glad2bhere
Master Black Belt
Dear Kevin:
I think it would be great to see the list of kicks both to compare Huh's Kim-derived tradition to Ji's and to compate Lim's kicking material to Kim Yun Sang's.
One thing I thought I would share for whatever its worth.
I had an opportunity to train with a group of DRAJJ folks at a weekend seminar presented by Okamoto Sensei. The entire weekend was spent doing "Ki" motions which were not intended as actual combat material but rather to instill much of the biomechanics for off-balancing and mis-aligning ones' partner. Actual practitioners of the Okamoto tradition were then, apparently, instructed in the "hoshinsul" or self-defense material (if you will) after the rest of us visitors left on Sunday. I sahre this because of your comment about Choi being more combat oriented with his material. I can easily imagine him focusing on the more pragmatic and choosing to let a lot of the abstract material fall by the side. Not a dig, mind you. I'm thinking of the folks who have begun to find it popular to mix Chi-kung-like training in with everything else, for instance. I could imagine Choi casting a critical eye on such things for any clear benefit to sound training, and finding nothing apparent drop those bits. FWIW.
Best Wishes,
Bruce
I think it would be great to see the list of kicks both to compare Huh's Kim-derived tradition to Ji's and to compate Lim's kicking material to Kim Yun Sang's.
One thing I thought I would share for whatever its worth.
I had an opportunity to train with a group of DRAJJ folks at a weekend seminar presented by Okamoto Sensei. The entire weekend was spent doing "Ki" motions which were not intended as actual combat material but rather to instill much of the biomechanics for off-balancing and mis-aligning ones' partner. Actual practitioners of the Okamoto tradition were then, apparently, instructed in the "hoshinsul" or self-defense material (if you will) after the rest of us visitors left on Sunday. I sahre this because of your comment about Choi being more combat oriented with his material. I can easily imagine him focusing on the more pragmatic and choosing to let a lot of the abstract material fall by the side. Not a dig, mind you. I'm thinking of the folks who have begun to find it popular to mix Chi-kung-like training in with everything else, for instance. I could imagine Choi casting a critical eye on such things for any clear benefit to sound training, and finding nothing apparent drop those bits. FWIW.
Best Wishes,
Bruce
American HKD
Brown Belt
Greeting
Why have these 2 guys who could validate Choi Young Sool as a true Sensei of DDAJJ been left out of all historical accounts?
It seems very strange?
Why have these 2 guys who could validate Choi Young Sool as a true Sensei of DDAJJ been left out of all historical accounts?
It seems very strange?
glad2bhere
Master Black Belt
Dear Stuart:
Your question is exactly that point that keeps this stuff from ever being settled. Its not that some oral traditions aren't true or that most of the oral traditions are called into question. What I have a problem with is how very very selective any one single story tends to be. Take any given recitation, and begin to track it for validation and sooner or later it comes back to somebody essentially saying, "'cuz I said so." Now if we are going to go with the usual Korean approach to such traditions I would think that such a statement would be enough. However, when people start professing a particular person or tradition as THE authentic lineage and questions everybody else than I say its time to ask for something more than just anecdotal evidence. In such a case "no evidence" would seem to equal "no arguement". I don't see us having it both ways. Either there is evidence and we have a single authentic tradition with some ONE person at the top of the heap, or we agree that there are many traditions becuase there simple isn't enough evidence to validate one group above another. Thoughts?
Best Wishes,
Bruce
Your question is exactly that point that keeps this stuff from ever being settled. Its not that some oral traditions aren't true or that most of the oral traditions are called into question. What I have a problem with is how very very selective any one single story tends to be. Take any given recitation, and begin to track it for validation and sooner or later it comes back to somebody essentially saying, "'cuz I said so." Now if we are going to go with the usual Korean approach to such traditions I would think that such a statement would be enough. However, when people start professing a particular person or tradition as THE authentic lineage and questions everybody else than I say its time to ask for something more than just anecdotal evidence. In such a case "no evidence" would seem to equal "no arguement". I don't see us having it both ways. Either there is evidence and we have a single authentic tradition with some ONE person at the top of the heap, or we agree that there are many traditions becuase there simple isn't enough evidence to validate one group above another. Thoughts?
