User talk:Vagabund

Hi,

Taekkyeon is a sensitive topic because many people want to learn it and not enough qualified teachers to disperse the knowledge. If you truly desire to learn Taekkyeon there are only two masters in the world who know the complete system. One is in S. Korea, he doesn't teach many people. The other lives in Los Angeles, CA. The truth is, you have to either move to Los Angeles or S. Korea if you want to learn the Taekkyeon as taught by GM Song and Im Ho. I will tell you this. GM Song was a bodyguard of the remaining Choson Dynasty family memebers. The top Taekkyeon masters always defended the king, They were in the military. Taekkyeon was a military artform first and a civil cultural game for children and adults later. By calling Taekkyeon a civil martial art game is demoting it from its real status. However, Taekkyeon is still a Holistic Martial art with many healing aspects and a civil game for children and adults. Its all three! Please consider me a friend. Which Taekkyeon association are you affiliated with? Carverrock (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do consider you as a friend! You know, I noticed a heavy difference from discussions in Korea and in the West: In the West, we argue in a matter-of-fact way. Not always, but at least sometimes. In Korea, people who disagree with each other, often start to fight on a very personal level. In the West, we can be good friends even if we disagree on certain topics. All I want is relyable information. I am open to learn new things, but my experience in martial arts has taught me that one has to be very, very careful. You probably know the distortion of taekwondo's history. This is only one example. If there is a claim, it has to be proven. If a master claims something, it is a good hint, but it is not automatically a proof. Especially if there are a lot of people who have good counter arguments.

Could you please tell me in which books all this is described? With "this", I mean

GM Song was a bodyguard of the remaining Choson Dynasty family memebers. (As far as I know, taekkyonkkun sometimes worked as a body guard, but not master Song)
The top Taekkyeon masters always defended the king, They were in the military. (As far as I know, the king was proteced with weaponry and not with bare-handed martial arts)
Taekkyeon was a military artform first (evidence?)

My Korean teachers and my Korean taekkyon mates (from all three associations apart from widae organisation) have told me different things. I have translations of the most important books and nowhere is stated what you write. Again, this does not automatically mean that you are wrong, but I would like to have some more proofs. Or can you simply explain more details? Especially, I see no reason why master Song would hide information and techniques. Why should he not teach the whole system to e.g. Shin Han-seung? Taekkyon was about to die and Song Dokki wanted to keep the art alive. It would not make any sense if he teaches "the complete system" only to very few people. He even gave demonstrations to the public. It does not seem to me as if he wanted to keep anything secret. Kind regards, --Hyeondo (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taekkyeon

Hi,

GM KO, doesn't tell stories or say he is better than anyone. He only shows technique. Also, I am trying to tell you the truth because I know you are passionate about Taekkyeon as I am. Life long. GM KO does not have his own style, he copied GM Songs form, exactly. That is what he teaches. Please don't be confused and think he is doing his own style.

Look, just take what I have said and consider it. The Koreans know who KO is, they do. GM Ko has a active website in Korea and they know who he is. The problem is he is in America and not controlled by Korean culture politics. . . . I may be wrong about GM Song being in the military, but I am not wrong about Taekkyeon having a real military position in the Choson dynasty. It is too obvious because the techniques of killing someone would not have been learned in a civil game, those techniques ( many) could only come from warfare.

. . .weaponry is an extension of the hand. GM Song was an expert archer and the Taekkyeon headmaster. Good power comes from good footwork.

Again good luck, Carverrock (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. So Song Dokki was not in the military. Concerning "killing techniques" I think that there are only very, very few bare hand techs in all martial arts I have practiced that can really kill a man. I think it is a myth that there are so many lethal techs in bare hand martial arts. Also, I think that the taekkyon techs are not more dangerous than the techs of other martial arts. They are great, but not greater. It might surprise you that I think like this, because I love taekkyon. However, I think it is one of the biggest mistakes that martial artists often consider their art as being superior to others.

The next argument why I think that taekkyon is not a military art is that Song Dokki did not mention any taekkyon-kkun who was in the military. He told the names of around 10 players (they are in several books) and none of them was a soldier. Instead, they were often Seonbi (scholars) and Hallyang. Song Dokki himself was a Hallyang.

Next argument: If the royal court did not employ taekkyon masters as bodyguards, they employed masters from another martial art (kwon beop?). Why would they need masters from another martial art (soldiers?) if taekkyon was in place already? I mean, if taekkyon had been a military martial art in the past, why was it replaced by something else in the court?

