GM CHOI Yong Sul's first student

[zDom]

:s67:

 

[Chris Parker]

Except that the photos which show Takeda Sensei and GM Choi together come from very different times. One for example was taken when both were relatively young. Another was taken when both were much older, at least twenty or more years from the first one I mentioned.

Where are these photos that you're referencing? So far I see a lot of claims, but not really any evidence to back them up.

What are you talking about here? Is it your understanding that Kim Sensei said that GM Choi's name was YOSHIDA Kotaro?

Do try to follow along... the quote in Elder's post (that I was talking about, as that is what Daniel asked for my take on) is: "Richard Kim once said that Choi studied with Yoshida Kotaro-and that Choi's Japanese name was also Kotaro-though they were not related at all. This may contribute to the whole "adopted son" theme, though."

So no, I don't think that Kim said Choi's Japanese name was Yoshida Kotaro.... my issue is that, in the same interview with Choi, he states that his Japanese name was Asao Yoshida, which goes against Kim's statement.

We're (or at least I) not trying to convince you. I get the feeling that once you make up your mind about something, nothing will change your mind.

Hardly. I do, however, require something with some basis to get me to reconsider my take on things, and so far there just isn't anything like that presented. But really... kettle?

It is found lacking, to you. Not to others.

Choi made certain claims with little to support them. I'm hardly the only person who finds his statements lacking.

No, that is not what I am saying. At all.

Here's an opportunity to clarify, then, because that is certainly how it reads to me.

Just because I use real life examples from my own experiences to illustrate a point does not make it all about me. In fact, I would enjoy if you did the same thing, use examples from your own life to make your points, especially experiences based on your time in Japan, if and when you ever decide to go.

You consistently make things about you, complete with as much name-dropping (as unimpressive as it is) as you can. And making comments about whether or not I've been to Japan as another snide dig really isn't appreciated, you know.

That wasn't his words. That was a translation. Who knows if the translation was accurate.

Seems like a pretty definite statement... I don't know how badly done a translation would need to be in order to get that so badly wrong (stating "He decided to adopt me" instead of "We were very close, and he considered me like a son to him"). Grasping at straws here....

Yeah, one that is not recorded in the record books.

Which is what is leading me to believe he may have only been an observer. Before you fly off the handle, note the word "may".

it came from Pranin Sensei. He said this specifically: ""According to one of Sokaku's sons, Munemitsu, several books of Takeda's eimeiroku were burned along with some of his personal belongings when his body was cremated upon his death in 1943. Thus, the number of books lost and their percentage of the total number kept by Sokaku Takeda is not known at present." I don't know if this information is on the internet or not.

Again, grasping at straws here... yes, I know about some documents being lost to fire, but really, 30 years worth of records, remarkably being the only ones that mention Choi's involvement, position, ranking, membership, and so on? Come on, does that seem really feasible to you?

What records found are you referring to above?

In other threads here, I seem to remember you clarifying about some founders of TKD studying Shotokan (and other Karate systems). I also seem to remember references made to enrollment records for said founders.

Other than his testimony, which again is evidence. Whether the evidence convinces you, is a different matter.

His testimony doesn't gel even with the structure of Daito Ryu and it's teaching methods, though. How that could be taken as credible is beyond me, frankly.

Who exists in what records?

Tokimune. Stated. Try to keep up.

No I am not. I never saw that photo before. I don't think that is GM Choi, to tell you the truth. For one thing, the gentleman looks too old, compared to Takeda Sensei. That tells me that you do not know which photos I am referring to, probably because they have not been posted on the internet, at least to my knowledge. But the photos do exist.

No, I don't know what photos you're referring to, as so far, you are the only one I've heard refer to them. I found one which talks about a claim of showing Choi, but that's it. And you saying you don't think that that is Choi is really going out on a limb when the article itself specifically states that it's not him... But back to the point, so far I've only got your say-so that any photos exist... can you provide anything to back that up?

Doesn't bother me.

The information there doesn't bother you, or my not accepting it doesn't bother you? Actually, don't bother with that, I don't think it really matters one way or the other.

I first heard about the lost bags story before the internet was in full swing and I understand that these things get more and more inaccurate as time goes on. If these webpages were the sole basis of my understanding of hapkido history, then I probably would be as skeptical as you are.

Hmm, well, I'm going on Choi's testimony here.... you know, the one you put so much stock in?

But, to cut to the chase here, if he didn't lose his ranking certificates when returning from Japan, surely he could have just shown them to back his claims up... now tell me, did that happen? And what does it tell you if no-one ever saw them?

Seriously, straws.

