Check out this sword kata...

[pgsmith]

Thanks for that context. btw, I hope you understand that I wasn't accusing you of elitism.

No problems! I've had my own wrestling bouts with elitism, and have come to the conclusion that I'm just not able to get around some of it. So, I've had people call me an elitist snob and I haven't been able to mount any sort of defense. Such is life, and a price that I'm willing to pay.

I've had an instructor say it should be not like watching paint dry, but rather like watching dry paint.

That's about true. That's one of those things that seperates the experienced from the newer practitioners I think. The more experience you get, the more time you are able to spend doing a kata repetetively just working to fix a single movement of it. Still doesn't make watching it for any length of time any better though.

 

[soul_sword34]

My instructor told me something about the difference between the Japanese/Korean philosophies I will never forget. The Japanese sought to refine all techniques to it's most basic and simple element. To kill with one stroke. The Korean strategy was to maim or wound and leave that soldier/warrior on the battle field. In this way it took more soldiers to carry that one, reducing the numbers available on the field. In Gumdo the Chiburi motion looks fancy but has a purpose, In Iai the sword is brought up around and down sharply, in Gumdo it is the same, some forms in Gumdo also require a reverse motion to the sword on the final Chiburi, a "twirly" movement clockwise, which honestly removes more blood than the first "blood flick". Studying the Bunkai of Gumdo can reveal much about form and function. I watched that first video and I saw no application, expecially the armpit thing...LOL!!!! Can someone expand on that?

 

[Charles Mahan]

That sounds like a very modern take on battlefield tactics. It's the basic design philosophy behind land minds. They are designed to wound as many people as possible. Most modern weapons on the other hand are designed to kill with extreme prejudice. Why? Well, an injured opponent can still hurt you or someone else. A dead opponent, preferably one killed instantly is no longer a threat and you can move on to the next threat.

I can't see how that philosophy could be applied to feudal warfare. It only really works at a distance. If me and two of my fellow soldiers are standing toe to toe with five enemy soldiers all armed with feudal weapons, I can't see how intentionally wounding one of my enemies is going to help just a whole lot. It's not like his buddies are gonna turn their backs on me and help him off the field of battle. Not until I and my friends are neutralized. That's obviously not a problem for land mines. I'm not there when my landmine goes off, but it's a big problem for feudal style combat.

Maybe I'm just coming at this from a JSA perspective.

 

[pstarr]

I will say that from a Japanese swordsmanship point of view, just about everything the fellow in the first clip was wrong...but then I don't know anything about Korean swordsmanship-

 

[howard]

Maybe I'm just coming at this from a JSA perspective.

No, Chalres, I don't think so...

That theory sounds anectodal to me... if anybody could cite some reliable references from the literature of Korean history, I'd be much more prone to believe it.

I will say that from a Japanese swordsmanship point of view, just about everything the fellow in the first clip was wrong...but then I don't know anything about Korean swordsmanship-

I have no idea what the origin of that form is. I believe somebody mentioned that it might be Kuk Sul Won?

It looks absolutely nothing like our (Korean, but Japanese-influenced) sword art. Some of the stuff he's doing looks like pure theatrics - like that XMA stuff.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

My instructor told me something about the difference between the Japanese/Korean philosophies I will never forget. The Japanese sought to refine all techniques to it's most basic and simple element. To kill with one stroke. The Korean strategy was to maim or wound and leave that soldier/warrior on the battle field. In this way it took more soldiers to carry that one, reducing the numbers available on the field.

I do not believe that I have ever come across this in any of the Korean arts that I have studied. Not saying that you are wrong or that your instructor is wrong in this interpretation but this was never conveyed to me by any Korean teacher.

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

The form in the video looks like to me that a teacher with classical unarmed forms training made a sword form for competition. Unfortuantely,
this is what you will see in tournament competitions and does not really represent Korean sword work.

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com

 

[soul_sword34]

I do not believe that I have ever come across this in any of the Korean arts that I have studied. Not saying that you are wrong or that your instructor is wrong in this interpretation but this was never conveyed to me by any Korean teacher.

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com

Unfortunately I have no reference for this as my mentor is no longer around. It does make sense though when you look at a real Haidong Gumdo form. I only got to Shimsang Gumbup, 1st blackbelt form and in analysing the Bunkai and the brief conversations I had with Kwang Jang Nim you can very easily depict maiming techniques and there are finishes. Where as in Japan, in my experience, there is always a finishing technique. My mentor also mentioned something about, forgive my memory, the "Korugi East Sea White House System" and that is the root of all Gumdo/Song Moo. I have a lot of research to do, all by myself. Sorry I'm a 1st blackbelt and have no one else but you guys right now my Dojang is a memory. The first video, again, is definitely not good and is not Haidong Gumdo. Check out the other videos I posted earlier for a better reference.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

The first video, again, is definitely not good and is not Haidong Gumdo.

