# Hapkido in Tang Soo Do



## Ian wallace

Hi all,
 im doing a bit of searching and i was wondering if anyone knows the reason why in T.S.D we have hapkido incopreated into it???

Hope all is well

Ian Wallace

Tang Soo!!!


----------



## JT_the_Ninja

Hrm. Never heard of that; mind explaining what you mean? I mean, all martial arts will by definition incorporate each other to the extent that they all share many basic elements, and since HKD is a Korean MA like TSD, I'm not surprised if there are many similarities. I don't really know much about HKD, but if you see some direct cognate techniques, that's interesting.


----------



## Ian wallace

well in our system of T.S.D hapkido is taught as part of our self defence techiniques, is that not the case in all styles of T.S.D? becouse we are taught that T.S.D has hapkido incorpreated into it and always has for example our joint locks, pressure holds e.t.c.

What do you think?

Yours in T.S.D Ian Wallace


----------



## zDom

Ian wallace said:


> ... becouse we are taught that T.S.D has hapkido incorpreated into it ...
> What do you think?



As a hapkido practitioner, I would would prefer it if ya'll phrased it,

" ... have hapkido _techniques_ incorporated into it ..."

or

"... techniques from/borrowed from hapkido ... "

Hapkido is an art in and of itself, not something that can simply be added into another art.

We have judo techniques in hapkido, but I would not presume to say that "hapkido has judo in it" or that I "know" judo.

But then my preferences probably don't mean squat 

This is just a source of frustration for those who have put years and years of hard training into learning the art of hapkido: TKD/TSD practitioners learning a couple of wrist locks and then saying they "know hapkido, too."


----------



## matt.m

Well said.

There are a ton of borrowed techniques between the arts.  However, Aikido is not like hapkido anymore than Karate is like Tae Kwon Do.

In the one steps between hapkido and tae kwon do they have similiar techniques.......however, there is no way they are the same.

That kind of stuff just gets to me a bit as well.

Sorry to rant, but it is not MMA we are talking about here.


----------



## crushing

TSD may have elements similar to HKD, but it does not contain HKD.

Given human anatomy and physiology it only makes sense that there will be some similarities between techniques and movements.  These arts needn't have even borrowed from each other to develop the similar techniques.  It's not like one art is going to make an armbar work by bending the elbow the way it was made to be bent.


----------



## howard

JT_the_Ninja said:


> ...since HKD is a Korean MA like TSD, I'm not surprised if there are many similarities.


Yes, they are both Korean arts, but neither originated in Korea.

TSD comes from Japanese / Okinawan Karate.

HKD comes from some style of Aikijujutsu, most likely Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu.

The principles of the two underlying arts are quite different.


----------



## exile

howard said:


> Yes, they are both Korean arts, but neither originated in Korea.
> 
> TSD comes from Japanese / Okinawan Karate.
> 
> HKD comes from some style of Aikijujutsu, most likely Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu.
> 
> The principles of the two underlying arts are quite different.



Right you are, howardbut different styles in close proximity are bound to pick up tricks from each other.  Historically unrelated languages that have been spoken by adjacent poplulations living cheek-by-jowl with each other for centuries or millenia borrow sound systems and whole chunks of grammar from each other; no reason to doubt that MAs will do the same, possibly after much shorter periods of contact. The point about their guiding strategic principles being the same is right on target; but there's nothing surprising about them borrowing _tactical_ elements from each other...


----------



## Ian wallace

woww howard your wrong there tang soo do may have the hyungs of karate but to say it originated in japan then im sorry my friend but your wrong!!

to all that took me wrong!!! then i appolagise for that!! but what i was talking about was how did tang soo do get certain techinques of hapkido into it? i know that hapkido is a separate art and a buitifull one it is!!

but what i was asking without no bad thoughts on other styles is!!! just how tang soo do had certain hapkido techniques

Do not assume, just ask becouse not all people talk clearly to what you buileve to be clear!!


----------



## Makalakumu

Ian, I'm going to assume that English isn't your second language...and if it is, then you are doing a great job communicating here.  Anyway, as far as the TSD and Okinawan/Japanese connection, that is well established and you can find many other threads in the TSD forum to substantiate that.

As to the original question, Hapkido in TSD, all I can say is that the term "Hapkido" is interchangable with "Hosinshul" in many dojangs.  Both of these draw on Japanese arts for the bulk of their material.  This is unfortunate, because if the average tangsoodoin understood their forms, then they would not need to bastardize other arts in order to round out their curriculum.


