hapkido?

At the risk of starting something I'm going to share a little different POV.

Many, many years ago the late General Choi encouraged TKD people to participate in Hapkido as a way of rounding-out the TKD sport aspect to include more combative alternatives. I won't speaking badly of the dead. What I will say is that in my personal experience these two activites simply do not mix well. Thats not to say that they CAN'T mix well, but only that most people do not want to under-go the Rite of Fire it takes to reconcile what is plainly a combative art with what is plainly a sport venue.

In order to mix these two activities one is either going to "toughen" the TKD material into a simplified curriculum of full-contact kick boxing to keep a level of elan for mete-ing out damage, injury and incapacitance.

OTOH a person can always soften the Hapkido into a more Aikido-esque practice so that practitioners are still getting a decent MA work-out but can still go to the office the desk day.

The worst of both worlds is to delude oneself that they are training in a combat venue while actually just partaking in some Martial theatre.

My conclusion is that one ought choose BETWEEN the two. Stay with TKD if you want sport and go with Hapkido if you want combat. If you want the two at the same location make sure you teach two distinctly different classes. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Interesting POV, Bruce. But I don't see your commentary as *stirring up a hornet's nest*. Sound advice, actually... (well worth heeding IMHO)

 

I’d like to offer a slightly different perspective. Most of us are familiar with how western MMA has broken down martial arts, saying that a “well-rounded” sport fighter needs both stand up and ground-fighting skills. In much the same way, the Koreans I have known like to break down martial arts into “fighting arts” and “self-defense” arts. Fighting arts are essentially any striking art that can be used as “sports”, like Taekwondo, Karate, kickboxing, and the like (dueling). “Self-defense arts” are considered arts that involve grabbing someone…things that involve like Hapkido, Kuk Sool, Hwarangdo, and Yudo (although Yudo is a obviously a sport, Korean instructors I know would still classify it as a “self-defense art”).

One opinion (that I agree with) is that both self-defense arts and fighting arts are complimentary and make for a more complete practice. Kuk Sool is one hapkido variant that essentially does this, with the inclusion of stand-up sparring. I would also argue that there may be significant cross-over of attributes from sport fighting to self-defense, when these arts are taught correctly. I know I may be in the minority opinion when I say that I even believe that this is the case modern Taekwondo, not because of the inclusion of Hapkido techniques, as some would argue, but because the sense of distance and timing that it instills.

One thing I do think we would agree on, however, is that Hapkido has a very steep learning curve and that one potential (and actually, quite likely) shortcoming of integration with Taekwondo would be that you would be that someone would only get to the point of training a few specific responses to choreographed scenarios, rather than learning the concepts needed to use Hapkido techniques in any situation.

 

Gotta tell you guys, I really miss these easy-going exchanges. I think I'm still carrying the scars of the last ten years with all of the
:bang:Flame Wars. :bang:

At any rate I have to agree with C. about HWARANGDO and KUKSOOL. IMHO I think they DO a better job of integrating everything under one umbrella. There are only a couple of improvements....and I think they are already heading in this direction.

a.) I think the KUK SOOL schools are beginning to make it known to what degree their individual practices----unique to that particular school--- take a more artistic or a more combative approach. No judgement on the art here, I just think that some schools are a bit more rough-and-tumble and some schools are a bit more---what?---"recreational"?

b.) I have also noticed that things seemed to have simmered-down from a "political standpoint". I put this in quotes since I don't know to what degree it was less organization issues and more business issues. At any rate it seems to have settled down.

The only other bit would be if there was a bit more polishing on the KWON BEOP aspect such that the practices worked towards standardizing the actual KWON BEOP traditions as found within the KUK SOOL material. KWON BEOP was originally held as a framework for organizing combative trechniques and I would hate to see that lost. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Hi, Cz.

I'd like to expound on this observation you made, if I may. While some of the more fanciful moves in TKD can take a while to develop, it's not near as long IMO as learning the finesse involved with HKD joint-locks. Therefore adding the kicks & strikes of TKD, to supplement the locks & throws of HKD, makes a helluva lot more sense than the reverse. Another thing I'd like to point out, is that kuk-sool actually goes one step beyond this concept, meaning that while the kicks are almost identical to TKD, the hand strikes are not limited to just punches and chops, but include the mantis configuration, as well as palm strikes, et al. Using these types of hand attacks are more complimentary to making the transition into your grappling game, should your blows be unsuccessful in knocking your opponent to the ground. And FWIW, the strategies used in TKD to score don't work as well as some of the ones employed in the way I learned KSW (i.e. many TKD combos tend to be overly simplistic to the point of being easily recognized by the opponent, whereas more complex maneuvers that aren't all that tricky to learn, do work quite well in order to give you a decent advantage).

