Traditional Korean Sword

Dear Folks:

The other thread was closed before anyone was able to reflect on these clips.

As often happens on the INTERNET, pictures and video clips are used to represent something or as part and parcel of some larger discussion. While convenient, such use has at least two major weaknesses. One weakness is that everyone needs to identify what is going on in the video. This is to say that we all look at the same picture of an apple and agree that what is seen in the picture IS an apple and we all see it. The other weakness is not knowing what was intended by the video or picture. For instance we can all look at a picture of an apple and agree we see an apple. If the intention of the video was only to represent fruit in general-----of which the apple just happened to be the example---- getting bogged down in analyzing apples becomes misguided.

Having prefaced myself, I want to characterize each of the following clips in terms of my own Korean sword background.

HDGD US Open Championships 2009

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA-7fLYjalM"]US Open Haidong Gumdo - YouTube[/ame]

I think its important to remember what we are looking at in terms of the subject. KIM Jeong-ho reported that he began training in Korean sword under a monk named CHANG Park San. Following his training he developed the World Hae Dong KumDo Association based on this premise. During legal proceedings in the 1990-s it was revealed that HAE DONG KumDo is a fabrication of Kim’s own design integrating Gi Cheon esoteric practices and SHINKUMDO a sword art resulting from a nocturnal inspiration to a monk named KIM Chang Sik. It was this fabrication that later split into factions and was promoted across the US in a hurricane of events and promotions.
Beginning with the opening scene showing a winsome Western young lady in a HAN BOK admiring a Korean SSANGSOODO this presentation is first, last and always an advertisement to Western audiences. It is very telling that the first scene shows a Western lady wearing a Korean costume as that is precisely the confused, mixed message the entire clip presents. Had this been intended for information purposes, the clip would have been a recording of the entire event first to last. Instead it was a collage of out-takes. Since it is meant as “eye-candy” to impress the uninformed, technical, cultural and historic considerations have all been sacrificed in order to serve theatre and ego. As long as we agree that this is the nature of the video, and keep that in mind, this may be a good tool for examining how what HDGD does varies from more mainstream traditional Korean sword.

MU YE TOBO TONG JI as presented by the MU BAN ESHIP
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YE5XPxXutQ&feature=player"]Traditional Korean Sword and Weapons Documentary - YouTube[/ame]!

During the reign of King Cheongjo (1776-1800) the MU YE SHINBO is revised by PARK Je-ga and LEE Duk-moo, and supplemented with 6 additional fighting skills beginning in 1790. These methods included KI CHANG (flag spear on horseback), MASANG WOL DO (crescent sword on horseback), MASANG SSANG GOM (twin swords on horseback), MASANG PYON KON (flail on horseback), KYUK KOO (ball play on horseback) and MASANG JAE (horsemanship). This revised publication is titled the MU YE TOBO TONG Ji(“Comprehensive Illustrated Manual of Martial Arts”) and is published in 1795. I have shared all of this history to say two things. One is that the serious practice and study of these methods is alive and well. The second is that what is seen in this clip is not a good representation of that scholarship. KIM Kwang Seok (b.1936) is arguably the single best known scholar of traditional Korean Martial arts. Kim began studying SIB PAL KI under YUN Meong Deok in a Taoist community in the Jiri mountains of Korea as well as in Busan during the Korean War. Kim later opened his SIB PAL KI school in 1969 and, between 1987 and 2002, Grandmaster Kim authored four books on the history and techniques of traditional Korean martial arts. Where things get troubled is in the desire of some of Kim’s students to market and promote these same traditions to the public. This marketing included the use of garish costumes and sacrificed sound execution for more flamboyant theatre. Kim siassociated himself from these efforts but was not able to dissuade the factions from their marketing and promotional efforts.


HwaRang GEUM BEOP (Yeon Mu Kwan)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnImQY405bo&feature=player"]Korean Sword Introductory Forms.flv - YouTube[/ame]!

My teacher, KOO Hyi KJN began his training in Seoul and brought his membership in the HwaRang KUMDO Assn to Chicago. An internationally recognized teacher of KUMDO---a sport aspect of Korean swordwork--- as well as GEUM BEOP, a more traditional and martial aspect of Korean sword. The O-GUEM (lit: “five swords”) are the five introductory forms representing the basic technical material of BON KUK GEUM BEOP through varying levels of movement and orientation. The use of the two-handed wooden saber (K. MOK GEUM) is common when teahing children and beginning adults as it affords better feedback to the user and allows for bi-lateral control in focusing one’s efforts. After Cho-Dan is achieved, the practitioner moves the more traditional single-handed saber as well as the two pole-arms.