Not cosigning but rather writing for his father. Sokaku Sensei was illiterate, as was GM Choi. But the question remains, how come Tokimune Sensei isn't listed as a participant in the records? And where is his certifications?

For that, you'd need to ask probably Kondo Sensei....

What license did he have, and when was it issued?

Well, he was Takeda Sokaku's successor, so that's one clue...

 

[puunui]

Where are these photos that you're referencing? So far I see a lot of claims, but not really any evidence to back them up.

One place is at my house in my library.

Do try to follow along... the quote in Elder's post (that I was talking about, as that is what Daniel asked for my take on) is: "Richard Kim once said that Choi studied with Yoshida Kotaro-and that Choi's Japanese name was also Kotaro-though they were not related at all. This may contribute to the whole "adopted son" theme, though."

Ok got it. Kim Sensei never said GM Choi's name was Kotaro, so any speculation based on that premise is a wasted effort. Here is the actual text of my letter from Kim Sensei.

http://www.toshima.ne.jp/~fukuoka3/hapkido/hapkido3.htm

***

dated November 26, 1984:

The founder of Hapkido, Mr. Choi -- Japanese name Yoshida, is not related to Yoshida Kotaro, Samurai extraordinary.

Mr. Choi was a student of Yoshida Kotaro. In fact he was an excellent student. You must realise that before Japan surrendered in August 15, 1945, all Koreans had Japanese citizenship and names.

Mr. Choi returned to Korea and taught Daito Ryu Aiki Jujutsu. He named it Hapkido which in Japanese is Aikido. Since his time Hapkido has become modified with a distinct Korean flavour. It is an excellent art.

I would that the thrust and direction of Hapkido where it is different from what originally Mr. Choi had taught is in a number of sophisticated kicks which is unique to the Korean style of fighting. Probably, according to some, it may have improved the art for modern day consumption. That would be a matter of debate.

You are learning a good art. Stay with it and practice until perfection.

Sincerely,

Richard Kim, Hanshi

*****

I didn't realize someone took that letter and posted it up on the internet. He wrote some more stuff in his own handwriting at the bottom, but the above is the typed portion of the letter.

So no, I don't think that Kim said Choi's Japanese name was Yoshida Kotaro.... my issue is that, in the same interview with Choi, he states that his Japanese name was Asao Yoshida, which goes against Kim's statement.

Again, Kim Sensei never said that GM Choi's japanese name was Yoshida Kotaro.

Choi made certain claims with little to support them. I'm hardly the only person who finds his statements lacking.

Yes, I know. Many non-hapkido practitioners question GM Choi's story. Mr. Amdur even devoted a chapter in one of his books to the subject. Have you read that?

You consistently make things about you, complete with as much name-dropping (as unimpressive as it is) as you can. And making comments about whether or not I've been to Japan as another snide dig really isn't appreciated, you know.

At least I've done things and met some awesome people along the way. Most people enjoy hearing about those types of experiences. Sorry it bothers you. But I for one would appreciate it if you did sprinkle in some personal experiences in your posts, and I promise I would take it to mean that it is all about you.

Seems like a pretty definite statement... I don't know how badly done a translation would need to be in order to get that so badly wrong (stating "He decided to adopt me" instead of "We were very close, and he considered me like a son to him"). Grasping at straws here....

No not grasping because others who have interviewed GM Choi got the story correct. It would be grasping if I had nothing else but this translated interview to base my statement on.

Which is what is leading me to believe he may have only been an observer. Before you fly off the handle, note the word "may".

Actually, there is something to the idea that GM Choi learned primarily be observation. One hapkido researcher who interviewed GM Choi said that he had for a long time learned from Sokaku Sensei "over the shoulder", which is another way of saying he learned by watching classes and not necessarily participating in those classes. So I you notice I didn't really object or otherwise comment on that part of your earlier post.

Again, grasping at straws here... yes, I know about some documents being lost to fire, but really, 30 years worth of records, remarkably being the only ones that mention Choi's involvement, position, ranking, membership, and so on? Come on, does that seem really feasible to you?

Not grasping at straws. You asked me how I knew that the records were incomplete and I responded with Pranin Sensei's words. The records are incomplete and we don't know how much was destroyed.

In other threads here, I seem to remember you clarifying about some founders of TKD studying Shotokan (and other Karate systems). I also seem to remember references made to enrollment records for said founders.

I asked GM LEE Won Kuk, the founder of the Chung Do Kwan, about his experiences training in Japan. He said that he did receive rank from Funakoshi Sensei, which should be recorded in the shotokan, shotokai or jka records. But no one, at least not that I know, really followed up with the japanese organizations to confirm that. Two practitioners, GM YOON Byung In and GM YON Kwai Byeong, were students of TOYAMA Kanken Sensei when both were students in Japan and that their names were listed in one of Toyama Sensei's books, but he was the Shudokan founder and was never affiliated with the Shotokan.

