Haidong Gumdo Practicality?

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dean Winchester

    Dean Winchester Valued Member

    What am I doing?

    Nothing more than a couple of Japanese systems dating back to the early 1600's both my teachers are students of the head of those systems and one spent close to if not a decade living in Japan studying. So I have access to a little more than Black Belt Magazine.

    Why what are you doing?

    Ok so please show me some sources to back up what you say, I'm really interested in hearing about how the various ryu-ha work and their teaching methods.

    I haven't seen many facts from you, simply your ideas on how things should be and your usual paranoid delusions that everyone who disagrees with you is out to get you.

    Incidentally all I did was open a line of discussion it really didn't require you to loose control and start blowing your top.

    No no I know it's not you it's everyone else.

    Sorry to break it to you Bruce but you don't educate anyone, even if you had the requisite technical knowledge about the field your attitude and persecution complex precludes any real exchange of knowledge.

    I invite the readers of this thread to look at your other threads and see a very similar pattern of behaviour.


    Then I suggest you wind your neck in a little because it gets tiresome having you rant every time someone points out where you are wrong, which you are frequently and it's ok you know being wrong, it's not a dirty word....crevice is a dirty word..
     
  2. Dean Winchester

    Dean Winchester Valued Member

    Just a quick post as I'm not at a PC.

    Page 110 & 111 have some interesting diagrams of possible angles of attack for mounted archers and manoeuvre options for passes.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  3. Dean Winchester

    Dean Winchester Valued Member

    Just having a quick surf and found this which mentions sojutsu (spearmanship).

    http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showpost.php?p=63584&postcount=10

    There are also some interesting posts with regards to archery and battlefield combat.


    For example this post


     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  4. Bruce W Sims

    Bruce W Sims Banned Banned

    You're a little late. I read both of Karl Fridays as well as Ellis Amadur....and thats just for starters. Now lets get everybody else doing the same. We can start with PG SMITH who thinks my grasp of the Japanese SAMURAI culture is so terrible. This is rapidly turning into a ****ing contest.

    @PG: You pull that "you're being defensive" and "stop being so defensive" crap again... which is exactly what you do on the heels of any given attack.

    Funny how that works.

    You attack and then wonder loudly about a person being defensive.

    Also noted: Chris put out a tome and quickly criticized me for not answering fast enough.
    I answered....quite thoroughly.....then you come on here and don't cite either post but make much of wanting to "get back to the original question"......

    of course we can, PG....but you had to get that little dig in first right?
     
  5. Bruce W Sims

    Bruce W Sims Banned Banned

    Don't know what this is about, Dean, other than I did back to the practitioners of Japanese arts what they were doing to the arts I revere. Don't like it? Maybe we need to rein in the rhetoric.

    I didn't start this, and I don't hear Chris apologizing for painting all Korean sword with a broad, toxic brush.

    Wanna keep going? We still have the matter of "institutionalized illiteracy" and "institutionalized economic ignorance" to cover.

    And while I recognized Karl Friday and others as experts in their field, lets not forget that living in Japan and being taught Japanese traditions by Japanese nationals may not render the single most objective view of a practice. There are still practitioners who cite that racist Nitobe as a chief source of info about Samurai Culture. I guess we have to do some research to find out what the Japanese words for "ultra-nationalist" and "historical revisionists" might be.
     
  6. Bruce W Sims

    Bruce W Sims Banned Banned

    Well....lets take a look at this.

    The first thing I notice is that noone is saying that I am "wrong". What I am experiencing are people saying that they don't understand what I am saying while repeating the same old tired rhetoric. As quickly as I point something up, people jump to something else. Chris just blind-sided me and noone said anything. I responded in a more than reasonably short period and noone said anything there--either. Both silences were very telling, but for completely different reasons. Whats my conclusion? I conclude that people want to believe what they want to believe BECAUSE thats what they want to believe. Chris has repeated himself several times. Polar Bear has done the same, and thats regardless of whatever I write.

    Now we're on about the Japanese because people feel I may have been inaccurate about what I said about the Japanese practices. Got two or three---maybe four--- people taking me to task about my inaccurate statements.

