The AIKIDO people with whom I shared a training room at the College had a very comfortable flooring system. The foundation was a standard frame of 2x4-s on either 16 or 24 inch centers. However, the frame was elevated off the concrete at various intervals so that the weight of the deck and matting was "sprung". The more points of contact between the frame and the concrete the "firmer" the spring. I believe the deck itself was half-inch plywood, which was then covered with 3/4 inch "closed cell" foam and a canvas cover. Pretty sophisticated, but also pretty expensive. The most effective and economical flooring I saw was a Hapkido school where the owner had purchased 1.5 inch thick "closed cell" foam wholesale and then lashed a canvas cover over it. Simple and very effective. Because I teach at a Community College, our mats need to be put away at the end of each class. We use 1.25 inch thick folding mats. Each mat allows for a pair to have a decent falling area---about 5x10 feet. The mats also have velcro along the edges so that they can be hooked together to form a single larger surface when needed. Our kicking and punching drills are done on the hardwood floor and the grappling is later done on the mats. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
We practice in our local wrestler's gym. I don't know what kind of mat it is, but it's really thick, I'd say about 7-8cm (I think thats about 2.5 inch ). But then again I'd say this is really expensive. Awesome for all kinds of falling, grappling etc. For kicking it's not the best since it's hard to balance and really hard to rotate your foot on the ground. What's the problem with your current flooring? If your puzzle mats are enough for light falling etc. I don't know why you would want to change it... All the best.
Thanks for the input. The reason I want a new floor is that I really believe that high falls are necessary to teach the way I want, because It allows you to take the locks in the proper direction, which would result in breaks if the person you’re working with didn’t let themselves go into the technique. Usually this involves the entire body leaving the ground, or falling head over heels. I'm seeing this in my "fan lock module". If you do this lock correctly (as I understand it) the lock in the wrist will cause your partner's core to move in such a way that he has to lift his rear leg, and fall over his front leg (that will be posted). In order to take the lock in the direction of a real throw (or break), both of your partners feet have to leave the ground at some point, (although by loosening up the angle you can avoid this, but I don't like how this changes the technique) Lots of people tell me they can do high falls on puzzle mats over concrete (I can too, of course) but when pressed, even young fit players admit that this is hard on the body if done twenty times in a single practice. Judo floors are typically “sprung”, which allows people to practice harder throws even in advancing years. During practice a good floor will allow you to do lots and lots of high falls from full force techniques. Another system I saw was soft yellow foam over concrete (like the kind in your sofa) with a thin hard particle board over that, and then puzzle mats over the top. As I write this, I debating shelling out the dough to get Zebra MMA mats, which supposedly are made to take Judo throws, to cover the entire place. Bruce, thanks for that suggestion, as well. I'm going to call commercial foam place to get pricing on this today. Incidentally. hardwoods and folding mats was what I did Kuk Sool on for about a decade, and I do miss having a hardwood floor.
OK, got it now. Thanks. That's the advantage of a thick wrestler's floor And I can only agree... and even though it is essential to be able to fall on floor as hard as possible, it really takes out a lot of dynamics since people loose a lot of energy and even more concentration. And if you are focusing on learning a technique, that's simply counterproductive...
dont be cheap, man, see quality as a tax write-off. one of our instructors in san francisco went all out and purchased the swain mats and.... yeah. those mats seem more forgiving than the priest on the other side of sonny corleone's confession booth.
Yeah... I think its a matter of perspective. While I agree that a person would want to be able to take a fall on a hard surface, if necessary, I don't think it automaticly follows that practicing on a hard surface is necessary or even advisable. I have heard tell of people practicing backfalls from particularly high levels to hard surfaces and can only shake my head. I suppose youth has its insanities, but common sense ought to tell a person that falling backwards onto a hard surface can only have a bad outcome---either now or later. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
I actually don't see how that is a matter of perspective. No offense. I see the necessity of trying out whether or not you can actually take a fall on high ground, however doing it regularly (especially when thrown hard, not just practicing falls) is really bad for your head, concentration and wears you out. I get the POV of "what doesn't kill you only makes you harder", but what do have from "being really hard" if you start doing your throws etc. softly to spare your partner? All the best.
