The Difference Between Development and Application

[AlexGoode]

But which of the arts are you guys referring to? You can base it on animals or nature all you want, but there should still be some underlying CMA for it to be called Kung Fu and not be misleading.

I mean really, it's Oom Yung Doe Kung Fu. It's pretty unique in itself, and I am not trying to brag, but very expansive. There's endless varieties and lineages of kung fu and many that base their art on 1 or more animals (white crane, mantis, tiger) etc. Within our line you can learn drunken fist, mantis, snake, tiger, monkey, dragon, ocean wave, ocean current, eagle, etc on and on, each with its own unique physical and mental benefits.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Anyways, are you saying you aren't familiar with alot of the joint locks, hip tosses, takedowns, throws, etc in the videos?

You're talking about the aikido and jujutsu videos? I'm familiar with the joint locks and throws. I'm saying that the aikido isn't performed with the body mechanics and principles that I would expect from traditional aikido. The jujutsu is a trickier call, since there are hundreds of different styles of jujutsu. I will say that it doesn't look like any of the koryu forms I've seen. It looks like one of the modern hybrid forms created outside of Japan. Nothing wrong with that - but I wouldn't call it traditional.

Also the kendo forms you see, that we call Kom Do (which is just the Korean translation) are called Chung Dan Hyungs, which contain alot of key developmental movements. However, the rudimentary techniques taught look pretty similar, i.e. drilling lots and lots of cuts lol.

The kendo/kenjutsu experts on the forum can speak more on this, but it doesn't look like the mechanics that I'm used to seeing from Japanese sword work.

Yes I know. Kung Fu simply means "skill" and refers to alot of arts. For sake of simplicity we base it on alot of nature forms, meaning it was derived from watching animals in their natural habitat, or from the principles of ocean waves, tornadoes, etc etc. with the emphasis being on developing the mind and body through copying the natural movement, absorbing natures energy into the body, melding ones own energy with nature(becoming one with nature) , etc etc lol. Anyways, I hope that makes sense to you.

Are you saying that Mr. Kim created his own generic "Kung Fu" forms based on watching nature or are you saying that he adopted existing forms from existing CMA styles? If so, which ones? There's a huge difference between (for example) Choy Li Fut and Wing Chun. Different stances, body mechanics, power generation, tactical doctrines, etc.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I mean really, it's Oom Yung Doe Kung Fu. It's pretty unique in itself, and I am not trying to brag, but very expansive. There's endless varieties and lineages of kung fu and many that base their art on 1 or more animals (white crane, mantis, tiger) etc. Within our line you can learn drunken fist, mantis, snake, tiger, monkey, dragon, ocean wave, ocean current, eagle, etc on and on, each with its own unique physical and mental benefits.

It's fine saying it's Oom Yung Doe Kung Fu. I have no issue with that as it is the style that you are referring to. However, if you are stating that you take from other kung fu, it's important to know which ones.

And if you are stating that you can learn zui quan, the five animals (along with mantis, monkey and eagle which are parts of separate styles but not part of the five animal systems for Shaolin Kung Fu), two styles called ocean wave and ocean current, which I have not heard of and could not find online, along with others, I have doubts. Now you are not claiming to combine 8 arts, which was already a tall order, but a minimum of 15 styles, some of which are not compatible with the others. I was willing to give it a chance since my main art is a combined system as well, but if this is your claim, either you are ignoring the principles of a lot of the arts, or you have a lot of very confused students.

 

[AlexGoode]

You're talking about the aikido and jujutsu videos? I'm familiar with the joint locks and throws. I'm saying that the aikido isn't performed with the body mechanics and principles that I would expect from traditional aikido. The jujutsu is a trickier call, since there are hundreds of different styles of jujutsu. I will say that it doesn't look like any of the koryu forms I've seen. It looks like one of the modern hybrid forms created outside of Japan. Nothing wrong with that - but I wouldn't call it traditional.



The kendo/kenjutsu experts on the forum can speak more on this, but it doesn't look like the mechanics that I'm used to seeing from Japanese sword work.



