Talk:Tang Soo Do/Archive 1

Monastaries
Are there any monastic institutions that practice tang so do (presumably they would be in korea)?? or is it mainly practiced in do jangs worldwide?


 * No. Monasteries do sometimes practice martial arts in Korea, but never Tangsoodo, Taekwondo, Hapkido, or any other modern martial art there.  Edededed 05:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Primarily practiced in dojangs throughout the world. User5802 (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Tangsoodo vs. Tang Soo Do
I'm considering moving this page to Tang Soo Do, because, as far as I can tell, this is the more common spelling. I've had contact with a number of UK TSD groups, plus a US one, and I've never seen it written without the spaces. Additionally, a Google search for "tang soo do" shows up about 142,000 results, compared to only 8,490 for "tangsoodo". Please raise any objections below. ''(above comment by User:Meand)


 * Sounds good to me. -- Visviva 8 July 2005 06:17 (UTC)


 * Sorry, forgot to sign. Thanks for adding it in for me. --me_and 9 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)


 * Erm, oops. I just tried to move it, and hit Enter too early. I'm going to try to fix it now, but I'm not sure if it'll let me... --me_and 20:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay. It's back to Tangsoodo, but it now won't let me move it to Tang Soo Do, so I've had to put in a request at Requested moves. My bad. Oops. --me_and 20:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Fixed. violet/riga (t) 19:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The name Tang Soo Do and its relation to the name Karate-do
Given that "it is generally accepted that Tang Soo Do was originally a Koreanized version of Japanese Karate", my karatedo (tangsoodo in korean) reference is obviously relevant here (i.e. section titled Name) unless someone is playing Korean identity politics where every association to Japanese culture get purged. If TSD, by combining KungFu or Takeyon, later developed to become something else, good for them. FWBOarticle

Your info concerning Funakoshi, and his manipulation of the Kanji for Karate-Do (to purge chinese reference) is not relevant to this article. This is a Tang Soo Do article. Tang Soo Do would not exist without Karate, but it isn't Karate. Karate-Do has it's own entry, where if I'm not mistaken, the info you insist upon placing here, is already stated.
 * Hello nameless. I hope you still agree that kara te=tang hand=tang soo is relevant in the section titled "Name" given that "Tang Soo Do was originally a Koreanized version of Japanese Karate".  Consequently, Tang Hand chaged to Empty Hand is relevant too. However, I will delete Zen and Japanese identity politics part.  I thought it was relevant but hey, I'm fine both way. FWBOarticle

Tang So Do is exactly Karate Do, with a Korean twist. The name change by Funakoshi is very important to any discussion of Tang Soo Do history, as it places it's migration to Korea from Japan in correct time frame context. Tang Soo Do could have easily been called Kong Soo Do, the "Empty" version of Karate if Won Kuk Lee had been a later student of Funakoshi, or, trained at a different university other than Chou. Chung Do Kwan, Song Moo Kwan and Moo Duk Kwan all used "Tang Soo Do", as Jidokwan and Chang Moo Kwan used Kong Soo Do, and in that order. --Bigzilla 19:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.

Tang Soo Do was formerly named Hwa Soo Do, which translates to the art of the flowering hand, this name was not favored by the public very well, it didn't sound like a martial art that involved to much actual fighting. So Hwang Kee decided to change the name to Tang Soo Do, because of the chinese influence in korea he believed the name would go over with the public well. This was later changed to Soo Bahk Do in 1945 when the Moo Yei Do Bo Tong Ji was founded. Hwang Kee changed the name to Soo Bahk Do because he wanted to create a traditional Korean martial art, and in the pages of the Moo Yei Do Bo Tong Ji were descriptions of warriors that trained in an art called Soo Bahk Ki.

The above statement regarding hwa soo do is correct, but he didn't only change the name, Hwang Kee used a tang soo do (karate-do) curriculum. It was not until much later that he integrated techniques from the Moo Yei Do Bo Ton Ji.

Style
The arts that give origin to Soo Bahk Do are hence; Hwang Kee learned Taekyun while in Korea, by the age of 21 he was considered by the locals of his town as a master in this style. Hwang Kee viewed the style of Taekyun as 'crude, and lacking hand technique'. As the only available forms at the time were modified Okinawan forms, he took a number of these and changed them to a more internal focus. Hwang Kee spent a fair amount of time in Manchuria after this period, and he learned Yang Style Tai Chi Chuan, Piguazhang, and Shaolin Long Fist. This, coupled with the knowledge and forms he learned from the Moo Yei Do Bo Tong Ji, Hwang Kee had a complete technique base. -unsigned


 * Where did you come up with that? Can you reference any writings or accounts of his comments on Taekkyun? Also, where did the information about the Chinese arts that Hwang Kee studied come from? It is under dispute by the Yang family that the teacher Hwang Kee trained under in Taijiquan even existed (a bit of trouble translating a name back into recognizable Chinese), but most sources assert that it is unknown what arts Hwang Kee learned in Manchuria, since he simply referred to them in Korean, with names such as "Fist Method," etc.

68.216.83.89 15:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Phil

According to every living Taekkyon practitioner in Korea, they keep excellent records and Hwang is not in them anywhere. Also, Hwang can not remember the name of his teacher, which is very weird in Korean, Japanese or Chinese martial arts as your teacher is like your father. not only do we remember our teachers FULL name, we also remember the full names of those we just took a seminar with. In addition, all the Kwan seniors despute all claims that any of the Kwan founders practiced Taekkyon. --Bigzilla 19:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hwang Kee did a dominant part of his training when it was forbidden for anyone in korea to practice martial arts, he was a very popular man in the community though so he secretly traveled to china via train routes and trained privately with a master. Hwang Kee had also worked on railroads when he was younger, so he knew many people in the business. There were also many martial arts that Hwang Kee never got a chance to train in but studied thoroughly in literature.

Tang Soo Do a koreanized version of karate?!
i thought karate was formulated in the 18th/19th century

how is this possible if tang soo do was founded in the 8th century

Is it possible that Karate is a Nipponized version of Tang Soo Do?

