The Sword in Hapkido

[Paul B]

In case nobody has figured it out by now....I'm a sword freak.:duel:

I love any and all styles that deal with sharp,pointy objects made of steel and the applications thereof. Now that I've "outed" myself......What about the sword in Hapkido?

Now what I have been exposed to in my Hapkido are mainly forms done with a jukto against say..a dahn bong or forms done by yourself. I'm talking about sword on sword two man "cutting" forms. Do they exist in Hapkido?

I am not talking about "imported" techniques,that's well and good,but were they part of Hapkido from the beginning? If they came from a Korean source in Hapkido not at the beginning...who brought them in and when and why?

If you write back and say.."Hey,we have forms!"..cool! Would you say they are forms based on the principles of Hapkido and just meant to expound on those principles or would you say they are more "battlefield"?

Thanks for taking a look.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Paul:

".....If you write back and say.."Hey,we have forms!"..cool! Would you say they are forms based on the principles of Hapkido and just meant to expound on those principles or would you say they are more "battlefield"?..."

You are asking a deceptively difficult question. By this I mean that it is a whole lot easier to open this can of worms than it is to catalogue and type the worms that you find IN the can. If I work at answering your questions completely and fully I guarentee a post slightly longer than the King James Bible but only a fraction as exciting. So here are a couple of things to chew on.

1.) The relationship between armed or "weapons" work and unarmed work in the Hapkido arts has been intertwined for centuries. I am not just talking about Korean MA but Japanese and Chinese arts as well. What you do with your MT hands is what you do with a weapon and vice versa. DRAJJ, Aikido, and a host of arts across Asia mix and match MT hand techniques with those same executions done while using an "intention amplifier" (aka: "weapon").

2.) In actuality, once you start talking about the Hapkido arts there isn't a point at which you are NOT talking about anything but "battlefield applications". Hapkido arts are a matter of deadly force. That simple fact does not change the attempts of people who try to clean up the art or sanitize the art so that it is more acceptable for teaching children, Yuppies, Weekend Warriors and Fantasy Buffs. You can make a Wol Do or a hyup do out of tin foil if thats what winds yer clock. The techniques themselves, though are simple, sound battlefield techniques intended to help a person triumph over another.

3.) The Forms ("hyung") are teaching tools--- a Thesaurus for recalling and studying techniques. Nowadays we have the luxury of breaking techniques down into bite-sized bits. Put together a stance--a parry--a cut---and a recovery and you have a sword method. In days of old these methods just came in pre-packaged lots with fancy names like "white ape leaves the cave" and "advance and attack the thief". Folks who got good enough (read also "lived long enough") got a chance to take these pre-packaged bits apart and examine-- maybe even recombine them. Forms are just chains of methods put together to communicate a premise, or string of premises.
People today are still studying BON KUK GUM BUP and CHOSON SEBUP both of which are hundreds of years old and went as far as to be exported to China and later re-imported back into Korean use (See: Wu Bei Zhi; Mao, Yuan-I; Chapter 84; Ming Dyn.; reprinted 1988 by Peoples Physical Education Dept, Beijing, PRC.) Think of some MT Hand form like the Okinawa-Te "CHINTO" or "KU SHAN KU" and consider how many different techniques --- and applications of techniques are lurking in those two kata, yes? FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Kumbajah]

Not a scholar by any means but imho-

This will probably make Bruce cringe but - If you take a narrower view of Hapkido as stemming from DRAJJ, I would say very minimally. DRAJJ was started as a palace art. A way of defending yourself inside the palace. Although weapons were worn. The main emphasis was on defending against them.

If you look at Aikido - sister art to Hapkido, the sword work stems from other places and is used as something to practice against. I don't think anyone would say they study Aikido to learn the sword. There being other schools that focus on it exclusively. Its like saying you learn Judo to learn atemi. Its there but will only take you so far.

Brian

 

[iron_ox]

Hello all,

According to the direct students of Hapkido's founder, Dojunim Choi, there was very little in the way of sword application that was taught.

There was sword defense and the understanding that the use of the hands in Hapkido is the same as if the hands were holding a sword - but there was very little in the way of sword work presented.