Are you saying that Mr. Kim created his own generic "Kung Fu" forms based on watching nature or are you saying that he adopted existing forms from existing CMA styles? If so, which ones? There's a huge difference between (for example) Choy Li Fut and Wing Chun. Different stances, body mechanics, power generation, tactical doctrines, etc.

On how we execute movements in relations to other forms of aikido and jujitsu I can't really speak on, considering I did a bit of TKD before OYD and that was it. However when I watch videos from other schools I see alot of familiar techniques. When we do aikido/hapkido it's an emphasis on hitting pressure points and locking joints in the wrists, elbows, shoulders, fingers, etc. When we do jujitsu it's focused on displacing weight, pivoting your opponents weight over your hip, back, etc, redirecting their momentum against them to throw or flip them.

As for the Kung Fu our current Grandmaster didn't develop the movements from watching nature but yes, that's how the movements were developed over centuries as the line has been passed down from one generation to the next, over many generations.

 

[AlexGoode]

It's fine saying it's Oom Yung Doe Kung Fu. I have no issue with that as it is the style that you are referring to. However, if you are stating that you take from other kung fu, it's important to know which ones.

And if you are stating that you can learn zui quan, the five animals (along with mantis, monkey and eagle which are parts of separate styles but not part of the five animal systems for Shaolin Kung Fu), two styles called ocean wave and ocean current, which I have not heard of and could not find online, along with others, I have doubts. Now you are not claiming to combine 8 arts, which was already a tall order, but a minimum of 15 styles, some of which are not compatible with the others. I was willing to give it a chance since my main art is a combined system as well, but if this is your claim, either you are ignoring the principles of a lot of the arts, or you have a lot of very confused students.

It is not copying other styles of kung fu. I didn't say we take from other styles. It is unique in its origins. There may be schools that teach and base it on some of the same animals, but that doesn't mean the 2 are connected. Not sure how else to say it.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

It is not copying other styles of kung fu. I didn't say we take from other styles. It is unique in its origins. There may be schools that teach and base it on some of the same animals, but that doesn't mean the 2 are connected. Not sure how else to say it.

I misunderstood, you listed the names of multiple different styles, so I assumed that you meant those were the styles that influenced it. That does explain the ocean wave/ocean current though. Are there basic principles that the kung fu is based on, is it primarily internal or external? I believe you referred to Oom Yung Doe as OYD kung fu earlier..is the kung fu that makes up one of the 8 styles a part of OYD, or is it the main style, with everything else focused around it?

 

[hoshin1600]

So I'll throw this out into the mix. What this system teaches may be enjoyable to train in and have some worthwhile benifits. But from the video on the home websight, that's not aikido and it's not "samurai swordsmanship. Joint locks yes ,,,aikido no. Swinging a sword yes,, koryu or modern iaido not even close.
To use these terms for what I have seen is deception.
I have no problem with people practicing anything they like in anyway they want but schools should not be deceiving students.but hey whatever,,, PT Barnum had a point.

 

[AlexGoode]

You listed the names of multiple different styles, so I assumed that you meant those were the styles that influenced it. Are there basic principles that the kung fu is based on, and how is it different from Oom Yung Doe as a whole?

Ah I see the confusion. I listed the names of different animals, all which are encompassed in OYD Kung Fu, not multiple styles within a style.

I can't say I am the most articulate person, however I'll give it a shot.

All of the forms are based on the principles of nature and all of the natural ways the human body moves. Within the many different forms that are taught there are about 360 "key" foundation techniques in total that are responsible for the majority of the development, with varying levels of each foundation. Which foundation movements match which individual, and to what level is why it's so important to have a master, who can individualize the form to match the practitioners unique body type, condition, skill level, etc.

Also to be honest with you I don't want to try and explain more than I understand and misinform anyone. I have been training consistently for 10 years and have a certain level of understanding but I am still very much a student with a long, long way to go. Every time I work with one of the Masters and see their level of strength, ability, and knowledge it's a good reminder for me. Lol.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Okay, I believe I understand. I wouldn't fully understand the art itself unless I trained in it or talked in person, but I get what type of art it is and how it is supposed to work (the only reason I'm saying supposed to is because since I've never seen it I have no idea if it does or not...I have no reason to doubt that it does).
To me, it sounds like a very difficult art to come up with and make work well, and would be better for people who already have experience in other arts since it's based on the individual, but once again without seeing it in person I can't really make any judgments on it. Definitely an interesting concept though.

