# The Sword in Hapkido



## Paul B (Mar 8, 2005)

In case nobody has figured it out by now....I'm a sword freak.:duel: 

I love any and all styles that deal with sharp,pointy objects made of steel and the applications thereof. Now that I've "outed" myself......What about the sword in Hapkido?

Now what I have been exposed to in my Hapkido are mainly forms done with a jukto against say..a dahn bong or forms done by yourself. I'm talking about sword on sword two man "cutting" forms. Do they exist in Hapkido? 

I am not talking about "imported" techniques,that's well and good,but were they part of Hapkido from the beginning? If they came from a Korean source in Hapkido not at the beginning...who brought them in and when and why?

If you write back and say.."Hey,we have forms!"..cool! Would you say they are forms based on the principles of Hapkido and just meant to expound on those principles or would you say they are more "battlefield"?

Thanks for taking a look.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 8, 2005)

Dear Paul: 

".....If you write back and say.."Hey,we have forms!"..cool! Would you say they are forms based on the principles of Hapkido and just meant to expound on those principles or would you say they are more "battlefield"?..." 

You are asking a deceptively difficult question. By this I mean that it is a whole lot easier to open this can of worms than it is to catalogue and type the worms that you find IN the can. If I work at answering your questions completely and fully I guarentee a post slightly longer than the King James Bible but only a fraction as exciting. So here are a couple of things to chew on. 

1.) The relationship between armed or "weapons" work and unarmed work in the Hapkido arts has been intertwined for centuries. I am not just talking about Korean MA but Japanese and Chinese arts as well. What you do with your MT hands is what you do with a weapon and vice versa. DRAJJ, Aikido, and a host of arts across Asia mix and match MT hand techniques with those same executions done while using an "intention amplifier" (aka: "weapon").

2.) In actuality, once you start talking about the Hapkido arts there isn't a point at which you are NOT talking about anything but "battlefield applications". Hapkido arts are a matter of deadly force. That simple fact does not change the attempts of people who try to clean up the art or sanitize the art so that it is more acceptable for teaching children, Yuppies, Weekend Warriors and Fantasy Buffs. You can make a Wol Do or a hyup do out of tin foil if thats what winds yer clock. The techniques themselves, though are simple, sound battlefield techniques intended to help a person triumph over another. 

3.) The Forms ("hyung") are teaching tools--- a Thesaurus for recalling and studying techniques. Nowadays we have the luxury of breaking techniques down into bite-sized bits. Put together a stance--a parry--a cut---and a recovery and you have a sword method. In days of old these methods just came in pre-packaged lots with fancy names like "white ape leaves the cave" and "advance and attack the thief". Folks who got good enough (read also "lived long enough") got a chance to take these pre-packaged bits apart and examine-- maybe even recombine them. Forms are just chains of methods put together to communicate a premise, or string of premises. 
People today are still studying BON KUK GUM BUP and CHOSON SEBUP both of which are hundreds of years old and went as far as to be exported to China and later re-imported back into Korean use (See: Wu Bei Zhi; Mao, Yuan-I; Chapter 84;  Ming Dyn.; reprinted 1988 by Peoples Physical Education Dept, Beijing, PRC.) Think of some MT Hand form like the Okinawa-Te "CHINTO" or "KU SHAN KU" and consider how many different techniques --- and applications of techniques are lurking in those two kata, yes? FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Kumbajah (Mar 9, 2005)

Not a scholar by any means but imho- 

This will probably make Bruce cringe  but - If you take a narrower view of Hapkido as stemming from DRAJJ, I would say very minimally. DRAJJ was started as a palace art. A way of defending yourself inside the palace. Although weapons were worn. The main emphasis was on defending against them.

If you look at Aikido - sister art to Hapkido, the sword work stems from other places and is used as something to practice against. I don't think anyone would say they study Aikido to learn the sword. There being other schools that focus on it exclusively. Its like saying you learn Judo to learn atemi. Its there but will only take you so far.

Brian


----------



## iron_ox (Mar 9, 2005)

Hello all,

According to the direct students of Hapkido's founder, Dojunim Choi, there was very little in the way of sword application that was taught.

There was sword defense and the understanding that the use of the hands in Hapkido is the same as if the hands were holding a sword - but there was very little in the way of sword work presented.

This thread really belongs in the Korean Atrs general category since non-Hapkido related sword information has already been posted.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 9, 2005)

Dear Brian: 

Can I split the difference with you?   


After going through Stanley Pranin's book of interviews it is readily apparent that Takeda was very accomplished as a swordsman (Ona Ha Itto-ryu). He also taught it to his students but not everyone got the benefit of this instruction or passed it along to the next generation. The DRAJJ of his son, Tokimune and by extension, Kondo still teaches the Itto-ryu. Practically every other branch of DRAJJ has let it go. I will go out on a limb and say that one could expect the same following the cane material.

An interesting point about the Aikido folks.....

Ueyshiba utilized bok-ken practice and even taught some to his students but the actual incoporation of sword and stick into Aikido has been infrequent at best. For instance, Mochizuchi was widely acclaimed for taking a Bu-Do approach to Aikido and incorporating from his weapon and Judo background. Saito taught both sword and stick and maybe even a little staff. The Saotome folks where I teach also do some bok-ken and stick work but have very little to say about whwere they get the material from. 

