# Kuk Sool Sword Form?



## ImaJayhawk (Mar 3, 2005)

I was wondering if anyone knew the history of the straight sword form shown on this video.
http://hapkido.re.kr/hapkido/3388/movie_53.asf
  (3:56min into it)[9.75 Meg download....]
  It is pretty different from the sword form I've learned in Kuk Sool Won.  Looks like a Japanese draw?


  Jon


----------



## dohap (Mar 3, 2005)

Probably Kuk Sa Nim can answer this question.
The first form shown is  not looking like Japanese at all. Many movements are similar to Chinese straight sword.
The rest I cannot open  :idunno:


----------



## jkn75 (Mar 3, 2005)

Even though these guys are wearing Kuk Sool Won uniforms, the head master is In Sun Seo, who we KSW people know as Kuk Sa Nim's brother in Korea. He ran the Kido Hae (see the blue flag to the right). The Kido Hae was supposed to oversee Korean Traditional Martial Arts (there are lot of theories on what this org actually was and whether it was legit or just a shell) but then began to certify people in Hapkido, Kuk Sool, and other Korean Martial Marts. He has recently formed Han Min Jok Hapkido and split from KSW and the Kido Hae. There is a lot more to this story that I don't know and don't pretend to, but roughly this is what happened.

Plus, there are some differences in the Kuk Sool learned here and the Kuk Sool taught in Korea. However, most of those changes aren't quite the difference between our first sword form and the first shown in the video. 

I do have a few theories on where this form came from: 

1. There is Kuk Sool legend that there are 6 forms for each weapon. This could be one of the 6.
2. This is a master level form (one of the empty handed forms they did looked to be a higher level form that I've seen at demos). Even though it's first on the video doesn't mean that they learn it first.
3. In Sun Seo created a different form. The form  looks very similar to some of the forms from the Muye Dobo Tongji re-creation. It's been some time since I've seen this video but I think one of the forms was similar.

If you PM Master Rudy Timmerman, he is familiar with Kuk Sool and Korean martial arts and could shed some light on this as well. Additionally, there are a number of Hapkido masters (Bruce Sims comes to mind) that are well versed in some of the Korean sword methods and could shine some light as well.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 4, 2005)

Dear JKN75: 

A couple of things come to mind. 

One of the complaints that Gen Qi had with the Chinese Boxing of the 16th Century was that it had become too "flowery". He was pressed to train troops for real fighting and needed sound techniques that would work for his troops in battle. He wound up scavaging from 16 different arts to find a collection of 32 techniques he could teach his troops for practical fighting. 

The reason I mention this is that maybe we need to remember that not all forms are created with the same intent. At one end of the spectrum are esoteric breathing and range-of-motion kinds of forms that focus a lot on Ki and sound bodies. Taoist training might be good examples of this. On the other end are the combat forms which are essentially memory devices for helping people remember what to train in. Many of the Southern Chinese forms move in this direction.

Watching the film strip what I got was a portion of combat wrapped in a very heavy layer of conditioning, range of motion and spacial orientation. In the MYTBTJ there is a hyung in which the swordsman tosses his sword in the air and catches it. Its a matter of demonstrating how comfortable he is with the weapon that he can toss it, catch it and later spin it among his fingers. The suggestion is that if he is that comfortable with the weapon in complex maneuvers he should be able to really handle the simple things. In like manner the use of the inverted sword is not so much that a person would use a sword like that (although I suppose one could) but rather that if a person can move with such an awkward handhold, the more conventional hold should be a no-brainer. 

As far as the authenticity of these forms as representative of traditional sword hyung I think you can answer your own question by first examining the execution of the Japanese kata and then comparing the Japanese and the material in the film clip to known sword material such as the MYTBTJ or perhaps even the Northern Chinese Sword of Yang, Jwing-ming. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## jkn75 (Mar 4, 2005)

Master Sims,

Let me first clarify, I'm not saying that the form is invalid, poor, or non-traditionally Korean in any way. If  it came across that way, I apologize. It is just very different from most of the KSW forms I've seen. Actually, I like the form quite a bit. 

My purpose was to answer the question : where did this come from, it does not look like KSW? I was pointing out the possibilities of the source of the form. I pointed out the MYTBTJ because I have seen the book but also the re-creation videos that I linked in my first post. This form looks very similar to one the forms I remember seeing. The form, although it does look different from KSW, could still be Korean, although it may look like it came from somewhere else. 

