Japanese and Korean swordsmanship: compare and contrast

Just to beg your indulgence, Stuart, my comments as to what was or wasn't Korean or Japanese swordsmanship was really more just questioning the actual relevance of the examples shown... as well as Bruce's take on a few things. Honestly, I'm hoping that he'd actually answer my questions after his time off, and would take this as an opportunity for a new start with this, as he's mentioned in other threads that he reads into posts things that aren't there.

I think what you're referring to there is simply more to do with the simple physics of holding a sword... but when it comes to forms of guards, essentially you could group them in a range of ways, such as open guards, high guards, side guards, forward guards, and so on. While some are almost sure to be found in most systems, regardless of origin, some are a little more specialised, or might have similarities on a superficial level, but are quite different when you get down to it.

Say, here's an interesting thread on that topic: http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101693

While I'm neither Stuart nor Frodocious, I will say that perhaps your posts make sense to you as you know and can understand what you're referring to... but, I have to tell you, that really doesn't come through on this end. There's another good example of that coming up. I will also state that your posts really aren't clear, nor concise, and that has been remarked upon by a number of people. With regard to the post you're talking about, well, there were a number of issues as to why it wasn't really relevant... ranging from the fact that you were talking about "universal practices", when the topic is universal principles (quite a different thing), as well as the examples you chose suffering as from being rather poor examples... two were the same thing, one was almost the same, and the other you yourself said wasn't correct, accurate, or even using the right weapon.

So, while I don't think it was toxic or provocative, I did (personally) find it uninformative (with regards to the topic), obscure, obtuse, and non-productive. I did, however, seek clarification, as I still do. So, if you could kindly oblige me that, it could go a long way towards a new start.

No, you're not correct, really. Your identification was flawed and inaccurate, the practices really weren't different (especially the first two), and the thread isn't about identifying some universal "bits", it's for identifying universal principles... a way of identifying how to recognize authentic sword practices as opposed to inauthentic ones. The current thread on "Essential Batto..." is a good example to look to. There are a large range of universal principles missing from their displays, as well as a number of conflicting actions that go against such universal principles. So you missed what the aim of the thread is, and chose quite poorly of your examples and reasoning, frankly.

See above.

Then discuss it, Bruce. You've been asked repeatedly for such things, but haven't come up with anything, just vague references as seen here... so please, fill in the gaps. What are these various strategies, tactics, methods etc that are found in Korean sword? From there we can compare with other methods, and have a productive discussion.

Bruce, I really have to say, you've again completely missed answering the question.... the question is about the impact and usage of shields, and you don't mention them at all until the end... when you discuss a usage of shields that aren't paired with swords? You talk about a centerline, but haven't clarified what you mean by that precisely (I've heard the term used to refer to the centerline of the body, a line running straight down the middle of someone, or a line extending out from the person along that angle, which is the dominant line of attack, or the idea of a "centre" being the mid-way point between the two combatants... which do you refer to here?), then talk about two methods of "dominating the centerline"... the first of which is really not something that many sword systems would go in for, as it's pure brutishness, and the second being not really a way of dominating it, but more a way of moving around the opponents sword (which doesn't seem to necessarily have anything to do with a centerline, except by co-incidence and pragmatism, rather than a primary strategy. Your third point is just a reference to a book, saying that "any form of swordmanship...is going to be reduced to these simple facts". Uh.... what facts? The concepts you gave in points a and b? I don't know that I'd agree, nor class them as "facts" in the first place... this is what I am referring to when I say your posts might make sense to you, as you know what you're meaning when you talk about "these simple facts"... I don't have a clue what you're talking about, nor what J Christophe's book means in relation to any of this. You then follow that with a bizarre comment that these three points (one of which is basically "read this book"... hardly a point) show that the "resulting weapon of choice" is a Cavalry Saber.... how on earth did you get there? It's the only one good at "dominating the centerline"? Hell, the thing isn't even used with a shield, which is what you were supposed to be answering about!

In short, nothing you wrote really had anything to do with what you were asked, and very little of it really said much of anything at all....

Okay, what did you get out of it? Really, Bruce, can you give something to the discussion? What did you get out of it?

 

I'm splitting this from the "universal concepts" thread, as it appears that at least one person is interested in discussing this further.

To be clear, two threads on this topic have already been closed after descending into personal attack. We'll be keeping a close eye on this one as well. Further note that nobody involved is obliged to participate in this thread. If either of the involved parties (or anyone else) is ready to be done with this, that's fine. This thread exists only so that this particular discussion has some venue without derailing or causing the closing of the original thread on universal sword concepts.

