Hapkido Q&A's

[glad2bhere]

Dear Kevin:

"......OK, we have a bit of a start, but now make this connection to Hapkido please, I am positive there are kung-fu schools all over Korea, but how do they tie into Hapkido - and not in the sense of Chin-na has techniques that look like Hapkido, but specifically, how do these arts relate themselves to Hapkido? I would be willing to bet you could find reference in the Suh, In Hyuk self styled Kuk Sool Won - ....."

Actually I think you need to turn that around and ask the opposite question. How does what Choi Yong Sul and all of the Japanese influences relate to the Chin Na traditions? As I said earlier, if folks want to narrowly define the Hapkido arts as ONLY proceeding from Choi Yong Sul and since Choi Yong Sul purported studied only material derived from Japanese traditions you cannot technically call what you are practicing a "Korean martial art" anymore than Koreans playing Baseball make Baseball Korean. However, Chinese Boxing through the Mu Ye Tobo Tong Ji is an integral part of Korean martial tradition. Chinese influnce on staff work, sword, knife and truncheon are all documented. Hapkido has become the general term for Korean grappling as produced by folks who are intersted in grappling such as Choi did. But the Chin Na traditions of the Chinese Boxing I have mentioned pre-dated Choi and his in-put is apparently solidily from Japan. There does not seem to be anything particularly Korean about it except that there were Koreans who practiced it for a number of years.

So---- what do we have.

a.) Since 1567 with General Qi we have traditions of Boxing which found their way into Korean martial science. Call it whatever you want to call it. Give it any name you want to. Lets call it "ABC". Its still a tradition of martial science and it owes much of its history and origins to Chinese sources. Its not dead. It never died. Ignoring its existence or the fact that there is not patrilinear succession makes it no less authentic.

b.) After WW II a Korean ex-pat came back to Korea and started teaching things he learned in Japan. No history that he ever knew anything but what he learned in Japan.

c.) Now advocates of what that ex-pat taught want to say that Korean grappling started with this ex-pat, and when people speak about Korean MA noone questions that "hapkido" is a Korean MA. Except along comes this curmudgeon from the Midwest and starts to question some of the thinking and many of the conclusions and finds that things are simply not adding up a certain way except that is the way people want to see (regardless of the facts).

d.) And now you ask me how does the history of Korean MA fit into the mold defined by this particular Korean ex-pat and his Japanese material. I have to say that I find Korean martial traditions just a little too big a dog to be defined by this bit of the tail, yes? FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

Hello all,

I think what is interesting about Takeda Sokaku is that HE created what today is known as DRAJJ. Check the history section of Kondo Sensei's site and it is interesting to note that Daito-ryu was considered "dead" until Sokaku revived it...and did so with a combination of all the arts he learned in his life including seperate weapon (Hozoin spear) and sword schools (itto ryu).

Kevin Sogor

Dear Kevin,

You mean mostly unpracticed not totally extinct?

Who knows really what's the differance between Daito Ryu and the Run of the Mill for lack of a better term Aiki-jujutsu?

I know people who trained in the Miyama Ryu system by Antonio Pererra and Aiki-jujutsu with Miguel Ibarra two big figures in the Jujutsu and Aiki-Jujutsu Arts comming out of New York City.

They bassically do what we do in Hapkido with some stylistic variations allowed and in my opnion either system can plug right into the other with-out missing much in between.

 

[Chris from CT]

Bruce, you make some good points on how the Chinese influenced Korean arts as a whole, but here are my questions...

I am finding it difficult to share information when it seems to me that folks only want to operate within a very narrow definition of what is under discussion...

2.) If folks want to believe that the be-all and end-all of Korean grappling arts--- presently called "hapkido"---- is found only in the traditions proceeding from Choi Yong Sul and the Japanese thats fine.

Why is it that you need to define Grappling arts of Korea with the term "Hapkido?" There are other korean arts that have grappling within their "scope of practice" such as Sserium which is definitely not Hapkido. Sure there were people throwing other people around and I'm sure there were people doing jointlocks influenced by the chinese use of Chin Na, but that leads me to my next question...

1.) I will say again that we are going to go no-where discussing personalities. These various histories that people keep citing have been processed over and over again and its quite plain to anyone who reviews the many strings over a range of Nets that such histories are heavy on "he said- she said" and short on documented facts.

