haidong gumdo vs kendo

Posted by: Anonymous

haidong gumdo vs kendo - 12/05/04 05:22 PM

Which is more effective haidong gumdo or kendo?
Posted by: cxt

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 12/06/04 10:10 AM

Since Kumdo and Kendo are essentially the same art.

I have to ask.

"effective" for what exactly?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 12/06/04 03:12 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cxt:

Since Kumdo and Kendo are essentially the same art.

I have to ask.

"effective" for what exactly?
[/QUOTE]

if there where a fight between a gumdo fighter and a kendo fighter which would be more lethal
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 12/06/04 06:44 PM

The fighter with a better grasp of ma ai, or the Korean equivalent.

I did Kendo for about a year and am currently in Gumdo and while Kendo was more oriented towards the sport sparring aspect where I trained and the Gumdo is geared towards "battlefield" application, there really are only so many ways you can swing a curved, single edged sword - be it mok gum or bokuto. It's akin to saying "Who would win, a judoka or a jujutsuka?"

Like cxt said, they are essentially the same art. If you wanted to split hairs you could say that a kendoka would only have a shinai while a gumdo player would have a katana, but Musashi already showed us that stick can beat steel.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/22/05 10:33 PM

[QUOTE]Since Kumdo and Kendo are essentially the same art.
I have to ask.

"effective" for what exactly?[/QUOTE]While it's true that Kumdo and Kendo are extremely similar, Kumdo is not Haidong Gumdo; these are two completely different art forms. The only real similarities I see between Kumdo and Haidong Gumdo is that they both use swords.

[QUOTE]The fighter with a better grasp of ma ai, or the Korean equivalent[/QUOTE]I'm assuming that the original poster was thinking that the representative from each art form would have equivalent expertise. With that in mind, I would have to go with Haidong Gumdo. My reason is that Haidong Gumdo is geared towards actual battlefield combat while Kendo is geared towards competitive sparring.

But then again, I'm baised since Haidong Gumdo is the art form I train in. :-)
Posted by: cxt

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/23/05 07:44 AM

Turom

With all respect, this conversation has been had before.
Haidong Gumdo is essentially a modern invention or perhaps re-creation.

Haidong Gumdo can't be traced back very far at all.

Comparitive Japanese Ryu can be traced back 100s and 100's of years. We can trace master x teaching master y whom taught master z and so on.

Haidong Gumdo's technique and methods of training are for closer to those used in Kumdo.

Its a fine art, it produces skilled folks.

But an old battlefield art it ain't.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/23/05 09:02 AM

[QUOTE]With all respect, this conversation has been had before.
Haidong Gumdo is essentially a modern invention or perhaps re-creation.[/QUOTE]I don't understand how this challenges my statement that Kumdo is not Haidong Gumdo. [QUOTE]Haidong Gumdo's technique and methods of training are for closer to those used in Kumdo.[/QUOTE]Having seen Kumdo and Kendo, and being someone who practices HDGD, I do not see very many similarities. One is meant for one on one fighting, the other is meant for one on many fighting. One is meant for making lethal attacks, the other is meant for scoring by hitting specific parts.
[QUOTE]Haidong Gumdo can't be traced back very far at all.

Comparitive Japanese Ryu can be traced back 100s and 100's of years. We can trace master x teaching master y whom taught master z and so on.[/QUOTE]Well, since Japan outlawed all Korean martial arts (punishable by death) during their occupation of Korea, I can see how it's not so easy to trace back from master to master to master. HDDG is rooted in a 1700 year old art form that was "updated" in the 1960s.

Just because an art form hasn't remained unchanged for hundreds of years does not invalidate the art. I surely hope you are not suggesting HDGD was "invented" in the 1960s.

But regardless, the original post wasn't about whether you or I consider HDGD a valid form of martial arts, whether it's 40 years old or 1700 years old, it was someone just wondering what people thought.

All I did was clear up a false statement and post my answer to the original poster.

[This message has been edited by Turom (edited 02-23-2005).]
Posted by: cxt

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/23/05 09:31 AM

Turom

Actually that is kinda what I am suggesting.

HG, as far as I am aware is based upon kumdo, its masters were trained in kumdo and its tech are from kumdo.
Which is pretty much Japanese kendo.

(Although I don't understand the "one is meant for one-on-one fighting and one is meant for one on many fighting" I get the sentence I just don't understand what it means.)

Answer me this, how far back can you trace HG? BY NAME.

Whom taught your teacher? And whom taught him? and whom taught him.
My guess, the trail stops around the 50's-maybe as late as the 1920/30's.
And it stops with folks trained in kumdo/kendo.

Since you have posted no info on exactly HOW HG differs from kumdo/kendo.
We don't really have a "false" statement. We have your assurtions that its "false" and little else.

More than happy to have a disccusion, maybe I am totally wrong--would not tbe the first time.

Can we get more specifc?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/24/05 06:22 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Turom:
[QUOTE]Just because an art form hasn't remained unchanged for hundreds of years does not invalidate the art. I surely hope you are not suggesting HDGD was "invented" in the 1960s.[/QUOTE]

I'm gonna go along with CXT on this one--yeah, I suspect that Haidong Gumdo is indeed a modern invention, derived from Japanese sources (much like the Korean form of judo, known as yudo). Certainly, there is no evidence I am aware of that it is an ancient art.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/25/05 12:48 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SamurangWarrior:
Which is more effective haidong gumdo or kendo?[/QUOTE]

Back to your original question. I do both. Kendo is only a sport, so assuming you mean for a real life application of which is more deadly, I'd say HG.

Now to contradict myself, and confuse such a simple answer, in the only real life confrontation I had with a weapon since training in these MA's, I used the Kendo stance and had Kendo as the technique in mind...go figure. Course I wasn't holding a katana either.
Posted by: cxt

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/25/05 01:13 PM

Gemini

And back to my orignal point.

How do you establish that HG is "more deadly?"

What is backing up this assertition? What criteria are you using?

As mentioned I am unaware of anything that would lead me to think that HG is anything more than kumdo.

(and as stated, could be wrong here--but WHY)

Or LESS than Kumdo, which turns the question into something like "which is more effective kendo or kendo?"

Seems that folks feel that HG is somehow different. Cool, then can you please explain what those differences are?????

And why they should matter in terms of "deadlyness?"



[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 02-25-2005).]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/25/05 01:40 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cxt:
would lead me to think that HG is anything more than kumdo.

(and as stated, could be wrong here--but WHY)

Or LESS than Kumdo, which turns the question into something like "which is more effective kendo or kendo?"

Seems that folks feel that HG is somehow different. Cool, then can you please explain what those differences are?????

And why they should matter in terms of "deadlyness?"
[/QUOTE]

kumdo = Korean version of Japanese Kendo. No difference that I'm aware of. Basic weapon - shanai. This is a sport. period. I'm making no reference as to what it may or may not emulate. It, in and of itself is only a sport.

HDGD = Realistic Slicing techniques and forms to develop those techniques. Weapons - bokken and eventually a katana.

