My master, Huh Mon Gil, always told me that the Kuk Sool forms were developed by a guy named Kang Ik Jo who knew kung fu as well as hapkido, and who worked together with both the Kim Woo Tak/Kim Chun Soo camp and the In Hyuk Suh camp. Lee Joo Bang's site, however, also records the young In Hyuk Suh as a "Shipalgi" master, which is ostensibly a Chinese influenced martial art? And anyone who has done any wushu or tai chi will clearly recognize the Chinese one legged postures in the Kuk Sool forms. OK. Which begs the following questions. a.) If the forms were made-up by a particular individual, why not simply state this in the KS history and give credit where credit is do? b.) If SUH In Hyuk was a SIB PAL KI practitioner, why not simply stae that and then stay with that tradition as it arguably has the best claim to being an authentic, that is, governmentally sanctioned art in the sense of being adopted in 1759. (clip) . In the KSK movement, however, one executes an inward circular block with the right and then the left hand, finishing with a right palm strike. When done, the movements look very similar, though the latter version seems more deliberate. Similarly, KSW will chop the ground with one leg straight in a very ornamented way. KSK just kneels and chops the ground. Just a side comment. I have noticed that the KS people seem to be as much adrift about the nature of their forms movement as were the Karate people about their KATA following the emigration of Funakoshi to Japan. What this suggests to me is the possibility of people playing with biomechanics in constructing forms without a thorough understanding or appreciation of what they were working with…..IMHO. So at any rate, the Kuk Sool underbelt forms seem to clearly be of Chinese crane and tiger influence, possibly sewn together in their current form under the guidance of Kang Ik Jo and In Hyuk Suh. The higher forms, however, such as the Gum Moo, the Byak Pal Gi, and the Sam Bang Cho, though they also bear Chinese influence, may still be centuries older and bear that Chinese influence only by reason of history. I tend to feel that these hyung truly are traditional forms from Korea's past - there are just too many weird elements in them that I wouldn't imagine the practical brass tacks atmosphere of the 1950s post-war Korea would have engendered ( the throwing knives in the Gum Moo, the rising sun and moon in the Byak Pal Gi...) Which begs the following questions. a.) Why use Chinese Crane and Tiger and WHICH CRANE and WHICH TIGER were used? b.) TAM TUI is documented as being in Korea prior to the Occupation why is this not used in training? c.) BA QUA CHANG was used by the Chinese military and may have been introduced to the Koreans by Chinese Banner troops. Why is this not identified in KS material? d.) Why are the various sword forms of the MUYE SHINBO and MYTBTJ identified and practiced….if this is actually suppose to be a compendium of “authentic Korean practices”. The remaining elements in Kuk Sool, such as the fan, cane, rope and sword techniques I also feel can only come from the Gong Jung Moo Sool, as they seem too unique and particular to have come from the other arts, and it seems to make practical sense that they would be intended for palace guards. The Kuk Sool sword techniques are also quite different from the Japanese influenced "Kumdo" that appeared in Korea, so they too tend to make me believe they are from Korea's "kingdom" past. The above the head poses look like they could be done with a Chinese broadsword as easily as a Japanese katana, and that meshes with Korea's history of using any and all styles of swords. So finally, as far as whether In Hyuk Suh's grandfather really was the source of that, I can't say. My master Huh Mon Gil seems to think that the arts of the Gung Joong Moo Sool were sort of the cultural inheritance of every master who chipped in at the potluck that was the Kuk Sool Hwe, though if that were the case, I would have to say there would be no Tae kwon do - if the Gung Joong Mu Sool had not been lost to most of Korean martial artists, no one would have taken up the Shotokan karate that grew into TKD. It's possible that other masters at that potluck had collected or inherited Goong Joong arts too - certainly Kim Woo Tak had access to them as well. The masters of the Kuk Sool Hwe were already a true martial elite when compared to the staid taekwondo crowd. One thing we can say for certain without flinching though: Kuk Sool as we know it is definitely a combination of Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu, White Crane, Tiger and Praying Mantis kung fu, and a hodgepodge of Korean weapon techniques and stances which we collectivelly call Gung Jung Moo Sool. a.) If the practices named are from some Governmental practices, where are the documentation by the household attesting to their original consideration and acceptance? b.) Where is the provenence for this material as representational of governmentally sanctioned practices which would validate these practices as Korean Martial Traditions? Best Wishes, Bruce
but the stance work in our hyeong are more like hung gar, and that is southern cma, correct? hoejin sudo = korean triple mantis chain strike?
