# add on Hapkido



## goingd (Jan 14, 2010)

What do you think about it? Do you do it? How do you do it?

It shouldn't have to be said, but be respectful. Just because one person states that they do not agree with you, it does not mean they are style bashing or trolling.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 15, 2010)

I think it should be called another name if only to desensitize the topic from hapkido people who have a negative impression.  And it might be correct anyway to call it something else, since the so-called collection of techniques would inevitably lack the full transmission of principles that hapkido properly taught would harbor.

I like the term hoshinsul, referring to the grouping of self-defense techniques often taught in tae kwon do or tang soo do schools.  The techniques taught in hoshinsul undoubtedly share some concepts with hapkido techniques, but as they come from schools where striking is emphasized with the accompanying distinction in execution, a purist would probably not call it "hapkido" proper which is fine.

As for utility, I think hoshinsul is valuable to people who are looking for this type of material.  It has a place in the Korean martial arts.


----------



## Kumbajah (Jan 15, 2010)

The locking techinques of TKD as per the Gen Choi's book come from Hapkido to call them simply Hoshinsool is a misnomer and fails to address to the principles that make the technique function. 

TKD and HKD move in different ways. Taking a HKD technique and trying to do it isolation most likely cause it to fail. I seen enough TKD players that have "learned some HKD" to know that rarely do they get something of value or even something usable. It is usually a rough outward form that doesn't correlate to the principles. 

It's like learning another language. Trying to do it do with the grammar of your original language isn't going to work. Thinking you are funtional because you learned to ask "were is the bathroom?" from a phrase book.


----------



## Kumbajah (Jan 15, 2010)

Another point that rarely addressed is, often adding Hapkido is a business decision . Trying to get something for "added value" to the consumer experience. It has nothing to do with the martial aspects of the art. 

Take a look at a Martial Arts professional magazine, if you get the chance, to see how this and other business practices are presented to school owners. It is about business not the study of MAs. 

It is simply something to puff up the curriculum. Some "cool tricks" to keep people interested and continuing to pay. So the quality of instruction is secondary to the amount of fun the students are having. I'm all for fun but they aren't presented in that fashion - they are presented as "SELF DEFENSE" 

The only saving grace in all this is that it is usually a sign of a failing business. Grasping to hold on.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 15, 2010)

Kumbajah said:


> The locking techinques of TKD as per the Gen Choi's book come from Hapkido


Given that Choi was developing the Chang Hon system at the same time that hapkido was being developed, and that Choi had a substantial quantity of training in both the military and karate prior to that, I am inclined to doubt that he simply got it all from hapkido.  I have never heard that statement made.  

I am not dismissing your statement out of hand; I simply have never heard that.  If you can cite a reference, that would be appreciated.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 15, 2010)

There are Korean MA schools that predate General Choi as well that certainly teach some techniques that clearly came from the pre-TKD and pre-Hapkido pool.  See Chayon-ryu or PaSa-ryu for examples.  Their curriculums are primarily striking-based as "Korean karate" yet there is a significant self-defense technique component.


----------



## dortiz (Jan 15, 2010)

To be fair I have also heard that he brought in a Hapkido Master to add those techniques.
I lost it but I even saw a demo film and at the end the different master steps in and does the techniques and it was brutally apparant that he moved completely different.
They may have had some based on the Karate but a clear portion of the self defense is inserted Hapkido.
I get a couple of basic locks inserted but other than that it becomes dangerous. I watch a TKD school do self defense techniques and its horrible. Wont work if ever needed. They lean way over instead of bringing the person in to their center so they will just topple. They muscle things instead of understand where a twist and turn of the body will move the person. In short what they are doing may or probably wont work. 
So while I get what was being looked for, I really get the idea of how bad inserted arts can be.



Dave O.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 15, 2010)

> I watch a TKD school do self defense techniques and its horrible.



Dave, do you think it could be done well?  

I do.  The key is to focus not so much on lifting hapkido techniques verbatim and shoehorning it into a TKD curriculum.  Rather the goal should be on how to integrate some basic techniques common across grappling martial arts and do it in such a fashion that is not contradictory with the principles taught in the main art of taekwondo.

Consider the common outer leg reap.  Judo calls it o-soto-gari.  I've rarely seen it practiced in aikido as it generally involves too much 'muscle' than fits the aikido mindset, yet I've seen a very graceful version demonstrated by a tai chi man of all people.  Regardless of whether you use brute force to unbalance and drop your foe in the judo version, or whether you achieve it through the tai chi way of overextension and faijin pushing, the throw still involves you removing the target's root along with his leg limb.

It would seem to me that the judo version of the throw would be a prime candidate for translation to a taekwondo system.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 15, 2010)

dortiz said:


> To be fair I have also heard that he brought in a Hapkido Master to add those techniques.
> I lost it but I even saw a demo film and at the end the different master steps in and does the techniques and it was brutally apparant that he moved completely different.
> They may have had some based on the Karate but a clear portion of the self defense is inserted Hapkido.


I would be very interested in who the master is.  I will bet that that was a treat to watch.  If Choi brought them in, they had to be excellent.



dortiz said:


> I get a couple of basic locks inserted but other than that it becomes dangerous. I watch a TKD school do self defense techniques and its horrible. Wont work if ever needed. They lean way over instead of bringing the person in to their center so they will just topple. They muscle things instead of understand where a twist and turn of the body will move the person. In short what they are doing may or probably wont work.
> So while I get what was being looked for, I really get the idea of how bad inserted arts can be.


So much depends upon the reasoning for the add on.  Adding on a few basic locks and throws that one can use is reasonable, provided that they are taught correctly.  That touches on instructor qualification at that point; if the instructor never learned to properly apply the lock or execute the throw, then no matter how basic, it is not a good idea to add it.

Anything more than basics (such as 50+ grappling/throwing waza from aikido or another grappling art), and the instructor really should be well practiced in that art or have cross trained in those techniques to a point that they have mastered them well enough to not only practically use them correctly, but well enough to teach them to beginning students without instilling any bad habits (such as leaning in or muscling through).

Daniel


----------



## dortiz (Jan 15, 2010)

"if the instructor never learned to properly apply the lock or execute the throw, then no matter how basic, it is not a good idea to add it."
Exactly.

Dancingalone,
Yes, but only if the person adding the items knows what is being added. How funny you mention that technique. I believe that and a basic hip throw can be added and used off the existing entries and movement very well. After that a few techniques but again with good instruction. As I mentioned I have seen a simple elbow press arm bar butchered. Yet if taught right a hard style would step out to the outside of the right punch and block with the right hand that would slide to wrist and grab letting the left hand press on the elbow and do and arm bar.
Now in Hapkido I would pull his wrist into my center and rotate him down. For TKD I would teach a more direct press down but still focus on balance and the lock.
All of this will only work if the teacher knows the technique, where it fits and how it fits to the style the practitioner is doing.
Can be a basic SD module but again I would never pretend to say I was teaching or try to teach how my art moves. I would be modifying or using one variant of my art and inserting it the other.
Otherwise the class would morph as we would spend more time changing entries and style and soon it would become a Hapkido class ; )


----------



## dortiz (Jan 15, 2010)

"I would be very interested in who the master is. I will bet that that was a treat to watch. If Choi brought them in, they had to be excellent."