    BUT----

    it was okay to make inaccurate and uninformed statements about Korean traditions, right? Apparently the Japanese traditions are always good and whole and productive. Its the rest of those nasty MA practitioners like the Chinese and the Koreans ----the ones who are always trying to "steal" from the pure and wholesome Japanese--- who deserve to be "outed". Or maybe its just something as simple as "the we" is always right and "the him" is always wrong. You should check-out the recent mess about the Hay Market Riots in Chicago and what happened to a poor ******* who tried to correct commonly-held misconceptions on WIKI. Very telling, and not too different from whats happening here.

    I think I can be forgiven for figuring that things are just a tad skewed, wouldn't you say? Paranoia is a neurotic fear. Its not paranoia if what one is experiencing is truly offense and an injury. My guess is that folks don't see it because they are the ones dishing it out. They only whine when it comes back the other way.

    BTW: Dean: Just to show you how this works. Did you really read that quote by Friday about injunctions against soldiers taking "trophies"? Okay..... to read that quote suggests that this was an established policy---IE Dissuade troops from taking trophies, right? Okay...now a bit of history. During the IMJIN WAERUM---thats 1592 to 1598---a portion of the time Friday is writing of---- Japanese troops took so many heads that the policy for recognition of a kill switched to only taking the ears. In Japan there is a mound which is an historic landmark as it is said to have originated as the dump for Korean ears after they were tallied. So....Friday says one thing....History and geography say something else. What happened to the "absolute discipline" of the much touted SAMURAI warrior?
    Just sayin, folks.........
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  7. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    So again Bruce what is your lineage and can you show us the manuals you are working form?

    It's pointless discussing history since you deny everything.
    The Bear.
     
  8. Dean Winchester

    Dean Winchester Valued Member

    See this is what I mean. You see everything in these threads as some type of tit for tat.

    The quotes I posted were simply a quick attempt to show some points which pertained to your comments on the attitudes to the use use of bow and the spear.

    Now if you look at what you said and put it along side the quotes I posted you should see why it was posted.

    It wasn't anything in depth, as it was a bit late in the night, all I did was grab a book off my self and do a quick google.

    Your own attitudes get in the way of any discussion that happens in the threads you are involved in, you only have to look at the recent MMA thread and how you behaved a while back in a certain Aikijujutsu thread to see this.

    Now I have to ask are you now saying that you deliberately posted what you thought was false information just to try and get a rise out of some of the practioners here?

    A little childish don't you think? Not to mention trolling.



    Again we see the school boy "it's not my fault" "he started it" nonsense. Chris has consistently addressed your posts in a concise and logical manner yet you have failed to act in such a way and automatically fell back on attempting to poison the well instead if answering his points.

    If you wish to keep making your self look like a fool then by all means.

    You know what? I think a lot of your comments show the MA equivalent of having little man syndrome, it's a little sad that you cannot take part in discourse without reverting to such antics.

    Oh and before you moan about that then I invite people again to look at your various posts.

    Wonderful. So could you post where you got your ideas on the use of spear and bow from?

    Can we take it that those comments were done to troll Chris and those you feel belittled by?

    Or were they posted in sincerity?
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  9. Dean Winchester

    Dean Winchester Valued Member

    Ok so please show why his impression of you is incorrect.

    Note saying "because it is" won't cut it.

    Bruce your response to everything from a correction to a simple question is to attempt to belittle those directing the comments, it's rather sad that you can't act in an adult manner.

    Telling you that you are wrong or mistaken is not an attack. That you appear to see it this way speaks volumes.

    Actually Chris criticised you for dodging the questions on a number of times, it wasn't that he posted a book then moaned because you didn't answer it.

    If you look at the posts from when he started in this thread you will see what I am referring to.

    What happened Bruce?

    Seriously what happened to you to make you have such an adverse reaction towards anything that approaches criticism?
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  10. Titanium

    Titanium New Member

    I recommend you all to read this.
    http://www.hillstkd.com.au/haidong-gumdo-history.shtml
    I confirm this information, since I was looking for this specific one, as I am told by grandmasters and masters of HG, its history.
    I can't see the reason of this aggressive talk people... It is a worldwide known martial art because it's been practised worldwide, im sure none would bother spending years of practising and teaching for some crazy wild slashes. give it the respect it deserves, I suggest you tryin it out with a real master, just to have a taste. =)
     
  11. Dean Winchester

    Dean Winchester Valued Member

    I believe Chris has pointed out where you are mistaken and my posts seem to offer some points which differ to yours.