They have very little in common. I hope that explains the difference. As far as "the deadliest". I was making a sarcastic example of why neither one should be any less deadly than the other. I should have been a little clearer. Sorry.
Posted by: cxt

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/25/05 01:58 PM

Gemini

Honestly not trying to be a pain here.

But what exactly is "realistic sliceing tech?"

If I am a kendo guy and I do "test cutting" does that count?

What the difference?

Many kendo-ka practice with bokken and many also do katana work-either as iaido or other.

In any case as I understand it, the guys in HG trace their art back to kumdo guys--which bascially means kendo.

So if the HG are bascally kendo/kumdo people where did this "realistic" technique come from?

If its from kendo, then its a non-question. And its if its not--then where is it from?




[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 02-25-2005).]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/26/05 07:56 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cxt:
Gemini

Honestly not trying to be a pain here.
[/QUOTE]

cxt - You're not being a pain at all. I made a statement which you wanted clarification on. It's called discussion and I enjoy it. Maybe by the end of this thread, you'll have proved yourself to be 100% right and me all wrong. The worst that happens is I learned someting new. It's all good!

As far as I know, Kumdo is directly related to the Japanese occupation. It has no ancient history at all. This can be debated until the end of days because there is no way to prove or disprove it. You can agree or not as you see fit.

HDGD however, is not. Again, can I prove it? No. But neither can anyone else, either way. I just find it hard (actually impossible) to believe no such art existed in Korea before the occupation.

You had mentioned Kendo practitioners incorporating Iaido or such into there curriculum. I know that some schools do, but mine does not. Mine is strictly armoured sparring with a shanai and the exercises and forms related to that end. Nothing more. Sport.Maybe it's because they cross-train and incorporate multiple MA's, or maybe that's what most Kendo schools do and mine is the exception. Couldn't tell one way or the other. If that's your experience with Kendo, then I can certainly see why you would challenge my statement. But I hope with this and previous explanations, you can also see why to me, they're as different as night and day.
Posted by: cxt

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/28/05 07:48 AM

Geminai

First, I am NOT questioning HG effectiveness, just its provencence.

As far as I am aware its masters are all old Kumdo guys.
And so were the guys that taught them, and so forth.

I dont see anything novel about their training or sword work that you don't also find in kendo/kumdo.

There is no mention of HG, anywhere, prior to a couple of decades ago. And even that is a reach.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/28/05 09:34 AM

Bear in mind I have no experience at all in Korean arts here...

There was a group practicing Haidong Gumdo before our class on Thursdays (they've since moved). If this is the Haidong Gumdo you're talking about, and Kumdo is basically kendo (bogu, shinai, etc.), then they are very different from each other.

What I saw in Haidong Gumdo is basically kenjutsu/iai. There might be paired forms, but I haven't seen any. The kata are usually much longer than what we do in Iai. We had a kind of inside joke going about their techniques -- whatever we tell you never to do in Iai, do it and you'll be doing Haidong Gumdo. Obviously false, but it had a kernel of truth in it. Turn your bakc on your opponent? Check. Jump in the air? Check. Twirl the sword around, do fancy moves? Check. Roll on the ground, on your sword? Check.

The kata would last a minute or more, and they would stop midway to allow the sensei to roll out mats on the floor for them to roll on.

Again, I've no experience with Korean arts, I surely can't evaluate any kind of effectiveness of it, etc. They might have reasons to roll on their swords, techniques to prevent damage to it, etc. But they seem to be a polar opposite of what we do, in a way.

As far as which is better, kendo or Haidong gumdo? Ehhh, why are we at this again. Samurai or Ninja? Katana or Rapier? Streetfighter or Boxer? Wing chun or MMA? Superman or Batman? Simpsons or South Park? Does it make a difference, really?
Posted by: cxt

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/28/05 10:24 AM

Splice

None of that sounds like any form of "kenjutsu" that I am aware of.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/28/05 11:07 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by splice:

As far as which is better, kendo or Haidong gumdo? Ehhh, why are we at this again. Samurai or Ninja? Katana or Rapier? Streetfighter or Boxer? Wing chun or MMA? Superman or Batman? Simpsons or South Park? Does it make a difference, really?
[/QUOTE]

Splice,

The topic never was (Thank God) about which is better. I never have (or will) reply to such a topic. They're pointless. Cxt was merely asking what the difference was, which I was apparently unable to clarify for him.

Oh, and I never had to roll around on any mats. I've only been doing it for about 3 years. Maybe that's more advanced. lol.

Regards,



[This message has been edited by Gemini (edited 02-28-2005).]
Posted by: cxt

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/28/05 12:01 PM

Gemini

And thank you for the effort.

Seriously.

And again, for the record, NOT questioning is effectiveness.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/28/05 01:58 PM

If you're talking about battlefield effectiveness than obviously Haidong Gumdo would be more effective considering it's designed for that arena.

Gumdo and Kendo are VERY different.

Gumdo and Kenjutsu are basically identical.

In Kendo you strike to well armored points on the body, your objective is to score points. It's a game.

In HDGD you would strike anywhere on the body with a preferance for targets that are usually less heavily armored. It is also taught to keep in mind what cuts will merely injure or debilitate your opponent and what will actually kill them.

In Kendo/Kumdo you generally aren't taught to actually cut things, merely hit them. Effectively cutting with a live blade is very difficult and requires very different motions.

In Kendo/Kumdo your environment is very different. You're expecting to fight a single opponent in a ring of some kind with defined rules.

Haidong Gumdo is designed for encounters involving multiple enemies with intent to kill you. Forms reflect this quite obviously.

Splice you may be surprised to learn your many Haidong Gumdo practices are nearly identical to those of your Iaido. Your teachers may say "never turn your back on an enemy" and with just one enemy this is certainly true but what if you're faced with multiple opponents coming from multiple angles? You MUST turn your back on some of them to engage one or two at a time. Your motion is likely going to be very circular much like with open hand crowd fighting tactics. In most cases jumping is not a good idea, yet in some it can be extremely useful for covering ground quickly, surprising an enemy who's attacking from behind, evading one opponents attack and simultaneously attacking another. Rolling is rarely used but can be extremely useful evasively. Daito Ryu Aikijutsu was primarily for use in armed combat and it involves lots of throwing. What should you do if your opponent evades your cut and throws you? Roll out of it and either attempt to use that motion to attack them or assume a defensive position as quickly as possible. Aikido students should be familiar with this given their training includes plenty of grappling and throwing with weapons.

Haidong Gumdo and Kenjutsu simply include so many things that Kendo and Kumdo do not. In a Kendo match they'll probably be pretty even but in more realistic situations the Kenjutsu or Haidong stylist will have vastly broader training to address the extremely variable situations actual combat.

Kendo practitioners don't use their hands and feet to strike and throw, they don't train for blade locks or encounters with enemies on anything but a level plain. Iaido teaches you how to begin an encounter but what if it keeps going after your sword is drawn and you make those first few cuts? Haidong Gumdo really isn't so different from other sword styles it simply includes a vastly braoder cariculum.