His testimony doesn't gel even with the structure of Daito Ryu and it's teaching methods, though. How that could be taken as credible is beyond me, frankly.

Sure they gel. Not exactly, but then who is to say that today's Daito Ryu curriculum is the same as the one taught by Sokaku Sensei, if so, at what point in time.

No, I don't know what photos you're referring to, as so far, you are the only one I've heard refer to them. I found one which talks about a claim of showing Choi, but that's it. And you saying you don't think that that is Choi is really going out on a limb when the article itself specifically states that it's not him... But back to the point, so far I've only got your say-so that any photos exist... can you provide anything to back that up?

I do. But we have to keep some of this stuff to ourselves.

The information there doesn't bother you, or my not accepting it doesn't bother you? Actually, don't bother with that, I don't think it really matters one way or the other.

ok.

Hmm, well, I'm going on Choi's testimony here.... you know, the one you put so much stock in?But, to cut to the chase here, if he didn't lose his ranking certificates when returning from Japan, surely he could have just shown them to back his claims up... now tell me, did that happen? And what does it tell you if no-one ever saw them?

it tells me that it was unfortunate that he lost those. Oh well.

Well, he was Takeda Sokaku's successor, so that's one clue...

He is Tokimune Sensei's successor.

 

[mastercole]

Chris Parker.

I will give you this, you really google well. But come on, you argue with people who actually train in Japanese martial arts - about Japanese martial arts, you never been there and never trained in the population. You argue over Korean martial arts, you never been there or trained in that population.

Like Taekkyon. I go over to Korea research the heck out of this, train and interview the leading researchers of Taekkyon, attend forum's in Seoul put on by universities, etc, and, have the son of the leader of Taekkyon's son move to the USA and live at my home for 10 years to train and study more. I make a comment about Taekkyon and you felt the need to explain everything about Taekkyon that I discovered is wrong and that UNESCO was also "suspect."

You are not adding anything to this discussion other than argument, which by the way, you are really good at, I guess, but your rambling post are nauseating to say the least.

 

[Chris Parker]

One place is at my house in my library.

Would you be willing to scan it and post it, then? I'd think that you'd want to welcome the opportunity to provide evidence to backup your argument.

Ok got it. Kim Sensei never said GM Choi's name was Kotaro, so any speculation based on that premise is a wasted effort. Here is the actual text of my letter from Kim Sensei.

http://www.toshima.ne.jp/~fukuoka3/hapkido/hapkido3.htm

***

dated November 26, 1984:

The founder of Hapkido, Mr. Choi -- Japanese name Yoshida, is not related to Yoshida Kotaro, Samurai extraordinary.

Mr. Choi was a student of Yoshida Kotaro. In fact he was an excellent student. You must realise that before Japan surrendered in August 15, 1945, all Koreans had Japanese citizenship and names.

Mr. Choi returned to Korea and taught Daito Ryu Aiki Jujutsu. He named it Hapkido which in Japanese is Aikido. Since his time Hapkido has become modified with a distinct Korean flavour. It is an excellent art.

I would that the thrust and direction of Hapkido where it is different from what originally Mr. Choi had taught is in a number of sophisticated kicks which is unique to the Korean style of fighting. Probably, according to some, it may have improved the art for modern day consumption. That would be a matter of debate.

You are learning a good art. Stay with it and practice until perfection.

Sincerely,

Richard Kim, Hanshi

*****

I didn't realize someone took that letter and posted it up on the internet. He wrote some more stuff in his own handwriting at the bottom, but the above is the typed portion of the letter.

So the quote that Elder put up is incorrect... did you just miss it the first time around, then?

Again, Kim Sensei never said that GM Choi's japanese name was Yoshida Kotaro.

There was never a claim that it was Yoshida Kotaro, Yoshida Kotaro is a known person, and the question was whether or not some possible confusion occured over similarities in Choi's Japanese name... I don't know where you got the idea from that anyone thought they had exactly the same name.

Yes, I know. Many non-hapkido practitioners question GM Choi's story. Mr. Amdur even devoted a chapter in one of his books to the subject. Have you read that?

A chapter about Choi and his claims directly? Nope. But I do know his chapter "A Conversation With Daito Ryu's Other Child" in Dueling with O'Sensei. Choi's claims are briefly touched on, the rest is a comparison of Daito Ryu with other Koryu, and it's various offshoots and forms, including Aikido and Hapkido. And there isn't really much I disagree with in Ellis' assessment there.

