Can you define, exactly what you mean by "positive" and "negative" in terms of kicks? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative -Kraen
Let me be more clear as well. I'm not going to discuss the nature of HKD kicks with people who do TKD kicking and think there doing HKD. I must draw a line here. I will on the other hand discuss HKD kicking with people who practice HKD kicks and know what they are. I also have no issues discussing the differences between HKD and TKD kicking methods assuming people do know the difference. I believe this to be very reasonable.
Kraen... I will try to explain it the best I can, cause I do know english, technically, but I am not a native speaker. In our Hapkido, techniques are divided in positive and negative ones. Human beings, are bioelectrical beings. The theory or eastern way of thinking, is all about the balance of two contradictory but complementary forces. They called them yin (um) and yang. The body, also has different polarities. Front=positive, back=negative. Upper part of the body=positive, lower part of the body=negative. Flexion of a joint=negative (cause don't hurt by itself). Overextension of a joint=positive (cause it causes injury by itself). Etc. So, any technique that goes from upper to lower is positive. From inside to outside, is positive. Clockwise from the center to the border=negative (in-out). Counterclockwise from the center to the border=negative (in-out). Clockwise from the border to the center=positive (out-in), counter clockwise from the border to the center=positive (out-in)... and vice versa, etc, etc. For example, if you punch with your fist, to the same side of the jaw, you must raise your same side ankle to give neurological effect. But if you hit with the open hand, the palm to the jaw, your same side foot should not be raised, but all the foot uniformly touching the floor... for giving neurological effect. That is: K.O. And these is because is not the same electrical polarity in the palm of the hand, than in the back of the hand (the knuckles of the fist). In kicking, for example, a circular motion round-house kick hitting with your the bones of your foot against the same side rib cage of you opponent, is a positive technique. A kicking that you used by standing near at the clinch or almost at clinch range, flexioning your foot in a circular manner, but hitting with the ankle against the same side back rib cage or the kidney, is a negative kick. One is outside-inside-extension (positive)... the other inside-outside-flexion (negative). A front kick hitting the chin with the tip of you toe is positive... but a front kick hitting with the ankle in downwards movement, is negative. A upper raising front kick with circular motion, that goes up-outside-to-down-inside, is positive. The same kick, but that does this from up-inside-to-down-outside, is negative. And vice versa. The classic "negative" kick is that one (every kwan or system calls it different), that you start as an Ap-chagi (front kick), but end with a circular motion outwards, hitting with you feet bones (tarsus and metatarsus), your toes, or the tip of the metatarsal bones (with your toes flexed upwards).... like the negative version of a semi roundhouse kick. This is a typical korean kick (many styles, even taekkyon). No other countries MA do it. Almost every technique or kick has it's positive and negative version. And with many of them, you can combine them, and begin positive-ending negative, begin negative-ending positive. Begin positive, ending positive. And, begin negative, ending negative. Hope to have explained myself. Best regards.
Thanks, Hyung: For someone who uses English as a second language you did a great job of getting a very complex explaination across in a tidy fashion. Well done. OTOH, I think it is difficult for people not raised in a culture where UM-YANG is an accepted fact of life to get their head around the subtle characteristics of the techniques you have mentioned. In like manner I also know that most westerners view the idea of striking and kicking at certain times of the day as being "quaint" yet unworthy of much consideration. I remember many years ago a series of books concerning the "Teachings of Don Juan", a Yaqui indian sorcerer. Despite their popularity, the books were taken as giving permission to experiment with Peyote buttons rather than as a window into another culture. My own thought is that if a person were to want to consider the sorts of qualities that you are reporting, it would take having to incorporate those qualities in the earliest and most basic teaching of a given technique rather than reflecting on it at a later time in one's MA career. Thoughts? Best Wishes, Bruce
hyung, Out of curiosity, who is your HKD teacher? Is this how it is explained to you or are you incorporating ideas "outside the dojang" as it were to explain your hapkido? Thanks
Hey, just a quick question. Isn't it in everyone's best interest to discuss what people might have been taught as HKD kicking but is actually TKD kicking? I thought that was the purpose of this thread. Why post here if you are not going to discuss the topic at hand? What if they've been taught all along the non-HKD way of kicking and then perpetuate that same line of technique further muddying the waters for the next generation of HKDists. Much easier to make the distinction now and they might make the difference later on in their HKD life. I think it is really important for people who hold a lot of knowledge on this forum to impart it and help the rest of us understand better.
