I don't have to prove it, it is out there as fact from many sources. It was called Yawara when Choi came off the boat. Choi did NOT create a new art just taught what he learned. It was Suh Bak Sub his first student who suggested to Koreanize the name and several iterations where tried until Hapkido happened became the most popular of all the names. Even Ji Han Jae's first school was Hapki Yu Sool or something like that, not HKD. see Dr He Young Kimm's book History of HKD for starters, but some don't see it as completely academic and unbiased. BTW Daito Ryu was NEVER used in Korea for this art's name it was always an assumption that Choi was a student of Takada, not a fact.
Why not call what you do jujistu then? It has a way better name than the hapkido umbrella in the martial arts world. I was very interested in hapkido because it was said to be an offshoot of daito-ryu, which there is no evidence to support that Choi ever studied daito-ryu. Anyways, it looks like the high risk techniques could get the practitioner killed in the streets. The more I research hapkido, the happier I am with jiujitsu and judo.
Choi style is really an undocumented style of Japanese Jujitsu. Hap Ki Yu Sool is just the Korean name for Ai Ki Ju jitsu. Yawara is an older version of a Jujitsu type art but not a any specific style, rather generic. According to Ji, Choi referred to what he did as just Yawara. Ji said he was never able to confirm any DRAJJ connection, it is a speculation based on an alleged comment by Choi when he saw a picture of Sokaku Takada and said that was his teacher. In reality HKD is modern form of Jujitsu with a lot of upgraded material that was added primarily by Ji Han Jae. Modern Japanese Jujitsu is usually an unarmed system, HKD added a few weapons like cane, short stick, rope, staff, sword, more kicking, etc.. I like HKD more then plain Jujitsu I find it more interesting and well rounded.
You'll find Yawara is used in some ryu to indicate certain parts of the syllabus, so it can be specific. It's all ryu dependent as different ones will have different terminology.
I'm not trying to wind people up, but who cares who started what? Who cares of this guy did this 300 years ago or whatever. Is it just so a dead man gets credit? Just practice your art, go to class, and just enjoy it. That's the fun part for me. The last thing that I think of when it class is getting a history lesson in where each art came from. I'm not a historian... I'm a martial artist.
Let me count; 8th Dan HKD Senior Master under Ji Han Jae in Sinmoo HKD in my 35th year. Two blues belts in BJJ one from Carlos Machado one from Prof. Marco Perazzo, rank from GM Lee Epperson in Gaijin Ryu JJ & HKD and last but not least a 5th Dan from United States Ju-Jitsu Federation. Some people say I qualify as having a little experience.
The history is part of the Art itself. People who care are often people who teach and train in a system for many years and invested countless time and energy, to them it does mean something and I think very appropriate. In school we learn about the history of our countries, some may say who cares as long as I'm a citizen. That sounds a bit odd though many people are clueless about how their own country was founded.
Apology for chiming in: I am still at odds with the term "Combat Hapkido". Does this mean before the prefix "combat", Hapkido wasn't combat applicable?
Are you trolling, just hoping to keep the flames a-burning, or forgetful? You asked this same question back on Nov 21st and I replied (see post #16 in http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119024&page=2) Long story short, "Combat" (or 'Cheon Tu Kwan") is the name GM P chose to differentiate what he does from (traditional) Hapkido. He still calls it 'Hapkido' becuase that is what the root/operating system is and he uses 'Combat' to indicate what our focus is (Not unlike the Kwan names of 'Sin Moo' or 'Moo Moo' or 'Jung Tung' or 'Teuk Gong' or whatever). Our focus is on self defense, including taking elements openly from other arts to graft onto our Hapkido core to make it more relevant for our goals (self defense). It is not a slight against 'traditional' Hapkido, it is recognizing the roots while showing our focus. Some traditional HKD groups are very self defense oriented, some are not. We really don't care. We use the term 'Combat' to indicate that our purpose is to focus on self defense. If you'd like more clarification, give me some specific questions and I'll give it a shot.
I had to look that up because there is another "gaijin ryu" out there that is, how shall I say, er less than reputable. What rank do you hold in Gaijin ryu? Do you have any training in traditional Japanese Jujutsu? Oh and congrats for that amount of time in, nice one!
Why would you ask others about their qualifications and experience to comment here about HKD or JJ? :bow1:
Because statements like "x art is more complete than y" need to be placed into an experiential context or it is little more than cheering for the home team. Now whether I agree with statements vis a vis completeness is a separate issue (and I don't btw) , but at least now it is clear you haven't just pulled the opinion out of thin air Aside from anything else its also nice to get the breadth of experience of members on board.
He says this in short; He founded HKD and Sinmoo period because of all his innovations to Choi's base art which was only handful techniques and a few kicks. Others claim Choi because he introduced Yawara from Japan to Korea however that is not what being a Founder really means. They called Joon Rhee the father of TKD in America because he was the first to establish TKD here in some meaningful way. They do not call him the Founder of TKD because that would be silly. I think of Choi in the same way, the Father of Yawara in Korea. That in itself deserves much respect but he did not Found new art or make known significant innovations. You can decide what makes sense to you.
My point when it comes to the history of each MA is that it's not a "bad" thing... but if so and so taught your master a hundred years ago... it still doesn't mean he's that good. He/she could be very good at some things and perhaps not so good at others. Some of us are good for instance at improve when it comes to our arts and learning to think on the fly which IMO is one of the most important things you can learn, but you have to teach yourself. For me, when my classes are over for the week, I constantly think about each move and how it could be used in as many scenarios as possible. So let's take GM Peligrini since he started CHKD. There's plenty of people out there who say "yeah, he couldn't cut it in real HKD, so he started his own thing". However, if his system only takes bits and pieces of HKD and then pieces of other arts... what does it matter? I will use boxing as an example. We'll take Freddie Roach. Most consider him to be a great trainer, BUT, he wasn't such a great fighter. He was just ok. Based on his multiple trainer of the year awards, you would think that he would have been an excellent fighter wouldn't you? Sweet Pea was one of the best fighters of his time. He trained Zab Judah for a little while, but we saw no real improvements in his fights with him, hence they parted ways. As I had said earlier, the local guy (Mr. I know 4600 moves) bashed my teacher mainly because he took what he learned and started his own school, but tried to in a sense say that he wasn't that good. The guy around the corner or across the country will tell you otherwise though. Everyone has an opinion, and many times those opinions are based on jealousy, bitterness, or it could just be that they are unbiased and fully believe that someone is not good at what they do. This is the reason why I don't get caught all up in the arguments, debates and all that other hoopla that people sit and debate about for hours on end. It's a discussion that will ultimately lead to no where.
IMO Ji shouldn't have accepted high dan rank from others if he really saw himself as the founder. Thinking of himself as the founder is probably something that didn't occur to him until much later in life.
