Japanese and Korean swordsmanship: compare and contrast

It sounds like you are starting to question some of the things you have been learning and practicing regarding the sword.

With your statement regarding that "no one has ever said to me that if I overextend in my cutting technique then I've left myself open for a counter strike, I certainly can see that could be a problem".

Most likely no one taught the people that were teaching you.

As for why the "jumping, turning, and spinning the sword" is part of the practice, I don't know.

However, if multiple people were using the following to describe my training, it might make me stop and question things too:

Words such as over-cutting, off balance, and incorrect body position have been used in describing the flaws in the style pretty much universal among the critics.

 

Fair enough, OB, but that begs the question, "Do you do it for a real purpose (IE Does it enhance the understand or execution of the art) or do you do it just to be doing it or for some alterior motive. Let me give a couple of examples of what I mean.

a.) Karate KATA from SHOTOKAN were brought into TAEKWONDO for a variety of reason very little of which did much to enhance TKD and a lot of which had to do with politics of the actors involved. Whats that? It didn't make KARATE any better and it didn't make TKD any better.

b.) By comparison to A, lets say somebody took one or two of the KWON BEOP methods and made a Teaching form of the various techniques that could be had by puting those two methods together? Now we have TWO things: 1.) a venue for preserving an ancient practice and 2.) a record of practical applications for those methods. See what I mean?

c.) JI Han Jae added kicking---including acrobatic kicking to HAPKIDO inan attempt to make his stuff more marketable against TKD. OK so he made SIN MU Hapkido more marketable. Did he make the art any better? Some say "yes" and some say "no".

d.) Same as "C. but substitute KUK SOOL. Same question?

See what I mean?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

I trust my instructors, I'm just open to improving my technique. Japanese sword work is part of Korean practice, so I am interested in how I can improve that portion of the art and being somewhat isolated from higher level Masters makes learning the finer points of my training difficult sometimes. So if I can make adjustments from advise from others who may have more experience than I, and keeping in mind the teaching of my instructors, I believe I can progress my skill level. I'm not questioning what I have been taught, I'm questioning that I may not be doing it right. I'm not looking for wholesale changes in the techniques I'm just interested in minor corrections to improve on what I know.

 

Why practice MA's is that the question? It's not like I'm going to get into a sword duel anytime soon, I hope, at least not for life or death, LOL. So yea I would hope to get a better grip on the traditions and techniques. But my ultimate goal is and has always been health and fitness, having the confidence that I can defend myself is also a benefit.

Does it surprise me that adjustments could have been made to the art that either make it more marketable or easier to teach...no. As long as it continues to meet my needs then I can live with it. Would I be impressed that the material I learn was exactly the same as the material from 500 years ago...yes. In KMA due to many circumstances I think it's highly doubtful. So for me I'll continue to ask questions and follow the current system I'm studying, and I can live with the fact that it is what it is.

 

gets my full support and blessing, OB. I think you are on exactly the right track. For myself I ask only that the material I follow be as close to combat-worthy Korean tradition as I might follow. I'm guessing that if I were another tradition I would be pursuing the material much along the lines as are you. Fact is that a lot of folks are not as caught-up in heritage as they are in practice and there is nothing wrong with that. For myself, I enjoy digging into the past, even though, like you, the chances of finding myself is a life-and-death sword duel are slim and none.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

I've taken the last couple of days off to help clear my head, but I'm not entirely sure it's worked... this might be a little blunt. But hey, I was asked to be more concise...

Bruce doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, though. He's taking romanticised imagery as actual accounts. Don't listen to a thing he says about Japanese arts or swordsmanship. In other words, it's really not a "worship" thing at all... and the exact view of the sword, and it's place in training, is varied from system to system.

Over-cutting is over-cutting. It means ending your cuts far past the target, where the sword is in a slow or difficult to retrieve position, leading to wide open gaps in your actions which can be very easily taken advantage of. It equals dead swordsmen. It is not a cultural thing.