----------



## exile

Ian wallace said:


> woww howard your wrong there tang soo do may have the hyungs of karate but to say it originated in japan then im sorry my friend but your wrong!!



No, Ian, he's right, and _you_ are wrong. Tang soo do was the name given by many of the kwan founders to the art that they taught after coming back from Japan in the 1930, having studied in every case either Shotokan or Shudokan karate. The lineage of every one of the original kwans can be traced to a Japanese karate school taught by an expatriate Okinawan karateka. This much is extremely well documented, and you can check it out for yourself. The very _name_ Tang Soo Do is a direct translation of kara te under one of its transliterations (`China hand'); the other name for the art was Kong Soo Do, which isguess what?the other transliteration of kara te (`Empty hand'). The founder of the Song Moo Kwan, Byung Ro Jik, called his art Tang Soo Dokarate, in Koreanthrough the 1940s and 1950s, and guess what Song Moo Kwan means? It's a literal translation of Shoto Kan (=`Pine tree (training) house'). The technical content of Tang Soo Do/Kong Soo Do was exactly that of Japanese karate, as attested by the Kwan founders themselves and their senior students. What did you think they were _teaching_, back then?

And the hyungs, literal copies or identical to the Okinawan kata Naihanchi, Tekki, and so on that are practiced in TSD, were the technical core of the training received by the Kwan founders who called their art Tang Soo Do. So when you say howard is wrong, just what are you talking about? And what, against all the extensive documentation of the technical lineage of TSD as originating in Okinawan/Japanese karate, is your evidence? 

Most of the people on the TSD forum are aware of this history, which is abundantly documented and not particularly controversial. I find it rather strange that you seem to be totally unaware of any of it.





Ian wallace said:


> to all that took me wrong!!! then i appolagise for that!! but what i was talking about was how did tang soo do get certain techinques of hapkido into it? i know that hapkido is a separate art and a buitifull one it is!!
> 
> but what i was asking without no bad thoughts on other styles is!!! just how tang soo do had certain hapkido techniques
> 
> Do not assume, just ask becouse not all people talk clearly to what you buileve to be clear!!



Have you been reading any of the posts you've received in response to your original query? It's not clear to me that you've paid them any attention _at all. _


----------



## Chizikunbo

Ian wallace said:


> Hi all,
> im doing a bit of searching and i was wondering if anyone knows the reason why in T.S.D we have hapkido incopreated into it???
> 
> Hope all is well
> 
> Ian Wallace
> 
> Tang Soo!!!


 
Tang Soo Do and Hapkido do not share a common lineage. I suspect the reason alot of the "Ho Shin Sool" that is taught by some in the Tang Soo Do community was simply handed down as techniques added because the true applications of hyung was not understood; as hyung alone have a very comprehensive system of greappling, throws and nerve strikes contatined within them.
Today the true understanding of hyung is beggining to surface and shed light on the actual historical nature of our art, and these types of misconceptions and outdated "add in" curriculum stuffers that are often construed as being HKD or TSD will be eliminated.
Best Wishes,
--Josh


----------



## howard

exile said:


> Right you are, howardbut different styles in close proximity are bound to pick up tricks from each other... there's nothing surprising about them borrowing _tactical_ elements from each other...


Yes, I agree.

I believe it's documented that a few high-ranking people in the original, pre-TKD kwans trained in Hapkido at times under its founder, Choi Yong Sul.  That would partially explain why the hoshinsul techniques of today's Korean karate-based systems resemble Hapkido.

I wasn't trying to start a war here... my major point was that the fundamental principles of Hapkido and any system based on Karate are different.  I trained in Ji Do Kwan for a few years before moving to Hapkido, so I've seen both systems.  Their fundamentals are very different.

Both systems are very good, but they're different.  That's the basic point I'm trying to make. 

Exile, thanks for the historical background.  btw, the Ji Do Kwan hyung are virtually identical to Shotokan kata...


----------



## JT_the_Ninja

I _personally_ (operative word) don't think it matters where the hyung originated; the people who compiled it all and made it TSD were Koreans. But that's another story....back onto the subject of the thread:

Even with ho sin sul, though, I'd still balk at saying we teach HKD in TSD, for the reasons everyone's stating. Anyone who claims they know HKD without having set foot inside an HKD classroom is lying.


