You may already know about the subject as wikipedia says. However, your statement ending with "...eh!" sounded like the way canadians say "eh" which is intended as a question. Know what I mean, eh! As to the probability of the remainder of the defintion given at wikipedia, that is doubtful and somewhat arrogant. But, each to his own.
KIWEST: Soon Tae Yangs group (Kung Jung Mu Sool) still teaches that way. As do a few others. Hell, even I still practice it like that on occasion just because, to be honest, its alot quicker and more effective! Both are correct because they follow the same motion, the same pattern, and the same principles.
Of course the blue belt should win, because the RULES governing WKSA tournaments clearly state that the forms & techniques demonstrated should follow the CURRENT textbooks and/or videos. If, OTOH, it was an OPEN tournament and I were judging, I might be inclined to go with the more *streamlined* version (of which I had a little row with seo727 once upon a time). But I hafta admit my inclination to favor the KCH depicted in the Gause YouTube clip, may stem from the fact that's how I originally learned it.
I know this may sound like a loaded question....but just how much variance for a given element or technique or method is considered acceptable. For instance, my own late teacher taught OUTER WRIST Throw and there were five variations (six if you count Behind-the-back). He didn't go so far as to identify each variation by its own name (though I did later for my students). What he did was announce that he was demonstrating OUTER WRIST Throw and we all had to watch carefully to see which variation he was focusing on. Of course, that didn't stop every other person in the class or seminar from doing their own take on the technique. Thoughts? Best Wishes, Bruce
Who knows with you British? It could have just as easily been a case where I used a '?' and you made some point about '?' it being some weird American thing.
When visiting Master Hill's school in Chicago last year, he also showed us this "variation" and said that he still teaches it to his Black Belts and leaves it up to them whether they practise it or not. I too have now started practising it both ways. Nice to keep the history alive I guess, but it does beg the question, why did KSN change it so much if it was "correct" in the first place? Maybe to avoid accusations of having "stolen" the form? :evil:
You're obviously very good at making assumptions. First regarding 'eh', and now when you write: "It could have just as easily been a case where I used a '?' and you made some point about '?' it being some weird American thing." What next I wonder!
:topic: OFF-TOPIC :topic: WARNING: The following post will be discussing some occurrences which took place in the past, but do NOT fall into the category of History, IMO. :cry: When are you trolls gonna STOP bashing The Won & In Hyuk Suh? :cry: Sorry, Kiwi, I just had to interject that bit of sarcasm. But if you'll direct your attention to post #305, please take note where I outlined an exchange of words I had with a nephew of the man you insinuated "stole" something (IIRC, it took place right about the time you joined MAP, so maybe you recall the particulars?). I don't blame seo727 taking affront one bit, because I used a poor choice of words which insulted his father, but the fact that In Sun Seo was responsible is undeniable. The way I remember the edict to "change" KCH coming about, was soon after the first textbook had been printed. Despite PLENTY of people learning the form as depicted in the Gause YouTube clip, since the textbook was the only means of creating a *standard* to go by (this was BEFORE the videos were produced BTW), the rule was to replicate the form as described in the textbook (which needless to say, also promoted the sale of many textbooks). As they say about hindsight being 20/20, I'm sure if GM IHS could've foreseen that one day he and his brother would part ways, he would never have given the order to "change" KCH. The most important aspect IMO, is the first few movements (kick/puch with no blocking motions whatsoever, save the positioning of the left hand near the right elbow). People (meaning *outsiders*) often complain about the kick/punch used as an initial movement for so many of our techniques, as being an *unrealistic* way to launch an attack (the *overextension* of your body weight, and leaving your arm outstretched so the other person can easily perform the counteroffensive). But this "unrealistic" attack is EXACTLY the opening moves to KCH as it was originally taught, so once you look at it from that perspective, it doesn't seem so out-of-place (and is yet ANOTHER reason not to abandon teaching this "version" of the hyeong). Hopefully this explanation cleared up any misunderstanding about why the form was taught two different ways. Just don't ask me why then chiefmaster ISS chose to add so many extra blocking motions (although I've heard speculation it had to do with pressure to compete with TKD being so popular at the time in Korea, and these additional movements somehow made the hyeong *better* when stacked up against TKD hyeong).
