에 강제 편입된 오끼나와의 무술로 이해했으며, 같은 상황에 처해 있던 우리나라에 보급하려고 하여 힘을 키우고자 하였음을 말해준다. 이런 점을 고려한다면, 해방을 즈음한 시기에 보급된 카라테의 영향이 태권도에 일정 부분 영향을 미쳤다 하더라도 단순히 왜색으로 볼 수 없으며, 따라서 현재 태권도의 정체성에 의문을 제기할 필요도 없어 보인다.
그리고 지금까지 앞서 언급을 했듯이 태권도는 카라테 만의 영향을 받은 게 아니라 해방 이후 다양한 무예(카라테와 만주 지역의 무예 그리고 우리나라의 발을 주로 사용하는 전통무예)가 서로 영향을 주면서 발전하여, 이제는 카라테와는 다른 특징을 지닌 무예로 발전해 가고 있다. 따라서 이러한 사정을 충분히 고려한다면 현재의 태권도는 카라테와는 별도의 무예라는 데에 혼란을 갖지 않아도 되리라 여겨진다. 추후 전통적인 동작을 연구하고, 이를 좀 더 보완하면 우리 무예로서 더욱 발전할 수 있을 것으로 생각된다.

A study on shaping of the Taekwondo in 1950's

Heo, Inuk(Korea University)

The papers regarding Takwondo(TKD) history have been written in two directions;  One, emphasizing its root is coming from ancient martial arts in the Three Kingdom era. Two, describing it's derived from Karate only.
Some of grand masters of 5 do-jang(道場)s, which is unified as TKD afterwards, trained Karate came from Okinawa during their stay in Japan as students. And the others trained martial arts in Manchuria. Therefore it can't be described as TKD is developed by influence of Karate only. And considering the fact that the main curriculum of those five do-jangs was centered on Kicking technique originate from Korean folk, so we know that the current TKD seems to be affected by Korean traditional martial arts.
In conclusion, it would be objective view that TKD had been shaped by Karate mainly and by Manchurian and Korean traditional martial art.

참고문헌

崔泓熙, {태권도 교서} 1972 박철희, {破邪拳法}, 一文社, 1958 金光成·金耕知, {韓國 跆拳道史} 慶雲出版社, 1988 김용옥, {태권도철학의 구성원리}, 통나무, 1990 최홍희, {태권도와 나} 1, 사람다움, 1997 이호성, {한국무술 미대륙 정복하다}, 스포츠조선, 1995 강원식·이경명, {태권도 現代史}, 보경문화사, 1999 강기석 {태권도 半世紀 인물과 역사}, 서울올림픽기념국민체육진흥공단, 2001 이창후, {태권도 현대사와 새로운 논쟁들}, 상아기획, 2003 한병철, {고수를 찾아서}, 영언문화사, 2003 張世忠, {內功 八極拳}, 서림문화사, 1997 趙浣默, {계간 태권도} 1·2호, 1971 최영렬·전정우, {체육과학논총} 10, 1997 정근표, {태권도 사론(史論)의 Text적 접근}, 경희대 석사학위논문, 2002 정용익, {현대 태권도사 정립과 발전과정에 대한 문헌적 연구}, 경희대 석사학위논문, 2003 楊鎭芳, {解放 以後 跆拳道의 發展過程과 그 歷史的意義-競技 跆拳을 中心으로}, 서울대학교 석사학위논문, 1986 {마르스} 2001년 1/2월호 {월간 중앙} 1994년 12월호 {문화일보} 2003년 7월 5일자

their essential techniques are still basically same. Especially, their foot skills are exactly same which nobody can tell the differences.