Would you please cite any sources that can confirm a connection between the Chinese and Choi, Yong-Sul?

Here's my reasoning for this question... My lineage comes from Dojunim Choi to Grand Master Lim, Hyun-Soo so there's not alot of room to play with there. I can only think of a connection that would predate Daito Ryu. You may consider me to be narrow minded, but that's all we have in our lineage. Once again, to stay away from your above quote, please cite any sources that can confirm a connection between the Chinese and Choi, Yong-Sul.

Thanks :asian:

 

[American HKD]

Greeting,

.......Would you please cite any sources that can confirm a connection between the Chinese and Choi, Yong-Sul?

Here's my reasoning for this question... My lineage comes from Dojunim Choi to Grand Master Lim, Hyun-Soo so there's not alot of room to play with there. I can only think of a connection that would predate Daito Ryu. You may consider me to be narrow minded, but that's all we have in our lineage. Once again, to stay away from your above quote, please cite any sources that can confirm a connection between the Chinese and Choi, Yong-Sul..........

Chris that's make the most sense out of every said here and really cuts through all the stuff Bruce was talking about. I'm sorry Bruce but it made little sense to me as well.

My lineage is from Choi to Ji there is no other influences are at work here except as Chris saya back through Japan a 1000 years ago!

Ji acknowledges other influences in his HKD other than Choi with kicking, some weapons and Taoisism.

Bruce you have the same lineage as me only through Myung and it's a very narrow pathway.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Struart, Chris et al:

There is no Chinese Connection that I can find with Choi Yong Sul. Thats as plain as I can state that.

I am using the term Hapkido to identify Korean grappling because thats the term that YOU folks are using. I don't know why people had to invent a new term for Korean grappling to include striking, kicking, joint-locks and throws. I am using your term.

I don't know why you are calling an art made up of Japanese traditions a Korean martial art. People have yet to be able to even identify exactly what it was that was studied by Choi and under whom.

I don't know why you are choosing to call an art made up of Japanese traditions a Korean martial art and then ignore the actual Korean traditions that came before. There are traditions which go hand in hand with the material that you study which are selectively being ignored. Why, for instance, do people train in the Japanese sword that Lim is teaching, yet still call what they are doing a Korean MA? Why not just call your stuff a Japanese art and be done with it?

To me, what I am seeing are a group of people who want facts and information to come together a particular way bonly because thats they way they would like reality to come together. LOOKING AT THE HISTORICAL FACTS, reality does not support that the conclusions that you all are drawing.

The Choi tradition IS a very important influence on Korean martial traditions just like Karate was an important influence on TSD/TKD and Kendo is an important influence on Korean sword. BUT Karate is NOT TKD/TSD, and Kendo is NOT Kum Bup. Chois' traditions are NOT the sum total of Korean grappling.

Maybe someone can explain to me why folks are holding so tightly to such a very narrow view of a narrowly defined scope of MA traditions. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Chris from CT]

There is no Chinese Connection that I can find with Choi Yong Sul. Thats as plain as I can state that.

Thank you for your clear answer.

I am using the term Hapkido to identify Korean grappling because thats the term that YOU folks are using. I don't know why people had to invent a new term for Korean grappling to include striking, kicking, joint-locks and throws. I am using your term.

No one is here using "Hapkido" as a generic term for the grappling arts of Korea. Tang Soo Do has all of the above you mentioned, but no one is considering that Hapkido. So by definition it would be more appropriate to say that, "many of Korea’s grappling arts have a significant Chinese influence." This is the reason you find that people do not agree with you're point of view on this.

I don't know why you are calling an art made up of Japanese traditions a Korean martial art.

I see what Choi, Yong Sul taught as a Korean art because...
1. He was Korean
2. He was the first to bring this collection of techniques and principles to Korea as a whole, not just a couple of techniques here and there.
3. The Japanese wanted no part of being associated with a Korean or a Korean Art.

Now here is where we may agree Bruce...
I feel that Hapkido is NOT a traditional martial art. It does not have the centuries of history that people want when finding something relevant or substantial. The traditions that you arte looking for are still in its beginning stages. What we do and how we act is what those traditions will be made of for future generations.

