One recurring comment I get over and over and over and over and over again when sharing something from the Kwan-era of Taekwondo or discussing anything technical about early Taekwondo are comments like:
- "Because it was all just Shotokan"
- "All Kwan taught Shotokan"
- "They all taught Shotokan Kata"
- "FYI all early Taekwondo was just Shotokan"
One of the biggest problems with this is that it is a gross simplification of a very messy history. Its strength is that it does contain some truth, which is why I am not telling you outright that it is plain wrong, but it IS a simplification of history. A simplification that obscures technical discussions, evolution, understanding of the foundations of the modern Taekwondo systems and so on.
If you believe:
- The Ap Seogi (Short walking stance) is a new innovation that came with Taegeuk Poomsae.
- The Kukki Taekwondo blocking chambers are useless because they are not identical to modern Shotokan, and are based on Korean innovation.
- All Kwan were the same.
Then you have directly felt (unknowingly) the ramifications of the simplification of Taekwondo history. Does this make your yeopchagi (side kick) any weaker? No, but it does obscure greater understanding into the modern system seeing as there is a fundamental flaw in the understanding of the foundations. Now another thing that I recently pointed out; Projecting modern training experience in related systems backwards in time also gives us a whole host of problems. In that post I was hyper specific on one single technique. In this one I am going to talk very briefly about the different Kwan.
Before we begin, I do not in any way deny that Funakoshi and the lineage from him had a vital and major impact on the development into what later would become Taekwondo. I just want to present the case that reality is messier than what most neat and tidy organizational lineage-trees seem to suggest.
The Korean Pioneers did not study modern JKA Shotokan Karate
There were several Koreans who got to train in Funakoshi-lineage Karate, that is not something I (or any serious Taekwondo historian) would ever argue against. The point however is this: Modern Shotokan Karate as a codified, systematized "style" as seen and exemplified in the JKA Shotokan Karate simply did not exist at the time the Koreans learned their martial arts in Japan. Shotokan did exist, but it was a place rather than a style.
Funakoshi himself was very against his Karate being labelled as a style and insisted that he only taught Karate-Do.
“There is no place in contemporary Karate for different schools. Some instructors, I know, claim to have invented new and unusual kata, and so they arrogate to themselves the right to be called founders of “schools”. Indeed, I have heard myself and my colleagues referred to as the Shotokan school, but I strongly object to this attempt at classification. My belief is that all these “schools” should be amalgamated into one, so that Karate may orderly progress into man’s future.” – Gichin Funakoshi
It was only toward the end of his life and especially after his death in 1957 that his students began to standardise and codify things into one system. This is why when we start to look at older books by Funakoshi we see things that are not often associated with modern JKA Shotokan Karate. He demonstrates throws, locks, trips, and tells people to study them according to the Kata:
"In karate, hitting, thrusting, and kicking are not the only methods, throwing techniques and pressure against joints are included … all these techniques should be studied referring to basic kata" – Gichin Funakoshi
Funakoshi was a very prolific writer, so we as students of history may get a sense of what he was teaching, and the evolution from what he taught directly to the last Karate-do Kyohan book that his students finished for him and published posthumously. Seeing as he died in 1957 and I sometimes quote him from 1958 I occasionally get some very odd comments, but the discrepancy is hopefully now explained.
In his earlier books he has higher stances, discusses a lot more of kata applications, shows much more relation between his combat examples and forms, while his 1958 publication (which is the most widely known one as it was translated back in the 1970s) was almost scrubbed of all these references, and all photos are performed according to the (at the time) modern standard (low stances, great distance between performers).
If you ask me which book we should be looking at to get a sense of what the Korean students who did train Funakoshi-lineage Karate it would be the 1935 Karate Do Kyohan. It gives a good overview of the art, yet makes it clear that it is just an overview.
