# Requirements to start Hapkido



## PhotonGuy

I know not all schools that teach Hapkido will do this but I once knew of a school that taught both Tae Kwon Do and Hapkido. In order to train in Hapkido at that school first you had to get a black belt in Tae Kwon Do there. I do know that Hapkido does use some of the techniques from Tae Kwon Do but to even start as a white belt in Hapkido at that school you first had to get a black belt in their Tae Kwon Do. I wonder if other schools have that same requirement.


----------



## oftheherd1

I have no idea why a school would do that other than to keep a student longer and get more money.  Tae Kwon Do is by no means a prerequisite for Hapkido, nor vice versa.  If there is any other reason I hope someone can explain it.

I would beg to differ with you that Hapkido uses some techniques from Tae Kwon Do.  I studied Tae Kwon Do briefly under Jhoon Goo Rhee in the sixties.  I never learned techniques as such, nor did I see any taught to higher belts.  To say either art took things from the other would require verifiable documentation, considering both are fairly recent arts.  However, I was told by a student of mine that some of the Hapkido techniques I taught, he was able to recognize as movements in Tae Kwon Do kata.  He stated that they appeared to have to no (other that the stated reason \of 'art') use until he learned the Hapkido technique.  

Which art used those first, and why their meaning has been lost in at least some Tae Kwon Do, I cannot say.


----------



## arnisador

I've found it reasonably common that a TKD school teaches (some) HKD as part of its self-defense curriculum. There's a variety of TKD styles and those taht don't teach locking and do emphasize sports seem to be the ones most likely to add HKD to round things out. But I haven't seen it be a prereq. before.

Historically, TKD is karate and HKD is jujutsu, but I think there has been some convergence, esp. because so many who practice HKD seem to also do (or have done) TKD, and I think it is fair to say that a lot of HKD schools' kicking techniques largely overlap with those of TKD, for example.


----------



## oftheherd1

arnisador said:


> I've found it reasonably common that a TKD school teaches (some) HKD as part of its self-defense curriculum. There's a variety of TKD styles and those taht don't teach locking and do emphasize sports seem to be the ones most likely to add HKD to round things out. But I haven't seen it be a prereq. before.
> 
> Historically, TKD is karate and HKD is jujutsu, but I think there has been some convergence, esp. because so many who practice HKD seem to also do (or have done) TKD, and I think it is fair to say that a lot of HKD schools' kicking techniques largely overlap with those of TKD, for example.



I think you will find Hapkido is traced to Dait&#333;-ry&#363; not JuJutsu.  Also, from my perspective, many who have/do practice TKD also wish to learn/move to Hapkido.


----------



## Dirty Dog

oftheherd1 said:


> I think you will find Hapkido is traced to Dait&#333;-ry&#363; not JuJutsu.  Also, from my perspective, many who have/do practice TKD also wish to learn/move to Hapkido.



True enough, but given that the full name of the art is Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu, wouldn't you both be correct? Or just splitting itty bitty hairs?


----------



## Chris Parker

oftheherd1 said:


> I think you will find Hapkido is traced to Dait&#333;-ry&#363; not JuJutsu.  Also, from my perspective, many who have/do practice TKD also wish to learn/move to Hapkido.



Daito Ryu is jujutsu&#8230; just a specific system of it. 



Dirty Dog said:


> True enough, but given that the full name of the art is Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu, wouldn't you both be correct? Or just splitting itty bitty hairs?



Yeah, you'd be correct. Of course, there's no such generic art as "jujutsu"&#8230; just many, many forms and expressions of it&#8230; Daito Ryu being one&#8230; so, in that sense, stating that Hapkido claims to be descendant from Daito Ryu, rather than simply "jujutsu" is also correct&#8230; which is where we get into the "splitting hairs" thing&#8230; 

Of course, there is also the fact that there is really almost no evidence that Choi actually learnt Daito Ryu itself&#8230; instead, it's likely that he attended some scant training in early Aikido groups&#8230; likely with Ueshiba heading them&#8230; as Ueshiba was making his separation from Daito Ryu. Certainly, the stories given by Choi seem to have absolutely no corroborating evidence whatsoever&#8230; so&#8230; I think you'll find that Hapkido traces itself to basic methods which themselves trace back to Daito Ryu&#8230; at best, anyway.


----------



## WaterGal

oftheherd1 said:


> I have no idea why a school would do that other than to keep a student longer and get more money.  Tae Kwon Do is by no means a prerequisite for Hapkido, nor vice versa.  If there is any other reason I hope someone can explain it.



I'm guessing the instructor didn't actually know a lot of Hapkido, and wanted to hide that by making you do 2-3 years of other stuff first!  That way, most people would quit long before they got to the end of what Hapkido he or she knows.


----------



## oftheherd1

Chris Parker said:


> Daito Ryu is jujutsu&#8230; just a specific system of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you'd be correct. Of course, there's no such generic art as "jujutsu"&#8230; just many, many forms and expressions of it&#8230; Daito Ryu being one&#8230; so, in that sense, stating that Hapkido claims to be descendant from Daito Ryu, rather than simply "jujutsu" is also correct&#8230; which is where we get into the "splitting hairs" thing&#8230;
> 
> Of course, there is also the fact that there is really almost no evidence that Choi actually learnt Daito Ryu itself&#8230; instead, it's likely that he attended some scant training in early Aikido groups&#8230; likely with Ueshiba heading them&#8230; as Ueshiba was making his separation from Daito Ryu. Certainly, the stories given by Choi seem to have absolutely no corroborating evidence whatsoever&#8230; so&#8230; I think you'll find that Hapkido traces itself to basic methods which themselves trace back to Daito Ryu&#8230; at best, anyway.



