[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).]