Haidong Gumdo Practicality?

Discussion in 'Weapons' started by Bgajdor1, Sep 26, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    I think modern korean swordsmanship is a load of flimflam. Bruce and Laurita certainly aren't helping matters.

    The Bear.
     
  2. ludde

    ludde Valued Member

    What I have seen of Korean swordsmanship is more like an acrobatic 360 degree type of thing. The Japanese swordsmanship/or els, that I know of have a more understanding and consideration concerning turning your back against your opponent when you need to. It's out of need and not flash. Look at Katori shinto-ryu naginata, which I think demonstrate this.
     
  3. Obewan

    Obewan "Hillbilly Jedi"

    It's funny because we have several hyung for sword and I know Bruce isn't fond of what Kuk Sool does with respect to sword. IMHO many of the hyung, empty hand or weapon, has little to do with actual combat, such to say that perhaps a particular move or combination of moves would not work in a self defense or battle atmosphere. Hyung in my opinion are designed to teach the practitioner balance, power, correct body position, speed, muscle memory, and more.

    We have cutting hyung that doesn't look anything like our "traditional" hyung (for lake of better word). The cutting hyung is "less flashy" and the cutting would no doubt be categorized as "over cutting" as the body turns into the cut at the waist and the heal of the back foot is allowed to raise off the ground. I think if we are going to compare arts we need to give a little slack to others to try and understand why the techniques are different rather than berating one against the other. (not saying you were ludde)

    I think the first thing we should look at is the sword its self. Perhaps the different designs used lend to the differences in technique.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  4. Bgajdor1

    Bgajdor1 Valued Member

    I have seen Katori Shinto Ryu and noticed some practical spins with the naginata. Very interesting indeed.

    I was just trying to get at the idea that virtually any martial art can be used for self-defense if applied correctly. Or rather... any martial art contains at least has 1-2 techniques that may prove useful in a battlefield/streetfight, even if the art originally wasn't designed for that purpose.
     
  5. ludde

    ludde Valued Member

    This is not unusual with the old Japanese schools out there. That you would have to alter distance, timing and initiative to make the actions have a combative meaning. And that it would teach you balance, power, correct body position, speed, muscle memory and more. But the main concern here in this thread is that the videos shown in this thread about Korean swordsmanship show the lack of these/those(?) qualities in their movements.
    Any video that show the true meaning and that what wee have seen here actually quite well transfers to sound combative movements?
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  6. Obewan

    Obewan "Hillbilly Jedi"

    Say's who, my point is that unless one is under stress of battle and you have a clear winner or loser you can't say that one technique is "correct" or one is "incorrect" I didn't see in particular a overly off balanced performance by the Korean practitioners. I did however see a different approach to how the techniques were applied, the end result was still a cut mat. If the cut was clean and not scooped or jagged then wasn't that mission accomplished? And what is "true meaning" in your opinion.
     
  7. Bruce W Sims

    Bruce W Sims Banned Banned

    Not in quite that sense. For instance, my teacher would coach me with such things as "move from the center" and "keep you head on the same level" or the constant "erbow closa toda botti, mista sim". But in terms of anatomical alignment I would say no.

    Best Wishes,

    Bruce
     
  8. Bruce W Sims

    Bruce W Sims Banned Banned

    I think you are a victim of your own lack of information. You hear about Korean Kumdo (Koreanized Japanese Kendo circa 1904), or HAE DONG GUMDO (a 1963 reconstruction based on the teachings of a Korean monk) and you think you have the whole story down pat; that you know all there is to know.

    I find your unwillingness to even consider the possibility that you may have taken a wrong turn somewhere very disconcerting; which is why I am finding less and less willingness to participate in these discussions. I'm not here to convince you of one thing or another......but even the least intelligent among us show wisdom in leaving themselves open to information, doncha think?

    Regards.
     
  9. beer_belly

    beer_belly Valued Member

    Coming late to this - for me there was a disturbing element in some of the patterns in that I could not really visualise where the opponent was... first at 8 seconds in - following the path of the rising cut I couldn't see a frame where it was clear an opponent was being neutralised. Either the opponent is somewhere I am not reading from the practitioner, or possibly it was something from a 2 person dance where the cut will go over the partner safely, just being done solo.
     