Given the oriental propensity for respecting age and longevity, I think believing all histories of ancient lineage of modern martial arts must be viewed with care.  Modern TKD and HKD, usually acknowledge their recent beginnings, and lineage from Japan, Okinawa, or China.  But even they have begun to try and show ancient Korean lineage.  

As to Choi, it must be remembered that he was Korean, lived many years in Japan, where Koreans were often considered childishly ignorant and suitable for only menial jobs, if that.  Any Japanese who agreed to have a Korean in his school would have had to have believed strongly in that decision, and had the standing in Japanese society to get away with it.  That said, there does seem to be murkiness to Choi's claim.  Yet he seems to have had much knowledge in grappling arts early on his return from Japan.  You probably need to explain that away along with your dismissal of Choi, and Korean/Japanese interaction.


----------



## oftheherd1

WaterGal said:


> I'm guessing the instructor didn't actually know a lot of Hapkido, and wanted to hide that by making you do 2-3 years of other stuff first!  That way, most people would quit long before they got to the end of what Hapkido he or she knows.



That I can easily believe.  There are many stories of seminars producing HKD rank, and other MA ranks as well, from teachers of questionable motives.


----------



## Chris Parker

oftheherd1 said:


> Given the oriental propensity for respecting age and longevity, I think believing all histories of ancient lineage of modern martial arts must be viewed with care.  Modern TKD and HKD, usually acknowledge their recent beginnings, and lineage from Japan, Okinawa, or China.  But even they have begun to try and show ancient Korean lineage.



Yeah&#8230; not really anything to do with what I was talking about, for the record&#8230; 



oftheherd1 said:


> As to Choi, it must be remembered that he was Korean, lived many years in Japan, where Koreans were often considered childishly ignorant and suitable for only menial jobs, if that.  Any Japanese who agreed to have a Korean in his school would have had to have believed strongly in that decision, and had the standing in Japanese society to get away with it.  That said, there does seem to be murkiness to Choi's claim.  Yet he seems to have had much knowledge in grappling arts early on his return from Japan.  You probably need to explain that away along with your dismissal of Choi, and Korean/Japanese interaction.



That's the problem&#8230; the only reference we have to Choi being part of the school is Choi's comments&#8230; all of which contradict everyone else's accounts&#8230; and feature a whole range of claims that are backed up by exactly nothing. What is seen in Hapkido is really fairly entry level joint locking (indicating a rather cursory exposure, hardly the three decades as a "secret student" he claims), and so on. I'm not dismissing Choi, I'm saying that his claims fly in the face of reality and all other evidence. Now, does that mean that Hapkido is not a wonderful, versatile, powerful art? No. But it does mean that the claims of a Daito Ryu origin should be taken as suspect, in the least&#8230; most actual evidence have Choi (or someone he knew) attending occasional seminars and training dates with Ueshiba, who was in the process of formulating Aikido at the time (hence the usage of the same kanji&#8230; "Hapkido" is the Korean pronunciation of "Aikido", let's not forget&#8230, but these meetings were very few and far between.


----------



## oftheherd1

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah&#8230; not really anything to do with what I was talking about, for the record&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem&#8230; the only reference we have to Choi being part of the school is Choi's comments&#8230; all of which contradict everyone else's accounts&#8230; and feature a whole range of claims that are backed up by exactly nothing. What is seen in Hapkido is really fairly entry level joint locking (indicating a rather cursory exposure, hardly the three decades as a "secret student" he claims), and so on. I'm not dismissing Choi, I'm saying that his claims fly in the face of reality and all other evidence. Now, does that mean that Hapkido is not a wonderful, versatile, powerful art? No. But it does mean that the claims of a Daito Ryu origin should be taken as suspect, in the least&#8230; most actual evidence have Choi (or someone he knew) attending occasional seminars and training dates with Ueshiba, who was in the process of formulating Aikido at the time (hence the usage of the same kanji&#8230; "Hapkido" is the Korean pronunciation of "Aikido", let's not forget&#8230, but these meetings were very few and far between.




So Hapkido has 'fairly entry level joint locking?' Yet is a 'wonderful, versatile, powerful art?'  I'll need to work on that a bit.  But I will be diligent.  Perhaps it would help if you could tell me how many different ways the different body joints can in fact be manipulated.  Or better yet, if there are youtube or other examples of joint manipulations in other arts that Hapkido doesn't have, I would be thrilled to learn them.  But I do agree that Hapkido is a wonderful, versatile, powerful art.


I have stated before that Choi's history is murky.  There is no getting around that.  The only thing that seems to remain are his own oral histories as told to his students (and the fact he was apparently good enough to have students).  You may believe them, or not believe them.  That is up to you.  But I must admit I had never heard any claims that he '(or someone he knew)' attended 'occasional seminars and training dates with Ueshiba' but that seems to me a little far fetched.  Granted, that is just my opinion.  I just couldn't see why he would be more likely to claim lineage from Takeda rather than Ueshiba, if most of what he learned came from Ueshiba.  And I never heard of Japanese schools teaching seminars or having training dates for outsiders, during that time frame.  I wasn't aware of that teaching method from major schools in Japan.


But the real bottom line for the OP is that I know of no requirements for study of Hapkido other than finding a school and attending.  If the OP, or you, or anyone else doesn't think Hapkido is for them, they should stay away.  If anyone thinks there is another art better suited to them, they should seek out a school and teacher of that art and study it.  On the other hand, if anyone thinks Hapkido is an art they would like to learn, I don't think they will be disappointed in learning it.  I would just encourage them to find a good school and teacher.