See the difference?
Posted by: cxt

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/28/05 03:23 PM

Subedi

But that just it, HG appears to have NEVER been used on any "battlefield."

Forms reflect "multiple opponents" from where did these forms derive? Where did they come from?
In japanese koryu, I know that tech A and kata B were used by specifc people to train for a lethal duel that occured on this day, place and time.
I can show swordsmen for the same school fighting over a period of several 100 years.

Does the same support exsist for HG?

I ask because from a koryu perspective HG does not look much like any japanese koryu kenjutsu school. (or chinese method for that matter)
Can't tell you what it is--can tell you what it is not.
And a comparison with koryu kenjutsu is probably not warrented.

Again I ask can anyone to name a master of HG prior to the 1950's or 30's--or a master that did not get most of training ORGINALLY from a kumdo guy?

I guess what I am getting at here is that I read alot of claims made by HG folks about how there art is designed for the "battlefield" and for "combat."

I would like to know if how they know that?

As far as I am aware, marketing aside, HG is not a "old" art--its a new one--and if its new then where did this "battlefield" combat take place--folks have not used swords in battle (as primary weapons) in many 100's of years.

Can someone even find a reffernce to the art prior than 30 years ago????

This whole HG thing stikes me like folks being told that TKD is "2000 year old art used by the Hwrang warriors of ancient Silla"

Nice story, good marketing, but histoically valid it ain't.
Is TKD a good art with effective techniques--YOU BET IT IS.
Good enough that its don't need the "puff piece."

Just like I would imagine HG is.

AGAIN, NOT QUESTIONING THE ART, I am questioning some of its claims.

AND I COULD BE WRONG--WOULD NOT BE THE FIRST TIME.

[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 02-28-2005).]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/28/05 03:39 PM

Can I trace a lineage back? Nope. It's all hearsay and even that has mostly been lost. Do I trust instructors when they say these techniques are traditional and were at one point well recorded before a spree of library burning among other things by the Japanese? Yes, I have no reason to doubt them and historically their claims make sense.

Aside from simply trust my instructors how do I know this is authentic battlefield stuff? Well, it's basically IDENTICAL to classical Kenjutsu which makes a great deal of sense considering Japan and Korea are right next to each other and what's more, were strong trading partners for most of both countries history. Heck, it's pretty much been decided the Japanese original came from Korea.

You can trace the lineage of Kenjutsu schools, we have exactly the same techniques and philosophy towards combat. Pretty much exactly the same training methods. Why would I doubt this? The history of HDGD is completely consistant from what I've seen.
Posted by: cxt

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/28/05 03:54 PM

Subedai

But see its NOT, the HG things listed above would be horrifically bad ideas to try in the midst of the chaos of a battlefield or even a duel with live blades.

You simply don't find many of the techniques described above in kenjutsu.

How many kenjutsu ryu have you seen that you can makes such a comparison?
Or are you taking the word of your teacher on that as well?
Koryu arts are kinda rare outside of Japan.
Which ryu are they "identical" too???

Good that you trust them, but I am asking for support.
And the old "all the records got burned up by the Japanese is thin.
Didn't fly with the TKD guys, don't fly now.
Plenty of records exsist, they just often don't support folks claims.

Again, name for me a varifible HG guy past the 1950's.
Or name for me a HG din't get their training from someone that was kumdo guy.
Or show me the NAME HG used prior to 30 years ago.

These are not hard questions, provided that the claimed history of HG is accurate.

What I have found so far is that many claims are being made--very few of which can be supported.

Happy that your happy in your chosen art.
We should all be so lucky.

What you think or feel or belive, or are told is YOUR business.
But when you post it as fact in a open website--then the facts must be supported.


[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 02-28-2005).]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/28/05 04:16 PM

Found an interesting article re: history of Haidong Gumdo.
http://www.answers.com/topic/haidong-gumdo


Notice the line..."Pumsae within Haedong Kumdo is gleaned from various sword patterns found within the Muye Dobo T'ongshi (Illustrated Manual of Martial Arts), a text which the Koreans obtained from the Chinese in the early 18th Century. Paldo/Ch'akgum forms (drawing/sheathing the sword) were taken from Japanese iaido."

Roman
Posted by: cxt

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/28/05 04:27 PM

Thanks for the link!

Checking it out.

Apart from the "Muye Dono T"ongshi"
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/28/05 04:34 PM

First of all what specifically have I listed that would be a "horrifically bad idea"?

Second, my experience of Kenjutsu comes from discussions with Kenjutsu students and instructors in person. Mostly Kashima Shin Ryu people as well as Aikido sword practitioners and Shinkage Ryu Iaido.

As we've seen, peoples individual accounts of history can easily be false, we have no way of knowing for sure. What we CAN trust is archeological evidance. Swords uncovered in Korea are consistant with those used in Haidong Gumdo. They're nearly identical to Japanese swords yet there seems to be a tendancy to move the balance up the blade a bit. Don't believe me? Go to Korea and find a good history museum. I've also studied artwork from ancient Korea and Japan. Somehow warriors depicted in artwork from both countries seem to use the same weapons, the same stances, the same strikes. It's all very consistant.

Although now that I really think about it, there are some techniques more akin to Chinese straight sword that I haven't seen in any Japanese schools, I wonder why? Could it be that Korea is connected to the mainland? I've heard such things from my instructors but you've now I'm not so sure...They could be lying...Korea could actually be an island off the coast of...Ohio. You've really opened my naive little eyes cxt. Thank you.
Posted by: cxt

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 02/28/05 04:54 PM

Subedai

Going back to where swords were forged to show that arts were the same??

Weak line of argument.

About as good as some of the TKD claiming that their kata "looked Japanese" because the kata were "common" throughout asia.

Which Kashima ShinRyu folks? Specifcially--I ask because Karl Friday is a member of another website I belong to and thats his area of expertise.

Shinkage Ryu Iaido--do they do rolls with their swords?
Don't think so.

"Aikido sword" is not a koryu--fine art, but you said that HG was "identical" with "kenjutsu."

And you have yet to name which ryu HG is "identical" too.

Good point that japanese techniques DON'T look much at all like chinese techniqes.
Reason being is that ARE DIFFERENT.

A-Which is weird since you insist that HG are "identical" to kenjutsu

B-Now your switching gears to imply that HG is more based upon Chinese swords--which means that:

B-1, Its no longer "identical"
B-2, Which Chinese system is a part of?

Ah, sarcasic comments--very nice, can't support YOUR OWN contention, lets try ad hominum attacks.

Fortunatly for you I am less naive. And I ask good questions.
Maybe if you had checked with me first.....

Better not let your students see this, they might start asking question you can't answer.
And then start wondering why not.


[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 02-28-2005).]

[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 02-28-2005).]

[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 02-28-2005).]

[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 02-28-2005).]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 03/01/05 09:06 AM

[QUOTE]Notice the line..."Pumsae within Haedong Kumdo is gleaned from various sword patterns found within the Muye Dobo T'ongshi (Illustrated Manual of Martial Arts), a text which the Koreans obtained from the Chinese in the early 18th Century. Paldo/Ch'akgum forms (drawing/sheathing the sword) were taken from Japanese iaido."[/QUOTE]The Muye Dobo T'ongshi was written by order of King Jungjo in 1789. The reason for this was to preserve the martial arts that were used by the Korean military at the time. This book is based off of an older book, one written in 1599.