Best Wishes,
Bruce
hi kevin, the interview that you mention in the first part of your post that i've quoted above... would that be the wollmerhauser interview by chance? if not, would you be able to give us the source of the interview?iron_ox said:
this is very interesting stuff. thanks, howard
greendragon
Green Belt
Bruce writes::::
However, when people start professing a particular person or tradition as THE authentic lineage and questions everybody else than I say its time to ask for something more than just anecdotal evidence. In such a case "no evidence" would seem to equal "no arguement". I don't see us having it both ways. Either there is evidence and we have a single authentic tradition with some ONE person at the top of the heap, or we agree that there are many traditions becuase there simple isn't enough evidence to validate one group above another. Thoughts? :::::
That is a very observant statement. I have noticed this several times myself and I TOTALLY agree with you here.. too many different spins on the same history,,,too many claims of they did this or that with NO further documentation other than "well because that's what I heard from the great pubah"...
Michael Tomlinson
However, when people start professing a particular person or tradition as THE authentic lineage and questions everybody else than I say its time to ask for something more than just anecdotal evidence. In such a case "no evidence" would seem to equal "no arguement". I don't see us having it both ways. Either there is evidence and we have a single authentic tradition with some ONE person at the top of the heap, or we agree that there are many traditions becuase there simple isn't enough evidence to validate one group above another. Thoughts? :::::
That is a very observant statement. I have noticed this several times myself and I TOTALLY agree with you here.. too many different spins on the same history,,,too many claims of they did this or that with NO further documentation other than "well because that's what I heard from the great pubah"...
Michael Tomlinson
American HKD
Brown Belt
Dear Bruce,glad2bhere said:
I see your point, but it's this guy seems like a good starting point none the less.
glad2bhere
Master Black Belt
Dear Stuart:
".....I see your point, but it's this guy seems like a good starting point none the less......."
Yes, and at this point I would invite you to look at the difference in the wording in your response. I think when people can characterize a particular individual as "a good starting point" or perhaps as "making a valuable contribution" or perhaps as an "authoritative source" I see this demonstrating a level of cooperation (as well as a discriminating eye to what is being taught). By comparison, when a person uses labels such as "the recognized leader" or "the only real successor" and so forth then I hear a strong political influence.
Now, let me also say that I thoroughly understand people's personal loyalty to one individual or another and I can respect that. For myself I know how beholding I am to Dojunim Kim and his many kindnesses, and I am sure that you have the same background with Dojunim Ji as Todd and Kevin have with Dojunim Lim. If it is possible to conference about our respective material such as what we have been doing with the kicking, perhaps there is a lot of promise there, yes?
Best Wishes,
Bruce
".....I see your point, but it's this guy seems like a good starting point none the less......."
Yes, and at this point I would invite you to look at the difference in the wording in your response. I think when people can characterize a particular individual as "a good starting point" or perhaps as "making a valuable contribution" or perhaps as an "authoritative source" I see this demonstrating a level of cooperation (as well as a discriminating eye to what is being taught). By comparison, when a person uses labels such as "the recognized leader" or "the only real successor" and so forth then I hear a strong political influence.
Now, let me also say that I thoroughly understand people's personal loyalty to one individual or another and I can respect that. For myself I know how beholding I am to Dojunim Kim and his many kindnesses, and I am sure that you have the same background with Dojunim Ji as Todd and Kevin have with Dojunim Lim. If it is possible to conference about our respective material such as what we have been doing with the kicking, perhaps there is a lot of promise there, yes?
Best Wishes,
Bruce
well, not exactly, i'd say... another possibility is that there is no firm, generally accepted evidence of a single source, but that that single source did exist. in that case, we'd have pretty much what we have today: groups who believe that all hapkido comes from choi's original art, and groups who believe that his first-generation students who struck off on their own are more appropriately considsered the source(s) of hapkido, because hapkido consists of choi's original art in addition to things like the kicking techniques that come from some of those first-generation people.greendragon said:
bruce, do you see my point? i'm merely saying that the current absence of firm evidence about a theory that either confirms or refutes that theory does not mean that the theory is inherently incorrect.
glad2bhere
Master Black Belt
Hhhmmmmm.... OK. Lets go with that. For my money I see that as a kind of "slippery slope" but I still think we can make some good out of it. Lets go with the idea of a "single source" and JUST THAT. (I stress this because for the purposes of my question I don't want to go around the tree one more time about WHO constitutes the "single source, 'kay?)