And I would tell them not to worry about difficult to substantiate claims (for or against Choi or Hapkido) if they like what they see in Hapkido.


----------



## Chris Parker

oftheherd1 said:


> So Hapkido has 'fairly entry level joint locking?' Yet is a 'wonderful, versatile, powerful art?'  I'll need to work on that a bit.  But I will be diligent.  Perhaps it would help if you could tell me how many different ways the different body joints can in fact be manipulated.  Or better yet, if there are youtube or other examples of joint manipulations in other arts that Hapkido doesn't have, I would be thrilled to learn them.  But I do agree that Hapkido is a wonderful, versatile, powerful art.



Yeah, I wasn't particularly clear there&#8230; that's on me.

What I was meaning was that Choi's claims of being a secret disciple of Takeda Sokaku, living in essentially his "summer house" (away from anyone else who might have witnessed Choi's mere presence), having been trained in all aspects of Daito Ryu, including methods above and beyond those taught to Takeda's own son, Tokimune, fly in the face of mere observable methods, as what is seen in Hapkido is really far more reminiscent of the early, basic levels of Daito Ryu/early Aikido&#8230; so, when I say that Hapkido shows fairly "entry level joint locking", I'm only referencing the aspects that could potentially have come from Daito Ryu&#8230; from that perspective, yeah, it's fairly entry level.

But here's the thing&#8230; it's not about different ways to manipulate a joint&#8230; it's about how you do it&#8230; 



oftheherd1 said:


> I have stated before that Choi's history is murky.  There is no getting around that.  The only thing that seems to remain are his own oral histories as told to his students (and the fact he was apparently good enough to have students).


 
Ashida Kim gets students. Frank Dux still gets students. Antony Cummins has followers. Having students, honestly, is hardly an indication of anything other than an appeal to a certain segment of the market.



oftheherd1 said:


> You may believe them, or not believe them.  That is up to you.


 
With all evidence denying them, and there being nothing that corroborates the stories, I'll choose to not believe them. I appreciate that others do believe, though.



oftheherd1 said:


> But I must admit I had never heard any claims that he '(or someone he knew)' attended 'occasional seminars and training dates with Ueshiba' but that seems to me a little far fetched.


 
The closest thing we have to corroborating evidence of Choi even being exposed to anything from Daito Ryu are recollections from Ueshiba's son, Kisshomaru, who has noted that his father mentioned "a Korean man" somewhat similar to Choi who attended "one or two seminars". Far fetched? Not at all&#8230; especially not when compared with the stories that Choi presented.



oftheherd1 said:


> Granted, that is just my opinion.  I just couldn't see why he would be more likely to claim lineage from Takeda rather than Ueshiba, if most of what he learned came from Ueshiba.


 
Because Takeda was Ueshiba's teacher. Even at that point, Ueshiba hadn't made his split yet.



oftheherd1 said:


> And I never heard of Japanese schools teaching seminars or having training dates for outsiders, during that time frame.  I wasn't aware of that teaching method from major schools in Japan.



Then take it from me, it was not an uncommon occurrence&#8230; especially for the more financially driven teachers (which included Ueshiba and Takeda, for the record). I mean, some of Choi's stories include the idea of him being taken along to some of these (including ones outside of Japan, such as Hawaii) to act as uke for the techniques&#8230; and, for the record, the seminars that he cited are on record, but there is no mention of Choi being involved&#8230; 



oftheherd1 said:


> But the real bottom line for the OP is that I know of no requirements for study of Hapkido other than finding a school and attending.  If the OP, or you, or anyone else doesn't think Hapkido is for them, they should stay away.  If anyone thinks there is another art better suited to them, they should seek out a school and teacher of that art and study it.  On the other hand, if anyone thinks Hapkido is an art they would like to learn, I don't think they will be disappointed in learning it.  I would just encourage them to find a good school and teacher.



Agreed.



oftheherd1 said:


> And I would tell them not to worry about difficult to substantiate claims (for or against Choi or Hapkido) if they like what they see in Hapkido.



True&#8230; depending on the values of the person in question. Considering this particular OP, I don't think he's actually genuinely interested in studying Hapkido, or any of the other arts/teachers he's asked about.


----------



## oftheherd1

Chris Parker said:


> so, when I say that Hapkido shows fairly "entry level joint locking", I'm only referencing the aspects that could potentially have come from Daito Ryu&#8230; from that perspective, yeah, it's fairly entry level.
> 
> But here's the thing&#8230; it's not about different ways to manipulate a joint&#8230; it's about how you do it&#8230;



Well, I guess it is senseless for me to try and answer that since I personally am not sufficiently an expert nor have studied all the other grappling arts to know if there are better ways &#8216;to do it&#8217; than how they are done in Hapkido. 

Not sure how you mean &#8216;entry level&#8217; either.  In Hapkido, if we are going to manipulate a joint, whether for compliance or destruction, we tend to want to get in and do it the quickest and simplest way possible.  I am curious as to what you think of the other aspects of Hapkido.  Hapkido is generally thought of as a grappling art, but we do more than just grapple.



Chris Parker said:


> Ashida Kim gets students. Frank Dux still gets students. Antony Cummins has followers. Having students, honestly, is hardly an indication of anything other than an appeal to a certain segment of the market.



