# Opening a can of worms, here goes....



## matt.m (Jan 29, 2007)

Ok I have a question to ask my fellow hapkidoan.  In all seriousness, this is not a stab towards "My kung fu is greater than yours" but one I want everyone else's opinion on as well.

Ok, if Choi founded hapkido.....He trained Suh Bok sup, Won-Kwang Wha, Ji-Han Jae, etc. then is "hapkido" that can't be traced back to Choi really hapkido?  Please no hair splitting for what is Yul Sool, Yahawara, Hapkido etc.  For the sake of this question then Choi is the founder ok?

From what I have read and heard through verbal tellings "Choi taught the original 11 and wanted them to found 11 different Kwans."  Sure they were a bit different, but each was taught a bit differently.  It wasn't all one cirriculum.

I can understand Bon Soo Han's organization, Jing Wu, The World Hapkido Federation, Sin Moo, Moo Sul Kwan and a few others I am failing to mention.  However, the point is this: If Choi was not the beginning instructor somewhere in your hapkido lineage then is it not true hapkido?

This isn't supposed to bash hybrid hapkido or combat hapkido, it is merely a question of others opinion.

Paul, Howard, Stewart, you have all worked out with/have in your lineage some great hapkidoist.  Help me out here.


----------



## iron_ox (Jan 29, 2007)

matt.m said:


> Ok, if Choi founded hapkido.....He trained Suh Bok sup, Won-Kwang Wha, Ji-Han Jae, etc. then is "hapkido" that can't be traced back to Choi really hapkido?
> *I don't think that there is any "Hapkido" that cannot be traced back to Dojunim Choi is there?  Everyone that I have seen in the world of Hapkido has roots in Dojunim Choi's material - now, 95% of the world may have a direct link through Seoul to Ji Han Jae - but his material is from Dojunim Choi...*
> Please no hair splitting for what is Yul Sool, Yahawara, Hapkido etc.  For the sake of this question then Choi is the founder ok?
> 
> ...



There are many histories of Hapkido - best to slowly piece together relevant information from those who were there, then a clearer picture might emerge.


----------



## Paul B (Jan 29, 2007)

Good question....I would say..no. But that's just me. That doesn't stop people now or will never stop someone from saying what they want. But the proof is in the pudding. Regardless of the paper trail or lack thereof.

Nice work on the tread lightly,Kevin.  This does have the potential to be a flamefest.


----------



## Brad Dunne (Jan 29, 2007)

OK, putting on my Fred Astair combat boots and now will attempt to tap dance in a minefield........:wink: Just kidding........

Mr Soger had a nice reply, but I think that unintentionally, this thread will find itself embroiled. Just hope I don't start the process.

Ok, if Choi founded hapkido.....He trained Suh Bok sup, Won-Kwang Wha, Ji-Han Jae, etc. then is "hapkido" that can't be traced back to Choi really hapkido? 

I don't see where it couldn't be. Just a rough guesstiment here, but I would think we're on 3rd, even forth generation of instructor's who offer Hapkido training. It's only fair to assume that the branches on the tree have given life to branches of their own. Perhaps a better analogy would be the acorn falling from the tree and then becoming a tree itself. It has no direct attachment to the founding tree, but never the less, it too is an acorn tree.


----------



## matt.m (Jan 29, 2007)

I guess what I mean is the following lineage:
As a kid -
Choi
Won-Kwang Wha
Lee H. Park
Mike Morton
Me


Current
Choi
Won-Kwang Wha
Lee H. Park
Charles Hildebrand
Me


I understand that zDom, myself and others who have learned from Dad or GM Hildebrand will be this sort of Acorns becoming their own tree kind of stuff.  However, it is still traceable back to Choi.


----------



## iron_ox (Jan 30, 2007)

Hello all,

I think that there are two parts to that question; not just "where can I trace my lineage back to" - but also what amount of knowledge did the people in my lineage attain - again, I think this is very improtant.

A person can work there way up a lineage ladder, and get to the top, in this case, Dojunim Choi, but the issue is (at least in part) if the next person on the lineage got say (for discussions sake) a 2nd dan, then left after 5 years of study, built a dojang, then and organization, then that person's top student got a 6th dan - and so on, in my opinion (read that) the art has not been fully tansmitted - I hope that makes sense.

