Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:22:04 -0800 From: the_dojang-request@martialartsresource.net Subject: The_Dojang digest, Vol 10 #517 - 9 msgs X-Mailer: Mailman v2.0.13.cisto1 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net Errors-To: the_dojang-admin@martialartsresource.net X-BeenThere: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13.cisto1 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net X-Reply-To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net X-Subscribed-Address: kma@martialartsresource.com List-Id: The Internet's premier discussion forum on Korean Martial Arts. List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: Send The_Dojang mailing list submissions to the_dojang@martialartsresource.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://martialartsresource.net/mailman/listinfo/the_dojang or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to the_dojang-request@martialartsresource.net You can reach the person managing the list at the_dojang-admin@martialartsresource.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of The_Dojang digest..." <<------------------ The_Dojang mailing list ------------------>> Serving the Internet since June 1994. Copyright 1994-2003: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource The Internet's premier discussion forum devoted to Korean Martial Arts. 1600 members. See the Korean Martial Arts (KMA) FAQ and the online search engine for back issues of The_Dojang at http://MartialArtsResource.com Pil Seung! Today's Topics: 1. Venomous Crap (Stovall, Craig) 2. Re: guns (ChunjiDo@aol.com) 3. Re: time in grade (ChunjiDo@aol.com) 4. RE: Re: 'peacemaker' (Kirk Lawson) 5. RE: different Korea Hapkido Federation (ABurrese@aol.com) 6. Re: MYTBJ/ validation? (Beungood@aol.com) 7. Re: MA/LEO connection (ABurrese@aol.com) 8. Re:_Mu_Yei_ToBo_Tong_Ji_and_Hapkido (Jesse Segovia) 9. Knives and hapkido history (Burdick, Dakin R) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: "Stovall, Craig" To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:43:53 -0600 Subject: [The_Dojang] Venomous Crap Reply-To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net <<>> Just curious...is this the kind of stuff that got you kicked off of Budo-Geek? BTW, nice job of avoiding Ray's question. Craig "Enjoying My Seat in the Peanut Gallery" Stovall CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This email transmission contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entities named above. If this email was received in error or if read by a party which is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error or are unsure whether it contains confidential or privileged information, please immediately notify us by email or telephone. You are instructed to destroy any and all copies, electronic, paper or otherwise, which you may have of this communication if you are not the intended recipient. Receipt of this communication by any party shall not be deemed a waiver of any legal privilege of any type whatsoever as such privilege may relate to the sender. --__--__-- Message: 2 From: ChunjiDo@aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:49:55 EST To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net Subject: [The_Dojang] Re: guns Reply-To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net a former student stayed with us over the weekend. she decided to rent "bowling for columbine". i thought it would actually be boring, but it was rather interesting. michael moore showing up unannounced might make me look bad when i slam the door in his face, too. however, i think he did a good job. gun fans and protesters alike might enjoy it. take care, melinda Chajonshim Martial Arts Academy www.cjmaa.com 1.573.673.2769 Chajonshim Martial Arts Supply www.cjmas.com 1.877.847.4072 --__--__-- Message: 3 From: ChunjiDo@aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:52:38 EST To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net Subject: [The_Dojang] Re: time in grade Reply-To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net we test every three to four months. take care, melinda :) Chajonshim Martial Arts Academy www.cjmaa.com 1.573.673.2769 Chajonshim Martial Arts Supply www.cjmas.com 1.877.847.4072 --__--__-- Message: 4 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:20:00 -0500 From: Kirk Lawson Organization: Heapy Engineering To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net ("THE$DOJA@SMTP {the_dojang@martialartsresource.net}") Subject: RE: [The_Dojang] Re: 'peacemaker' Reply-To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:40:48 +1000 > From: "Sean O'Brien" > To: > Subject: [The_Dojang] Re: 'peacemaker' > Reply-To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net > > The whole bleh about constitutional right to bear arms... > Because some people 200+ years wrote it on a piece of paper > makes it beyond question ? > Times change, countries change, technology changes. Why can't > a document ? The document is, among other things, intended to enumerate limitations upon Government's ability to infringe upon the rights of it's citizens. What you suggest would indicate that the rights of citizens are "flexible" and are whatever "society" decides they are today. Public Execution for non-observance of a State forced Religion could be the will of "society." > Its not like a kid could accidentally pick up a weapon of the > day back then load it and fire it Yes he could. They were common and children frequently learned their use well before their teen years. Popular Myth was that the hero Davey Crocket was shooting by age 3 (by way of example of what was accepted). > (there was nothing accidental about > firearms 200 years > ago). Now a kid can pick up what looks like a toy and splat > half a room and not even realize what they have done. As I earlier posted, there is about a 0.000002 chance of this occurring. > More to the point wasn't the whole purpose