So, OK, we have a single source of XYZ art. Now what, exactly, is our relationship to be with that source? I am trying to be very specific about my question so please don't think there is some sort of trick bag hidden here. All I am saying is that we for the moment agree that we train in Art XYZ and that art has a single source. My question is what is to be our relationship with that source? Here are some options that come to mind from past discussions and other events I have been a part of.
1.) The single source (SS) is sacred and inviolate. What he taught is what is taught. Nothing is added and nothing is taken away. (Now I know this is not a real experience in the real world, I'm just stating that this is a kind view that could be held.)
2.) SS is subject to interpretation under the authority of his designated successor who may introduce change while maintaining the spirit if not the letter of the original teachings.
3.) SS is a starting point from which various people having experienced SS at one time or another got as much as they could get and passed that on as their interpretation of SS to become a sort of Single Source in their own rights.
4.) SS is a starting point representing but one of a number of starting points in a larger constellation of traditions some of which came before and some of which that came after the particular SS identified.
5.) SS is a discrete amount of information or an approach which other people may add to and subtract from to produce their own truth as they will.
I pose this question because this may have more to do with differences among people who are discussing things here than many other points. Thoughts? Comments?
So, OK, we have a single source of XYZ art. Now what, exactly, is our relationship to be with that source? I am trying to be very specific about my question so please don't think there is some sort of trick bag hidden here. All I am saying is that we for the moment agree that we train in Art XYZ and that art has a single source. My question is what is to be our relationship with that source? Here are some options that come to mind from past discussions and other events I have been a part of.
1.) The single source (SS) is sacred and inviolate. What he taught is what is taught. Nothing is added and nothing is taken away. (Now I know this is not a real experience in the real world, I'm just stating that this is a kind view that could be held.)
2.) SS is subject to interpretation under the authority of his designated successor who may introduce change while maintaining the spirit if not the letter of the original teachings.
3.) SS is a starting point from which various people having experienced SS at one time or another got as much as they could get and passed that on as their interpretation of SS to become a sort of Single Source in their own rights.
4.) SS is a starting point representing but one of a number of starting points in a larger constellation of traditions some of which came before and some of which that came after the particular SS identified.
5.) SS is a discrete amount of information or an approach which other people may add to and subtract from to produce their own truth as they will.
I pose this question because this may have more to do with differences among people who are discussing things here than many other points. Thoughts? Comments?
bruce, assuming, as you suggest for the sake of argument, that a single source exists for an art, i think all 5 of your situations are not only possible, but probable, especially as we move farther away in time from the lifetime of SS.
not trying to sound like a politician, but i really think this is true. in fact, we could probably find at least one prominent person from each of these categories in today's hapkido world...
not trying to sound like a politician, but i really think this is true. in fact, we could probably find at least one prominent person from each of these categories in today's hapkido world...
iron_ox
Black Belt
Hello all,
Howard, yes one of the interviews I was speaking of was from GM Wollmershauser, the others are on the net, just take some digging...
Bruce, I will accept all except #4, which I think you slip in to try and explain something that you cannot either identify or prove...Dojunim Choi was the first - simply point out anyone before him...a human teaching this stuff not a fantasy "tradition".
Also, for the sake of argument, since everyone wants to question Choi, Yong Sul's life story, then where is the questioning for EVERYONE else? Choi's teacher died at the height of WW II - not having lots of documents then could be understood - OK, so lets say this is a fantasy, and Choi pulled the stuff he taught out of thin air - then where did the rest of his students get their stuff to build Sin Moo, Hwa rang do, Kuk Sool Kon, etc. Why are there no pictures of Toaist Lee or Granny? How about Monk Saum Dosa? Why - did they ever really exist(I don't know), if you want to question Choi's verasity, at least he picked a real human being...
There is a single source, Dojumin Choi, Yong Sul. He had LOTS of talented students that took what they learned and expanded upon it, gave it some "Korean" tradition and flavors and gave it lots of names - but try as you like...the single source stops (or starts) at the Suh Brewery, Sunday, February 22, 1948.