I think these 3 sources are more moderate than JJL and Me. These 3 source do not say, TKD is purely from Korean tekkyon. root of TKD is tekkyon. but kungfu, karate... etc... also influenced to TKD.(like grade system from karate) Manacpowers (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Title : An Analysis on the various views of Taekwondo History
• Authors : Jung Kun-Pyo, Lee Kang-Koo
• Type of document : Academic Journal
• Publisher : Institution of Physical science, Korea
• Date : 2007.11
• Publishing Info : Journal of Physical science, Korea pp. 3~12 (10 pages)

• Song Moo Kwan - founded March 11, 1944 by Ro, Byung Jick, who had studied Shotokan (Song Do Kwan) karate along with Chung Do Kwan founder Lee, Won Kyuk under Gichin Funakoshi in Japan. In the 1960's Ro began studying Hapkido in 1963 and Northern Shaolin Kung Fu in 1967. He subsequently became an instructor to the Korean Army and one of Korea's Taekwondo champions. He trained Karate, Hapkido, Kumdo and Northern Shaolin Kung Fu. later he created his art Tang Soo Do.
• Chung Do Kwan - founded in 1944 by Lee, Won Kyuk. He had studied Taekkyon in An Gup Dong(Seoul), He also studied Karate in Okinawa, Kung Fu centers in Henan and Shanghai in China, and other.
• Moo Duk Kwan - founded after 1946 by Hwang Kee. Kee studied Tai Chi and some types of Kung Fu with Yang Kuk Jin in China. Kee claims he learned the philosophy of Okinawan Karate from Gichin Funakoshi's books. His first two attempts at running a school of Hwa Soo Do were unsuccessful. He then trained with Won Kyuk Lee at the Chung Do Kwan, gaining the equivalent of a green belt. Lee claims Kee was his student, but Kee disputes Lee's claim, and acknowledges only Yang Kuk Jin as his teacher. In 1957, Kee made a discovery of Soo Bahk, a true Korean martial art, from Muye Dobo Tongji. Kee developed the Soo Bahk system to be studied through the Moo Duk Kwan. He chose the name Soo Bahk Do, a derivative of Soo Bahk Ki, hand striking technique, and Soo Bahk Hee, hand striking dance, which were detailed in the Muye Dobo Tongji. In 1960, the Korean Soo Bahk Do Association was incorporated and officially registered with the Korean government as the traditional Korean martial art. The following year, the Moo Duk Kwan discipline was recognized internationally for the first time.

"Write for us During the Japanese occupation, 1910 – 1945, the art was banned and nearly died out. Fortunately one very old master, named Song Duk-Ki, survived. He is personally credited with having saved the art, continuing to teach students, until his death, at age 96, in 1987. In recent years, Taekkyon has enjoyed a resurgence, with national competitions and Taekkyon demonstrations at national festivals. The university students I interviewed said that they enjoyed practicing Taekkyon because they could enjoy all of the physical and health benefits of martial arts, without getting injured. One friend said, “Taekkyon is part of our cultural heritage. By practicing, I am helping to keep our history alive.”

http://www.escapeartist.com/efam/93/art_Korea_Martial_Art.html

there is no one say, taekkyon was totally vanished. so This is not dispute by anybody.

Here is the early 1960s TKD training video. This video is one of the oldest TKD training video. in this video, we can confirm that Taekkyon style training prevailed in that time. if you watching this video carefully, you can realized that taekkyon style teaching was common to not only korea TKD but aslo America TKD teacher. in that time, Karate was not have this style technique. In conclusion, Upon liberation of Korea(1945~), TKD first time in it´s life, modern TKD was trained by taekkyon's technique. it was already difference from Karate.

Here is the TKD bout video in 1962. This video is 1962 Tae Soo Do bout video. In this video, we can confirm that Tae Soo Do was a Taekyon style.(not karate) We can confirm that early Taekwondo was similar with Taekkyon, Not karate. This is a point. Taekwondo already have Taekkyon elemnts in the begining.