I agree with you that there are different purposes in forms. I think that's one thing people forget. 

Thank you for the information about the Northeren Chinese sword, Yang, Jwing-ming.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 4, 2005)

Thanks for the clarification. 

".....My purpose was to answer the question : where did this come from, it does not look like KSW? I was pointing out the possibilities of the source of the form...." 

Makes perfect sense to me. I think my view was that there are just a few too many disparate parts to see the form as a single cohesive whole from a particular tradition. Here are some of the things I see. 

1.) In YON MU KWAN Hapkido the increment for a stance is just about a should-width. This extends into weapons work as well. In this way if you see a cut or thrust (with the exception of 'Kimase" or "horse stance") the stances are reasonably compact. The only time I see elongated or exaggerated stances is when the point is made to execute the technique over as great a range-of-motion as is possible. 

2.) The use of a "coiling" or "rotating" parry is very much misunderstood. Executed with a Ssang Soo it almost looks like one is working a boat oar. Ye-do such as the Chinese jian or dao, the circling is certainly tighter but is still a balance between the action of the wrist and that of the rest of the arm and shoulder (and by extension the hips). I don't know of any art that would use the sort of rapid wrist rotating method for the sword I saw in the clip. Once again, though, it would probably be more of an exercize rather than an actual combat technique. 

3.) Lastly most forms work to the side of their weapons strengthes. This is not bravado just simple logic. If you give a weapon to a person, you want them to know how to use the weapon's greatest assetts (say, length, or weight) rather than learn a lot of intricate or specialize motions. To teach a sabre one would expect a variety of cuts and slashes executed under different circumtances. If you are working a jian then the form would be chock full of thrusts under various circumstances. The form in the clip is far to irregular in trying to be all things, it seems. I get the feeling that someone put something together to represent their "idea" of what sword might be as opposed to what it actually is when used as a weapon.  FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## jkn75 (Mar 4, 2005)

Master Sims,

I think we are answering the same question but from a different perspective. I think I was trying to answer by naming the creator of the form (In Hyuk Suh, In Sun Seo or some other source) who put these particular movements together and then taught it to someone else. Whereas your answer concerns the traditions that went into the form regardless of the creator. That information is great BTW and actually a bit more compelling.


----------



## ImaJayhawk (Mar 4, 2005)

jkn75 said:
			
		

> I do have a few theories on where this form came from:
> 
> 1. There is Kuk Sool legend that there are 6 forms for each weapon. This could be one of the 6.
> 2. This is a master level form (one of the empty handed forms they did looked to be a higher level form that I've seen at demos). Even though it's first on the video doesn't mean that they learn it first.
> 3. In Sun Seo created a different form. The form  looks very similar to some of the forms from the Muye Dobo Tongji re-creation. It's been some time since I've seen this video but I think one of the forms was similar.


    I remember reading that there were 6 forms for each sword category in KSW so I looked up where I saw it.
 "There are six original sword forms for each of four categories--straight sword, inverted sword, long twin swords and short twin swords--for a total of 24 ancient Korean forms. Until now, only the first form of each has been taught in Kuk Sool Won. Sung Jin Suh is the first person, other than his father In Hyuk Suh, to know and eventually teach the second forms of each category." (The Kuk Sool Sword, by Jane Hallander--Taekwondo Times July 1995)
http://www.kuksoolbury.co.uk/articles/thekssword.pdf

  I've seen the second form demonstrated on DVD and that wasn't the second form.

 I noticed the high level forms and was wondering if In Sun Seo taught in a different order, or if he taught from an older syllabus.


----------



## ImaJayhawk (Mar 4, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Dear JKN75:
> The reason I mention this is that maybe we need to remember that not all forms are created with the same intent. At one end of the spectrum are esoteric breathing and range-of-motion kinds of forms that focus a lot on Ki and sound bodies. Taoist training might be good examples of this. On the other end are the combat forms which are essentially memory devices for helping people remember what to train in. Many of the Southern Chinese forms move in this direction.
> 
> Watching the film strip what I got was a portion of combat wrapped in a very heavy layer of conditioning, range of motion and spacial orientation. In the MYTBTJ there is a hyung in which the swordsman tosses his sword in the air and catches it. Its a matter of demonstrating how comfortable he is with the weapon that he can toss it, catch it and later spin it among his fingers. The suggestion is that if he is that comfortable with the weapon in complex maneuvers he should be able to really handle the simple things. In like manner the use of the inverted sword is not so much that a person would use a sword like that (although I suppose one could) but rather that if a person can move with such an awkward handhold, the more conventional hold should be a no-brainer.
> ...


