Founder-Created Martial Arts Without Founders in Korea

Across the world, new martial arts are created and disappear every single day.
The development and announcement of new martial theories contributes greatly to the evolution of martial arts.
The more this kind of activity takes place, the stronger a nation’s competitive power in martial arts becomes.

If you consider how much Taekwondo has elevated Korea’s national image and global reputation, this is not difficult to understand.

Creating a martial art is an extremely difficult task.
And even if one succeeds in creating it, gaining recognition is far more difficult.

The success of a founder-created martial art depends on how logically sound its theory is,
and how clearly its unique principles are established.

If it lacks logic or martial value, it will naturally be eliminated through the law of survival.
Only a small number of systems will be recognized and survive.
Through this process, martial arts gradually develop on a global scale.

However, in Korea, the act of creating and announcing a new martial theory often leads to something closer to social burial.

The term “being buried alive” may sound extreme,
but anyone who has publicly declared the creation of a new martial art in Korea will understand this expression without difficulty.

The fact that, over thousands of years of history, Korea has produced only a handful of widely recognized founder-created martial arts reflects this reality.

Although today many people evaluate Gongkwon Yusul positively,
the first ten years after its introduction in 1996 were marked by severe hardship simply because it was a newly created martial art.

Personal attacks from other dojangs,
accusations of being a “fake” system from martial organizations,
and constant verbal abuse through phone calls and emails created significant stress.

Under these conditions, developing a founder-created martial art requires risking one’s entire life.
In the current Korean martial arts environment,
it may be nearly impossible for instructors or school owners at the grassroots level to create a new system.

The rapid spread of Gongkwon Yusul overseas is, in many ways, a natural result of this situation.

Foreign practitioners who seek out Gongkwon Yusul ask questions about its principles and systems.
They listen, try to understand, and evaluate its value based on that understanding.

In contrast, when many Korean practitioners first meet me,
instead of asking about the system, they ask, “How old are you?”

This difference is not small.

It reflects a tendency to believe that one’s own martial art is the only legitimate one,
while viewing others as inferior or fraudulent.

The most serious structural problem in Korean martial arts today is this:
there are founder-created martial arts, but no clear founders.

This is a serious issue, yet it is often ignored due to collective self-interest.

For example, if a foreign practitioner asks who founded Haedong Kumdo,
it is difficult to give a clear answer, and even more difficult for them to understand it.

This is because, among the dozens of organizations associated with Haedong Kumdo,
multiple leaders claim to be its founder.

This situation is not limited to one system.

Many martial arts that represent Korea—such as special forces martial arts, Hapkido, and others—
have founder-created systems but no clearly established founder.

Each organization claims legitimacy,
making it nearly impossible to determine the truth.

Is there any other country in the world where this happens?

It is similar to a street where every restaurant claims to be the “original,”
even those that have just opened.

In reality, there is no martial art without a founder.

Even systems said to be over a thousand years old, such as Shaolin martial arts, have identifiable origins.
Wing Chun has Yim Wing Chun.
Karate has Funakoshi Gichin.
Judo has Kano Jigoro.
Yiquan has Wang Xiangzhai.

Despite centuries of history, their founders are clear.

Yet in Korea, many martial arts with only decades of history have no clearly recognized founder.
It becomes impossible to establish lineage or record a proper historical genealogy.

Recently, even Taekwondo has faced claims that General Choi Hong-hi is not its founder,
but merely the person who named it.

Whether such claims contribute to the development of Taekwondo or to Korea’s national interest is something that must be seriously considered.

At this rate, it is not difficult to imagine a future in which Korea has martial arts,
but not a single recognized founder.

Meanwhile, many Korean martial arts organizations are focused on obtaining institutional benefits and recognition.

While such support is valuable,
what is truly needed first is effort and development within the martial arts themselves.

At the same time, foreign martial arts are being imported and adopted at a rapid pace.
Their systems and programs are used to build businesses with minimal effort.

Because these systems are already structured,
there is less need for deep development, and switching to another system remains easy if necessary.

In this process, foreign martial arts are often elevated,
while Korean martial arts are undervalued.

What is overlooked is a simple truth:
what is uniquely Korean can also become global.

Korean martial arts possess the technical potential to grow internationally.
However, without the commitment to develop and promote them with a sense of responsibility,
this potential cannot be realized.

At the very least, the Korean martial arts community must not continue to abandon fundamental principles.