Others

Hapkido

I appreciate your effort to Hapkido Martial arts article. It is very good you learned hapkido. i read various informations of Hapkido. I just point out that we should report that these views exist. According to Official Homepage of Hapkido say, Their root is possibly China origin. Choi learned aikido. However, It is unclear Choi really studied Daito-ryu. Becauese Daito-ryu faimily officialy denied this. Nowdays Hapkido is not direct link with aikido. Because it was already modified by various instrutors.(eg. Ji han Jae) In korea, Hapkido is refer to various integrated martial art. for example, any martial arts founder said, My art is "(????) Hapkido".(even it is no relation with hapkido and aikido) This hapkido name is very common name in s.korea. This "(????) Hapkido" word used Like as "Not TKD, However, Martial arts" "any combatant sports" noun itself. Not every Hapkido is Daito-ryu. so, I suggest that all "(???) Hapkido" named martial arts in s.korea are not link with Daito-Ryu. so, i try to refer to Hapkido is Various Martial arts. and it is not direct link with Daito-Ryu. I know Choi Yong Sul learned Aikido. But Nowdays Hapkido is not direct link with Daitoryu. (even Daitoryu admit this) GongKwon Yusul founder, when he founded this martial arts, He advertised like a "Choi's Hapkido". Because, His martial art was a unacquainted martial art. but Hapkido is well known Martial arts brand, so He advertised like His art is Hapkido. However, This martial arts is a definitely not hapkido. Later, Founder Changed name as a GongKwon Yusul. I just point out 2 points. Modern Hapkido is not direct link from Daito-ryu. Hakido made by Korean. Founder learned Aikido. There is evidence that people believe Hapkido invented in india or China, Shilla. there are sources that people believe this, so the fact that they exist should be included. Manacpowers (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to butt in, but I just want to leave my small input here. I know almost nothing about hapkido and akido (well any martial arts too). However, I checked a Korean version of Encyclopedia Britannica and other encyclopedia, the two of which say 合氣道 originated in Indian about 3000 years ago and spread to China with Buddhism by Buddhist monks. It was said that Bodhidharma advocated martial arts of Shaolin Monastery (maybe 6th century?) and in the atmosphere, 合氣道 was practiced in Cihna. Therefore the India origin theory is not his (Manacpowers) POV. However, the encycolopedias regard hapkido and akido as the same thing handed down from China and India. I don't know how correct the general information would be. The info about 合氣道 in Korean --Caspian blue (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the source from Japanese Goverment site.

http://www.net.pref.aomori.jp/misawa/english/trad_arts.html#aikido (Homepage of Misawa City, Goverment site)

• Aikido

Aikido finds its origin in ancient China, but the concept of “ki” is connected with Shinto and has a peculiarly Japanese development. A martial art without weapons, Aikido makes it possible to overwhelm and throw opponents by grasping and twisting their hands, feet or joints, without resorting so much to strength. It’s effective for one’s spiritual cultivation and is practiced to maintain good health as well.Manacpowers (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.aikidojournal.com/bibliography_details?id=158

• Aikido and Chinese Martial Arts - Volume 1

Subtitled "Its Fundamental Relations", this first in a two-volume set attempts to draw parallels in the fundamentals between the ancient arts of Kung-Fu, and the more modern art of Aikido. There is much discussion of origin and background, and the book is well illustrated.

Manacpowers (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This controversy exist, here is the source.

http://dojorat.blogspot.com/2007/03/is-aikido-of-chinese-origin.html

There is an ongoing debate (What? debate in the Martial Arts community??) as to if Aikido Master Ueshiba was influenced by the circular Chinese arts such as Bagua or elements within the Tai Chi Chuan forms. They certainly share the spiraling and opening/closing, Yin/Yang feel of those arts. Furthermore, Chin-na joint locking may predate the Japanese systems. This is a small part of a very well researched article by Ellis Amdur at "Aikido Journal". The entire series of articles, some with lineage that is clearly over my head- ("Inside Aikido") can be found at http://www.aikidojournal.com/?author=8

Amdur writes:

However, Ueshiba did observe Chinese martial arts. Takeda Hiroshi studied Ruyi Tongbei ch'uan from He Zhenfang in the 1920's and 1930's. Takeda published the first book on Tongbei ch'uan in 1936. Tongbei is a martial system that uses a very flexible upper body and whipping techniques with the arms, as if there is an axle from one shoulder to the other. Although I do not know if this is true in Takeda’s line, some Tongbei ch’uan traditions have staff and/or spear training with fajin practice as part of their system. According to the following website,

