Is Taekwondo Karate?

Author: Bret Gordon

Yes. But also no. But also yes...

A conversation with one of my students prompted this article to answer the question "Is Taekwondo Karate?" As the opening line suggests, answering that question is not as simple as you might think and really comes down to how you define "Karate." Let's explore it first from our perspective at the American Jidokwan Association, and then the martial arts community at large. 

Fundamentally, we believe traditional Taekwondo is Karate. In my previous article "How Can Jidokwan Be Tang Soo Do?" (click here), I broke down the Jidokwan's origins in both Shotokan and Shito Ryu, and showed that even the early generations referred to their art specifically as Karate.

To understand the difference between modern Taekwondo and Karate, we have to understand the history of Taekwondo itself. 

---

During the Japanese occupation of Korea, traditional Korean martial arts like Taekkyeon were outlawed. Therefore, if you wanted to study martial arts, your options were either Japanese Karate or Judo (or Daito Ryu Aiki Jujutsu in the case of Hapkido founder Choi Yong Sul, but that's a story for another day). The founders of the nine Kwans that would later form the foundation of Taekwondo all had Karate backgrounds, and they were honest about what they taught when they opened their schools. They all referred to their art as either Tang Soo Do 唐手道, Kong Soo Do 空手道, and Kwon Bup 拳法. These terms are Korean translations of the Japanese terms Tode-Do (Way of the Chinese Hand), Karatedo (Way of the Empty Hand), and Kenpo (Law of the Fist) respectively.

It was only when the Korean government stepped in to force unification and a new, purely Korean identity, that the idea of what they were teaching was not Karate would even be discussed. Eventually, the phrase Taekwondo was coined and all nine Kwans dropped the previous monikers. Moo Duk Kwan actually splintered into 3 distinct branches over this, and we now have MDK Taekwondo, MDK Tang Soo Do, and MDK Soo Bahk Do (a term created by Hwang Kee), but they are all still teaching essentially the same art.

So, by this first distinction, is Taekwondo Karate? Of course not! It has a brand new name and that definitely makes it not the same thing.

---

The next thing to consider is the material itself being taught. Generally speaking, Karate is a style of fighting that emphasizes striking techniques, but even that is not entirely correct. If you look back at traditional Okinawan systems of Karate, the kata heavily represent grappling techniques rather than striking, and the classification of Karate as a striking style actually comes from its introduction to mainland Japan. That's because Japan already had grappling arts (Jujutsu and Judo) and they wanted something to compete with the growing popularity of Western boxing. The picture at left is from an article (click here) describing a match between a boxer and Motobu Choki. 

But I digress. Does that mean because Karate is generally a striking style and Taekwondo is generally a striking style that they are both the same? Anyone with even a cursory understanding of the mainstream practice of each style will note that Karate features a heavier emphasis on hand techniques, while Taekwondo is esteemed for its kicking repertoire, but is that enough to make them distinct from each other? In my opinion, no.

Take for example Shorin Ryu and Goju Ryu. They are both classified as systems of Okinawan Karate, yet they feature entirely different techniques. One notable difference is that Shorin Ryu uses shuto uke (knife hand blocks) whereas Goju Ryu only uses Kage Uke (hooking blocks). They even teach an entirely different set of kata, yet they are both considered Karate.

---

In the video above, we see practitioners of both Tang Soo Do and Shotokan performing Kanku Dai/Kong Sang Koon Dae. There are certainly clear differences, but not much greater degree of difference than the video below comparing Goju Ryu and Shito Ryu's version of Kururunfa:​

By this logic, I believe Taekwondo (and all of its Kwans) is just another system under the Karate umbrella. They may emphasize different techniques, and use different kata/poomsae (in some cases but not all), but they have a shared origin and more in common than not. Although, I am aware that does present a problem. How much adaptation is enough for it to be classified as its own unique style? By my own logic, is Karate actually a subset of Chinese Kung Fu? The original name for Karate was indeed Tode (translated as Chinese Hand) and they were clear they were teaching and studying Chinese martial arts. The distinction only started to be made when Japan wanted it to be a purely Japanese system. I guess history does repeat itself...

I think while an argument can be made that Karate is still Kung Fu, there is a clear delineation between Chinese martial arts and their Okinawan/Japanese descendants. That delineation is not the material, but the body culture developed by the arts themselves. If you were to put a practitioner of both Wushu and Karate in street clothes and have them demonstrate their art, it would be easily understood which was Wushu and which was Karate, certainly more than what particular ryuha the Karate practitioner came from. 

That's where I think the delineation of Karate and Taekwondo would have to take place. There is no question that modern Kukki Taekwondo has a unique body culture from its traditional counterpart, and so its easy to say that it's something entirely distinct. Traditional Taekwondo on the other hand, does not share that body culture inspired by Olympic sparring, yet they are both called Taekwondo leading to the issue of classification. It really comes down to what the individual school is teaching, and how they are teaching it, to determine if you are learning Kukki Taekwondo or Traditional Taekwondo. As I said, the answer to if Taekwondo is Karate, is yes. But also no. But also yes. ​