  That is a very good point and one I hadn't tought of.  Thanks for your insight.


----------



## Kuk Sa Nim (Mar 4, 2005)

Greeting gentlemen,

From what I can tell, the whole video clip is pure "classic" KSW. The basics, KI exercises, self defense, flips, kicks, sword, dan bong and empty hand forms. The only variation/additions are the (cleaner) acrobatic kicks, and flips. 

As for the sword forms, the first one is NOT the basic Jang Gum Hyung (most commonly seen). The second one is the more familiar Yuk Gum Hyung. Now, there is a possibility that GM Seo may have modified or added another form, as GM Kim did with Han Mu Do. .......BUT, knowing GM Seo as I do, he is very old school and traditional, and I have a hard time seeing him changing any one of the forms or technique sets. With his extensive knowledge, he would certainly be someone who would know and teach more of the advanced techniques and forms.

Many martial art systems have more than one level of weapon sets. I know this is the case with Hwa Rang Do, Do Hap Sool and Sun Moo Do. Our system - Modern Farang Mu Sul® certainly does. The form on the tape is very nice. Very classical, but that is a hallmark of KSW.

The sword handling, cuts, thrusts, parries and transitions and the application of offensive vs defensive strategies is what I would be looking for, as far as rating this form. One of the greatest aspects of all our training is learning the (practical) applications of our training. I would think the person best suited to explain the applications as well as the purpose of the fundamentals, would be the person who created it. We are only left to interpret it. 

As I said, it looks like a nice form.

With brotherhood,
Grand Master De Alba


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 4, 2005)

Dear Folks: 

I hope nobody takes what I am about to say as challenging because no challenge is intent. I am honestly in need of understanding what is being said here because right now I am more than a little confused.  Maybe I'm not alone. 

".....I remember reading that there were 6 forms for each sword category in KSW so I looked up where I saw it.
"There are six original sword forms for each of four categories--straight sword, inverted sword, long twin swords and short twin swords--for a total of 24 ancient Korean forms. Until now, only the first form of each has been taught in Kuk Sool Won. Sung Jin Suh is the first person, other than his father In Hyuk Suh, to know and eventually teach the second forms of each category." (The Kuk Sool Sword, by Jane Hallander--Taekwondo Times July 1995)...." 

a.) Maybe there are six forms and maybe there are not. I honestly don't know. However, Kuk Sool Won is a modern take on the Korean martial arts much as were many other efforts to identify a martial tradition to bolster and enhance the need for national identity after WW II. What this means is that if there are 6 forms to each sword category it would only be because the Suh family organized it in this fashion. 

b.) To say that there are 24 "ancient forms" begs the need for validation from some historical authority or provenence. The suggestion is that these forms were uniquely Korean. If that is true I suggest that somebody come forward with something other than "'cuz my teacher said so." If the KSW sword material stems from a Chinese Boxing/sword tradition and thats what makes it "ancient" thats OK with me. But I think someone should come up front and state that clearly. If the Suh brothers who produced KSW borrowed their material I suggest that they give due acknowledgement to their sources. Mind that I have no problem with Sung Jin Suh being the first person to learn this second class of form. Apparently he  is learning it from his father. Now it remains to know where his father learned it. FWIW. Thoughts?  Anyone? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## ImaJayhawk (Mar 5, 2005)

"24 ancient Korean forms"

 When I read 24 ancient Korean forms I automatically assumed that it meant 24 forms created by In Hyuk Suh based on principles found in Korean sword at the time of his learning.  Where these principles originated I think makes for a good discussion, but I don't think anyone believes that these principles came about without any influence from China or Japan.



   As far as acknowledgement from KSW about where the principles originated fromI doubt that will ever happen.  I think it would be tough to try and track down where exactly a principle originated without being the one who took the Northern Chinese Sword and integrated its principles into a new form for example.  I think all these borrowings had already taken place when In Hyuk Suh first learned and what he learned was passed off as Korean Sword, how ancient they werethat I cant answer.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 5, 2005)

Good thoughts. I think you are right on the money. For myself, a lot of the research I do includes going back a bit and looking for material before it was modified in more modern times or for more modern purposes. The "coiling" I mentioned is a good example. 

