Talk:Korean martial arts

Korean original forms of martial arts

Glad to hear it is outdated with poor facts, why don't you work on improving it now??

Ancient Korean martial art existed before Japanese military occupation. Even though Japanese military government outlawed Koreans practicing Korean art. Koreans still practiced Korean martial art. Reader must always remember during 36 or 40 years of Japanese military occupation over Korea. Japanese outlawed everything People, Language, Culture, Food, History, and Martial arts. Japanese tried very very hard to erase everything Korean as much as possible. In the end look at the reality. Korean race still exist, Korean language and culture still exist, Korean food and martial art still exist. Japanese history changed so many times its really hard to believe that Japanese martial art influenced Korean martial arts. If Japanese culture has given Koreans that much of strong impact then Korean language, Korean food, Korean culture, and Korean history, Korean art must have strong Japanese influence. But it does not. So how can Japanese Karate influence Korean Taekwondo?? The word Taekwondo is modern and simplified form of combining all ancient Korean martial arts into one. Korean Pumse ( Kata Jpn), Korean Kicks, Korean hand strikes, are very different from Shotokan Karate. Only similiarity would be both are Stand position fight martial arts and they have similiar uniform.

Taekwondo is divided into two system. North and South Korean styles.

ITF Taekwondo ( North Korean style): Full contact sparring system. More self defense oriented martial art. Much emphasize on accuracy and discipline.

WTF Taekwondo ( South Korean style): Point system contact sparring system. Morea health sport oriented martial art. Much emphasize on flexability and discipline.

History between ITF and WTF is split into two ideology. Only way for me to correct and provide updated information with accuracy is first two Taekwondo association must unite and agree one united Taekwondo history. North Korea has all valuable information regarding to Ancient Korean martial art book ( Korean martial art Bible). Until Historians or Taekwondo martial art researchers need those information to provide accurate information on Korean martial arts including Taekwondo. Many Japanese nationalist get a kick out Shotokan karate influencing Taekwondo but in reality Karate was originated in Okinawa not Japan. Okinawa was under Chinese cultural influence. Please keep in mind " Kyukushinkai Karate" Mas Oyama was Korean. He was influenced by Korean and Chinese martial arts. He also incorporated Taekwondo kicks into Kyukushinkai karate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea4one (talk • contribs) 13:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read Wikipidia Taekwondo article. Its outdated with poor facts. Specially the Taekwondo history. Taekwondo is Korean martial art. Japanese military government colonialized Korea for 36 or 40 years could not even destory Korean language and culture. How can Japanese martial art take over Korean art??

Korean martial art Taekwondo existed. Tang Soo Do is Korean translation of Karate. When Korean men were drafted into Japanese army they studied Tang Soo Do / Karate. Whereas Taekwondo was practice among Korean commoners. Buddhist monk practice Taekwondo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea4one (talk • contribs) 14:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it is outdated with poor facts, why don't you work on improving it now. User5802 22:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent research in Korea has shown time and time again that martial arts forms in Korea were in place for centuries, and did not arise in copying of Japanese forms. The occupation of Korea by Japan and the closing down of traditional Korean art schools from 1905-1945 is little known in the west. Citations will be added showing that the Korean martial arts were originating forms, despite the very frequent errors made in claiming Japanese origination for every kind of art form in Korea: from swords to ceramics.

Citations to be appended soon.

POofYS

Should Mudo redirect here? -- Visviva 08:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dubious content

There have been a lot of suspiciously POV-seeming additions to this page recently. Unfortunately, I don't know nearly enough about this area to tell fact from opinion/fiction. Please check this article for veracity and neutrality. -- Visviva 12:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

National origin "arguments"

Taekwondo is Korean martial art. Korean martial art Taekwondo existed in Korguyro Kingdom.

Taekondo is has two system ITF and WTF.

1) ITF Taekwondo ( North Korean sytle) Full contact. Rely on Traditional discipline and self defence, combat. Less Sport.

2) WTF Taekwondo ( South Korean style) Point Sparring, Sport excercise martial art ( Olympic Sport) Self defence. Rely on Sport Self defence. Less combative.

3) Hapkido: Korean mixed art. Some people say Hapkido is similir to Aikido. Major difference is kicks. Hapkido has many kicks that Aikido don't have. ( Similiarity: Joint Locks, Throws, Take downs, Weapons). ( Difference: Hapkido has many kicks). Sparring system Hapkido is full contact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea4one (talk • contribs) 14:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of annoying that you keep posting at the beginning of these discussions. Why not contribute some information in the main article, and post your comments at the end of the discussion like everyone else. User5802 22:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Aryment no. 1: "The founder (in terms of techniques) of Daito-Ryu Aikijujutsu as seen on lineage charts was named Shinra Saburou Minamoto no Yoshimitsu (新羅三郎源義光) - "Shinra" uses the same Chinese characters as the name of an ancient country that was on the southern part of the Korean peninsula, Shilla, indicating that he may have been of Korean descent (or at least had strong relations with Korea), and thus making this art also originally Korean."