of that clause > based around how the > US came to be... ie. out of an uprising against the Poms. > The actual text is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary > to the security > of a free State, the rights of the people to keep and bear > Arms, shall not be infringed." Isn't it ? > > Now I guess the word militia is one important important bit. Not according to scholars. It's not an exclusionary clause but rather an "explaining" clause. http://members.tripod.com/gunguyoh/2nd%20Text.htm > Is militia an old > word for what today would be called the national guard or > reserves ? or does > it mean random individuals or better yet vigilante posse's ? > Thus individuals > have the constitutional right to dispense justice as they see fit ? This is not a logical conclusion. > The second important bit is they only have the right in > reference to keeping > the state secure. Not for sport shooting, not for personal > protection, not > property/livestock protection, soley "security of a free > State". ie. if some > group or government tried to make the US some form of non-free state. The writings of the founders clearly indicate an expanded purpose for firearms and self defense. "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and the keystone under independence...The rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable...The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." --George Washington Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts: "The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -- Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776 "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764 George Mason, of Virginia: "[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.". . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." -- Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 "That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state." -- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People," -- later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788 William Grayson, of Virginia: "[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty." -- Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia: "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." -- Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788 James Madison, of Virginia: The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46 Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania: "The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." -- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787 "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -- The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788 "As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." -- An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787 Alexander Hamilton, of New York: "[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29 Thomas Paine, of Pennsylvania: "[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -- Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775 Fisher Ames, of Massachusetts: "The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people." -- Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789 Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts: "What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789 Patrick Henry, of Virginia: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." -- Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention > So the easy way around it I guess is ok .. its legal to own > arms, but make it > illegal to point, discharge or threaten to use one at a > person unless you are > in a nominated service (police, military etc which more then > likely are > covered by the second option) or if you are defending the > security of the > nation. And perhaps make it only legal to bear arms from the > time of the > constitution being written and put everything else under ban or heavy > regulation. Negative. The easy way around it is to make it illegal for someone to use a firearm to murder, harm, or threaten to harm for other illegal purposes. This already exists. > And forgetting that whole constitutional side for a second. That's probably your best bet. > Introducing a gun or any weapon into a situation surely > heightens aggression ? Negative. According to studies of violent criminal (conducted on prison populations), it's been found that violent criminals fear citizens having firearms even more then they fear police and will select a different target if they believe that the current one may be armed, 42 percent reported they had encountered a victim armed with a gun, and 38 percent had been scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim, and a majority agreed that "a store owner who is known to keep a gun on the premises is not going to get robbed very often." [James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986)]. Further, studies show that robbery and rape victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to suffer injuries as those who put up no defense [Kleck, Point Blank, ch. 4 and pp. 170-73]. > I thought the first thing to do in a self defence situation > was hands up, oepn > and facing out ... don't appear threatening (as a side > benefit they are > basically in the same place as a fighting stance but the open > hands gives it a > whole different appearance), ie. de-escelate the situation ? Studies show that resisting with a firearm is the best way to avoid injury [Kleck, Point Blank, ch. 4 and pp. 170-73]. > Not to mention unless you know how to use it, and are willing > to use it to > kill someone, then bringing a firearm into the situation > could quite easily give the aggressor that firearm. Using a firearm is fairly simple. Far simpler then learning unarmed martial arts effectively. There was one radio personality offering a $10,000 reward for anyone who could call in and give him a verifiable incident of a civilian using a firearm for self defense