Traditional Taekwondo Ramblings

Kwan Heon - A closer look at Kwan creeds of early Taekwondo part 7.2: Ji Do Kwan

2026-07-16T09:00:42.958+02:00

This time I revisit the Ji Do Kwan because I want to make this blog series the most accurate and comprehensive series available for free in English on the old Kwan philosophies and creeds. I am sure someone else has made something better, but I can not find it, and if I would want to read something and it does not exist I feel I should do my best to make it. Most of this blog has come about this way, I want someone to write about something, I can not find much and so I do research and try my best to share what I find here :-) Anyway, in this post I will:

- Look at the Ji Do Kwan Members pledge

- Look at the Ji Do Kwan Crest

- Finish my theory and speculation on what Yeon Mu Kwan philosophy MIGHT have been and why I think so.

So without further adu lets start :-)

I am not sure if you would like to read the whole series, but I would at least read the previous installment, (click here) take a good long break, and only then read this one, if you just want Ji Do Kwan philosophy. If you are new here and want to read the whole series you can click on the following links to go to anywhere you would like in the series: Chung Do Kwan part 1, Chung Do Kwan part 2, Song Mu Kwan, Kang Duk Won, Chang Mu Kwan, Mu Duk Kwan, Ji Do Kwan (part 1).

Ji Do Kwan Members Pledge

The above picture shows something called “PLEDGE OF THE MEMBER”. The document it comes from appears to be a Dan certificate, which means we can date it exactly to the 19th of January 1971. This would put it within what I call the Kwan-Era, roughly from 1944 to ca. 1973ish.

The formal consolidation and standardization of the Kwans happened a little later, but by 1973 the Korean Taekwondo Association was strong and had been running for years, the ITF had been founded (1966), and both the WTF (later WT) and Kukkiwon had been established. So in 1971 the Dan certificate was not a Kukkiwon Dan certificate, but was most likely issued and registered by the Ji Do Kwan itself.

To me this makes it a valuable historical document that contains valuable historical information. I have cropped the original photo so the owner of the certificate can choose whether to showcase it in its entirety on his own personal sites. For this discussion I wanted to pinpoint that the following material rests within the Kwan-Era and therefore offers a primary example of Kwan-era institutional thinking.

Original English text transcribed from the original document (1971):

PLEDGE OF THE MEMBER

I will observe the rule, and absolutely obey
the order of Ji Do Kwan.
I will attain Physical and mental discipline
in the spirit of Ji Do Kwan.
I will devote myself to the creation of new
tradition and achievement of Ji Do Kwan.

Unfortunately the picture quality of the original document was so grainy and poor that I just do not dare to transcribe the original language text and analyze it, so we will have to make due with what we do have which is the English version.

Read in isolation, the promise to “absolutely obey” the orders of the Kwan can sound authoritarian. Within the broader Ji Do Kwan ethical framework, however, it was probably understood as loyalty to the institution, its rules, and its legitimate leadership. Even so, the pledge itself only states the member’s obligation. It does not describe corresponding obligations placed upon the leadership.

The second line presents training as more than physical development. Members are expected to cultivate both body and mind in accordance with the “spirit of Ji Do Kwan.” This can reasonably be understood as training according to the ethical and philosophical ideals of the Kwan, although the short English wording does not tell us precisely how that spirit was taught or interpreted.

The final line is perhaps the most intriguing. Members pledge themselves to the “creation of new tradition” and the achievements of Ji Do Kwan. This suggests that they were not expected merely to receive an inherited tradition passively, but to contribute to the Kwan’s future legacy and success.

Exactly what “new tradition” meant is less certain. It could include technical development, but it might equally refer to establishing institutional customs, strengthening the Kwan, producing future achievements, and building a tradition that could be passed to later generations.

Personally, this wording resonates with my own view that a tradition must remain alive rather than becoming concerned only with preserving a single historical moment. That, however, is my interpretation and not something the brief English pledge states explicitly.

Overall, I read the three layers as: respect the rules and authority of the Kwan, cultivate both body and mind according to its spirit, and contribute to its future tradition and accomplishments. It moves from institutional discipline, through individual cultivation, to service toward the continuing development of Ji Do Kwan. I find that to be a coherent and meaningful pledge.

Analysis of the Ji Do Kwan Crest based on oral explanation

Much of the information covered here comes from oral instruction with masters from a Ji Do Kwan lineage, but I see that this kind of thinking about the crest has been widespread, and that there is actually a few English websites and articles tackling this, and they have learned what I learned. Here I will tweak it a little in light of what I have learned through this project, plus correspondence with Master Jon Lennart.

The Ji Do Kwan Crest can be seen below:

If you have seen different ones that is not strange, Ji Do Kwan spread far and wide, giving more than a few variations, but the core of the Crest always remained the same: 8 Lotus petals surrounding a figure that to the uninitiated could look like a red snowman the top cirle a little smaller than the one below, but they together form one shape. Some have a fist in the middle of that figure, others do not. The modern World Ji Do Kwan logo looks similar but with longtitudes and longtitude lines going through the circle making it look more international hence "WORLD" Ji Do Kwan :-)

Now the 8 flower petals that surrounds this figure as it was explained to me is representing the 8 fold path that the Ji Do Kwan teaches in their philosophy. Like I previously said there seems to be some variations on what the individual principles or precepts might actually be, but they are always 8. Since I have gone through them all already, I just mention this here.

The inner part however tells another story. The figure I described as a red snowman is actually called 오뚜기 or "ottogi". In Asia this is often made as a figure where the weight is located at the very bottom and the top is very light. So no matter how hard you push it and no matter which direction you push it, it always corrects itself and stands up again. This symbol is often seen as a symbol of Boddhidarma, and also as a symbol of not giving up. There is a famous saying: 칠전팔기- Chil Cheon Pal Gi - Fall down seven times, get up 8. Morally it also serves the function of self correction, and this self correction theme can comfortably be stretched into the Dojang too with the student self correcting his mistakes, weakness(es) or other shortcomings. This is natural associations looking at the symbol centered in the Ji Do Kwan Crest.

Looking at the Ji Do Kwan 8 fold path that I ended up preferring (back of the membership card) they seemed to adopt the 8 fold path from Buddhism, but adopt it and change it so that the Ji Do Kwan 8 fold path became a map of how a good Dojang would function, how to be the best teacher, how to be the best student or indeed how to grow and be the best person. Keeping that in mind I am inclined to think that the 오뚜기 ("ottogi") also serves a similar role in the Ji Do Kwan Crest and that the Buddhist association is simply an association, while the "never give up", and s"elf correcting themes" are the ones being stressed.

(Image Source)

What was the Yeon Mu Kwan philosophy and why do I think so?

In Part 6 (Han Mu Kwan) I wrote near the end: "Given the close structure between the Han Mu Kwan Creed and the Ji Do Kwan Creed I think it is not unreasonable to trace this part of the Kwan philosophy back to the Yeon Mu Kwan, and therefore perhaps Chun Sang Sup as the originator of the Creed. I will say that this is merely my speculation based upon what we have. The thing is that since Chun Sang Sup disappeared in the Korean war we can not ask him, and so we have to look at what we have and analyze it as best we can on its own merit.

I will explain my reasoning for my Yeon Mu Kwan origin speculations in more depth in the next post which perhaps naturally will be on the Ji Do Kwan."

So this is me picking up where we left off. I wanted to make sure we had a decent look at the Ji Do Kwan Creed and the possible interpretations including my original teachers words on the topic. We did all that in Part 7.1 but that post became so long that I started feeling sorry for those who might try to read the whole thing so I divided up the post in half and here we are :-)

So quick recap;

Han Mu Kwan Creed:

Practice diligence for oneself.

Devote oneself for the Kwan.

Serve society.

Be loyal to the nation.

Ji Do Kwan Creed:

For myself

For the Kwan

For the nation

Speculation Alert, the following is speculation, so just to be clear it is speculation and not facts: And a quick detour to my other interest which is exploring Norse Religion and Saga Literature. I am a nerd and I know it. I am literally the 10 year old who borrowed "Snorri Sturlason King Sagas" when my family were going on a car trip holiday. Anyway, most importantly for this post is that in the Saga literature we often have oral stories that has been passed down, altered along the way and when they were written down and compiled over and over again during the 1200s-1400s we sometimes get conflicting or different stories claiming to be the original one, both claiming to be from an older document or collection which is now lost to us.

In a way I see Yeon Mu Kwan in this light, we know there is an older source (Yeon Mu Kwan) but we do now know what kind of Creed or philosophy they taught. We have however two newer schools both being the off shoots or descendants of the original; Han Mu Kwan and Ji Do Kwan.

What they do when they are doing manuscript studies to filter out what was likely the original story is that they take the newer variations versions descending from the original, compare the two (or more) and look for what they have in common. Then they use the commonalities to try and reconstruct what the "original version" (as far as an old oral story being passed down can be said to have an "original version") might have been.

So can we do the same here? I think it is a worthwhile thought experiment at least, and after reading the Han Mu Kwan and Ji Do Kwan Creed you will see that they have an extremely close structure and commonality in themes.

It is impossible to determine if either the Ji Do Kwan or Han Mu Kwan might be the "original" Yeon Mu Kwan Creed, but I feel that whatever the original Yeon Mu Kwan Creed might have been like it likely had:

- Something or nothing expressed one the "Self-level"

- Something or nothing expressed one the "Kwan-level"

- Something or nothing expressed one the "Nation-level"

When I say something or nothing I mean that either a sentence like in Han Mu Kwan (Practice diligence for oneself) or more spartan and open to interpretation like the Ji Do Kwan (For myself). My personal view is that when faced with two different options like this the shortest and easiest one is likely the one easiest to transmit over time, so when asked what the original Yeon Mu Kwan Creed was, I am inclined to think it is the Ji Do Kwan version. It has the fewest words, it has the fewest steps (3 vs 4) and it has the most in common with the other variation we have preserved. Does this mean that I think the Han Mu Kwan one is somehow lesser? No not at all, and I would never dared to speculate at all on the Yeon Mu Kwan Creed without having access to the Han Mu Kwan Creed because we would not have any datapoints to compare too. What possibly sets both Han Mu Kwan and Ji Do Kwan apart from the Yeon Mu Kwan is that it is likely they both adopted and added to the original. If I am correct in my speculations Han Mu Kwan added the "Society-level", plus it added concrete things on each level, while the Ji Do Kwan might have preserved the Creed as is they likely adopted more into their philosophy, those things being what they do not have in common with the Han Mu Kwan (the 8 folded path, the Ji Do Kwan Pledge, the inherent symbolism in their Crest).

Looking at this one might also speculate on another mystery in the history of Taekwondo; Many sources claim that Han Mu Kwan was established because of disagreement(s) between Lee Kyo Yun (founder of Han Mu Kwan) and Lee Chong Woo (2nd Kwanjang of the Ji Do Kwan, but 2nd in command from the start of Ji Do Kwan). However, none of the sources go into what the disagreement(s) were. It is tempting to think that it was about or at least partly about the philosophy of the original school (Yeon Mu Kwan) being altered and added to by the leaders of Ji Do Kwan, and Lee Kyo Yun might have felt that his purpose was to preserve it like he was taught while the Ji Do Kwan kept developing their own philosophy which kept the creed but added a lot to it. Who knows? But it is interesting to speculate on.

Kwan "Heon" or Kwan "Hun"?

I have been going a little back and forth behind the scenes as to use the term Kwan "Heon" or Kwan "Hun". The reason I have stuck with Kwan "Heon" is for the most part old habit, and old habits die very hard. I quoted my original teachers book in one of the posts, and in that book he writes and present it as Kwan "Heon". He did not provide any Hanja or Hangul though. In the 2015 document that I have used a lot in this series for history and for making sure each Kwan had their Creed written about they consistently write Kwan "Hun". So could you use both?

The meaning and difference between "Heon" and "Hun"

Kwan is something we should be intimately familiar with by now, but quick easy recap for this discussion let us translate it simply as "School". That leaves both Heon and Hun. Since both words are translated into English as "oath" "creed" etc with little distinct differences between the two I think we can gain some insight looking at the Hanja for both terms. Let us start with Hun:

Hun (훈) has a Hanja character which is: 訓. The meanings associated with this character is: "instruction", "admonition", "moral teaching", "to train/ to instruct". Typical usage of the character:

교훈 (敎訓) moral lesson
가훈 (家訓) family precepts
훈시 (訓示) formal admonition
관훈 (館訓) Kwan instruction/ Kwan precepts (I left Kwan as is)

So does this fit with what we have been discussing in this series? Yes it does, and it is being used by several Korean language sources too. If you look at the conceptual direction of the term though it is very much "something from the school -> to you", and this is an example of didactic language. With that I mean that with Hun (훈/ 訓) the school is telling you the student to do something. The school is teaching you from a position of authority and you have to obey.

Heon (헌) also has a Hanja and that is 獻. The meanings associated with this character is: "to offer", "to dedicate", "to present solemny", "to consecrate". Typical usage of the character:

헌신 (獻身) devotion (offering one’s body/self)
봉헌 (奉獻) dedication/ offering
헌납 (獻納) to donate/ offer formally
관헌 (館獻) dedication to the Kwan (conceptually)

So does this fit with what we have been discussing in this series? Yes it does :-P And in some Korean language sources this one is used. The thing is though that if you take a look at the meanings associated and the examples of using this character you might note that while it still might translate as creed, law, oath etc just like Hun would, the flow or direction is the opposite. It is very much "The self" -> to "The School". If Hun (훈) is an example of didactic language, Heon (헌) seems to be the opposite (volitional/ vow-based language).

Now if we take a look at the Kwan creeds themselves they usually speak of "I will" or "we will" so based on that, I actually prefer the "Heon" usage over the "Hun" usage.

Kwan Heon - A closer look at Kwan creeds of early Taekwondo part 7.1: Ji Do Kwan

2026-07-06T19:05:00.000+02:00

I have been steadily giving out posts on the Kwan Heon or Kwan Creeds over the course of 2026. This time we have come to one of the Kwan I have a direct lineage back to through one of my original teachers Grandmaster Cho Woon Sup; The Ji Do Kwan. I will draw on both of his early books entitled Taekwondo 1 and Taekwondo 2, as well as a phamplet assembled by Grandmaster Al Cole and the 2015 historical collection phamplet I have been using as a base throughout the series. I will make sure to make it clear what I got where, and especially so if they are conflicting.

Compared to Han Mu Kwan, the Ji Do Kwan is very well known and documented, and since this Kwan (and the Oh Do Kwan) is the school I have a very personal connection to I have been both looking forward to it and dreaded to start the post.

I will as I have routinely said throughout the whole project, I am not fluent in Korean, nor am I a professional translator. Therefore any mistake here is mine and mine alone. And with that out of the way, let us look at Ji Do Kwan, their history and philosophy.

I usually give a lengthy quote from my first book, the Lost Forms of Oh Do Kwan Taekwondo Volume 1; Taegeuk 1-3 Hyeong (available here), and this post will be no different. Chun Sang Sup and Yun Mu Kwan was shared in the previous post so here is Yun Kwae Byung and Yun Mu Kwan from my book page 19-20 (from my 2nd draft so it is slightly more in the book):

"Yun Kwae Byung and Ji Do Kwan

Yun Kwae Byung was born in 1922, making him slightly younger than Chun Sang Sup. Like Chun, he traveled to Japan to pursue his education, first studying Shito Ryu Karate under Kenwa Mabuni while attending Osaka Secondary School. He later began studying Shudokan Karate under Toyama Kanken at Nihon University, where he earned instructor certification, making him at least a 4th dan in Shudokan at the time.

In 1945, Yun helped establish a sister school to Toyama’s Shudokan called the Kanbukan, which would later be renamed the Renbukan in 1950. The Kanbukan was notable for offering training to both Korean and Japanese students and quickly became a hub for innovation in sparring methods. It was one of the earliest schools to experiment with protective equipment and continuous sparring - a tradition the later Ji Do Kwan would also become known for.

Notable figures who trained at the Kanbukan include Masutatsu Oyama, founder of Kyokushin Karate (who earned his 4th dan there), So Nei Chu, his Goju Ryu instructor, and the respected Karate historian Richard Kim.

Yun returned to Korea in 1948 and assisted Chun Sang Sup in teaching at the Yun Mu Kwan. Following the Korean War, in 1953, he reopened the Yun Mu Kwan under a new name: Ji Do Kwan (지도관, 智道館) meaning "Wisdom Way School."

A "fun" trivia here is that the Kanbukan that Yun helped found and run as Kwanjang (Headmaster) is pronounced "Han Mu Kwan" in Korean. The two schools KanBuKan and HanMuKwan does not seem to share more than the name though, as Han Mu Kwan founder always stressed that the lineage goes back to Yun Mu Kwan and not Ji Do Kwan.

Ji Do Kwan Creed

Many years ago a legendary Grandmaster named Al Cole compiled a Ji Do Kwan anniversary phamplet (or at least he shared it). Within it was the Ji Do Kwan Creed, and it is perhaps the most well known rendition of it in English so I am sharing it here:

Gm Al Cole version/ translation:

Taekwondo for myself

Taekwondo for Ji Do Kwan

Taekwondo for my nation

I am not sure what source he worked this out from, but it is like I say the most common way of expressing the Ji Do Kwan Creed in English. It could be that he learned it actively as part of the Ji Do Kwan lineage, and language does tend to drift over time. The essence is there, but it does not exactly matches the Korean language sources when it comes to the Ji Do Kwan Creed. Gm Al Cole´s version has a few things added to it that is not in the original, but I want to stress that it is totally in line with the original language so I am not saying it is wrong either.

In the original language sources the Ji Do Kwan Creed is usually (at least in every instance I have come across) been said to be the following:

나를 위한다.
관을 위한다.
나라를 위한다.

My translation:

For myself

For the Kwan

For the nation

So what do we have here? We have three lines, three sentences and all of them end the same way. The ending is 한다 "handa" meaning or implying "to do something", "to practice something", and if we look at the complete 위한다 that ends each sentence we get: "doing something with intention", "doing for the sake of". Note that in classical philosophy which might have shaped this creed the 위(爲) is usually about intention and agency, not benefit. When we unpack the first line you will see why I stress that.

The first line opens with "나를" where 나 is the common Korean word signifying "me", "myself" and "-를" marks the object in the sentence. So translated into English we get: "For myself". There is in other words no "Taekwondo" in the original Creed, but I certainly see where Gm Al Cole or whoever taught him that version would get that from. Because we need to ask ourselves what are we doing for oneself? Taekwondo is not a great leap to take and in a sense it is very elegang. "For myself" is not a complete English sentence, so inserting Taekwondo gets us a complete English sentence, keeps the Creed form (it is still brief and to the point), but moreover you invoke The Way as in TaekwonDO. Personally I will keep with "For myself" because once we insert a particular name for a martial art it limits the Creed in a way the original one does not. Ji Do Kwan called their martial art "KongSuDo", "TangSuDo", "Gweonbeop" at various times before the majority settled on "Taekwondo". There are still people out there practicing the Ji Do Kwan under any of those names. The original language Creed fits all of them, Gm Al Cole´s version exclude all but Taekwondo.

The second line starts with 관을 where 관 means school, but is so often used in Korean Martial Arts I left it untranslated, and the rest of the sentence is the same as the first one. This gives me: "For the Kwan". Again we see that in Gm Al Cole´s version there is something added either by him, or by the one who taught him, as he names the Ji Do Kwan specifically, while the original simply states "Kwan".

In the third line we open with 나라를 which I have translated as nation. Note that it is not a specific ruler, government or political party, it is simply nation as a whole. You are acting for your nation, or as I translated trying to capture the austerity of the original Creed-language: "For the nation".

As to what we are doing or acting I understand why "Taekwondo" was inserted, but if we look to traditional Korean thinking it would perhaps be better if we need to insert stuff to rather get something of the lines of:

I cultivate myself (Improve myself)

I devote myself to the Kwan

I serve to the betterment of the nation

The original Creed is very short and holds a lot of potential meaning, and maybe its vagueness is intentional as it is so inclusive, yet it does much like the Han Mu Kwan Creed follow the same logic of starting internally with oneself, then it expands gradually outward to the Kwan symbolizing the larger community, before it expands further outward to include the whole nation. And like the Han Mu Kwan Creed the next logical step if we follow the train of thought presenter might be "the world" as the Creed keeps expanding outward.

My own teacher Cho Woon Sup indirectly wrote about the core creed of Ji Do Kwan in his first book. He writes in Taekwondo 1 page 12 (my translation from original Norwegian Language):

«Taekwondo is a way of life, and it has its own philosophy that its exponents can make use of if they manage to comprehend it. This does not mean that he has to adapt to an ascetic lifestyle, but he should learn self discipline, curtesy and good manners.»

He continues:

«You should not follow Kwan Heon simply to satisfy your instructor. You should follow the instruction (Kwan Heon) from the will of your own heart. If you do not take this seriously, you will not take your self nor Taekwondo seriously. This is a big part of what it is that makes Taekwondo into something more than just another sport.»

He does not recite the exact Ji Do Kwan Creed but he presents the Ji Do Kwan thinking and it is quite obvious he had the Ji Do Kwan Creed in his thought while making that chapter. Still on page 12 he writes:

"1: I defend myself, therefore I will protect my family and defend my friends.

2: I defend my Kwan, therefore I will also defend my school, and all other public institutions (the country)

3: I defend my friend, therefore I will defend all other people, and all of the world."

So when I am commenting on how we keep expanding outwards, that is not something I am taking from thin air, it is an example of a living tradition. Note how the original language creed is not present exactly but that in this instance Gm Cho is inserting "Defend". I defend myself, I defend my Kwan, I defend my Nation. The original language Creed makes this kind of thinking possible, and I can not help to think that this is by design.

Interestingly Gm Cho also hints that there might have been something more, perhaps it was specific to the Dojang he was brought up in but he writes on page 13 of the same book:

«You are strong, therefore you can help other people that is in need of your strength».

He goes on to explain how this can be interpreted into other parts of your life as:

«You are rich, therefore you can help other people who does not have your wealth».

Cho also states that because this love of the fellow man is one of the basic principles of Ji Do Kwan philosophy the Ji Do Kwan logo contains a Buddhist flower.

The Creed is only half the story: The 8 fold path

(Image Source)

In the quote from my teacher above he refers to a "Buddhist Flower" on the Ji Do Kwan Crest (or Logo). There are 8 petals on it in the Ji Do Kwan Crest each one possibly referring to one of the eight precepts that together makes up the 8 fold path. This 8 fold path is usually associated with Buddhism, and so is the Lotus Flower, so this is probably the reason why Gm Cho called a "Buddhist Flower". In Buddhism the 8 fold path is usually said to be:

1. 정견(正見): 바르게 보기 View Rightly / Right Understanding

2. 정사유(正思惟) · 정사(正思): 바르게 생각하기 Think Rightly / Right Intention

3. 정어(正語): 바르게 말하기 Speak Rightly / Right Speech

4. 정업(正業): 바르게 행동하기 Act Rightly / Right Conduct

5. 정명(正命): 바르게 생활하기 Live Rightly / Right Livelihood

6. 정정진(正精進) · 정근(正勤): 바르게 정진하기 Strive Rightly / Right Effort

7. 정념(正念): 바르게 깨어 있기 Be Mindful Rightly / Right Mindfulness

8. 정정(正定): 바르게 삼매(집중)하기 Focus Rightly / Right Concentration

Note that 正 can also be translated as "proper" or "correct". So the translation you see online or in books might vary slightly, but this or close to this is typically how the Buddhist 8 folded path is presented.

We must also remember that we can not rule out that different people in Ji Do Kwan might have learned slightly differently from Dojang to Dojang or Master to Master. The reason I am telling you this is that in the 2015 document there is a list that is referred to as. "Pal Jeong Do JeongSin" (The Spirit of the Eightfold Right Way) in the Kwan Heon section of the Ji Do Kwan chapter, and what is very interesting is that it deviates from normal Buddhisms 8 fold path and incorporates some Confucian virtues. If this is the "original" 8 fold path of Ji Do Kwan it is something that has grown out of traditional Korean thinking and been adopted and incorporated to make something special for the Kwan, something we saw in the first 7 Precepts in the Mu Duk Kwan 10 point Creed. Hwang Kee did not simply list the 5 relationships, he chose his own wording and he included more than 5, plus added some internal virtues along with them so not all 10 where about relationships. Likewise the Ji Do Kwan 8 folded path presented in the 2015 document follows largely the normal Buddhist 8 fold path but there are as I said some differences.

Here is the list provided in the 2015 Document, and the Hanja was included in the source, they are not something I have come up with:

"8정도 정신 (正觀, 正覺, 正思, 正語, 正命, 正孝, 正業, 正行)"

Separated and given numbers. Simple translation, deviation marked

8정도 정신: The Spirit of the Eightfold Right Way

1:正觀 Right Observation / Right Contemplation, usually it is 正見 (Right View) so this is a close to the Buddhist 8 fold path but it is using a totally different Hanja and so it is unique to the 2015 Ji Do Kwan list.

2:正覺 :Right Awakening / Enlightenment. The term is definitely found within broader Buddhist/Mahāyāna contexts, but not in the buddhist 8-path list. Again we see that this is unique to the Ji Do Kwan list.

3:正思 : Right Thought. This one is normal although slightly abbreviated. Canonical form is 正思惟, but this is an accepted short form. So this is part of the normal buddhist 8-path list.

4:正語: Right Speech. Fully canonical and matches exactly the normal buddhist 8-path list.

5:正命: Right Livelihood. Fully canonical and matches exactly the normal buddhist 8-path list.

6:正孝: Right Filial Piety. This one is most certainly a Confucian, or traditional Korean way of thinking borrowing, adoption into the 8 fold path. Filial piety as I have discussed earlier in this series is a classic Confucian Virtue, not normally stressed or associated with Buddhism. So this one is very unique to the Ji Do Kwan 8 point list, and it showcases an adoption of various Korean traditional thoughts merged together into a Kwan-specific philosophy.

7:正業: Right Action / Deeds. Fully canonical and matches exactly the normal buddhist 8-path list.

8:正行: Right Conduct / Behavior. General virtue, in the sense that it is not unique to Buddhism or Confucianism. It overlaps with 正精進 (Right Effort) or 正定 (Right Concentration), but is not a direct substitute. That being said 行 is sometimes seen in normal Buddhist 8 fold path too, so it is not unheard of, it is just not canonical.

So what do we have here? We have many modern webpages who appears to reproduce the standard Buddhist Eightfold Path without distinguishing between canonical Buddhism and Ji Do Kwan–specific interpretations. These webpages are fairly new (when compared to the merging of all the Kwan into the Kukkiwon System), so we can not say if they learned it this way, or if they were told that there was an 8 fold path list which they then found in Buddhism and its 8 fold path. We also have the back of an old(ish) Ji Do Kwan membership card that lists out the Creed and the Buddhist 8 fold path as it is normally seen. That one also includes the "Taekwondo" in all 3 sentences like in Al Cole´s version, but it also contains the original Hangul and in original Korean we see the same 3 sentences as I translated in this post when I used the 2015 document as a source. I do not have a date on when the card is from but it does look old, so I will say it is a viable Kwan-era source. Again I stress that different masters or dojang might have taught this differently.

Now if you looked closely on the photo you might have noticed that the 8 fold path presented there is not exactly like it is in canon Buddhism either, on the other hand it is not identical to the 2015 document. Let us take a close look at it:

Carefully transcribed from the original picture:

八聖道精神 THE SPIRIT OF THE EIGHT MANNERS OF SOLEMNITY

# - Hanja - Hangul - Original English translation

1: 觀 올바르게 본다 VIEW RIGHTLY

Comment: This is the same Hanja used in the 2015 list (#1), and therefore carries the same core meaning. The thing is "觀" does not simply mean “to view” or “to see.” While the right-hand component of the character contains the element for seeing (見), the character as a whole conveys the idea of observation, contemplation, or reflective perception. Had only the element 見 been used, the meaning would have been closer to simple seeing or viewing.

It should also be noted that in this list the precepts are written using single Hanja characters, without the prefix 正 (“correct” or “proper”). The normative aspect is instead supplied by the Korean phrasing. The Hangul 올바르게 본다 does indeed mean “to view/see rightly,” which aligns closely with the English translation “VIEW RIGHTLY,” even if it simplifies the semantic range of the Hanja 觀.

In the canonical Buddhist Eightfold Path, the concept is expressed as 正見 (“Right View”), using 見 rather than 觀. This difference in character choice likely helps explain the discrepancy in nuance between the Hanja and the accompanying Hangul and English in this list.

2: 覺 올바르게 느낀다 FEEL RIGHTLY

Comment: Here again we see that the same Hanja is being used as in #2 of the 2015 list. 覺 does not simply mean “to feel,” but is a term frequently used in Buddhist contexts in relation to concepts associated with awakening. It conveys ideas such as awareness, perception, realization, or, as already noted, awakening itself.

While modern Korean can associate 느끼다 with sensory or emotional feeling, the semantic range of 覺 is broader and more abstract, referring to a state of conscious awareness or perceptive realization. It therefore appears that the compiler of this list may have relied primarily on the Hangul phrasing when producing the English translation, perhaps without fully accounting for the additional nuance carried by the accompanying Hanja.