In a perfect world I'd agree. What I've found is that people will defend what they do because that's what their teacher taught them and that's what they put years of effort into. People don't like to change or invest the time and effort to invetigate what they're doing let alone have to make a serious adjustments. HKD has become very bastardized and people call any crap HKD today and no body knows. Truth is the Koreans screwed the system up themselves, because they let or crossed ranked TKD people in HKD with out making sure they kick right or do other things right. In general the only one's who do HKD right are people who studied from one source like Ji Han Jae or his lineage that kept pure to the system. Make sense?
Please don't be offended, Romulus. This is not a personal thing with Stuart ("American HKD"). Stuart is proud of his connection with JI Han Jae (SIN MU Hapkido) as I think you will find practically every Hapkido practitioner to be. Unfortunately, it has been my experience in the Hapkido community---practically from the beginning---- that identifying one's turf and holding it superior to all others supercedes all considerations including understanding, growth, research and development. The premise is too often one of "we will get along just fine as soon as everyone uses MY reality as a basis for communication." As a result of this view, Hapkido practitioners spend a lot of time bickering over authenticity and authority and very little time actually fostering growth. There are five major Hapkido organizations, and at least three minor ones and it is all but impossible to get them to agree on a syllabus, pedagogy, terminology or hierarchy/leadership/authority. I agree with you that the foremost priority needs to be communication on these forums, primarily for understanding, but secondarily for education. But over the years I have been repeatedly astonished at how tenaciously people hold-on to their beliefs even in the face of plain facts. Just people being people. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
Yes, it does. And if we substitute a follower of KIM Moo Woong, LEE Joo Bang, SUH In hyuk, KIMM He-young or anybody else the post would still hold true. What is impossible is to get any of these "highly evolved" individuals to work with anybody else. All of these leaders continue to represent what they do as the "most authentic", "most original", "most effective", etc etc etc. The plain fact is, Stuart, that marketing and commerce are far more important to these people than evolving their art. As a result, far more time is spent on touting a "brand" than "product development", to borrow terms from the business sector. As far as the actual nature of Hapkido kicking, we have two approaches. The JI Han Jae approach to kicking is to use the kick primarily as a set-up for a grappling technique, while the KIM Moo Woong approach was to use the kick as a debilitating technique in its own right, which, of course would also set-up a person from a grappling technique if warranted. The original approach to TKD was a conditioning and spirit-building method for the Korean military (see: CHOI Hong Hi). In time even Choi realized the limitations of TKD as a combat form and advocated the incorporation of Hapkido material to flesh-out the combat side. By that time, however, commercial interests were pressing the idea of TKD as competitive sport and a recreation. This 3-way tug-a-war has continued to the present day. My personal guess is that if Hapkido were allowed to remain the combat-oriented art that it was originally intended to be, the kicks would be few, low, hard and fast after the manner of full-contact such as KYOKUSHINKAI Karate or MUAY THAI. Unfortunately, this would not do much for the commercial interests in either HKD or TKD who are working to make these arts more recreational. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
Hi Bruce, Nice to talk to you again. Where do you find evidence of these two approaches? I never found GM Ji actually advocating what you just said. What I've found both methods are equally as good as each other and it all depends on the situation.
When I think of the two styles of kicking its very different. By different I mean it has nothing to do with set up or not. It has to do with preference in delivering in most effective manner. The best example I can think of is the low spin kick. One is performed with the hand and 1 knee down while the other is a low quick rotation. In both cases I can hit the target equally as hard. For me knee down is more without effort so it in my tool box but I know others who say the same for the other way. Not bad or good just different. I do not see this kick in TKD at all. Dave O.
