Talk:Yun Mu Kwan

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) --S. W. Mirsky 19:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I had planned to take this article down because it seemed to have met with such a poor reception from wiki editors here. However, having had some time today and seeing that this article is still in place, though listed now for accelerated deletion, I figured I'd have one last go at it. I have removed all but two of the controversial YouTube links (which continue to seem important to me as demonstrations of what is being referred to and not as sources for the veracity of the statements made). I have also added some documentation on various elements which I have found on the Internet and which seem to me to be reasonably credible based on their coherence with other known facts and their authors' credentials.

It should be noted that "Yun Mu Kwan" is the name of one of the five original Korean styles of karate which were eventually rolled up into modern taekwondo. But, because Yun Mu Kwan was only "in business" for a few years (from its establishment as a karate school in 1946 until its shutdown due to the Korean War which began in 1950 and ended in 1953) it's half-life in its original form was very short. With the disappearance of its founder in the War, and its reconstitution under new teachers and a new name after the War, the style seems to have faded from early Korean karate history.

Nevertheless, the name persists in many venues today. Mostly, it names a style of Korean karate which tracks the practices and standards of modern taekwondo but not exclusively so. Because there is such a brief history, there is a paucity of information on this style of martial art. However, it is undeniable that it did exist (it's named in too many different sources to be anything other than genuine) and that it persists in certain quarters today. Therefore I undertook to write about this style of karate, hoping to fill a gap in general public knowledge.

My interest in it arises because, after studying Shotokan karate (a Japanese style) in my youth and Moo Duk Kwan taekwondo (a Korean variant of Shotokan), I went on to take up Yun Mu Kwan -- and its history, lost in the mists of time, has fascinated me since then. Accordingly, I have dug deeply into the available material on the style to develop the information used for this article. If others here don't think it's worthwhile, then by all means let's speedily delete it. There's no sense dragging this out. But if others think the information I've put together is reliable, does not amount to any sort of special pleading on my part and generally adds something to the body of information available on the subject of the Asian martial arts, then please feel free to weigh in and assist me in completing this entry.

(Note that, after deleting the subject article from my sandbox page (because of its repeated rejections), I posted a shorter, somewhat different version in hopes that it would meet with a better reception but, because I had continued to use YouTube links extensively to illustrate statements I had made, albeit not to document their veracity, it did not. So there is, on wiki, at least one other entry headed Yun Mu Kwan, by me. If THAT is the reason people here want to delete this one, I will not object, however this version is the more detailed and fuller article and, on my view, between the two, is the better one.)

Thank you.

S. W. Mirsky 19:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swmirsky (talk • contribs)

Article acceptance

Fair enough - I saw the draft and frankly, I think the editors got it right. That said, many times reactions tend to be reactionary and something that fits better into what wikipedia is has a much better chance of getting initial acceptance. I flagged this as a speedy delete because it looked like an end run around the submission process. I am going to remove the tag for now and give a couple of suggestions. My idea is to get it to a level where it wont be open to reactionary deletion and secondly fit in better with the purpose of wikipedia.

1. Get rid of all YouTube entries. Later on one or two can be added for illustrative purposes but right now it makes the article look like any number of obscure martial arts posting nothing but video links. They are a horror. What you need are reliable third party sources - that has been explained to you but think Newspaper good, Youtube bad.

2. These articles are NOT stand alone. It is not necessary to repeat all the history of karate, (China, Okinawa, Japan, Korea) that is what wikilinks are for. You have articles on Jidokwan, Shotokan, Karate repeating the detail in them is painful. Discussing how Yun Mu Kwan karate fits in is what the article should be about. Is Yun Mu Kwan karate that different from Yun Moo Kwan already discussed in the Jidokwan article. In fact my question is how is Yun Mu Kwan different from Jidokwan - that certainly is not clear.

