08/16/2026
A fraud competition, “Xin Tang Ren”!
包裝在「武德」底下的詐騙集團 —— 新唐人！
🤬🤬🤬
一場「武德」包裝下的爭議？A Controversy Wrapped in “Martial Virtue”?
#韓基祥師父 在罹癌接受手術後，術後不到一個月、身體仍在恢復階段，便一邊積極復健，一邊帶著女兒霓霓與門生遠赴美國，參加這場世界級武術大賽。
這趟旅程，不只是為了名次。
我們更希望帶著孩子走出台灣、看看世界，與各地武術選手交流、增廣見聞。為此，師生投入大量時間訓練，加上機票、住宿、交通等費用，每個人都付出了相當的時間、心力與金錢。
依大會賽前公布資訊，成人組金獎包括 5,000美元獎金及名家製作寶劍一柄。
我們也知道，大會規則載明：
「各組金獎、銀獎、銅獎得獎人可視表現情形從缺。」
所以我們先說清楚：
金獎可以從缺，我們接受。
如果所有選手確實沒有達到金獎標準，依規則從缺，沒有問題。
然而，本屆最後的結果是：
所有金獎均從缺。
依我們對大會公開說法的理解，大會提倡武德精神，希望選手們「淡泊名利、虛心學習、堅守善念、以德為先」；並表示本屆賽事評判標準極高，真正達到金獎水平的選手，已不再需要以金牌來證明自己，故本屆金獎全部從缺。
對此，我們感到訝異並產生了一個疑問：
金獎從缺，究竟是因為所有選手都沒有達到提高後的金獎標準？
還是「真正達到金獎水平的人，已不需要用金牌證明自己」？
如果是前者，我們接受。
技不如人，我們回去練；分數不夠，我們回去檢討。
比賽可以輸，但我們希望知道自己輸在哪裡。
「未達標，所以從缺」，我們完全理解。
但「真正達到金獎水平，已不需要金牌證明自己」如果也是對本屆結果的說明，我們希望能進一步理解其中的競賽邏輯。
我們不是要求金牌，而是希望理解標準。
---
大會一直強調「復興傳統武術」，並表示選手必須演練「傳統套路」、展現「武德精神」。
但問題是：
何謂傳統？何謂武德？
今天所謂的傳統套路，在它誕生的年代，難道不也曾經是新編套路？
如果「傳統」的技術標準無法讓參賽者充分理解，而最終仍高度取決於評審對「傳統」的認定，那麼這究竟是在比武術，還是在比誰更符合評審心中的「傳統」？
傳統武術今日面臨傳承危機，也有另一件值得我們反省的事：
當我們把「自己所學到的」直接等同於「唯一正確的」，是否忘了傳統本就存在不同的傳承、理解與演變？
若只有自己所認知的才叫傳統，與自己不同的就被視為錯誤，那究竟是在傳承傳統，還是在用「傳統」排斥不同？
再談「武德」。
在韓門的理解裡：
武德是一種對自己的修行，而不是拿來要求別人的口號。
武德，是一個人隨時能夠反省自己、觀照自己的能力。
即使身居高位、掌握話語權，仍然願意問自己：
「有沒有可能是我錯了？」
---
我們不是認為出國比賽就一定要拿第一。
孩子可以輸，韓門也可以輸。
但我們不希望孩子從這次經驗中，最後形成這樣的理解：
掌握規則與話語權的人作出決定，所以你不能問；
對結果有疑問，只能接受，不能要求進一步理解；
提出問題，就等於太重名利、沒有武德。
這不是韓門想教給下一代的武德。
我們想教孩子的是：
勝不驕，敗不餒。
尊重對手，也尊重自己。
輸了，檢討自己。
有疑問，勇敢提出。
做錯了，願意承認。
即使有一天自己成為掌握規則與話語權的人，也要記得問自己：
「有沒有可能是我錯了？」
這才是我們相信的武德。
---
所以，我們再次說清楚：
我們不是要求主辦方一定要頒發金獎，也不否認規則允許獎項依表現從缺。
如果所有選手真的沒有達標，我們接受。
我們只是希望理解：
所有金獎均從缺，選手究竟在哪些地方沒有達標？
以及：
「真正達到金獎水平的人，不需要以金牌證明自己」，究竟只是大會所提倡的武德理念，還是也與本屆所有金獎從缺的評判說明有關？
我們不替任何人下結論。
我們只是提出問題，也願意聽答案。
---
最後，我們真正想談的，其實已經不是一面金牌。
而是：
信任。
第一次，我們選擇相信這場比賽公布的規則、獎勵與標準，也相信它所宣揚的「傳統」與「武德」。
所以我們願意投入時間、金錢與心力，帶著孩子跨越半個地球前來參與。
比賽結果，我們尊重。
但一次親身經歷之後，每個人也都有權形成自己的感受與判斷。
信任，從來不是理所當然。
真正值得尊敬的比賽，應該經得起參賽者提問，也應該以清楚的規則、專業的說明與面對疑問的態度，建立信任。
真正的武德，應該經得起提問。
真正的傳統，應該容得下不同。
真正世界級的比賽，更應該讓自己的標準經得起檢驗。
第一次，我們選擇相信。
而經歷過一次之後，
是否還願意相信第二次，是每一位參賽者自己的選擇。
因為一場比賽結束後，人們記住的不只是誰輸、誰贏。
更會記得：
這場比賽，究竟值不值得再次相信。
#韓門 #韓基祥 #傳統武術 #武德 #武術比賽 #金獎從缺 #真正的武德經得起提問 #信任需要建立
---
underwent surgery following a cancer diagnosis. Less than a month after the operation, while still recovering and actively undergoing rehabilitation, he traveled to the United States with his daughter Nini and his students to participate in this world-class martial arts competition.