Thanks, Stuart: See KIMM He-young's history in the first Hapkido book. Also reinterated in the recent Hapkido history. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
Yeah never saw this as real stylistic difference in HKD kicking theory, because it only defines one kick which doesn't leave much to go on. Besides only being one kick it's not even a basic kick and it's a spin kick which GM Ji claims to have invented. So to me Ji's method is the definitive method. I'll compare it two a theory that claims a crescent kick is a lazy persons round house. I see Kim, Moo Hyung as one who just felt more comfortable in putting his knee down vs a school of thought in kicking. I also see the danger on putting the knee down too hard and hurting yourself on a hard surface.
Thanks master Sims. I was sure, that if someone would get what I mean, was going to be you indeed. And about answering the question that if this theory of positive/negative bioelectrical polarities, is a matter of the dojang or a thought outside of it... NO, we practice Hapkido always like this. I am not surprised, because almost EVERY so called hapkidoist, haven't studied real Hapkido with its complexity (do not want to say, that WE are the way... but for sure, we are one way). We also talk a lot not only about polarities, but also about the 4 cardinal points, and a lot about technique variations and combinations. This, is the main difference between "knowing" a technique, and actually, "developing" it. We are very proud about our way of practice and our lineage. We are directly from SGM Kwang Sik Myung, 10th degree of the World Hapkido Federation. And about the question of someone not grown in eastern philosophy, later in his years, could learn this way of training and incorporing it to his way of thinking... yes, I am sure he can. Yip-man, used to say: "It's hard to find a good teacher... but it's harder to find a good student". Best regards.
So, you are saying that all ranked masters of the WHF are taught this theory of bio-electric polarities and all dojangs present techniques from this perspective, hyung? I'm just looking for clarification...there is no need to be defensive about it. If that is the way SGM (? I hope that acronym doesn't include "supreme") Myung Kwang Sik's people present it, then that's fine by me...
For ourselves, he is Supreme Grand Master. Sorry I do not know all WHF masters (past or present ones). I only know my master, and once, our SGM. And this is how we do Hapkido, in theory and in practice. We use a blackboard at the dojang too. Nothing more. And by the way, this topic is about kicking techniques. Best regards.
Thanks, Hyung: And also do not allow your pursuit of this line of research to be forestalled by a lack of investment by others. I have found that it is incredibly difficult to get people to move beyond the most basic level of practice or understanding. By comparison, KIM Yun Sang DJN for example incoporates the examination of bio-electric and "Ki" principles in his teaching and my own teacher, MYUNG Kwang Sik encouraged its consideration even if he did not emphasize it as much as others. The KSW tradition, likewise, makes room for the consideration of KI and bioelectrics in its practices, and I continue to reflect on the role of these same influences in my own research. By extension, various groups in both Japanese armed and unarmed traditions respect the role of these influences, and the Chinese have probably the longest tradition going back to the 2nd and 3rd century AD. Keep it up; I think you are in good company. BTW: If you sign your posts with your first name it may make it more comfortable communicating back and forth. Just a thought. Best Wishes, Bruce
Ah~! You have a blackboard in the dojang...that explains it...and yes you are absolutely right this is a thread about kicking techniques HKD vs. TKD... But please bear with me, as I am ignorant on your take on this...we're all here to learn, right? According to you, it seems that the power of a kick or strike is gained from the 1. trajectory of the kick 2. target chosen The conventions you use i.e. +ve or -ve could be simply considered just that, a convention that helps one to point to a likely target area, since there clear anatomical limits to how one can hit a target with power. But where you lose me is when you invoke this "bio-electric" effect that can "neurologically" effect the target (your example of punching and raising your same side ankle) that parallels this convention. I'm a strong proponent of "Ki", but I also believe that many things placed under the umbra of "Ki" is really based on physics. And then of course there are the exceptions. I'm sure as someone who values "science" and "art" would feel a similar desire to reconcile the two, so I am curious to know on what basis you attribute this? Have you experimented with this personally? Or again, is this the way you have been taught in the WHF?