I don&#8217;t really know anything other than what a quick google showed about Ashida Kim, Frank Dux, or Anthony Cummins.  But from that and your post, I take it their actual knowledge and abilities are very much in question by you.  

I was interested in the fact that Antony Cummins appears to disagree with modern Ninjutsu as a traditional martial art.  I note he made no claim to be a martial artist, but simply a historian and archaeologist.  Why he has singled out Ninjutsu I don&#8217;t know.  But he seems to feel the same about modern Ninjutsu as you do about Hapkido.

I am not sure that it is nice to compare the students of Choi to the likes of Ashida Kim and Frank Dux, or even Antony Cimmins, when you obviously think so little of all three of them.  Clearly Choi had enough knowledge to train some very good students.  Or do you deny that Choi&#8217;s students were good Hapkidoists and martial artists



Chris Parker said:


> With all evidence denying them, and there being nothing that corroborates the stories, I'll choose to not believe them. I appreciate that others do believe, though.[



I have no direct knowledge of evidence for or against Choi.  But I have read both pro and con on the internet.  I cannot state which pro or con to be totally or partially correct, but I read all I can find and try to judge them based on my own knowledge and experiences.  I do have my own GM&#8217;s knowledge of Choi.  He certainly didn&#8217;t think Choi was not knowledgeable, while acknowledging he studied in Japan

Anyway, I believe the Hapkido I studied to be a good and very effective martial art.  I am sure you think the same about your chosen martial art.  I have no interest in dissing your art, or anyone else&#8217;s martial art.  I prefer not to have anyone try to dis my art (even round-about, through dissing its founder).  But I am not worried that it will diminish my art in any way.  It will stand or fall on its own merits.  So far, it is standing.


----------



## Chris Parker

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, I guess it is senseless for me to try and answer that since I personally am not sufficiently an expert nor have studied all the other grappling arts to know if there are better ways &#8216;to do it&#8217; than how they are done in Hapkido.
> 
> Not sure how you mean &#8216;entry level&#8217; either.  In Hapkido, if we are going to manipulate a joint, whether for compliance or destruction, we tend to want to get in and do it the quickest and simplest way possible.  I am curious as to what you think of the other aspects of Hapkido.  Hapkido is generally thought of as a grappling art, but we do more than just grapple.



Yeah, you're missing the point&#8230; within Daito Ryu, the methodology is addressed in three (progressive) forms&#8230; Jujutsu; Aikijujutsu; Aikujutsu&#8230; the actual "locks" etc don't change&#8230; but the methods of application, the timing, the use of sen (initiative), methods of receiving, and a range of other principles do change. Someone who had learnt the entire curriculum of Daito Ryu, as Choi claimed, would have been able to demonstrate something beyond the initial methods found in the Jujutsu portion&#8230; which is not something that has been seen.



oftheherd1 said:


> I don&#8217;t really know anything other than what a quick google showed about Ashida Kim, Frank Dux, or Anthony Cummins.  But from that and your post, I take it their actual knowledge and abilities are very much in question by you.


 
Yeah&#8230; that and a fair bit more&#8230; I won't get into it too far here, but&#8230; well&#8230; yeah. The first two are some of the most overt and obvious frauds around, bluntly. 



oftheherd1 said:


> I was interested in the fact that Antony Cummins appears to disagree with modern Ninjutsu as a traditional martial art.  I note he made no claim to be a martial artist, but simply a historian and archaeologist.  Why he has singled out Ninjutsu I don&#8217;t know.  But he seems to feel the same about modern Ninjutsu as you do about Hapkido.



Yeah&#8230; again, I'm not going to get too far into this (I can link you some stuff if you're genuinely interested, but if I was you, I'd spare myself the headache&#8230, but no, Antony's claims have gone back and forth a bit, from him having his own system ("The Dignity of Flying Birds", a name taken from a mistranslation from the Bansenshukai), to him trying to start an association where he was telling everyone how they should structure their classes, to now "reconstructing" a system (Natori Ryu) with no knowledge or experience at all. He's not a historian, his only credentials are a Masters in European Archaeology, he's presented books as an author which are really other people's translations of Japanese texts (done by people who don't have the requisite background to interpret them properly&#8230; Antony himself can't read, speak, or even pronounce a single word of Japanese&#8230, and far, far more.

In short, he's a publicity hound (or a slightly more sordid term) with no real credentials to speak of, and no actual knowledge or insight.



oftheherd1 said:


> I am not sure that it is nice to compare the students of Choi to the likes of Ashida Kim and Frank Dux, or even Antony Cimmins, when you obviously think so little of all three of them.  Clearly Choi had enough knowledge to train some very good students.  Or do you deny that Choi&#8217;s students were good Hapkidoists and martial artists



I agree that it wasn't particular generous to Choi&#8230; and, to be completely frank, I wouldn't place any of them anywhere near him&#8230; I'm not even saying anything against Choi's skills or abilities as a martial artist or teacher&#8230; just that the claims of Daito Ryu, including how he claimed to have learnt it, are all so far outside the realm of plausibility that it shouldn't be taken as gospel. It's obvious he learnt something in Japan&#8230; but it's equally obvious he didn't get anywhere near the level of education in Daito Ryu than has been claimed. That's all. And let's not forget that Hapkido (as an art) has changed and developed significantly since Choi first introduced it.



oftheherd1 said:


> I have no direct knowledge of evidence for or against Choi.  But I have read both pro and con on the internet.  I cannot state which pro or con to be totally or partially correct, but I read all I can find and try to judge them based on my own knowledge and experiences.  I do have my own GM&#8217;s knowledge of Choi.  He certainly didn&#8217;t think Choi was not knowledgeable, while acknowledging he studied in Japan



Okay.



oftheherd1 said:


> Anyway, I believe the Hapkido I studied to be a good and very effective martial art.  I am sure you think the same about your chosen martial art.  I have no interest in dissing your art, or anyone else&#8217;s martial art.  I prefer not to have anyone try to dis my art (even round-about, through dissing its founder).  But I am not worried that it will diminish my art in any way.  It will stand or fall on its own merits.  So far, it is standing.