OK...OK.... I don't dispute the rights of people to pick nits about the politics of their particular groups or organizations, but I feel as though I was very much "called-in-on-carpet" for belaboring the history angle, so I would like to know---flat-out--- who empowers whom to regulate what we ought to know or study about the KMA? In my own case, I know I allowed myself to be regulated by my own late teacher and found that each organization pretty much had its "company line" overseen by whoever the leader was. In this way there was the HRD Line according to LEE J B, the HANMUDO Line overseen by KIMM H Y, the YMK LINE overseen by my own teacher and so forth. But with this recent recognition (?) of KUK SOOL as a "traditional Korean MA" by the Korean government, or recognition of Dr. Kimm as head of the KIDOHAE outside of Korea, or the myriad of KWANS recognized by the Korean Hapkido Federation who, exactly regulates what can be researched, what conclusions can be drawn and what finds its way into soul of the particular art?? Thoughts? Best Wishes, Bruce
Since we're talking KMA here, don't you mean, "what finds its way into Seoul of the particular art" - LOL. But seriously, Bruce, don't get riled by folks who find your incessant quest for documentable answers into KMA history to be annoying. Personally, it's one of the things I like about you. But I hafta admit, you did seem to take awhile to grasp the fact that despite "kuk sool" being a generic term for "national [martial] arts" that it has grown in many people's minds to refer to, and be representative of, a variant of HKD. It certainly doesn't seem to work for the kwon beop & other material extracted from the MYDBTJ, simply because of the efforts of the kuk-sool hwe back in the 1960's. And then there's the insistence of WKSA that the term be synonymous with what they dish out to the public, but IMO that aspect should be discounted (plus they seem to have abandoned that venture, apparently content to push their *brand* as KSW [i.e. "kuk-sool WON"] - LOL). But there's no ignoring the fact that due to the growth of WKSA over the last 50 years, that perception of the term "kuk-sool" will NEVER go back to meaning a collection of [truly] indigenous MA from Korea, no matter how much you may want it to happen. So my advice to you is to look for some other expression, although it seems like the term "kwon beop" has also been co-opted by the *commercialized* MA sector, so exactly what you decide to call your researched TKMA principles, certainly has me perplexed. :thinking: But good luck just the same. :happy:
hmmm people should be berated for learning from video! you can see a disconnect between the gause clip and hogukmuye clip, but chronologically they occured at same time. we do kick cover punch for a reason: i front kick, you step back and front kick. i cover your kick, then punch. master yang laughs when he sees the modern way because the only way it could work is if you step forward like in kyeok pa hyeong. but that is just the way we do things... let's not even get into baek pal gi. the way it was put to me was iss had a stranglehold after my instructor got back from vietnam war. nobody could argue with that guy, and so it was. funny thing is our sam bang cho and un hak hyeong look alot more like theirs than the wksa's. if i were to assume we do things the least changed, then wksa is the most.
What's the use of belts? What's the use of belts if one isn't able to perform kicks and punches. No one's perfect, granted, but MA schools shouldn't promote duds. My idea is to train for perfection and not for belts -- the right timing, the right twist, the right force and the right follow-through. And yes, on the streets, belts aren't going to do the kicking and punching.
I bet you think twice about the "use of belts" once I BELT you in the face with my fist. j/k Yudhajit. But I had to say it (hopefully you get the pun).
Honestly, Ukn, I have a really hard time following some of this KS stuff as just about the time I think I am beginning to get it all sorted-out in my head I feel like I catch another curve-ball. I do agree that KUK SOOL has headed in a direction all its own and there won't be any going back. I also get the sense that, for better or for worse, the nature of KS has a lot more to do with what people want to believe rather than fact. And, from that POV the given leader of a group is going to have the last word, right? For myself, I don't know that I have any real concerns about naming material as much as getting it out in front of folks for their consideration. I hit a pothole now and again in this regard, but nothing that actually stops the process cold in its tracks. Oh well; onward and upward. Best Wishes, Bruce
Thanks, Hyeongsa: I'm gathering that is more true than I ever realized. Not sure why it has to be that way, but nobody died and left me in charge. Best Wishes, Bruce
