I am just wondering what people think about how many numbered techniques from white to black belt are ideal for teaching/learning Hapkido. Also, are there any clubs or schools that do not use a numbered curriculum at all? How does this work out? What about a rotating curriculum? Thanks, in advance for your input.
Thanks for the thread, C-Z: The subject of a Hapkido curriculum and how its been ordered or structured has been hotly discussed for a number of years. It does not help that the DAITO RYU AIKI-JUJUTSU practices in Japan did not have a cohesive and structured curriculum until the late TAKEDA Tokimune took his father's material and made one. With that in mind it makes sense that when the late CHOI Yong Sul came back to Korea from Japan in 1946, I daresay he simply brought a collection of techniques he had been taught. The first real structure for Choi's material seems to have come with his meeting with Master Suh, who, himself was graded in Japanese Judo. I have long suspected that the use of the Judo uniform, GEUP/DAN grading, testing and promotions probably all proceed from this period. Historically we also know that kicks were added at this time precipitating the shift in the name from HAPKIYUSOOL to HAPKIYUKWONSUL. With the advent of JI Han Jae and KIM Moo Woong considerably more material was added including a range of breathing techniques, acrobatic kicking and ancillary weapons material. Further with the various fallings-out among individuals and organizations there has been continual and repeated shuffling of the curriculum I I were to offer guidance in examining curriculum, or, indeed, generating a curriculum for one's self there are two approaches I would consider. Approach #1: The original material as reportedly taught by CHOI Yong Sul is still available. The YONG SUL KWAN under KIM Yun Sang DJN out of Guemsan is one such source and has an ever-growing number of practitioners around the world. A second source to consider would be the JUNG KI KWAN which also has a broad number of practitioners, including here in the US. By starting with these spartan sources as acore, one could enhance the chances of staying close to the original material. Approach # 2: The Confucian approach of my teacher was to take 10 representative techniques called the "KI BON SU" (lie: "basic methods") and build a curriculum of what I would characterize as "concentric rings" of increasing sophistication radiating out from these core biomechanics. Having said that, I would strongly recommend AGAINST mixing the two approaches as you will not produce a single superior curriculum but a mass of confounding, and sometimes conflicting, practices. In re-formulating my teachers work (see: "Dochang Journal" Levels 1-4) it has been incredibly tedious teasing out HAPKIYUSOOL from HAPKIDO so as to not have JUDO-esque techniques in conflict with anti-grappling techniques. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
Thanks very much for your input, Bruce. I'm mainly interested in reorganizing what we do now, rather than learning new (new to me) material. I've been training a few people at a private club using far less numbered techniques than I originally learned with (which is the trend in the organization I am currently in). For the first couple of people I've tried this with, the results have been great. We do a lot of non-choreographed free form, or semi-free form drills, and students of mine have been able to "find" techniques in free practice after only a year or two, whereas it used to be a lot longer. They were even coming up with the intermediate or advanced version of the techniques on their own without being shown. Moreover they are developing excellent control and are able to practice hard and fast without injuring each other. - As you might get, I base my idea of success on whether or not people can extrapolate techniques on their own and do them "off the cuff", rather than how many numbered "grab my wrist" type of techniques they now. About nine months ago I decided to expand my club, and realized that teaching a small group has a unique set of challenges that I did not expect. In a large class for instance, you have several people at various belt levels, and can divide than up into little groups to do this or that technique set. I've mostly got only one person at each "belt level" so to speak, which I feel will slow their progress. I was thinking of using a rotating curriculum that would go something like this: Jan-March: Wrist and Cross wrist techniques April-June: Seizing (our Kibonsoo) July- August: Clothing Sept-Dec: Rear grabs My thought was also to take one day a week to review all the past leanings, for retention's sake. I also planned to build upon the sets in sort of the way you described the concentric circle approach, where if it were someone's second time through the series, they would learn intermediate or advanced variations of the techniques. I had additionally planned to introduce special topics, such as throws at various time independent of this schedule. I've also realized that If I do this, I might only be able to take new peolpe at certain times of the year, but that's not really an issue since this is not an income source for me. My reasoning is that with a small group (our practices are 3-5 people) it might be better if we all did the same thing, rather than one guy learning wrist sets while another guy is learning locks off of clothing grabs. So, what do you think of this? Bruce? Anyone?