"Interestingly, although the content in certain portions of the book are very clear, other parts are very puzzling and strange. Many believe the reason is that Master He did not really want to teach Takeda, and so he diverted the teaching on purpose. There is speculation that this happened because of the political situation between China and Japan at that time." In any event, Takeda stated in an interview in a Japanese martial arts magazine in the late 1980’s, that his home became a center, not only for practitioners of Chinese martial arts, but also for visiting Japanese martial artists, and among them was Ueshiba Morihei, who visited him in 1936. According to Okumura Shigenobu, “Yes, he went to Peking too. He saw various Chinese martial arts. There are good martial arts in China. Ueshiba sensei was impressed by them.” Let me be very clear here. I am not saying that I believe that Ueshiba studied under Takeda Hiroshi - or anybody else in Beijing. But it is possible that, in his visit to Beijing, that he observed such training either by Takeda Hiroshi or by some of his other compadres, and saw something of value that he could "steal." Remember, Ueshiba was the man of whom Sugino Yoshio stated that he could observe something once and see exactly what they were doing. In sum, what I am saying here is that the type of force-building and expression that I am loosely referring to as “fajin,” may have been something that Ueshiba did observe in China and integrate in his own way into his art — either as something new or as a augmentation or variation to what he had already learned. Manacpowers (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

TKD 3

Please have a look at Aikido or Ban Ki-moon for how many citations an article may need to be considered 'complete' --Nate1481(/_c) 08:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Insulting someone's English is uncivil and is something I have never mentioned despite repeated grammatically poor additions and comments from yourself, and actually you are completly wrong. I use British English and while this may be incorrect for this article as it is largely written in American English it is not incorrect, so please do not complain about mine with a comment :"OMG. too many 'citaion needed' tags. article page is dirty. even you already know, controvercy exist(JJL make this). there is no need fact checking. and your english is not good, too."

Lets see:

• • No capital letters after full stops; completely wrong.
  • "Citation" spelt incorrectly.
  • "Controversy" spelt incorrectly.
  • No capital on the Proper noun 'English'
  • Sentence structure and punctuation is abysmal if not absent completely
  • Blasphemy is extremely impolite

If you had written:

"You have added too many 'citation needed' tags. The article page is dirty, even you already know that a controversy exist (and that JJL created it). There is no need for fact checking. In addition your English is not good "

You might have had a point. --Nate1481(/_c) 08:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please could you clarify who "taekkyon" is? I was under the impression it was a martial art not a person or organisation. So how can it state anything? --Nate1481(/_c) 08:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please specify more clearly then, as just saying 'taekkyon' dose not convey sufficient meaning. I stated the Kukkiwon, as that is where the source comes from. --Nate1481(/_c) 08:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Korean martial arts

I realize you have good intentions in what you are doing, but I would encourage you to take more care with your edits, and (especially at this time) to avoid making major edits to a whole range of articles about the Korean martial arts. Until we get the situation somewhat resolved on the taekwondo article, pushing the same issue on a variety of other articles as well will not help. Without intending to be in any way unkind or unwelcoming, I also have to say that your edits often have incorrect grammar and other issues. I realize that English is not your primary language and that this is difficult; I would just encourage you, for this reason also, to take more care with your edits (which often require cleanup). Thank you very much, however, for your efforts; I hope you will accept this statement in the spirit in which it is offered. Omnedon (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

i accept your concern. I avoid making major edits to a whole range of articles. Manacpowers (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hapkido

I appreciate the zeal with which you are approaching this article but I think you should show a bit more restraint in your major revisions.

Firstly, I suspect that English is not your first language and perhaps this has led some misunderstandings in some the things printed here.

