ABSTRACT
Originally, this study intended to be narrow in focus, with a sole concentration on the technical development of taekwondo sparring. I had taken for granted that taekwondo was known to be an offshoot of karate; although, as it turns out, the martial arts ‘establishment’ is far from agreement on this issue. Therefore, in order to begin the analysis of taekwondo’s evolution, I found it necessary to return to the discussion about the origins of taekwondo and its relation to karate, a decision which forced me to considerably broaden my research. Since taekwondo’s historical depiction has been greatly distorted over the last fifty to sixty years, objective analysis was difficult to undertake. As a result, this book has turned into a historical research study, with certain philosophical and technical issues addressed in the analysis. Because I analyze the historical, technical, and philosophical components of
taekwondo’s evolution, my range and focus may seem, at times, to have been overly broad. However, since these components are closely interrelated, any comprehensive study would need to include all elements to provide an accurate picture. Furthermore, taekwondo’s evolution was affected by significant historical, political, and cultural forces which cannot be ignored in any comprehensive analysis. Martial arts are first and foremost a physical activity, and the essential, funda-
mental element is practical training. Physical activity is the foundation from which the mental and spiritual aspects of martial arts have their basis. One cannot claim to be a martial artist by merely philosophizing or theorizing about it; the training hall or gymnasium is the foremost place for martial arts education and training, not the study room or meditation chamber. This is not to suggest that mental guidance does not play an important role, but rather to stress that the physical training component in martial arts is the point from which spiritual development begins. The spiritual aspects of martial arts may be the ultimate objective of many practitioners and instructors, but it is not the starting point. This brings us to, what I consider to be a fundamental division in the general
martial arts world: the division between self-styled traditionalists, who often emphasize the spiritual characteristics of martial arts, and adhere to the fundamental objectives of self-defense; and modernists, who emphasize pragmatic methods associated with sports training. This split is manifested by the different
training methodologies followed by the two camps – forms versus sparring. There also exists much conflict and confusion over how to deal with the sporting aspects on a philosophical level. This study will focus on the little understood schism between traditionalists and modernists, which represents the root cause of many of the contradictions, inconsistencies, and problems within the training activities and philosophies of the martial arts in general, and taekwondo in particular. In reality, taekwondo consists of many different components, loosely consoli-
dated into two main divisions: ‘traditional’ (forms/self-defense) taekwondo, which is associated with conventional martial arts training, and sparring/competition taekwondo, which is considered a combat sport. The former represents a vestigial legacy from Japanese karate, whereas the latter represents taekwondo free-sparring techniques and methods invented and developed in Korea over the past fifty years. Despite this clear dichotomy, taekwondo is historically and philosophically
still presented as a single entity that seeks common goals, and claims to have compatible, consolidated training activities. Most modern day taekwondo leaders want to preserve this image of unity while, at the same time, encouraging further diversification in the form of p’umsae (forms or patterns), board-breaking, and other theatrical competitive events including taekwondo demonstrations, aerobics, dance, creative performances, and gymnastic-style entertainment. As a result, the question naturally arises about which activities accurately define or represent taekwondo, today. In addition, because of all the many new activities included under the umbrella
and name ‘taekwondo,’ a general lack of direction and consistency seems to have developed. In connection with this, taekwondo leaders are neither able to present a consistent philosophy, nor a consistent training methodology for contemporary taekwondo. The origin of this apparent identity conflict is not very well understood because the portrayal of taekwondo’s history has been, at times, disingenuous with a general lack of openness in the discussion. The current historical portrayal has actually become an obstacle to understanding this dilemma and reforming taekwondo. Therefore, taekwondo’s early transplantation from Japan, genuine evolution, and subsequent development into a new martial sport, needs to be examined and analyzed in order to more intelligently discuss the current state and better ensure the future growth of taekwondo.
