Haidong Gumdo Practicality?

Thanks, Chris: I would be more than willing to correct your misconceptions about Korean sword, its origins and practice. What I think I am about to run into is the possibility that you have already made up your mind about how everything comes together. In the past, when I have run into this, I have found that nothing I can say will make any real difference.

a.) In the case of Korea practice bearing a resemblance to Chinese practice, there are two very good reason for this. The first is the MAO Yuan-I reports that Korean swordwork (see: BON KUK GEUM BEOP) was exported to China at a time when Chinese swordwork was in decline. In like manner, Korean sword was reacquired during the tumolt of the IMJIN WAERUM in the late 16th Century. Yes...Korean and Chinese sword ARE very similar.

b.) I have no doubt that the silliness that passes for a lot of stuff represented as Korean sword may not be combatively sound. Hopefully this does not blind you to the material that is predicated on sound tactics. As you have rightly observed, Koreans are not OCD about their swordwork. Not meaning to offend, but I need to share with you that Korean sword sees no sound reason to Compusively pursue nuanced practice. The origins of Japanese sword spring from a dynamic grounded on 1:1 encounters which just does not have that much in common with what the Koreans regard as actual combat conditions.

c.) Lastly, I don't believe that practitioners of Korean sword would have much interest in pursuing refinement into the rarified atmospheres a few standard deviations about the Mean without a clear demonstration that such would provide some substanitive reward. I am sure it must be very rewarding to be able to have bragging rights to an association with some historic RYU. There is, however, a matter of diminishing returns. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Okay.

Hi Obe,

Well, without seeing you, it's not that easy to say where you're going wrong, or if you are, but from the details given here, I'd say that there are likely a range of issues. Firstly, to the grip. I'm assuming you're meaning that your right hand is held just below the guard, which is correct, but the angle the handle takes across the palm is more important... with the correct angle, you can't get your hand up against the guard, which is what you're after. If your hand is held flat on, like gripping a hammer, then that's a very poor grip, not allowing proper te no uchi (the usage of your hand when cutting), stifling the movement of the sword, and more. As to your left (lower) hand, having it against the right hand again chokes off the ability to move and manipulate the weapon. So the grip could use a looking at. The cutting portion of the blade in Japanese arts is referred to as the monouchi (striking part, almost literally), and is the last 3-6 inches of the blade (depending on the teaching of the lineage). By utilizing more of the middle of the blade, the way you describe here, you are going to force yourself to overly muscle the cuts, as there isn't enough natural motion of the blade to effect a proper cut. Far too close. The "scooping" tends to be when you put too much muscle into the right hand specifically, or not using the left hand for power the way it's designed to (aside from the Sekiguchi Ryu, who are unique in that they use the right hand for power... but that's probably just going to confuse the issue).

But again, without seeing you, there might not be these issues to the degree that it might appear, or there might be others... I really can't say anything definite, other than these generic suggestions.

Hi Mitlov,

Yeah, completely agreed on the three forms of sword study... however you asked what makes the study of sword a practical study, or more accurately, why does the practicality of the techniques matter if we're not getting into sword fights in this day and age. So my answer was really only dealing with the idea of studying sword as a martial discipline, where practical usage of the weapon is the cornerstone of the practice, and as such, the sporting aspect doesn't really enter into it (the emphasis there is on training in such a way that ensures, or at least grants the greatest chance for, victory in competition, rather than necessarily accurate or practical usage of the weapon outside of the competition context), and the theatrical approach is even further removed.

The thing is that the methods shown in these Korean systems, I feel, don't really fit into any of the above categories. It's not sporting, as there isn't a competitive aspect (and if there was, nothing like what is seen would be shown), it isn't theatrical, despite the overly emphasized larger-than-life actions, and it fails on practical usage of the weapon. It's trying to be practical (historical), but due to a lack of real history, there is no real understanding, leading to an imagined application of actions that would have no place in a genuine historical system. If it was claimed to be a theatrical form of swordsmanship, I still wouldn't think it was particularly good, but I wouldn't be looking for realism either, but it's not. And, as such, it falls short in many, many ways.