  10. Bruce W Sims

    Bruce W Sims Banned Banned

    What you have seen is a corruption of the premise. "360 Degree-" or "Universal Awareness" is NOT a matter of jumping around like your uniform is on fire. At its core the concept is close to extending one's sense out in a sperical 360 degrees such that one can engage an assault without necessarily re-orienting the entire body to address the attacker. For instance ( a little bit of history most Koreans don't know about their own swordwork).........

    In the middle of a couple of traditional forms there is a goofy move where a person slowly raises the sword, turns 180 degrees and lowers the sword to Middle Guard position. They, then, raise the sword and turn back 180 degrees and lower the sword. The movement, in its entirety, is called "Rising Sun". It is a most unlikely move until you find out that for the last three hundred years one of the most common ways of subduing a swordsman----I think even in Japan----was to throw a net or heavy cloth over them. The movement is used to deal with this....but you would need to be able to do this from any position---IE facing any direction. Yes? THAT is "Universal Awareness".
    The same thing can be said of "Tiger in the Grass" which is used to deal with hooks, lasso-s or snares. Same issue. Has to be done facing in any direction regardless of where the attack comes from. FWIW.

    Best Wishes,

    Bruce
     
  11. Bruce W Sims

    Bruce W Sims Banned Banned

    Can I add another bit, Obie....from a historical perspective.

    Prior to the INJIN WAERUM and somewhat confirmed by it was the following notion.

    Koreans are kittens when they fight out in an open field, but they become tigers when they defend a wall.

    This is not a perfect quote but it was used to explain why the Koreans were repeatedly defeated when faced with the Japanese warriors. The Japanese had become masters at fighting in the open and later extended this to taking strong points such as castles and fortifications. I don't deny that the Koreans were poorly led in that struggle at first, but I am trying to make clear that the view military people take of fighting shapes the methods they employ---right or wrong. For instance, the Japanese had become adapted to fighting battles as a massive array of individual encounters, replete with manners, customs and protocols. Then, along come the Mongols and the Japanese had second thoughts about what they were doing. In like manner, the Koreans proceeded from Steppe tribes and learned how effective fighting from atop a mountain or hill or from behind a wall could be against cavalry. I thin it colored their whole approach to sword.

    The other think I would mention is that the Korean have six architectures of swords---two of which are polearms. I find it embarrassing that highly-placed Korean Black Belts are photographed using two-handed sabres---one in each hand--- each some 30 inches long---- to perform a "form" which is expressly identified for KAL (short swords with blades measuring about 18 inches). Now if respected leaders of a KMA are doing this what hope is there for some nobody from the Midwestern US to inform people that those Koreans are wrong....... Look at the hassle I can get just talking informally with a few guys around the INTERNET. FWIW.

    Best Wishes,

    Bruce
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  12. Titanium

    Titanium New Member

    Haven't read prior posts so just stating my opinion based on first post.
    I'm practising HG and I've been to grandmaster demonstrations, I can say I was amazed by what I saw, no comparing to fake masters all over my country, so I guess its based on how much you train and how much passion you have, style by itself is good. I never practised iaido but afaik japanese,korean and chinese swords have same roots just developed bit differently, so I'd say go to a trainer/master that motivates you better, the more motivated you are the better and faster you accomplish your goal. Just my opinion :)
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  13. ludde

    ludde Valued Member

    This is training, not a real encounter. You could train really bad and still be lucky against an experienced opponent. There is a clip out there about an experienced grappler taking a drunk down with a double-leg. It was a success if all you go by is the end result. But if the drunk had had a knife, the grapplers back, side and neck would be nice targets. If the standard that you go by is barely, then your training will be barely. If you wind up like crazy before a cut to get enough power, the experienced cutters out there would say your technique is barely, and far from good. But saying that when all comes down to it, an experienced practitioner can die against a less experienced practitioner with bad training, is a lazy excuse.
    You said that what we have seen in this thread is not the real meaning, but movements that will teach you the foundations of sound and secure body movements. So if what we have seen is not the real meaning, what then is the real meaning, and how does what we see as bad foundation transfer to real meaning and sound body movements. True meaning was maybe a bad wording.
    I have a very hard time following you Bruce. Most of that is impossible for me to respond to. It's like you speak in riddles that I have to figure out of before I can understand.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  14. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    I find your unwillingness to discuss where you get your training material and your lineage very revealing. I haven't taken a wrong turn, I am honest and am aware my art is a reconstruction based on a 600 years old manual. Seems you are having some difficulty accepting that Korean swordsmanship died out.