that had it taken away and used against him. No one ever collected the money. It doesn't happen. Criminals are unwilling to take the risk. As noted above, Violent Criminals don't like victims with guns and will go elsewhere. > Then you have the whole how do you store it question. If its > nice and secure > how do you get it when you need it (you probably can't), and > if its not then see kids and thieves for other uses. This is another FUD. It's a non-issue. As I've already pointed out children accidentally shoot themselves at a rate of about 0.000002% per firearm. But if you're unwilling to take that risk there are at least 3 companies making combination lockboxes that respond a sequence finger movements from a "hand print" position: http://www.nokey.com/digitalgunsafe.html They're not particularly expensive either. > Here in Australia after some nutter went on a shooting spree > down in Tasmania, > they banned anything that could be modified to automatic and > brought in a > bunch of other regulations. And despite the twisted > statistics the rifle > association here seems to be able to bring up (see Mark > Twains comment about > statistics) crime involving firearms is down (as shown by a > differing set of > statistics ... handy things those statisticcs). "Twisted statistics"? Statistics are statistics. I've been following Australia's crime statistics closely since the ban. Your Violent Crime rate, including murder, has gone up since the ban. It has been wholly ineffective at deterring violent crime and some indications are that it has enhanced certain segments of violent crime; particularly Home Invasions. In the first 12 months since the ban Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent; Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent). In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent. Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms (changed drastically in the past 12 months). There has been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns." > Now they use knives, > machettes, bats, nunchuks etc etc but atleast they seem on > the whole to be a lot less lethal. Australia's Violent Crime statistics do not seem to bear out this conclusion. Violent Crime and murder are up. > The country didn't turn into a cess pit of > criminals as was suggested in some quarters before it happened. Cess pit? Nah. Worse rather then better? Yup. > And before anyone wheels out me being anti patriotic Completely irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is this: Does easy access to firearms for the majority of the public lead to more or less violent crime? And it's corolary: Does the removal of firearms from the majority of the public lead to more or less violent crime? The answers for both are in. Will you heed them? > And I am not anti gun either, Just not armed with accurate data. > I am just anti > having them at home and anti pretending they are a solution > for any form of personal security. All evidence indicates that firearms excell at generating personal security. > Out of interest any of pro gun Americans tried testing out America's > constititional right to bear arms at an US airport ? This is unconstitutional but has been upheld on the basis of "Private Property" and other such. Believe me, it is a tangled mess that is going through courts. Peace favor your sword --- "In these modern times, many men are wounded for not having weapons or knowledge of their use." -Achille Marozzo, 1536 --__--__-- Message: 5 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:32:30 -0500 From: ABurrese@aol.com To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net Subject: [The_Dojang] RE: different Korea Hapkido Federation Reply-To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net Ray Asked: "Alain, Do you have contact info for this 'new' Korea HKD Fed? URL, mailing addr, fax, etc. I'd like to add the org's info to our listing of Korean martial arts organizations." Ray, The website is www.koreahapkido.tv You can get the address and phone number from the website, but you will have to tanslate it from Korean. As I learn more from my instructors, I will be able to share more. While the website is in Korean, there is a little video clip at the main page of some Hapkidoin in Korea doing a demo. Yours in Training, Alain www.burrese.com --__--__-- Message: 6 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:40:29 -0500 From: Beungood@aol.com To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net Subject: [The_Dojang] Re: MYTBJ/ validation? Reply-To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net In a message dated 11/19/2003 7:22:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, the_dojang-request@martialartsresource.net writes: > If the people in positions of power were half as worried about > teaching a valid Korean martial curriculum they would spend > a helluva lot > more time studying works like the MYTBTJ>>> How does the MYTBTJ validate a curriculum? The jury is still out on this manual. I think the people who have propagated Hapkido (The senior Masters and the Doju nim of the respective Arts)and other Arts and thier experiences and training and teaching decades and decades spent ON THE MAT and not writing drivel on digests show thier concerns and dedication on developing and evolving thier curriculm. Jack --__--__-- Message: 7 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:40:44 -0500 From: ABurrese@aol.com To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net Subject: [The_Dojang] Re: MA/LEO connection Reply-To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net Originally posted: Alain wrote: > (One reason a school in Korea needs to be under one of these government recognized schools is so students wanting to be police officers and such can get the required rank) < Would you please elaborate on this? Is rank in a MA or particular MA required for one to be hired as a police officer in Korea? Thanks, Sharon Yes, it