I just remembered one DVD I used to own. I think its called TKD Masters and its really old film footage B &W. That too had a HKD Master at the end showing stuff including cane. Really worth finding again.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 15, 2010)

> How funny you mention that technique. I believe that and a basic hip throw can be added and used off the existing entries and movement very well.


I appreciate the discussion.  Hip throw is indeed another good candidate as is a very limited version of aikido's shihonage if taught with a simplifying analogy like clothes-lining.  The resulting application won't be shihonage of course, but it fits the need at hand. 



> Now in Hapkido I would pull his wrist into my center and rotate him down. For TKD I would teach a more direct press down but still focus on balance and the lock.



I don't think the concept of center is that foreign to tae kwon do.  In tae kwon do, a good instructor would tell his students never to overextend themselves when kicking or punching.  In other words, strike only when you have a base and where you are strong.  Now where are you strongest?  At your center.  So accordingly, pulling to your center shouldn't be something an experienced TKDist has troubling understanding.


----------



## dortiz (Jan 15, 2010)

"I don't think the concept of center is that foreign to tae kwon do. In tae kwon do, a good instructor would tell his students never to overextend themselves when kicking or punching. In other words, strike only when you have a base and where you are strong. Now where are you strongest? At your center. So accordingly, pulling to your center shouldn't be something an experienced TKDist has troubling understanding."

Seems that way but here is where folks will say the issues begin. To see a HKD player do this you will see it is constant set of circles spiraling in. Its a very different way of moving. As the wrist is pulled in the the hip that leg starts spinning in reverse  also increasing the turn and to add to that the hand holding the wrist at the hip starts to rotate more downward as the turn is occurring. 
Can you teach that yes, but even in HKD class thats level 4 of the technique. So taking a TKD and getting him to spin on his center and rotate his arm, hip, leg and hand in to a descending radius does not happen easily. Thats why the argument.
At the same time the principal of the lock done well and finished in a hard style manner can be implemented.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 15, 2010)

> Seems that way but here is where folks will say the issues begin. To see a HKD player do this you will see it is constant set of circles spiraling in. Its a very different way of moving. As the wrist is pulled in the the hip that leg starts spinning in reverse also increasing the turn and to add to that the hand holding the wrist at the hip starts to rotate more downward as the turn is occurring.
> Can you teach that yes, but even in HKD class thats level 4 of the technique. So taking a TKD and getting him to spin on his center and rotate his arm, hip, leg and hand in to a descending radius does not happen easily. Thats why the argument.
> At the same time the principal of the lock done well and finished in a hard style manner can be implemented.



Ah, but that's where I would deviate from hapkido canon.  Is it possible to achieve almost the same unbalancing effect if instead of circles, you teach triangular stepping instead?  The footwork becomes more linear as a hard stylist would be accustomed to and if you specifically insert some atemi at crucial points of the technique, the technique becomes easier to execute in theory on an attacker.

As I said, the goal shouldn't be to just rip off some hapkido techs.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 15, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Ah, but that's where I would deviate from hapkido canon.  Is it possible to achieve almost the same unbalancing effect if instead of circles, you teach triangular stepping instead?  The footwork becomes more linear as a hard stylist would be accustomed to and if you specifically insert some atemi at crucial points of the technique, the technique becomes easier to execute in theory on an attacker.
> 
> As I said, the goal shouldn't be to just rip off some hapkido techs.


Now this touches on taking techniques from another system (regardless of which one) and integrating them into the existing system.

Which is what one should do when they bring in techniques from without to each within the existing system.

Daniel


----------



## dortiz (Jan 15, 2010)

I think we are agreeing. My point is that a good teacher will know how much fits and how much goes down a different path.
The crux of the issue is the skill level of the teacher in applying this. Thus we have some really crappy stuff out there that is an abomination.


----------



## Kumbajah (Jan 15, 2010)

Dave, are you saying that someone should actually study Hapkido and gain an understanding of it before attempting to translate it to another art?


----------



## iron_ox (Jan 15, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> If you can cite a reference, that would be appreciated.
> 
> Daniel



Daniel et al,

One of the first texts that General Choi published regarding Taekwondo was the "Orange Book" - in the book are the standard forms, punching, kicking etc.  There is also a section on "Self Defense"  - this is the wrist locks, other non-standard material.  

This section of the book is demonstrated by Master Chung Kee Tae, one of the highest ranking students of Choi Yong Sul Dojunim outside Korea.  Master Chung was given a 7th Dan directly by Choi Yong Sul Dojunim; and the techniques in the book are basic but rather traditional Hapkido - so the notion is infact correct that General Choi took his "Self Defense" material directly from Hapkido.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 16, 2010)

Hello Kevin,

Many thanks for the citation!  Not being a Chang Hon practitioner, I am certainly no Choi expert, so I am very glad to learn this.  It is not something that I have heard about previously.  I do study Kukki taekwondo, which is very light (to put it kindly) on any sort of grapples at all.

I do not know if you can answer this, but how thoroughly was the hapkido material integrated into the Chang Hon system?  Was it literally an add on or was it integrated to accommodate the style of movement and fighting philosophy of Chang Hon taekwondo?

Daniel


----------



## MrBigglesworth (Jan 17, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I appreciate the discussion.  Hip throw is indeed another good candidate as is a very limited version of *aikido's shihonage if taught with a simplifying analogy like clothes-lining*.  The resulting application won't be shihonage of course, but it fits the need at hand.
> 
> 
> Shihonage is like kibon su / son mok su / sang chi su #3 ("coz number 3 is always number 3" ;-)
> Shomen rimi nage is one that could be dumbed-down as a clothesline.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 18, 2010)

MrBigglesworth[B said:
			
		

> ][/B]
> Shomen rimi nage is one that could be dumbed-down as a clothesline.



You are right!  I transposed the two techniques when I was editing my post.  Appreciate the correction.  -DA


----------



## MrBigglesworth (Jan 18, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> You are right!  I transposed the two techniques when I was editing my post.  Appreciate the correction.  -DA



No worries. 
I don't know enough about HKD yet (let alone where style A calls it X and style B calls it Y) to comment, so I have to stick with what I know. :wink1:


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jan 21, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I do not know if you can answer this, but how thoroughly was the hapkido material integrated into the Chang Hon system? Was it literally an add on or was it integrated to accommodate the style of movement and fighting philosophy of Chang Hon taekwondo?
> 
> Daniel


 
I'm not the poster to whom you originally directed your question, but I am a V dan through the ITF (under Gen. Choi's son) so might be able to shed a little light on things.