Personally, I think its a very well-thought-out approach, C-Z. Sounds, to me, like you have decided on an approach similar to my own late teacher's (IE. KI BON SU). If I were going to tweak your approach just a bit, it would be in two directions. The first direction would be to side-step the idea of applying an arbitrary time frame for each "theme" you are presenting. It is very neat and tidy to identify changing the theme each quarter, as it were. However, as you know, you are dealing with Humans, not donuts, so there will be different learning curves per individual relative to the particular material of each theme. What I would do is start with a particular theme, and see what time frame is required for, say, 80%---- 4 out of five people--- to become comfortable with it. They don't need to have mastered the material, but they should be a bit more than just familiar with it. As the teacher, you will have a gut-response when you observe people plying their technique with more than just familiarity. You'll "know it". The second tweak I would suggest is to rely less on a set number of techniques and more on a theme. Certainly you can start with teaching a core of techniques---say, 12 "bread-and-butter--never-fail--good-in-life-and-in-death-struggles"-techniques--- but you will need some ancillary techniques for those occassions when people are surprizingly quick on the up-take. For instance, with the 10 KE BON SU techniques in the YON MU KWAN each technique has an ancillary or "alternate technique so that the total of basic core techniqueas is actually closer to 25-30 when all is said and done. The next "theme" would be to take the core techniques and shift circumstances--- say, off-the-grab, grab from behind, integrating with kicks/strikes, biomechanical carry-over into weaponry. I feel like I'm going off the deep end. Is any of this what you were looking for? Best Wishes, Bruce
Thanks Bruce. You make a good points. It may make sense to not assign a set period of time, as you suggest. I'm using a numbering system to conform to what other member schools in our organization are doing, although it is not mandated. Most other schools we are associated with are, like 90% of all Hapkido schools, using a numbering system of a certain number of techniques per belt. We get our groups together to train sometimes, so I wanted to make sure that if someone says "Eui bok Soo #3" that everyone knows what that means. And I must add, I wish there were more people who used forums like these to exchange ideas on how to teach and promote our arts. Thanks again for you input.
That sounds like a good idea CZ, but unless it's driven from the top down in your organization chances are "Eui bok Soo #3" will vary from school to school. Teachers will decide that for them it works better to teach #4 before #3 which will then become the new "#3" unless there is a strong leader who can get people to agree on a solid core curriculum. I am not an instructor, at least not yet, but I think it would be better to use names to describe techniques like Aikido does rather than numbers, then it doesn't matter what number it is, if the instructor says do kotegeashi (I think GM Myung sometimes called it somok paoiri kuhki)everyone knows it's the outside wrist twist, if they say do #2 it may not be the same from school to school. I agree it would be nice if there were more people discussing Hapkido online, it would be nice if there were as many people discussing Hapkido as there are talking about TKD or Aikido, but unfortunately we don't have nearly as many people training in the art.
Haakon, The numbered sets in our org do vary from school to school, but they are pretty much the same in some of the schools closer to me. I don't think I need to conform exactly, but just so that it turns out to be "pretty much" the same. I have in fact changed the numbers of some of the techniques in the way you describe. I do agree that it would be better to use a names, but that's not what everyone else (in my circle) does, so I'm going along with it for the sake of consistency so it's less confusing when groups train together.