is my understanding that all police officers need to have rank in HKD and not TKD. I would have to ask my instructors or friends in Korea to be sure. I just know that several people I knew were training in HKD because they wanted to be police officers. It is also my understanding that the rank must be from one of the government recognized organizations. There is more about the Corporation Korea Hapkido Federation being under the Korean government at the website. www.koreahapkido.com but it is in Korean. Again, this is my understanding, but I may not have all the facts, and indeed other arts may be okay for police officers too. Yours in Training, Alain www.burrese.com --__--__-- Message: 8 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:44:53 -0500 From: Jesse Segovia To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net Subject: [The_Dojang] Re:_Mu_Yei_ToBo_Tong_Ji_and_Hapkido Reply-To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net SHORT VERSION Choi YongSul did not teach YuKwonSul in a systemic, logical progression (wrist techniques, elbow techniques, shoulders techniques, etc.). He did not teach the modern Hapkido kicks and weapons we learn today. He did not teach an art heavily influenced by, and containing defenses against, other arts such as modern boxing and Judo GM Ji created this. If you learn or teach this, you are learning or teaching GM Ji's Hapkido. It's as simple as that. LONG VERSION GM Ji studied with Choi YongSul for several years, much less time than other Hapkido grand masters. What he learned from Choi may have been a small subset of what Choi YongSul knew, and taught to other students. But GM Ji was a brilliant organizer and martial arts mind who, unlike his contemporaries, put together an easy to understand formal curriculum for learning and teaching his particular brand of Hapkido, which is very different than what Choi YongSul taught. What GM Ji formalized is what we still study today as Hapkido. GM Ji's personal students, including Han BongSoo, Myung KwangSik, Myung JaeNam, Choi SeaOh, Oh SeaLim, Kwon TaeMan, Hwang DukKyu, amongst many, did the most to popularize Hapkido internationally. These men I'm sure studied with other instructors and may claim others as their primary influences, but their arts bear out the inescapable fact they still teach GM Ji's basic curriculum and method of teaching. The first book on Hapkido by GM Myung KwangSik and Kim JongTek, is GM Ji's curriculum. When I studied Hapkido in Korea in the mid '80s my KwanJangNim opened the book to the photo of GM Ji and said "this is the man we follow." Nobody ever mentioned Choi YongSul in that dojang. GM Myung's next book, 'Ancient Art of Masters,' is basically an English translation (and a simplification; there are many fewer techniques) of the first Korean book, although to his credit, GM Myung has added his own forms to the Hapkido mix (didn't somebody say one or some of GM Myung's forms were KukSoolWon forms?). How much you feel GM Myung's art has changed since then? Yes, there are different influences and techniques in KukSoolWon and HwaRangDo, probably stemming from different teachers their founders had. But I've got a full set of HwaRangDo techniques tapes (ten vol. set) and I've got the little red hardcover book of KukSoolWon techniques by Seo InSun. I'm sorry, but these are the same Hapkido curricula GM Ji came up with, with the substitution of several wrist techniques here, certain kicks done a little differently there, forms, the addition of one or three step sparring in HwaRangDo, Chinese palm techniques in KukSoolWon, etc., etc. With all due respect, the idea that the founders of HwaRangDo and KukSoolWon independently developed curricula almost identical to GM Ji's is ludicrous. Unless, of course, you accept the idea HwaRangDo is the ancient art of the HwaRang warriors, or KukSoolWon is martial arts of the Royal Korean Court, and that the HwaRang warriors and Royal Korean Court warriors learned wrist techniques, then elbow techniques, then shoulder techniques... Does the MYTBTJ start with wrist techniques, move to elbow techniques...? As for others who today teach much closer to what Choi YongSul taught, it's my understanding that these men did not influence the majority of modern Hapkido as it is taught today. Rather, GM Ji's curriculum has made it into their styles - rather than teach whatever they want to teach as did Choi YongSul, they teach a formal system with a specific number of techniques at the wrist, and the elbow, etc. Many of them even teach the advanced modern Hapkido kicks that Choi never taught. Your comments about input from the MYTBTJ, others who brought AJJ to Korea, etc., are irrelevant. I never said GM Ji "created" anything nobody had ever seen before, completely without influence or guidance. I said he put together modern Hapkido as a unified discipline. If you learn or teach the Hapkido I described in my post (I notice you didn't address that part of it), then you are doing GM Ji's Hapkido, pure and simple. Jesse --__--__-- Message: 9 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:50:30 -0500 From: "Burdick, Dakin R" To: Subject: [The_Dojang] Knives and hapkido history Reply-To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net Hey Bruce, Dave Weller's post about the "3 1/2-inch knife blade" used against a bear kind of makes my point about knives being dangerous to play with. That wee tiny pen knife killed a b'ar! Eric said: I've been talking about defense against knife attack here, not sparring or attacking technique. My reply: Aha! Ok, then you REALLY shouldn't try it with live steel. You CANNOT go at full speed and actually work a disarm against knives - you are going to get cut. If you try some lame knife attacks (and I've been guilty of this in the past) to teach general ideas of how to grab the arm, or take the knife away, that's just fooling yourself in a very dangerous way. Make two foam knives out of PVC insulation and duct