What are the main korean styles?

[Nightingale]

What are the main Korean MA styles?

I know about TKD and TSD, but there are lots more... what are they, and what makes them unique from other korean MAs?

 

[jkn75]

Nightingale, stirring up the boards?

To add to the harder styles you mentioned, I add Kuk Sool Won. What makes it different from Tae Kwon Do or Tang Soo Do is that in addition to punching and kicking, there are also joint manipulation, joint locking and weapons. It is somewhat similar to Hapkido up to First Degree BB, beyond that is when the two styles diverge. The differences are in the amount of weapons used and some of the techniques.

The most uniques thing about Kuk Sool is that every summer the Grandmaster In Hyuk Suh, visits all of the Kuk Sool commercial schools and larger club schools in the United States. He puts on a seminar, in addition to holding black belt testing. This has happened for a number of years.

A good resource is the WKSA web page found here. The yearly Kuk Sool Tournament is coming up October 11 at the Astroarena in Houston.

 

[Nightingale]

Originally posted by jkn75
Nightingale, stirring up the boards?

that's my job.

:asian:

 

[pknox]

There would also be Hwa Rang Do, a very complete art that includes fighting in all ranges, extensive weapons work, and training in healing techniques as well.

In addition there would be Hapkido, which has kicks and punches that are similar to TKD, as well as locks and throws, which are often compared to Japanese Jujutsu and Aikido.

Kumdo is a sword art, and is often described as the Korean equivalent of Kendo - Yudo would be the Korean equivalent of Judo. While other arts may include at least some of their techniques in their curriculum, they are both unique in their focus.

I don't know whether or not Han Mu Do would be considered a major art based on number of practitioners, but here is a website: http://www.hanmudo.org/

 

[pknox]

Also check out this thread:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2427

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Nightengale:

Let me see if I can send you off in the right direction.

If you are talking about Hapkido try these.

1.) Early Hapkido after the fashion of GM JI -- Sin Moo Hapkido

2.) Early Hapkido after the fashion of Moo Woong Kim --Shin Moo Kwan Hapkido

3.) Early Hapkido with increased Chinese Influence--- Joo Bang Lee and In Hyuk Suh

4.) Early Hapkido with increased Korean Influence -- Jung Kim and Han Pul.

5.) Late Hapkido -- Lim Hyun Soo and Kim Jun Sang-- Hapki Yu Sool.

If you are talking about TaeKwonDo you have basically three choices

1.) Pro-art as represented by the ITF

2.) Pro-competition as represented by the WTF

3.) Pro-self-defense as represented by an assortment of Independents. Personally I would toss the TSD practiioners into this last category but thats just me.

If you are talking about Kumdo you have four choices.

1.) Kumdo after the Japanese tradition--- AKA Kendo and IKF

2.) Kumdo after the revisionist approach--- Hae Dong Kumdo

3.) Kumdo after the weapons approach -- Kum Bup

4.) Kumdo after the historic approach --- Kyong Dong and other smaller independents.

Like the man said--"no generalization is worth a damn--- not even this one." Maybe this will send you in the right direction.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[pknox]

Bruce -

Very nice. You obviously are very knowledgable about Hapkido, TKD, and Kumdo! There are some Hwa Rang Do and Kuk Sool Won people who may debate you on #3, however, as both arts claim in their histories to be based on precursor arts to Hapkido. There are some common techniques between all 3 arts, however. Some people evidently have problems with the histories of these arts; either way, their added material does make them different than Hapkido in a few ways, due to other influences, and not necessarily all Chinese ones, as I'll try to explain below.

As far as the influences being "Chinese", that may be true, and even predominately so -- but there were Japanese influences as well -- Joo Bang Lee reportedly started his training in, along with Korean Kempo, the Japanese arts of Judo and Kendo (remember that after the occupation of Korea, many Korean MAists were given the choice of practicing either Japanese "sportive" arts, or risking running afoul of the powers that be) before moving on to Hapkido; in addition, the first weapon taught to many Hwa Rang Do practitioners is actually the nunchaku (Ssang Jyel Bong in Korean, I believe), which while possibly originating in China (?), is most associated with the Okinawans. Kuk Sool Won claims to be a collection of ancient Korean martial traditions - while it is quite possible that many of these were influenced by the Chinese, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some of them were indeed indigenous to Korea as well.

