For sure, Bruce, but I have high hopes for the in-house. I will circle back around and post some vids if the participants consent.
Dear CZ, I really like your idea of not having a test. In my club, we have an external examiner (for TKD) who only comes in for the belt-testings. I have often felt this to be very wrong, since he can only jugde people by their couple of minutes of performance... The problem with individual requirements is, that it is very time consuming. If you have the chance of doing so though, you should consider yourself very lucky... In the style of HapKiDo I just started practicing about a year ago (Do Am HapKiDo, pretty small, I think only known in Central Europe), we do not only have a set number of techniques, but also the techniques themselves are defined for each belt. Thinking of how you where talking about structuring, our techniques are structured by the attack (grab to the wrist, punch etc.) and then numbered through. At first, it was very time consuming and hard for me to accustom myself to this system. But after only one year, I start to see the advantage of the strictness: First of all, everybody allways knows what you are talking about when you say Wrist Grab #3 etc. Further more it sets a (IMHO) high standard throughout the Association I am a member of. Thus I can really understand (and think your students will come to appreciate) your effort to have a close curriculum to the schools around you. All the best. Edit: Bruce, really appreciate your post drawing the fine line between Yawara and what we know as HapKiDo today.
You know guys I like the video idea for correction. I also am a big fan of the numbered system of the techniquing. I.E. Wrist 1-10, Clothes 1-10 are for yellow belt etc. The reason is that like the above mentioned.....I tell a student show me #7 modified throw. They do it or dont do it. But everyone knows what technique is being talked about, unless the student forgets it. I have also documented the techniques that being described pictorially. I have actually used one of my black belts as my uke for demonstrative purpose by belt rank. I tell you though there is a lot to that and a lot of time needs to be devoted.
I just finished the Book "Hapkido - the Korean Martial Art" by Christian Bülow. Most of the book is made up of detailed pictures of techniques and their korean name. Well, I cannot jugde if he has done a good job, but the book is highly recommended throughout the german Hapkido scene... The techniques tend to have really long names though and I am wondering if this is practical (and maybe even more time consuming than the numbering). I'll post some scans of the book on Saturday. All the best.
i wonder why people call what they do the english translation of the hanja if what they teach is so different from even what master choi taught... to the point of mixing in wrestling, boxing principles, and even bjj. its not like there is much of an allure for wearing a dobok and such anymore, or is there still?
i totally dig a simple, numbered syllabus with matching numbers in different positions as one progresses. but what if ki bon su #3 is not possible from a rear lapel grab, but say kbs #4 is? dilemma, or simply reorganize?
This is essentially what I do, but I do call it "hapkido" because: A.) My certificates say "hapkido" (and my lineage is traceable to the founder), b.) I've practiced with and learned from Korean masters who think what I do is still hapkido, and c.) because if we called it something else people would still say "oh, that's just hapkido". Even if it is not close to the original, it is something that would probably be widely described as Hapkido, even by most Koreans. I essentially don't see this mixing as any different than Korean Kwans that incorporate Aikido principles or Judo, but true, as Bruce points out it is not the original. I do think it should not be represented as Choi's original art, however, but rather as a "modified version" Kuk Sool is thought of as hapkido in Korea, but that's not much like the original either. ...and don't be fooled, people still LOVE the dobok....and belts....lots and lots of brightly colored belts
Sometimes the question of how original the art others practice is, makes me wonder if your art does never develop/evolve... I myself believe that an art is not made of say 235 specific techniques, but rather of principles, philosophy etc. I myself like to reflect on that which is thaught to me. And with reflection there comes change. To the better or the worse? I honestly don't know. But then again, even if you are doing excactly the techniques your master taught you, you will still do them just slightly different, which is natural. So, over the generations of teacher and student an art will always evolve due to the fact that each individual influences it due to their own experiences (and even the fact that not everybody has the same body...). Can we still call it HapKiDo? Now that's up to yourself to decide... BTW: Did Choi still do the "original" art he taught, when he was teaching different techniques in his later days? All the best.