I hope this helps. I can not guarantee that the changes will result in acceptance - notability is the key. However, it is just as easy to loose notability in a swamp of text than too little content.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I see your point and have made some changes in keeping with your suggestions. I don't think notability is a problem with Yun Mu Kwan. It's a real style of Korean karate, one of the five original styles as amply attested in all the literature. It is certainly no less notable than any of the others. The problem with it lies in its peculiar history, i.e., it, alone, of all the five original kwans got shut down and restarted under a different name with different teachers, etc. Yet Yun Mu Kwan persists to the present day and I can attest from my own experience with it, that it is very much alive and active, even today. Whether this is a case of shared names only or an actual lineage is what interests me. As near as I can tell, there are styles of Korean karate today that trace their history back to Yun Mu Kwan and, certainly, there are those martial arts schools using the name (though they are fewer in North America than, apparently, in Latin America). Anyway, I've taken your advice and sliced away some of the history (perhaps I can still slice some more -- will look at it again tomorrow) and removed the last offending YouTube videos. As I said, there is a paucity of material on Yun Mu Kwan but what I have found on it is remarkably consistent (with allowance for some details) and much of it is locatable on-line. However, among the sources I've used are some pages from Black Belt magazine, an article from Popular Science from the mid 1960's and a couple of on-line articles which address the historical issues.

S. W. Mirsky 19:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swmirsky (talk • contribs)

Oh yes, to answer your question about the differences between "Yun Mu Kwan," Yun Moo Kwan," "Yeonmuguan," and "Yonmuguan," all name the same style, a variant of Shotokan karate taught in Korea between 1946 and 1950 by Chun Sang Sup. The brief reference to "Yun Moo Kwan" on the Jidokwan page acknowledges this link, which I hope to have provided more detail on. If Yun Mu Kwan had simply died out, it would warrant no more than an historical footnote I think, but in fact it has not died out, despite the changeover to Jidokwan around 1950 (with Jidokwan itself then being absorbed into the new unified Korean martial sport of taekwondo between 1955 and the early 1960's). Jidokwan today is a name some taekwondo schools still use though what they practice is the standardized form of sport combat developed in Korea in the mid fifties/early sixties. Yun Mu Kwan, on the other hand, is practiced by some who follow the taekwondo standards and some who don't.

S. W. Mirsky 20:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swmirsky (talk • contribs)

I see reference to the article's having a possibly inappropriate tone for wikipedia. Can someone clarify what the concern is so I can address? I read the link on tone but don't see the connection yet to the Yun Mu Kwan article. Also, when I put the article up I titled it "Yun Mu Kwan karate" but I think this isn't quite right after seeing how the other Korean styles are named on wiki. But I can't figure out how to remove the "karate" from the title. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

S. W. Mirsky 14:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swmirsky (talk • contribs)

Those tags are usually to flag where help is necessary - don't worry too much about them. The article as it stands reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedic entry - if you can adjust it great, if not maybe someone else will. The more important tag is orphan - you need to integrate your article better into the wikipedia whole. No other articles refer to yours. With respect to the rename - that is easy. In the top right corner of the page see More --> Move. Just give the new name there.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

In trying to remove the orphan status I tried to link appropriate articles (where "Yun Moo Kwan" is mentioned) but, because of the English spelling which I used, the variant with which I am most familiar, the links don't work.

When I tried to change the spelling up top to the more common one on wiki, "Yun Moo Kwan," it would not go through because there is apparently a re-direct on that name to the Jidokwan page.

One of the issues, and the reason for my preparing a separate article, is that Jidokwan, while history shows it was established by students from the old Yun Mu Kwan some time after the disappearance of their original teacher Chun Sang Sup, is not really the same thing as Yun Mu Kwan. It was set up under a new teacher, who had trained in a different Japanese style (Shudokan as taught by Kanken Toyama, according to some of the information I've seen) and who relocated and renamed the style. The main connection with the old Yun Moo Kwan seems to be that many of the same students were involved in the transition. So the Jidokwan that later became part of taekwondo is not the same as today's Yun Mu Kwan insofar as it traces its roots back to Chun Sang Sup.