I bet we are going to see the same thing with the Choi tradition of the Hapkido arts. Some say Choi taught sword, some say cane, some say stick, some say all the above and some say none of the above. Tae Eui Wang probably taught sword as part and parcel of what he handed along to In Hyuk Suh and no doubt that their grandfather knew swordwork from his time in the palace guard. 9th Generation MEI HUA TANG LANG (Plum Blossom Praying Mantis) folks such as Yian Pin Jao and  Lin Pin Zhang undoubtedly brought sabre work along with them as they promoted that art. And, of course, there are the many other groups that likewise stirred the sword pot from one angle or another. For us as Hapkido practitioners the point becomes moot except to say that it casts a kind of cloud over Chois' own report. Afterall you can't say that you "mastered" everything a teacher had to teach and then not show up and teach--- well--- everything the teacher has to teach. Pretty safe bet that Choi didn't know "everything" and finding out what he really did know and when he knew is what makes the research healthy for the Hapkido arts. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## iron_ox (Mar 9, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> For us as Hapkido practitioners the point becomes moot except to say that it casts a kind of cloud over Chois' own report. Afterall you can't say that you "mastered" everything a teacher had to teach and then not show up and teach--- well--- everything the teacher has to teach. Pretty safe bet that Choi didn't know "everything" and finding out what he really did know and when he knew is what makes the research healthy for the Hapkido arts. FWIW.
> 
> Best Wishes,
> 
> Bruce



No reply.


----------



## Kumbajah (Mar 9, 2005)

To split the hair even further Ona Ha Itto-ryu is not part of DRAJJ. It is the Aizu clan Kenjutsu. Same clan different arts. Takeda was master of both. But I would call them separate paths. 

As for Choi the version I've heard that he enjoyed Kendo, but it wasn't part of Hapkido.


----------



## iron_ox (Mar 9, 2005)

Kumbajah said:
			
		

> To split the hair even further Ona Ha Itto-ryu is not part of DRAJJ. It is the Aizu clan Kenjutsu. Same clan different arts. Takeda was master of both. But I would call them separate paths.
> 
> As for Choi the version I've heard that he enjoyed Kendo, but it wasn't part of Hapkido.




Dojunim Choi taught use of the dan bong in conjunction with sword practice - most often with the use of the juk do - the split bamboo sword found in Gumdo.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 9, 2005)

Dear Brian: 

Bingo!!!  Right on the money!! And THAT my friend is where we need to really focus!!! Lets just take a look at what you just wrote. 

Takeda knew both the art that became DRAJJ AND he also knew OHIR, yes? Just because he knew them both does not mean he meant to meld them into a single approach, right?  But then he also taught stick/cane techniques did he mean to incorporate THOSE under the DRAJJ umbrella?  So far, noone has the last word on this. Some people do it and some people don't. Are Kondo's people right for doing it and the Kodokai  or Rppokai wrong for NOT doing it? 

Now how about Choi.... 

Choi brought something back from Japan. Maybe when he taught some people got a little stick thrown in. Or maybe Choi was curious about Kumdo and threw in some juk-to AND stick.Does that now become part of the Choi tradition? If some people teach stick and others don't is there a "right" and "wrong" here? What if one guy thinks the stick belongs and another says it doesn't so one tells his students about the stick and the other doesn't. Is one right and the other wrong?  What if one guy teaches stick and everybody else doesn't. The loner gets no end of grief until one day they find an old letter or something that says 'I, Choi, think stick is the quintessential Hapkido weapon."  Now what? Wanna make matters worse? The DRAJJ of Takeda had scrolls of the techniques. A scroll was given out with the cert or license. Not one person has a complete invariant curriculum of Hapkido as taught by Choi. Not one. Everbody has something but none of it matches up to people from other eras. Now What?

This stuff has been WAY TOO LONG over due. We needed to be talking about this person like this about 25 years ago--- like when he was still alive. I bet if folks had done a little less bowing and scraping and a lot more asking and answering we would be a heck of a lot farther along. The "lets-don't-rock-the-history-boat" people will be with us always and that approach has done us no good to date. Time for a different tack.  FWIW. 

BTW: Heres a free language lesson---

"You're being disrespectful" is Korean for "I don't know and your asking is making me feel uncomfortable".

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Kumbajah (Mar 9, 2005)

I don't see what the problem with is with exploring this stuff. For me at least it is entertainment more than anything. Its history, and their are many versions. Nothing will be definitive. People's ideas change throughout their lives so Choi of 40 is not the same as Choi before he died. Plus he's dead what does he care  Finding out that a human is fallible won't keep me from the dojang. 

So with what we are stuck with today---

Sword is different than the Dan Bong imo. My study of sword is almost nil. A tiny bit of Kendo. But other than the stepping, it doesn't seem to blend as well as Dan Bong.  Dan Bong does  the same strikes and locks just using the stick to facilitate them both. 

It may be my naiveté with both weapons. But if someone is using a dan bong it looks the same if they didn't have it. Similar with bong and cane only the strikes have shorter motion and the locks larger. (longer the stick shorter your hand has to travel for strikes, locks have to compensate for a longer fulcrum/more leverage.)

Sword the whole thing changes, more rigid, for lack of better way to describe it.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 9, 2005)

Dear Brian: 

Well, there are two ways I can think of right off the top of my head. 

1.) The museum in Yongsan (at the Military Academy) had some pretty nasty metal and wooden truncheons that a bit of dan bong work would make all but formidable. These same police weapons were taught at the Academy and there is a Police museum in Seoul where this is pretty much on display for everyone to research. 

2.) The idea of sword really depends on which architecture you are using. Ssang Soo Do (Long Sword) is probably a good case of where you'd be right. The Ye-do--- especial the single handed dao or gum--- even the Eurpoen  police sabre that was so popular into the 20th century might well use many of the biomechanics one might find with a stick. 

There is also one other point and that is the polearms. The Korean staff often had a square piece of metal on the end but were not always 6 and eight feet long. 48 inch sticks were also popular for crowd control and we still see this in the use of the "riot batons" modern police use for crowd control.  Just some assorted thoughts....

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## American HKD (Mar 9, 2005)

Greetings,

Hapkido has very little sword in it's curriculum, my first teacher Master Son teaches Kumdo when any of his students wants a real sword system.

Hapkido has a few strikes, blocks, and counters that's all, very basic.

Some Kwans may have expanded the basics, but it seems most HKD Masters who study sword in depth goes outside of HKD for instruction.


----------



## iron_ox (Mar 9, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Not one person has a complete invariant curriculum of Hapkido as taught by Choi. Not one. Everbody has something but none of it matches up to people from other eras.