?????
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7wbLULXZ2Q"]Chun Kuhn Do Double Sword Form - YouTube[/ame]

In all possible honesty I have no idea whatsoever what the person in this clip is doing. However I have kept this last clip for its value as a representation of everything that can possibly go wrong in representing traditional Korean sword in a video. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Thanks for the background into the forms shown, Bruce... but my intention in posting them in the original thread was to see if you (and others) thought any were good representations of "traditional" Korean sword... something with an authentic heritage coming from usage in combat. Any opinion on that question?

To clarify, here they all are again, but embedded:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA-7fLYjalM"]US Open Haidong Gumdo - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YE5XPxXutQ"]Traditional Korean Sword and Weapons Documentary - YouTube[/ame]

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

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7wbLULXZ2Q"]Chun Kuhn Do Double Sword Form - YouTube[/ame]

Additionally, I also had the following clip:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_WFU7Ohtcg"]Haidong Gumdo Cutting Demo - YouTube[/ame]

Speaking personally, I would have a fair amount of trouble believing any of these were historically authentic forms, but I'm curious as to the take of others before I start detailing the issues I see that lead me to that conclusion.

 

Hi, Folks:

We Humans are animals, but animals with a difference. Not only are we problem-solvers, but we are capable of communicating those solutions to others.....as long as we all agree on the labels we use and what they mean. I mention this because I believe if we are really going to examine traditional Korean sword, we need to use the terms that are used in that practice and understand what each label represents. The following are the labels that are used at the YEON MU KWAN along with their definitions.

Balance :{ Cho Hwa } is the ability to execute an identified technique or action while maintaining ones’ physical relationship with the environment. In the Korean culture there is no great distinction made between one's Physical balance, or Emotional balance or Psychological balance. Balance is balance.
When a person chooses to practice Martial Arts, it is as important to maintain a Physical balance as a sound platform from which to execute techniques. Physical balance is reflected in an even stance, usually about a shoulder's width as measured between the insides ("arches") of the feet. For Korean sword this same stance is measured to the outside of the arches producing a slightly more narrowed stance. Knees are bent ever so slightly. Without years of experience, constant shifting from foot to foot and stance to stance more often has the result of compromising one's balance than in providing some tactical advantage. So we breath and think of the way a new-born baby walks as its just learning its steps.
The same goes for Psychological or Intellectual balance. Conflicts are fought and won (..and lost) in the mind. History is replete with many stories of cases where engagements were won, not by striking at a person's body but the way they think. Today militaries have whole departments concerned with "psychological warfare" whose purpose is to gage and influence the state of the enemies thinking. Balance requires that one not spend great amounts of time thinking too much or to little about what one is doing.
The counter-attribute is “unbalance” and likewise includes unbalancing one’s partner physically, mentally or both. It is very common to hear instructors talk about the importance of "taking" an attacker's balance in the physical sense. The is also the matter of taking a person's mental balance ("psych him out") or emotional balance (rattle him or "shake him up") as well. Something as primary as selecting the ground or area for a confrontation --- the well-known "home-court advantage"--- can have marked influence on an outcome.

Timing: { Baekja } is the relationship of two points in motion in space and requires that a person be able to track, evade and encounter a specific target as it relates to oneself. More than just Eye-Hand co-ordination, Timing requires an appreciation not only of where a specific location is in time and space but where one can reasonably expect that point to be at a later time given its distance, motion and speed.
In the most immediate sense, Timing is often a matter of assessing an eminent attack and gauging the manner in which a response will meet that attack. However, Timing likewise refers to choosing an appropriate or advantageous time to act as well. Such common wisdom as "pick you battles" is often a matter of Timing. So is the idea of "doing the right thing at the right time". Likewise Western culture has a way of labeling a person with notably poor timing as a "bull in the china shop" and "a loose cannon".
Perhaps more than other attributes Timing inter-relates most directly with the Three Principles than any of the other attributes. Nowhere is this seen more clearly that in the case of selecting when action is, and is not required. In such cases Timing is often divided into two broad categories.
One is a "Pre-emptive strike" ("seon eui seon"), in which conditions are such that an individual takes the initiative in defending himself. Such a case might be typical of a policeman who is arresting a suspect, but does not wait for the suspect to give the policeman cause. In such a case the circumstances are such that the policeman is both prudent and responsible to act before the suspect acts out.
The second is a "Retaliatory strike ("hu eui seon"), in which a person waits until the very last moment to respond to an attack, using only sufficent force to negate the immediate attack. Notice that in both case, the use of Timing can refer not merely to the execution of a technique from a tactical standpoint but from a great strategic standpoint as well. In such terms, the idea that all actions must having good Timing includes that action must come not merely as the correct response but in under the proper circumstances.
Since Timing is a matter of assessment, it is not surprising to find that the counter-attributes include impacting Judgment (“Un-timing”), as well as Perception (“Mis-direction”) and Concentration (“Un-Focusing”) in the attacking partner..