Why could those dangerous techs only come from warfare? It is also possible to develop such techs for civil self defense. Of course, they do not come from the game, but in my view taekkyon has two sections: The game on the one hand and the combat techs (yet beop) on the other. I am not sure if they are interrelated at all. You might know this better than I, but when I watch the videos where Song Dokki demonstrates yet beop, I do not see a connection to the game. He does not even use pumbalkki when showing yet beop. Im Ho taught the yet beop to Song Dokki when he was already 17 years old. He told Song Dokki many times that he should use these techs only if really necessary. Before, Song seonsaengnim learnt only game techs. This is from Lee Yongbok (1990), S. 101. Although you might consider Lee Yongbok less educated than Go Yeongu, I think we can trust what he writes in this book, because it is just what Song Dokki told him. Thank you! --Hyeondo (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Yong Bok is a great mind. He is also a great business man. I do not disrespect him. It is because of his videos on youtube that I started watching Taekkyeon. I cannot answer all your questions or assumptions of my thoughts on martial arts, who is better, why, etc. I would rather be outside practicing the wonderful Martial art of Taekkyeon. Thanks. 21:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carverrock (talk • contribs)

addition to the article

Hi,

In the Historical section of the Taekkyeon article their is mention of "pushing the shoulder", and "technique of the flying leg." I've included a small description of possible explanations for those names. Let me know your thoughts. Also, if you would like to exchange private e-mail to continue any further dialogue about this great martial art, lets. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carverrock (talk • contribs) 05:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for letting me know about your addition to the article! I think that this addition is a thought that is worth considering, but it is not a "hard fact" that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Moreover, 최영년 only describes taekkyon as a game. In this, you do not push or pull the opponent by the shoulder and you do not use your arms like this. So I think it is too much speculation that "push the shoulder" has this meaning. It is more likely that 최영년 wanted to indicate that you use push-kicks to throw the opponent. Anyway, this is speculation as well and speculation should not be part of Wikipedia articles. What you write about "bigaksul" sounds a bit better to me, but it is not really a fact that you present. I am sorry for my criticism, but to be honest, I think we should delete your addition.

Thanks for your offer to exchange email addresses, but I prefer to stay anonymous at wikipedia.

One general note: I just want to keep this articel objective and neutral. It should describe all modern taekkyon styles equally. The question if Go Yeongu is the only one who "inherited the complete system" cannot be proven at this point. Moreover, it cannot be said which taekkyon style is "the best". As a consequence, all styles should be described neutrally. Especially, we should avoid evaluations. This is an encyclopedia, so it has to be neutral.

By the way, we could extend the history section by adding the "Korean Games" text from 1895. We could also modify the "Techniques" section by describing the competition techniques and the yet beop techs separately. Do you call the "combat techs" yet beop in the WWTO? --Hyeondo (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Boep is not a regular term that Grand Master Ko uses to describe the old dangerous techniques. However he does use that term to describe a type of axe-kick. But at the same time Yet boep is a correct term for some old techniques. If you want to stay anonymous that is fine with me, maybe one day you will come to America and take a class with us. Again GM Ko is not the only person who learned the full basic system of Taekkyeon the other man in Korea almost beat out Jeung Kueng Hwa for the top honor. But because he is overweight and not as good looking as Jeung Keung Hwa he lost out.

GM Ko's technique is provable. We have a master level teacher from Lee Yong Bok's school here who will return to Korean in the next year. He is here because after 22years of practicing he knew that the techniques are off or something was missing. He his being corrected by GM Ko right now. If you don't want to wait years for proof than just get on a plane and come visit us and see for yourself if you want to know. The truth: Taekkyeon is 5times better than you think!!!!! My friend their are some really fun moves and steps that you will not see from the three big schools in Korea. I understand you want to keep this encyclopedia neutral, as it should. But at the same time Wikipedia depends on experts to edit its articles. I am closer to being an expert in this artform than any other Americans at this time and have insight that academics do not have. After a few more years I will have learned the basic technique. Taekkyeon does push and pull the shoulder in fighting or game. Also we move the arm by the shoulder (like a bird). This is not mere speculation. The shoulder is very important, does your association not teach this? It can be very dangerous if you push the shoulder to hard. . . This is a another case where the Korean schools didn't learn all the techniques so they don't know how to use the shoulder.

Taekkyeon is the traditional military martial art of Korea and the Choson Dynasty. Fact!