 

[AlexGoode]

So I'll throw this out into the mix. What this system teaches may be enjoyable to train in and have some worthwhile benifits. But from the video on the home websight, that's not aikido and it's not "samurai swordsmanship. Joint locks yes ,,,aikido no. Swinging a sword yes,, koryu or modern iaido not even close.
To use these terms for what I have seen is deception.
I have no problem with people practicing anything they like in anyway they want but schools should not be deceiving students.but hey whatever,,, PT Barnum had a point.

I guess my question for you Hoshin would be...with multiple lineages in almost every style of martial art what particular lineage are you comparing that to? The most publicly popular ones? If the style of movement in our samurai sword forms varies from the particular ones you know of, that means it is deception? Or simply just a different lineage. Just something for you to think about.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I guess my question for you Hoshin would be...with multiple lineages in almost every style of martial art what particular lineage are you comparing that to? The most publicly popular ones? If the style of movement in our samurai sword forms varies from the particular ones you know of, that means it is deception? Or simply just a different lineage. Just something for you to think about.

Do you happen to know what lineage you are based on? I know absolutely nothing regarding sword styles beyond fencing and basic HEMA knowledge, so whatever the response is will likely go over my head, but do you guys have a specific style or is it based on the most effective techniques found in swordplay?

 

[AlexGoode]

Okay, I believe I understand. I wouldn't fully understand the art itself unless I trained in it or talked in person, but I get what type of art it is and how it is supposed to work (the only reason I'm saying supposed to is because since I've never seen it I have no idea if it does or not...I have no reason to doubt that it does).
To me, it sounds like a very difficult art to come up with and make work well, and would be better for people who already have experience in other arts since it's based on the individual, but once again without seeing it in person I can't really make any judgments on it. Definitely an interesting concept though.

Thanks Kempo. I appreciate your open mindedness. It's refreshing.

Historically in our line the ultimate life long goal for a practitioner is essentially 2 things:

1) Developing Nei Gong (Chi, Great Internal Strength) to win over yourself and life's circumstances, and to develop longevity

2) Reaching complete self understanding (Enlightenment, Awakening, etc etc)

Through achieving both the benefits are deep inner peace, happiness, and a more enriched and meaningful life.

 

[AlexGoode]

Do you happen to know what lineage you are based on? I know absolutely nothing regarding sword styles beyond fencing and basic HEMA knowledge, so whatever the response is will likely go over my head, but do you guys have a specific style or is it based on the most effective techniques found in swordplay?

I honestly couldn't tell you. I could explain some of the principles. It involves cutting, blocking, moving, using the entire body. The footwork is quick and directs the weight, energy, and power of most of the cuts.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I honestly couldn't tell you. I could explain some of the principles. It involves cutting, blocking, moving, using the entire body. The footwork is quick and directs the weight, energy, and power of most of the cuts.

Fair enough. All the knifework I have learned is similar: I know the principles behind it, I know the footwork, and I know the targets. No idea where my instructor learned it, but I know it is effective and that is all that matters to me.

 

[AlexGoode]

Fair enough. All the knifework I have learned is similar: I know the principles behind it, I know the footwork, and I know the targets. No idea where my instructor learned it, but I know it is effective and that is all that matters to me.

Yes exactly. Thank you.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi again, Alex. Just a quick note… I have a, let's say, partially deserved reputation for being somewhat lengthy in some of my posts and responses on the forum… mainly as I don't want to keep coming back to do multiple posts, and want to cover everything I see in one hit. This is likely to be one of those that adds to my rep that way… so you might want to settle in… or get a drink…

Let's get to it!

Hey sorry guys. I haven't checked this in a few days.

Cool, not a problem.

I probably won't be able to reply to all of that in one message but I'll start and then feel free to jump in. As long as you are legitimately inquisitive and not bashing I will do my best to answer fully and completely.

Fair enough, really. The forum has a rule against art bashing, so you should be fine that way… however, I will say that, due to the nature and claims associated with your system, some of the comments may have a feel towards that for you. I simply ask that you take the comments in the dispassionate way in which they are intended.