tape. Then get a friend and play a game. The object is to not get hit, but to hit him with the knife. One quickly discovers that you are going to get up a LOT if you take on a knife. Another thing I used to do is take a wooden knife and let my arm hang down, tip up. I would swing the blade up towards the student's stomach like a pendulum clock (tick (up), tock (down), tick, tock, tick, tock...). They knew the path of the knife. I did not do any fancy body movements. All they had to do was stop me from stabbing them in the gut. They couldn't. Knife defense barehanded is a very poor tactical choice. Grab a chair, or a limb, or a garbage can and put it between you and the guy with a knife. Get a 2x4 and whack him in the head or hand. But don't convince yourself that you are actually going to be able to take a knife away from someone using your amazing hapkido skills. For those of you who have actually had to do it and survived, congratulations! But I hope you would agree that it is not something you would want to try again. Anyone remember when Graciela Casillas got knifed? She knew a lot about knives and she still got stopped. Well, I got all this written and then JR goes and writes a good post, namely: "It has been my experience that if techniques are ALWAYS done with rubber or wood, if a real encounter takes place, God forbid, the first thing that will happen is the realization that this situation is for real, but if a person has, if only in his mind, had to face a relatively live blade in a training environment, then the situation will not be quite so shocking" My reply: I've got to agree with this one, but please be aware that JR here made that knife as safe as possible and it was NOT live steel and NOT sharp or pointed. Bruce wrote: But the fact is that there has been as much input from China as Korea as Japan in the development of this art My reply: Gotta disagree with you Bruce. Old school hapkido was very closely related to jujutsu in its teaching. The Chinese influence in Korea was primarily: Praying Mantis, Wing Chun, Baguazhang, Taijiquan, & Wushu. Praying Mantis + Hapkido = Kuksul. The other arts have not had a big impact on hapkido's development. When you and I played your stuff looked much more Japanese than mine did; in fact to me it looked very much like Ueshiba Aikido. It did not look as much like aikido as Jere Hilland's, but the influence was obvious. I've done some bagua and taijiquan, so mine looks very different. The Chinese influence on mainstream hapkido is minimal. Bruce also wrote: >Even Choi himself did not use the term DRAJJ but did use "yawara" until cajoled into using a different term by subsequent generations of students. My reply: Cool! What is your source for this tidbit? Bruce wrote: 3.) If the people in positions of power were half as worried about teaching a valid Korean martial curriculum they would spend a helluva lot more time studying works like the MYTBTJ My reply: But the Muye tobo t'ongji was a summary of Chinese military training manuals (with an additional section tossed in about Japanese sword and how it was superior to all others!). There's really nothing about Korea arts in there (ie. ssirum and t'aeggyeon). The modern construction of Korean "traditional" arts dates from the nationalism of the 1950s and 1960s in the Republic of Korea and drew upon the traditions of t'aeggyeon and anything else that didn't look Japanese. You mention a lot about Korean swordwork that one could learn and "the Korean never needed the Japanese to teach them to fight." Frankly, I think you need to re-evaluate what is "traditional." I know you want to study what is "traditional," but frankly that is just ssirum and t'aeggyeon. Everything else has been reconstructed and we'll never know if it was actually like that or not. There is no lineage left. You reject the nationalistic revisionism of the 1950s and 1960s, but then accept wholeheartedly the post-revisionist arts of the 1990s. These new arts are more clever about hiding their origins than kuksulwon and hwarangdo, but they are not more traditional. If I had my choice of a Korean style to recommend (purely on the basis of technique), it would actually be either hwarangdo or old school combat kuksul. Those guys had a unique national style, a lot of skill, and even if their lineage was created from wholecloth, they could still fight in a uniquely Korean and effective way. For me, the idea of myth in Korean folklore has these stages: 1. Revisionist: the belief is "Japanese arts are actually Korean, because Koreans invented everything, including judo (I mean, yudo)." 2. Transitional: the belief is "Some arts survived the Japanese occupation, and although we have no written evidence, hwarangdo and kuksul are really ancient Korean arts." 3. Post-revisionist: the belief is "We can practice traditional Korean arts by reading books that are 200 years old and somehow understanding what the authors were doing. After all, if it was published in Korea, it was Korean." Each of these stages are still wrapped up in myth. The real answer is that ssirum and t'aeggyeon are the only two "Korean" arts to survive the Japanese Occupation, but not many people want to do them, and anyways t'aeggyeon at least has changed a lot in the last 25 years (after the last old master died). Everything else is "Korean" in the sense that it is practiced in Korea; none of it is really "traditional." Even the post-revisionist stuff (the stuff you like) is wrapped up in the myths that (as you say) "make you feel good." Yours in the arts, Dakin dakinburdick@yahoo.com --__--__-- _______________________________________________ The_Dojang mailing list The_Dojang@martialartsresource.net http://martialartsresource.net/mailman/listinfo/the_dojang http://the-dojang.net Old digest issues available @ ftp://ftp.martialartsresource.com Copyright 1994-2003: Ray Terry and http://MartialArtsResource.com Standard disclaimers apply. Remember September 11. End of The_Dojang Digest