In the late 1500s, a Chinese martial arts manual (Kihyo Shinsu) was obtained. King Sunjo took interest in the arts and later ordered a military officer to compile six fighting methods. The resulting work was the 1599 manual, "Muye Jebo". These six martial arts forms were Kon Ban (long stick), Dung Pae (shield art), Nang Sun (multiple tipped bamboo spear), Jang Chang (long spear), Dang Pa (triple tip spear), and Ssang Soo Do (long sword).

Ssang Soo Do was a Chinese art form which used a 5 foot long sword, much longer than that which is used in HDGD. In HDGD, the swords are usually between 3 and 3.5 feet, the 3.5 would be for a very tall person.

There are in fact things I see within Ssang Soo Do that are in HDGD.

So now we find that we're going in a different direction... Cxt seems to be stating that HDGD is based off of Kendo, a Japanese art. However now we're seeing evidence that HDGD may have been influenced by Chinese art forms.

So which is it? Was HDGD ripped off of the Japanese or Chinese? That seems to be your main goal, Cxt, to somehow discredit anything Korean. Why are you so adamantly trying to find anything you can to “prove” there is something “wrong” with HDGD?

You repeatedly ask for facts supporting claims that HDGD is not based off of Kumdo/Kendo, yet you supply none to support your claims in return.

You say that HDGD is a "new" invention, yet the book that was mentioned, and is sitting right next to me as I type this, has drawings of forms that come from that 1599 book -- clearly predating your 1960 "invention" date for HDGD.

Cxt, why do you put so much effort into trying to tear down other art forms? One of the first things I learned when I began studying martial arts was that a martial arts student is to respect *all* martial arts, that a martial artist is to never disrespect or look down upon any other form of martial art.

Did you not learn this as well?

In closing, I'd like to go back to the book in question. What this book provides is evidence that what is currently HDGD is in parts documented hundreds of years ago. It does not prove that Koreans invented HDGD, nor does it prove that the Chinese art that was documented was invented by the Chinese either. For all we know, Ssang Soo Do was created by Chinese, based upon Korean influence. Or maybe it was made by the Chinese based upon Japanese influence. Or maybe it invented entirely by the Chinese. We don't know, at least not using this single book as a reference; we just know that it was documented in 1599 by something the Chinese military was using at that time.

And you are right, you will not find references to the name "Haidong Gumdo" in ancient Korean texts, the name is new. I'm sure that anyone who has studied any martial arts history can attest to the fact that names change. It wasn't always called Kendo, now was it?

Martial arts aren't always performed and taught identically either, now are they? Anyone who has seen the same art form differing schools should be able to attest to this. Martial artists studying under multiple masters in the same school should even see differences. Don't you think that would indicate that martial art forms do in fact change over time? Don't you think that perhaps over 500 or even 1,000 years, the masters who have carried on the traditions may have improved certain techniques? Or do you think the masters who originally started the martial arts forms thought of everything? Things change; you will not find a cookie cutter copy of HDGD from 331 AD; however that does not mean HDGD did not in fact originate from sword fighting techniques developed during that time.

-Edit: quoting wasn't working, fixed.

[This message has been edited by Turom (edited 03-01-2005).]
Posted by: cxt

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 03/01/05 10:12 AM

Turom

I am asking a couple of questions. Your basic who, what, when, where etc.

1-As far as I am aware EVERYONE that is listed as teaching HG is directly connected to Kumdo. They either were trained in it themselves or the the guys that taught them were.

(this is comparable to the TKD guys that trained in Japanese karate insisting that "TKD was a 2000 year old fighting art use by the Hwrang warriors of Silla--that may be, but they have no direct links to those guys AND that not where they got THIER training)

2-When and What? We know that HG was NOT an art practiced prior to the 80's. At least one link gives dates of the late 80's AND the guy that coined the term.

So if HG did not exsist as a "style" until then--then what was it PRIOR and WHEN was the HG added to the kumdo they already practiced?

3-Where? As in where was it prior to the 80's? "IF" the HG are in fact different from kumdo, then from what source did they come from?
No-one is able to come up with were the techniques actually came from--if its NOT kumdo--then where?

4-Who? as in who added them?

5-How? As in how did the person/persons that created it learn the techniques?

These are not hard questions--I can find these out about pretty much any style.

Oh, and the burden of proof is not on me--ITS ON THE FOLKS MAKING THE CLAIMS.
If you claim the HG dates back to the 1500's then you have to show the proof for it.
If I claim I can fly--you are not obliged to prove me wrong--I HAVE TO PROVE I CAN.

For my money the Muye Dobo T'ongshi (reffered from here on out as MDT) is simply not a credible source.

1-Only shows static pictures-no way to tell what it "really" looked like.

2-Same problem with ANYONE claiming to have learned an art by looking at pictures in a book.
You would not "buy" a guy coming to your class telling you that they "knew" your system by reading a book.
So why "buy" the same argument from others?

And no, what you have "documented" is that an art using a "5 foot" sword was being used, back in the 1500s.
That art no longer seems to exsist does it?
So your using an art that no longer exsist, using a weapon that ALSO no longer exsist to link to HG?
And that makes sense to you?

And if its NOW being argued that is "chinese" then two things:

1-What about all the claims of it being "identical" to kenjutsu?

2-What chinese art did it come from?

For the record--What I am "tearing down" to use you term, is what I view are bogus claims.

You want to tell me that HG is a fine art? Great I agree.
You want to tell me its "effective?" Ok, sure.
You enjoy it ? We should all be so lucky.

Someone wants to say "I have trained for 25 years and these are the changes I feel needed to be made to make it combat effective."
See, that I can buy. I suppose I can disagree about without having fought lethal sword duels how can you "really" know?
But overall I have NO problem with that.
Someone wants to say "I studed Japense kenjutsu and chinese swordsmanship and developed HG from my personal training."
As long as they can tell me what they studeid and whom they studied with--and those folks back them up.
Cool with that too.

But where I draw the line is when people start in about it being an "ancient combat art."

(From what I can determine its neither "ancient" nor was it ever used in "combat")

I "respect" the truth--I DON'T respect puffery and BS.

And neither should you.


[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 03-01-2005).]

[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 03-01-2005).]