What I discovered among various people who attempted to use names to identify techniques were the following issues. a.) Some people liked to use more anatomical techniques such as "Outer Wrist Throw" and "Inside Elbow Lock". Other folks liked to use the more poetic approach such as one sees with CHIN NA techiniques (IE: "Small Child Prays to Buddha"). b.) There is also the matter of whether one is to use HAN GUL, or its romanization which produces untold numbers of misinterpretations and mis-spellings. c.) There is also the matter of when a technique is incorporated into the training cycle. By this I don't mean which technique comes first or before another, as much as which technique is considered a more basic form and which is a more "sophisticated" form. d.) There is also the matter of which technique is considered a more "academic form" and which might be more "combat worthy". The Hapkido community is constantly hamstrung in producing a standard curriculum because peoples priorities with issues such as the four I mentioned are both different and constantly changing. BTW: In the case of the YON MU KWAN, one of the short-comings of my teacher's lexicon was that sometimes a name was used to identify both a particular technique as well as the family of techniques of which that single technique was a member. Outer Wrist Throw is an excellent example. In this case the label not only identifies the standard technique (IE Jap. KOTE GAESHI) but also identifies the five variants of this technique as well, including "Inside", "Outside", "Turning", "Backside" and "Descending". Very confusing. Best Wishes, Bruce
One thing to consider though, is that this sometimes actually helps a student understand a "new" technique by getting them to understand that something might be the same lock as one they've previously learned, but maybe with a different contact point. (If I understand what you mean, Bruce) I've often thought that one approach would be to use some sort of "code word" system like Ed Parker's American Kenpo. I see al lot a parallels in the way Kenpo and Hapkido are taught, or at least the way we do it (that is, primarily as two person sets that are designed to teach a type of movement, rather than replicate exact fighting techniques) Example: the Kenpo technique "five swords" refers to a set with five knifehand attacks- sword being the "code" for knifehand. Here's a link to another forum explaining what I mean: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-3295.html
Thanks, C-Z: I think the Kempo approach would be closer to the "poetic" nomenclature I mentioned. It does have the advantage of universality as well as veiling material from outsiders. Insiders would be able to communicate with each other without making Outsiders privey to what is being discussed. Of course, the downside is that membership can lose-touch with the original meaning or begin to add esoteric alternative meanings so as to enhance "magic thinking". I remember that this was one of the problems with Chinese nomenclature as some teachers attempted to make their practices suggest something greater going on than just sound training. In reorganizing the YON MU KWAN material in my books the two biggest challenges were exactly along the line of this discussion. The first challenge was two identify the core characteristics of YON MU KWAN Hapkido which is heavily Judo-esque interspersed with some Aikido and early KONG SOO DO kicking. Since Myung was a member of the JI Han Jae cadre you can easily imagine that YMK material is very similar to early SIN MU. One style of Hapkido cannot be all things to all people. What was required of me was to remove all of the HAPKIYUSOOL techniques which are often at odds with the more Judo-like material. The second thing I needed to do was to formulate a simple rule for identifying a technique. The system I use is to select 1.) a vector (IE. Inside, Outside Turning, Upwards, Downwards, etc.), 2.) the primary body part impacted (IE. Elbow, Wrist, Leg) and 3.) an intended outcome (IE. Lock, Sweep, Projection, Throw, etc.). In this way I have been able to provide individual labels for about 300 techniques with little or no trouble. Just a thought. Best Wishes, Bruce
Hi Bruce, Probably a different topic, but could you please explain how Hapkiyusool techniques differ from what you describe as the Yon Mu Kwan appraoch. Wasn't the YMK associated with Kim Moo Hong? I have been told that Kuk Sool is rooted in techniques from the Kim Hoo Hong camp, (but know if this is true). Also, I like you naming sytem, but what do you call a lock that locks more than one joint, like wrist locks that also lock the shoulder? Would you call it somthing like "outside wrist-shoulder lock"? Thanks!