Granted, it's quite possible to argue that even the Japanese arts mentioned, as well as most arts, came from China. This would be at least partially true historically, but not completely true practically -- while some forms of Japanese Jujutsu (and hence, Judo), for example, owe a lot of their initial development to Chinese arts like chin na, I think it is quite reasonable to say that the Japanese put their own "stamp" on these arts. Judo itself is pretty different from Jujutsu, from which it was derived, and therefore even more removed from the original Chinese arts that preceded Jujutsu. Also, to me, Hapkido is very "Korean" in its approach, even though it was supposedly at least partially derived from a Japanese one (Aiki-Jujutsu). The same can be said of Tang Soo Do, which owes a good deal of its development to Japanese Shotokan and Chinese Northern Shaolin Kung Fu, but, at least in my mind, is also very "Korean" in its philosophies. If we were going to argue that indirect lineage approach, than I guess we could also ascribe most martial traditions to India as well.

Just some food for thought.

 

[pknox]

Originally posted by pknox
I don't know whether or not Han Mu Do would be considered a major art based on number of practitioners, but here is a website: http://www.hanmudo.org/

Based on a thread I've just seen, I would recommend www.hanmudo.com instead. The .org one is still OK, but the .com address seems more comprehensive.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Pknox:

Right there with you. The idea of "style" is just as often a matter of teaching priorities as it is of curriculum content. In this way, I might well execute a particular Hapkido technique in one manner because thats the way I was taught by my teacher. If I go to a seminar taught by another teacher the same technique may have variances. If the priority is on competition rather than SD some techniques may be used--- or used in a fashion---- that might not fit with SD applications. All of which is to say that it gets pretty dicey actually identifying what is a truely separate style of an art and what is simply another teachers' take on what is important.

Now in actual execution the extensive used of the elongated bow stance (front leaning stance) in kuk sool won as compared to the wider, shorter stance of Yon Mu Kwan Hapkido might be a legit differentiation between those two arts. In the Sin Moo tradition versus the SHin Mu Kwan tradition the actual role that kicks play in a confrontation may/or may not be a telling difference--- at least until that intent changes the actual execution of the technique (the well-known difference between the low spinning heel kick in these two varieties is a good example). Finally, by extension the degree to which armed material interrelated to mthand material is used and how it is used could also be a telling difference. Even with a few good years of sword training you simply are not going to see me tumbling and rolling with a sword as one sees in Kuk Sool Won and Hwa Rang Do. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[pknox]

Well said, Bruce - very well said.

:asian:

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Pknox:

Thanks for the kudo-s but now I think its time to throw this back in Nightengales' lap and have him set some parameters for how he discerns between styles. Put another way, how does one actually differentiate between what is a separate "style" and what is just an alternate way of one teacher presenting the same material someone else also teaches. In theory, COULD a person take a body of information, change the manner in which it is executed (just for the sake of being different) and then call what he is doing a separate "style", or does the difference need to be more meaningful than that? In what way?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[pknox]

Originally posted by glad2bhere
In theory, COULD a person take a body of information, change the manner in which it is executed (just for the sake of being different) and then call what he is doing a separate "style

Another excellent point. I also do believe that happens all the time. Sometimes it is just a political break, and no new ground is broken. Occasionally, however, it is relevant, and the new "style" becomes viable, and sometimes even invigorates the old style it "broke" from. Not a Korean style example, but I think perhaps Gracie Jiu Jitsu might fall into this latter category -- in the beginning, it was basically Judo with the groundwork within the curriculum emphasized a bit more (I'm talking here about each art's "sportive" aspect; not self-defense oriented Judo and Vale Tudo). Since then, it has gone on to be more than that, and has even influenced the way judoka now train.