Gen. Choi in his text books talks about the "Cycle of Taekwon-Do" which is visualized as a circle and made up of the five component parts of Taekwon-Do's physical training. There are fundamental exercises (likened to the individual soldier's training), patterns (platoon tactics), sparring (field exercises), dallyon/forging (equipment maintenance) and hosinsul/self-defense (ACTUAL COMBAT). Gen. Choi makes the point that while you can distinguish each part of the cycle you cannot do away with any part of it if you want to have real Taekwon-Do. In that sense Ho Sin Sul is definitely an important part of ITF training. 

I will also point out that in the descriptions used, the General doesn't compare sparring to actual combat but rather makes that comparison to ho sin sul. There are, in fact, many different types of sparring in ITF Taekwon-Do but even free sparring falls under the category of "field exercises" not "actual combat." What this means is that when a student i introduced to ho sin sul techniques they should of course be introduced at a slower pace with a non-resisting partner until proficiency is gained. Resistence and speed can be added until the student is able to perform the technique under stressful conditions, with a resistent partner, etc. (Too often I have seen people get frustrated because they were unable t perform a technique they haven't spent enought time training and decide the problem is with the technique, not with them. Why doesn't anyone say that when the front kick they did misses its target? Practice, people!)

There has been some changing of ho sin sul techniques from when Master Chung Kee Tae worked with Gen. Choi (ca. 1972 or so). Foot work, for instance, is more linear focusing on angles rather than circles with a few exceptions. Striking to unbalance your partner seems more common in Taekwon-Do than what I have seen in Hapkido. The emphasis on using one's center of gravity to control one's partner is there, however. Breakfalls are taught, of course, although there's much less of the "flying" variety in Taekwon-Do. 

This all being said, it will depend largely on the school as to how much them emphasize ho sin sul. Even in the ITF many schools focus on tournament training and so things like ho sin sul can get a bit of a short shrift. I've been fortunate that my instructor has always taught ths aspect of the art and has systematized his material quite a bit so each arnk has specific techniques to learn. 

That all being said, there's much more of an emphasis on the systematizing of the striking and kicking techniques than of the ho sin sul techniques. I suppose that is understandable given that Taekwon-Do's main emphasis is power generation rather than joint locking. 

I would also point out that ho sin sul does include strikes and kicks not just joint locks, holds, throws, sweeps, and releases. 

Hope this is helpful.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## dortiz (Jan 21, 2010)

"Dave, are you saying that someone should actually study Hapkido and gain an understanding of it before attempting to translate it to another art?"

Yup, someone who knows what they are doing REALLY well would have to insert these pieces. As we saw with Gen Choi. Wether its Hapkido or another style I am sure there are basic techniques that can be added but again by someone that knows what they are doing. 

I dont believe in video training but I do like video supplement. Wether its to enhance or remind one of where to step, grab move etc. If taught right the video can help retain some basics. But not the feel. That will always have to be hands on.


----------



## Kumbajah (Jan 21, 2010)

dortiz said:


> "Dave, are you saying that someone should actually study Hapkido and gain an understanding of it before attempting to translate it to another art?"
> 
> Yup, someone who knows what they are doing REALLY well would have to insert these pieces. As we saw with Gen Choi. Wether its Hapkido or another style I am sure there are basic techniques that can be added but again by someone that knows what they are doing.
> 
> I dont believe in video training but I do like video supplement. Wether its to enhance or remind one of where to step, grab move etc. If taught right the video can help retain some basics. But not the feel. That will always have to be hands on.



In your opinion, a TKD teacher with only video instruction might not be the best candidate to do this?


----------



## dortiz (Jan 21, 2010)

Ok, Ok, Its a horrible idea.

I was originally thinking combat hapkido or the koryu group where the teacher would go to seminars and get basics and use the videos to supplement that but without a teacher involved if the person has not trained these things I agree, it gonna be a train wreck.

I think a good martial artist could take some basic close quarter techniques and work through them though. Sort of the Krava Maga type thing and use what works by working the techniques through. An art like Hapkido and even a mid level of finess will not be something they can discover. It took me about 4 years with training just to start to get things.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 21, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> There has been some changing of ho sin sul techniques from when Master Chung Kee Tae worked with Gen. Choi (ca. 1972 or so). Foot work, for instance, is more linear focusing on angles rather than circles with a few exceptions. Striking to unbalance your partner seems more common in Taekwon-Do than what I have seen in Hapkido. The emphasis on using one's center of gravity to control one's partner is there, however. Breakfalls are taught, of course, although there's much less of the "flying" variety in Taekwon-Do.



This sort of bridges what this thread and what the locked thread touchs upon.  There's an entire range of self-defense that is sandwiched between pure striking and what people now call hapkido.  It's found in General Choi's Taekwon-Do, in Pasa-ryu, in Chayon-ryu, in many independent TKD schools too.  Some call it hoshinsul, some just call it "self-defense".  

I don't think anyone reasonable would dispute that this material exists, and that some of it is is decades old, either stemming from the pre or post "Hapkido" formation period.   Now their effectiveness is another matter and probably worthy of some discussion.  

Most of this thread has focused on what techniques and what modifications would be needed to successfully transfer a current Hapkido/Aikido technique over for a striker in tae kwon do to learn and use.  I have mentioned triangular stepping as well as some moves that adapt favorably to more use of force than perhaps feel.  The goal is to create a smaller set of techniques that are easy to learn yet effective, considering that over time the technique will be taught to successive generations of students, many of whom will never have primary instruction in a jujutsu-derived art.  

It's not a scenario of a taekwondoist learning inferior and unusable hapkido.  It's more a case of creating a body of knowledge from a variety of sources that a taekwondoist would thrive practicing.


----------



## Kumbajah (Jan 21, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> This sort of bridges what this thread and what the locked thread touchs upon.  There's an entire range of self-defense that is sandwiched between pure striking and what people now call hapkido.  It's found in General Choi's Taekwon-Do, in Pasa-ryu, in Chayon-ryu, in many independent TKD schools too.  Some call it hoshinsul, some just call it "self-defense".
> 
> I don't think anyone reasonable would dispute that this material exists, and that some of it is is decades old, either stemming from the pre or post "Hapkido" formation period.   Now their effectiveness is another matter and probably worthy of some discussion.
> 
> ...



I'm a bit confused - If we have already established (in this thread) that Gen Choi borrowed from Hapkido and other TKD systems also have HoShinSool. Why would there be a need to borrow again? If anyone knows about TKD it would be Gen Choi - wouldn't the prudent thing be to study his curriculum? 