Off balance is off balance. It means over-extending yourself to the point where you remove your ability to move in a number of directions, which leaves you stuck in one position, or, at worst, falling over, which can be very easily taken advantage of. It equals dead swordsmen. It is not a cultural thing.

If these are consistent complaints, then they are indications that they are present in the training or practitioner. If it's just present in one person, it's a practitioner thing. If it's present in the majority of practitioners, it's a training thing. And, if that's the case, then the "sword" that's being taught cannot have come from a real combative usage, or even a usage that understands combat, as it simply wouldn't have survived, in a very Darwinian way. So if the complaints are consistent, it might bear some examination, if you genuinely want to develop skill with the weapon.

You're right... you can only reflect on what you've been taught. But that doesn't mean you have to accept what you're taught. And if everything you've been taught isn't what you think it is (ie that it's not actually genuine swordsmanship, from a historical, authentic, practical point of view), how do you know that if all you do is listen to your instructors?

In one of the lead-up threads to this, a member posted a link to a "history of Haidong Kumdo", stating that he knew it was correct, as it matched what his instructors had said, and would therefore vouch for it. Unfortunately, the posted link had a number of issues with it's own internal reasoning and history, taking again a very romanticised and inaccurate look at history, and was a deeply flawed piece. Trusting the instructors was actually to the posters detriment.

 

I understand what you are saying, Peter. Can I add an alternate reading as well?

What I noticed in discussions among some Japanese stylists over on E-BUDO was that the terms you just mentioned were very subjective and often used as kind of buzzwords to disparage another practice. This very point was raised by a few of the people on that forum as well.

When using such terms in a discussion the result can well be that the person using the terms sounds very knowlegble. However, if you actually ask that person to operationally define what they mean things become very style-specific and idiosyncratic to a teacher or a situation.

Now...I'll agree that in the case of some of the HDGD clips I have seen the mistakes are so egregious that a blind man couldn't miss it. OTOH I have witnessed threads on the other forum that went on for pages debating the relative placement of this or that body part by a matter of inches. The term "pendantic" came to mind for me. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Hmm. When swinging around a three foot razor blade, as a sword is so often described, I'd personally be in favour of an little pedantry... it shows attention to detail and care for the consequences of treating such an object with less than respectful awareness. The fact that such an approach is looked down on really doesn't bode well from a Korean sword standpoint, Bruce. I mean, do you not take as much care in where you aim a gun if it's from Germany as opposed to the US?

But, to the bolded section, can you address anything in the following clip?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnImQY405bo"]Korean Sword Introductory Forms.flv - YouTube[/ame]

There's a lot I see, but in terms of mistakes so egregious that a blind man couldn't miss them, I'd look to:
- 0:44
- 0:47-0:55
- 0:58-1:02
- 1:56
- 1:58-2:07
- 2:56-3:02
- 3:07
- 3:54
- 4:03
- 4:45-4:47
- 4:50
- 5:06....

 

Just a thought:

I watched some haidong gumdo vid last night and wondered if the overcutting could be due to watching tameshigiri and thinking it is how to use a sword in actual combat?

Although some of the really wild over cutting looks like it has been added just to try to look flash. 0:55 ish for example.

The vid contains poor cutting throughout and wouldn't bet on it working in tameshigiri either though.

To paraphrase Bruce Lee:

Tatami doesn't cut back.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvxiTWZW_BY"]Haidong Gumdo documentary - YouTube[/ame]

I have no idea whether this vid/group/org is considered a good example though.

 

Not from watching good tameshigiri.... one of the last sessions I went to, there was a nasty overcut... the poor swordswoman nearly lost her foot (missed it by about an inch or two). Good tameshigiri does not involve overcutting.

 

Why do those downward cuts carry on so far, almost down to the floor? (0:44 on)

Is there a reason for this being taught?

 

Yes, Gap, there is; but you need to back up a bit to realize who was teaching what to whom.