Just to throw a little wrench into the whole “Shotokan as a rigid style” narrative, there is surviving footage from around 1942 showing a Funakoshi-lineage teacher demonstrating what appears to be Tensho Kata, a form more commonly associated with Chojun Miyagi and Goju-ryu.
Looking at first hand accounts it does seem like he stressed forms as the primary mode of training, but he also taught throws, joint locks, take downs etc which in earlier books we see him link directly to Kata. In Some cases to specific techniques and sequences within Kata. He also made use of traditional Okinawan strength training, he taught what today is called Kobudo (weapons) such as the long staff and Sai. All in all it seems like his Karate was very much Okinawan flavored when compared to the modern JKA Shotokan. Some might bring up that the Koreans learned Karate at universities rather than at the central Dojo, but according to Ro Byung Jik (founder of the Song Mu Kwan) both he and Lee Won Kuk studied with Funakoshi directly, at the Shotokan (the place, not the style). So getting a notion of what Funakoshi taught is important.
Yoshitaka "Gigo" Funakoshi was the real teacher
When discussing this, some who are very attached to the notion that early Taekwondo was just Shotokan slightly moves the goal posts and bring up Gichin Funakoshi's son, Yohshitaka Gigo Funakoshi. It is true that he too taught, and he is credited with the lowering of stances as well as some technical innovations. From what I have read by him (he authored some newspaper articles), photos and vintage footage it seems like he does indeed do the forms using longer and deeper stances than his father. In addition he changed a few things in Kata, moving kicks higher up, changing some front kicks to side kicks etc. But his real innovation was not really the formalized modern Shotokan style of the 1960s, it was rather the intensity of training that he implemented. Instead of relaxed natural training where you would show up and do things for yourself, your partner, a small group at your own pace, Gigo Funakoshi brought a formal group training that stressed hard physical training. That is his real innovation as my current understanding of Karate history is today. The lower stances was likely part of this intensity increased training attitude. He still taught the Karate of his father though, Kata was central. Not purely Okinawan in character, but still quite different from the highly standardized postwar JKA approach many people picture today.
The Korean "Shotokan" schools
I said earlier that why I am not saying that it is entirely wrong is because there is some truth to it. But I do hope that the paragraphs looking into Funakoshi senior and son might give you a little new context when I say that there were schools of a Funakoshi lineage, but there were no "Shotokan" schools per se. When we look to the schools who have a direct Funakoshi-lineage we have 2-3 (depending on how you look at things).
- Song Mu Kwan
- Chung Do Kwan
- Oh Do Kwan
I am sure some of you are screaming that there should be more in this category, but let me finish :-)
Song Mu Kwan
This school was founded around 1945 by Ro Byong Jik. According to himself he studied directly under Funakoshi at the Shotokan. He studied with Funakoshi for 8 years, before he moved back to Korea and started establishing the Song Mu Kwan. In modern times 8 years might not sound like much, but at the time 8 years is very impressive time to study with the same teachers. Most people who studied with Funakoshi had their training interrupted by studies, work and contributing to the war effort. There are key founding figures in the JKA who studied for a shorter time with Funakoshi to put this into context.
Chung Do Kwan
Founded by Lee Won Kuk who according to an early interview said he studied directly at the Shotokan for around 6 years around the same time Ro studied there. Ro corroborates this in another interview claiming he started the training before Lee, so eventhough Lee was older than him, according to Ipkwan cultural precedence Ro was the senior one. Ro is a first hand primary source, but he is not an unbiased one. Records of their training was lost in a fire as a result of the air bombings of Japan toward the end of the second world war. According to Kim (2025) Chung Do Kwan was founded in 1945 just a couple of days before liberation. In the post liberation chaos it took some time before Lee could open up at another location, so full training did not start until 1946. Later interviews with Lee pushes the founding of Chung Do Kwan back to 1944.