Interval: {Kan kyok} is the optimal space between combatants at which to either execute offensive techniques or maintain defenses. At its most basic, we have already met the attribute of “interval” as referred to as “Dynamic Sphere” (Pom wee; Lit: “Sphere, or Range, of Influence”). Since Interval defines the distance over which the individual is required to work, the ability to identify the optimal work distance, and negotiate that space, become necessary concerns for the success of the event. The single most common reference for good interval is identified as the palm of an outstretched hand of one partner matching the palm of an outstretched hand of the other partner. Stepping forward such that the spheres of the two partners overlap is termed "crowding" while increasing distance between the two spheres is terms Abandonment.
On an emotional and psychological level, the interval one maintains with the people around them, or with their community is likewise critical. people who do not maintain good emotional or psychological interval are often seen as "clingy" and "demanding". We often talk about how such-and-such a person is "crowding me". On the other hand a person who allows to much space between themselves and others is often termed "distant" or "aloof". To maintain just the right distance is just as critical emotionally and mentally as it is physically. As you have probably guessed, counter-attributes include both, “crowding”, or particularly close interval, as well as, “abandonment”, or particularly great interval.

Mass: Mass is rarely discussed in terms of sheer size. Were this the case, Martial Arts would simply be a matter that the large person would have the clear advantage over the smaller person in successful techniques. Instead, Mass is a matter of weight as it relates to stature. On other words in is not the size of the individual but manner in which the size is distributed along the axis of the body that is most important. In this way, Mass is most commonly spoken of in terms of manipulating the individual’s “center-of-gravity”.
Closely related to such attributes as Speed and Balance, Mass is recognized as being directly influenced by its relationship to its height from the ground. A great mass, found low to the ground is very stable and so has great Balance. But it is usually quite immobile causing Speed to suffer. Great Mass carried high is capable of great Speed but can often be easily un-balanced. The challenge, therefore, is to find the optimal weight for the height of the individual and then to identify those techniques which are most effective for that center-of-gravity. The sporting practice of constantly bobbing and weaving can be of great tactical advantage in a sporting environment. In a non-sporting confrontation, however, the goal is to move smoothly without constantly challenging one's own center-of-gravity.The challenge to keep that center as stable as possible, and so enhance the other attributes such as Speed and Balance.
It follows that if one can disrupt the center-of-gravity of one's partner ---cause it to rise, fall or load in one way or another--- inhibit smooth motion or under/over react, it will impact the manner in which that person manages their mass and by extension their speed, focus and so forth. In many ways the movements leading to the execution of a technique then---"the set-up"--- can be just as important as the technique itself.

Speed: Sok do Speed is generally taken to mean the rate at which an individual moves their body as a unit to cover distance. This can often be confused with velocity, Sok ryok , which is used to identify the rate at which a specific body part, a weapon or an item moves.
As with the other attributes, Speed is closely influenced by its fellow attributes especially Mass, Timing, and Interval. As mentioned earlier, one cannot make changes in one attribute without having to make changes in other attributes. Speed is often one place where people attempt to compensate for such things as poor Interval, poor Balance and poor Timing. Since we know that the Human body can only react so fast, many times people attempt to overcome an attack by doing the defensive response as fast as possible and overwhelm the attacker before they have a chance to adjust. Dependency on this sort of speed is always an indication of poor technique.
Oddly, we see the same thing on an emotional and psychological level. Too often a person will use Speed as a way of pressuring a decision. In sales, for instance, it is a very common tactic to suggest that a decision must be made quickly or an opportunity will be lost. As in execution of physical technique, to allow speed to govern one's thinking or emotions too often spells disaster.
The counter-attribute is often taken to be “inhibition” such that one impairs the partner’s ability to move. However, seen just as often is the case where the partner is suddenly accelerated in such a manner as to be unable to manage his movement.

Force: Himm Power: physical energy, force, might. This attribute may well be the single most misunderstood of all seven. While it is certainly a hallmark of poor execution to routinely rely solely on might to cause a technique to work, it has become a much misunderstood view of the Martial Arts arts that no force whatever is required to make a technique work. There is nothing magic about Martial Arts. Physical power IS required to perform work in Martial Arts as in any other endeavor. To pretend that one can affect technique without effort is to pretend that one has developed some exceptional abilities outside of normal Physics. Whether such can actually be accomplished is the stuff of scientists and philosophers. In Martial Arts arts, whether on or off the mat, the key to Power is not its development but its management. In this way the old Boxing axiom of "fight smarter, not harder" is key. As in the case of the attribute Speed, to rely heavily on Power to make a technique successful is a hallmark of poor technique. And while it can be done regularly in the early days of practice, as one ages, the power will wane and the practitioner will be forced to either improve the precision of his technique or risk failure altogether.

