MadMonk108
10-Jun-2008, 04:04 AM
For whatever its worth, I don't view Hapkido as something I would care to use for sport. In my own case I train to damage the other person--- or, as I say to my students, "don't send anything my way that you don't want broke".
That sentiment is shared by pretty much every MMA trainee, be it those who train for self-defense or for competition.
This is a false dichotomy, the idea that "sport" methodology does not and cannot be focused on the end result of destroying an opponent.
There was a also question about "have you used...." In Hapkido the point is mute. A wrist throw and a wrist-lock are half-measures because the original intention of fracturing the wrist was not invoked. Can I break a wrist? Honestly I don't know. But if you put me in an adversarial relationship and that technique pops into my addled, elderly little brain I will do everything I can to fix that wrist so that it is never used again. Same applies to the eyes, ears, mouth, groin, elbows, knees or anything else that comes into range.
Therein lies the problem. You don't know.
Alive training as exemplified by (though not limited to) MMA allows you to know exactly what you can and cannot do. So-called "submission" techniques are merely what you call half-measures. The benefit being though, that by training and learning how to position myself so as to ensure that half-measure of submission, I ensure that I can, should I decide to (self-defense, rather than sport) snap that joint at my leisure, be it an elbow arm bar or a wrist lock. I have learned how to achieve dominant position, which allows me control and leverage of my opponent while exposing me to as little harm as possible.
I know I can snap wrists. Would I want to? That's another question, but then, as you mentioned, if it comes to that, break what ever comes your way.
Without exception every effort to do so has required that the Hapkido art under examination be stripped of its material so as to make it "safer". IMHO that is tantamont to advocating for a Hunting excursion by distributing blanks to everyone. FWIW.
Your point is directly contradicted by Kano's Kodokan victory over various jujutsu schools in open challenge, as well as Royce Gracie's victory in the first UFC, where there were no rules.
But since that original question what I have seen in three pages is the usual "how-do-you-know-it-works"-gambit, "if-its-so-dangerous-how-do-you-train-with-authenticity"-gambit as well as the same old sarcasm and derision.
Then, why don't you head that argument off at the pass with logical analysis and factual information?
Well written, Thomas. May I also add that among the more traditional practitioners, study of the art including the inter-relationship among unarmed and armed practice, reflection on philosophy and personal development, conditioning which may or may not include such TCM approaches as DAN JEON Breathing.
My art is older than yours. It is a legitimate pre-Occupation KMA. I currently write this from a Buddhist temple, where I have taken vows as a disciple. I practice kigong every morning, practice weapons & unarmed techniques that are part of a unified curriculum.
I say this not as the fallacy of appeal to authority but rather to qualify my following statements.
The idea of a "traditional practitioner" is an inherent false dichotomy which serves no purpose as it cannot be satisfactorily defined, especially when it comes to the Korean martial arts. It serves only to force discussion into a dogmatic either/or which does not reflect reality.
The chances are very good that your reputable teacher has had years as a body guard, KCIA, or professional military and has probably seen action of one sort or another. I can guarentee that he cares not at all about what you think of what he does, and is only concerned that the door not hit you on the butt if you choose not to stay.
Appeal to authority.
If the teacher can demonstrate that what he does can be applied in an alive environment, it doesn't matter if he was a bodyguard or a fry cook. The proof is in the teaching itself, not in the man doing it.
That sentiment is shared by pretty much every MMA trainee, be it those who train for self-defense or for competition.
This is a false dichotomy, the idea that "sport" methodology does not and cannot be focused on the end result of destroying an opponent.
There was a also question about "have you used...." In Hapkido the point is mute. A wrist throw and a wrist-lock are half-measures because the original intention of fracturing the wrist was not invoked. Can I break a wrist? Honestly I don't know. But if you put me in an adversarial relationship and that technique pops into my addled, elderly little brain I will do everything I can to fix that wrist so that it is never used again. Same applies to the eyes, ears, mouth, groin, elbows, knees or anything else that comes into range.
Therein lies the problem. You don't know.
Alive training as exemplified by (though not limited to) MMA allows you to know exactly what you can and cannot do. So-called "submission" techniques are merely what you call half-measures. The benefit being though, that by training and learning how to position myself so as to ensure that half-measure of submission, I ensure that I can, should I decide to (self-defense, rather than sport) snap that joint at my leisure, be it an elbow arm bar or a wrist lock. I have learned how to achieve dominant position, which allows me control and leverage of my opponent while exposing me to as little harm as possible.
I know I can snap wrists. Would I want to? That's another question, but then, as you mentioned, if it comes to that, break what ever comes your way.
Without exception every effort to do so has required that the Hapkido art under examination be stripped of its material so as to make it "safer". IMHO that is tantamont to advocating for a Hunting excursion by distributing blanks to everyone. FWIW.
Your point is directly contradicted by Kano's Kodokan victory over various jujutsu schools in open challenge, as well as Royce Gracie's victory in the first UFC, where there were no rules.
But since that original question what I have seen in three pages is the usual "how-do-you-know-it-works"-gambit, "if-its-so-dangerous-how-do-you-train-with-authenticity"-gambit as well as the same old sarcasm and derision.
Then, why don't you head that argument off at the pass with logical analysis and factual information?
Well written, Thomas. May I also add that among the more traditional practitioners, study of the art including the inter-relationship among unarmed and armed practice, reflection on philosophy and personal development, conditioning which may or may not include such TCM approaches as DAN JEON Breathing.
My art is older than yours. It is a legitimate pre-Occupation KMA. I currently write this from a Buddhist temple, where I have taken vows as a disciple. I practice kigong every morning, practice weapons & unarmed techniques that are part of a unified curriculum.
I say this not as the fallacy of appeal to authority but rather to qualify my following statements.
The idea of a "traditional practitioner" is an inherent false dichotomy which serves no purpose as it cannot be satisfactorily defined, especially when it comes to the Korean martial arts. It serves only to force discussion into a dogmatic either/or which does not reflect reality.
The chances are very good that your reputable teacher has had years as a body guard, KCIA, or professional military and has probably seen action of one sort or another. I can guarentee that he cares not at all about what you think of what he does, and is only concerned that the door not hit you on the butt if you choose not to stay.
Appeal to authority.
If the teacher can demonstrate that what he does can be applied in an alive environment, it doesn't matter if he was a bodyguard or a fry cook. The proof is in the teaching itself, not in the man doing it.