    The Bear.
     
  15. ludde

    ludde Valued Member

    Here is a clip containing a twelve year old girl cutting for the first time, and she cut through, and better than what have been posted of the flashy stuff. Still feel the end result matter?

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3-wN5m7IiA&feature=channel&list=UL"]Students Cutting - YouTube[/ame]
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  16. Chris Parker

    Chris Parker Valued Member

    This won't be short. Sorry.

    Answers to the many questions posed, Bruce. Any evidence of any Korean swordsmanship that shows any trait of knowledge of the sword (used combatively or historically) that is found in current forms. Those are the two main things. You really seem to be answering questions that you haven't been asked, and thinking that just by putting words down on the screen you are answering. It's not quite that simple.

    You're kidding, yeah? Firstly, there was nothing in my post that was "looking down my nose" at anything. I said that, when looking at cutting drills, the fact that a very sharp sword goes through a soft target doesn't really indicate any skill, and that applies equally to Japanese cutting as any other form. Believe me, I've seen plenty of Japanese sword practitioners who seem to think that just cutting through the target is the aim in and of itself as well... and my post was in response to a poster who was saying he was going to do more cutting in order to gain more feedback on his progress... so I gave advice which is universal... only you seem to have even seen any reference to different cultures approaches in it. I honestly challenge you to actually point out any reference to Japanese or Korean cutting, or Japanese versus Korean cutting. The closest is referencing two poor examples already seen in this thread, both of which happened to be Korean. I really think you should try reading what is written without assuming you know where I'm coming from... because you haven't been right about that at all yet.

    Oh dear lord... "validation cutting"? I gotta ask, what on earth is that? What does it "validate"? And how does it "validate" anything? But other than that, get over the use of terminology, as Dean said, he's just using the terminology that he naturally thinks in, and as for myself, I have tended to use English simplifications for convenience... did you see anyone call you out for using the term "begi" (which, for some reason, you wrote entirely in capitals) earlier in the thread?

    Without getting into the gaps in a lot of what is being said here, I'd point out that this doesn't seem to actually answer the question. The question is "What are you looking for when performing cutting exercises?", not "How do you do your cutting exercises?" So, if you could answer the question there Bruce... What are you looking for? Is it just that the sword goes through the target? Is it something else? Are there a range of criteria for it to be "good", or just one or two? What are they?

    I'll deal with the gaps above as we cover the rest of these replies....

    No, again, that's a training progression, not answering the actual question, which was "What are you looking for when performing cutting exercises?" The fact that you seem unable to ascertain what makes a "good" cutting demonstration or a "bad" one, or be able to verbalize any aspects, isn't making this look good for your side of things...

    Can you actually answer it?

    Out of interest, Kurtka, is this specifically a question for Bruce, or were you wanting the other side to answer as well?

    Right, let's get something straight. Japanese swordsmanship cannot be generalized to the degree of saying there is only one contextual or tactical form applied across the board. A simple cursory look at many Iai forms, whether Seitei Iai (which starts with a kata to an opponent in front, then has a kata with an opponent behind, and later features kata against multiple opponents in various directions), Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu and Muso Shinden Ryu (which have the same, with additional directional kata between the forward and rear forms at the beginning), to Katori Shinto Ryu, which features kata against opponents to your left, right, in front, both front and behind, and more, as well as many, many other systems and approaches, and I don't know what the hell Bruce is on about when he starts talking about the approaches of Japanese sword arts not featuring the idea of opponents all around. I mean, the core concept of most Japanese (at least, all traditional ones) of Zanshin is that you maintain a wide awareness all around yourself in case of secondary attacks, attackers, and so on. Beyond all that, the examples given of Korean sword hyungs which go from one side to another, back and forth, etc etc don't actually seem to show any awareness of opponents at all, nor tactics or tactical applications against a group, but rather a string of almost unrelated movements in imitation of unarmed kata (Karate, TKD forms/poomse/hyungs etc).

