Discussion in 'Korean Martial Arts - General' started by Steven Lee, Jan 22, 2019.
So, he's using his own work as a source?
Yeah, I cant keep track of any of it. That one thing stuck out to me, because its concerning that hes writing wiki articles
I havent bothered clicking on his sources, but probably?
How would I post a pdf file.
Firstly copied this from a piece written by Scott shaw which was authorised by the Koreans
Moo Yeh Do Bok Tong Gi
It is essential to understand before you begin to study the foundations of the modern Korean martial arts that virtually all records of the actual techniques of the ancient Korean martial arts were destroyed by the Japanese forces which occupied the Korean Peninsula from 1909 forward. Many modern Masters of the Korean martial arts falsely claim they can trace the origins of their systems back to the dawn of Korean civilization. Unfortunately, this is historically not the case. There are only two remaining documents: the Moo Yeh Jee Bo and the Moo Yeh Do Bok Tong Gi which give us insight into Korea's martial history.
The conflicts between Japan and Korea are not unique to the twentieth century. They have been ongoing for centuries. Between 1592 and 1598 an attempted Japanese invasion of Korea took place. The Japanese invaders were eventual defeated. Near the end of this conflict, a Chinese military text entitled, Ki Hyu Shin Zu, authored by the Chinese military strategist and martial artist, Chuk, Kye Kwang was discovered. The text had been acquired from a slain Japanese General. This manuscript was then presented to Korean King Sun Jo (1567 - 1608). Within its pages was detailed a system of Chinese weapons and hand-to-hand combat, designed specifically for warfare. King Sun Jo was so impressed by the methods presented in this text that he invited Chinese Generals and Chinese Martial Art Masters who employed this system to visit his capital — which they did. From this contact, he ordered one of his Generals, Han Kyo, to take what he had learned from both the text and the demonstrations and design a new system of battlefield combat. This system, written in six chapters, was created and published as, Moo Yeh Jee Bo or The Illustrations of the Martial Arts. This text became the basis for formalized warfare among the Korean military. Within the pages of the text, the techniques of the Sang Soo Do (long sword), Jang Chang (spear), Dang Pa (triple end spear), Kon Bong (long staff), and Dung Pa (shield defense) are outlined.
Korean King Yong Jo (1724 - 1776) had the text revised during his reign. Twelve additional approaches to fighting were added. The manual was renamed, Moo Yeh Shin Bo or The New Illustrations of the Martial Arts. The fighting techniques added to the pages employed the Bon Kuk Kum (Korean style straight sword), Wae Kum (Japanese style sword), Jee Dook Kum (Admiral's sword), Yee Do (short sword), Sang Kum (twin swords), Wae Kum (crescent sword) Juk Jang (long bamboo spear), Hyup do (spear with blade), Kee Jang (flag spear), Pyun Kon (long staff with end like a nunchaka), Kyo Jun (combat engagement strategy), and Kwon Bop (hand-to-hand combat).
At the direction of the next King of Korea, King Jung Jo (1776 - 1800), in 1790 the Korean military strategists, Yi, Duk Moo and Park, Je Ga again revised the text and added six additional chapters to the manuscript: Ma Sang (combat horsemanship), Ki Chang (spear fighting from horseback), Ma Sang Wol Do (sword fighting from horseback), Ma Sang Sang Kum (twin sword fighting from horseback), Ma Sang Pyun Kon (long staff with shorter end like nunchaka, fighting from horseback), Kyuk Koo (gaming on horseback). The text was retitled, Moo Yeh Do Bok Tong Gi, The Comprehensive Illustrated Manual of the Martial Arts. This text is the primary remaining document which modern Korean martial art masters turn to search out their foundational history.
The Moo Yeh Do Bok Tong Gi was first published for world consumption, in its original form, over twenty years ago by Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan founder Hwang Kee in this book, Tang Soo Do. It has recently been translated into English.
Many people hear of this book believe that it will hold all of the answers to all of their questions on combat. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The techniques presented in this manuscript are extremely limited and the drawings, which depict the maneuvers, are not exacting as they were created several hundred years ago.
As a source point for understanding the evolution of Korean history, Moo Yeh Do Bok Tong Gi, is a great text. It was written for a different age, however. As such, it is not the holy grail of martial art manuscripts as some people believe it to be. What you take away from it will be based on your own understanding of the martial arts
@Steven Lee I am all for making changes in history, and I believe there are regional KMA not known to the outside world, why not start with one of these arts you mention, and take the history as far back as your evidence (in the universal language of English) will take it.
Debating your case by exchanging insults, and repeatedly typing the same comments, makes your case impossible to debate.
By evidence I mean reasonable or factual evidence, and not a personal opinion on historical artifacts found in tombs.
The short answer is "Yes". It is an ancient art that died out. Efforts have been made to "recreate" the art and it is now passed off as the original martial art. Think of Jim Arvantis and his art of "Pankration". We know that Pankration existed and that it was basically a mixed martial art as we would know it today (wrestling, striking, throws etc.). The problem is outside of pictures and art showing it, there is no "historical manual" spelling out the system. Mr. Arvantis, took modern martial arts and recreated the art to pay homage to the ancient art. He is very candid with what he did and no one has a problem with it.
Fast forward to this repeated conversation. No one denies that "Taekkyeon" was an ancient Korean art. The problem is that the art died out as a complete system. There were some remnants remaining in the form of kicking games that were passed on. Back in the formation of Tae Kwon Do, the leader of Korea made a comment about the kicks reminding him of "Taekkyeon" that he had heard about. At that point, more kicks were added to TKD and it started the process of morphing from a Japanese art into the Korean art we have today. Instead of just admitting that TKD is a modern art based on Japanese karate, all attempts have been made to remove the "Karate" and claim that TKD and the other Korean arts are all long lost Korean martial arts and the systems have been passed on through ancient times.
So, the history is "fake" when it shows that it was passed on unbroken through ancient times into modern times. The art itself, is a recreation of what it was thought to be like.
Oh ok. so it's the history that is in question.
The history and what actually IS Taekkyeon is what is questioned. What is being passed of as Taekkyeon today is a modern creation based on what people THOUGHT the art looked liked. This is why people say the "art is fake". It was "made up" using modern arts and ideas and looking at old references to guess at what it was. If people presented it as such there would be no issue. They are still drawing ties to the ancient art and lying when they say that what they are showing today IS Taekkyeon.
This guy appeared on Bulls**do today and got instantly permabanned for posting exactly the same stuff as he has posted here. It's laughable.
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Separate names with a comma.