  I have at least two curriculum from 3 decades apart, seperated by two continents, that are almost point for point the same.  



Stuart, a very accurate assessment.


----------



## Mike-IHF (Mar 9, 2005)

Interesting conversation,

To answer the original question, yes we use the sword alot. Both in forms, and in two man cutting techniques. Less in the forms. We focus more on actual attacks, and defenses of the sword. We call it Kumsul, not Kumdo. According to GM Chang the sword was taught by Choi. However regarding the Dang Bong. We do not use it at all. I will not say that Choi did not teach it, I was not there. From what I understand that weapon originated from the Bhuddist monks. They use to carry them around in the temples. Some ppl have told me that they use it in DRAJJ, but I have not yet seen it. All I know is that we do not use it. The only weapons we use are the sword, staff, and cane(straight cane). And we do also use belt techniques, but it's not a major part of our system. So it is a hard question. Some ppl use the sword, and not the Dang Bong. and some use the Dang Bong, and not the sword.


----------



## American HKD (Mar 9, 2005)

Mike-IHF said:
			
		

> Interesting conversation,
> 
> To answer the original question, yes we use the sword alot. Both in forms, and in two man cutting techniques. Less in the forms. We focus more on actual attacks, and defenses of the sword. We call it Kumsul, not Kumdo. According to GM Chang the sword was taught by Choi. However regarding the Dang Bong. We do not use it at all. I will not say that Choi did not teach it, I was not there. From what I understand that weapon originated from the Bhuddist monks. They use to carry them around in the temples. Some ppl have told me that they use it in DRAJJ, but I have not yet seen it. All I know is that we do not use it. The only weapons we use are the sword, staff, and cane(straight cane). And we do also use belt techniques, but it's not a major part of our system. So it is a hard question. Some ppl use the sword, and not the Dang Bong. and some use the Dang Bong, and not the sword.


Greetings,

True Hapkido sword tech. would be called Kum Sool.

HKD weapons are Dan bong (14 inch stick), 6ft staff, cruved cane, rope, knife, sword, and a couple of other special tech.. 

Master Chang never studied with Choi if I'm correct, you might have gotten alot of your tech throught the Aikido Master Chang incorporated in your system. The sword and 3/4 staff or Jo are very popular and highly developed in many Aikido schools.

Also there's no sword forms in Traditional HKD, where were your forms taken from or developed from?


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 9, 2005)

I am finding it curious that the use of the term "Hapkido" accepts a lenient or liberal interpretation when someone has a need for leniency

 and a tight, constricted interpretation when people need to exclude others. A tad self-serving if I do say so myself. 

For the flurry of posts and e-mails I have seen of late the tradition presented by Choi Yong Sul was quite liberal bordering on the eclectic. No documents, registration or set curriculum. He called it "yawara" and that was that. Now we have people who are coming along and find it convenient to put a tighter interpretation on the arts than one of the major practitioners did for himself. But the tightness of the definition doesn't seem to come from any substantial evidence but rather out of a need to be exclusionary. Well, if "Hapkido" was suppose to be so exclusionary would not this attitude have been imparted from the beginning? 

a.) Yong Sul Choi would be beholding to the designated heir to the Takeda line. Yong Sul Chois' students would all submitt to the authority of the DRAJJ. 

Don't want to be exclusionary? Fine I don't think Yong Sul Choi was and the behavior of his students supports this. So how about being a little more liberal in applying the definition? That way you don't have to send your money to Japan. However, 

b.) People get to use their take on things and those things are every bit as valid as whatever anyone else does. Unless somebody has it written down that THAT is NOT the way Choi wanted it.  Anyone? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 9, 2005)

Dear Stuart: 

".....True Hapkido sword tech. would be called Kum Sool.

Master Chang never studied with Choi if I'm correct, you might have gotten alot of your tech throught the Aikido Master Chang incorporated in your system.

Also there's no sword forms in Traditional HKD, where were your forms taken from or developed from?...." 

You may want to adjust your answer a bit. 

Actually "sword technique" is "Kum Bup" (lit. "Sword Method"). In order to produce a "method" a person masters a series of hyung each of which imparts a premise for the use of the sword.  Each Hyung is comprised of a series of movements or "sool". The misinterpretation comes when someone says they practice "Kum Sool" and mean "Kum Bup". It would be a little like saying that the sum total of playing Baseball is only swinging a bat or only fielding grounders. The activity of following the use of sword methods as a kind of avocation is called "Kum Do" (lit. "Way of the Sword") especially when referring to the use of biomechanics without the intention of imparting lethal force. 

As far as the existence of forms in Hapkido, the Hapkido I train in has forms for MT Hand as well as weapons. Sorry to hear about yours. Choi was presented with these forms by KS Myung and identified them as an acceptable expression of Hapkido training. So I guess everybody who is not using GM Myungs forms needs to make appointments with GM Myung to learn the "real" Hapkido, yes!?!      

Line forms to the right, folks.........................

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## American HKD (Mar 9, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Dear Stuart:
> 
> ".....True Hapkido sword tech. would be called Kum Sool.
> 
> ...


True not being from your Kwan I never learned any forms, MT or weapons. I have no desire to learn MT hand forms but sword might be interesting.

Intertesting thoughts that Myung set the hapkido standards for forms they never became universal in HKD?

Also why do you study other sword systems, what's different from the HKD stuff?


----------



## Paul B (Mar 9, 2005)

Wow...allright.

A couple of thoughts...

Ona Ha Itto Ryu is contained in some present day DRAJJ..that much we know for sure. Outside of that we have Aikido with its' Aiki Ken that only in modern times *after 1969..around April or so* has been codified and actually acknowledged as a distinct part of Aikido,with some Shihan actually awarding weapons certification. What does this mean as far as Takeda's teaching of his students in the sword?

When Choi supposedly trained with Takeda for so long,I wonder why it is that the sword isn't a major part of Hapkido,as it is in Aikido? Why don't we have a Hapki Gum? We know that Takeda was a master swordsman and was seldom,if ever,far from his blade. If someone was *that* close to him,I wonder about people for whom the sword didn't "rub off" on and why it isn't preserved in some of the teachings as part and parcel of Hapkido. It has been my experience that what weapons I *want* to learn,are rarely the weapons I'm actually learning..ya know?

