Who here practices "forms" (kata, hyung, etc.)?

[Skorzeny]

Matt & Toadlicker:

Warriors in medieval Europe had empty hand fighting as a part of their training. Mostly grappling and wrestling, although a scant few strikes are also shown.

I'd find it pretty hard to believe that there weren't some basic dirty tricks and HTH moves taught to medieval warriors. Though the majority of training would be with weapons, it just doesn't seem logical to me that they would ignore the possibility that they might be jumped without their being able to draw/get to a weapon in time.

Almost (in fact generally all) of a medieval warrior's training was in weapons. Whether Europe or Asia, the professional warrior class of the medieval period also happened to be the landowning class (nobles, knights or Zi-Samurai who were in turn subject to greater lords) whose right to be armed at all times, except maybe in the presence of their liege lords, was inexorably tied to their own landownership and lordship over peasants. As such, they were invariably always armed.

Hence, their training was almost exclusively in the use of weaponry, in particular for war. Furthermore, with the demise of the Roman legions, cavalry ruled in both Europe and Asia until the advent of pikemen and firearm-wielding troops (and restored classical infantry discipline). Nobles and professional warriors fighting on horseback had even fewer reason to learn hand-to-hand fighting. In fact, even during personal contests or duels (an early form of competition, rather than war or "martial" activity), the loss of weapons meant death. No one ever really entertained the notion of an unarmed man overcoming an armed man, either in Europe or Asia (though Asian Kung Fu movies fantasize about it, thus invariably painting the picture of such in our Western minds).

Now, I will acknowledge that hand-to-hand techniques DID exist both in ancient times and medieval times. But they were often folkstyle wrestling or pugilistic endevours meant for personal CONTESTS of "manliness" if you will rather than real combat. Furthermore, such techniques were often (but not necessarily always) the realm of the lower-class men who could not possess weapons. Mongolian wrestling is TODAY considered a martial art, but the Mongols themselves considered it a folk-sport of sorts. True martial techniques for Mongol warriors composed of horseback-riding and archery (and some scimitar and lance work) - again as training for real combat in war.

The modern concept of hand-to-hand "martial art" really began during the Meiji Restoration in Japan. As feudal wars disappeared in Japan, "martial" techniques began to concentrate on personal defense for the Zi-Samurai and lords particularly in urban context (preventing assassinations by preventing draws of weapons or retaining one own swords, for example). And as the wearing of two swords was banned, many such systems evolved to what I call "transitional" systems - still basing many techniques on such weapon-orientation, but replacing the attacking weapons with empty hands.

Then came the big revolution of the hand-to-hand "martial art" with Dr. Kano Jigoro's Kodokan Judo, which introduced such scientific and rational concepts as standardized curriculum, logical training techniques based on efficiency and scientific principles (like, uh, leverage), sparring, ranking systems, rational promotion systems and so forth. The rest as is, as often said, history.

Note: it's not that all modern martial arts came from Japan necessarily (though almost all Korean modern systems did), but that they were some of the first Asians to be exposed to, and heartily accept, Western scientific methods, who therefore had some of the first opportunities to introduce science to their traditional cultural elements (like ways of fighting). Dr. Kano, for example, was greatly influenced by wresting and boxing.

Skorzeny

[Skorzeny]

Danger Dave:

kungfool, Skorzeny has a, um, venemous tongue when it comes to Korean martial arts. Not that he's wrong...

Thanks for the validation! I'd say I'm more "bitter" than "venomous," but I supposed it can fit.

...but he has a way of sounding like he's picking a fight, even when he's not.

What? I never heard that before.

Skorzeny, what influence do you think Confucianism, and it's theory of the "superior man" had on Korean fighting styles? Do you think that could have been a factor in the traditional fighting styles/sports disappearing? I just remember why Chennault wanted American pilots for the Flying Tigers - the Chinese were plenty brave, but it was hard to motivate the nobility (where most of the fighter pilots came from) to train, since a "superior man" didn't need to practice...