Many people trained wth Dojunim Choi - VERY few stayed around long enough to receive high rank - but many went on to teach what they had learned and build groups.

This concept relates back to "depth of knowledge" in an art - and it can be seen across martial arts not just Hapkido - but in particular within Hapkido, I believe (again, opinion here - not a flame request) that depth of knowledge can be seen in the practice of individuals and groups.  Again, I am not being critical of anyone, or any group, but I believe firmly that if one watches technique - and with a critical eye (video does not always do people justice, right) it is possible to notice subtle (and often not so subtle) variations in technique as a result of depth of knowledge.

This then, in my opinion, is the second side of the coin from the original question - not just can I trace my ;lineage back to so and so, but, what rank, or time did they actually have with them, and compared to others, what did they take away with them.


----------



## matt.m (Jan 30, 2007)

Well said Kevin.  I understand where you are coming from.  We will use the example of learning from a 2nd vs. 5th dan.  Is it better to learn from a 5th dan or a 2nd dan.  I agree that a 2nd dan will not have the grasp or knowledge as the 5th dan.

I will say from the TKD side that I have seen 4th dans make mistakes that a lot of purple belts (3rd gup) wouldn't make.  However to keep all things the same, ceteras perebus, everyone learned from Choi.  So really, if all things are indeed the same then it comes down to the quality of instructions.  

Everyone can learn technique, no big deal.  Can everyone understand the application of technique?  Nah, not unless they have a competent instructor.

That is the same in marksmanship instruction or driving a car though.


----------



## Brad Dunne (Jan 30, 2007)

I hope I don't "open the can of worms" here, but Mr Sogers post begs me to ask this question. 

Many people trained wth Dojunim Choi - VERY few stayed around long enough to receive high rank - but many went on to teach what they had learned and build groups.

This concept relates back to "depth of knowledge"

For those that did not stay long enough to receive high rank (assuming 4th or higher), would this necessarily mean that their depth of knowledge would/should be lacking, or can/did the learning thru teaching offer acceptance for depth? In the same vane, it has been said the Dojunim Choi taught differently to various students. If this is factual, then how could a baseline for depth of knowledge ever be established?


----------



## iron_ox (Jan 31, 2007)

Brad Dunne said:


> For those that did not stay long enough to receive high rank (assuming 4th or higher), would this necessarily mean that their depth of knowledge would/should be lacking,
> 
> *Let me split up your question.  Again, I will adress this as the question at hand - this has NOTHING to do with any group, individual, but an answer about what I consider "depth of knowledge".  *
> 
> ...


 
I am not sure that any baseline for depth of knowledge can be established.  I think is is better however that people research teachers and see if the depth of knowledge in their opinion is sufficient to really (in their opinion) learn the art.  But I do think it is worth bringing the idea to the table to see how much knowledge is at a particular dojang, the experience of the teacher, and his teacher is relevant - if the top of the chain is a low rank, and so on, maybe the experience in that dojang will be good as a starting point, but probabaly not provide a real exposure to all aspects of the art.

Hope that helps.


----------



## matt.m (Jan 31, 2007)

Well,

I am glad to see the topic made it off the ground.  I think what is really interesting is the following.

Won-kwang Wha who I have been told from GM Hildebrand learned from Choi and also studied with Suh-Bok Sub.  Afterall, this has merit considering without Suh, Choi never would have made it off the ground.  The grainery was the launching launching pad.

Now one particular point of interest to be considered is the fact that Lee and his brother Eui lived with Won-Kwang Wha.  So everything that I am saying is what Lee had been told by Won-Kwang Wha.

There indeed is a difference of face time that students got with Choi.  To my knowledge none of his students lived with with him, he taught much like the rest of us today learn....scheduled class time.  Or learn for a while seminar style every so often in bits and pieces.

I read an article in TKD Times before Christmas that supports this.  Good read if you can get your hands on it.

How much time did Ji-Han Jae get with Choi vs. Won-Kwang Wha?  I don't know, Stuart could tell more about his teachers background.  Anyway, I do know that Won-Kwang Wha was a body guard for diplomats and he was close to Choi location wise for a good length of time.  

What matters is the fact that they somehow were taught by Choi and in turn taught students.


----------



## howard (Jan 31, 2007)

matt.m said:


> How much time did Ji-Han Jae get with Choi...?


