Evidence of Taekwondos Roots in Karate A

Korea Journal, vol. 54, no. 2 (summer 2014): 150-178.
150 © Korean National

KOREACommission
JOURNAL for/ UNESCO,
SUMMER 2014
Evidence of Taekwondo’s Roots in Karate:

An Analysis of the Technical Content of Early
Taekwondo Literature*
Udo MOENIG, Sungkyun CHO, and Taek-Yong KWAK
Abstract
The taekwondo establishment presents taekwondo as the descendent of ancient Kore-

an martial arts. However, during the last two decades, some scholars have begun to
question this presentation, contending instead that taekwondo is the product of
Koreans who studied karate in Japan during the Japanese colonial years, and then
introduced karate to Korea after coming home. A comprehensive survey of the exist-
ing Korean martial arts literature published between 1945 and 1970 strongly sup-
ports the argument that early “taekwondo” had in fact been Japanese karate, or more
specifically, Funakoshi Gichin’s Shotokan karate. Therefore, the assertion that early
taekwondo had its roots in Korean martial arts is difficult to sustain.
Keywords: taekwondo, karate, quanfa, gwan, Korean martial arts, literature review
* Acknowledgments: This work could not have been carried out without the generous
financial support of the Youngsan University Research Fund. We would also like to
acknowledge the support and help of Dr. Song Hyeongseok (Keimyung University), Dr.
Willy Pieter (Masaryk University), Dr. Gregory S. Kailian, and Cashel Rosier.
Udo MOENIG, corresponding author, is Professor at the Department of Taekwondo,
Youngsan University, Republic of Korea. E-mail: udomoenig@yahoo.com.
Sungkyun CHO is Professor at the Department of Taekwondo, Youngsan University, Republic
of Korea. E-mail: beomhong@ysu.ac.kr.
Taek-Yong KWAK is the Head of the Department of Taekwondo Instructor Education at
Yongin University, Republic of Korea. E-mail: laokwak@yongin.ac.kr.
7(Udo MOENIG).indd 150 14. 6. 30. 오후 4:53

Evidence of Taekwondo’s Roots in Karate 151
Introduction
The World Taekwondo Federation (WTF) (2009) portrays taekwondo as

having evolved from ancient Korean martial arts. Some scholars oppose
this portrayal and have provided evidence that taekwondo actually
evolved from Japanese karate (Kim 1990; Capener 1995, 2005; Kang and
Lee 1999; Madis 2003; Moenig, Cho, and Song 2012). Despite this evi-
dence, the WTF’s position still garners the most recognition.
This article documents taekwondo’s evolution from karate by com-
prehensively analyzing early taekwondo literature, and comparing it to
karate publications from the same period. Twelve Korean martial arts
manuals, published between 1949 and 1971, are analyzed in this study.
The majority of these manuals describe their martial art, using the terms
dangsudo 唐手道, gongsudo 空手道, or gwonbeop 拳法. While the terms dang-
sudo and gongsudo represent the Korean transliterations of the Japanese
term karate-do,1 the term gwonbeop refers to Chinese-style boxing. Apart
from Choi Hong Hi, all authors of the early Korean martial arts manuals
used at least one of these terms when referring to their martial art. Right
from his very first publication, Choi referred to his martial art as taekwon-
do, and was the first to coin the name.
Shortly after Korea’s liberation from Japan in 1945, the five original
gwan2 were founded: Cheongdogwan, Songmugwan, Mudeokkwan, Joseon
Yeonmugwan, and the YMCA Gwonbeopbu (Gwonbeop Department).
Choi Hong Hi’s school, Odogwan, was not established until 1954, where it
had its beginnings in the South Korean military. The founders of the five
gwan all studied karate, and all but Mudeokkwan’s founder, Hwang Kee,
studied in Japan.3 Yun Byeong-in, the founder of the YMCA Gwonbeopbu,
1. The characters “唐手” were used to write “karate” until the mid-1930s. However, Funa-
koshi advocated the use of the characters “空手,” removing reference to China’s Tang
dynasty, and thus disassociating karate from China. Both combinations of characters
are pronounced the same way in Japanese—“karate”—but have different pronunciations
in Korean; hence, the terms dangsu and gongsu both appear in the literature.
2. Gwan 館 literally means “hall,” but in this article refers to a martial arts school or style.
3. For a history of the different gwan, see Kang and Lee (1999), Heo (2008), and Madis
(2003, 2011a, 2011b).

152 KOREA JOURNAL / SUMMER 2014
was the only founder of the five gwan with proof of having studied anoth-
er martial art in addition to karate. As Kang and Lee (1999) state, evidence
shows that Yun studied Chinese quanfa (gwonbeop in Korean) as a child in
Manchuria. Of the other founders, Choi Hong Hi (1965) admitted to hav-
ing studied karate in Japan, but also claimed to have learned taekkyeon
(generally described as a traditional Korean martial art) as a child. Later,
Hwang Kee also made a variety of statements about the martial arts that
he had allegedly learned in his youth, but these claims remain disputed
(Kang and Lee 1999).
With the exception of the Songmugwan, all of the original gwan had
early martial arts manuals published by their founders or accomplished stu-
dents. These manuals provide vital evidence of taekwondo’s early techniques
and activities, as well as its relationship to karate. For the claims made by
some of the Korean instructors that they had studied and incorporated mar-
tial art styles other than karate to be true, their works should reveal how
their arts were different from karate. Therefore, this article will analyze the
technical content and significant features of the original gwan manuals,
including an explanation of the significance of forms in karate and early tae-
kwondo. The forms described in early taekwondo literature will also be con-
sidered. Finally, this article summarizes all the evidence available and con-
cludes that early taekwondo was largely a product of Funakoshi’s Shotokan
karate, and not a descendent of ancient Korean martial arts.
Comparison of Early Korean Martial Arts Manuals with Karate

Publications: Technical Content and Significant Features
The Seminal Karate Texts
Between the late nineteenth century and 1960, well over seventy karate-re-
lated manuals and books were published in Japan.4 The most influential
4. See the Hawaii Karate Museum website’s “Rare Karate Book Collection” for an overview
of the publications.

Evidence of
Udo(4p).pdf 1 Taekwondo’s Roots7:09
14. 6. 26. 오후 in Karate 153
Quanfa in
Manchuria (?)
Shotokan karate
out of Funakoshi’s
books, some Shotokan karate Shitoryu karate Shudokan karate
quanfa (?)a Funakoshi Gichin Mabuni Kenwa Toyama Kanken
C
M
Hwang Kee Yi Won-guk No Byeong-jik Jeon Song-seopb Yun Byeong-in
Mudeokkwan Cheongdogwan Songmugwan Jeseon Yeonmugwan YMCA Gwonbeopbu
?
Y
CM
Existing early manuals (publication year below name)
MY
Bak Cheol-hui
CY Hwang Kee Choe Song-nam Choi Hong Hic Yi Kyo-yun 1958
1949/1958 1955 1958/1965 1965 (Gangdeogwon)
CMY
(Odogwan) (Hanmugwan)
K
Yi Won-guk Choe Ik-jin
1968 1965
Sihak Henry Cho
(Changmugwan &
1968
Son Duk Sung (Jidogwan) Gangdeogwon)
1968
(later Gungmugwan)
Figure 1. Existing publications by the founders and students of the five original
gwan, plus Choi Hong Hi.
Note: he arrows indicate the individuals’ relationship to their instructors.

he names of the original gwan founders are colored grey.
a Where Hwang learned quanfa is not clear, though he claimed to have studied quanfa in
Manchuria (Hwang 1995, 12). However, the author believes that Hwang possibly learned
quanfa from one of the students of the YMCA Gwonbeopbu, because he reportedly trained
on occasion with students from other schools (Madis 2003, 199).
b here are diferent reports of Jeon having studied either under Mabuni or Funakoshi, or both
of them (Kang and Lee 1999; Madis 2003; Heo 2008).

