# Traditional HRD Syllabus:pros vs. cons?



## Bob D. (Mar 24, 2005)

SBN Chris Bailey started an interesting conversation on the "up and coming students...." thread. The subject of the HRD traditional syllabus has been the topic of discussion for as long as I've been in the art (26 years). The issue most have is thru 3rd dan, the numerous sets of numerous techniques are redundent and require the student to emphasize rote memorization at the expense of being able to actually fight. Of course a few instructors have remedied that by supplementing the curriculum with judo type "rondori", kick boxing type sparring and/or jujuitsu type grappling, but that is the exception not the norm. And it still doesn't deal with the issue that most students can't effectivly joint lock a resisting opponent...even after 4-5 years study!
My last sentence is applicable to Hapkido/KSW/HRD as well, it's a common problem. 
So, while I love the romantic notion of learning even the most obscure and/or the most subtly different variation of a technique, I say there has to be a better method of teachig/getting it. I'm not a big fan of the Trad. HRD syllabus but I do have an odd attachment to it! Any ideas?


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 24, 2005)

Farang, SBN Donnelly.



			
				Bob D. said:
			
		

> So, while I love the romantic notion of learning even the most obscure and/or the most subtly different variation of a technique, I say there has to be a better method of teachig/getting it.


 This is a good point.  For instance I can think right now of Hoshin Oui Bok Sul where the same technique application (essentially) is used for a cloth grab either at the wrist, at the elbow, or tricep area.  I wonder if this could be reduced to one technique and the broader application be approached in supplemental instruction, i.e. as a student learns the intricacies of the technique and its various applications, these applications are demonstrated.

 I would hate to lose all the applications, however.

 Just my very humble rambling.


----------



## iron_ox (Mar 24, 2005)

Bob D. said:
			
		

> And it still doesn't deal with the issue that most students can't effectivly joint lock a resisting opponent...even after 4-5 years study!
> My last sentence is applicable to Hapkido/KSW/HRD as well, it's a common problem.
> Any ideas?



Hello all,

I am not HRD, but Hapkido, so I hope this helps - for training and teaching to "verify" the veracity of any technique - try it in slow motion against a full resistive opponent - being sure to use body mechanics for breaking the balance of the opponent (no strikes or kicks) - just very slow motion.

If the technique cannot be done - it is not being done right, or is not a good technique - if someting can be done with little effort, in slow motion, against a resisting opponent, full speed can be lots of fun.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 24, 2005)

Dear Bob: 

"And it still doesn't deal with the issue that most students can't effectivly joint lock a resisting opponent...even after 4-5 years study!...." 

A few things come to mind as I read your post but I am not sure how much help I am going to be. Let just toss some ideas out. 

1.) If there is an issue with a curriculum then the issue is not with the material in the syllabus as much as the intention or philosophy behind the material. All a curriculum is is a reflection of the priorities of the person who put it together. If you have a problem with a curriculum then it is as much to say that you have a difference of priorities with the author OF that curriculum. I don't think the issue will be resolved by merely changing the curriculum. What needs to happen is to reconcile what your priorities are with those of the curriculums author. Some people do this by sitting down and sorting through this. Others teacher the "official curriculum" up front and then have second set of materials or beliefs they tech a few on the sly. Others simply break-away and start their own shop where they can teach whatever they like. 

2.) Finding myself in a position to deal with a resistant individual seems to suggest that one has changed from fighting to competing. By this I don't mean that you are actually working for a trophy, but that somehow you have suddenly become concerned about the well-being of your attacker. In a fight I have no real concern for the result on my attacker. The attack was his idea and there is a consequence for acting on bad ideas or bad decisions. 

3.) From a training standpoint most people do not work with a resistant attacker since there is no uniform way to identifiy when "enough-is-enough". Most people who train want enough conditioning to cover challenges and the odd uncomfortable situation. Most people are not invested enough to train against resistance, or to deal with the likelihood of injury. Most have homes and families and a job to go to the next day. People who WANT resistance will go to an activity where they can get their needs satisfied. The idea of taking an art which is does not demonstrate sufficent quantity of the sort of activity that the person is looking for and modifying it to include something that was not there to begin with is to admit that you have selected the wrong art to begin with. (See also Point One.) FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 24, 2005)

Hi Kevin, I agree with your training tool and have used it as well as many others (alot from trad. Akijujuitsu based arts). But that addresses an actual technique...learning subtlety of angulation, proper body posture, stuff like that. Good stuff though, Thanks!
The bigger problem as I see it is for years these are being taught in static setting. No flow. No "rondori", unrealistic set ups, etc. And I'm sorry, but if you get an athletic 20 year old and have a Randy Couture or? train him in "mixed MA" for a NHB match for a year, he will typically beat the snot out of 90% of the traditional HKD, HRD, KSW black belts with 5 or more years! The average B.B. will NEVER get a joint lock on one of these guys. No I'm not just talking about a sport match, I'm talking anywhere.
My point is that if one wants to become a warrior with actual combat viable skills as apposed to just learning an art, sport or self defense (nothing wrong with any of this), traditional Korean arts fall short (as taught), IMHO. 
Back to the subject of the thread!


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 24, 2005)

Hi Bruce, Without getting into "competition vs. Fight" and the like (another tread perhaps), I'll comment to the last part of number 3:
Hwarang Do was "advertised" as a combat martial art, a MA for military and so on. While there is an awesome amount of technique that is "combat, military, lethal, and ???" The method of teaching is not practical and you could say alot is outdated. So we (people I train with) have taken it upon ourselves to "work" it and update it to make it more realistic.
I would not say "wrong art". I just think the founders either got lazy or for some reason won't/don't know how to teach beyond a certian level of effectiveness. They might be/have been awesome but what have they produced (instructors)? 
I think I know your stance on keeping a traditional art unmodified, but I'm on the other side of the fence. I think the fact it's called an "art" should allow creativity, updating, and addition of material. Not to say throw out the old but add and optimize!


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 24, 2005)

Shesulsa,


> For instance I can think right now of Hoshin Oui Bok Sul where the same technique application (essentially) is used for a cloth grab either at the wrist, at the elbow, or tricep area.


Your right this was (and still is evedently) being taught basically the same exact movement for the first 4 grabs, BUT that is just for beginners! There are advanced versions of almost every technique in the syllabus. My original instructor modified them (the first 4 oui bok sul) slightly so each has a different aspect that makes it work better. Now they are basically the same in appearance but very different in angle of application, and which joint/joints are broken.
Example #1 is an inside wrist break - standard.
#2 is inside wrist with a ellipticle arc that brings elbow into play.
#3 is an inside/forward break trapping opponents hand in crook of arm and brings wrist/elbow and shoulder into play.
Each is actually different in how the wrist breaks and where the emphasis of pain is located.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 24, 2005)

Dear Bob: 

"......I think I know your stance on keeping a traditional art unmodified, but I'm on the other side of the fence. I think the fact it's called an "art" should allow creativity, updating, and addition of material. Not to say throw out the old but add and optimize!...." 

Now THIS ....... THIS is what every practitioner of Korean martial arts NEEDS to be talking about!!!!!!!  I don't think there is font size impressive enough to underscore this point!! 

Every time people start talking about modifying a martial art it almost always comes to content! People are always so excited about adding _content_ and taking away _content_! And then, when people talk about being traditional the discussion always gets all balled-up between referring first to content and then skipping over to teaching methods ("pedagogy") and then back again. Just once I wish people would take a stand on one kind of curriculum (personally I don't care what the content is --- Hapkido, BJJ, Shotokan, whatever ,whatever whatever) and speak ONLY to the manner in which the material is taught. And, like you say, if the teaching method is no longer timely, or the philosophy has changed, *THEN CHANGE THE PHILOSOPHY OR THE TEACHING PRIORITIES FIRST BUT KEEP THE MATERIAL THE SAME UNTIL YOU SEE WHAT YOU HAVE!!* Most people change the _material _ when what they really mean to do is change the philosophy or the approach *TO* the material. 

Sorry, to be so animated about this but it has become such an issue with me!! People would rather bring in some new or fancy kind of material like nunchukas from Okinawa or BJJ from South America when what we really need to be doing is changing the way we think about KMA and how we are teaching!!!!! 

Note: Need to tie this off and go find a cup of decaf!   

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## floweringknight (Mar 24, 2005)

Man you guys are incredible! I basically totally agree with both of you guys (Bob and Bruce). I also believe that it is the teaching style / training mentality that needs to be continually changing and evolving. Not necessarily _what_ is being taught; but _*how* _it is being taught! I also teach 4 different variations of the first 4 techniques in green belt. Also 30 (not 28) techniques in yellow belt. The last 2 covering the other 2 ways to grab someone's wrist. Last note: I always try to keep my training and my teaching firmly grounded in reality! But hey, I'm still learning too........aren't we all?


