TKD kicks for kicking people off horses

[DLopez]

There seems to be quite a bit of disagreement over interpretation of Korean history here, which is fair enough. You've adequately justified your reasons for believing the way you do. Kudos to you for putting actual research into it, and not just parroting something you read on a web board.

 

However, I still contend you have failed to conclusively prove that what Kuk Sa Nim, and other Koreans have related about their knowledge of Korean martial arts history, is incorrect. I see no advantage to be gained by Kuk Sa Nim in being untruthful about what he learned, in the manner he learned it, and from whom he says he learned it from. KSW stands on it's own merits, as you have already agreed - (all except for your "family" arts remark earlier, which I'm not sure whether to interpret as "good" or "bad").

 

There were some other issues in your latest post I disagree with, but I'm willing to agree to disagree on those, but this one I have to take a stand on:

Then they are not Indigenous...BTW...let's look at that word...Indigenous- Originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment or having originated in and being produced, growing, or living naturally in a particular region or environment (note: Definitions taken from Dictionary.com) If these arts were influenced by outside factors they are not indigenous. I can teach a monkey how to punch and kick. I am not saying Koreans have never fought in their lives prior to exchanging ideas with Chinese. What I am saying is that they did not put together organized systems of fighting, until later in the 16th or 17th century. Even then that was a manual used by military not by commoners.

 

Firstly, anything that is indigenous, CAN be influenced by outside factors at a later time, without disqualifying it from being indigeous. The key part of the definition is "Originating and living or occurring naturally". Being indigenous has no bearing on how something evolves. Your example with the Chimp is therefore incomplete. Chimps always fight against other Chimp "tribes", and although you might not appreciate their "indigenous" methods of combat, they exist. If you teach a chimp how to kick and punch, do you not agree that those techniques would simply be incorporated into their "indigenous" fighting style? IOW, they are probably not going to give up the use of their teeth as a fighting weapon or stop breaking tree limbs as a display of strength (and whatever else chimps do in "combat") simply because they were influenced by an outside factor and their fighting style "evolved". They would probably still fight like chimps.

 

Anyhow, I'm not sure how you can conclude that despite having to fight against foreign invaders and even amongst themselves for millenia before any alliances with China were formed, without putting "together organized systems of fighting", that Korea could have possibly survived intact after all that time (albeit as tribes and factions rather than a unified Korea). My interpretation of this part of Korean history, is that they must have developed their own methods of fighting and millitias for protection. Not only that, but it's quite possible that any particular skills may have flowed OUT of the Korean penninsula.

 

One example of this that is becomming accepted, is the Koreans' skill in sword making. It is now accepted that Korean sword making predates that of Japanese sword making, and that this technology found its way to Japan where it was refined and perfected. Of course, this isn't a popular idea with the Japanese, but the evidence there suggests it.

 

Man, I think I'm going blind now from staring at this monitor so long while writing all these responses.

[tommarker]

so they DID kick people off horses, but only because of Chinese influence? I'm confused.

[miguksaram]

so they DID kick people off horses, but only because of Chinese influence? I'm confused.

 

~Heavy Sigh~ No..no..no....They kicked Chinese people off of their horses because they were bad influences. Haven't you been paying attention?

[miguksaram]

There seems to be quite a bit of disagreement over interpretation of Korean history here, which is fair enough. You've adequately justified your reasons for believing the way you do. Kudos to you for putting actual research into it, and not just parroting something you read on a web board.

 

Thank you but I am still interested in hearing your interpretation of Korean history and how KMA plays its role. Have you done similar research or are your viewpoints based solely on what KSW has pasted on their site as Korean MA hitory?

However, I still contend you have failed to conclusively prove that what Kuk Sa Nim, and other Koreans have related about their knowledge of Korean martial arts history, is incorrect.

 

Perhaps exagerated or romanticised is more of an appropriate word to describe their versions.

I see no advantage to be gained by Kuk Sa Nim in being untruthful about what he learned, in the manner he learned it, and from whom he says he learned it from. KSW stands on it's own merits, as you have already agreed - (all except for your "family" arts remark earlier, which I'm not sure whether to interpret as "good" or "bad").

 

Ok. The family arts is not meant as a jab of any sort. It was the best way to describe what he learned from his grandfather. I will assume that his grand father had no other pupils outside of the family so he handed down his method of fighting to KSN.