By the way,Bruce...who do you train with from the ASU?


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 9, 2005)

".....True not being from your Kwan I never learned any forms, MT or weapons. I have no desire to learn MT hand forms but sword might be interesting.

Interesting thoughts that Myung set the hapkido standards for forms they never became universal in HKD?....." 

I can't say for sure but I would probably bet the answer lies in all of that political Jockeying that went on with Ji's break-away to start the Song Mu Kwan. Everyone was trying to be the defining KMA for the re-established Korean nation. Early TKD and TSD people caught flack for using Japanese kata. The Chinese influences were getting heat for being identified with the Communist peril across the northern border. Politics in the country were just insane. It was a crazy time and people made choices that we have to live with. 

I don't think Ji uses hyung, and I don't know about Moo-Woong Kim. Certainly In Hyuk Suh does and so does Joo Bang Lee. I have expanded on the forms that I do. I never really forgot the ones from Okinawa-te many years ago and I still practice the WHF hyung. Add to that the work I am doing on Chen Cannonfist to discern the hyung in the KWON BUP material of the MYTBTJ and a reasonably decent TAN TUI (12) and I have a decent catalog to draw on. 

".......Also why do you study other sword systems, what's different from the HKD stuff?..." 

What would you rather I studied-- BJJ? 

The curriculum for Hapkido is like the curriculum to any other art. You get the basics and then you learn to build on those basics. The teacher is there to guide you until you don't need them anymore. GM Myung introduced me to Kumdo in the YMK curriculum. Wasn't bad but its not actual sword as much as a place in the curriculum where a person can hang the sword material they gather. I was incredibly blessed to be accepted as a student to the sword master I have. Now, when I teach my students Korean sword it doesn't have to be warmed-over Kendo. 

I suppose that I could train in the sort of swordwork that the KSW people do, but why? My focus is on the MYTBTJ and that has enough to keep me busy for a life time. The only thing that really gripes my cookies is that people won't take time to learn Korean stuff but will fight like hell for the opportunity to insert some material from somewhere else. Whatsup about that? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 9, 2005)

"......By the way,Bruce...who do you train with from the ASU...." 

I didn't know that I did. Is there someone I am training with who is part of the ASU? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Paul B (Mar 9, 2005)

My mistake.."The Saotome folks where I teach...."

Tricky thing, that reading comp....


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 9, 2005)

Not to worry.... 

 But it did give me time to reflect on your Ona Ha Itto Ryu thought. 

The part about Choi I have been saying for a while. But there is another piece that is a bit more subtle----- kind of a "what if" question. 

Lets say that Choi actually learned every single thing that Takeda had to offer. Then lets say that Choi turns around in Korea and teaches EVERYTHING that he learned from Takeda, so that learning from Takeda would be like learning from Choi and vice versa. With me so far?  

Question: If Choi teaches the identical thing as Takeda, why would I want to learn from Choi when I could get the info directly from Takeda? Do you know what I mean? In my case, for instance, I am enamoured of the Korean culture. I study Korean martial arts because it reflects a way of looking at the world that synchs with me. So why would I want to learn Japanese material taught with a Korean flavor. Why not just learn the Japanese stuff? See what I mean? Ji and Kim and a lot of other people were doing what Koreans do best--- they endure; they overcome;  they improvise. The fact is that Choi didn't teach what was identical to Takeda. We don't know what he taught. But like any good evolutionary model Chois' stuff was different enough to allow for survival, and Kim and Ji after him, and Myung and Myong after them and so forth. So..... getting back to swordwork. If Choi learned OHIR from Takeda and taught the same to his students why wouldn't we just go to Japan and learn OHIR directly from the Japanese?  After all it IS their art, right? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Kumbajah (Mar 9, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Not to worry....
> 
> If Choi teaches the identical thing as Takeda, why would I want to learn from Choi when I could get the info directly from Takeda?



Maybe just location. More Hapkido Dojangs then DRAJJ. 




			
				glad2bhere said:
			
		

> So why would I want to learn Japanese material taught with a Korean flavor. Why not just learn the Japanese stuff?



Hey - That attitude will put alot of TKD out of dojangs out of Business.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 9, 2005)

Dear Brian: 

"....Maybe just location. More Hapkido Dojangs then DRAJJ...." 

Ah, but then what is it that we are really dealing with? If its a matter of location then what is being bought and sold is not authenticity but convenience, yes? For instance, what does it matter if I learn Chinese Kwan Dao, or the MYTBTJ "Wol-Do" material, right? And what about the sword stuff we are talking about? Does it really matter if the HDGD sword is a construction after 1963? Does it matter if I teach, say, Obata's SHINKENDO but tell all my students that its some exotic Korean Sword material? And how about the very popular ground-fighting that BJJ has to offer today? What if I start trickling a bit of BJJ into my YMK Hapkido a bit at a time and make like YMK Hapkido had it all along, right? If Choi did not teach exactly what he learned in Japan why do "I" have to teach exactly what MY teacher taught me? And do my students owe me anything in teaching ONLY what I teach them? Ya see my point? People are talking about consistency in a system characterized by variance. what is the practitioners' responsiblity--- to manage consistency, manage variance, keep my variance consistent or allow my consistency to vary!!   :idunno:  :idunno:  :idunno:  :mp5:  :idunno: 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Kumbajah (Mar 9, 2005)

This is why I mark to start of Hapkido with Ji. He took Choi's Yawara and added the different kicks, curved canes etc. If Choi taught exactly what he learned and Ji taught exactly what he learned from Choi I would call the art Choi Ryu AJJ or something similar. 

Arts evolve I may learn everything that you have to teach but may favor one aspect. If I start to teach my instruction will be differently emphasized. Without evolution there would be no gun defense, no defense against western boxing etc. So in my mind the evolution doesn't comes from adding the flavor of week MA but learning to defend against the flavor of the week. 