Also Chris, I am OK with direct. I prefer it. It makes it easier to address things. As far as my position to be able to educate people, I base that purely on my skill and ability and the experiences/testimonials of my students, who's ages range from 5-77 (showing an understanding of how to teach based on age, condition, and body type). In truth what else is there really? What your lineage is, who you learned from, how long you have been training, certificates, etc do not necessarily equate to you yourself being a good teacher or practitioner. If you can't show what you've developed and you can't teach your students properly everything else, while nice, doesn't equate to much. That's why I try to pretty consistently put out videos, student testimonials, etc.

Okay… as Kirk mentioned, this is not really what I was asking about… specifically, I was asking what your background was in traditional martial arts… as, frankly, Oom Yung Doe fails that categorisation on a number of levels. It's a modern (1980's, with the name coming from 1999) hybrid Korean system with highly dubious claims, both in terms of it's make up and it's founder, as well as what comes across as a rather large amount of misrepresentation of the system itself.

There are other accusations levelled at the system/organisation which, to be honest, the videos, and more particularly the testimonials support… not in what they say, but in why they're there in the first place.

As for training being 8 styles as 1 the important thing to understand is that it's not constantly trying to learn thousands upon thousands of techniques and curricula, but more importantly understanding what the main principles are in each art, and more importantly knowing what the key foundation techniques are.

Then let's be absolutely fair here… the end of many of your videos (on the Oom Yung Doe New England you-tube account) feature the slogan: "Teaching 8 Complete Traditional Martial Arts As One"… which doesn't say "teaching bits and pieces of what we think is important from 8 traditional martial arts in a single hybrid system" (which is still inaccurate, but closer to the reality, and closer to what you're describing here). I would also point out that techniques are not what makes something one art or another… they are the expression of what makes that art what it is… but we'll cover that a bit more as we go.

For example, in aikido we teach foundation movements that involve weighted equipment, herbs, and different types of stretches. That's how we are able to demonstrate the wrist and finger push up techniques, and why people often fail at being able to apply joint locks to higher level instructors, because of the condition of the joints, ligaments, etc. Earnestly practicing to be able apply these techniques is still paramount, but can be achieved in a phenomenally shorter amount of time once the physical/mental foundation is set. Even more importantly, is the longevity and quality of life that is realized through absorbing the foundation.

See, this is a good example… absolutely nothing listed there is anything to do with Aikido whatsoever. Nothing. Additionally, you don't teach Aikido. What I would suggest is that you teach some joint locking methods that have been (at best) inspired by Aikido, but comments such as this betray a complete lack of fundamental understanding of Aikido in the first place.

If that sounds obscure to you please also look deeper into Shaolin training. While the training is pretty different in method, the principles are very similar in that it is a method to develop physically, mentally, and spiritually.

Firstly, I'm going to caution against deciding how much or little the membership here grasps or has been exposed to… but more importantly, what does Shaolin training have to do with Aikido?

Look, conditioning is great… pushing yourself to achieve more is fantastic… but claiming to be one thing while showing beyond any doubt that it's nothing like it is where you're going to have problems.

To close, I have deep respect for anyone who pursues a traditional martial art, especially in the pursuit of self improvement. As I will be open to your perspectives and stances on subjects I ask that you also be open to mine. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. -Alex

Hmm. There is, in an ideal, equal-footing situation, the concept that everyone's views and opinions are of equal value and worth… however, the reality is that that is rarely the case. To that end, there's no problem being open to hearing your comments… but you're going to find that your comments weight will be based on what level you're coming from in the first place. In other words, if you are going to come along to "help people understand traditional martial arts", but have no real background in actual martial arts, and are coming from an organisation who have a very distorted expression and understanding of such a topic, then frankly, your perspective and stance on such subjects will not be anywhere near the value you may think they deserve.

I'd recommend rethinking why you're here, in that light. To talk about your system, and compare and contrast with other practitioners of other arts, great. To engage in discussion and become more aware of the larger martial arts world, wonderful. To share your knowledge of traditional martial arts… hmm…

Ah, I see. I don't claim to be a historian by any means, however I can only explain what I mean personally when I say traditional martial arts. That being the original practices of east Asia that are rooted in and spread out from Bodhidharma's teachings. However, I understand if someone else may mean something different when they say "traditional".

