I just realize that when you edit a notification is not sent, so here it is Letter to Kuk Sa Nim English version: http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/ac324/Onatop/LettertoKukSaNim.jpg Spanish version: http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/ac324/Onatop/LettertoKSN-Spanish.jpg Korean version: http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/ac324/Onatop/LettertoKSN-Korean.jpg Onatop P.S.: Sorry for the confusion, the links were crossed
Hey, Onatop, when I click any of those links, I get a "404 PAGE NOT FOUND" error. Maybe the photobucket items have been removed? EDIT: Nevermind... the links in my email notification seem to work just fine (so maybe it's MAP that get's screwed up going to the photobucket server).
Not shooting you down Doje. But, the WKSA syllabus, is not fixed. It has been changed around on several occasions. And recognised? By who? Oh, the WKSA of course! Well everyone recognises their own syllabus. The WKSA technique sylabus is actually taken (as far as I can ascertain) from the Hapkido sylabus which predates it by several years. However, many of the original techniques were removed and the order changed. Even within the last few years, within the WKSA the lines between certain ranks have been altered. I am not saying that is wrong, just that it is so, and therefore NOT fixed. And anyway, what is wrong with progression and learning new or different ways of doing things? It depends whether you actually want to become a martial artist or simply remember the content of an encyclopaedia. Instructor seminars are good and would be a strength if only they covered what was needed. However all too often WKSA seminars cover what certain Masters want to see in demonstrations rather than what we actually need to learn. I can't remember during the past 20 years attending a semnar which actualy covered techniques for example. Forms are covered over and over and I have sen certain forms changed by the same Master two or three years running. But techniques are barely if ever even covered. As for clearly defined rules. This would be great. If only the rules remained the same and did not ALWAYS have the proviso that "this may be varied at Kuk Sa Nims discretion"
ROFLMAO Exactly one of the points I suspect Bruce W Sims was getting at on the Why do Masters leave the Won? thread (post #172). You must've missed the post I made on another thread recently (Pressure Points, anyone?), when I pointed out that just a few years ago master Barry Harmon was going over Maek Chigi & Maek Chagi in detail with the BBs. So that sorta dumps that statement in the trash bin, huh? :dunno: As for the curriculum being changed recently, I can vouch that apart from redrawing the lines for colored belts, most of the *juggling* took place in the BB end of the spectrum and only a few things were shifted around there (either up OR down). The material to get to chodan has remained the same for over 20 or 30 years. Originally one would learn all but a few things and then spend a year or so as a BB candidate (단보님 dahn bo nim), with the idea of perfecting or deepening one's understanding of what had been learned. But western culture looks at this *simmering* process as demeaning since if you know it then there's no reason to be held back. So in an effort to appease whiny westerners as well as have DBNs fork over the "non-refundable" BB test fee sooner, the bulk of the curriculum requirements were pushed to the last stage one attains prior to chodan (robbing a small amount from each belt level in the process). The order in which the material is presented has not changed. Back in the 1980's, a few high ranked instructors convinced GM IHS to amend the syllabus for children, with the idea that a "junior black belt" would only have to learn up to the adult red belt level as far as techniques are concerned, but must still learn the same WRT the forms (there is no Jr. 2nd dahn, as Jr. BBs must learn all that was omitted in their original schedule before tackling the *regular* 2nd degree syllabus). Back then GM IHS insisted that the juniors also learn the last set of techniques under BB, but since it deals with knife attacks the fear of lawsuits has seen this group of techniques removed in recent years (the junior syllabus was arbitrary to begin with, so monkeying around with it doesn't count in my book). Swapping out a technique or two in this or that set of techniques, or changing which way to turn or step in a form is rather minor when discussing adjustments to the curriculum. IDK if In Hyuk Suh simply modeled his syllabus after HKD or used a template of it and then made what he thought were relevant modifications, but I've seen the stuff that HKDists were taught 20 or 30 years ago and I can tell you that it is in no way the same as what is taught in KSW (HMJ-HKD has blurred the lines of distinction since it is actually based on KSW, and I refer to HKD as it was originally taught). Remember that the idea to model MA teaching to that used by public schools started with Jigoro Kano (an educator by trade). So this trend was adopted by almost all modern MA systems that followed. Saying that IHS copied the framework of HKD when HKD was already guilty of copying this idea from Judo or Karate is spurious to say the least. So, all of that just to refute that the KSW syllabus isn't fixed. And to clarify once again, SMALL changes don't count for much in my book. There have been no MAJOR modifications made to the KSW syllabus in the last 30 years. By that reckoning, it seems fairly fixed to me. Of course, you may see things differently and I have no problems with accepting that your POV is not the same as mine.