Focus: { Cho jeom } point at which the maximum physical and mental energy is applied for optimal result. There are a number of terms used to describe various kinds of focus, including focusing the eyes ( "Shi Son"), "focusing the mind" ("jip joong") and even the "sustained focus" ( "jan shim") that one strives for after executing a technique or form.
This attribute, however, is used to refer specifically to that point at which Power and Timing relate to each other. Plainly, Power expressed without good Timing is a misdirected use of force. On the other hand, even the best of timing which carries no force with it, is an empty expression of intention. For good Focus to be applied correctly, the individual must be able to apply the desired amount of force at the correct moment in time and space. This is not surprising since our culture abounds with comments like "I need to focus on this more", or "let me see if we can bring this (issue) into focus better". Just like the child's game of burning paper with a magnifying glass, we quickly find that, as with the sun and the magnifying glass, there is a very narrow range in which power and timing can be brought together for the best result. On an emotional and psychological level this ability is often what separates a "good judgment" from "bad judgment"; good leadership and bad.
The counter-attribute for this is "de-focusing" or, in common parlance, to "fake the guy out". Getting a person to deliver too much or too little force at the wrong point in time and space is often considered almost more art than science and is often represented in stage and screen as the stereotypical hulking attacker, executing large lumbering lunges while the quick and well-timed defender dances away unharmed.

With these Attributes identified we now have tools to really examine what is happening in each of the clips.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Cool, again thanks for the insight (I was just going to use English, but I always appreciate knowing the specific terminology... there's often nuances that get missed in translation), but I was wondering more about your personal impression of the methods shown in the clips, based on your understanding of what traditional Korean sword is.

 

Hi, Folks:

I’d like to take a “trial spin” with the information that I have just shared. I think this is important because though I have identified the events and I have identified the constructs, how I apply those constructs and make determinations could well be different from how another person…another KMA person….even another Korean sword person may see or use those constructs. I am going to use the last clip.

First off, let me make it very clear that I do not know this person. I do not know his teacher. I do not know what their goals or intentions are in practicing the art that I see. That’s part of the reason that I am starting with this person. We have absolutely no connection other than I see him working to execute a skillset that reflects a skillset with which I am familiar. I apologize in advance and want to make it clear that this critique is only on the behaviors I see and go no deeper.
Hope that’s clear enough. Here goes.

Point A. We Humans may be “thinking men” but we are still animals, and animals we still have instinctive responses. One are best known responses can be identified with the phrase “what’s wrong with this picture?” This response comes from our sensitivity to experiencing a situation where something is clearly not right and raises our senses to seek out threats. In the case of this video clip the very first item we are drawn to is the inordinately long weapons and how they seem to be too large for the motions. That’s good; because they ARE.
First and foremost this sequence, borrowed from the SSANG GEUM chapter of the MUYE SHINBO, SIB PAL GI and the MUYE TOBO TONG JI are not now, nor have they ever been intended to be executed with a SSANGSOODO. Yes, I know the material is identified as SSANG GUEM (lit: “two swords”) but that does not mean swords in the sense of a two-handed saber. Rather, as specified in the intro to that chapter, the items to be used are KAL (lit: “blades”). In this case the item is specified as having a length of 18” and depending on who is doing the translation that may mean only the measure of the sword in front of the KO DUNG-I, or may actually mean the length of the entire weapon. Those inches may be English inches in the modern sense or may be intended to be read as Ming inches owing to the Chinese origins of this material. In point of fact, this “knifework” is about as close to Korean knife as one might get, since what we Westerners call a “knife” (10 inches or so) was essentially a “camp knife to Koreans and was not officially intended as a weapon.
Secondly, this material was not intended to be executed as a “form” (K. HYUNG) but rather as a series of methods for using the two “knives”. The idea of habitually turning the material of the books I have cited into forms is predominantly a practice adopted during 19th and 20th Century and heavily influenced by Okinawan and Japanese traditions.
So….we have the wrong weapons. We can take that into consideration as we look at the Attributes of this persons execution

Point B.We need to know where this person’s Balance went and when I say that let me remind you how I am using the term. “Balance :{ Cho Hwa } is the ability to execute an identified technique or action while maintaining ones’ physical relationship with the environment. In the Korean culture there is no great distinction made between one's Physical balance, or Emotional balance or Psychological balance. Balance is balance.” Balance is also more than just winning an argument with Gravity. Balance also speaks to an even representation of effort throughout the body with no one area doing more of the “work”. In this case it is plain that almost all of the work is being done by the shoulders, and the legs simply are moving the torso back and forth. The “center of gravity” is not engaged which is easily determined by noting that both knees are not bent. The characteristic “baby-with-a-loaded-diaper”-walk would tell us that if this person were doing his material on a carpet, and that carpet were tugged, he would keep himself up-right.
We can always come back to this but right now lets move on.