As with #2 in the 2015 list, this precept does not correspond to any element of the canonical Buddhist Eightfold Path, despite its use of Buddhist vocabulary.

3: 思 올바르게 생각한다 THINK RIGHTLY

Comment: I translated the related phrase in the 2015 list with Right Thought. It is the same Hanja used in both sets. It is a common shorthand for the same precept in the canonical Buddhist 8 fold path, there it appears as #2.

4: 語 올바르게 말한다 SPEAK RIGHTLY

Comment: Same Hanja used in #4 in 2015 list. Also appears in canonical Buddhist 8 fold path, although there is appears as #3.

5: 命 올바르게 명령한다 ORDER RIGHTLY

Comment: The Hanja 命 is the same character used in #5 of the 2015 list, where it appears as 正命, commonly translated as Right Livelihood and fully aligned with the canonical Buddhist Eightfold Path. In the present list, however, it is more appropriate to follow the accompanying Hangul and English, both of which clearly indicate the meaning “to command” or “to issue an order rightly.”

The discrepancy arises not from the character itself, but from the interpretive framework in which it is placed. The 2015 list provides only Hanja, and when 命 is paired with 正, it is tempting, and largely expected, to read it through a Buddhist lens, where 正命 corresponds directly to Sammā-ājīva, and 命 is understood in the sense of one’s means of living or life-support.

In this earlier precept, 命 appears alone, without 正, and its semantic range is clarified by context. The character itself can be associated with spoken directives or mandates (亼 above 口), and this reading is reinforced by its pairing with the following item in the list, 奉 (“to contribute/ uphold” or “to serve”). Together, these form a coherent command–response relationship, reflecting a hierarchical and disciplinary ethic rather than a Buddhist moral injunction concerning livelihood.

As such, this precept does not correspond to the canonical Buddhist Eightfold Path in its contextual meaning here. Only when the same character is later reframed as 正命 in the 2015 list does it align with Buddhist doctrine, and even then through reinterpretation rather than direct continuity.

6: 奉 올바르게 받든다 CONTRIBUTE RIGHTLY

Comment: This is the biggest divergence between the 2015 list and this one. Here 奉 is used. It can be read as "to uphold", "to serve", "to offer respectfully", to carry out a command", to attend to one´s duty". 받들다 means something along the lines of: "to uphold", "honor", "obey", "serve (with respect)". This means that "contribute rightly" is slightly interpretive, but it does capture the meaning. This one does not appear in the canonical Buddhist 8 fold path, nor does its 2015 counterpoint; 正孝: Right Filial Piety. This means that both the 2015 list and this one is not the canonical Buddhist 8 folded path but something else.

7: 業 능력을 가진다 HAVE ABILITY

Comment: In this list, the precept is expressed simply as 業, but it is accompanied by the Hangul 능력을 가진다 (“to possess ability”). Here, 業 is not used in a moral or doctrinal sense, but rather to denote competence developed through repeated action or practice. The emphasis is on functional capability, i.e. what one is able to do as a result of disciplined training, rather than on the ethical quality of one’s actions.

In the 2015 list, the same character is reframed as 正業, aligning it with the canonical Buddhist concept of Right Action. With the addition of 正, the meaning shifts decisively toward moral evaluation and ethical restraint. This change does not reflect continuity of meaning, but rather a reinterpretation of the character within a Buddhist ethical framework. In the canonical Buddhist Eightfold Path the 2015 #7; 正業 (‘Right Action’) is the fourth element.

As we have seen elsewhere in this list the formulations might reflect a practice-oriented, martial understanding of action and ability, while the 2015 version uses some of the same characters (Hanja) in explicitly moral terms when viewed through a Buddhist interpretive lens, like I explained before with the pairing of 正 before the other Hanja.

8: 行 행동한다 CONDUCT RIGHTLY

Comment: This also appears as #8 in the 2015 list and both contains the same meaning. Neither is canonically in the Buddhist 8 fold path but it does appear sometimes in lists or texts dealing with the 8 folded path as well.

Which one is the correct one, is a natural thing to ask, especially as modern western practitioners. I am going to say that whatever version your teacher is teaching is the correct one for the Dojang, Kwan and tradition you belong to. I would much rather answer which one I prefer. It is true that I have a Ji Do Kwan lineage (Gm Cho Woon Sup studied directly under Gm Lee Wang Seung, the third Kwanjang of Ji Do Kwan), and Gm Cho did write about Ji Do Kwan philosophy, but he did not include the 8 fold path in his books, nor did he actively teach Ji Do Kwan specific oaths or creeds. In fact in the specific Dojang I "grew up in" we used the "Tenets of Taekwondo", and "The Student Oath/ The 5 Laws of Taekwondo", the same ones used in ITF Taekwon-Do. We would recite these, discuss them and when we had writing assignments as part of our gradings we might be asked to explain them.

That being said, we are nearing the end of this series, and so I have been enjoying a deep dive into several different Kwan, and after all of this I will confess to prefer the last list I covered over the canonical Buddhist 8 fold path or the 2015 list. Do not mistake that for me saying it is the "correct" one, it is my personal preference as it is not a copy paste from Buddhism, the unique things about it are echoed in other Kwan Creeds, and it marries virtues and thinking from both martial arts, buddhism and confucianism (the hierarchical structure).

If you look at the last list overall it echoes how a good Dojang should function. The student should indeed observe correctly to learn (leaning on the Hanja, but seeing could also work). By observing the student can emulate the seniors and teachers and so absorb the knowledge into him or herself. Likewise if we look at the Hanja in #2 the student ought to "be present" (leaning into the awakening meaning). This is not only to learn well, but also a safety feature as not being present might mean you eat a punch you should have blocked, or you unfairly punch another person in a compliant drill because you were not paying attention. Speak correctly, think correctly fits into this theme as well. So does the issuing of orders, and the following complying with them. You can easily go through the list with this viewpoint and see how each one would result in a great Dojang to be a member of.

I am not disputing the other versions as being inferior or less "correct" though. A Kwan is both a school and a lineage. A lineage in Martial Arts is called "Ryu" or "Ryupa", both are terms that were used in Choi Hong Hi´s 1959 Textbook, so I am not stealing Karate terms, I am borrowing from a Taekwondo Textbook. The Hanja for "Ryu" is often translated as "lineage", but it also means "flow", as in knowledge flowing down from a master to his student, the student becomes a master and passes it on to his student. In this transmission, some variance and evolution is normal and natural. Some would even say it is "The Way" (Do) or since we are talking about martial arts; The Martial Way "Mudo".

There is more to be written about Ji Do Kwan, but I think we can safely say that this is more than enough for one post. In the next we will look at the Logo or Crest of the Ji Do Kwan, the Ji Do Kwan members pledge and I´ll pick up where I left off in the Han Mu Kwan post on my speculations on what the Yeon Mu Kwan Creed or philosophy MIGHT have been based on what we know from the Yeon Mu Kwan descendant schools (Han Mu Kwan & Ji Do Kwan).

Balsaek - Bassai a peculiar movement discussion

2026-07-01T14:51:13.524+02:00

There is a great upside to embracing your Kwan-roots fully, and that is the opening up in rich forms material and historical forms material that is no longer normally preserved in the mainstream Kukki-Taekwondo or modern ITF curricula. This post is not about proving one version right and another wrong. It is about tracing how one movement in Balsae/Bassai was described and performed across Japanese and Korean sources, and what that tells us about Kwan-era transmission.

One of the very oldest forms in the Oh Do Kwan repertoire is Balsaek Hyeong. It is also perhaps the oldest form I know and practice (along with Cheolgi / Tekki / Naihanchi and Ban Wol / Hangetsu / Seisan).

"The Balsaek forms come in two versions, large and small. The distinctive feature of this form is that the blocking hand is quickly turned and transformed into another block, thereby shifting one from a disadvantageous position into an advantageous one. Its energy resembles the action of piercing through an enemy’s defensive fortifications, and from this comes the name “Balsaek.” - Choi Hong Hi 1959

It is a very interesting form, and among the forms that Anko Itosu drew from when he developed the Pyeongahn / Pinan / Heian Forms. We see the form echoed even into modern Taekwondo Poomsae. In Koryo Poomsae for instance you have right after a side kick, placing the foot down you do an upset low section spear hand thrust with one hand while the other one comes in front of the opposite shoulder in a long front stance. You then move the front foot back while pulling the "spearhand-thrusting-hand" back and up (to your hip in modern Koryo) while performing a low block.

This short sequence originated quite possibly in Bassai Kata or Balsaek Hyeong, before being mined to be included in Pyeonghan 5. One of these two then served as inspiration or knowledge-well for the originator(s) of modern Koryo Poomsae when it comes to this short sequence. I am not claiming a direct documented borrowing here, only that the technical resemblance is suggestive when viewed against the background of the KTA forms committee.

Studying the older forms then actually give you another vantage point when looking at the modern forms, but that is not really what this post is about. This post is looking at the Korean way of doing this form when compared to what they might have learned in Japan. I am looking specifically at a movement which can be seen in a modern JKA-Shotokan context in the video below:

Most people interested in Kwan history, or trying to learn the older Taekwondo forms turn naturally to modern JKA-Shotokan because they believe that early Taekwondo = modern JKA-Shotokan Karate. I do hope that this is a myth that I will have gotten rid off eventually. Modern JKA-Shotokan is obviously linked and related to pre-JKA Shotokan, but they are not identical, and it is more and more different the longer back you go. My post on the knife hand guarding blocks and their chamber should challenge the notion of both JKA and pre-JKA being the same a lot, and give pause if you meet this notion in the wild.

The Technique / Movement in question:

Anyhow, the technique appears in Balsaek Hyeong after a series of 3 knife hand guarding blocks going forward in back stance, and then one where you move one step back into back stance knife hand guarding block and then the key movement appear. In modern JKA-Shotokan as seen in the video above you have a circular almost knife hand block movement while the other hand is gently or nearly touching the wrist.

To me, one very natural application is as a wristlock, where the hand has been grabbed by the opponent. One hand pins his grabbing hand to your wrist, while the other performs a wrist lock, setting him up for a kick while pulling in.

To me this is a fairly obvious application, but there might be others I am not considering. But looking for applications online, I see many do variations on this wrist lock as a counter to the wrist being grabbed. Iain Abernethy, and a host of other people doing the same. So when I independently see it that way, and then I see others come up with the same, I do believe it is safe to say it is a good application.

Now when I started going deep into my Kwan roots, through my connection with the Korean Oh Do Kwan, which still preserves older material in addition to recognizing modern Kukki-Taekwondo, I started looking into how I could best retain the material from the Kwan itself, and focus on that, seeing as the modern Poomsae is well taken care of by millions and millions of people but the older material is not so much practiced when you go back before the Changheon-ryu. Under guidance I have learned the Changheon-Ryu forms, and I have had to perform both Poomsae and a Changheon-Ryu form for each of my belt tests within the Oh Do Kwan (so not just Kukki-Taekwondo, while they certainly recognize Kukki-Taekwondo rank and material, the older Kwan material is still being held alive), and researching the 1959 book I have re-schooled my "Karate-derived" forms so that they are aligned with the Oh Do Kwan forms too. But we will get back to how it is done in Oh Do Kwan.

Now in the process of doing that I noticed quite a few differences between the Oh Do Kwan Balsaek and the JKA Bassai, one was this key movement. So I did what I usually do when faced with these situations. I hit the books (not literally).

How did Funakoshi teach it? (1920s)

Funakoshi 1920s (the book itself says 1922, but I think that refers to the first edition, and not the one I have a translation of) Funakoshi does give us quite a few forms descriptions, luckily Bassai is one of them. He writes:

"(18) Bring forward the shoulder slightly, maintain the legs' stance, while placing the right hand in front of the left hand to grab the opponent's hand (as in Figure 191).

(19) Raise the right leg to the height of the hands, and step forward while pulling in both hands to the front of the chest, with the left hand almost touching the right nipple."- Funakoshi 1920s

The photo quality reflects the time at which the book was published, but it does seem to be roughly the same as the modern JKA-Shotokan, as the performer who demonstrated the movement does say that the non-blocking hand does not touch the blocking hand. That being said the off-hand seems much less in contact with the front hand in the photo.

All the versions have a pulling in with the hands while kicking with the back leg.

How did Funakoshi teach it? (1935)

He writes much more in-depth in his 1935 version of Karate-Do Kyohan. This is from the Neptune translation.

"(17) Your left foot stays as it is. Withdraw your right foot one step into a right leg kō-kutsu (back-leg-bent stance). Simultaneously, do a left hand shu-tō uke (hand-sword block). Your right hand positions in front of your chest. In other words, you do movement (16) and go back to (15).

(18) Your feet stay as they are. As you push out your right shoulder, your right hand moves (from under your left hand) to the front and blocks to the right. Your right elbow is bent slightly, and your left leg is in a zen-kutsu (front-leg-bent stance).

Note: For the movement of the right hand refer to picture (4)."

"(19) As soon as you bring your right foot up high like you see in picture (4) (this is not a kick), take a powerful fumi-komi (trample-step) to the front, like you see in picture (5). At the same time, clench your fists as you pull them with strength to the front of your chest. Make sure that the left fist comes below the right nipple.

Note: The idea is that in movement (18), you pull and grab the opponent's hand, and simultaneously in movement (19), your foot goes up to execute a powerful fumi-komi (trample-step) on your opponent's hipbone. Therefore, raise your right leg as high as possible, and move your hands and feet simultaneously."

In the translations of the earlier works of Funakoshi and in the photograps it does seem like the hands are roughly the same as in modern JKA-Shotokan, but further apart. Perhaps we are seeing some evolution where the original idea might have been simply to grab the opponents arm, pulling him in while trampling on his leg, which morphed into the modern movement with the wrist-lock application?

How did Funakoshi teach it? (1958)

Toward the end of his life, Funakoshi started writing another edition of Karate-Do Kyohan. Unfortunately he was not able to finish it, and so his students finished it for him and published it in 1958, one year after his death in 1957. I am sometime corrected harshly by Shotokan people when I quote Funakoshi from 1958, but I am quoting a book that was published in 1958, so that is the explanation for that. Anyhow, we do not know exactly how much of the text was Funakoshi's and how much was the students, nor do we know if changes and variations are the result of the students aligning the book with their JKA-Shotokan instead of representing what Funakoshi taught. Therefore when looking at what the Kwan-founders likely learned I lean more into the 1935 Karate Do Kyohan than I do this book. But it does serve as another data point to look at the same movement from a Shotokan Karate perspective.

"18. Thrust the right shoulder forward, pass the right hand under the left arm, and extend it forward in a right arm block with a feeling of drawing the right leg toward the left.

19. Lift the right foot to the position shown in figure 41 and immediately thrust it forcefully downward toward the front while simultaneously clenching both fists and pulling them vigorously toward the chest, so that the left fist assumes a final position just below the right nipple.

Following Movement 18, in which one has grasped the opponent’s hand, one now brings the right foot up to step forcefully down onto the opponent’s thigh. For this purpose, raise the right leg as high as possible while coordinating its motion with that of the arms."

We see the instuctions remain similar, but here the handposition in movement 18 is the same as in modern JKA-Shotokan Karate that we started with. The text might be telling us to do the same as before though, hands much more apart signifying a grab of the opponents arm, while the hand position in the photo shows the "wrist-lock-movement".

Bassai into Balsaek, from Japan to Korea

It seems that when the form was transported from Japan to Korea it underwent a few changes, one being the movement we have seen here in this post so far, that being said, looking strictly at the photographs it does seem that modern JKA-Shotokan has evolved into a "wrist-lock-movement" rather than started out with it, but books having their limitations I will have to scour the archives to see if we can find an early enough performance in video format to really see if there has indeed been an evolution in Japan regarding the Shotokan at least.

I do have some sources to represent Korean styles, so lets look a little on them.

How did Hwang Kee teach it? (1958)

In the Tangsudo Textbook, published in 1958 Hwang Kee documents the 3 Gicho forms, the 5 Pyeongahn forms, the first Cheolgi form and Balsaek (He used his own names, but I am staying consistent in this post). Here is how this movement is documented in his 1958 textbook, keeping in mind that Mu Duk Kwan is a living school, Hwang wrote several books, and I only have this one. So if there is a discrepancy between this and how you learned if you are reading this from a Mu Duk Kwan perspective, please keep in mind that this is:

A): a very specific snapshot in time (1958)

B): that I am not fluent in Korean and might have made a translation mistake.

In the above photo we are seeing what I call the Korean trend, both hands covering high, almost looks like a flinch receiving technique, where you might grab the opponent after. It could certainly also be a grab, then lift up, unbalancing the opponent, putting his weight on to one of his legs, setting up the following kick.

It is a very viable combative movement, totally in sync with the form sequence, but it is not like the modern JKA Shotokan movement. There is in short, not "wrist-lock-movement" here, and so the wrist lock defense against a wrist grab is not applicable in this version of the form. My thoughts above however should not make you think any less of the Korean version, if anything you lose a very specific application (a wrist lock) and gain a multitude of possibilities.

I should also make note that with the twisting of the body, which is consistent with all of Funakoshi's writings, Hwang seems to prefer to let the back foot come forward to make the twist more natural.

Below is my translation keeping in mind that I am an amateur:

"From that position, turn the body, rotating the right side of the waist forward. Bend the left leg while lowering the body. Naturally draw the right foot in to the left foot, becoming as shown in the illustration above. Cross both knife-hands, then open and bring them together as shown above, defending the upper section. Right hand in front, right foot behind; the body faces sideways. (See Fig. 266.)" -Hwang 1958

His description of defending the upper section aligns with my "flinch cover" thinking, but this is my speculation and interpretation. It is often said that Hwang Kee learned his forms from books. And while there is certainly a strong possibility of that being the case to a certain degree, things like this does complicate it a little. If he had indeed learned from books you would expect him to give roughly the same instructions and follow the books of Funakoshi to the letter. Perhaps this represents him changing a movement to reflect his own interpretation. We will revisit that train of thought later on. For now let us take a short step forward in time to 1959 and another Korean.

How did Choi teach it? (1959)

Moving on to Oh Do Kwan (my Kwan) we have two books detailing this movement, one from 1959 and one from 1965. Thanks to the work of David on the "Foot Fist Way" blog we know that there was a change between the two versions.

Due to the way the different books describes forms, I much prefer the 1959 book for the older "Karate derived" forms and I use the 1965 book as a guide to the Changheon-Ryu forms. I do find it interesting that the same forms (the "Karate-derived" ones especially, but also Changheon-ryu) change between 1959 and 1965 books.

So how does Choi describe the movement in his 1959 book?

In the forms description Choi Hong Hi describes the movement thusly:

"Move 19: Without moving the feet, assume left front stance, while blocking the upper section with the right knife hand, simultaneously place the left hand beneath the right elbow.

Note: 1: A left knife hand middle block to the front may also be used.
2: The rear heel must remain in contact with the ground.
3: Drive the right shoulder forward."

"Move 20: Execute a middle section piercing kick with the right foot blade toward point C, while forcefully pulling both wrists back to the front of the chest.

Note: 1: Pull the left fist back so that it comes in front of the right side of the chest.
2: The backs of both hands should face upward.
3: Instead of middle section kick you can also kick low section."

So we do see a similar emphasis on covering the high section, but instead of both hands being up covering, you here have the left hand placed underneath the right elbow. Other than that we see that the body is twisted (drive the right shoulder forward), and that it is right knife hand. What I find interesting is the variation given, that a left knife hand middle block to the front may also be used. Personally I am sticking with the movement as described and illustrated in my own practice. One reason being that this very movement was "given to me" at a self defense seminar as a defensive frame from which to work from. When the old form matches what I have learned as close quarter combat I am a happy guy.

I should add that the kick that Choi tells us to do is a side piercing kick, although he does not use the modern terminology. When I translate I tend to stay as close as I can to what the text is actually saying, but in 1959 when he tells us to kick with the foot blade, it means a side kick.

Another point that is worth mentioning is the fact that Choi explicitly tells us that the rear heel has the stay grounded. We see from Hwang Kee that the back foot is pulled a little forward to facilitate the twisting, and we also see some leeway in the older Shotokan material. It does give us a little insight into the Oh Do Kwan styles emphasis on staying grounded when compared to other methods, but it also gives us a little insight into the nature of the front stance at this point of time. If it is too long, the twisting of the upper body would be severely impaired given that the back heel has to stay grounded if we are to follow the books instructions.

But what I find interesting is how both the Oh Do Kwan and the Mu Duk Kwan uses the movement as an "upper cover", when in all the Shotokan material both pre-JKA and post-JKA stays in the middle. The rest of the sequence remains, the pulling of the arms and the "big" kick, piercing or stamping.

How did Choi teach it? (1965)

In the first ever Taekwondo book published using English language you have an explosion of Changheon-ryu forms, 20 in total, vs 5 in the 1959 book. Even so, we still see the inclusion of many "Karate-derived" forms. I mentioned before that the forms appearing in both books, while being the same often have some differences in execution. Balsaek, here documented under the Japanese pronunciation "Bat-Sai" we see a very different technique. The technique itself is not illustrated in the forms section, you need to look it up in the techniques section for the illustration of the technique which can be seen below:

As for how he describes it in the pattern section you can see that below:

As you can see the way he explains forms in the 1965 book is very spartan, but he clearly tells us to use double arc-hand block to high section in the 1965 version, which is a different technique or movement, albeit similar if you squint your eyes, to the 1959 version. The very spartan instructions of the 1965 book is why I prefer the older versions, and since we do have the arc-hand block in Gae-Baek Hyeong I see no reason as to why I would have it in Balsaek Hyeong too, when I can have both movements included instead.

Interestingly enough, both movements do appear to be doing roughly the same job, defending and covering the upper section. The difference I see is that one is more flinch-based (the 1959 version), and possibly unbalancing the opponent by lifting up, while the other version is more training-response-based and unbalances the opponent by pulling around to the side and back. In Balsaek I prefer the 1959 version because the follow up comes straight ahead, while in Gae-Baek Hyeong you do turn in the direction of the pull and continue into a new sequence of techniques. Therefore I feel that one belongs in one form, while the other belongs in the other form. If that makes sense.

The common denominator so far is that the emphasis is high section, and the left hand in all the Korean versions so far has not matched the Shotokan material. We do have a third Korean source we can look at though.

How did Son Duk Sung teach it? (1968)

In this post I have followed the chronology of my sources, which is why you have Funakoshi 1920s, 1935, 1958, then Hwang Kee 1958, then Choi Hong Hi 1959, 1965 and now Son Duk Sung 1968. When it comes to the establishment of the Kwan (schools) these people represent (Mu Duk Kwan, Oh Do Kwan and Chung Do Kwan respectively) the chronology might have been different. There are serious discussions in Korea on which Kwan came to be established first, and it is not easy to sort through the political narratives, because several Kwan wants to be the first one. In Oh Do Kwan's case it is fairly simple, it was established in 1954, but the race between Mu Duk Kwan and Chung Do Kwan is a close one.

I will retell a journal article by Kim published in 2025 which goes into great detail about the Cung Do Kwan founding in another post, but in any way it is widely accepted that Hwang Kee trained with people from the Chung Do Kwan in the early days of Mu Duk Kwan. It is very possible that several of the "Karate forms" that did not appear in the earliest years of Mu Duk Kwan, but is firmly in place by 1949 as they are included in his first book, might have been at least in part, learned through Chung Do Kwan sources.

The Chung Do Kwan link into Oh Do Kwan is both strong and obvious given that Nam Tae Hi, as well as other early instructors in the Oh Do Kwan came originally from the Chung Do Kwan. There is a reason why I am highlighting the Chung Do Kwan link between these schools, please be patient O:-)

"For position 19, there is no movement in the positions of the feet. The right open hand is almost in a rising-block position with the left open hand, fingers pointing directly up about three inches below the middle of the right forearm.

From position 19, a right side kick is made in the original direction of motion while both hands clutch as if grabbing the opponent's clothing and then they are pulled in toward the body as if pulling the opponent onto the side kick."

Son Duk Sung also includes a photo illustration of the application here:

Son Duk Sung being a very early student at the Chung Do Kwan, and the second headmaster of the school, makes this application and description an old authority in a Korean sense, even if the book itself is newer. The contrast between the two schools is the grounded emphasis in the Oh Do Kwan ves the heel looks very lifted in the Chung Do Kwan version. Also while Son describes the movement as one hand being almost in a high section rising block, it does not look like the formal end position of that technique. In the Oh Do Kwan version on the other hand it looks more like a normal rising high section block with the knife hand.

The Korean "Connective Tissue"

So what does all of this mean? Am I obsessing over details?

I have no idea, but the nerd in me find it very interesting to be able to train a form in 2026, comparing movements and documentation from a 100 years ago and up until present day. The Mu Duk Kwan, the Oh Do Kwan and the Chung Do Kwan all seems to have been handing down a version of this movement that focuses on covering the upper section with both hands involved, some slight variations, but at the same time similar enough to be noticed, and different enought to be distinct from that of Shotokan material. Again showcasing my ongoing thesis that if you want to practice Kwan-era Taekwondo, you need to look at Kwan-era material and not just train modern JKA-Shotokan and believe it is identical to early Taekwondo.

I gave it away earlier but the link that connects all of the Korean versions together is the Chung Do Kwan. Among the earliest Kwan founded in Korea, possibly the first, being a widely accepted possible source of training of Hwang Kee, as well as providing instructors to Oh Do Kwan, the Chung Do Kwan might have been the source of this variant, which then spread to Oh Do Kwan, and was adopted, and slightly adapted by Hwang in his Mu Duk Kwan.

It would be interesting to look at how the movement has been documented in other sources. I am unsure if the form appears in the Pasakwonbeop book with its Kang Duk Won connection, or the Taesudo Textbook with its Han Mu Kwan connection, but if it does appear it would be fun to compare and see if they too are similar. It does appear in Choi Seok Nam´s 1955 book, but that one also has a clear Chung Do Kwan connection, so I have not looked very hard at it yet.

Conclusion

So we have seen how one form came from Okinawa to Japan, how the movement within this form evolved in Japan over time, and how the form was then transported to Korea and how the movement might have been adapted by the Korean schools there as well (it clearly was changed in the Oh Do Kwan between 1959 and 1965). While the modern JKA-Shotokan movement lends itself very well into one specific application (I am sure there are others as well), the Korean one(s) is also combatively valid and interesting in their own right. I am not arguing one is better than the other, rather that they are both good and both a part of a longer tradition being handed down over a very long period of time.

Kwan Heon - A closer look at Kwan creeds of early Taekwondo part 6: Han Mu Kwan

2026-06-12T14:52:00.006+02:00

This has proven to have been one of my most challenging series in what I can remember... But it is so worth it :-) Many many many years ago I started writing about the different schools of early taekwondo´s philosophies by looking at their kwan heon or school creeds. I abandoned the whole project for years, it was sitting in the "draft" folder of blogger.com. I then got the bright idea to start finishing stuff that I had started in 2025, and that served me well. I decided that the original concept of one long blogpost covering all of the Kwan was unfeasable, and so I divided the project up in smaller chunks and started with Chung Do Kwan in August 2025. Unfortunately I did manage to make a mistake in that one, so the whole project was sidelined until January 2026, and now we have covered Chung Do Kwan (part 1, and part 1.2), Song Mu Kwan (Part 2), Kang Duk Won (Part 3), Chang Mu Kwan (Part 4), Mu Duk Kwan (Part 6) and today we will be looking at possibly the most overlooked Kwan of them all; The Han Mu Kwan.

Han Mu Kwan is sometimes said in western Taekwondo literature to be a administrative Kwan, not a real one, and that is if it discussed at all. I think the reason for this is that Han Mu Kwan and especially its founder played a key role in the KTA and later when the merging of the different Kwan happened, plus Han Mu Kwan is overshadowed by its much better known "sister school"; the Ji Do Kwan. To make the story very short: Yeon Mu Kwan came first. Its Tang Su Do/ Kong Su Do/ Kwon Beop department was founded by Chun Sang Sup. After the Korean war ended in the armistice and the Kwanjang Chun Sang Sup had disappeared, the school was reopened. Some sources say it was reopened as Ji Do Kwan first, by Lee Chung Woo and Yun Kwae Byung, and then Han Mu Kwan was founded shortly after because of disagreements. Other sources say that Han Mu Kwan and Ji Do Kwan reopened around the same time, no matter the source the Han Mu Kwan founder always claimed a direct lineage back to Yeon Mu Kwan, not Ji Do Kwan. So in a sense we can say that Han Mu Kwan and Ji Do Kwan are sister schools, Ji Do Kwan being the much more well known of the two.

Yeon Mu Kwan and Chun Sang Sup

Below is a quote from my book: The Lost Forms of Oh Do Kwan Taekwondo Volume 1; Taegeuk 1-3 Hyeong" (available for purchase here) page 18:

"Chun Sang Sup and Yun Mu Kwan

Chun Sang Sup (c. 1920–c. 1950) was born into an affluent Korean family. As a young man, he studied Judo in Korea, a martial art formally introduced alongside Kendo in 1922 during the Japanese occupation. Seeking to further his education, he traveled to Japan in ca 1930 and enrolled at Takushoku University.

