I was having a converstation today over what is truely a Korean Art and what made it solely a Korean Art? So my question is simple what was the first of Korean Arts and what do you considered to be a true Korean art?
Korean Arts Huh!
- Thread starter terryl965
- Start date
Any art developed by Koreans in Korea I suppose would be a Korean art.
As for the first? I'm not sure that anyone could really answer that one. Keep in mind that most of the arts that we think of as Korean today are structured very differently from Korean arts prior to Japan's annexation of the Korean peninsula. And they weren't called by names that we are familiar with either. A great deal of effort has been made to connect modern KMA with ancient KMA, but most modern KMA are modern arts with no real connection to prewar KMA. That doesn't make them any less Korean, however.
Daniel
As for the first? I'm not sure that anyone could really answer that one. Keep in mind that most of the arts that we think of as Korean today are structured very differently from Korean arts prior to Japan's annexation of the Korean peninsula. And they weren't called by names that we are familiar with either. A great deal of effort has been made to connect modern KMA with ancient KMA, but most modern KMA are modern arts with no real connection to prewar KMA. That doesn't make them any less Korean, however.
Daniel
miguksaram
Master of Arts
Some of the traditional Korean arts would be Kungdo (archery) Ssirum (Korean Wrestling) & Taekkyon. They have survived even during Japanese occupation, though not widely practiced during that time, naturally.
Tanaka
Purple Belt
Ssireum is not really a "Martial art" just a sport of wrestling. It has been made more systematic in its approach I guess in modern times.
Taekkyon was considered just a game were you kick each other. It wasn't really a martial art either. Although in modern times it has been changed into one.
The only traditional Korean martial arts would be their archery. Although I have heard of traditional sword martial arts that aren't known anymore. So that is not really verified. Koreans were more of cosmetic, and kind of looked down on Martial arts.
The statements above would depend on how one defined "martial art", whether inclusively and therefore broadly, or narrowly and rigidly.
Tanaka
Purple Belt
Well in eastern culture a martial art normally tends to follow a philosophy. In which techniques exist to express that philosophy. For example I will use Korean martial art of "Tae Kwon Do." Which seems to follow the philosophy that the kick of a weaker man is as strong(or stronger) as a punch from a stronger man. And that the kick can be trained to be as fast as a punch. So you see techniques that represent this philosophy.
I guess one could say it's a systematic approach to win a physical struggle of some sort. Whether it's upfront combat or a strategic way that isn't so upfront.
But I would not call something that was made solely for traditional folk game as "martial art"
Nor would I call "NAGA" a martial art.
but it's a place where many martial artist go to grapple.
For me, Taekwondo's philosophy is summed up in the calligraphy of GM LEE Won Kuk, the founder of the Chung Do Kwan, which reads "Hwal In Taekwondo", meaning Taekwondo for long life, or life giving Taekwondo.
Rumy73
Black Belt
The early modern Koreans did have a guide to the art war called Muyedobotongji that described in detail Korea's martial arts of which an unarmed combat style of kicking and punching is extensively illustrated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muyedobotongji
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muyedobotongji
Tanaka
Purple Belt
Based on Chinese martial arts systems... correct?
At least one was Japanese, as the Muyedobotongji includes a section regarding the use of the wae geom; the Japanese sword.
I was always under the impression that the Muyedobotongji was a military manual and not a comprehensive MA manual. As such, it probably would not include whatever civilian MA existed at the time. I don't believe that folk arts such as Taekkyeon or Ssirum would have been included. Not an authority, so I certainly could be wrong in that regard.
Daniel
miguksaram
Master of Arts
Actually you have it backwards...Taekkyon started out as a martial art and became a folk game. As far as ssirum is concern, you would have to exclude all wrestling out of martial arts based on your view of Ssirum. For that matter, Kumdo, Judo as well since they are for sport not for "war".
While it is true that Koreans look towards more scholarly pursuits due to Neo-confucianism, martial arts were not looked down upon as so many would think. In fact many of the upper caste learned martial arts as part of their education and training.
Mooyedobotongji was based off of military arts which were basic instructions in weapon work and some unarmed combat. While you can credit the vast majority on Chinese arts there are some that are also Korean based as well.
Tanaka
Purple Belt
I really don't, but for sake of argument.
Judo has a systematic approach to combat.
Ssireum approach that you see nowadays is modern creation.
And what evidence do you have of Taekkyon being a martial art? Why would it be a martial art, then become a hacky sack game, and become a martial art again in modern times?
miguksaram
Master of Arts
It was taught as a fighting system originally. However, since most training was aimed more towards education and less towards fighting (keep in mind that martial techniques taught to the upper caste members dealt in basic warfare practice for officers such as archery & sword work) Eventually the vast majority of the people using it were middle to lower caste, where they began to make it more into a game played during festivals or between contests of different villages.