Right on the money. Koreans were at one time actually quite a warlike bunch. They were horse-riding, tribal nomads like the Mongols and the Qin. There was a reason why they and their cousins conquered what are today Manchuria, Korea and Japan. During the Three Kingdom period, the northern kingdom, Kokuryo was actually quite powerful and encompassed what is today northeastern China, including Manchuria, and northern half of Korea. A prominent "Great King" of Kokuryo was said to have conquered dozens of walled cities and hundreds of towns as well as assisting southern Korean kingdoms against the "rapacious Japanese midget pirates" - according to archaeological sites found in Manchuria). At the time, they were also animists or Budhists. They were also warlike, of course, because there were constant internecine conflicts (Kokuryo, for example, repulsed numerous Chinese attempts of invasion and colonization until it became weakend by internal tribal conflicts and those with Shilla) much as the Japanese became so warlike due to constant wars between feudal fiefdoms.

When Korea became unified and Confucianism introduced, most notably during the last dynasty (the Yi Dynasty), book learning and scholarship became supreme. Generals, soldiers and sailors were disdained while scholars who were able to debate the fine points and mindnumbing details of Confucianist writings acquired enormous power. It became so bad that scholars formed factions to argue the Court to utter paralysis while generals were often ignored or suppressed. Another reason of course is that the founder of the Yi Dynasty was himself a general serving the previous dynasty, the Koryo, who rebelled against the legitimate monarch and set himself up as the head of a new one - he knew all to well the consequence of powerful general with big armies. His dynasty encouraged Confucianism because it codified hierarchy strenuously and encouraged blind obedience to the monarch, the superior, the ancestor, the father or the husband as almost a religous duty.

By the time Toyotomi Hideyoshi's battle-hardened Japanese soldiers landed in Korea, the Korean defense was in pathetically weak shape to be generous. Except in naval matters (only thanks to an innovative admiral, Yi Soon-Shin of the iron-clad Turtle Ship fame)) were the Koreans superior to the Japanese (even then the Koreans suffered reverses when jealous courtiers and scholars imprisoned Admiral Yi and burned his ships).

In such a climate, fighting techniques could hardly be spread and prized. They could only be suppressed and discouraged. Even during the early modern period, those who used fighting techniques outside the officialdom were gangsters - yet another reason why fighting techniques assumed bad reputations in Korea (as well as in Japan).

Here is something I heard from a Korean a long time ago that illustrates where this kind of avoidance of physical culture leads to. During the early part of this century, a Western missionary demonstrated the sport of tennis to the then Korean king. The missionary and his assistant set up a court and was soon swinging away, demonstrating this sport and working up a sweat. Afterwards, the missionary asked the King "What does His Majesty think of this?" To which the King replied "A most remarkable game. Very interesting. We wish to know more about it. Might we inquire, however - would it not be more enjoyable to have your slaves play for you instead of doing all that work?"

With this kind of thinking at the top, traditional sports, let alone martial arts could exist! This trends exists still to some extent in Korea. Supposedly the city with the highest Ph.D.'s per capita in the world is Seoul, Korea. A vast majority of Korean high school students are paper-thin kids who study 15-18 hours a day for the national college entrance examination, who look like they've never touched a 2.2 kg dumbell in their lives (these guys get their "manhood" when they can conscripted for their admittedly very tough and abusive military). TKD is often taught to many children - but it's like gymastics, rather than a serious "martial art."

Skorzeny

[Skorzeny]

kungfool:

Can anyone point me to a source that provides evidence to the contrary of the above?

One of the problems with internet knowledge is the countless replication of myths. It takes a cheap computer and voila (!), one is an expert on the Net.

A better question would be - can you find any documentary evidence that corroborates such fantasy? General history books about Korea are a good start, but if you are serious, rather arcane books on Korean archaeological evidences are available in Korean. Of course this is difficult water to tread. Korean books are often fantastically nationalistic. Chinese and Japanese ones often downplay the Korean role in East Asian history (and Western books often cite references from China and Japn). The truth is often somewhere in between (establishing the boundaries of ancient Korean kingdoms and northern Chinese states of the past and their relations with early Japanese tribes, for example, often results in incredibly acrimonious debate between Chinese, Korean and Japanese scholars, tinged with an unbelievable amount of nationalism and racism).

There is also a new book coming out in Korea, written by a formerly popular sports journalist who wanted to right "the definitive" history of martial arts in Korea for the lay reader. His "revolutionary" (in Korea anyway) theories of how TKD is really Shotokan Karate upset so many readers that he isn't so, er, popular anymore. This, by the way, is a country where Yudo (Korean pronounciation of Japanese Judo) is still largely taught to be a Korean invention (from the "anciet Korean martial art of Yu-Sool," which is a Korean pronounciation of Chinese characters that read Jujutsu or Yawara in Japanese).