There is scholarly disagreement over which Karate style Chun studied. According to Park Chul Hee and Lee Chong Woo, he trained in Shito-Ryu under Kenwa Mabuni. However, Lee Ho Sung (author of Korean Martial Arts Conquer the American Continent), Kim Young Seon, and Yi Gyo Yun assert that he studied Shudokan and Goju-Ryu under Toyama Kanken and Chojun Miyagi. While Miyagi is not known to have resided permanently in mainland Japan, he did travel there periodically to teach, including at universities in the region where Chun studied.

Chun returned to Korea near the end of World War II and began practicing Judo at Yun Mu Kwan. In 1946, he was invited to teach Karate at the school and established the Chosun Yun Mu Kwan Kong Su Do Bu (조선연무관 공수도부 (朝鮮硏武館空手道部)), meaning “Karate division of Yun Mu Kwan.” Tragically, Chun disappeared during the Korean War (1950–1953) and was never heard from again.

Despite his disappearance, Yun Mu Kwan played a pivotal role in the development of Taekwondo. It later gave rise to two influential Kwans: Ji Do Kwan and Han Mu Kwan." End quote.

Han Mu Kwan History

In my book I continue with several other Kwan, including Ji Do Kwan and Yun Kwae Byung, but I did not write anything about the Han Mu Kwan. I guess I will need to rectify that in Volume 2, seeing as in Volume 1 I had access to a book by Sihak Henry Cho, a Ji Do Kwan master, while in Volume 2 I will try to use the Tae Su Do Textbook written by the Han Mu Kwan founder as one of the sources for Kwan variations. The main source for Volume 2 will still be Choi Hong Hi´s 1959 Taekwondo Textbook though.

(The history of Han Mu Kwan draws heavily on the 2015 historical compilation document I have been working out of and mentioned earlier in this series. The translation and retelling is done by me. The interview snippets are from that document and translated/ quoted as is.)

Lee Kyo Yun started practicing Kong Su Do at the Yeon Mu Kwan in 1947. In an interview he revealed the strict hierarchy between the seniors and juniors at the Dojang:

“At that time, great importance was placed on proper conduct between master and disciple, and between seniors and juniors. Therefore, one could not dare smoke in front of a senior, and even when washing after training, one had to wash in the order of admission. Especially, newly admitted trainees had to clean the dojo floor every day until they earned their first dan.”

He continues by describing some interesting details regarding training in the Yeon Mu Kwan:

“In the early period, our training mainly involved practicing hyeong (poomsae). That was because we emphasized the Martial Way. During summer and winter, we used school vacations to conduct heat training and cold weather training. We deliberately chose the hottest times and the coldest times.”

In 1950 he obtained a comunications operator license and taught police officers in various precincts in the mornings, before working as a communications officer at the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency Information Office. The police officers who trained in Taekwondo would at times also hold demonstration tournaments at the Sigong-gwan (theater) located in Myeongdong. When the Korean War broke out he did not get drafted like most of the other students at the Yeon Mu Kwan due to his key job as a Communications Operator.

After the Korean war Lee Chung Woo and Yun Kwae Byung reorganised the Yeon Mu Kwan and reopened it. In 1954 after a disagreement between Lee Chung Woo and Lee Kyo Yun (a senior student at the original Yeon Mu Kwan, the latter set up a temporary tent in Changsin-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul and founded the Han Mu Kwan (Korean Martial School).

In the summer of 1960 Han Mu Kwan carried out independent activities such as the 1960 Yeon-Mu Tournament, and by September 1961 a central Dojang was established in Sangwangsimni, Seongdong-gu in Seoul. This Dojang was operational until they relocated to Changsin-dong in 1969.

Lee Kyo Yun was the author of the early Korean Martial Arts manual "Tae Su Do for the masses", the only book using the name Tae Su Do as a name for the martial art. The book came out in 1965 in Korean language. The same year General Choi Hong Hi would return to the Korean Tae Su Do Association and make them retake the Taekwondo name, and also in 1965 Choi published his own book using the name Taekwondo for the art in English language.

I found a mention that in 1971 Han Mu Kwan started practising their own Hyeong (poomsae), but all mentions of this is brief and seems to trace back to the 2015 historical collection document I am working on. I could not find any details on Han Mu Kwan Hyeong or Poomsae, and seeing as Lee Kyo Yun worked very closely with the KTA I am speculating that this mention in passing might mean that Han Mu Kwan adopted the Taegeuk Poomsae before the rest of the Kwan followed suit. I repeat: I am speculating here due to limited sources.

Han Mu Kwan Creed

자신을 위해 근면한다.
관을 위해 헌신한다.
사회를 위해 봉사한다.
국가를 위해 충성한다.

(Remember I am not fluent in Korean, nor am I a professional translator. Any mistake here is mine and mine alone).

Practice diligence for oneself.

Devote oneself for the Kwan.

Serve society.

Be loyal to the nation.

This creed is in spirit very closely aligned with the core creed of Ji Do Kwan; "For Me, For my Kwan, For the Nation." I will deal specifically with Ji Do Kwan in a separate post but I felt that due to their close lineage I should highlight that. It is also interesting to note that they are not identical.

Let us look closely at the Han Mu Kwan Creed:

We have 4 sentences, each ending with "-handa/ 한다." implying "to do something".

The first line reads: 자신을 위해 근면한다. Let us break this down, look at key words and put it together again. 자신(自身) can be translated as "oneself", "the self", or "ones own person". In the context of this Creed this is not to be taken as something "selfish", but that you are responsible. 을 = object particle, 위하다 / 위해 can mean "for the sake of", "on behalf of". 근면하다 (勤勉하다) is 근면 = diligence, industriousness, assiduous effort, and 하다 is the verb "to do", or "to practice". This is a core Confucian value of steadfast dilligence or work over time, it is daily diligence. A student of Confucian philosophy might hear echoes of "cultivating the self through diligence". I am saying this so that hopefully the neuance of the original first sentence of the Creed can come over to the English translation "Practice diligence for oneself." which I think is natural English, matches the "Creed-style" (short and to the point) while hopefully getting the original meaning across.

The second line is: 관을 위해 헌신한다. The first word (and object as marked by "을") is Kwan which we know as a common word for "School", but it also implies (but does not translate into) "Dojang," "lineage", and perhaps especially for Korean Martial Arts; A community sharing common training and goals. If you read first hand accounts you will see that everything from cleaning the Dojang to watching out and protecting fellow students from bullies, to even financial help was seen as a natural thing within the Kwan. "위해" can be translated as "for the sake of" or "on the behalf of".

헌신(獻身) can be read as 헌 (獻): "to offer", "to present", "to dedicate" and 신 (身): "body", or "self". Together we can get "devote" as I chose but you could also read it as: "dedication" or "self-offering".

Together as a whole sentence I chose "Devote oneself for the Kwan." My personal interpretation is that this does not mean that you should sacrifice yourself or give up all your belongings or anything like that. I interpret it more like this sentence is underlining the communal sense of helping each other and the Kwan as a community, like I discussed the very term "Kwan" implies.

In the third sentence we read: 사회를 위해 봉사한다. Again we will break this up and put it all together again. 사회를 is the key object in this sentence, and as you can see from my translation I chose "Society" here. The original language term 사회 represents a larger community, but not as large as national or nation. We are talking about the larger group than the immediate one you would find in "family" or in "kwan", like "a whole, or several neighborhood(s)", "City" or as I chose: "Society".

Skipping a little ahead so as to not repeat earlier explanations we see the term 봉사(奉仕) where the "bong" (봉奉) can be read as "to respectfully offer", "to serve". "Sa" (사 仕)) on the other hand can be read as: "to work in service", "to perform duties". Together as a term it implies something you do voluntary to benefit others, and in modern Korean it is often associated with "civic virtue". I chose "Serve society." to capture the brief Creed-style language and hopefully I got the essence or neuance to carry over to English.

Last but absolutely not last we arrive at the fourth and final sentence: "국가를 위해 충성한다." First we have 국가를 which sets "The Nation", "State" or "Country" as the object in the sentence. Again skipping a little ahead to save on repetition we have 충성(忠誠), where 충(忠) can be read as "loyalty, faithfulness, wholehearted devotion", which you migh remember having seen in earlier posts in this series. It is a classical Confucian virtue. Secondly we have 성 (誠) which can mean "sincerity, truthfulness, genuine intent", another word we have seen before earlier in this series, and also appears frequently in Confucian philosophy. Together the term can be read as "loyal devotion grounded in sincerity". We are not talking blind obedience to the Nation, but a kind of "moral loyalty" if you forgive my sligthly clumsy English. Like I wrote in the Mu Duk Kwan post, the relationships is never a blind, one sided thing, you will devote yourself to the nation, but the nation also has to provide opportunities and rights for you, in other words it goes both ways.

So overall I chose the brief "Be loyal to the nation", but I could possibly have delved more into other aspects of the original language. It seemed though as no matter which route I chose some nuance would be lost. Therefore I chose "be loyal to the nation", because it supports the overall theme of the Creed as I see it, when you look at the Creed in totality and not just 4 isolated sentences.

Conclusion

The creed on the whole the complete Creed does give us a very Confucian idea of how relationships should work. As I wrote in an earlier post the key to achieve harmony and peace overall the relationships has to grow "outward". In the Creed we start with ourselves, we then expand it outward to our school or Kwan. Then we expand it outward once again to mean we are doing all of this to benefit society. The next natural leap is then put forth in the fourth sentence where we arrive at the "Nation" or "National level". In Confucian classic writings a master might teach 4 things and let the student naturally come to the conclusion themselves. In this case we see: Self -> Kwan -> Society -> Nation, and then perhaps one can naturally come to the conclusion that the next implied level would be "The World". This closely mirrors the Ji Do Kwan philosophy as I was taught by my original teacher; Gm Cho Woon Sup (who comes from a Ji Do Kwan lineage). We see the same thing implied in the core creed of that Kwan: For me -> for my Kwan -> for the Nation (We will examine Gm Cho Woon Sup in the upcoming Ji Do Kwan post).

I should add that I am not saying that the Creed of Han Mu Kwan was built upon a conscious effort to "be Confucian", but traditional Korean culture is so soaked in Confucian Philosophy that once you start looking you will see it everywhere. In Mu Duk Kwan´s 10 precepts there is so much overlap between Confucianism and the 10 Precepts that I as a reader would think he adopted Confucian Philosophy into Mu Duk Kwan philosophy, just like Hwang Kee adopted the Hyeong he got from different sources into something unique to Mu Duk Kwan. In Han Mu Kwan creed´s case we have 4 sentences that are using some words and phrases important in Confucian philosophy, but wether that is done on purpose or if we are looking at a Confucian cultural baggage into the Korean way of thinking we can not say without asking whoever came up with the Creed originally. Given the close structure between the Han Mu Kwan Creed and the Ji Do Kwan Creed I think it is not unreasonable to trace this part of the Kwan philosophy back to the Yeon Mu Kwan, and therefore perhaps Chun Sang Sup as the originator of the Creed. I will say that this is merely my speculation based upon what we have. The thing is that since Chun Sang Sup disappeared in the Korean war we can not ask him, and so we have to look at what we have and analyze it as best we can on its own merit.

I will explain my reasoning for my Yeon Mu Kwan origin speculations in more depth in the next post which perhaps naturally will be on the Ji Do Kwan.

Early Taekwondo was just Shotokan (it was and it wasn't)

2026-05-29T08:23:00.000+02:00

One recurring comment I get over and over and over and over and over again when sharing something from the Kwan-era of Taekwondo or discussing anything technical about early Taekwondo are comments like:

"Because it was all just Shotokan"
"All Kwan taught Shotokan"
"They all taught Shotokan Kata"
"FYI all early Taekwondo was just Shotokan"

One of the biggest problems with this is that it is a gross simplification of a very messy history. Its strength is that it does contain some truth, which is why I am not telling you outright that it is plain wrong, but it IS a simplification of history. A simplification that obscures technical discussions, evolution, understanding of the foundations of the modern Taekwondo systems and so on.

If you believe:

The Ap Seogi (Short walking stance) is a new innovation that came with Taegeuk Poomsae.
The Kukki Taekwondo blocking chambers are useless because they are not identical to modern Shotokan, and are based on Korean innovation.
All Kwan were the same.

Then you have directly felt (unknowingly) the ramifications of the simplification of Taekwondo history. Does this make your yeopchagi (side kick) any weaker? No, but it does obscure greater understanding into the modern system seeing as there is a fundamental flaw in the understanding of the foundations. Now another thing that I recently pointed out; Projecting modern training experience in related systems backwards in time also gives us a whole host of problems. In that post I was hyper specific on one single technique. In this one I am going to talk very briefly about the different Kwan.

Before we begin, I do not in any way deny that Funakoshi and the lineage from him had a vital and major impact on the development into what later would become Taekwondo. I just want to present the case that reality is messier than what most neat and tidy organizational lineage-trees seem to suggest.

The Korean Pioneers did not study modern JKA Shotokan Karate

There were several Koreans who got to train in Funakoshi-lineage Karate, that is not something I (or any serious Taekwondo historian) would ever argue against. The point however is this: Modern Shotokan Karate as a codified, systematized "style" as seen and exemplified in the JKA Shotokan Karate simply did not exist at the time the Koreans learned their martial arts in Japan. Shotokan did exist, but it was a place rather than a style.

Funakoshi himself was very against his Karate being labelled as a style and insisted that he only taught Karate-Do.

“There is no place in contemporary Karate for different schools. Some instructors, I know, claim to have invented new and unusual kata, and so they arrogate to themselves the right to be called founders of “schools”. Indeed, I have heard myself and my colleagues referred to as the Shotokan school, but I strongly object to this attempt at classification. My belief is that all these “schools” should be amalgamated into one, so that Karate may orderly progress into man’s future.” – Gichin Funakoshi

It was only toward the end of his life and especially after his death in 1957 that his students began to standardise and codify things into one system. This is why when we start to look at older books by Funakoshi we see things that are not often associated with modern JKA Shotokan Karate. He demonstrates throws, locks, trips, and tells people to study them according to the Kata:

"In karate, hitting, thrusting, and kicking are not the only methods, throwing techniques and pressure against joints are included … all these techniques should be studied referring to basic kata" – Gichin Funakoshi

Funakoshi was a very prolific writer, so we as students of history may get a sense of what he was teaching, and the evolution from what he taught directly to the last Karate-do Kyohan book that his students finished for him and published posthumously. Seeing as he died in 1957 and I sometimes quote him from 1958 I occasionally get some very odd comments, but the discrepancy is hopefully now explained.

In his earlier books he has higher stances, discusses a lot more of kata applications, shows much more relation between his combat examples and forms, while his 1958 publication (which is the most widely known one as it was translated back in the 1970s) was almost scrubbed of all these references, and all photos are performed according to the (at the time) modern standard (low stances, great distance between performers).

If you ask me which book we should be looking at to get a sense of what the Korean students who did train Funakoshi-lineage Karate it would be the 1935 Karate Do Kyohan. It gives a good overview of the art, yet makes it clear that it is just an overview.

Just to throw a little wrench into the whole “Shotokan as a rigid style” narrative, there is surviving footage from around 1942 showing a Funakoshi-lineage teacher demonstrating what appears to be Tensho Kata, a form more commonly associated with Chojun Miyagi and Goju-ryu.

This is not to suggest that Tensho was ever part of a standardized Shotokan curriculum, nor that it was widely taught. Rather, it illustrates how fluid Karate practice could still be in this transitional era before later postwar codification. Based on Funakoshi’s own writings, he also appears to have been less concerned with rigid style boundaries than many later practitioners became.

Looking at first hand accounts it does seem like he stressed forms as the primary mode of training, but he also taught throws, joint locks, take downs etc which in earlier books we see him link directly to Kata. In Some cases to specific techniques and sequences within Kata. He also made use of traditional Okinawan strength training, he taught what today is called Kobudo (weapons) such as the long staff and Sai. All in all it seems like his Karate was very much Okinawan flavored when compared to the modern JKA Shotokan. Some might bring up that the Koreans learned Karate at universities rather than at the central Dojo, but according to Ro Byung Jik (founder of the Song Mu Kwan) both he and Lee Won Kuk studied with Funakoshi directly, at the Shotokan (the place, not the style). So getting a notion of what Funakoshi taught is important.

Yoshitaka "Gigo" Funakoshi was the real teacher

When discussing this, some who are very attached to the notion that early Taekwondo was just Shotokan slightly moves the goal posts and bring up Gichin Funakoshi's son, Yohshitaka Gigo Funakoshi. It is true that he too taught, and he is credited with the lowering of stances as well as some technical innovations. From what I have read by him (he authored some newspaper articles), photos and vintage footage it seems like he does indeed do the forms using longer and deeper stances than his father. In addition he changed a few things in Kata, moving kicks higher up, changing some front kicks to side kicks etc. But his real innovation was not really the formalized modern Shotokan style of the 1960s, it was rather the intensity of training that he implemented. Instead of relaxed natural training where you would show up and do things for yourself, your partner, a small group at your own pace, Gigo Funakoshi brought a formal group training that stressed hard physical training. That is his real innovation as my current understanding of Karate history is today. The lower stances was likely part of this intensity increased training attitude. He still taught the Karate of his father though, Kata was central. Not purely Okinawan in character, but still quite different from the highly standardized postwar JKA approach many people picture today.

The Korean "Shotokan" schools

I said earlier that why I am not saying that it is entirely wrong is because there is some truth to it. But I do hope that the paragraphs looking into Funakoshi senior and son might give you a little new context when I say that there were schools of a Funakoshi lineage, but there were no "Shotokan" schools per se. When we look to the schools who have a direct Funakoshi-lineage we have 2-3 (depending on how you look at things).

Song Mu Kwan
Chung Do Kwan
Oh Do Kwan

I am sure some of you are screaming that there should be more in this category, but let me finish :-)

Song Mu Kwan

This school was founded around 1945 by Ro Byong Jik. According to himself he studied directly under Funakoshi at the Shotokan. He studied with Funakoshi for 8 years, before he moved back to Korea and started establishing the Song Mu Kwan. In modern times 8 years might not sound like much, but at the time 8 years is very impressive time to study with the same teachers. Most people who studied with Funakoshi had their training interrupted by studies, work and contributing to the war effort. There are key founding figures in the JKA who studied for a shorter time with Funakoshi to put this into context.

Chung Do Kwan

Founded by Lee Won Kuk who according to an early interview said he studied directly at the Shotokan for around 6 years around the same time Ro studied there. Ro corroborates this in another interview claiming he started the training before Lee, so eventhough Lee was older than him, according to Ipkwan cultural precedence Ro was the senior one. Ro is a first hand primary source, but he is not an unbiased one. Records of their training was lost in a fire as a result of the air bombings of Japan toward the end of the second world war. According to Kim (2025) Chung Do Kwan was founded in 1945 just a couple of days before liberation. In the post liberation chaos it took some time before Lee could open up at another location, so full training did not start until 1946. Later interviews with Lee pushes the founding of Chung Do Kwan back to 1944.

Oh Do Kwan

This Kwan was established in 1954 after the Korean war. It was founded by Choi Hong Hi who served as the headmaster (Kwanjang) with Nam Tae Hi as the primary instructor. Nam Tae Hi had originally studied at the Chung Do Kwan. Some count Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan together as a single school, and depending on how one would look at it there is a case to be made that they were one. My understanding is that they were two separate schools who worked very very very tightly together.

Contrary to popular belief Choi Hong Hi did not in fact study with Funakoshi. Based upon his writings it is fair to say he was well within the Funakoshi-lineage, but the actual instructor remains a mystery. The Korean Karate master Kim Hyun Soo who taught in Japan is believed by some to be Choi's real instructor. It is also quite possible that he had multiple instructors.

The instructors that was recruited to help Nam teach were all from the Chung Do Kwan, so the Funakoshi-lineage is undoubtedly strong and well established in this school.

Maybe Funakoshi-lineage school or ....?

Some schools (Kwan) are more uncertain as to their background, or harder to place when you start looking deeper than the surface. Or were just plain eclectic :-)

Yeon Mu Kwan
Han Mu Kwan
Mu Duk Kwan

Yeon Mu Kwan

The Karate division of Yeon Mu Kwan was founded by Chun Sang Sup in 1946. In western literature he is often written as clearly within the Funakoshi-lineage along with Chung Do Kwan, Song Mu Kwan, and Oh Do Kwan. In Korean literature however there are some strong arguments and claims to other styles. Both "Shotokan", "Shito-ryu" "Shudokan" and "Goju-ryu" (by way of Goju Kai) is seriously debated. After reading through several papers and discourse I have come to the conclusion that I do not know what style he studied, but personally I do not think he studied "Shotokan".

My main argument is very simple; he hired not one, but two teachers as assistants. At a time when many Koreans had studied Karate in Japan, many of whom had studied Funakoshi-lineage Karate through the central Dojo or at several Universities. Yet he picked not one, but two people that had no ties to Funakoshi or his Karate at all. I find that quite telling, but it is not conclusive evidence. Yet when we compare this to Choi Hong Hi who also was in need of hiring/ recruiting instructors he did so by using people from the same lineage as he was a part of. Chun Sang Sup's chosen men were Yun Byung In and Yun Kwae Byung. I am unsure when Yun Byung In was hired, but Yun Kwae Byong's employment within the Yeon Mu Kwan was announced in a newspaper announcement in March 1950.

The one common instructor between Yun Byung In and Yun Kwae Byung is Toyama Kanken. This has lead me to believe that Chun Sang Sup may perhaps also have studied with him. If that was indeed the case, the hiring of these two men makes perfect sense.

But the fact is, we do not actually know.

Han Mu Kwan

This Kwan was founded by Lee Kyo Yun around 1955. The thing that complicates its background is that Lee Kyo Yun was a direct student of Chun Sang Sup in the Yeon Mu Kwan. Lee always said that his Kwan (Han Mu Kwan) was a continuation of Chun Sang Sup's Yeon Mu Kwan, not something that broke away from Ji Do Kwan (although he did train here for a brief time after the Korean war).

Since we do not know what Chun really studied (he could even have studied more than one style for what we know, Yun Kwae Byung studied but with Kenwa Mabuni and Toyama Kanken so it would not be so far fetched), we can not put it in a decisive "Funakoshi lineage group". Lee published a book on martial arts in 1965 often referred to as the Taesudo Textbook. In it he lists several forms as core Taesudo forms, and in that list he includes several forms not normally associated with Funakoshi-lineage Karate, such as Sanchin and Tensho. If the list reflects what he learned in the Yeon Mu Kwan it further complicates the notion that Chun taught "Shotokan" Karate.

Mu Duk Kwan

Hwang Kee never studied Karate in Japan. He learned Chinese Martial arts in Manchuria China, which he started teaching around 1945, possibly under the name Hwasudo (way of the flowering hand, "Hwa" coming from the same character as the "Hwa" in "Hwarang"). According to some sources he studied briefly with Lee Won Kuk at the Chung Do Kwan, and some influence is said by some to have come by the way of Yeon Mu Kwan as well.

In 1949 when he published his first manual (which might very well be the first martial arts manual published post liberation) he had a lot of Karate derived material along with some Chinese material showing clearly an influence of both. According to himself he also studied and learned from books, but he did not as far as I know ever specify which ones. Many historians therefore say they were likely Funakoshi's books, but after reading the brilliant book by Dan Bernardo I have learned that some of these books must have been by Kenwa Mabuni. Material from his books show up in Hwangs works with the same spelling errors that Mabuni made.

So to call Mu Duk Kwan "just Korean Shotokan" simplifies things very neatly, but fails to take into account all the different sources that Hwang Kee drew on. What happened later on in some lineages going back to Hwang Kee however is another story, but projecting modern assumptions back in time is problematic.

Personally I put the Mu Duk Kwan technical background into an eclectic background rather than simplifying it into "Korean Shotokan".

No obvious Funakoshi-lineage

This brings me to the rest of the Kwan who were not annex-Kwan of older Kwan (Jung Do Kwan came from Chung Do Kwan, so some label it as an annex-Kwan)

Ji Do Kwan
Chang Mu Kwan
Kang Duk Won

Ji Do Kwan

This Kwan is rooted within Yeon Mu Kwan, so if you skimmed or skipped that part, go back and read it again please O:-) Chun Sang Sup disappeared in the Korean war, so after the hostilities had died down and things had cooled off, former students led by Lee Chong Woo elected Yun Kwae Byung as Kwanjang or headmaster. The reopened school was renamed Ji Do Kwan (Wisdom Way School). The Ji Do Kwan celebrated its 80th anniversary this year, so they are counting their founding back to Yeon Mu Kwan 1946, not the reopening in 1953/54.

Yun Kwae Byung had studied under Kenwa Mabuni in Japan, before relocating and continuing his Karate studies under Toyama Kanken. In the Yeon Mu Kwan newspaper advertisement from 1950 he is said to have been a 7th Dan. Yun had no ties back to the Shotokan or either Funakoshi. If we were to attribute stylistic background it would be Shudokan and Shito-ryu Karate. He gained high enough rank under Toyama that he (and Yun Byung In) was listed as Shudokan instructors. It does not give us an exact rank, but it does corroborate that it was a senior rank.

Later on in the mid 60s a large group of students and instructors joined the Korean Taekwondo Association. If we compare basic techniques from Sihak Henry Cho's book from 1968 to modern Kukki Taekwondo we see that some basic techniques that are different to Changheon-ryu in execution might very well have their origin in Ji Do Kwan. This is important because it shows that not only were they represented within the forms committee that made the modern KTA forms, they quite possibly left a mark in the very DNA of the modern Taekwondo system. Where Changheon-ryu typically have the "blocking hand" on the inside of the "pulling hand" (the hand that is withdrawn to the hip), in Kukki Taekwondo we have it the other way around, "blocking hand" on the outside of the "pulling hand". Compare modern ITF high section block and outward blocks to Kukki Taekwondo equivalent techniques.

These are not "Korean innovations", we find them within several Okinawan Karate styles as well.

Chang Mu Kwan and Kang Duk Won

These both come from a Yun Byung In lineage. Yun Byung In first studied Chinese Martial Arts in Manchuria, before relocating to Japan for higher education. There he studied with Toyama Kanken, he learned Shudokan Karate, and taught Toyama Kanken his Chinese Martial Art in return. Unfortunately he too disappeared in the Korean War, so after the war Chang Mu Kwan and Kang Duk Won both came to be, founded by students of Yun Byung In.

Again we have no visible and clear link back to Funakoshi or Shotokan in these two cases.

Summary of schools:

So by my count we can say for sure there are three schools of what would become Taekwondo that has a strong undisputed direct lineage back to Funakoshi. The rest are either disputed lineage, mixed/ eclectic or plain non-Funakoshi-lineage. I am still studying and researching Taekwondo history. I have no political agenda, and I have not tied up my identity to being correct. Taekwondo history is messy, so if additional proof comes along I will if it is strong enough change my views. Chun Sang Sup is a primary example of this. Had you asked me a few years ago, I would have listed him as a sure thing within a Funakoshi-lineage along with Lee Won Kuk, Choi Hong Hi and Ro Byung Jik.

Chung Do Kwan - Funakoshi-lineage
Song Mu Kwan - Funakoshi-lineage
Oh Do Kwan - Funakoshi-lineage
Yeon Mu Kwan - Disputed
Han Mu Kwan - Disputed
Ji Do Kwan - Mabuni-lineage + Kanken-lineage
Mu Duk Kwan - Eclectic (with Funakoshi influence)
Chang Mu Kwan - Kanken-lineage
Kang Duk Won - Kanken-lineage

All Kwan taught Shotokan Kata, or did they?

This is often a claim I get, once we start discussing further. Again, in the case of Chung Do Kwan, Oh Do Kwan (before the full implementation of Changheon-ryu forms) and Song Mu Kwan this is very much the case. Not "Shotokan" forms in the sense we have previously discussed, but Kata, Hyeong or Forms as passed down to us through a Funakoshi-lineage.

What we need to understand is that most Karate Kata were never really tied into any style, they are older than our modern concept of styles. You do not really have Shotokan Pinan Kata, Shito-ryu Pinan Kata, Shudokan Pinan Kata. What you have is Pinan taught as passed through a Funakoshi-lineage, Mabuni-lineage, Kanken-lineage etc. This goes for pretty much any Karate Kata.

What happens is that people see lists of forms taught in the different Kwan, and they see an overlap in Kata names. They then assume that all those forms are performed in the same way in the same manner from school to school. If we take a short look at some core Hyeong taught in the different Kwan:

Pyeongahn 1-5
Kongsangkun
Balsaek
Naebojin 1-3

You will find these forms in forms lists from just about all the Kwan. Now if I translate these into "Karate names" which is often done in articles and books:

Pinan/Heian 1-5
Kushanku
Bassai
Naihanchi/Tekki 1-3

People expecting to see Shotokan Kata will recognise all of these forms as Shotokan Kata. The thing is that in Okinawan styles and schools within the Shuri-te and Tomari-te traditions, these forms are almost universally trained and taught as well. The name of the form very rarely say anything about the lineage of forms, it is a logical fallacy. The only way to identify a forms lineage is by looking at their performance or documentation on how to perform it. The exception to the rule is Funakoshi-specific names. He renamed several forms, so if you see Banwol Hyeong it is likely very similar to Hangetsu Kata performed in a Funakoshi-lineage manner. If you see Sipsam Hyeong it might be another version, but it might also be a Funakoshi-lineage form depending on when the Kwan founder studied in Japan. Before renaming the forms Funakoshi used traditional Okinawan names.