c Choi’s claim of having studied Shotokan karate remains unsubstantiated (Madis 2011). In any
case, he did learn some karate in Japan.
figure during this time was Funakoshi Gichin, who is often referred to as
the “father of karate.” Funakoshi was the first to publish comprehensive
karate books documenting the Shotokan5 style that he pioneered. Funa-
5. Use of the term “Shotokan” as a distinctive style was only introduced by Funakoshi’s
students, and named after his gymnasium. Gwan is the Korean transliteration of the
Japanese term kan (a martial arts school or style).

koshi is most noted for the manual, Ryuku kempo todi, published in 1922,
which he soon expanded and republished in 1925 under the title, Rentan
goshin tode-jutsu (Todi Arts: Polish Your Courage for Self-Defense). The
republished edition also includes photographs. His main work, Karate-do
Kyohan: The Master Text ([1935] 1973), is useful for this study because it
displays Funakoshi’s main body of kata (forms), and thus provides a thor-
ough overview of Shotokan karate during a time when several of the Kore-
an gwan founders were studying the style in Japan (see Fig. 1). Another
influential figure in Shotokan karate was a man named Nishiyama Hideta-
ka. Nishiyama’s classic work, Karate: The Art of “Empty Hand” Fighting,
co-authored with Richard Brown (Nishiyama and Brown 1960), is regard-
ed as the best martial arts publication of the era (Noble 1997).
These seminal karate texts by Funakoshi and Nishiyama were com-
pared to the early Korean taekwondo literature, in order to see what influ-
ence they might have had on taekwondo. The comparison focused on
technical content, such as similarities in the range of basic stances, steps,
striking techniques—including fists, hands, elbows, kicks, and knees—
striking points, blocking techniques, forms, general training activities, and
formal features. Grappling, joint locks, and throwing techniques, which
are less used techniques in karate and taekwondo, were largely disregard-
ed, even though some manuals incorporated several of these techniques in
sections about self-defense. The primary focus of the comparison was on
basic stances, stand-up striking techniques, and forms.
A Comparison of Martial Arts Styles
The general taekwondo establishment portrays taekkyeon as the link

between “ancient” Korean martial arts and modern taekwondo (WTF
2009). Given this portrayal, early Korean manuals should display some
typical taekkyeon stances and/or techniques that are easy to distinguish
from karate techniques due to differences in posture and execution.6 This
6. Compare, for example, Nishiyama and Brown (1960) with the first taekkyeon manual by
Song and Bak (1983).

hypothesis was tested by focusing on the photographs, the descriptive con-

tent, and the names used when describing a technique or form. An exam-
ination of the photographs helped to identify similarities or differences in
posture, and sometimes, when a series of illustrations are displayed, the
sequenced movement of a technique. An examination of the descriptive
content helped to identify the execution or movement of certain tech-
niques. Table 1 below is a summary of the typical features identified to dis-
tinguish each martial art.
Table 1. Typical Features Used to Distinguish Each Martial Art
Shotokan karatea Quanfab Taekkyeon

General features in Formal, upright, Oten imitate Informal, slightly
body posture of straight, practical, animals, oten bent
stances, strikes, strong symbolic in nature
blocks, and kicks
General features in Straight, simple, Curved, round, or Round, curved

movement patterns practical straight, complex,
of strikes, blocks, oten symbolic in
and kicks nature
a Some other karate styles look much more quanfa-like because some of their founders
traveled frequently to China to study Chinese styles. For example, the Gojuryu 剛柔流 (“hard-
sot style”) karate incorporated many animal postures.
b Quanfa features many styles, but they are usually quite distinctive from Shotokan karate.
Appendix 1 provides a more detailed sample of the content that was com-
pared in this study. More specifically, Appendix 1 compares basic kicking
techniques described in the works of three different martial arts expo-
nents—Nishiyama Hidetaka (Nishiyama and Brown 1960), Choi Hong Hi
(1965), and Henry Cho (1968). Their training manuals were chosen as
samples due to clarity, the quality of illustrational and descriptive content,
and the comprehensive range of individual techniques displayed. Other
Korean manuals often display a narrower range of techniques, have poorer

illustrations, and are less detailed.

Just as their Japanese predecessors had done earlier, the writers of the
early Korean martial arts manuals focused on forms. However, these man-
uals also displayed a variety of other exercises, such as prearranged spar-
ring. Most of these manuals conclude with a section on self-defense, the
ultimate objective of all practical training activity at that time. Full-contact
sparring is not described in any of the manuals, and the authors who do
mention full-contact sparring reject it vehemently. Non-contact sparring
is described in some of the literature, but clearly plays a subordinate role;
the main focus is on forms training. The following discussion of individu-
al works focuses mainly on the special features of each manual.
1) The First Korean Martial Arts Manuals of Modern Times
In 1949, Hwang Kee, the founder of the Mudeokkwan, published Hwasu-

do gyobon (Hwasudo Textbook), which is considered the first Korean
martial arts book of modern times. From early on, Hwang preferred to use
Korean names for his art, with the “hwa 花” (flower) in the term hwasudo
(literally, “the way of the flowering hand”) from the book title referring to
the ancient term hwarang 花郞 (“flower youth” or “flower boys”). Hwasudo
gyobon stands out among early Korean manuals because it contains some
quanfa content alongside the content on karate.7
Another very early manual, Gwonbeop gyobon (Gwonbeop Textbook),
was published by Choe Song-nam in 1955. Choe was a soldier and learned
dangsudo from Yi Won-guk as a member of the Cheongdogwan (Heo
2008). However, Choe was not a key figure in the development and forma-
tion of taekwondo. His manual features standard karate techniques and
Shotokan kata.8 In addition, Choe (1955, 192-210) describes a knife form
that he calls Dando (Dagger) form. As there are no knife forms in karate
and Choe was a soldier, he most likely developed this form himself, possi-
bly for use in the military.
7. For a detailed discussion on this, see the following section about forms.
8. See Appendix 3 for a summary of this.

Hwang Kee’s second manual,

Dangsudo gyobon (Dangsudo Text- Right, front view
book) (1958), describes basic tech-
niques as well as some forms. How-
ever, much of the book concen-
trates on self-defense. In addition,
another large portion of the book
describes various non-related skills,
such as first aid and lifesaving. In
Above, side view
later publications, Hwang used the
Korean term subakdo (empty-
Figure 2. Photographs of Hwang
handed fighting), which he adapt- demonstrating the “lowest position”
ed in the late 1950s to describe his stance.
art. He also illustrates a few tech-
Source: Hwang (1958, 52).
nical dissimilarities to the Shoto-
Note: he position of Hwang’s rear foot is proble-
kan karate of that time, for the matic. For a comparison, see Funakoshi’s
likely reason that he lacked for- Rentan goshin tode-jutsu ([1925] 1996,
mal training. Hwang (1995) later 178). Reprint permission could not be
secured.
admitted to having learned karate
mostly out of books, and the basic
stances that Hwang presents are mostly from standard karate. However, on
a few occasions, he illustrates stances that are absent from mature Shoto-
kan karate, such as a stance he calls the “lowest position” (see Fig. 2).
Eric Madis (2003) suggests that Hwang incorporated movements
from very early Shotokan karate. This theory is supported by other litera-
ture, as the same stance referred to above is found in Funakoshi’s early
work ([1925] 1996, 178), but not in later Shotokan works. Other evidence
includes the fact that Hwang often used the old Okinawan names for
forms, as did Funakoshi in his 1920s publications. However, Funakoshi
changed the form names in his 1935 publication (see Appendix 2 and
Appendix 3). The general range of techniques presented by Hwang is simi-
lar to standard karate techniques of the time. He displays a modified kick,
called a “bit-kick,” which is described as being in between a front kick and
a roundhouse kick (Hwang 1958, 64). In modern publications, Hwang also

displays the “inside-out-kick,”9 which is a taekkyeon kick, but was not

shown in his early works. This kicking technique is often showcased by
Hwang’s organizations on their official homepages and advertisements
because they believe it proves that Hwang’s style is different from karate.
2) The Influence of Quanfa (Gwonbeop), Chinese Martial Arts
Bak Jeol-hui was a member of the YMCA Gwonbeopbu. However, he and