There's also some evidence that there may have actually been more than one Yun Moo Kwan (using the more common spelling) in Korea before the establishment of taekwondo in fact (which I refer to in the Yun Mu Kwan article) and there are still schools extant today teaching Korean karate under the Yun Mu Kwan name.

While it's not entirely clear how all these relate, one of the purposes of the article was to find and point out information that clarifies the relationship. More importantly, while Yun Mu Kwan (or Yun Moo Kwan) is still taught as a distinct style today, Jidokwan is not (according to the entry on the Jidokwan page) since it's considered just taekwondo, the old Jidokwan name being a vestige of an earlier era in the development of Korean karate. But this is not the case with Yun Mu Kwan (or Yun Moo Kwan). So my question is: should the name "Yun Moo Kwan" be treated as a redirect to Jidokwan? Might it not make sense to adjust that linkage?

As to the essay tone, I am not sure how to change it. Perhaps I should remove some of the more speculative content (although that includes the reference which cites the existence of an "annex kwan" called Yun Moo Kwan after the shutdown of the old Yun Mu Kwan and initiation of the new Jidokwan)? Perhaps the speculative cite concerning the connection between the name "taekwondo" and the old Korean folk dance competitive tradition of taekkeyon should also be dropped? Would those removals contribute toward the wiki standardization the comment about tone seems to be getting at?

Thanks.

S. W. Mirsky 17:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swmirsky (talk • contribs)

I am running out the door to actually do some MA rather than write about but quickly try (take a look in edit mode) Yun Moo Kwan.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I tried and it worked. Thanks for your help, again. And thanks for showing me how it's done. There's a lot to learn on wiki, I have discovered! S. W. Mirsky 15:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Some of the sources used in the article are of dubious reliability, including:

1. http://www.worldjidokwan.com/history/the_5_kwans_and_jidokwan.htm
2. http://www.yunmukwan.com/

They are seemingly self-published histories of their own genesis. Far better sources are:

1. http://www.taekwondojidokwan.com/page6.html
2. http://web.stanford.edu/group/Taekwondo/documents/tkd_history.pdf

As they reference published books, it would be better to support facts by citing these works rather than reproductions of parts of them on other websites. Equally, it would be better if the text of the article was written based on an accumulate analysis of what the sources say, rather than than the key contributor's own perspective and trying to fit the sources around that. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 21:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Issues

I have some time this evening so I thought I'd have a go at offering some responses to the issues that have been raised. I see the concern with the sources but I'm not sure how to address that. I've already stripped back a whole slew of links I'd previously included. Some were taken as sources though they weren't intended to be, but, rather, examples of what I was referring to. Nevertheless I understand the concerns here, particularly with the use of YouTube videos to exemplify what I was describing, and so I took all the YouTube examples down. What I left were sources, reflecting the most credible I'd found including articles from Black Belt magazine and from some other sourced documents available in pdf form on the Internet. Clearly some of these are better than others, though a "self-published" source by the organization that is the keeper of the flame of at least part of the history of Yun Mu Kwan, e.g., worldjidokwan.com, strikes me as reasonably credible despite its provenance. Wouldn't the JKA be a reasonable source on the history of Shotokan after all?

One of the issues here is that the Korean style of Yun Mu Kwan died out officially very early on and yet it has persisted in various parts of the world -- especially, as I have discovered in Latin America, and to a lesser extent in the United States. The early history of Yun Mu Kwan and its founder, Chun Sang Sup, is very hazy to say the least. Nevertheless there is some information on both in the public domain and some of it is fairly widely disseminated among the sources. That is no guarantee of its truth, of course, but, in a case like this, it may be the best we can hope for, always reserving and applying critical judgment, of course, to select the most likely scenarios where there are conflicts.