Like I asked earlier, whom is this utterly unfounded and ridiculous "argument" credited to? To repeat, the "Shinra" of the alias of Minamoto no Yoshimitsu ( a member of the dominant Minamoto clan) was taken from the name of a shinto shrine called Shinra Myojin (新羅明神) where he celebrated his coming of age, and his lineage has nothing to do with the state of Shilla (cf. ja:源義光). This is a very basic fact of Japanese history that you could find even on regular Japanese dictionaries (cf. [1]). It doesn't take a historian to see the stupidity of this so-called "argument." There is a Korean newspaper article that seems to show the origin of this argument: [2]. It is a misreading of a statement made by Kenji Tomiki (富木謙治), a professor of Waseda University. Tomiki only said that the founder of Aikido was a man by the name of "Shinra Saburou Minamoto no Yoshimitsu." The Korean reader interpreted the name as meaning a man by the name of "Minamoto no Yoshimitsu" who was a "Saburo" (supposedly the name of some office) of the state of "Shinra," although in reality "Shinra Saburou" was only an alias of Yoshimitsu derived from the name of the shrine.

Argument no. 2: Old Korean documents write about Yusul (written with the same Chinese characters as Jujutsu), although Yusul was no longer practiced for a long period of time; thus, Yusul may have been created in Korea, imported to Japan (transliterating the name to Jujutsu).

Here goes another ridiculous nonsense. Who said this really? To repeat again, "Jujutsu" is rather a newer term that was began to be used from around the Meiji period to group together a great variety of schools and systems that had been practiced and developed from much earlier times under their own unique names, and it's not like there has been a single martial art system called "jujutsu" from the antiquity. Black Belt magazine article writes: "All styles of jujutsu founded after 1868 fall into the modern classification... Before the name "jujutsu" was adopted, the art had various appellations such as kumu-uchi and yawara because the training was dependent on the school, which was allied with various feudal families. Kano traced the roots of jujutsu to the early 1600s. The oldest progenitor was takenouchi-ryu, reportedly originated by Takenouchi Hisamori in 1532. This branch taught kogusoku, or the art of seizing, which is different from pure jujutsu. The takenouchi-ryu may be regarded as the primal system for the teaching of arts similar to jujutsu" (Brian Jacobs, August 2004).

Now, it's only a big disgrace to the authority of Korean martial arts if you credit these two "arguments" to them. If you want to keep them on here, that's fine. But they have to be presented as bogus nonsense as they are. I wouldn't keep such nonsense if I were a big fan of Korean martial arts. Hermeneus (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

And yes, every description of Wikipedia articles ought to be well-founded and sourced. That's what "References" and "Bibliography" sections are for. It's your burden of proof to show the credibility of text if someone contested its credibility and you still want to include it in a Wkipedia article.

• you're attacking a version i'm not defending. i changed the wording a lot to try to accomodate you.
• where are your sources for the claims that you make? the links you provided do not support your contentions.
• i'm not defending the pov of the argument, i just would like to see the basis for your edit. it just seems to me the article just includes an "argument," described as an "argument" not stated as fact, & i'm fine with you adding counterarguments, described as counterarguments. if you want to state something as fact, then you have the burden of proof.
• are you saying the proper, objectively fair procedure is to change/delete first, & the burden is on people trying to restore the previous version? because if that's the principle, after i declare that i personally dispute every sentence of History of Japan, i request that you blank that page & force editors who try to restore it to source & justify every sentence. no, that's not how it works. if you want to change the existing version, YOU have the burden of proof.
• the text is not my pov or argument, just my attempt to briefly summarize the "arguments" while also reflecting your pov. so if you have reputable sources, i have no problem at all changing or deleting it. if you have only pov sources, i have no problem adding counterarguments identified as "counterarguments." Appleby 23:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Your version is no better. In fact it could be worse since you have zero knowledge on the issue yourself and changed only the wording with no source to back up. 2. Those links substantiate my claims just fine. What part did you not get? 3.4. It's quite proper to delete utterly unfounded and ridiculous nonsense like those arguments. Hermeneus (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

did you even read my version? can you translate the japanese link? the newspaper link just retells the korean version, so actually serves as a citation for the existing argument. you didn't provide any links for the jujitsu issue. none of them support your story or conclusion that you want to put in the article. until you do, your edits look like utterly unfounded & ridiculous nonsense. will you agree to blank History of Japan if i personally dispute it?Appleby 23:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