Okay....but I risk raising the ire of folks who may or may not be in the audience. Here is what I have found in my own experience. Despite the fact that every Hapkido person lays claim to material descending from CHOI Yong Sul the fact is that a HUGE shift took place when JI Han Jae and KIM Moo Woong left the YONG SUL KWAN and struck out on their own (about 1959). Neither CHOI Yong Sul or SUH Bok Sub were apparently very happy with the two aforementioned gentlemen in their efforts to make Choi's original material more "marketable". Part of this effort was to introduce acrobatic kicking a'la WUSHU in much the same way as the TKD people did the same. The acrobatic kicking commonly associated with Hapkido was NOT part and parcel of what Choi taught even AFTER basic kicks were accepted into HAPKIYUSOOL and the name changed to HAPKIYUKWONSUL. The second problem was that HAPKIYUSOOL is very much focused on extremely accurate ---- almost pinpoint----- use of vectors and force. Nothing new in this since even the DAITO-RYU and Early Aikido (Pre-WW II) people report this very same practice. Unfortunately, this sort of practice is very much an acquired taste as it has always been, and is now, extremely painful. In order to make Hapkido more saleable, both Ji and Kim had to "open" the techniques by expanding them over a wider range of motion and by moving away from the original intention of sprain, fracture and dislocate to something more acceptable such as subduing and restraining. Judo with its larger body motions and acceptance of choking-out one's partner fit the bill. Snapping a guy's wrist like a twig did not. My late teacher was a district manager (as it were) for Ji during the late 1960-s when he volunteererd to take falls for Choi at a demonstration in 1968. This was a bit of an epiphany for my teacher as he finally got a taste of what the original material was all about. By that time, though the best he could do was seek to inter-relate the more tightly focused HAPKIYUSOOL material with the broader techniques he had learned---and had beern teaching---for a few years. Does any of this help? BTW: ".....Also, I like you naming sytem, but what do you call a lock that locks more than one joint, like wrist locks that also lock the shoulder? Would you callthe smothing like "outside wrist-shoulder lock"?...." No, this is where the teacher needs to have sound insight into what they are doing and why. For instance, I know I can perform a wristlock on you that---by extension--will also lock the elbow as well. The name for the technique will proceed from which ever joint was actuated rather than include all of the joints that are effected. Hope this makes sense. Its hard to discuss such things easily in a venue like this. Best Wishes, Bruce
Yes, but couldn't you also make the case that this allows for harder, faster practice, without as much risk of injury? Just a thought. Why did you feel that these two approaches could not be taught in the same curriculum (if I understand you right)?
The focus of the "aiki" family of techniques was to offer a set of skills which would effectively deal with SUMO material. By this I do not mean the SUMO of modern day. Rather, SUMO was the older name given to Japanese wrestling much like "Yawara" was an older name for JU-JUTSU. Where the trouble comes in is in the premises behind each art. JU-JUTSU was "cleaned-up by Kano to produce a more "scientific" martial sport. To do this, he needed to clean-out many of the joint breaks and dislocations which were far more acceptable in a military science than a martial sport. Kano also had to re-configure the applications of biomechanics so that the remaining techniques would be reasonably safe in competition. But....to answer your question we need to go back....not to JUDO, nor even to JU-JUTSU----but to the matter of SUMO, which, when TAKEDA Sokaku practiced it, in the 19th Century, was a pretty nasty activity but primarily still founded in larger motions such as sweeps, throws and take-downs. The idea of "AIKI" -----first promulgated by an 18th Century Aizu clan scholar (see: Takeda Tokumi; 1758 - 1853)--- intended that the defender allowed himself to be seized first and then disable the attacker with what that attacker had put forward---- a grab, a strike, a kick etc. In Japanese the term is SEN-NO-SEN (lit:" late attack"). This strategic application is wholly different for a person who chooses to attack at the same time (Jap.: "SEN) or even to attack "premptively" (Jap.: SENSEN no SEN"). In other words, when CHOI learned YAWARA, he was learning "dirty little tricks" for dealing with grapplers such as SUMO, JU-JUTSU and JUDO people....and he became quite good at it, yes? But as I said before, the material that CHOI Yong Sul taught was pretty damn nasty