Hong Jeong-pyo split from the school in 1956 and founded the Gangdeog-
won. Bak’s instructor, Yun Byeong-in, disappeared during the beginning of
the Korean War and left no publications, while Bak wrote a manual, Pasa
gwonbeop: gongsudo gyobon (Gwonbeop Association: Gongsudo Textbook),
which was published in 1958. Bak’s manual is the only available source that
describes the curriculum of the YMCA Gwonbeopbu. Bak’s instructor, Yun
Byeong-in had studied quanfa in his youth, and later Shudokan karate in
Japan under Toyama Kanken, but Bak’s manual shows no influence of any
kind from Chinese martial arts. Rather, Bak (1958) displays karate tech-
niques and forms (kata) exclusively, although he does mention a few Chi-
nese forms by name.
Although his main curriculum consisted of karate and Funakoshi’s
kata, on occasion Yun taught some Chinese forms to selected students at
the YMCA Gwonbeopbu (Kang and Lee 1999; Madis 2003; Heo 2008).
Yun studied Shudokan karate in Japan, but taught predominantly Shoto-
kan kata because they were the most popular in both Japan and Korea, as
a result of Funakoshi’s status and fame.10 In addition, by using Shotokan
kata, the evaluation of forms contests was streamlined and simplified.11 In
9. The inside-out-kick is also referred to as the “reverse roundhouse kick.” It is called

biteureo chagi in modern taekwondo and jjae chagi in taekkyeon. It was only adapted
later by some taekwondo instructors during the 1970s.
10. Eric Madis, “Storming the Fortress: A History of Taekwondo—Part Four: The First Kore-
an Schools: The Maverick Schools,” accessed November 23, 2012, http://www.fightingarts.
com/reading/article.php?id=686.
11. Eric Madis, “Storming the Fortress: A History of Taekwondo—Part Four: The First Kore-
an Schools: The Maverick Schools,” accessed November 23, 2012, http://www.fighting-
arts.com/reading/article.php?id=686.

contrast, Bak’s manual (1958) shows that quanfa was not very popular
among students, and that after Yun’s disappearance, his successors mostly
gave up on practicing Chinese martial arts components in their general
training activities, in favor of karate. Nevertheless, Bak was known in the
Korean taekwondo community for his knowledge of Chinese quanfa.
Several original students of the YMCA Gwonbeopbu also had some
knowledge of quanfa. Some of them later founded or became members of
the Changmugwan and the Gangdeogwon, where Chinese forms were also
taught on occasion.12 However, with the exception of Hwang Kee’s 1949
publication, none of the early taekwondo literature displays any typical
quanfa content, which implies that quanfa had no influence on the general
training activities of taekwondo.
3) The Early Use of the Term “Taekwondo”
General Choi Hong Hi, founder of the Odogwan, published his first book,
Taegwondo gyobon (Taekwondo Textbook) in 1958. Taegwondo gyobon
was the first book published using the word “taekwondo” in its title. Choi’s
first English publication—the first English taekwondo textbook—appeared
in 1965 under the title, Taekwondo: The Art of Self-Defence. This textbook
expands on the content of the earlier Korean publication, using new, high-
er quality photographs and more detailed explanations. The book was
published before Choi’s break with the Korean taekwondo world and the
South Korean government. During the 1960s, Choi became increasingly at
odds with the taekwondo establishment over issues of leadership and
direction. Furthermore, he was personally in disagreement with the mili-
tary regime of Park Chung-hee, which eventually led to Choi’s gradual
erosion of influence during the second half of the 1960s (Madis 2003; Gil-
lis 2008). Taking into consideration Choi’s status and authority in the for-
mative process of unifying taekwondo in Korea, his publications are rep-
12. Robert McLain, “Master Yoon Byung-in’s Legacy: The Changmoo-Kwan and Kang-
duk-Won,” accessed November 23, 2012, http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/144-mar-
tialtalk-magazine-articles/43718-changmoo-kwan-kang-duk-won-history-photos-avail-
able-upon-request.html.

resentative of general taekwondo activity in Korea at that time.

The ranges and styles of Shotokan karate are practically identical to
the taekwondo techniques displayed in Choi’s 1958 and 1965 publications.
The only exception is that karate literature displays no spinning-back-kick.
However, Choi, too, did not display the spinning-back-kick in his earlier
1958 Korean piece, but only in his later English publication, where it was
called a “reverse turning kick” (1965, 88). This evidence may place the
technique’s invention in the early 1960s (Gillis 2008, 62; Moenig 2011, 22).
Choi’s work displays more jump-kicks than the work of Nishiyama.
However, all of these jump-kicks are derived from regular kicking tech-
niques, some of which Funakoshi mentions in his earlier work (Funakoshi
[1957] 1973, 23). Choi was even accused of plagiarism when he released
his book in 1965 because of its resemblance to Nishiyama’s earlier work
(Gillis 2008). Apart from the renaming of some techniques, a great num-
ber of the pictures used in Choi’s book are nearly identical to those used in
Nishiyama’s work. Choi (1965, 295-6) even admitted to studying karate in
Japan, but also claimed to have studied taekkyeon and then using this
knowledge to combine the techniques. However, no content in Choi’s
early publications shows an incorporation of taekkyeon or any other mar-
tial art besides Shotokan karate. Both Choi and Hwang did include some
taekkyeon techniques, such as the inside-out-kick, but only in their later
publications. Thus, their claims that they were exposed to taekkyeon in
their youth are likely to be wishful thinking.
In 1965, another taekwondo book titled, Taekwondo: A Way of Life in
Korea (Read and Chai 1965), was published in English. Chai Ik Jin, who
had been a student first at the Changmugwan and later at Gangdeogwon,
posed for a number of photographs and probably advised the American
writer, Stanton E. Read, on the book’s content. The purpose of the book
was to introduce taekwondo to American audience. It describes taekwon-
do’s ethical values and organizational structure, and martial arts history,
while blending fact and fiction. Read and Chai (1965, 48) claim, “Follow-
ing the liberation [from Japanese colonial rule] . . . Japanese karate, Chi-
nese chüan-fa [quanfa], and the earlier Korean taekkyon [taekkyeon] were
combined to form what is today the art of taekwondo.” Chai stressed the

quanfa roots because of his YMCA Gwonbeopbu lineage.

Yi Kyo-yun’s 1965 manual, Baengmanin-ui taesudo gyobon (Taesudo
Textbook for the Millions), is the only book to have been published with
the word taesudo in the title. Taesudo was the official name chosen by the
martial arts association for the discipline from 1961 to 1965. Yi’s manual
provides evidence that the Korea Taesudo Association still used Funa-
koshi’s kata up until 1965, and that any new forms had yet to be devel-
oped at that stage (K. Yi 1965).
Yi Won-guk, the founder of the Cheongdogwan, and the most im-
portant and highest ranked instructor following Korea’s liberation, fled
from Korea back to Japan in 1950 because of political persecution from
authorities who accused him of having been a Japanese collaborator
(Madis 2003). After his eventual return to Korea, Yi belatedly published
Taegwondo gyobeom (Taekwondo Manual), where he introduced Shotokan
karate techniques and forms (W. Yi 1968). However, by this time Yi had
long ceased being a major player in the field of Korean martial arts. In later
years, Yi claimed that he had also studied taekkyeon in his youth, but this
claim is belied by the fact that there is no evidence of any taekkyeon tech-
niques in his manual. Taegwondo gyobeom mentions, for the first time
without any illustrations, the Palgwae (literally, “eight divination tri-
grams”) hyeong, two of the Taegeuk (literally, “source of the dual principle
of yin and yang”) hyeong, and most of the modern dan (black belt) forms.
This was the period when the members of the Korea Taekwondo Associa-
tion (KTA) distanced themselves from Choi Hong Hi and developed new
forms. It is interesting to note that the term pumsae (form) did not yet
exist at that time and Yi still used the karate term hyeong but in connec-
tion to modern taekwondo forms.
4) Korean Martial Arts Instructors Overseas
In 1958, Sihak Henry Cho—who had joined the Jidogwan in 1953—became