When General Qi first wrote his training manual, he tried to recruit from the better-educated city folk. The result was that though they were better educated they tended to be more "willfull" (IE questioned orders; questioned methods). City folk were also not very hardy when it came to living out in the open. General Qi started recruiting from the rural stock and found them much better soldiering material. The drawback was that they were not very educated. As a result you will see a lot of little hallmarks in training that were included to help the recruits train-up to requirements quickly. When the manual was taken to the Koreans the same situation and the same solutions were used.

In the case of the sword winding up so close to the floor, the target position for the sword after executing a Straight Descending Cut or any of the Left/Right Shallow/Deep Descending cuts is 6 inches off the floor. Some folks may see this as a position of disadvantage, and it certainly would be if someone were fighting a dualist who had spent hours refining their Timing and Interval. For the training of recruits its a simple matter to introduce the "Hanging Parry" at this point and leave the rest in God's hands. The Koreans were not teaching their recruits to dual. The recruits were being taught to hold a position in a squad formation. Over time I am quite sure that "survivors" learned to modify their techniques in deference to circumstances, perhaps even sharing among themselves tactics that served them well. But for Introductory material, this is the way that it is taught. Does this help?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

That's been my question a few times now....

 

Hmm. I'm not sure that I follow that line of reasoning... if the cuts were overdone because the recruits were lined up together, wouldn't that make bigger actions more likely to hit the friendly soldiers? For the record, two of the systems I train in teach to cut pretty well down to the floor, for different reasons... but the methods shown in your clip are very far removed from them. The main difference, bluntly, is that there is a sense of balance, control, and the ability to continue at the end of the cuts, which appears lacking in your (and other Korean Sword) clips.

 

Indeed. I was just thinking it could have stemmed from that and been amplified over the years. I was reminded by the cutting right through and not coming back to, say, seigan.

Good tameshigiri would not almost strike the floor and force the upper body to lean forward like seen in these vids.

 

Beat me to it about striking a fellow soldier!

Cutting down to the floor in some schools is fine but they use very different mechanics to do so.

 

As I say, you have to put yourself in the mindset of training recruits. Perhaps your frame of reference is a group of folks in uniforms, in a DOJO and handling what amounts to tight close-order drill. If that is the case you need to go back to your own training in the Military. Training for the Koreans was typically outside and a level of sophistication approaching "...and this is the end of the sword you hold onto". Maybe thats a piece that keeps getting lost over and over again.

Korean sword is nuts-and-bolts for people who are going into battle and may have never seen a sword before in their life. The training teaches them to swing and stab with the item and generally learn to appreciate what it can do. Consider this for a second.

In the Military of today, soldiers are given a rifle. A good number of those soldiers have never held a rifle before in their lives. Some have, but most have not. The Military teaches the person to load, shoot, clean and march with his weapon and then grades them to a level that indicates that the person is competent with his weapon. Thats it.

Now..... there ARE some people who may want to....or be selected for.....further, very highly skilled Sniping skills. However, not EVERY soldier gets this. The average soldier gets to be decently competent with his weapon and may polish his own skills, on his own time....or not. Is any of this making sense?

The sense that I get a lot of times is that people come to Korean sword because they know it will teach them the fundamentals and a few additional tricks along the way. The rare bird who wants to make a life out of training with sword has a whole range of things they can do on their own time. They just need to learn the foundations first. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Are there any clips of people displaying that level beyond "nuts and bolts"?

The clip I posted had a grandmaster in it I believe. Does he display that deeper level?

 

Yes.....

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTA7Vf1eZAg"]Kumdo Forms - YouTube[/ame]

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Is this not just a Japanese school being practiced by koreans though?

I wonder if others could even name the ryu (or multiple).

Confused.

Edit: hang on there are huge flaws here too. At around 1 min the defender cuts to the hands, and with no defense cuts to the neck. What if the cut to hands missed? What if the hands were armoured?

Why no affecting the opponents balance?

More confused.