BJJ as an example - many more people are studying the art. Do you have to learn it? Maybe maybe not - but you do need to be familiar with the methodology so that you can defend against it. Ji's hapkido came into development when there were a lot Judoka so there is a lot defenses against the Judo grips and techniques. It still is based on the Hapki principles but using those principles to address the common threat. If caporea becomes the rage you will have to learn to defend against it. They come at weird angles. Not to say that your traditional training might be enough to pull you through but it would be prudent in my mind to at least have a couple of those kicks thrown at you in the dojang first. 

So to bring this back to the thread topic - this is where sword fits into hapkido. Being able to address the threat. 

2¢

B


----------



## American HKD (Mar 10, 2005)

Greetings,

My opinion is that if Choi didn't teach sword is because is was an irrelevant and out dated weapon by the time he learned from Takada, or or he simply didn't know it.

Kumdo seems like a good sword art nice forms, cutting practice, etc. to compliment Hapkido.

For me I rather practice just tech. rather than forms, sort of like you'd get in the Ninjitsu schools, but I'll agree HKD could use some more sword material for those who want to do it.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 10, 2005)

Dear Stuart: 

".....For me I rather practice just tech. rather than forms, sort of like you'd get in the Ninjitsu schools, but I'll agree HKD could use some more sword material for those who want to do it....." 

Then, just for fun....and building on your comment......

If we were to expand on the slim pickings in Choi's material to a more formalized sword curriculum--- and WITHIN the Hapkido arts---- what direction would you like to see things added. The reason I am wording it this way is that for the purposes of my question I want to rule out things like Shinkendo as a resource and limit ourselves to more orthodox material. 

Would you want to see more Chinese material? More Jian?  More Dao? 

Would you want to see more Japanese influence? More Kenjutsu?  More Kendo? 

Would you want to see more spontaneously generated material from Korea itself such as HDGD or ShinKumdo?

Would you want to see an expansion into other sword architectures such as the polearms?

All of the options I have mentioned are already available but we are talking about a very discrete aspect of the Hapkido arts-- the Choi tradition. How would you see expanding sword work regarding this particular Hapkido tradition? Thoughts? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Master Todd Miller (Mar 10, 2005)

DJN Choi taught enough sword to relate to empty hand technique.  It is my understanding that he prefered the short knife to the sword.  It is important to understand that the principles of sword & knife are the same.

Some of DJN Choi's senior students studied sword work more in depth.  The simple truth is that DJN Choi just was not as interested in sword work.  This takes nothing away from his skill as he knew enough to understand the techniques.  Another point to bring is the Jukdo(bamboo) and Mok Kum(wood) are both used very differently.  The Judo is used for hitting or tapping & the Mok Kum is used for cutting, slashing or stabbing.  When DJN Choi returned to Korea the resources of Korea had been seriously depleted this is probably why he used the Jukdo rather than the Mok Kum.  I have seen knife against sword in KMA.  The original dan bong that was used was a short Kumdo Jukdo.

My main point is that DJN Choi had a very good understanding of sword, dan bong, cane and the iron scrap(throwing knife).


----------



## American HKD (Mar 10, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Dear Stuart:
> 
> ".....For me I rather practice just tech. rather than forms, sort of like you'd get in the Ninjitsu schools, but I'll agree HKD could use some more sword material for those who want to do it....."
> 
> ...


Greetings,

I'm not a sword expert so my opinion would be somewhat limited, I did however study some ninjutsu sword and some HKD sword.

Ninja sword is learning the cuts, blocks, footwork, and then actual application, which is how HKD works with out forms so our arts train in a very similar fashion.

I do think the ninjutsu has more material to offer than HKD and I would like to see this kind of theme expanded on in HKD.


----------



## WilliamJ (Mar 10, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> ".......Also why do you study other sword systems, what's different from the HKD stuff?..."
> 
> What would you rather I studied-- BJJ?
> 
> ...


Trust me on this, there is no sword work in BJJ. :uhyeah: :jediduel:
You must be thinking of Brazilian Iaido.


----------



## American HKD (Mar 10, 2005)

WilliamJ said:
			
		

> Trust me on this, there is no sword work in BJJ. :uhyeah: :jediduel:
> You must be thinking of Brazilian Iaido.


Bruce likes to be a wise guy, so talking to him could be quite an expirience.

BTW I'd like BJJ sword material


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 10, 2005)

Oh. c'mon...... we could be on to something here. 

artyon: 

Brazilian Hapkido

artyon: 

The quickdraw sword material could include how to deploy a Butterfly Knife from out of your shorts---  just trying to think "outa the box" %-} 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## WilliamJ (Mar 10, 2005)

All Brazilian techniques must work for thongs as well as shorts.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 10, 2005)

WilliamJ said:
			
		

> All Brazilian techniques must work for thongs as well as shorts.


 :rofl:


----------



## American HKD (Mar 10, 2005)

Greetings,

Brazilian Hapkido

That would be the worlds best style don't ya think with ninjutsu sword tech.?


----------



## iron_ox (Mar 10, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> As far as the existence of forms in Hapkido, the Hapkido I train in has forms for MT Hand as well as weapons. Sorry to hear about yours. Choi was presented with these forms by KS Myung and identified them as an acceptable expression of Hapkido training. So I guess everybody who is not using GM Myungs forms needs to make appointments with GM Myung to learn the "real" Hapkido, yes!?!
> 
> Line forms to the right, folks.........................
> 
> ...



Can you please enlighten us as to *exactly* when this _"presentation" _ took place?  I am sure that the historians out there would like to have the inclusion of hyung as form training aids documented in a time line.


----------



## American HKD (Mar 10, 2005)

Greetings

Kevin don't you know B.S. when you hear it?

Myung's published Hapkido history is a joke, he also says he considers Choi his teacher, yet all his high dan ranks are from Ji Han Jae and a a young instructor he was part of Ji's Sung Mu Kwan.