You're going to need to define a lot of that, of course… when you say "original practices", what do you mean? When you talk about arts "rooted in and spread out from Bodhidharma's teachings", are you only referring to those who trace themselves back to China, and more specifically the Shaolin Temple arts? Are they the only "traditional" arts around? If so, most of even what is claimed in OYD isn't your definition of "traditional", let alone ours.

So let's start that again… what do you understand to be, and how do you recognise something as a "traditional martial art"? Be forewarned, this is a question that comes around a fair bit, with quite a bit of disagreement and vague answers from various sides… simply giving age doesn't work, as Judo and BJJ are often seen as "modern arts" (Judo being one of, if not the very first truly modern Japanese art), but TKD, which is significantly younger, is seen as "traditional"… some apply clothing preferences, some don't, some look to training methodologies, but even that isn't universal enough to be reliable.

Once you've come back with that, I'll offer my take on it, and we can see just where we all sit in regard to "traditional martial arts".

I understand. Like I said, as long as its inquisitive and educational conversation I take no offense. I don't disagree with what you are saying either. There is a myriad of martial arts with all different origins. To be honest I don't look into it too extensively either because over 2000 years there is expectedly much debate and no real way to say we know 100% how history really played out. Anyways, we do explain some things differently than alot of schools, but we do have the strength, skill, and ability to back it, which I hope you will find intriguing As far as documented history I claim 0 expertise, and would be happy to read anything you'd like to share with me. Thanks.

Where do you get the timeline of 2,000 years from? Is there anything in your art that claims such a heritage? Cause, realistically, anything beyond about half a millennia or so gets very doubtful (the oldest verified traditions in Japan are around 600 years old, for example).

Right. I guess it's good to mention that about 70+% of our knowledge is based on Bagua and we consider that knowledge to be the core and most valuable part of our system. I've already heard the arguments about that because people say Bagua started with Dong Haichuan, even though he stated that he learned it from Taoist monks, and it isn't stated where they learned it. Anyways, you're right, it gets fuzzy the further you go back.

Hmm… I'll let others, such as @XueSheng discuss the Bagua presented… I can see some things that don't quite seem right to me, but Chinese arts aren't my speciality, and there are quite a number of variants of Baguazhang around… of course, the question isn't going to be "Where does Baguazhang come from?", it's going to be "Where did Kim learn Baguazhang, and who from? Which form did he learn?"

The reason this is important is that, if he learnt it legitimately from a recognised teacher/known line, then awesome, we have some kind of traditional (CMA) base to work from… if he put together what he thought Bagua was based on videos and so forth (which would explain some of the things I've found, since removed from the official pages for OYD…), then we're in a different area entirely.

I had one student who took a form of Bagua for a few years in China and he said he was blown away with the level of strength our Bagua has comparatively to what he learned.

Okay. Of course, given Baguazhang's preference for not meeting force or using strength to overcome an opponent, and given the overt amount of muscle and tension apparent in the videos I've watched from OYD (of course, that could be the practitioners themselves… it wasn't particularly clear their rank or experience), feeling your form as "strong" wouldn't surprise me too much.

Anyways, are you saying you aren't familiar with alot of the joint locks, hip tosses, takedowns, throws, etc in the videos?

A joint lock does not equal Aikido, a throw does not equal Judo, and so forth.

Also the kendo forms you see, that we call Kom Do (which is just the Korean translation) are called Chung Dan Hyungs, which contain alot of key developmental movements. However, the rudimentary techniques taught look pretty similar, i.e. drilling lots and lots of cuts lol.

Er… no. Not at all. Not in the slightest. Not even close. Nope.

Yes I know. Kung Fu simply means "skill" and refers to alot of arts. For sake of simplicity we base it on alot of nature forms, meaning it was derived from watching animals in their natural habitat, or from the principles of ocean waves, tornadoes, etc etc. with the emphasis being on developing the mind and body through copying the natural movement, absorbing natures energy into the body, melding ones own energy with nature(becoming one with nature) , etc etc lol. Anyways, I hope that makes sense to you.