----------



## iron_ox (Mar 24, 2005)

Bob D. said:
			
		

> Hi Kevin, I agree with your training tool and have used it as well as many others (alot from trad. Akijujuitsu based arts). But that addresses an actual technique...learning subtlety of angulation, proper body posture, stuff like that. Good stuff though, Thanks!
> The bigger problem as I see it is for years these are being taught in static setting. No flow. No "rondori", unrealistic set ups, etc. And I'm sorry, but if you get an athletic 20 year old and have a Randy Couture or? train him in "mixed MA" for a NHB match for a year, he will typically beat the snot out of 90% of the traditional HKD, HRD, KSW black belts with 5 or more years! The average B.B. will NEVER get a joint lock on one of these guys. No I'm not just talking about a sport match, I'm talking anywhere.
> My point is that if one wants to become a warrior with actual combat viable skills as apposed to just learning an art, sport or self defense (nothing wrong with any of this), traditional Korean arts fall short (as taught), IMHO.
> Back to the subject of the thread!



Hello Bob,

Sorry for the delay, I had to think of a quick way to answer this - so here goes- when dealing with reality, where exactly do you see MMA guys (sports men) and the likes of Randy Couture in the world?  Generally in the ring.  Now, I'm not sure where you hail from, but, I live, train and teach in Chicago, IL - the murder capitol of the world for about 10 straight years - we had 665
average homocides for about 8 years in a row - so reality of self defense is on my door step and the MMA type guys never, ever enter the picture - but lots of stoned/drunk/angry people do - and thats who I teach to defend against.

I don't teach or mold warriors - just average people looking to engage in an extraordinary art form - that will bring them confidence and protection - if someone wanted to be in the sports arena - I say "please look elsewhere".  On a side note, I have several students that are professional and semi-pro football players - very well conditioned and strong indeed - my 4'11" female students (I have a few of those) find it SO easy to literally take the "giants" off their feet with a little off-balancing...

Thanks for listening to my ramble...


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 25, 2005)

OK Kevin, I understand the difference between self defense and sport. I'm not going to get into an argument about why I think if one is not doing some form of "competition' with their training, they're fooling themselves into believing they are a warrior prepered to fight.
There is no way a 4' 11' female is going to jointlock a pro football player that does not want it done. Standing there, giving his arm, yes. And thats great for learning the jointlock, but to actually be able to have a chance of locking an athletic opponent in a violent incounter, some form of competitive grappling has to be practiced! It's the only safe way to learn how people move, resist earnistly, and fightback!

This is why I don't post much on these forums. People either believe the "reality" they've set up for themselves or they let pride convince them of what they don't need to be training.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 25, 2005)

Dear Bob: 

I don't know if this is going to make any sense or not within the context of what you are saying. I share it only because it has been a teaching challenge to me for years. To say this though I am going to put to one side the idea of a resisting partner, but only for the purposes of my comment, 'kay? 

In my classes and even in the Hapkido club a huge portion of my work is in getting people to do what is necessary to take care of themselves. Even when using target bags and kicking shields it is a long and strong up-hill battle of constant cajoling to get people to hit and kick with any authority. The same goes for the techniques. The hue and cry of the students is "well, I don't want to _hurt_ them!" The battle as I see it, whether the partners is resistant or not is to get people to overcome years of being told to "be nice" and simply do what is necessary to protect themselves. Each week it is all I can do to get students to punch AT their partner instead of just TOWARDS them. In fairness I originally included some resistance work but it was regularly used by the weak in the class to justify that trying to protect themselves was futile against people who were bigger and stronger.  The battle as I see it is one that is fought between the ears and in the heart of the students. I know I do not have this issue but then I have a lot of life-experiences to draw on that the students do not. Most of them are soft and readily avoid adversity in their lives. I think the idea your are presenting is to ask them to run before they can walk, so to speak. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 25, 2005)

Bruce;


> People would rather bring in some new or fancy kind of material like nunchukas from Okinawa or BJJ from South America when what we really need to be doing is changing the way we think about KMA and how we are teaching!!!!!


Good point! But, there are issues I have with HRD's claim to be a complete MA. Now I don't think any art can be truely complete...not enough time in a life! HRD has an excellent stand up (kick-punch) curiculum, and endless amount of self defense tech. (Joint locks, throws, etc), challanging forms (hyungs), and some weapons. The ground game is lacking so at least simular fundementals to say BJJ or trad. jujuitsu should be taught and practiced.  The weapons training can easily be updated while still using traditional principles. "Self defense" style yudo (which I think lacks...)  would benefit greatly from practicing modern judo. Even HRD stand up needs practical appilication training, so why not be using boxing and kick boxing drills along with contact sparring? It's what will make it all work!
I've been lucky enough to have been trained this way from the ground up while learning the traditional HRD at the same time. I think this does go toward training "philosophy" and teaching approach. Thoughts?


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 25, 2005)

> I think the idea your are presenting is to ask them to run before they can walk, so to speak. FWIW.


Not at all! Just the opposite. If you pad up a timid student (with some skills)and put them in the ring (or on the mat) with another padded up student and have them spar full contact, they learn many things but two that are on subject. First that getting hit hard is not the end of the world. second throwing hard blows with agression is fun and thay're not hurting anyone! It will translate to all other martial endevers! I do it with students all the time and I've seen it done at many other schools. 
It is the same with self defense or grappling....whatever. Mock battles and fighting have been part of martial training according to the earliest histories. Why would you deny their validity today?


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 25, 2005)

BTW: it works even better when the instructor "puts on the gloves" and spars with the timid student. I can verbally exite them and get them to get aggressive because they figure out fast they can't hurt me (pads, experience) and they usually will go harder on a authority figure. In turn I can control my end of it so they don't freak out.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 25, 2005)

Dear Bob: 

Please accept my apologies for wanting to go at this at perhaps a maddeningly slow pace. I want to examine something that I think gets glossed-over way too fast in many discussions similar to this. 

"......But, there are issues I have with HRD's claim to be a complete MA...." 

The concern I want to focus on --- and perhaps only for a moment is this bit of your statement. To wit: "complete MA." 

In these discussions the idea of "completeness" always come back to to the number, sophistication and practicality of the material. I never hear people discuss the MANNER in which the material is taught or learned. To make my thought a bit clearer, think about how many people practice Judo and then consider how many people would do 600 push-ups each day as Mifune is reported to have done. The same for Boxers who spend hours working the bag for power, or the Kyokushinkai people who spar full-contact. In Hapkido we make a lot of noises about our arts, but I wonder if the claim to a "complete art" is supported by a culture of hardwork across the system or is a "complete art" only measured by the number of ways a person knows for handling a particular attack?  Thoughts? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 25, 2005)

Sorry, I thought I was talking about method.  Unfortunatly there just is'nt enough time in formal class to do full routines of conditioning. We can do some at begginging of class or have special classes for that but it's really up to the indivdual to train outside of class if they want to be in any kind of fighting shape. We had/have exactly that (extra mat time) for conditioning and to be honest more time is spent on conditioning then learning technique. Of course both can be accomplished drilling pads, sparing, rondori.


> but I wonder if the claim to a "complete art" is supported by a culture of hardwork across the system or is a "complete art" only measured by the number of ways a person knows for handling a particular attack? Thoughts?


I'm talking about haveing a skill set for any possible form of combat and being conditioned to execute.


----------



## iron_ox (Mar 25, 2005)

Bob D. said:
			
		

> OK Kevin, I understand the difference between self defense and sport. I'm not going to get into an argument about why I think if one is not doing some form of "competition' with their training, they're fooling themselves into believing they are a warrior prepered to fight.
> There is no way a 4' 11' female is going to jointlock a pro football player that does not want it done. Standing there, giving his arm, yes. And thats great for learning the jointlock, but to actually be able to have a chance of locking an athletic opponent in a violent incounter, some form of competitive grappling has to be practiced! It's the only safe way to learn how people move, resist earnistly, and fightback!
> 
> This is why I don't post much on these forums. People either believe the "reality" they've set up for themselves or they let pride convince them of what they don't need to be training.



Sorry Bob,

I think you mis-read me - I said "take them off their feet" - but could they joint lock them in a vunerable position - I have no doubt.  Not sure if the last jab is intended for me - but "reality" - I live it everyday here in Chicago ( and practiced it for better than 10 years daily working some of the toughest nightclubs in the country) - and "pride" - can't say my last post had any of that - but again, if that was directed at me specifically, I would just say that one needs to examine their own training and their own "reality".


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 25, 2005)

Kevin, I
Nevermind.


----------



## floweringknight (Mar 25, 2005)

Bob - I totally agree with you on your last point. I usually spare myself with newer (lower rank) students exactly because I can control the tempo, etc, I have seen it happen so many times: 2 beginners going at it. No technique, no control, no form, sloppy, and dangerous. A lot of un-necessary injuries; not to mention bad habits being formed.