----------



## Ian wallace

Well I can honestly put my hand up and say im surprised!!
This is the main reason I joined this chat room to learn more about the art I love, I have been years and years practicing on techniques, timing, development of angle, handwork and all the things and ways to improve my way of defence and attack.

Although I have not invested enough time about our history im learning more and more each time im on this site, I am motivated by learning! Its just a shame I work on oil rigs, as in my time off I dont have access to the internet, but I will say *thanks to all *and please dont take anything personal we are all here to learn and I guess you guys are to!!

Yours in Tang Soo Do!!

Ian Wallace


----------



## mjd

JT_the_Ninja said:


> I _personally_ (operative word) don't think it matters where the hyung originated; the people who compiled it all and made it TSD were Koreans.


 
I totally agree with this statement, we need to give the Koreans some credit once in a while for putting it all togeather, the history will always be tainted by those who say this is right and this is wrong. 

This whole asia region of Jap..chin...okin... and others has been filed with travel, trading, wars, and yes love. To say one has not effected the other is simply unreal.


----------



## exile

mjd said:


> we need to give the Koreans some credit once in a while for putting it all togeather, the history will always be tainted by those who say this is right and this is wrong.



Right and wrong don't come into it, mjd. We know that the katas with the names Pinan, Naihanchi, Bassai, etc., were brought to Japan by Gichin Funakoshi and other expatriate Okinawans. There was no karate in Japan before this happened; the Okinawans taught the Japanese karate, and we know exactly why the Japanese education and defense ministries encouraged training in this Okinawan art. There are deep, detailed histories of the MAs and tremendous documentation, and this is a point which is as well established as anything in history can be. We also know that these kata did not exist in Korea until the Kwan founders went to Japan to study martial arts there, and we know who they studies with. We know that they achieved dan ranks primarily in Shotokan, and also Shudokan and Goju ryu styles in particular cases. We know that when they came back to Korea, they taught these kata that they had learnedunder the Korean names hyung/poomsae, which translate Japanese kata `pattern'in the schools or Kwans they founded, where they taught the art, karate, that they had learned under the names Kong Soo Do/Tang Soo Do, both of which literally translate `karate' under two different transliterations. We know that in some cases they actually named their schools after the Japanese schools they trained in (`Song Moo Kwan' literally translates `Shoto Kan' (= `Pine Tree (Training) House). They taught Okinawan kata they learned in Japan under the Okinawan names (the Pyung-Ahn hyungs are named literally after the Okinawan Pinan katas created by Anko Itosu at the turn of the 20th century for use by Okinawan school children who were learning karate as a result of his successful bid to get the art into the Okinawan public school system).  The movements in these kata are _move-for-move identical_ to these older Okinawan kata, which themselves very likely were built at least partially on Chinese MA patterns. 




mjd said:


> This whole asia region of Jap..chin...okin... and others has been filed with travel, trading, wars, and yes love.



So what? What does this have to do with the specific history of transmission of a particular set of technical elements from one place to the other. The Europeans brought back yams and tomatos to Europe from the New World; it didn't work the other way round. Exactly what is the point of this last comment of yours?



mjd said:


> To say one has not effected the other is simply unreal.



Who is saying that? 

Throwing a series of straw men together in a post and thinking you've established some result is, um, _ineffective_ as a way of making a point, mjd.

And that includes this nonsense that somehow, citing the well-documented history of the diffusion of karate does some disservice to the Koreans. If that were the case, you wouldn't expect to find top Korean MAists themselves presenting exactly this history in their books; but that's exactly what S. Henry Cho, in his classic 1968 textbook _Taekwondo: Secrets of Korean Karate_ does. The origin of modern Korean striking arts in the karate that travelled from Okinawa to Japan is simply a matter of familiar historical background to Cho, one of the great masters of KMA of a previous generation. Why on earth would you assume that getting the basic facts right demeans or takes credit away from the Koreans??


----------



## howard

exile said:


> And that includes this nonsense that somehow, citing the well-documented history of the diffusion of karate does some disservice to the Koreans. If that were the case, you wouldn't expect to find top Korean MAists themselves presenting exactly this history in their books; but that's exactly what S. Henry Cho, in his classic 1968 textbook _Taekwondo: Secrets of Korean Karate_ does. The origin of modern Korean striking arts in the karate that travelled from Okinawa to Japan is simply a matter of familiar historical background to Cho, one of the great masters of KMA of a previous generation...