1. The linked page says that Shinra Saburo (新羅三郎) is an alias (異名) of Minamoto no Yoshimitsu (源義光), and that he was so called because he celebrated his coming of age (元服) at the shrine "Shinra Jinja" (新羅明神). This is from Daijirin (大辞林), one of major Japanese dictionaries in Japan, published from Sanseido (三省堂). 2. The Black Belt article says that the martial art known as "Jujustu" today was originally developed and practiced under different names, and that one of them, takenouchi-ryu, is the oldest progenitor. You are claiming that a certain Korean martial art called "Yusul" is the origin of Japanese jujutsu because "Yusul" is the Korean reading of the same word "Jujutsu" and so that this is the sign of continuity between Yulsa and Jujutsu. That the old progenitors of Jujutsu in Japan were called different name than jujutsu flatly contradicts your naive premise. 3. Go ahead and see for yourself. Whether deleting a text will be considered legitimate or an act of vandalism depends on the reasons you provide. Hermeneus (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

ok, thanks, now i'm convinced. but i'm thinking you'd get a similar reaction if you edited any part of History of Japan, calling it "utterly bogus" "urban legend", without citing any publications. Appleby 00:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a few comments - I guess that I added these "arguments" to the article originally - not because I believe in them, but because a few people had seemed adamant about a "Korean origin" blurb, and so to assuage them (as they can always re-add any content that is deleted), this content was added, dubious or not. In any case, the sources that Hermeneus found are very good for argument number 1 (the Korean article and Shinra Saburo's coming-of-age). Although argument 2 is also by no means a strong argument intrinsically, it would be helpful to have primary sources (showing the oldest extant examples of usage of the word "jujutsu" in Japanese writings or "yusul" in Korean writings) so that we can more properly refute the argument (Black Belt doesn't really have a lot of clout).

Edededed 02:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Modern Korean martial arts

The section "Modern Korean martial arts" needs comprehensive checking regarding its claims and lack of sources. Most of the historical facts presented there have been widely spread in the KMA scene around the world but as far as I know there has never been any documented or at least unbiased source to prove them. Besides that most of the facts now marked with "dubious" or "citation needed" are historically incoherent. I myself have been trying to get some coherent fact out of these stories spread throught the KMA community (at least some solid reason other than simply artificially promoting and oversizing KMA's role in the Marcial Arts world). So far not a hint other than the obvious.

ALERT: During the past several years that I have viewed this page on Korean Martial Arts, I have been disappointed to to see contributions that reify the Japanese propaganda of 1910-1945, during its occupation of Korea, and seek to promote a misplaced agenda of identifying Japanese origins of Korean martial arts. It is alarming that such culturally insensitive and ignorant comments continue to be made, particularly on this page. Please reference works that are now available in English and on the web, such as 5,000 Years of Korean Martial Arts: the heritage of the hermit kingdom's warriors by R. Barry Harmon.

Japanese colonialism sought to purge Koreans of their traditional culture and identity and suppressed the practice of Korean martial arts, often co-opting these as their own and obfuscating its true Korean origins. R. Barry Harmon writes, "... colonial influence may be seen studying the development of Tae Kwon Do. Tae Kwon Do is widely believed to be a continuation of Tae Kyun and Soo Bahk Ki but evidence to the contrary has been found since the [Japanese] name [Tae Kwon Do] was first used [after the occupation, while the word 'do' or 'the way' was never used in pre-colonial times]. Incorrect translations of the ancient text Mooye Tobo Tong-ji (An Illustrated History of Korean Martial Arts) referring to the term do is not uncommon and helps to propagate the incorrect history.

"Self-serving translations have been commissioned by regimes with agendas opposed to the traditional Korean martial art spirit and by individuals wishing to further their own interests. These have done a great disservice to Korean history by emphasizing outside influences and minimalizing indigenous culture. Understanding the colonial influence is important not as part of an argument over what style is older or better but to make clear the distinct differences of historical standing. The unique nature if the Korean fighting system and its impact on other martial arts becomes obvious only after intense research."