This journey was never just about rankings.
More importantly, we wanted to give the children an opportunity to step outside Taiwan, see the world, interact with martial artists from different countries, and broaden their horizons. To prepare for this competition, teachers and students devoted significant time to training, while also investing considerably in airfare, accommodation, transportation, and other expenses.
According to information published by the organizers before the competition, the Gold Award in the adult division included US$5,000 in prize money and a sword crafted by a renowned swordsmith.
We also understand that the competition rules state:
“Gold, Silver, and Bronze Awards in each division may be withheld depending on the competitors’ performance.”
So we want to make one thing clear:
We accept that a Gold Award may be withheld.
If none of the competitors met the required standard for a Gold Award, then withholding the award in accordance with the rules is entirely understandable.
However, the final outcome of this year’s competition was:
All Gold Awards were withheld.
Based on our understanding of the organizers’ public statements, the judging standards were raised this year. At the same time, the organizers also stated that competitors who had truly reached the level of a Gold Award were already pursuing something beyond rankings and “did not need a gold medal to prove themselves.” The competition also emphasized ideals such as remaining detached from fame and personal gain, learning with humility, maintaining善念 (goodness and benevolence), and putting virtue first.
This leaves us with a very straightforward question:
Were all Gold Awards withheld because no competitor met the newly elevated Gold Award standard?
Or was the reasoning that:
Those who have truly reached Gold Award level no longer need a gold medal to prove themselves?
If it is the former, we accept that.
If our skills were not good enough, we will go home and train harder. If our scores were insufficient, we will reflect and improve.
We can accept losing a competition. But we hope to understand where we fell short.
“No one met the standard, therefore the award was withheld” is something we fully understand.
But if “those who have truly reached Gold Award level no longer need a gold medal to prove themselves” was also intended as an explanation for this year’s outcome, then as competitors, we would sincerely like to better understand the competitive logic behind that explanation.
We are not asking for a gold medal. We are asking to understand the standard.
---
The organizers have consistently emphasized the “revival of traditional martial arts,” requiring competitors to perform “traditional routines” and demonstrate the spirit of Wu De (武德), or martial virtue.
But this raises two fundamental questions:
What is “tradition”? And what is “martial virtue”?
The routines we now call “traditional” were themselves newly created at some point in history.
If the technical standards defining “traditional” are not sufficiently clear for competitors to understand, and the final determination still depends heavily on how judges interpret “tradition,” then what exactly is being judged?
Martial arts?
Or how closely a competitor conforms to the judges’ understanding of what is “traditional”?
Traditional martial arts today face challenges of transmission and continuity. There is also another question worth reflecting upon:
When we equate “what I was taught” with “the only correct way,” do we risk forgetting that tradition has always included different lineages, interpretations, and forms of evolution?
If only what we ourselves recognize is considered “traditional,” while approaches that differ from ours are regarded as incorrect, are we preserving tradition—or using “tradition” to exclude differences?
Now let us talk about Wu De—martial virtue.
At Han Men, we understand it this way:
Martial virtue is a discipline we apply to ourselves, not a slogan we use to judge or demand something of others.
Martial virtue means having the ability to continually reflect upon and examine oneself.
Even when one holds a position of authority and has the power to make decisions, one should still be willing to ask:
“Is it possible that I am wrong?”
---
We do not believe that traveling abroad to compete means we must win first place.
The children can lose. Han Men can lose.
But we do not want our children to come away from this experience with the following understanding:
That when those who hold authority over the rules make a decision, you are not allowed to ask questions;
That when you have questions about a result, you must simply accept it rather than seek further clarification;
Or that raising questions means you care too much about fame and personal gain, or that you lack martial virtue.
That is not the martial virtue Han Men wants to teach the next generation.
What we want to teach our children is:
Be humble in victory and resilient in defeat.
Respect your opponents, but also respect yourself.
When you lose, reflect on how you can improve.
When you have questions, have the courage to ask them.
When you make a mistake, be willing to admit it.
And if one day you become the person who holds authority over the rules and has the power to make decisions, remember to ask yourself:
“Is it possible that I am wrong?”
That is the martial virtue we believe in.
---
So once again, we want to make our position clear:
We are not demanding that the organizers award a Gold Award, nor do we deny that the rules allow awards to be withheld based on performance.
If none of the competitors truly met the standard, we accept that.
We simply hope to understand:
If every Gold Award was withheld, in what specific respects did the competitors fall short of the required standard?
And:
When the organizers say that “those who have truly reached Gold Award level do not need a gold medal to prove themselves,” is this simply a philosophical expression of the competition’s concept of martial virtue?
Or was it also intended as part of the explanation for why all Gold Awards were withheld this year?
We are not drawing conclusions on anyone’s behalf.
We are simply asking questions—and we are willing to hear the answers.
---
In the end, what we truly want to discuss is no longer a gold medal.
It is something much more fundamental:
Trust.
The first time, we chose to trust the rules, awards, and standards published by this competition. We also chose to believe in the ideals of “tradition” and “martial virtue” that it promotes.
That is why we were willing to invest our time, money, and effort, and bring our children halfway around the world to participate.
We respect the outcome of the competition.
But after experiencing something firsthand, everyone also has the right to form their own feelings and judgment.
Trust should never be taken for granted.
A competition worthy of respect should be able to withstand questions from its competitors. Trust should be built through clear rules, professional explanations, and the way legitimate questions are addressed.
True martial virtue should withstand questions.
True tradition should have room for differences.
And a truly world-class competition should have standards that can withstand scrutiny.
The first time, we chose to trust.
After experiencing it once, whether each competitor chooses to place that trust again is a decision only they can make.
Because when a competition is over, people remember more than who won and who lost.
They also remember:
Was this a competition worthy of their trust again?