Hi Matt,

I'm pretty sure that Ji himself says that he spent three years, starting around 1949, directly with Choi.  Some type of teacher-student relationship continued after that, but I don't know for how long, or to what degree.  I'm taking this from a document that I got at one of Ji's seminars a few years ago.

You're right, the Sin Moo guys should have the details.


----------



## Last Fearner (Feb 1, 2007)

matt.m said:


> Ok, if Choi founded hapkido.....He trained Suh Bok sup, Won-Kwang Wha, Ji-Han Jae, etc. then is "hapkido" that can't be traced back to Choi really hapkido? For the sake of this question then Choi is the founder ok?


 
Just to add a different perspective to the question, I ask, "what is a founder?" I realize the premise of this question is that "Choi is the founder of Hapkido," but what does this really mean. I find that most so-called "founders" of arts are really just founders of organizations with new labels. Perhaps there is a unique philosophy, or new method of instructing the knowledge. Maybe there is even a whole different arrangement of what bits and pieces of self defense tactics are included or omitted to make this unique system more streamlined and effective.

I would ask if a founder of any Martial Art really invented anything new, or suddenly discovered as of yet, never before seen skills that they were the first to teach? Perhaps they use a new label, and organize the information differently than before. My question is, could others who have learned the same skills elsewhere, even from the same sources that Choi learned what he assembled into Hapkido, be as knowledgeable on the subject without having been a student of Choi.

If someone were a student of Choi, and they changed the way they taught the material in their own Kwan, and the next generation did the same thing, how far of a variation would you go before you would say it's not Choi's Hapkido? If Choi instructed it differently to each student, would this not leave more room open for a wide spectrum of what could be termed as Hapkido? If others were never students of Choi, but gained the same insights and understanding as Choi after they trained without any influence from Choi or any of his students, then would their skills not be the same and be fair to call it Hapkido?

After all, what does the term "Hapkido" mean? The Art of Coordinated energy. Granted, an in-depth study into the Martial Art is needed to comprehend what all this means, but these skills have been discovered, and rediscovered by masters for centuries. They have been taught in many different ways, and labeled with many different names. I guess the answer might need to address if what someone practices, and teaches as Hapkido, might contain the same or similar skill sets, but not be an exact match for what Choi taught (even though Choi apparently did not have an exact standard to duplicate).

I guess the real question is, "would it be Choi's Hapkido if they had not studied within the lineage of Choi," and could someone have learned what Hapkido is without having learned from Choi?

These questions might not seem relevant to anyone else, but I believe it holds true for all of the Martial Art variations we do today. Where did it all come from? Who was the first to be recognized as doing it, and were they really the first to do it, or are they re-packaging what they learned from others? What is the significance of lineage other than a connection to a specific teacher? (which is important in many regards) Is the knowledge really exclusive to that one person who first gave it a name, or should others be justified in using the same general term for basically the same skills so long as it is understood that this is not the same "brand" of instruction from the one person that so many students all know, love, and to which they identify their lineage?

Just more questions to ponder.  
CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## iron_ox (Feb 1, 2007)

Hello all,

Last Fearner,

Although your post has some merit as hypothesis, in my opinion, the simple answer is no.  If the technical aspects of the art are not from the Dojunim Choi root - then it is not Hapkido.

Think on this.  We have in Korea in Jang Im Mok, for example a man that learned and taught Daito-ryu - and admits to knowing Dojunim Choi in Japan - yet, the skills he teaches are not the same as Hapkido - and Jang Im Mok has taught others in Hapkido that agree - like Il Oung Hur.  

Remember, Dojunim Choi said he was taught by Takeda Sokaku, but he never said it was Daito-ryu - just that Sokaku was his instructor.  Now, knowing that Sokaku was a repository of information, is it possible that Dojunim Choi learned outside the Daito-ryu Curriculum?  According to those that have studied mainline Daito-ryu there seem to be many difference in technique.

Therefore, I do see Dojunim Choi as a founder of something unique.

Now, could someone else have learned technique, brought it back to Korea and taught Hapkido - theoretically yes, but practically no.  

I have yet to find a single case of anyone that has done so, despite many claiming the same thing.  Without any specifics, so as to avoid the flames, I have yet to find a single credible source that was not taught by Dojunim Choi, or one of his students.  