BTW - Triangle stepping is already part of Hapkido


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 21, 2010)

Kumbajah said:


> I'm a bit confused - If we have already established (in this thread) that Gen Choi borrowed from Hapkido and other TKD systems also have HoShinSool. Why would there be a need to borrow again? If anyone knows about TKD it would be Gen Choi - wouldn't the prudent thing be to study his curriculum?
> 
> BTW - Triangle stepping is already part of Hapkido



There are TKD schools that have no ties at all to any of the alternatives mentioned above, including General Choi.  They would be the prime audience for any such reinvention of the wheel.

"BTW - Triangle stepping is already part of Hapkido"

Good, but so what?  I'm talking about making various techniques accessible to a TKDist, rather than discussing what is or isn't within hapkido.


----------



## Kumbajah (Jan 21, 2010)

If Gen Choi already did the heavy lifting why not take advantage of it? Why wouldn't studying his TKD curriculum, even in part be prudent? To me it would be much easier than trying to figure out what is or isn't relevant in a completely different art. 

I thought mentioning triangle stepping because you mentioned it as one of your proposed renovations for Hapkido to make it assessable and it's already in Hapkido so it's not a renovation.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 21, 2010)

Kumbajah said:


> If Gen Choi already did the heavy lifting why not take advantage of it? Why wouldn't studying his TKD curriculum, even in part be prudent? To me it would be much easier than trying to figure out what is or isn't relevant in a completely different art.



How do you study a specific curriculum when you have no ties to the source at all?  Surely, you recall this line of discussion started when I asked what new media resources paired with seminar training is available to add some close quarter combat to a almost exclusively striking curriculum.    
Even if the ITF had some useful resources, consider how do you marry Choi's material to your own if you 1) aren't sine wave 2) have different sparring drills and sparring rules or 3) execute even the striking techniques with different parameters than detailed in the Choi material?  Do you pick and choose which ones to follow?

Surely you see the inherent problems.  What is desired is a 'generic' add-on set of self-defense modules, not style-specific in terminology or usage.  My impression of ITF TaeKwon-Do is that it is a "full" martial arts style meant to be imparted in whole.



> I thought mentioning triangle stepping because you mentioned it as one of your proposed renovations for Hapkido to make it assessable and it's already in Hapkido so it's not a renovation.


I mentioned it as an alternative to mitigate the difficulty Dave stated lay people have in learning to circle or spiral a partner down and into one's center.  Look back a few posts.  Regardless, the aside about it being in hapkido is appreciated, but it's hardly relevant to the main discussion.


----------



## Kumbajah (Jan 21, 2010)

I'm having a hard time following what you are trying to get at - your question is either "how do you learn Hapkido without studying Hapkido" or "How do you teach Hapkido without learning Hapkido" You can insert any word other than Hapkido, e.x. Chinese or french cooking or basket weaving - I don't think there is a logical answer.

If ITF (Choi's) TKD is too distant to incorporate, how is HKD which is an entirely different art going to be easier?


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 21, 2010)

Kumbajah said:


> I'm having a hard time following what you are trying to get at - your question is either "how do you learn Hapkido without studying Hapkido" or "How do you teach Hapkido without learning Hapkido" You can insert any word other than Hapkido, e.x. Chinese or french cooking or basket weaving - I don't think there is a logical answer.




I suggest re-reading all the posts carefully.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 21, 2010)

Kumbajah said:


> If ITF (Choi's) TKD is too distant to incorporate, how is HKD which is an entirely different art going to be easier?



You're completely missed the point.  No one is talking about integrating hapkido.


----------



## Kumbajah (Jan 21, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> You're completely missed the point.  No one is talking about integrating hapkido.



Of course we are talking about adding/integrating Hapkido. The name of the thread is "Add on Hapkido".

But to use your earlier example of Iriminage ( Shionage per you, corrected) from Aikido - you suggested making it a clothes line for TKD people - If you want to,  I guess. But then it's no longer iriminage - the technique (iriminage) doesn't work that way - it's not a clothes line. So... it wouldn't be Aikido anymore or even function on Aikido principles.  So what would be the point of looking to Aikido? You wouldn't be doing anything related to Aikido.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 21, 2010)

Kumbajah said:


> Of course we are talking about adding/integrating Hapkido. The name of the thread is "Add on Hapkido".
> 
> But to use your earlier example of Iriminage ( Shionage per you, corrected) from Aikido - you suggested making it a clothes line for TKD people - If you want to,  I guess. But then it's no longer iriminage - the technique (iriminage) doesn't work that way - it's not a clothes line. So... it wouldn't be Aikido anymore or even function on Aikido principles.  So what would be the point of looking to Aikido? You wouldn't be doing anything related to Aikido.



I get the impression you want to manufacture an argument where there is none.

100% of the people on this thread have agreed you can't just graft on techs from another art and hope to be successful.  Hence the discussion on picking appropriate techniques and then making adequate analogies and adaptations for martial artists who come from mostly a striking background.

You are simply posing an argument that does not exist.


----------



## Kumbajah (Jan 21, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I get the impression you want to manufacture an argument where there is none.
> 
> 100% of the people on this thread have agreed you can't just graft on techs from another art and hope to be successful.  Hence the discussion on picking appropriate techniques and then making adequate analogies and adaptations for martial artists who come from mostly a striking background.
> 
> You are simply posing an argument that does not exist.



No, I'm really confused on what exactly you are trying to accomplish. Using your Iriminage example - Can you explain the benefit of drawing a correlation between a concussive (striking) technique - the clothes line and a throwing technique (iriminage). They function in completely different ways. The mechanics that make them work are different. 

What are you gaining by taking out the mechanics that make the technique irimi? Why not just use a clothes line technique or ridge hand which are in the TKD curriculum?


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 21, 2010)

Kumbajah said:


> What are you gaining by taking out the mechanics that make the technique irimi? Why not just use a clothes line technique or ridge hand which are in the TKD curriculum?



Yes, I did mention you'd be dumbing down the technique and it turns into something else, hopefully more understandable and easy to learn yet still useful.

As for why, the application as a take down should be apparent for its value.  Many people from a striking system never learn that a completed strike can transform into an unbalancing movement.  They just pop a back-fist out and back strictly for the relatively minor damage it can inflict, rather than continuing with the motion and pushing their partner down in combination with some other unrooting work.  

It is useful to start with a technique from another art to study its adaptability if only because the organization is apparent already.  Judo has a good lexicon of techniques and how they fit together as does aikido.  Dunno about hapkido.


----------



## Kumbajah (Jan 21, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Yes, I did mention you'd be dumbing down the technique and it turns into something else, hopefully more understandable and easy to learn yet still useful.
> 
> As for why, the application as a take down should be apparent for its value.  Many people from a striking system never learn that a completed strike can transform into an unbalancing movement.  They just pop a back-fist out and back strictly for the relatively minor damage it can inflict, rather than continuing with the motion and pushing their partner down in combination with some other unrooting work.
> 
> It is useful to start with a technique from another art to study its adaptability if only because the organization is apparent already.  Judo has a good lexicon of techniques and how they fit together as does aikido.  Dunno about hapkido.