    Sorry Bruce but the general consensus is you are wrong on some things.

    When people say they don't understand you or don't follow you it isn't because your posts or their content are somehow far above their understanding it is more that you are gibbering on about something tangential to everything else or unrelated.

    You posts don't make sense due to how poorly they are written, not because you are pulling off some wonderful prose that everyone is stunned by.

    How do you blind side someone on a forum? Seriously come on Bruce that is a little pathetic. Chris wrote a long post covering a number of things.

    If you can't answer him or keep up that's fine but let's not start this notion of that it wasn't some insidious scheme to make you look bad. It's a flipping forum for crying out loud not a live debate.


    Really? What did you want? A lollipop?

    Come Bruce this attitude is beneath you, we'll I'd like to think it is but you continually disappoint.

    Why have they repeated themselves? Hmm we'll in some instances is was because you failed to answer them and at others it was because you were well wrong.


    Do you stand by those statements?

    It's odd that you keep on about being here to educate yet have a problem with being educated yourself.


    Bruce,

    Grow up. Seriously this is ridiculous.

    If people have been inacurrate then show them why and where but you need more than "because I say so".


    You'll find that when discussing our systems we are very open to the various possibilities surrounding their evolution and background.

    You are throwing a tantrum.

    Really? A riot in comparison to a thread on a forum?

    That just shows how skewed your thinking and attitudes are.

    The problem is Bruce is that whenever you are corrected or questioned you fall back on attacking those doing the questioning. It's always that they don't understand or are somehow indoctrinated and won't see the light you bring.


    No Bruce I don't think you can. It is very very simple, you have posted something that seems a bit off and others have pointed that out. There really isn't anything more than that.


    Bruce that quote was a snapshot of a thread nothing more. As usual you are reaching a bit. Also I think you might want to read it a bit closer.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  12. Dean Winchester

    Dean Winchester Valued Member

    Thank you.

    It's not agressive it is simply direct.

    Being world wide means very little nowadays. Give it the respect it deserves? In what way?

    People have listed the problems they have with what they have seen and why. It's not like they are going "it sucks lolz look at ten eejits" what people have done is go into some detail about why they think some things are problematic.

    If there is a problem there then address those points.
     
  13. Chris Parker

    Chris Parker Valued Member

    Ha, okay, Ludde, one wall of text coming up... settle in, this is not going to be short by any stretch of the imagination... unless comparing with War and Peace...

    Ha, fair enough!

    Right. "PC" stands for "politically correct", and is the usage of language designed to be inoffensive, to the point of sugar-coating things out of reality. In this case, not offending practitioners of certain arts, even ones that are obviously terrible, by saying things like "you can learn from all arts". In the thread I linked the same idea was floated (by the poster of the videos), and the blunt answer was that the only thing that could be learnt from him was to not attend his school.

    When it comes to the methods and mechanics of Haidong Gumdo being invitations to be killed, that automatically removes it from being actual swordsmanship, and as such removes any real worth in learning it (as swordsmanship). It's like learning to play tennis by only hitting the ball into the net. Sure, you're still on a tennis court, and you're still hitting a tennis ball with a tennis racquet, but really, that ain't anything useful when it comes to learning to play tennis. That's really what we see in the Haidong Gumdo examples of sword, when it comes down to it... it's really not that it's not Japanese, therefore bad, it's that it's completely ignorant of the realities of sword combat, it contravenes the basic principles of sword combat, and has less reality than the Star Wars lightsaber battles when it comes to use of a sword. Again, if all you want is some fun swinging a sword around, okay. But if you want to actually have any idea about swordsmanship, and therefore get the practical benefits out of training in it (which is the mentality and seriousness necessary when dealing with such methods), that has come across as completely lacking in all the Korean forms so far presented.