Hi Bruce,

Well, I did ask for you to back up the idea you presented earlier about Korean swordsmanship being more about effectiveness than aesthetics, as well as anything that supports there being a genuine traditional Korean form of swordsmanship, and so far there hasn't been anything presented. As I said, I'd be very surprised, even shocked, if there wasn't an older form of Korean swordsmanship, but nothing presented seems to pass muster. Again, if there is something you can present that backs anything up, please present it. Right now, the only things I've seen, including the system you named earlier (Sib Pul Ki/Sippulgi/other spellings) only come across as modern copies of modern Chinese theatrical approaches, or poorly understood and executed imitations of Japanese methods.

Again, Bruce, you seem to be missing what I've said... the Korean methods that look like Chinese systems look like modern Chinese systems, not historical or traditional ones. Saying that a modern Korean system, claiming to be a historical Korean system, looks like a modern Chinese system as evidence that historical Korean systems took influence from Chinese systems just doesn't work...

Incidentally, most references I can find for Bon Kuk Geum Beop seem to come back to you, and posts you've made over a range of forums... hmm. Can you actually provide any link, any evidence, anything at all that backs up what you're claiming, other than just references to single terms or words (such as "see: BON KUK GEUM BEOP", which really doesn't say anything to me...)

What sound tactics? Seriously, everything I've seen, from Laurita, to the "fundamental Korean sword" video I linked, to, well, all other Haidong Gumdo material I've seen is replete with incredibly unsound tactics that are the combative equivalent of suicide, as are the mechanics presented. And I seriously have no idea what on earth you're talking about after that comment... There's no "OCD" when it comes to practitioners of Japanese sword arts, other than consistent practice making you better. Are you saying that in the practice of Korean swordsmanship, it doesn't really matter if you go about it half-hearted, or without concern for reality? And that actual usage in combat doesn't have any bearing on actual combat conditions? I really can't follow that form of argument at all...

Wow, you think I'm coming into this biased against the idea of Korean swordsmanship, and this is your take on Japanese approaches? There are no "bragging rights" associated, there is no thought of "pursuing refinement into the rarified atmospheres", or anything else you're going on about here. All there is is the aim of being as honest in your practice as possible... we don't practice things without a reason, we don't do things for the "look" of them, we don't do them to seem, or be superior to anyone else, we do them to stay true to the systems we train in.

As far as a substantitive (is that a real word?) reward, that's easy, and something I addressed earlier. By training swordsmanship, you are training in a way that directs you towards direct action, pure efficiency of thought and deed, getting maximum reward for minimalist effort, a purely streamlined approach to thought processes, and so on. But if what you're training in doesn't have any of that (by doing things larger than required, having combatively useless approaches and methods, all of which take you further and further from the realities of sword combat, and therefore making what you're training in unrealistic, impractical, and fantasy), then you can't get those rewards. From going through some of your old posts in other forums, as well as here, you have stated that you have no experience with Japanese sword methods. Now, while Japanese sword isn't the only approach, when it comes to the usage of a Japanese-style blade (as is used in Haidong Gumdo), I would heartily recommend you take up the study of Japanese sword in order to understand why you tend to get the responses you do when showing or discussing the Korean approach... whether Koryu, or Seitei Iaido, you should get the same types of understanding. Oh, but be ready to be corrected on pretty much everything. From that perspective, come back and see what your new perspective shows you about the Korean take on the approach to sword.

 

I agree. Over cutting due to bad balance, measure and posture.

The Bear.

 

There is no living tradition of any of this. So you can only be in the same position as HEMA and having to reconstruct these systems from manuals. Which manuals are you using.

The Bear.

 

Thanks Cris, I'm going to do some cutting so I can give you more details. Not sure if I can post Video's, but maybe.

 

I have to take you at your word that you are interested in information and not merely spitballing or bickering. If that is true here is where we start.

The foundation of ALL Korean sword that is practiced today can trace its heritage back to BON KUK GEUM BEOP (lit: "Native Korean Sword Methods"). This takes Korean sword back to about the 9th Century as stated by MAO Yuan-I. Chinese scholar, MAO Yuan-i published an encyclopedic work of 240 volumes, WU BEI ZHI, following a study of some 2000 Chinese military sources. Among the chapters are works on BON KUK GOM BOP and CHOSON SE-BOP, which the author stated are methods brought from Korea to China during a period in which swordsmanship had all but been lost in China. The sword methods in the BON KUK GUEM BEOP have been recorded and practiced in Korea until today. That does not say they have always been correctly represented.