Perhaps...I am not altogether sure. The question that keeps coursing through me head is why there would have been a need to "make-up" a tradition out of spare parts when the Koreans already had an organized syllabus in the MYSB and the MYTBTJ and that would have provided an extraordinary foundation for whatever would have followed. In the case of KWON BOP it would have been a matter of identifying all 32 methods for using the body to fight. In the matter of weapons there is the short sword, single-handed sabre, two-handed sabre, straight-sword and so forth. Nothing had to be made up. Why do that? The construction of some new inauthentic tradition only took energies away from the preservation and promotion of the authentic material. Best Wishes, Bruce
this is where i wish i had a copy of these texts to check our forms and techniques to see if there is even a comparison. from the images of the mydtj i have seen, our 근대랸 set (#1) may have a resemblance to the backfist drawings. the 공갹 자새 looks the same as the ready stance on some ancient pics as well... thats all tho till the scholarly interpretation of the mydtj dr choi spoke about hits the shelves
I am with you there Bruce. Lack of documentation is why we always seem to end up arguing. Without documentation, we resort to exchanging one set of beliefs based on what we were taught for another set of beliefs taught by someone else. In the many years that I have practiced Korean martial arts, it ALWAYS ends up the same way... NO documentation and NO verification, just "points of view". Is there ANYTHING useful in this pursuit of history? Having been exposed to Dutch and English versions of history, I have come to the conclusion that even WITH documentation things get skewed to fit those who write it. Seems to me that scholars enjoy the arguments more than to find the REAL truth behind their positions. Rudy
That is it in a nutshell. It will be very difficult, as we know, to be objective without solid evidence. Discussion is helpful but even reading what Master Dunchok wrote on the subject, as objective as he was trying to be, you can't help but see some biased and prejudiced commentary in his statements. I don't say this to undermine what he said nor am I trying to discount what he stated, I'd just like to point out that anyone of us would and do tend to lean toward our own teacher/art/family/beliefs, when we discuss comparisons. As far as the comparing one art to another I think it is important to consider that unless you go to the source of the information, ie: Kuk Sa Nim, Huh Mon Gil,&c,&c, the information can get skewed in translation. As an instructor I've experienced this many times. Take two students teach them in the same class and see how differently they process the information and interpret what they were taught. When quizzed about what they learned they may say, for example: 1st student says When doing hyung, low stances and flowing movements help increase internal strength. 2nd student says when doing hyung, direct quick movements are essential for creating power. Who's right and who's wrong? I personally don't think there is a wrong or right. This can be the same when it comes to history of any sort. The bottom line for me is that if you weren't there you can never be for certain the information that exists is not skewed by the interpreters or the biased personal beliefs of the actual people involved. That being said I'm not a scholar on the subject of history as is Bruce, But I would think that documents stating facts in conjunction with commentary of the participants, would paint a close picture of the events that have taken place. As in any "painting" it is up to the individual connoisseur to interpret the results based on his/her, experiences, prejudices, and bias. Regards
the way it was explained to me was this: Kuk Sa Nim studied until his teenage years under his grandfather (which we're mostly unsure of what he learned at that time, though there IS photographic evidence which some masters have seen). when his grandfather died, he got letters of recomendation to train with other "in-hiding" korean royal court guard. there use to be sword forms in kuk sool that highly resembled the MYDBTJ sword forms as well as other sword forms that we still practice today. however, due to Kuk Sa Nim not likeing the japanese, the japanese sword forms were left out (they were put in, supposedly, so the koreans knew what they were fighting. same with the chinese sword forms). he then went on to learn from buhddist monks, and that is where he learned his SPK. apparently, the monks had adapted the flowing pattern the chinese used, but at the same time kept their korean "way of doing it". its the same if i do a helicopter move from BJJ and wind up in Walki #14. however, and i've heard this from a few different sources, the form "Woohn Ohk Hyung" is suppose to be a Royal Court guard form taught to the Hwa Rang Warriors by the Hwa Rang Monks. now, i'm not sure of the authenticity of this, but thats just what i heard from a few higher ranking masters. i do know that chinese elements were common in the northern regions of korea (such as headbutting that can be found in quite a few northern chinese arts) and the "stop-and-go" form of doing sword forms can be found closer to the east side of korea, due to their close proximity to the japanese. however, they "koreanized" anything they got their hands on and made it into what it is now. when it comes to the "inventing" of the forms, that is something i always felt was accurate. the "Geup" hyungs Cho Geup - Dae Geup, were supposedly invented in a combined effort by JBL, IHS, KWT, etc. to familiarize the student with the flowing/hard concept of Kuk Sool. these forms can still be found in the other break off arts and arts that were part of KSH. however, Ki Cho Hyung and Guhm Moo Hyung up were suppose to be the ancient (mostly) unchanged forms practiced by koreans ages ago. such forms as Jan Gun Hyung (Generals War Form) which can be found in the MYDBTJ as their "Open Fist Method" is missing from modern day KSW and bothers me greatly. i guess KSN wanted to make his "version" of Kuk Sool completely his. Kuk Sa Nim did cross train these styles (KungJung MuSool, BulKyo MuSool, and what ever he learned from his Grandfather in SahDo MuSul) to found a National Art "Kuk Sool" encompassing all the Korea had to offer, though he eventually took (in my opinion) WAY too much out of it, such as the extra forms (open hand/weapons) and technique sets. it also seems that with Choi Yong Sul, Kuk Sa Nim taught him palm striking and kicking aspects, and told him his art was not complete. Choi offered him to take over and Kuk Sa Nim declined (thoughts on that one anyone? correct me if i'm wrong). the generals uniforms are suppose to be an easier to wear version of the Royal Court uniforms depicted in the MYDBTJ and is reminicent of the ones worn by certain groups still active in Korea. anyway, thats my two cents.