To be frank, I'm not dissing the art&#8230; or the founder&#8230; if anything, I'd say that it heightens the estimation of Choi, that he could create such a deeply faceted system from such a minimalist background. Not unheard of, either&#8230; but quite impressive.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

PhotonGuy said:


> I know not all schools that teach Hapkido will do this but I once knew of a school that taught both Tae Kwon Do and Hapkido. In order to train in Hapkido at that school first you had to get a black belt in Tae Kwon Do there. I do know that Hapkido does use some of the techniques from Tae Kwon Do but to even start as a white belt in Hapkido at that school you first had to get a black belt in their Tae Kwon Do. I wonder if other schools have that same requirement.


I teach hapkido and have no requirement that you learn taekwondo first. Honestly, that makes very little sense, unless his path to black belt in taekwondo is ridiculously short (one year at most), and even then it still makes very little sense.

There is a perception amongst some that hapkido is a more advanced art than taekwondo, thus learn the simpler to get the more complex. I don't subscribe to that notion, as taekwondo is every bit as advanced as hapkido.

The two arts are similar enough, and as others have mentioned, hapkido grappling techniques are frequently grafted onto taekwondo classes. I studied in such a class for several years, and loved it. But the class was structured so as to add the various grappling techniques in a logical progression that matched the taekwondo belt progression rather than being an entirely new class that you took after getting your black belt in the base class.

After your taekwondo black belt, you should be looking to deepen your knowledge in taekwondo, not just jump to another art that's similar but with added grapples.

The closest thing that I've seen to that in my area was a Jinenkan school that reserved the taijutsu classes for adults (ages 16 and up). The childrens class was (according to them) based in Isshin Ryu karate. The junior class was the same class, but with some taijutsu elements (mainly escapes, sweeps, rudimentary throws, rolls, and falls from what I could tell). Students who stayed in the school long enough to transition to adult classes transitioned to the taijutsu class, though so far as I know, there was no requirement to earn a black belt in the junior or children's class.

Aside from the suggestions put forth by others here, I can think of no logical reason for a school doing what you are describing, and being very familiar with both hapkido and taekwondo, I would consider it to be counterproductive; there is so much overlap in techniques between the two arts with regards to striking that there is really no reason to learn both.

Both arts are fairly 'complete' on their own (meaning that they are complete systems, not that they cover each and every range/combat possibility, not subsets of a larger art), and continued study and depth in either one after earning that black piece of cloth is probably more valuable than jumping ship and going to another art unless you've _*really *_determined that the first one wasn't for you and have had enough exposure to the second to know that that's where you want to go.

I had studied TKD for many years before taking up hapkido, and I mainly did so as a favor to my kwanjang, who was trying to get a new class off the ground. By the time I had my black belt in hapkido, I was fairly sure that it was a better fit for me than Kukki taekwondo was, though I did continue to stay involved in taekwondo for awhile afterward.

I won't tell you to avoid the school (given that you seem to want to go directly into HKD, you're probably inclined to look elsewhere anyway); I've never visited them and won't make an evaluation of them on the internet. I will say that I consider what you describe to be an incredibly inefficient way to get into a hapkido class.


----------



## Carol

This doesn't sound right.   

When Joo Bang Lee created his Hwarangdo curriculum, he also created a program called "Tae Soo Do" -- borrowing a name previously used in TaeKwon Do, but since abandoned.   I believe that to study Hwarangdo in Mr. Lee's organization, one must first earn a black belt in his Tae Soo Do, before studying what he calls Hwarangdo.   That is the only Korean style that I am aware of where one must first earn a black belt in (X) in order to begin studying in (Y). 

(Neither of these styles are Hapkido)


----------



## Carol

OK some clarification from the website of the organization:

Certified TSD Black Belts | World Hwa Rang Do® Association



> *TAE SOO DO**®
> *Tae Soo Do*®** is an undergraduate training program to Hwa Rang Do® for people who have not had previous experience in the martial arts. Because of the complexity and vast requirements of Hwa Rang Do® techniques, experienced martial artists may begin directly in Hwa Rang Do®; however beginning martial artists need to build a strong foundation and good skills in Tae Soo Do® before beginning their Hwa Rang Do® training. When a Tae Soo Do® student receives their black belt, they also receive their yellow sash in Hwa Rang Do®. After completely learning white, orange and yellow sash techniques, students then move on by testing for green sash (HwaRang Do® intermediate levels) and continue their Hwa Rang Do® training. Tae Soo Do® is not a continuing degree Dan program.*


----------



## Dirty Dog

So the tae soo do program is like training wheels?


----------



## Carol

Dirty Dog said:


> So the tae soo do program is like training wheels?



That's how it looks to me.  

Plus, Mr. Lee is reputed to be quite the businessman, if you catch my drift.


----------



## jezr74

I've never understood the whole TKD <> HKD thing in some schools that will give Hapkido ranks, when the instructor *appears* to have made a shortcut to instructor level of HKD based on both being a Korean martial art.