Why, for instance, do people train in the Japanese sword that Lim is teaching, yet still call what they are doing a Korean MA? Why not just call your stuff a Japanese art and be done with it?

For reasons #1 and #2 posted above. If GM Lim wanted us to call Chung Suk Kuhapdo a Japanese art, that would be fine by me. That would not change what we do. (Even if he got permission form GM West to call it Tibetan Gopher Throwing)

In one of my acupuncture classes a teacher said to us, “Bob’s my uncle.” I asked him to explain what he meant by that and he said, “It’s a figure of speech that I may not like “Bob” for what he is or isn’t, but he is still my uncle and part of the family and I have to accept that.” So let’s extrapolate it to this scenario… Hapkido will be “Bob” and I would love there to have been a Chinese influence to the art, but there isn’t and I have to accept that.

To me, what I am seeing are a group of people who want facts and information to come together a particular way bonly because thats they way they would like reality to come together. LOOKING AT THE HISTORICAL FACTS, reality does not support that the conclusions that you all are drawing.

With my above statement about your use of the term Hapkido, your previous quote is how I, for one, view what you are trying to get across to people.

Chois' traditions are NOT the sum total of Korean grappling.

You are absolutely correct. Now if you take Choi, Yong-Sul out of the picture entirely, you would not have Hapkido today, but you would still have grappling arts of Korea. As a result, by using the term “Hapkido” as a broad classification would be incorrect. I know you have spent many years in Hapkido looking for the connection between it and the Chinese, but with all of these great sources you have cited you would be able to prove your points a little better by not using Hapkido as generic term for grappling arts of Korea.

Take care :asian:

 

[howard]

...There are traditions which go hand in hand with the material that you study which are selectively being ignored. Why, for instance, do people train in the Japanese sword that Lim is teaching, yet still call what they are doing a Korean MA? Why not just call your stuff a Japanese art and be done with it?

just for the record, master lim uses a korean term (kuhapdo) to refer to the sword art that he practices and teaches, but he acknowledges that it is japanese. also, it is public knowledge that his sword teacher is japanese. there are numerous photos of this gentleman (sekiguchi) on the jungkikwan website.

 

[American HKD]

Geetings,

Bruce it seems that the Art we learned through Ji Han Jae has more Korean influeneces than the Jung Ki Kwan Folks have. What we do has more Chinese influence through Kicking, Praying Mantis, etc.

I for one have no problem with where the techniques came from and I beleive the Japanese and Chinese Martial Traditions have been kept in tact infinatly more than the Korean MA for obivious reasons of wars and occupations.

I think we can learn alot from the Japanese side of things that would enhance our own understanding of HKD.

I think the way Hapkido evolved today is mainly because of Ji Han Jae and it is a Korean Martial Art with roots in Chinese and Japanese tradtions.

Choi's Art should still be called Yawara or something Japanese because according to his followers he never devitated from the Japanese Art he learned and has no Korean influences. But we know how the koreans feel about the Japanese so keeping the Japanese name would be unlikely.

IMO Hapkido is Ji Han Jae's Art rooted in the teachings of Choi Yong Sul along with newer additions of the Kicks, weapons, mental training that Ji developed. That's "KOREAN HAPKIDO"

To the Jung Ki Kwans folk Ji's techniques lack some higher parts of thier Art but I'm also sure they lack some of Ji's methods as well.

In the end who care because Ji's Art is still a great world class Art.

 

[howard]

hi stuart...

...it seems that the Art we learned through Ji Han Jae has more Korean influeneces than the Jung Ki Kwan Folks have. What we do has more Chinese influence through Kicking, Praying Mantis, etc.

I think we can learn alot from the Japanese side of things that would enhance our own understanding of HKD.

i think you're right about master ji's hkd having influences that jungki hapkido does not have. particularly the large kicking repertoire in his style. jungki kicking is much more basic, and generally stays away from high kicks.

...I think the way Hapkido evolved today is mainly because of Ji Han Jae and it is a Korean Martial Art with roots in Chinese and Japanese tradtions.

i'd agree with that. i happen to be a jungkikwan student, but i'll defnitely acknowledge that master ji's style is far more prevalent, and that the most widely practiced styles of hapkido today are probably ones that he influenced.