Well, to begin with, "kung fu" can have myriad meanings… skill is one… but more commonly, it's "hard work", or, more accurately, "the rewards of hard work"… and it doesn't "refer to a lot of arts", more that a lot of arts (and other facets of life) can be described as kung fu… it's not even exclusively a martial art term… but the more important thing here, regarding the question of "what in what you do is traditional martial arts" is; when you say "we base it on…", are you meaning that it's a newly created form (as would be suggested by the history of OYD itself)?

I mean really, it's Oom Yung Doe Kung Fu. It's pretty unique in itself, and I am not trying to brag, but very expansive. There's endless varieties and lineages of kung fu and many that base their art on 1 or more animals (white crane, mantis, tiger) etc. Within our line you can learn drunken fist, mantis, snake, tiger, monkey, dragon, ocean wave, ocean current, eagle, etc on and on, each with its own unique physical and mental benefits.

So… what you're saying here is that you can learn the system of drunken fist, as well as the system of mantis, as well as the system of snake, as well as the system of tiger, as well as the system of monkey (which one?), as well as the system of dragon, as well as systems with the names of "ocean wave" and "ocean current", and so on? Which means that you have a large array of multiple "kung fu" systems present in your approach? In addition to the Baguazhang (that you can specialise in by doing a 6 month course… hmm… Xue? 6 months sound right to you?)?

(The next quote is taken out of order in order to address the above)

Ah I see the confusion. I listed the names of different animals, all which are encompassed in OYD Kung Fu, not multiple styles within a style.

So… that's not what you're saying then. Okay. Then is it just the Bagua, followed by the conglomerate system of Ooom Yung Doe Kung Fu, which integrates all the mentioned forms above?

I can't say I am the most articulate person, however I'll give it a shot.

Cool. You're doing better than many others, in terms of articulation, I'd say.

All of the forms are based on the principles of nature and all of the natural ways the human body moves. Within the many different forms that are taught there are about 360 "key" foundation techniques in total that are responsible for the majority of the development, with varying levels of each foundation. Which foundation movements match which individual, and to what level is why it's so important to have a master, who can individualize the form to match the practitioners unique body type, condition, skill level, etc.

Hmm… the official page for the Bagua section of your system states that that, alone, has some 360 techniques… are you saying that there are 360 techniques for each of the various arts? I mean… the same 360 can't be used for "samurai sword" and for "kung fu", can they? Even between "kung fu" and "tai chi", it'd be practically impossible for all 360 to be applicable to both… and if you mean there are 360 key foundation techniques that apply to all of the systems, I'd argue that that is equally impossible… especially given the arts claimed.

Also to be honest with you I don't want to try and explain more than I understand and misinform anyone. I have been training consistently for 10 years and have a certain level of understanding but I am still very much a student with a long, long way to go. Every time I work with one of the Masters and see their level of strength, ability, and knowledge it's a good reminder for me. Lol.

I can understand that, perfectly reasonable. I might suggest a similar tact taken when addressing the membership here, of course… to take just myself as an example, I've been training longer than you've been alive… and I'm far from the longest-trained on the board…

On how we execute movements in relations to other forms of aikido and jujitsu I can't really speak on, considering I did a bit of TKD before OYD and that was it. However when I watch videos from other schools I see alot of familiar techniques. When we do aikido/hapkido it's an emphasis on hitting pressure points and locking joints in the wrists, elbows, shoulders, fingers, etc. When we do jujitsu it's focused on displacing weight, pivoting your opponents weight over your hip, back, etc, redirecting their momentum against them to throw or flip them.

Okay, time for me to be a little blunt… you don't do Aikido. You don't do Jujutsu. You don't do "samurai sword". You don't do Tae Kwon Do (which, according to the site, is the "Japanese version", with the Korean one being called "Kong Su"… hmm…). You don't do Ship Pal Gae (there are numerous reasons here, but we'll just leave it there). As mentioned, I'm not really a CMA guy, but I wouldn't recognise what I saw as being actual (genuine) Taiji, and have some questions over the Baguazhang as well… About the only one I can't say the same for is what is classed as "Kung Fu/Goong Bu"… and that's only because it's (if I'm reading you correctly) a system developed by Kim as the "Oom Yung Doe Kung Fu" system… I would say that, from what I saw, I'm not overtly impressed, as it seems to be more than anything else what someone who hasn't really trained in such systems believes they are, and are rather flawed, in structure and form.