Obviously there are well credited instructors who have learnt both styles but I've also read and talked to people who have rank in both with 'iffy' timelines as to how it came about, or have been awarded rank based on their TKD rank, which equally confuses me. There may be legitimate reasons, I just don't know what they are, or I am reading too much into it at a glance.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

jezr74 said:


> I've never understood the whole TKD <> HKD thing in some schools that will give Hapkido ranks, when the instructor *appears* to have made a shortcut to instructor level of HKD based on both being a Korean martial art.
> 
> Obviously there are well credited instructors who have learnt both styles but I've also read and talked to people who have rank in both with 'iffy' timelines as to how it came about, or have been awarded rank based on their TKD rank, which equally confuses me. There may be legitimate reasons, I just don't know what they are, or I am reading too much into it at a glance.



There are plenty of organizations that are happy to grow their numbers by bringing fairly plentiful TKD people in and transferring their TKD rank to Hapkido or whatever art it is they're promoting. Usually, there is a seminar attendance schedule that initially inducts them and then continues their acclimation of the new curriculum. There are also fees to be paid.

The logic is that a TKD instructor is already fluent in the terminology, has an understanding of Korean arts via their taekwondo base, and can either incorporate the new curriculum into an existing TKD class, or teach it as an adjunct to it. 

Haedong Gumdo was fairly famous for this in its formation, though I have no idea if this is still a common practice.

So much of how well this works in practice depends greatly upon the background of the person in question. Relevant experience makes a huge difference, particularly in picking up the conceptual elements of the new art.

Obviously, instructors don't wish to advertise that they got their high dan in a new art by showing up to a few seminars (in the grand scheme of things, twenty seminars is only a few if you're getting a dan ranking of fourth or higher out of it), so of course their timeline is appropriately ambiguous; manufacturing TIG can backfire on you, especially if conversations go into any depth on the subject. At the same time, they don't want to tell you that they attended a seminar and got rank, so they give out iffy timelines and ambiguous training histories.

Funny, but I find that such people are often incredibly snobbish about rank. And if the new style is some kind of made up style or an offshoot of another style, they're even more snobbish. This serves to keep them on an unapproachable pedestal and thus prevent their rank from being questioned. It doesn't work when talking to people with any real experience, but they do it anyway.


----------



## jezr74

Daniel Sullivan said:


> There are plenty of organizations that are happy to grow their numbers by bringing fairly plentiful TKD people in and transferring their TKD rank to Hapkido or whatever art it is they're promoting. Usually, there is a seminar attendance schedule that initially inducts them and then continues their acclimation of the new curriculum. There are also fees to be paid.
> 
> The logic is that a TKD instructor is already fluent in the terminology, has an understanding of Korean arts via their taekwondo base, and can either incorporate the new curriculum into an existing TKD class, or teach it as an adjunct to it.
> 
> Haedong Gumdo was fairly famous for this in its formation, though I have no idea if this is still a common practice.
> 
> So much of how well this works in practice depends greatly upon the background of the person in question. Relevant experience makes a huge difference, particularly in picking up the conceptual elements of the new art.
> 
> Obviously, instructors don't wish to advertise that they got their high dan in a new art by showing up to a few seminars (in the grand scheme of things, twenty seminars is only a few if you're getting a dan ranking of fourth or higher out of it), so of course their timeline is appropriately ambiguous; manufacturing TIG can backfire on you, especially if conversations go into any depth on the subject. At the same time, they don't want to tell you that they attended a seminar and got rank, so they give out iffy timelines and ambiguous training histories.
> 
> Funny, but I find that such people are often incredibly snobbish about rank. And if the new style is some kind of made up style or an offshoot of another style, they're even more snobbish. This serves to keep them on an unapproachable pedestal and thus prevent their rank from being questioned. It doesn't work when talking to people with any real experience, but they do it anyway.



Not to say that their cannot be a practitioner that can learn both arts and be proficient. But I definitely found it a complete turn off when looking at schools and talking to instructors that reading between the lines, did not deserve (through lack of earning) the extra rank in a style, it diminished their credibility pretty fast. 

I think I've only seen it occur with Korean arts for some reason, and I think your right with the attitude of these types, "Thou doth protest too much".


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

jezr74 said:


> Not to say that their cannot be a practitioner that can learn both arts and be proficient.


Having dan grades in more than one art is not that uncommon, particularly if the person has any age on them; two to six years to black belt, depending on the style means that a person over thrity could have two or more dan grades.



jezr74 said:


> But I definitely found it a complete turn off when looking at schools and talking to instructors that reading between the lines, did not deserve (through lack of earning) the extra rank in a style, it diminished their credibility pretty fast.


And I'd bet that there was a high premium being charged as well.



jezr74 said:


> I think I've only seen it occur with Korean arts for some reason, and I think your right with the attitude of these types, "Thou doth protest too much".


It's pretty ubiquitous. There are plenty of karate guys who suddenly fancy themselves as katana masters or samurai swordsmen. Caucasian men who somehow inherit Okinawan royal guard training and things of that nature. Always a book with a DVD to go with it on sale too. 

I've even seen some Duck Dynasty looking guy with videos of himself doing Tai Chi in front of a backdrop that was put up in a junkyard (no kidding). 

You'd be amazed at what's out there with regards to questionable rank, fabricated histories, and new arts that somehow have mystical backgrounds.