The actual execution of the "coiling" method is a parrying move and often transitions into an immediate counter-strike. As you can imagine this movement requires quite a bit of skill and coordination, timing and focus to perform it correctly as a combat maneuver. What I have seen over and over again is the execution of this same method performed as a kind of "figure-eight" wrist roll holding the sword. Now, I won't argue the health or training benefits to the wrist and forearm in performing the maneuver this way, but I also need to see that someone is still teaching the combat application or we run the risk of the combat application being lost and leaving us only with the gymnastic. In the current attitudes toward KMA as Physical Education, or Competition, or Business, I think there is a desire to "sanitize" material so that the combat aspect is reduced and the martial arts elements are more "socially acceptable". By this I mean that most parents would balk at knowing their children were being taught to use a sword as a weapon rather than as some kind of sport like Kendo/Kumdo. Still, I think we are required to safeguard the heritage that we have been passed and even push back the curtains of the past where possible. 

Having said all of this perhaps we need to do a few things. 

a.) Approach the KSW people for a candid discussion of the origins of their material. I don't think we would be surprised to hear that Suh constructed things, but it would be insightful to know where he drew his material from. 

b.) Expand the investigation to include other groups who practice "ancient methods" such as the HwaRangDo folks. There are similarities between the KSW and HRD folks. Maybe they share common resources, yes? 

c.) Begin to modify the forms that are being done so that execution may reflect both art AND apllication. For instance. Maybe a form can be done in one variation as the training movement and in another as the actual combat execution. Another variance to this might be to perform the training forms as building up to the performance of a particular free form such as BON KUK GUM BUP, CHOSON SEBUP or SSANG SOO DO BO. In the Kum-Bup I practice we follow this last approach and it seems to work well. The HaeDong Gumdo people seem to do the same thing with a series of introductory forms leading to BON KUK GUM BUP. Maybe the KSW people might want to consider this. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## ImaJayhawk (Mar 6, 2005)

Kuk Sa Nim said:
			
		

> Greeting gentlemen,
> BUT, knowing GM Seo as I do, he is very old school and traditional, and I have a hard time seeing him changing any one of the forms or technique sets. With his extensive knowledge, he would certainly be someone who would know and teach more of the advanced techniques and forms.
> 
> Grand Master De Alba


 I've never had the oportunity to meet GM Seo. Everything I know about him is from what I've heard or read about. Thanks for your insight.

  Jon


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 6, 2005)

Dear Folks: 

"......BUT, knowing GM Seo as I do, he is very old school and traditional, and I have a hard time seeing him changing any one of the forms or technique sets. With his extensive knowledge, he would certainly be someone who would know and teach more of the advanced techniques and forms....." 

OK. Now here is the problem I have with that statement and it has nothing to do with the person making the report. 

IF----- GM Seo is "old school" and IF he is "traditional" and IF he has not modified anything, am I wrong to think that he would not share the origins of what it is that he does? I'm sorry, but this really just sets my teeth on edge.
And I don't want to get into some sort of rant, so just work with me on this for a moment. 

How many times have we in the KMA heard that someone "went into the mountains to train"?  How many times have we heard that someone went from "great teacher to great teacher, taking the best of everything he was taught". Or how about being taught "by an anonymous monk" or "by an anonymous wandering peddler". I am NOT saying this was altogether bad years ago. What I am saying is that these stories have outlived their usefulness. If we are going to nurture and safeguard Korean traditions that we practice we need some sound information about what we are safeguarding. Now let me give an example of a time when this was done rather painlessly. 

I will guess most people here know Joo Bang Lee of the World HwaRangDo Assn. Old people like me will remember a time when Lee made a big thing about being the 58 GM of the HwaRangDo. In time he has finally come around to owning that what he actually did was invoke the Hwarando to authenticate what it was that he put together. Now this took some guts to do this as he may have lost some romantic currency with folks who needed that sort of story to be true. But he also helped a lot of us by clearing up the fantasy and helping us to know the truth about how the modern Hapkido community came to be. As a result those of us who want to safeguard what we have been given have a better grasp of exactly what it is that we have been given. 