    What Haidong Gumdo seems to offer is essentially fun swinging a sword. And, if that's all you're after, go for it. If you want to understand sword, though, look at other, far more credible approaches. Additionally, I wouldn't necessarily think that a Haidong Gumdo practitioner could necessarily cut much better than someone off the street... in Sydney I know of a school that essentially just takes people in off the street, and gives them a chance to cut targets, and again, it's really not difficult at all. That's why cutting itself isn't even universally used, a number of Japanese systems simply don't see the value. Swords cut. You don't need a lot of skill or practice, it's what a sword does. Using a sword, however, does take skill and practice, as well as good, realistic instruction. Think of it like shooting a gun. Anyone can pull a trigger and make a bullet leave a chamber. Guns shoot, and swords cut. Thinking that cutting is necessarily the skill set is where you're still missing the reality of what swordsmanship really is. It's not just the cutting, it's all the parts around it.

    Ha, not a problem... but that was far from my deepest, or my darkest secret... so you know....

    Did you read the rest of the thread? Thing is, he seems to believe everything he said... but my point was that you can't just say "there's value in all martial arts", because, well, there isn't. Not in all of them.

    But to your comments on just how bad Haidong Gumdo appears to be, to us, well, yeah, actually. It does degrade your skill as a swordsman, if you think that the way things are done there is in any way realistic or even related to the actual use of a sword. And the further you go thinking that it's good, or realistic, the more damage is done. Once again, this isn't exclusive to Korean systems... check out the "Introducing Nasir Ryu Iaido" thread here for another wide range of terrible sword videos, many claiming to be Japanese forms. I've also railed against the way sword is taught in many of the Ninjutsu schools, most notably Bujinkan, as well as the reasons for it being the way it is. Honestly, I don't think that such schools are very good grounding for people to understand sword... but those in the Bujinkan will happily tell you that Hatsumi is a master of it, and incredibly skilled, as are the senior Japanese instructors, despite evidence to the contrary... and that mainly comes from the fact that, by and large, they don't have actual sword to compare it to. I feel that that's probably where a lot of the issues with Bruce's ideas are coming from as well... he simply has never been exposed to actual sword usage, so he defends what he has been taught is realistic, or proper sword usage... but to those with the training in sword, it just doesn't cut it.

    No, Bruce, not those questions, I was referring to the multiple questions you've been asked over the course of the thread. To recap:

    Now, I'll give you that there are some more, well, embedded questions in there... largely seeking clarification of what you were saying to begin with. So, now we have a list of questions.... any answers?

    But now we get to the major section.... this might take a bit....

    Those examples screamed of desperately looking for some sort of reason, not anything based in realistic application of skills. For one thing, the idea of "throwing a net or heavy cloth" over a swordsman to subdue them being a major method for the last 300 years? Where on earth did you pull that from? And the way you describe the "360 degree sense" is hardly unique to Korean methods, and frankly comes across as a poor mans understanding of Zanshin. So no, that really didn't answer the question, as there is no backup to your claims at all, and the traits you talk about don't actually indicate any real knowledge of the sword (used combatively or historically) at all. It comes across as anime fantasy, and as such, doesn't really pass muster to the experienced sword members here.

    I'm fine with you thinking I'm coming across as arrogant (hell, I do come across as arrogant, for good reason!), but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing supporting your take on exactly what I'm being arrogant about to be found. And believe me, I'm very civil, generous, kind, and more... but when you dodge questions, give unconnected answers to questions that aren't asked, show no actual support for your claims, and then accuse me of being overly Japan-centric, and that being the reason I don't see anything good in the Korean forms is just ridiculous. Back up your claim, or retract it.

    None of that answers the question, Bruce. You talk about the fact that you use "validation cutting", but don't address what it's validating... is it just that a sword can cut through a target? Or that the angle of the cut is good? Or that the swordsman can maintain a correct line of attack? Or that they can flow from one action to another? Or that they can... whatever?

    You then say you're unimpressed with a lot of cutting... okay, but how is that telling me anything about what it's supposed to validate? You talk about "five of twelve cuts", which has nothing to do with anything other than a way that your system categorises actions, and doesn't give any answer to any question anyone asked, and talk about not having seen cuts "interspersed with parries or deflections"... again, what does that have to do with anything here? Hell, that entire post basically said you agree that most Korean sword you see is theatrical and has little to no resemblance to the usage of a sword as a weapon, but you keep leaping on us when we say the same thing?

