rumour has it that everyone got along until a meeting in busan when a certain seomone sucker punched a sitting visiting master in the face and knocked a couple of...ahh forget it. either way, they dont get along.
I was enjoying that first one, up to about the 3 minutes 30 mark when the female and the male started impersonating two cats: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih6W19KTlZo"]YouTube- Cat Betrayed His Girlfriend! Sex! Heat! Rage! Foul language! (ORIGINAL ENGLISH CAPTIONS)[/ame]
Thats one of the worst pieces of self-serving bunkum I've read for years. Basically it boils down to: "We know what we're talking about, you don't, but we're not going to tell you why you're wrong, or how you're wrong because we're scared of being wrong" To be more specific 1) My names not guy (or spade) 2) quote: "starts tuning-up with comments about things that cannot be verified". The reason I'm asking the question is BECAUSE - according to you - people are suppressing the verifiable facts 3) quote "if somebody put their research findings out for others to see then there is the matter of being criticized and ridiculed". On that basis Darwin would never have published. Or Einstein. Or Gallileo. Or Leonardo. Or Francis Bacon. Or Crick & Watson. I could name a thousand more. But they DID publish and human knowledge improved - despite resistance. If you have the information, and its NOT published, then to all intents and purposes that information does not exist. Effectively "it never was". And to try using it to justify an argument or cause simply reduces the status of the claimant to that of Walter Mitty Or maybe Baron Munchausen. 4) quote " why would an intelligent, well-adjusted, passionate KMA practitioner continue to put themselves through that?" Through what? I think most viewers of this forum are of the KSW-heretical persuasion and are likely to WELCOME any proveable data that consigns KSW orthodox history to the scarpyard it deserves. 5) quote "Can you understand my point?" NO. I just see the taint of people who don't believe in the truth of their own beliefs.
I must say that I have (or certainly had) the greatest respect for Bruce as being a well-read, and well-researched, authority on Korean Martial Arts history. But I have to agree with some of the sentiments expressed by Demdike in his most recent post (143) above. I very much welcome learning from everyone, especially Bruce. But this attitude of 'me and my mates know everything, so don't you dare ask questions because you are lowly morons by comparison. And because we don't think you are worthy, we're gonna keep the information from you anyway' type of attitude sticks in my craw somewhat. When I respond to someone directly on here I try to use their Avatar name. Rather than address them in any kind of manner that, in British Society at least, might be regarded as being condescending or patronising. Like 'guy' or 'fella' for example. And I mean no offence to anyone by posting what I have written above. It's simply meant to demonstrate how texting, e-mailling and posting on internet forums (maybe without giving things too much thought) can easily lead to misunderstanding and upset.
surely the point is that both KSW and HRD were originally based on a group of skills which were practiced within the 1960's Kuk Sool Hwe. Where the KSH got that skiil set from is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that following the KSH breakup, KSW and HRD have followed their own ways, changing through evolution and revolution (as has KSK, and arguably many others) Now it seems to me that the question that was originally posed really was dealing with a comparison of how the KSW and HRD have moved away from each other in the intervening decades since KSH imploded. How much do they teach in common, and how much of the old KSH skill set have they each abandoned? How close is what is now taught to the KSH? You don't need to go back to debates on the "origins of the stuff" - thats pointless for reasons we all know. But surely it is a valid question for someone to ask for a comparative analysis of KSW and HRD as they are now, and of how the two got to where they are now?
Exactly my point. Without solid documented history, there is NO WAY to sort this out; however, we now have the added problem of making sure that some of the statements made TODAY do not become the history of yesterday. Research is great, and I value the contributions of those who do research; BUT, if we KNOW this research is largely based upon unsubstantiated historical accounts, it is time to see it for what it is. With today's methods of spreading the "word" we are in danger of "creating" history where none really exists. Furthermore, I have observed a dangerous trend of martial artists accepting as undeniable truth whatever the "folks in the know" have written without asking for solid proof. By solid proof, I don't mean quoting some passages out of a book written by yet another "historian" who was not there. IMHO, there are LOTS of indications on developments in martial arts (and indeed in history, we can actually SEE if we open our eyes and minds. I don't need to read slanted historical accounts written by historians who placed THEIR point of view an actual accounts. I can SEE the evidence by what is left behind, and what I can actually see is often more reliable than what I read lol. It does not take much to SEE that there is a connection between various martial arts DESPITE whatever the founders of the arts claim, just as it does not take much to see that the Romans had some powerful martial arts expertise. The evidence is in what they, and others like them, left for us to see. Perhaps that is the reason why so many conquerors build monuments.