At least I've done things and met some awesome people along the way. Most people enjoy hearing about those types of experiences. Sorry it bothers you. But I for one would appreciate it if you did sprinkle in some personal experiences in your posts, and I promise I would take it to mean that it is all about you.

So have I. And you might be surprised at how people take your posting method there. But the thing is, I tend to try to rely on arguments.

No not grasping because others who have interviewed GM Choi got the story correct. It would be grasping if I had nothing else but this translated interview to base my statement on.

Can you provide an alternate interview with a different story, then? Until you do, it's what we have to work with... after all, both yourself and Al say that you're more than happy to take Choi's interviews over anything else.... except where it's inconvenient, it seems.

Actually, there is something to the idea that GM Choi learned primarily be observation. One hapkido researcher who interviewed GM Choi said that he had for a long time learned from Sokaku Sensei "over the shoulder", which is another way of saying he learned by watching classes and not necessarily participating in those classes. So I you notice I didn't really object or otherwise comment on that part of your earlier post.

Ueshiba, and Bruce Lee were said to also possess the ability to basically see something and be able to replicate it. From all accounts of Choi, it wouldn't surprise me if he was similarly gifted.

Not grasping at straws. You asked me how I knew that the records were incomplete and I responded with Pranin Sensei's words. The records are incomplete and we don't know how much was destroyed.

Do you really think that it would be 30 years, specific to Choi, that was destroyed? Surely that's a bit convenient, yeah?

I asked GM LEE Won Kuk, the founder of the Chung Do Kwan, about his experiences training in Japan. He said that he did receive rank from Funakoshi Sensei, which should be recorded in the shotokan, shotokai or jka records. But no one, at least not that I know, really followed up with the japanese organizations to confirm that. Two practitioners, GM YOON Byung In and GM YON Kwai Byeong, were students of TOYAMA Kanken Sensei when both were students in Japan and that their names were listed in one of Toyama Sensei's books, but he was the Shudokan founder and was never affiliated with the Shotokan.

Thanks for the clarification.

Sure they gel. Not exactly, but then who is to say that today's Daito Ryu curriculum is the same as the one taught by Sokaku Sensei, if so, at what point in time.

It's not. Tokimune was instrumental in restructuring Daito Ryu. But that's not really what I was referring to.

I do. But we have to keep some of this stuff to ourselves.

Then you'll understand if I remain skeptical until some evidence is presented.

it tells me that it was unfortunate that he lost those. Oh well.

Wait, which is it? I said that the claim is that he lost them when he lost his luggage coming back to Korea, you questioned that, and I point out the problem with him not losing them, now you're saying "it was unfortunate that he lost those"? Do you think he did lose his certification (if he ever actually had any), in which case the claim is as I said, or that he didn't, in which case he would have had them to show anyone who asked?

He is Tokimune Sensei's successor.

We're discussing Tokimune?!?! Tokimune is Tokimune's successor? What?!?

Chris Parker.

Hmm. Hi Al.

I will give you this, you really google well.

Ah, now, I'd be careful there... Glenn's already gotten into trouble over his accusations and attempts at character assassination with that tact, and he's a lot better at this than you are.

But come on, you argue with people who actually train in Japanese martial arts - about Japanese martial arts, you never been there and never trained in the population.

Uh, Al? I train in Japanese martial arts. I have done so for close to quarter of a century. And I'd be interested to see what you're referring to when you say I've been arguing with people who actually train in Japanese martial arts. As far as "You never been there (sic) and never trained in the population (sic)", what on earth are you talking about?

You argue over Korean martial arts, you never been there or trained in that population.

Huh?

Like Taekkyon. I go over to Korea research the heck out of this, train and interview the leading researchers of Taekkyon, attend forum's in Seoul put on by universities, etc, and, have the son of the leader of Taekkyon's son move to the USA and live at my home for 10 years to train and study more. I make a comment about Taekkyon and you felt the need to explain everything about Taekkyon that I discovered is wrong and that UNESCO was also "suspect."

Not just me, Al. And for good reason.

Oh, and yeah, I stand by my assessment, especially as you didn't seem to be able to answer anything about it, despite your research.

You are not adding anything to this discussion other than argument, which by the way, you are really good at, I guess, but your rambling post are nauseating to say the least.

Yes, I'm adding argument. It's drawing information out from both sides of the discussion, which is, you know, the point of this forum. My being good at arguing should be an indication that there is something to what I'm saying. But if you're "nauseated" by my posts, you are probably reading them wrong. I mean, your entire contribution so far has been to basically say "A senior who knew Choi was told by Choi that he was the assistant/enforcer", even though other accounts have him hidden at a mountain home (how was he then "meeting all comers"?), followed by "I'll take Choi's story over your (my) guesswork". You've hardly added anything of value, you realise.