There are no records of the use of the Tang Soo Do name in Korea until Won Kuk Lee started using it in 1944. So so-called historians in Korea, and elsewhere attempt to use Tang Soo Do, Taekkyon, and Soo Bhak Do interchangably, when if fact there is no evidence of it at all.

This was done to give Taekwondo a seperate identity from Karate, to seperate the two during the big push to get Taekwondo in the Olympics. A common identity would have cause a huge obsticle for Taekwondo, so it needed a line from "ancient" Korean arts, like Taekkyon. This is all according to Un yong Kim's book "The Best Olympics" from Baden Baden to Seoul. --Bigzilla 19:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bigzilla - As far as I know, Tang Soo Do is normally called "Karate" because it has in common several characteristics of Karate, such as hard style forms, dress and traditions, not because of any particular lineage. Even though Tang Soo Do is deeply influenced from China and Korea, it would be misleading to call it a form of Kung Fu, which is typically much softer, with different dress and traditions.

Most Tang Soo Do schools use the "Pyung Ahn" forms as the first set of forms leaned after basic movements are learned. These forms are nearly identical to the Peinan forms used by Shotokan Karate, with some stylistic differences. I would not say that every Karate school teaches Pyung Ahn forms, but every school that starts out with them could rightly be called a Karate school. I did read some where that you can tell which schools that taught Pyung Ahn were descended from Shotokan, and which were descended from Okinawa, by which order the first two were taught in; they are reversed. From this measure, it looks like TSD took them from Shotokan, and this makes sense. Japan occupied Korea for most of the first half of the century.

Hope this helps. Thomas (Tang Soo!) --Howethomas 15:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

See also the Talk page (and its archives) at Taekwondo, where there are several references listed that discuss how TKD and TSD evolved from Shotokan. JJL (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Tang soo do founder learned Chinese martial arts(some modified by japanese) 'karate'. it was fact. but it is not mean Tang soo do is karate. Tang soo do borowed grade system from karate. However, Many techniques are Based on korean traditional martial arts. and little bit mixed karate elment. It must be noted, that contemporary Tang soo do is technically very different from karate (e.g. relies much more on legs than hands, involves high kicks on the heels, more jumps, etc.). it cleary derived from Tekkyon and other. Manacpowers (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's true that it's changed considerably from its Karate and Chinese origins, but not because of the effectively extinct taekkyon. That's just Korean nationalism speaking; see the references at the Taekwondo Talk page, e.g. those by Capener, Burdick, and Dohrwend. JJL (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, everyone.
 * JJL find 'one sentence' from one matial arts paper book. and claimed that "TKD originally from Karate!".(actually, that book written by karate teacher. page cover is karate(空手), too) I really sick and tired of this Japanese Pushing POV user. most important thing is FACT. but JJL is not FACT. He picked from unclerar and unreadable source. and He edited like this "All taught Japanese-influenced systems."  ALL Japanese taught? I pointed out THIS IS LIE and extreme POV.Manacpowers (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * JJL your cliam is totally baseless.
 * You did not prove any readable source. first of all, Fighting style is very different. as i know, only 17% TKD techniques similar with karate. 13% are kung-fu. other are original technique.(derived from Song Duk-ki, the tekkyon master) mainly derived from tekkyon's kicking technic. so 'heavily influenced from foreign' sentence is nonsense word.
 * and Karate is not Japanese made. It is invented by china. karate was carbon copy of chinese Tang arts. even karate learned korean never say karate is orgin from japan.(they called as "Tang soo do". They did not called as "空"手. They called as "唐"手.) they say it's originate from chinese "Tang" dynasty martial arts. it's not japan's.
 * also chinese encyclopedia said,
 * " 空手道,是由距今五百年前的古老格斗术和中国传入日本的拳法揉合而成的. 那时，在硫球上层阶级间，暗中参考中国的拳法创出了独特 的唐手，即最初的'空手道'. "
 * they say it's originate from Chinese Tang dynasty arts.
 * Chinese and Korean same said like that.
 * origin of 空手道(karate) name.
 * "から：汉字为"空"；这个字的解释有二：一为空,空手,手无寸铁;Kara亦可解释做"唐"的意思,唐者,唐朝也,唐代中国进 入盛势,唐人即是中国人.故karate亦可解做唐手,即中国的手技也.但因子十年前日本统一Karate为空手,故其汉字(k anji)亦废用唐手此名. "(from chinese encyclopedia)
 * Chinese and 唐手道 learned korean say that karate originally from chinese Tang dynasty martial arts. They did not say, it is invented by Japan. do not mistake. Check korean researched academic source. They did not say it is invented by japan. Karate is Chinese martial arts(some modified by japanese). Manacpowers (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 'TKD originally from Karate?' I think that you are not constructive editor. you are Japanese POV pushing user. Your only source is one karate teacher's book.(also can't readable to other. and did not authorized from TKD)
 * but i admit, TKD accepted Grade system (Dan), practice suit(道服) from karate. (borrowd some 'system') but karate originally from Chinese. Manacpowers (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * he did not prove any sources. He did not prove sources in my discussion topic. (other topics are not relation with me)
 * JJL's source is unclear. because, we can't read whole relation article. Who know? is it made by his brain? and He omitted other aticle. We need guess the meaning of a word from the context. JJL edit is unclear source. JJL edit is from an unauthorized history. and unreadable.(omiited other article. He picked a 'one sentence' only. -funny- Content forking)my source is clear and fact.
 * His only source is karate book.(written by karate teacher. page cover is karate(空手), too)
 * 1. even if his source writed like that, David Mitchell book is 'nonsense'. He is a karate teacher. and his book is almost karate book. originally karate-pov book. also he can't represent to TKD. It is not trustworthy source.
 * All taught Japanese-influenced systems? first of all, Fighting style is very different. as i know, only 17% TKD techniques similar with karate. 13% are kung-fu. other are original technique.(derived from Song Duk-ki, the tekkyon master) mainly derived from tekkyon's kicking technique.
 * 2. Kukkiwon is world TKD headquarter. Which one is the more trust worthy? 1. one karate teacher's(neither scholar nor Do not work for TKD) karate POV book 2. official TKD headquarter. millions of kukkiwon dojang and TKD teachers
 * 3. Please, away David Mitchell's paperbook from TKD article. David Mitchell is not TKD scholar. David Mitchell do not work for TKD. and David Mitchell claim did not authorized from TKD organization. That book is a martial arts paper book, it can't be a reliable source. if that book is reliable, then 'ninja training' book is historical FACT and reliable source, too? nonsense.
 * 4. also His edit is violated wikipedia policy. Content forking and we did not confirm from whole article. His source is unclear. but my source is clear.
 * 5. if He keep David Mitchell's stupid claim(i still doubt it is real or not), it will be must actionable to attach 'hoax' tag.
 * I encourage anyone with sufficient time and patience to peruse them.Manacpowers (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Geez Manacpowers... you really aren't an expert in TSD. It's pretty reliable info the HUGE influence JMA had in all the original post-war kwans. In fact, Hwang Kee admitted to learning the Pinan's from a Japanese karate book he found while working in China. Yes, Soo Bahk Do NOW has a much more Chinese influence, but classical TSD is mearly a repackaged Shotokan. In fact all of the original kwans were just personal spins of Japanese karate brought back by Korean Nationals.JWLuiza (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone: the evidence for Okinawan/Japanese influence on Tang Soo Do is overwhelming. Read some texts; stay off of the websites that promote their own arts and National identity. In Traditional Tang Soo Do dojangs the curriculum is essentially identical to Shotokan. Sure there is more kicking and less punching, but big deal: All the forms, the order of the forms, and much of the self defense and sparring are nearly identical. The roots of Karate-Do can clearly be traced, and the roots of Tang Soo Do can clearly be traced to a few brave Korean men: all of which studied Japanese Karate-Do in some capacity during horrible periods of strife and genocide for the Korean people. My question to you all is why is it so wrong to admit this influence? Tang Soo Do is not thousands of years old. It did not originate in Korea and it is not a composite Korean/Chinese art. Sure there are ancient Korean and Chinese combat arts, but these arts bare little resemblance to Tang Soo Do; which again is nearly identical to Shotokan. If you all recall, Shotokan is a style of Japanese Karate-Do that was initially developed in Okinawa. I think we all do Tang Soo Do a disservice to keep referring to this art as "Korean." Sure there was a tremendous influence of Korean people on various styles of Tang Soo Do. But this creation of a false history and the continued emphasis on arbitrary differences between traditional arts stifles personal growth and fosters a twisted sense of National elitism. The reality of it is that Tang Soo Do = Karate-Do and Karate-Do = Tang Soo Do. One has more kicking, the other more punching. Big deal. Also, there is absolutely nothing in Tang Soo Do that resembles Chinese arts (Soo Bahk Do excluded here). The only thing Chinese are the names of some of the forms. The forms were named in Okinawa and reflect a few Chinese military men who introduced certain forms to the various Okinawans that developed Karate-Do. Over the years many cultures and many people have promoted the growth of Tang Soo Do. Tang Soo Do has no national identity and it should not be used to promote national pride. Tang Soo Do/Karate-Do are art forms and combative sports. They are for all people. Not acknowledging a true lineage undermines the development of a thorough philosophical understanding of the art.

