Lineage of Korean Martial Arts

0

Lineage of Korean Martial Arts
Original Poster: Kyorgi
Forum: Korean Martial Arts
Posted On: 12-10-2005, 16:24

Orginal Post: Kyorgi: http://www.allmartialarts.com/KIXCO/History/history/map.htm

Cool Webiste, but there are alot of things about it that confused me. First thing is that it lists Korean Hard Styles and Korean Soft Styles. What is the difference between soft and hard styles? What qualifies something to be soft or hard?
…and what is with the thing that says that Jujitsu was started by the hwarang? That can’t be true….

Post: goongaloonga:

soft= joint locks, throwing, and circular redirecting blocking techniques. hard= striking and linear blocking techniques>

Post: goongaloonga:

taekwondo and karate are hard styles, judo and hapkido are soft styles, if that helps>

Post: Kyorgi:

What would stuff like Tai Chi be considered? When people spoke of soft arts I always thought they meant arts like Tai Chi.>

Post: goongaloonga:

there are soft and hard styles of tai chi, the internal styles are the soft, and the external styles are the hard>

Post: setsu nin to:

I dont like that lineage, in my opinion its crap.>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

Indeed. Korean propagandists work day and night to come up with fantastical stories of the Hwarang as these legendarily magnificent warriors.

The truth? Hwarang means Flowering Manhood. I haven’t heard a better euphemism for “gay” in my life.>

Post: setsu nin to:

Tease T Tickle

“The truth? Hwarang means Flowering Manhood. I haven’t heard a better euphemism for “gay” in my life.”

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You make my day!:lol:>

Post: gman:

I’ve seen this before and I’ve also looked at the Hwarangdo site. If you notice, the ancient Korean martial arts (i.e.- pre-WWII) are pretty sparse, due to the destruction of public and private records by the occupying Japanese forces. So basically, we only have the word of the Korean masters who emerged after the end of WWII. In my opnion, considering how many kwans were being opened and closed in the following decades, a lot of the information stinks of propaganda. I’m no Korean historian. Just a martial artist who respects the history of all nations and their arts.>

Post: shurite44:

The problem with the history and lineage of Korean Martial arts is early on westerners were fed a line of BS about the history of tae kwon do. Now that martial arts history is much better known the Koreans are forced to somehow blend in the obvious roots to Japanese karate with their own Korean history and the stories originally told about the history of Korean Martial Arts. Makes for a very unconvincing fantasy story.

If you are practicing tae kwon do your lineage probably goes back through Japan to Okinawa and the shuri line. Hapkido can be traced back through Japanese ju-jitsu. The rest of the story is basically just Korean history and myth thrown in so there is some ties to Korea. For the most part tae kwon do and hapkido is only several decades older in Korea than it is in the United States. No ancient history unfortunately, but that should not take away from the Korean martial arts.>

Post: setsu nin to:

shurite44

“If you are practicing tae kwon do your lineage probably goes back through Japan to Okinawa and the shuri line. Hapkido can be traced back through Japanese ju-jitsu.”

In my oppinion TKD and HKD are Karean arts with its own lineage that shouldnt be mixed with Japanese lineage or styles, no metter what they were influenced by Japanese/Okinawa/Chinese styles. When TKD was found than its lineage starts. There was no TKD before General Choi Hong Hi, so there is no TKD lineage before him. There is no place for Han II Dong in TKD lineage, his name is in Tae Kyon lineage.>

Post: shurite44:

[quote=shurite44 “If you are practicing tae kwon do your lineage probably goes back through Japan to Okinawa and the shuri line. Hapkido can be traced back through Japanese ju-jitsu.”[/quote 

Sorry setsu nin to, I stand my by quote above. :D

[quote=setsu nin to In my oppinion TKD and HKD are Karean arts with its own lineage that shouldnt be mixed with Japanese lineage or styles, no metter what they were influenced by Japanese/Okinawa/Chinese styles.[/quote 

The naming or founding of a martial art is the beginning of that style but the lineage of the people involved is fact. It can not be disputed. A direct instructor your primary instructor is not simply an influence, your karate is their gift or heritage if you will. It is a sacred trust given to you by the most important person in your life besides your family.

No matter how we feel about the history, authenticity or origins of an art. Lineage is determined by looking at an individual and going back in time linking them directly from instructor to instructor. This is your lineage, nothing you can do about it, your stuck with it no matter what someone’s opinion of that is. Fortunately I am very proud of mine.