    As far as "post 76", leaving aside the fact that you show no real knowledge or understanding of Japanese sword methods, it has nothing to do with the question I asked, namely: What does "validation cutting" actually validate? And how does it "validate" it?

    For crying out loud, Bruce, this is the damn post I said didn't answer the question in the first place! If you don't understand the question (which is a big clue in the first place), ask, and we'll clarify... but this is only a list of the training progression, not telling us what you're looking for, as in, what would you consider "success" in a cutting exercise?

    Believe me, I've read your posts, but you don't seem to understand the questions that are being asked. So how do we take you seriously as having a clue about sword, or anything else, with the major mistakes you keep making?

    "Post 87" was the answer to another question (and frankly screams to me about a lack of care for a students education and training, if we're going to get down to it), namely if there was any specific mechanics or fundamentals used. Are you saying that you're only looking at mechanical aspects, which don't seem to be a focus anyway, in order to judge "good" cutting?

    Repeating what Kurtka asked doesn't mean a thing if it's being used as an excuse as to why you haven't answered mine... it's a different question, and one that both Dean and I have asked a few times now. If you don't get the question, ask for clarification.

    And boy are you fulla something! The original name for samurai families was Kyusen no Iie, or "bow and arrow families". The original term for Japanese warriorship is "Kyuba no Michi", or "the way of mounted archery". For most of their history, archery was considered the definitive skill, along with horsemanship, of the samurai. On the battlefield, for infantry, spears were the most dominant weapon there was. Many famous warriors were more known for their skill with a spear than anything else. You've just picked two incredibly powerful, respected weapons, far more dominant in Japanese martial history than a sword, as examples of the arms of "blatant cowards"?!?! Dude, you are so completely out of your depth here it's incredible... The only place that archers were held in disdain was in Europe (other than the English Isles, most particularly Wales) during the Middle Ages, it was the greatest weapon for most of Asia... to the point that most records of Korean armies were only said to contain archers, and they had no skill with sword or spear, Ghengis Khan used his mounted archers to conquer more of the globe than anyone else, and it was the badge of office for the samurai for the majority of their existence.

    From there, I have no idea what you're talking about with the "Business Community" being non-Samurai class and held in disdain... let alone whatever you're going on about with "the Japanese themselves define multiple encounters..."

    But Bruce? Gee, do you need some education... nothing you wrote here is correct.



    You haven't answered the questions, Bruce. In fact, what you think is answering the questions is showing large gaps in your understanding of what the questions are in the first place. But you're right, I don't train Korean sword systems, I do train Japanese ones, and that does let me know a fair bit about what I'm seeing when I look at other sword methods. I can see the power and value in Taiji sword, for instance, or the "Butterfly swords" of Wing Chun, or the European methods, both reconstructed and modern sporting forms, and so on. As far as my representing "MA scholarship", no, not at all... but I might also point out that, when the problems with you posts are pointed out to you, you seem completely unable to grasp simple debating concepts (answering the question asked, for example), and are now resorting to "why should I tell you?" Cute.

    "Keppan", boy. And you're hardly in a place to comment, or even understand what that's about. Have you started running out of arguments?

    Bruce, I am deeply aware of the history of TKD, I know who Choi was, I know about the 9 Kwans that went into the formulation of what is now called TKD, I know why it was created, I know the false histories bandied about, and more. In terms of "proven", they are proven to work in their context, which in many cases is TKD sparring and competition. You know, the "particular application" I was referring to. If we were to do the same type of contextual testing for Haidong Gumdo, it would be the equivalent of a TKD player having their back turned, standing on one leg, and kicking randomly into thin air, and expecting that to work.

    Please. You think the Japanese "abandoned" katana? Based on what, exactly? I have a book here that shows all forms of sword used by the Japanese armies from the Meiji Restoration to the end of WWII, and let me tell you, while there was an adoption of Western sword fittings, many blades were still in the katana form, and there were military fittings for katana as well, often worn by officers. Again, you're really out of your depth here... but in regards to my actual comments that you quote there, I didn't mention anything about the usage in armies, nor did I mention anything about forms used prior to 1904 in Korea. I commented that, if what is seen now is representative of methods passed down to current practitioners, it's an incredible act of defiance against Darwins ideas. Again, you're answering something that isn't being asked. Incorrectly.