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carverrock (talk • contribs) 05:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I undid your edit again, but you must provide verifiable evidence for such edits. It is always written above the edit-window: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." I am not convinced about the addition about "shoulder", but I will not remove it.

Thank you for the explanation about "yet beop". I think it is possible that Ko Young Woo learnt taekkyon well and that his technique is very good. However, as I said before, this is an encycopedia and so we must stick to certain rules. If you have insights that others do not have, just publish an article or even a book and provide verifiable evidence. Sorry if this insults you, but everybody could claim "I am / my master is the most skillful expert in this".

Another question: Do you in the WWTO also play taekkyon as a game (gyeollyeon taekkyon or gyorugi)? If yes, which rules do you apply? Thank you -- Hyeondo (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeong Man Kim He will be in France and Germany over the next few weeks. If your not already going to see him, contact Jean Sebastian in France you could get updated on what Mr. Kim has learned from us. Hope you get to learn from him. Thanks again.Carverrock (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you still do not understand what Taekkyeon is. Further Master Song was in the Korean Military for many years. Since you do not believe me ask Yeong Man Kim about the history. Thank you. Carverrock (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I mention that it is a little pretentious to tell somebody "you don't know what xy is"? Your claims are becoming really funny. Master Song was a soldier for many years? Interestingly, all masters and all books say that SDK was a hallyang. He worked as a bodyguard from time to time. Anyway, even if he was in the military, it still does not mean that Taekkyon was a military martial art. Just like it does not mean that boxing is a military martial art, just because many soldiers do it. Well, if you do not believe me that SDK was a hallyang, you can ask the following masters. All of them learnt directly from SKD: Do Kihyun, Lee Yonbok and Jeong Gyeonghwa. Or how about the leading Taekkyon researcher (in the sense of "science") Jang Gyeongtae? Or you can read several Korean books that provide information about Joseon-dynasty Taekkyon and Song Dokki. Have you read any already? If you want to get closer to the truth, ask different Koreans from different associations (or organisations). Be very critical with what they say. Not every skillful master has the ability to handle historical issues carefully. History can easily be distorted. Also, bear in mind that people sometimes remember wrongly. Recently, I read a study that 40% of remembered facts are wrong. Often, people remember that a person was present at an event althoug this person definately wasn't there. The reason why I am telling you this is that I had been mislead by different martial arts masters as well. Sometimes, they provide wrong information intentionally, sometimes without intention. Sometimes, of course, it is true what they say. There is always only one way to figure out what is true: Research yourself. Regards, --Vagabund (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, please just remember that I am trying to tell you the truth, maybe in the future you will know... Jeung keunghwa, lee yongbok and Do kihyun had limited time with Grandmaster Song and never learned the full system. Fact. Again, ask Yeong Man KIm. You know him right? Ask him, im sure you'll trust what he says. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carverrock (talk • contribs) 05:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, i didn't write that Song was a soldier for years, I said he was in the Military for a long time. As an officer. And yes this is not proof of TAekkyeons history (as i wrote a long time ago) the techniques themselves are the proof. Unfortunetly you cant see Widae Taekkyeon and be judge yourself. If I only watched Taekkyun from Korea I'd think the same way you do. Maybe one day if you come to LA you will see and know. Or oneday I'll come to Europe and teach a few seminars. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carverrock (talk • contribs) 05:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The techniques themselves are the proof". Almost every martial art's techs can be used by the military. A lot of martial arts were suitable for pre-modern warfare, but not all of them were really practiced by soldiers. You cannot conclude from the techs if a martial art was or is popular in the military. I also think that taekkyon could have been suitable for the army, but the question is if it was really used there.

My English is quite limited, so please tell me what you mean by "officer". My dictionary has two meanings: Officer can mean "somebody in an office" or a kind of rank in the military (higher than a soldier).

Anyway, I still do not see a reason why taekkyon could be called a "military martial art". It would be such if it had been practiced by all (or most) soldiers on a regular basis. Thank you as well. --Vagabund (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I watched that video. Its not Taekkyeon. His kicks are strange. Might work with the right angle, but still not Taekkyeon. THank you it was interesting. Carverrock (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi an Officer in the US Military is high ranking person. Song was a Colonel in the Korean Military. . . Also, to answer a question from a long time ago, why didn't Song teach everything to Shin? Shin was an older man who'd travel 5 hours to see Song. Shin only came a couple times a month. So he didnt have the time to learn. Shin couldn't have learned much more than limited basic techniques from Grandmaster Song.Carverrock (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]