And this post basically reads like you're feeling that your ego is threatened by what I'm saying, you can't argue it, and you're saying "stop it, stop it!" while continuing yours and Glenn's habits of patting each other on the back. How about you try again when you have an argument to make, yeah?

 

[WMKS Shogun]

My silly two point interlude into this:
1) How did this turn from GM Choi's first student to arguing the legitimacy of the lineage and training of GM Choi? (Actually, I know how, I read that part) Should we not be more concerned with finding out if he did teach anyone while he was in Japan? Are there any records or stories of such a thing? If not, then his first student would be in Korea (most likely) and therefore the lineage discussion is moot.
2) People argue the lineage thing but the facts are that by now it is nearly impossible to discern if GM Choi's claims were true or fabricated to give credence to his claims about the origins of both his own martial skills and the curriculum of what is now called hapkido. I think we can, however, generally agree that regardless of the origins of GM Choi's skills and curriculum, hapkido is, when taught and performed properly, a viable martial art which does seem to resemble DRAJJ in many respects.
-Now back to your regularly scheduled search for truth

 

[mastercole]

Oh, and yeah, I stand by my assessment, especially as you didn't seem to be able to answer anything about it, despite your research.

I don't want to discuss any thing with you, facts, or opinions because it would not matter. I have read many of your post with various people and they go on and on and on, it never matters what evidence anyone presents you, you are always right, even on martial arts you have never studied. In my humble opinion. Keep doing what you are doing though, you do it better than anyone

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

But the thing is, I tend to try to rely on arguments.

I prefer to rely on facts and whatever information I have at hand, with the knowledge that that information may need to be updated if or when more reliable information presents itself. If you rely on argument, then you are relying on your skill in arguing, which is unrelated to factual information.

Yes, I'm adding argument. It's drawing information out from both sides of the discussion, which is, you know, the point of this forum. My being good at arguing should be an indication that there is something to what I'm saying.

I'm not going to take sides on this topic, but I will say that "adding argument" is not adding to the discussion in any way.

Arguing is, in fact, distinct from both the facts of the topic and from discussion. In a discussion, two or more people discuss and exchange information. In an argument, one seeks to use words to dominate and subdue those who hold a perspective or a viewpoint different than their own.

So when Master Cole says that you're not adding anything to the discussion and you say that you're adding argument, to a certain extent, you are actually supporting his position. Note: I am not saying that I think you add nothing to the discussion; I am only addressing the context that you use the term 'argue.'

Nor is skill at arguing any indication that there is anything at all to what you are saying, and I'm surprised that you would make such a statement, given how particular you are about the content of others' posts. If you feel that you have a stronger case and more substantial evidence/support for that case, that adds to the discussion, but one need not argue in order to present one's case.

Being good at arguing means that you are skilled in verbal confrontation, not that you are correct. One may have factual information be a poor arguer, and thus may lose an argument to a person who's facts may not be correct, but who is better at arguing.

So yes, Master Cole paid you a compliment; you're good at arguing. My brother is good at arguing. It is a useful skill for a lawyer, his chosen profession. But in no way does that imply that Master Cole thinks that your argument, or case, is sound.

Again, I am not saying that your argument, or case, is unsound; only that ability to argue is distinct from the soundness of one's argument or case.

 

[puunui]

Would you be willing to scan it and post it, then? I'd think that you'd want to welcome the opportunity to provide evidence to backup your argument.

No, I am unwilling to scan and post it. I've already shared enough information regarding hapkido history. Much of the information that you cite to from the internet either came from me or was a result of my correspondence with Pranin Sensei. Like I said earlier, some stuff I prefer to keep to myself. If you wish to rely on what you find out there to draw your conclusions, then that is your decision.

But the thing is, I tend to try to rely on arguments.

Yes, I know.

Can you provide an alternate interview with a different story, then? Until you do, it's what we have to work with... after all, both yourself and Al say that you're more than happy to take Choi's interviews over anything else.... except where it's inconvenient, it seems.

Actually yes, there are better sources of information than poorly translated interviews. Again, that is what you have to work with, but I would say that is my situation, at all. The truth of the matter is that there are only a few hapkido history researchers in the english speaking world, and we all know each other and share with each other our findings and perspectives, much of which has not been put out there for public consumption. And we've all met face to face and know each other personally. Two have been to my home, and one stayed with me more than once. I was the youngest and most junior of the group. One passed away, and it was a big loss for hapkido.

In other words, you're in way over your head in this discussion.