My sense is if Seo would come forward and say something like, "I reconstructed this material out of spare parts--- but those spare parts were authentic Peanut Butter Chuan Fa" we would have a lot better appreciation of what is being done. I, for my part would probably run right out and buy-up everything I could find on PB Chuan Fa just so I could get the take of original practitioners. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## jkn75 (Mar 6, 2005)

Master Sims,

Master In Sun Seo's bio can be found here.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 6, 2005)

Thank you for the information. Lets see if I can use this to make my point a bit clearer. 

"....1968 First in Korea to demonstrate with "Jin Gum"("real" or "actual" sword) ..." 

Now this tells me that he knew sword work but it does not tell me who he learned it from. So lets say that he learned it from a Chinese teacher and perhaps even make it more specific by saying that Chinese teacher was maybe just an Chinese ex-pat who knew some sword from being in the Chinese military. OK. Then what I could do is take a look at the training manuals of the Chinese miltary for a given time frame and gather insights into what GM Seo teaches. The same would be true of his first BB. 

The history reports that he got his 1st Dan from Yong Sul Choi. This helps a lot to understand the relationship between, say grappling techniques and kicking techniques of Choi and those of Seo. Does this start to pull things together a bit? 

The point that I am working to make is that it would be a real benefit to folks who want to understand KMA to know the sources and resources that we are dealing with. Simply saying that GM Seo knew something does not tell me how he came to know it, how much he came to know, what he came to know and how he felt about knowing it. If the Hapkido arts were just simple Physical Education I would say it was not that important. But the Hapkido arts are also an artifact of Korean martial history as well as a gift of the Korean culture. We need to know specifics to help us understand. Otherwise it is patently unfair to label westerners as not appreciative of Korean culture. Does this make sense? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Paul B (Mar 6, 2005)

Hi guys,

I first learned this sword form (poorly)last October at the seminar in Merrillville. It was completely different from what sword techniques I had been exposed to thus far,and I couldn't help feeling that it felt "Gung-Fu-ish". I don't mean that in a disrespectful and negative way,rather than refering to "flavor".

I am going to attend another seminar in May,and *possibly* another in July. I am going to see if I can ask where this form came from. I'll probably just get looked at weird,but I'm used to it. :lookie: 

Maybe Mr. Timmerman knows? It might be worth a shot,eh?


----------



## Paul B (Mar 6, 2005)

Sorry to double post. 

Just wanted to clarify that the sword form we worked on had movements from those forms on the video. The forms shown are not the same progression of movements in the forms we worked on.The sword rotation and resheath salutation came after the basic cutting form which is a part of the first sword form shown....whew. *I had to go back and look at some video of my own for that one....* :whip:


----------



## kwanjang (Mar 7, 2005)

Hello all:
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, but as Paul knows, I have been on the road doing seminars for the past few weeks.  Will be back on the road again in a few days to get to Jackson on time (to work on sword basics ironically lol).

I wa unable to open the movie, so I have NO idea what you are talking about.  I DO know this.  Master Suh Sung Jin learned  a whole lot of what he does from his uncle while they both lived in Korea.  I met SJS just after he moved to the US, and he spent a lot of time with me over the ensuing years.  Around '97, he began working on a "new" sword form that I had not seen used by ANY other Master up until then, so I DO know that he HAS been shown more material than the rest of us got (even though he and I were "classmates" in rank). The form was awesome, and I saw him practice it in my own Dojang whenever no one else was around.  Best I can do for you without seeing the movie.

Paul, it was nice twisting you up a bit at the Arnold Classics   Hope you had a safe trip back.  Please send me some of the pics you took if possible.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 7, 2005)

Thanks, Rudy. 

Did you ever get any hints as to what the origin of the material making up the form---or the form itself might be? 

Also, so as to not step on any toes, do you have any thoughts on what I am experiencing as a kind of need for secrecy about the origins of this material. This isn't the first time I have run into this and wonder if there is some reason folks play the origin of their material so close to the vest--- maybe some motive that is not readily apparent to those of us looking in from the outside?  Thoughts?  Comments? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## kwanjang (Mar 7, 2005)

Hello Bruce:
As you know, I have no love for GM Suh after my experience; however, I DO love the art and many of its practitioners.  Hence, I will only tell the truth as I know it, regardless of my feelings for GM Suh's business practices.