 

Yes there is always something more to be gained by romanticising the art that you teach. For the general public, learning something that is 1000 years old sounds so much cooler than learning something that is 50 years old. Saying that it was handed down from generation to generation from father to son (or grandfather to grandson) is more mystical than I went to this school and learned this art now I'm teaching it to you. These are just ways to hype up what you are learning and in some cases, not KSW mind you, it is way to make a martial art something that it really isn't.

 

 

There were some other issues in your latest post I disagree with, but I'm willing to agree to disagree on those, but this one I have to take a stand on:

Then they are not Indigenous...BTW...let's look at that word...Indigenous- Originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment or having originated in and being produced, growing, or living naturally in a particular region or environment (note: Definitions taken from Dictionary.com) If these arts were influenced by outside factors they are not indigenous. I can teach a monkey how to punch and kick. I am not saying Koreans have never fought in their lives prior to exchanging ideas with Chinese. What I am saying is that they did not put together organized systems of fighting, until later in the 16th or 17th century. Even then that was a manual used by military not by commoners.

 

Firstly, anything that is indigenous, CAN be influenced by outside factors at a later time, without disqualifying it from being indigeous. The key part of the definition is "Originating and living or occurring naturally". Being indigenous has no bearing on how something evolves.

 

If you have issues with something I said then by all means let's discuss them. It is the best way for everyone to learn. Also by your definition of what you just told me above, karate, kung fu, silat, arnis are all indigenous to America. So can we say that America started the martial arts?

Your example with the Chimp is therefore incomplete. Chimps always fight against other Chimp "tribes", and although you might not appreciate their "indigenous" methods of combat, they exist.

 

So then, by your statement above, the chimps are practicing martial arts?

If you teach a chimp how to kick and punch, do you not agree that those techniques would simply be incorporated into their "indigenous" fighting style?

 

Yes, but it would not be indigenous because they did not originate from their fighting style, it was incorporated.

 

 

Anyhow, I'm not sure how you can conclude that despite having to fight against foreign invaders and even amongst themselves for millenia before any alliances with China were formed, without putting "together organized systems of fighting", that Korea could have possibly survived intact after all that time (albeit as tribes and factions rather than a unified Korea).

 

This boils down to our definition of martial arts. Where as I look at the arts in more of a systematic way, more than a methodical way. In other words. I have a system in which I can train a group of men/women how to fight. The tribes of ancient times most likely picked up sticks and whatever was handy and started to fight based on instinct more the methods or systems. Since I can not prove this either way, I can not tell you that I will stand behind that 100%, but I would say I'm about 90% sure on that.

My interpretation of this part of Korean history, is that they must have developed their own methods of fighting and millitias for protection. Not only that, but it's quite possible that any particular skills may have flowed OUT of the Korean penninsula.

 

Which could be true. Keep in mind though that Korea was a hermit kingdom for a very long time and did not like to deal very much with the outside world at all so ideas flowing out of the Penninsula doesn't seem too likely.

One example of this that is becomming accepted, is the Koreans' skill in sword making. It is now accepted that Korean sword making predates that of Japanese sword making, and that this technology found its way to Japan where it was refined and perfected. Of course, this isn't a popular idea with the Japanese, but the evidence there suggests it.

 

Not that I totally disagree with you on this but what evidence are you speaking of? Now I do agree somewhat because it is well known that the Paekchae kingdom migrated over to the Ryukyu islands. With them they took much of their culture and craftsmanship. So it could be possible that sword making orginated in Korea. I would be very interested in any evidence that you could provide to show that this is true, as I am a practitioner of Kumdo and would love to have as much factual history on it as possible.

[steveb]

volley.....return.....volley.....return

 

anyone else as fascinated with this exchange as I am?

[miguksaram]

volley.....return.....volley.....return

 

anyone else as fascinated with this exchange as I am?

 

Only the true hardcore geeks!

[DLopez]

Thank you but I am still interested in hearing your interpretation of Korean history and how KMA plays its role. Have you done similar research or are your viewpoints based solely on what KSW has pasted on their site as Korean MA hitory?

 

I am by no means an expert, but my interest in Korean history, specifically as it relates to martial arts was piqued when I started learning KSW 2 1/2 years ago.

 

When I first viewed the "Korean martial arts history" link on the KSW website, it contrasted with what I had heard before, which was mostly that martial arts influence flowed from Japan into Korea, that Korean martial arts like Tae Kwon Do are mere Japanese rip-offs.

 

It is extremely difficult to find information specifically on Korean martial arts history, so my interpretations are based strictly on elements I've found that corroborate what is posted on the KSW site. It's much like putting pieces of a puzzle together, as I'm sure you know.