Oh Do Kwan
This Kwan was established in 1954 after the Korean war. It was founded by Choi Hong Hi who served as the headmaster (Kwanjang) with Nam Tae Hi as the primary instructor. Nam Tae Hi had originally studied at the Chung Do Kwan. Some count Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan together as a single school, and depending on how one would look at it there is a case to be made that they were one. My understanding is that they were two separate schools who worked very very very tightly together.
Contrary to popular belief Choi Hong Hi did not in fact study with Funakoshi. Based upon his writings it is fair to say he was well within the Funakoshi-lineage, but the actual instructor remains a mystery. The Korean Karate master Kim Hyun Soo who taught in Japan is believed by some to be Choi's real instructor. It is also quite possible that he had multiple instructors.
The instructors that was recruited to help Nam teach were all from the Chung Do Kwan, so the Funakoshi-lineage is undoubtedly strong and well established in this school.
Maybe Funakoshi-lineage school or ....?
Some schools (Kwan) are more uncertain as to their background, or harder to place when you start looking deeper than the surface. Or were just plain eclectic :-)
- Yeon Mu Kwan
- Han Mu Kwan
- Mu Duk Kwan
Yeon Mu Kwan
The Karate division of Yeon Mu Kwan was founded by Chun Sang Sup in 1946. In western literature he is often written as clearly within the Funakoshi-lineage along with Chung Do Kwan, Song Mu Kwan, and Oh Do Kwan. In Korean literature however there are some strong arguments and claims to other styles. Both "Shotokan", "Shito-ryu" "Shudokan" and "Goju-ryu" (by way of Goju Kai) is seriously debated. After reading through several papers and discourse I have come to the conclusion that I do not know what style he studied, but personally I do not think he studied "Shotokan".
My main argument is very simple; he hired not one, but two teachers as assistants. At a time when many Koreans had studied Karate in Japan, many of whom had studied Funakoshi-lineage Karate through the central Dojo or at several Universities. Yet he picked not one, but two people that had no ties to Funakoshi or his Karate at all. I find that quite telling, but it is not conclusive evidence. Yet when we compare this to Choi Hong Hi who also was in need of hiring/ recruiting instructors he did so by using people from the same lineage as he was a part of. Chun Sang Sup's chosen men were Yun Byung In and Yun Kwae Byung. I am unsure when Yun Byung In was hired, but Yun Kwae Byong's employment within the Yeon Mu Kwan was announced in a newspaper announcement in March 1950.
The one common instructor between Yun Byung In and Yun Kwae Byung is Toyama Kanken. This has lead me to believe that Chun Sang Sup may perhaps also have studied with him. If that was indeed the case, the hiring of these two men makes perfect sense.
But the fact is, we do not actually know.
Han Mu Kwan
This Kwan was founded by Lee Kyo Yun around 1955. The thing that complicates its background is that Lee Kyo Yun was a direct student of Chun Sang Sup in the Yeon Mu Kwan. Lee always said that his Kwan (Han Mu Kwan) was a continuation of Chun Sang Sup's Yeon Mu Kwan, not something that broke away from Ji Do Kwan (although he did train here for a brief time after the Korean war).
Since we do not know what Chun really studied (he could even have studied more than one style for what we know, Yun Kwae Byung studied but with Kenwa Mabuni and Toyama Kanken so it would not be so far fetched), we can not put it in a decisive "Funakoshi lineage group". Lee published a book on martial arts in 1965 often referred to as the Taesudo Textbook. In it he lists several forms as core Taesudo forms, and in that list he includes several forms not normally associated with Funakoshi-lineage Karate, such as Sanchin and Tensho. If the list reflects what he learned in the Yeon Mu Kwan it further complicates the notion that Chun taught "Shotokan" Karate.
Mu Duk Kwan
Hwang Kee never studied Karate in Japan. He learned Chinese Martial arts in Manchuria China, which he started teaching around 1945, possibly under the name Hwasudo (way of the flowering hand, "Hwa" coming from the same character as the "Hwa" in "Hwarang"). According to some sources he studied briefly with Lee Won Kuk at the Chung Do Kwan, and some influence is said by some to have come by the way of Yeon Mu Kwan as well.