    No, Bruce, not "standard Japanese marketing", nor anything else you're reading into this. In fact, Japanese doesn't enter into my comments at all in the first part, as it applies equally to TKD and related systems. As far as the second "answer" of yours... do you really not have anything to say, and just need to get a dig in, even when completely baseless? There is nothing "Kool Aid" about saying that combatively dangerous or inane actions are combatively dangerous or inane. If your system is teaching stuff that would get you killed, and I say that it would get you killed, and you insist that it wouldn't, it doesn't mean that I'm the one drinking any Kool Aid, you realize....

    But... we're talking about Haidong Gumdo, which uses a Japanese-style sword. This is shown in all the clips, websites, sources, and so on. Your comment is like telling me that when I discuss Japanese sword methods you say "you know they also had naginata!"... it's pointless and irrelevant to the question and comment presented.

    Yes, the stress of battle.

    Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu.
    Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu.
    Kashima Shinryu.
    Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage Ryu.
    Yagyu Shinkage Ryu.
    Yakumaru Jigen Ryu.
    Kukishin Ryu.
    Ono-ha Itto Ryu.
    Araki Ryu.
    Takenouchi Ryu.
    And many, many, many more all have histories, in cases as part of their origin, or the origins of their source schools, which detail the usage of the weapons in question in real combat.

    As for the rest, do you want me to bring up Toyama Ryu? My point is that your history is flawed... again.

    Oh dear lord... Bruce, I said you had brought up old texts, my question was what evidence do you have that anything taught today is even related to what is in those books? You've mentioned the Sib Pal Ki thing before... but I have to say, nothing I've seen looks any more "authentic" than anything else... just a copy of Chinese Wu Shu, rather than Japanese Ken. Additionally, the presented history of Kim's is rather suspect... as a kid, he learnt under the only (secret) teacher of this ancient (and unverified) system? Kinda like the identical story of the supposed Taekkyon being taught?

    But to take this where it should be, what makes that form (Sib Pal Ki) more authentic, in your estimation? Can you link anything for us to see what you're talking about, as all my searches weren't really uplifting? What are these four books? You've mentioned that you don't read Korean, are they in English? If not, how can you read them? Or the other old texts you mention?

    Oh, and the idea of Kim devoting his Masters and Doctorate dissertations on such doesn't really mean much to me... I've seen too many that are so deeply flawed that the only reason they got through is that no-one on the board had the relevant knowledge to really pull them apart.

    No, you didn't.



    Mate, you might want to look in the mirror to see the person sold a bunch of goods... I'm training in verified historical traditions of sword. What are you doing again? Co-opted and misunderstood imitations?

    Acting like me? You mean providing support for claims, asking intelligent questions, and insisting on answers from the person claiming to have some knowledge? Yeah, that'd be a pity...

    What does any of that have to do with Bears citing of sources to counter your vague claim?

    Serious reading? Are you actually asking that? Bruce, Dean pointed out the problems with the comments you made on Japanese arts, and you accuse him of not doing any serious reading?

    I honestly doubt much that you've presented is actually "fact", though. And again, you're the one who seems to have "Idea Concrete" filling their head....

    Re-read them, then. Your take on Japanese martial arts and history is woefully inaccurate, as has been pointed out.

    No, Bruce, we're wondering why you get defensive instead of answering the questions.

    Please. I was asking you to answer questions that had been on the thread for a few days, which you hadn't done.

    What? Dude, you had bad history, bad "facts", bad understanding, and you were called on it. Deal with it.

    Well, I've tried to get you to offer something to broaden the range of systems we're familiar with, perhaps something that doesn't have the issues we keep seeing, and you haven't done that. So no, I'm hardly going to apologize for making an observation backed up by all evidence presented when all requests for anything to the contrary to be shown has gone wanting.

    Not really anything to do with the issues seen in Haidong Gumdo, though, is it?