I was only examining the subject from the standpoint of a teacher. There are plenty of "classroom shepards" who continue to believe that education should be some sort of "trial by fire". I'm not sure who or what first came up with this model but I have found nothing particularly noble about it. The atmosphere I work to cultivate in the classroom is one of coaching the individual to sucessfully negotiate challenges until they can do consistently on their own without my supervision. This takes a certain amount of cognitive processing, before "learned responses" and "muscle memory" takeover. In the case of hard falls I see two issues that interfere. The first issue is that falling is inherently uncomfortable and the Human mind seeks to adjust the body so as to avoid discomfort and pain. If the Human mind is pre-occupied with this problem-solving thats less internal resource that is dedicated to the aforementioned problem-solving. Similarly, if, in the early stages of training a person executes a "bad" roll or fall, subsequent attempts to execute a fall or roll will be impacted by avoidance behaviors. I have found that it is far harder to mend a falling or rolling practice after the individual has has one or two bad experiences than to move into falling and rolling at a very slow pace. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
Agreed. Nothing more needs to be said Now back to the topic itself: CZ, are you still going to give new belts without a special test (which I really like)? And if so, do you have some more thoughts on how you will proceed? I mean, at which point do you grant the new rank? When a person learns a new technique, understands the technique, masters the technique? Do you get my point? ^^
Yes, one aspect of how I had previously structured my rank levels by assigning certain numbered techniques sets per belt, that were organized by the location of a grab. Since I'm no longer doing this I have to rework how I evaluate students. One thing that people in my tiny club say they really like is the way we promote, so I don't want to change it. We decided that every three months we would have individual evaluations (on video)that would not necessarily coincide with promotions. I plan to look at each student and let them know what I think they need to do to get to the next level. I am in the process of drawing up rank guidelines for each guep level, but this is a work in progress and I can share them at a later time. The actual "promotion" would still just take place whenever I walk in with a new belt for someone. It could be at the time of the evaluation, sometimes after it, or even before. I think my evaluations will consist of the following areas: 1. Technique sets with a partner, including falls and pins or finishes. 2. Classical training (hyung, Stance work, weapons, ki breathing excercises) 3. Striking targets and focus mitts (kicking, rounds of boxing and the like) 4. Contact sparring with equipment (I do both free sparring and "short fighting combinations" with arrainged attackers and defenders, but with the attacker executing real attacks). 5. "Soo Sparring" (this is what my original instructor called it) -basically non-compliant drills vs. random gabs, aggressive pushes, punches (controlled but sometimes rough, no equipment) We do a little cross training in Jiujitsu too (just basically defense and how to get up, not for the goal of submitting on the ground) and Fillipino Arnis, but I do not make these Hapkido rank requirements. I'm on the fence about including breaking for rank, but we do some of this. I also did start on a new floor, based on something a friend of mine has, that will be thin hardboard, floating on open cell foam, with puzzle mats on top. I'll post pictures after next weekend, because this is a really inexpensive and innovative design that I had never seen until recently, but it works great.
Hi, I have script with Hapkido tehniques from white to red belt. It contains about 60 tehniques, and about 25 of them belong to white belt. This is without kicks, punches, and failing, so with it number is about..80 - 90 maybe.