This thread really belongs in the Korean Atrs general category since non-Hapkido related sword information has already been posted.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Brian:

Can I split the difference with you?


After going through Stanley Pranin's book of interviews it is readily apparent that Takeda was very accomplished as a swordsman (Ona Ha Itto-ryu). He also taught it to his students but not everyone got the benefit of this instruction or passed it along to the next generation. The DRAJJ of his son, Tokimune and by extension, Kondo still teaches the Itto-ryu. Practically every other branch of DRAJJ has let it go. I will go out on a limb and say that one could expect the same following the cane material.

An interesting point about the Aikido folks.....

Ueyshiba utilized bok-ken practice and even taught some to his students but the actual incoporation of sword and stick into Aikido has been infrequent at best. For instance, Mochizuchi was widely acclaimed for taking a Bu-Do approach to Aikido and incorporating from his weapon and Judo background. Saito taught both sword and stick and maybe even a little staff. The Saotome folks where I teach also do some bok-ken and stick work but have very little to say about whwere they get the material from.

I bet we are going to see the same thing with the Choi tradition of the Hapkido arts. Some say Choi taught sword, some say cane, some say stick, some say all the above and some say none of the above. Tae Eui Wang probably taught sword as part and parcel of what he handed along to In Hyuk Suh and no doubt that their grandfather knew swordwork from his time in the palace guard. 9th Generation MEI HUA TANG LANG (Plum Blossom Praying Mantis) folks such as Yian Pin Jao and Lin Pin Zhang undoubtedly brought sabre work along with them as they promoted that art. And, of course, there are the many other groups that likewise stirred the sword pot from one angle or another. For us as Hapkido practitioners the point becomes moot except to say that it casts a kind of cloud over Chois' own report. Afterall you can't say that you "mastered" everything a teacher had to teach and then not show up and teach--- well--- everything the teacher has to teach. Pretty safe bet that Choi didn't know "everything" and finding out what he really did know and when he knew is what makes the research healthy for the Hapkido arts. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[iron_ox]

For us as Hapkido practitioners the point becomes moot except to say that it casts a kind of cloud over Chois' own report. Afterall you can't say that you "mastered" everything a teacher had to teach and then not show up and teach--- well--- everything the teacher has to teach. Pretty safe bet that Choi didn't know "everything" and finding out what he really did know and when he knew is what makes the research healthy for the Hapkido arts. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

No reply.

 

[Kumbajah]

To split the hair even further Ona Ha Itto-ryu is not part of DRAJJ. It is the Aizu clan Kenjutsu. Same clan different arts. Takeda was master of both. But I would call them separate paths.

As for Choi the version I've heard that he enjoyed Kendo, but it wasn't part of Hapkido.

 

[iron_ox]

To split the hair even further Ona Ha Itto-ryu is not part of DRAJJ. It is the Aizu clan Kenjutsu. Same clan different arts. Takeda was master of both. But I would call them separate paths.

As for Choi the version I've heard that he enjoyed Kendo, but it wasn't part of Hapkido.

Dojunim Choi taught use of the dan bong in conjunction with sword practice - most often with the use of the juk do - the split bamboo sword found in Gumdo.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Brian:

Bingo!!! Right on the money!! And THAT my friend is where we need to really focus!!! Lets just take a look at what you just wrote.

Takeda knew both the art that became DRAJJ AND he also knew OHIR, yes? Just because he knew them both does not mean he meant to meld them into a single approach, right? But then he also taught stick/cane techniques did he mean to incorporate THOSE under the DRAJJ umbrella? So far, noone has the last word on this. Some people do it and some people don't. Are Kondo's people right for doing it and the Kodokai or Rppokai wrong for NOT doing it?

Now how about Choi....

Choi brought something back from Japan. Maybe when he taught some people got a little stick thrown in. Or maybe Choi was curious about Kumdo and threw in some juk-to AND stick.Does that now become part of the Choi tradition? If some people teach stick and others don't is there a "right" and "wrong" here? What if one guy thinks the stick belongs and another says it doesn't so one tells his students about the stick and the other doesn't. Is one right and the other wrong? What if one guy teaches stick and everybody else doesn't. The loner gets no end of grief until one day they find an old letter or something that says 'I, Choi, think stick is the quintessential Hapkido weapon." Now what? Wanna make matters worse? The DRAJJ of Takeda had scrolls of the techniques. A scroll was given out with the cert or license. Not one person has a complete invariant curriculum of Hapkido as taught by Choi. Not one. Everbody has something but none of it matches up to people from other eras. Now What?