Quite a few years ago, I trained in Ji Do Kwan in Master Cho's school in Manhattan.

The school was called the Karate Institute, even though Master Cho's uniform patch said "Tae Kwon Do" on it.

Since Hapkido was part of the original topic of this thread, it's pertinent to observe that we see a somewhat reversed situation in that art.  Hapkido's founder, Choi Yong Sul, always maintained that he spent about thirty years training in Japan under Sokaku Takeda, the Japanese martial artist who popularized Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu.  However, there is no known documentation of this.

Seems paradoxical that many TKD people deny the Japanese heritage of their art, whereas the followers of traditional forms of Hapkido (especially those that remain faithful strictly to the teachings of Choi, rather than to the hybrid art that Ji Han Jae created) claim a Japanese heritage, but meet with a lot of scepticism.

Just some random thoughts...


----------



## exile

howard said:


> Quite a few years ago, I trained in Ji Do Kwan in Master Cho's school in Manhattan.
> 
> The school was called the Karate Institute, even though Master Cho's uniform patch said "Tae Kwon Do" on it.
> 
> Since Hapkido was part of the original topic of this thread, it's pertinent to observe that we see a somewhat reversed situation in that art.  Hapkido's founder, Choi Yong Sul, always maintained that he spent about thirty years training in Japan under Sokaku Takeda, the Japanese martial artist who popularized Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu.  However, there is no known documentation of this.
> 
> Seems paradoxical that many TKD people deny the Japanese heritage of their art, whereas the followers of traditional forms of Hapkido (especially those that remain faithful strictly to the teachings of Choi, rather than to the hybrid art that Ji Han Jae created) claim a Japanese heritage, but meet with a lot of scepticism.
> 
> Just some random thoughts...



Random, but interesting! Your comments ring a particular bell which has been raised before on various MT threads: the preoccupation (maybe even obsession) of a lot of MAists with lineage and historical source issues. As you say, people either deny affiliations that are abundantly documented because they want to claim a `pure' origin for their art, or assert historical connections because they perceive the connection as a source of legitimacy. Funny, that... 

It could be _way_ worse, though, howard. Many threads on certain MT fora seem to almost always go sideways after a few posts, over this issue of who studied with whom for how long, who is the `true' inheritor of so-and-so's mantle, who is making claims to legitimacy based on false claims about their role in the development of such-and-such... we're not that badly off in the KMA fora, actually!


----------



## Danny Reid

howard said:


> Quite a few years ago, I trained in Ji Do Kwan in Master Cho's school in Manhattan.
> 
> The school was called the Karate Institute, even though Master Cho's uniform patch said "Tae Kwon Do" on it.
> 
> Since Hapkido was part of the original topic of this thread, it's pertinent to observe that we see a somewhat reversed situation in that art. Hapkido's founder, Choi Yong Sul, always maintained that he spent about thirty years training in Japan under Sokaku Takeda, the Japanese martial artist who popularized Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu. However, there is no known documentation of this.
> 
> Seems paradoxical that many TKD people deny the Japanese heritage of their art, whereas the followers of traditional forms of Hapkido (especially those that remain faithful strictly to the teachings of Choi, rather than to the hybrid art that Ji Han Jae created) claim a Japanese heritage, but meet with a lot of scepticism.
> 
> Just some random thoughts...


I've always wondered about this as well.  The fact that Choi's: A) actual time in Japan, B) from whom he studied what has never been authenticated never really concerned me.  The Aikijujutsu influence on Hapkido is painfully obvious, so he would have had to have studied Aikijujutsu from SOMEONE at SOME POINT in his life.  No such techniques had been practiced in Korea prior to that...at least as far as we know.  Or at least, those techniques were not native to Korea.


----------



## exile

Danny Reid said:


> I've always wondered about this as well.  The fact that Choi's: A) actual time in Japan, B) from whom he studied what has never been authenticated never really concerned me.  The Aikijujutsu influence on Hapkido is painfully obvious, so he would have had to have studied Aikijujutsu from SOMEONE at SOME POINT in his life.  No such techniques had been practiced in Korea prior to that...at least as far as we know.  Or at least, those techniques were not native to Korea.