OTL. The old ways of doing Kuk Sool forms is quite different than what we see today. Look at the Venezuelans, the Canadians who now call their art Dahn Mu Do, and some of the old footage of monks in Korea doing what we now look at as Kuk Sool hyung, and you will see a MUCH more flowery way of Kuk Sool hyung. One year, I can't recall the actual year, Kuk Sa Nim, during the annual seminar tour, tried to "standardize" the WKSA forms. I have it on film that at MY home, he did two versions of Kicho hyung (himself) on the same day to the same group, and neither way was what other groups were taught by various other seminar leaders. That same year, at the pre tournament meeting, they insisted that participants NOT doing the forms the way it was taught during the seminar tour would be disqualified. They relaxed their stance a bit when I pointed out that they had invited the Venezuelan squad, but they had NOT been to Venezuela to teach the "standardized" version of WKSA hyung. As such, it would mean that the entire Venezuelan team would be DQ ed for doing WKSA hyung "the old way". I strongly objected to that, since they were invited without being told the rules in advance. Needless to say that the only friends I made that day were from the Venezuelan team lol. Being outspoken does not make you friends in WKSA.
OTL. The old ways of doing Kuk Sool forms is quite different than what we see today. Look at the Venezuelans, the Canadians who now call their art Dahn Mu Do, and some of the old footage of monks in Korea doing what we now look at as Kuk Sool hyung, and you will see a MUCH more flowery way of Kuk Sool hyung. One year, I can't recall the actual year, Kuk Sa Nim, during the annual seminar tour, tried to "standardize" the WKSA forms. I have it on film that at MY home, he did two versions of Kicho hyung (himself) on the same day to the same group, and neither way was what other groups were taught by various other seminar leaders. That same year, at the pre tournament meeting, they insisted that participants NOT doing the forms the way it was taught during the seminar tour would be disqualified. They relaxed their stance a bit when I pointed out that they had invited the Venezuelan squad, but they had NOT been to Venezuela to teach the "standardized" version of WKSA hyung. As such, it would mean that the entire Venezuelan team would be DQ ed for doing WKSA hyung "the old way". I strongly objected to that, since they were invited without being told the rules in advance. Needless to say that the only friends I made that day were from the Venezuelan team lol. Being outspoken does not make you friends in WKSA.