Point C. Another little itch many people might feel watching this person is the idea that he is just whipping those items in his hands around. This is a dead give away that “Timing” has no consideration here. Remember “Timing: { Baekja } is the relationship of two points in motion in space and requires that a person be able to track, evade and encounter a specific target as it relates to oneself. More than just Eye-Hand co-ordination, Timing requires an appreciation not only of where a specific location is in time and space but where one can reasonably expect that point to be at a later time given its distance, motion and speed. In the most immediate sense, Timing is often a matter of assessing an eminent attack and gauging the manner in which a response will meet that attack. However, Timing likewise refers to choosing an appropriate or advantageous time to act as well.” In the case of the demo at hand it is immediately apparent that in terms of execution, one movement or motion, regardless of hand is pretty much like another. What should be a sophisticated inter-play of one item serving and being served by the other to produce an outcome is absent save in the matter of executing the Double-blocks later in the form.

Point D.Circumstances such as the absence of a target to reduce, or a partner does not allow for examining the matter of Interval (“Interval: {Kan kyok} is the optimal space between combatants at which to either execute offensive techniques or maintain defenses.) Also the use of the incorrect items compromise an accurate assessment of how much Mass (Mass: Mass is rarely discussed in terms of sheer size. Were this the case, Martial Arts would simply be a matter that the large person would have the clear advantage over the smaller person in successful techniques. Instead, Mass is a matter of weight as it relates to stature. On other words in is not the size of the individual but manner in which the size is distributed along the axis of the body that is most important. In this way, Mass is most commonly spoken of in terms of manipulating the individual’s “center-of-gravity”. ) and Power (Force: Himm Power: The use and management of physical energy, force, might.) In like manner, while there are hints at various levels of Focus, without a target to negotiate I risk only making an "educated guess" which is beyond what we are about at this point. However, Speed (Speed: Sok do the rate at which an individual moves their body as a unit to cover distance ) and Velocity (Velocity Sok ryok , the rate at which a specific body part, a weapon or an item moves) deserve comment.
As with the other attributes, Speed is closely influenced by its fellow attributes especially Mass, Timing, and Interval. And, as I may have mentioned earlier, one cannot make changes in one attribute without having to make changes in other attributes. Speed is often one place where people attempt to compensate for such things as poor Interval, poor Balance and poor Timing. Since we know that the Human body can only react so fast, many times people attempt to overcome an attack by doing the defensive response as fast as possible and overwhelm the attacker before they have a chance to adjust. Dependency on this sort of speed is always an indication of poor technique. In Hapkido we have a saying that a good technique can be accomplished as well slowly as it can be done fast. In the case of the demo we are examining, the practitioner is moving far too fast for conditions, for technique and for his body size. Further its difficult to know if he is working to make his body keep up with his hands or vice versa. In either case there is a need to return to the beginning of his training and identify when he first believed that it was necessary to perform these techniques at the rate that he does. That the items he is using are simply “windmilling” around is a clear sign that Vector, Angle of Attack and Interval and Focus are not being considered. That this person is not reducing a target with these biomechanics is a good indication that these motions are probably not being performed in an accomplished (IE Combat-worthy) way. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

I mentioned before that I only practiced HG as sword martial art, nothing else, but afaik, korean japanese and chinese swords have same roots and judging from videos of others martial arts and the ones posted above, I believe HG is more offensive rather than defensive in it's style. But it gives me a hard time comparing since I haven't practised anything else. And I liked the videos, with some exceptions.
Cause I was bit confused from last threat, can you please explain what is your thought about HG? as a whole art. Referring to Chris

 

Not quite sure what you are asking, T. If you are asking if all sword arts have the same roots, the short answer is "yes". The general concensus in scholarship seems to be that swords developed from hunters carrying an extra spear-point in their kit or jammed through their belt. In fact, in Korea there was actually a time when "swords" were well-worked stones and there are still examples of them in the National Museum in Seoul.

There is also some strong possibilities that the production of Iron, and later steel, evidenced by hearthes and ovens in Korea may have found its way across the Steppe from the Anatolian Plateau of modern-day Turkey or possibly what is now Scandanavia. The items that developed out of this technology were heavily influenced by which ever culture did the work. But this doesn't have anything to do with HDGD. Was that what you were asking? Help?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

I have a simple question for your Bruce. As someone knowledgeable of Korean Sword Arts. What do you think of Haidong Gumdo's value as a practical sword art? By practical, I mean precise cuts, effective blocks, "realistic" pair drills, etc. Just trying to get multiple opinions on the issue. I kept the question extremely simple and would prefer a relatively simple answer of HDGD's analysis as effective or not.

 

Fair enough. Here is the simple truth. HAE DONG KUMDO is not a Korean sword art in the classic sense.

It is a product of the competitive decade of the 1960-s in Korea when the Conservative Military government motivated people to work to re-establish Korean identity. A huge part of this fostered attempts to produce (and lead) a definitive Korean Martial tradition. Included in this competitve effort were TAEKWONDO, HAPKIDO, KUK SOOL, HWARANGDO and a few others. Everybody wanted to be recognized as the defining art.