The Korean kwans, in large part, were folded into the Korean national sport of taekwondo commencing in the mid 1950's (a matter of historical record) although there were some holdouts as well as some breakaways -- and today there isn't even a totally unified taekwondo as there are several organizations with different rules, different standards and different forms (though all seem to fight in mostly the same way). The ongoing fissioning is probably just a function of how things go in the martial arts world. Nevertheless, wiki acknowledges other old kwans by carrying separate articles on many of them and Yun Mu Kwan, being one of the earliest and persisting to this day, seems to warrant at least the same attention.

Concerning the issue raised with regard to the link I included at the end of the article to a Yun Mu Kwan school: It is there, not as proof that it is Yun Mu Kwan, but as evidence of what I said at the end: that there are practitioners today, who studied with Min Pai, who still use that name. I'm not sure how else one demonstrates that via link. Is there likely to be some book with some authoritative source making that claim and would someone making such a claim be more reliable as evidence that the name is still in use, than a link to a school which does use that name?

Bellerophon suggests that "it would be better if the text of the article was written based on an accumulate analysis of what the sources say, rather than than the key contributor's own perspective and trying to fit the sources around that." I'm not sure what to make of that. I have spent several years researching information on Yun Mu Kwan, not least because I practiced it in the 1970's and always wondered about its provenance. I have not shaped what I have written to suit any pre-existing conceptions I have but have organized the text around what I have learned. I dug up information on Chun Sang Sup, on the Choson Yun Mu Kwan, on others who have practiced a form of karate bearing that name and on what became of it. The article faithfully reflects all the verifiable information I have so far found on these subjects. Hopefully I, or others here, will find more and add it to the existing page. So I have no ax to grind except to tell the story of a martial art I once practiced down to the time when I practiced it back in the '70's, and adding any additional information to be found about it now. So I don't know why anyone here would think that I have tried "to fit the sources" around my own perspective. Yes, like everyone else I do have a perspective but it's to tell the story of Yun Mu Kwan and nothing more.

Lastly Peter Rhese suggested that the tone of the article isn't right for wiki. I'm not clear on what that means though. Perhaps because I have tried to fit in too much information? I do note that lots of wiki articles tend to be kind of thin. But certainly encyclopedia articles are not always short and terse. I'm thinking here of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for starters, where the articles tend to be substantial scholarly works. Even the articles on philosophical issues I see on wiki are often quite lengthy and detailed. So I'm really not sure if that is the tone problem Peter was flagging or if it's something else.

Anyway, Peter said at one point that others here could address the tone issue over time so I have not attempted to meddle with the article at this point except to make an occasional correction as I get some new information or see a better way to make some point.

Thanks and I look forward to hearing from others here who may be able to help me, a wiki newbie, to make the article better.

S. W. Mirsky 01:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Read my initial comments especially 2. Wikipedia is a linked construct - should be used that way.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I took out a lot of the history at your suggestion. You are saying, then, that I should remove more of it? I did include the links to other wiki articles for further information but if I understand you right, you're proposing that even less should be said on the Yun Mu Kwan site? Okay, I'll have a go at stripping more of the history away then. Thanks.

S. W. Mirsky 11:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swmirsky (talk • contribs)

You can sign your posts by adding four tildas to the end (its explained in your talk page). Almost the entire first two sections can be deleted. The last paragraph of the second section is the only one worth keeping as is - the rest can be distilled to one small paragraph. Basically you should not be repeating in detail what is already covered in other articles. That is what we have links for. You can of course also edit those other articles if you think they are missing important points. It is clear you like to write - no problem with that but often less is more.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I did some changes but I see you think I need to take even more out. I agree about the value of a "linked construct" as you put it but I'm not sure the article benefits from being as bare-boned as you are suggesting. I know that when I look things up what I find is generally clearer (to me at least) if there is sufficient summary material to put what I'm reading in context. Too skimpy with a need to jump around using hyperlinks can be distracting since every article a link takes you to has its own detail and it's easy to get bogged down or lost in the linked article, losing sight of what you were actually looking for. So I'd say a balanced approach may work better. But, as I said, I am a newbie here so I'll see if I can cut even more away. Thanks. S. W. Mirsky 12:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swmirsky (talk • contribs)