I have to say to you, Pugil and to you Demdike, that neither of you are going to identify the forest until you come to understand the nature of all those trees you are looking at. Please re-read your posts with better eyes and ask yourself if the messages you are reading are the kinds of sentiments that would encourage anyone to be open or disclosing or communicative. 1.) Please note that either or both of you might have taken a course where you introduced material that YOU have researched. 2.) You might have shared citations that YOU have read on the subject at hand. 3.) You might have taken an alternate position and offered citations of your own. 4.) You might have shared words of encouragement to those person or persons unknown and expressed a hope that maybe they might put their thoughts down in an article. 5.) You might have expressed an interest in additional reading. Fact is that you both did exactly what I identified as the very reason a lot of folks have stopped contributing to forums such as this. Your labeling, judgements, suppositions and unwarranted criticism are exceeded only by your inflated sense of entitlement. There is no better example of what I am writing about than the post DEMDIKE made identifying various thinkers. Please note that NONE of those thinkers elected to communicate with the public at large. The writing they did was intended for and directed at the people who found worth in it, typically other scholars. The facts that they had to eat so much s*** was a result of the material falling into the hands of pedestrians. Now....if you STILL don't know what I am talking about, ask yourself this: Why don't either of you or a score of other contributors on this forum use your REAL NAMES when you post. If you are honestly having trouble understanding my position, or if you don't think there is a problem with disclosure, why don't you share your opinions, information and corrections under your REAL NAME instead of a nom d' plume. Thoughts? Best Wishes, Bruce
"No, this isn't a "my art is better than your art" thread! Kuk Sool Won and Hwa Rang Do both started in the same time frame. Both Grand Masters claimed to study ancient Royal Court and Buddhist methods. They even started an association together called Kuk Sool Hyul (or Hwe, in some records). However, the Masters in that association (which, if the records are correct, there are quite a few) had a falling out, and Suh, In Hyuk and Lee, Joo Bang have bitter words against each other for it. So, my thoughts are this: Who started what? Who trained who? Who is more traditional and why? Whose roots run deeper in the Ancient Traditional martial Arts? Your thoughts on this would be most welcome!" just in case any of you forgot what this thread is about. these are things i hope to see on this thread: videos of Hwa Rang Do Forms explanations of the viciousness between KSW and HRD who has more traditional roots (BTW we all get it: everyone mixed around too much. but, who has the true royal court guard roots? or buuhdist roots? whatever) hope that helps.
I'm not on here looking at trees Mr Sims. This is a martial arts forum in case you hadn't noticed! As for re-reading your posts, I think you ought to re-read my last one, where I openly stated how I respected you and welcomed the opportunity to learn from you. And what do you come back with? More of the condescending attitude. Maybe things in your life aren't going too well right now, I don't know, but I certainly don't see the need for your hostility. I certainly don't remember questioning your contributions at any point, I only commented on what seemed to me to be an out of character grumpy attitude. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe that is your usual attitude anyway. As for your question: "Why don't either of you or a score of other contributors on this forum use your REAL NAMES when you post." Whilst I may indeed use a nom d' plume on MAP, most people on here, other than you it would seem, surely know who I am but, as you seem not to, it's 'OLLIE BATTS'. Thoughts Bruce? Yes, Goodbye! And that's the nice version!
I understand the forest. I understand the trees. I just don't understand the nature of the animal hidden in there. An ogre maybe? The fact is I'm not the one who has the learning and experience in this subject. However I'm interested in learning more, but it appears that in some way I (along with other readers of this forum) are not worthy of that information. However what there appears to be is a kind of secretive group keeping the "secret history" to themselves, and away from the plebs. Seems to me that either the so-called data would not stand up under scrutiny, or else something akin to Freemasonry is present. I've no sense of entitlement. However I do have an avid interest in discovering knowledge of many kinds. However it appears I'm too thick to be allowed knowledge of Korean MA history. No labelling or judgement by me, rather the other way round. I - and the other forum readers - have been labelled as second-class. Not true. Ever read the "Origin of Species?". Crick & Watson's thesis was published publicly in a journal. Roger Bacon wrote a series of works - for which he fell foul of the inquisition. Of course not many could read in those days - and the books had to be copied by hand. The only one I quoted whose works were not available in multiple libraries would be Leonardo you wanted my thoughts, you've got them