Getting back on topic, Here's my first "module". feel free to critique. BASIC FAN LOCKS (8) Wrist Cross Wrist Chest grab Clothing A.) Double Rear Elbows (from behind) B.) Shoulder (from behind) Seizing A.) Circle step B.) Side angle step Punch Defense
In the past I would challenge people about this very question and, despite the flame wars that would follow, they would continue to do it. Certainly there were rationalizations of all sorts but in the end it has to do with what people want to do.....driven by their own personal motives. In my MA career I have found that the Hapkido arts are far more challenging to learn than many other practices. There is also a lot less accountability and standardization as a result some pretty basic motives come into play. 1.) People usually talk a better game than they play, so its not unusual for someone to want to be known for mastering a particularly difficult practice as a way of enhancing their standing. Its also a great marketing ploy. 2.) With the huge range of Hapkido organizations, kwans and schools there is little or no standardization of the material. In this way, a person can take a little grappling, a little striking and a little kicking, mix it together and call it a Hapkido art. Of course, this works better if you happen to be a Korean national. 3.) Without a central authority, there is really no clearinghouse for rank or standing. A person can represent themselves as a DAN-holder, complete with exotic costume, and fancy paper and who is to challenge them? Now, some of the arts have their own in-house accoutability and the SIN MU and KUK SOOL people are pretty good at this. But even in these cases a person can split away from the original organization and go on to represent themselves as they choose. Another good marketing ploy. At its core, then, people who misrepresent themselves or what they do embody the very reason that these arts or deteriorating at the rate that they are. The disease started in Korea where such stuctural issues needed to be resolved before the art was ever exported. Absent that, integrity for what the Hapkido asrts represent now lies in firmly with the individual integrity of the practicing individual, Gawd help us. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
Is there a way that you can be a bit more descriptive about what you have provided? Do each of these techniques represent a particular attack or does each attack represent a particular technique? Are all of these attacks/techniques expected to be on a par with each other, or is this a progression of increaing sophistication within this level? Are these techniques expected to be a foundation to build on for the next level or will the techniques of the next level be unque to their own situations and goals? Help? Best Wishes, Bruce
Unfortunatly, I don't have the experience to be able to comment on your curriculum. However I'd like to recommend to 1. give the whole thing a good thought (which you are obviously doing, just want to mention it again) so you won't end up changing the curriculum every year until your students don't know want to learn anymore (this happened in the german taekwondo union the last couple years with a lot of details within the techniques themselves. Needless to say it fruststrates you to hear something different every other week :bang. 2. try working out as much of the curriculum as possible now. It will make sure that the curriculum will be somewhat consistent and not seem to have been pieced together (like, "wow... you guys are green belts now. Well, what do we do next?!" ). It will also ensure that you don't have to make major changes to the existing curriculum in the future due to conflicting techniques etc. 3. I personally like to have to curriculum I have to study written out. It's good so I don't forget anything and sometimes when teaching myself I tend to forget stuff like this and I am always happy if I have something written down (maybe this will not happen to you this year but in a couple of years) I really have to say that I like your step-by-step, individually tailored to the student's needs approach a lot. I wish I will be able to do something similar someday in the future I just hope your students will appreciate all the thoughts you are putting into this. Agreed. Isn't it ironic though, that in traditional MA, where integrity and the respect for the art should be natural, quite the opposite is the case...:bang: All the best.
i dont know if im understanding history completely, sir. did choi have a curriculum? did he call his material hapkido?
Prior to the end of WW II neither HAPKIYUSOOL nor DAITO-RYU---not Aikido had what we know today as structured curriculum. There seems to be overall agreement among the students of all three "AIKI" traditions that some material was routinely taught before other material. For instance, when KIM Yun Sang (YONG SUL KWAN) began organizing the photographed material he was taught by CHOI Yong Sul, he put it in order of how he was taught the techniques. If you take a look at a similar tradition, say, JUNG KI KWAN there seems to be overall approximations between the two. Comparing the HAPKIYUSOOL material to, say, SIN MU Hapkido you will see even less approximations. CHOI Yong Sul did not call his practice "Hapkido". Originally he identified it as "YAWARA" and later took the term "HAPKI YU SUL" and later "HAPKI YU KWON SUL". Personally I think he came to tolerate the term "HAPKIDO" when the various practitioners began to approach him to be a figurehead for this and that organization. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
Hi Bruce, Thanks again for your reply. Hard to be specific in text I know. So far, I've been basically doing it like this: "wrist" means that I show a fan lock from, let’s say, same side wrist. then I show a couple different variations. I don’t have a set number of variations that I’ve thought out before hand, just whatever I think of that day (basically, for a "module" I'm mostly just showing the same lock over and over with different contact points). If a person has trouble with one, I might show another one. so for "wrist" a person might learn two or three different versions of a fan lock from the wrist, or just one, depending on where they're at in their training. I've been wondering I can get away with this in a small class, or I if I need set requirements that are consistent for everyone. I don’t want my students to get frustrated and leave (even though I don't charge them anything, it would nice if they stayed). Also Bruce, although I think some of our tastes in training would not overlap, I think we would essentially agree that the fact that Dan grades in Korean martial arts are tied to revenue generating fees in most organizations is distasteful. I find it interesting that some people concentrate on getting more rank, rather than getting good at martial arts. Reasonable people can disagree about what an art should be called, but you can't argue with good technique.