 

Here is one online reference that talks about Korean Buddhism, how it survived even during the rise of Confucianism, and how it came back into acceptance when a "monk army" repelled the Japanese in the late 1500's. This is a reference I was able to quickly find again that corroborates Kuk Sa Nim's claims of Buddhist monks possessing martial arts skill.

 

Monk Armies

Joseon Period (1392-1909)

 

"One of the most important reasons for the restoration of Buddhism to a position of minimal acceptance was the role of the monks in repelling the Japanese invasion of general Hideyoshi Toyotomi, which occurred between 1592 and 1598. At that time, the government, weak from internal squabbles, was not able to initially muster strong resistance to the incursion. The plight of the country encouraged some leaders of the sangha to organize monks into guerilla units, which enjoyed some instrumental successes. The "righteous monk" movement spread during the eight-year war, finally including several thousand monks, led by the aging Seosan Hyujeong (1520-1604). The presence of this monks' army was a critical factor in the eventual expulsion of the Japanese invaders."

 

Anyhow, to answer your question, no, I am not using KSW's interpretation of Korean history as my sole source. It was merely the kindling that got me started. My interpretations are open to evolution though.

 

Now, about this:

For the general public, learning something that is 1000 years old sounds so much cooler than learning something that is 50 years old. Saying that it was handed down from generation to generation from father to son (or grandfather to grandson) is more mystical than I went to this school and learned this art now I'm teaching it to you.

 

I'm not so sure that plays a big factor into deciding what martial art to take. I'd say 90% of my classmates have no idea of the history of martial arts, or even Kuk Sa Nim's claims that KSW is based on a culmination of traditional Korean techniques. They just like what we do. I myself thought all martial arts were basically the same as Karate when I started KSW, and it wasn't until a few months after I started that I became interested in where KSW "came from".

by your definition of what you just told me above, karate, kung fu, silat, arnis are all indigenous to America.

 

No, not the style that was borrowed, but the style it was incorporated into would still be. Let's say if native American indian back in the "wild west" days practiced "Cherokee-Do" (humorous example!) and then learned some Kung Fu techniques from some Chinese, and incorporated it into his own "Cherokee-Do". Would not the Native American and all his "Cherokee-Do" still be considered indigenous to America, even though some techniques were influenced from "outside"?

 

Mabye we'll have to agree to disagree on this one too.

 

 

So then, by your statement above, the chimps are practicing martial arts?

 

Aye caramba! I have no idea!

 

But, lessee... they do practice coordinated warfare according to Animal Planet, and it's ususally about territorial possession. I've never given that much thought before, but now that I'm thinking about it, what would prevent you from believing they are NOT practicing a form of martial arts? Does one have to be human to be able to practice martial arts?

 

RE: Korean swords

Not that I totally disagree with you on this but what evidence are you speaking of? Now I do agree somewhat because it is well known that the Paekchae kingdom migrated over to the Ryukyu islands. With them they took much of their culture and craftsmanship. So it could be possible that sword making orginated in Korea. I would be very interested in any evidence that you could provide to show that this is true, as I am a practitioner of Kumdo and would love to have as much factual history on it as possible.

 

Yes, that is what I have found too. One of the first things I read that made me dig deeper into Korean sword making was this claim:

"Fine Paekche swords were exported to Japan, leading some martial art historians to believe that some of Japan’s superior sword making technology came from the Paekche Kingdom."

taken from this site:

 

martialinfo.com

 

Admittedly, it isn't very detailed, but it did make me curious about that claim. But I began to find other references that echoes those beliefs about the direction of the flow of swordmaking technology.

 

Here's one more detailed:

 

Development of Korean Swords

 

And you'll pardon me if I post a link featuring a Black Belt magazine article about one of KSW's masters studies of Korean sword making and sword arts. Master Harmon had studied much Korean history while he was stationed there, so although he is with KSW, I think his interpretations on Korean history, especially with regards to swords, are valid.

 

Korean Swordsmanship

 

This is just some obscure reference I just did with a google search to see if I could find anything more...

 

Swords of Yamato

"Yamato was probably the second kuni in Japan to produce swords, with the first being Hôki, ?? where Korean sword smiths entered Japan."

 

Well, I don't know if we've settled anything, but I do appreciate the exchange, as it forced me to review what I'd discovered before just to make sure I wasn't mis-re-hashing (is that even a word?) what I'd read. I hope you feel the same.