Just to prove the point Darwin published "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." as a book on 24th November 1859 Crick & Watson published "Molecular structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid" in the publicly available journal "Nature" on 25th April 1953 Einsteins paper on Special Relativity "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies") was published in the German journal "Annalen der Physik" on 30th June 1905 Three of the most important scientific documents ever released. ALL released into the public arena, not hidden away on some secret mailing list
Dear Pugil and DEMDIKE: You both get credit for being clever in your responses but I notice that neither one of you take responsibility for the nature of the environment in which information is shared. In fact, this, for my part is the core of the issue under discussion. I asked you both why you write under pen-names and neither of you addressed the issue. Yet, its existence is pivotal to the discussion. I hold that you hide behind pen-names because you are both intimately aware that the environment here can be toxic and judgmental. By extension I suggest that neither of you is as interested in learning as you state because were that true you would have lead-off with learning. Instead you lead off with why you were not entitled to get the information I might share, to be used for your amusement as you see fit. DEMDIKE seems hung up on secrets. OK, DEMDIKE, on what basis are you entitled to anything? Please demonstrate those occasions where you have cultivated an atmosphere where people could share and exchange information. Maybe I missed something. Its certainly apparent that YOU missed something. I asked you about the targeted demographic for publications and you came back to state that individuals published works. Gee, no kidding. Now answer the bloody question, ditz. What demographic were they targeting and what demographic took issue? Big difference. How about you, Pugil? You are brave enough when taking issue with things. What about those occasions where you have cultivated an environment enriched with your own research and tolerant of the research of others. No body asked if you respected ME. The focus of this exchange is the nature of the environment in which information is shared. How come you don't speak to the focus of the exchange? And why do you continue to attend to whether or not I am going through a hard time right now? I'm telling you that is not germane but you keep bringing it up? Lets see.....you won't talk about what we ARE discussing and you DO bring up what we are NOT discussing. Gee..... and then you are curious about why I would be reluctant to share things in this environment. Kinda thick, aren't you? I submit that you have both been spoiled by people---admittedly such as myself---who have come onto venues such as this and put up with a ton of crap from unlettered ****heads, and now....when I suggest that just maybe folks who invest such energy don't deserve such treatment you seem to make a case against these people protecting themselves. Oh....but excuse me.... you folks obviously believe that you are at liberty to have fun at the expense of others, independent of anything you (don't) contribute. Did you think that after a while ...just maybe.... people who use their heads might not get fed up with your crap and pull the plug? Look at the subject of this thread, fer crissake!! Somebody wants to know the traditional underpinnings of two 1970-s constructions!! What the hell is wrong with this picture? You can tell the TS he is on a fool's errand but do you think he wants to hear it? No Way. And THAT is the mentality of the typical forum person ("I know what I believe; don't bother me with facts.") Now tell me how an intelligent person is intended to submit well thought out research to the likes of such folks. Sorry, folks, but 1991- to present is far long enough. If you want any benefit of the research I do you will damn well dance to my tune instead of vice versa.