I think I may see the problem - How do you think irimi works? There isn't any strike.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 21, 2010)

Kumbajah said:


> I think I may see the problem - How do you think irimi works? There isn't any strike.



Sigh.  My mistake for engaging with you, especially in light of the previous locked thread.  

Did you miss this part?



> Yes, I did mention you'd be dumbing down the technique and it turns into something else, hopefully more understandable and easy to learn yet still useful.



You're twisting and ignoring my words intentionally to front your agenda and I will have no more of it.  Good day.

Anyone else interested in a discussion, I'd love to continue to hear from you.


----------



## Kumbajah (Jan 21, 2010)

But you're not dumbing down anything. You are doing a different technique - one is a strike one is a throw. Irimi doesn't work because there is a strike to make him fall. It's like you are saying a hip throw (Seoinage) can dumbed down into a stomach punch.


----------



## MrBigglesworth (Jan 21, 2010)

Kumbajah said:


> I think I may see the problem - How do you think irimi works? There isn't any strike.



You'd be surprised, I've seen shomen irimi nage that look very different and all worked like a charm:
- as a bottle-opener style neck crank (in Hapkido actually, but also in Aikido to answer those questions about how to handle "stubborn" uke...)
- the sweetest scalpel-blade diagonal slice up the chest into the neck and chin that had them horizontal 3 feet off the ground
- a wild lead them up the garden path by the scruff of the neck ended by one almighty club into the collarbone that had flattened them like a hammer.

All irimi nage, all executed with the priciple of connection between the 2 parties and stealing their balance before execution of the final element.


If you're talking about irimi as a concept, that's different again.
There is a well-known saying in Aikido about 5 + 5 = 10, but 2 + 8 also = 10. You base the response off the attack and when you catch it.
If you catch it early before they can plant their weight: irimi and slice in through the attack. If they have too much steam coming in and their weight is planted: tenkan and turn with it to diffuse and control (or maybe ura, but Yoshinkan doesn't have ura).

This is probably the biggest stumbling bolck to adding an art like Hapkido (Aikido is even worse): that understanding of the connection between the 2 parties whenever you are attempting to do a takedown, apply a lock or throw them. 
It's not something that can easily be "bolted on", because unless you practise it and understand it in depth, you'll just end up wasting your time.
If you don't have that sort of time, then the block-punch-clothesline might be better than trying to learn irimi nage and not getting the point.


The thing about Hapkido is that it already has what you are looking for: striking integrated with takedowns, throws, locks, etc. It has a slightly different philosophy than Aikido: it seems to be somewhere between pure striking where you do something "to" them, and Aikido where connection is paramount in order to do something "with" them, (even if they have no say in it ;-).
The takedowns integrate kicking, strikes and sweeps with manipulation techniques that are similar to Aikido. It's much easier to learn them integrated than to learn them separately and integrate them yourself: ie bolted on. 
Integration is the key.


----------



## Kumbajah (Jan 21, 2010)

I think we are on the same page that the "fall" comes from connecting his balance to your movement, "taking his center", rather than simply smacking him in the head. Any strike is gravy rather than the meat. Irimi means to "enter" *not* "club the bastard."


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 21, 2010)

MrBigglesworth said:


> Y It's much easier to learn them integrated than to learn them separately and integrate them yourself: ie bolted on.
> Integration is the key.



I agree 100%.  This is the ideal proposition.  However, the question is what if you are a skilled striker?  How do you expand yourself short of learning an entire new art itself?


----------



## goingd (Jan 21, 2010)

For the record, this is in fact a thread about adding on Hapkido. That's the title. That is the sub forum it is in.

In order to integrate Hapkido into Taekwondo or another style, you do not have to adapt the style you already practice. Rather, I think it is better to find a connection to whatever style you already practice. Look deep and find the circular movement that does exist in Taekwondo and expand upon that. Follow this method in a number of areas and make the connections.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 22, 2010)

goingd said:


> For the record, this is in fact a thread about adding on Hapkido. That's the title. That is the sub forum it is in.



Ah, if you were that literal in your meaning, then the thread could have ended with 1 post:  Can't be done.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 22, 2010)

goingd said:


> In order to integrate Hapkido into Taekwondo or another style, you do not have to adapt the style you already practice. Rather, I think it is better to find a connection to whatever style you already practice. Look deep and find the circular movement that does exist in Taekwondo and expand upon that. Follow this method in a number of areas and make the connections.



That's rather vague.  Care to expound on the idea?  I'm genuinely interested.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 22, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> How do you study a specific curriculum when you have no ties to the source at all?  Surely, you recall this line of discussion started when I asked what new *media resources paired with seminar training* is available to add some close quarter combat to a almost exclusively striking curriculum.


In this case, the delivery method is the sticking point.  Video only is good mainly only as reference or to give someone an idea of what they may be getting into before attending an in person class.  For an experienced practitioner, the combination of visual media and hands on instruction may (or may not) be effective.  But I think that when discussing the migration of techniques from one system to another, we need to separate the debate about the delivery method.  

I could just as easily cross train at a school that teaches the techniques I am looking to learn.  So assuming that the individual can learn the techniques, the question then become either A: can they integrate them into their practice and make them useful for practical application or B: can they integrate them into the system and teach it in a way that is beneficial to their students.



dancingalone said:


> Even if the ITF had some useful resources, consider how do you marry Choi's material to your own if you 1) aren't sine wave 2) have different sparring drills and sparring rules or 3) execute even the striking techniques with different parameters than detailed in the Choi material?  Do you pick and choose which ones to follow?


Sparring rules are independent of whether or not one can marry Chang Hon taekwondo to their system.  In my opinion, sine wave/no sine wave is irrelevant as well; there are enough ITF schools that do not teach it from what I read on these forums.  If the Chang Hon system has already done the work to integrate the hoshinsul into its system in a synergistic and meaningful way, a taekwondo instructor should be able to learn it without difficulty.  



dancingalone said:


> Surely you see the inherent problems.  What is desired is a 'generic' add-on set of self-defense modules,


Such things probably exist, and may be more effectively taught at a good MMA gym where blending of techniques from different styles is the norm.



dancingalone said:


> not style-specific in terminology or usage.  My impression of ITF TaeKwon-Do is that it is a "full" martial arts style meant to be imparted in whole.


Yes, it is a full system.  One of the things that causes some of the friction in these discussion with regards to hapkido is that hapkido is also a full system.  