In short, looking at lists of forms gives us very little information as to the lineage and background of the form itself. Only by looking at the manner in which it is performed can we make an educated guess as to its history. The Karate counterparts of such lists should therefore be taken as a broad suggestion rather than linking them to specific lineage unless the Kwan's history and lienage is clear and undisputed.

Conclusion:

Whenever we face comments like:

"Because it was all just Shotokan"
"All Kwan taught Shotokan"
"They all taught Shotokan Kata"
"FYI all early Taekwondo was just Shotokan"

We need to take a step back to see where the commenter comes from, and what exactly we are talking about. In some cases, the old Kwan were absolutely from a Funakoshi-lineage. In others they were not. We do not need to refute the major role Funakoshi and his lineage played in the development of Taekwondo, but in historical reality, once we dive deep into primary sources, we find that the overall picture is much more messy than modern organizational lineage-trees seems to suggest.

Kwan Heon - A closer look at Kwan creeds of early Taekwondo part 5: Mu Duk Kwan

2026-05-15T18:36:00.000+02:00

We continue this series, looking at each Kwan (school) philosophy by zooming in on their creed, known in Korean as "Kwan Heon" where "Heon" can be read as "Creed", but it can also be read as "guiding principles", "law code", "statute", "governing principles". In part(s) 1 (and 1.2) we focused on the Chung Do Kwan, then we visited the Song Mu Kwan in part 2, before moving on to Kang Duk Won in part 3 and then it was only natural to go to the Chang Mu Kwan in part 4.

This time we will go to Hwang Kee´s Mu Duk Kwan and look at their Creed, or perhaps I should say revisit Mu Duk Kwan and their creed. You see, I have written about Taekwondo and Taekwondo-related material a long time now (on this blog in this language since 2011 (gasp!)) which will make this the 15th year of writing :-) Back in the end of 2015 and early 2016 I wrote a few posts on Hwang Kee and his 1958 textbook, and in one post in particular I deed a rather deep dive to the best of my ability on the 10 precepts and important points of physical and mental training (Translation of precepts 2016 post ). I am hopefully better at this now than back then 10 years ago), but I wanted to link back to the original post since there are some great comments on it (from people who are not me) and to show that this kind of work is something I have done for many many years now.

Mu Duk Kwan is in many ways the most well documented or preserved Kwan of all of the original Kwan, perhaps except for the ITF if you look at that as the continuation of Oh Do Kwan (I do not, but the ITF obviously has roots from Oh Do Kwan and the founder of Oh Do Kwan is also the founder of the ITF, but this might actually be a good post all on its own, and this is not a post on ITF or Oh Do Kwan). around the time of the official founding of the Korean Taekwondo Association, Hwang Kee withdrew from the Taekwondo movement, seeing as he got very little influence despite (according to himself) having by far the biggest pool of students and Dojang all over Korea, and together with Yun Kwae Byung he formed his own association; the Su Bahk Do Association in 1960. By doing this he retained his school, his philosophy and the forms he taught. He had also published textbooks on the martial arts in both 1949 (this is perhaps the first Kwan related textbook in existence ) and in 1958 (which is where I will draw this post from).

Today we have 3 Mu Duk Kwan martial arts; Tang Su Do, Su Bahk Do and Taekwondo, and at least the Tang Su Do and Su Bahk Do styles seem very fragmented. Hwang Kee himself used 3 terms; Hwa Su Do (flower hand way), which he later kinda replaced with the more common Tang Su Do (China Hand Way) before adopting the name Su Bahk after finding a reference to that art in the Muyedobotongji. All three names are mentioned and explained in the 1958 textbook. If you come across any Tang Su Do in the world, odds are they are a Mu Duk Kwan Tang Su Do, but not all Tang Su Do that exists or has existed is Mu Duk Kwan just so that is said.

The following is a quote from my book "The Lost Forms of Oh Do Kwan Taekwondo Volume 1; Taegeuk 1-3 Hyeong" (Available on Amazon) page 21-22:

"Hwang Kee and the Mu Duk Kwan

Hwang Kee was born in 1914 in Korea. According to his own accounts, he encountered a Taekkyon master during his youth. Although the master refused to teach him due to his age, Hwang claimed to have studied the man’s movements in secret and imitated them diligently.

In 1936, while working for the Ministry of Transportation constructing a railroad in Manchuria, China, Hwang met Yang Kuk Jin, from whom he learned Yang-style Tai Chi and a form of training called Ddam Ttui.

Following Korea’s liberation in 1945, Hwang opened his martial arts school, naming it Mu Duk Kwan (무덕관, 武德館) - “School of Martial Virtue.” Initially, he taught a system heavily influenced by Chinese martial arts, which he called Hwa Su Do (화수도, 花手道) or “Flower Hand Way.” However, this name confused many Koreans, who were more familiar with established martial arts terms like Tang Su Do, Kong Su Do, and Kwon Bup. Some sources say that Lee Won Kuk, founder of Chung Do Kwan, advised Hwang to adopt a more familiar name. Whether true or not, Hwang soon changed the name of his art to Tang Su Do (당수도, 唐手道), meaning “China Hand Way.”

There are also unverified accounts that Hwang briefly trained at Chung Do Kwan, though this remains unclear. What is certain is that after adopting the Tang Su Do label, he began teaching a curriculum incorporating several Karate Hyeong (Kata). Hwang claimed to have learned these forms from books, likely those authored by Gichin Funakoshi — which helped formalize his instructional system.

Mu Duk Kwan’s rapid growth in the postwar years was due in part to the incorporation of these Karate forms, but also to Hwang's strategic use of his railway connections to secure inexpensive training spaces across the country.

In the 1950s and early 1960s, Hwang worked closely with Yun Kwae Byung, and together they formed the Su Bahk Do Association, which became a powerful rival to the Korean Taekwondo Association (KTA). However, around 1966, a large contingent of Ji Do Kwan and Mu Duk Kwan students merged into the KTA, shifting the balance of influence.

Eventually, Hwang Kee emigrated to the United States, where he continued to promote and teach his martial art until his death in 2002." End quote

The primary sources for this post are Hwang Kee’s 1958 textbook (pp. 24–25) and the 2015 Kukkiwon “9 Kwans” historical compilation (p. 47), which lists Mu Duk Kwan’s 관훈 in Hangul as 무실 성의 정의.

That said, Hangul alone does not preserve the original Sino-Korean characters, and relying on Hangul syllables without Hanja can lead to serious interpretive errors. In fact, an earlier reading of 무실 as “martial truth” (武實) is demonstrably incorrect once Hanja-bearing sources are consulted; the correct reading is 務實, meaning devotion to what is real and practical.

For this reason, while I preserve the Hangul wording found in the 2015 compilation, I rely on Hanja-bearing Korean sources to clarify the intended meanings behind these terms. In doing so, I note discrepancies explicitly rather than asserting certainty where the sources diverge.

In the case of the middle term, the 2015 compilation prints 성의 in Hangul, while the Hanja-bearing sources I could locate consistently render this element as 신성 (信誠). Because Hangul alone does not allow the underlying characters to be determined with certainty, and because my earlier experience with 무실 demonstrates the risk of misassignment, I follow the Hanja-attested reading 信誠 here, while explicitly noting the discrepancy with the 2015 Hangul-only form.

무실 신성 정의 (MuSil SinSeong JeongEui)
務實信誠正義

Which is very difficult to translate, but I will break it down a little and then come up with something that fits both the wording and the “creed-form” shortness.

First we have 무실 (務實). Here, 무 (務) does not mean “martial”, it means something closer to “to devote oneself to,” “to pursue,” or “to make it one’s duty.” The second character 실 (實) means “real,” “genuine,” “actual,” or “substantive.” We see this 실 in words like 실전 (實戰) when people talk about “real combat.” Put together, 무실 (務實) is less “true martial,” and more like “devotion to what is real and practical,” or in plain terms: substance over empty form.

The second pairing is 신성 (信誠). The first character 신 (信) is “trust,” “faith,” or “credibility.” The second character 성 (誠) is “sincerity,” “genuineness,” or “truthfulness.” Together 신성 (信誠) is something like “trustworthy sincerity,” or “faithfulness and sincerity.” It’s the idea that your intent and your character should be reliable, something people can actually trust, not just words.

Thirdly we have 정의 (正義). Here 정 (正) carries the sense of “upright,” “correct,” or “proper,” and 의 (義) is “righteousness,” “justice,” or “moral duty.” Put together, 정의 (正義) is the moral term “justice/ righteousness,” in the sense of acting according to what is right.

When we put all of this together and want a short translation that fits the compact “creed-form,” we get something along the lines of:

“Practical substance, trustworthy sincerity, and righteousness.”

Or, if we want it to read a little smoother in English while keeping the same meaning:

“Substance over form, sincerity you can trust, and justice.”

And if you want to read it through a more classical moral lens, you can even see an implied progression: a commitment to what is real and practical (MuSil 務實), grounded in sincere trustworthiness (SinSeong 信誠), directed toward moral right and justice (JeongEui 正義). I would not claim that is the only way to read it, but it is a might be a way to understand why these three were chosen as a set.

The Ten Core Precepts of Mu Duk Kwan (From page 24, Hwang Kee 1958)

Note: I will try to preserve the text as is in the 1958 book, and so I will number all of them as "1" because that is how it is done in the book, and it is intentionally done that way. The 1958 text gives us the precept followed by "..........." followed by a short explanation from Hwang Kee himself. I am not a fluent Korean speaker, and I am not a professional translator, so any mistake here is mine and mine alone. I have provided the original pages in photo, and I have provided a transcribed text here as well so anyone can freely check my work (and I do encourage you to do so).

1: 나라에 충성...............................화랑정신에 입각하여 국가와 민족의 대의(大義)에 순(殉)함.

1: Sincere loyalty to one´s country......................Based on the spirit of the Hwarang, one is willing to sacrifice oneself for the great righteous cause of the nation and the people.

1: (1958) 부모지간 효정(孝情)....................자(子)는 부모에 효(孝)하고, 부모는 자에 자(慈)함.

(- (2015) 부자 간 효자 = “The proper fulfillment of filial duty between father and son.” This is the only difference between the 2015 list and 1958 list so I have provided it here. It has the same overall theme, but the 2015 one is more specific specific, while the 1958 one, which I prefer, is more general. 2015 explicitly says father and son, 1958 says child and parents. There is no elaboration in the 2015 text)

1: Filial affection between parents and children............................... Children practice filial piety toward their parents, and parents, in turn, practice benevolent care toward their children.

1: 부부간 애정(愛情) ........................... 이성간(異性間), 정(貞)과 애(愛)로서 화합하여, 인류행복 발전의 모체(母體)가 됨.

1: Marital affection ....................... When husband and wife unite in fidelity and love, their harmony becomes the foundation of human happiness and progress.

1: 형제지간 상협(相協)..............................형제간 상오(相互) 협조 화목(協調和睦)하여 단결함.

1: Mutual cooperation among siblings..................by working together reciprocally and maintaining harmony, they achieve unity.

1: 노소지간 경보(敬保)...................................... 예의 겸양(禮儀謙讓)하며 정당한 약자(弱者)를 보조(保助)함.

1: Upholding respect and protection between old and young ....................... Upholding propriety and humility while protecting and assisting the justly vulnerable.

1: 사제(師弟)간 의리(義理) ................... 의정(義情)으로 진리(眞理)를 배움.

1: Righteous duty between teacher and student....................By means of righteous moral sentiment, one learns true principle.

1: 붕우간 유신(有信) ..............................친우(親友)는 물론, 전 인류는 상호 신임 화합(信任和合)하여 평화 행복함.

1: Trustworthiness between friends.........................When mutual trust and harmony extend beyond friends to all humanity, peace and happiness result.

1: 살생분별(殺生分別)...................선악(善惡)을 공평 정당(公平正當)하게 구별함.

1: Just discernment in matters of life and death.................distinguishing good and evil fairly and justly.

1: 임전무퇴(臨戰無退).....................실력 용기(實力勇氣)를 구비 매진(具備邁進)하여 정의(正義)를 위하여 희생.

1: No retreat when facing battle.........................Possessing true ability and courage, press forward and be willing to sacrifice for justice.

1: 실천필부(實踐必附)...................희망을 품고 반드시 실행(實行)함.

1: What is practiced must be enacted...................With hope (positive expectation/) held in the heart, it must be put into action.

Commentary/ Conclusion 10 Precepts:

It is 2026 so I am not sure if you have read this far, if you have I salute you. There is an awful lot to unpack here in the 10 point creed, but I want to point out a few things. In 2016 when I did the translation I translated pretty literally and simplified, not truly understanding the concepts within the creed, and to top it all off I only looked at the precepts, not the comments by Hwang Kee.

Translation challenges:

For example I translated precept 10 (the last one) as "Be a man of action". I see what I tried to do with that translation and if you look at this translation "What is practiced must be enacted", you can see that I was struggling and trying to convey the sentiment of the precept by using an English idiom; "Man of action". The original text does not say anything about a man, but it does imply that something needs to happen, because knowledge, belief or intent without action is incomplete. It is a very classical expression used in older philosophy and not unique to Hwang Kee, or martial arts philosophy in general. But giving the expression a clear cut English translation is highly difficult. If you are checking my work armed solely with google translate or a dictionary you will find that translating word for word is haaaaaaaard, and you will likely sometimes get different words than what I ended up using.

I am not going to go into each and every precept to illustrate this, but we can look at the last precept because in hangul it is pretty short, containing only 4 syllables. First we have "실" which we have seen before meaning something real, authentic, concrete, genuine, actual substance etc. Then we have 천 which can mean to practice, carry out, to put into action. Thirdly we have 필 which here can be read as must, inevitably, or certainly. Last but not least we have 부 which can mean: to attach, to accompany, to follow closely, to be inseparable from. Putting this together literally you get something like: "Real practice must attach". Now I am not a native English speaker, but if anyone were to say this to me as a normal sentence I would suspect he was either drunk, or that he did not know any English and were throwing out random words, hence my 2016: "Be a man of action", and now that I have studied more and learned more "What is practiced must be enacted".

Confucian influence?:

I might do a follow up post in the future unpacking each and every creed for their meaning, but I will not do so here, I am letting the creed and Hwang Kee´s own comment do the heavy lifting. I will however like to point out that the 10 precepts closely follow classic Confucian thinking when it comes to relationships or bonds. In Confucian thinking we are not solely individuals, we are who we are in relation to a larger whole. It is you relationships with others and your actions who truly define you. This concept makes for a hierarchal thinking that is supposed to foster peace and harmony. A boss is higher in the hierarchy than a subordinate, so in Korea a subordinate would bow first and deeper to their boss, who would bow back second and not so low. Yet when the boss goes home he or she is someones daughter or son, having to show proper filial piety toward his or her parents etc. The hierarchal relationships are not in Confucian thinking that a boss is served by the the subordinate as a slave for a king. The relationship goes both ways, the boss has to behave (with true and moral intent) as a good leader taking care of those under him or her, and only then the subordinate will do their part in return and vice versa. Parent and child is another good example, the parents nurture and protect their children who in return respect their parents. When the parents gets old the children takes care of and protects their parents. Neither does it because it is expected, but because they want to.

I hope I am not loosing you, dear reader, I am simply trying to make the point that in Confucian thinking relationships matters. And looking at the 10 precepts we see how Hwang Kee maps out the different kinds of relationships in a way that closely follows classical Confucian thinking. Sometimes he goes slightly off script; the 2015 version that differs from Hwang Kee´s original one is arguably closer to classical Confucian scriptures than the 1958 version (2015 names Father and Son, 1958 mentions Parents and Children). A total unpacking of the 10 precepts that among other things compare Hwang against more classical writings might be interesting.

The relationships covered in the 10 precepts are (following Hwang Kee):

Nation and Citizen
Parents and Children
Husband and Wife
Brother and Sister (Siblings)
Older and Younger
Teacher and Student*
Friend to Friend

The classical Confucian philosophy is said to be structured around the 5 relationships:

Ruler and Subject
Father and Son
Husband and Wife
Elder to Younger
Friend to Friend

So while Hwang Kee did not copy paste Classical Confucianism, we do see where he got the foundations of his thinking from. While Confucianism is often summarized through social relationships, it is equally concerned with inner moral cultivation, ritual propriety, and the lifelong effort to align intention, action, and character. I merely stress the relationship aspect here because of the content of the majority of the 10 precepts.

(*"Teacher-student" is not one of the classical Five Relationships, but it is central in later Confucian educational ethics, especially in Korea.)

"Hwarang-Do" or Hwarangheun Sesok Ohgye (화랑혼 세속오계 / 花郞魂世俗五戒) influence?

Around the 6th Century the Buddhist monk Won Gwang formulated a 5 point code of conduct that was adopted by the Hwarang group. Warrior-Scholar Øyvind Kveine Haugen had a guest post that focused on the Hwarang group (and myths) which I highly recommend anyone to read (click here). It is possibly the best work in English on the Hwarang from a no-nonsense point of view. After reading the first draft of this post my senior and personal hero in "the ways of the nerds" recommended looking into them and how they too might have very likely been an influence on Hwang Kee and his formulation of the 10 Precepts.

Like I mentioned before Won Gwang was a buddhist monk, and Silla the country he hailed from was buddhist at that time. That being said, confucian philosophy and ideas had started making their way into the Korean peninsula and those ideas gave the foundation for a moral and ethical language that was adopted especially by the learned and aristocracy. Knowing the Hwarang group were selected by quote: "good families", we can assume that making the precepts in the 5 point of conduct using confucian language made sense. I am simply telling you all this because I read the "buddhist monk" and looked at the precepts and language used and was initially confused by the predominantly confucian terms being used.

1: 사군이충 (事君以忠)

Serve your ruler with loyalty. (Core Confucian virtue (충, loyalty))

2: 사친이효 (事親以孝)

Serve your parents with filial piety. (효 (孝) is foundational Confucian ethics)

3: 교우이신 (交友以信)

Associate with friends in trust. (신 (信) = trustworthiness, sincerity)

4: 임전무퇴 (臨戰無退)

No retreat when facing battle

5: 살생유택 (殺生有擇)

In killing, there must be choice.

Some of these do appear to be echoed within the 10 precepts. Number 1 in both sets are about loyalty, where the older one is to the "ruler", Hwang Kee uses a much more modern concept of the nation (or country). In number 2 of the 5 precepts we see it echoed in Hwang Kee´s "Filial affection between parents and children", Hwang again using a different language and words but we can see an echo. Likewise in number 3 of the 5 precepts Hwang has: "Trustworthiness between friends", which seems like the same general idea. The language itself is different though, Hwang has not copy-pasted the 5 precepts into his 10 point precepts (just adding that in case you can not read Hangul). That being said: number 4: "No retreat when facing battle" and Hwang Kee´s precept "No retreat when facing battle" is word for word the same in both sets. In precept 5 they are using different words with a slight overlap: 살생유택 (殺生有擇) "In killing, there must be choice" VS. 살생분별(殺生分別) "Just discernment in matters of life and death", both sets use the term 살생 meaning killing, the rest of both sets are using different words. Neither set celebrates killing in any way, the 5 point set is telling us that we should try to avoid it unless it is unavoidable (like in war or defense of self and or others), in Hwang Kee´s 10 precepts in his elaboration he seems to make use of the precept as contrasting "evil" (killing) with "good" (life-giving). I must admit that it was a very difficult precept to translate.

5 Essential Elements and key points

We are still working from Hwang Kee´s 1958 Textbook and we are still on page 24. Directly underneath the 10 precepts (all labelled "1") Hwang has a new headline followed by a list of 5 things. The headline translated can be read as: 5 Essential Elements and Key Points. So first we have the 5 Essential Elements:

1: Contact with nature

2: Environment

3: Experience

4: Conscience

5: Cultivation

Key Points (this one goes over to page 25 in the 1958 Texbook at #4, if you follow the original picture)

1: Care for nature (possibly: Reverence for nature)

2: Atmospheric pressure**

3: Proper conduct

4: Humility and deference

5: Gratitude/ Grateful mind

6: A spirit of sacrifice

7: Cultivation of courage

8: Moral integrity (정 (貞): upright, chaste, steadfast, 조 (操): conduct, moral integrity)

9: Inner strength, outer gentleness

10: Patience/ endurance

11: Passion for reading/ eagerness for study

(** Here Hwang uses the word (기압) ki-ab and not the common Taekwondo term (기합) ki-hap. Ki can mean many things on its own depending on context: Energy is a common translation. Ab on the other hand means pressure. In modern Korean ki-ab normally means "Atmospheric (air barometric) pressure". In 2016 when I translated this material I chose to keep it untranslated and giving a footnote. This round I have had a wiser man than me looking at it once more, and the conclusion from 2016 stands, we are talking about Atmospheric pressure. He thought my original footnote that concluded a use of energy (energy pressure) was an over-reach.) In later manuals I have seen from the Mu Duk Kwan community this point has been replaced with Kihap, meaning what might have happend is that Hwang Kee was using this unconventional term in his 1958 book to describe the release of air, the sound, the spirited yell, while the term kihap describes coordination, gathering, focusing of energy.

For a presentation of philosophy I think we can safely end the post here, as the Kwan Heon with its three point followed by the 10 precepts and commentary by Hwang Kee and the discussion on how he might have been influenced by Confucian Philosophy plus the following 5 essential elements and key points I think we are good for now. Most schools sadly did not make long textbooks, so I do hope people do not feel like I am downplaying the other Kwan by spending so much virtual ink on Mu Duk Kwan compared to other schools, but when we do have a text from the founder himself I feel like I need to present the relevant information we have access to.

Projecting modern training experience backwards in time is a real problem...

2026-05-12T08:19:00.001+02:00

One of the major things holding a good understanding of our modern Taekwondo system back is a lack of understanding of its foundations. There are many reasons for this, some are born out of the national need of a newly liberated Korea to differentiate themselves from Japan, and tweak the history of a largely Japanese shaped practice into something Korean. This is something we can understand, appreciate and show empathy towards, if we look into newer Korean history and the Japanese Occupation.

Another big problem is people projecting modern training experiences and assumptions based upon modern martial arts backwards through time and applying that to earlier less standardized systems. This goes both for people projecting modern experience within Taekwondo or Korean MA and modern experiences in related systems, i.e Karate and project that back into the 1940s.

The first group gives rise to people saying stuff like:

"I was never taught any grappling in Taekwondo, so it does not exist"
"All Kwan were the same"
"There was no vital point knowledge in Korean MA"

The second group likewise give rise to myths and misconceptions.

"Modern JKA Karate has no Bunkai, so there was no Bunkai in the 1930s and 40s"
"Modern JKA Karate has no grappling, at least I never learned any, so Koreans did not learn any from Funakoshi".
"I trained Karate and I learned how to use my hip when blocking in a different way than how modern Taekwondo does it, so Koreans must have changed it."

and the list goes on.

The problem with this is the underlying assumptions

Modern JKA Shotokan Karate = Funakoshi 1930s and 40s Karate. (it is not)
Differences in technique or forms performance = Korean innovation (sometimes yes, sometimes no)

I want to be extremely specific in this post, but this is just one single little thing (there is a whole ocean of others out there), so let us take a look at a technique which is very similar between modern Karate and Taekwondo in its ending position, but the chambers are so distinct that in modern discussions we are often labelling the techniques chambers into: Taekwondo Chamber and Karate Chamber. I am talking about the Knife hand guarding block, where one hand is in front blocking with the knife hand and the other arms knife hand is placed in front of the solar plexus. In Poomsae we see it in the first movement of Taegeuk Sa Jang, in Changheon-Ryu we see it in Dan-Gun Hyeong/ Tul, and in Karate we see it in the end of Heian Shodan/Pinan Nidan and in the Kwan era we see it in the end of Pyeongahn Chodan.

The Hyper-specific example technique

Knife Hand Guarding Block

Above you can see a young me doing a rendition of the technique, or rather the end position. So the end position is the same, how do we get there?

Karate Chamber

Karate Chamber for the block

In the Karate Chamber we have one hand extended, and one hand which will perform the block near the opposite ear. There might be a detail or two slightly off seeing as I do not actually have a black belt in Karate, but this is more than close enough as an example. The extended arm will pull back so that the knife hand is placed in the area of the solar plexus, while the other will perform the block itself, being shot forward into its final position.

Taekwondo Chamber

Taekwondo Chamber for the block

In the Taekwondo Chamber both hands are first moved back and behind as you can see in the illustration above, before both being moved forward into position for the block itself.

The assumption

The assumptions I listed earlier states that modern JKA Shotokan Karate is the same and identical Karate as the Karate Funakoshi taught in the 1930s and 1940s. So now that we see two distinct ways of doing one technique it is tempting to conclude that Koreans who did not know anything about the system they learned just changed it so that it was no longer identical to the parent art (Shotokan).

Being interested in practical applications to my forms you have no idea how much virtual ink I have seen spilled in belittling Korean MA who chamber this technique differently and that you have to adopt the Karate Chamber to start using it. (Full disclaimer: I teach both and use both). The thing is, which I have alluded to, is that we are seeing two different branches growing from one trunk that have in modern times standardized the arts in slightly different directions, both stemming from the same "trunk".

The messy reality

Funakoshi taught (or at least his Karate contained) BOTH VERSIONS!

When I say this I inevitably get comments such as: Well actually I trained Karate for many years, and you are mistaken. Which I usually counter with: "wow you look so good for someone who has been alive long enough to study Karate in Japan in the 1930s and 40s"..... Luckily we do not actually need to take my word for this. There is ample evidence of this fact because we have footage from early on showcasing this.

Recently I came across a great example in the ending of Bassai Dai Kata (Balsaek in Korean) which I have always felt had a remnant of the "Taekwondo" chamber at the very end, but which in modern JKA they re-chamber to conform to the modern standard. Those who have trained Shotokan Karate will instantly know exactly what technique I am referring to.

Well I found a clip from one of Funakoshi´s students; Kiyoshu Togawa who started training in 1947, which is juuuuuuust after most Korean Kwan founders would have returned to Korea to start establishing schools, but close enough in time to do the form in a manner that reflects better what the Kwan founders would have learned than modern JKA Karate would.

https://youtu.be/V18i5-IgAEw?is=g6AsTnNolIxbe_di

As you can see Master Togawa first does a knife hand block with "karate chamber", then steps to the side, does a "taekwondo chamber" on the last knife hand guarding block. This is the very end of Bassai Dai. Now if you were to look at a more recent video you would see the same preperation, but just as the last knife hand guarding block is done, they re-chamber so they use the Karate Chamber instead.

I posted this very video on my facebook, and got for the most part positive feedback. But I also got comments and DMs such as:

"That chamber is used in that particular move of Funakoshi’s Bassai Dai only. It is a mistake to assume that Funakoshi taught both ways of chambers in his Karate. I practiced Karate before Taekwondo and i never did that chamber except in that particular move of Bassai Dai only."

The irony is that this and DMs like this are doing exactly what the post was warning against, projecting modern experience in a modern standardized system backwards in time to an earlier and less standardized system. But the commenter did have a point, the last move of Bassai Dai is very distinct, but knowing that there are a lot more examples out there of earlier footage I spent 1 minute searching and found one. Unfortunately (or naturally) the video is very grainy due to the footage age. It is taken from a VHS that had "Vintage Shotokan Training" in it. I blieve we are looking at late 1940s or something, it is very early footage. Some even claim 1920s, but I am a bit skeptical of that claim.

As you can see below we are looking at a very different form, and a different practitioner, at a different time. This time we see the very end of what WE call Pyeongahn Chodan (I do not know if the footage is taken before or after the name change of Pinan to Heian or the switching of the teaching order of the first two forms, so for ease of reference I will be using the Korean names).

The initial 270 degree turn into knife hand guarding block is a perfect match for what we today call "Taekwondo Chamber", yet we see this done in "Shotokan Karate", just not a modern standardized version. The other knife hand guarding blocks done here is done in a very Shuri-te Okinawan Karate manner, which is like the Taekwondo Chamber in that both hands move back and then forward, but less pronounced as in modern «Taekwondo Chamber». What we do notnsee here is the modern "Karate Chamber" where one arm is extended forward prior to the block.

So we have Bassai Dai example from a student who started training in 1947 doing a "Taekwondo Chamber", we have another student who does a different form doing the "Taekwondo Chamber". Is this conclusive evidence of both methods being taught?