For all the claims of ancient this and that, the vast majority of these men are the same age, and are all known to each other in the same martial circles.  Everytime the claim is made that the  man  "studied in a monastary" (as an example) it turns out that he was simply taught by a student of Dojunim Choi, or was a low ranking dan grade directly from Dojunim Choi.

In so far as the importance of rank, I think that many would like to downplay this issue when it comes up - but again, if it is of no consequence to them, it really does not matter - but one should be mindful that Dojunim Choi claimed there were 3806 techniques that he taught - how many were taught to first dan - about 100, if the bulk are taught and learned after 4th dan, then the skill sets of many lower ranks might be somewhat incomplete.  

And although lots of technique can be gleaned from correct application of principle and self-discovery through training, it is im my opinion disingenuous to claim a higher rank because of this type of skill set expansion.  

Again, just my opinion, if people are happy learning in their current environment, all power to them.


----------



## matt.m (Feb 1, 2007)

I am so glad to see how this thread has grown.  Master Eisenhart it is an honor to get your input as well.

I have a bit of .02 to put in as well.  In Jackson, MO as well as Wentzville, MO there is a school called Hapkido USA.  Now, without sounding biased I have heard of this organization from people who have taken and to me it sounds like a belt factory.

I mean true hapkido and its nuances are hard to learn and perfect, so I believe it should take at least 5-6 yrs. to get a 1st dan in hapkido.  Just a personal thought.

Now the lineage of the GM in hapkido USA is not traced back to Choi so do I believe it is hapkido?  No, not at all.  Last Fearner, you brought up similiarities.  I bring to your attention that there are a ton of borrowed techniques between styles.  That is just how it is.  There are only so many ways to do a side kick per se.  

I have seen West Hapkido, we have a dan from West Hapkido that at one time worked out with He-Young Kimm.  It is no secret that Lee H. Park and He-Young Kimm were pals.  Anyway, Grandmaster Hildebrand once told this West Hapkido dan, by the name of James Williams, that what he was doing at least looked like pretty decent hapkido.


----------



## iron_ox (Feb 1, 2007)

matt.m said:


> I am so glad to see how this thread has grown. Master Eisenhart it is an honor to get your input as well.
> 
> I have a bit of .02 to put in as well. In Jackson, MO as well as Wentzville, MO there is a school called Hapkido USA. Now, without sounding biased I have heard of this organization from people who have taken and to me it sounds like a belt factory.
> 
> ...


----------



## matt.m (Feb 1, 2007)

I owe an apology, I stepped on both left feet and that was not good.  No good comes of that sort of thing.  I was only trying to make a comparison, an apple to apple if you will.  I was never intending to call anyone out.  

In fact, have I not given credit to West hapkido etc?  Did I not give credit to He-Young Kimm and other hapkidoist?  It just came out wrong, sorry.  Afterall, we all train.....that is apparent, the original question is still what it is.

Also, I said on my last post that "In my personal opinion".  I didn't really try to call anyone out, I guess inadvertantly I did by naming a certain organization.  My bad on that.


----------



## iron_ox (Feb 1, 2007)

Hello all,

Coming from someone that has made worse faux pas than this, I can tell you I think it a sure sign positive conversation when we can recognize an "opps" and move forward...

The original question still has merit worthy of discussion.

Let's stay away from examples other than our own for this conversation so that it stays positive.


----------



## Brad Dunne (Feb 1, 2007)

Mr Soger, you stated that Choi claimed 3806 techniques. My question is, just what is to be considered a technique? Does one take a specific movement/technique and that unto itself is one technique and then if we  add an additional movement onto the existing one, does that then become another technique unto itself or just an extension of the original technique? The rational behind this questioning is to understand how instructors, who have not had the suggested indepth training time via Choi, could have garnered applicable knowledge based upon the number Choi eluded too. If given the suggested formula as stated, then it becomes very easy to see how the number of techniques can multiply. Thanks in advance for your participation in this discussion.


----------



## matt.m (Feb 1, 2007)

Brad,

Good question.  I know that Moo Sul Kwan hapkido has a little over 100 techniques.  However you can argue that they are different and not different.

Here is what I mean, there are combination techniques.  In other words you will combine lets say number 4 and number 6 wrist techniques to make one technique.