KIM Jeong-ho reported that he began training in Korean sword under a monk named CHANG Park San starting in 1963. Following his reported training he developed the World Hae Dong KumDo Association based on this premise. During legal proceedings in the 1990-s it was revealed that HAE DONG KumDo is a fabrication of Kim’s own design integrating Gi Cheon esoteric practices and SHINKUMDO a sword art resulting from a nocturnal inspiration to a monk named KIM Chang Sik. (KIM Chang Sik continues to teach SHINKUMDO in the US State of Rhode Island and Connecticutt.

HAE DONG KUMDO is a form of Physical Education which utilizes Asian sword material as a motiff to train. It has no combat heritage and is only indirectly based on BON KUK GEUM BEOP which does have such heritage. SHINKUMDO from which HDGD is essentially derived was intended solely as a Mediation practice. Were a person to succeed in using HDGD material for combat purposes it would only be due to that individuals dedication and ingenuity and not due to any intent or design of the practice.

I know its wordy, but thats about as fair, honest and concise as I can be. Any Questions?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

So, to sum up, he's misinterpreting older accounts, and getting it all wrong, yeah? As a result, this is not representative of Korean sword, but more an exercise that this particular person/group came up with.

I gotta say, Bruce, while detailed analysis is good, most of what you put there doesn't really say anything at all... nor actually address the questions. So, a request. Can you go through the videos (one at a time, or all in one post), and answer, succinctly, the following questions for each:

Is this a good example of Korean Sword?

If yes, what makes it so (what traits do you see)? If no, what are the issues with it (that you see)? Please remember the request for succinct descriptions, we can always flesh things out afterwards if we need clarification.

Is this what you would consider authentic traditional Korean sword?

If so, what makes you think it is? If not, what are the giveaways that it's not?

Er.... right. Haidong Gumdo has no combative application or usage whatsoever. It is a thoroughly modern creation that belies no basis in the use of a sword in combat at all. Additionally, I'm not sure that I'd agree that "Korean, Japanese, and Chinese swords have the same roots"...

Well, firstly, I don't think that's what he was asking, Bruce... secondly, he was asking me... and thirdly, I don't think that what you've said here is correct. The development of where swords came from, okay, but that really doesn't have anything to do with "all sword arts hav(ing) the same roots", as, frankly, the short answer to that question is "no". Swords developing was more an aspect of convergent evolution/development, and not an indicator of all sword arts even being related, let alone having the same roots. For instance, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a connection between Roman use of the Gladius, and Chinese Jian methods. The discussion on production of iron is also rather besides the point... as you note yourself when you say none of this has anything to do with Haidong Gumdo....

Ah, that's better. Okay, follow up question. Can you give an example of a Korean sword system that does have a combat heritage and application?

 

Just a follow-up to your question........

Given the nature of my response did you want to continue with the direction I am headed? I'm thinking that it may not have much purpose to dissect the HDGD and the MUBAN ESIP clips using GEUM BEOP criteria if my earlier comment satisfied the subject for you. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Hi, Folks:

I had a thought that we may be able to save some time here, but I wanted to make sure that B didn't want further info on HDGD. The first clip would have been my effort to review HDGD in terms of what we look for at the YEON MU KWAN. However, as I have shared, I don't accept HDGD as other than a Physical Culture or Physical Education venue albeit based on a Korean Sword theme. And that said, I am not sure that Korean sword criteria would be fair and correct. Rather, perhaps HDGD needs to be more correctly assessed in terms of Conditioning, Range of Motion, Aerobic-vs-Anaerobics and so forth. I'm think of by-passing the HDGD clip unless anyone would be clearly interested in examining the practice through a more traditional Korean sword criteria. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

I have heard the Korean sword started with "double edges" first back in the Korean "3 kingdoms - 百濟(Baekje), 高句麗 (Goguryeo)，新羅(Silla)" period (around 532 AD). The "single edge" was added in later on in Korean history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:History_of_Korea-375.png

 

Bruce, do you know of any combat applicable Korean swordsmanship you can direct us to? There is alot of talk on the history but is there anything like translations of the manuals or video material you can point us to? In HEMA there is a large community effort to translate the historical manuals into English to aid with training and interpretation. Is there a similar project in the Korean sword arts?

The Bear.

 

Yes...and I gave you that information.

I don't know how Dr. Choi teaches his class------that is IDK if he teaches his classes in terms of combat sparring like you folks do----but the material he teaches is the material of Prince Sado (aka: SIB PAL GI) and he is right across the Channel from you outside of Amsterdam. He is a direct student of Kim. so the material should be very "clean" (ie. with little or no variance from the original). Personally, if you want to "bang-around" with someone to see what they do, you could probably have just as much fun finding a KUMDO (sport) group and get one of their number to join your merry band. FWIW

BTW: As I mentioned on the other thread, SIB PAL GI has its foundation in what is, essentially the MU YE SHINBO (publ 1759). However, the KIMA people under Dr. Choi almost exclusively use the scholarship and writing of Dr. Choi's teacher. In turn, this is also what I use.