Ueshiba, and Bruce Lee were said to also possess the ability to basically see something and be able to replicate it. From all accounts of Choi, it wouldn't surprise me if he was similarly gifted.

But both Bruce Lee and Ueshiba Sensei had excellent instruction for a prolonged period of time.You are speculating that GM Choi's martial arts instruction is limited to a single seminar.

Do you really think that it would be 30 years, specific to Choi, that was destroyed? Surely that's a bit convenient, yeah?

I am simply responding to your argument that GM Choi is not listed in the books by making the factual statement that we do not have all the record books today, and we do not know how much of the records remain, per Takeda Sensei's seventh son. Do you still dispute that?

Then you'll understand if I remain skeptical until some evidence is presented.

Again, I am not here to convince you of anything. You will believe what you will believe, no matter what I say.

Wait, which is it? I said that the claim is that he lost them when he lost his luggage coming back to Korea, you questioned that, and I point out the problem with him not losing them, now you're saying "it was unfortunate that he lost those"? Do you think he did lose his certification (if he ever actually had any), in which case the claim is as I said, or that he didn't, in which case he would have had them to show anyone who asked?

I didn't question the fact that he lost his luggage and therefore his martial arts certificates. What I stated was we do not know what kinds of certificates GM Choi lost, that we cannot simply conclude that they were daito ryu certificates because in the original version of the story, it was not stated what kinds of certificates his lost. Since that original source, others have embellished the story to say all kinds of things and what I was attempting to do was to get us back to the original source.

The rest of your post is simply argument (often of the thread derailing nature) as well as insults, so I choose not to respond to those.

 

[Chris Parker]

I don't want to discuss any thing with you, facts, or opinions because it would not matter. I have read many of your post with various people and they go on and on and on, it never matters what evidence anyone presents you, you are always right, even on martial arts you have never studied. In my humble opinion. Keep doing what you are doing though, you do it better than anyone

Hmm, if you don't want to discuss anything with me, why keep engaging me and quoting me in order to respond (well, not really respond...) to me? Kinda like shoving someone away while saying "Hey! C'mere!" (for those that know Bill Hicks....)

I prefer to rely on facts and whatever information I have at hand, with the knowledge that that information may need to be updated if or when more reliable information presents itself. If you rely on argument, then you are relying on your skill in arguing, which is unrelated to factual information.

Hi Daniel,

This seems to need some clarification, as your description is basically what I am meaning by "argument". I'm using it to mean that I am putting forth an argument, putting forth an expression of my side of the discussion. It does not mean that I am "arguing for the sake of arguing", it means that I am putting forth statements and questioning others in order to put my side across.

When I say I rely on argument, that means that I rely on structured responses put forth with the aim of convincing others, which is what argument actually means. In a discussion, a topic is discussed (talked about), in an argument, differing sides are put forth with their reasonings and evidence in order to establish which is correct, or most appropriate (or however that argument goes). Argument is not inherently negative, seeking to dominate and subdue, or anything else.

When I talk about "adding argument", I refer to adding reasoned and thought out statements designed to support my standpoint. I don't just let someone say something I consider to be flawed, letting it go without comment. In a discussion such as this, where there are very different observations and perceptions, which are mutually exclusive to a great degree, adding argument (presenting an argument) is really the way that you do add to the conversation. I'm hardly about to pat people on the back.

Hope that clears up my meaning a bit. Think of it like in A Few Good Men, when Lt Kaffee is wonderfully drunk, talking to Sam, and asking if his father is proud of him. "I bet he is. I bet he sits there in the bar, and talks about his son. He's got a big case. He's arguing. He's making an argument".

Argument is language designed to persuade from one opinion to another, not antagonism for it's own sake. That's how I use it.

No, I am unwilling to scan and post it. I've already shared enough information regarding hapkido history. Much of the information that you cite to from the internet either came from me or was a result of my correspondence with Pranin Sensei. Like I said earlier, some stuff I prefer to keep to myself. If you wish to rely on what you find out there to draw your conclusions, then that is your decision.

Hmm, so the evidence that you claim backs up your take on things can't be presented? Okay, it's certainly your right what you choose to put up or not, but it's rather hard to be convinced by evidence not seen. I can think of a few mirrors to this, of course....

Yes, I know.

I would ask that you read the definition and application of the term argument posted above. That is what I mean when I say I rely on argument.

Actually yes, there are better sources of information than poorly translated interviews. Again, that is what you have to work with, but I would say that is my situation, at all. The truth of the matter is that there are only a few hapkido history researchers in the english speaking world, and we all know each other and share with each other our findings and perspectives, much of which has not been put out there for public consumption. And we've all met face to face and know each other personally. Two have been to my home, and one stayed with me more than once. I was the youngest and most junior of the group. One passed away, and it was a big loss for hapkido.