You can read parts of the book on Google at: <see http://books.google.com/books?id=tZbVl-Cd-SgC&pg=PR11&lpg=PR11&dq=korean+martial+arts+during+japanese+occupation&source=bl&ots=viN4tZ1XB4&sig=sbE-1i8CwAE-CN14aDMusXMGS0c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eSh6U9SqKMjhoATB7ICgAQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=korean%20martial%20arts%20during%20japanese%20occupation&f=false>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gndr (talk • contribs) 17:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely no record of Japanese illegalizing the practice of Korean martial arts. Gungdo and Ssireum flourished under the Japanese. Tae Kwondo and Hapkido did not exist until after the liberation. All of the narrative above is nationalist propaganda that presupposes Tae Kwon Do and Hapkido existing previous to the intorduction of Karate, Aikido, and Judo to the peninsula during the occupation. For all the Kroean nationalists arguing for Japanese illegalizing Korean martial arts, the onus is on them to provide that edict. Not possioble, as there was no such edict. This is similar to Koreans in 1960s claiming that Japanese had cut down all the trees in Korea. But phoots of Korea from 1890s taken by American journalists shows even LESS trees than there were in 1945. Blaming Japan for all of Korea's shortocmings is not the way to overcome history. Krusader6 (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hanja

Does anyone have a first-person source (i.e. from the creator of the style) for the Hanja for Hanmudo? The version I wrote in originally was from a magazine (in which they interviewed the said creator) - but I suppose it is possible that they made a mistake in transcription? Or he lied? In any case, they surely did not write "韓武道" in that magazine article. If someone could just go and ask him, that would be very nice.  :)

Edededed 01:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about martial arts, but this official-looking website clearly uses 韓. The aforementioned site also indicates that the style was founded in the 19th century -- just how old was that magazine?  :-)

If the interview was in a language other than Korean, the alternate character for han might have just been a transcription error. -- Visviva 04:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There is also hanmudo.com the style founded by Dr.He Young Kim, the style probably most famous. He also writes the name of his style with 韓. 韓 stands for Korea (see names of korea). Kbarends 06:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Subak

In the Wikipedia article Taekkyon, it says '...subak was divided into different segments, including yusul (a grappling art), kicking, and so forth, with Taekkyon being one such segment....'. So then why does Taekkyon have kicks? Keep me in touch.100110100 06:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I answered your question in Talk:Taekyon Kbarends 07:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ugly Tables?

I dunno, but I thought the page looked better before adding tables (various reasons). Anyone else want to revert? (Also, the page content seems to be of a strong POV type, too...)

Edededed 01:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that the table doesn't add much, at least in its current form. -- Visviva 07:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, the descriptions for each style stink! Soobakdo is a "peasant style?" Tangsoodo is "just like Shaolin?" It always makes me sad to see articles degrade like this... (Add weeping sounds, please) Anyone want to fix them up?

Edededed 06:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The tables are terrible. Contradictory with no attempt to differentiate the notable from the trivial. I suggest we remove the Table entirely.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually I propose moving the Table to a Temp page so that the information can be accessed and incorporated into the article - and then we can delete the Temp page after some time. Tables - especially this sort are generally discouraged in Wikipedia. They are just another form of Lists.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The table was moved to User talk:PRehse/Korean martial arts/Temp where it is rapidly being reduced as the information is being incorporated into the article.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Could Hwarang [The Pure form from Silla]]

Be considered a traditional Korean Martial Art true it was more of a Warrior teachings but they did teach Martial Arts in the training so.....? -Easternknight

We don't know exactly what they were taught and what they trained. So as long as you tell that as well. You could say that the military arts of the hwarang were traditional MA, but that we have no clue what they did. Kbarends (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fan martial Arts

I saw/heard about this... Iron fan Korean Martial Arts. Could someone add this info?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Assistance required

I have recently cleaned up the Asian martial arts (origins) article. I added a section for Korean martial arts, but no information currently graces the page. If anyone is knowledgeable on the subject of the origins of Korean martial arts, please feel free to add cited material to the page linked above. You can mention legends if you want (referenced of course), but please try to restrict your edits to verifiable material, preferably found in scholarly publications. Thank you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Main image

I don't want to sound presumptuous here but shouldn't this article have a better lead image? Maybe something more historical, or a photo from an important match or something? Morinae (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korean martial arts. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20140330215002/http://int.yongin.ac.kr/eng/academics/ma05_taekwondo.htm to http://int.yongin.ac.kr/eng/academics/ma05_taekwondo.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleted a lot

Just a heads up that I deleted a lot of unsourced content. It had a lot of grammar/tone issues as well. A good chunk of it had sat there for years without sources or major improvements. Decided that starting over from scratch and getting a better quality, better sourced article is better than having a low quality massive one that is not improving fast enough. toobigtokale (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)