I have taken out a little more but I am encountering a problem doing as you suggest. Not only do I think one needs a certain amount of detail in the text, to establish sufficient context to be clear on the first reading, but the presence of hyperlinks that enable the linking you're talking about can't easily be included without reference to them. Thus, to link to other wiki articles on karate, taekwondo, jidokwan and the various practitioners who had a role in the development of Yun Mu Kwan, etc., one needs to at least say something that includes their mention. Otherwise we'd be reduced to just giving a list of hyperlinks which would, I think, defeat the purpose of having text (an article) in the first place. So it IS a fine balance I think. Anyway, you're right about my liking to write. Writing is my avocation, so to speak, so I tend to do a lot of it. That may be influencing my approach here, I admit, but I do have a little experience in both writing and textual research and so suggest that a bare bones approach may not be the most satisfactory way to go with this. But I'll wait to hear from you and others to see if we can't figure a way to meet all concerns. Thanks. S. W. Mirsky 13:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swmirsky (talk • contribs)

I just gave some opinions - do as you see fit. Really nothing what I said demands accommodation.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I've not checked in on this article for quite some time, but I thought I'd take a moment to do so now:

Bellerophon suggests that "it would be better if the text of the article was written based on an accumulate analysis of what the sources say, rather than than the key contributor's own perspective and trying to fit the sources around that." I'm not sure what to make of that. I have spent several years researching information on Yun Mu Kwan, not least because I practiced it in the 1970's and always wondered about its provenance. I have not shaped what I have written to suit any pre-existing conceptions I have but have organized the text around what I have learned. I dug up information on Chun Sang Sup, on the Choson Yun Mu Kwan, on others who have practiced a form of karate bearing that name and on what became of it. The article faithfully reflects all the verifiable information I have so far found on these subjects. Hopefully I, or others here, will find more and add it to the existing page. So I have no ax to grind except to tell the story of a martial art I once practiced down to the time when I practiced it back in the '70's, and adding any additional information to be found about it now. So I don't know why anyone here would think that I have tried "to fit the sources" around my own perspective. Yes, like everyone else I do have a perspective but it's to tell the story of Yun Mu Kwan and nothing more.

The problem is, you're trying to write a Wikipedia article on Yun Mu Kwan (by virtue of contributing here). What you really want to do (based on your comments above and your writing style) is to write a book on Yun Mu Kwan; and I have no doubt you're more than capable. The qualities that make a great essay, thesis, or book, do not often translate to make a good Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is basically journalism without the drama, deadlines, or need to sell anything. Where the values of neutrality and verifiability trump all else. As Peter Rehse has already tried to communicate to you, Wikipedia is not the place for you to communicate your perspective on Yun Mu Kwan, or how it relates to other martial arts. Wikipedia is a venue for reporting the facts and reporting conclusions drawn by others where the conclusions can be cited to reliable independent sources. Original research (which covers your first-hand experience of the subject) is inadmissible on Wikipedia. I'm sorry that my previous characterisation of the article as 'partisan' was upsetting to you; however, with citations to reliable sources so painfully thin, in comparison to the strength of the assertions made in the text, it is difficult to colour it differently. This article may sit forgotten by others, surmounted by templates warning readers of its 'issues' forevermore. Someone may come along and try and 'fix it with a hatchet'. But, if you want to improve it in a manner acceptable to Wikipedia, you would do better to follow our advice; we similarly have no axe to grind, just a passion for writing encyclopaedia articles. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 10:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC) ___________________________________________________________________

Just saw this. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Yes I have some personal experience in the subject matter as I'd said. That's part of what motivated me to write about it. Yun Mu Kwan as a style of karate always eluded me and I couldn't even find much on it on wikipedia when I checked. So I started doing some research about it and discovered that it became defunct very early in the history of Korean karate, before taekwondo was born as it were. I thought that would make an interesting wiki article, the sort I'd have liked to find and read myself when I started looking around for information on the style.