This stuff has been WAY TOO LONG over due. We needed to be talking about this person like this about 25 years ago--- like when he was still alive. I bet if folks had done a little less bowing and scraping and a lot more asking and answering we would be a heck of a lot farther along. The "lets-don't-rock-the-history-boat" people will be with us always and that approach has done us no good to date. Time for a different tack. FWIW.

BTW: Heres a free language lesson---

"You're being disrespectful" is Korean for "I don't know and your asking is making me feel uncomfortable".

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Kumbajah]

I don't see what the problem with is with exploring this stuff. For me at least it is entertainment more than anything. Its history, and their are many versions. Nothing will be definitive. People's ideas change throughout their lives so Choi of 40 is not the same as Choi before he died. Plus he's dead what does he care Finding out that a human is fallible won't keep me from the dojang.

So with what we are stuck with today---

Sword is different than the Dan Bong imo. My study of sword is almost nil. A tiny bit of Kendo. But other than the stepping, it doesn't seem to blend as well as Dan Bong. Dan Bong does the same strikes and locks just using the stick to facilitate them both.

It may be my naiveté with both weapons. But if someone is using a dan bong it looks the same if they didn't have it. Similar with bong and cane only the strikes have shorter motion and the locks larger. (longer the stick shorter your hand has to travel for strikes, locks have to compensate for a longer fulcrum/more leverage.)

Sword the whole thing changes, more rigid, for lack of better way to describe it.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Brian:

Well, there are two ways I can think of right off the top of my head.

1.) The museum in Yongsan (at the Military Academy) had some pretty nasty metal and wooden truncheons that a bit of dan bong work would make all but formidable. These same police weapons were taught at the Academy and there is a Police museum in Seoul where this is pretty much on display for everyone to research.

2.) The idea of sword really depends on which architecture you are using. Ssang Soo Do (Long Sword) is probably a good case of where you'd be right. The Ye-do--- especial the single handed dao or gum--- even the Eurpoen police sabre that was so popular into the 20th century might well use many of the biomechanics one might find with a stick.

There is also one other point and that is the polearms. The Korean staff often had a square piece of metal on the end but were not always 6 and eight feet long. 48 inch sticks were also popular for crowd control and we still see this in the use of the "riot batons" modern police use for crowd control. Just some assorted thoughts....

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

Greetings,

Hapkido has very little sword in it's curriculum, my first teacher Master Son teaches Kumdo when any of his students wants a real sword system.

Hapkido has a few strikes, blocks, and counters that's all, very basic.

Some Kwans may have expanded the basics, but it seems most HKD Masters who study sword in depth goes outside of HKD for instruction.

 

[iron_ox]

Not one person has a complete invariant curriculum of Hapkido as taught by Choi. Not one. Everbody has something but none of it matches up to people from other eras.

I have at least two curriculum from 3 decades apart, seperated by two continents, that are almost point for point the same.



Stuart, a very accurate assessment.

 

[Mike-IHF]

Interesting conversation,

To answer the original question, yes we use the sword alot. Both in forms, and in two man cutting techniques. Less in the forms. We focus more on actual attacks, and defenses of the sword. We call it Kumsul, not Kumdo. According to GM Chang the sword was taught by Choi. However regarding the Dang Bong. We do not use it at all. I will not say that Choi did not teach it, I was not there. From what I understand that weapon originated from the Bhuddist monks. They use to carry them around in the temples. Some ppl have told me that they use it in DRAJJ, but I have not yet seen it. All I know is that we do not use it. The only weapons we use are the sword, staff, and cane(straight cane). And we do also use belt techniques, but it's not a major part of our system. So it is a hard question. Some ppl use the sword, and not the Dang Bong. and some use the Dang Bong, and not the sword.