I know of Choi saying he had over 3800 techniques.  It would be interesting to know if they were completely different or if they were combinations.


----------



## iron_ox (Feb 1, 2007)

Brad Dunne said:


> Mr Sogor, you stated that Choi claimed 3806 techniques. My question is, just what is to be considered a technique? Does one take a specific movement/technique and that unto itself is one technique and then if we  add an additional movement onto the existing one, does that then become another technique unto itself or just an extension of the original technique?
> 
> *I think this is a valid question.  I will only speak from my experience, and obviouxly cannot speak for Dojunim Choi, or his senior students, but from my obsevations of what I seen.
> 
> ...



Interesting take on the idea, thanks for the question - hope I have scratched the surface for an answer.


----------



## iron_ox (Feb 1, 2007)

matt.m said:


> Brad,
> 
> Good question.  I know that Moo Sul Kwan hapkido has a little over 100 techniques.
> 
> ...



I have not seen "combinations" but rather different techinques from differnt attacks.


----------



## matt.m (Feb 1, 2007)

iron_ox said:


> I have not seen "combinations" but rather different techinques from differnt attacks.


 

No, not the entire system at all.  If you would like to see the testing requirements to dan would be http://mskhapkido.com/id14.html.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Last Fearner (Feb 2, 2007)

Thanks to everyone who made me feel welcome in this thread. I enjoy discussing all aspects of the Martial Art, especially when it comes to Korean Martial Art.

I don't usually like to tread too much into the Hapkido threads because I come from a different background than one who has studied Hapkido solely. On the other hand, this is where I thought my personal experience might at least give a different perspective to add to the mix - - another worm in the can - - so to speak! :ultracool 

I have had an extensive background in Japanese approach to the Martial Art (from as far back as 1965). All my life I have pursued this knowledge, and yet I am still learning more and more by talking to others here. I enjoy the quest, and the sharing.

When I switched to Korean Martial Art in 1976, it was a gradual exposure to Taekwondo through somewhat weakened connections to the authentic knowledge of Korean history. It wasn't until I began meeting and training directly with Korean Grandmasters who had studied these skills all their lives - - 40, 50, or 60 years of living Taekwondo, that my eyes were truly opened. Most of them were known as "Hapkido" masters as well, but I could not tell you what their lineage is. For all I know, what they showed me over the years may have come from some connection to Dojunim Choi. I might never know for sure.

In any case, these Grandmasters always taught me the Hapkido that they knew as part of the Taekwondo curriculum. Now, I do realize and recognize that "Hapkido," as a single endeavor, can be a self-standing system that needs nothing more that what was contained in Dojunim Choi's curriculum. I respect those that value this art, and the preservation of the skills taught through the genuine lineage to Choi.

It has just been my own personal perspective, and journey of discovery that there are just so many ways to attack a person (however you want to divide it, combine it, or number the techniques) and I believe that a well trained and experienced Master of the Martial Art knows the many options of how to deal with each attack. If I had only stuck to Judo, or just the focus of upper body in Karate, or the lower body in some Taekwondo schools, then I might have only been able to respond to an attack in a manner consistent with those disciplines, and not be aware of the unique skill-set which is known as Hapkido.

I am sure that there are many practitioners who train in what they call Hapkido, and a student of Dojunim Choi might look at it and say, "nope, that's not it!" Then, I can also see someone training in the knowledge of the human body, having an understanding of the Martial Art to a point of Mastery, and being able to demonstrate the very same skills that students of Dojunim Choi use without every having trained from them. I'm not talking about self-discovery, or trial and error by low ranks. I am suggesting that these skills, all the way to the advanced techniques saved for the 4th Dan and above, have been floating around in combat training for centuries.

When I train with people I have never met before, and they show me a Taekwondo kick, or block and counter, I can consistently say that I have seen that, and done that myself. Then I show them something else that I know, and they will generally say, "yes, that's the way we learned it too!" Some of this can be due to the fact that there were merging of sources somewhere years ago, but also due to the fact that there are just so many ways to throw a kick, and make it work. When I have worked with Grandmasters who have taught Hapkido for decades, I have respect for their knowledge and skill, and I know that I have room to improve, but there is rarely an occasion when they show me something that I have never seen.