Martial traditions are kept alive by "personalities" not books, they thrive on the training of adherants that follow the teaching of individuals that through experience or inheritance hold collections of techniques unique to that train of belief. Without the personalities, there is no art left to teach to anyone - because no one is teaching. We are all "personalities" to our students, as our teachers are personalities to us - as we all train in a system with a hierarchy, these personalities, like any pyramid get fewer and fewer as we reach the top levels of training.
Sincerely,
Kevin "Hope I become a personality" Sogor
Howard, yes one of the interviews I was speaking of was from GM Wollmershauser, the others are on the net, just take some digging...
Bruce, I will accept all except #4, which I think you slip in to try and explain something that you cannot either identify or prove...Dojunim Choi was the first - simply point out anyone before him...a human teaching this stuff not a fantasy "tradition".
Also, for the sake of argument, since everyone wants to question Choi, Yong Sul's life story, then where is the questioning for EVERYONE else? Choi's teacher died at the height of WW II - not having lots of documents then could be understood - OK, so lets say this is a fantasy, and Choi pulled the stuff he taught out of thin air - then where did the rest of his students get their stuff to build Sin Moo, Hwa rang do, Kuk Sool Kon, etc. Why are there no pictures of Toaist Lee or Granny? How about Monk Saum Dosa? Why - did they ever really exist(I don't know), if you want to question Choi's verasity, at least he picked a real human being...
There is a single source, Dojumin Choi, Yong Sul. He had LOTS of talented students that took what they learned and expanded upon it, gave it some "Korean" tradition and flavors and gave it lots of names - but try as you like...the single source stops (or starts) at the Suh Brewery, Sunday, February 22, 1948.
Martial traditions are kept alive by "personalities" not books, they thrive on the training of adherants that follow the teaching of individuals that through experience or inheritance hold collections of techniques unique to that train of belief. Without the personalities, there is no art left to teach to anyone - because no one is teaching. We are all "personalities" to our students, as our teachers are personalities to us - as we all train in a system with a hierarchy, these personalities, like any pyramid get fewer and fewer as we reach the top levels of training.
Sincerely,
Kevin "Hope I become a personality" Sogor
iron_ox
Black Belt
Hello all,
As I reflect why it is so hard for some to accept a single source for Hapkido (and here, I will say that this includes the Ji tradition because the only person we KNOW he trained with is Choi), maybe the answer is simple - becasue if there is a single source that passed away as late as 1986, and your tradition has NOTHING to do with CHOI (again, not Ji folks here) - and you call what you do Hapkido, I would think you would feel lied to and betrayed by whoever told you what you were learning was Hapkido...
Sincerely,
Kevin Sogor
As I reflect why it is so hard for some to accept a single source for Hapkido (and here, I will say that this includes the Ji tradition because the only person we KNOW he trained with is Choi), maybe the answer is simple - becasue if there is a single source that passed away as late as 1986, and your tradition has NOTHING to do with CHOI (again, not Ji folks here) - and you call what you do Hapkido, I would think you would feel lied to and betrayed by whoever told you what you were learning was Hapkido...
Sincerely,
Kevin Sogor
hi kevin, it's always seemed to me, from a plain old common sense point of view, that if choi had not trained under takeda, how did he know so much about him? after all, there was no internet back then, not even television. also, from a common sense point of view, why would a korean claim to have trained under a japanese, given the history between the 2 countries? looks like if choi was going to make up a master, that master would have been korean.
just a final thought for now... i don't think any reasonable person disputes that choi was a very skilled martial artists when he showed up back in korea, and from reading accounts of what he did and taught, his art certainly seems to have a strong aiki component. so, if what he learned was not daito ryu, what was it? it would be interesting to see somebody (who has lots of time on their hands) talk to choi's first-generation students, watch them train, and try to see if what he taught might come from some other japanese style.
personally, i believe intuitively that he did train under takeda. but as long as there is no ironclad evidence to prove that, i have to admit the possibility that he did not.
just a final thought for now... i don't think any reasonable person disputes that choi was a very skilled martial artists when he showed up back in korea, and from reading accounts of what he did and taught, his art certainly seems to have a strong aiki component. so, if what he learned was not daito ryu, what was it? it would be interesting to see somebody (who has lots of time on their hands) talk to choi's first-generation students, watch them train, and try to see if what he taught might come from some other japanese style.
