Haidong Gumdo Practicality?

No, Bruce, we're asking questions, and you're answering something else. At the moment, it's like we're asking what you want on your sandwich, and you say "Batman Begins was my favourite". When we ask what you mean, you say you've already answered it...

An example is the question on what you looked for when performing cutting, and you talked about Haidong Gumdo being made up of 12 cuts and 4 thrusts... which doesn't answer the question at all. So you were asked again, and you said that you start with cutting paper, then mache, then mats... which again, isn't answering the question. You've since been asked again a number of times, and have given an answer to a different question as the answer, when it doesn't actually answer the question.

That's our problem.

If you're supposed to be the expert in such things, correct what's said, then. So far you haven't. You've lectured on aspects of what you call "little known history", which isn't anything to do with the comments of others on the thread, just you talking about what you think mistakes in knowledge are (despite not being relevant to anything being said). But, most of all, the fact that these are Korean martial systems is almost irrelevant... they could be Japanese, and if they showed the same amount of problems as seen in the videos (which are fairly consistent in the problems and issues), it'd be taken to task the same way. Same with Chinese, same with Western, and so on. If you think this is all just because the systems are Korean, again, I invite you to visit the "Introducing Nasir Ryu Iaido" thread here in the Weapons forum. You might see some things that surprise you.

Hang on, are you admitting that you deliberately posted incorrect material, information, history etc just to annoy myself and Dean? Really? Then how can we take anything you post seriously, if you're more than happy to commit to lies to make a (questionably) "morally superior" point?

You haven't answered, though, Bruce. That's why there hasn't been much respect for them. But if you're only going to deal with new questions, then I'm interested in your take on the videos I listed. You said that most Korean sword seen is not representative of "real" Korean sword... so I'm wondering if any of the ones I posted would pass, or not, and if so, which ones, and if not, why not? Can you see problems in any of them? If so, what are they? If not, which are good? There may be some follow-ups.

Education and elucidation, Bruce. If you say that there is good, legit, natively Korean sword in existence and being taught today, can you back it up? If it's not any of the systems we've been looking at, what is it? If it is in the systems we've been looking at, where is it? In any of the examples given? In other ones?

You say there is legit Korean sword. We haven't seen it. You haven't shown it. And yet, you continue to claim there is such a thing. Back it up.

You know, I've been thinking about this, and why it's important, as well as why such glaring issues as seen in the clips posted earlier in the thread get such a response, and it comes down to what swordsmanship is. Swordsmanship is the practice of using a weapon (a sword) in such a way as to preserve your life, often at the expense of anothers. As a martial approach, it's about as "real" as it gets, mentally speaking. Everything needs to be done with the attitude of preserving your own life... with that level of seriousness. Once you remove that idea, but training in actions that not only don't preserve your life, but instead give wide openings that can very easily be taken advantage of by even a semi-competent swordsman, it's no longer swordsmanship. It's swinging swords.

In answer to Mitlov earlier in the thread, this is the way you measure "practicality" in swordsmanship. By asking "if I did this, would I be killed?" And in all the Korean systems seen so far, the answer would be "yes". Which removes it from being swordsmanship.

 

Really? You've mentioned a number of texts (that you can't read in Korean), none of which seem to be actual manuals, but collections of broader descriptions, as well as referencing a teacher you were "lucky" to find, whose teaching was to tell you to keep your elbows in to your body, and not worrying about much else...

Now, if you're learning one of the modern systems (Haidong Gumdo, Sib Pal Ki, etc), then what is your basis for thinking it's a historic Korean system? If you're working from the old texts you mentioned (which you haven't stated), what makes what you're doing anything other than reconstruction? And what are these manuals, how much detail do they go into?

 

All I did, Dean, was to lower my own scholastic "censor" and start to repeat information I had "heard" or respond impulsively without thinking. The result was very predictable. It was not childish; it was done to make a point.

Polar Bear, Chris....and you to some extent.... are critiquing Korean sword based on what you have "heard" or from very superficial sources. You don't seem to see anything wrong in this and resist reconsidering what you are doing even when its pointed out. What I did was demonstrate your behaviors by turning them around.

Currently there are clips up of practiioners, including myself. I would love to go over these. The track record here is that nothing I say will be given any credence and that reflection on the cutting will ultimately all be governed by how you believe and the ultimate authority of Japanese sword. I ask again; whats the point?

 

Read what I wrote again. I provided the exact answer in that post even before you wrote asking for it.

BTW: Who told you what I could and could not read?

Exactly how much do you know about me and my scholastic abilities?

And if you are NOT familiar with my source material whatever would be the point in taking this further?

 

Well, you well and truly missed making that point, then, Bruce. When we post something about Korean systems that you feel is inaccurate, counter it. The only time I've seen you do that is with a reference to the ban on Korean martial arts (and culture), by giving a source that rural and remote areas weren't overly affected by this... nowhere else.

