An interesting point to make is that despite the extreme historical enmity between Koreans and Japanese, Choi claimed to learn a Japanese system (Daito Ryu) from a Japanese master (Takeda), and he taught it as a Japanese system from early on, during a time when Korea was trying desperately to purge itself of anything Japanese. Why would he make this claim? Daito Ryu was not well known then as it is now, so it wouldn't have been beneficial to make this claim for self-promotion or getting students. And to claim to practice and teach a Japanese art in the 1950's in Korea was definitely not self-beneficial. These facts lead me to believe that Choi was being at least partially truthful about the origins of his art, although he may not have learned directly from Takeda.
And Vapour, the locks, controls, and throws in Hapkido are much more like Daito Ryu than Aikido, the "circular" motions are smaller and sharper, and they are taught to damage bones, joints, tendons, often putting the fulcrum point of a throw or lock directly on a joint rather than right above or below it as Aikido often does to minimize damage.
"...so it wouldn't have been beneficial to make this claim for self-promotion or getting students."
Good poing. Keep in mind, he never sought out students. I don't believe it was his goal at all. It was GM Sup who approached him and asked him to teach after viewing his altercation with the other gentleman at the brewery. So he never stepped off the boat saying I know Daito-ryu. It only mentioned it after he was asked to teach.
"...the locks, controls, and throws in Hapkido are much more like Daito Ryu than Aikido.."
The main reason for this was due to the paths that the founders of the systems took. Ueshiba O'sensei, decided to use his art for peaceful purposes, where as GM Choi basically taught as he learned.
Hey, I used to think Morihei created aikido. But that is before I found daitoryu. Everyone do this bullshit history. Just that, in case of Korea martial arts, the issue of nationalis pop in because most arts are japanese origin.
This entire evidence was lost in luggage story is just too much. If I lost my judo dan certificate, I would be able to prove my grade from multiple documented sources not to mention the existence of people who trained or graded with me. Let me repeat that no daitoryu practioners ever backed up choi's claim that he ever learned daitoryu. To silence entire bunch of people is just not possible. There is no two side to this story when someone is unable to procure evidence of acitivities which have to be conducted in quite public setting.
I strongly suspect Choi learned Aikido. If he didn't learn daitoryu, only place he could learn jujitu techniques are from aikido as Aikido was the most widely taught style of jujitu at that time. Pre-war student of Morihei learned aikibudo, style very similar to Daitoryu. Choi's generation would have learned aikibudo rather than aikido.
Furthermore, contrary to the perception that anything Japanese are unpopular in Korea, anything Japanese are, in fact, qute popular in Korean. There is nothing deterimental in Korean teaching japanese arts to Korean as long as you maintain the claim that Korean originated it and taught to Japanese few centuries before anyway.
Let just admit it. The guy probably lied. Him coming up with computer-ate-my-file excuse is good indication of this. I've seen enough to know that GM even reputed one like general choi or Morihei Ueshiba aren't saints. If you can't admit this, you are in wrong forum.
"I strongly suspect Choi learned Aikido. If he didn't learn daitoryu, only place he could learn jujitu techniques are from aikido as Aikido was the most widely taught style of jujitu at that time. Pre-war student of Morihei learned aikibudo, style very similar to Daitoryu. Choi's generation would have learned aikibudo rather than aikido. "
Let's say for sake of argument you are right. Where is the proof in that statement? Where is the documentation for that? Ueshiba O'sensei kept the same type of records as Takeda O'sensei. There should be proof about that. Plus, Choi left the Japan after Takeda's death. It was established and proven that he was indeed the servant to Takeda. Not many Japanese Masters would have their servants running off to learn martial arts.
"Furthermore, contrary to the perception that anything Japanese are unpopular in Korea, anything Japanese are, in fact, qute popular in Korean. There is nothing deterimental in Korean teaching japanese arts to Korean as long as you maintain the claim that Korean originated it and taught to Japanese few centuries before anyway."
I'm sorry, but that is just utter crap to say Koreans lie about every Japanese art they teach. Many of the GMs that I know speak the truth of their arts. Many Koreans taught Japanese arts and gave tribute to their rightful owner, the Japanese. Koreans brag some of the best Yudo and Daehan Kumdo teams around. Where in the world di you get that crap?
"Let just admit it. The guy probably lied. Him coming up with computer-ate-my-file excuse is good indication of this. I've seen enough to know that GM even reputed one like general choi or Morihei Ueshiba aren't saints. If you can't admit this, you are in wrong forum"
First of people sought him out to teach. He did not go out looking for teaching jobs, so why should he lie? I mean, he was seen whopping some as at the brewery and the GM Sup decided to test him out. Choi never said anything about his background. If you are going to use this "need documentation" excuse, then it flows both ways. Where is your documentation to dispute it?
~ Posted a quote twice so I deleted one of them
Edited by - miguksaram on August 18 2003 21:23:46
Aikido conncection is just a guess. I'm happy to admit it. Any assertion should be backed up and the rest should be clearly stated as a guess which I think I did. I'm happy to know that you come to my way of thinking. ;)
My bottom line is this. It is EXTREMELY unlikely for Choi mastering Daitoryu aijijutu. If I attended particular junior high school judo club somewhere, it would be difficult even to deny it. Aside from documentations, there are literary hundreds of people who I would have come across during that time not just in dojo but also in my daily life.