This kind of thing illustrates perfectly one of the reasons why efforts to connect present-day MAs with ancestors in the dim past have to be viewed with extreme skepticism. The fact that we can't authenticate critical details about the source of even _recent_ fighting systems&#8212;stuff that happened in the 20th century, in fully literate societies&#8212;stuff like the line of transmission of Hapkido, or exactly what the training practices of the Tang/Kong Soo Do kwans of the early 1950s actually consisted of&#8212;is a powerful warning about the reliability of folktales of the past which purport to derive the martial arts of Asia from the supposed visit of Bhodhidharma to the Shaolin temple sometime way back when, or the claim that this or that modern system established in the past fifty years or so can be traced to combat systems hundreds or thousands of years back in a legendary heroic age, about which we actually know nothing but which we'd like to _imagine_ contains the seeds of current practice. 

The MAs seem to be especially prone to this sort of wishful thinking. If people were more secure about their respective arts, there would probably be less hankering after some glorious unrecoverable past...


----------



## JT_the_Ninja

howard said:


> Quite a few years ago, I trained in Ji Do Kwan in Master Cho's school in Manhattan.
> 
> The school was called the Karate Institute, even though Master Cho's uniform patch said "Tae Kwon Do" on it.



I might similarly point out that I train at C.S. Kim Karate, which nevertheless calls itself a TSD school and is headed by the current president of the International TSD Federation. As far as I know, Master Kim chose the name "C.S. Kim Karate" because in America _karate_ is an all-purpose word for martial arts. If he'd called it "C.S. Kim Tang Soo Do School," it's less likely that, given when he started the school, people would have understood. All our patches and uniforms say Tang Soo Do (though they do also say "C.S. Kim Karate" on the backs - surrounded by the words "International Tang Soo Do Federation"). I personally don't think the name of the school means as much as the training, though. 

And as to the hyung TSD owes to Okinawan karate, I think it's rather obvious that the hyung are *not* move-for-move the same. They are very, very close, though, and I always find this interesting as a way to see what other styles do with these forms, most especially what their originators do, in order to better understand the way my style teaches them. 

As to HKD's Choi Yung Sul, I'd not heard of this, but it is interesting. Sounds like other stories I've heard, concerning self-proclaimed "masters" who claim they've travelled Asia and studied everywhere important. Not that I discount HKD as an art, though. From what I've seen, it's still pretty effective as a Korean equivalent/offspring of Aikido.


----------



## exile

JT_the_Ninja said:


> And as to the hyung TSD owes to Okinawan karate, I think it's rather obvious that the hyung are *not* move-for-move the same.



From what I've seen, JT, the range of variation is well within the bounds of the variation in the performance of a _single_ TKD hyung as taught in different schools or by different teachers. I've seen knifehand strikes replace hammer fists and outward middle blocks replace inward middle blocks. People who've been in the game for a long time modify forms on an individual basis; I believe I've read accounts of MA masters who taught the same form somewhat differently to different cohorts of students, reflecting their changing view of the optimal move at that point. That's almost certainly particularly true of the original Okinawan practitioners who codified the forms; after all, their viewpoint was always driven by practicality and efficiency. If some modification of the instructions led to a better result, they'd act accordingly...



JT_the_Ninja said:


> They are very, very close, though, and I always find this interesting as a way to see what other styles do with these forms, most especially what their originators do, in order to better understand the way my style teaches them.



This is a useful approach. Sometimes the `dialect differences' in hyung performance are very informative, especially if you can get more specific information about the teacher's thinking in making the changes...


----------



## Danny Reid

As far as the TSD/Shotokan link...it's obvious.  Same goes for TKD...

Take Shotokan...add a few extra kicks...change a couple techniques in the katas...and voila'...you've got TSD...

Take TSD...add a few extra kicks...change a couple techniques in the hyungs...and voila'...you've got TKD...

It's all Shotokan, guys...

Hate to break it to you...


----------



## exile

Danny Reid said:


> As far as the TSD/Shotokan link...it's obvious.  Same goes for TKD...
> 
> Take Shotokan...add a few extra kicks...change a couple techniques in the katas...and voila'...you've got TSD...
> 
> Take TSD...add a few extra kicks...change a couple techniques in the hyungs...and voila'...you've got TKD...
> 
> It's all Shotokan, guys...
> 
> Hate to break it to you...



I'm anything but heartbroken, DannyShotokan is a perfectly good platform to build a Korean variant on, eh?  But you've captured the gist of things in a very concise and elegant way. 

