Kwan Heon - A closer look at Kwan creeds of early Taekwondo part 8.1: Oh Do Kwan

We continue our journey through the schools of early Taekwondo, and we now arrive at what many people refer to as “the original Taekwondo”: Oh Do Kwan.

This label does not mean that Oh Do Kwan was the oldest Kwan as several schools predate it. Nor does it mean that it was the largest. Instead, Oh Do Kwan occupies a unique position in Taekwondo history for a different reason: it was the first Kwan to formally adopt the name Taekwondo, and the first to deliberately move away from simply preserving what its founders had learned toward shaping something consciously new and Korean. In the early years, these changes were subtle. The first major push was not technical, but linguistic. Choi Hong Hi gradually began developing his own terminology and, most importantly, replaced the names Tang Su Do and Kong Su Do with Taekwondo. While the individual characters were Sino-Korean, their combination and the identity they represented was something distinctly new.

The first major physical step toward a uniquely Korean identity came later, with the development of Chang Hon Ryu, a series of forms created specifically for Taekwondo rather than inherited from Japanese Karate. This marked a clear departure from the shared Kwan curriculum of the 1950s.

Choi Hong Hi also played a foundational role in Taekwondo’s documentation and international spread. He published the first Korean-language textbook to use the name Taekwondo in 1959 (not the first Korean martial arts manual, but the first under this name), followed by the first English-language Taekwondo book in 1965. His Oh Do Kwan lineage was also the first to be taught outside of Korea, whether in Vietnam or Malaysia depending on the source, with the difference in timing being minimal.

In later years, Choi increasingly presented himself as “the Founder of Taekwondo” or “the Father of Taekwondo.” This narrative was strongly promoted by his students and by the organization; the International Taekwon-Do Federation (established in 1966). Understandably, this has been controversial to some people.

In 1965 most of the Kwan adopted the Taekwondo name, after heavy lobbying by Choi himself, and these schools possessed their own legitimate histories, instructors, and lineages. As a result, many practitioners outside the ITF tradition have reacted negatively to claims of a single founder or to the idea that one branch alone represents “original” Taekwondo.

Having no political ties to either side, and holding direct lineage connections to both Ji Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan, I understand where both perspectives come from. I do not believe Choi Hong Hi should be dismissed or reduced, his influence on Taekwondo in Korea during the 1950s and 1960s was enormous and undeniable. At the same time, I do not agree with the view that there is only one legitimate Taekwondo, or that it exists solely within Choi’s Taekwon-Do.

I am, unapologetically, a Taekwondo nerd. I recognize all of Taekwondo, and I believe we can learn something valuable from every branch, every Kwan, and every interpretation that grew from this shared root.

(This is one part in a loooooong blog series. Please remember I am not a professional translator, nor am I fluent in Korean. I do know some Korean however). 

I hope you forgive the long introduction but seeing as how Choi Hong Hi seems to be such a hot topic in many taekwondo circles I thought it would be best to make my stance clear from the get go. Now we can not really have an Oh Do Kwan Creed blogpost without going through some of the history of both Choi and Oh Do Kwan. Usually I quote my first book; "The Lost Forms of Oh Do Kwan Taekwondo" (available here ;-) ), but the truth is that for this post quoting the whole section on Oh Do Kwan and Choi would be overkill. So beneath you will get the relevant highlights, and if you want more detail it is very likely in my book (as long as it was between 1918 and 1973). 

Choi Hong Hi and Oh Do Kwan History:

Choi Hong Hi was born in 1918 in what is now North Korea. His father owned a brewery business and so he had the financial strength to pay a man named Han Il Dong to teach Choi the Chinese Classics, calligraphy and according to some sources; Taekkyon. 

He moved to Japan to further his education in 1938 and sought out martial arts instruction, which he found in Shotokan Karate, with many sources citing Kim Hyun Soo as a possible connection. 