And all those lame excuses.
*Not many Japanese Masters would have their servants running off to learn martial arts. - Whhhhy?
* Luggage being lost - Computer ate my file
* Because he was Korean - Takeda taught Korean and they are included in lineage
* He learned it from wife, Soseki taught him secretly - So far, pure fictions invented to make up for the lack of evidences. Believable only if someone want to believe.
As of Koreans lie about every Japanese art they teach, I never said *all* Korean do. However, large majority do at least try to spin it and quite few do blatantly lies. Let not forget TKD being 2000 years old. Jujitu and Kendo originated from Korea is pretty much standard line in Korea. Everyone do this in different degree. Adding few fiction history to gain bit more credibility is common practice anywhere. Just that this is such widespread practice/problem in Korean martial arts that it is difficult sometimes to read any history of Korean martial arts withoug some critical eyes.
Edited by - Vapour on August 19 2003 09:58:00
Man, my butt is getting sore from sitting on this damn fence!
O.K. this may be repeating the point to death but for the sake of ending debate here are few more extra info.
Until recently, official line of HKD organization was that HKD is a Korean origin. Any similarity to Japanese aikido was due to the *fact* that Korean originated jujitu. Link to choi was hardly mentioned. It only recently that choi's photo start to pop up in HKD dojang.
Choi openly claimed that he was uchideshi of Takeda and represented himself as one of, if not THE student of OS Takeda. He also stated in an intervie that he accompanied Takeda all over Japan and even to Hawaii for a historic presentation in the 1930-s. Moreover, "To date, no evidence, including registrations, taxes, diaries, first-hand witness reports, immigration, employment, census have been found to support these oral traditions." Hence any stories about him being secret student of Takeda or Takeda's wife are bull and obviously proposed by people who needed to make up explanations for the lack of evidence. Also, Choi himself seem to have misrepresented his martial arts background quite frequently.
For anyone who is bothere about it, here are few threads which deal with the topic.
"Anyway, ALL of the prominent Hapkido masters learned from him and his lineage spread rapidly. The odd thing is that most of his students (read, present teachers) deny any connection to him and instead assert that what they teach has 1000-2000 years of Korean martial history, back to the Hwarang etc."
Right here, I have issues. GM Ji, Han-jae, who is the leading authority of HKD has never made a claim to 2000 year old bs. He will be the first to admit that He learned under GM Choi.
"One thing I think is certain, Choi Yong-sul learned something in Japan, was very good at it, and managed to pass it on very well as Hapkido is now everywhere."
Keep in mind that he never called his art Hapkido until later on (that is another controvery in its own right). He called his art Yawara.
"He must have had some knowledge to Daito-Ryu because he at least knew Takeda Sokaku's name. Another problem is that his students modified Hapkido to the extent that it has totally changed. However, apparently, Kim Yun-sang from Kunsan claims to be teaching Hapkido in the original form that Choi Yong-sul taught it."
You don't have to even travel that far. GM Rim, Jong-bae claims to teach "pure" Hapkido as he learned it from GM Choi. Yet another American GM who does not lay claim to 2000 year old bs.
I will say this. I like the links and the articles and I am going to look into GM Jang In-mok as this is the first I have heard of him. Thank you for the information.
Again, for everyone here, I am not saying my report is the written word to be followed. I am more than willing to keep an open mind and explore other avenues. However, I still believe that GM Choi was the grandfather of what we now call HKD. I have yet to find a HKD GM here in America that will not trace his lineage back to Choi.
I will agree with Miguk on the lineage of HKD going directly back to Choi, and the assertion that he learned a Japanese Yawara/Jujutsu of some sort. I think it is very possible that he learned Daito Ryu, but certainly my worldview won't be shattered if he didn't.
Vapour, as far as Hapkido being 1000/2000 years old, you know that is utter malarkey. OF COURSE the Koreans have been saying that HKD is a Korean system. But Choi claimed that he learned a Japanese system at the very height of the anti-Japanese era, an era, which for the Koreans may never go away. Tell me again why it would be better for Choi to say this, instead of "I learned a secret ancient Korean martial art."
I'm not saying that everything is so certain, but it certainly hasn't been disproven to my satisfaction either.
Well, I can't say what a Hapkido organization claims for it's history, but I have personally been a student of Ji Han Jae, and my life-long teacher was a student of Ji Han Jae's in the 1950's and 60's when they instructed President Syngmann Rhee's bodyguards.
Ji Han Jae has never been anything but open that his teacher was Yong Shul Choi, and passed along what Choi told him was the background of what he[Choi] taught. Ji Han Jae, in the 1950's, didn't call his art Hapkido (when my teacher trained with him). He called it "Hapki Yu Kwon Sul," but later shortened it to "Hapkido." To me the change in calling his art a "do" and not "sul" is significant, because "sul" refers to technique only, while a "do" is more of an endeavor beyond technique. GM Ji's Hapkido certainly isn't technique-only instruction anymore, which probably changed when he included his own personal experiences and additional training to the lessons of Choi. Probably the same thing has happened along the way for anyone originally training under Choi, branching out to their own organizations. Choi's original instruction is likely no longer available, but the foundation should be the same from instructor to instructor.