Though they are coming out of it slowly, the Koreans are still bitter about the Japanese colonialism and cannot acknowledge the influence of Japanese culture on themselves through the occupation. The idea that some strikingly recognizable elements of modern Korean culture (like Tae Kwon Do, Judo, Chae-Bul corporate system, government and police hierarchy and infrastructure and etc.) came almost exclusively from Japan, particularly during the Japanese occupation, is suppressed.

Of course, Koreans aren't unique in this - Japanese often suppress historical evidences that show Koreans transmitted much of "civilization" to Japan and that many of the distinguished Japanese noble families were originally of Korean origin (the horrors of it all)! A pair of Western scholars who discovered the Korean origin of the Japanese imperial family even were banned from entering Japan. How's that for academic integrity!

Skorzeny

[Skorzeny]

All right. Enough East Asian history lessons for the night!

Skorzeny

[Danger Dave]

Great posts, Skorzeny. I can't believe I misspelled venomous...

So, while it's a stretch (to put it mildly) to claim any sort of lineage between modern Korean martial arts & ancient Korean arts, there was an ancient warrior tradition there. Perhaps it's fanciful thinking, but I can see why the small country of Korea, after the Japanese invasion and the split between north & south would want to think of itself (or at least be perceived) as a country of warriors with an ancient tradition.

And Admiral Yi-Soon Shin got the royal shaft.

Most Asians I've seen from industrialized countries seem to adhere to that "education is everything" philosophy. While we eat too much, they tend to study too much.

There is also a new book coming out in Korea, written by a formerly popular sports journalist who wanted to right "the definitive" history of martial arts in Korea for the lay reader. His "revolutionary" (in Korea anyway) theories of how TKD is really Shotokan Karate upset so many readers that he isn't so, er, popular anymore. This, by the way, is a country where Yudo (Korean pronounciation of Japanese Judo) is still largely taught to be a Korean invention (from the "anciet Korean martial art of Yu-Sool," which is a Korean pronounciation of Chinese characters that read Jujutsu or Yawara in Japanese).

Will there be (or is there) an English version of this book?

[Matt Wallis]

Skorz,

Listen, man. When it comes to the idea of HtH/empty hand MA being largely a modern phenomina you're preaching to the choir. I know that most so-called ancient MA were battlefield based and hence weapons based. As has been said here before ancient or medieval armies didn't side kick their way through the opposition.

But I was reacting to your statement that the idea of medieval warriors "on either continent" training in empty hand MA was "laughable." That's clearly not true. And, in fact, I think you're still underplaying it's role. At least in the West, grappling was a key part of medieval fighting (even on the battlefield!). For example, in De Liberi's "Flos Duelatorum" most modern practicioners agree that the empty hand grappling section provides the foundation for everything that follows including dagger and sword (though perhaps excepting the mounted combat stuff). Also in medieval (European) fighting, though empty hand wrestling on the battlefield was certainly a last resort, close in fighting with swords and daggers often involved a lot of wrestling/grappling.

So weapon training was what they used most. It was what worked on the battlefield, obviously. However, empty hand arts still played an important role for the medieval European warrior (and I'd assume for the Asian one too).

Regards,
Matt

[Don Gwinn]

I'd be interested in that book as well, if I could find it in English. I'm still trying to sort through the ITF/[color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] politics, which contain enough pitfalls and mines to induce migraines by themselves.

What I don't understand is, if the Koreans had no ideas of their own about fighting, why did they choose the changes they made to Shotokan? After all, TKD may be based on Karate, but just last night I was corrected for doing something "karate style" and the rationale for the difference explained to me.

Honestly, I'm an American from the midwest. I don't care if it's Korean or Japanese as far as deciding whether to train in it. I'm just curious. If I cared about somebody's nationalism, I'd go to Pat Miletich and learn "Iowa Style."

[kungfool]

kungfool:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can anyone point me to a source that provides evidence to the contrary of the above?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the problems with internet knowledge is the countless replication of myths. It takes a cheap computer and voila (!), one is an expert on the Net.

skorzeny.......*L*......ouch!......man you do play rough.......First off, though I did know (although not nearly so detailed) some of the information you presented, it was quite insightful. If I should take your word for all of it then a big thank you. I don't really see any reason why I should not, as you relate facts that I was aware of and interwove them with plenty that I did either did not know or lacked that good an understanding of them......so.....uhm.....Thanks.....*g*...