In other words, you're in way over your head in this discussion.

Ignoring the "all about me" tone again, and the sly digs you're attempting, here's a question. Why, if there are only a few of you, alone, who have access to anything that might support the questionable and questioned claims of the depth of Choi's training in Daito Ryu, do you not release it to the public? Wouldn't it stop all this, if you just published a book which presented all the evidence, perhaps re-translated the "poorly translated" interviews to get Choi's words correct, and settled it once and for all?

From what I've seen, all evidence has come down to one thing: Choi said so. Is there anything genuinely corroborating? And if so, why keep it secret?

But both Bruce Lee and Ueshiba Sensei had excellent instruction for a prolonged period of time.You are speculating that GM Choi's martial arts instruction is limited to a single seminar.

Bruce's instruction wasn't really that long, when it comes down to it. Ueshiba, for the record, was said by a number close to Daito Ryu and Aikido to have been one of Takeda Sokaku's most gifted and senior students... and he only trained with Takeda for about 7 years, from some accounts. Surely if Choi was training with Takeda for 30 years, then Ueshiba's place wouldn't have been so vaunted?

But, to be clear here, no, I'm not saying that Choi's martial arts instruction was limited to a single seminar. I think he did a lot of training, probably with some of the early Aikido people (before the name Aikido was around), as well as a few other things most likely. And what training he did I'd speculate that he did very seriously, and was highly skilled at it. But his actual official training in Daito Ryu under Takeda Sokaku himself? That's where I have my questions.

I'll see if I can make this as clear as I can.

I believe that Choi was a singularly gifted martial artist and teacher. I believe that he had some exposure to Daito Ryu, probably including training informally with students of the Ryu, likely associated with Ueshiba and the early ideas of Aikido. I believe that his formal exposure to Daito Ryu, however, was limited at best, and has been exaggerated beyond plausibility. That doesn't make him, or his art, any less, the same way that TKD isn't any less for being based in Karate, it's just the claims that don't mesh with historical basis that generate issues.

I am simply responding to your argument that GM Choi is not listed in the books by making the factual statement that we do not have all the record books today, and we do not know how much of the records remain, per Takeda Sensei's seventh son. Do you still dispute that?

Do I deny records were lost? No. I don't buy that we don't know of the records that show Choi's training, though.

Again, I am not here to convince you of anything. You will believe what you will believe, no matter what I say.

No, if you have a good enough argument, you'll convince me. I will believe what the best evidence indicates. And it doesn't look good for Choi's claims as they stand.

I didn't question the fact that he lost his luggage and therefore his martial arts certificates. What I stated was we do not know what kinds of certificates GM Choi lost, that we cannot simply conclude that they were daito ryu certificates because in the original version of the story, it was not stated what kinds of certificates his lost. Since that original source, others have embellished the story to say all kinds of things and what I was attempting to do was to get us back to the original source.

So... what kind of certificates do you think they were, if not Daito Ryu ones? And if he didn't lose Daito Ryu certification, then he either retained it, or never had it. If he retained it, he could have shown it. If he never had it, then that's not very supportive of his claims.

The rest of your post is simply argument (often of the thread derailing nature) as well as insults, so I choose not to respond to those.

I simply return as I receive.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Hi Daniel,

This seems to need some clarification, as your description is basically what I am meaning by "argument". I'm using it to mean that I am putting forth an argument, putting forth an expression of my side of the discussion. It does not mean that I am "arguing for the sake of arguing", it means that I am putting forth statements and questioning others in order to put my side across.

When I say I rely on argument, that means that I rely on structured responses put forth with the aim of convincing others, which is what argument actually means. In a discussion, a topic is discussed (talked about), in an argument, differing sides are put forth with their reasonings and evidence in order to establish which is correct, or most appropriate (or however that argument goes). Argument is not inherently negative, seeking to dominate and subdue, or anything else.

When I talk about "adding argument", I refer to adding reasoned and thought out statements designed to support my standpoint. I don't just let someone say something I consider to be flawed, letting it go without comment. In a discussion such as this, where there are very different observations and perceptions, which are mutually exclusive to a great degree, adding argument (presenting an argument) is really the way that you do add to the conversation. I'm hardly about to pat people on the back.

Hope that clears up my meaning a bit. Think of it like in A Few Good Men, when Lt Kaffee is wonderfully drunk, talking to Sam, and asking if his father is proud of him. "I bet he is. I bet he sits there in the bar, and talks about his son. He's got a big case. He's arguing. He's making an argument".