    Loyalty to Japanese systems really has nothing to do with my take on things. Simply put, nothing shown of Korean swordsmanship shows no evidence of any realistic sword knowledge, experience, or anything similar, to the point that I would say I'm not so much degrading Korean swordsmanship, but saying it doesn't exist based on all evidence.

    And as far as every art having something useful to offer, that's honestly a very PC approach, but it fails in the face of reality. In other words, if the tactics and mechanics are not sound, or are flawed, then there isn't really anything to offer, other than an example of what not to do. And all the examples shown up til now show that to be the case. I, and others, have asked repeatedly for something to be shown that doesn't have such fatal flaws, and nothing has been proffered. So no, the PC ideal of "well, you can learn something from every art" is incorrect. The swordsmanship shown in the clips found in this thread, and all others I've seen, are suicidal from a swordsmanship point of view.

    And, when it comes down to it, that attitude of "you should be able to learn something from all arts/teachers/systems" is favoured by the more delusional. An example is found in this thread on another forum: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/103606-Opinions-on-my-videos Watch the videos and tell me if things should be learnt from that system...

    Terrible, deep, dark secret time... I have a TKD background. Okay, not so terrible, deep, dark, or even a secret, really. But the thing with TKD is that it is designed for a particular application, and works towards that end. It is application of mechanics that are tested and proven, as well as tactics that are the same. The basis is karate methodology, with a greater emphasis on a wider variety and specialization in skilled kicking methodologies. The distinction here is that the methods found in Haidong Gumdo share none of that pedigree of development through application... instead, it seems more to be what people who have no real exposure to real swordsmanship tactics and realities think it might be, or what they want it to be... which has a larger influence from movies than anything else. Again, though, I'm open to, and patiently awaiting, anything shown to contradict that image.

    Being wide open has no practical use. It is an invitation to be killed. Overcutting has no practical use. It is an invitation to be killed. Overly muscled cuts have no practical use. It is an invitation to be killed, as well as reducing the effectiveness and precision of your actions, should they hit. Mechanically, a lot of what is seen in Haidong Gumdo is flawed to the point of having no practical use. Tactically a lot of what is seen in Haidong Gumdo is flawed to the point of having no practical use. If the only practical usage you want is that you want to swing a sword around and look cool doing so, fine. But if your aim is to actually be able to use a sword in a way that wouldn't leave you dead, then no, not everything has a practical use.

    When comparing Iai (pretty much regardless of line... in this sense I am only talking about legit historical forms, not some of the modern made-up stuff seen around the place) and Haidong Gumdo, the way you describe things isn't really the case. It's far more a comparison between playing paintball and training in the army. To be blunt.

    See, now, I'd disagree with that. Sure, aspects such as correct body position, balance etc are part of it, but that's not the real thrust of the patterns themselves. What they are really teaching is far more to do with the application of tactics, distancing, angling etc, with a major emphasis on the application of tactics. And, in that sense, while it's not a realistic representation of a fight, it is very much to do with actual combat. To think that it doesn't is to miss entirely the point.

    Different is fine. The cutting methods of Katori Shinto Ryu are different to those of Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, which are different to MJER/MSR, which are slightly different to Seitei Iai, which is different to Kukishin Ryu, which is different to Yagyu Shingan Ryu, which is different to Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, which is different to Tatsumi Ryu, which is different to Sekiguchi Ryu, which is different to Yakumaru Jigen Ryu, which is different to Tenshinsho Jigen Ryu, which is different to Ono-ha Itto Ryu, which is different to Kashima Shinryu, which is different to Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage Ryu.... but the thing is, none of these contravene the basic idea of not doing things that would get you killed. When we talk about the problems with overcutting, what should be remembered is that the distancing for sword is incredibly tight, as is the timing. What that means is that the cost of overcutting is that, if the opponent evades, even by the slimmest of margins, you cannot recover before they kill you. There isn't an attitude of berating Korean sword methods because they're not Japanese, there's an attitude from the experienced sword practitioners of berating the methods and mechanics seen in Korean sword because they would get you killed... and, in that sense, they are not realistic examples of swordsmanship. They're playing with swords.