----------



## floweringknight (Mar 25, 2005)

Getting back to the original thread....Bob, what have you changed in the original syllubus? What would you change? I'm talking about actual forms, techniques, kick tests, etc.; not necessarily theory at this time. _We_ can revisit that part later; and _we_ will!


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 25, 2005)

So Chris, What is your opinion on the trad. HRD syllabus and the trad. method of teaching it?


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 25, 2005)

We must have posted at the same time. I'm stepping out for awhile. I'll answer you question later today.
Farang, B


----------



## floweringknight (Mar 25, 2005)

Basically, I like the traditional syllabus as is. I do agree that there are gaps in the knowledge base and training curriculum. As Bob stated, the grappling / groundfighting is wanting. As I stated before, I love the fact that there is both _quality and quantity!_ Is the amount of technique overkill? Possibly. But I think that the shear repetition is part of what helps to fully develope and assimilate the techiques; in all their forms and variations. Now as far as teaching methods? That is a tricky one for me, personally. All my masters are so different; their teaching styles, their personalities, even their HRD! I'll have to think on that one.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 25, 2005)

Dear Bob: 

Hmmmm. I think we are teetering around on a very fine point but are both still picking at the same thing. 

Certainly I agree that most of my students don't sign up to spend half their time doing push-ups and sit-ups. And I certainly don't think that even perfect technique makes up for the need to be in decent condition and have a reasonable level of endurance and coordination. And I will even kick into the pot that a "complete MA" needs to have both good technique and good conditioning. The piece that I think is being missed is the manner in which people are conditioned--- say, "motivated"--- to make the sorts of efforts and sacrifices that are necessary to do what the training requires.  This is hard to put into words, but here are a couple of thoughts of what I am working to get at. 

a.) A person who enlists in the military is expected to assume and live the values of the Service. Basic is designed to show a person how to do this. If a person fails to adapt, however, they don't start changing the Basic training Course. 

b.) Having trained in both a Suburban and Urban environment I can tell you that city kids are a lot more motivated to put up with hard training than their Suburban counterparts. The difference seems to be that in the Suburbs if the kids have trouble getting motivated teachers start changing the curriculum. 

c.) Some people like contact sports. Most people don't except as spectators. If you take people who don't like contact and make a non-contact version of the contact sport just for the non-contact people are you still enjoying the same sport? 

d.) Years back people trained in sword. To make things a bit safer they started using padding and sticks instead of real swords. Now we have the sport of Kendo and its getting harder and harder to find the original swordwork. Are we talking about the same activity? 

To tie this off my thought is that we need to figure some way to get people to take the art on its own merits. Hapkido arts are hard to learn, hard to practice and not meant for everyone. Somewhere along the line I think we have to look at how we are conditioning people to think about training not just change out what people might find objectionable.  Thoughts? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 25, 2005)

> what have you changed in the original syllubus? What would you change? I'm talking about actual forms, techniques, kick tests, etc.; not necessarily theory at this time.


Actually I like and still teach the original colored belt material. Think about Bruce's comment about the material seen through begginers eye's. I remember my first three years to blue belt. I thought everything was awesome and at the time (early 80's) was way more sophisticated then the other arts out there. The basic locks taught in baby steps, the 3-step routines all fit at the time (with supplemental focus mit drills, full contact sparring, and basic wrestling). They were new to me and I thought good basic building blocks. 
What I am changing is number count. There is just too much of each set. I would re-organize son mok sul as its a mish-mash of tech. from a static wrist grab.  Organize it acording to how your opponent graps you (palm up or down, bent arm or straight, pulling pushing) or by type of lock. For Il bo dae ryun, insted of 30 different, six is plenty. Just have them do it more, so instead of trying to memorize they actually will build muscle memory and learn timing-distance (which is what its for).
I also start teaching locks from white belt. This is where static grab and cooperating partiner is needed so they can learn a lock without distraction.
Six different wrist lock angles in the static to understand the basic and six self defense tech. - usually emphasizing first an escape, then a stalling or shocking strike, then a simple follow up. 
Then when SMS is introduced they can think more combatively and ad punch block, footwork and more animated attacks.
On a side note, one thing lacking in my early training and most of HRD is falling or rolling naturally from every technique. I used to disagree with what I thought it was from watching Aikido classes and got annoyed that they where just cooperating with each other , never learning to deal with resistance. But if you train both ways it's invauable to learning flow and conditioning.
It is when we get to the geen belt material and above that I see major renovation needed. That should probably be discussed amongst ourselves as its way detailed and complicated.


----------



## lulflo (Mar 25, 2005)

I think that was a very good post Instructor Sims.

I have tried and tried to motivate myself to follow a schedule/program/attitude that promotes my own discipline, but it seems that there are only a few people who actually latch on to the attitude no matter what I say or how I try to motivate them. At least it is not an immediate result. It seems that individuals are truly motivated by example and sometimes peer pressure. It is not easy to maintain a healthy uplifting environment in the school when it is necessary to constantly monitor the students who lack motivation to do their best. I know there are times when my whole self are not in it and that can bring others down too. Is there something that you have found to help/assist/motivate students that can be posted here for my/our enlightenment. I would be very interested, maybe even to start a new thread on it, words of wisdom within the dojang that can keep the "spirit" in the training?

Great post!

Farang - Larry


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 25, 2005)

When I reorganized the Yon Mu Kwan material of GM Myungs' the challenge was to keep the same material but teach it in a process of progression. The single hardest things I found for students was A.) retention and B.) confusion. Even those students who were able to retain the material from belt to belt often had a helluva time keeping the requirements of one belt distinct from the requirements of the next belt whose techniques might be the same but executed in an alternate fashion. Of course this approach is fine for a Confucian teaching model. But it played hell with the Academic approach. What I did was lay out all of the techniques (so to speak) and began to match up techniques which were actuated in the same manner to follow the same progression of development through the belts. The result was that by 1st BB both systems got the student to the same place, but the Academic approach had less confusion and redundance. In fact, while the system I teach still takes about 5 years to get a person to Chodan, the number of ranks is only 6 as compared to the WHF system of 10 gueps.  As I see it the teaching approaches have been modified as follows. 

1.) Each rank has its own premises or concepts. The material for that rank only serves to reinforce the concepts of that rank. 

2.) Succesive ranks like wise contain material that only reinforces the concepts at that rank AND build directly on the material of the previous ranks. 

3.) The progress for one rank to the next rank is both logical AND intuitive. 

4.) Techniques are "named" not "numbered" and the names of the techniques either help identify the concepts one is learning and/or the manner in which the technique is executed. 

5.) Students are heartily encouraged to discuss and "teach each other" rather than just use each other for a "crash-dummy". They are encouraged to negotiate how much authority they want to use, and to give feedback when the technique is not producing the intended result. 

6.) Students are encouraged to identify the manner of execution that feels the best for them. By this I mean that unless their execution is blatantly at odds with the intention of the technique a student needs to be doing the technique in a way that feels natural and not contrived. FWIW.  Thoughts? 

BTW: My curriculum is published on my website at 

www.midwesthapkido.com 

if you want to see the result. Of course I am still working on the BB material. This project (called the DOCHANG JOURNAL Project) has only been going on since 1991. Consider it a labor of Love  :asian: 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 25, 2005)

> a.) A person who enlists in the military is expected to assume and live the values of the Service. Basic is designed to show a person how to do this. If a person fails to adapt, however, they don't start changing the Basic training Course.


No, but they do constantly update and optimize! But Military basic is not the same as voluntary martial arts training. 
We have all tossed around the idea of two separate curriculums; one for kids, weekend warriors, hobbiest, etc. and one for the serious, willing to sacrafice, completist that will  not need outside motivation. Hard to make work though.


> b.) Having trained in both a Suburban and Urban environment I can tell you that city kids are a lot more motivated to put up with hard training than their Suburban counterparts. The difference seems to be that in the Suburbs if the kids have trouble getting motivated teachers start changing the curriculum.


Yes, that is the wrong approach but whats wrong with adding to curriculum? If students are doing the same routine class after class they'll die of boredom before loosing motivation. I can honestly say I never got bored in a HRD class, there is too much different material to work on.  I was bored stiff in a trad Hapkido class after 4 monthes of basically the same class night after night. (Certianly the teachers fault, not the art). If a student is not motivated then either they just don't want to be there or the teacher should adjust their own energy and maybe emphasize something different for awhile. Modern attention span!!! 
(





> c.) Some people like contact sports. Most people don't except as spectators. If you take people who don't like contact and make a non-contact version of the contact sport just for the non-contact people are you still enjoying the same sport?


I feel you still have an issue with contact, sparring, or grappling with another person. You keep catagorizing these forms of training as "sport" and somehow different then real martial art. I think it an essential part of any martial training and martial arts. So we'll agree to disagree.