FWIW. I have known Bruce to be a martial artist who has a true passion for Korean martial arts. At one point, some folks lamented that Bruce was a keyboard warrior who rarely was seen on the mat; however, I know from personal experience that Bruce is willing and quite able to get on the mat. Perhaps he chooses WHO he gets on the mat with, but many of us do. I am not sure what started the most recent round of bickering off, but I DO think that no one had intentions of hurting anyone. My personal beef with history stems from being raised in Holland, learning Dutch history. I later moved to Canada, where I was subjected to English history. Both were in an academic environment, so I expected it to be on the money; however, I was disappointed to see that each country had quite different versions of the particular aspect of history I was interested in (naval warfare). How could this be... these books were written by respected historians of both sides, good enough to be school books. Having thus learned the hard way to be wary of history that HAS ample documentation, I am more than a bit sceptic about historical date from a country which has little such evidence. So, I am not knocking Bruce, I am knocking the fact that history seems to be written to benefit whomever pushes it as gospel. Lord knows that the leaders of both organizations being discussed here have a propensity to have martial arts history slant their way, and THAT many of us have experienced first hand. So, why do I care? I care, because thousands of people now firmly believe in the history as it is being told and documented all over the net, and potentially good martial artists grow up believing in a lot of crap that is being passed of as "the truth". I have learned that scholars who wrote Dutch and English history found ample references to back up their "theory", as that is the way it seems to go in academia. Have reference, will travel BUT, be sure to understand that references do not make truth, as the books used as references may be in error themselves. THAT is like using rotten wood to build a foundation for a palace. Perhaps I brought on this war of words, but that was not my intention. My intention is simple... BEWARE of historical data being passed off as truth, and use your common sense to help you sort out the details. If some Korean martial arts look a bit Chinese, we can be fairly sure that somehow these two nations had opportunity to learn from each other (perhaps the hard way) etc. etc. So, what IS the sure thing about this... we can safely assume that warriors back then picked over each others' arsenals to save their own butt. Kinda sounds like what is still going on. Do we HAVE to figure out which detail is from what country's arsenal? Who cares... if it was good enough for ancient warriors to allow their art to evolve (in either direction), it is good enough for me. It certainly is not a good enough reason to have words, especially on Christmas eve. Rudy
personally, i'd love to hear the take on KSW and HRD. are they legit? are they down to the roots korean (more than 70% that is lol) in the end, all three (china, korea, japan) influenced each other. but each had its own distinct principles/styles. so, is the Sillan Hwa Rang, and Korea in general, the focal point of Martial Arts as we know it? from what i've researched, it seems the Hwa Rang influenced todays wushu, karate, jui jitsu, and the samurai in general (due to major Hwa Rang noble man/families leaving Korea and teaching in China and Japan; i.e., Shira Soborou of Japan and Wang Kimm of China). though, it also seems during the slaughter of the Shaolin Monks, ALOT of information was traded with the Korean monks of the north, which trickled south to Silla. the Samurai gained alot of sword, armor, martial, and moral knowledge (i.e., Bushido) from the Sillan Hwa Rang, but stream lined and perfected the sword (and a SMALL amount of other weapons) to make it distinctly their own, while the Hwa Rang seemed to perfect everything (i.e., 108 weapons, punching, kicking, grappling, horseback, poetry, music, polotics, swiming, etc.) they also seemed to have gotten the Kwahn Sool (hard techniques) from Shira Soborou and turned it into Karate (though that can be debated since it seems that Okinawa had develped a FORM of Karate from China, which iin turn got it from Korea from the Wang Kimm) and also recieved the You Sool (soft techniques) and developed Jui Jitsu and Judo further, with their own flairs on both of course. so, is what we study, KSW and/or HRD, the direct decendent of what the Hwa Rang of the Sillan kingdom taught to China/Japan? are we studying the actual "syllabus" (i use that term lightly since they didn't have one) of so long ago? or is it made up bull**** that would appease the masses by telling them its "traditional Korean martial arts? i see similiarites in the sip palgae, MYDBTJ, KSW, HRD, and the lot. i know TKD and Judo were heavily influenced by Japan. but what about what we DON'T know??? so far, i've seen the forms (THANK YOU UNKNOWN KJN!!! ;D) and am franticaly comparing it to the higher ranking forms in KSW, SPG, and the MYDBTJ. they all seem to have the same elements, but it will take time and training to understand it. but the bitterness question between Kuk Sa Nim and Do Ja Nim remains: what the hell happened for such animosity to develp between two killers and masters of martial arts??? and the historical question still must be discussed till someones brain pops. lol lets drop this argument and continue on with the revelations that this thread has slowly begun revealing, shall we?