Just to help out where I can, let me clarify a bit about the MUYE TOBO TONG JI/MUYE SHINBO as I have uncovered things....and I will use the KNOW BOP chapter as an example. First off, let me say that the KWON BOP chapter in the MYTBTJ is NOT identical to the "Boxing Canon" of General QI Ji-guang (aka: JI XIAO SHIN SHU; Chapter 14). What the Koreans did was drop about half of the 32 Boxing Methods identified by the General. So right off the bat we are playing poker with only half a deck, so to speak. Furthermore, of the remaining methods, an approach was taken wherein methods were paired in such a way that the out-come between two opponents (each using one method) would be tactical "stalemate", as it were. This would be consistent with Neo-Confucian conflict in which there should be NO conflict, but if there is the result ought be a "zero-sum" gain. There is also the matter that while the MYTBTJ was a training manual for corvee troops you really don't want to teach the draftees anything that they could reasonably turn against the government during one of their many revolts. Having said all that the matter falls to this. "Gee, Bruce, if this material sucks so bad, whats the point of studying it at all?" Well the fact is that the material does not "suck". What sucks is what the Koreans did with it. Of itself, the material which underpins the KWON BOP Chapter is sound combative methodology. Each method represents a manner in which the body can be used in combat. One method honors the use of both hands performing soft-block or redirection with circularity ("cloud hands"). Another method utilizes both hands for soft-block or redirection albeit in a linear fashion ("fair lady works at shuttles"). Yet another method has to do with utilizing a strong front hand for blocking with an active back hand ("phoenix bent wing"), while another method is just the opposite ("Pats high on the horse"). And yet another method which I would have thought would have been very popular with the Western set might have been "seven start boxing", a method which uses both hands for aggressive inside striking techniques. So instead of sorting out what was already an outstanding introduction to an entire range of unarmed MA including striking, kicking and grappling, folks decided to go beg-borrow-steal from someplace else. Whats-up about that? Best Wishes, Bruce
Agreed, Rudy, but I will add one caveat. The Chinese, the Koreans and the Japanese each have varying levels of concern with keeping records with the Japanese being arguably the most anal about such things. However, the Chinese were pretty good and so were the Koreans. The "Book of Corrections" may not be as detailed and exhaustive about the IMJIN WAERUM, as were the many Japanese records, but the subject was still covered. I think the same might be said of the CHOSON Dyn with its "Veritable Record of the YI", yes? Having said all of that, I would bet dollars against donuts that there are records of who did what and to whom concerning the Korean Royal Household and I am thinking that there was precious little in the records to substantiate some of the claims under discussion. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
I hear you Bruce. I would add yet another caveat... translation. Just like the Bible has many versions, folks perhaps "interpret" things differently in martial art documentation as well. Look at the thread about Woon Hak Hyung. There we see a few different folks posting, and we already have as many interpretations of the movements of ONE form. I gotta say this though, tenacity is something you are not lacking lol. I gave it up as a lost cause long ago. Not enough time to research AND do my other stuff. I applaud you for continuing the search for the truth. Rudy
In my experience, the truth (about most things) usually exists somewhere in between the various versions of the argument about (or recorded history of) the subject in hand.
......which has had a lot to do about my role as a teacher. Its rather like the old argument between the Catholics and the Protestants during the Reformation. The Catholics promoted the idea that the "documented history of the day" (aka: The Bible) needed to be interpreted to the church membership through the clergy. The Protestants promoted the idea that the membership could interpret the Bible for themselves and the clergy was there to off guidance and suggestions. IMHO, the Korean Martial traditons can stand on there own. They don't need to be "spun" or dandied-up into something else. They are a sound, combat-worthy system if, perhaps, too basic for some peoples' taste. What is worse, taking traditions from someplace else and representing them as fundamentally Korean traditions insults the culture and the heritage of the people in the name of making a profit. I have quite a bit of time sewed-up in these practices. I can't imagine how I am going to sit-by quietly and watch this go on, right? Best Wishes, Bruce
Allowing people to THINK for themselves... what a novel idea, Bruce! Unfortunately, it just doesn't fly with groups that prefer a stranglehold grip of obeisance on their members.
Yeah...I know...I know. I don't know what I was thinking! Teachers guiding students to be able to think for themselves--sheesh! Next thing ya know, women will want to vote and the poor and disenfranchised will be asking for national medical coverage!! Best Wishes, Bruce
You found the General's Form in Mooyeadobotongji? I am going to have to check my copy of that book and compare it. I would be impressed if it was in there the same way we do it.
First rule of Hapkido: "Don't be where the weapon is headed." Second Rule of Hapkido: "Control the weapon". Third Rule of Hapkido: "Never lend your books." BTW: M-D.... you may want to stick around to offer additional insights, but there is also the "History of Korean MA" thread I would like to hear your feedback over. It was suppose to originally be a kind of examination of Barry (Harmon)'s book, but that portion seems to have petered-out. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