Also, many of you keep bringing up the fact that because Tang Soo Do emphasizes kicking more than Karate-Do that is must have had a different lineage or must be different arts. Let me ask you this: are there no other styles of Japanese/Okinawan Karate-Do that have have jumping and spinning kicks? Just because there is a larger emphasis on certain techniques in one art over the other does not mean that the two arts are mutually exclusive.

Regarding Hwang Kee and Soo Bahk Do/Tang Soo Do: Hwang Kee did not invent Tang Soo Do. He learned most of it from a book on Japanese Karate-Do, presumably written by Funakoshi Gichin. He was not even the first person to teach Tang Soo Do in Korea. Granted this in no small feat; but it does not make Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan "Korean." It makes it a Japanese/Okinawan martial art that was taught by a Korean man. You can certainly see Hwang Kee's love of the Chinese arts in Soo Bahk Do. But the addition of the Chil-Sung hyung are forms that were created by Hwang Kee. Does that really mean that the art is a composite? It really looks to me that the art is identical to Karate-Do, with the addition of a half-dozen forms created by Hwang Kee. If Tang Soo Do is truly Korean, why is it not recognized by the Korean government as such? The answer is because there was too much of a Japanese influence on it for it to be considered Korea's national sport.

I have no ranking in any form of Japanese Karate-Do. I am a 2nd dan (been practicing for ~ 20 yrs; including injury time) in Tang Soo Do. I am not promoting Karate-Do here, but I just think it is absurd to erase it from the Tang Soo Do history books simply because it is not Korean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.14.68 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * well, you are another ID of JJL?
 * please prove your claim by reliable evidences.