Because its history is so important to Korean martial arts (it was one of the first five kwans and ultimately contributed to the formation of taekwondo through at least two of its offshoots, as I discovered when I began looking into this) I felt it merited its own article. But it cannot be understood except in the context of the background in which it developed and so contributed to the larger martial arts world.

What I've written reflects extensive research I undertook (a lot of it on-line) to understand Korean karate (the complex of karate styles that went into modern taekwondo) as a distinct martial art via its background. While there is some information which I gathered personally (I saw first hand how Min Pai changed the system he was teaching and calling Yun Mu Kwan and last spring I contacted and spoke with his designated inheritor who gave me some facts about Pai's early history I hadn't known before,), the bulk of what I've written consists of facts which I learned by hunting the information down and are verifiable by accessing publicly available sources. Stewart's information is not publicly available, I agree, but I have asked him if I could cite what he told me and he agreed. It's not my information but his and he is the acknowledged successor to Pai. Not quoting him leaves a gap in the information available about the man who re-created Yun Mu Kwan in the U.S.

I believe an encyclopedic article should provide not only commonly known information that everyone can get anywhere but also information which the author has been able to discover and add to the body of overall knowledge on the subject. But that information should be, as you all have pointed out, verifiable. Aside from the history given me by Stewart, who will stand by what he told me, everything else I've incorporated is verifiable by checking. Since I gave sources and the sources are available on-line, you can see that for yourself. What is the point of giving sources, after all, if not to rely on them for that? I took out the sources offered as examples of other styles (though I recently put back something on taekkyun which is perhaps an irritant for those of you who object to YouTube on principle. Take it out if you want. I'm really kind of tapped out on this. If you folks want to ditch the article, I'm okay with that. Just give me advance notice so I can copy the material as it took me quite a while to pull it all together. I think killing it would be a mistake because Yun Mu Kwan was a real system which did feed into modern taekwondo and that IS common knowledge (you don't need wikipedia to tell you that). But a rump article which just mentions Yun Mu Kwan and points to a bunch of other articles is worse, in my view, than no article on wikipedia at all. What's the point?

So I will step aside on this. As I said, just please alert me if you are planning to cut up or remove the article. It's fine with me. I just want a chance to capture all the work I've already done on the piece. Thanks.

S. W. Mirsky 15:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swmirsky (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yun Mu Kwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140714175714/http://www.ccsa.edu.sv/ccsa.edu.sv/images/pdf/franciscomiranda_ayeryhoy.PDF to http://www.ccsa.edu.sv/ccsa.edu.sv/images/pdf/franciscomiranda_ayeryhoy.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Original analysis

Moved to safety. Whoever did this made a lot of research to get this done. However, the text is ungainly excessive and hard to read. Furthermore, ill-suited to Wikipedia's style of writing. Also this is rather generalized information that seems to be more associated/suited to Tang Soo Do or Taekwondo entries. It doesn't also quite adress Yun Mu Kwan's history - *despite* this information being situated in "history" section.--TrickShotFinn (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Japanese and Chinese roots