Sorta related to the subject....... I notice that a goodly number of teachers have fallen to doing periodic seminars and that these seem to be pretty well-received. Please bear with me while I muse about this a bit. I'm wondering if the natural method for teaching the "AIKI" arts has more to do with general instruction and individual progress than we are giving it credit for. If this were true, my thought is that an art such as Hapkido would be best taught "thematic-ly". I think I see this in the YONG SUL KWAN and JUNG KI KWAN approaches and to a much lesser degree in YON MU KWAN and SIN MU. The KUK SUL, HWA RANG and YONG IN approaches seem to be the most highly structured and probably the least thematic. I also seem to see aspects of the thematic approach in what you are developing. In this way, you seem to be presenting a sort of theme at each class and identifying specific strengthes and weaknesses in the individual for understanding this theme. If this is true, I must say that it is a rather sophisticated approach and will probably be pretty labor-intense as you will need to track each student's progress very closely and carefully to make sure that you are properly coaching each person's growth according to what they have to use. Remember that it is a naturally-occuring quality of Human Beings to fear change and to make excuses as to why one cannot grow. As a teacher, your job is to winnow-out the real ability from the excuse. Assessment will increasingly fall to determining how well a student deals with each theme that you have put before them and each student will have their own strategy for doing this. You need to make sure that their strategy is efficient and effective even if it differs from the student standing next to them. Just the musings of an old person. YMMV. Best Wishes, Bruce
besides the kung jung/kuk sul ive taken since i was 14, i took aikido at junior college. the way material is taught is significantly different. in kjms/ks we learn many techniques from one position per level, whereas in aikido (aikikai) one technique or principle(stepping, weight displacement, etc) was taught in many of its variances in one class, with about 5 minutes of practise allowed for each tech. i like both ways, but the latter seemed to stimulate my mind more
Ssagkall, My oringinal background was about a decade of Kuk Sool, so I get what you are saying. We learned techniques the way you describe, (but with lots of free form drills and lots of trapping, which I am trying to pass along). So far, (after a coulple of weeks) people seem to report that they are feeling like they are learning the material better now that I've switched doing the concept approach. I expect I'll know if this is true in time, but it looks promising. RIght now I'm going over about 5 or six variations of one technique in the second half of out 2 hour practice. I've been structuring practices based on the type of lock or technique, not on things like a particular type of footwork or weight displacement. Doing that has occured to me and I may try it later. Now...anybody got any ideas for a home flooring system that will be cheaper than tatami? I've currently got zebra puzzles over concrete, with blue folders we bring out for high falls. (We do high falls on just the puzzle mats over concrete too, but doing it a lot sucks). I'm thinking about building a plywood floor resting on 2" x 2" foam blocks spaced about a foot apart. Anybody done this?
If you are still interested in ways to organize your curriculum I can suggest the following. Having trained with 2 different Hapkido organizations and 3 Jujitsu organizations, I found (in my opinion) the method/cirriculum of GM Booth in Australia to be the best in terms of learning the techniques. He splits each belt into 2 concepts (locks), 3 hand strikes, 3 kicking techniques ie: Finger attacks and Arm Bar Over for Orange Belt (if I remember correctly). You then learn how to apply only these two techniques but from every conceivable grab. It really concretes the actual technical mechanical concept of each lock and you never get the "oh I've been grabbed in a way I don't know" freeze. While I don't train with him anymore, he has released some very high production quality DVD series of his curriculum, you might want to try and get hold of a copy.