[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 03-01-2005).]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 03/01/05 04:20 PM

CXT,

No prob.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 03/04/05 02:33 PM

im not in haidong im in koryo but i'ld say the diff. is the gumdo is more of a "graceful" art, while kendo is more of the straght forward and strict art. but i'ld say gumdo.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 03/23/05 03:24 AM

Hi, I do Haidong Gumdo and have have a friend that does Kendo. Well i have to say that Kendo uses only Bamboo swords and attack for points, Where Haidong Gumdo uses wooden swords, bamboo swords, practice swords (which is a metal sword that isint sharp) and Real swords. Kendo does sapring while Haidong Gumdo does Patterns ,sparing, cutting (bamboo or hay), candels (having to put out a candel without toching it) and throw cutting (throw apples and cutting them ect.). I'm not putting down Kendo cause i do Haidong Gumdo i'm pointing out the differences. and on a different note i think a student Haidong Gumdo would beat a Kendo student cause Haidong Gumdo students use real swords (and i'm saying that cause i do Haidong Gumdo [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif[/IMG]).
Posted by: glad2bhere

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 03/23/05 06:49 AM

Dear CXT:

I think you have good intentions and I believe you are right about not accepting "BS". I think you may want to delve a little deeper into the subject as you seem to be missing quite a bit of history that would answer your questions.

1.) Hae Dong Gumdo is an amalgam of Gi Cheon and ShinKumdo synthecized in the 1960-s and publicized in the 1970-s. From the standpoint of whther something by the name of "Hae Dong Gumdo" existed in the 14 and 1500-s is actually irrelevant. The fact is that Koreans used swords back then and used swords today. The Korean do not have a tradition of patrilinear succession in their Martial traditions. This is a construction foisted on the Koreans by the Japanese traditions. If you are using that to authenticate an art in Korea you are mixing apples and oranges.

2.) I understand that you may not accept the MYTBTJ as a "credible source". You have no reason to. For my money there are a lot of sources in the Japanese traditions that I don't care for either. However, I can say that the MYTBTJ is an amalgam resource that draws on over 200 sources starting in the 1400-s and ending with the publication of its final revision in 1795. Nobody says you have to accept it. It stands on its own merit. You may wish to validate some of its material by bumping up against resource materials such as General Qi's JIN XIAO SHIN SHU or WU BEI ZHI by Mao Yuan-I (See Chapter 84 regarding the BON KUK GUM BUP).

3.) As far as showing static pictures you are absolutely right. The images shown are the single most salient postures of a particular method with which one would be familiar with. The MYTBTJ is NOT a manual one learns from as much as a collection of methods the Korean warrior was expected to be familiar with. For instance, "Golden Rooster Stands on One Leg" is not the one-legged position you see drawn, but representative of a method which, when executed, actually encompasses 6 major and two minor points (K. "sool"). In order to understand the MYTBTJ you need to have some foundatuion in Korean MA and hopefully in weapons work, and be willing to cross-reference with comparable material of the time as well as before an after. In this way, learning KMA is no different than the serious study of anything else. You do not "learn" from a book as much as the book serves as a guide for your learning.

4.) I would counsel caution in suggesting that the Ssang Soo Do "no longer exists". There are at least two active ryu in Kyushu in Japan that focus on the use of O-Dachi. In China there are at least three major traditions which work to keep the use of the Long Sword alive. Once again, if you are using the standard of some patrilinear succession to validate the authenticity of a practice you may want to move with caution. Sometimes even the Japanese have trouble with this arguement.

5.) As far as whether or not the material of one culture is similar or identical to another culture I think its important to remember that door swings both ways. Archeological evidence of Korean smelting sites indicates that Korea had an extraordinarily high level of metalurgy much before they exported it Japan. I doubt you will ever get the Japanese nationalists to admit to this. Of course, they may also be the same people who swear that everything we have in the world today was invented in Japan, so I don't know where we would go with that.

I guess the up-shot of my post might be that the term "bogus" may be a paint you might want to apply with a smaller brush, at least until you have considered a few more facts. FWIW.

BTW: The last use of a sword used in actual military combat that I can document involves the assasination of Queen Min (1895) Before that are the documented incursion by the USS Sherman, by the French, the British and the Americans in the late 1800-s.FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce
Posted by: glad2bhere

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 03/23/05 07:30 AM

Dear Tarutaru:

"....I'm not putting down Kendo cause i do Haidong Gumdo i'm pointing out the differences. and on a different note i think a student Haidong Gumdo would beat a Kendo student cause Haidong Gumdo students use real swords (and i'm saying that cause i do Haidong Gumdo ...."

I hope you will take it as the kindness that it is meant if I make a couple of adjustments to your post.

It is always good to be careful automatically equating "Kendo" and "Kumdo". In about 90% of the cases you will be correct in that both arts will usually subscribe to the IKF, both will use IKF kata/hyung, both will spar with the same equiptment and almost identical protocols. However, there remain about 10% of Korean sword which may relate to Kendo and Kenjutsu but are decidedly different. The relationship of Kum-Bup ("sword method") to Kumdo is very much like the relationship of Ken-jutsu to Kendo. In both arts of Kum-Bup and Ken-jutsu the emphasis is on function following form, on the use of the Jin Gom as
a real weapon and on the perpetuation of a tradition. Some of the confusion arises form the fact that Kendo, Kumdo, Kenjutsu and Kum-Bup all share the same introductory material, what we call the "O-Bup" or "five methods". Ken-jutsu and Kum-Bup both go on to use an additional number of methods. For Kum-Bup that number of methods may be as high as 33 or even 36. In addition both Ken=jutsu and Kum-Bup seek to steel the Character of the person by compelling them to submit themselves to long tedious hours of repetition in form, drill and cutting. It is the person produced by this grinding training that marks the difference between a person who uses a sword---- and a swordsman. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce
Posted by: cxt

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 03/23/05 08:20 AM

Glad

With all respect, you have asked good questions and made good points.

I have no wish to offened you in any fashion, if I am doing so, I will offer an up-front "I'm sorry" to be repteated as your request.

Seriously.

"The history" or facts if you will, are EXACTLY what I am asking for--and no-one seems to be providing them.

1-My point EXACTLY--the HDG folks are CLAIMING just such a line of desecnt---without a shred of proof.

2-I don't accept the MYTBJ for a number of reasons--but the BEST one is a simple point of logic.
If a student came into your school and asked you to give them a high rank BASED ON THE STUDY OF A BOOK ON YOUR STYLE--would you give it to them?
My guess is no, and you would probably say what we tell everyone who asks, "you can't learn from books.
Yet that is exactly the same line of reasoning the folks (and not all of them sword guys) expect people to "buy."

3-Good point, except that to be vaild you would have to prove that there is an actual arts to compare and contrast with the MYTBTJ.
And just like the guys that claimed to have "developed" some empty hand stuff from it they also had nothing supportable native to comapre it to.

4-In all research the burden of proof is on the person making the claim---in this case the claim was made BY SOMEONE ELSE that the Ssang Soo Do--as a method of training still exsists--presumbaly in its "handed down" "original" form.
All I askd for was the support of the claim.
That school exsist in Japan and China is true, and they can ALL back up their training with specifics---its only the HG guys that can't.

Thats a problem.
And there are 3 basic problems here with the "the koreans don't use patrilner succession" arguement.

1-If we accept your statement at face value then you seem to be saying that the support simply does not exsist.
If thats the case then the HG need to stop makeing claims that they can't support.

2-I am not really asking a "patrilnaer succession" question.
All I am asking for is the names of folks that taught a "native" Korean style of sword, when they taught etc.
As mentioned before, no-one seems to be able to produce ANYONE prior to about 30 years ago even claiming that such a sytle exsists.