− Yun Mu Kwan (or Yun Moo Kwan or, sometimes, Yeonmuguan), the "lost kwan" (because it disappeared so early in the history of Korean karate), is one of the original Korean karate styles, now known as Taekwondo, which were derived from Japanese karate in the mid-twentieth century by a number of Korean men who had studied, while their country was under Japanese occupation, at Japanese universities. Karate-do (or "Way of the Empty Hand") was a form of generally unarmed, hand-to-hand combat developed on Okinawa Island, part of the Ryukyu archipelago (annexed by Japan in 1872) which reflected the influences of the kung fu styles then practiced in southern China. Karate was first brought to Japan from Okinawa by the Okinawan educator Gichin Funakoshi, who had trained in the Shuri-te tradition of Okinawa te ("Okinawan hand"), or karate — a tradition that emphasized aggressiveness and direct lines of attack and defense. Other Okinawan karate masters followed him to Japan including Kanken Toyama, Chojun Miyagi, Kenwa Mabuni, and Uechi Kanbun, each with his own variation of what Funakoshi was then calling "kempo" (a Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese "ch'uan fa" which translates, roughly, as "law of the fist" and is sometimes used in China in lieu of the more familiar "kung fu" and "wushu"). Funakoshi adopted much of the systematic training format Jigoro Kano, the founder of judo, had developed for his art, including white uniforms (the "gi") similar to those worn by judo players, the structured teaching format which begins with formal stretching and warm-ups, progresses to basic techniques and then to fixed routines (kata) and finally to practical applications on the mat. He also adopted judo's colored belt ranking system, culminating in the now universally recognized black belt.

− −

From Japan to Korea

− The Koreans who brought Funakoshi's straightforward (and, some say, simplified) karate system, known as "Shotokan", back to Korea at World War II's end also brought the training format he had adopted (white uniforms, belt ranking system, etc.). But, because of the sharp break with Japan, and Korean nationalism, these practitioners quickly began to Koreanize their fighting methods. The most dramatic Korean innovation was a shift of emphasis from karate's tendency to rely on hand strikes (supplemented by kicks) to a preference for kicking over hand technique. Leg techniques demand more bodily movement (high kicks tend to lower the torso in order to increase leg reach, while requiring shorter, looser and more mobile fighting stances and larger, more sweeping movements to generate greater kicking power) and these changes soon came to characterize the Korean styles (which became more sweeping, circular and continuous in their motion). The greater Korean emphasis on, and refinement of, kicking methods may have reflected Korea's proximity to the northern part of China where kung fu styles tend to utilize higher kicking and more upright (hence more mobile) fighting stances with greater reliance on acrobatic maneuvers. Okinawa, on the other hand, from which Japanese karate originally hailed, is near southern China where the fighting systems tend to use lower, deeper stances and emphasize hand technique over kicking. Subsequent Korean developments in taekwondo (the fighting art which grew out of early Korean style karate) introduced further variation in deference to the greater emphasis on legwork. These include a bouncing motion, thought to maximize striking power, which is radically different from the more level movement found in the classical Japanese, and their Okinawan predecessor, styles. One factor in the changes, which many Koreans themselves often cite for the shift to greater reliance on kicking maneuvers, was a native Korean dance-like fighting art called taekkyon, stylized routines which had been around for centuries in Korea and which rely primarily on kicks and jumping movements.

Whatever the reason for the changes, the Korean karate systems (called "kwans" after the Korean word for the "hall" in which the different styles were often taught) rapidly differentiated themselves from their Japanese progenitors in this fashion. However, by around 1955, the various Korean kwans began to unify under South Korean government direction, dropping the name "karate" in favor of a new, more Koreanized variant: initially "taesoodo" ("foot hand way") and ultimately "taekwondo" ("foot fist way"). The latter term was said to have been selected, at least in part, because of its similarity to the term used for the old Korean fighting dance called taekkyon, although this remains controversial. Yun Mu Kwan, which means the Hall (or Institute) of Martial Study, was one of the earliest Korean karate styles. It was established in 1946 by a young Korean named Sang Sup Chun (or Chun, Sang Sup). Chun had begun teaching a Japanese form of karate, based on the Shotokan style of Funakoshi, at a place called the Chosun Yun Mu Kwan, which was the center at that time for Judo training in Korea.

References