I really wouldn't consider it a "hacky sack" type of game unless you used to throw your opponents or do take downs when you were played hacky sack.
Perhaps you can direct to what Ssirum used to look like prior to it being moderinzed? There is definitely proof of it existence for some time as seen in much of earlier Joseon Dynasty artwork.
Tanaka
Purple Belt
What evidence is there that suggest Taekkyon was more than just a game of kicking each other?
Because as far as I know that is all it was. A game where you used to kick each other.
And as for Ssireum, I'm looking at the pictures they used to show that it is traditional. And based on the drawings they didn't use Satba.
miguksaram
Master of Arts
Unfortunately there are no written records that would prove either way. I am going on what was told to me by Taekkyon people and nothing more.
True...then again Roman Greco Wrestling was done in the nude way back when. Doesn't mean it was teaching martial skill.
It was as martial as anything we do in martial arts now is. Near as I can tell, if you have belt rankings or colored sashes, it is a 'martial art', even if it has little martial application.
Most of what we call martial arts now are more accurately called fighting sports/ fighting system or archaic martial arts. Taekwondo has little, if any martial (as in war) application in either the current century or the century in which it was developed. Kenjutsu had martial application at one time, but does no longer.
Boxing, prior to the introduction of Queensbury rules, was more than just punching, but nobody calls old boxing a martial art and modern boxing just a sport. Its all just the sport of boxing as practiced in different eras.
In pre-modern warfare, unarmed combat was the very last resort, and no, I do not believe or buy the crazy notion that a flying sidekick was developed to unhorse an armored and mounted rider. Pre-modern military hand to hand combat was likely similar to modern hand to hand combat: smaller technique set that was drilled with enough frequency to maintain the skill, but receiving far less attention than skills in archery and spearmanship. Most soldiers did not carry swords; these were reserved for officers, and officers, including the samurai, did not use the sword as their primary weapon on the battlefield.
So how are you defining martial art? Fighting sports, such as wrestling or Taekkyeon, would not have been considered 'martial arts' by any pre-industrial military.
If you mean martial art in the sense of 'fighting systems', which is how the term is used in the modern world, the definition is pretty loose.
Daniel
Tanaka
Purple Belt
That is what I was getting too. Taekkyon as a systematic approach to fighting(I'm being more lenient than I normally am on definition martial arts in order to satisfy) is a modern find. As I recall (I would have to go look it up again)... Taekkyon was nothing more than a game that took place where they kicked each other.
Almost like a game of hackysack.
Tanaka
Purple Belt
Kenjutsu is very applicable today(physics and humans are still the same as the time of its creation). It's just that there are better weapons to use in modern times, and a sword is not worn often. So it's not as useful as it once was. But it still has reality combat principles behind it. And a reality martial philosophy behind them. In the sense that it's not just "dancing with swords"
Like you see many people doing on youtube.
But being that Kenjutsu is really no longer useful. Doesn't take away from being a Martial art. The reason why I don't really see ssireum as martial art. Is because I don't really think there is much of a systematic approach to it. The idea is to use the satba and throw them down. Do they have a systematic approach to it? Are there systematic techniques they are using. Because I can simply go invent a game where you have to get the other person down. I would never refer to that as martial art. Unless there is an ART form to what they're doing to get the person down. For example of Judo. Judo is a systematic fighting style. There is also Judo Tournaments where you can apply this systematic fighting style. Is ssireum the same as this? Because then I would call it a martial art.
Reread my post. I never said that it has no value or application or that it is not a martial art.
I said that kenjutsu had martial application at one time, and in the previous sentence, I qualified that by 'martial,' I meant in warfare. Kenjutsu falls into the 'archaic martial arts' category that I mentioned in my post.
The primary weapon of the modern soldier is the rifle. The primary personal weapon of the modern soldier is either a pistol or a knife. Swords in modern militaries are ceremonial.
I'm not familiar enough with Ssireum to render judgement as to the level of systemization, but as I said, the definition of 'martial art' today is fairly loose, as most are either fighting sports (Ssireum, wrestling, boxing, BJJ, judo, sport karate, kickboxing, sport taekwondo, kendo, fencing, etc.) or fighting systems (taekwondo, karate, hapkido, Aikido, jujutsu, taijutsu, kenpo, etc.), but most all of these are grouped into martial arts in the modern lexicon.
So by 'art' do you mean science or system? That is the way that 'art' was used when the term 'martial arts' was coined in Europe in the 15th century.
As for the rest, you'll have to take that up with a Ssireum guy.
Daniel
One of the guys in my office has a samurai sword and scabbard which his father took off a dead Japanese soldier in Iwo Jima I believe. It is framed nicely and still razor sharp. His brother got the Japanese pistol and holster that was taken from the same dead Japanese soldier. But even then I believe that the primary weapons of the Japanese soldier in WWII was his rifle or other firearm, and not that type of sword.
Similar threads