I am going to stop for a moment to see if you or anyone else has any questions and then I will continue.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

I worked hard to give you information once before. Your response was to stubbornly hold on to how you view things coming together. I'm not asking you to admit your conclusions are incorrect. I am only asking that you keep still for a little bit, read what the historical facts are and allow yourself to broaden your understanding of the subject. I have run into this blind adherence to a single way of viewing a subject once before on this forum and I don't pretend that everyone here is interested in Learning. I'm going to provide information and let you do with it as you will. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

The historical facts say their is no living tradition. Just as in my art.
I was just wondering how you were able to reconstruct it. It's not a trick question.

The Bear.

 

I'm guessing this was an answer to me, of sorts...

Yep, always interested in different approaches and methods. I'm personally quite interested in how the "human" element affects the execution of seemingly universal ideas, such as swordsmanship, and how much is required to be there as an essential. So that's where I'm coming from.

Honestly, little of this really says anything... but I'll take it bit by bit in a moment.

Okay, questions. What I'd like to do is take apart the above paragraph to see how it actually fits together, and where the gaps are so we can move from there. I'd also point out that there are quite a range of questions I've asked over the course of this thread which you have so far neglected to answer... so feel free to go back over the thread, and answer any or all of them, to the best of your knowledge.

Right, here we go:

Actually, there isn't much evidence that has been provided to support this. Firstly, there doesn't seem to be much, if any Korean sword that has any real direct connection to older Korean methods, as well as the detail that the above statement has the equivalent meaning of saying that Japanese swordsmanship can trace it's heritage back to Japanese Kenjutsu... well, uh, okay. The big difference, of course, being that there are verified Japanese systems that do have such heritage, and there isn't anything seen from Korean groups that have that.

Where has the date of the 9th Century come from? Mao Yuan-Yi wrote his work in the 16th Century, yeah? Additionally, the methods he spoke about as being brought from Korea are for long straight swords, not Japanese style blades, and he traces the path of those methods from China originally, and brought to Korea to help in fighting off pirate raids (dominantly Japanese), which takes away the idea that it was truly a native Korean form, or that it was anything to do with the Japanese-style blades used in many forms of Korean sword today... let alone the fact that the methods that Mao wrote about don't seem to have survived (in Korea) to today. We could also look to a number of Chinese and Korean texts ranging from the mid-16th Century, through to the late 18th, all of which state that there was no Korean sword or spear usage, with archery being pretty much what all Korean military methods were based around. In fact, China sent soldiers with spears and swords specifically because such persons weren't found in Korea (in aid against a number of invasions).

What do the Chinese military sources have to do with Korean swordsmanship? In other words, what makes this a relevant or credible source when it comes to researching Korean traditional sword methods?

I'd want to see exactly what passages you're making that claim based on. Other interpretations I've seen don't say anything about the skills of swordsmanship being lost in China at any point... I think the best you could say is that an older form of swordsmanship (the aforementioned long straight sword methods), which were used in Korea many years earlier, was no longer being used in China, and that was brought back. But the biggest thing to remember is that they weren't seen as "Korean swordsmanship" so much as Chinese methods being brought back.... for example, your translation of "Bon kuk gom bop" as "native Korean sword methods" doesn't seem to include the term for "Korea" anywhere in there, so I think claiming that a Chinese military scholar, using Chinese military texts, referring to a sword art as "native sword methods", then continuing to state that they were brought back from Korea, would imply that they were returning native Chinese methods, not Korean. The second term used, "Choson se-bop", does include the term for Korean (Choson), with the second part meaning "power(ful) methods" (Japanese: Seiho... hmm...), which has more support, just in it's naming, but I would still be interested to see exactly how it is described, then take that to show a connection to anything being presented today.

And here we hit the crux of the matter... where? Who has continued to practice them? How did they escape the ban on all Korean martial arts? What evidence do we have that there is any real connection between the mention in Mao's text and what is done in Bon kuk geum beop today? Simply looking at all the examples I've seen so far, if that's the way swordsmanship was trained, then it would have died out with all the people who tried to rely on such training over the generations.