> d.) Years back people trained in sword. To make things a bit safer they started using padding and sticks instead of real swords. Now we have the sport of Kendo and its getting harder and harder to find the original swordwork. Are we talking about the same activity?


I won't argue that most Kendo is a far cry from practical sword combat. But again, if your training your hyung and repitition drills with proper form, angle and power you still need to experience sparring. To feel the power of a cut blocked or not. To learn distance and timing. There is no other way.


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 25, 2005)

Bruce, Your "reorganization" is exactly what I think we are after and to some extent the Phoenix group has done under KJN Corona. 
Where a technique or group of tecniques fit in the system is a notch more important then filling in gaps in content. I will be checking out you site!


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 25, 2005)

Dear Bob: 

Your comment about splitting the curriculum between the "so-so" practitioners and the "hardcore" is something that I have seen a couple of times. I suppose to some extent one could make an arguement along these lines for the TaeSooDo of GM Lee as a supplement to the HwaRangDo, yes? The only experience I can speak to was my efforts to do that with my own students. My private students were schooled the "old-fashion" way and the students I teach at the college got the benefit of the newer academic approach. The trouble came in when I tried to interface the two. Those who had been trained the "old fashion" way copped an attitude, and saw themselves as somewhat above ("elite") the college campus group. I think the science was right, but the experiment was a dismal failure.  Thoughts? 

As far as the "contact"-"Sport" issue, I just plain don't know what to say. Its all pretty predictable to me. Take a trained person against a larger trained person and the larger trained person is going to win. "Can" the smaller person win? Sure but consider the amount of training, time and resources one will need to produce a person who can triumph over a more powerful opponent. How many people not in competition are going to make that sort of commitment?  And for how long does that status last? 

I guess the long and the short of it is the word "appropriate."
After all is said and done I see the sort of "contact" training as a kind of niche' activity. Maybe people should be aspiring to it. Maybe some people DO aspire to it. Maybe it has a purpose for Mr. Joe Average. I just don't know. What I seem to run into over and over again in any discussions that come back to that kind of training is a lot of issues about winning/losing, power and control and not a little narcissism (image). Maybe some of that filters into Hapkido, but I don't think in the way I see it pitched by its advocates. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 25, 2005)

> After all is said and done I see the sort of "contact" training as a kind of niche' activity. Maybe people should be aspiring to it. Maybe some people DO aspire to it. Maybe it has a purpose for Mr. Joe Average. I just don't know. What I seem to run into over and over again in any discussions that come back to that kind of training is a lot of issues about winning/losing, power and control and not a little narcissism (image). Maybe some of that filters into Hapkido, but I don't think in the way I see it pitched by its advocates. FWIW.


IT's funny, but it seems like those who don't spar or rondori are the same who won't hear or acknowledge the benefit or necessity of it. 
The "winning/losing, power and control and not a little narcissism" sound like personal problems or maybe the object for some, but it has nothing to do with the purpose I'm talking about. The fight is with yourself, it's about composure, heart, conditioning, calm under stress, focus, flow, relaxation, stratagy, all of these are best tested with someone trying to knock your socks off. To me it's so simple a point I don't see how one could not understand the necessity of Mock fighting, sparring or whatever you want to call it in order to learn to fight. 
In fact I'll stand by this; There never has been or will ever be a "master" of martial arts that has not spent considerable time at some point in his career training technique against an opponent in some form of "competition" (for lack of a better word). 
Besides having nothing to do with what's being talked about, your conversation about it has nothing to do with what I'm refering to. Who ever brought up sport competition or tournament?


----------



## Paul B (Mar 25, 2005)

Bob D. said:
			
		

> To me it's so simple a point I don't see how one could not understand the necessity of Mock fighting, sparring or whatever you want to call it in order to learn to fight.


Traditional HRD doesn't do this now? 

I agree fully that w/o this kind of practice,certain valueable insights into your technique will never be realized. I am a staunch advocate for this kind of training. "Freestyle" may not the best for absolute newbies,but after the basics of technique are learned and if the introduction is gradual,I think it is a true gauge of where your understanding is at.


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 25, 2005)

Paul, WHRDA as far as I know only does inner school point type sparring. I couldn't say for sure what they do now. I doubt anything has changed though.      B


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 25, 2005)

Dear Bob: 

I know what you are saying and I have to admit that within the context of the society that we have, I suspect that your position may, quite rightly, be the wave of the future. I think, for myself, there is a point at which I simply will not accept some substitute activity for the intention upon which the original Korean MA were built. This is not simple romanticism. There is a very handy simile' that I can draw on. 

Right now, as I write this there are people in Germany who join Country-and-Western groups, dress-up in costumes of the American Old West and even practice quick-draw competitions. A person who might have actually grown-up on a Wyoming cattle ranch would have a tough time accepting the authenticity of this behavior though I am sure there is a social place for it. 

In like manner, when I train in KMA the thought process in my mind draws its strength from my own experience at war and no matter how much I might roll-around on the ground with someone as in BJJ, or put on armour and hit another with a stick as in Kendo, or cut a target with a sword as in Kum-Bup, there is nothing that these substitutions-for-the-reality-of-warfare can offer me. Its not a very sophisticated thought process, I confess. I was raised in an American culture predicated on Illusions. I spent two and a half years in an environment which operated with practically no illusions at all (despite the best efforts of our governmental agencies to impose some). I came back to the States and was given a choice to resume the life of living illusions or to accept that my value system had been irreversibly altered for all-time. 

The only reason that I thought I would take time to share this with you is that I have been part of so many of these "real combat" discussions and must confess that each and everytime I have done my best to respectfully regard the positions of people who would believe that what they are offering is in any way akin to a martial experience. For my part all I see are people doing their level best to approximate what they "think" it must be like to fight for ones' life--- without actually having to do just that. On the other hand, as many times as I invite people to talk about real change-- the real battle that goes on between ones' ears in the conflict between how one sees Life and how it truely is, I have been lucky to find no more than a handful of exchanges before people move on to something a bit more entertaining and a little less scarey to contemplate. 

I think I understand what you are working to do and I wish you ever success, but the fact is that what you have to offer--- at least to me--- has no attraction.  FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 25, 2005)

Bruce, As usual you don't/won't get what I'm talking about. We've been here before and it seems you refuse to see what is written and reply on a different tangent. I don't see how a student will ever learn movement, timing, and distance without facing an opponent doing the same.  How does one condition the body for the stress and speed of a fight without doing it? How does one train the mind to stay calm, focused and determined without ever experiencing a fight? There is no other way to accomplish the above without some form of sparring during training. If you have some secret alternative please share?
BTW I never implied it would be the same as "real combat"
Further you don't know who I am, what I've done or what I have to offer so your comment is meaningless. Do you even realize how elitist your last comment sounds? It's silly!


Edited By me!


----------



## floweringknight (Mar 25, 2005)

"Techniques are "named" not "numbered" and the names of the techniques either help identify the concepts one is learning and/or the manner in which the technique is executed."

One of the advantages that I have found in having techniques numbered is this: In learning, by knowing there are say 30 techniques in a set, I make sure I am learning and remembering them all. In teaching, I want to make sure that I am teaching ALL the techniques I learned originally. The numbers themselves serve as merely a crutch. A crutch to facilitate learning and teaching; making sure the full body of knowledge is being passed on in its entirety. However, we do have names for them as well (most) which does make initial learning and recall easier. Both sides of the coin, if you will.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 25, 2005)

*Mod. Note. 
  Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

  -Georgia Ketchmark
  -MartialTalk
 -Sr. Moderator*


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 25, 2005)

Dear Bob: 

Oddly enough I know exactly what you are talking about. You are simply speaking to someone who is not interested in what it is that you have to sell, thats all. Nothing personal. It doesn't make you wrong, or me right. The only thing I could possibly add to what I have said already is that your inability to accept that someone might not accept what you have to offer does seem to bespeak a kind of intolerance. I wouldn't even mention this except that I have seen this behavior pattern so many times in the past that it is becoming predictable. 

The conversation starts with an innocuous enough comment such as the bit about a syllabus here. Then, somebody responds. The next step is that the theme of contact comes out and if somebody does not accept the "obvious" benefit of doing "contact" the sort of exchange we have had follows. It will not matter what rationale I offer or explanation I give, Bob. You have already made-up your mind that what you have to offer is the answer so we are not actually going to have a discussion as much as I will provide you with a foil against which to advertise your views. Along the way there are the inevitable opportunities to tell me that I can't be a "real martial artist" unless I accept your solution and that I must be "elitist" since only an irrational "elitist" could fail to accept and reflect the "obvious" correctness of your position. 

Now, since this is a "martial" Net which focuses on "martial arts" I suppose it remains for you to explain how what it is that you are planning to add to a HRD curriculum will improve the process by which a person adopts an attitude of service for, and deference to, his community and does not just become a better fighter. Thoughts? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 25, 2005)

Bruce, If you took a vote on who has a past writing with intolerance you would win. I have nothing more to say to you as you can't seem to have a civil conversation without twisting things to your agenda. Thank you very much, B
And no, apparently you don't have a clue what I'm talking about as your comments keep proving.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 26, 2005)

"....However, we do have names for them as well (most) which does make initial learning and recall easier. Both sides of the coin, if you will...." 