Isn't Master Eung Koo Lee in Venezuela and I thought the franchise agreement only affected schools in the USA?
Sorry, I did miss the post...and the seminar (it wouold have been good to be there) so I have to admit that you have a point. However, you do also say that this happened "Just Few years ago". YEARS AGO???!!!With the large number of techniques in the KSW syllabus, and with the number of seminars held every year, you would think that techniques would get far more attention than that. So no, I don't think that it dumps my statement in the trash bin by any stretch of the imagination. Still sounds like changing the syllabus to me, but as you say, I have a different POV. And the type in bold (my bold) probably explains best the reasons for the changes to the DBN syllabus IMO.:evil: I am only judging by what I have personally seen. Which includes HKDists who were taught very similar techniques in a very similar order well before KSW hit our shores in the UK. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with IHS or anyone taking techniques, forms or weapoins practises from other styles and combining them into a new system. In fact I think it is a great idea. I just think that when it happens that where possible, suitable credit should be given to the source of all the material, not just the bits that sound good, like mysterious monks and family members allegedly from the royal court etc. I would of course accept that this should also apply to equally HKD,TKD and any other MA, IMO. My belief is also that any MA system should be fluid and capable of taking on new ideas. Therefore I actually believe that change is a GOOD thing and that sticking to a rigid syllabus as Doje suggests is not necesarily in the interest of the student. SO you know that what you learn will be the same (or similar) to what someone who went 10 years before you...is that good? What if someone comes up with some better ideas? Do you still want to stick with what your predecessor learnt? Maybe some people do. But I can't think why, unless its just to preserve history rather than learn a skill.
I think we see more *eye to eye* than you might suspect, Renegade2. The part of my post that you put in BOLD text was included by me because I, too, feel that it was a primary cause for the change, and not so much that instructors were having difficulty teaching the curriculum at an acceptable pace (at least that's the excuse I heard was the reason for making the change). I also don't deny that seminars should be focused on proper execution of the techniques and that this is overlooked WAY too much by the association. I was merely pointing out that what you had said was in error, in a strict sense at least. Certainly doing forms over & over is less helpful in learning critical aspects of self-defense than doing techniques would be (with proper execution and detail being emphasized). And I will also admit that many of the names for the groups of techniques taught in HKD are similar to the ones used in KSW, but the techniques themselves differ as well as how many techniques are in each set (still, I feel this is too trivial to bicker over, so I will concede on this point for the sake of moving on to more important things). Taking on new ideas or filling in gaps that become apparent in the KSW syllabus (did I hear someone say BJJ?) are things that I certainly would embrace in trying to present the best MA to the public. Kind of like taking your flintlock onto the battlefield only to learn that the enemy is equipped with howitzers. Adapt and change is the name of the game (not everyone can be as lucky as John [Bruce Willis] McClane). Being more forthright with the historical aspects also appeals to my own ethical standards, so no more need be said on that score. The bottom line is that I see very little that has changed over the years WRT the curriculum used to teach KSW. I don't view that as necessarily bad, but I don't make the decisions about what to change and what not to change. Maybe that's the real reason masters leave to start their own organization and not because they want to be the head honcho (it's been speculated that EGO plays a major role in why they leave). Certainly after years of dedicated practice, one would come to look at the BIG PICTURE of how a MA should be taught, marketed, etc. and if the head of the organization that you belong to sees things differently enough from yourself, you just might think it worth the trouble to set out on your own, even if it means starting from scratch. I have noticed that whenever this happens, GM IHS doesn't look unkindly on these errant masters (I so wanted to use the word "renegade" instead of "errant" but felt the implied pun would be too misleading), and has often said that there is enough *pie* to go around, so not to dwell on the fact that someone has splintered off. I feel the same way and wish everyone the best that life has to offer.