3-These claims ar very similar to those used by a number of TKD guys in claiming great age--all the way back to the Silla, "native" korean empty hand arts and mention in the MYTBJ.
And those claims proved to be largly false. more "marketing" than history.

Personaly I find it chilling that the same type of bogus statements used by some of the TKD crowd, are so very very similar to the statments and arguements used by the HG crowd.
And it ought to worry you as well.

5-No question that Korea had a very high level of culture, which would include metalurgacl arts.
But that is NOT any sort of proof that a "native" korean sword art, used in say the 1600 still exsists today.
AGAIN, the argeuement that the Koreans were skilled swords smiths is a "smokescreen" arguement--because their status as swordsmiths is NOT in question.
Merely that the sword use skills themselves were retained.

Glad would LOVE to consider the "facts" problem however is that there are remarkably few "facts" to consider.

What is presented is a "grab-bag" of fallious reasoning, irrelevent historical data, gapping holes in the "story" and simple assertions of facts--sans support.

For the record, AGAIN, someone wants to tell me what a good art HG is, great.

Someone wants to tell me how effective it is--ok, that I have some questions about.
But overall, got no real problem with that.

You want to claim that HG is "native" Korean sword art that dates back to "X" you better be able to back it up.

I guess the "up-shot" of my post is that if you make the claim you should be able to back it up.

Or you should NOT be making the claim.

As a suggestion, if it were me I would be less concerned about my tough questions and MORE concerned at the lack of really good answers.

If it were the art I trained in, I know I would be.


[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 03-23-2005).]

[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 03-23-2005).]

[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 03-23-2005).]

[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 03-23-2005).]
Posted by: glad2bhere

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 03/23/05 09:27 AM

Dear CXT:

Maybe in someway we are actually saying about the same thing but from different sides of the coin. Let me take a look at this.

"My point EXACTLY--the HDG folks are CLAIMING just such a line of desecnt---without a shred of proof...."

No arguement here. Where I think I am making a distinction is in allowing the Koreans to have their traditions in the same manner as every other country. I don't hear the Thais called to task for Muay Thai or the Indonesians for Penjat Silat. These arts are passed along among the people and periodically come to the surface in the media. The Koreans have their traditions. Some of the stuff they borrowed and some they put together for themselve. Every other culture has done the same thing and over an extended period of time. I am not sure why the Koreans suddenly have to "prove" a provenence when even the Japanese have a heritage of people going off into the mountains to learn material from goblins.

2.) I also agree that the idea of giving rank based on having learned out of a book is stupid on two counts. First off the whole idea of rank is a corruption. The Koreans never used and rank and actually, until Kano came along neither did the Japanese or anyone else. Its a revenue generator, pure and simple. The other point is, as I have said, one does not "learn" from the MYTBTJ. It is an asset, a guide and a resource. It gives us a snap shot in history of what the Koreans thought was important in martial tradition and why. Thats what makes it valuable. I find it hard to believe that anyone would sit with the MYTBTJ and think that they would be able to actually "learn" an art with which they are otherwise not familiar. That wasn't its purpose.
Nor does "style" have anything to do with Korean sword. The Koreans have 5 different sword architectures or which two are polearms. It is enough to know the basic movements or methods for each. Individual pedagogy for teaching these weapons was as unique as the number of teachers. The great leveler was the Civil Service exams if a person ever chose to put his learning to use.

3.) And I have to agree with you here as well.

The MYTBTJ DOES reflect actual arts. All of the major weapons groups including polearms, swords, sticks and equetrian skills are reflected in the skills of the day. The Wol-Do and Hyup Do reflect the usage of the Kwan Dao of China and the Naginata of Japan respectively. Again, I think what you are looking for is someone to demonstrate something along the lines of the Ryu-ha system in Japan and unfortunately we are speaking of Korean arts.

4.) Not sure what role "backing up" things will do for us. The only "backing-up" anyone can do is to have faith in whatever traditions are handed down. For instance, the ultranationalists of the late 1800-s were thoroughly embarrased that their isolated country woke-ap to find that Japan had lagged behind the rest of the world. Further it was quite an embarrassment to find that a peasant with a rifle could wipe-up a lifetime of sword training with the squeeze of a trigger. The result was that a lot of myths about Samurai Tradition were born. People still swallow a lot of that stuff just like there are Europeans who still believe in the myth of the Age of Chivalry. People are going to believe what it makes them feel good to believe.

Lastly, as far as patrilinear succession goes I just don't know how to help you with that. It seems pretty important to you, but I am not sure why. In my own case I can trace my own swordwork back to Seoul about 1926. Maybe if I keep pushing I might get it back farther, but right now thats shy of about 80 years. So as I sit here I can tell you the names and relationships of the last six generations of teachers and students who have taught Kum-bup leading up to me. Not sure what this has to do with anything other than what we call "bragging rights". I know that Korean sword goes back before that because we have records of the swords being taught and used. If I am hearing you correctly, what I think I am understanding is that unless there is a passage of a discrete curriculum in involate succession from one generation to the next then there is little or no authenticity. If thats true I think you need to prepare yourself for a shock as not even the obsessive-compulsive Japanese with all of their records have been able to do this. So my sense is that there is "evidence" to support things, but just not the sort that satisfies your particular needs. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce
Posted by: cxt

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 03/23/05 10:15 AM

Glad

1-Not a salient argeument for the purpose of this discussion.

A-No-one is asking about the provenence of Thai arts. Another "smokescreen" arguement.

B-The Thais can produce the required "proof" of their arts.

C-The Thais, in general, don't "sell" their art on its "age" they "sell" it on its effectivenss--and they uprove it in the ring.

No-one "really" belives that the "goblins" taught sword.
But I can trace a specific swrod style thu specifc people thu spcific duels and battles from the 1600 to today.

I assure you that if a Japanese styliest claimed descent from a unknown "ryu" that could provide no teachers, no people that also trained in his art etc--I would be just as sceptical.

2-Again, non-answer, the question is NOT did such arts exsist historically, the question is what provenence is there for their survival into this era.
There seems to be no "link" between "those days" and "today."

3-Not really, not actually asking for a simliar "ryu-ha" system. What I AM asking for is line of teachers and what they taught.
The Chinese don't use a "ryu" system and yet they have no trouble detailing from exactly whom they got their arts--and who trained them, and whom trained THEM and so forth.

What we know is that pretty much everyone that is now claiming training in HG ALSO is a long term kendo/kumdo student. As were the guys that taught THEM.
So we KNOW that are trained in kumdo/kendo. But no mention exsists of HG with these guys PRIOR to the last 30 years.

That is a red flag.
Similar to the folks in Hapkido that got all their original training with (whomever the guy is, the name escapes me at the momment) leaving his group, re-naming their art and claiming its a "anceint art used by royal place guards" And NO I am not making this up.

Or a guy that trained years in Katori Ryu, then claiming that he "really" was student of previously unknown Japanese Ryu.
Sans-support.