So counter, rather than try playing games, it doesn't help your credibility.

Actually, I'm mainly critiquing specific videos as representative of particular lines or forms of Korean swordsmanship, and have asked (many, many times now) for anything that shows Korean swordsmanship in a better light... really, you can't complain that I haven't been open, I've asked you to provide something along those lines for the entire damn thread!

Really? Which one is you?

Seriously, give up the idea that anyone here is saying that Japanese sword is the one and only "true way" for sword... hell, even Japanese sword methods aren't universal enough to say that they have one single "true" approach! And Bear isn't even a JSA practitioner! What we're critiquing, Bruce, is bad sword, which happens to be taught as Korean. That's it. There is no "Japan is better" idea, just that what's been shown as Korean is bad. And we've been asking for you to show us some Korean sword that is good!

Well, it'd show you can look critically at the clips, as well as showing what level of knowledge of the realities of sword combat you actually have. You know, help us know exactly what you think when you watch the clips...

 

What are you on about?!? Your complete post is: "This information has already been given in this thread. You are not participating in a discussion. You are simply "needling" for its own sake." When in that does it give the answer to what manual you're using?

Actually, you did. In a forum post on, I think it was KendoWorld, you lamented that you couldn't read any of the Korean texts in their native language...

Well... information gathering, kinda what I do....

Well, we might be more familiar than you think... or someone here might already know it... or be able to access it. Point is, it'd show that you're actually basing this on more than the say-so of a Korean teacher who barely gives instruction in English (based on your posting of his instruction earlier).

 

FWIW

 

FWIW

 

No, Bruce, as I demonstrated (not that it was actually needed for anyone who could read), you didn't answer the questions. If you can't see that, I have serious doubts about your ability to read and decipher old texts from another culture, mate.

No, Bruce, you didn't "return the behavior", you returned a perceived slight that only existed in your head. And what made people notice was that it was so completely incorrect you might as well have said that all martial arts originated with Superman.

The simple fact remains that you have not provided anything to support your claims, or counter what you consider "attacks", which are really observations and critiques. So... no. That's just your persecution complex showing again.

No, you haven't. If you have, show your work. Where have you provided a clip of what you consider good Korean sword, or authentic Korean sword. You've referenced books from hundreds of years ago, and implied that the arts mentioned are still around, but haven't backed anything up, or provided any source. If I showed documents of Izumo Ryu, from the mid 17th Century, does that mean it's around today (Here's a clue... it's not)? No, I'd need to provide some evidence that it exists, as well as providing evidence that the system in the document are the same as the one I was claiming exist today. That's the situation you're in at present... making claims that there is something, but not backing it up at all. No matter how many times you've been asked.

Please. That was the end of my sentence, Bruce. No real reason for you to imply otherwise with the dots there. But, if it'll make you happy, every clip of Korean sword arts shown are deeply and fundamentally flawed to the point of being fatal to the practitioner.

Then again (and here's where your ability to read comes into it), my comments are about the reasons of sword training are general, regardless of origin. Try reading again.

 

I'd like to ask that people here take a step back and reevaluate what it is that each of you is trying to achieve at this point. To me, this has become more about the actors in this thread than about the subject.

 

You know, Bruce, I've gone through the thread a number of times, and it's just not there. So how about you help out and either restate it, or at least say which post has the information. Because your post only said you'd already given the information.... but it seems only you can see it.

So... are you saying that you were lying then when you said you couldn't read them, or you're lying (or at least misleading things) now, and saying you can? After all, if all we have to go on is your word, and you're telling us not to trust what you say about yourself, what chance is there for us to trust anything at all where you're concerned?

No, Bruce, just that some here might be familiar with it. And seriously, give up this appeal to some deluded belief that anyone here is basing anything on "the ultimate authority of Japanese practices". Seriously, man, paranoia is not a good look.

That's the question, Bruce, what is your word worth?

Hi Stuart,

Yeah, I can understand that take... and, for my part, I've tried to stick to the questions of the thread itself, rather than looking to Bruce's issues himself. To my mind, the initial question is about the practicality of Haidong Gumdo, as a method of swordsmanship. Unfortunately, all evidence presented of such is flawed at best... and as such, these flaws were pointed out. Bruce came along to give an alternate opinion, but has not been able, or willing, to back it up with any actual evidence at all. As such, there has been an attempt to see what Bruce is referring to, as I am always quite happy to see some good swordsmanship, regardless of origin. Sadly, that has not been forthcoming...

 

Agreed. The sense that I get is that this has degenerated into a contention in which each of the players has grown used to being regarded as an authority in their respective areas and does not deal well with not being recognized as the authority in their area of specialty.