Do you use both Korean and English or one or the other? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Paul B (Mar 26, 2005)

Bob: I noticed before you said "point style sparring"...Is that just kicks and punches,no locks or throws?


Bruce: I am really curious about your take on "freestyle". I can understand your veiwpoint (kinda,not being a vet myself) on it "not being the same"...but do you think it offers nothing as way of "feedback"?

I am talking about a...sorry..."Aiki" style randori. Pre-selected attacks at the beginning,the lines between thrower and throwee get blurred later on as more resistance is added. I do see the problem about holding back on techniques that are meant to break,but I think that comes with the "if you break your partner,you don't get another one" philosophy we hold to while practicing regularly. 

Let me just state that I am not talking about a points style match. It's meant to be a flowing excercise and to help people with making appropriate decisions regarding technique and movement. I personally think it helps by raising the stress level a bit,so one has just a taste of making decisions in real time.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 27, 2005)

Dear Paul: 

If what I am understanding you to decribe is anywhere accurate, there is a tradition of such training across the martial arts of China, Japan and Korea and there continue to be artifacts of such past practices still found today. The first bit that pops to mind are the "Push Hands" activities still found in Tai Chi. Likewise there are a number of "give-and-take" drills done by such established traditions as the Tesshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu sword people. The second half of the Kwon Bup Chapter of the MYTBTJ is likewise paired work as are the two-man kata of Judo, Aikido and Shorinji Kempo. On a more informal note I have participated in "flow-drills" with partners and can encourage those activities for the spontaneity it brings to the response or "problem-solving" one might need in using their material. The use of these drills would not require any "adding-to" an existing curriculum as they are simply a varied way of practicing material and might easily fall under the category of "multi-step sparring" (as compared to the better-known "one-step"). In such activities resistance, speed, contact, authority and finish are all negotiated to stress insight and awareness. Competition and intensity are viewed as counter-productive. 

There are times when I write responses that my beliefs may not come across clearly so it never hurts to occasionally state it flat-out. I don't have a problem with change in the Korean MA, but I believe that it should very much be the rare exception and ONLY after existing material already known to the arts has been learned, examined and found lacking. I cannot see introducing material from outside the KMA when practices and material from INSIDE the KMA has not first been used and mastered.  FWIW. 

BTW: Since I know that you have a background in Hapkido arts, such "flow-drills" are often a part of "transitions" training which in the kwan to which I belong occur about 2nd BB. A transition is a technique whose foundation is the failure of the previous technique and is vary often confused with "counters" training often with disasterous results to the technique and confidence of the practitioner. One "flow-drill" with which I am familiar requires a trading back and forth of techniques with each practiioner exploiting the "failure" of the others' technique. Building on this a partner can do the same thing trading transitions back and forth but it requires a bit higher level of sophistication so as to make sure one can keep track of who is doing what and to whom.  

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 27, 2005)

Hi Paul, WHRDA had "point sparring" which was basically kick-punch. I never really participated at the schools where this was practiced. They also do one step as well as three step "sparring" which as you probably know is choreagraphed attack-response sets. Advanced students would on rare occasions practice joint manipulation flow drills in a very relaxed, non-resistive form. If you would like to know more about methods we use (non WHRDA) and types of rondori or sparring we should start another thread on the subject.

 HRD is an art that is entirely the creation of one Korean man who put together elements of Chinese Paqua-Chin NA, Japanese DRAJJ, Possably Shotokan, Korean Taekyon, (and just possibley some form of martial practice from Korean Buddhist monk???). So, with precedent, my instructors and the group I currently train/teach with have alway used usefull techniques, drills, theories, whatever from other sources to inhance our art. To us HRD is not some historical doctrine to be maintained unchanged. Dressing up for historical reinactment is great to honor those that came before but is a very small portion of what we're about. We are doing nothing the founder didn't do in regards to shaping the art to fit our needs/concerns. Actually we go further in trying to make learning more effecient (faster/easier), to make the syllabus more "well rounded" (ground work, etc.) and to modernize (latest fitness/training/equipment). There are no limitations. We (most) still maintain the "Base" art as a standard. But it changes and grows and as you can see from other instructors posts, we're careful that nothing is lost. I and most of the people I train with directly are/have been either police officers, bodyguards or active military. We use our training or train people that do on a daily basis, so keeping "up to date" and drawing from different sources is a valuable asset.


----------



## Paul B (Mar 27, 2005)

Good stuff,guys!

The reason that this really piqued my interest is that at the recent Arnold Classic in Ohio,I was privy to see some well known Hapkido masters sit down and try to come up with a way to introduce Hapkido "sparring" in a competition setting. 

The common theme that abounded was one of concern for safety and the resulting effect on people's training for competition exclusively. One can readily see the effect on some Judoka training exclusively for shiai,and the resulting neglect of material contained in the Kata,which are where the "essence" of Judo lies,IMO. While this may not be the best comparison,I think you get my drift.

So the hard part is,to me....How do you practice in,or for, competition w/o losing sight of your original goals as a martial artist? The resulting effect would have to be a kind of watering down for public consumption,to attract more people to the art. Which is really what this is all about,ne?

I think it may be more beneficial for following the "flow drill" or problem solving approach where control of technique and proper usage are used as a kind of "point system",than to have an all out free-for-all,where if I can touch you,I get a point. Thoughts?

The reason I ask is because this is going to happen,one way or the other. When it does,I think it would be in all our best interests to really take a long,deep look and ask ourselves what effect this is going to have on our prospective Arts. Thanks guys.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 27, 2005)

Dear Paul: 

".....The reason I ask is because this is going to happen,one way or the other. When it does,I think it would be in all our best interests to really take a long,deep look and ask ourselves what effect this is going to have on our prospective Arts. ....." 

Yes, it may happen. It does not have to happen but it may. I think the question is what we want to do about our responsibility to the arts we have inherited. 

Lets look at your point about Judo. With its acceptance to the Olympics people began to shy away from groundwork since groundwork and chokes were not allowed in Olympic competition. Those kata and waza are going harder and harder to find. And remember Judo was a subset of at least three forms of Ju-jutsu and THOSE are getting harder to find. 

Lets look at Kumdo. 90% of the people who practice Kumdo are essentially training in Kendo-- for competition. Its getting harder and harder to find the original Korean traditional sword but then you can't compete in that except by virtue of kata. 

Lets look at TKD and TSD. Neither of these was ever much more than a martial sport. When people wanted to make it more of a martial art they drew on Japanese tradition and its harder and harder to find people who still train in Kwon Bup, Ship Pal Gwe, Kyong Dang and so forth. 

Now if what we are talking about is just learning to fight competitively there are plenty of activities where a person can learn this. Why do we need to corrupt a Korean art and bend it around to the American way of thinking? This thread started with the idea of changing a curriculum. My response was why not learn to use the Korean material in some better way. We have been entrusted with an artifact of a culture and I don't hear anyone making a case for the Wol-do, Chang bong, or hyup-do. All I am hearing is that so-&-so art doesn't seem to be good as it is for competition. Makes sense. It was never intended for competition.  Why is suddenly important to take something that was not intended for competition and alter it for a use for which it was not intended? Money? Prestige? Adulation? Power? Why not just go learn BJJ. Thats what that activity is all about. Its not like anyone is considering whether or not these changes will impact the cultural underpinnings of the art, are they? Thoughts? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 27, 2005)

Paul:





> So the hard part is,to me....How do you practice in,or for, competition w/o losing sight of your original goals as a martial artist? The resulting effect would have to be a kind of watering down for public consumption,to attract more people to the art. Which is really what this is all about,ne?


First, can I address the whole "competition" word being thrown around here? 
I don't utilize sparring, grapplin, rondori for "Competition", never have. I utilize them for what you seem to be after. 
The issue of how to get practical training of Hapkido type techniques without maiming each other has always been of concern to our group. What we've come up with is in part along the lines you've suggested. After a certian level of proficeincy in joint locks/throws the flow drills are introduced. The opponent simpley allows the transitions to happen but does not move unless made to do so. He's not resisting but also not going with it without proper technique being used. It's the opponent job to provide feedback so the student can correct until seemless transitions with good mechanics, posture, balance are achieved. 
The second part of the process is more spontanious, dangerous and combative. I purposfully use the word "combative" as opposed to "competitive" as the participants are aware of the differences. Winning or loseing is not an issue as far as a result of the training goes. 
It is somewhat "freestyle" but both know how far to take things and are hyper aware of their opponents reactions. Of course full vibration or shock to the Joint still cannot be used but it's the closest we've been able to get. We generally use cup, mouth piece as contact is full speed (and may use NHB type glove). The key is, it is inner circle students who know each other and ego or outcome are not part of the mindset. If one finds themselve in an obviously correct lock or submission they immeadiatly tap and start again on their own. Its about the process and the learning, thats it. Injuries, knockouts have happened but everyone has always walked away without anything serious. Cardio conditioning is a must as you'll find out. You can do "rounds" or just go until you've both had enough. I like round robins to experience a different partner every 4-5 minutes. Again feedback is very important to the process. You can stipulate that only traditional techniques may be used or not. Trust, obviously is a factor. Oh, and a third person watching is also recommended for further safety.
It may not be for you but it works for us until something better.