    What possible basis do you have for this paranoid line of thought, Bruce?

    Again, you were wrong, you were called on it, deal with it.

    Right. We're near the end, promise.

    No, we're saying that you're not backing up your claims. Not that you're wrong, but that you're not being relevant.

    Yeah... because you're posting things that seem to have no relevance to the questions you're being asked, and constantly avoid giving any actual evidence to back up your claims or counter our observations, other than deeply flawed reasoning (that Koreans don't think actual usage in combat has any bearing on combative usage...?).

    There was no blind-siding, Bruce. It was a fairly long post, yeah, and covered a fair bit, as I'd been offline for a day or so, but the bulk was asking you to back up the claims you've been making, or clarify things you'd said. Which you still haven't done.

    What? You mean your post that said that one poster (who hadn't read the thread), training in Haidong Gumdo, thinks it's a good sword system, was a good post, your next that told Ludde (for whom English isn't his first language, by the way) that you weren't going to "dumb down" your answers, while missing the actual problem with your posts that he was highlighting, and a short question to Bear, with myself answering (and correcting) your take on Ludde's query pretty quickly as well? Is that what you're talking about? Silence to those posts? Dude...

    Because nothing you've posted has countered us, provided evidence to your claims, or had relevance, yet you continue to tell us we're wrong, so we keep explaining what we mean. Give actual responses that have substance or evidence, and we might be able to move onto the next part of the discussion, but right now, you're not giving any reason for us to believe that there is any genuine historic Korean sword, or any practical usage of sword taught in Korean systems.

    No, we're on about the Japanese because you took this as an us-vs-them idea, and tried to build your own side by attacking the Japanese approaches... and got them rather badly wrong. But the most important thing is, even if you found a Japanese sword art that was terrible, that wouldn't make the Haidong Gumdo material shown good. It'd mean there were two terrible sword systems around.

    Bruce, you haven't given any evidence or argument for us to think this is the case. If you have some, present it. If not, though, claiming that our comments are inaccurate or uninformed is a bit rich... especially considering the comments you've made (which we have countered with sources, explanation, evidence, and more).

    Garbage. This persecution complex is ridiculous, Bruce. No-one in the entire thread has said anything of the kind, just that what has been shown as Korean sword is lacking in realism, and more. It's only been you that has taken this as "All Japanese arts are the real stuff, no-one else is any good!" I mean, Bear isn't a JSA practitioner... and I've corrected his mistakes on Japanese arts myself in the past. Thing is, though, when he's corrected, he is thankful for the better information, and learns from it. You just stick your fingers in your ears and shout.

    Garbage. For one thing, I don't know of any claims of any Chinese arts "stealing" any Japanese ones. As far as the rest, it's just more of your persecution complex coming out, really, without any real basis in anything said by anyone on the thread... other than you, of course.

    Bruce, the only person who has turned this into "Japan versus Korea" is you. I started by saying that, based on all "Korean sword" that I've seen, I would recommend a Japanese school if possible, and then advised Katori Shinto Ryu based on it's proximity to the OP, but that wasn't really about Korea versus Japan, especially not to the point that you've made it. It was, however, a comment on Japanese sword systems versus Korean sword systems, one that you have been given many opportunities to correct... and have failed to do so at all turns.

    What the hell are you going on about?
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  14. Titanium

    Titanium New Member

    By not saying it died out and stuff like that.
    Eh, It's not exactly direct but call it as you like.
    Its gone far from just critising details, they talk about the art as a whole, judging by some videos. peace.
    :hat:
     
  15. Chris Parker

    Chris Parker Valued Member

    Hmm, you can confirm this information because people who teach it say it's true? Even though there isn't any support for the idea of there being "Samurang" in Korea, the Hwarangdo being really just a youth group for nobility, rather than warriors ("flowering youth", I believe is the translation), and there not really being anything listed there that has any corroberrating evidence for much of the claims, all the way through to the idea that the current methods of Haidong Gumdo don't seem to pass what I would call a "litmus test" for historic authenticity, in the movement methods, the tactical approaches, the mechanics, or the weaponry used? You will forgive me if I take this as having the same weight as the idea of Tae Kwon Do being 2,000 years old as well, yeah?