----------



## oftheherd1

Daniel Sullivan said:


> There are plenty of organizations that are happy to grow their numbers by bringing fairly plentiful TKD people in and transferring their TKD rank to Hapkido or whatever art it is they're promoting. Usually, there is a seminar attendance schedule that initially inducts them and then continues their acclimation of the new curriculum. There are also fees to be paid.
> 
> The logic is that a TKD instructor is already fluent in the terminology, has an understanding of Korean arts via their taekwondo base, and can either incorporate the new curriculum into an existing TKD class, or teach it as an adjunct to it.
> 
> Haedong Gumdo was fairly famous for this in its formation, though I have no idea if this is still a common practice.
> 
> So much of how well this works in practice depends greatly upon the background of the person in question. Relevant experience makes a huge difference, particularly in picking up the conceptual elements of the new art.
> 
> Obviously, instructors don't wish to advertise that they got their high dan in a new art by showing up to a few seminars *(in the grand scheme of things, twenty seminars is only a few if you're getting a dan ranking of fourth or higher out of it)*, so of course their timeline is appropriately ambiguous; manufacturing TIG can backfire on you, especially if conversations go into any depth on the subject. At the same time, they don't want to tell you that they attended a seminar and got rank, so they give out iffy timelines and ambiguous training histories.
> 
> Funny, but I find that such people are often incredibly snobbish about rank. And if the new style is some kind of made up style or an offshoot of another style, they're even more snobbish. This serves to keep them on an unapproachable pedestal and thus prevent their rank from being questioned. It doesn't work when talking to people with any real experience, but they do it anyway.



Two excellent posts above.  But I would disagree with the bolded and underlined portion above.  At least as I learned it, there no way 20 seminars could give you a 1st Dan, much less a 4th or higher.  Even if the seminars were 1 week each; and most I have seen advertised are just a weekend.


----------



## Instructor

The more I learn of Hapkido the less it seems to have in common as a methodology to Tae Kwon Do.  I suppose in some of the kick-ier (I know it's not a word) versions of Hapkido they bear a closer resemblance but in our style our kicks are very basic and simple, not much like TKD at all.

My first school was a TKD/HKD hybrid.  We learned TKD forms and kicks with joint manipulation from HKD.  I came away from that experience with respect for both arts but knowing that my path lie with Hapkido.  I pursued a pure Hapkido system and haven't looked back.  I am permitted to teach both styles but I don't.  I've pretty much left TKD behind for good and spent the last 20 years focused on Hapkido.  In fact last year somebody asked me if I would be interested in teaching them Tae Kwon Do and I politely declined and recommended them to a good local school.  

I truly think it's best to keep them separate and distinct if possible.  I think a lot of times the reason you don't see pure Hapkido programs out there is they just don't have the broad appeal (especially for young people) that something like Tae Kwon Do does.  Most brick and mortar places I've come across in the last decade or so seem to rely on revenue from teaching children.  I think it would be much harder to keep a pure Hapkido program solvent.

I would also like to applaud Chris and oftherd1 on having an energetic and relevant discussion that stayed on track and stayed respectful, well done!  I sincerely wish we had more factual evidence of Hapkido history.  It's a great style, I fell in love with it right away.  Over the years I've dabbled in other styles but I've never tried anything I like so much as Hapkido.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

oftheherd1 said:


> Two excellent posts above.  But I would disagree with the bolded and underlined portion above.  At least as I learned it, there no way 20 seminars could give you a 1st Dan, much less a 4th or higher.  Even if the seminars were 1 week each; and most I have seen advertised are just a weekend.


Oh, I totally agree. I was not implying that it would; simply that the people in discussion are coming out of them with their teaching rank from one art being applied to a new art through a seminar process.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Instructor said:


> The more I learn of Hapkido the less it seems to have in common as a methodology to Tae Kwon Do.


Exactly!



Instructor said:


> I suppose in some of the kick-ier (I know it's not a word) versions of Hapkido they bear a closer resemblance but in our style our kicks are very basic and simple, not much like TKD at all.


Actually, in some lineages, hapkido has more kicks and aerials than TKD does. I learned under an independent, and it was a much more meat and potatoes style with regards to kicking (though we did have that crouching spin kick).


----------



## oftheherd1

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Exactly!
> 
> 
> Actually, in some lineages, hapkido has more kicks and aerials than TKD does. I learned under an independent, and it was a much more meat and potatoes style with regards to kicking (though we did have that crouching spin kick).



If you are talking about the spinning, dropping heel hook kick, that is neat isn't it?  So much power there; easily a broken ankle along with dropping your opponent to the ground.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

oftheherd1 said:


> If you are talking about the spinning, dropping heel hook kick, that is neat isn't it?  So much power there; easily a broken ankle along with dropping your opponent to the ground.



That's the one.


----------



## Instructor

Anybody have a video of that one?


----------



## jezr74

Instructor said:


> The more I learn of Hapkido the less it seems to have in common as a methodology to Tae Kwon Do.



I totally agree, and I thought this before I took the art up, and just read about both histories from many and varying sources, hence my original statement that I don't understand why they seem to have so much involvement in TKD schools, or that they seem to jump across to HKD from TKD in a weird way. Having started Hapkido training for the last 8 months, I believe they are even more loosely related and heavily more towards Jujutsu and Aikido styles. I'd be interested to know what the difference in syllabus would be between to such instructors. 

Again, I have nothing against TKD and think it's a great art, just this particular aspect I find odd.