one of the first Korean taekwondo instructors to emigrate to the United
States. Cho went on to publish a manual titled, Korean Karate Free Fighting
Technique in 1968. Cho was the only author at that time to show no forms

in his work. Instead, he focused only on “free fighting techniques,” a deci-

sion that reflects his background at the Jidogwan, where free full-contact
sparring was pioneered (Moenig, Cho, and Song 2012, 1368). Despite this,
the technical system that Cho shows is still karate and does not represent
modern taekwondo (Moenig 2012). Cho’s manual is also interesting for
the fact that he states, “tae-kwon is the Korean word for karate . . . Tae-
kwon do . . . is identical to Japanese karate . . . some of the Korean public
still uses the ‘karate’ pronunciation in conversation” (Cho 1968, 19).
Son Duk Sung, an influential Korean taekwondo master, published
Korean Karate: The Art of Tae Kwon Do in 1968 in English (co-authored
with Clark). Son had become the leader of the Cheongdogwan after Yi
Won-guk fled to Japan. However, during the late 1950s, disagreements
with the vice president led to him leaving the organization. In 1959, Son
took leadership of the Gungmugwan, and in 1963, he moved to the Unit-
ed States (Heo 2008). Son (1968) states that Funakoshi was the person to
introduce Okinawa-te to Japan, but fails to mention that his instructor, Yi
Won-guk, had learned karate directly from Funakoshi. Son’s style is clear-
ly Shotokan karate.13
Publications released after 1968 hold less relevance to this study. With
the introduction of full-contact sparring competitions, taekwondo tech-
niques changed and developed a distinctiveness from traditional karate
(Moenig 2011; Moenig Cho, and Song 2012). Despite these developments,
one book from this later period is worth mentioning because it provides
further valuable information.
In 1971, Lee Chong Woo,14 Chairperson of the Technical Committee
of the KTA during that time, published a manual titled, Taegwondo gyo-
bon (Taekwondo Manual), which represented the first modern taekwon-
do textbook. Taegwondo gyobon only illustrates the Palgwae and modern
13. See Funakoshi’s kata in Son and Clark (1968, 89-218).

14. Lee Chong Woo, a leading taekwondo pioneer, was essential for the development of the
WTF. He was the former Secretary-General and Vice-President of the WTF, and the
former Vice-President of the Kukkiwon (Taekwondo headquarters established by the
South Korean government).

Taegeuk pumsae, while no longer mentioning any karate kata. Lee also
comprehensively formulates, for the first time, “evidence” of taekwondo’s
modern, popular historical presentation. For example, he presents the
hwarang myth,15 illustrates ancient Goguryeo paintings, and uses the
stone carvings of the Silla “taekwondo warriors” in Gyeongju as proof of
the existence of “ancient taekwondo” (Lee 1971). In addition, Lee (1971)
claims that taekwondo originated from subakdo (empty-handed fighting)
and taekkyeon. Some elements of Lee’s claims, such as the stone carvings
of the Silla taekwondo warriors, are no longer included in the modern
portrayal of taekwondo’s history by the WTF because their connection
with taekwondo has been thoroughly debunked. As Kim (1990) points
out, for example, rather than representing “taekwondo warriors,” the
stone carvings symbolize the fearsome Buddhist temple guardians com-
monly found at the entrances of East Asian Buddhist temples. Incidental-
ly, despite the general rejection of the warriors as proof of taekwondo’s
ancient history, the organizers of the 2011 Taekwondo World Champion-
ships in Gyeongju nevertheless decided to depict the warriors as their
main point of attraction when advertising for the games. The popular
myths created by Lee and others continue to prevail, and are often invoked
to suit certain agendas. In an interview in 2002, Lee confessed his role in
fabricating taekwondo’s history: “I am one of those who wrote that in a
book. To be frank, we did not have much to come out with.”16
Early Korean martial arts literature is conveniently phrased “taekwon-
do literature” by many instructors and academics. However, this is not an
accurate title because the name “taekwondo” was not universally recog-
nized at that time, and most of the early authors thought of their martial
art as something else. The evidence presented in these manuals provides
solid proof of taekwondo’s origins in karate. With the exception of a few
photographs in Hwang Kee’s 1949 text, none of the stances, striking tech-
15. Refer to the explanation on page 157 above.

16. “Kukkiwon Vice President Chong Woo Lee’s Shocking Confession of Olympic Com-
petition Result Manipulation!” interview by Yook Sung-chul, Shin Dong-A, April 2002,
http://tkdreform.com/yook_article.pdf.

niques with the hands, striking points, blocking techniques, or kicking

techniques displayed in these manuals are noticeably different from the
techniques displayed in earlier karate publications. The photographs and
descriptive content in these books are either identical, or almost identical,
to the content of earlier karate publications. In addition, the range of tech-
niques presented is almost exactly the same. If one were to display, for
instance, some quanfa stances, strikes, or kicking techniques in these
manuals, a host of similarities would, of course, be evident, but one would
also be able to identify some distinct differences in body posture and the
variety of techniques. Moreover, none of the photographs presented by
Choi Hong Hi, or any of the other authors in their publications, resemble
taekkyeon techniques, in terms of the subject’s posture or the description
given. This evidence suggests that taekwondo techniques were identical to
karate techniques during the time when these photographs were taken.
The Significance of Forms in Karate and Early Taekwondo
Providing an overview of the forms used in early taekwondo and compar-

ing these forms with patterns used in karate is helpful in establishing and
verifying taekwondo’s lineage. This is because forms training was the main
training activity used before the introduction of full-contact sparring
tournaments for taekwondo in 1962 (Moenig, Cho, and Song 2012).
1) The Evolution of Training Activities
By the end of the nineteenth century, the only surviving game-like fight-
ing activities in Korea were ssireum and taekkyeon. Traditional bare-hand-
ed martial arts had long before ceased to exist and were forgotten. Ssireum
was a wrestling art, and taekkyeon was a folk game-like activity where use
of the legs was emphasized. In the past, both ssireum and taekkyeon were
often performed as recreational folk games by commoners during festivi-
ties, and lacked any formal characteristics in terms of organization, training
content and method, or rules and regulations. General formalities such as
dress code, rank, and designated training sites were also absent (Cho, Moe-