----------



## Paul B (Mar 27, 2005)

Bob D. said:
			
		

> The issue of how to get practical training of Hapkido type techniques without maiming each other has always been of concern to our group.


It sounds like you have a good group,Bob.



> Its about the process and the learning


So you don't plan on having HRD tourney's or competing in open events? That's how I use the word competition,meaning participating in tournaments. The whole "winning and losing" thing. I think if it's something that you do in your own class or group for personal growth,more power to you.



> I like round robins


Me too! Sounds like we share some terminology...cool.



> You can stipulate that only traditional techniques may be used or not


Would you mind explaining this statement? It has been recently pointed out to me that maybe if I think I need to go outside the system,I'm just not looking hard enough at the principles of what I'm doing. I thought it was excellent advice.:asian:


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 27, 2005)

> So you don't plan on having HRD tourney's or competing in open events? That's how I use the word competition,meaning participating in tournaments. The whole "winning and losing" thing. I think if it's something that you do in your own class or group for personal growth,more power to you.


No, Not my bag. I would certianly encourage younger stundents to participate in those events. In my 20's I trained fullcontact kickboxing within my school twice a week as well as outside with the guys I worked with. A few of them where pros on the WKA/PKA circut, Ted Anderson, Mark Costello, Ricky Ocane. During the latter part of that time I was focused on bodyguard work and geared my training toward that. I still try and spar once or twice a week to stay sharp and work on different movements and set ups.





> Would you mind explaining this statement? It has been recently pointed out to me that maybe if I think I need to go outside the system,I'm just not looking hard enough at the principles of what I'm doing. I thought it was excellent advice


Well, 1. Are the principles sound and how do you know? 
2. as has been suggested by someone else earlier, no system is really complete. So how do you know if there is not a better way to do something if your stuck within the limits of you teacher/style? (Your teacher may be exceptional, I don't know)
Sure, you could explore it for another 8 - 10 years and maybe figure it out. Or maybe your lucky enough to have an instructor  that can spell it out so you can learn it in this lifetime. 
I've worked with many master instructors from many different arts and while most are great at what they know, few can teach it effeciently. Fewer have that elusive ability to do technique with a subtlety and power that make it seem magical. There is an instructor in San Diego that has that ability and is able to teach it, John Clodig. He moves me across the mat with these principles and makes it look like he's out for a walk in the park. I don't see or feel his locks until I'm already on my way down to the mat. The more I fight it the worse it is of course. The actual techniques (joint locks) are really not whats important in what he does, it's in the body mechanics and "key moves" as he calls them.  It took him 30 years or so to get and be able to use them but he has developed a way he can teach it to an already advanced student in a relatively short time. His less experienced (less traditional backround) students are able to work on these concepts while learning their system, so they'll be that much further ahead of the curve as they advance. Sorry, side tracked. 
I think doing both would be most beneficial as stated. If the principle is sound, I don't think it matters where it comes from.


----------



## Paul B (Mar 27, 2005)

Good stuff,Bob. I agree,principles are what's important. Some people may know how to be able to show them,and some may only know that the technique works because their body mechanics have made it work *for them*. 

I have been extremely lucky in my studies to have come across a few teachers who have pointed these things out to me. For myself...I still have a looong way to go.

I wish you the greatest of luck with your study. It sounds like you have a great outlook on the MA,and the best of intentions regarding your students. It's been a pleasure conversing with you.


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 27, 2005)

> ...I still have a looong way to go.


Ha, don't we all!     Good luck in your training/teaching!    Bob


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 27, 2005)

Paul, I was meaning to ask, Do you currently do some sort of Hapkido competition? How is it done?
Also how long have you been in the arts? Just Hapkido?
Just curious what your up to as it seems Hapkido around the country  has differing curriculums.
regards, Bob


----------



## Paul B (Mar 27, 2005)

Bob,

The competition we do is more of a freestyle excercise as I described before. However,the recent additions to the Hapkido division at the Arnold make it look like we (as an Org)will be trying out some sparring in a competition setting. I am really not sure how that will go yet,as it is very much a work in progress. There is a ton of work ahead,but hopefully it will be for the better.

I have been studying MA for a tad under a decade,*Jeesh,time flies huh?* and exclusively Hapkido now for 4 yrs. Chodan. I know...still very much a newbie.


----------



## Mithios (Mar 27, 2005)

Interesting thread! The Shudokan (Tomiki) Aikido people have a sparring and randori program, and what your talking about sounds close to that. maybe you could get some more ideas from that?

Mithios


----------



## lulflo (Mar 28, 2005)

I don't know that I have enough information to draw from (four and a half years), but in my experience so far, it has been beneficial to learn the whole syllabus and then add to it. For instance, instead of the same follow up for each technique, change it up to have many different scenarios to finish with. Also with Kwon bop, instead of the same strike after the initial combination of movement, I have been given alternate strikes (instead of back fist and punch, add outside knife hand and spear hand). I don't think it is changing the curriculum per se, just enhancing and mixing it up to cover more ground. I know the other strikes already, its just putting them into the mix to ADD to the information that is already there. 

I have also noticed that there is not that much information on grappling yet, and that is something that I believe should be implemented much earlier as well. Again, I would not want to remove anything from the art, but to add as an additional fighting distance. I have learned the idea of fighting distances, gun, bow and arrow, staff, sword, shorter weapons like dan bong(sp?) and then kicks and punches, then joint manipulation and throws. But what happens next, when the "clinch" takes place and the inside fighting begins. A little wrestling background will get you somewhere, but not that far as you try to keep from getting pinned on your back. I need to be comfortable on my back and be able to stop punches and arm bars, etc. 

I am part of the philosophy that everything I know is not better or worse, it is in addition to everything you know, likewise, everything you know is information that I want to know, not better or worse, just more information. In fact even information that is not good, is really good, because now I know that I shouldn't do this or that. I hope I am making sense. 

So my conclusion in all of this is that I will teach all of the Traditional HRD that I have learned and I will also supplement it with More information that I have learned. I think that was the way HRD came about, wasn't it?

Farang - Larry O'Day


----------



## floweringknight (Mar 28, 2005)

Larry - You are correct that the Art itself, must continue to evolve. Remember, one day you will be teaching _Larry-HRD_. It will still be the same art that your teachers are teaching you now; it will merely be reflecting your personality. As you grow; so does your "way". Think about the HRD you are learning from your teachers; and how different each of their "way(s)" is?...Sometimes it doesn't even seem like the same art. Yet, upon further investigation and deeper understanding, they wind up in the same exact place! 

I do agree with you to some extent. A majority of the grappling / ground fighting "basics" are addressed in the Black Belt ranks, and I concure this is much later than it should be. What rank would you add ground fighting to?


----------



## floweringknight (Mar 28, 2005)

Bob - I have gathered from your posts here that your main "beef" with the syllabus is the "how" of it; as opposed to the "what" of it. In other words, you agree basically with the material, but have concerns regarding _how_ it is being (has been) taught. Is this generally correct? Just trying to understand.


----------



## lulflo (Mar 29, 2005)

SBN Bailey - A thought had occured that perhaps some of the defensive grappling should be taught before purple belt - since most of the techniques up to that point are "defense from" techniques. Then at purple belt, more of the offensive applications of grappling. I would say white belt would be a good place to learn the mount and the guard with respect to positioning of the body and limbs, etc. Then graduate a little bit in orange belt to understand how to change positions from the mount to the guard and vice versa so one could gain an understanding of the need to feel the energy of the opponent(which would flow right into yellow belt for techiques too) and also learn breath control - it is tough to grapple for a long time without learning how to control the breath, I know the importance of this part all too well . Yellow belt could incorporate some of the defenses after a joint lock so there is a way to continue defending after the flip fall, roll, etc. 

 I am not any kind of authority on grappling, so I can not go much further than this. Again, I would never want to take anything away from this art, but would love to be able to bring more together for everyone's enlightenment. 

