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).]