A spin off issue is that taekwondo schools, ITF, ATA, KKW, you name it, as a general rule, have dropped hoshinsul type techniques from their curriculum in favor of striking, as striking wins tournaments and is easier to teach.  Thus you have taekwondo schools looking to borrow from hapkido now that MMA has created a perceived need for things other than strikes and blocks, but those schools do not have the foundation to teach it as effectively as they do the rest of their curriculum.  This kind of rubs some hapkidoin the wrong way.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 22, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> In this case, the delivery method is the sticking point.  Video only is good mainly only as reference or to give someone an idea of what they may be getting into before attending an in person class.  For an experienced practitioner, the combination of visual media and hands on instruction may (or may not) be effective.  But I think that when discussing the migration of techniques from one system to another, we need to separate the debate about the delivery method.



I don't think video delivery is the only sticking point, although it's surely a big one.  It's been brought up time and again that a TKDist for example has a different movement paradigm, which would be a big obstacle to surmount if one decides on the 'learn hapkido or x system' pathway.  I have been clear that's probably not the direction my friend will be pursuing.  The goal is to add complementary material to what he has mastered already.



> I could just as easily cross train at a school that teaches the techniques I am looking to learn.  So assuming that the individual can learn the techniques, the question then become either A: can they integrate them into their practice and make them useful for practical application or B: can they integrate them into the system and teach it in a way that is beneficial to their students.



No arguments there.  I think you are right enough about the cross-training challenges facing a seasoned martial artist.  Hence the interest in a generic add-on curriculum.  



> Sparring rules are independent of whether or not one can marry Chang Hon taekwondo to their system.  In my opinion, sine wave/no sine wave is irrelevant as well; there are enough ITF schools that do not teach it from what I read on these forums.  If the Chang Hon system has already done the work to integrate the hoshinsul into its system in a synergistic and meaningful way, a taekwondo instructor should be able to learn it without difficulty.



I have a different perspective.  In my karate school, the sparring builds on the lessons learned elsewhere.  We don't just throw on pads and immediately transform in a high kicking spectacle like many others do.  We strive to close in with our partner.  We grab.  We push, we pull, we trip.  

I am encouraging my friend to use a similar holistic approach with all his drills and activities, and I'm not convinced it's such a great idea to try to integrate the Choi material verbatim.  Preliminary internet searches and a few phone calls have revealed it's not as straight forward as it sounds.  I don't think the ITF is geared in that fashion to just 'sell' their hoshinsul as a separate module.  You have to buy the whole cow is my understanding.



> Such things probably exist, and may be more effectively taught at a good MMA gym where blending of techniques from different styles is the norm.



Another fine thought from you, Daniel.  Not knowing much about MMA, I can't help counsel my friend in this direction, but it's worth a few looks.  Certainly, my friend won't be looked askance in those quarters.



> A spin off issue is that taekwondo schools, ITF, ATA, KKW, you name it, as a general rule, have dropped hoshinsul type techniques from their curriculum in favor of striking, as striking wins tournaments and is easier to teach.  Thus you have taekwondo schools looking to borrow from hapkido now that MMA has created a perceived need for things other than strikes and blocks, but those schools do not have the foundation to teach it as effectively as they do the rest of their curriculum.  This kind of rubs some hapkidoin the wrong way.



Yes, and that's why I shouldn't have framed my question in such a polarizing manner.  Regardless, the goal of adding throws, locks, pins, and chokes to a striking system can be done, and it has been.  I mentioned in another thread that no one gives karate-ka any grief about the material in Okinawan bunkai, yet it surely is exactly what I am talking about.


----------



## Kumbajah (Jan 22, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Yes, and that's why I shouldn't have framed my question in such a polarizing manner.  Regardless, the goal of adding throws, locks, pins, and chokes to a striking system can be done, and it has been.  I mentioned in another thread that no one gives karate-ka any grief about the material in Okinawan bunkai, yet it surely is exactly what I am talking about.



TKD being a derivative of Shotokan and Shotokan being a derivative of Te wouldn't the Bunkai of Karate be more applicable?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 22, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Yes, and that's why I shouldn't have framed my question in such a polarizing manner. Regardless, the goal of adding throws, locks, pins, and chokes to a striking system can be done, and it has been. I mentioned in another thread that no one gives karate-ka any grief about the material in Okinawan bunkai, yet it surely is exactly what I am talking about.



The only thing polarizing seems to be any mention of video.  I have seen some of the discussions about video/online training in other sections and on other sites and they mostly turn into flaming.

I just treat the videos as books.  Some are good, some are lousy.  But none can replace in person training.  How much supporting seminars can mitigate a regular class depends greatly on the nature of the material, the quality of the seminar host, the ability of the student to grasp the material visually, and the experience of the student.  Too many variables for my taste.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 22, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> The only thing polarizing seems to be any mention of video. I have seen some of the discussions about video/online training in other sections and on other sites and they mostly turn into flaming



No, there's more to it than that.  There's also the sense that hapkido is being shown disrespect somehow by the thought of someone from a different system being able to learn a few concepts or techniques from hapkido, even if it is highly modified.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> I just treat the videos as books.  Some are good, some are lousy.  But none can replace in person training.  How much supporting seminars can mitigate a regular class depends greatly on the nature of the material, the quality of the seminar host, the ability of the student to grasp the material visually, and the experience of the student.  Too many variables for my taste.
> 
> Daniel



Agreed.  I hope no one would ever think I have argued learning from video was _ideal_.  I do believe you can pick up some gross mechanics from a video though and if you are knowledgeable enough and talented enough, you can reap some benefits from them.  In personal training opportunities are a must though.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 22, 2010)

Kumbajah said:


> TKD being a derivative of Shotokan and Shotokan being a derivative of Te wouldn't the Bunkai of Karate be more applicable?


 

I think the problem with the bunkai is *similarly *problematic in this instance.  It appears that this individual has little to base his foundation of grips, locks, throws, chokes, etc to grow/integrate his boon hae/bunkai.  There must be a source of solid technique to build upon beyond the deep analysis of the hyung/kata/form.  

I am not familiar with Hapkido, so I personally cannot say if this would be a good foundation or not.  However, I think the appeal is staying within the Korean styles, and Hapkido is the famous Korean grappling ma.

My association teaches all of these techniques, so to me it is MDK TKD.  My Kwan Jang Nim is Korean and began learning his art in the late 1940's, and I'm not sure, in those volitile days, what techs were considered only TKD or only HKD.. .


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 22, 2010)

SahBumNimRush said:


> My association teaches all of these techniques, so to me it is MDK TKD.  My Kwan Jang Nim is Korean and began learning his art in the late 1940's, and I'm not sure, in those volitile days, what techs were considered only TKD or only HKD.. .



Another good point.  What qualitatively separates these pre-hapkido techniques from what is called hapkido now?  Are there real distinctions in conception and execution or is it just a case of potato and po-TA-to?  Either way, if it's effective like you state, no one will really care what it's called.