nig, and Nam 2012). Of most relevance to this study is the fact that both
activities lacked any kind of forms training,17 which is the hallmark of tra-
ditional Chinese and Japanese martial arts. Forms training was neither a
part of ssireum nor of taekkyeon, although the concept of kata was known
to Koreans because of the incorporation of judo and kendo into the Japa-
nese colonial education system of Korea in 1914 (Capener 2005). However,
the forms (kata) training of the classical Japanese martial arts (bugei), and
its modern offsprings, judo and kendo, was fundamentally different than
the forms training of Chinese martial arts, Okinawa-based Japanese karate,
and modern Korean martial arts. Forms training in Japanese martial arts
represented a set of prearranged exercises performed with a partner, whereas
the other arts understood kata, or forms, mostly as a “solo performance” by
a practitioner (Friday and Humitake 1997, 102-103).
Before the introduction of karate kata 形/型 (hyeong in Korean; form)18
with the opening of the first dangsudo (karate) school by Yi Won-guk in
1944, this kind of systemized forms training had not existed on the Korean
peninsula. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the term hyeong was used
in connection with Korean martial arts any earlier than this.19
Karate teachings in Okinawa were secretive and instructions were in-
dividually transmitted from master to disciple. Moreover, karate was only
a collection of a number of different fighting techniques and forms (kata),
17. Modern taekkyeon started to incorporate forms and formal characteristics during the
early 1980s, and was modeled after other existing martial arts (Jeong 2005). Nowadays,
taekkyeon has twenty-four forms, called bonttae boegi.
18. According to Friday and Humatake (1997), when describing kata, the traditional Japa-
nese bugei and modern judo generally use the character “形,” whereas karate (and tradi-
tional taekwondo) mostly use the character “型.” The former, “[it] is argued, better rep-
resents the freedom to respond and change—albeit within a pattern essential to success
in combat . . . [while the latter] implies a rigidity and constraint inappropriate to martial
training [according to bugei philosophy]” (Friday and Humitake 1997, 107).
19. The only surviving martial arts manuals of earlier periods in Korea are the China-based
Muye jebo 武藝諸譜 (A Compendium of Several Martial Arts) (1598) and Muye dobo
tongji 武藝圖譜通志 (Comprehensive Illustrated Manual of Martial Arts) (1759). Both
books use the term bo 譜 to describe series of illustrations intended as training guides
(see C. Bak 2007).

which varied from school to school without any standard curriculum.

Only after its introduction to Japan did karate develop structure and a
consistent method of instruction (Hassell 2007). This new structure was
modeled after the system already being used in judo and kendo at that
time (Madis 2003). Kata training—a solo performance by a practitioner—
had been the main focus of karate training in Okinawa. However, during
the 1930s, after its introduction to Japan, prearranged partner exercises
(yaksoku kumite 約束組手 in Japanese)20 modeled on the training methods
of existing Japanese martial arts were added to karate’s training routine
(Hassell 2007, 44; Bittmann 1999, 127). During these exercises, at their
most basic level, the student attacks the opponent with a straight punch,
and the opponent is supposed to defend him/herself with a block, and
then counterattack. The same kinds of exercises still exist in present-day
taekwondo under the name yaksok daeryeon 約束對錬 (prearranged spar-
ring). These kinds of exercises represented the pre-stage for free sparring.
In judo and kendo, all training activities are geared toward free spar-
ring. However, Funakoshi only reluctantly introduced free non-contact
sparring to the daily training routine of karate during the mid-1930s.
Despite these modernizations, Funakoshi, and many other early karate
masters, maintained an emphasis on forms during training (Funakoshi
[1935] 1973). A majority of the first Korean taekwondo instructors also
followed this practice. However, the main focus of taekwondo training
changed from forms exercises to sparring-related exercises with the intro-
duction of full-contact competitions during the 1960s. This change sig-
naled the start of taekwondo’s evolution into a martial art in its own right,
distinct from karate (Moenig 2011; Moenig, Cho, and Song 2012). Forms
training has nevertheless maintained its importance among many tae-
kwondo practitioners, especially those not wishing to engage in sparring.
Additionally, mastery of the different forms continues to be a requirement
of passing belt grade promotion tests.
20. Also called kihon kumite 基本組手 (basic sparring).

2) Forms Training in Taekwondo
Early taekwondo philosophy inherited a focus on lethal self-defense from

karate. The concept of “one blow, certain death” (ikken hissatsu 一拳必殺 in
Japanese) was an essential characteristic of traditional karate philosophy,
which rejected full-contact sparring. Since many masters upheld the
belief that one strike could kill an opponent, they considered full-contact
sparring too dangerous and, therefore, insisted on forms training as a
necessary substitute. This attitude was also adapted by many of the early
practitioners of taekwondo (Choi 1965; Son and Clark 1968).
Further evidence of the importance placed on forms training by Kore-
an authors is the fact that, in almost all of their books, illustrations and
instructions of forms make up more than half the entire content. Added
to this, a majority of the forms illustrated in the Korean books analyzed
for this study also resemble those in the photographs of Funakoshi’s
orthodox Shotokan karate kata. Their descriptive content and names are
also similar to those of Funakoshi’s. When Funakoshi brought these
forms from Okinawa to Japan during the 1920s, he modified some,
renamed most, and invented a few of his own. Funakoshi grouped the
forms into the Shorinryu 少林流 and Shoreiryu 昭靈流, named after the two
most well-known styles of karate in Okinawa (Hassell 2007; Bittmann
1999).21 Given the well documented origins and history of the karate kata,
summarized above, it would be fanciful to suggest that any of these forms
existed in any traditional or indigenous Korean martial art prior to their
introduction from Japan.
As a majority of the Korean taekwondo leaders studied Shotokan
karate, it seems likely that the forms of other karate styles played a minor
role in early Korean martial arts teachings. However, this assumption can-
not be concluded with certainty because all other ryu (“school” or “style”)
practiced a number of the same forms as Funakoshi.22 In addition, two of
21. See also the forms in Funakoshi ([1957] 1973, 35-208). Bittmann (1999) contends that
the distinction between the two schools only came about due to misspellings and dif-
ferences in dialect.
22. The other ryu usually kept the old Okinawan names.

the gwan founders also had connections to Shitoryu and Shudokan karate
(see Fig. 1).
In the period between Korea’s liberation from Japan in 1945 and the
1960s, the original forms naturally changed as the art was taught to the
next generation. Furthermore, Choi Hong Hi created his own forms,
called the “Changheon School,” although these were still heavily influ-
enced by the techniques and style of karate kata. In Choi’s 1958 publica-
tion, only five forms are mentioned and partly illustrated (123-288), but
in his 1965 book he mentions 20 forms (174-215). For the most part,
however, Choi’s forms were only used by the Odogwan, which he had
established in the military. Other schools continued to use Funakoshi’s
original Shotokan kata, as displayed in the manuals of the other gwan.
Some gwan also developed other forms over the years. For example,
Son Duk Sung invented forms that he called “Kuk Mu” (Gungmu) hyeong
(Son and Clark 1968). No new forms were as influential as Choi’s hyeong,
however. For example, although the Korea Taesudo Association mostly used
Funakoshi’s karate kata to test students for their belt exams during the 1960s,
they did also test some of Choi’s hyeong (listed in Kang and Lee 1999, 45-46).
After Choi’s differences with the South Korean regime, and break
from the taekwondo world during the second half of the 1960s, the KTA
developed the Palgwae pumsae, which were used from 1967 to 1971.23
The Palgwae pumsae specified the rankings of color belts. Finally, in 1971,
the modern Taegeuk pumsae were introduced, which are still used today.
In addition, during the same period, the KTA also developed new forms
for black-belt (dan) testing. The stances in these forms are usually shorter
than in karate, but the karate influence is still visible. Lee Chong Woo
claimed that, in association with other “masters who taught Karate,” he
played a “central role,” in developing these forms.24
The Taegeuk pumsae are only used by schools affiliated with the
23. There was no earlier use of the term pumsae in martial arts to describe forms.
24. “Kukkiwon Vice President Chong Woo Lee’s Shocking Confession of Olympic Compe-
tition Result Manipulation!,” interview by Yook Sung-chul, Shin Dong-A, April 2002,
http://tkdreform.com/yook_article.pdf.

1945 Funakoshi’s kata late 1960s

1958 Changheon hyeong late 1960s
1967 Palgwae pumsae 1971
1971 Taegeuk pumsae
Figure 3. Timeline for the general use of forms in taekwondo schools.
Source: Moenig (2012, 68-74).

Note: Many schools kept using several diferent sets of forms throughout this general time line.
WTF, which promulgates the Olympic taekwondo style of competition.