In 1949 when he published his first manual (which might very well be the first martial arts manual published post liberation) he had a lot of Karate derived material along with some Chinese material showing clearly an influence of both. According to himself he also studied and learned from books, but he did not as far as I know ever specify which ones. Many historians therefore say they were likely Funakoshi's books, but after reading the brilliant book by Dan Bernardo I have learned that some of these books must have been by Kenwa Mabuni. Material from his books show up in Hwangs works with the same spelling errors that Mabuni made.
So to call Mu Duk Kwan "just Korean Shotokan" simplifies things very neatly, but fails to take into account all the different sources that Hwang Kee drew on. What happened later on in some lineages going back to Hwang Kee however is another story, but projecting modern assumptions back in time is problematic.
Personally I put the Mu Duk Kwan technical background into an eclectic background rather than simplifying it into "Korean Shotokan".
No obvious Funakoshi-lineage
This brings me to the rest of the Kwan who were not annex-Kwan of older Kwan (Jung Do Kwan came from Chung Do Kwan, so some label it as an annex-Kwan)
- Ji Do Kwan
- Chang Mu Kwan
- Kang Duk Won
Ji Do Kwan
This Kwan is rooted within Yeon Mu Kwan, so if you skimmed or skipped that part, go back and read it again please O:-) Chun Sang Sup disappeared in the Korean war, so after the hostilities had died down and things had cooled off, former students led by Lee Chong Woo elected Yun Kwae Byung as Kwanjang or headmaster. The reopened school was renamed Ji Do Kwan (Wisdom Way School). The Ji Do Kwan celebrated its 80th anniversary this year, so they are counting their founding back to Yeon Mu Kwan 1946, not the reopening in 1953/54.
Yun Kwae Byung had studied under Kenwa Mabuni in Japan, before relocating and continuing his Karate studies under Toyama Kanken. In the Yeon Mu Kwan newspaper advertisement from 1950 he is said to have been a 7th Dan. Yun had no ties back to the Shotokan or either Funakoshi. If we were to attribute stylistic background it would be Shudokan and Shito-ryu Karate. He gained high enough rank under Toyama that he (and Yun Byung In) was listed as Shudokan instructors. It does not give us an exact rank, but it does corroborate that it was a senior rank.
Later on in the mid 60s a large group of students and instructors joined the Korean Taekwondo Association. If we compare basic techniques from Sihak Henry Cho's book from 1968 to modern Kukki Taekwondo we see that some basic techniques that are different to Changheon-ryu in execution might very well have their origin in Ji Do Kwan. This is important because it shows that not only were they represented within the forms committee that made the modern KTA forms, they quite possibly left a mark in the very DNA of the modern Taekwondo system. Where Changheon-ryu typically have the "blocking hand" on the inside of the "pulling hand" (the hand that is withdrawn to the hip), in Kukki Taekwondo we have it the other way around, "blocking hand" on the outside of the "pulling hand". Compare modern ITF high section block and outward blocks to Kukki Taekwondo equivalent techniques.
These are not "Korean innovations", we find them within several Okinawan Karate styles as well.
Chang Mu Kwan and Kang Duk Won
These both come from a Yun Byung In lineage. Yun Byung In first studied Chinese Martial Arts in Manchuria, before relocating to Japan for higher education. There he studied with Toyama Kanken, he learned Shudokan Karate, and taught Toyama Kanken his Chinese Martial Art in return. Unfortunately he too disappeared in the Korean War, so after the war Chang Mu Kwan and Kang Duk Won both came to be, founded by students of Yun Byung In.
Again we have no visible and clear link back to Funakoshi or Shotokan in these two cases.