#1.  His son, Master Sung Jin Suh is one of the most accomplished martial artists I have ever known.  He is the product of both GM Suh and his earlier training with GM Seo.

#2.  I have personally seen the books GM Suh sometimes refers to; however, since they were written in Korean or Chinese, I could not ascertain the content other than that the drawings are martial art related.

#3.  From disussions with GM Suh, so far the only material he teaches to the outside world is from book one.  He had also said he would soon "open" book number two, but he was really concerned that this material would be stolen.  I can understand this position, because I now see a lot of Kuk Sool material in schools that teach something else.

#4.  I do NOT know from what source these books are, but I have seen some video reproductions of old 8mm film that depict Monks doing some of the forms we know in Kuk Sool; however, they seem to have lots more stuff after WE Kuk Sool practitioners are done with the form.  This leads me to believe that there is some truth to the assumption that there may be six forms to each of our weapons and empty hand forms.  I have also seen them perform MUCH more material like Rope techniques that we were not (yet???) shown.  Perhaps we will never be shown more

For example.  Most Kuk Sool people can perform Ssang Bang Hyung one and two, but the monk I saw perform these forms (as it was just one), kept on going and going like the energizer bunny.  This leads me to believe that the form indeed has more sections to it.  I can also tell you that Kicho hyung now has six parts, where it had only five parts when it was first introduced to us here in North America.

Last, the sword form I watched Sung Jin KJN practice in my dojang (we were VERY good friends and he felt perhaps comfortable enough to trust me watch him without trying to copy him.  BTW, I still consider him my friend even though he is forbidden to talk to me) is incredibly complex with some very acrobatic and athletic content.  For all intent and purposes, if I did not know he teaches Kuk Sool, I might have thought I was watching a Chinese Hyung.  Yet, having some fifty plus years of experience in the arts, I can readily see it is NOT totally Chinese.  It had a distinct flavor all of its own.

Well, that is about all I can tell you other than the fact that I do not believe the roots of these things will EVER be opened to the public.  IMHO, Korean people are just as guarded today to protect their material as they ever were.  It is US who want to know, and they simply don't care that we want to know.  To them it is enough that THEY know.  We just have to live with that, the same as people have to live with the fact that I will not disclose information that is important to ME.  We simply have to abide by the privacy ideas of individuals.  Me, I am happy enough to have learned as much as I have over the years


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 7, 2005)

No doubt about it, Rudy--- yer one of the good ones!!! Actually I think you said an awful lot with your last paragraph. 

"......Well, that is about all I can tell you other than the fact that I do not believe the roots of these things will EVER be opened to the public. IMHO, Korean people are just as guarded today to protect their material as they ever were. It is US who want to know, and they simply don't care that we want to know. To them it is enough that THEY know. We just have to live with that, the same as people have to live with the fact that I will not disclose information that is important to ME. We simply have to abide by the privacy ideas of individuals. Me, I am happy enough to have learned as much as I have over the years....." 

Maybe what I am taking for "secrecy" is less of a "secret" and more of a matter of privacy. In my own case I try to get as much information out to folks as I can uncover at any one time. Sometimes this stirs-up a hornets-nest and sometimes I get a "good post" in return. I wonder if I have given the idea that some folks are simply not as self-disclosing-- read also, "private people" ---- and have a right to their privacy. By extension they also have the right to share with others what they will share, when they want to share it and how, yes? I can live with that up until the point someone starts touting what they do as "more genuine" than others and then you have a pee-ing contest about who is the "most genuine". 

I also think you did a real service by affirming that what you saw had a "flavor" distinctly its own. I can speak to having seen the same thing but its a hard thing to explain to others. I know you will know what I mean when I say I have seen bits from Japan and China both done in "Korean Fashion" and there is something ther about the way it is executed that is similar yet different from wherever that original material came from, yes? 

Now, to turn the page over, we also have a problem. If there is an ultimate KMA "truth" and only one source for that truth we are in trouble, yes? What I see are two issues. 

a.) With only a single truth and only a single source for that truth is it not even more important that we know the foundations for that truth. I remember the Christian Church in Europe for centuries was identified as the holder of the "ultimate truth". What followed was an abuse of that power that took the Ages of the Reformation and The Enlightenment to solve. jealously guarding the foundation from prying eyes may safeguard it, but it also denies an alternate interpretation to the elements of the foundation. 

b.) Along these lines, even if the foundation material IS revealed, to reveal it only through a particular value system or belief system automatically disposes it towards being taken and used only in a select fashion. So its not just a matter of revealing the foundation material but also of doing so without putting a particular "spin" on it, right? 