>>any evidence? >> Origin of Tang soo do is possibly China. "The Way of Chinese Hand" It initially reflected historical origins of the art. However, its basis, the Korean art of Soo Bahk Do, dates back many centuries. Tang Soo Do is a composite style, being 60% Soo Bahk Do, 30% northern Chinese and 10% southern Chinese kicking techniques I do not say your POV is 100% wrong. however, at least if you want change article, please show any reliable evidence. WP:RS >> Wrong. Tang soo do shaped by Soo bahk. This traditional martial arts cleary traced thounads years ago. It recorded in history book. >> That is your POV. >>I think your Truth is not for all' truth. read TRUTH >> Well, According to your logic, Hwan Kee did not learend Karate.(only read book? it that all?) so, TSD is not root from Karate. at least, He did not practiced Karate. >> practicing for 20 yrs and earned 2nd dan? hmmm. i heavily doubt you really learned tang soo do. >> you said, you did not learned Karate. then, how can you compare karate and TSD? it is impossible. I do not deny Tang soo do influenced by Karate. if someone think it is Koreanized karate, then, it is his/her choice. However, That POV is not suitable in wikipedia. wikipedia is not your blog. in this point, Tang soo do skills shaped mainly from Soo bahk. so that POV is unreasonable conclude. Already difference from karate. Again, "Tang Soo Do has no national identity" That is the serious POV Pushing.
 * no one say Tang soo do is not influenced by Karate.
 * Soo Bahk Do is not a chinese arts.
 * In Traditional Tang Soo Do dojangs the curriculum is essentially identical to Shotokan?
 * Tang Soo Do is not thousands of years old.
 * Tang Soo Do is not thousands of years old. It did not originate in Korea
 * Tang Soo Do = Karate-Do and Karate-Do = Tang Soo Do. One has more kicking, the other more punching.
 * Tang Soo Do has no national identity
 * Regarding Hwang Kee and Soo Bahk Do/Tang Soo Do: Hwang Kee did not invent Tang Soo Do. He learned most of it from a book on Japanese Karate-Do
 * I have no ranking in any form of Japanese Karate-Do. I am a 2nd dan (been practicing for ~ 20 yrs; including injury time)

72.93.142.61, 72.93.13.162. two IP ranges are very similar. i heavily doubt these IP are not same person. please show any reliable source. Manacpowers (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoever commented on my comments on the origins of Tang Soo Do: I appreciate your feedback, and you are right, it is my POV. I wanted to throw it out there. I have read a ton about this and those are my conclusions—and my conclusions are pretty objective and based on the literature. I wanted to share my findings with this community. Seriously, I was pretty disappointed to find all of this evidence. Especially that Hwang Kee learned Tang Soo Do from a book and was a green belt under Won Kuk Lee.

Look, I have no agenda here. I think you should read the texts written by Hwang Kee. Also, look up the history of all founders of the original Kwans and read through very early (1920s or earlier) texts on Karate, particularly early ones by Funakoshi. There is information in there on how Karate made its way into Korea. Also check out "Tae Kwon Do, Korean Karate" by S. Henry Cho. There is some interesting historical info there as well. Additionally, the International Tang Soo Do Alliance and Dan Nolan's Tang Soo Do page has some good historical information on Tang Soo Do. Read that stuff if you are interested. It’s helpful.

As for my evidence for the curriculum of TSD (not Soo Bahk Do) being nearly identical to Shotokan: Come on. Aside from the language difference, all the forms are the same, the names of the forms are the same (until Funakoshi changed them), the order in which the forms are practiced are the same and the number of forms are the same (at least if you follow Funakoshi's texts). Additionally, "IL SOO SIK" as listed on this page was first described and practiced in the late 1800's by Funakoshi. Read Karate Jutsu by Funakoshi. This text was written when Hwang Kee was still a blastula.

As for Hwang Kee and his karate (Tang Soo Do) experience: He trained under Won Kuk Lee for a bit and earned a green belt. Won Kuk Lee trained in Tokyo under Funakoshi. Couple that with a copy of Funakoshi's text read by Hwang Kee and you have the original Moo Duk Kwan curriculum. Seriously, I invite you to read a real historical document about Moo Duk Kwan, then think about the socio-political situation of Korea at the time, and try to understand why some of this history was buried.

As far as my background goes: why do you heavily doubt I practice TSD? I started when I was 12......I had some serious injuries in my early 20's and am now 33. You can do the math. Also, my link to Hwang Kee is third generation. If you are questioning my rank, or lack there of for having practiced for so long: I think rank is overrated and I despise all the stripes and bells and whistles that come along with training. My current KJN is pushing me to test….yet I resist.

Regarding TSD originating thousands of years ago in China: The origin of Su Bahk and Tae Kyyon is likely China. However, Tang Soo Do is Okinawan, read Hwang Kee's text and also look up the origins of the other TSD Kwans that emerged after the occupation. There was no knowledge of Su Bahk among Korean martial artists until 1957 when Hwang Kee discovered the “Moo Yei Do Bo Tong Ji”. He was the first to bring these techniques back to life. It wasn't until much later that he incorporated forms from this text into his system, which was then called "Tang Soo Do." After the incorporation of those forms from the Moo Yei Do Bo Tong Ji, the art of Korean "Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan" was changed to Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan to reflect the revisited Korean/Chinese Origins and Hwang Kee’s visions.

What’s in a name: Hwang Kee originally adopted the term Tang Soo Do because it was well recognized in Korea and the name was all ready in use in Korea by Lee Won Kuk and Chun Sang Sup; both disciples of Funakoshi. That’s how Hwang Kee was able to initially retain students at the Moo Duk Kwan; essentially by teaching “Tang Soo Do” or his version of Okinawan Karate (Tang Soo Do) as interpreted from texts and as learned from Won Kuk Lee.

My major point is that Tang Soo Do is the Korean pronunciation of the original Chinese characters that were used to represent “Karate-Do” as taught in Tokyo by Funakoshi. Modern Soo Bahk Do borrows heavily from this, but also incorporates techniques from the “Moo Yei Do Bo Tong Ji.” What’s important here is not to confuse the terms. Tang Soo Do is generic. It means the same thing as Karate-Do as taught in Japan by Okinawans in the early 20th century. The style name is important: Tang Soo Do Yeon Moo Kwan, Chung Do Kwan, Chang Moo Kwan, Song Do Kwan and Moo Duk Kwan were early forms of Korean Karate. Song Do Kwan in fact was the Korean pronunciation of “Shotokan” and was later changed to Song Moo Kwan when it followed the TKD movement. The rest of the Korean Karate (Tang Soo Do) Kwans (except Moo Duk Kwan) also eventually changed their curriculum to TKD (either Choi ITF or Kukkiwon). Moo Duk Kwan retained the original “Karate” curriculum until the 1960’s (1960’s in Korea; much later in the USA and Europe) when Hwang Kee introduced the Chil Sung Hyung' hence the birth of "Soo Bahk Do". Both J.C. Shin (World Tang Soo Do Association) and C.S. Kim (International Tang Soo Do Federation) were students of Hwang Kee at the Moo Duk Kwan. They broke away from the Moo Duk Kwan and created their own organizations. These organizations retain the original Moo Duk Kwan curriculum as was taught in Seoul, which is truly Korean Karate, or Tang Soo Do, same thing. Anyone now who teaches the more modern Moo Duk Kwan curriculum with the Chil Sung Hyung set is really teaching a form of Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan, not Tang Soo Do (Karate-Do). The Chil Sung devised from the “Moo Yei Do Bo Tong Ji” really reflect the Chinese/ancient Korean Lineage. Traditional Tang Soo Do does not. It is truly Karate-Do as interpreted by the founders of the first Kwans in Korea.