Later on upon returning to Korea in 1942 he was forced into the Japanese army in 1943. He was reluctant to serve in the Japanese army, and tried to make a run for it in 1944 resulting in him being put in jail and to face a severe penalty. According to Alex Gillis Taekwondo The Art of Killing; he thought he was scheduled for a death sentence. Luckily for us and him, the Japanese lost world war 2 before the sentence was carried out. Making his way to Seoul he would become one of the first Koreans to join the newly established Korean Military Academy which was founded on American initiative. 

In 1950 the Korean war broke out and Choi rose quickly through the ranks, eventually becoming a 2 star general in 1952. Although the war officially never ended, an armistice was signed in 1953 and a long lasting cease fire was established. This cease-fire has held up until the time of writing (2026, and hopefully we will not see more war). That same year Choi was given command of the newly established 29th regiment on Jeju island and he started teaching what he had been taught to his soldiers. To assist him in teaching martial arts he recruited Nam Tae Hi, a decorated war hero and a student from Chung Do Kwan under Lee Won Kuk. The following year after the president saw a display of soldiers demonstrating martial arts skills, Choi was order to spread martial arts training to more soldiers and the Oh Do Kwan (My Way School) was formally established. During this time work intensified in making the martial art into something truly Korean, slowly and gradually introducing new Chang Hon Ryu forms. (By 1959 5 forms had been developed and were being taught along Karate forms in the curriculum.)

Choi Hong Hi also became honorary Kwanjang (headmaster) in the Chung Do Kwan in 1954, while the 2nd Kwanjang Son Duk Sung saw to the day to day operations and training. 

Choi would also spearhead the organization that would become the KTA (Korean Taekwondo Association) in 1959, using his rank and military government contacts to secure government support for the organization. He served as the organizations first president, and after a rather brief hiatus when he served as an ambassador in Malaysia he returned, became the president of the KTA once more in 1965 and managed to get all the Kwan to adopt the name Taekwondo. 

During the late 60s he gradually lost political power within Taekwondo, and he became an outspoken critic of the military dictator who ruled Korea at the time. This columnated in him taking his family, Nam Tae Hi, several students and the ITF organization (which originally was the international organization of operations for the KTA) with him as he relocated to Canada. 

Being a Taekwondo Nerd who loves history shortening things down to the bare essentials like this almost physically hurts :-P There is a lot more to it than this, but to understand a little of what might have shaped the Kwan Heon I think this is a good overview.  

Was Oh Do Kwan simply a Chung Do Kwan Annex-Kwan ?

I will not use much time on this, but because there is a continued effort in downplaying Choi and his school I would like to address this claim. Short answer: Oh Do Kwan was the direct result of the President ordering one of his generals (Choi) to establish a school of martial arts for military personnel. Choi had no ties to Chung Do Kwan at that time, nor had he any training under Lee Won Kuk. The fact that Choi recruited Nam Tae Hi to serve as a head instructor does not mean that Oh Do Kwan was simply an annex-kwan. If you know your history Choi choosing Nam makes all the sense in the world. They were both already in the military, and both had similar martial arts background (ties back to Shotokan Karate). The fact that Nam came already trained in the martial arts was much of the point of recruiting him in the first place. Oh Do Kwan was founded independently under orders in the military. Because of the shared roots (Shotokan) and to expedite training they adopted the Chung Do Kwan Creed before making a new one, they trained many Chung Do Kwan-like forms too but that was because of shared roots. Having researched the 1959 Textbook and compared the forms to Son Duk Sung´s 1968 book I can confirm that the forms are very similar, but there are differences. Things that are unique to Son Duk Sung´s documented forms which I believe to be a good representation of Chung Do Kwan, and things that are unique to Oh Do Kwan based on Choi´s 1959 and 1965 textbooks. And that is discounting the fact that the Oh Do Kwan introduced new forms unique to the Oh Do Kwan (Hwarang, Chung Mu, Ul Ji and others). 