See...now.... I have to wonder about a question like that..... and Pull-ease!!! I don't mean anything mean-spirited by this OK!? I'm just musing out loud here. Please hang-in with me, C, as this is more for my own edification, 'kay? "...........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?........" Okay....so when you say "ideal", what do you have going though your mind? Are we talking about how many techniques a person can teach before people lose interest? Are we talking about how many techniques a person can teach to get across a particular concept? Are we talking about how many techniques a person can teach before an individual can protect themselves? Are we talking about how many techniques a person can teach before an individual can effectively represent the nature of a particular Hapkido art? Often times, during these discussion, I get a sense that folks are under some sort of time constraint and I am not altogether sure what that thing is? By definition, Hapkido is a "-do" or a way of living, which would make it an open-ended commitment. It would follow, then, that to be interested in a Hapkido art would be to invest one's Self in an open-ended pursuit. Yet, I get the impression that most folks talk about it as though there is some finite end to the study, much like Grade School or High School. Thoughts? Best Wishes, Bruce
Well..... I have a thought on that...but I don't want anyone to think I'm being a smart-ass. I actually am suggesting this as a true alternative, and it does have some basis in historical fact. When the old Japanese masters taught their material, they had various levels of certification or licensure. The more a person learned, the higher a person's license. In this way a person could stop at any particular level as each level was rather much contained unto itself. Now, ..... what if we went a step farther? Early-on I was talking about how my own late teach developed a KEBONSU or "core techniques" which served as thye foundation for all of YON MU KWAN material. So..... what if each individual technique became a kind of license unto itself? For instance, the very first technique taught in a traditional Hapkido school is KAL-LOKKI (E. "Knifehand to Elbow technique"). This is our first YON MU KWAN technique and there are about a dozen permutations of this. Add to that the same 12 techniques done from a grab, a punch, a position of disadvantage and inconjunction with a kick or punch and you have about 30 techniques or so. That would be the first license. Our second technique is Outer Wrist Throw. There are about 30 or so techniques there too. A person who grabs the first license could sign-up for another course of study to get the second license? My thought is that each KEBONSU would be a discrete course of study ending with an assessmdent to assure that the individual truely knows and can use the technique. Thoughts? Comments? Best Wishes, Bruce
Hi Bruce, the problem I see with this concept is the fact, that there are easier and more difficult variations of a technique. With your approach you are trying to teach a complete newbie the "white belt variation" as well as the "black belt variation" (difficulty wise). However, I do not know if this is possible or not. Have you tried ever this concept of teaching? Even though I hate to have to mention this point, but making your classes interesting (especially the beginner's classes) is somewhat vital. I would hate to see a lot of people dropping out simply because they don't want to be taught the same technique (even though in variation) over and over again... And last but not least, where is the DO? Maybe it's just me, but I think this approach creates the illusion of "being done with a technique" with your first license. Having written all this I just realised that you may not have even meant what I thought Did you perhaps mean doing the "same old same old", but rather than asking for a number of techniques for a belt/license, you would "just" be asking for this one technique and it's variations? All the best.
Hi Bruce, I don't take this as mean spirited at all. Great question. I was talking about the number of techniques it takes internalize concepts and be able to flow into useable variations from any position (in other words, use them in a fight). My own bias is that "numbered technique" sets are designed to get people to internalize concepts rather than be direct expressions of fighting techiques, while actual application is learned seperately in free form or semi form practice and drills. I was furthermore thinking of how my curriulum should be structured to get people from no experience to the level of "serious student" (1st degree black belt) which I think should be somewhere down the line from basic self defense. Also, the curriculum I learned on years ago had, for example, several different variations of virtually the same technique that were each assigned a different number. I don't teach this way anymore, and instead have fewer "numbers", but show different variations of the same "number". Hope this is clear. Also, I've found that if I spend all my time teaching people to memorize numbers, there is no time to teach practical application. Bruce, as to your point about making each technique a discrete course of study, I freind of mine in our association thought of this but no one ever actually did it. I think it has validity, but I decided not to do this, because I wanted students to have a medley of clothing grab techniques that would include arm bars, fan locks, and z-locks and others within a realatively short time, because (again, just my personal bias) Eui bo soo, or clothing techniques, are the most transferable to direct self defense. I wanted students to have some skills they could actually apply after about a year.