What is "correct"? If they're not showing the methods of this traditional Korean sword system in a way that, well, works, then is it really the traditional sword system? And if not, and there isn't a connection, then how is that an incorrect representation of something it isn't?

I'll put it this way... there are many, many bogus "ninjer" groups, mainly claiming affiliation with some "Koga Ryu" lineage... and none of them, when you view them, pass muster on huge numbers of levels. Many don't even have traits of Japanese martial arts, let alone anything else that could even have them passing as half-way legit, and as such, I wouldn't say that they are are not correctly representing Ninjutsu arts, as they aren't representing them at all. So how are the combatively useless and suicidal methods shown in Korean sword systems actually representing real traditional sword from Korea? They may claim to be, but that doesn't mean that they are... and, if they're not correct, can you show anything that actually is?

 

Just to deal with this one separately.

Hi Obe,

One thing I'm going to point out again is that the test isn't that you can cut through the target. Swords cut, and completely unskilled, untrained people with a sword in their hands can cut through a target. It's really not hard at all. However, when people who don't know what to look for watch such cutting (such as the video you put up earlier, or Laurita's cutting in his clip), it seems that the only thing looked for is whether or not the sword goes through the target. Sheer blunt honesty, yes, the cut needs to go all the way through the target, but by the same token, that's really kind of a given. It's not where the skill is. So if the basis of "success" in cutting is that the sword goes through the target, well, that's not the point.

 

I think you are eager to get to the crux of things. I also think you are straining to resist the information I am providing. Fir instance, I do not read Ming Chinese so I have not read Mao's work first hand. Ideally that would be wonderfully informative. I understand that the WU BEI SHI has been translated into Japanese so there might be an opportunity for you to gather this information from a Japanese National who is willing to work with you. That said, you will need to be content with Mao's report just as any of the rest of us are limited by the historians reports that precede us and must judiciously examine them item by item. I can say that Mao's work is a recognized resource of History for the Scholastic Community so I tend to give it more credence than something one picks up at the local bookstore chain. Its the source I am using to report the origins of structured Korean sword. If thats not acceptable to you, I can live with that.

Now for the next installment.

If we start in the 9th century per Mao we have a lineage of military prowess that steadily declined until the Japanese Invasion (1592-1598). The Korean Army still existed and training still continued but the leadership of the Korean military forces was compromised by the use of Civilian (Confucian) leadership as well as seasoned Military leadership. The result was that the Korean Army was pushed up the peninsula in a matter of weeks. As a result of this poor showing Righteous Armies (K. UBIYONG) were organized and common guerilla bands were exposed to Military action. In like manner Buddhist monks joined the ranks and also shared their skill sets that were commonly used for security in and around the Monastic properties. Probably more germane to our discussion here was the re-organization of Military structure in the Korean army courtesy of the JIN XIAO SHI SHU of Ming General QI Ji-guang (152601587). Coincidentally this work included the BON KUK GEUM BEOP material the Koreans had exported to the Chinese some 6 centuries earlier. As a result two things occurred. One was that the Korean miloitary got a "breath of fresh air into their practice and the Korean Civilian population were exposed to para-military training they would not have had otherwise.

I'm going to stop again. Thoughts? Questions?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Yes, I'm eager to get to the crux of things, so as to questions, before you go any further, how about you answer any of the questions already posed? Cause, I gotta say, Bruce, this latest "installment" really doesn't address anything asked so far, and indeed, nor did much in the previous one.

 

What have you not gotten that you want?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Excuse me, Chris, but this post speaks volumes regarding your mindset. There is no reason to look down your nose at people who freely choose not to be anal about every last tiddly that "teacher says". And yes....in the end, negotiating a target is pretty much what it comes down to. You can put on pretty uniforms and bow and scrape and and babble on about how old this or that is....in the end its about negotiating a target. Maybe you don't like the way that Koreans do that. Hey, maybe I'm not nuts about the way Japanese do THEIR stuff. But I would reserve judgement before coming onto an International forum and spouting off about what Korean sword is and isn't. Seems the only thing you know about it is whatever transpired with the CHOSON BUTOKUKAI starting about 1904. If thats the case you really need some information.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Bruce,

What are you looking for when performing tameshigiri?