Where's his rank directly from Choi???

Lets get real!!!

:flame:


----------



## iron_ox (Mar 10, 2005)

Hello Stuart,

In all fairness, Bruce has stated a point of fact.  All of us knowing how fastidious he is with documented information, and fortunately for us not the anecdotal kind, I am still very curious.

Since the sign outside my dojang says "Hapkido" I want to ensure that I am teaching the complete art - if hyungs were in fact presented to Dojunim Choi, I want to know when, and at what venue so that I can try to assertain why I have not been taught these important elements.  (And why no one outside that particular organization has them either...)


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 10, 2005)

Dear Stuart: 

".....Myung's published Hapkido history is a joke, he also says he considers Choi his teacher, yet all his high dan ranks are from Ji Han Jae and a a young instructor he was part of Ji's Sung Mu Kwan...." 

But that is why I used that particular example, yes? One can say the same of the breathing (dan jeon breathing), the cane, the stick, the uniform, use of ranks--- pretty much whatever area one wants to grab the Hapkido arts. And I have not even brought up the wide variance between the Kwon Bup, the Ship Pal Gwe, The Kuk Sool Won, the Hwa Rang Do, the Han Pul etc etc regarding the forms that they do and why all of them are different from each other. Even the sword form BON KUK GUM BUP has no less than 6 variations that I have found to date and thats something of a standard by which other material is measured. And thats what brings us back around to the manner in which the term "Hapkido" is used or interpreted. So far my Lifes' experience with Hapkido suggests that the interpretation needs to be global, but the practice needs to be traditional and that is the Path I follow. Other peoples mileage may vary......   

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## iron_ox (Mar 10, 2005)

American HKD said:
			
		

> Greetings
> 
> Kevin don't you know B.S. when you hear it?
> 
> ...



Hello Stuart,

I hear the crickets chirping..... :ultracool


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 10, 2005)

*Moderator's note:
*
 Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

 Georgia Ketchmark
 MT Moderator


----------



## American HKD (Mar 10, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Dear Stuart:
> 
> ".....Myung's published Hapkido history is a joke, he also says he considers Choi his teacher, yet all his high dan ranks are from Ji Han Jae and a a young instructor he was part of Ji's Sung Mu Kwan...."
> 
> ...


Bruce,

You commented that Choi somehow approved HS Myungs material as "True Hapkido Tech" even though the material came from outside of Choi's teachings (Kumdo) Hyungs, MT Hand Hyungs, etc. 

All I'm refering to, is where and how can you reconcile your statement as HARD AND FAST FACTS, when as a point of accuracy Myung is known to portray fiction as real facts. 

Moreover not to single you out but the same is true with the KSW and HRD people and thier ficticious historys.

I believe Hapkido to be the most histically accurate in it's portrail of where our system came from. Ji Han Jae totally recognizes Choi's connection to a Japanese Yawara system, no mysterious monks or chinese secret influences or secret moutain trainning.

Keeping it real is what I perfer.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 10, 2005)

Dear Stuart: 

All I can say is that you are preaching to the choir!! 

Have you noticed that I take no issue with anything you are saying? 
Somewhere along the line we need to start learning from our mistakes. 
Let me use myself. 

Everybody with any awareness of Hapkido at all know what a penchant I have for documentation and facts. And even with that penchant all one has to say is, "I don't accept that fact or proof". I used my example of the Hyungs because we both know that variance and construction are characteristic if not rife in the Hapkido arts. Every person including myself who has practiced Hapkido has introduced variance to a greater or lesser degree. Every single person. Not one excption that I know of. The rest of it is all rationalization. Just go down the line. 

Choi Yong Sul varied from what he learned in Japan BUT he could do that because he started a NEW art. 

Ji Han Jae, Kim Moo Woong, Lee Joo Bang, Suh In Hyuk all introduced variance but that was because they introduced a NEW art, yes? 

Scads of people introduce variance but thats because they have started a NEW organization or a NEW Kwan. And the conflict is actually very simple: 

1,) Person A claims the moral high ground as NOT having varied while 

2.) Proving that OTHER people HAVE varied. 

There is also a secondary interpretation: 

1.) Person A will justify their variance as acceptable while 

2.) Demonstarting how another persons' variance CANNOT be justified. 

And people would rather play this game over and over again, generation over generation than admit that variance is a part of what we do to grow and that tolerance and acceptance of that variance is necessary to maintain the Hwa. And this continues because people WANT it this way. They WANT the conflict. They LOOK for the conflict.  Its not healthy, or realistic or even rational. It is, however, the way that people want it. 

You are preaching to the Choir, Stuart. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Kumbajah (Mar 10, 2005)

American HKD said:
			
		

> I believe Hapkido to be the most histically accurate in it's portrail of where our system came from. Ji Han Jae totally recognizes Choi's connection to a Japanese Yawara system, no mysterious monks or chinese secret influences or secret moutain trainning.
> 
> Keeping it real is what I perfer.



In all fairness - Taoist Lee and Grandma - not really well documented figures from Ji.

If you are going to "keep it real" - keep it real.

Brian


----------



## American HKD (Mar 10, 2005)

Kumbajah said:
			
		

> In all fairness - Taoist Lee and Grandma - not really well documented figures from Ji.
> 
> If you are going to "keep it real" - keep it real.
> 
> Brian


Brian

I can't account for those influences in Doju Ji life, but there's no reason to doubt him either.

Ji's credability is in tact, he is not known to make up tall tales about his life and his history is quite varifiable.

I had a very close physic friend for many years who was quite influencial in my life, my carreer, my wife, etc. I can't prove to you how those expiriences helped me, never the less they did.

So when Ji say's he was spritually influenced by a old women he called grandma, I must respect that.

He also claims to have learned kicking and staff from a man he called Taoist Lee I also believe that, they are the very tech. you and I practice today.


----------



## Master Todd Miller (Mar 10, 2005)

_variance is a part of what we do to grow and that tolerance and acceptance of that variance is necessary to maintain the Hwa._

Variance is fine, the problem I have is when those that decide to vary from what they originally learned had very little training with the Founder Choi, Yong Sul!  