The first Kwan Heon of Oh Do Kwan

As stated above the first creed was borrowed from Chung Do Kwan, likely through Nam Tae Hi who would have been intimately familiar with it due to his background. The main reason for this borrowing of Chung Do Kwan Creed might simply be a question of time and where to put the focus. Oh Do Kwan was a military school, they needed training right now. Focus would naturally be on developing the physical training first, and therefore not using vital time and energy into inventing the wheel anew as they say, they used the Chung Do Kwan Creed. Already in his 1965 did Choi start introducing his own Kwan Heon beginning with the Tenets of Taekwondo. For reference the Chung Do Kwan Creed can be seen below (translated by me):

"1: We, the members of the Kwan, discipline our mind and body, based on the martial spirit." (or mudo-spirit).

"2: We, the members of the Kwan, trust and care for one another and firmly strengthen our unity.”

“3: We, the members of the Kwan, strictly observe the Kwan’s rules and obey the orders of the instructor.”

Many sources, even Korean language sources presents the Chung Do Kwan Creed as the Oh Do Kwan Creed. One article I remember reading presented the Creed simply as "The original Oh Do Kwan Creed". Without context (that it originated in Chung Do Kwan and predates the Oh Do Kwan) it is easy to see how this might make people think that the Creed was an Oh Do Kwan invention, but I do hope that both the Chung Do Kwan post part 1.2 (click here if you have not read it) and this post puts it all into proper context. Besides, Choi Hong Hi and his team would go on to make their own in time.

Oh Do Kwan Heon; Coming into its own:

I do not know an exact year as to when they were first introduced but I do know that the first time I have seen them in print was in Choi Hong Hi´s 1965 "Tae kwon do The Art of Self Defense". Under the heading "Moral Culture" on page 22 Choi Hong Hi writes: 

"The moral culture of this art of Taekwon-Do does not merely aim at promoting the power and technique but also at preventing from misuse of them when he is an expert as well as a student."

He also introduces the "Tenets of Taekwon-Do" (not Tenants) on the very first page right after the table of contents. A modern ITF student might be surprised to hear that they are not exactly as they would appear later in the Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do which he published much later, so this is a middle step in the evolution of the Oh Do Kwan Heon. The tenets are precented as follows:

- Modesty

- Perseverance 

-Self-control

-Indomitable Spirit. 

So here we have 4, not 5 and only the three of them were retained in the final form. Some critics might say that Choi wrote the book for an English audience and acting as the Korean Taekwondo Association President, but I will note that the book was largely written in Malaysia when Choi was not the president of the KTA but functioned as an ambassador. The 1965 book contains his techniques with the quirks he introduced (still very close to Karate, but some differences), there are now 20(!) Chang Hon Ryu Forms in his system (24 forms but they ran out of time and so only 20 appear in the book, according to Master George Vitale, personal correspondence). Seeing as the Chang Hon Ryu Forms were Oh Do Kwan specific and the tenets are presented in Choi´s own calligraphy stamped and signed with the Chang Hon pseudonym, I would think it safe to consider this to be a good example of an Oh Do Kwan book, and not a generic KTA book, although if Choi could have had his way I am sure he would have wanted the KTA to uniformly use his book and his forms. I checked the Hanja in the calligraphy to make sure they correspond to the English translations and the translations are all valid, although some nuance is lost. 

– Modesty 謙遜 (겸손, gyeomson):
As you can see there are two Hanja characters (謙遜) making up the tenet. Modesty is a valid translation, but if we look at them separately and then together, as we have done in previous posts, we first have 謙 (gyeom), meaning humility, lowering oneself, and not asserting ego, and then we have 遜 (son), meaning yielding, deference, and stepping back.

This combination turns up in Confucian texts as something closer to active self-effacement and restraint of ego, especially within social hierarchy. This means it is not modesty in the Western sense of simply “not bragging” or being mild or unassuming. I read this as having more to do with knowing one’s place within a social order, and particularly with not overstepping one’s authority.

In a Confucian and military context, this can also be read as a warning against the misuse of power. Being a good leader does not mean hounding or abusing those below you, and being a good junior does not mean remaining silent when you have something meaningful to contribute. Rather, it points toward supporting the whole community within one’s social, political, and hierarchical position.