One last point about my comment regarding Tang Soo Do not having a Korean national identity: The term is really Okinawan in origin; the various Kwans of TSD have major Japanese and Korean influences. Just because Koreans brought the pronunciation “Tang Soo Do” to the US does not make the art entirely Korean. Again, Tang Soo Do it self is a generic term that in the US and Europe has come to be associated with Korean Karate. There was a huge push after the liberation of Korea under Japanese rule to restore a national identity: that’s where this Tang Soo Do = Korea association stems from. You can say Tang Soo Do Shotokan: that is the same exact thing as saying Karate-Do Shotokan. You see? You can say Karate-Do Moo Duk Kwan, it has the same meaning as Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan. It’s the style name that signifies its dominant influences, not the generic name. But again, Tang Soo Do is generic, and it refers to Karate.

That said, I do not believe Tang Soo Do it self has a national identity in the absence of a style name. This terminology is analogous to binomial nomenclature in science. Rana is a genus of true frog, but the species name tells you what kind of true frog it is. You see? So this wikipedia entry is sort of incorrect in that it is really describing Soo Sahk Do or the evolution of Moo Duk Kwan, not Tang Soo Do. Furthermore, Soo Bahk Do is in part based on a Korean text that described an ancient form of combat that existed in ancient Korea. I agree that Soo Bahk Do is in part Korean. This martial art is registered with the Korean government. Tang Soo Do is not. To the best of my knowledge, all existing “Tang Soo Do” organization headquarters, even if they have Hwang Kee linage, are based in the United States and Europe. They do not exist in Korea, nor do they have the support or registration of the Korean government—Soo Bahk Do and Tae Kwon Do do. This is why I say “Tang Soo Do” is not “Korean.” Aside from most westerners butchering the Korean language and having the Korean Flag in their respective Dojangs, there appears to be nothing that links this art with ancient Korea or China. Sure the Moo Duk Kwan was in Seoul, but if Chil Sung and Moo Yei Do Bo Tong Ji techniques are not part of the curriculum, it’s just a form of Karate-Do as was taught in Souel in the 1940’s, 50’s and early 1960’s--and there is nothing wrong with that.

This info is what I have gathered from texts that I have read. I am not pushing an agenda and I am not trying to be disrespectful. I am merely putting info out there. Sure it's my POV. But I think my POV is pretty unbiased and based on the best factual evidence that I can find. That said, I love Tang Soo Do, and deeply respect the efforts of all Kwan founders. I advise you to do some more in depth research and you will likely draw the same conclusions as I have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.61.57 (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir. Your POV is correct. I've got Tang Soo (Bahk) Do Vol. 1 and have been training since 1991. So, not quite 20 years yet, but have come across most of what you said from various GMs and other practitioners. Too bad Manacpowers isn't able to listen. I think there might be a language barrier. Good addition to the discussions. JWLuiza (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the support and am glad someone read that massive blurb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kongsoodo (talk • contribs) 21:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article was previously clear about the Japanese origins of, and Chinese influences in, the art (here's a version from Dec. 2007 ). After I posted at Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4 in Jan. 2008 about the Japanese origins of Tae Kwon Do and other related KMAs being uncontested on most of Wikipedia, one editor went through and changed a raft of them, starting in Jan. 2008 (moer on this at Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_6). At the Tae Kwon Do page the Korean origins theory has gained support. JJL (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, karate is not a Japanese origin. 660gd4qo (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Person above (660gd...): what are you saying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kongsoodo (talk • contribs) 06:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Current State
I took this out:

Tang Soo Do is shaped by 60% Soo Bahk Do, 30% northern Chinese and 10% southern Chinese. Kicking techniques, for which Tang Soo Do is unsurpassed, are based on Soo Bahk.

"Unsurpassed" is value-laden. Also this does not belong in the recent history and contemporary nomenclature section. This should be in a Soo Bahk DO page.

I also changed, then deleted this:

"Examination of the martial arts education of Kim Ki Whang as a Korean studying multiple martial arts in Japan during the late period of the occupation may also provide insight. Kim Ki Whang was a friend and contemporary of Hwang Kee. He and was sent by Hwang Kee to the United States in 1964 to promote the United States Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan Association and related schools. Grandmaster Kim's style was often criticized by purists as being overly influenced by Okinawan Shudokan. Eventually Ki Whang Kim promoted the Kwan merger buy adopting the term taekwondo and spitting away from the Moo Duk Kwan. Though Ki Wang Kim promoted taekwondo, what he actually taught was a form of tang soo do (karate-do) that closely resembled early Moo Duk Kwan, Shudokan, Shotokan, and the curriculum taught by the World Tang Soo Do Association and International Tang Soo Do Federation."