Choi's Art should still be called Yawara or something Japanese because according to his followers he never devitated from the Japanese Art he learned and has no Korean influences. But we know how the koreans feel about the Japanese so keeping the Japanese name would be unlikely.

yeah, as a generalization, i'm afraid i have to agree with you. but master lim is a nice exception. he trains with a japanese sword teacher. he seems to believe that martial artists are martial artists first, then koreans, japanese, americans or whatever other nationality they might be.

To the Jung Ki Kwans folk Ji's techniques lack some higher parts of thier Art but I'm also sure they lack some of Ji's methods as well.

hmmmm... actually, i don't think us jungki people claim that our style is superior to master ji's, or that his style lacks some of our higher methods. i've never heard anybody i know say that. in fact, imo it's likely that if you take out the kicking and look only at the "grappling" techniques, jungki and shin moo are probably very similar.

once again, i'd like to say that anybody that has met master lim knows that he is NOT about making claims that his style is better than anybody else's. he simply lets you know that he teaches what choi young sool taught him, and that he keeps it as faithfully close to the original as he can.

In the end who care because Ji's Art is still a great world class Art.

yes sir, i agree with you.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Folks:

I commend you for the clever way you bend things to produce the results that suit you, but unfortunately what you are constructing is not a reality. It is only what you WANT to be real.

1.) You folks are using a term ("hapkido") which didn't even exist 50 years ago. However it suits your purposes to use it only in the narrowly defined manner in which you do because it suits your purposes. Why are you so careful not to use terms like Soo Bahk, and Kwon Bup? Is it because by using terms in a broader sense you losing some of the elite authority you would like to garner to yourself? Outside of this discussion there are people who are using "hapkido" to describe only Ji's tradition. There are other people who use it only to define traditions proceeding from Choi. Yet others are using it as a generic term for all of Korean grappling. Sorry, I don't make the news but I think you all have a vested interest in keeping the term "hapkido" defined ONLY the way you see it. I don't know what TSD people or TKD people do or say. I am talking about Hapkido and I am using it in its most generic application. My sense is that people are using the term as a way of protecting only a narrowly defined perspective on Hapkido which is arguably self-serving.

2.) You can make all the talk about Choi being Korean, but that does not make what he did a Korean art. He learned it in Japan. The techniques and the biomechanics and the philosophy are all Japanese. The Korean government, the Korean educational system and the Korean culture at large did not absorb his material. The only people who are identifying this material as a Korean martial art are folks who have a vested interest in doing so. Once again this is not reality but a simple self-serving effort. The fact that Chois sources are vague, what he taught was vaguely recollected and that there are a wide variety of representations of his material make it easy to represent something as a cohesive art without much to hold people accountable for what they teach or how its organized. The fact that Lim can admit that he teaches Japanese sword under a Korean name and that people still consider that they are learning a Korean martial art borders on the ludicrious. It is not just a matter of what you call it. Its also a matter of what it is.

3.) Stuart has raised the issue that my teacher, Myung, learned from Ji who learned from Choi. All very accurate. Now what do I make of that? Do I take a position of slavish adherence to only what Myung teaches and how he teaches it? That means I never touch hapkiyusool, Korean sword or a host of other traditions either. I think it is very clever for people to use lineage not as a jumping off point for deeper investigation of Korean traditions but as a limit that keeps them from having to dig deeper into Korean materials and culture. Its the same way that folks conveniently avoid looking at the way Chinese arts contributed to Korean martial development. In this way they need never be held accountable for not looking at Chinese material which might provide greater insight into what they do and why they do it. I must own with no small amount of regret that this is a very American approach to things.

4.) Your statement about taking Choi out of the picture is completely wrong, Chris. With Choi out of the picture you would not have the WORD "Hapkido". We would be using a different word and speaking about other personalities but the art would still be there. It would probably be descended from other Japanese or Chinese influences but the art would still be there. It suits your purpose to say this because by establishing Choi as an authority, it authenticates what you do. If you take Choi away what you train in would not stand on its own by Western standards and thats what we are really discussing. Korean culture distorted as its made to fit a Western mold.