I have a feeling I know what Chris is getting at because it seems similar to what I alluded to in a previous post.

 

Thats a very interesting question, Dean and may speak to some of the tension I pick-up on this thread.

Notice how you automatically used a "japanese" term to describe a universal practice? I've used both "validation cutting" and "the Korean term "Begi" (lit: "cutting") to identify what we do. Just the same, as with so many practices and arts, the Japanese seem to automatically become the de facto standard and their terminology becomes the de facto nomenclature. Any idea how that might come across to someone who is just as proud of his practice as you are of yours?

Just sayin......

To answer your question, depending on who one studies with there are some 12 cuts, four thrusts, and about 6 motions. Korean Swordsmanship is about inter-relating these aspects to fit the circumstances, simultaneous using the sword effectively. While Japanese style cutting likes its straight lines, Koreans train for what is loosely termed "universal" or "360 degree Awareness". Having to address multiple partners is something that Japanese sword does as a rapid series of 1:1 engagements. In Korean and Chinese sword a person might need to address an attacker behind or to one side--- maybe wielding something other than a sword-- without formally addressing that person. The way to demonstrate prowess in this strategy is to cut a series of targets located at varying distances, heights and size or material. Unfortunately this strategy has been corrupted by the ignorant who have taken it to garish and acrobatic extremes. As a result we get the sort of clips that turn-up on YOU TUBE from time to time replete with rolling, jumping, cartwheels, jump-spin-kicks and two-handed-sabres swung in figure-eights. Sheesh.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Well to be honest it's nothing more than a bad habit on my part, I spend that much time dealing in terminology associated with my arts that it's second nature. It gets so bad at times that often I go to spell the word "technique" and automatically write "waza".

Honestly? I think this is part of the problem, you seem to automatically assume that you are being looked down on or that people are out to criticise you for the hell of it. That's honestly not the case here, well not on my part

Sorry if it appeared that way.

Depends on what you mean by straight lines I think. There's a lot going on with the blade when cutting.

I think here you need to start looking at specific ryu-ha and using them as examples, if appropriate.

Could you please clarify what you mean by formally addressing a person?

Thank you Bruce.

So in cutting you aren't looking at anyother aspects of the cuts other than those listed?

How about the actual cuts to the targets? I'm thinking beyond simply going through them now.

 

There is a protocol thats followed---I think I may have mentioned it before--- in which a hierarchy of placements and materials are followed. Roughly the progression follows Paper, Mache' or cardboard, grass, cotton cloth then rope. I know very few practitioners who still follow this, but for those who do there is then a range of cuts of assorted angles and target placements depending on where a person is in their training. For instance the single most basic Introductory cut is a Straight Descending Cut off the Walking Step. This is, in fact the first technique of the BON KUK GEUM BEOP and is followed by the Same Cut executed on the turn utilizing a One-legged stance. So imagine a target of say, Mache for the first cut and paper for the second cut. Why? Because the practitioner has successfully reduced a Paper target on the first cut and is now doing the second level on the first cut, but is only just starting with the second cutting technique. Is any of this making any sense?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Are there any specific mechanics or fundamentals of posture and structure to be followed when cutting? For example: head above the hips and between the feet, shoulders covering chin, etc.

 

I agree with Korean's mentality of 360 degrees awareness compared to the 1 on 1 mentality of japanese. I think it's unfortunate that japanese becomes the "standard" for everything to measure up to. I think it has to do with the politics of Japan taking over and oppressing Korean culture, but I know very little about the history surrounding the issue.

I don't think there's a need to be so defensive. The only person who seems to degrade Korean swordsmanship seems to be Chris Parker. I'm sure he has his reasons and loyalty to japanese style swordsmanship, but every art has something new to bring to the table. And usually something useful if you look hard enough.

Taekwondo is often criticized by the "MMA community" for its lack of effective techniques and flashy kicks. But many professional fighters have a background in TKD, and it greatly enhances flexibility and footwork. At the same time, many kicks people deemed impractical have been used to score knockouts (spinning heel kick, spinning back kick, even a narabuam (tornado kick) once).

Everything has its practical use in a certain situation if times correctly. However some arts are more balanced and practical as an entire system than others. I would guess this would be the case when comparing something like Iaijustu with Haidong Gumdo.