I started in Song Moo Kwan Korean Karate in 1972 (Tae Kwon Do), and my lineage is well documented. I have met my instructors all the way back to Byung Jick Ro, (Funakoshi died 2 years before I was born) I met him in our dojang, he signed our rank certificates. So I know that is authentic, Byung Jick Ro’s instruction by Funakoshi is also well documented. I would say Gichin Funakoshi’s lineage is above reproach. This is my lineage, I am a Tae Kwon do practitioner, and I trace my roots directly through the Shuri line to Kusanku. I am separated from Kusanku by seven directly linked instructors.

Gary (Myself) taught by Gary Harris taught by Tong Cho Choi taught by Byung Jick Ro taught by Gichin Funakoshi taught by Anko Itosu taught by Sokon Matsumura taught by Tode Sakugawa taught by Kusanku.>

Post: setsu nin to:

shurite44

But MY lineage and for example TKD lineage are two different things no metter how long I practice TKD, for example, becouse my lineage incloude all styles that I practiced with its teachers.

For example Sokaku Takeda is in Daito-ryu lineage, not in Aikido lineage. He is not in Aikido lineage becouse he never practiced Aikido. Aikido was found by Morihei Ueshiba and its lineage starts with Morihei Ueshiba, no matter what Sokaku Takeda was Morihei Ueshibas teacher. So there is place for Sokaku Takeda in lineage od Morihei Ueshibas teachers, but not in Aikido.
Same for example there is no name of Sokaku Takedas teacher Momonoi Shunzo in Daito-ryu lineage, becouse he teach him Kyoshin Meichi-ryu and not Daito-ryu.
In my oppinion you cant put someones name in lineage of martial art that he never practiced. Aikido was developed from Daito-ryu, but these are two different arts, same as TKD was developed from Karate and Tae Kyon, but these are three diferent martial arts. These are all different arts with different names, these are not same arts with different name.>

Post: shurite44:

Ok I see what you mean setsu nin to. I will buy that as a way to look at it.

But Song Moo Kwan and Shotokan are so closely tied it would be difficult to separate them. I believe the characters are the same for the two Ryu, just pronounced differently.

Using your scenario Funakoshi would not be able to count Itosu in his lineage. I don’t think that would go over too well at the Funakoshi house. :lol:

And my lineage does have branches that go different directions also. But as far as the Korean karate that is how it can be traced.

I am also taught Okinawan karate from an American and his instructor is from Okinawa. So that line never passes through mainland Japan. I have a karate instructor that has strong Aikido background and I have practiced some Aikido with him, so that lineage is also different.

So I see what you are talking about but the best way to track lineage is just to look at who taught who. It is also very interesting thing to do. It amazes me how just a few individuals can take you all the way back to some very important figures in martial arts history.>

Post: setsu nin to:

shurite44

“Using your scenario Funakoshi would not be able to count Itosu in his lineage. I don’t think that would go over too well at the Funakoshi house.”

No, no, no… Yasutsune Itosu is part of Gichin Funakoshis lineage, but he is not part of Shotokan lineage. Gichin Funakoshis lineage and Shotokan lineage are not same. Lineage of any style, doesnt have to be same as lineage of practicioner of same style.
Same Sokon Matsumura is part of Gichin Funakoshis lineage, but it doesnt mean that he or Sakugawa-ryu or Jigen-ryu are parts of Shotokan lineage, becouse Shotokan lineage starts with Shotokan, not before it. Lineage of any style starts with founder.>

Post: shurite44:

[quote=setsu nin to 
No, no, no… Yasutsune Itosu is part of Gichin Funakoshis lineage, but he is not part of Shotokan lineage. Gichin Funakoshis lineage and Shotokan lineage are not same. Lineage of any style, doesnt have to be same as lineage of practicioner of same style.
Same Sokon Matsumura is part of Gichin Funakoshis lineage, but it doesnt mean that he or Sakugawa-ryu or Jigen-ryu are parts of Shotokan lineage, becouse Shotokan lineage starts with Shotokan, not before it. Lineage of any style starts with founder.[/quote 

I understand your take on this. I consider the concept you talk about to be one of origin not lineage. But lineage can refer to origin so you are not wrong in your conclusion. More semantics at this point, and how we perceive the word. :)>

Post: chepo196:

mucha gente no sabe n¿bien pero que un arte sea Soft significa que el guerrero esta mas conectado con su muno espiritual.>

Share.

About Author

Leave A Reply