personally, i believe intuitively that he did train under takeda. but as long as there is no ironclad evidence to prove that, i have to admit the possibility that he did not.
iron_ox
Black Belt
Hello Howard,
I would agree to a degree, except, Dojunim Choi is now dead, and I am an adherant to his teachings, I would love to find some really hard documentary evidence for his claims, but even without these, I feel compelled to believe his story out of respect of his memory. May be irrational, but look at us, swinging swords in an era of machine-guns...irrational is our stock in trade.
Sincerely,
Kevin Sogor
I would agree to a degree, except, Dojunim Choi is now dead, and I am an adherant to his teachings, I would love to find some really hard documentary evidence for his claims, but even without these, I feel compelled to believe his story out of respect of his memory. May be irrational, but look at us, swinging swords in an era of machine-guns...irrational is our stock in trade.
Sincerely,
Kevin Sogor
absolutely!iron_ox said:
hey, we all need our escapes, right? the real world is too ugly to face all day long, every day.
off topic i know, but here's another of my favorite irrational escape areas - watching taped old episodes of beavis and butthead.
now i bet you're REALLY wondering about me (lol)...
glad2bhere
Master Black Belt
Dear Kevin:
".....Also, for the sake of argument, since everyone wants to question Choi, Yong Sul's life story, then where is the questioning for EVERYONE else? Choi's teacher died at the height of WW II - not having lots of documents then could be understood - OK, so lets say this is a fantasy, and Choi pulled the stuff he taught out of thin air - then where did the rest of his students get their stuff to build Sin Moo, Hwa rang do, Kuk Sool Kon, etc. Why are there no pictures of Toaist Lee or Granny? How about Monk Saum Dosa? Why - did they ever really exist(I don't know), if you want to question Choi's verasity, at least he picked a real human being...
There is a single source, Dojumin Choi, Yong Sul. He had LOTS of talented students that took what they learned and expanded upon it, gave it some "Korean" tradition and flavors and gave it lots of names - but try as you like...the single source stops (or starts) at the Suh Brewery, Sunday, February 22, 1948....."
I did not provide those options to either prove or not prove anything. You have a strong affinity for one of those options and I think that plain and I find nothing wrong with that. Can you allow that another person may have as strong a belief system about HIS particular view? Maybe another person doesn't need a picture of a person, just like some people don't need a certificate or license for Choi. My question has less to do with WHAT people believe as the intolerance that seems to proceed from the fact that not everybody believes the same or that some peoples beliefs are some how more valued than others. Thoughts? Comments?
Best Wishes,
Bruce
".....Also, for the sake of argument, since everyone wants to question Choi, Yong Sul's life story, then where is the questioning for EVERYONE else? Choi's teacher died at the height of WW II - not having lots of documents then could be understood - OK, so lets say this is a fantasy, and Choi pulled the stuff he taught out of thin air - then where did the rest of his students get their stuff to build Sin Moo, Hwa rang do, Kuk Sool Kon, etc. Why are there no pictures of Toaist Lee or Granny? How about Monk Saum Dosa? Why - did they ever really exist(I don't know), if you want to question Choi's verasity, at least he picked a real human being...
There is a single source, Dojumin Choi, Yong Sul. He had LOTS of talented students that took what they learned and expanded upon it, gave it some "Korean" tradition and flavors and gave it lots of names - but try as you like...the single source stops (or starts) at the Suh Brewery, Sunday, February 22, 1948....."
I did not provide those options to either prove or not prove anything. You have a strong affinity for one of those options and I think that plain and I find nothing wrong with that. Can you allow that another person may have as strong a belief system about HIS particular view? Maybe another person doesn't need a picture of a person, just like some people don't need a certificate or license for Choi. My question has less to do with WHAT people believe as the intolerance that seems to proceed from the fact that not everybody believes the same or that some peoples beliefs are some how more valued than others. Thoughts? Comments?
Best Wishes,
Bruce
greendragon
Green Belt
Hey I like machine guns!!!