 

[American HKD]

Interesting conversation,

To answer the original question, yes we use the sword alot. Both in forms, and in two man cutting techniques. Less in the forms. We focus more on actual attacks, and defenses of the sword. We call it Kumsul, not Kumdo. According to GM Chang the sword was taught by Choi. However regarding the Dang Bong. We do not use it at all. I will not say that Choi did not teach it, I was not there. From what I understand that weapon originated from the Bhuddist monks. They use to carry them around in the temples. Some ppl have told me that they use it in DRAJJ, but I have not yet seen it. All I know is that we do not use it. The only weapons we use are the sword, staff, and cane(straight cane). And we do also use belt techniques, but it's not a major part of our system. So it is a hard question. Some ppl use the sword, and not the Dang Bong. and some use the Dang Bong, and not the sword.

Greetings,

True Hapkido sword tech. would be called Kum Sool.

HKD weapons are Dan bong (14 inch stick), 6ft staff, cruved cane, rope, knife, sword, and a couple of other special tech..

Master Chang never studied with Choi if I'm correct, you might have gotten alot of your tech throught the Aikido Master Chang incorporated in your system. The sword and 3/4 staff or Jo are very popular and highly developed in many Aikido schools.

Also there's no sword forms in Traditional HKD, where were your forms taken from or developed from?

 

[glad2bhere]

I am finding it curious that the use of the term "Hapkido" accepts a lenient or liberal interpretation when someone has a need for leniency

and a tight, constricted interpretation when people need to exclude others. A tad self-serving if I do say so myself.

For the flurry of posts and e-mails I have seen of late the tradition presented by Choi Yong Sul was quite liberal bordering on the eclectic. No documents, registration or set curriculum. He called it "yawara" and that was that. Now we have people who are coming along and find it convenient to put a tighter interpretation on the arts than one of the major practitioners did for himself. But the tightness of the definition doesn't seem to come from any substantial evidence but rather out of a need to be exclusionary. Well, if "Hapkido" was suppose to be so exclusionary would not this attitude have been imparted from the beginning?

a.) Yong Sul Choi would be beholding to the designated heir to the Takeda line. Yong Sul Chois' students would all submitt to the authority of the DRAJJ.

Don't want to be exclusionary? Fine I don't think Yong Sul Choi was and the behavior of his students supports this. So how about being a little more liberal in applying the definition? That way you don't have to send your money to Japan. However,

b.) People get to use their take on things and those things are every bit as valid as whatever anyone else does. Unless somebody has it written down that THAT is NOT the way Choi wanted it. Anyone?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Stuart:

".....True Hapkido sword tech. would be called Kum Sool.

Master Chang never studied with Choi if I'm correct, you might have gotten alot of your tech throught the Aikido Master Chang incorporated in your system.

Also there's no sword forms in Traditional HKD, where were your forms taken from or developed from?...."

You may want to adjust your answer a bit.

Actually "sword technique" is "Kum Bup" (lit. "Sword Method"). In order to produce a "method" a person masters a series of hyung each of which imparts a premise for the use of the sword. Each Hyung is comprised of a series of movements or "sool". The misinterpretation comes when someone says they practice "Kum Sool" and mean "Kum Bup". It would be a little like saying that the sum total of playing Baseball is only swinging a bat or only fielding grounders. The activity of following the use of sword methods as a kind of avocation is called "Kum Do" (lit. "Way of the Sword") especially when referring to the use of biomechanics without the intention of imparting lethal force.

As far as the existence of forms in Hapkido, the Hapkido I train in has forms for MT Hand as well as weapons. Sorry to hear about yours. Choi was presented with these forms by KS Myung and identified them as an acceptable expression of Hapkido training. So I guess everybody who is not using GM Myungs forms needs to make appointments with GM Myung to learn the "real" Hapkido, yes!?!

Line forms to the right, folks.........................

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

Dear Stuart:

".....True Hapkido sword tech. would be called Kum Sool.

Master Chang never studied with Choi if I'm correct, you might have gotten alot of your tech throught the Aikido Master Chang incorporated in your system.

Also there's no sword forms in Traditional HKD, where were your forms taken from or developed from?...."

You may want to adjust your answer a bit.