Other smaller organizations, such as Choi Hong Hi’s International
Taekwondo Federation(s) still use the Changheon hyeong, and Hwang
Kee’s organizations still mostly use Funakoshi’s kata.
3) Discussion of Forms in the Literature
The early Korean martial arts manuals all focus on Funakoshi’s conven-
tional kata, which he renamed during the early 1930s. According to Funa-
koshi ([1935] 1973, 35):
The names of the kata have come down to us by word of mouth . . .

many of which had ambiguous meanings . . . . Since karate is a Japanese
martial art, there is no apparent reason for retaining these unfamiliar
and in some cases unclear names of Chinese origin.
Funakoshi wanted to distance himself from his roots in Chinese and Oki-
nawan martial arts so that karate could gain acceptance as a “Japanese
martial art.” A similar process occurred later with the introduction of karate
to Korea, when Korean leaders increasingly tried to distance themselves
from their roots in karate.
Appendix 2 lists the kata featured in Funakoshi’s Karate-do Kyohan:
The Master Text ([1935] 1973), a revised edition of his 1935 manual. Appen-
dix 2 also displays the original Okinawan names for kata, as well as the
terms modified by Funakoshi and first introduced in this book, and the
kata names used in the Korean literature. In some cases, such as the Tai-

kyoku, Heian, and Tekki kata, Korean authors changed the transliteration
of the Chinese characters from Japanese to Korean. In other instances, the
Japanese pronunciation was kept, but spelled in Hangeul (Korean alpha-
bet). Generally speaking, the Korean gwan lacked standardized language
or curricula. Appendix 3 provides a detailed list of forms described in
some of the early Korean manuals.25
Hwang’s 1949 manual, Hwasudo gyobon, was the only work to feature
a non-karate form (145-146) in addition to Funakoshi’s standard kata
(82-143). This form was a Chinese form that Hwang called the “Sorim
Janggwon 少林長拳” (“Shaolin Long Fist”). This term is frequently used in
Chinese martial arts and broadly describes a northern Shaolin wushu 武術
(“martial art”; or literally, “skill”) style. Hwang displays only three photo-
graphs while describing this form, which are shown in Figure 4. Hwang’s
stances look out of balance in these photographs, suggesting Hwang’s lim-
ited knowledge and likely lack of formal training in Chinese martial arts.
Chinese forms are not mentioned in Hwang’s next publication. In
Dangsudo gyobon (Hwang 1958, 68-163), Hwang only illustrates some of
Funakoshi’s Shorim School patterns and just one form from the Shorei
School. Only in his 1970 book, Subakdo daegam, does Hwang again men-
tion, next to Funakoshi’s forms, two Chinese forms, the Taegeukkwon 太
Figure 4. The Sorim Janggwon form by Hwang Kee.
Source: Hwang (1949, 145-146, 151).
25. See a comprehensive list in Moenig (2012, 72-74).

極拳 (Taijiquan in Chinese) and the Sorim Janggwon (Hwang 1970, 604-

622, 628).
In his early works, Hwang frequently used the original Okinawan
Chinese characters to describe Funakoshi’s forms. However, occasionally,
he wrote the Japanese pronunciation in Hangeul, or transliterated the
terms into Korean. Hwang’s confusion could be the result of his lack of
formal training and education in karate. Later, when Hwang promoted his
art in the United States and overseas, he deliberately concealed the Japa-
nese origins of many of the forms that he taught, while also claiming
credit for their invention or introduction into Korea. For example, many
dangsudo instructors, and Hwang’s son, still claim that Hwang brought
the Pyeongan hyeong back from China (Hancock 2009).
Conclusion
Choi Hong Hi was the most important figure in taekwondo during the
late 1950s and 1960s, though his leading 1965 publication, Taekwondo:
The Art of Self-Defence, looks, to a large degree, like a copy of Nishiyama
Hidetaka’s earlier 1960 book, Karate: The Art of “Empty Hand” Fighting.
Hwang Kee, in his 1949 and 1958 publications, was the only Korean
author to show any differences between Korean martial arts and contem-
porary karate. For example, he incorporated some of Funakoshi’s very
early Okinawan karate techniques into his style. Hwang admitted to hav-
ing studied karate using books, and some of the stances that he displays
resemble stances right out of Funakoshi’s earlier 1925 publication. Hwang
showed a great deal of interest in other martial arts, and incorporated a
Chinese martial art form in his first publication in 1949, although this
was not reflected in his later 1958 book. He might have come into contact
with Chinese martial arts when he worked for the railway in Manchuria,
or he might have learned the pattern from a student of the YMCA Gwon-
beopbu, where some students had a little knowledge of quanfa. However,
Hwang ultimately relied on the styles of Japanese karate.
Even though several leaders of the early gwan published nothing tan-

gible, some of their accomplished students authored manuals. These pub-

lications provide visual and written evidence of the training activities of
four of the original five gwan. However, no significant difference from
karate is reflected in any of the taekwondo literature presented by these
individuals. Each publication contains between two and three hundred
pages, often with hundreds of illustrations. Of all the forms presented in
these publications, only one is a quanfa form, and only three photographs
exist of this particular form. The illustrational and descriptive content of
these early books greatly resembles karate. Furthermore, an analysis of
the early publications reveals that the main training activity used in the
early taekwondo schools was forms training, and that a majority of this
training content consisted of Funakoshi’s kata. After a comprehensive
consideration of the existing literature, this study concludes that early tae-
kwondo was largely a product of Funakoshi’s Shotokan karate.
The few taekkyeon elements—such as the inside-out-kick—that exist
in modern taekwondo are not displayed in any of the early manuals.
These elements were likely introduced to the technical body of taekwon-
do at a much later time. Rather, early taekwondo techniques, curriculum,
terminology, dress, and formalities were practically identical to karate.
Unique techniques, training methods, and a purpose, distinct from kara-
te, only started to develop with the introduction of full-contact competi-
tions during the 1960s. Taekwondo forms and terminology also changed
during this same period, as the establishment increasingly sought to con-
ceal taekwondo’s origins in karate.
This study concludes by suggesting a revised portrayal of taekwondo’s
history. Further investigations on the disputed origins of taekwondo will
provide an arena for more accurate and historically evidenced research,
thereby resulting in a greater understanding of taekwondo.

REFERENCES
Bak, Cheong-jeong. 2007. Muye dobo tongji juhae (Recorded Documents of Mar-
tial Arts Illustrations and Commentary). Seoul: Dongmunseon.
Bak, Jeol-hui. 1958. Pasa gwonbeop: gongsudo gyobon (Gwonbeop Association:
Gongsudo Textbook). Seoul: Gudeok Wonsa.
Bittmann, Heiko. 1999. Karatedô, der Weg der leeren Hand (Karate: The Way of
the Empty Hand). Ludwigsburg: Verlag Heiko Bittmann.
Capener, Steven D. 1995. “Problems in the Identity and Philosophy of T’aegwon-
do and Their Historical Causes.” Korea Journal 35.4: 80-94.
____________. 2005. “The Modern Significance of Taekwondo as Sport and Martial
Art: Overcoming Cultural and Historical Limitations in Traditional Think-
ing.” Hanguk sasang-gwa munhwa (Korean Thought and Culture) 30: 321-
54.
Cho, Sihak Henry. 1968. Korean Karate Free Fighting Technique. Rutland and Tokyo:
Charles E. Tuttle Company.
Cho, Sungkyun, Moenig Udo, and Nam Dohee. 2012. “The Available Evidence
Regarding T’aekkyŏn and Its Portrayal as a ‘Traditional Korean Martial Art.’”
Acta Koreana 15.2: 341-368.
Choe, Song-nam. 1955. Gwonbeop gyobon (Gwonbeop Textbook). Seoul: Donga
Munhwasa.
Choi, Hong Hi. 1958. Taegwondo gyobon (Taekwondo Textbook). Seoul: Seongh-
wa Munhwasa.
____________. 1965. Taekwondo: The Art of Self-Defence. Seoul: Daeha Publication
Company.
Friday, Karl F., and Humitake Seki. 1997. Legacies of the Sword: The Kashima-
Shinryu and Samurai Martial Culture. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Funakoshi, Gichin. [1925] 1996. Rentan goshin otodejutsu 錬膽護身唐手術 (Todi
Arts: Polish Your Courage for Self-Defense). Tokyo: Airyudo.
____________. [1935] 1973. Karate-do Kyohan: The Master Text. Translated by
Ohshima Tsutomu. Tokyo: Kondansha International.
____________. [1943] 1988. Karate-do Nyumon: The Master Introductory Text.
Translated by Teramoto John. Tokyo: Kodansha International.
Gillis, Alex. 2008. A Killing Art: The Untold History of Tae Kwon Do. Toronto:
ECW Press.
Hancock, John. 2009. “Quest for the Truth: The Origin of Tang Soo Do’s Forms.”
Last modified December 11, 2009. http://www.usadojo.com/articles/tang-