----------



## Kumbajah (Jan 22, 2010)

SahBumNimRush said:


> I think the problem with the bunkai is *similarly *problematic in this instance.  It appears that this individual has little to base his foundation of grips, locks, throws, chokes, etc to grow/integrate his boon hae/bunkai.  There must be a source of solid technique to build upon beyond the deep analysis of the hyung/kata/form.
> 
> I am not familiar with Hapkido, so I personally cannot say if this would be a good foundation or not.  However, I think the appeal is staying within the Korean styles, and Hapkido is the famous Korean grappling ma.
> 
> My association teaches all of these techniques, so to me it is MDK TKD.  My Kwan Jang Nim is Korean and began learning his art in the late 1940's, and I'm not sure, in those volitile days, what techs were considered only TKD or only HKD.. .



I don't know if he practices the Bassai/Passai or the Pyong Ahn / Pinan Hyeong / Kata - but they are basically the same thing - even the new forms use the same techniques High block, low block, reverse punch etc. So to me it would be much easier to look to Karate / Te  and Tang Soo Do then to look at a soft art like Hapkido. 

"Hey look they do a crossing low block as a grip escape, I could that." rather than relearn how to block softly or using hip power alone to break the grip or keeping the grip to use to your advantage. There are different strategies at play.


----------



## Kumbajah (Jan 22, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Another good point.  What qualitatively separates these pre-hapkido techniques from what is called hapkido now?  Are there real distinctions in conception and execution or is it just a case of potato and po-TA-to?  Either way, if it's effective like you state, no one will really care what it's called.



Prior to 1945 there was no Korean TSD TKD (Karate) systems only Korean students of Karate and other systems. Choi started teaching Hapkido (yawara) in 1948 in Korea so are talking about a 3 year window. So any grappling applications would have come from the Japanese or Manchurian systems.


----------



## goingd (Jan 22, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> That's rather vague.  Care to expound on the idea?  I'm genuinely interested.



Sure. What I mean is that instead of seeing Hapkido and Taekwondo as holistically separate entities, try and see as many similarities as possible. This involves a lot of outward thinking and going against the grain of the norm. I've discussed in other threads that the innate techniques of Taekwondo as found in the forms have the definitive capacity to apply joint locks and take downs. I've heard it said that Taekwondo is only as hard you teach or practice it. If you look hard to see the Hapkido-esc applications that already exist in Taekwondo, and to feel the softness of Taekwondo hidden between the lines, then integrating Hapkido into what you learn will be much easier.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 22, 2010)

goingd said:


> Sure. What I mean is that instead of seeing Hapkido and Taekwondo as holistically separate entities, try and see as many similarities as possible. This involves a lot of outward thinking and going against the grain of the norm. I've discussed in other threads that the innate techniques of Taekwondo as found in the forms have the definitive capacity to apply joint locks and take downs. I've heard it said that Taekwondo is only as hard you teach or practice it. If you look hard to see the Hapkido-esc applications that already exist in Taekwondo, and to feel the softness of Taekwondo hidden between the lines, then integrating Hapkido into what you learn will be much easier.



I think I understand where you're going with this.  You have to make a connection in your mind to the soft side and have the sensitivity to understand when a certain technique is working on your partner or not, or even to recognize when an opening is there.

How about the nitty gritty details though?  How do you learn a wrist lock for example unless you've learned it somewhere to begin with?  What you describe is absolutely necessary, but it doesn't lead the horse to the water trough so to speak.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 22, 2010)

SahBumNimRush said:


> I am not familiar with Hapkido, so I personally cannot say if this would be a good foundation or not.  However, I think the appeal is staying within the Korean styles, and Hapkido is the famous Korean grappling ma.


That is pretty accurate.  

Daniel


----------



## goingd (Jan 23, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I think I understand where you're going with this.  You have to make a connection in your mind to the soft side and have the sensitivity to understand when a certain technique is working on your partner or not, or even to recognize when an opening is there.
> 
> How about the nitty gritty details though?  How do you learn a wrist lock for example unless you've learned it somewhere to begin with?  What you describe is absolutely necessary, but it doesn't lead the horse to the water trough so to speak.



Once you have an understanding of the similarities, you can translate the connections into words, and into practice. For example, a simple arm bar involves pulling one end of the arm and pushing the other. Compare this to a simple punch. Usually in Taekwondo, before punching, one hand is already "chambered," "set up," or "aiming," then when you execute the punch you essentially pull one hand back and thrust the other outward. When you find the simplicity in the detail, you find the concepts are the same.
For Hapkido, or any other style for that matter, to be initially introduced, it is my concrete opinion that one needs instruction beyond videos. I think they are a great method of reference and a legitimate way to to introduce or expand on ideas, but ultimately, a hands on teacher is a necessity. I applaud instructors who want to incorporate more immediately useful self defense, and I wish there were easier ways to do it, but I am entirely against "distance education." I don't believe it works academically any more than it does for something physical like the martial arts. I know that I can sound cold hearted on the subject because there are those without the means to a more direct education, but I don't believe we're that advanced just yet - to be able to teach, demonstrate and respond to one another without interacting face to face.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 23, 2010)

> For Hapkido, or any other style for that matter, to be initially introduced,



I think that sentence fragment is very indicative of the problems in discussing martial education via nontraditional means.  It's clear you still have the ideal of learning a completely different system in the front of your mind, despite the valuable discussion you wrote preceding the sentence about making common connections.

We all have our own biases.  I have repeatedly agreed it's not possible to learn a complete style from video, at least not with the current technology available.  At the same time, I  think it's possible to learn discrete techniques from video as long as corrections and improvements can be made in person from a proficient instructor.  I've observed this firsthand with basic kicks like the roundhouse kick and the side kick.  Learning basic holds and locks would be the next increment in instructional sophistication, and it's an appropriate goal if the target audience is already a seasoned martial artist.  I'm not talking about a 12 year old white belt who doesn't even know how to move in a bow stance - the target student would have years of experience already, including teaching experience.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 23, 2010)

What you are asking for, Dancing, is probably more along these lines:

http://www.streetselfdefense.com/
http://www.closecombattraining.com/cctraining/startg.php?gclid=CIqBmOSju58CFUVn5Qodq3kMzg

This avoids the whole issue of whether or not it is hapkido.  The only problem that arises is whether or not seminars are available and what the quality of those seminars is.  Not to mention whether or not the individuals putting these courses together are any more qualified than the average green belt to do so.

Before GM Kim offered hapkido as a separate class, he incorporated hapkido into our TKD classes.  Did it work well?  Very.  But he also was a hapkido instructor and has a couple decades of hapkido under his belt (he was an instructor in the ROK), as well as over three decades of taekwondo.  Being thoroughly familiar with both systems, he already had the tools to integrate the two.   

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 23, 2010)

Just to eliminate any confusion, I am in no way recommending the material in either of the above links.  The material may or may not be sound.  Both of them, the Fear No Man course in particular, are very off putting to me in the way that they are promoted.  Especially in the 'learn our video course and be unbeatable on the street' claims.