The one question I have for the dedicated Hapkidoists (serious question now) of the aforementioned 3,806 techniques taught by Dojunim Choi, is there any active instructor of Choi's lineage who knows all of them? How many do each of you know, and do you have access to being shown the rest, and at what rank levels? There is absolutely no disrespect intended by this question. I am just curious if this knowledge was passed on, and how many know it.

Thanks for sharing your personal experiences!  

CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## matt.m (Feb 2, 2007)

Last night I posed the technique question to GM Hildebrand, I also posed it to my pop this morning.  Amazing how I thought I was listening to a parrot both times.  

Anyway, I asked them because they were the closest to GGM Park in the beginning, so they both responded with "If it takes 10,000 reps of a technique to grasp what it is then it would take decades upon decades to get through 3806 techniques."

If Choi did indeed live with Takkeda then he was with him 30-40 odd years.  That means he was learning Daito Ryu on a daily basis.  The tennant of repitition would hold then.

That is why there are differences in Sin Moo, Kuk Sool, and Moo Sul Kwan.  As Pual B has demonstrated "Arresting techniques", graphically if you will on this board I have noticed big similiarities in the technique he demonstrated with something in our own cirriculum.

Choi didn't have enough time or vice versa concerning the student whether it be Ji-Han Jae or Won-Kwang Wha to get through 3806 with efficiency.

That is just my thought, not a verifiable fact.  Concerning Sin Moo and Ji-Han jae I sure wish Stuart would chime in a little bit of help.


----------



## howard (Feb 2, 2007)

matt.m said:


> "...If it takes 10,000 reps of a technique to grasp what it is then it would take decades upon decades to get through 3806 techniques."
> 
> If Choi did indeed live with Takkeda then he was with him 30-40 odd years.  That means he was learning Daito Ryu on a daily basis.  The tennant of repitition would hold then.


Matt, those are fair points.

Since you bring up Daito-ryu, and the technical curriculum of Daito-ryu is probably the source of the number of 3,806 techniques that Choi is reported to have said were transmitted to him, maybe a Daito-ryu perspective on this subject will be helpful.

There are over 3,000 documented Daito-ryu techniques.  For example, one of the handful of legitimately recognized lines of Daito-ryu, the Takumakai, has formal documentation of 2,884 techniques.

However, out of all of those techniques, the core of training is a set of 118 techniques.  These 118 techniques are divided into five sets, each of which represents a dan rank in the mainline tradition.  So, a student who demonstrates proficiency in all 118 techniques can be awarded the rank of 5th dan.

In order to earn the rank of 1st dan, the student must demonstrate proficiency in the first of the five sets.  And that's "only" 30 techniques.

Most of the Hapkido kwans I've been exposed to have a total number of techniques in their 1st dan curriculum that ranges from around 100 to around 300.  So, based on my (limited) experience, I'd conclude that whatever the total number of techniques that Choi knew was, a core of 100 - 300 techniques is the basis of most kwans' curricula.

btw, Last Fearner, IMO your question is not disrespectful in the slightest... and you made some excellent general points in your last post.  Thanks.


----------



## matt.m (Feb 2, 2007)

howard said:


> Matt, those are fair points.
> 
> Since you bring up Daito-ryu, and the technical curriculum of Daito-ryu is probably the source of the number of 3,806 techniques that Choi is reported to have said were transmitted to him, maybe a Daito-ryu perspective on this subject will be helpful.
> 
> ...


 
Just trying to help along.


----------



## iron_ox (Feb 2, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> The one question I have for the dedicated Hapkidoists (serious question now) of the aforementioned 3,806 techniques taught by Dojunim Choi, is there any active instructor of Choi's lineage who knows all of them? How many do each of you know, and do you have access to being shown the rest, and at what rank levels? There is absolutely no disrespect intended by this question. I am just curious if this knowledge was passed on, and how many know it.
> 
> Thanks for sharing your personal experiences!
> 
> CM D.J. Eisenhart



Hello all,

This is an EXCELLENT question!!!!

To track back, Howard raises the beginning of this question - and it is something in which I firmly believe.  The curricula that I have seen have about 100 techniques to Black Belt - these are the bi bon sul - or basic techniques (they may actually be more technically complex than the later sets...).

After these techniques are understood, it is much easier to learn in what is almost a cascade of techniques in higher dan levels.