They say all good things comes in threes, so I picked another example of the block being done. This time in a clearly different setting, on the beach. The footage is likely from summer training and there is a group of students performing what we call Pyeongahn Yidan. As we know after the initial 6 counts, we do a kick to the rear and then perform 3 knife hand guarding blocks. So instead of one form example, we know have 3 different settings and 3 different forms, by 3 different people (well a whole group in this last example).

https://youtu.be/KcUEfg8yk2Y?is=UTLRynfYuSNiHym7

The video pans, so if you fix your gaze to the man in the dark shorts at the very left in the start of the clip and focus on him it is easy to make out the chambers etc. Then you can watch the clip multiple times and see that theres a whole beach of people practicing the "Taekwondo Chamber" in early Shotokan.

I am not stating that one chamber is better than the other, like I said, I teach and use both. So did Funakoshi. It is in more recent times when there was a greater emphasis on standardisation and uniformity that we ended up with different chambers in different related systems. For some reason in Korea they ended up standardizing one version, while in Japan the standardized the other.

We do not know if this footage reflect how all of Funakoshi’s students did it, nor do we know how widespread it was, or if both methods were taught equally or if one was preferred over the other. What we can extrapolate from all these examples is that both methods did exist in earlier renditions of what would later become codified into Shotokan Karate, but in modern standardisation only the «Karate chamber» is used in the Shotokan Style.

In some Kwan (like in the Ji Do Kwan as evidenced by Sihak Henry Cho´s documentation of both methods in his 1968 book) both chambers were used. I was going to include photos but I am hesitant seeing as it is still under copyright. Anyone who has it or the reprint can turn to page 98 and see it from themselves however. First he demonstrates the «Karate chamber» Block in natural stance, then he demonstrates the «Taekwondo Chamber» version in back stance.

It is just as easy to project modern Taekwondo practices backward into Kwan-era Taekwondo and end up with misconceptions too, as in projecting modern Karate practice backwards in time. It is therefore important that when we do research we actually do research and not just study modern systems and project backward in time. If we could do the latter life would indeed be a lot easier, but for me, I want to know how things actually were in the actual time period. So I need to look to a lot of different sources to piece things together. Sihak Henry Cho demonstrating both versions in his 1968 book tells us that early Taekwondo was aware of both methods too, so both versions made it on to Korea.

In the end we could say that the labels «Karate chamber» and «Taekwondo chamber» are helpful distinctions between them, but it is a modern label applied to something originally existing in both Okinawa, Japan and Korea.

Kwan-era Taekwondo grappling, was that a thing?

2026-05-08T15:12:00.001+02:00

This year has been almost a complete Kwan-era bubble for me both on this blog, patreon and facebook. It has been a lot of fun, and lately I seem to have gained a little speed on facebook growth, which has me getting a lot of comments that I try to answer, but I have to do so briefly. Here there are no rules and I can go on as long as I like. So this time I will be talking a little on grappling in Kwan-era Taekwondo.

First, what is Kwan-era Taekwondo? To keep it brief, when I talk about Kwan-era Taekwondo I talk about all Kwan (schools) that would eventually take up the Taekwondo name, so I am talking about 1945-1970ish. Like the end of the Viking age (which many draw the line exactly at 1066), the Kwan era in practical terms continued after 1970. The unification happened in 1978, yet here we are in 2026 and people are still practicing Kwan specific Taekwondo and gaining Kwan dan grades. The unification and abolishment of Kwan and the Kwan existing only as social clubs will get their own posts down the line, don´t you worry. But for now let us return to grappling in the Kwan-era.

Second, what is grappling? This one is much harder to define. Taekwondo has always been a striking heavy martial art, favoring ending situations quickly through the use of percussive techniques (knees, elbows, head-but, punches, kicks, finger-strikes etc. So the grappling part was a supportive method to maintain the preferred strategy. So most Taekwondo grappling would be grabbing "something" while striking with the free arm. Yet I want to define grappling as: Release from grabs, grabs, locks and joint destruction techniques, sweeps, trips, take downs, throws, holds, etc. We will not see the moniker: "grappling" within Taekwondo, the techniques appears in the old manuals as parts of sparring examples, self defense skills and so on.

The role of grappling in Taekwondo: I already touched upon it briefly above, but I want to talk a little about the role of grappling in Kwan-era Taekwondo. Taekwondo is the art or way of smashing the assailant using our feet and arms, so grappling is not the first option. Like a modern soldier carrying a pistol, a lot has gone wrong if the pistol is drawn and used instead of using the primary weapon(s). Taekwondo grappling happens when an opponent clinches, or grabs your arms or body to keep you or limit your striking capability. Choi Hong Hi stated that if grabbed you have 3 options: Release technique to free yourself, punch or kick with your other attacking tools or perform a joint destruction technique. This is a good view into the Kwan-era way of thinking. The throws, trips, takedowns were also not there to out-throw a Judo master, but as a means of helping the striking, or applied if an opportunity presented itself in a half dazed opponent.

We are therefore not going to find sophisticated joint-locks to out-lock a Hapkido master, or throws to out-throw a Judo master, or holds and submissions to out-wrestle a wrestler. We do find simple, basic techniques meant to be used alongside striking. Another thing we are missing is sophisticated ground work, like you would see in BJJ, although ground strikes, falling techniques, and some ground defenses are shown.

But grappling is just a couple of pages of houndreds of pages of a book?

I was asked in a brilliant comment if Choi Hong Hi had written about grappling, because the commenter did not recall seeing anything. Now, grappling like I said earlier does not really appear as its own thing, I have yet to see a "grappling chapter" in the early manuals. But looking at self defense techniques etc you find a lot. So he checked the 1970 book and commented that it was really just a couple of pages out of 700 (I think he wrote). Now this is true, but we need to consider a couple of things. First the books of the era was often written to give a complete overview of the art. So a lot of the books focus on theory, basic techniques, forms, sparring etc. I met some pushback from others in DM on this, most people arguing that if only a couple of pages were devoted to it, it could not have been that important.

At this point let us take a short step back and look at what we are comparing. We are comparing specific techniques (throws, trips, locks, releases) against the totality of the book. That is not a valid comparison when trying to judge how important something is due to the amount of pages devoted to it. If we want to get real, we need to look at "grappling techniques" demonstrated, count the pages and then compare against basic techniques to get a good idea. After all, theory like history of Taekwondo, how to organise a training session, forms, competition rules, sparring, etc falls outside of the scope of what we are trying to compare.

So with that mindset I took out Choi Hong Hi´s 1965 book, "Taekwondo The Art of Self Defense". The book totals at 305 pages (including the appendixes like transcription tables). The pages devoted to grappling is 14 pages. So going with how the commenters and private messages are judging this we have a 14 to 305 ration of grappling, or just 4.6% of the book is grappling so it is virtually non existent.

But we are not actually comparing oranges to oranges here, we are comparing oranges to an orchard. Let us look at this from the other angle, the one that gives us a much better view of how much there is, keeping in mind we are only looking at one single book here.

We have 14 pages of grappling in total, how many pages are devoted to stances? Stances are important and fundamental to the art right? The answer is 7 pages devoted to stances. So in Taekwondo, grappling is more important to stances :-D Well we are not really being fair, stances are not a technique, it is just. part of technique. So I guess we should look at "essential techniques" (covering all defenses and offensive technqiues using the whole body) and compare that with the grappling pages. The essential techniques clock in at 55 pages. 14 is less than 55, which due to grapplings role as supporting method is only natural and expected, but you see how this gives us a much better perspective than the 14 out of 305 pages?

Conclusion

When you take away the theory, the conduct of basic training, training equipment, forging, sparring, forms and all things not actually techniques you are left with 55 pages of comparative value against 14. We could put those two numbers together to get a total of 69 pages and then using that as our 100% see that grappling takes up 20,3% of the technical documentation of the art, leaving 79,7% what we today associate with Taekwondo (kicks, blocks, strikes etc).

This does not mean grappling was practiced 20% of the time in training, but it does show that it was a clearly defined and documented part of the technical curriculum.

So if you train in a modern dojang that does not touch anything grappling related (no releases from grabs, throws, locks etc) you have (if we take this 1965 book as an example) "lost" 20% of the arts technical content. That might not sound like much, but if someone cut off 20% of your body, I am sure those 20% would be missed :-P

How do we know what we think we know? A good old rambling from Traditional Taekwondo Ramblings

2026-04-16T19:04:00.003+02:00

This post just ramblings, and is not to be considered a serious article. It is done to clear my mind and to take you back around 2 years time.

I had seriously started writing the manuscript for my first book "The Lost Forms of Oh Do Kwan Taekwondo Volume 1 Taegeuk 1-3 Hyeong" and had decided I should include an essential history for the major Kwan. I decided to check a few details on Chun Sang Sup in Korean sources because there were so little to be found in English sources. To my horror most English sources seem to link back to an old article I wrote many years ago... Well so off I went, and my surprise was great when I found that in serious academic discourse in Korean Chun Sang Sup early training is either totally glossed over, vague (he studied Karate in Japan) to wildly conflicting.

It dawned on me then how much we think we KNOW in English language sources that Koreans themselves are very tentative to give a hard answer to. Not because Koreans lack sources or knowledge, but the opposite. Korean Taekwondo academics researching Taekwondo history have access to all manner of sources that we simply do not have. We are talking interviews, correspondence, paperwork, reports, certificates, pictures, newsreports, first hand accounts both oral and written history that history shows itself for what it often is; messy.

Chun Sang Sup in the west has been pinned down to Shotokan by just about everyone writing about him (including my old article). I searched and searched for an original source for this and came across an old 2000s Korean interview with one of Chun Sang Sup's students, translated and shared by Master Al Cole. We do not have access to the original interview. In the interview the student said Chun studied at a certain university which we know was aligned with Funakoshi senior and son. So naturally everyone says he studied Shotokan. That is one Korean source that trickled through to us in the west, which some oral testimony has collaborated. In Korea on the other hand serious people with direct connections to Chun (including another direct student of his) points in wildly different directions. I did not exaggerate when I opened up Chun's part with "There is scholarly disagreement over which Karate style Chun studdied." That sentence alone is the most honest English history written on Chun Sang Sup in English as far as I know.

We have serious people claiming he studied with Kenwa Mabuni, Chojun Miyagi, Toyama Kanken and there are some who claim Shotokan. When I say serious people I am talking about direct students, friends and authors. So in Korean discourse the norm if you are to be taking seriously has been to point people to the various theories or to make a vague "trained in Japan" statement.

While I have received some pushback from people strongly committed to one theory, this often seems to come down to a few factors:

1: Limited access to Korean-language sources.

2: A tendency to link a preferred narrative to identity.

3: A preference for simpler, more streamlined narratives over engaging with newer or more complex research.

This experience 2 years ago changed my writing and how I view how I present things. I have spent a lot of time re-educating myself on things I thought I knew, always asking: "How do I know what I think I know?". That education is still a work in progress.

If you think this applies to Chun Sang Sup alone, you are sorely mistaken. This applies to everything, and it is both frightening and exciting at the same time. I have been starting to look at old magazine articles, newspaper articles, letters, as well as studies and research other people have done in an effort to re-evaluate. I have also spent a lot of time reading the 1959 Textbook which itself has challenged a lot of what I think I knew.

Myths people believe:

Early Taekwondo was Shotokan

Some schools were of Funakoshi-lineage. Shotokan as a style did not exist until right after Funakoshi died. And the people codifying JKA Shotokan changed a lot of stuff, including Kata. It is ironic that some Korean versions are far closer to what Funakoshi taught close to WW2 than what JKA teaches now.

Schools with direct Funakoshi-lineage non-disputed are few. Chung Do Kwan, Song Mu Kwan and Oh Do Kwan are the only ones not in any dispute to a direct Funakoshi-lineage. Choi did not train directly under Funakohsi, but viewing his material it is safe to say he was very much in that lineage.

Schools with disputed or indirect lineage to Funakoshi:

Yeon Mu Kwan (as discussed with Chun Sang Sup), Han Mu Kwan, Ji Do Kwan, Mu Duk Kwan

Schools with no lineage to Funakoshi that I am aware of:

Kang Duk Won, Chang Mu Kwan. Depending on where you land with Chun Sang Sup you can list Yeon Mu Kwan, Han Mu Kwan and Ji Do Kwan here too. Or if you count Ji Do Kwan as its own thing it can safely be put here as neither Lee Chong Woo or Yun Kwae Byung has any lineage to Funakoshi.

So saying early Taekwondo = Shotokan is a typical modern sanitized clean narrative. It falls apart once you start looking at the primary sources themselves.

Only ITF Taekwondo had a philosophical component, the rest were doing sport:

This is simply not true, not back then (1966 onwards, or with Choi and Oh Do Kwan earlier) and not now. The Kwan Heon series I am running this year will unpack each and every one of the "big 9" Kwan and show them all to have equally deep philosophies as ITF has. They are not better, nor worse, just different. And that should be Ok. People claiming that are people trying to lift one side up while putting others down.

Taesudo-Taekwondo divide

Taekwondo was trained in the military, Taesudo was trained by civilians. One was a deep philosophical martial art, the other a kind of basic Karate and a sport. Sounds familiar? If you have heard it look at who is saying it and ask yourself: 1: Is he aligned with Choi and the ITF in any way? 2: Does he speak or read Korean and have looked at the primary sources of the period?

The truth is that Taesudo had a sporting component, one that had been started in the original Korean Taekwondo Association in 1959, then when they reapplied and registered in 1961ish under the Taesudo name they continued that development. Those who think Taekwondo was outside of this is ignoring pimrary sources. Paperwork from the time reveal that "Oh Do Kwan" practitioners competed in Taesudo competitions, and their instructors were very much a part of that organisation. Nam Tae Hi is a good example as he was a standing director from 1961 until he was sent to Vietnam. The only divide between them were preferred name (Taekwondo vs Taesudo) and preferred forms (Karate derived vs Chang Hon Ryu / Karate derived blend). The first time Choi does not include Karate derived forms in his textbooks was in 1966. Talking to Vietnam War veterans some of them confirmed they were taught Taegeuk 1-3 Hyeong, Pyeongahn etc in Vietnam by Korean instructors. Others say they learned Chang Hon Ryu. So the responsible thing is to say there were a time period that was overlapping between the forms before the Chang Hon Ryu became the only forms. Plus the fact of military vs civilian framing.

Taekwondo Naming myths

We have probably all heard that the President of Korea attended a martial arts demonstration in 1954 exclaiming this is Taekkyon (or something along those lines, Taekkyon being the constant thing). This is a later narrative put forward by Choi and his people. The story goes that by calling their karate taekkyon Choi needed to come up with a new name. What if I tell you that there is a first hand account from the 1950s of this event, written by Choi himself, but having several details of this story different to the modern accepted one? That the president is said to have said something completely different than Taekkyon, in fact not mentioning any martial art at all? This 1950s source are a couple of years after the fact, but it is by far the earliest one I have seen when compared to later interviews and stories. The Taekkyon angle seems to be brought in about a decade later than this source.

Chung Do Kwan was the first Kwan founded (and that it happened in 1944)

Chung Do Kwan was founded in 1945. There is no room for error, and that is it. It was open for 4 days, before closing down due to the chaos of the liberation. Then it took a while before opening up again in 1946. No students participating in the original 1945 Chung Do Kwan carried over. According to Lee Won Kuk himself the 1945 students consisted of Japanese plus ONE Korean. So academics are now arguing if the founding date should actually be set at 1946 as that is the first stable one. If you can read Korean and look at the research you would not question this, because the 1945 opening (not 1944) was declared in both Korean and Japanese newspapers. The closing down after four days is from an early interview with Lee Won Kuk (only accessible in Korean) and the 1946 date is confirmed by the Lee Won Kuk interview plus it is documented in newspapers as the opening was advertised.

So what happened with the whole being first, being opened in 1944, having to ask 3 times story? This all comes in to history by a later interview with Lee coinciding with the publication of his new Taekwondo Textbook in 1968. We can speculate as to the change in story was done to give prestige to Chung Do Kwan, himself, his students who had done a lot of accomplishments both in civilian taekwondo and military through their work with Oh Do Kwan. Being recognized as the first founder, first Kwan would help sell his book. And this later version has been uncontested in the English literature simply because we lack the sources and have to work with what we are given.

Koreans learned suboptimal Karate in Japan

The truth is actually quite opposite. They trained with the Okinawan masters teaching in Japan at the time, and they practised right besides the ones who would later form modern Japanese Karate. In several instances Korean instructors taught other Japanese Karate in Japan! After WW2 with the outlaw of martial arts Yun Byong In became the headmaster of his own Karate school in a loophole keeping Karate practice open for Japanese and Koreans. This clever loophole existed because he as a Korean could teach martial arts, as the ban (which was lifted eventually) was in effect for Japanese teaching. They were at the forefront with hard contact continuous sparring in Japan too. Laying the groundwork that a Oyama (originally Korean himsel) took to a whole new level.

Koreans instantly cut ties with Japanese and Okinawan Karate once the Kwan were opened

Simply not true when looking at the sources from the time. Koreans still travelled to Japan to further their martial arts studies, and there were exchanges both ways. It was semi common all through the 1960s. Later on when new forms were totally adopted, the old forms pushed out, and the sparring had evolved into its own thing in the 1970s we see a gradual stop of Karate-Taekwondo intermingling. It can be argued that it never truly stopped, but I do not see many Karate students from Japan competing and training with Taekwondo students from Korea after 1970s, I do find Japanese Taekwondo students exchanging with Korean Taekwondo students. So I guess that would be at the point when Taekwondo could be said to truly have become its own thing.

Conclusion

If the answer to these questions unsettles you, then perhaps the real question is not what is true, but why we need certain versions of history to be true. I would wager it is because at some level you have also linked some or several of these kinds of thinking to your identity instead of looking at them seeking truth.

Does it really matter if President Rhee said Taekkyon? Does it matter if Chung Do Kwan was established after Song Mu Kwan and Mu Duk Kwan? Does that make your Taekwondo any less of a martial art? Why is it important to link Chun to Shotokan and not any other style? Does the change in narrative discount anything you have done in your own training?

Since this is ramblings I can end on my personal theory looking at the forms practised by Han Mu Kwan and Ji Do Kwan, looking at who exactly Chun hired to help him teach. Shito Ryu and or Shudokan makes perfect perfect sense where Shotokan doesnt. But I stress, this is my own personal subjective speculation. I have no paper trails to back this up.

Kwan Heon - A closer look at Kwan creeds of early Taekwondo part 4: Chang Mu Kwan

2026-04-10T09:24:00.001+02:00

«All Kwan generally has the same Heon, but they express it in different ways»

-Cho Woon Sup (Quote from «Taekwondo» page 12)

Seeing as how we looked at Kang Duk Won in Part 3 (the last post in this series) I only find it natural to stay within Yun Byung In´s lineage and therefore I will look to the other school that resulted from his teachings; The Chang Mu Kwan. In Part 3 we learned that the Chang Mu Kwan was the first Kwan established after the YMCA Kwonbeopbu, and the disappearance of Yun Byung In in the Korean war. Usually I have accompanied each of these posts with a history of the Kwan founder taken from my first book (available here by the way), but I will not repeat the same information on both parts, so if you have not yet read Post 3 I strongly recommend you do that before this one. In fact you might consider going back to Part 1, Part 1.2, Part 2, Part 3 in that order :-)

Chang Mu Kwan History and Background

After WW2 Yun Byung In taught in several locations around Seoul, perhaps best known for his helping Chun Sang Sup teaching in the Yeon Mu Kwan KongSuDoBu before he at the urging of several students and friends established a kwonbeop Division at the Central Christian Youth Hall (YMCA) located in Jongno, Seoul, in September 1946. Because it was not a privately established dojang, Yun Byung In did not use the title kwanjang (headmaster), but instead used the title sabeom (instructor). On the early certificates issued by the kwonbeop division, he is listed as “Instructor Yun Byung In.”

At the start, some say as many as 500 students were recruited through advertisements, but because Yun Byung In taught with high intensity, the number reportedly decreased to 180 after around three months.

According to the “(2015-07-30) Taekwondo Grand Masters Invitational Commemorative Project - Historical Source Collection” Yun Byung In established Taekwondo Chang Mu Kwan within the YMCA kwonbeop Division, and appointed Lee Nam Seok as the first instructor. So it would seem that the name of the school; Chang Mu Kwan came from the founder Yun Byung In. This is also supported by the 1948 Chang Mu Kwan Examination records that shows the name Chang Mu Kwan Kwonbeop in the text.

There are a couple of different theories as to where the name Chang Mu Kwan came from. One theory proposes that the "Chang" part is taken from the Youngchang High School combined with "Mu", but another theory proposed by Park Cheol Hee states that Yun Byung In believed it was preferable to write Chang Mu Kwan using the character “chang” meaning “to shine” (彰) together with “mu", making the Kwan-name to mean "Shining Martial (arts) School".

As all other schools the Chang Mu Kwan had their training closed down due to the Korean War (1950-1953) but the school was reopened on October 5, 1953. Due to Yun Byung In´s disappearance the one who reopened the school was Lee Nam Seok with Kim Sun Bae as his number two. Lee Nam Seok used the title Kwanjang so you could perhaps argue that he was the first Kwanjang of Chang Mu Kwan, but that would just be a technicality as most if not all consider the founder Yun Byung In to be the first Kwanjang. I just found that information to be an interesting tidbit. Another interesting tidbit is that one the day before the Korean War started Chang Mu Kwan held a demonstration where both sword and staff were demonstrated, and at that very demonstration several high ranking people from the Chung Do Kwan made a guest appearance and demonstrated their skills. That tidbit shows how abruptly the war started, as well as that the different Kwan had contact with each other.

Chang Mu Kwan Heon

The Chang Mu Kwan had three expressed virtues in their core Kwan Creed (Kwan Heon):

충효 (忠孝) Chung-Hyo
성실 (誠實) Seong-Sil
인내 (忍耐) In-Nae

The last one you also see in the more well known ITF Taekwon-Do Tenets (not tenants) again demonstrating that the different schools had different creeds but they also expressed the same underlying principles.

The first part of the creed is 충효 (忠孝) Chung-Hyo and consists of two Hanja characters Chung and Hyo. The pairing of the two is often seen in Confucial litterature and is there taken to mean "Loyalty to the state" (Chung) and "Filial Piety toward one´s parents" (Hyo) (or seniors in general. Note that it’s not “loyalty to the collective” plus “filial piety” as separate bullets; it’s the Confucian idea that a properly cultivated person fulfills duty upward (nation/authority) and duty inward (family/parents) as one ethical spine. If we want to keep the phrasing short and to the point a good translation in keeping with the creed as it stands would be: “Loyalty & Filial Piety”.

The second part of the creed is 성실 (誠實) Seong-Sil and it too consists of two Hanja Characters, Seong and Sil. The first character 誠 (성, seong) can be read as: "sincerity", "genuineness", "truthfulness of intention", or "moral authenticity" (very Confucian / Neo-Confucian). The second character 實 (실, sil) can be read as "substance", "reality", "solidity" or "something made real, not empty or merely spoken". Together: 誠 and 實 성실 does not mean just “being honest” or “trying hard”. Rather it means something along the lines of "inner sincerity made real through concrete action(s)". If we want to keep the phrasing short and to the point like in the creed itself one could end up with: "Sincerity and integrity"

The third part of the creed which is the same as seen in the ITF Taekwon-Do Tenets (not tenants). I will cover the Student Oath and Tenets that Choi Hong Hi made in a future post in this series, but for now let us treat this the same way we have treated the first and second part of the creed. It again consists of two Hanja characters read as "In" and "Nae", where the first character "In" 인 (忍) can be read as: "To endure emotional pain", to restrain oneself under pressure" or perhaps "to bear suffering without losing moral control". In classical usage 忍 implies something like "enduring something difficult while consciously restraining impulse, anger, fear or despair". The second character 내 (耐) "Nae" can be read as: "to withstand", "to bear physically", or perhaps "to tolerate something over time". So pairing these two together you could say that the first one is talking about the "inner" part of you, while the second one is more outward (inner and outer, emotional endurance and physical endurance). Perseverance is a perfectly reasonable and acepted translation, but it kinda looses a little nuance from the original concept of In-Nae. Perhaps "Enduring self-restraint" or something like that would capture the nuance better, but "Perserverance" is short and to the point and as I have said both accepted and reasonable translation.

Quick recap of the School Creed:

충효 (忠孝) - loyalty to the nation and filial devotion to parents
성실 (誠實) - sincere intent realized through honest action
인내 (忍耐) - restrained endurance through prolonged hardship

But this is not all :-) The source I am currently working from provided an elaboration on the terms.

Original Korean:

수련정신

정성스럽고 참되게 괴로움이나 어려움을 참고 견뎌 나라에 충성하고 부모에게 효도하라.

Translation (I am not fluent, and I am not a professional translator):

"Training Spirit (look at Suryeon in part 3)

Be sincere and truthful; endure and overcome suffering or hardship; be loyal to the nation and show filial devotion to one’s parents."

Conclusion:

The philosophy and values expressed in the Chang Mu Kwan Creed and "SuryeonJungshin (Training spirit) uses different words, but the values we see are similar to the ones we have already covered in Chung Do Kwan and Kang Duk Won. I opened this post with a quote from my original teachers first book, a quote which have stuck with me any time I have looked at the different Kwan and what they taught as their Kwan Heon (Kwan Creed). The more I research this the more I think he hit the nail on its head: "All Kwan generally has the same Heon, but they express it in different ways». It is still very interesting to see how the different Kwan expresses their core philosophy through their creeds, as while they keep to an underlying set of principles, they do stress some things a little more than others.

If you enjoyed this post please consider supporting my work and research into Taekwondo by becoming a patron by joining my Taekwondo Nerd Tier at Patreon. It is 3 USD a month and it is a great help to me each and every one who sign up. If not, then please consider sharing the post with those who you think will appreciate it :-) Sharing is caring, and will help new readers discover the blog.

Kwan Heon - A closer look at Kwan creeds of early Taekwondo part 3: Kang Duk Won

2026-03-06T14:23:00.026+01:00

Yun Byung In is one of the more interesting Kwan founders to research in that he had multiple sources for his martial art. Unfortunately he disappeared from viewpoint of the south during the Korean war (1950-53), but Gm Kim Soo found out he had made a life for himself in North Korea, unable to return to the South after the country was divided up in 1953 in a truce.

Yun Byung In not only made his mark in his own school, he worked as an instructor in the Yeon Mu Kwan Kong Su Do Bu together with Chun Sang Sup (who also disappeared during the Korean war) and while his exact school did not survive the war, he did in a way father two prominent Kwan or schools through his senior students; Chang Mu Kwan and Kang Duk Won. These two schools shared a lot of material both being from the same "ryupa"; Yun Byung In, but they did have their own Kwan Heon, creed or philosophy. In this post I want to look specifically on the Kang Duk Won one, and I guess it is only natural to go to Chang Mu Kwan in the next part.

I have so far in this series shared snippets of my first book (The Lost Forms of Oh Do Kwan Taekwondo Volume 1) to set these creeds in a sort of historical context. I think it is fascinating to see where the likely originators of the creeds came from in terms of social status, training, prior style(s) etc. In this post you can read what I wrote about Yun Byung In below, I do know his story continues after his disappearance during the Korean war, but from the perspective of his students until recent years he simply vanished. I will ask you to google "Kim Soo + Yun Byung In" if you want to read more.

Quote from "The Lost Forms of Oh Do Kwan Taekwondo" page 20-21:

"Yun Byung In and the YMCA Kwon Bup Bu

Yun Byung In was born in 1920 and grew up in Manchuria, China, where his family had relocated. In his youth, he studied an unspecified Chinese martial art before traveling to Japan in 1938 to continue his academic studies at Nihon University in Tokyo.

While in Japan, Yun became known for an incident that showcased his martial skill. He intervened when a fellow Korean Karate student was attacked by his seniors, who resented the student’s decision to spend time with his girlfriend rather than train. Yun successfully defended him by skillfully deflecting all attacks, and word of the encounter soon reached the university’s Karate instructor; Toyama Kanken.

This encounter led to a friendly exchange: Yun taught Toyama elements of his Chinese martial art, while Toyama taught Yun Shudokan Karate. Yun earned instructor certification in Shudokan before returning to Korea in 1945.

Upon his return, he initially assisted at the Yun Mu Kwan, but soon began teaching his own system at the Jung Ahn YMCA in Seoul. There, he established what became known as the YMCA Kwon Bup Bu. The term Kwon Bup (권법, 拳法) is the Korean pronunciation of the same characters as the Chinese Chuan Fa, often translated as “Fist Law.”

Tragically, Yun disappeared during the Korean War (1950–1953). It was later discovered that he had been taken to North Korea, where he reportedly died in 1983.

Despite his absence, Yun Byung In’s teachings lived on. His school would go on to give rise to two important postwar Kwans: Chang Mu Kwan and Kang Duk Won - both of which continued to carry elements of his unique blend of Chinese and Japanese martial influences." End quote

Seeing as Yun Byung In is not the originator of the Kang Duk Won Creed I find it only fair to include a little history on Kang Duk Won and the founders:

Kang Duk Won

The school is said to have been founded in September 1956 in Seoul by two senior students of Yun Byung In: Hong Jong Pyo and Park Cheol Hee. (The latter name might be a little familiar if you have done a really careful read of my book as it is from him I got the Kang Duk Won variations.). The school was unofficially started even earlier calling it the Mudo-won Taekwondo/Kwonbeop training hall. This proto Kang Duk Won consisted primarily the Tang Su Do students of Yonsei University. The title Kwanjangnim was not in use at this time, Hong Jong Pyo served as the instructor (Sabeom) of the Mudo-won.