This is great info but it took away from the flow of the article. I don' think that it was necessary in the recent history and contemporary nomenclature section. It should be put in a Ki Whang Kim site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kongsoodo (talk • contribs) 15:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I also took this out because it it value-laden and not historically accurate. This statement may be true for some, but early tae kwon do (after the kwan meger) was not a sport. There are also many tae kwon do practitioners who do not teach sport taekwondo and there are many tang soo do practitioners who teach competitive sport karate. I say keep this article free of opinion and value laden terminology. "Tangsoodo or Tang Soo Do is a Korean martial art. Modern Tang Soo Do was organized in the 1960s in an attempt to preserve traditional Korean martial arts in an environment where many believed they had become a simple competitive sport. It is not as well-known as Tae Kwon Do but is attractive to those who want to practice Korean martial arts but are less-interested in the competitive aspect." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kongsoodo (talk • contribs) 15:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hope nobody minds - I added a blurb about where Song moo kwan is at nowadays. Whistle if you want to discuss. --Dan 17:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, should create a new wiki page "Song Moo Kwan", article should remain in a netreal POV

I deleted the Song Moo Kwan blurb also/again. It needs its own article. For the reader, it arrives in the article as a complete non sequitur. If we put blurbs for every shade of Tang Soo Do in this article, it will be thousands of pages long, which would not serve a general reader.

I also removed the weasel sentence about Tang Soo Do "emerging from Tae Kwon Do's shadow" in the past two decades. This suggests that Tang Soo Do was in Tae Kwon Do's "shadow" in the first place, a claim that is simply unfounded. In terms of popularity among the general public, it may have gained in popularity east of the Mississippi, but this does not mean it was ever in another art's shadow. Such a claim is also in contradiction to the ancestral history section of the article.


 * Grumpy complaints 1) None of you zealous deleters signed. 2) Songmookwan is one of the 5 original kwans, so you won't have thousands of pages if you restrict the article to those five. 3) Please clarify the NPOV complaint. --Dan 22:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Song Moo Kwan deserves mention but it's good that it has it's own article in wikipedia User5802 04:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Link Farm
Wikipedia is not a link farm - best is 2 or 3, less than 10 definately. Can someone who knows a bit more of the subject do some triming. External links should add info rather than advertise schools.Peter Rehse 01:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted all links, except those organization that are headed by a notable grandmaster. should you see any new links, edit according to this critera,

1 - is the website an official site of established organisation

2 - Headed by a Named and notable Grandmaster, whos personal history is given

3 - Does the site offer actual information, and not just advert for an organisation/club

I've done a clean up of the links section, per these standards. --- Tsdsahbum --- 31 July 2007

I'm doing another clean up, removing some of the smaller groups.JWLuiza (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Tang Soo Do versus Soo Bahk Do
As far as I'm aware (but I'm only 10th Gup) Tang So Do is not officially recognized as part of the Moo Duk Kwan. Seems that Tang Soo Do is more of an offshoot than Soo Bahk Do. So shouldn't this article be called "Soo Bahk Do"? I'll check with my Sa Bom Nim, but he's at "moment with the masters" for a week, and the Kyo Sa Nim in my studio is also gone. In the meantime, can anyone comment? MrBeck 04:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC), Gup # H114182


 * I am a cho dan in soo bahk do, and its true Tang Soo Do is not part of the Moo Duk Kwan, Tang Soo Do is the former name of Soo Bahk Do. And it is true, it is an old offshoot of Soo Bahk Do, if you look at both arts you can see the similiar roots.


 * Thanks. I actually have had a chance to talk at length with one of the Dans in my studio, and I got a lot more info on the history. I think I'll get some of the books on the subject, then maybe help improve this article. MrBeck 00:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Tang Soo Do is a general name for several styles of karate practiced in Korea in the post-war era. Moo Duk Kwan Tang Soo Do was among the most popular. MDK TSD became Soo Bahk Do, so genealogically speaking, SBD would be an offshoot or substyle of TSD.  However, the significant changes of SBD make it very dissimilar in terms of basics and forms (Chil Sun, Hwa Sun, and Yuk Ro, vs. the Shudokan/Shotokan style forms).JWLuiza 22:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)John

No weapons?
That's completely wrong.

Whens the last time you were carrying a katana when you went out to eat?

I know that we use staffs (Bohngs or however you spell it) at my Tang Soo Do school.

Staffs are a slightly different story, almost anywhere you can find a improvised staff in reach, poolstick, standing lamp, broom. And i'm not sure about tang soo do, i train in Soo Bahk Do and we start using the staff at a higher level but its not required by the federation. You have to realize that a weapon is just an extension of your hands, if your body is your primary weapon you can understand and adapt to a weapon much easier.

In the World Tang Soo Do Ass., we train with Bongs (staff), Dan Gum (knife), and Jang Gum (Sword). We have 3 official and one unofficial bong hyung (forms), one dan gum hyung, and three jang gum hyung.--Eric Dufurrena, Sam Dan

Songmookwan uses staff and manchurian broadsword, in the Chungbong form progression. --Dan 15:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise would be to state that while "Hwang Kee's form of Tang Soo Do did not have any official weapons as part of the standard curriculum, many offshoot organizations have since adopted weapons to their curriculum." From there, one could list examples of weapons taught on an organizational level (ex "For example, the WTSDA and TSDMGK have incorporated a variety of sword forms into their curriculum.) "Are weapons used in Tang Soo Do?" seems like a reasonable question from a reader, and providing this sort of detail seems much more fair than a simple "yes" or "no." This way, you can account for the natural progression and evolution (ryu pa) of the different factions of Tang Soo Do. Does this seem reasonable?-- Tommrkr (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok that's completely insane. We DEFINITELY use weapons. From staffs to arni sticks to sais to swords to nunchucks. However it does differ from studio to studio. Also, it depends on the training backgrounds of the instructors: if some are trained in Japanese martial arts as well, they may very well know sword. Etc....Etc.....

I have never heard of the use of weaponry in Tang Soo Do. I study under the International Tang Soo Do Federation which teaches Soo Bahk Do and no weaponry techniques are taught nor sactioned. 2nd Gup 22:47 07 April 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC).