Tolerance is a good thing but there is also a time when we should not tolerate lies and unethical behavior. 


Harmony is there for those that choose it for their lives.  This does not mean that one has to agree with every single line of bull that is thrown into the Hapkido world!


----------



## American HKD (Mar 10, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Dear Stuart:
> 
> All I can say is that you are preaching to the choir!!
> 
> ...


I guess your right about playing the same game over and over again.

I suppose everyone is going to have thier own little piece of the Hapkido pie no matter what.

If I understand you correctly your saying is we should (Respect any and all view points about HKD no matter how far off base they may be)

Don't you think that liberal approach may be doing a grave dis-service to Hapkido and the founders?


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 10, 2005)

Dear Stuart: 

*".....If I understand you correctly your saying is we should (Respect any and all view points about HKD no matter how far off base they may be)

Don't you think that liberal approach may be doing a grave dis-service to Hapkido and the founders?...." * 

In a word "no", because its not WHAT we are doing, its the WAY that we are doing it, that makes the difference. Please let me take your statesments cited above one at a time.

*"....If I understand you correctly your saying is we should (Respect any and all view points about HKD no matter how far off base they may be)....." * 

No. What I am saying is quit pretending that there is some one single right way and then tout that way as THE way and bang on everyone else who doesn't do it THAT way. Quit pretending that each and every person who has lead in Hapkido adhered to some absolute, inviolate curriculum. There is simply no evidence for it. Certainly there will be fringe elements who want to add too much variance and they will find themselves marginalized by most practitioners who are within a general range. These will be people who want to mix in this and that but still call what they do "Hapkido". The rest of the Hapkido population will remain within a range of material with some variance. 

*".....Don't you think that liberal approach may be doing a grave dis-service to Hapkido and the founders?...." * 

But that is exactly my point. I didn't introduce this concept. If you look at every single person including Choi himself-- both before Choi and after Choi--- the behavior has always been to allow for variance. We TALK about NOT having variance--- and we beat-up on people who suggest variance-- but in actual practice each practitioner introduces variance. Some people merge curriculum when they join an organization. Some people actually drop their own (or greatly reduce) curriculum when they move to another teacher. The variance is ther and lets not pretend it isn't is all I'm saying. Where we go off the deep end is when someone does not learn the original material themselves and right away starts mixing and matching material--- but still calling it Hapkido.  Different situation. ICHF is probably the best example of this over time. 

Now our past leaders have given us some things to work on. For some of our teachers there is inclusion of Taoist breathing, swordwork, sticks, rope and MT Hand. Some people have some, all or none of these. What is given into our hands to make better, we make better. If Hapkido for your teacher or your kwan or your organization is "building kid's swing sets" then you search to identify the best possible approach for turning out the best possible swing-sets, yes? 

In my own case Dojunim Kim says "I teach what Dojunim Choi taught me." Thats it. Thats what he does. That and "wear your uniform everyday." That and "each attack is a problem to be solved". The Kwan I belong to (Yon Mu Kwan) tells me I am mandated to polish each of these things I have just reported using the Four Pillars. And this is Hapkido for me. Not for Choi. Not for Ji. Not for Rosenberg.  For me.  FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## American HKD (Mar 10, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Dear Stuart:
> 
> *".....If I understand you correctly your saying is we should (Respect any and all view points about HKD no matter how far off base they may be)*
> 
> ...


Greetings

I can agree with variances such as the differences between,

Sin Moo, Yon Moo Kwan, Jung Ki kwan, Jin Pal, WHA, KHF Kwans, and other along those lines, because in actuallity we are from the same source with only minor differences.

The far out systems that allow for any such deviations that actually alters the Art into some else or major deviations that become unrecognizable as HKD is beyong my tolerance level.

Back to the sword ideas which started this divergence.

What would be acceptable sword tech in Hapkido, I don't personally know?


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 10, 2005)

As far as I can see we already have it, except that some people do more of it than others. Some people don't do any swordwork whatsoever. Some use a juk-to and some a muk-kum. others have moved to jin gum and still others have moved that up to yet other edged weapons. Personally I think the conflict comes in when somebody Z rank or status finds themselves in the presence of an individual of "lesser status" who knows more. Intellectually its not suppose to be like that, but often turns out that way. But rather than say "hhhmmm thats a productive contribution to the art" the usual response is "oh that stuff is unnecessary crap" or "not too worry about that because GM "F" never taught that". 

Now if we slipped from the philosophical to the concrete, I would lay Korean sword out in this fashion. 

12 cuts

12 parries

8 stances

8 kinds of footwork

8 One-man Forms

8 Two-man Forms

8 Kinds of Cutting

One-step Engagement. All this is done with a Ye-do. After that you are on to the other four sword architectures. 

Taken as a separate art you are looking at 2nd BB in about 5 years and every bit of it relates directly to everything the typical Hapkido person learns in MT Hand. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Paul B (Mar 10, 2005)

Just a thought to add..

For all of you that had an involuntary twitch when you read 2nd BB in 5 yrs. .........Breath.......

When learning the sword as a separate art,it needs to be said that it is not really comparable to a typical MT hand class. It is grueling,sadistic(lol) and extremely frustrating,as there is literally zero margin for error. As a necessary result,training is repetitious and microscopically detailed to say the least. Most people don't like learning a traditional sword system for these very reasons. 

I wonder how many people would really appreciate an introduction of such swordwork into their Hapkido? *just to play the devil's advocate*:lookie:


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 11, 2005)

Dear Paul: 

"......For all of you that had an involuntary twitch when you read 2nd BB in 5 yrs. .........Breath........." 