Lastly, in response to Stuarts' comment
("In the end who care because Ji's Art is still a great world class Art.")

may I say that I--- for one---- care. I care that people play fast and loose with facts and misrepresent things.
I care that people do this sort of misrepresentation for solidly self-serving reasons. I care that the larger portion of Korean martial science is ignored and that people take a single Japanese influence and represent that as a Korean tradition simply because it suits their purpose to do so. I care when people teach Japanese sword and leave Korean sword to be ignored. I think it says a lot for what I am sharing when people can own that Dojunim Lim teaches Japanese traditions but uses a Korean title and people represent that material as Korean material. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Chris from CT]

I commend you for the clever way you bend things to produce the results that suit you, but unfortunately what you are constructing is not a reality. It is only what you WANT to be real.

Come on Bruce you can't be serious? You’re just being ridiculous.

1.) You folks are using a term ("hapkido") which didn't even exist 50 years ago.

Exactly, so why would you use it to describe an entire genre of Korean grappling arts that predate the Muye Dobo Tongji?

Outside of this discussion there are people who are using "hapkido" to describe only Ji's tradition.

Absolutely

There are other people who use it only to define traditions proceeding from Choi.

Absolutely

Yet others are using it as a generic term for all of Korean grappling.

You have been the only one I have seen so far.

Sorry, I don't make the news but I think you all have a vested interest in keeping the term "hapkido" defined ONLY the way you see it…

… My sense is that people are using the term as a way of protecting only a narrowly defined perspective on Hapkido which is arguably self-serving.

It disappoints me to hear you say that. When have you heard me put down a style of Hapkido? I have been known to not talk highly of JP, but that is because of his ethics, not his style. I have many friends in other styles of Hapkido, including people from Sin Moo, the USKMAF, AHA, Combat Hapkido, KHF, GM Jong-Bae Rim’s, etc and continue to have their open friendship even after I have been on the mat with them.

Playing the “vested interest card” is just silly because I, like you Bruce, do not teach Hapkido as my source of income.

Your statement about taking Choi out of the picture is completely wrong, Chris. With Choi out of the picture you would not have the WORD "Hapkido". We would be using a different word and speaking about other personalities but the art would still be there.

Maybe the art would be somewhere, maybe here, maybe not, but that “word” defines us, just as a neurosurgeon differs from a cardiologist from a gynecologist. All do different things and are differentiated because of it

See, the thing is that everyone who studies Hapkido (as I am proposing it) can realistically, physically and scholarly document and show some connection to Choi, Yong-Sul. (Jung Ki guys, Sin Moo guys, KHF guys, etc.) I know you want to have a scholarly discussion with sources and not just “he said/she said” stuff so I figure you would appreciate this.

It suits your purpose to say this because by establishing Choi as an authority…

Of course Choi is an authority, just as Ji is. So if that’s the case, how is that a narrowing self-serving view?

If you take Choi away what you train in would not stand on its own by Western standards and thats what we are really discussing. Korean culture distorted as its made to fit a Western mold.

If it was that big of a deal I wouldn’t even have mentioned it. This is very similar to the certification issue, which is another area I couldn’t care less about. If someone told me that I didn’t have a real certificate that would in no way change the years of training that I went through and the knowledge I have.

Once again, who am I trying to be superior to or where is my vested interest?

I think it says a lot for what I am sharing when people can own that Dojunim Lim teaches Japanese traditions but uses a Korean title and people represent that material as Korean material.

Nothing is created out of thin air, then when would something become traditional? Everything has an influence. How long would a Chinese martial art brought to Korea take to become an indigenous style? 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? More? Would the original person have to be Chinese that taught it?

Something to think about. :asian:

 

[Master Todd Miller]

BTW: I would also like to say to Todd that your gross Characterization of me as regarding myself as a sole source of objectivity was unworthy of you and is the sort of thing I would expect from people no longer able to express themselves on this net. Noone here has taken you to task for you particular view and I won't characterize it here, now, either. I can't see how that sort of contribution made the discussion better. FWIW

Bruce: I meant no dissrespect to you and did not intend for you to get all upset! You have your view, I have mine GM Ji's guys have their take on it all. I am more than willing to look at hard evidence but you just do not have any! This is not worth being angry about.