    This would only hold water if the design of the swords were notably different. But when the sword used by the Korean systems is essentially a copy of the Japanese one, to the point where many Korean systems and practitioners simply use Japanese and Japanese-style blades, that argument disappears pretty quickly.

    Kyudo? Iaido? My point is that, honestly, that's again that very PC attitude, and not one that's necessarily reflective of reality.

    Out of interest, what do you think is practical about the Katori Shinto Ryu habit of spinning in place with a naginata? Remember that, for Katori Shinto Ryu's kata, the actual application of such actions isn't necessarily present in the demonstrated form... nor is it explained to non-members of the Ryu very often (there have been some clips that show some applications, but that's not necessarily the actual application either... for the record).

    Say's who? Say's the people who's training is based in practical and historical usage of the weapon, those who have developed an understanding of what is correct and useful, whose skills and methods come directly from the stress of battle...

    To the idea of cutting the mat, this is what I was getting at earlier. Swords cut. It's really, really, really easy. I could get anyone with absolutely no experience, and get them cutting through a target in about 10 minutes. So if you're basing the idea of skill, or success on the fact that the sword cuts through the target, you really don't know what you're looking at. That's like being impressed that someone can hit a tennis ball over a net. It doesn't mean that they can play tennis to any real degree. There's a lot more to cutting than just the part where the sword meets the target.

    You've been asked repeatedly to show any other form, Bruce. So far, you have mentioned references in old texts (from the end of the 16th Century), but there has been nothing to suggest that anything done today is even related to the references you've made. Additionally, the way you're reading that text is at odds with most other texts of that time or later, and could very easily be your misinterpretation (as I mentioned earlier). So really, if there is something else that we should be aware of, present it. Otherwise you're basically just saying that we don't know, but expect us to accept that you have some other system which doesn't feature the issues found in all other forms so far presented.

    Speaking for myself, I have repeatedly stated that I'm open to the idea, and have asked for evidence to be presented. Can you actually do that?

    Zanshin. But that's not something present in the clips shown, I have to say...

    You know, I'm probably going to regret this, but can you provide any backup to this claim? Because, frankly, it doesn't seem like a tactical reality....

    Wow. Firstly, siege warfare was quite standard in Japan, so no, the entire premise of this is flawed. Secondly, if the fighting was done from on top of hills, mountains, or walls, against the lower-ground cavalry, what would that have to do with swordsmanship, which would have had no place there at all? But most of all, what on earth did any of this have to do with Obewan's post asking who is in a position to discuss real swordsmanship?

    You might want to read all the previous posts, then...
     
  17. Kurtka Jerker

    Kurtka Jerker Valued Member

    Yes, it was for Bruce. Mainly just trying to dig out something concrete as opposed to vaguely-related musings.
     
  18. Chris Parker

    Chris Parker Valued Member

    Nice. To add to it...

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBHkkd7f0gE"]å°å*¦ç”Ÿå¥³ã®å*ã®æŠœåˆ€è¡“。 - YouTube[/ame]

    Still much better form than in the Korean clips.

    Cool. Just checking.
     
  19. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    I like these vids because they show that you shouldn't have to swing a sword like a maniac to cut someone open wide.

    The Bear.
     
  20. Bruce W Sims

    Bruce W Sims Banned Banned

    Absolutely 100% agree!! Please don't think I am writing off all teachers, as obviously I am indebted to my own teacher for his great skills and kindnesses. I think the place where I draw the line is when people look at a "marginal" practitioner and think that what they see defines the practice. Korean sword has its good and bad practitioners just like any other art. Well said.

    Best Wishes,

    Bruce
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page