I like the way HKD works, but I prefer the combat effectiveness of the combined aspect you mentioned, merging HKD & TKD. Since KSW already refined this merger (borrowing from TCMA and adding more traditional weapons & forms), It's fairly obvious why I chose it from amongst all the various MA out there (granted, similar stuff has cropped up in recent years, but when I started training in MA, there seemed to be less of this type of compilation).

The portion above about it being better to use TKD to compliment HKD than it is to use HKD to round out TKD, is why I'm siding with Bruce in making precautionary statements to what Jointlockmaster may have in mind. If someone wants to learn HKD, then they should do it. But merely introducing a few joint-locks into one's repertoire in order to up their sparring ability (presumably for S/D situations), is just *begging for trouble* IMO.

Hi, Bruce.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with other MA systems, but I always saw a strong resemblance of the KSW fighting methods to things like kenpo, wing chun, hsing-i, etc. despite the fact that it was supposedly borrowed from mantis kung-fu. :thinking:

 

Thanks, Unk.....and not to put too fine a point on this but I think you touched on what I consider the single most important aspect of KUK SOOL, bar none. Yes I know I have roasted the KUK SOOL folks endlessly about their business and political and marketing issues, but that doesn't take away my respect for what I think is the most important piece that KUK SOOL brings to the party.

In YON MU KWAN Hapkido we learn to strike and kick, grapple and throw just like any other MA. So does KUK SOOL. However, in the event that a strike or block fails one needs be able to convert to a lock or grapple. This aspect of our training I term "conversions" and they are introduced at Brown Belt.

In like manner, should a technique fail----and they will now and then--- one needs to be able to shift to a follow-up technique without starting from a "set-up" but from they have at hand. I term these transitions and the concept is introduced at 3rd Dan.

Where I find true strength in KUK SOOL is that both of these approaches are shared with students as an integral part of even the most basic approaches. I feel this provides an advantage to the KUK SOOL practitioner in their foundations such that the concepts I mentioned are not entirely "new material" later in their development. I have yet to hear a KUK SOOL person "tease-out" the bits I have mentioned as such, but I have seen these ideas at least alluded to at the most basic level and I think the practitioner is better for it. IMHO.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Thanks, Bruce. Even I have not been happy with all the [political] wrangling that has cropped up in KSW over the years, and as a result of certain decisions by the *powers that be*, I don't think that the lines of demarcation are the same anymore, but it's AMAZING to hear that the combat strategies you mentioned occur at practically the exact same spot along the curriculum. The "conversions" (per your explanation of this term) were reserved for advanced students, unless a student happened to be exceedingly exceptional at sparring (using the designation of beginners= white & yellow belt, intermediate= blue & red belt, advanced= brown belt & dan bo, with everyone else being a "black belt student"). In my experience, your concept of "transitions" was usually introduced around 2nd dan, since the formal set which incorporates this idea is a requirement for 3rd dan (but most practitioners don't achieve full command of this skill until reaching 3rd dan).

I have to say it again; the similarities are ASTOUNDING!!! :happy:

 

Wow, that’s interesting…we learned these aspects through drills that integrated trapping and “sticky hands” drills from Chinese martial arts. We started doing this at yellow belt, but usually only got good enough to flow from traps, blocks and strikes into locks at around Brown, and were able to spontaneously transition (“lock-flow”) after black, and really got good around 2nd.

 

Yep....Transitions are key for dealing with people who know what is coming and can lock their body so as to foil the technique. Used to happen a lot to me when my late teacher would give an Open seminar here in Chicago. He would demonstrate the technique, offer some commentary and then turn us loose with our partners. Often a partner could be someone who recognized the technique and would muscle his own execution and then "lock-up" to stymie their partner. You could see this coming a mile away so I usually peformed the technique only as far as cuing the individual to lock-up and then transitioned to a technique that immediately went another way.

I don't miss those Open Seminars at all. It was a lot like having a Community class open to the public and a big red bulls-eye on the front of the building. Its amazing the amount of folks who come in wanting to see what they can get away with. Sheesh.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

didnt click, or should i say 'lock', until 3rd. our kun dae ryeon set is introduced at yellow belt if that shows how long it could take a person to grasp certain concepts.