I am aware that I may be reaching a little in this interpretation, since virtues such as benevolence (仁) and righteousness (義) are more directly associated with the ethical use of authority. That said, one thing that is often lost in English-language explanations of Confucian ethics is how much these virtues overlap in the original language, while English translations can unintentionally suggest firm boundaries between them.

Of all the tenets presented in the 1965 book, I believe this is the one that loses the most nuance when translated simply as “Modesty.”

- Perseverance 忍耐 (인내, innae) 

In this tenet you also encounter two Hanja characters; 忍 and 耐. If we look at them in order we have first 忍 (in): to endure, to bear pain silently (the knife-over-heart character), and then we have 耐 (nae): to withstand, to tolerate hardship. So this one if we look at them together means something along the lines of "endurance under suffering", this can be emotional or physical pain. A western philosophical analogue might be “Stoic endurance.” It has some similarities and is also very applicable to the kind of resilience needed to survive military training and service. 

Perseverance is a valid translation, it is short and to the point and it captures quite a lot of the original language. I do think it is still good to take a step away, break it down in the original language and analyze what is there. In English perseverance stresses continuing effort or persistence toward a goal, but it downplays the suffering part a little which I think is clearer in the original language, albeit it can still be perseverance through an emotional suffering or physical hardship, but in English we need to specify this, while it is implied in the original language. Compared to "Modesty" I think this translation retains much more. 

 

-Self-control 克己 (극기, geukgi)

Again we see 2 Hanja characters (克 and 己). The English translation "Self-control" is very appropriate and has almost no loss of nuance when compared to the original language. In isolation we see 克 (geuk) which can be read as: "to overcome", "conquer", and 己 (gi) which refers to the self, ego, and/ or desires. Together they can literally be read as "To conquer oneself" or as the original translation says; "Self-control". Of all the tenets, this is the translation that I think holds up the best when compared to the original lanugage. If I am going deep on the nuance between the original language as I understand it and the English translation we could say that while Self-control holds up really well , “Self-control” in English often sounds like moment-to-moment impulse control (don’t get angry, don’t lash out) while the original language also carries the sense of self-overcoming as a moral project, closer to self-discipline/self-mastery than merely “control.” An overlap with the 修身 (sushin) virtue of Confucianism. 

 

-Indomitable Spirit. 百折不屈 (백절불굴, baekjeol bulgul)

Here we see that we are not dealing with a simple term or virtue (which usually comes up as 1-2 Hanja characters) but a whole phrase. The translation provided "Indomitable Spirit" retains the general meaning, and is a great translation for a short "tenet-list", but the original language is more descriptive than that. 百折不屈 literally translated in isolation means 

• 百: a hundred (often short hand for "many" times so not to be taken literally as 100 in an idiom)

• 折: to bend, break, be folded

• 不: not

• 屈: to yield, submit

So perhaps the most literal translation of the term into English might be: "Bent a hundred times, yet never submitting". Indomitable Spirit captures and transmit a lot of the meaning of the original phrase, both in terms of inner strength as well as a refusal to give up. Where it falls a little short is the imagery inherent in the original phrase of repeated breaking, and it might just be me, but I sense an almost moral, tragic heroism embedded within the original phrase that does not come to light in the English translation. The reason I sense that is the imagery of being bent or broken many many times, yet refusing to give up. To take a quick detour to Germanic myths and stories of old, the hero often knows he is doomed but he goes forth with resolve to face his fate regardless, not giving up. Still, Indomitable Spirit is a valid and good translation, and for a short-list of tenets it is an especially good one. The only problem I can think of with the English translation is that some people might interpret it as an expression of "macho toughness" or use the tenet to justify a confrontation seeking behavior, especially if viewing the tenet in isolation. 

Military Taekwondo in wartime (1966, Vietnam war)

In 1966 Choi Hong Hi published a Korean language manual that shares substantial content with the English 1965 textbook, but the 1966 version was aimed primarily for the military. 