Summary of schools:
So by my count we can say for sure there are three schools of what would become Taekwondo that has a strong undisputed direct lineage back to Funakoshi. The rest are either disputed lineage, mixed/ eclectic or plain non-Funakoshi-lineage. I am still studying and researching Taekwondo history. I have no political agenda, and I have not tied up my identity to being correct. Taekwondo history is messy, so if additional proof comes along I will if it is strong enough change my views. Chun Sang Sup is a primary example of this. Had you asked me a few years ago, I would have listed him as a sure thing within a Funakoshi-lineage along with Lee Won Kuk, Choi Hong Hi and Ro Byung Jik.
- Chung Do Kwan - Funakoshi-lineage
- Song Mu Kwan - Funakoshi-lineage
- Oh Do Kwan - Funakoshi-lineage
- Yeon Mu Kwan - Disputed
- Han Mu Kwan - Disputed
- Ji Do Kwan - Mabuni-lineage + Kanken-lineage
- Mu Duk Kwan - Eclectic (with Funakoshi influence)
- Chang Mu Kwan - Kanken-lineage
- Kang Duk Won - Kanken-lineage
All Kwan taught Shotokan Kata, or did they?
This is often a claim I get, once we start discussing further. Again, in the case of Chung Do Kwan, Oh Do Kwan (before the full implementation of Changheon-ryu forms) and Song Mu Kwan this is very much the case. Not "Shotokan" forms in the sense we have previously discussed, but Kata, Hyeong or Forms as passed down to us through a Funakoshi-lineage.
What we need to understand is that most Karate Kata were never really tied into any style, they are older than our modern concept of styles. You do not really have Shotokan Pinan Kata, Shito-ryu Pinan Kata, Shudokan Pinan Kata. What you have is Pinan taught as passed through a Funakoshi-lineage, Mabuni-lineage, Kanken-lineage etc. This goes for pretty much any Karate Kata.
What happens is that people see lists of forms taught in the different Kwan, and they see an overlap in Kata names. They then assume that all those forms are performed in the same way in the same manner from school to school. If we take a short look at some core Hyeong taught in the different Kwan:
- Pyeongahn 1-5
- Kongsangkun
- Balsaek
- Naebojin 1-3
You will find these forms in forms lists from just about all the Kwan. Now if I translate these into "Karate names" which is often done in articles and books:
- Pinan/Heian 1-5
- Kushanku
- Bassai
- Naihanchi/Tekki 1-3
People expecting to see Shotokan Kata will recognise all of these forms as Shotokan Kata. The thing is that in Okinawan styles and schools within the Shuri-te and Tomari-te traditions, these forms are almost universally trained and taught as well. The name of the form very rarely say anything about the lineage of forms, it is a logical fallacy. The only way to identify a forms lineage is by looking at their performance or documentation on how to perform it. The exception to the rule is Funakoshi-specific names. He renamed several forms, so if you see Banwol Hyeong it is likely very similar to Hangetsu Kata performed in a Funakoshi-lineage manner. If you see Sipsam Hyeong it might be another version, but it might also be a Funakoshi-lineage form depending on when the Kwan founder studied in Japan. Before renaming the forms Funakoshi used traditional Okinawan names.
In short, looking at lists of forms gives us very little information as to the lineage and background of the form itself. Only by looking at the manner in which it is performed can we make an educated guess as to its history. The Karate counterparts of such lists should therefore be taken as a broad suggestion rather than linking them to specific lineage unless the Kwan's history and lienage is clear and undisputed.
Conclusion:
Whenever we face comments like:
- "Because it was all just Shotokan"
- "All Kwan taught Shotokan"
- "They all taught Shotokan Kata"
- "FYI all early Taekwondo was just Shotokan"
We need to take a step back to see where the commenter comes from, and what exactly we are talking about. In some cases, the old Kwan were absolutely from a Funakoshi-lineage. In others they were not. We do not need to refute the major role Funakoshi and his lineage played in the development of Taekwondo, but in historical reality, once we dive deep into primary sources, we find that the overall picture is much more messy than modern organizational lineage-trees seems to suggest.
No comments:
Post a Comment