One solution I might see is to simply identify the source material and leave people to do their own delving. For instance, we know that Tae-eui Wang and Hae Dong figured prominently in Seo's education. However we know little or nothing about these two individuals. Might it not be worthwhile to share information with folks? FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## kwanjang (Mar 7, 2005)

I hear ya Bruce:
As far as MA is concerned, I always try to share as much as I can.  My belief is simple.  If we don't share, we stand a good chance to lose it.  I can still remember when the Kuk Sool Masters (Family) used to fly to my place in one plane.  The GM just did not think what would happen to Kuk Sool is that plane went down.  Now I believe they travel different ways to ensure longevity of the art. In my case, I have had to speed up teaching and awarding rank to my students just because I am getting on in age.  If I don't, and I thank Geoff Booth for pointing that out to me in Jackson a few years back, I will take what my GM taught me to my grave.  No much good there, the devil has enough tricks up his sleeve lol.

On the other hand, I can understand guarding the art, because many folks will take it and make something else out of it.  Some just hate to see that happen to their art, and they won't take the chance.

While I am at it.  I just returned from the Arnold in Ohio, and I could not believe the apathy of people there.  I saw icons like Bill Wallace, who presented his seminar just before I did mine, with six people in his class.  considering that there were 110,000.00 people there, something is wrong.  The man has a lot to share, and he is not getting any younger either.  BTW, I had a blast swapping old time stories with him and Jim Harrisson.  Both of them still doing great, and that was good to see. 

I also saw Kathy Long in the next room with NOBODY in her class.  I guess I was fortunate to have a dozen or more in mine.  Imagine that... more people in a Hap Ki Do seminar than in the seminars of some of the best around.  Master Kang following me had TWO people in his class.  I cannot believe this.  I used to drive thousands of miles (still do lol) and crawl through broken glass to learn just one more technique or different application.  There is a difference in the make up of students these days, and I cannot put my handle on; but, it is NOT good.

Your comments on the Arnold (Paul, or anyone else who was there)???


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 7, 2005)

yeah--- I got a comment. 

Those folks must have had ROCKS in their heads. 

Had I known there was going to be THAT kind of line-up maybe I could have jacked-around with my schedule. "TWO PEOPLE FOR KATHY LONG???" What the heck is wrong with these people?? I don't know, Rudy, but maybe we are casting pearls before swine, ya' know? Can't believe that Bill Wallace will be at it too much longer with that kind of reception. Couldn't blame him for saying "the heck with these guys" and taking his wisdom into retirement with him.  If I remember correctly, I think this is what finally turned the page for Don Angier (Yanagi-ryu). That guy isn't getting any younger either and he is going to take a whole lot with him when he goes.  Sheesh. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Paul B (Mar 7, 2005)

Hi all,

I also thought it was a disgrace. There were teachers there whom I didn't see on the schedule I downloaded and if I had known were going to be there people would've had to beat me off with a stick.

A couple of them had their workshops cancelled before I even knew about them due to "lack of interest"...........jeesh. We're talking inheiritors of old traditional systems here,not Joe Shmo from Idaho. I think I just answered my own question..."old and traditional".

My early registration was lost in the mix,and when I filled out the on-site registration was informed..."Oh,Sorry...That workshop was cancelled." I think I am still a little shell-shocked from the explanation.


----------



## kwanjang (Mar 7, 2005)

Bruce:
Kathy had NOBODY.  I can't believe it with all those people around.  I can see where these folks will just not bother to come anymore with that kind of reception.  Six people for Bill Wallace, and two people for GM Kang (we pushed some in there from our HKD group to ease the pain).  Incredibly stupid for folks to pass up on the opportunities, or totally poor communication by the organizers... either way, I can imagine these presenters being totally Peed Off.


----------



## American HKD (Mar 14, 2005)

Greetings,

I'm reading this a little after the fact but I can't help feeling that it was sad,  but as good as Bill Walace and Kathy Long are they're no long the Flavor of the month in MA.

I'll bet the BJJ, MMA, Karav Maga, or Combat this & that were packed!

How's the saying go "We all get our 15 minutes of fame"


----------