QUOTE=Bruce W Sims;34096909] I asked you both why you write under pen-names and neither of you addressed the issue. Yet, its existence is pivotal to the discussion. I hold that you hide behind pen-names because you are both intimately aware that the environment here can be toxic and judgmental. By extension I suggest that neither of you is as interested in learning as you state because were that true you would have lead-off with learning. Instead you lead off with why you were not entitled to get the information I might share, to be used for your amusement as you see fit. [/QUOTE] People choose their internet pen names for many reasons Desire to project a different identity Vanity Anonymity Self-publicity Spam-avoidance I choose to use a pen-name for ALL my internet postings simply for reasons of personal safety: over the years I've been witness in too many police/security stings and there are still people out there after me as a result. A few years ago someone in the same (former) business as me had his house firebombed. Of course I could have chosen a more real-sounding name and no-one would be any the wiser. Perhaps I should: how does "Archibald Stumblefluck" sound? BRUCE I presume uses his real name as he hopes his posts will add weight to his reputation. I think he may have misjudged in this case. Of course, there is the question, how do we know it IS his real name? Only because he says so. I'm entitled to nothing. However I do have the right to ask questions. Equally I have the right to criticise. And when I am told in public that I'm a member of a group who are likened to a bunch of swine, I think its time to start questioning and criticising. No you did not ask about the targeted demographic. You stated that those quoted did not publish. I simply established that in the main they did, and that those publications were publicly available to (and read by) those interested. Just as this forum is read by those interested in the subject matter. I submit that you've enjoyed a past of unfettered domination of others here (and in other forums) by weight of your self-proclaimed vast knowledge. Reading past posts, I get the definite impression that much of what you say has echoes of "the emperors new clothes" about it - and this current dispute appears to be a realisation of that. Oh and by the way - "unlettered ****heads"? I could more correctly call you a "pontificating prat" but I'll let that pass. I'm not doing this for fun. Do you think I get pleasure in exchanging letters with a fool? I simply see its time to point out to you that not all the people outside of your elitist cabal are part of the great unwashed that you take them to be. I think the greatest risk is that people may now realise that for all that you've said in the past, there is little there except for a few repeated mantras. Now heres the main problem. OK so looking at the traditional underpinings is not viable because (1) no-one who was there at the time is talking (2) there are no records (3) the Koreans aren't going to tell us white folks (or anyone else) their secrets anyway. However that was just PART of the original question. It was also about comparative development of the two styles since their spilt. However, despite your vast knowledge you stated that any such comparision would be pointless because they are not based on tradition. Thats like saying a comparison of two cars is pointless because they're not designed on the basis of a horse-cart. Now to me that sounds like you're trying a cop-out there. It sounds like you're saying that because (in your view) there is no historic origin of KSW or HRD, then study of either is pointless at best, or at worst a flawed exercise as neither are "real". Well both are real to the thousands that practice them. And if thats really the way you think, then just what gives you the right to claim to be an authority on them? Thats it from me for a few days. I'm off testing broomsticks around Pendle Hill for a while and by the way BRUCE its Demdike not DEMDIKE unless you're shouting at me
Posts #116 from VegasMichelle, #154 from Bruce and #155 from Saja were very intelligent and satisfying. With these combined posts this thread could go to sleep (as far as I’m concerned). It is by now obvious, no matter how much one would want to learn about this, there isn’t much more that can be found or people are willing to share, for now anyway. It’s a shame actually because there are indeed people interested in this and how things in general have developed and why. On the “Is lineage important?” thread, coc716 made a comment, {And you see, that's the big problem with all this history and lineage stuff. There's little to no hard evidence, it's all based upon an individual's claims, they all claim what shows them in the best light even if it contradicts others or other facts and history (let's not forget about Hwarangdo), and what they claim today can change tomorrow if they feel it serves their ends best.} and, {Having proper lineage isn't going to help me keep my head from getting stomped into the pavement…..} This might help, go to, Korean Martial Arts - Complete Martial Arts.com click on, History of Hwa Rang Do. There are also offers for books and videos. Unjee
Here I’m thinking I’m all by my lonesome on Christmas morning on this thread but as soon as I posted, Demdike’s post jumps at me. I really think this endless bickering over crap needs to stop. Demdike, once again you got carried away. You are the last person to call Bruce a fool; you could only wish to have his knowledge. Unjee
Before posting, I'd like to wish everyone (christian or not) a very merry KUH RIS MUSS. Just to help you out there, Unjee, I've inserted links to make it a bit easier for people to appreciate your astute observations. I'd also like to mention that I think the OP/TS finally cleared up a lot of misunderstanding with his post #156, FWIW. I'd also like to point out a jewel or nugget that Demdike touched on in his most recent post (not put in the usual quote-box due to major editing )... "the traditional underpinings [of KSW & HRD are] not viable [for discussion due to numerous reasons] ... However that was just PART of the original question. It was also about comparative development of the two styles since their spilt." Despite the fact that few people who know the reasons for the split don't care to discuss it (stirring up a hornet's nest syndrome), I feel that is where this thread could do the most good... so taking that direction is my humble suggestion. Unfortunately, I have nothing to contribute along these lines.