Daniel


----------



## goingd (Jan 23, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I think that sentence fragment is very indicative of the problems in discussing martial education via nontraditional means.  It's clear you still have the ideal of learning a completely different system in the front of your mind, despite the valuable discussion you wrote preceding the sentence about making common connections.
> 
> We all have our own biases.  I have repeatedly agreed it's not possible to learn a complete style from video, at least not with the current technology available.  At the same time, I  think it's possible to learn discrete techniques from video as long as corrections and improvements can be made in person from a proficient instructor.  I've observed this firsthand with basic kicks like the roundhouse kick and the side kick.  Learning basic holds and locks would be the next increment in instructional sophistication, and it's an appropriate goal if the target audience is already a seasoned martial artist.  I'm not talking about a 12 year old white belt who doesn't even know how to move in a bow stance - the target student would have years of experience already, including teaching experience.



Your opinion is understandable and I respect it. I was simply stating mine, not attacking anyone else's.
Regardless of my statements on connections and my viewpoints on distance education, I am still discussing the ideas of add on material, not entire systems. I think, that regardless of how much you are going to teach, you need the first hand experience.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 23, 2010)

goingd said:


> I think, that regardless of how much you are going to teach, you need the first hand experience.



And no one reasonable would argue that.  

Thanks to all for participating in the discussion!


----------



## goingd (Jan 24, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> And no one reasonable would argue that.



You might be surprised...


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 3, 2010)

Here is a question:

Would an instructor of a hard style, such as Taekwondo, not add greater value to his or her class by working with a hapkido practitioner on escapes and counters to grabs?

In other words, taekwondo is a hard style and its self defense is geared around that.  Rather than trying to hapkido your taekwondo, why not work with an experienced hapkidoin to develop defenses against and escapes from grapples?  A few basic locks, sweeps and takedowns are items that are not necessarily specific to hapkido and certain would augment a TKD curriculum.  

But is having an added hoshinsul curriculum really better than being able to defend *against* grabs and locks effectively?  It seems to me that it is easier to learn to prevent someone from putting a lock on me than it is to learn twenty different locks and manipulations.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Feb 3, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> But is having an added hoshinsul curriculum really better than being able to defend *against* grabs and locks effectively?  It seems to me that it is easier to learn to prevent someone from putting a lock on me than it is to learn twenty different locks and manipulations.
> 
> Daniel




This is rather dualistic, no?  In understanding what will foil a successful lock or grab, you learn what makes them effective in the first place.  What you describe might be a good gateway into learning how to apply a lock correctly in the end.

As for your actual question, I don't believe the actual issue is what choice you proffer is 'better'.  The motivation for adding locks and throws into a striking curriculum is to be more versatile so that a restraint can be used instead of always punching or kicking, say your drunk uncle.  Another motivation is to have the ability to end a fight quickly and nothing does that better than having your foe hit the ground in crushing fashion.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 3, 2010)

On a personal level, I agree with you about the versatility of techniques and such, as well as the usefulness of HKD hoshinsul in practical applications.  The question is whether or not a TKD instructor can integrate those techniques into the class in a meaningful way and truly add value for his or her students.  There are plenty of useful techniques for ending a fight in taekwondo as it is.

Generally, regardless of the art, I find that a student is much better served with flawless basics and endless repetition of the basics of their art.  I generally disagree that one needs to have every hole filled and a technique for every scenario.  I think that applying a limited set of techniques in a variety of circumstances is much more beneficial.  If the student has too many techniques to learn and practice, he or she will not have the proficiency in enough of them to use them practically for self defense.

This is one of the few areas where I subscribe to a less is more philosophy.

Most people training in a martial art for self defense are generally trying to prepare for some nebulous "street" encounter with an assailant.  They need to be able to use what they know quickly and effectively and in the time that most people spend between white and black belt (average of two years in many TKD schools, three to four in others) there is not enough time to become truly proficient to the point that techniques are second nature unless the skill set is limited.  

Regarding the drunk uncle:

I have seen the drunk uncle scenario in more than one place.  Uncle can also be substituted with party goer, drunk patron at a bar, etc.  Here is my thought on that:

This is not a question of training to handle the drunk once he or she gets out of hand.  The best way to deal with this is to be aware of the situation and to extricate yourself from it before it gets out of hand.  

If you are at someone else's place and a person or persons are having too much, exit.  If the drunk is in my home, well, I generally cut people off before they get drunk, or serve no alcohol at all, so in all likelihood, he showed up drunk, in which case he is being sent home.  If he drove on his own, cops are being called.

I don't get into situations of dealing with drunken revelers because I stay away from places where drunken revelers are usually found.  I do not patronize bars and clubs.  Staying away from such establishments and controlling the flow of alcohol in your own home when guest are over are far more effective than having drunk-friendly techniques.  

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Feb 3, 2010)

> Generally, regardless of the art, I find that a student is much better served with flawless basics and endless repetition of the basics of their art. I generally disagree that one needs to have every hole filled and a technique for every scenario. I think that applying a limited set of techniques in a variety of circumstances is much more beneficial. If the student has too many techniques to learn and practice, he or she will not have the proficiency in enough of them to use them practically for self defense.
> 
> This is one of the few areas where I subscribe to a less is more philosophy.



I understand what you are saying in a general sense.  

I actually don't teach techniques per se to my own students.  I prefer to call them "case studies" in the hopes that the difference in terminology will help my students realize that it is the application of principles that makes the art effective, rather than a premise of 'use technique A vs. attack B".

How can you limit techniques real combat?  The attacks don't come in a preset fashion nor does your response ever look textbook sharp.  The opportunity for something like a wristlock only comes in a split second of clarity in the chaos of combat.  So to me it's not about limiting techniques.  Rather it's about teaching guiding principles, so that as long as you abide by them (mostly) you'll be able to recognize opportunities in the heat of the moment and be able to freestyle something spontaneous that nonetheless will work.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 3, 2010)

Absolutely agree with that philosophy!

And in that regard, I am all in favor of some basic locks, sweeps, and takedowns being incorporated into a striking art.  These can be done in a way that the students can drill in them and develop the ability to use them on the fly.

Within the striking skills in taekwondo, there are a good number of basic strikes that, combined with a couple of basic locks, sweeps and takedowns, all trained in with frequency and in high repetitions, will physically prepare a student to defend against an unarmed assailant.  Add to that some effective techniques for dealing with common hand held weapons, and you have a pretty good SD curriculum.

Basic locks sweeps and takedowns should be found in a good many taekwondo resources.  I am a bit leery of some of the weapon defenses that I have seen taught over the years, so I would be inclined to do some digging on the instructor.

I don't know that adding on hapkido specifically is necessarily the best option, though provided it is done properly, I certainly am not opposed to it.

Daniel


----------