    Farang - Larry


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 29, 2005)

Dear Luflo: 

"......A thought had occured that perhaps some of the defensive grappling should be taught before purple belt - since most of the techniques up to that point are "defense from" techniques. Then at purple belt, more of the offensive applications of grappling. I would say white belt would be a good place to learn the mount and the guard with respect to positioning of the body and limbs, etc. Then graduate a little bit in orange belt to understand how to change positions from the mount to the guard and vice versa so one could gain an understanding of the need to feel the energy of the opponent(which would flow right into yellow belt for techiques too) and also learn breath control - it is tough to grapple for a long time without learning how to control the breath, I know the importance of this part all too well . Yellow belt could incorporate some of the defenses after a joint lock so there is a way to continue defending after the flip fall, roll, etc....." 

I cited such a large piece because it covers a good-sized chunck of a curriculum. I can see a lot of references to how material from outside of HRD (in this case) could be added.  What I DON'T see are any references to the groundwork taught in HRD itself. Hapkido arts have groundwork, though not all that much. How come there are no references to any of the HRD groundwork as it might relate to the things you would add from someplace else? Thoughts? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## lulflo (Mar 29, 2005)

Hello Mr Sims. - I understand that there is some groundwork in HRD, but it is very limited at this point (red sash). I am under the impression that grappling/ground fighting is something that I will have to look forward to in the realm of black belt. I am curious though, what groundwork are you specifically referring to? I don't know of any specific criteria within the color belts that directly relates to a grappling situation. I would like to find something to add to the criteria that can be performed in a testing environment, so any insight you can provide will be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your comments!

   Farang - Larry


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 29, 2005)

Dear Luflo: 

In the Kwan to which I belong a person can be introduced to groundwork anywhere along the curriculum. A person is actually responsible for demonstrating prowess in groundwork during 3rd dan as preparation for 4th dan. This is the time that a person is also responsible for cane, so the positions are related to that cane work, plus without the cane. These situation are called "Positions of Disadvantage" and include all sorts of grabs, kneeling positions, supine and recumbant positions and so forth.  Since we are talking about HRD here, if you look at Chpater 9 of Joo Bang Lees' (HRD Vol 2) you will see material very much like that which we would do in YMK Hapkido. As I say, don't expect to see tons and tons of material but I think you will recognize some things that look a lot like the BJJ stuff. As I say, I don't have a problem with people introducing groundwork, since it is already in the curriculum. But I would hope folks would learn the Korean material first and use THAT as a foundation for maybe adding things (or polishing things) later on. Does this make sense? 

BTW: Since I am not a HRD practitioner I am at a disadvantage about where this ground material comes into that curriculum. I looked at the HRD students manual and saw some references to techniques done from a "seated position" but no specific references to "Positions of Disadvantage". Thats not to say that the book is outdated, that the print is small and I might have missed it, or that the curriculum has been revised in some way.  FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 29, 2005)

Mr. Sims, might I inquire which volume you have?  Is that the book with the orange cover or the red cover?


----------



## floweringknight (Mar 29, 2005)

Larry - I agree with you. The logic behind the introduction and progression is sound as well. One of my concerns is this: There is already SO MUCH knowledge in this art, sometimes it is overwhelming. I'm sure you have experienced this before. I know I have. In addition, yellow belt is VERY difficult as is. Maybe more grappling in orange belt; maybe a lot more. Hmmmm. 

Bruce - There is ground fighting in this art, but very limited. There are techniques for defense from a sitting position, laying down (on back), from being mounted, side headlock, etc. My problem, and I think this is part of what Bob is alluding to: These are great techniques, but they don't help to teach the "flow" of a ground fight very well. I mean the few moments leading up to a particular technique being utilized; the "set-up" if you will. Thoughts?


----------



## floweringknight (Mar 29, 2005)

Bruce - That would be the red book I believe. These techniques are part of the core for 2nd degree BB. Along with the other disadvantaged positions / situations are  defense with only one hand, defense against multiple opponents and empty hand defense against weapons, among others. Have you seen the orange book? It is awesome and highly recommended.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 29, 2005)

It could also be duely noted that those three volumes DO NOT contain the entire HRD syllabus.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 29, 2005)

My apologies to everyone. I am usually such a stickler about providing citations and I missed it completely. 

The book I am referencing is "The Ancient martial Art of Hwa Rang Do" (vol 2) by Joo Bang Lee (ISBN: 0-89750-066-0). Chapter 9 starts on pg 115. 

The other campanion books are the first volume (ISBN 0-89750-023-5)
and volume 3 (ISBN 0-89750-070-9). 

Since these are copyrighted with a publishing date of 1979 I am dating myself a bit. And SHESULA is correct that these were not meant to be exhaustive catalogs of all HRD techniques. Once again let me say that I share this only because I think that a starting point for this sort of material needs to start with an understanding of this material and then move forward to additional material if thats what people want. 

BTW: Note to SHESULA: 

One thing I never see discussed is how female students might feel about such intense contact with males on the mat. I can't imagine that mature women would have much of a problem but I wonder if younger women, perhaps even adolescents might be a bit uncomfortable with many of the straddling positions. Do you ever consider this when you are training?  Have women commented about this issue to you?  Are there things that could be recommended to make this sort of work more ammenable to young ladies?  Thoughts?  Comments? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 29, 2005)

Dear Floweringknight: 

"....My problem, and I think this is part of what Bob is alluding to: These are great techniques, but they don't help to teach the "flow" of a ground fight very well. I mean the few moments leading up to a particular technique being utilized; the "set-up" if you will. Thoughts?...." 

EXACTLY!!!  This is why I took the position that I did from the start. As I see it the problem is rarely an issue with WHAT is being taught, but HOW it is being taught. Therefore the "change" that I see that needs to be discussed in ANY curriculum (not just HRD) are the *intentions, or priorities or goals of the TEACHER and not always go straight to the material*. In this way, then, there are Positions of Disadvantage already in HRD. The students need to learn these positions for the art, thats true, but maybe we have better ways of teaching these positions and THATS what needs to be looked at. Then, after a person has learned these techniques, if they choose to go on and learn a lot more for themselves they have the foundation for integrating what they learn somewhere else back into the HRD material and make the art better. What I am against is someone looking at the HRD material and judging that "this sucks" and simply going out and bringing in material from somewhere else that is thought better. I have seen exactly this same thing happen with all sorts of Korean material such as weaponry, philosophy, history and all it guarentees is that the original Korean material is disappearing in deference to whatever the current fad is. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 29, 2005)

glad2bhere said:
			
		

> One thing I never see discussed is how female students might feel about such intense contact with males on the mat. I can't imagine that mature women would have much of a problem but I wonder if younger women, perhaps even adolescents might be a bit uncomfortable with many of the straddling positions. Do you ever consider this when you are training? Have women commented about this issue to you? Are there things that could be recommended to make this sort of work more ammenable to young ladies?


 No one here is forced to do anything they're not willing or 'ready' to do. There have been a couple of females that just did not have an interest in grappling - and that's all they would say. Of course, there could be several underlying reasons, such as plain old shyness, trepidation about co-ed grappling, even ANY personal contact, even with other females, also a history.

 I should interject here that my instructor has been and continues to be EXCEPTIONAL when it comes to training females.  He is very compassionate and knows how and when and where to push and when to stop.  That said ....

 There are not many women in HRD and fewer that go on to black. I'm not an experienced instructor of adults, but as a female, I'd have to say that whenever a female (or any student, for that matter) shys away from a particular training activiy, it's up to the instructor to find work-arounds. Perhaps have young women train with each other and talk to them privately about how they feel about co-ed floorwork (or whatever it is they fear). For their introduction to co-ed training with this kind of contact, I imagine working with a careful, compassionate and experienced male would probably be a good thing.

 But therein lies another problem. Lots of guys just plain old don't want to train with girls/women. And as someone who is no longer a young hottie but, rather, a middle-aged warmie, there can be no facilitation of a female's training nor can she get a whole lot better, until those young male pups are willing to give up the training time to train with them from the attitude that THEY ARE TRAINING WITH ANOTHER STUDENT - no more, no less. Care and consideration should be taken by both parties as to sensitive areas of the anatomy because we do not wish to injure our fellow students and training partners. 

 I think ground game is even more important for women (and I say this knowing I have a need to work on this more) from a self-defense perspective and, perhaps if it is approached as such, AND it were introduced earlier in training, it might become more appealing to females and co-ed training more acceptable for the males.

  Just my humble .02.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 29, 2005)

Dear Shesule: 

What a great post. I don't know how much to make of this except to say that I wish it were discussed more often on these Nets. In fact I would go so far as to say that maybe women training in the Ma deserves an area of its own. The only downside would be, as you say, some discomfort about raising personal issues in a public forum. My first experience was a rather bad one, in that among the first classes I ever participated in the teacher dealt with everybody with the same heavy hand. There were probably a lot of students who might have gotten a lot out of the training but didn't feel as though their feelings were being respected. I think there are a lot of places in training that would get more emphasis except that most teachers have a bit too much pride to admit that they could use some in-put about how to handle certain situations. I know I will probably get some static here but the fact of the matter is that men and women have different needs when training--- certainly at least when they are starting out. Maybe one of these days we can get a thread going on this.  FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 29, 2005)

Mr. Sims et al, there are existing threads on the topic of coed grappling, coed study, training women specifically in various other forums here on MartialTalk.  There is a forum here called Women in the Martial Arts.  You'll find some topics in there interesting; there are other threads in the General Self Defense forum and other areas.