Several months after the founding of the school Mudo-won Hong Jong Pyo withdrew due to personal circumstances, and Park Cheol Hee took up the mantle of instructor, formally establishing the school as Kang Duk Won. The name of the school means "Institute for Teaching Virtue", and Park Cheol Hee would later go on to publish one of the earliest manuals of Korean Martial Arts; PasaKwonbeop in 1957.

The reason he used the term "Won" instead of the more common "Kwan" was that Park felt that "Kwan" had Japanese connotations. Won meaning Institute was chosen because Park was trying to break away from Japanese influence. In his book (which I have not read myself, I have just read some of the forms) Park references Haeinsa Temple Gyeonghakwon as the place where he got the "won" from.

According to “(2015-07-30) Taekwondo Grand Masters Invitational Commemorative Project - Historical Source Collection”. Park himself stated that Chang Mu Kwan was established first, Kang Duk Won second, so that Kang Duk Won was a sister school or sub-kwan of Chang Mu Kwan. Most of this post draws from that work so now you have the source I am using :) The document also cites a Chang Mu Kwan dan certificate record of 1954 which might suggest that from a Chang Mu Kwan perspective the Kang Duk Won could be seen as having branched off from the Chang Mu Kwan.

In the 1958 Kang Duk Won instructor committee list we find that the recorded personnel were:

Instructor Park Cheol Hee

Senior Instructor Hong Jong Pyo

Assistant Instructor Lee Eun Jae, Joo Jin Cheol, and Kim Yang Il.

Forms practiced in the Kang Duk Won (Not a complete list)

Pyeongahn - Pinan/Heian
Jinjeong (there is a tutorial available on my Patreon) - Chintei/Chinte
Gong Sang Kun - Kushanku
Balsaek - Bassai
Gima 1-3 - Naihanchi - Tekki (Gima = Kibadachi, the stance used throughout the forms)
Balchae (not sure what form this could be)
Wanshu - Empi
Jaeun - Jion
Nopae - Rohai
Oshipsabo - Gojushiho

There were more forms than this, but these are the ones listed in the 2015 document. The document itself says that the list is incomplete ("Kang Duk Won training includes: ...."). Again I would look to Kim Soo and his Chayon Ryu if you want to know exactly how the forms were performed and see more than what is included in this list. The Jinjeong form could be a different version to the one I teach on my Patreon as "my" Jinjeong is sourced from the 1959 Taekwondo Textbook.

I have provided all of this info since I do not know exactly who made the Kwan Heon, but if I am allowed to speculate I might put forth Park Cheol Hee. It was he who formally founded the Kang Duk Won, he was the one who wrote a whole book on martial arts, so I am inclined to think it was him that made the Creed as well.

Kang Duk Won Creed:

Original text

우리는 무도를 수련하여 국민체위 향상을 도모하자.
우리는 무도를 수련하여 정도선행하자.
우리는 무도를 수련하여 민족사회의 모범이 되자.

As you can see we have 3 sentences that in this case explains why we train and for what. All sentences starts the same way and translating them directly makes for very clunky English. In essence the sentences starts with "we train martial arts for ...." or We martial arts training....." followed by some more words that do differ :-) The term used for martial arts is Mudo, so Martial Way might be more appropriate here. I have written about the term "Mudo" several times before on this blog. It is often translated as Martial Arts, but in this context it is the philosophical Do (道) that I think is important, the Mu (武) is simply the means to the Do - The Way. I think whoever made the pledge specifically chose this term carefully.

The term I translated as "train/training" is suryon 수련(修鍊) in the original text, and I doubt this term was chosen at random either. There are several terms in Korean that we can translate into "train/training" in English, but suryon has been chosen here. It consists of two Hanja 修 and 鍊 which we can then break down to see what these means.

修 (수) "Su" in SuRyon can mean several things , some of the core meanings that show up when you look at the Hanja (character) in isolation is: "to refine", "cultivate", "improve", or "to put in order". In Confucian and Buddhist texts, 修 (수) is overwhelmingly used to imply deliberate self-cultivation and moral or spiritual refinement over time.

A few examples of this is:

修身 (수신) "SuSin" meaning cultivation of the self (from Confucian moral philosophy)
修道 (수도) "SuDo" meaning cultivating the Way (Do)
修行 (수행) SuHaeng meaning ascetic or spiritual practice

All of these terms are often used in Hwang Kee´s 1958 textbook, showing that these are things appearing in several different Kwan.

鍊 (련) "Ryon" can also be seen in isolation and mean several things. If you have read anything about traditional taekwondo or Korean Martial Arts litterature using Korean terminology you have likely come across this many times. The literal meaning(s) that shows up when you look up this Hanja (character) are:

to smelt metal
to refine by fire
to temper steel

鍊 "Ryon" originally refers to the process of repeatedly heating, hammering, and purifying metal to remove impurities and make it stronger. In Traditional Taekwondo it sometimes shows up as "Forging"; Dallyon 鍛鍊 (단련), or forging"/striking post = Dallyon Joo. Ryon/Lyon is the same, only the sound changes sometimes in Korean. In East Asian philosophy, 鍊 is commonly used metaphorically for "forging character through hardship".

Now that we have looked at the two characters in isolation, lets put them together and we get something along the lines of "deliberate self-cultivation through a process of refining and tempering". "Training" is certainly a valid translation but you see how much nuance is lost in translation. Suryeon can also be paraphrased quite literally to: “To improve oneself by repeatedly refining one’s body and mind, like metal forged in fire.” It is therefore not "training" in a modern sense, i.e. what we think about when we hear the word training.

I hope you all forgive me for this detour, but this is Traditional Taekwondo Ramblings so some ramblings is to be expected. I have broken down the term used in the creed that is often translated into English as "training" and I did allude to there being several terms in Korean that also translates into English, so let us compare these to the one we actually got:

One of the first words I learned in Korean language outside of just Taekwondo terminology was "Hunryeon/Hullyeon" 훈련 (訓練), as in "Taekwondo hunryeon" = "Taekwondo training". I asked my original teacher about this and he thought it was an inapropriate word for taekwondo training due to it being more militaristic and dependant one someone else training you. In some schools the word works just fine, and I guess General Choi would have used it in his context. If you look the word up you get:

訓 = instruction / command / drill
練 = practice / repetition

"Training through instruction and repetition". So it is great for military drills, if someone trains you, you are following orders. So in a sports team setting, police and army training etc this is a good word, but it is not suitable in a philosophical manner. Perhaps instead of translating the word to "Training" we should translate it as "drilling under orders" :-) (I guess that depending on the individual Dojang and or teacher the term is perfectly usable as Taekwondo Training, I just wanted to add that.)

The other word (the third one I know) for "training" is "undong" 운동 (運動). This word is what I think is closest to the English word "Training". If you look up the Hanja characters you get:

運 = move / carry
動 = movement

In other words: "Physical movement / exercise". It is all about health, fitness and bodily activity, and nothing about any spiritual/ moral/ philosophical things. Dallyon is also sometimes translated as "training" but we have already looked at that one.

(I attended a talk done by Master Jon Lennart Løbak and took notes for this part of the post (Suryon/ Dallyon/ Hunreun and Undong. So thank you for holding that talk.)

So you see the exact wording in the Kang Duk Won Creed are carefully chosen, and translating it into English puts us in risk of losing so much nuance, but having done a deep dive on the key phrases (Mudo I have written about before on my blog) I think it is time to look at translating the creed itself.

Sentence 1:

우리는 무도를 수련하여 국민체위 향상을 도모하자.

"We cultivate ourselves in the Martial Way to improve the physical strength of the nation"

"We shall train ourselves in the martial arts to help rise the physical fitness of the nations people"

"Let us by training in the Martial Way to seek the improvement of the nations physical strength"

I have done three valid translations here based upon the Korean original text playing around with different translations to the key terms use. "Let us" is perhaps the most literal translation but I prefer:

"We shall cultivate ourselves through the Martial Way to improve the strength of the nation".

I think that in this translation we preserve much of the original nuance, and the general vibe of the creed. "We shall ... " seems more appropriate in a Creed to be recited. Having played around with a few examples I will simply translate to the best of my ability the rest of the creed and summarize them at the end. Please remember I am not fluent in Korean, nor am I in any way a professional translator. I am simply a very very very eager student of Taekwondo.

Sentence 2:

우리는 무도를 수련하여 정도선행하자.

Just a tiny bit of neuance of key terms: "Jeongdo" 정도 (正道) means the right path/ righteous way/ proper course and it is a strong moral/philosophical flavor (very Confucian or purely ethical). "SeonHaeng" 선행 (善行) means good deeds/ virtuous conduct. If we put these two together as in the creed we get something along the lines of “to follow the right path and do good” or possibly “righteous living and virtuous action”. The second line is therefore quite tricky to get right but I will try my best (keep in mind what I have said about my abilities):

“We shall cultivate ourselves in the Martial Way so that we may follow the righteous path and practice virtuous conduct.”

We can also be quite brief and get much the same meaning but might lose some of the neuance:

“We shall train in martial arts to live rightly and do good.”

Sentence 3:

우리는 무도를 수련하여 민족사회의 모범이 되자.

“We shall cultivate ourselves through the Martial Way to become exemplary members of our national society.”

So what do we have here? We have a creed that in the first sentence stresses that the reason for training is to become strong, fit, healthy individuals to help build a strong nation, i.e. contribute well to society. In the second sentence the creed stresses moral and ethical conduct, again so martial artists trained in the Kang Duk Won is a positive contribution to society as a whole. In the third one we again see the importance of the nation, where we are asked to be so strong (sentence 1) and morally just (sentence 2) and that we serve to be an inspiration for all others (sentence 3). Kang Duk Won therefore did not teach martial skill only as a way to learn how to fight, but it was very much geared to the betterment of society through the betterment of one self. The plural "We" in the creed stresses that this is the whole school (Kwan) responsibility, not just the individual student or teacher.

The amalgamation of all the Kwan into one single "style" organized in the Kukkiwon meant that we kinda lost the original Kwan (schools) teachings. We gained a lot by the founding of the Kukkiwon style, we got standardization, new forms, terminology, etc and all of this coupled with government support meant that the art of Taekwondo could spread far and wide. What I find kinda sad, is that on the way to standardization we also lost some of the unique things relevant to each Kwan. If you in 2026 try and google Kwan Creeds or Kang Duk Won philosophy for instance you will find relatively little information. I do hope that this series highlights what the original intent of the early Taekwondo (Kong Su Do/ Tang Su Do/ Kwonbeop etc) was. I really think this helps us understand our modern martial art of Taekwondo much better looking at where we came from.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider supporting my research into Taekwondo history by becoming a patron on Patreon.

My Taekwondo Nerd tier is only 3 USD per month, and supporters get access to additional material such as translations, historical notes, and form tutorials that I am working on behind the scenes.

If Patreon is not for you, please consider sharing the post with someone who might enjoy it. Sharing helps new readers discover the blog.

Kwan Heon - A closer look at Kwan creeds of early Taekwondo part 2: Song Mu Kwan

2026-02-05T17:20:00.000+01:00

In August 2025 I started on a quest to finish one of my more ambitious posts that I started, but never finished, a post where I shared and explained the different Kwan Creeds, or the underlying philosophy of each Kwan. Originally it was going to be one large post, but I never got around to finishing it, despite having some good notes and crude translations from a Korean source (which sadly does not exist anymore, but I have since found more to verify). In post 1 I tackled the Chung Do Kwan Creed, a creed that consists of 3 sentences. In post 1.2 I revisited the Chung Do Kwan after a great person took his time to point out I had made a mistake :-) So again thank you for that, I hope post 1.2 is better :-)

This, post, the third one, but I am calling it part 2 is focusing on Song Mu Kwan, a school that for some reason does not stand much out in discussions online. It seems that most people focus on Mu Duk Kwan, Chung Do Kwan, Oh Do Kwan (most often through an ITF lense) and sometimes Ji Do Kwan. Other schools like Chang Mu Kwan, Kang Duk Won, Han Mu Kwan, Song Mu Kwan etc are often overlooked. Song Mu Kwan in particular seems to often be written off as "Korean Shotokan". I do not possess any technical documents on Song Mu Kwan from the Kwan-era so I will not comment on how the techniques were performed, but we do have some oral testimony of the training, where it is said that Ro stressed striking the Dallyon Joo (Makkiwara or striking board, literally forging post), lifting weights (though I have yet to find details) and strong basics focusing on stopping power; "one strike - one kill" mentality.

Luckily enough the Kwan Heon of Song Mu Kwan does survive and it is those I want to focus on today.

Here follows a brief history of Ro Byung Jik and Song Mu Kwan from my book "The Lost Forms of Oh Do Kwan Taekwondo Volume 1: Taegeuk 1-3 Hyeong". I have previously shared the text here on the blog so feel free to skip ahead if you wish, but I find that grouping the history and background of the Kwan founder and the Kwan together with the Creed makes for a better read :-) Especially if you have not already read it.

"Ro Byung Jik and the Song Mu Kwan

Ro Byung Jik was born in 1919. Like many Koreans of his generation who sought higher education, he traveled to Japan in 1936, where he studied Karate under Gichin Funakoshi and his son Yoshitaka “Gigo” Funakoshi.

After returning to Korea, Ro made several attempts to establish a martial arts school, beginning around 1944–1945. His efforts met with limited success at first, but after the Korean War, he began to gain traction - especially as American military personnel began training at his dojang. This post-war period marked the real emergence of his school, which he named the Song Mu Kwan (송무관, 松武館).

Ro played a key role in organizing the direction of Korean martial arts during the early years. He held prominent positions within the Korean Taekwondo Association (KTA) and was instrumental in supporting Choi Hong Hi in founding the International Taekwon-Do Federation (ITF) in 1966.

According to A Modern History of Taekwondo by Kang and Lee, training in the Song Mu Kwan under Ro began with weight training and hundreds of repetitions on the striking board (dallyeon ju, also known as makiwara), even before formal instruction began. Ro emphasized strong basics and disciplined repetition, an approach that echoes the intense, foundational training style of Yoshitaka Funakoshi, known for elevating the athletic and combative intensity of Karate in the 1930s and ’40s.

The name Song Mu Kwan is composed of:

• Song (松) meaning “pine tree,”

• Mu (武) meaning “martial,”

• Kwan (館) meaning “school” or “hall.”

Interestingly, the Song (Sho in Japanese) is the same character used in Shotokan (松濤館), possibly a deliberate nod to Ro’s roots in Shotokan Karate, reflecting both reverence for his lineage and a desire to localize that identity within Korea." End quote

Trivia: Song Do Kwan is Shotokan in Korean, so SONG Mu Kwan and Chung DO Kwan both has a possible Shotokan/Songdokwan nod in their name.

According to my sources Ro Byung Jik developed tenets for his school to have as their underlying philosophy, in a similar manner to the more well known tenets of Taekwon-Do later developed by General Choi. There is a lot of overlap between the two sets which I find very interesting.

The Kwan Heon of Song Mu Kwan

예의 존중 (Yeui Jonjung)

This tenet might seem somewhat similar to the more well known ITF/Oh Do Kwan tenets of Taekwon-Do where the first part of this creed is the same as the first in ITF: 예의 (Yeui). In most texts it is translated as curtesy, but Yeui (禮儀) can also be etiquette, propriety, ritual courtesy. My original teacher who is a Korean native translated it once to me as "The correct way of doing something". The second part of the tenet: 존중 Jonjung (尊重) can be translated as "respect", "honor", or "esteem". Together this can be translated as: "Respect for etiquette and propriety". The "propriety" is added to reflect the Confucian depth of "Yeui" better than mere "etiquette" alone would. Online you might see: "Respect for curtesy", "respect for etiquette" or simply "Be curtious" but I hope breaking down the phrase shows that there is a little more going on than that. Gichin Funakoshi once famously said: "Karate begins and ends with courtesy", so there is no wonder that Ro, a direct student of Funakoshi, would include this in his Kwan Heon. Another slightly simpler translation which is also valid is Courtesy AND Respect :-)

극기 겸양 (Geukgi Gyeomyang)

Once again the first part of this tenet might look familiar to those more aquatinted to the ITF tenets, 극기 or Geukgi (克己) shows up in the tenet "self control" and it contains the same meaning here (self-control, self-mastery, overcoming the self). The second part 겸양 (謙讓) can be translated as: "modesty", "humility", or "yielding attitude". Together the meaning can be translated as: "Self-control and humility". Again we see a very strong Confucian influence on the tenets Ro uses.

부단 노력 (Budan Noryeok)

The third tenet consists of two words; 부단 (不斷) which can be translated as "unceasing", "uninterrupted", or "never-ending" and 노력 (努力) that can be translated as "effort", or "striving". Together this tenet can be translated as "Ceaseless effort", or perhaps a little more plain-talking: "Never give up". Again we see a similarity in the more well known tenets by Choi Hong Hi, although he uses other words to get to the same meaning, often translated into English as "perseverance". So to be clear the tenets wording is different, but the overall meaning in language is the same. A trend we see is the Confuscian language used by Ro vs the sometimes militaristic language used by Choi Hong Hi, but Choi´s military backgroung is well known so there is nothing strange about that. Taekwondo and indeed Martial Arts instructors in general often say that (insert martial art here) is a marathon, not a sprint, which is also something we see reflected in this tenet.

기웅 만부 (Giung Manbu)

The fourth tenet consists again of two parts; "Giung" and "Manbu". I have seen this tenet translated as "Indomitable Spirit" online, but if you look at the wording used we see that 기웅 (氣雄) can be translated as heroic spirit or perhaps courageous energy, ki showing up often enough that well read readers of this blog will know it is a little difficult to translate directly, but "energy", "spirit" and even "principles" are sometimes used. In this context courageus/ Heroic spirit/ energy all works. 만부 (萬夫) literally means ten thousand men, but the phrase shows up in classical military and moral litterature in idioms so we can infer a more poetic; "unyielding before any opponent" according to a more knowledgeable person than myself. Literally it means something like “a spirit that ten thousand men cannot overcome.” This is a similar tenet to the indomitable spirit used in Choi Hong Hi´s tenets: 백절불굴 (Indomitable Spirit). But as you can see the wording is different. I will revisit Choi´s tenets in a future post, its just that his are so well known that they are good to compare to, but I will not go into them indepth until I have put forward more of the lesser known creeds.

문무 겸전 (Munmu Gyeomjeon)

The fifth and last Song Mu Kwan tenet is Munmu Gyeomjeon, again consisting of three parts, the two first characters can probably be grouped as one though. 문 (文) which can be translated as: "civil virtue", "learning", or "culture", and 무 (武) meaning martial virtue, military skill. It is the same Mu as in Mudo/Muye/Mu Duk Kwan/ Musul/ Musa etc etc. The second or third depending on how you group this together is 겸전 (兼全) meaning possessing both fully. This phrase is a classical Confucian ideal going back centuries, and the possibly best translation into English I can come up with for the term, a translation that other translators much more clever than I also have put forth is: "Harmony of civil and martial virtue".

Together these tenets that together makes the "Song Mu Kwan Heon" or Creed of Song Mu Kwan gives a great insight into what the founder of Song Mu Kwan, Ro Byung Jik tried to instill in his students.

Often on sites presenting the Song Mu Kwan Creed in English there is a misconception on what is presented in the original language and what is actually present in the English text. A typical example of this is the following examples of typical Song Mu Kwan Heon is taken from here

"예의 존중 (禮儀尊重)
Everything begins and ends with Courtesy and Respect."

The problem I have with this presentation on that site is that it presents the English explanation as a translation, but it does not really say "Everything begins and ends....." only "Courtesy" and "Respect" is present. It could work as a highly interpretive translation.

"극기 겸양 (克己謙讓)
Your pursuit of the Way must be with humility, and indifference to pain or pleasure. "

This English text is so interpretive of what it really says in the original language that I am not sure if we should call it a translation. Again if someone had a talk "about what the creed means" and talking around the meaning it is fine, but often this is presented as a translations which it is not. "Self control and humility" is what the text actually says (taking into account that some variations will be OK depending on what nuance of meaning a translated wishes to come across. There is no "pursuit of the Way....." in the original.

"부단 노력 (不斷努力)
Realizing the Truth of Song Moo Kwan is a lifelong pursuit."

Again if you were to talk around the original concept the English is ok, but as a translation it is very overreaching. There is no mention of Song Mu Kwan, truth or anything like that. "Never ending effort" and slightly interpretive but completely ok as a translation "lifelong pursuit", is in the original tenet or creed. Nowhere does it say what the English says.

"기웅 만부 (氣雄萬夫)

Your Indomitable Spirit should reflect the power of a million men."

This one is actually OK based upon my research into the phrase. Manbu as in 10 000 is idiomatic and does not necessarily mean exactly 10 000, a million in the translation is just as idiomatic in English.

"문무 겸전 (文武兼全)

Unite the wisdom of the Scholar with strength of a Warrior, integrating your mind and body into one."

This one too works. Slightly interpretive but it is inline with what the original actually says.

I do not want to infer that the text I borrowed here is not authentic. For all I know this might even come from Gm Ro Byung Jik himself. If that is true however I think he talked about what the Creed says, and not actually translated it, because as we have seen in the post when you check what it originally says it is not the same as the English provided in the site I linked to. The problem arises when people who can not read Korean look at the English text and say: "This is what these characters mean".

I hope you enjoyed this look into the Song Mu Kwan Creed :-) If you enjoyed this post please consider sharing it online on facebook or other social media, especially if you think it is important that people get to know more about Kwan philosophy. It is this that takes us from Taekwon to Taekwondo ;-)

Kwan Heon - A closer look at Kwan creeds of early Taekwondo part 1.2: Chung Do Kwan

2026-01-09T11:01:00.000+01:00

This post is "Part 1.2" so not part 2 :-) You see I already wrote about the Kwan Heon (Kwan or school creed) of Chung Do Kwan back in 2025. This post is both a continuation of that post and a revisit. So please read part 1 by clicking here before you read part 1.2. In that post I go briefly through the history of Chung Do Kwan which I have taken from my book (click here to buy) where I also share the history of several more Kwan (and you can read those on the blog as well). Anyway, here is the kicker: I provided my own translation of the Korean text and it was (slightly) flawed as pointed out by a brilliant commenter who took the time to comment on this outdated blogging format. Thanks to him I had to reevaluate my translation and saw where I had gone wrong. It does change the sentiment a little, but overall the meaning is in my opinion the same. And my original translation is way better than the other ones circulating the web. So here goes, part 1.2 Chung Do Kwan Creed revisited:

Originator of the Chung Do Kwan Creed, or was it Oh Do Kwan?

There has been a little discussion on who the originator of the Kwan Heon (Kwan Creed) of Chung Do Kwan was. As far as I can tell sifting through Korean articles that mentions this (they are few and far between) they all point to an origin within Chung Do Kwan, but I could not find a source that specifically said Lee Won Kuk made it. The debate that I sometimes see is that the Oh Do Kwan which we all know were founded by Choi Hong Hi initially used the Chung Do Kwan Creed too. Since some therefore present the Chung Do Kwan as the Oh Do Kwan creed and this also happens in Korean language articles so it is not a "western" thing many believe Choi Hong Hi made the creed. That last part I have only found in "western" forums and SOME, and is not as far as I know something people believe in Korea. To present the Chung Do Kwan Creed as the original Oh Do Kwan Creed is actually historically accurate as there are enough sources saying Oh Do Kwan initially used this as their creed, but the creed was imported from Chung Do Kwan and did not have its origin in Oh Do Kwan if that makes sense.

The reason for the Chung Do Kwan Creed being used in Oh Do Kwan is simple: Choi Hong Hi surrounded himself with talented and well trained instructors which he head hunted from one of the more well established and biggest Kwan there was at the time when he got the order to start implementing Martial Arts training to soldiers; the Chung Do Kwan, Nam Tae Hi being in the forefront of these initial instructors. Seeing as they were from the Chung Do Kwan, and the importance Chung Do Kwan put on their creed, there is nothing strange of them importing the creed over until they found something they could use themselves (tenets and student oath).

So to recap: Chung Do Kwan Creed was made within Chung Do Kwan, most likely by the Kwanjangnim Lee Won Kuk, and it predates the Oh Do Kwan. Choi Hong Hi picked it up and ran with it initially in the Oh Do Kwan before implementing their own creed later on, making the Chung Do Kwan Creed the original Oh Do Kwan creed. Some internet sources (even Korean ones) presents the Chung Do Kwan Creed as the original Oh Do Kwan creed giving no historical context. But now that you have read all this you know :-)

The Chung Do Kwan Creed original text:

So to break it down a little we have three sentences all starting with the same phrase "우리들 관원은" which sounds clunky when we translate it into English. We as members, we as students, we, the members of the kwan etc are all valid in this context. The most popular by far translation circulating says: "We, as members...." in all three sentences. The term kwanwon 관원 (館員) does not mean student however, if you look it up you´ll see that Kwan can mean School, and Won in this case means "Member" or "Personell". The Creed therefore is for anyone associated with the Kwan, that being student, senior, instructor or headmaster. So perhaps best way to translate it would be: "We the members of the Kwan...", but I am nitpicking here. The sentiment should be that as a member of the Kwan you were expected to.... (insert stuff here) .....

The Chung Do Kwan Creed as I translated it in part 1:

We, as members, train our spirits and bodies according to Mudo (무도).”

“We, as members, are united in mutual friendship.”

“We, as members, will comply with regulations and obey instructors.”

The error I made (The horror)

I have made several remarks over the years that I am not fluent in Korean, this is not actually that big of a problem when translating because it forces me to really check my self, be humble and double check again. The problem is that I do know some Korean (I did live there for a year and had maaaaany trips there lasting 2-4 weeks at a time) when I would learn more and practise what Korean I could. This time I read the original text and I thought I understood everything so I just translated almost without looking anything up. And this made me miss a crucial part of the first sentence. It does not only say mudo, it says mudo-jungshin. Jungshin is a term on its own that is frequently used in martial arts texts, so it was just an oversight but luckily "World Chung Do Kwan Federation certificate number 5-5544" (I do not know his name) commented on my post and made me aware of my mistake. So the first line should be:

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

The second line can then be:

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

And the third line can be:

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

So having redone this one I stand by my first post and my conclusions there so I will not write much more about what this means in this post. I want to add one thing though: the commenter who commented did a great job, and I salute him for taking his time to comment. This post would not exist if not for him. Another thing I want to add is: where mudojungshin appears in sentence 1 there are many different translations. The most popular being "strict code", the commenter had seen "hwarangdo" and I have seen "Taekwondo". None of those appear in the original text and is an inference done by the translator, and in "strict code" I wonder if it is google translate.

Anyway, now there exists a faithful translation on the Chung Do Kwan Creed in English :-) So if you enjoyed this post please comment or share it. If you come across any other translations that deviate from this one, share this post and ask if I am very incorrect or if the translation in question might be very loose in parts.

New Year, Traditional Taekwondo Ramblings Reflections

2026-01-06T11:48:00.007+01:00

We now write 2026, and as we say in Norway: New year - New opportunities :-) I used to be good at these kinds of posts, looking back at the old year and write about the upcoming plans. I have failed to do this for several years now :-P You got to go back to 2019 for a similar January post.

A.I. and the future of Traditional Taekwondo Ramblings

The A.I wave has hit us hard in 2025, to the point that even in martial arts media we are drowning in a.i slop, both in video, articles, blogs and I guess it is just a matter of time, books. Google has started trying to answer searches not with links going to blogs like mine, but first A.I, then sponsored pages, then "trusted pages" such as reddit and then perhaps you might find my posts. This is the current trend now, and I found myself thinking, what can Traditional Taekwondo Ramblings possibly offer people in 2025 and forward? I can not in any way shape or form compete with a.i driven blogs, and I KNOW for a FACT that there are several martial artists out there using A.I to publish articles which reads like they have written a prompt and published whatever Chatgtp had written as their own work. I make at most a few posts a month, someone using A.I can churn out 10+ articles every single day.

I confess to have used Chatgtp in a purely editiorial fashion for a few posts in 2025 and I have used A.I to make a few thumbnails, but whenever I have used chatgtp for writing I first write myself the whole text, then I ask chatgtp to clean up the language, flow and spelling errors. I then work through each paragraph going back and forth to make it just right. The end result is that I do not actually save as much time using a.i, but I do get a text that reads as an actual human being has written it.

Then it hit me: I can not compete with A.I, but I have something that A.I and A.I-heavy users do not have: Authenticity :-)

I believe people still want to read stuff written by an actual human, something not being the results of hallucinations and made up, something that while flawed looking at the writing itself, makes up for it in content and "soul". Traditional Taekwondo Ramblings started out as a the blog I wished someone else had written, and so that is how it will stay. I will write what I would have wanted to read, and one thing I just can not stand any more of is a.i slop. I do need a favor if this blog is something you enjoy; if you hear or read other peoples questions on taekwondo and you know the answer might be hiding on the blog ask them to check it out. I might not be the fastest answering comments, but I do read each and every one made on here:-)

Milestone reached:

2025 marks the year where I actually managed to go through the whoooooooole process of writing a book, I made the outline, translated source material, added my own material, edited the text (many many many times), was a model for the pictures (which I only got due to my wife being there for me), and with the help of Master Roy Rolstad (who kindly checked the ITF terminology), Master Jon Lennart (who gave me access to Kang Duk Won variants and checked some of my translations), Master Christian who provided feedback and encouragement and many many more it became a manuscript.