Argument is language designed to persuade from one opinion to another, not antagonism for it's own sake. That's how I use it.

Clarification appreciated.

I will say that, speaking generally, on internet forums, the lines between making an argument and arguing are often blurred. I have certainly found myself crossing the line from time to time. Sometimes, people are kind enough to let me know when I don't catch it myself.

 

[puunui]

I believe that Choi was a singularly gifted martial artist and teacher. I believe that he had some exposure to Daito Ryu, probably including training informally with students of the Ryu, likely associated with Ueshiba and the early ideas of Aikido. I believe that his formal exposure to Daito Ryu, however, was limited at best, and has been exaggerated beyond plausibility. That doesn't make him, or his art, any less, the same way that TKD isn't any less for being based in Karate, it's just the claims that don't mesh with historical basis that generate issues.

Contrast your speculation to what UESHIBA Kisshomaru Sensei has said about the subject:

Q: On another subject, it is true that a Korean named Choi, who founded Hapkido, studied aikido or Daito-ryu?

UESHIBA Kisshomaru Sensei: I don't know which art it was, but I understand that there was a young Korean of about seventeen or eighteen years of age who participated in one of Sokaku Takeda Sensei's seminars in Asahikawa City in Hokkaido. It seems that he studied the art together with my father and [my father] would refer to him as his senior.

*

This is one of several comments made by Kisshomaru Sensei which establish the relationship between Takeda Sensei, Ueshiba Sensei and GM Choi. There is no controversy. We know what happened, and we are not just relying on the poorly translated interviews of GM Choi as the sole basis of our understanding in this matter. And I will also say that if people wish to show their sincerity and dedication to GM Choi and/or to hapkido, then the path that we have taken is easily followed. Why should we rob them of the opportunity to discover the truth for themselves by constantly spoon feeding them? Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.

 

[Chris Parker]

I don't see any real contrast, mainly as I disagree with your interpretation of Kisshomaru's statements. He doesn't mention Choi by name (in fact, he goes to pains to avoid saying that he is talking about Choi...say, Jang In Mok?), so the likelihood exists that he simply isn't talking about Choi at all. Additionally, from a structural and grammatic point of view, it's rather incorrect to interpret Kisshomaru's comments that Ueshiba would refer to the mentioned "young Korean" as his (Ueshiba's) senior. That just doesn't make sense from a range of viewpoints.

The sentence is "It seems that he studied the art together with my father and would refer to him as his senior." In that sentence structure the "young Korean" is the sentence principal, which means the correct reading is: "It seems that he (the young Korean) studied the art (Daito Ryu, already stated as being at one mentioned seminar) together with my father (Ueshiba Morihei) and (the young Korean) would refer to him (Ueshiba Morihei) as his (the young Korean's) senior."

While your talk of not wanting to "rob them of the opportunity" to do their own research and find things out (as you understand them), the whole idea of "show(ing) sincerity and dedication to Choi" is just plain bizarre, and rather cultish, frankly. You seem to be saying that if the student believes the Choi story without questioning it, and just looks for evidence to support it, they'll find it. Well, yeah, of course they will. But it won't be actual critical thinking or research, will it?

Honestly, that line of thinking just reminds me of a South Park episode....

 

[Doomx2001]

In addition, there are photos of GM Choi standing with groups of Daito Ryu students, notably Hisa Sensei during the Asahi Newspaper period. Hisa Sensei is listed in the records, but not GM Choi, even though there is photographic evidence that GM Choi at those training sessions and seminars as well, standing in the back of the photo.

Puunui, this is the first time I have heard of this before. If you could please scan and post the photo's of Grandmaster Choi with Hisa sensei's students, and the other photographs you have eluded too. I ask this of you not for the sake of arguing, but rather to help preserve, and clarify an important part of martial art history. What you have said is in your belongings is these photo graphs which would mean alot to me, and Hapkidoist the world over.
Also, it is extremely hard to find the photo's Hisa sensei took toward the end of Grandmaster Sokaku Takeda's life. So those photo's are a treasure in that regard as well.

Again, I appeal to you to please share with us any photo's of that time period, which would be of great interests for those who not only do Hapkido, but those who also practice Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu.


And finally, your original point in that GM Choi had other students other than the man most know of him teaching first at the mill (forgive me, I have forgotten his name) is very interesting and eye opening. Because usually, part of being a senior student of any art, usually means learning to teach others. And if Choi is as high ranking Daito ryu student as been ascerted, then he would have most definately taught some people while in Japan, but then on the other hand, his Korean decent may have prevented just that. Interesting point though. One worth looking more into.

Anyway, please show us the photo's. It would clarify so many things.

- Brian