Not to diminish your comment in any way. I just want to say something here. 
In the Hapkido arts, what goes on in the schools and the Kwans is just a start and I think this piece gets lost a lot of the time. Going to a class and doing what the teacher says gives you an opportunity to get something going with yourself. In my own case I could have stopped with the sword GM Myung taught me. Nobody said I had to go farther. Myung got my feet pointed in a direction, but I was the one who elected to keep walking. Different people are attracted to different things. We are talking about sword here and thats a passion of mine. Were we talking about cane or stick or staff I bet other people would chime in and I would probably be less interested. Its the same with Hapkido groundwork. Hapkido HAS groundwork. Its a handful of techniques and little more. If a person finds this interesting maybe they do more with it on their own but thats on them. Hapkido gives the basic introduction and the individual builds from there. 

So, if we have Hapkido providing basic Kum-Bup, thats fine. For me I think we need more of it, but as it stands there is a basic introduction to how to hold the sword, move with it and maybe even cut something.Hapkido shows us the door, and how to open it, maybe even holds our hand as we walk through it. From that point on how far we take it and in what direction is up to us, yes?   FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## ajs1976 (Mar 11, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> Hapkido HAS groundwork. Its a handful of techniques and little more. If a person finds this interesting maybe they do more with it on their own but thats on them. Hapkido gives the basic introduction and the individual builds from there.


If a person starts exploring their interests deeper then what hapkido presents, at what point does it start corrupting their hapkido? Or is this only a concern when someone starts teaching these new methods / techniques as Hapkido?


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 11, 2005)

Dear Andy: 

Here's how I make that distinction.

a.) What my teacher passes to me is the art of Hapkido

b.) What I do with this is "my Hapkido". 

Now I am standing at a crossroads. 

I can a.) teach only what my teacher taught me. This is the safe Path. I can always use 'well, thats what I was taught" to explain any questions someone might pose. 

I can b.) teach "my Hapkido" and include the variances. Arguably this is the tougher Path because everybody with a belly-button is going to make me justify this decision 9-ways from Sunday. 

This is where most of the chaos in the Hapkido community comes from. People introduce variance to what they were taught and either criticize other people for doing the same thing (while justifying their own behavior) or DON'T introduce change and criticize others for introducing change. 

For me, the process is relatively simple. I teach what my teacher taught me, and then I build on that. Its what I have been told to do and its what I do. The ONLY difference is that before a person starts "adding" or "building" they need to decide that Hapkido is the center-structure of what they want. Don't take bits of Hapkido, Judo, Aikido and Karate, whip them together and still call it Hapkido. In my case, Hapkido has sword. I teach more sword than my teacher taught me. For someone like, say, Bong Soo Han, he teaches Hapkido but he puts more emphasis on the kicking than most people and Choi ever did. For Jeff Allen, he practices Hapkido but he puts more emphasis on an Aikido-like approach (just using an example--- I really don't know exactly what Jeff does; I'm just trying to make a point.) Do all of these examples still abide by the Three Pillars? Do they share common ancestry? Do they share an overall approach to accomplishing a goal? *THIS IS WHY I keep making such a thing about looking at Hapkido the way it IS and not the way we would like it to be!* _This is why I think we are better served by looking at how we are the same rather than beating on each other for our differences_. This is no different than any other martial art in the world. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## howard (Mar 11, 2005)

Hi Paul,



			
				Paul B said:
			
		

> ...training is repetitious and microscopically detailed to say the least. Most people don't like learning a traditional sword system for these very reasons...*:lookie:


Most also don't like hapkido training for these very reasons. :lookie:


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 11, 2005)

Dear Howard: 

And you may not realize it but you are speaking to the heart of the matter. 

Hapkido is what it is. 

Its hard work. Its no frills. Just like Buddhism people are constantly trying to make the Hapkido arts "prettier", softer, more appealing or just "something else" because in its natural practice it is a nasty, tough way to live ones' life that can produce nasty tough results. Most of us will never have to see this side of it, so we practice the art over and over again for the results it has on developing our character rather than our fighting skills. However, this is the RESULT of the art and not the art itself. The art itself is what it is and people want to repackage it to make it more saleable, desireable or more appropriate in modern society. 

Now--- after you strip away all the dewey-eyed hero-worship, the exotic talk of "Ki developement", rank and standing, organizations, political wrangling and revenue generation, you are STILL going to have to face the fact that Hapkido is a rough, no frills, tough and nasty way to live ones' life that produces tough and nasty results. And all the nunchukas, Japanese terminology, fancy uniforms and political affiliation are not going to change that. Hapkido is NOT for everybody and thats just the plain facts. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## American HKD (Mar 11, 2005)

Greetings,

Bruce how come your making some sense in your last couple of posts, are you taking some new vitamins?  

I agree with some important facts Bruce laid out,

1. Hapkido has very good foundational material (ground included) what each person wants to do with it is up to them (i.e. specialize).

Example: BJJ took exisiting Judo material and expanded on it, however they unfortunatly left out other aspects of MA in doing so.

2. Hapkido has Baisic sword skills, how far do you want to take them is up to you. 

For me so far I elected not to do much sword work and perfer sticks, staffs, and canes.

We are lucky to train in a very compete system and I believe it's all there for the taking.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 11, 2005)

Dear Stuart: 

Up until just a little while ago I was making a very strong effort to make sure people would "understand". The more I was told they didn't understand the harder I worked to explain myself. It got into a vicious cycle. I would explain, and they would say they didn't understand. So I would explain harder and they would indicate more strenuously that they didn't understand etc etc etc. I guess I have fallen under the spell of the Lenten Season and Given-up explaining myself for Lent.   

The Hapkido arts are going to stand or fall apart on their own merit. People are going to understand or not understand based on their own motives, goals and abilities. Its not that I don't care. Its just that Life is too short. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Paul B (Mar 11, 2005)

howard said:
			
		

> Hi Paul,
> 
> 
> Most also don't like hapkido training for these very reasons. :lookie:


LOL!...I was thinking "Now somebody's going to say this about Hapkido,too"as I typed it. I would also add a qualifier...*at a good Dojang*  

Good stuff all around. We have a choice to go forward and dig deeper or stay with a smattering of techniques,sounds about right. Thanks guys.


----------