soo-do-forms.htm.
Hassell, Randall G. 2007. Shotokan Karate: Its History and Evolution. Los Angeles:
Empire Books.
Hawaii Karate Museum. “Rare Karate Book Collection.” Accessed November 23,
2012. http://museum.hikari.us/books/index.html.
Heo, In-uk. 2008. Taegwondo hyeongseongsa (The Formation History of Tae-
kwondo). Paju: Korean Studies Information. http://www.martialtalk.com/
forum/144-martialtalk-magazine-articles/43718-changmoo-kwan-kang-
duk-won-history-photos-available-upon-request.html.
Hwang, Kee. 1949. Hwasudo gyobon (Hwasudo Textbook). Seoul: Joseon Mun-
hwa Chulpansa.
____________. 1958. Dangsudo gyobon (Dangsudo Textbook). Seoul: Gyerang Mun-
hwasa.
____________. 1970. Subakdo daegam (Subakdo Encyclopedia). Seoul: Samgwang
Chulpansa.
____________. 1995. The History of Moo Duk Kwan. Springfield, NJ: Tang Soo Do
Moo Duk Kwan Federation.
Jeong, Gyeong-hwa. 2005. Taekkyeon wollon (Taekkyeon Principles). Seoul:
Bogyeong Munhwasa.
Kang, Won Shik, and Lee Kyong Myong. 1999. Taegwondo hyeondaesa (A Mod-
ern History of Taekwondo). Seoul: Bogyeong Munhwasa.
Kim, Yong-ok. 1990. Taegwondo cheolhak-ui guseong wolli (Principles Governing
the Construction of Taekwondo Philosophy). Seoul: Tongnamu.
Lee, Chong Woo. 1971. Taegwondo gyobon (Taekwondo Textbook). Seoul: Korea
Taekwondo Association Publication.
Madis, Eric. 2003. “The Evolution of Taekwondo from Japanese Karate.” In Mar-
tial Arts in the Modern World, edited by Thomas A. Green and Joseph R.
Svinth, 185-209. Westport: Praeger Publishers.
Moenig, Udo. 2011. “The Evolution of Kicking Techniques in Taekwondo.” Jour-
nal of Asian Martial Arts 20.1: 8-31.
____________. 2012. “The Incomplete Transformation of Taekwondo from a ‘Mar-
tial Art’ to a ‘Martial Sport.’” PhD diss., Keimyung University.
Moenig, Udo, Cho Sungkyun, and Song Hyeongseok. 2012. “The Modifications
of Protective Gear, Rules and Regulations During Taekwondo’s Evolution—
From Its Obscure Origins to the Olympics.” International Journal of the His-
tory of Sport 29.9: 1363-1381.
Nishiyama, Hidetaka, and Richard C. Brown. 1960. Karate: The Art of “Empty
Hand” Fighting. Vermont and Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Company.

Noble, Graham. 1997. “The West Learns About the ‘Empty Hand.’” Fighting Arts
International 93: 42-8. http://seinenkai.com/articles/noble/noble-books2.
html.
Read, Stanton E., and Chai Ik Jin. 1965. Taekwondo: A Way of Life in Korea. Seoul:
America-Korea Friendship Association.
Son, Duk Sung, and Robert J. Clark. 1968. Korean Karate: The Art of Tae Kwon
Do. New York: Prentice-Hall Press.
Song, Deok-gi, and Bak Jong-gwan. 1983. Taekkyeon. Seoul: Seorim Munhwasa.
World Taekwondo Federation. 2009. “Taekwondo in Modern Times.” http://www.
wtf.org/wtf_eng/site/about_taekwondo/modern_times.html.
Yi, Kyo-yun. 1965. Baengmanin-ui taesudo gyobon (Taesudo Textbook for the
Millions). Seoul: Topik Chulpansa.
Yi, Won-guk. 1968. Taegwondo gyobeom (Taekwondo Manual). Seoul: Jinsudang.

Appendix 1. Sample of a Comparison of Kicking Techniques Described and

Illustrated in Early Karate and Taekwondo Publications
Nishiyama’s Karate (1960) Choi’s Taekwondo (1965) Cho’s Korean Karate (1968)
Basic Kicking Techniques
Front kick
Front kick (p. 121) Front snap kick (p. 81) Front snap kick (p. 122)
(Choi shows also as groin kick with instep, p. 81) (Presents thrust-kick as variation)
Push kick (primitive)
Front thrust kick (p. 121) Checking kick (p. 97) Front-pushing kick (p. 124)
Roundhouse kick (with ball of foot, not instep)
Roundhouse kick (p. 129) Turning kick (p. 82) Roundhouse snap kick (p. 207)
(Cho presents “thrust kick” and “short kick” as variation pp. 208-209)
Side kick
Side kick (p. 124) Side-thrusting kick (p. 84) Side-rising kick (p. 158)
(Cho presents side “side thrust kick” and “rising-heel kick” as variation, pp. 159-160)
Side-rising kick
Leg swinging Side limbering-up kick
Side-rising kick (p. 95)
Part of stretching (p. 41) (p. 157)
Back kick
Back kick (p. 127) Back-thrusting kick (p. 85) Back kick (p. 240)
Spinning-back kick
Absent Reverse-turning kick (p. 88) Hook kick (p. 234)
Crescent kick (outside-in motion)
Crescent kick block (p. 139) Crescent kick (p. 96) Crescent kick (p. 241)
Crescent kick (inside-out motion)
Outer-edge-crescent kick
Crescent kick block (p. 139) Hooking kick (p. 97)
(p. 244)
‘Primitive’ Axe kick
Leg swinging Front-limbering-up kick
Front rising kick (p. 95)
Part of stretching (p. 41) (p. 121)
Hook kick
Absent Absent Hook kick (p. 235)
(Cho treats the hook-kick as a variation of the spinning-back-kick and uses the same name.)

Note: he bold letter names are common modern names.
See photographs and more comparisons in Moenig (2012, 82-91).