"The purpose of this manual is to systematize and unify Taekwondo education within the Army. Based on an analysis and examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the various schools (Ryupa), this manual has been adopted as a unified guideline for Army Taekwondo education, encompassing overall technical development, including command methods for various movements. As such, it is to be used as a guideline for unit-level training." - Choi 1966 page 1

Some changes were made between the two, but while the English 1965 version retained several Karate-derived forms (with Japanese pronounciation of their names no less) the 1966 version uses the Chang Hon Ryu forms exclusively. 

"This manual details the important techniques of Taekwondo, conditioning and equipment, basic training, forms, sparring, and self-defense. Before using this manual, the reader must discard entirely all elements belonging to Chinese and Japanese traditions (ryu) that had previously been transmitted in an unsystematic manner.. This manual is based on a newly developed doctrine of pure Korean lineage (Korea-ryu), in which our national spirit is deeply rooted. Furthermore, as Korea’s indigenous martial art, Taekwondo is presented here according to a doctrine consistent with what has been introduced overseas, grounded in national consciousness." - Choi 1966 page 1 (emphasis by me)

There is no short tenet list in the book that I could find but later on page 1 Choi does introduce the virtues and spirit of Taekwondo (there is no use of a hyphen in the Korean word Taekwondo). I have chosen to translate the whole paragraph below so that you see everything in context, we can draw from the paragraph to summarize a 1966 tenet list afterward, just know that it does not appear as a list originally. 

"“The spirit of Taekwondo is cultivated by accumulating virtues such as courtesy (ye-ui, 예의, 禮儀), integrity/shame (yeomchi, 염치, 廉恥), modesty (gyeom-yang, 겸양, 謙讓), perseverance (innae, 인내, 忍耐), self-control (geukgi, 극기, 克己), and courage (yonggi, 용기, 勇氣). In times of emergency, this cultivates the resolute fighting spirit of ‘no retreat when facing battle’ (imjeon mutoe, 임전무퇴, 臨戰無退) and ‘indomitable perseverance’ (baekjeol bulgul, 백절불굴, 百折不屈), thereby strengthening the combat power of the military. Furthermore, grounding spiritual cultivation in the Five Precepts of the Hwarang (Hwarangdo O-gye, 화랑도 오계, 五戒), and refining both mind and body through the Three Virtues of wisdom (ji, 지, 智), benevolence (in, 인, 仁), and courage (yong, 용, 勇), this spirit is directly aligned with the spirit of the soldier. Therefore, herein lies the purpose and significance of soldiers training Taekwondo as an essential martial skill (pilsu musul, 필수무술, 必須武術).” - Choi Hong Hi, 1966, p. 1

There is a lot to unpack here and I will not do the same kind of deep dive on each one here seeing as several have been translated and treated before. This is a blog so simply ask me to write a follow up post if you are interested ;-) The following is a list of the virtues he lists which I will simply call "The 1966 Tenets"

The 1966 Tenets (emphasis on the "modern" Tenets):

- courtesy (ye-ui, 예의, 禮儀)
- integrity (yeomchi, 염치, 廉恥)
- modesty (gyeom-yang, 겸양, 謙讓)
- perseverance (innae, 인내, 忍耐)
- self-control (geukgi, 극기, 克己)
- courage (yonggi, 용기, 勇氣)
- Resolute fighting spirit of ‘no retreat when facing battle’ (imjeon mutoe, 임전무퇴, 臨戰無退)
- Indomitable spirit (baekjeol bulgul, 백절불굴, 百折不屈) 

- Five Precepts of the Hwarang (check the Mu Duk Kwan post click here)

- wisdom (ji, 지, 智)

- benevolence (in, 인, 仁) ´

This gives us a great window into the gradual evolution from a borrowed Creed in the 1950s, the introduction to Oh Do Kwan tenets in 1965, 3 of which survives into modern day, and a whole paragraph listing virtues/ tenets where all of the 5 modern ones appear :-) The army manual of 1966 is a book I will have to dive deeper in as it has proven to be an interesting book in its own right despite the apparent overlap between it and the 65 textbook. 

In the next part (Due Friday September 11th 2026) we will revisit Oh Do Kwan and focus on the present day Tenets of Taekwon-Do and the Student Oath.