4-No, "faith" in what your told is not really needed when you have proof.
If what folks tell you about the history of your art is fact then the proof exsists.
If there are no proofs then you should not present it and market it as fact.
You can say "this is what I belive" or "this is what I was taught."
But that ain't fact.

(Look at karate, you have any idea how many folks are still repeating the old "karate was developed by unarmed Okinwan peasents to protect themselves vs sword wielding samurai" line of BS? )

5-No, innacuarte represention of my point, as I said before and said again above, litteraly "parilinear succession" is NOT "important" to me.
A supportable history is.

And HG seems to lack that.

Look at your last post--you say you have "80 years" of teachers?
Then can you show me something from 1926 about teaching "Headong Gumdo?"
Or is what your "really" saying is that the current crop of HG masters are "saying" that the kumdo teacher that taught me or HIS teacher ALSO taught HG?
I am guessing the latter.

AGAIN, that swords were used "back in the day" is not the point.

Try it like this, say you wish to learn "authentic" Scottish Claymore use, just like in BraveHeart.

We know that Scottish Claymores were used, we have historical records that prove it.

"REAL" question is if there anyone that can PROVE" beyond a reasonable doubt that they what they claim to teach is in fact how the Claymore was used back in the day.

One method would be written documents, another would be a supportable line of whom taught him, whom taught his teacher, whom taught HIS teacher and so on, reaching back to the time period in question.
There is also scondary evidence, in which people OUTSIDE the "group" mention the training.

In this case a mention of Sir Richard Blake and his students and his demonstarion of the Scottish Claymore at at the 1890 Harvest Feast would help.

All three of which the Japanese can produce, the Chinese and number or martial cultures can do the same.

Here is what bothers me.

1-HG is unique becase it has NO provenence, no written history, no line of training OUTSIDE of kumdo/kendo teachers.

2-There is no mention of the art prior to very recent times--which given the claimed age of the art is both highly unlikey and very weird.

3-Everyone, as far as I know, that teaches HG recived extensive training in and from kumdo/kendo guys--and the sparring/gear/shinai are STILL pretty much the same thing.

4-There are no records or documents that support the claimed great age of HG.
Weird again because there ARE for comparitive Japanese and Chinese etc arts.

5- The claims of the HG set are chillingly alike in tone and content to the bogus claims of some TKD folks who also use the same "reasoning" to support their claims of a ancient age for TKD.
They also:
-Questioned the claims of other art to divert attention from their OWN claims.
-Used historical facts--such as MYTBTJ, carveings/painting to "prove" that their arts were "really" old.
Ignoring that NO LINK exsisted between "then" and "now."
-Also made the claim that the "Japnese destroyed all the records"
-Also claimed untraceable teachings going back to people that did exsist, BUT no support of exactly what they taught does.
-Resorting to highly complex theorys and highly convoluded arguemnts when asked simple questions.

But the worst thing of all was that these guys ALSO started to cop an attitude when closely questioned.

(Glad, you most certainly ARE NOT doing so!!!!, some of the guys above howwever....)

Overall, I find the claims of great age of HG are largly unsupportable.
As are the claims that its a "combat" art.

(esp since no-one can produce any evidence that it was actually used in ANY combat.
Another areas of difference in the korean and japanese arts.)

If it were me, reather than trying to defend what you see as an attack on your art, which its not.
A better use of time would be getting some stright answers and doing some research in to the history of HG.

Who knows, the scale to which I am wrong may not be measurable with current technology.
Could be so far off on this one that I might as well be insisting the earth is "really" flat.

But with what we have to work with today, does not seem that I am.

[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 03-23-2005).]

[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 03-23-2005).]

[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 03-23-2005).]
Posted by: glad2bhere

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 03/23/05 10:46 AM

Dear CXT:

I guess I need to understand what it is that you are calling "proof" or "support" or "backing-up". What seems to be happening is that you take exception to something, and ask for a rationale. I stepped in and gave a rationale and now you are saying that you want a "different" rationale.

If I were to express my suspicions, my sense is that you have taken Korean arts to task before and may even enjoy picking at what you have determined is their "superficiality". I could go over the same questions you have asked and I have responded to but I am never going to be able to actually "make" you respect the martial traditions of another country if you are not vested in doing so. Modern Korean military tradition can be said to start with King Sejo (1455-1468). Maybe this means something to you and maybe it doesn't. The martial traditions of the Koreans go back even before that but are not as well documented. I can also say that the military and martial traditions of the Korean have been passed along the entire line of the Choson Dynasty. Again, maybe that means something to you and maybe it doesn't. If it does I can't persuade you do to. If it doesn't I can't make it mean something. Examining you posts, my sense is that you have a very narrow definition for what you will accept as valid and that your judgement allows for assumptions regarding other cultures that you do not extend to the Koreans. I can help you with information, but probably cannot help you with prejudices. If you will ask me some straight forward questions I will do my best to answer. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce
Posted by: cxt

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 03/23/05 11:06 AM

Glad

Simple answer-

Because claims of great age and "combat" effeciveness are being made on public, open websites.

Don't feel that the claims are consistant with what is known of the history of HG.

Do the same thing when I run across bogus claims on-line as to the history of karate, or other sword arts.

And "my" sense is that like many folks who have been hoodwinked, many HG people would rather "kill the messanger" than seriously re-examine the claimed history of their chosen art.

(heck, a several of them have posted above)

As far as what I consider "valid", same level of support I ask for on any claim by anyone.
As mentioned, other arts seem to have little or no trouble in providing it.

I have nothing BUT respect for the arts of Korea.

I have little respect for spacious claims and fallious reasoning.
Not really "anti" anything, I am however "pro" logic and "pro" truth.

Look at it like this, if no-one was running around trying to "sell" people on the supposed age and "combat effectiness" of HG then I would really have nothing much to say now would I?

What a person does in their own school, in their own group and with their own art is THEIR BUSINESS.

When they choose to make it public domain, then it becomes EVERYONES business.


[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 03-23-2005).]

[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 03-23-2005).]
Posted by: glad2bhere

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 03/23/05 11:33 AM

Dear CXT:

I don't know if this will help the discussion at all or not but having examined your previous post I think there are a few things that merit a comment.

