Posted by Royal Dragon on March 07, 2003 at 10:58:32:
In Reply to: Re: On the hapkido discussion posted by From www.kuksoolwon.com on March 07, 2003 at 10:27:48:
Interesting. That still does not mean any of it survived.
The artical states
Kings, royal families and government officials had private armies and bodyguards who practiced martial arts known as KoongJoong MuSool.
These royal court martial arts gave rise to esoteric techniques of portable weapons such as fans and short swords. Also developed were unique empty-handed techniques of joint-locking and pressure point striking.
It may state info on Royalty in general, but not specific names, nor techniques and form. There is no documentation that can show anything other then the names survived.
Just so you get my perspective, in Tai tzu, I have a copy the documentation of the form Qi Jiguang Fa from 1544 AD. I can look at the from Qi jiguang Fa as I know it, and compare it to the document, and I know it is authentic because it matches the document fom 1544AD. I know that the founder of the art is Chao, Kuang Yin, and I know the form Tai Zhong Chuan was deveoped by his brother. Both Chao Kuang Yin, and his brother had the throne (Kuang yin died of an illness at ayoung age, his son was not old enough to rule, so his brother took the throne)
When it comes to info on Korean arts that specific, it is usually a Korean who learned a Japanese art and came back to Korea and named it the same as an extinct native Korean art. There are very few specific or un broken lineages going back to ancient times. Even Subkk Do(sp?) was developed from TKD and a Chinese art mix. the actual Subakk Do that is legit comes only from a single manual on the art that can hardly be complete. What we see today as Subakk is not Subakk, but a modern style with some influance form the ancient Subakk manual. To say it is Subakk Do would be the same as saying Chen style Taiji Quan is Seven Star Mantis because both were very heavily inlfuanced by Tai Tzu Chang Chuan.
In Chinese styles on the other hand, we can see distinct connection form the arts of origin, to the present day systems, and the ancient aspects are relativly clear. Not to say there is no contraversy, but noone is going to go to Japan, learn Karate, then go back to China and say it is ancinet Chen style Taiji Quan. However, if you look at the history of the Korean arts, it is clear to see this HAS happened on a number of occasions. The reason it was posible is because the original arts no longer exist to compare.