I then edited everything into formats that could be printed as a paperback or read on a kindle. The book: The Lost Forms of Oh Do Kwan Taekwondo Volume 1: Taegeuk 1-3 Hyeong is one of my proudest achievements :-) (It is availble on amazon, and if you already bought it thank you so much, if you liked it would you pleeeeease consider dropping a review and or some stars on amazon? and if you have not bought it yet, please do :-P

On this blog in 2025:

We had 173 000 views
76 comments
Most read post was:

Religion and Taekwondo (1 290 views)
Honoring the pioneers of Taekwondo; Chung Sang Sup (913 views)
Taegeuk Poomsae, why does everybody "hate" them? (847 views)
(only 2025 post that made the list was: Kwan Heon, Chung Do Kwan 747 views)

I managed to write 25 blog posts, perhaps the best of which were excerpts from the book.

I started out with a "reach your goals" in January, continued with sharing the Ji Do Kwan Taegeuk 1-3 Hyeong, followed that up with a lot of Taekwondo history, then started a series on Kwan creeds which I have to pick up again because I feel that might be one of the most important works outside of the book and Patreon projects I will do in 2026. The ITF tenets (not tenants) of Taekwondo and the 5 laws of Taekwondo are very well known and documented, but you will have a very hard time finding anything good on the other styles/ schools of Taekwondo.

Patreon:

I have kept up with the blogging despite also giving attention to my Patreon, and getting a book out there. I must admit that I might have putten more of my energy over there than here in 2025.

I started taking the Patreon more seriously in 2025 and revamped it from a video tutorial training channel (which I quickly understood I did not have the means to provide with enough consistency due to logistical difficulties ) to a more hybrid video tutorial, research sharing, translations and more "Taekwondo nerd sustenance" :-) There is a good mix of public posts (open for all), free posts (you must be a member but you do not want to pay) and patron only posts (posts you will have to pay to read).

Note that I have only one tier; Taekwondo Nerd Tier which is as low as I can set it (3 USD a month). I hope that enough people find my work interesting enough that the expenses to my research can be covered. Books, prints/scans by library, computer licenses etc all cost, not to mention the time put into it :-)

In 2025 I made Patreon

Video tutorial:

The video tutorials have low production value, in that I just video myself as I would teach the form to a student. So all of these tutorials are made with the goal in mind that you will know how to execute the form, know a little history, a little applications etc if you have followed along with the videos. I put repetitions into the sessions, so you do not have to go back and forth in the video.

Patreon Booklets:

Hwang Kee´s list of forms anno 1958
5 Major Tenets of Training by Choi Hong Hi 1959 (pdf 14 pages)
Hyeong names and lineages by Choi Hong Hi 1959 (pdf 50+ pages)
Funakoshi-notes, transcribed from my handwritten notes

Some of these are available on my Patreon shop for 3 USD, but if you want to save money you can become a patron for the Taekwondo nerd tier, pay for one month (3 usd) and get access to all then unsubscribe ;-P

Patreon book previews:

ABC´s of Practical Poomsae Application (this one fell to the wayside)
Lost Forms of Oh Do Kwan Taekwondo (contains almost all the introduction part of the book prior to the forms themselves).

Patreon article(ish)

A series of posts going through all the forms covered in the 1959 Taekwondo Textbook by Choi Hong Hi, their history and background and place within the syllabus.

Plans for 2025?

My goals for 2025 is to provide my patrons with at least one highvalue post a month on Patreon. That will take precedence over the blog, but I do have plans for both the blog and Patreon, so do not worry :-)

Finish and publish Volume 2 of Lost Forms of Oh Do Kwan Taekwondo
Completing the Kwan Creed blog series
Share some Pyeongahn related material (history of Pyeongahn and Anko Itosu)
Video Tutorials for Pyeongahn 2-5 (Patreon)
Video Tutorials for Do-San, Won-Hyo and Yul-guk (patreon)
Booklet on the history chapter of the 1959 Taekwondo Textbook
Booklet on "the name change" (Kong Su Do/ Tang Su Do to Taekwondo) from the 1959 Textbook (Patreon
Booklet on the definition of Hyeong from the 1959 Textbook (Patreon).

So much energy on the Patreon in 2026, but when I make something indepth for the Patreon, I can share interesting stuff from that on here too :-) So you will have if not weekly posts on here, I will do my best to have at least a monthly post on here in 2026. And since I had 25 posts in 2025 I guess I will easily manage 12 in 2026 if not many more :-)

What I want for Christmas 😇

2025-12-22T10:31:00.002+01:00

If you have purchased my book and enjoyed it. I would be incredibly grateful if you left a review on amazon🙇🏻🙇🏻😇🙏

https://a.co/d/56y7rvy

If you haven't purchased it yet, what's stopping you? 😉

Previously untranslated material from the 1959 Taekwondo textbook soon available

2025-12-16T17:04:00.002+01:00

(Post written by actual human, no A.I💻🚫)

🤷‍♂️ Did you know there were 24 patterns in the original Taekwondo Textbook from 1959?

😀Below is appendix 1 for my upcoming Patreon booklet (instant access for taekwondo nerd tier or 3usd if you don’t want to become a Patreon) coming December 24th.

📚This appendix simply lists the forms contained in the 1959 Taekwondo Textbook in order of appearance.

The booklet consists of:

✅ Full translation of Choi Hong Hi’s naming and lineages of Taekwondo forms with original text so you can check my work

✅ Choi Hong Hi’s thoughts on the strength and differences between the different schools or lineages and how we should approach them

✅ Translation of each of the background/information on the forms in all 3 lineages or schools (Sorim-Ryu, Soryeong-Ryu, Changhon-Ryu

✅ Look at first ever writings on the original Chang Hon patterns (Hwarang, Chungmu, Samil, Ulji, Unam),

These are different from later writings.

✅ Extensive commentaries and background information by yours truly on all of the text and all of the forms covered in the 1959 book.

All in all around 50(!) pages.

You can visit my Patreon and sign up as a Patreon (support me with 3usd a month and get access to everything I give out there, there’s already exclusive video tutorials and another booklet also based on the 1959 book available) or visit my Patreon shop on December 24th :-)

https://www.patreon.com/TraditionalTaekwondoRamblings?utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator

Kwan Heon - A closer look at Kwan creeds of early Taekwondo part 1: Chung Do Kwan

2025-08-25T05:00:00.002+02:00

My original teacher (Gm Cho Woon Sup) wrote some of the earliest Norwegian language Taekwondo

books out there. He also included some things that I have come to understand are very rare things in Taekwondo litterature. One of those things is the explanation of Taekwondo philosophy from the point of view of Ji Do Kwan (Wisdom Way School) which is the Kwan he hails from. In the text he explains that Kwan could be translated as School and that Heon could be translated as Life-directive. He went on explaining that there were many different Kwan and each had their own Heon, but they had the same underlying principles. That section in his book is one of the reasons I started looking into the different Kwan all those years ago, and in this series I want to explore the different Kwan Heon that the different Kwan has. If you saw the last post on this blog I can tell you that this post was started in 2016, and is a great example of me starting way too big and never finishing it. This time I am confident and know that I can tackle it piece by piece. So first Kwan out of the gate is Chung Do Kwan.

Short history of Chung Do Kwan (Skip if you have read my book)

Quote from my book:

"Lee Won Kuk and the Chung Do Kwan

Lee Won Kuk was born in Korea in 1907 and traveled to Japan in 1926 to pursue higher education. While studying law at Chuo University, he began training in Shotokan Karate under Gichin Funakoshi, making him an early Korean student of Karate, even by Japanese standards.

After returning to Korea, Lee requested permission to open a martial arts school. According to some accounts, he had to make the request three times before finally receiving approval. In 1944, he established his school and named it Chung Do Kwan (청도관, 靑濤館), meaning “Blue Wave School.”

Lee Won Kuk is widely credited as being the first Korean martial artist to use the full term Tang Su Do (당수도, 唐手道), by adding the philosophical suffix Do (도, 道) meaning “the Way”, to Tang Su, the Korean pronunciation of To-de (or Kara-te) meaning “China Hand.” This usage reflects the early terminology of Karate, which originally referred to itself as To-de (“Chinese Hand”) before Funakoshi popularized the homonym Karate (空手), meaning “Empty Hand,” in the 1930s.

As a result, in early Korean martial arts circles, terms like Tang Su Do and Kong Su Do were used, both being alternate Korean readings of the same characters used in Japanese Karate-Do (空手道). These were not different martial arts, but alternative names for the same system, rooted in Japanese Karate.

Sometime after the World War II and before the Korean War, Lee faced accusations of pro-Japanese collaboration. Although the full details remain murky, this led him to leave Korea and relocate with his family to Japan in 1950. Later in life, around 1976, Lee moved to the United States, where he continued to teach. He passed away in 2003.

Leadership of Chung Do Kwan was passed on to his student Son Duk Sung, who became the second Kwanjang (관장, Headmaster) after Lee’s departure."

End quote

So Chung Do Kwan was funded by a very very early student of pro-shotokan karate, who studied directly under Gichin Funakoshi. Based on my reading of Funakoshi's works there were two main things he stressed a lot and that was Kata (Hyeong) and Do-philosophy. Lee did not copy Funakoshi's Dojo-kun, but made one for Chung Do Kwan after he got back to Korea and opened his own school (Kwan).

According to a Korean article I read Lee made his creed and it was normal that students and even prospective students would sign a contract to uphold the creed. Another thing they did was to stand at attention sometimes before and sometimes after class often after saluting the flag reciting the creed, reinforcing it over time.

The Chung Do Kwan Creed:

We, as members, train our spirits and bodies according to Mudo (무도).”

“We, as members, are united in mutual friendship.”

“We, as members, will comply with regulations and obey instructors.”

Son Duk Sung took this creed with him when he moved to the USA and funded his Taekwondo organisation.

The Chung Do Kwan creed reflects traditional Confucian values like obedience to authority, camaraderie among peers as well as the virtue of self-discipline.

The thing we are going to see time and time again while looking at the different Kwan Heon is that they all point in the same direction of fostering good citizens that contribute positively to the society, and this creed is no different.

Seminar Report Bojeon Taekwondojang in Moss

2025-08-18T13:29:00.000+02:00

I never actually got around to post this, but once upon a time, in what might be considered one of my highlights in my Taekwondo career; little old me was contacted by a Dojang at the other side of Norway and I (a nobody who happened to have a blog) was hired for a weekend seminar :-) It was one of the most fun and rewarding taekwondo weekends I have had :-) Covid and the lock down happened soon thereafter so I never pursued doing more seminars. In fact I wrote this back in 2020 after the seminar, but never posted it. I just found it going through my "drafts" in blogger to see if there is something I started on that I could finish (sometimes I go a little too big on things and do not get around to actually finish and post it. Anyway, if you want to know how a seminar focusing on practical poomsae applications with me might look, you can read on :-) Just remember I am still a student of Taekwondo so I am sure there would be things done differently if someone where to hire me today.

Last weekend (at the time of writing) I had a blast teaching a two day seminar focusing on the practical applications of poomsae to a club located in the east of Norway; Moss. I thought the regular readers of this blog might enjoy a summary of my weekend, and perhaps by sharing the contents of the seminar someone else wanting to learn more might get in touch?

I think it was back in October 2019 I got a PM on facebook by a representative from Bojeon Taekwondo Club located in Moss asking if I did seminars. After a little back and forth we landed on the date (22nd and 23rd of February 2020) and the training time, the maximum number of participants and other details.

I have almost never travelled by train in my entire life, so it was a fun experience travelling to the seminar by train. The suspense was hightened by the fact that there were a lot of snow which sometimes blocked the lines in the days before the seminar, but I got through Ok and arrived Friday evening. I was picked up at the station by a smiling Birger (one of the key enthusiasts and assistant trainer in the club). I was dropped off at the hotel, feeling like some kind of celebrity, before being picked up a little later to go to dinner, where I also got to meet Marianne, the main instructor of the Dojang. We shared a pleasant meal, discussing everything taekwondo, and I was very taken by the founding values of Bojeon Taekwondo, offering Taekwondo in an inclusive way. Respecting the roots, looking outside of the box, while also keeping the traditions alive. I was already looking forward to start the seminar itself, but know I was looking even more forward to it.

Day 1; Basics (The basics are the advanced techniques)

The Dojang was in no way a stranger to Hosinsul (self defense techniques), but the practical applications of poomsae beyond block kick punch was a new area for them. Therefore I wanted the first day to give them a short historical context, which would also give them a context of what the poomsae are adressing (self defense and close quarter combat, not "outdated" olympic sparring). I also wanted to give them a good grounding for them to look at the poomsae themselves after I leave by giving them the keys to understand simple techniques or Gibon Dongjak (fundamentals) in a new way. I started with a short introduction and historical lecture before we started the training itself.

1st hour: Jireugi/Punching with emphasis on the pulling hand (hand on hip)

The first hands on training we did was focusing on traditional punching techniques like we see in Poomsae. I demonstrated 3 types of punches (an idea I borrowed from Iain Abernethy). Here I demonstrated the "traditional" punch (hand on hip for no reason), boxing style punch from/with a guard and a practical application punch where the hand on the hip had a function by pulling the hand of the opponent toward my hip while the other hand punched. I discussed the benifits of the pulling hand indepth before we partnered up and started drilling the use of the punch with an emphasis on actually using the pulling hand.

We practised 3 main scenarios, grabbing the lead guarding hand of the opponent pulling it away so we cleared a path for our strike, grabbing and removing a covering up attempt by the agressor after being punch in the face a few times, and from a crossed hands position which can be just about anything (a punch was blocked for instance).

Next we practised the same drills using focus mitts, so that we got to train impacting the techniques as well (we cant continually drill punching our training partners face now can we?). After that we looked more on power-generation, where in the transition from long front stance to long front stance do we connect the punch?

2nd hour: Makki-techniques, theory and applications for arae makki

I started by explaining what "Makki" means. "Block" is a valid translation but there is a lot more neuance that gets lost in translation. I have a whole article on this which you can read here so I wont go into more detail on this in this post. We then looked at Arae Makki (Low "Block") where we covered it as:

Release against same side wrist hold
Release against a cross grabbed wrist hold/ downward armbar
Upward armbar into hammerfist strike to the groin
Linked same side wrist grab defense to armbar punch combo
trained that on the focus mitts

Lunch 30 minutes

3rd hour: Momtong An Makki/ Bakkat Makki (Inward/outward block)

We looked and drilled at the use of inward and outward block, looking at the traditional technique itself and its solo performance, really looking at what we are doing, and then applying the movement against various situations. The inward block was among other things trained as a hammerfist strike, a defensive entry against a haymaker and as an unbalancing technique. The outward block was demonstrated both the old version (chambering on the inside) and the modern version. We then trained and explored the "parry-pass-concept" for quite some time, using different scenarios and drills, including the 3 point flow drill which I find very fun :-) We did some more power-generation work on the focus mitts too.

4th hour: Sonnal Geodeuro Makki (Knife hand guarding block)

We looked at the solo form of the technique, both what people today consider to be the Karate-chamber (which was part of Taekwondo into the 1970s depending on the Kwan), and the normal taekwondo version. We drilled the applications for this drill with partners using different scenarios (haymaker, limb control etc), and we also looked at a striking application or a slightly modified application from the opening of taegeuk 4 jang.

5th hour: Eulgeul Makki (High section block)

Here we looked at the high section block as a lapel grab defense (two variations), a parry-pass variant building upon what was learned earlier, and a few examples from Poomsae.

6th hour: Basic techniques, line work with applications

This is a concept I have been working on for some time but I have not shared anything on my blog (or at least I don't think I have). We all do the line work: marching up and down the Dojang floor doing single techniques or combinations of single techniques. Often I think many instructors simply link whatever they feel like, or inherited combinations which does not work in real life. I think we can start raising the bar by either drilling techniques used in sport (footwork and competition style techniques), isolated basic techniques taken from Poomsae, sequences taken from Poomsae or as in this case our own string of basic techniques which learns different free flowing from one to the next, while working.

We did the following string of basic techniques:
From a fighting position we shift our weight forward throwing a cross (no pulling hand to the hip), we slide forward while chambering and doing the knife hand guarding block as we come forward. We then shift shift to long front stance and to a twisting outward knife hand block (as in taegeuk yuk jang) followed by a side kick. After moving up and down the Dojang a few times we partnered up and drilled the application for the sequence. This sequence does not appear in any Poomsae, it is simply my invention to teach stringing applications together, and it should only function as ONE EXAMPLE not the complete truth. It is like a finger pointing a way to the moon. Do not focus on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory (as Bruce Lee probably would have said :-P ).

We throw a punch, the punch is blocked by some kind of inward parry which connects on the outside of our punch. We slide forward, using the chamber to clear the limb and controlling, and flowing into a knife hand strike. This is blocked. We shift outward while clearing the limb with a twisting knife hand block, and finish by a low kick to the side of the opponents knee which takes the opponent down.

This kind of sequence demands a lot from teachers/instructors so I have no idea if this concept will ever catch on, but it was fun.

Day 2; The structure of Poomsae

Samir Bernardo from Brazil, and Giles Hopkins have both taught me a lot on the structure of Poomsae and Samir especially has forced me to rethink a lot of my ideas on Poomsae applications. People need to understand that there is a difference in saying a low block is just a movement with thousands of applications, so a low block in taegeuk il jang has a thousand applications, as well as a low block in taegeuk yuk jang has a thousand applications. The thing is that that is not the case. The poomsae are not the basic technique, the basic technique is one movement removed from the poomsae. The basic technique as a movement has a thousand applications by itself, but once you look at the poomsae you are forced to take a lot of stuff into account. The turn, the stance, what came before, what comes after. The application you chose should ideally fit in with everything in a logical manner and suddenly the applications for the low block in taegeuk il jang suddenly drop from thousands to just a single one or a handfull of them.

We started the day looking at how a Poomsae can be seen as a whole, or the structure. Dismantling it, and putting it back together. We then had an indepth look at Taegeuk il jang step by step and how it all fitted together. Next we had an indepth look at Taegeuk Sa Jang doing the flow drill which uses the structure of poomsae I explained to flow from one application to the next against one single opponent from start to finish. I have a lot of different applications to the single techniques that together makes this poomsae, but I have to chose one specific application/scenario for each of the techniques when looking at taegeuk sa jang for it to work as a coherent whole. That is what I mean by looking at the structure of Poomsae, moving from practical applications to the basic techniques to the practical applications of poomsae. And if you have not already I'd advise you to google Samir Bernardo as he does have a few clips on youtube now, and hopefully we will see more public stuff in the relative near future.

I will see if I can make a "contact me" page or something on this blog so it is easier to get in touch with me in the near future. In the mean time I am easily reached through my blogs facebook page where you can PM me. Usually I get in touch after a few hours if not right away :-)

Special thanks to Bojeon Taekwondo Klubb Kambo who hosted me, and gave me permission to use the pictures in this post :-) I had a great time and hope to see you all again :-)

Taekwondo Kwan history part 7: Choi Hong Hi and the Oh Do Kwan (and Book project revealed)

2025-08-12T13:21:00.002+02:00

At long last, here is the revelation I have been dying to reveal:

My (first ever) Book is LIVE :-D

Click here for amazon

I have not seen it myself yet, but Kindle and Paperback version of The Lost Forms of Oh Do Kwan Taekwondo Volume 1: Taegeuk 1-3 Hyeong is live. The series on Kwan history has all been from the introduction section of the book, with the meat of the book being the Taegeuk forms as practised in Oh Do Kwan and Chung Do Kwan (they practiced the same versions).

In 1959 Choi Hong Hi published the first ever book on Taekwondo called Taekwondo Kyobon or Textbook, where he among other things presents a lot of old Hyeong later phased out. Some he also included in the 1965 English language book, the Taegeuk forms did not make it into that one though meaning that for most people their practice was unknown.

I translated the forms for my own research, and wanted to share their story and make the material more available for English speaking people who might not even know that a 1959 Taekwondo Textbook even existed.

This is just Volume 1, and I seriously contemplated starting directly at the Pyeongahn or Heian forms instead. The Taegeuk are not flashy, or "exciting". They are fundamental movements taught to beginners. In the 1959 book appendix we find a grading diagram revealing all 3 Taegeuk was required at a students first belt promotion test. I do see the value of the basics and fundamentals however and since its not really a commercial project I decided to make it from the beginning anyway :-)

The "Oh Do Kwan" in the title is there because the main source material I am framing this series on is the 1959 Taekwondo Textbook, but it is not a Kukkiwon Taekwondo book, nor is it an ITF or Chang Hon Ryu Taekwon-Do book, it is for people interested in Taekwondo history and nerds like myself. In that spirit I have included Kwan variations that I could find documentation from:

Ji Do Kwan (Sihak Henry Cho 1970)
Mu Duk Kwan (Hwang Kee 1958)
Kang Duk Won (Park Chul Hee 1957)

And since I used Choi's book: Oh Do Kwan, and since Chung Do Kwan practiced the same version move for move Chung Do Kwan. In short most of the older Kwan are represented, the ones missing (like Song Mu Kwan) is not missing out of disrespect but because I could not find era-appropriate documentation in either English or Korean.

Below you can read the final excerpt from my book focusing on Choi Hong Hi and the Oh Do Kwan. Together in these 7 blog post series I have given away most of the introduction chapter, but there are a few goodies for those who buys the book itself: deep dive into the name Oh Do Kwan, as well as a discussion of the different Kwan variations and a deep dive into the alternative names for the same Taikyoku based foundation forms.

Quote from my book:

"CHOI HONG HI AND THE OH DO KWAN

Choi Hong Hi was born in 1918 in Yongwon Village, located in what is now North Korea. His father owned a brewery business, which made the family financially secure even during the otherwise harsh conditions of Japanese colonial rule. In 1930, Choi’s father paid a significant fee to Han Il Dong to provide Choi with instruction in the Chinese classics, calligraphy, and - according to some sources - the Korean art of Taekkyon. I say “some sources” because accounts vary: in some, Choi learned and mastered Taekkyon; in others, he only received a brief introduction or was shown a few basic kicks and evasions. Choi proved to be a diligent student under Han Il Dong, and the family eventually saved enough money to send him to Japan for higher education.

According to Choi’s own accounts, just days before he was scheduled to leave Korea in 1938, the 20-year-old Choi attended a card game where he lost most of the money set aside for his travel and tuition in Japan. Also present was a well-known wrestler named Haak Soon Huh, who had won the money from Choi. Suspecting he had been cheated, but knowing he couldn’t win in a physical confrontation, Choi pretended to leave the venue-only to return with a heavy ink bottle, which he threw at the wrestler, knocking him unconscious. He quickly retrieved his money and fled to Japan earlier than planned. Once there, fearing reprisal from the wrestler who had promised to break every bone in his body, Choi began training in martial arts to protect himself.

While studying in Kyoto, Choi found a fellow Korean named Kim Hyun Soo, a karate instructor who agreed to teach him. Motivated both by fear of reprisal and by the difficult conditions facing Koreans in Japan-who were often bullied and treated as second-class citizens-Choi devoted himself to karate training. He reportedly practiced obsessively, toughening his striking surfaces on trees, lamp posts, and other available materials. In one story, Choi claimed to have defended a friend from two bullies, knocking one unconscious with a punch and causing the other to flee. Later, he is said to have traveled to Tokyo, where he continued training at Chuo University and at the Tokyo YMCA Karate Club. He also visited the Shotokan dojo, home of Gichin Funakoshi´s Karate, though there is no evidence of prolonged formal study under Funakoshi himself.

According to Alex Gillis in Taekwondo: The Killing Art, when Choi returned to Korea in 1942, the wrestler who had previously threatened him observed him training from a distance. Choi was seen kicking and punching the air and reportedly breaking roof tiles with his bare hands. There was no confrontation between them. Choi had, in effect, defended himself from reprisal through visible skill and deterrence rather than violence.

Toward the end of World War II, Japan conscripted approximately 4,300 young Koreans into their army. In 1943, Choi Hong Hi was among them. Opposed to serving the Japanese, he and several others planned a mass desertion in 1944. However, the plan was betrayed by a fellow Korean, in what would later be referred to as the Pyongyang Incident. The group had intended to escape and join Korean guerrilla forces in the Baekdu Mountains to fight against the Japanese occupation, but instead Choi was arrested and imprisoned. He endured harsh treatment and poor living conditions while awaiting what he likely believed would be execution. To maintain his sanity, he practiced martial arts in his cell and during time in the prison yard. He was released in 1945 following Japan’s defeat and the end of the war. Upon returning to his village, Choi found it under communist control and, unwilling to remain there, relocated to Seoul. He became one of the first to enroll in the newly established Korean Military Academy-an American-supported institution created to help rebuild Korea and establish a modern national army.

In the years following World War II, Choi began exploring ways to transform the Japanese martial art he had studied into something uniquely Korean. At the time, he referred to what he taught as Tang Su Do or Kong Su Do, following the terminology widely used by Korean martial artists who had learned Karate in Japan. It was during this period that the first seeds of what would eventually be called Taekwondo were planted.

In 1950, war broke out between North Korea, supported by Communist China, and South Korea, backed by the United States. Choi Hong Hi rose quickly through the ranks and became a two-star general in 1952 at the age of 33. Although the war did not officially end, an armistice was signed in 1953, establishing a ceasefire. That same year, Choi was assigned to form and train the 29th Infantry Regiment on Jeju Island. To assist in martial arts instruction, he recruited Nam Tae Hi, a decorated war hero who, according to some sources, used his Tang Su Do skills to kill enemy combatants with his bare hands during the 1950 Battle of Incheon

Nam Tae Hi was born in 1929 and reportedly began martial arts training in response to bullying by Japanese students during the occupation period. He is said to have trained five days a week at the Chung Do Kwan under its founder, Lee Won Kuk. In 1953, he was summoned to Jeju Island to serve as the martial arts instructor under Choi Hong Hi, teaching Tang Su Do and other related skills to the soldiers of the 29th Infantry Regiment.

A year later, in 1954, President Syngman Rhee observed a demonstration by fifty soldiers who had been trained in Tang Su Do. The soldiers performed forms, sparring, self-defense against unarmed attacks, and defenses against weapons and bayonets. According to Alex Gillis, Nam Tae Hi and Han Cha Gyo also demonstrated the newly developed Hwarang Hyeong during this event, though I have not found independent historical confirmation of this claim. Hwarang is widely regarded as the first Korean-developed form, and it appears as one of five such forms in Choi’s 1959 textbook, but the exact date of its first public demonstration remains unclear. The finale of the demonstration was a breaking feat in which Nam Tae Hi broke thirteen roof tiles with his bare hand, an act that reportedly left President Rhee deeply impressed. Rhee is said to have referred to the martial art as “Taekkyon,” which created a problem for Choi. He had been teaching Tang Su Do, and what Rhee had seen was certainly not Taekkyon. Following the event, President Rhee ordered Choi to expand martial arts training to more soldiers.

That same year, 1954, the Oh Do Kwan was formally established in Kangwon Province as a training hall dedicated to martial arts practice. Choi Hong Hi was appointed as its head, with Nam Tae Hi serving as the primary instructor. Choi also became the honorary director of Chung Do Kwan, while the second Kwanjang (headmaster), Son Duk Sung, continued managing the school’s daily training. This arrangement positioned Oh Do Kwan as the martial arts school of the military and Chung Do Kwan as the school for civilians. It also meant that Son Duk Sung now had access to military resources, while Choi gained influence outside of the military through his connection to Chung Do Kwan.

In 1955, Choi proposed a new name for the martial art: Taekwondo. He ordered its use within the Oh Do Kwan, although Chung Do Kwan and other schools continued referring to their martial arts as Tang Su Do, Kong Su Do, or Kwon Bop. President Syngman Rhee was initially opposed to the new name, preferring the term Taekkyon. However, after lobbying efforts and committee discussions, he eventually accepted "Taekwondo" as the official name. In 1956, Choi left the army but continued to focus on developing Taekwondo, beginning work on a manuscript that would become the first book to feature Taekwondo in its title.

In 1959, Choi returned to military service and spearheaded the creation of a joint organization intended to unify and promote the various martial arts schools (Kwan) in Korea. This organization became known as the Korean Taekwondo Association (KTA), with Choi serving as its first president. That same year, he finally published the Taekwondo Gyo-bon (Taekwondo Textbook), the first official book to present the martial art under its new name.