1.) My hope was that by using the example of Thai tradition you might be invited to accept that a tradition can be passed along without benefit of rigid hierarchical management. They have various centers recognized for their professionalism and training and these are not unlike the boxing gyms we have here in the States. There are no “ryu” replete with patrilinear succession and that was my point.
2.) As far as the Chinese traditions go, unfortunately you have been misinformed. The idea of succession in almost all Chinese traditions usually goes back as far as the 1800-s and stops. After that oral tradition takes over usually ending back in the mists of time with an anonymous monk or peddler.
3.) In like manner the idea of tracing a “ryu” through a series of teachers, each transmitting an uncorrupted replication of what he was taught is pretty much a function of ultra-nationalist propaganda much like the idea that the “Katana is the worlds greatest sword.” Draeger suggests that there may have been as few as 400 and and as many as 700 ryu in Japan and all but a very select few have survived to this day let alone uncorrupted. It’s a fine ideal and a romantic notion. Its just not historically accurate.
4.) The continous existence of Korean sword down through the centuries is there for your witness if you choose to see and not just glance. Where did you think it stopped? The use of swords is documented all the way up until today. Lets just take a look at only the last 100 years, OK? The Chinese influence is extant in the Ship Pal Gi, the weapons work of Long Fist and Praying Mantis and the Muslim traditions of the Tam Tui. The Japanese tradition is extant in the BUTOKUKAI-CHOSON, the Toyama Ryu of the Japanese military and the Police Sword taught in the Korean Academy. And the Korean traditions themselves? You seem to ignore the Son Monastery traditions, and the practice of BON KUK GUM BUP & CHOSON SEBUP. Now I can name these things to you and indicate that they are alive and well and still practiced but I can’t make you respect their existence of give it worth.
5.) If your issue is purely on the matter of the name (“Hae Dong Gumdo”) I am afraid I can’t help you there. The art I teach, Yon Mu Kwan Hapkido, was called “hapkiyukwonsul” before that, “hapkiyusool” before that, “yusool” before that and Yawara before that and all sorts of other things going back to “soo bahk” before that. What makes this curious is that I can open the Jin Xiao Shin Shu and the MYTBTJ and see many of the same things I teach now demonstated on those pages. Now I don’t see the word “hapkido” used on those pages, but how is it that the material is still the same? And if we must credit only the Japanese material of modern times with Korean sword how come my teacher and I know such maneuvers as “White ape leaves the cave” and “long dragon rises from the lake”? I find no Japanese traditions that practice this? Those moves are identified in the MYTBTJ? If Korean sword did not exist except from what was provided by the Japanese how is it that I have been taught this?

Please understand one thing, and I want you to understand this very clearly. At one time I too stood where you are now and questioned passionately. I was every bit as skeptical and played hardcore games of “Devils Advocate”. In the Kwan to which I belong this is expected of us. I understand now why my teacher required me to do this, because I can now speak with some authority about the traditions I practice which I would not have been able to do if I had simply been spoon fed. I heartily encourage you to keep testing things exactly as you are doing. I will help in any way I can.

Best Wishes,

Bruce
Posted by: cxt

Re: haidong gumdo vs kendo - 03/23/05 02:33 PM

Glad


For the umpteenth time, I am NOT insisting on a "rigid hierarchical" method of passing on teaching.

(thats somthing YOU keep saying I am asking for, I'm not)

I AM insisting on some that some type of verifiable, supportable, eveidence be used if claims of great age or combat effectiveness are being made.

We clear here??

AGAIN, the examples of Thai Boxing and Western Boxing are not accurate or germaine for the topic as both have plenty of evidencery support, including docuements, secondary support, clear, through and documented experts in the art they teach goign back 100's years.

To make a comaprison to the topic, this would be like a Thai or Western boxer claiming that they "really" teach a "special" fighting art not shared with any one else, and for which there is no record of, that no other teachers know, and nobody can show where or from whom they learned it.

Sounds thin, because it IS thin.

2-Chinese arts, couple of problems with this.

A-Were not talking about Chinese arts, pointing fingers at Chinese arts and claiming "those guys can't prove it either" DOES NOTHING for the HG case.
Its a "smoke screen."

B-Ok, lets use the dates YOU posit. Please show me where I can get independent documentation of a teacher of HG in in the 1800's.
Heck show me one from the 1920's.
As far as I know, the very TERM HG is a recent invention-say about 1980 or so.

C-Independent vaification exsists for many if not most Chinese arts.
Systems as old as many of seem to be, have MANY lines of students.
So we can look at a broad range of people from MANY locations and see if what they are doing looks similar.
Older styles can even be grouped, take Hsing-I, you have Shansi, etc.
Can't do that with HG.

3-Not talking about Japanese ryu, another "smoke screen."
And a poor one, since even the most severe and hardcore line of questioning STILL results in a level of documentaton of the Japanese arts that HG simply can't match.

4-Still don't see it, that Korean used swords and made good ones, is not in question.
That the arts were handed down IS.
That OTHER arts did so is ALSO not in question.
That HG is an ancient, battlefield combat art IS.
By presnting OTHER arts that can and do have pretty good documention as to what they teach and were they got it, just illustrates the lack of it in HG.

Put it this way, someone wants to say that the sword work in HG comes from what they learned from Toyama Ryu or other documented school--or alternativly a Chinese school.
Happy to consider it.
But please remember that so far folks have been insisting that its "ancient" and "native."
And in either case, I would ask for the names of whom taught it and when.

5-Name kinda IS the point, couple of things to be considered here.

A-And yet for all the name changes in your own art, you can still tell me who taught you, and who taught him, and who taught him, and so forth back to the "founder" correct?

B-Weak thread, in effect your now argueing that the reason HG can't be found is that "names change"
Ok, say they do, please link for me a guy trained in some OTHER, "native" "ancient" Korean sword art and the guys that call their art HG.

C-Begs a really tough question, if you trained under a legit guy, who taught an authentic, "native" and "ancient" sword art--then why change the name?
-Did the teacher not know what it was called?
-Is it not disrespectful to learn a an art that had been passed down for 100's and 100's of years only to HELP in it vanishing from history by changeing the name? Thanks for teaching me your art--and in gratatude I am going to make sure that you and your art vanish?
-I'm going to HIDE the link to what I do and what he taught by making up a "new" name?
-If the teacher changed it then what was called BEFORE?

See, none of that makes sense.

The MYTBTJ, flawed arguement.

A-Same question, if your argueing that the "moves" are largely the same, then you must support that someone can at least learn SOME techinuqes from a book.
I ask again, planning on giveing rank to a guy that just read a book anytime soon?

B-As the pictures are static, hard to tell what the techniques "really" were.
Analagos to pointing at "similarites" in a painting an "linking" that to current practice and claiming it as "proof" the art is 800 years old.
Your only seeing "a" technique-not what precceded or follows it.

Your mixing you arguements here, you say:

"And if we must credit only the japanses"

-No one is makeing this arguement. The Japnese are a good examples of having in-depth proof of claims of both age and "combat effectiveness."
But nobody is saying the Japanese have some sort of monopoly on "legit" arts.

"How come my teacher and I know such manuvers as "white ape leaves the cave" and "long dragon rises from the lake."

Look at it like this, how come you don't know "snake rises to the moon" or "coiling dragon" or "falcon strikes from the shadows?"
If I know these "manuvers" and so does my teacher--does that "really" prove that the art is "ancient" or "legit?"
For all you know I made them up, if you think about it proves nothing.

Again, NOT questioning your skill, your intentions or your honesty.
You have repeatedly PROVEN that you are a serious, thoughtful, and reliable practitoner.

I am ONLY questioning the claims made as to the great age of HG posted above.


[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 03-23-2005).]

[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 03-23-2005).]

[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 03-23-2005).]

[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 03-23-2005).]

[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 03-23-2005).]

[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 03-23-2005).]

[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 03-23-2005).]