Thanks, P: Yes....you're right in a number of ways. For myself, I still look at the Hapkido arts with a capital DO on the end. I think its the most appropriate tack to take with these practices but I am smart enough to realize that I am very much in a minority. For me, the term Hapkido is not interpreted as "way of Coordinated Power" after the fashion of the Japanese. Rather, I take the term to mean "way of Universal Techniques". What I mean by this is that there is a way of living one's Life such as to see the inter-relationship among things the way the same biomechanics of an unarmed technique can be used for wielding a weapon-----and vice versa. I could wax philosophical about this fer hours, but the Mods might get ****ed for my putting the Forum to sleep, right? What I was working to do was to offer C an alternative to how I would do things that might work with his approach. Personally. IMHO, I have always felt that if the late CHOI Yong Sul actually did learn his material From Takeda (or one of his students), his teaching model needed to reflect the teaching model of his teacher, yes? Takeda gave out various licenses---five in all I think. I may be wrong but I think the first one was MOKUROKU but I don't know how many techniques a person had to master to get this certificate. I do know that the KODOKAI DRAJJ are said to still teach this way. OTOH, this whole load of crap with belt-ranks and trying to run a school as a business seems to have way too many perils to it to make it a viable approach. In my own case I teach for the joy of it, and though the Community College places some very irritating limits on what I do, I still pursue things on my own time. Thats why I thought Master Timmerman's approach seemed the most intelligent. Simply provide a meeting place where people who want to talk about things Hapkido could come together without the usual headaches. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
Thanks for your understanding, C: For myself, I think I addressed the issue (if I'm understanding you right) in the way the individual classes are organized. Though I ran into some problems with this at the Community College, it worked pretty well in my study groups around the area. Now, in honesty, the study groups tended to be thematic, meaning that a particular group were seeking a particular take on the use of Hapkido techniques and were less interested in learning the entire Hapkido corpus as an art. Anyhow, my classes are two hours long, and I split the class into quarters. The first quarter was Warm-up. The second quarter was Concussive techniques and Forms. The third half-hour was grappling. The fourth half-hour was "Practicum" or practical applications. I ran into some problems with the last period at the Community College as the practical applications can get pretty dicey, and I think some of the folks took exception to using the techniques as they were originally intended. :evil: As a result I had to spend time modifying the material so that its a bit closer to "Aikido-on-steroids" than anything else. Whatchagonnado, right? BTW: This is just a side thought but....... I'm not sure I would make a huge amount out of dealing with people who have little or no experience. After all everybody who ever did Hapkido, at some point, had never done it before, right? In the same way, I wouldn't spend a lot of time worrying about where people are going to go with it. For me Hapkido arts were love-at-first-sight. But there are people who will stay, and won't stay, and nobody seems to know how or why. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
Thanks Bruce. Great point. My own club is a small traing group in my garage. I screen students and I teach for free. So I try to find students that are at least interested in either giving it serious try, or have a backgroung in other KMA already (I have several TKD black belt who teach at their own clubs cross training with me). Still, not everyone has the same level of commitment. I'm interested in knowing what type of things you do to teach application. Here's a link to a previous post with some things I do, http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1074336531&postcount=31
hey mr. simms, i dig "your" idea, as it gives ample ways to understand a technique. however, if i may add, the way i understand brain training (from the little i've read of the brain that changes itself) is that the current lesson must always be a little more difficult than the previous for a person to learn best. over time the brain and body develope a crazy sensitivity to the physical activity. i believe the example the author uses is piano training. this is where a constantly deepening curriculum becomes very intrigueing. HOW many ways should a technique be taught to what level of proficiency before moving on to the next level of understanding? where does a course stard/end and where does the next level begin? for us, the first course, titled "yudanja su ryeon" begins with posture and closes with introduction to staff (mostly as a means of conditioning at that point). that is the first of three stages in our kwan. but within each stage are many levels/belts. each of the three stages is charted on one of three charts (named yudanja, sabeom, and kwanjang su ryeon) the way our curriculum is set up, escapes are taught first (white belt), along with stances and basic blocks, falling, kicks and punches. next level (yellow belt) entails defense from wrist grab and frontal clothing grabs. the following level (blue belt) goes into basic trapping and pressure point striking against straight punch, as well as sparring stepping and basic combos. in the level after that (red belt), advanced kicks and high falling are introduced along with advanced clothing grabs along with throws(and their defense). double, wrist grabs, double hand grabs, locks/throws against kicks, etc (minus weapon techs) are all taught before black belt. get where this is going? this goes on for about 4 years of 6 month intervals between testings and everybody is usually caught up on their sets about 2 months before tests. also, it appears even the bjj-ers are starting to like the idea of capitalism, i mean curriculum (see saulo ribeiro's jiujitsu university).
No doubt. BJJ is as much about money as anything else. Online course. OMG. https://www.gracieuniversity.com/LC/home_view.aspx?c=63QJ4TGT7X&n=28