Letter to Kuk Sa Nim Sorry for the re-posting, but this a better way to read the letter to Kuk Sa Nim. It can be read in PDF. http://web.me.com/clisanchezr/Letter_to_KSN/Home.html Thanks Onatop
"Integrate and explore the entire spectrum of established Asian Martial Arts, Body Conditioning techniques, mental development and traditional weapons training" - Grandmaster In Hyuk Suh. Taken direct from the home page of the WKSA website. Shame the exploration and integration seem to have stopped so long ago. Otherwise many more may still be within the org, who have now left. Nice post (772 above) Unknown.
I have to disagree with your statement as I attended a black belt training seminar where techniques were covered by Master Alex and in detail. Infact come to think of it I've been to seminars in 2002, 2005, 2007 where techniques have been covered. There were seminars that I had missed so can't comment on what was covered in those ones, but techniques are covered in the seminars/black belt training/instructor.
Am I the only one wondering about this letter from Master Eung Koo Lee? Onatop, how did you get your hands on that letter and why is it posted on MAP? If this letter is in fact real, is this not a private letter from Master Lee to Kuk Sa Nim? What gives you the right to make this public? Did Master Lee tell you its O.K. to announce this to the public? Is it O.K. with Master Lee to embarrass Kuk Sa Nim by separating himself from his Association after all these years and tell everybody about it? Also, why would he mention the incident with In Sun Seo and publicly announce that “he continues to dishonor and disrupt the Martial Arts Society with his actions and his new organization”. Somehow I can’t see Master Lee talking this way or acting this way; he is too humble to hold a bitter grudge. (This is my personal opinion, I might be wrong) Maybe the reason that this letter has been made public has been mentioned somewhere, but I can’t see it. How would anybody know for sure that this letter is real? It would not be a surprise if Master Lee feels this way and won’t have anything to do with the franchise and I am quite certain that he is not motivated by money. My concern at the moment is who posted it; after all, Information is only as valuable as its source! I don’t mean to pick a fight Onatop but you and a couple of your buddies have spoken in Master Lee’s name before on MAP and that didn’t work out too well now did it? Who knows, maybe I’m overreacting. Sure would like to know what others think. Unjee
Unjee... did you notice that Master Lee's picture was removed from KS web site since Monday?? Besides, the letter is written in three languages (Korean, English and Spanish) and the three versions are signed. If the letter is not real, why Master Lee's picture was removed... IMO there would be plenty of reasons to make public this information and only Master Lee knows why he asked onatop to do so. Maybe an answer would come up soon... who knows. Why do you say Master Lee is embarrasing Kuk Sa Nim?? other masters have left KSW and it does not appear to be an embarrasment. I think Master Lee is very brave to make public his motivation to leave now after these many years in KS, so there is no room for rumors and speculations. Everybody will know that he left because the franchise thing. It is my opinion... thanks!
TO: Miyu & Unjeesunsu Since Unjee has repeated his post on the Why do Masters leave the Won? thread, which is where I think the discussion rightly belongs, why not keep all posts about master Lee's letter there, rather than dilute other threads that aren't as appropriate. Just a thought... I'm not scolding anyone (yes I am :evil: ).
You are right!! I agree with you! Master Lee's leaving should be in the thread I started. However, I think that the reason Master Lee is leaving (the franchise) also can be "discuss" in this thread. Any comment?? :hat:
Master Lee himself gave it to me and I did the Spanish translation The letter was indeed sent to Kuk Sa Nim in Korean of course, is made public so there is no confusion about Master EK Lee’s position. Read the letter again, Master EK Lee is not separated him self from Kuk Sool and as far as the incident goes, is part of Kuk Sool history. And certainly Master EK Lee would never embarrass Kuk Sa Nim and any kind, shape or form Have not doubt; Master EK Lee is not motivated by money I posted the letter myself I do believe you are overreacting. Read the letter over and over, the more you read it the better you will understand Thanks Onatop