The Founder of Hapkido was or is Korean! Therefore Hapkido is a Korean Mudo, plain and simple.

www.millersmudo.com

 

[glad2bhere]

Thats true enough. But if you take away all of the fancy two-stepping that is occuring here, what do you really have?

I am responding to other peoples' questions, but how come nobody is responding to MY questions?

a.) Based on Chris' logic am I to conclude that had Choi emigrated to Canada what he taught would have been a Canadian art? Or would it have been a Japanese art? Or would it have been a Korean art?

b.) And what about WHAT he taught. He learned a Japanese art--- whatever it was. So going across to Korea makes it a Korean art? Or his being Korean makes it a Korean art? Or do folks just like lining things up this way because thats what they have gotten used to?

c.) And what about people going to other countries and bringing back other traditions. Am I to understand that if I go to China and learn Chuan Fa that when I bring that to America it becomes an American art?

Excuse me but a guy could be forgiven for wondering just WHO is being ridiculous here.

And how come nobody wants to talk about the huge space between what people are calling a Korean MA--- Hapkido--- and the fact that there is actually (apart from Chois' nationality itself) little or no Korean content in the art.

And how come people are so quick to disparage the MYTBTJ which at least was organized along Korean military lines and for the use of the Korean military and by order of the Korean government. How come people are so quick to jump on the Choi bandwagon which arguably cannot be consistently documented at all? Which is actually and historically the greater claim to being a legit martial tradition?

And how come people are so quick to adopt the idea of a binding patrilinear succession (IE Choi to Ji to Myung to Sims, for instance) when they can't even understand the nuances of the more traditional Korean kwan system?

And if vested interest is NOT whats going on here why is it that people are making such a deal about having the most direct tie back into Choi through this or that personality. Why are people so keen on being able to identify the cleanest line directly back to Choi himself --- and no further.

IMVVHO I believe that the Koreans know and accept something that Westerners do not. That is that lineage is an indicator but not a binding organization. This is why folks will not understand and accept the kwan system here in the States. A kwan is bound by the dedication of the individual to a like-minded group--- and they to him. You can't buy a membership; its by invitation only and acceptance to a kwan is a heavy thing. Contrary to Stuarts' assertion a little earlier I am not bound to some lineage of Choi to Ji to Myung. Myung is my teacher and I am a member of his kwan. Dojunim Kim is my teacher and I am a member of his kwan. And if I am to believe that people are at least half as sincere as they are making out to be you will be dedicated to you immediate teacher and let the rest of this go.
For the past few posts I have tried to get you to see how illogical your positions are if you apply the least bit of reasoning. Some how the result is that I am one who is ridiculous. Todds' right that its not worth getting upset about but neither can I quite get my fingers around that. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[howard]

bruce,

...I care when people teach Japanese sword and leave Korean sword to be ignored.

who are you referring to here? master lim? if you are, how can you simply assume that he "leaves korean sword to be ignored"?

does it offend you that he, as a korean, teaches a japanese sword art? could you please explain exactly what you mean.

I think it says a lot for what I am sharing when people can own that Dojunim Lim teaches Japanese traditions but uses a Korean title and people represent that material as Korean material. FWIW.

two comments:

1. i cannot fathom how master lim's teaching a japanese sword art but using a korean word for it "says a lot" for what you are sharing. it seems to me that you are reading WAY too much into this. before taking others to task for forcing the "truth" to fit their views, might you not consider that you could be seeing the mote in your neighbor's eye, but not the beam in your own?

2. who is representing kuhapdo as purely korean? certainly not master lim.

on another point, i have no vested interest in anything related to hapkido. the only things i have posted here are facts that can be objectively verified. as for where hapkido came from, i don't give a tinker's damn if it came from mars. as i said earlier, i believe it's an effective system of self defense, and that it's a beautiful martial art. i happen to learn it from a korean source; at the same time, i personally believe (but cannot prove, nor can anybody else that we know of) that it comes from a japanese art. but if somebody gave me conclusive evidence tomorrow that choi actually spent 30 years learning the source of hapkido in north carolina, rather than japan, it wouldn't change my views about hapkido, nor my commitment to continuing to train as long as i'm physically able.