Thanks everyone.

 

I'm fine with the split, Stuart, but... there wasn't anything about contrasting Japanese and Korean sword in that post. There was the recognition of Japanese methods as being Japanese methods, and there was a question as to what the Korean form really was, but that's it. That said, we'll see if it goes anywhere from here....

 

Yeah, well, after three runs at this topic, I'm running out of thread titles. If you have a preference, out with it. I'll change the title happily.

 

Couple of things I've noticed...me being an Korean stylist...is that there is a big distinction between how the two styles view sword practice. Bruce had brought it up on another thread there seems to be a higher level of respect or worship for lack of a better word toward the sword for the Japanese arts. Don't get me wrong the sword is highly respected in the Korean arts as well, but no more than any other weapon.

Secondly, is it a case of the Korean arts losing the connection with historic usage that others seem to think that the techniques have been lost, or is it a lack of understanding among the critics of the Korean style. Words such as over-cutting, off balance, and incorrect body position have been used in describing the flaws in the style pretty much universal among the critics.

For me I can only reflect on what I've been taught and I'm always looking for way's of improving my skill set, however I don't want to lose the the Korean flavor of my art in the process.

Thanks

Obe

 

Where these comments have been made (I assume after seeing video clips), do you disagree?

If so, could you describe what is, in fact, going on that people are mistaking for the "errors" you mentioned above? Are there specific reasons for the movements?

 

Well I guess I don't agree or disagree, I'm looking for some feed back as to how to improve on the examples provided. I see the same type techniques in my practice. No one has ever said to me that if I overextend in my cutting technique then I've left myself open for a counter strike, I certainly can see that could be a problem. If jumping, turning, and spinning the sword is not applicable in fighting situations then why is it part of the practice. The MYDBTJ(?) manual depicts these types of techniques in the sword exercises, so is it only for exercise? or is there a benefit for combat that is somehow missed?

We do have a prearrange sparring set that uses strikes and blocks that is different to the cutting Hyung that we do as far as "overcutting", however we don't don the kendo gear and free spar. How can one know if the techniques are useful if one does not pressure test them?

I just want to learn and any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

 

And just to be clear, OB, that classical material gets filtered to the benefit of the individual organization or style. For instance, the BON KUK GEOM BEOP chapter was never intended as a single long flowing form. It is, in fact a series of sword methods, each of which embodies a particular approach to swordwork.

The same goes for the Inside and Outside Turning Parries which are real sword methods but were never intended to be executed in the twirly "figure-8" manner that you see in a lot of demos. "Tiger in the Wood" and "Rising Sun" are both methods that have been abandoned by modern sword people because they never did the research behind these methods so as to understand whats being accomplished. Also they aren't flashy, so whats the point, right?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

I'm looking at the MYDBTJ and I'd have to disagree on the BON KUK GUM (Shilla Kingdom Sword) chapter. At the end of the chapter the Complete Illustrations of the Shilla Kingdom Sword Bon Kuk Gum Chong Do
sure looks like a hyung to me it shows the flow line between the positions in the illustrations. Now I think that the word "BEOP" which I think roughly translated means principles or methods then yea that's not a hyung.

What I see when I browse the pages is many of the techniques in our hyung and in Kuk Sool there are many different principles of the different styles in a particular Kuk Sool hyung. For instance there are some movements similar to the admirals sword as well as the short sword and the long sword in our straight and reverse sword hyung. If it is not based upon these writings then I'd be very surprised and it would be way to coincidental.

Please advise.

 

Being from the org I am a part of I am used to conflicting points of view.

The manual that Obewan refers to...is this an "official" manual, issued by some sort of governing body?

(edit: please forgive my total ignorance of Korean MA's and any associated politics, if any.)

 

Here is an article on the manual.

http://www.turtlepress.com/articles/muye_dobo_tongji.aspx

 

I'll go have a read!

 

You are absolutely 100% correct about those "flow lines", OB.

Now....do us both a favor.

Go to the KWON BEOP chapter of that book. Look at the end of the chapter. See the diagrams arranged with those same lines? Looks just like a HYUNG doesn't it? Fact is that those line were added much much later. Fact is, for instance, with the KWON BEOP material all 32 postures of the original system are not even there and the postures were re-ordered and reorganized after the fact. Fact is that when ennumerated there aren't any more than 19 of the original methods! Fact is that the methods that are suppose to be "paired work" were put together so the result would not be a "win" or a "lose" but a "stalemate" in order to cut-out violence proscribed by Neo-Confucianism!!. Its the same with all of those chapters. Ignorant people take those postures and they knit them together to form a form and then they call what they are doing "Traditional Korean Martial Arts". And the Koreans aren't the only ones who do it.