I would like to point out that though I printed information off a website, the only reason I did so was because it parrots exactly what I have (on my shelf) from three other sources. I'm aware that not everything on the web is true. I also stated that I am not an expert in korean or even martial arts history. I even admitted that there were gaps I need to fill in what I do know. But I am sure there are plenty of "web experts".

I too would be sincerely interested in such a book, written in english of course, and would much appreciate if you would pass on any information you might come upon.

BTW.......my nickname is not intended to make fun of non-korean martial arts....it's just a name I got tagged with and used to log in here............besides....I think "Taekwondog" is overused.......*g*

[Don Gwinn]

Hey! Someday, I could be TaeKwonDon!

But uh . . . . . I think I won't.

[Skorzeny]

Danger Dave:

Will there be (or is there) an English version of this book?

I don't know. I certainly hope so. But there isn't too much interest in the US about the historical origin of TKD. I mean, really, who cares? The answer is - no one, except obsessive compulsive types like me who does not like even the tiniest of misrepresenations (I'm a pain on eBay, let me tell you).

Matt Wallis:

Also in medieval (European) fighting, though empty hand wrestling on the battlefield was certainly a last resort, close in fighting with swords and daggers often involved a lot of wrestling/grappling.

That may be. Duels, in particular, may have involved some form of standup grappling WITH swords or, more likely, daggers. You can throw in things like wrestling and grappling if you like, but they were WITH weapons rather than WITHOUT ("hand to hand"). Furthermore, duels were ritualized competitions of manhood - something like sports - very dangerous no doubt, quite deadly often, but not quite the same thing as military arts dealing with battlefield combat. Again, the modern sense of "martial art" as an intensely personal safety activity is exactly that a modern sense. The notion that this modern view of "martial arts" and many of its spawns like Tae Kwon Do has anything to do with ancient (2,000 years!) or even medieval fighting systems are indeed laughable.

Don Gwinn:

What I don't understand is, if the Koreans had no ideas of their own about fighting, why did they choose the changes they made to Shotokan?

I don't know. I often heard a couple of reasons being bandied about by the Korean instructors themselves, namely:

1. To give TKD more of a "Korean" flavor, which unfortunatley meant more high-flying, high-kicking theatrics. One can see a similar situation with Hapkido in which Daito-Ryu Aiki-Jujutsu locking techniques were adapted, but usually performed with way too much theatrics for my taste.

2. More kicking because Koreans are taller than Japanese.

I personally buy the first one.

After all, TKD may be based on Karate, but just last night I was corrected for doing something "karate style" and the rationale for the difference explained to me.

Now this is interesting! What exactly was the stated rationale? How did you do a technique the "Karate" way?

kungfool:

I'm normally a very mild-mannered guy (yeah, righ!). I cannot stand B-S, period in any case. I do my homework when I am obsessed with somethings (like MA and guns, though they are marginally related to my profession). Unforutnately, both the martial arts industry and gun industry are PLAGUED, yes PLAGUED, by fraud and ignorance. Sometimes, when I happen to overhear a Dojo (or Dojang) or a gunstore conversation, it's like the blind leading the (gullible) blind. Sometimes it's the fraudulent and/or deluded (Frank Dux, anyone?) leading the blind.

So, I supposed the tone of my posts regarding things like those can be a bit, eh, short-tempered. Nonetheless, I recognize that my body of knowledge is microscopic in a large scheme of things, and I try to accept new information or correction as it becomes apparently to me.

Keep checking around and be skeptical. Caveat Emptor!

Skorzeny

[kungfool]

Now I've stepped in it...........That was I who informed Don of "karate" style (palm up) knifehand strike. Before I take it further, I must say (sorry Don) that I was explaining it the way it was explained to me....as a "karate" style chop. Indeed I have seen the same strike performed by Taekwondoist as well......

In other words. I called it "karate" style since that was the way it was explained to me by my original Grandmaster. I am still discovering how much of what he related to me was from his mind and what was learned from the minds of others. My apoligies Don, no matter where I heard it, as I said, a chop is a chop is a chop is a chop.

To explain:.......a wide angle chop (180 degrees) with the palm facing upward , regardless of who it is performed by is not as effective as a more straightlined approach turning the hand over at the last second. It is awkward and can be easily blocked. (I'm talking strictly about horizontal striking and not verticle)

I'm sure someone disagrees with the logic, which I won't apoligize for, but to toss out the word "karate" as I did without qualifying it was indeed, poor instruction. My apoligies.