stuff. It still is. Its intended to to deal with more "refined material" such as JUDO. Now, I'll bet when Choi met SUH Bok Sub there was probably a simpatico of sorts. SUH showed the Judo side and was well-educated, by Choi, on just how easily the Judo stuff could be undone. Certainly SUH was intrigued and the two minds decided to meld their respective practices. But, again, as I said before, this melding was undone when JI and KIM decided that they had to soften the techniques so as to make them more marketable. So....consider the progression: a.) There are large-motion grappling arts called SUMO b.) A system (albeit a destructive and painful system) for dealing with grappling is developed in Japan and transplanted to Korea as "YAWARA". c.) In Korea the large-motion grappling system (IE. JUDO) is mixed with the system it was to have been countered or controlled by (IE. YAWARA). d,) Later CHOI students breakaway, and begin to cull-out the most painful and destructive techniques leaving mostly large-motion grappling material BUT the result is still represented as being the same as what CHOI learned decades before. And now the double-talk, bent histories and misrepresentations begin as people try to reconcile the fact that they have mixed two approaches----the large-motion technique and its counter----but they still want to call it by the same name. No, C-Z----- you can't mix the poison with the anecdote and then represent the result as EITHER the poison OR the andidote. Sorry for the long-winded answer. Best Wishes, Bruce
Thanks Bruce that was great information. I wanted to follow up on this thread. Last night was the first night I used my rotating curriculum in practice and it worked great. Bruce, I also decided to take your suggestion about not putting a time limit on my module. One thing I am doing though, after thinking some more, is breaking my moodules down by techniques type rather than location of grab. In other words, my module that contains "arm bar", for instance, will include the technique done from different positions. One thing I have to chance are my requirements for rank, because previously I had a certain number of techniques per belt level. What I am thinking is that I am going to have a video evaluation every three months, but I don't think I will have "tests". I plan to go over the video with each student individually and give them verbal and written feedback on what they need to do to get to the next rank that will be individually tailored to each student. I think this will be okay, because we only have eight members. (The way people typically get promoted in my club is that they walk in one day and I hand them a new belt). Thanks again.
Your welcome. I also commend you on your use of modern technology. To date, most folks seem to be using technology more for communication, advertizing, marketing, promotion and the like. Personally I think there is a very real place for modern technology in the manner you seem to be moving. In years gone by the teacher would step-in and provide feedback by demonstrating what he saw the student doing and then demonstrating the correction. With the use of video, a teacher can let the student see what the teacher sees and that is a huge advantage. Good going. Best Wishes, Bruce
Thanks Bruce. I got the video idea from a Kenpo organization I've seen that does distance learning by video. Unlike most "distance programs", which I am typically very skeptical of, these guys do something different. Instead of sending people videos, having them practice the techniques and send a video of themselves back for rank, what they do I have an instructor do a voice over of the students video with corrections and then send back the students video with the voice over as well as a personalized video of an instructor demonstrating the corrections to be made. I am not involved in this organization, but I've often thought about trying their program just to see what it is like, since it is also not that expensive. I have seen people in their org that did this (but also attended in-person seminars as well, and had significant previous experience) who's skill level and quality of movement was very good. I do know that they are considered kind of a "light version" of Kenpo in that community though.
Thanks. Not sure where I am with the "mail" version, but I know the "in-house" use can really help out with instruction. There is something about someone seeing themselves perform while a teacher offers advise as things play-out. The mail-order approach seems to be gaining in popularity with the use of Tapes and e-mail. There is even the possibility of using the new SKYPE approach, but I'll wait until the rough edges have been smoothes a bit before I start putting my money on that horse. Best Wishes, Bruce