Actually "sword technique" is "Kum Bup" (lit. "Sword Method"). In order to produce a "method" a person masters a series of hyung each of which imparts a premise for the use of the sword. Each Hyung is comprised of a series of movements or "sool". The misinterpretation comes when someone says they practice "Kum Sool" and mean "Kum Bup". It would be a little like saying that the sum total of playing Baseball is only swinging a bat or only fielding grounders. The activity of following the use of sword methods as a kind of avocation is called "Kum Do" (lit. "Way of the Sword") especially when referring to the use of biomechanics without the intention of imparting lethal force.

As far as the existence of forms in Hapkido, the Hapkido I train in has forms for MT Hand as well as weapons. Sorry to hear about yours. Choi was presented with these forms by KS Myung and identified them as an acceptable expression of Hapkido training. So I guess everybody who is not using GM Myungs forms needs to make appointments with GM Myung to learn the "real" Hapkido, yes!?!

Line forms to the right, folks.........................

Best Wishes,

Bruce

True not being from your Kwan I never learned any forms, MT or weapons. I have no desire to learn MT hand forms but sword might be interesting.

Intertesting thoughts that Myung set the hapkido standards for forms they never became universal in HKD?

Also why do you study other sword systems, what's different from the HKD stuff?

 

[Paul B]

Wow...allright.

A couple of thoughts...

Ona Ha Itto Ryu is contained in some present day DRAJJ..that much we know for sure. Outside of that we have Aikido with its' Aiki Ken that only in modern times *after 1969..around April or so* has been codified and actually acknowledged as a distinct part of Aikido,with some Shihan actually awarding weapons certification. What does this mean as far as Takeda's teaching of his students in the sword?

When Choi supposedly trained with Takeda for so long,I wonder why it is that the sword isn't a major part of Hapkido,as it is in Aikido? Why don't we have a Hapki Gum? We know that Takeda was a master swordsman and was seldom,if ever,far from his blade. If someone was *that* close to him,I wonder about people for whom the sword didn't "rub off" on and why it isn't preserved in some of the teachings as part and parcel of Hapkido. It has been my experience that what weapons I *want* to learn,are rarely the weapons I'm actually learning..ya know?

By the way,Bruce...who do you train with from the ASU?

 

[glad2bhere]

".....True not being from your Kwan I never learned any forms, MT or weapons. I have no desire to learn MT hand forms but sword might be interesting.

Interesting thoughts that Myung set the hapkido standards for forms they never became universal in HKD?....."

I can't say for sure but I would probably bet the answer lies in all of that political Jockeying that went on with Ji's break-away to start the Song Mu Kwan. Everyone was trying to be the defining KMA for the re-established Korean nation. Early TKD and TSD people caught flack for using Japanese kata. The Chinese influences were getting heat for being identified with the Communist peril across the northern border. Politics in the country were just insane. It was a crazy time and people made choices that we have to live with.

I don't think Ji uses hyung, and I don't know about Moo-Woong Kim. Certainly In Hyuk Suh does and so does Joo Bang Lee. I have expanded on the forms that I do. I never really forgot the ones from Okinawa-te many years ago and I still practice the WHF hyung. Add to that the work I am doing on Chen Cannonfist to discern the hyung in the KWON BUP material of the MYTBTJ and a reasonably decent TAN TUI (12) and I have a decent catalog to draw on.

".......Also why do you study other sword systems, what's different from the HKD stuff?..."

What would you rather I studied-- BJJ?

The curriculum for Hapkido is like the curriculum to any other art. You get the basics and then you learn to build on those basics. The teacher is there to guide you until you don't need them anymore. GM Myung introduced me to Kumdo in the YMK curriculum. Wasn't bad but its not actual sword as much as a place in the curriculum where a person can hang the sword material they gather. I was incredibly blessed to be accepted as a student to the sword master I have. Now, when I teach my students Korean sword it doesn't have to be warmed-over Kendo.

I suppose that I could train in the sort of swordwork that the KSW people do, but why? My focus is on the MYTBTJ and that has enough to keep me busy for a life time. The only thing that really gripes my cookies is that people won't take time to learn Korean stuff but will fight like hell for the opportunity to insert some material from somewhere else. Whatsup about that?

Best Wishes,

Bruce