The important thing to remember is that TSD and TKD are the Korean variants and development of the `karate root stock'. It's always a matter of a few small changes in each generation and as you say, voilàa distinctive national style. To me, it means mostly this: a lot of Shotokan guys have done a ton of bunkai analysis that we can study and steal from to suit ourselves, if we think the analyses are sound. Life's too short to keep reinventing the wheel, eh?


----------



## Danny Reid

exile said:


> I'm anything but heartbroken, DannyShotokan is a perfectly good platform to build a Korean variant on, eh?  But you've captured the gist of things in a very concise and elegant way.
> 
> The important thing to remember is that TSD and TKD are the Korean variants and development of the `karate root stock'. It's always a matter of a few small changes in each generation and as you say, voilàa distinctive national style. To me, it means mostly this: a lot of Shotokan guys have done a ton of bunkai analysis that we can study and steal from to suit ourselves, if we think the analyses are sound. Life's too short to keep reinventing the wheel, eh?


Absolutely!!!

Besides...I take it all in good humor!

Hell...even Shotokan is a knock-off of various systems!!!


----------



## howard

Danny Reid said:


> The fact that Choi's: A) actual time in Japan, B) from whom he studied what has never been authenticated never really concerned me.  The Aikijujutsu influence on Hapkido is painfully obvious, so he would have had to have studied Aikijujutsu from SOMEONE at SOME POINT in his life.


As a student of an old style of Hapkido that is faithful to Choi's teachings, this question intrigued me to the point that I eventually sought out Daito-ryu training to try to judge for myself whether there is any link between Choi's art and Daito-ryu.  Based on what I've seen firsthand, I believe like you that it is doubtless that Choi learned a form of Aikijujutsu while he was in Japan.  The technical similarities between Choi's art and Daito-ryu, especially with regard to some of Choi's advanced material, are just too great to be attributed to coincidence.

It's ironic that some early Hapkido people concocted stories about Hapkido having come from Korean monks who trained in caves hundreds of years ago, while Choi himself never wavered from his account.  His story was always that he learned Daito-ryu from Takeda in Japan.


----------



## MBuzzy

I think it is important to remember....

True that we should not deny the heritage OR the work that has gone before and already been done with regards to the hyung and bunkai...It is also true that TSD and TKD are built on a shotokon background.  But, as we have discussed in other threads, just because our heritage comes from Japan, TKD and TSD are STILL Korean arts and because they are based on Shotokon and have roots there, doesn't make them any less important, Korean, or any less viable martial arts.

(I know this is mostly preaching to the choir!)


----------



## exile

MBuzzy said:


> I think it is important to remember....
> 
> True that we should not deny the heritage OR the work that has gone before and already been done with regards to the hyung and bunkai...It is also true that TSD and TKD are built on a shotokon background.  But, as we have discussed in other threads, just because our heritage comes from Japan, TKD and TSD are STILL Korean arts and because they are based on Shotokon and have roots there, doesn't make them any less important, Korean, or any less viable martial arts.
> 
> (I know this is mostly preaching to the choir!)



There's nothing wrong with preaching to the choir, MB! What you say is very well said...


----------



## exile

Danny Reid said:
			
		

> Hell...even Shotokan is a knock-off of various systems!!!



For sure; in fact Okinawan karate as a whole seems to be a complex blend of indigenous Tuite techs with various Chinese systems (chuan fa especially, from what I've read). And there's an unexpected wrinkle here: according to Iain Abernethy,

_many of the Minimoto samurai took Okinawan wives and remained upon the island for the rest of their days. The bujitsu of the Minimoto samurai had a large influence on the fighting methods employed by the Okinawan nobles. One part of Minimoto bujitsu that had an influence on the development of karate was the idea that all motion is essentially the same. Whether striking, grappling or wielding a weapon, the Minamoto samurai taught that all combative methods relied upon similar physical movements... the results of this combat philosophy can still be seen in modern day karate._

So it looks as though JMAs had important input into the O/CMA mix which had been bubbling away on Okinawa for quite a bit, and which gave rise ultimately to Matsumura's and Itosu's combat system. The shining new synthesis was then exported back to Japan, and from there to Korea, where  new kicking techniques&#8212;I'm not talking about Olympic glitz, but, much earlier, the `open hip' style of kicking to drive the impact home with serious power&#8212;were incorporated into the mix. 



howard said:


> As a student of an old style of Hapkido that is faithful to Choi's teachings, this question intrigued me to the point that I eventually sought out Daito-ryu training to try to judge for myself whether there is any link between Choi's art and Daito-ryu.  Based on what I've seen firsthand, I believe like you that it is doubtless that Choi learned a form of Aikijujutsu while he was in Japan.  The technical similarities between Choi's art and Daito-ryu, especially with regard to some of Choi's advanced material, are just too great to be attributed to coincidence.