BTW, as far as our dear Nightingale, me thinks "he" would be a "she."

 

[glad2bhere]

If you are right, then it really needs to be Ms. Nightengale, yes?

Sorry about that.

============


RE: What constitutes a true style change?

I would say the satisfaction of a pre-determined goal by an alternate means but that seems to be WAY too general.

Simply saying another kwan or "school" would be too narrow and gets back to minor changes made for invidual and personal preference.

Funakoshi got into big trouble for pressing the idea of a separate styles of Karate such as Shorin and Shorei when folks back in Okinawa just saw it all as one big put with subtle differences between and among teachers and students.

In China, I still don't swallow the idea of over 400 "styles" of Chuan Fa especially when even the largest discrimination of Internal and External styles has never been clearly delineated.

The Koreans don't seem to have a problem turning up a whole new ART when the spirit moves them, let alone a new style. "Think Big", thats what I always say!.........

It'll be interesting to see what other folks turn-up.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[pknox]

Originally posted by glad2bhere
1.) Early Hapkido after the fashion of GM JI -- Sin Moo Hapkido

Bruce:

Just looking at this again, and I figured you'd be the perfect guy to ask. I was browsing online, when I ran into the site for Sin Moo Hapkido:

http://www.sinmoohapkido.com/

There was a pretty good deal of information about GM Ji Han Jae's history and lineage, as well as some info about some exciting products soon to be offered. The one thing it did not have is a lot of info on specific techniques, or technique philosophy (it did talk about the "25 basic kicks" though). In your experience, what makes Sin Moo "different" from other flavors of Hapkido (except for the gray gi's, of course )? Is it an overarching philosophy (I did read about some of the Taoist influence of the GM on the site), or a matter of technique, both, or something else entirely? Are they "typical" in their split of striking/grappling techniques, or do they favor one more than the other as compared to other schools? Do they use the "typical" Hapkido weapons (belt, cane, Dan-Bong, Jang-bong, kumdo sword) or different ones?

I do know you study Yon Moo Kwan Hapkido, but I unfortunately don't know the relationship between your style and Sin Moo; if you don't feel comfortable commenting on them, I completely understand. If that is the case, do you know of any online resources where I may be able to dig deeper?

BTW, though I was posing the question based on Bruce's earlier post, if anyone else wants to chime in here, feel free as well.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear P:

Probably the most significant dividing line between GM Jis' material and that of other Early Choi practitioners lies in the use of the kicks. Jis' parter-in-arms regarding the addition of kicks to the Hapkido Arts was Moo-Woong Kim. Both had invested themselves heavily in incoporating kicks into the Hapkido syllabus. Both had ample training outside of Hapkido regarding kicking material so we are not talking about a couple of dunces, here. They even met in 1961 for about 8 months at Jis' Sung Moo Kwan and compared notes. However they never seemed to be able to reconcile their respective approach to how kicking was to be incorporated. Apparently Ji believed that kicking was used to support grappling material, while Kim believed that kicks could/should be used in their own right. I like to think of it as though one were speaking of blocks with the idea of blocking so hard it becomes a damaging technique in its own right. In this way, I believe Kims kicking material carries a heavier emphasis on commitment to the technique. The classic example are the low spin kick (Kim's style sits on the heel and spins while Ji's style has a foot, knee and hand on the floor. The same can be said of the high spinning heel kick. Kim's technique bends the body so as to see the kick hit the target, while Jis' kick is purely fast and ballistic.)

From what I understand people used to be able to draw clear lines between these two traditions. The HwaRang and Kuk Sool traditions tended to follow the Moo-woong Kim approach while a lot of KHA/KHF people tended to follow the Ji approach. Its been such a long time I don't know if one can still make such a clear distinction, but maybe its a start, right?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[pknox]

I knew I asked the right guy! Thanks - that's exactly what I was looking for.