Time to Add a Soo Bahk Do Article
With the addition of the Yuk Rho and Chil Sun forms, it would be nice if we were to pull these out... JWLuiza 20:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, since Tang Soo Do isn't all Moo Duk Kwan, maybe we should filter out some info and create larger Kwan pages? JWLuiza 20:28 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy
While we are talking about Tang Soo Do, has anyone thought to mention anything other than "lineage," say for example, combat philosophy, code of conduct, or any similar (and more relevant) topics? I cannot for the life of me see what makes Tang Soo Do different from other martial arts, so can someone please get to the meat and potatoes? This lineage stuff is boring and not very informative. --18:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)~

Removal of an individual's Title
Please see Manual of Style (biographies) for the reason for removal --Nate1481(t/c) 16:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up
This article is full of unsubstantiated opinion, and vanity advertising for various Tang Soo Do organizations. I am going to attempt to clean this article up, and maintain it in a neutral fashion. Don't get your feelings hurt if I remove references to your organization while doing so. This article is about Tang Soo Do, not which Federation is claiming to be the largest and greatest this week. Start a separate article for your organization, if you feel it is important enough. Tsdsahbum --- 31 July 2007


 * I agree. It's full of nationalistic propaganda that obscures the true origins of the art. Readers beware. --July 2008.

The hyung section has a lot of overlap with the hyung article. I propose deletion of the details on hyung within this article. User5802 (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

American Tang Soo Do
Okay. I believe that this entire article and discussion is about traditional Tang Soo Do. I believe a new article should be created for American Tang Soo Do, not replacing this one, just adding more information on the subject.

American Tang Soo Do's forms are different, self defence is different, techniques, everything....Think about it. -unsigned comment
 * FWIW, I studied what I was told was Tang-Soo-Do (specifically Chuck Norris-style Tang Soo Do) but was ultimately renamed to Chun Kuk Do. It's mentioned in the disambiguation page, but do people feel that it's worthwhile to mention on this page to avoid the confusion? Assuming, of course, that this is the same "American Tang Soo Do" that I think the prior comment was about. -Fuzzy (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Early History
I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what this phrase is supposed to mean, and therefore am also not sure how to fix it: "Gook Sun" or "Poong Wal" is considered as modern army general, each could have several hundreds to several thousands private armies to protect the country and the region.  I also have not seen the Hwarang referred to as the Hwa Rang Dan before, but perhaps I'm missing something. Omnedon 17:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
Is there a reason to use the Infobox_martial_art_group infobox instead of the more appropriate Infobox_martial_art? - Nmnogueira 10:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just been using the martial art group infobox I made for articles that don't already have an infobox. It contains all of the original fields (except "hardness") plus a few other ones I thought may be beneficial. Public may compare the two here and decide for themselves - Template:Infobox_martial_art and Template:Infobox_martial_art_group. User5802 08:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Corrected it to use Infobox_martial_art_school. Still need to check into whether your Infobox_martial_art may be more appropriate. User5802 (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Tang soo do is not mean 'karate do'
"In Japanese, these characters mean "karate-do", but in contemporary Japanese karate-do"  Who edit like that? if you understanding korean language. it is funny HOAX. no relation with karate. Korean called karate is karate. 'Tang soo do' is NOT mean 'karate do'. also please check Tang soo do homepage. They did not mentioned that it mean 'karate do'. Manacpowers (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you are wrong. The characters are the exact same.  When reading the characters, a Japanese speaker would say "Karate-do" while a Korean would say "Tang Soo Do".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.175.229 (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Issues
In an attempt to address some of the issues indicated by the tag on this article, I have performed some copyediting, and more significantly have removed information that is duplicated in other articles -- specifically the entire section on patterns, as well as the section on Korean commands. This has substantially reduced the length of the article, and will also make that information easier to maintain.

However, it's not clear to me just what part(s) of the article are thought to be confusing, or what parts were thought to contain "weasel words" or colloquial terms. If anyone has thoughts, share them here, or just go ahead and edit the article as necessary to eliminate these issues (if they exist). More basic copyediting may be needed, and I will work on that. Omnedon (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Omnedon: GREAT rewrite. Thanks!!! JWLuiza (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I agree, the new, shorter version is better and a bit more objective than the entries of the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kongsoodo (talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Chuck Norris not 10d !
In the first part it states that Chuck Norris achieved 10d? either someone made a stupid chuck norris joke or a very stupid mistake. later it states that 10d is not achievable. On his homepage it states he was the first westerner to achieve 8d (in taekwon do) maybe it was mixxed up with this. If I get no other response or someone else edits it i will delete the sentence in two days. anon - 11 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.179.245.192 (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do, I say get rid of it altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.184.139 (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Serious Problems
This article should be deleted or rewritten with proper references. Tangsoodo in Korea is literally Korean variation of Japanese karate. This article reads like it was written by someone from a martial arts school to promote themselves and their master.AndrewHKLee (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I have tried to make it objective. But.....it keeps getting edited with weasel words, a misunderstanding of Korean terms and pro-Korean rhetoric.

I took this out: "Unlike Karate-do, Tang Soo Do is a composite style, along with Taekkyeon, Soo Bahk Do, Chinese Kung, Karate." It is grammatically incorrect and inaccurate. Tang Soo Do is NOT a style. Sure, Moo Duk Kwan or Mi Guk Kwan and the like are styles, Tang Soo Do is not. It is a system or art. The style is the name that follows the system. Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan, etc. This is an article about Tang Soo Do. It, in the absence of a style, is not a composite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kongsoodo (talk • contribs) 17:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

issues on citing and referencing is that there only few books (That can be considered well referenced), and most these are available to by through specialist booksellers or TSD organization. The most common book that will be quoted will be Hwang,k Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan (there are differences between first edition, and subsequent editions). However this book itself has to be viewed as bias, in that was written as means to promote TSD. Since most TSD book afterward either cite this book or use oral history, there is great difficulties with reaching the standard that wiki now aims for. It may also be wise to draw distinction between 1950-1980 when TSD expanded worldwide with Korean instructors working in relatively large association groups to the more recent fracturing of TSD in to smaller groups, and its expansion by non-Korean instructors. lastly Korean suffered from 1906-1945 with Japanese attempts to destroy Korean culture, this made Korean in past very sensitive to phrase "Tangsoodo in Korea is literally Korean variation of Japanese karate". This major reason that recording of Japanese influences are so bad in books and reference material post 1945 books. While most modern practitioners accept these influences now, it took a long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.114.102 (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What you're seeing is in large part a spill-over from the Tae Kwon Do page. Devotees of the theory that it's a 5000 year old Korean martial arts with no outside influences whatsoever have spread that viewpoint to other KMA articles in the hopes that it bolsters their position there. JJL (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any editors stating there was no outside influence whatsoever on Taekwondo. It's simply a question of degree.  Omnedon (talk)

I've tried to make a few small edits to make the page more accurate. But each time, they get reversed. I'm not really seeing any energy for people making this a better quality article. I've given up. JWLuiza (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC).