Yes! This is the kind of detective work that really works, when approaching questions where relevant documentation is missing and will very likely never surface. Archaeologists studying the early ancestors of our species have learned a tremendous amount about the development of human culture in deep prehistory by acquiring practical stone-flaking toolmaking skills; there's no other way to go about it! Learn the craft and you can in a lot of cases see what the answers must have been, because of the technical limits that emerge from hands-on experimentation...




howard said:


> It's ironic that some early Hapkido people concocted stories about Hapkido having come from Korean monks who trained in caves hundreds of years ago, while Choi himself never wavered from his account.  His story was always that he learned Daito-ryu from Takeda in Japan.



Everyone, in the end, wants you to believe their creation myth, where they sprang from the ground thousands of years ago in the place where they now are. You can understand it... but it does the MAs a real disservice when `charter myths' asserting one or another form of legitimacy are taken to be real history.


----------



## howard

JT_the_Ninja said:


> As to HKD's Choi Yung Sul, I'd not heard of this, but it is interesting... Not that I discount HKD as an art, though. From what I've seen, it's still pretty effective as a Korean equivalent/offspring of Aikido.


It's definitely effective, but I'd put it much closer to Japanese Jujutsu than to Aikido.  Most modern forms of Aikido have evolved quite far from their Daito-ryu roots.  On the other hand, the locking / throwing / pinning elements of Hapkido are still pretty close to their Aikijujutsu roots.  None of that new-age stuff about not responding violently to your enemy... when you're attacked, you definitely respond violently in Hapkido.

Sorry if I'm hijacking a TSD thread, but so far all of the posts seem relevant to the original topic.

I should visit the TSD forum more often... you all play very nicely with each other.


----------



## exile

howard said:


> I should visit the TSD forum more often... you all play very nicely with each other.



Well, we have our moments, but for the most part I'd say that we're pretty good sports!


----------



## Ian wallace

i have seen a few classes of T.S.D and in our student hand book from our association we do have the history and a brief understanding about hapkido,
we have always been told that our self defence techniques are spawn from hapkido! thats why i asked the origanal question


----------



## Ian wallace

sorry i ment a few classes of hapkido!!!


----------



## howard

Ian wallace said:


> we have always been told that our self defence techniques are spawn from hapkido! thats why i asked the origanal question


That's quite possible, and it raises an interestng question: does TSD have formal self defense techniques that are part of its ranking curriculum?  Or does the teaching of self-defense in TSD vary from one organization and dojang to another?


----------



## zDom

Danny Reid said:


> No such techniques had been practiced in Korea prior to that...at least as far as we know.  Or at least, those techniques were not native to Korea.



Not true. There is no documentation, but some of the earliest practitioners had indicated there were some indigineous techniques along those lines in Korea prior to Choi. 

I imagine it was one of those things along the lines of, Choi shows Student X a technique, and he remembers his grandfather doing something very similar, or some monk at a temple he visited once as a child. Probably not a comprehensive system like Choi brought with him, but odds and ends that were thrown into the mix as variations or additional techniques, perhaps.

(fwiw, ONE theory is that it was the KOREANs who brought originally brought techniques to Japan that eventually became Ju Jutsu )

There is no doubt at all, however, that Choi's teachings made up the core of what became known as hapkido.



JT_the_Ninja said:


> Not that I discount HKD as an art, though. From what I've seen, it's still pretty effective as a Korean equivalent/offspring of Aikido.



Just to clarify, hapkido is not an equivalent of Aikido (I once thought so, too; I used to describe it as "Korean Aikido.") But HKD is DEFINATELY not an OFFSPRING of Aikido.

They simply have a common root: Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu as taught by Takeda Sokaku.


----------



## JT_the_Ninja

zDom: thanks for the clarification.

howard: At my school, the answer is yes. We do have several, and several more, ho sin sul techniques which we must demonstrate at tests; we start learning them from white belt upward, and start testing with them (I believe) around green/red belt. The black belt ones are the fun ones, though *evilgrin*


----------