For myself, I know of which I speak, and having that information --or my knowledge base ---called into question, not regarded or judged-and-found-wanting according to some other practice does not encourage me to continue to participate. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

But that's the point, isn't it. There was a contention. There was evidence presented. There was an evaluation of that evidence as not compelling. And that's just about where the thread ended, in terms of the actual subject matter. Everything since then has been personality wars.

Does anyone genuinely think that there's a resolution on the horizon here? Or is the objective really just to didactically beat each other into submission?

 

Well, that's certainly your prerogative Bruce. I'd submit that questioning of your assertions is part and parcel of posting them. Now, that questioning should be civil. But the very fact that something is questioned isn't, in and of itself, reason to escalate to this.

Any real authority welcomes questioning, in my view. That's not an accusation of anyone in this thread. I'm not going to spend my time sifting through this mess to determine who made what mistakes. I'm just pointing out that this wasn't a one-man show.

 

Yeah, I know there was contention, which is why I've been asking for Bruce's take on things, or any evidence he has for other systems or methods... after all, he claimed that not only is Korean swordsmanship very practical and effective (which is not supported by the clips found, hence the request for other versions we might not be aware of), but that the majority of things seen were as bad as we were saying... and didn't represent Korean swordsmanship. So we asked for something that does... but haven't been rewarded. In essence, Bruce has said we're wrong about Korean sword, while saying that the issues we're seeing are real, but that they aren't really Korean sword, but won't show what is, or expand (or clarify when asked) about what Korean sword actually is, if not what is taught as Korean sword around the world.

So is there a resolution? Honestly, not likely when things go in circles and conspiracy is seen behind every post. But, bluntly, that ain't from our side of things.

That's the thing, Bruce, you were looked to as the informed member, but have come up very lacking in that regard... whether by a lack of actual knowledge, and simply wanting to preserve your beliefs about what you've learnt, or because, for whatever reason, you've decided not to actually provide any evidence for what you've claimed. So, if you're getting upset about not being seen as authoritative, really, you only have yourself to look to there.

 

@ AP....

I can only speak for myself......

When I go into a discussion, my frame of reference is "what if we were all sitting in someone's livingroom with a couple of cold ones". The reason I bring this up is that I HAVE been in that situation and noticed a very telling result. Please let me share.

Many years ago I was at a particularly well-attended seminar given by my late teacher. To that event came the usual cross-set of MA people. On this particular occasion there were also a rather large number of AIKIDO people. Afterwoods we went out for the evening to the home of one of the local practitioner. What I noticed was that the Hapkido people along with a cross-section of other arts were in the kitchen talking in very animated terms. In the livingroom were only the AIKIDO people who had brought wine and were speaking in reserved manner about their own practice. What this taught me was that in the MA there are not just different practices but also different approaches to discourse.

In the case at hand, the thread started about HDGD of which I do not hold a very good view. However....for better or worse, HDGD IS a subset of Korean sword of which I am a practitioner and hold probably a higher view than even the Korean nationals themselves.

I believe it is possible to discuss Korean sword like any other MA....any other weapons system. I don't believe I need to be put in the place of "defending" its existence, answering for all the shortcomings of every other Korean practice or constantly providing citations, references, lineage, instruction and evaluation.

Long story; short? I believe that I can sit at the table and discuss what I do. I also expect that I have a place at the table, that I need not constantly justify my place at the table. I am also not required to sit at the table and listen to suggestions that I have no place there. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Bruce, you haven't been told you don't have a place, in fact, you have been questioned for your experience and perspective. But here's the thing. You have been the one making claims about Korean sword being practical and effective, as well as historically authentic. You have since dodged any question about providing evidence, instead citing old texts that mention something akin to Korean sword practices, but shown no connection to anything taught and trained today. You want to sit at the table and join the conversation? Great! But that means you participate, not make vague references, ignore questions, make unconnected statements, and accuse everyone else of being involved in a conspiracy against you, which only you seem aware of.

So take it back to the beginning.

You have joined a thread on Haidong Gumdo. You state that you aren't fond of it yourself (so I don't know why you've been defending it, as representative of all Korean sword, as it's only been that art that's been questioned, not any of the others you've brought up - not that there's been much evidence of those), so why are you getting bent out of shape when others say they're not impressed by it?

 

No.

And I am going to stop this right here.

Between you and Polar Bear I find a number of posts where I have been affronted with touts concerning even the very EXISTENCE of Korean sword. This is not once or twice but regularly.

I suggest that its time for you to admit to your autocratic and derisive behavior. It is not what one would expect in a civil discussion, and were we sitting in a livingroom somewhere I don't know any reasonable people who would continue to accept it. It is not a civil discussion when, at every turn, one must spend time "defending" and explain each and every single statement as though on trial. If your view of discussion or discourse is one of "debate"----ie. "win versus lose"---- Ap is exactly right; there is nothing more to be said.