No Evidence for a Bare Handed Martial Arts Culture in Pre-Japanese Colonized Korea besides Ssirum Wrestling
There is no evidence at all that there was some kind of culture of bare-handed martial arts comparable to Okinawan Karate in Korea prior to the Japanese introduction of Karate during the colonial era (1910-45.) The bare-handed martial art of Korea was Ssirum wrestling, which is an excellent grappling style - demanding that one throw one's opponent to the ground, and not scoring merely pushing the opponent out of the ring. For whatever reason, likely the same reason that Karate spread around the world so rapidly - that it is fun, excellent exercise, not too difficult to do, and very effective for fighting - Karate became popular in Korea, just like it had in Japan before it. Koreans who loved Karate had to somehow justify their loving a foreign martial art to themselves and started making up false tales of origins, including some of those that have sadly made their way into this encyclopaedia article. A lot of reference is made to Taekkyon as an ancestor of various modern Korean martial arts such as Taekwondo and Hwarangdo, in addition to Tangsoodo, but all that we really know about Taekkyon is that it was practiced only around the locale of Seoul, the capital city, and it was rather simply a variant of Ssirum, the variation being that in Taekkyon matches you could also win by kicking the opponent in the head, or by push-kicking him in the body hard enough that it made him step back a few paces. Taekkyon is indeed a very unique and interesting martial art/game but it was most definitely not widespread, and it is really an expanded Ssirum wrestling style, which had individual techniques but no (and still no) kata/poomse forms. It is also questionable as to whether or not it really was practiced at all since all evidence of its pre-Japanese-colonial existence comes from only one man who claims to have learned all its skills in his youth. It may be that himself deserves credit for creating rather than simply handing down the style. By the way, I am a Koreanist and I have done research on these things, including while living in Korea. I speak and write fluent Korean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kozushi (talk • contribs) 08:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Good, you can help clean this mess up!!!Greenshinobi (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hwang Kee's Book 1978
This book does not seem to be referenced in the article. In 1978, Hwang Kee would, I recall, have been living in the US. I first met him in Seoul in 1971 when he lived in a very small house near Seoul main railway station. In the preface (the book is in English), the author, Hwang Kee, quotes an earlier book he implies he has written that was first printed in 1970 and entitled "The Korean Soo Bahk Do Book" (presumably in Korean). I was not aware of this book at the time I studied Tang Soo Do in Seoul in Hwang Kee's dojang.

In the 1978 publication, the author foresees publishing four more books in quick succession. I am not aware that these were in fact written. However, it is clear from the 1978 book that "Tang Soo Do" in Hwang Kee's mind, was a generic term for martial arts, as is his use of the term Soo Bahk Do. Hwang Kee distinguishes Tang Soo Do from Yudo, Aikido and Kendo as an emphasis on attacking and protecting with bare hands and feet.

On page 14 of the book, Hwang Kee writes that "the study of..martial arts was halted during the Japanese occupation of Korea, ending in 1945. At that time, the author (i.e. Hwang Kee) established the modern Tang Soo Do style under the Moo Duk Kwan school". I do not think that Hwang Kee claimed to have established Tang Soo Do. In fact he goes on to list a number of other schools that existed at the time he founded the Moo Duk Kwan. These, he writes, were Yon Moo Kwan; YMCA Kwon Bup; Chung Do Kwan; and Song Moo Kwan. Others, such as Chang Mo Kwan, soon followed, he writes.

He then goes on to explain a rather complex set of name attributions and incorporations that is more or less verified in an earlier work by general Choi Hong Hi on Taekwon-Do that was published first in 1965. Hwang Kee writes that the "Korean Tang Soo Do incorporated as Korean Soo Bahk Do Asociation...on 30 June 1960". Hence the relationship between the names Moo Duk Kwan, Tang Soo Do and Soo Bahk Do. Hwang Kee and Choi Hong Hi do not coincide on the timing of the parallel incorporation of the Korea TaeKwon-Do Association but that seemed to have occured around the same time.

In his book published in 1998, Kang Uk Lee (who holds Moo Duk Kwan Black Belt no.70 and trained directly under Hwang Kee) makes a point that was well known to those who practised under the Tang Soo Do Soo Bahk Do name in the 1960s and 1970s in Korea and that remained a point of great personal sadness to Hwang Kee. A large part of the Moo Duk Kwan, led by Lee Kang Ik, severed its links with Hwang Kee and the Soo Bahk Do Association in the 1960s and aligned itself under the Taekwon-Do banner with, it is clear, all the other "kwan" that had been established in Korea in the late '40s and early '50s.

So, in summary, the Moo Duk Kwan is the sole Korean school that uses the term Tang Soo Do and Soo Bahk Do. And the Moo Duk Kwan traditions also exist through the Korea Taekwon-Do Association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishoplatimer (talk • contribs) 22:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Famous Practitioners Guidelines
I noticed that the list has been added to with some not-so-famous practitioners and possibly one even added himself and then linked the wrong name.... Are there guidelines from other arts and famous practitioners. Does this section need to exist in this article? JWLuiza (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Re-Working
There are essentially four articles often saying the same things to the point it is very difficult to tell one from the other and why there are the four articles. Hwang Kee is the central figure and has his own page - some of his history in each page seems ok but not an expanded version in each of Moo Duk Kwan, Tang Soo Do and Soo Bahk Do. It should be clearer what separates each of the styles from each other - my feeling is that they should all be merged into one. Frankly if you remove the Biography and Belt color information you have very little left.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)