Michael Tomlinson :asian:
Michael Tomlinson :asian:
greendragon
Green Belt
Kevin writes::
There is a single source, Dojumin Choi, Yong Sul. He had LOTS of talented students that took what they learned and expanded upon it, gave it some "Korean" tradition and flavors and gave it lots of names - but try as you like... >>>>
I agree with this comment...
Bruce writes....
Can you allow that another person may have as strong a belief system about HIS particular view? Maybe another person doesn't need a picture of a person, just like some people don't need a certificate or license for Choi. My question has less to do with WHAT people believe as the intolerance that seems to proceed from the fact that not everybody believes the same or that some peoples beliefs are some how more valued than others. Thoughts? Comments?
I agree with this comment also..
as Todd said before, the important thing is that we all practice Hapkido... personally I don't care what or who anyone believes in as long as you are a respectfull person. I don't believe in calling this or that group wrong or questioning some of the old GM's such as Ji Han Jae or Joo Bang Lee, or Kwang Sik Myung, etc.. without meeting them and talking to them face to face...this is what I meant before.. I have nothing but respect for all of the Korean Hapkidoists from that era.. Men such as Ji, Myung, Kim, Han etc...were in Vietnam practicing and using Hapkido for life and death while most of us on here were in diapers or young teens.. they have lived the battle and deserve nothing but our respect....and I will never say anything disparaging about them on the internet.. if I have a gripe with anyone I will tell them to their face..that is also Hapkido training, plain and simple. I think this is the important thing to remember..if they say something in history is this way or that it doesn't affect MY training one bit....I know what works and what doesn't from working out with them personally over and over and I know most of these men were in Vietnam and North Korea at times Killing people for real and not in fantasy land and that is a pretty good test of their Hapkido..whether it is "authentic" or not,, when I train with some of the old Korean GM's and look into their eyes face to face as men I KNOW what is real and can see it on them...I don't think you can get this from a book or internet debate or history lesson and that is why training with some of them is more important than speculating about their technique or someone else's technique.. or which came first or who is the most real etc.etc.etc.. remember there is a big difference in someone who "theorizes about techniques and someone who has had to kill people with their techniques".... my two cents anywho...
Michael Tomlinson
There is a single source, Dojumin Choi, Yong Sul. He had LOTS of talented students that took what they learned and expanded upon it, gave it some "Korean" tradition and flavors and gave it lots of names - but try as you like... >>>>
I agree with this comment...
Bruce writes....
Can you allow that another person may have as strong a belief system about HIS particular view? Maybe another person doesn't need a picture of a person, just like some people don't need a certificate or license for Choi. My question has less to do with WHAT people believe as the intolerance that seems to proceed from the fact that not everybody believes the same or that some peoples beliefs are some how more valued than others. Thoughts? Comments?
I agree with this comment also..
as Todd said before, the important thing is that we all practice Hapkido... personally I don't care what or who anyone believes in as long as you are a respectfull person. I don't believe in calling this or that group wrong or questioning some of the old GM's such as Ji Han Jae or Joo Bang Lee, or Kwang Sik Myung, etc.. without meeting them and talking to them face to face...this is what I meant before.. I have nothing but respect for all of the Korean Hapkidoists from that era.. Men such as Ji, Myung, Kim, Han etc...were in Vietnam practicing and using Hapkido for life and death while most of us on here were in diapers or young teens.. they have lived the battle and deserve nothing but our respect....and I will never say anything disparaging about them on the internet.. if I have a gripe with anyone I will tell them to their face..that is also Hapkido training, plain and simple. I think this is the important thing to remember..if they say something in history is this way or that it doesn't affect MY training one bit....I know what works and what doesn't from working out with them personally over and over and I know most of these men were in Vietnam and North Korea at times Killing people for real and not in fantasy land and that is a pretty good test of their Hapkido..whether it is "authentic" or not,, when I train with some of the old Korean GM's and look into their eyes face to face as men I KNOW what is real and can see it on them...I don't think you can get this from a book or internet debate or history lesson and that is why training with some of them is more important than speculating about their technique or someone else's technique.. or which came first or who is the most real etc.etc.etc.. remember there is a big difference in someone who "theorizes about techniques and someone who has had to kill people with their techniques".... my two cents anywho...
Michael Tomlinson