Now, speaking only from personal experience, I can say that I feel fortunate that learning under Grandmaster Lim of the Jungki Kwan, his repetoire, as he has said in open seminars, numbers around 3000 techniques - what is interesting about this however is that his training was started around the 3rd Dan level.  As odd as this may seem, in a meeting years ago of several high ranking students of Dojunim Choi, there was a comparison of technique - including one who had most in photographic form.  here was general agreement that the material looked identical from the beginning - the problem was that nothing jived with Grandmaster Lim's material - until into the 3rd Dan material - where things started to be the same - then surpassed the others.  

I think that it is interesting that whit what I have seen, and studied,  the Dojunim Choi material has about 500 - 800 (depending on dojang) sets of technique through 4th dan - so I am confident that adding this material to that Grandmaster Lim knows preserves all the technical aspects of the art that Dojunim Choi taught.  So, I believe that all the material is there, one must work to search it out - and is it available?  Well, time and effort will tell - me at least.

I beleive, to answer another part of the question, that skill sets are taught very high up in the dan ranks - but I couldn't say exactly to what level.

Unlike something like Taekwondo, which is highly documented, and hs lots of resources to back it up, the Hapkido in Dojunim Choi's lineage is still quite guarded - and as yet not much is available on video or in writing - but that is slowly changing.

Hope that kind of answers the question.


----------



## Last Fearner (Feb 2, 2007)

iron_ox said:


> Hope that kind of answers the question.


 
Yes it does, and thank you for responding with this information.

I look forward to comparing more of what we know separately, and collectively.

Thanks to all of you for keeping this topic interesting and informative.

CM D.J. Eisenhart
___________________
Last Fearner


----------



## Brad Dunne (Feb 4, 2007)

I saw this on budoseek and thought it was interesting and relevent to our discussion. The folks that offered these statements are Korean Masters, so I thought that kind of lent itself to a certain level of validity. 

Originally Posted by *XXXX XXXX XXXXX*
People are just wanting to know techniques and more techniques. Hapkido is about perfection and not about how many you know. 




"Great to have you here, Master XXX!

I totally agree with your opinion. Many HKD masters used to say there are about three thousands of techniques in HKD. So many. 

I guess it will take more than a decade even if one just tries to study one technique per a day. Not to master, just practice.

I have no intention to argue for the numbers. If there are so many, I think, it's good for masters to show and teach students for long, long time at their schools.

As far as I know, HKD has been evolved from Daito-Ryu Aiki-Jujitsu. When that art was introduced in Korea for the first time, it was introduced in the name of Hapki-Yousool(Korean pronunciation of Aiki-Jujitsu for the same Chinese characters). 

It was a very new art back then. So, many talented masters joined the first school. For them, that martial art was very new, and very curious. However, those masters were already good enough to show their ability in their own original martial arts, like Judo, Karate, Kendo, Kungfu, Boxing, Wrestling, or etc. etc..

After some time, they started their own school. They taught that art in the name of Hapkido, which was already far evolved from Aiki-Jujitsu. 

And also according to their own original martial art, their HKD itself was also diversified from each other. Some still maintains the original styles. Even in that case, HKD differs according to masters' physical features and characteristics. 

In my case, I have three teachers, all are from the same school and the same teacher. But they are all different from each other. I can not say who is better. Their HKD is optimized on their own characters. 

I am 7th Dan. But mine is also a lot influenced by Kendo practice. I teach my HKD students lots of Kendo techniques.Then my HKD could be looked as Jujitsu + Kendo by some people. You know what I mean.

I think, as Master XXX said, each one's martial art is its own perfection, no matter how it is looked or called."..........................


----------



## matt.m (Feb 5, 2007)

Brad Dunne said:


> I saw this on budoseek and thought it was interesting and relevent to our discussion. The folks that offered these statements are Korean Masters, so I thought that kind of lent itself to a certain level of validity.
> 
> Originally Posted by *XXXX XXXX XXXXX*
> People are just wanting to know techniques and more techniques. Hapkido is about perfection and not about how many you know.
> ...


 

Brad,  Thank you for the great find.  I think this was a nice addition to the discussion.


----------



## goingd (May 18, 2009)

I don't think most Hapkidoin have to worry about this since so many of today's instructors were trained by Ji Han Jae or his students. Interesting thought though.


----------