Not too many years ago a book hit the market on the "Qi" style of Chinese Boxing. Know where it came from? A Chinese family in the PRC took the pictures of the postures from the Boxing Canon (XIN XIAO SHI SHU; Chapter 14) and transitioned from one picture/posture to the next and called it Chinese Boxing!!

And people wonder why I have such a short temper about this stuff......

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

You musn't let debate wind you up!

Differences can just be due to misunderstandings.

Secret smile!

 

Well if that is correct then it lends the question when and why were they added? obviously someone thought it important to arrange them into patterns to aid in the development of the skills? and why is it so off the mark as to deem it not traditional? the movements are still the same no matter what the methods of displaying them is, right?

 

Exactly right, OB and thats what makes this sort of research so damn interesting to me. I continually and regularly find all sorts of things that just make me wonder at the material and its level of sophistication. At the same time, though Korea was a culture at "war" with itself and the results were terrible for its Martial traditions and history. For instance, just take a look at the KWON BEOP material.

General QI originally identified 32 ways of using the Human Body for unarmed combat. He borrowed these methods from about 16 Chinese traditions at the time (middle of the 16th Century). We know that the Koreans brought this training material into their culture in September 1593 at the behest of the Ming General Liu, T’ing. King Sunjo (1567-1608) established the HUNLYUN DOKAM ( Royal Military Training Agency). At the encouragement the Korean Prime Minister under King Sunjo (1567-1608), one Yu Song-Nyong, sought to reorganize the Korean army into a highly structured and versatile organization. His manual for this effort was the Jin Xiao Shin Shu or “Manual of New Military Tactics” written by General Qi, Ji Huang (1528-1588) and published in 1567. At the heart of this approach is a SOGO system, or "order of battle" in which 11-man squads under a TAE-CHONG or "squad leader" are grouped, three at a time, to form a KI ("platoon" or "banner") of 33 men under the leadership of a KI-CHONG. Three platoons come together to form a CHO (company of 99 under the leadership of a CHOGWAN, while five companies form the standard large unit---the SA or "battalion"----of 495 men under a PA-CHONG or battalion commander. This organizational approach continued to include specific responsibilities for each of the three squads of each platoon with one squad of 11 concerned with close-in fighting using edged weapons (SALSU), a second squad using archery for intermediate distances (SASU) and the third squad for gunners using muskets for long ranges (POSU).

Sorry.....got off on a tangent there. Back to KWON BEOP.

Of the 32 methods for using the body, the Koreans gradually winnowed-out roughly half or so. The methods that were left were reshuffled and reorganized to serve the whims of bureaucrats who were put in charge of the military from time to time. Each of these methods had a collection of fighting techniques organized around them. The method itself is usually NOT a technique of itself, but represents a way of using the body so as to develope a technique. If you ever have a chance to go to my website, I have identified about 16 of these methods in the KWON BEOP area there. Is any of this making any sense?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

So, from the other thread:

In Korean sword arts are you taught to never block with the cutting edge?

Just thinking about possible deformation and damage to the blade if you block with the side and damage to the back of the blade if a parry were carried out against some weapons and some attacks.

 

In Kuk Sool we actually do block with the cutting edge of the sword, I don't think we use a parry in the sense of say how it's done in fencing. Deflection using the cutting edge of the blade maybe could be called a parry, but I've not sparred other than pre arranged stuff so take it fir what it's worth.

 

Semantics are important in any discussion of the sword arts. A block means an immediate stop of the sword. In the Japanese sword arts, a block is always done with the cutting edge. Since the force of your block has to equal the force of their cut in order to stop the blade, it can bend your sword if done on the side, or will point your own cutting edge at you if done with the back (cutting yourself is always a bad idea with a sword! ). A block like this is considered a last resort though, since edge to edge contact can easily result in a chipped edge, and/or locked swords. Mostly, the Japanese arts, and those European arts that I've seen, use deflections to redirect the force of the opponent's cut, rather than stop it. Deflections are usually done with the flat or back of the sword, since it isn't necessary to absorb the energy of your opponent's cut, and you don't take a chance on ruining your edge.

Of course, there are always exceptions.

I've no idea how it's done in the Korean sword world though.

 

Agreed.

I was being sloppy by using parry/block interchangeably.

Glancing deflections at an angle can be ok. I'd certainly not fancy using the flat or back against a full on cut.

I was unsure if KMA was different though.