Secondly, I have to think that the sources you are using for your changes in this cases are not the more reliable ones. As you mentioned people like Draeger are experts on the subjects they wrote about whereas things like Encyclopedia Brittanica are hardly written by experts in the martial arts. ( I would argue that 'historians' are people who write history books and many of Draeger's works such as "The Martial Arts and Ways of Japan" would clearly qualify and certainly were accepted by universities such as the University of Hawaii which he developed the work for. There are arguements against this also but that is another subject.)

I've been training in hapkido for the past 23 years under senior teachers in the KHF, have lived in trained in Korea and Japan in hapkido and Daito-ryu, have interviewed and published articles with senior teachers of the art and have never heard most of the claims you are making in your changes.

Connections between the art created Ueshiba Morihei and India? Claims are made about the roots of ancient asian martial arts being transmitted from India along with Buddhism but not aikido or its parent art Daito-ryu. Good sources of information on this subject would be many of the works published by Aikido Journal, formally Aiki News. There articles there with the founder's son, senior aikidoka and the inheritors of the Daito-ryu traditions.

For information on hapkido a good source would be the works of He-Young Kimm, himself a senior teacher of hapkido, a university professor in Lousianna, and a person who interviewed all of Choi's key students. Choi, lived in japan from 1911 to 1945, and is on record as saying he trained Daito-ryu or Sokaku Takeda. Some people say he studied under other students of Sokaku rather than directly but he never claimed to have studied traditional arts of Korea. Many claimed he always referred to his own art as 'yawara' and generic Japanese term for jujutsu.

I don't wish to get into a big dialogue on this subject I just wanted to explain why I and others will be reverting some of the changes you are making in the hapkido article.--Mateo2006 (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Why don't we make a separate section entitled "other views" rather than changing the body of the article that others have put together?--Mateo2006 (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Leave me alone

This is my last response to you I have got incredibly fed-up with your stubborn attitude and (creative?) misunderstanding of what other people have written I have referred this to mediation and will only be making comments there, I explicitly put that I did not think a block was yet justified but the repeat post was as their had been no comments for 24 hours. Could YOU try reading some of the policies you cite? As in many instnances you obviously have not or you are ignoring them, in much the same way as you treat peoples comments, glance at them and assume what they have said. Any further comment from you on my talk page will be deleted unread. Goodbye. --Nate1481(/_c) 16:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The second meditation

It is your free will over whether you participate in the second meditation or not, but you should remind that it is open for you and JJL. The rest of people are meditating your dispute with JJL, so your "disagreed" is very disappointing and not helpful. It is viewed in my eye that you would not accept any "compromise" between people. Once a consensus would build up, you could not change the article to your preferred version. The meditation can proceed without you. Then, you're no position to complain about the future situation for yourself. You need to understand WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR. If you can not edit in the boundaries, your edits and lengthy and intelligible comments to other people's talk pages are all nuisance. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

actually, It seems like a TKD article is already done. later, i will attach more sources links to TKD article. history section is no more change. and other articles are working in each discussion page. why we need mediation process? i already accept compromised edit. only JJL want change current edit. Manacpowers (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of your unwillingness to participate in the meditation, the other wants it. Besides, you're in a truce, which means the compromised version could not be remains forever. The meditation procedure could ensure compromise officially and each point of view is documented and meditated.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

physically impossible. mediation of TKD article is already done. tommorow, i go to other province. i will stay there for one month. Manacpowers (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Then, you should explain your situation to other involved party why you can't participate in the meditation. It seems that Nate can't edit Misplaced Pages for next two weeks. Cann't you access internet at all? --14:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:wikibreak

Putting this {{wikibreak}} template on your both user and talk page would be good to notify others of your wiki-break. Have a fun during the time.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Manacpowers is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon.

Hmm? I mean it would better for you to put it at the top of this page, and your user page like this.

{{wikibreak|]| on next month for travelling.}} --Caspian blue (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Taekwondo 2. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

3rr rule

] You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war{{#if:Bible| according to the reverts. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors.please stop.--Pabopa (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)