 I encourage everyone here to explore all the forums here on MartialTalk if you haven't already. :asian:


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 29, 2005)

Many thanks.  I'll look in. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## floweringknight (Mar 29, 2005)

"the problem is rarely an issue with WHAT is being taught, but HOW it is being taught. Therefore the "change" that I see that needs to be discussed in ANY curriculum (not just HRD) are the *intentions, or priorities or goals of the TEACHER and not always go straight to the material*."

I think we are all on the same page on this one! And I believe Larry's point was to introduce this type of training and material earlier in the color belt ranks; as opposed to waiting until the black belt ranks.


----------



## lulflo (Mar 29, 2005)

Yes Sir.

 Precisely what I am going after. I think everyone has something that they are more attuned to. I know there is a ton of knowledge to cover within the ranks but I would like to try to jam it full of more information. If it is possible, why not, its there, you're there...

 In response to the "how" it is taught. I have been fortunate enough to have a teacher who uses building blocks and starts at the beginning and adds more and more as the understanding becomes clear. I feel like I always have a challenge, but at the same time, I am able to actually do what is being asked of me. And then my other teacher, who is equally as good, challenges me to a point that makes me push myself to be able to do more than I could have imagined. So I am lucky to have the right teachers who show me "how" to do what is in the curricum. I think that is the only reason I could ever imagine adding to it.


----------



## Bob D. (Mar 31, 2005)

Wow, I just pulled out the HRD books for the first time in 15 years. Where did the time go?? It's amazing how different I remember them. I don't think these were meant to be student manuals of the syllabus, but maybe an introduction and referance. They're too incomplete, I'd guess only 20% of material to red belt is shown in bits and pieces.  Also the bad pictures really show nothing. You would think DJN Lee's technique sloppy judging by the pictures. Anyone that worked with him during that period would assure you it wasn't.
Makes one appreciate the hard work that must have gone into Tedechi's (sp) giant Hapkido book.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 31, 2005)

".....Precisely what I am going after. I think everyone has something that they are more attuned to. I know there is a ton of knowledge to cover within the ranks but I would like to try to jam it full of more information. If it is possible, why not, its there, you're there....." 

Okay, then, I must be missing a very important piece of information here. Am I to understand that people are not accountable for information UNTIL a particular grade, or is it that people are restricted to and *only* allowed to study material at their grade? For instance, we have six weapons in our Kwan. One of these is the sword and a 4th Dan would be accountable for knowing all of the sword material. However, I teach a sword class for quite a few folks and most of them are gueps, not dan-rank. Its not that they "can't" learn the material but rather that they are accountable only once they reach a particular point in their development. Is something else going on here? 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## gregzlac (Mar 31, 2005)

Do you think that the quality of the art is in its syllabus and quantity of tech's?  If you learn the syllabus and can perform the all the tech's to your rank are you doing well?  Do you think that if you look like your master in your application it is right?  Are the 1st 4 oui bok sul 4 different minor variations of the same tech?  Do they need to be changed up to make them more distinct?  I think to answer all the questions that everyone has posted about HRD, you should just ask the founder Lee, Joo Bang.  And if you are studying a variation of that art then ask that founder because they are then different arts at that point.


----------



## glad2bhere (Mar 31, 2005)

You know, it would not be an altogether bad thing if some of these leaders took some time out to come to Nets such as this and help out with some of these questions themselves. I often hear the idea of a person with a question going to the individual leader and posing a question to said leader. I have never gotten any indication that any of these leaders are particularly approachable except within the context of some cash event such as a seminar or tournament-- then only in passing.  I would think that if these martial traditions are so very important to said leaders that they would designate someone to speak on behalf of the specific art, answer questions, field ideas and otherwise act as liaison between the public and the art.  

One of these days I am going to take up that challenge to bring my question directly to the personality involved, and when I don't get a straight answer, have to suffer through a dog-and-pony show about the supremacy of their particular art, endure disparaging remarks about whatever art I practice or have to stave-off some protracted sales pitch, I will be the first to come back to said Net and let the whole world know what happens to those that try to use reason in the face of insufferable Ego.  FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------



## Paul B (Mar 31, 2005)

:roflmao: 

I'll give you a dollar and a bottle of iced tea if you do that,Bruce!


----------



## floweringknight (Apr 3, 2005)

_"I think to answer all the questions that everyone has posted about HRD, you should just ask the founder Lee, Joo Bang. And if you are studying a variation of that art then ask that founder because they are then different arts at that point."_

The analogy I like to make is this: As a color belt, you are borrowing your teacher's art (way). The easiest and most direct way to learn, in the beginning, is imitation: Doing things as closely as possible to resembling what your teacher is doing (monkey see - monkey do). Eventually, you move beyond mere rote memorization. 

Part of the symbology and meaning behind earning your BB is that now you have adapted, etc this art to you! It is now YOUR art. In the long term, your _way_ is going to have differences from everyone else's; including your teacher(s) - i.e. variation! This is how it is supposed to be; this is how the arts continue to grow and evolve. I am different than my teachers; I have different strengths and different weaknesses. Same goes for everyone else. Each generation it changes, grows, evolves, expands. Do Joo Nim did it! Yong Sool Choi did it! Morihei Uyeshiba did it! I think you get the point. If your art (personally) does not continue to grow and evolve (differentiate) _beyond_ your teachers', then you are stunting and retarding your growth as an individual, as well as a martial artist. It's like a new branch growing on another, older branch. The new branch cannot grow exactly where the older branch is growing; it must grow "out of" the older branch, in it's proper time and place. The former being an extention of the later. 

Please don't misconstrue this to mean that I am saying that a person's art should not resemble his or her teachers art in any way. It's like finger prints; everyone interprets, analyzes, and understands things in a little different light. I'll call it perspective...

Please excuse the ambiguous ramblings of a low ranking novice...


----------



## floweringknight (Apr 11, 2005)

OK - For SNBD and others: What do you _like_ about the traditional HRD syllabus? What ar the merits?


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 11, 2005)

One thing of many:  The very nature of the repetitiveness we were discussing earlier can encourage one to examine all techniques to find other applications.  Many, many options!


----------



## floweringknight (Apr 12, 2005)

The very nature of the repetitiveness we were discussing earlier can encourage one to examine all techniques to find other applications. Many, many options!

I agree totally! I have challenged (myself and) my students before with the following exercise as an example: Try and come up with 5 different variations each for all the wrist grab defenses (Ho shin son mok sul). That's 150 defenses against just a simple wrist grab. I use these techniques specifically because I believe they are the FOUNDATION of basically the whole entire art. Thoughts? Comments? Other positives of traditional training??


----------



## zac_duncan (Apr 12, 2005)

"Thoughts? Comments? Other positives of traditional training??

The biggest positives I see are that through the traditional training, a student is assured of knowing the complete system. Also, I think the repetitive motion does help in refining the techniques. Unfortunately, it can also lead to difficulty in improvising and in my case it made it very hard for me to make the art "mine".


----------



## floweringknight (Apr 14, 2005)

Unfortunately, it can also lead to difficulty in improvising and in my case it made it very hard for me to make the art "mine".

Difficulty in improvising? Hmmm. How does that make it hard to make the art "yours"? Just curious. Thanks.
 How many techniques did you learn up to BB?


----------



## zac_duncan (Apr 14, 2005)

Now, this is for me, I'm sure it's not true for everyone but the rote practice made it so that I could execute Son Mak Su #11 when asked to but when my wrist was grabbed it seemed that I had to figure out what technique I wanted to do before I could execute it. Later training has led me towards starting to move and then "finding" the technique through the motion.

Now, I'm sure that this isn't true for everyone who learns in this way, and there are sure various teaching techniques can be used to combat this problem (I like the way you practice variations, that's nice). So I'm not knocking this way of learning, in fact it's the same way that under blackbelt students learn most of their techniques in our school. I'm just stating that for some students, myself included struggle in making the art dynamic when practice is primarily static.

Regarding our under black belt cirriculum As we used to be a KSW school, I learned the entirety of the KSW under black cirriculum which has something around 250-300 techniques, a few (20) have been added since then. It's my understanding that the KSW and HRD syllabuses are quite similar. So it's probably close to what your under blacks learn.


Cheers!


----------



## glad2bhere (Apr 14, 2005)

I think ANY Hapkido art that does so much with the Mu-Do approach as opposed to just dabbling with this weapon and that is way ahead of most other Hapkido arts. FWIW. 

Best Wishes, 

Bruce


----------