 

For better or worse, I tend to use the "Terra Cotta Army" as a kind of "standard" concerning the nature of weapon, equipment, etc of that time. I suppose that I would be open to criticism that China is a separate nation from Korea. However, across the range of practices and protocols, China---especially later TANG China---was the model for East Asian institutions. Looking at the TC Army, there is heavy use of laminate armour, single and double-edged bronze swords, archery and chariots/cavalry. I would think its a fair assumption that Korean practices approximated Chinese to one degree or another. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

I would be interested in your analysis of the HDGD clips. Even though it's more of an exercise or meditation practice like shinkumdo (which I couldn't find anything on a google search), I'm interesting in dissecting it and finding out if any of the blocks, attacks, or movement is similar to more traditional korean sword techniques, or japanese.

I did find shinkendo in the search on google, and it looks like a complete system of japanese origin. Am I correct in assuming HDGD was based off of this japanese art? Thanks,

~ Ben

 

No. HAE DONG KUMDO comes from SHIMKUMDO.

And if you honestly want me to assess HDGD in terms of traditional combat-based Korean sword I will but give me a bit to collect my thoughts and figure a fair approach to doing this.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Okay, Here goes.....

For starters I have already listed the qualities or "Attributes" that a Korean swordsman should be working to incullcate his practice with and then further refine as he goes on. You may want to go back and refresh your memory with the terms and their definitions as I won't be recalling any of this (as I did in the previous exercise) as I move through the critique.
Secondly I am taking a moment to provide a list of the single most basic techniques, postures and movements. The material is stuff that any good 5th Geup ought be familiar with. I'm not asking for perfection here. I'm just saying that any 6th Guep who has passed their test to 5th Geup should be familiar with these basics and be able to execute them in the simplest recombitant fashion. Here they are:

Basic Motions

Push Step - { Mi ri keon gi (밀 미 건 기 )}
Forward and Rearward
Walking Step

Three-Count Striking - { Sam Dong Jak ( 삼 동 작 ) }
Two-Count Striking - { I Dong Jak ( 이 동 작 ) }
Single-Count Striking - { Il Dong Jak (일 동 작 ) }
Single Count Strike w/ hopping step - { Paruen meori ( 빠른 머리) }

Forward & Rearward Push-step Cutting - { Huri-gi (후리기)}
Alternate Oblique Cutting - { Jaue Huri-gi (자우 후리기 ) }
Turn-about Cutting - {MomTong Jaue Huri-gi (몸통 후리기)}
Push Step - { Mi ri keon gi (밀 미 건 기 )}

Forward and Rearward
Walking Step

Note: Indigo is for exercise with a bamboo JUK-TO; Dark Green is for Combat with a hardwood MOK GEUM

Basic Cutting -

Straight Descending Cut {Chungmyeon be-gi( 중 면 배기--中面)

Left Descending Cut { Chwa be-gi ( 좌 배기-- 左 )

(Both Steep and Shallow Descending Cut)

Right Descending Cut { U be-gi ( 우 배기-- 右 )

(Both Steep and Shallow Descending Cut)

Horizontal Cut { Hwengdan be-gi ( 횡 단 배기-- 橫斷 )

Basic Parries - Introduction

High Parry

Outside Parry

Inside Parry

Basic Postures

Middle Guard Position - { Jung Dan Se (중 단 세)}

High Guard Position - { Eum Se ( 음 세 )}

Superior Guard Position - {Sang Dan Se (상 단 세)}

Center (offensive) -

Center (defensive)

Left Side

Right Side -

Low Guard Position - { Ha Dan Se (하 단 세)}

Rear Guard Position - {Yang Se (양 세)}

Now....just to make sure we are all on the same page.....what I have put up here is about as absolute basic as a person can get. Its introduced to the children and adults using a SSANGSOODO so that everything is kept as close to large-muscle work as possible. These practitioners will continue to use a two-handed sword architecture until they are 1st BB and then will begin to transition to other sword architectures. And notice that there are no Spins or Jumps. Nor are there any Thrusts. There are not even any Ascending Cuts. This is as Basic as a person can get so I think it is fair to expect everyone I see in the HDGD clip to be familiar with these motions and execute them with some degree of competence.

One last thing. There are two "rules of thumb" that are almost inviolate in Korean sword.
One is that "Korean GEUM BEOP has NO ---none, zip, zilch---BLOCKS There is no clanking swords against each other or banging swords out of the way to make an opportunity for a cut. Korean sword uses parries, and each Parry is an integrated part of the Cut.
The Second rule is that if you cannot reduce a target with a technique---even a paper target---- you have not learned that technique and are not authorized to move forward. A kid who can't cut a paper sheet with a Straight-Descending Cut stays with it and grows old and dusty until he does. No Jump-Spin--Somersaults if you can't do the most basic material against a target. Any questions about any of the criteria I am using?