One thing we can definately agree on is that the first video definately is not Haidong Gumdo!

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com

 

[pgsmith]

The Korean strategy was to maim or wound and leave that soldier/warrior on the battle field. In this way it took more soldiers to carry that one, reducing the numbers available on the field.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense because the sword was not a battle field weapon. It has been well documented that the sword was merely a sidearm in the feudal Japanese battle field.

 

[Charles Mahan]

In all fairness Paul, he's talking about Korean battlefields.

 

[pgsmith]

In all fairness Paul, he's talking about Korean battlefields.

Sorry, you're right Charles. That would make a difference since fuedal Korea had artillery shells in addition to archers on their battlefields.

 

[Charles Mahan]

Well... I didn't say that it made any real difference, but hey you never know. Perhaps the Koreans did make prominent use of the sword on the battlefield. And perhaps it was common practice for one side of the conflict to allow members of the other side to aid wounded soldiers off the field of battle. It does stretch the limits of reason however. If anyone really expects people to buy into that arguement, there really needs to be some proof offered. Historical documents, first hand accounts, something along those lines.

 

[pgsmith]

Well... I didn't say that it made any real difference, but hey you never know.

You're right, I just let my cynical side carry me off sometimes.

 

[soul_sword34]

Well... I didn't say that it made any real difference, but hey you never know. Perhaps the Koreans did make prominent use of the sword on the battlefield. And perhaps it was common practice for one side of the conflict to allow members of the other side to aid wounded soldiers off the field of battle. It does stretch the limits of reason however. If anyone really expects people to buy into that arguement, there really needs to be some proof offered. Historical documents, first hand accounts, something along those lines.

Mr. Mahan all I can say to that is watch one Haidong Gumdo form and tell me what you see happening. Now when I watch an Iaido form I see, kill, kill, kill. Very merciful in my opinion. I'm sure there must be somewhere or someone on the web who knows more about Korean/Japanese tactics in mass combat. Anyways unlesss absolute evidence can be provided I suggest just dropping this one. Know what I mean. I watched that first video again now and the more I watch it the more I just want to stick my fingers down my throat and vomit.

 

[pgsmith]

I'm sure there must be somewhere or someone on the web who knows more about Korean/Japanese tactics in mass combat. Anyways unlesss absolute evidence can be provided I suggest just dropping this one.

This is from a 1999 conversation with Karl Friday, professor of Asian history at University of Georgia. The conversation was actually about the role of firearms in changing warfare in feudal Japan, but the casualty statistics are very interesting.

First, this whole picture of Light Brigade style charges against gunners is dramatically overblown; there's a ton of new research coming out that shows that guns didn't dramatically alter the shape of Japanese warfare, they simply replaced the bow and arrow. An analysis that I was just looking at this morning, of documents reporting battlewounds, for example, shows that between 1500 and 1560, out of some 620 casualties described, 368 were arrow wounds, 124 were spear wounds, 96 were injuries from rocks (thrown by slings or by hand), 18 were sword wounds, 7 were combined arrow and spear wounds, 3 were combined arrow and sword wounds, 2 were combined rock and spear wounds, and 2 were combined rock and arrow wounds.
Between 1563 and 1600 (after the adoption of the gun) some 584 reported casualties break down as follows: there were 263 gunshot victims, 126 arrow victims, 99 spear victims, 40 sword victims, 30 injured by rocks, and 26 injured by combinations of the above (including one poor SOB who was shot by both guns and arrows and stabbed by spears, and one who was speared, naginata-ed, and cut with a sword). In other words, long distance weapons (arrows and rocks) accounted for about 75% of the wounds received in the pre-gun era, and about 72 % (arrows + guns + rocks) during the gunpowder era. Which is to say that "traditional fighting" does not appear to have been heavily centered on close-quarters clashes of swords or even of spears, except in literary sources.

 

[Ninjamom]

This is very close to the numbers I had heard, which put the death rate of medeival swordsmen on the battlefield to about 80% due to spears/archers, rather than other swordsmen.

 

[soul_sword34]

More than likely lives lost in a volley. If I remember right, correct me if I'm wrong, rifles then were of the fuse/flash pan variety.