    I'll put it this way. Bruce has spoken about most Korean sword he sees as being a poor representation of real Korean sword, so I'm going to put up a group of clips, and see what you (and Bruce) think of them, as well as putting down what I see in the clips themselves. Now, you don't have to agree with me about what's good or bad, but I'm interested to see where you'd be coming from.

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

    Right. Lots of dead swordsman...

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

    Here's something fun, one of the books Bruce referenced. From this clip, it's pretty obvious that it's a reconstruction, not a continued tradition. Some odd things, particularly around 2:09, but better than the previous.

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

    Right, I posted this one earlier, and again, there's a lot of poor tactical and mechanical flaws that would see the performer killed. Far less flashy than the first, but still far from realistic swordsmanship.

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

    Yeah... I hardly know where to start with this. This is really more baton twirling than swordsmanship, and has the combative application of attacking someone with pom-poms.

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

    Oh boy... Jerry again. This is an extended look at part of the clip in his site linked earlier, and again, the major problems all apply.

    I think five is enough to start with. As said, I'm curious as to whether the Korean sword practitioners can see any issues with these clips, and if so, what exactly? I'm also interested to see if Bruce can provide anything to show good sword (or what he considers good) from Korean systems.

    Okay, go!
     
  16. Dean Winchester

    Dean Winchester Valued Member

    That's not being disrespectful that is just working with the evidence people have seen.

    If there is other evidence to the contrary then that is good, you'll find a lot of us love to discover new systems.

    Personally I have just looked at the cutting presented in the clips and the comments presented by practioners of the Korean sword arts. That's why I've made no comment on the history.
     
  17. Dead_pool

    Dead_pool Spes mea in nihil Deus MAP 2017 Moi Award

    Im not sure whether its been mentioned here or not but the reason Bruce is so defensive is that one of the clips shown on here is his own:

    This You tube account:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/glad2bhere

    Uses the same logo as he does, and the name is the same as his ebudo account which also features his own real name.
     
  18. Titanium

    Titanium New Member

    I am currently on a mobile phone, I will tell you my opinion on the videos when I get home and will be able to watch them. Plus, I dunno if its mentioned above or not but HG is designed mostly for battlefiield and not 1vs1 combat.
     
  19. Bruce W Sims

    Bruce W Sims Banned Banned

    Thats quite a list of posts....and quite a series of comebacks in each post.

    What I am seeing is that you are asking questions and not seeing the answers.

    I also don't pick-up that you have any insight into how you are addressing Korean arts.

    To demonstrate this I returned the behavior and both Dean and Chris (and others) took exception.

    I can respond to further questions, if you like, but I cannot make you respect the answers. I don't have the power to MAKE you give credence to what I say. (Polar Bears post using three common and superficial resources is a good example.)

    At this point it would probably be worthwhile to ask what the point of further exchanges are.




    There is one point that I would like to address, however, and that is because I have addressed it a couple of times. That point has to do with the roll of books and manuals. As I write this I thoroughly resent what I am about to do. IMHO I do not believe that Japanese art are the defacto standard for MA around the World. However they seem to be what people here use.

    The roll of manuals and books in Korean swordwork is exactly what it is in the Japanese arts. Noone decent Jap. Swordsman would try to learn swordwork out of a book.

    There are scrolls....and nowadays books and clips and videos--- but every accomplished person of my acquaintance learned swordwork and then, often researched things by supplementing their work with reading and experimentation.

    I have listed my own teacher.

    I mentioned at least one other Korean system and ITS teachers and practitioners.

    I have listed the books that can be used for historical research and even mentioned resources for modern research.

    I have mentioned a current leading exponent of traditional Korean sword.

    I could probably give you a couple of current organizations as well.

    Now...... as I say....I have done this already. I have been asked for this informations a couple of times. I have furnished it and I am still being asked for it. So, again, I have to ask what the point is in my responding. What is the point of my responding?
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  20. Chris Parker

    Chris Parker Valued Member

    Thanks, I look forward to your take on them. I will say I'm not convinced about the "battlefield" line, for a couple of reasons, but I'll wait to hear your take on things first.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page