 

[American HKD]

Greetings

Bruce,

I for one have little idea what your talking about or trying to get across?

It seems that the rest of us are having a similarly hard time as well because you are saying nobody's answering your questions.

You wrote:
..........I am not bound to some lineage of Choi to Ji to Myung. Myung is my teacher and I am a member of his kwan. Dojunim Kim is my teacher and I am a member of his kwan...............

You learned from Myung for how long and Kim for a week what's your point.
You cant change your past but you are free to learn whatever from whoever will teach you.

Bruce I have learned from two primary sources of Hapkido Son Tae Soo and Ji Han Jae. I also learned from a couple of other people which all in all wasn't that significant but it was all of them were from the Ji tradition.

I for one respect all my teachers for what they taught me some more some less but my real loyalty is the Art itself rather than a person or Kwan esspecially because in this day and age Associations are all kind of Bogus.

 

[American HKD]

Howard,

Your Master Lim is right it's MA first and where it came from secondary. Wise move!

 

[howard]

Bruce,

I for one have little idea what your talking about or trying to get across?

stuart, i have to say that makes at least 2 of us. i'm pretty lost as well.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Stuart and Howard:

I will make this as simple as I possibly can.

1.) The Korean culture was terribly abused by the Japanese and their policies.

2.) The Koreans have martial traditions of their own. Those traditions did not die out. They are still around.

3.) I have no problem with people studying whatever it is that they want
to study.

4.) What I have a problem with is:
a.) People studying one thing but calling it or representing it as another.
b.) People importing the culture of a former aggressor culture and
making a case for focusing on THAT material rather than the
material of their own culture
c.) Furthermore I have a problem with the introduction of a
Japanese hierarchical system to country where it is an alien concept
while the indigenous kwan system is avoided.
d.) People using terms such as "hapkido", "grandmaster", as well as a
host of transliterations from Japanese in order to suggest a system
of standing without historical evidence to support it.

Lastly, I will say that I don't think anyone is having any trouble understanding where I am coming from with this line of reasoning. Rather I suspect that it is a much better defense of the amazing little intellectual cocoon you have constructed to pretend that this line of questioning is extraordinary. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Howard:

"....I cannot fathom how master lim's teaching a japanese sword art but using a korean word for it "says a lot" for what you are sharing....."

Why doesn't he use the Japanese term for it. Why not identify it for what it is "Eishin Ryu Kenjutsu". If he is so good at sword why is he not directing his efforts to support Korean sword at home in Korea?

"....2. who is representing kuhapdo as purely korean? certainly not master lim."

Why is he using Korean terms for a Japanese art?

"........, i have no vested interest in anything related to hapkido. the only things i have posted here are facts that can be objectively verified. as for where hapkido came from, i don't give a tinker's damn if it came from mars. ...."

I bet you don't and there in lies the problem. The Korean culture is not just something that you can cherry-pick what you like and ignore what you don't like. You don't get to play fast and loose with titles, and terms and arts as though anything goes. Westerners have been showing this sort of disrespect for Oriental culture, religion, philosophy, medicine etc etc etc for a few centuries and it has never gotten any better. What makes it even worse is that for a week I sat and enjoyed the very sort of camraderie that I have always known there could be in a kwan while at the same time listening to Westerners whine and ***** on various Nets. Mike Dunn (Fla) made a pitch for Hapkido players getting together in an organization of support and fraternity. I don't see it happening and the sorts of energies that drive the positions and the perceptual defense in this discussion are exactly the reason why. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Paul B]

Soo....you have a problem with people using the term "Hapkido"?

Yon Mu Kwan Hapkido....hmmm....

Or,rather than take it for what it is or isn't, recognize that it came from Japan,China,or India through Mesopotamia,and Eygypt,maybe even from Greece.....pancrase.....wherever, you pick,it probably has some influence.

Koreans put their spin on it. Hence....Hapkido.

You could make the same arguement for every MA on the planet. It's only as pure as you make it. Even a lowly blue-collar professional like me can see and understand it,and I sleep fine knowing that it really doesn't matter where it came from,it only matters where it's going. JEESH. It needs no "validation".Period.

It looks like you may have picked the wrong art to study if you want a "pure" art. Let me know when you find one. Go.Train.Be Happy!!