The 1959 Taekwondo Textbook is a landmark publication. Although it was not the first Korean martial arts manual-Hwang Kee had already published books in 1949 and 1958-it was the first to explicitly present a martial art under the name "Taekwondo." Choi Hong Hi’s textbook included both traditional Karate-derived forms and newly developed Korean forms. The forms covered in this volume, such as the three Taegeuk Hyeong (derived from Taikyoku Kata), the five Pyeongahn (Heian/Pinan), the three Cheolgi (Tekki/Naihanchi), and Ban Wol Hyeong (Hangetsu or Seisan), are among the many Karate-based forms found in the book. Alongside these were five newly created Chang Hon Ryu forms: Hwarang, Ul-ji, Cheong-mu, Sam-il, and U-nam. These five constitute the complete set of Chang Hon Ryu forms found in the 1959 edition and were clearly intended for Dan-level practitioners, as indicated by the grading chart in the appendix. U-nam was named in honor of President Syngman Rhee’s pen name (U-nam), but the form was later removed from official practice, reportedly due to political reasons following Rhee’s fall from power. The remaining four continue to be practiced in the modern ITF system. “Chang Hon” was Choi’s pen name, and the name eventually adopted for his style.

The years 1960 and 1961 were politically turbulent for South Korea. In 1960, President Syngman Rhee resigned and went into exile following the student-led April Revolution. The following year, on May 16th, the military seized control in a coup, bringing Park Chung Hee to power. According to Alex Gillis in Taekwondo: The Killing Art, Choi and Park had crossed paths earlier. Park had been a Japanese collaborator during the colonial period, and Choi was reportedly among those who voted for his execution 13 years earlier. Culturally, it is possible that Choi viewed Park as a junior in social status, despite Park being one year older. Choi had entered the Korean Military Academy before Park began his own studies there. By this time, Choi had already coined the term “Taekwondo” as the name for a unified Korean martial art, but many of the other kwan headmasters were hesitant to adopt it. They petitioned instead for the term “Tae Su Do,” which was approved by President Park that same year. The name “Tae Su Do” was reportedly proposed by Yun Kwae Byung as a compromise, combining the “Tae” of Taekwondo and the “Su” of Tang Su Do and Kong Su Do.

Possibly due to the political shift and the perception that Choi Hong Hi might pose a threat to President Park’s authority, Choi was effectively sidelined in 1962 when he was appointed South Korea’s ambassador to Malaysia. While stationed there, he began teaching Taekwondo and is credited with founding what may have been the first Taekwondo association outside of Korea. That same year, Nam Tae Hi was deployed to South Vietnam to instruct military personnel in martial arts. Having received substantial support from the United States during the Korean War, South Korea now returned the favor by supporting U.S. operations during the Vietnam War. In Vietnam, a separate Taekwondo association was also established.

During his time as ambassador, Choi continued to develop Taekwondo. He focused on creating new Chang Hon Ryu forms and began drafting what would become the first English-language book on Taekwondo. Alongside his diplomatic duties, he taught and trained Taekwondo actively until his return to Korea in late 1964.

In 1965, Choi Hong Hi was elected president of the Korean Tae Su Do Association and successfully lobbied for a return to the name “Taekwondo.” That same year marked the publication of the first English-language book on Taekwondo: Tae Kwon Do: The Art of Self-Defense. This book reintroduced many Karate-derived forms, now using Japanese names instead of the Koreanized names found in the 1959 publication. Notably, despite the overlap in content, the three Taegeuk Hyeong forms from 1959 were omitted from the 1965 book. The number of Chang Hon Ryu forms had grown significantly-from five in 1959 to twenty in 1965-still four short of the final total of twenty-four, which later came to symbolize the 24 hours of a day. Some Oh Do Kwan dojang continue to teach only the twenty forms listed in the 1965 edition.

Another major development in 1965 was the World Ace Demonstration Tour, led by Choi Hong Hi. Although Taekwondo associations already existed outside Korea, they were primarily located in Asia. This tour marked the first major introduction of Taekwondo to the West, outside of the limited military context of the Vietnam War. Copies of Choi’s 1965 English-language book were distributed, new international Taekwondo associations were established, and the demonstration team gained near-legendary status within the Taekwondo community. Meanwhile, in Korea, Kwan representatives began discussing the development of new forms. Since the Chang Hon Ryu forms had been created within the Oh Do Kwan and the military, there was a growing desire for forms that reflected input from all schools. Representatives from all Kwan within the KTA formed a joint committee to begin this development process.

In 1966, Choi Hong Hi stepped down from the presidency of the Korea Taekwondo Association (KTA). Key figures such as Lee Chong Woo and Ro Byung Jik assisted Choi in establishing a new international organization-the International Taekwon-Do Federation (ITF)-with Choi serving as its founding president, a role he would hold until his death in 2002. That same year, a significant number of students from Mu Duk Kwan and Ji Do Kwan joined the KTA. These two Kwan had previously remained outside the KTA structure and had been organized under Hwang Kee’s Su Bahk Do Association, which had been established shortly after the KTA's founding in 1959.

In 1967, the KTA officially introduced the Palgwe forms for colored belts, along with a set of black belt poomsae. Since Ji Do Kwan and Mu Duk Kwan had not participated in the development of these new forms, the KTA formed a new expanded committee that included representatives from both Kwan to ensure broader consensus.

In 1972, the modern Taegeuk Poomsae 1 through 8 and a new version of the Koryo form were formally introduced by the KTA. The original Taegeuk Hyeong-widely practiced during the 1960s-had remained in use up until 1971, with at least two of them reportedly taught before Palgwe 1 Jang in the curriculum. With the release of the new Taegeuk series, the earlier Taegeuk Hyeong 1–3 was removed from KTA usage and phased out.

Due to escalating political tensions in South Korea-most notably between Choi Hong Hi and President Park Chung Hee-both Choi and his close associate Nam Tae Hi relocated to Toronto, Canada, in 1972. They brought the International Taekwon-Do Federation (ITF) with them, effectively removing the KTA’s international representation and operations. In response, the Korea Taekwondo Association moved to establish a new global organization, resulting in the founding of the World Taekwondo Federation (WTF) in 1973, which today is known as World Taekwondo (WT)."

I really hope you enjoyed the series and if this is a project you want to see fulfilled and support please consider buying a copy of the full book (either Kindle or Paperback)

O:-)

Link to buy the book

PS: use your "local" amazon to get it as cheap as possible. If you are in Norway and use the .com USA one you will pay around 60 USD for a 16 USD book. In that case Sweden (.se) or Germany (.de) is a lot cheaper and faster.

Thank you for your support.

Taekwondo Kwan history part 6: Ro Byung Jik and the Song Mu Kwan

2025-08-01T05:00:00.001+02:00

This is part 6 of the Taekwondo Kwan history blog series. So far I have covered Chun Sang Sup, Yun Kwae Byung, Yun Byung In, Hwang Kee, Lee Won Kuk and now Ro Byung Jik. All of the blog posts in this series build directly from my upcoming secret book which does focus on a single Kwan, but none of the ones that we have covered so far. So which one is it? I still will not say, but I am sure many readers can now make a very educated guess as we have eliminated Yun Mu Kwan, Ji Do Kwan, YMCA Kwon Bop Bu (and Chang Mu Kwan/ Kang Duk Won), Mu Duk Kwan, Chung Do Kwan and today Song Mu Kwan. Like the other blog posts this one is rather short since I wanted to introduce the different major Kwan (schools), their founders and their martial roots, but they are not the focus of the book. Material on them are needed however to give historical context. I do hope you enjoy reading this series, and in the next part I will reveal the secret book project, the supersecret Kwan in great detail (since the book is really about one specific Kwan) and let the cat out of the bag. Hopefully the book will be fully formated and ready to be published by the time you read the next blog post in this series. In a way I will have given away much of the two first chapters of the book for free when you have read the next "episode", but I have always felt that knowledge is not something one should hoard or gatekeep and especially when it comes to the martial arts. Anyway, if you are curious to read on about Ro Byung Jik and his Song Mu Kwan here is the chance :-)

Quote from the introduction section of my upcoming secret book:

"Ro Byung Jik and the Song Mu Kwan

After returning to Korea, Ro made several attempts to establish a martial arts school, beginning around 1944–1945. His efforts met with limited success at first, but after the Korean War, he began to gain traction—especially as American military personnel began training at his dojang. This post-war period marked the real emergence of his school, which he named the Song Mu Kwan (송무관, 松武館).

According to A Modern History of Taekwondo by Kang and Lee, training in the Song Mu Kwan under Ro began with weight training and hundreds of repetitions on the striking board (dallyeon ju, also known as makiwara), even before formal instruction began. Ro emphasized strong basics and disciplined repetition—an approach that echoes the intense, foundational training style of Yoshitaka Funakoshi, known for elevating the athletic and combative intensity of Karate in the 1930s and ’40s.

The name Song Mu Kwan is composed of:

• Song (松) meaning “pine tree,”

• Mu (武) meaning “martial,”

• Kwan (館) meaning “school” or “hall.”

Interestingly, the Song (Sho in Japanese) is the same character used in Shotokan (松濤館)—possibly a deliberate nod to Ro’s roots in Shotokan Karate, reflecting both reverence for his lineage and a desire to localize that identity within Korea." End quote

There is actually some debate in Korea as to who opened up the first Kwan, seeing as the first one to open would be the eldest and therefore given the most honor. I believe it was Lee Won Kuk who opened up a lasting Dojang first in 1944 but I do know that if you count the first tries of Ro as the founding of Song Mu Kwan even if the first tries did not last Ro´s Song Mu Kwan might actually be the oldest Kwan. Personally I find that less interesting than the facts surrounding his life, his experience prior to opening the Kwan and to make the history a living thing. It is one thing to read about years, dates and names, it is another to take that information and picture how all of this played out in real life. What forms were they practising, how did they spar, what kind of training equipment did they use? Etc. Anyway I do hope you have enjoyed the series so far, and I also hope that you are excited about the next "episode" or part where more is revealed and more indepth information regarding the Kwan that the book project is centered on.

This blog is a labor of love — if it brought you insight or inspiration, I’d be honored if you’d consider supporting my work on Patreon. www.patreon.com/traditionaltaekwondoramblings Every donation really really helps :-)

Click here for the last part of this series

Taekwondo Kwan history part 5: Lee Won Kuk and Chung Do Kwan

2025-07-22T05:00:00.004+02:00

This is part 5 of a blog post series that is based on the introduction section in a book project which focuses on one Kwan, but it is relevant to know something of all the other major Kwan as well :-) I have therefore been forced to keep it brief for the Kwan that I am not focusing on, so the Kwan I am focusing on can be more indepth. I have been a little coy on what I am working on because it is very very niche and I am having such a fun time making you all guess. Its easier now that we have covered 5 though, it is not Yun Mu Kwan, Ji Do Kwan, Chang Mu Kwan, Mu Duk Kwan or Chung Do Kwan. So which is it? I will still not tell you :-P But I want to share the essiential points on Lee Won Kuk and the Kwan he founded; The Chung Do Kwan. Lee is as all the other Kwan founders a very interesting and special individual, but a few things makes him stand out: He is the first Korean to open up a "Karate Kwan" in Korea (Chung Do Kwan was opened in 1944), he is credited of being the first to add the "Do"-suffix to Tang Su, creating the full term Tang Su Do, and under his leadership the Chung Do Kwan became one of the biggest martial arts schools in korea before the Korean war. He was also among the absolutely first ones to study Karate in Japan, meaning even by Japanese standards he was an early Karate student... I hope you enjoy reading about him and his school :-)

Quote from my super secret book project that is not about Chung Do Kwan:

"Lee Won Kuk and the Chung Do Kwan

Lee Won Kuk is widely credited as being the first Korean martial artist to use the full term Tang Su Do (당수도, 唐手道), by adding the philosophical suffix Do (도, 道) — “the Way” — to Tang Su, the Korean pronunciation of To-de (or Kara-te) meaning “China Hand.” This usage reflects the early terminology of Karate, which originally referred to itself as To-de (“Chinese Hand”) before Funakoshi popularized the homonym Karate (空手), meaning “Empty Hand,” in the 1930s.

As a result, in early Korean martial arts circles, terms like Tang Su Do and Kong Su Do were used — both being alternate Korean readings of the same characters used in Japanese Karate-Do (空手道). These were not different martial arts, but alternative names for the same system, rooted in Japanese Karate.

Leadership of Chung Do Kwan was passed on to his student Son Duk Sung, who became the second Kwanjang (관장, Headmaster) after Lee’s departure." End quote

There is a lot more to say about the Chung Do Kwan that did not make it into the book, and I could possibly make a whole article on Son Duk Sung alone as he too is a very interesting character in Taekwondo history. I actually have two books authored by Son Duk Sung in my collection, which I regard as my window into Chung Do Kwan seeing as he was the 2nd Kwangjang of that school. In the books he covers the Karate derived forms like pyongahn, cheolgi, palsaek/bassai etc, and he also covers traditional training methods you do not often see in modern taekwondo. It is fascinating to compare one Kwan´s forms to other schools forms. Even if the forms are the same there are differences.

Click here to go directly to part 6

Taekwondo Kwan history part 4: Hwang Kee and Mu Duk Kwan

2025-07-15T05:00:00.003+02:00

This is part four of my blog series on Taekwondo Kwan history based on the introduction section of my super secret book project, which will focus on one Kwan, but knowing about the major Kwan is still important. So far we have covered Chun Sang Sup and Yun Mu Kwan, Yun Kwae Byung and Ji Do Kwan and Yun Byung In and YMCA Kwon Bop Bu. All three individuals never had any ties to Shotokan Karate it seems, and they are all kinda related in that they all worked together at Yun Mu Kwan at various points and quite possibly they trained and studied together in Japan. Hwang Kee which we will focus on today is a very unique individual in that he never studied Karate in Japan. He said he learned Taekyon by observation and copying in his youth, he then learned martial arts in China before going back to Korea and picking up Karate forms from various sources there. One auther called Hwang Kee a grandmaster in reverse, which I kinda liked. He did not seem to have much formal martial arts education when he first founded his Kwan around 1945, but he learned a lot from many different sources over time. It is difficult to keep posts about the Kwan founders short as there is so much I want to include, but then again challenging myself to be brief is a good way to test and see what is essential to keep in. I do hope you get some value from this series :-) If you want to learn more on Hwang Kee and Mu Duk Kwan feel free to click read more and read on ;-)

Quote from supersecret book project introduction section:

"Hwang Kee and the Mu Duk Kwan

Following Korea’s liberation in 1945, Hwang opened his martial arts school, naming it Mu Duk Kwan (무덕관, 武德館) — “School of Martial Virtue.” Initially, he taught a system heavily influenced by Chinese martial arts, which he called Hwa Su Do (화수도, 花手道) — “Flower Hand Way.” However, this name confused many Koreans, who were more familiar with established martial arts terms like Tang Su Do, Kong Su Do, and Kwon Bup. Some sources say that Lee Won Kuk, founder of Chung Do Kwan, advised Hwang to adopt a more familiar name. Whether true or not, Hwang soon changed the name of his art to Tang Su Do (당수도, 唐手道), meaning “China Hand Way.”

There are also unverified accounts that Hwang briefly trained at Chung Do Kwan, though this remains unclear. What is certain is that after adopting the Tang Su Do label, he began teaching a curriculum incorporating several Karate Hyeong (Kata). Hwang claimed to have learned these forms from books — likely those authored by Gichin Funakoshi — which helped formalize his instructional system.

Eventually, Hwang Kee emigrated to the United States, where he continued to promote and teach his martial art until his death in 2002." End quote

I have access to his 1958 Tang Su Do textbook (korean language) and there are some wonderful material in it, both when it comes to philosophy and theory but also in techniques, forms and sparring and self defense. If you get the impression that he lacked formal training, which is an often directed critisism of him, I would say based on that book alone that he was no better or worse than others in his time. I said someone called him a grandmaster in reverse, and I think that by 1958 he knew a lot if he didnt already when he first opened Mu Duk Kwan.

Click here to go directly to part 5

Taekwondo Kwan history part 3: Yun Byung In and YMCA Kwon Bup Bu

2025-07-08T05:00:00.001+02:00

This is part 3 of a blog post series that is based on a secret book project I am working on. In this series I have quoted from my introduction section of the book and I am looking BRIEFLY into the major schools that were founded between 1944-1955, their founders and their roots. This time we are looking into Yun Byung In, whose lineages include Chang Mu Kwan and Kang Duk Won, Pasa Ryu and Chayon Ryu among others. The man who has done perhaps the most to preserve his teachings in modern time is GM Kim Soo in his Chayon Ryu, and it is also thanks to him that we even know what happened to Yun Byung In after the Korean war. The blog post is brief, there is a lot of stuff that could have been said but did not make the cut when you try to be economical with words, something I struggle a lot with and it was a fun challenge to try to boil the story of a Kwan founder down to rougly 1/2 a page. If I publish the stuff I have written on the Kwan that I am focusing on I think you will forgive my brief handling of the other Kwan. For now you can guess which Kwan is the mysterious Kwan I am focusing my super secret book project on. It will be easier to guess the more blog posts I publish I guess :-P Spoiler: It is not Yun Mu Kwan, Ji Do Kwan, or Yun Byung In lineage Kwan ;-) For now, sit down, relax with a good cup of tea and read a brief (but as accurate to my abilities I could get it) summary of Yun Byung In, his roots and his legacy.

"Yun Byung In and the YMCA Kwon Bup Bu

Tragically, Yun disappeared during the Korean War (1950–1953). It was later discovered that he had been taken to North Korea, where he reportedly died in 1983.

Despite his absence, Yun Byung In’s teachings lived on. His school would go on to give rise to two important postwar Kwans: Chang Mu Kwan and Kang Duk Won — both of which continued to carry elements of his unique blend of Chinese and Japanese martial influences." End quote

I did not include any speculation on his chinese martial art, nor did I include how he organised shoes as a way to prove his good attitude to get into said school, nor the loss of his fingers which is the origin of the white gloves often worn in Yun Byung In lineage schools by instructors when they teach, etc. I often think that many of these men should have their own biopics and I hope that some day we get movies in the same wane as Fighter in the wind got (founder of Kyojushinkai). There is so much material to work with, so many fights, arguments, adversity and interesting history. Even when you shorten everything down to just 1/2 a page you get the sense of great men and great legacies.

Click here to go directly to part 4

Taekwondo Kwan history part 2: Yun Kwae Byung and the Ji Do Kwan

2025-07-01T05:03:00.003+02:00

This is the second blog post that is based upon a history part of the introduction in my mysterious book project. I challenged myself to keep each Kwan history brief because while a little relevant, the focus on the book lies within a single Kwan, so I wanted to give a general overview and then in a seperate section go deep and wide into that particular Kwan´s history. Since we starte part 1 with Chun Sang Sup and his Yun Mu Kwan Kong Su Do Bu, I feel that it is only right to continue with Yun Kwae Byung and his Ji Do Kwan which came from the Yun Mu Kwan. When Chun Sang Sup dissapeared during the Korean war (1950-53) it was Yun Kwae Byung who picked up the pieces and reopened the school under the new name Ji Do Kwan. Like Chun, Yun Kwae Byung is also often overlooked in modern Taekwondo history, which I feel is a shame because he is a very interesting figure to research. I think some of the reason for his absence in modern taekwondo history is due to his work along with Hwang Kee in the Su Bahk Do Association, an association which gave the early Korean Taekwondo Association (KTA) strong competition for several years. The blog post might be brief, but the information within it is hopefully great :-)

"Yun Kwae Byung and Ji Do Kwan

Yun Kwae Byung was born in 1922, making him slightly younger than Chun Sang Sup. Like Chun, he traveled to Japan to pursue his education, first studying Shito Ryu Karate under Kenwa Mabuni while attending Osaka Secondary School. He later began studying Shudokan Karate under Toyama Kanken at Nihon University, where he earned instructor certification — making him at least a 4th dan in Shudokan at the time.

Teaching and operating school in Japan!

In 1945, Yun helped establish a sister school to Toyama’s Shudokan called the Kanbukan, which would later be renamed the Renbukan in 1950. The Kanbukan was notable for offering training to both Korean and Japanese students and quickly became a hub for innovation in sparring methods. It was one of the earliest schools to experiment with protective equipment and continuous sparring — a tradition the later Ji Do Kwan would also become known for.

Return home

He would go on to work closely with another major figure, Hwang Kee, in the postwar martial arts revival. However, after 1966, Yun gradually stepped back from active teaching and turned his attention toward business. His passing in 2000 went largely unnoticed in the wider Taekwondo community, despite his foundational contributions to the art." End quote.

I do hope you enjoy this walk through the history of the early schools of Taekwondo. I tried keeping this brief, but if I ever get around to making a book specifically on something Ji Do Kwan I will expand a lot on this :-) Right now my research focus lies a little elsewhere ;-)

Click here to go directly to part 3

Taekwondo Kwan history part 1; Chun Sang Sup and Yun Mu Kwan

2025-06-25T13:38:00.003+02:00

While waiting for an oppertunity to retake photos and take new photos for new material for my upcoming ABCs of Practical Poomsae applications I kinda started with a smaller book project which is also coming along nicely. I will keep the cards tight to my chest for the time being, but I am working a different way on this one, writing it from scratch and trying to format it and polish it as I go rather than the way I did with the ABCs of Practical Poomsae applications which has grown to about 125 pages manuscript but has yet to be formatted. Anyhow, as part of this smaller book project which is veeeeeeeery niche and I doubt it will see much, I decided that for the introduction part I needed to mention and give a brief overview on each of the major Kwan or schools that opened up from 1944-1950s. It was grueling work because I needed to re-evaluate what I know, new sources has been made available and in some cases I really had to change what I believed. This post which focuses on Chun Sang Sup is a very good example of this since I was told and read that he trained in Shotokan Karate under Gichin Funakoshi, that he taught Shotokan Kata, and that Yun Kwae Byung when he reopened it as Ji Do Kwan continued teaching the Shotokan forms despite him not being of Shotokan lineage. Modern Ji Do Kwan schools do in some cases teach Shotokan Kata as their heirloom forms, but the few people I that I reached out to who actually answered admitted that they read the same as I did, and went out and learned Shotokan Kata and taught them as Ji Do Kwan Hyeong. This is what happens when we make assumptions about history, and I am betting that all this info about Chun practising Shotokan comes from one work which has influenced writers all over the place.

The other thing that made this difficult was that I decided to keep each Kwan history brief, and if you know anything about me, making me write or talk about Taekwondo history is to open up the flood gates. I never shut up or stop writing:-P So if this has intrigued you click the read more button to read a short summary of Chun Sang Sup´s history and the founding of the Yun Mu Kwan Kong Su Do Bu.

The following quote is directly from the introduction to my super secret book project:

"Chun Sang Sup and Yun Mu Kwan

Chun returned to Korea near the end of World War II and began practicing Judo at Yun Mu Kwan. In 1946, he was invited to teach Karate at the school and established the Yun Mu Kwan Kong Su Do Bu (윤무관 공수도부, 潤武館空手道部), meaning “Karate division of Yun Mu Kwan.” Tragically, Chun disappeared during the Korean War (1950–1953) and was never heard from again.

Despite his disappearance, Yun Mu Kwan played a pivotal role in the development of Taekwondo. It later gave rise to two influential Kwans: Ji Do Kwan and Han Mu Kwan." End quote.

Chun Sang Sup has intrigued me for decades, seeing as I have a direct link back to the Ji Do Kwan (and therefore Yun Mu Kwan) through one of my teachers. He founded a Kwan, yet we know so very little. Kang & Lee in their Modern History Of Taekwondo mentions he was an intellectual who almost always wore suits, they also mention a tight bond and friendship between him and Yun Byung In. Still we can read much on all the other Kwan founders, yet there is so little on Chun that I am starting to suspect that there might be a reason for the little material we have on him. Seeing as I have no evidence of my suspicions I will keep them to my self, but I will say that when topics or people are almost actively "silenced" about in Korean culture there is often a reason for it.

Anyway, what I originally learned about Chun studying Shotokan is almost certainly false information, so I thought I could open up with this one and see if I could rectify the situation. This version here also neatly explains the trio of Chun, Yun and Yun working together as they all likely practised with Toyama Kanken and or Kenwa Mabuni. Having studied in the same area under the same teacher(s) it is not a coincidence that Yun Byung In helped teach at the Yun Mu Kwan, nor his close friendship with Chun, nor is it strange that Yun Kwae Byung took over the mantle as Kwanjang and reopened the school as Ji Do Kwan after the Korean war. It also explains why the Ji Do Kwan version of the old Taegeuk Hyeong (NOT POOMSAE) was so different to Shotokan´s Taikyoku Kata when if Chun did practise at Shotokan you would believe it would be identical or at least very similar to Shotokan Taikyoku Kata. I now believe that the forms practised in Yun Mu Kwan and later in Ji Do Kwan might have been much closer to Shito Ryu Kata or Shudokan Kata than Shotokan. This might not matter to many, but for someone trying to research the roots of Taekwondo and maybe get a sense of what was practised in the older Kwan it matters greatly.

Click here to go directly to part 2

Traditional Taekwondo Ramblings

Kwan Heon - A closer look at Kwan creeds of early Taekwondo part 7.2: Ji Do Kwan

Ji Do Kwan Members Pledge

Original English text transcribed from the original document (1971):

Unfortunately the picture quality of the original document was so grainy and poor that I just do not dare to transcribe the original language text and analyze it, so we will have to make due with what we do have which is the English version.

Analysis of the Ji Do Kwan Crest based on oral explanation

(Image Source)

What was the Yeon Mu Kwan philosophy and why do I think so?

Kwan "Heon" or Kwan "Hun"?

The meaning and difference between "Heon" and "Hun"

Kwan Heon - A closer look at Kwan creeds of early Taekwondo part 7.1: Ji Do Kwan

Ji Do Kwan Creed

The Creed is only half the story: The 8 fold path

1. 정견(正見): 바르게 보기 View Rightly / Right Understanding

2. 정사유(正思惟) · 정사(正思): 바르게 생각하기 Think Rightly / Right Intention

3. 정어(正語): 바르게 말하기 Speak Rightly / Right Speech

4. 정업(正業): 바르게 행동하기 Act Rightly / Right Conduct

7. 정념(正念): 바르게 깨어 있기 Be Mindful Rightly / Right Mindfulness

8. 정정(正定): 바르게 삼매(집중)하기 Focus Rightly / Right Concentration

Carefully transcribed from the original picture:

八聖道精神 THE SPIRIT OF THE EIGHT MANNERS OF SOLEMNITY

# - Hanja - Hangul - Original English translation

Balsaek - Bassai a peculiar movement discussion

The Technique / Movement in question:

How did Funakoshi teach it? (1920s)

How did Funakoshi teach it? (1935)

How did Funakoshi teach it? (1958)

Bassai into Balsaek, from Japan to Korea

How did Hwang Kee teach it? (1958)

How did Choi teach it? (1959)

How did Choi teach it? (1965)

How did Son Duk Sung teach it? (1968)

The Korean "Connective Tissue"

Conclusion

Kwan Heon - A closer look at Kwan creeds of early Taekwondo part 6: Han Mu Kwan

Yeon Mu Kwan and Chun Sang Sup

Han Mu Kwan History

Han Mu Kwan Creed

Conclusion

Early Taekwondo was just Shotokan (it was and it wasn't)

The Korean Pioneers did not study modern JKA Shotokan Karate

Yoshitaka "Gigo" Funakoshi was the real teacher

The Korean "Shotokan" schools

Song Mu Kwan

Chung Do Kwan

Oh Do Kwan

Maybe Funakoshi-lineage school or ....?

Yeon Mu Kwan

Han Mu Kwan

Mu Duk Kwan

No obvious Funakoshi-lineage

Ji Do Kwan

Chang Mu Kwan and Kang Duk Won

Summary of schools:

All Kwan taught Shotokan Kata, or did they?

Conclusion:

Kwan Heon - A closer look at Kwan creeds of early Taekwondo part 5: Mu Duk Kwan

"Hwang Kee and the Mu Duk Kwan

The Ten Core Precepts of Mu Duk Kwan (From page 24, Hwang Kee 1958)

Commentary/ Conclusion 10 Precepts:

Translation challenges:

Confucian influence?:

The relationships covered in the 10 precepts are (following Hwang Kee):

The classical Confucian philosophy is said to be structured around the 5 relationships:

"Hwarang-Do" or Hwarangheun Sesok Ohgye (화랑혼 세속오계 / 花郞魂 世俗五戒) influence?

5 Essential Elements and key points

Key Points (this one goes over to page 25 in the 1958 Texbook at #4, if you follow the original picture)

Projecting modern training experience backwards in time is a real problem...

The Hyper-specific example technique

Karate Chamber

Taekwondo Chamber

The assumption

The messy reality

Kwan-era Taekwondo grappling, was that a thing?

Conclusion

How do we know what we think we know? A good old rambling from Traditional Taekwondo Ramblings

Kwan Heon - A closer look at Kwan creeds of early Taekwondo part 4: Chang Mu Kwan

Kwan Heon - A closer look at Kwan creeds of early Taekwondo part 3: Kang Duk Won

Original text

Kwan Heon - A closer look at Kwan creeds of early Taekwondo part 2: Song Mu Kwan

"Hwarang-Do" or Hwarangheun Sesok Ohgye (화랑혼 세속오계 / 花郞魂世俗五戒) influence?