Appendix 2. Funakoshi’s 13 Shorinryu 少林流 and 6 Shoreiryu 昭靈流 Kata

in Karate-do Kyohana
Used in Used in Changed by Japanese Korean

Hangeul
Okinawa Okinawa Funakoshi pronunciation pronunciation
Taikyoku 1-3
Taegeuk/gijo/
… … 太極 (introduced by 태극/기조/기본
gibonb
Funakoshi)
平安
平安 Pinan Heian 1-5 평안 Pyeongan
(unchanged)
バッサイ Passai 拔塞 Bassai 밧사이 Bassai
クーサンクー or Kusanku Kwanku
観空 공산군 Gongsanggun
公相君 or Kosokun (Kanku)
ワンシウ Wanshu 燕飛 Empi (Enpi) 엔피 Enpi
チントウ Chinto 岩鶴 Gankaku 간카쿠 Gankaku
十手
十手 Jutte or Jitte Jutte or Jitte 짓데/십수 Jitde/Sipsu
(unchanged)
半月 Hangetcheu/
半月 Seisan Hangetsu 한겟츠/반월
(unchanged) Banwol
チイハンチ, Naihanchi,
チイファンチ, Naifanchi or 鉄騎 Tekki 1-3 철기 Cheolgi
or 騎馬 Kibadachi
ジオン Jion 慈恩 Jion 지온 Jion
Ten-no-katac
… … 天の方 (developed by … …
Funakoshi)
Source: Moenig (2012, 70).
a See Funakoshi ([1935] 1973, 35-208) and compare with Bittmann (1999, 101). According to Bittmann,
it is customary for the old Okinawan forms, which can be written using a number of diferent Chinese
characters, to be written in katakana. Oten several names for the old Okinawan kata exist, probably
as a result of dialects and diferent usage of Chinese characters. Likewise, many diferent versions of
romanization exist across the literature.
b he term taegeuk 太極 is also used in Chinese martial arts, as in taiji, but there is no direct relationship
to karate kata. he modern taekwondo forms are also called the Taegeuk pumsae, but they are also
not related to Funakoshi’s forms or Chinese forms. In addition, Koreans also call Funakoshi’s Taegeuk
forms gijo (basic) or gibon (standard) forms.
c It is a kumite 組手 form (sparring form), probably developed around 1941. Therefore, it is not in
Funakoshi’s 1935 first edition, but in Karate-do nyumon (1943). Not mentioned in the Korean
literature.

Appendix 3. Sample of Forms Described and/or Illustrated in Early Taekwondo

Literature
Choe Song-nam Bak Jeol-hui (1958),

Hwang Kee (1949),
(1955), member of YMCA
Forms founder of
member of Gweonbeopbu and
Mudeokkwan
Cheongdogwan founder of Gandeogwon
Funakoshi’s 13 1. Pyeongan 1-5 1. Heian 1-5 Uses Chinese characters

Shorinryu and 6 (Heian 1-5, written 2. Bassai for the following
Shoreiryu kata in in Chinese charac- 3. Kibadachi shodan forms:
Karate-do Kyohan: cters. All other (Tekki 1) 1. Gibon hyeong 1-5a
he Master Text forms are written 4. Tekki 2 (Taikyoku)
in Hangeul, 5. Jutte 2. Heian 1-5
accompanied 6. Gongsanggun 3. Kibadachi shodan
by Japanese (Gwankeu) (Tekki 1)
pronunciation 7. Jion (all written in 4. Jutte
characters). Chinese characters, 5. Nohai (written
2. Naihantchi 1-3 57-192) in Korean; Rohai
dan (Tekki 1-3) is the Okinawan
3. Jitte name, renamed by
4. Bassai Funakoshi to Meikyo;
5. Jjindo (Gankaku) not mentioned in
(82-143) Karate-do Kyohan:
he Master Text)
(41-117).
Bak mentions a variety
of other forms by
nameb (39-40).
Dando hyeong (192- Jeongchi 1 hyeong
210), probably (67-71), probably
developed by Choec developed by Bak or
his instructor Yun
Byeong-in
Quanfa form Sorim Janggwon
(144-154)

Note: he original Japanese pronunciation as used by Funakoshi is indicated in brackets.
a he Gibon hyeong are similar to the Taegeuk hyeong or the Taikyoku kata in Shotokan karate, but
there were originally only three. Funakoshi developed them based on the Heian kata. He simpliied
them and thought of them as a preparation for Heian. Only the irst one of Bak’s forms, Gibon
hyeong 1, is similar to Taikyoku shodan 1. he All Japan Karate-do Goju-kai Karate-do Association
(founded by the leaders of the Gojuryu) developed ive Kihon kata based on Funakoshi’s, but only
let the irst one unchanged. Bak also shows ive forms. However, forms 2, 4, and 5 seemed to be
modiied, possibly by Bak’s teacher Yun Byeong-in.
b Bak mentions several Chinese quanfa forms by name among about ity karate kata.
c he Dando hyeong is a knife form, but no knife forms exist in karate.

Evidence of Taekwondos Roots in Karate A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence of Taekwondos Roots in Karate A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence of Taekwondos Roots in Karate A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Korea Journal, vol. 54, no. 2 (summer 2014): 150-178.

150 © Korean National

Evidence of Taekwondo’s Roots in Karate:

Udo MOENIG, Sungkyun CHO, and Taek-Yong KWAK

The taekwondo establishment presents taekwondo as the descendent of ancient Kore-

7(Udo MOENIG).indd 150 14. 6. 30. 오후 4:53

The World Taekwondo Federation (WTF) (2009) portrays taekwondo as

7(Udo MOENIG).indd 151 14. 6. 30. 오후 4:53

Comparison of Early Korean Martial Arts Manuals with Karate

The Seminal Karate Texts

7(Udo MOENIG).indd 152 14. 6. 30. 오후 4:53

Note: he arrows indicate the individuals’ relationship to their instructors.

of them (Kang and Lee 1999; Madis 2003; Heo 2008).

case, he did learn some karate in Japan.

7(Udo MOENIG).indd 153 14. 6. 30. 오후 4:53

A Comparison of Martial Arts Styles

The general taekwondo establishment portrays taekkyeon as the link

7(Udo MOENIG).indd 154 14. 6. 30. 오후 4:53

hypothesis was tested by focusing on the photographs, the descriptive con-

Table 1. Typical Features Used to Distinguish Each Martial Art

Shotokan karatea Quanfab Taekkyeon

General features in Straight, simple, Curved, round, or Round, curved

7(Udo MOENIG).indd 155 14. 6. 30. 오후 4:53

illustrations, and are less detailed.

1) The First Korean Martial Arts Manuals of Modern Times

In 1949, Hwang Kee, the founder of the Mudeokkwan, published Hwasu-

7(Udo MOENIG).indd 156 14. 6. 30. 오후 4:53

Hwang Kee’s second manual,

7(Udo MOENIG).indd 157 14. 6. 30. 오후 4:53

displays the “inside-out-kick,”9 which is a taekkyeon kick, but was not

2) The Influence of Quanfa (Gwonbeop), Chinese Martial Arts

Bak Jeol-hui was a member of the YMCA Gwonbeopbu. However, he and

9. The inside-out-kick is also referred to as the “reverse roundhouse kick.” It is called

7(Udo MOENIG).indd 158 14. 6. 30. 오후 4:53

3) The Early Use of the Term “Taekwondo”

7(Udo MOENIG).indd 159 14. 6. 30. 오후 4:53

resentative of general taekwondo activity in Korea at that time.

7(Udo MOENIG).indd 160 14. 6. 30. 오후 4:53

quanfa roots because of his YMCA Gwonbeopbu lineage.

4) Korean Martial Arts Instructors Overseas

In 1958, Sihak Henry Cho—who had joined the Jidogwan in 1953—became

7(Udo MOENIG).indd 161 14. 6. 30. 오후 4:53

in his work. Instead, he focused only on “free fighting techniques,” a deci-

13. See Funakoshi’s kata in Son and Clark (1968, 89-218).

7(Udo MOENIG).indd 162 14. 6. 30. 오후 4:53

15. Refer to the explanation on page 157 above.

7(Udo MOENIG).indd 163 14. 6. 30. 오후 4:53

niques with the hands, striking points, blocking techniques, or kicking

The Significance of Forms in Karate and Early Taekwondo

Providing an overview of the forms used in early taekwondo and compar-

1) The Evolution of Training Activities

7(Udo MOENIG).indd 164 14. 6. 30. 오후 4:53

7(Udo MOENIG).indd 165 14. 6. 30. 오후 4:53

which varied from school to school without any standard curriculum.

20. Also called kihon kumite 基本組手 (basic sparring).

7(Udo MOENIG).indd 166 14. 6. 30. 오후 4:53

2) Forms Training in Taekwondo

Early taekwondo philosophy inherited a focus on lethal self-defense from

7(Udo MOENIG).indd 167 14. 6. 30. 오후 4:53