Then, let the nit-picking begin:

No comment with the lead-in marketing, but lets start at :36 with our line of stalwarts. Without exception, each and everyone of those guys needs to carry their swords as Koreans. This is a Korean sword art. Koreans either carried their sword in their hand, or suspended it from a braided chord from the opposite shoulder and across the chest and back, if they were marching or riding short distance. For long distances the sword was carried across the back from one shoulder to the opposite hip. The sword later incorporated a metal piece that allowed the sheath to be cast to one side in a fight and later retrieved. Koreans have a couple of “quick draw moves” but do not have an art comparable to, say Japanese BATTO-JUTSU. If a Korean was going into a dangerous situation his sword was already out.
41-50
This is, once again a demo of the SSANG GEUM material. Anything I could say here would only be a repeat of the earlier critique. (see: Post#6).
51-57
a.) The first gentleman is breaking the horizontal plane each time he raises his sword. There is an Advanced Technique seen in Paired Work where the sword is snapped back to lay the blade flat against the spine to protect against a partners cut. This ain’t it. Its just bad management of Power and Speed/Velocity. The swordsman is moving too fast for appropriate control of his weapon. As a result you can see the instability of the angle-of-attack since the sword blade rolls each time the swordsman snaps the blade forward and allows his wrists to roll. You can’t cut a target with this sort of instability which is exactly why every technique needs to be validated by reducing a target. Oh….and a quick mention about the stepping and forward movement. Evidently someone had these guys working with an Elongagted stance, but also a regular Walking Stance. The detriment to their training is obvious. They are not staying in an Elongated Stance and their feet are being raised far to high for a Walking Stance. Once again they are sacrificing Technique to do something fast. BTW: this is Korean Sword. Those baggy pants are suppose to be bound at the ankles for exactly this reason. If a person is afraid that they will trip over their own cuffs, they compensate by lifting their feet inordinately high which is exactly whats happening.

b.) The guy cutting the paper deserved his poor performance. And somebody needs to spank his teacher. A free-hanging paper target has the lower edge folded over three times to lend stability. I’m not sure if he was unable to reduce the target because of a bad cut (bad angle of attack; too much speed; no wrist) or because he just doesn’t know what he’s doing. At any rate I don’t know what the gentlemen seated at the table are applauding for. Why encourage him?

c.) I absolutely LOVE Paired BON (lit:”drills”) or what some people call “Paired Forms”. This is an excellent example of a lack of Balnce and poor management of Speed and Velocity. The guys are using steel swords to “wow” the crowds, but you can see for yourself how little confidence they have in their own technique as each time they come close to the other person they have to cut to “slow-mo”. If they were good enough to “start fast” they should be good enough to continue at the same speed all the way through. They can’t. They should have started slower and would have been able to maintain consistent Speed and Velocity all the way through the BON which is what it is meant to teach. Earlier in Post #6 I mentioned the term “KAN KYOK (lit “Combat Interval”) and I see no real control of the Interval here. As I say, they slowdown to avoid injuring each other and that is BECAUSE at an instinctive level they KNOW they have no firm control of Interval.

d.)I would like to take a moment and express my annoyance and frustration with two things that I see repeatedly in these HDGD clips. The first is that damn flippy wrist roll that keeps cropping-up almost in every showy move. The Koreans do not have, nor have they E VER had such a move. The Japanese have CHIBURI which is said to be used to fling gore from the blade. Actual research by Japanese practitioners have proven that this is an impossibility of Physics. Korean sword DOES have a rotation of the sword to accomplish either an Inside or Outside Turning Parry. The use of this parry is HIGHLY specialized to dealing with Polearms, and in any matter is NEVER done with that “nunchuka-like” figure-eight twirl. Which brings me to my other pet-peeve.
Koreans never returned their sword to the sheath with such flamboyance and never without cleaning the sword thoroughly. In fact, any show of arrogance, self-satisfaction, smugness, or triumph was a real good way to get ostracized from Polite Company for the rest of your life. At the close of an engagement, Korean warriors returned to their encampment and cleaned and re-sheathed their weapons. That sort of flamboyant return of the sword to the sheath has more to do with a bad mimic of Japanese dueling than anything else.

e.) Speed; more cutting. More Speed and more cutting. All too fast, all done with the shoulders and not the body and I don’t see any true Balance anywhere. In fact there is a guy who reaches out one one foot to catch a target with the tip of his sword. I have NO idea what that was suppose to prove except that he was caught up in the moment and embarrassed himself.
I’m going to stop here. The reason I am stopping is that I have seen the rest of the clip and its just more of the same. Too Much Speed. Little or no Focus. Very little Balance and damn little control. If there is some particular place you would like some special attention, please let me know. Otherwise, I think I have made my point. For all of their efforts, these folks might as well be swinging Tennis or LaCrosse Rackets.

Best Wishes,
Bruce