The reason I say you're not actually training in, studying, or otherwise "doing" any of these systems is that they are entirely not present in OYD. All there are are imitations of what the actual arts are believed to be. It has nothing to do with "recognising techniques", it's to do with combative approaches, ri-ai (in Japanese), and so on. All of that is completely lacking.

As for the Kung Fu our current Grandmaster didn't develop the movements from watching nature but yes, that's how the movements were developed over centuries as the line has been passed down from one generation to the next, over many generations.

Passed down from who? From all accounts, this was created by Kim himself… information on any of his teachers (if there were such) is not easy to come by… there's nothing on the official page at all (even the "history of true moo doe grandmasters" names absolutely no-one… as does the biography of Kim himself).

It is not copying other styles of kung fu. I didn't say we take from other styles. It is unique in its origins. There may be schools that teach and base it on some of the same animals, but that doesn't mean the 2 are connected. Not sure how else to say it.

So, if it's not copying other styles, but it's formulated from these movements passed down from other (nameless) grandmasters, why the list of disparate arts that go into it's makeup?

I guess my question for you Hoshin would be...with multiple lineages in almost every style of martial art what particular lineage are you comparing that to? The most publicly popular ones? If the style of movement in our samurai sword forms varies from the particular ones you know of, that means it is deception? Or simply just a different lineage. Just something for you to think about.

Go to my signature. Then try telling me it's "simply a different lineage".

It's not.

For one thing, you have no lineage at all. There is no source. There is no kenjutsu/kendo system that this is claimed to be. Just, as you say later "cutting, blocking, moving"… no actual swordsmanship at all.

I honestly couldn't tell you. I could explain some of the principles. It involves cutting, blocking, moving, using the entire body. The footwork is quick and directs the weight, energy, and power of most of the cuts.

I'm not going to beat a dead horse here, but what you do has as much relation to sword as badminton does. Honestly, possibly less.

But the real question I came to ask, was what made you feel that you, Alex Goode, was in a position to:

I'm here to help interested individuals understand traditional martial arts in more depth and to hopefully explain more clearly the point behind traditional methods (i.e. forms, herbs, meditation, etc).

as there appears to be a lack of traditional martial arts in your background and experience.

Now, I'll understand if you don't want to pursue this idea anymore, but I will caution that much of what you think you understand about the history, application, usage, principles, and underlying thematic structures of martial arts, particularly those claimed within your organisation, will be considered incorrect by many others here… if you want to continue to explain how your system does things, all cool. If you want to discuss traditional arts, fine (I'd recommend questions over thinking of explaining things). But I do caution against using your art as an example… literally nothing found on the system gives me any confidence at all… even down to the odd romanization of the last character in your arts name… and the fact that, out of the three characters for Oom Yung Doe ( 陰陽道) given, along with the translations on the main website ( 陰 Oom - "mind" 陽 Yung - "body" 道 Doe - "through practice, a way to develop harmony"), it's the only one close to being a correct translation. For the record, the name actually means something like "the way of yin and yang", as the characters are 陰陽道 Oom (Chinese - Yin, Japanese - In/kage) "shade"; Yung (Chinese - Yang, Japanese - Yo) "sun/light"; Doe (Chinese - Tao, Japanese - Do… and, commonly, Korean - Do) "way/path".

The rhetoric is rather odd as well, as has been mentioned (the idea of "true traditional moo doe" versus "fabricated movement", when that's exactly what it appears OYD is…), but I'll end with this… on your videos, there is another common phrase listed: "Anyone can talk about their level of skill and ability, but true Traditional Martial Arts practitioners can clearly demonstrate the level of skill and ability they have achieved". Surely that's true of everyone, yeah? I mean… can an MMA athlete not show his ability, good or bad? Or the local members of the karate school?

My point is to not get caught up in the self-serving rhetoric around the art, and the claims it's made. If it's working for you, great… if you get benefit,that's fantastic. Just keep your eyes open.