----------



## Dirty Dog

jezr74 said:


> I totally agree, and I thought this before I took the art up, and just read about both histories from many and varying sources, hence my original statement that I don't understand why they seem to have so much involvement in TKD schools, or that they seem to jump across to HKD from TKD in a weird way. Having started Hapkido training for the last 8 months, I believe they are even more loosely related and heavily more towards Jujutsu and Aikido styles. I'd be interested to know what the difference in syllabus would be between to such instructors.
> 
> Again, I have nothing against TKD and think it's a great art, just this particular aspect I find odd.



The reality is that they're completely unrelated, and although both have been adopted and modified by the Koreans, neither is a Korean art. Taekwondo is derived (primarily) from Shotokan. Hapkido is derived (primarily) from Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu. Both have other things mixed in, and the origin stories of both are subject to a certain amount of vehement rhetoric.

Just as there are a fair number of people who can teach more than one style of Japanese art, there are a fair number of people who teach both of these "Korean" arts.


----------



## oftheherd1

Dirty Dog said:


> The reality is that they're completely unrelated, and although both have been adopted and modified by the Koreans, neither is a Korean art. Taekwondo is derived (primarily) from Shotokan. Hapkido is derived (primarily) from Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu. Both have other things mixed in, and the origin stories of both are subject to a certain amount of vehement rhetoric.
> 
> Just as there are a fair number of people who can teach more than one style of Japanese art, there are a fair number of people who teach both of these "Korean" arts.



Not disagreeing, just to add what I have said before.  I once discussed the origin of Hapkido with my GM, commenting that it seemed to be related to Aikido or maybe Jujitsu.  He put me straight immediately, saying it was not, but was started by a Korean who had studied an art in Japan, and returned to Korea after WWII, to start what became Hapkido.  I never delved into that too much.  I was satisfied with what I as learning, and didn't feel a need to trace its history to make myself a better learner.  It had what I wanted to learn as it was taught in my GM's kwan.  

Since it has become the subject of so much controversy, I kind of wish I had, since my GM was one of the older GMs.  But I don't feel my art is lessened by the controversy, nor was my learning affected in any way, good or bad.  People can say what they want.  Hapkido, like other arts, is an effective art.  What more would one want, than to study an effective MA, that they feel is best suited to them?


----------



## jezr74

Can't say I've seen it much in Japanese arts. I'm talking about automatic entitlement to a high level of another art by association of a persons primary.

I posted a podcast a few weeks back to a podcast talking about TKD and some of it's origins. It was a really interesting listen and gives some insight to the culture and mind set of Korea at the time. (is also a MP3 download) Which I think would play into the whole historical presentation of the Korean arts overall.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/52...1-manuel-adrogue-interview-hiyaa-podcast.html


----------



## Dirty Dog

jezr74 said:


> Can't say I've seen it much in Japanese arts. I'm talking about automatic entitlement to a high level of another art by association of a persons primary.



It happens all the time. There are plenty of places that will sell you credentials of any rank in any art you'd care to mention. Hell, you can buy a PhD online. Why not a 9th Dan certificate too?

There are also "honorary" ranks awarded, and somehow the "honorary" part gets left off when people list their credentials.

There are also "swapped" ranks. By which I mean two highly ranked people from different systems will award each other rank. Looks good on the wall when prospective new students show up.

There are also "self promotions" were a person or persons form a new organization and promptly promote themselves (or each other) to Imperial Supreme Great Eternal GrandMaster 35th Dan.

There are also "social" promotions. For example, I teach in a Moo Duk Kwan school, but we also offer Kukkiwon certification to students who want it. There is no reason why those students couldn't get both Moo Duk Kwan and Kukkiwon certifications which could (eventually) lead to their possessing high Dan rank from two different systems. Related, but different.

There are also what I call "assimilation ranks" (yes, it's a Borg reference...) where an organization will offer equivalent rank to someone from a closely related system to grow their organization. The Kukkiwon does this, with the understanding (which it is impossible to enforce) that the person is then supposed to learn and teach the Kukkiwon curriculum.

I don't think it's ever (or at least not often) viewed as an entitlement. And it's certainly less common among the more respectable organizations. But it does happen.


----------



## jezr74

Dirty Dog said:


> It happens all the time. There are plenty of places that will sell you credentials of any rank in any art you'd care to mention. Hell, you can buy a PhD online. Why not a 9th Dan certificate too?
> 
> There are also "honorary" ranks awarded, and somehow the "honorary" part gets left off when people list their credentials.
> 
> There are also "swapped" ranks. By which I mean two highly ranked people from different systems will award each other rank. Looks good on the wall when prospective new students show up.
> 
> There are also "self promotions" were a person or persons form a new organization and promptly promote themselves (or each other) to Imperial Supreme Great Eternal GrandMaster 35th Dan.
> 
> There are also "social" promotions. For example, I teach in a Moo Duk Kwan school, but we also offer Kukkiwon certification to students who want it. There is no reason why those students couldn't get both Moo Duk Kwan and Kukkiwon certifications which could (eventually) lead to their possessing high Dan rank from two different systems. Related, but different.
> 
> There are also what I call "assimilation ranks" (yes, it's a Borg reference...) where an organization will offer equivalent rank to someone from a closely related system to grow their organization. The Kukkiwon does this, with the understanding (which it is impossible to enforce) that the person is then supposed to learn and teach the Kukkiwon curriculum.
> 
> I don't think it's ever (or at least not often) viewed as an entitlement. And it's certainly less common among the more respectable organizations. But it does happen.



Yeah, I think maybe this line of conversation is around what you call the assimilated rank. 




Dirty Dog said:


> There are also "social" promotions. For example, I teach in a Moo Duk Kwan school, but we also offer Kukkiwon certification to students who want it. There is no reason why those students couldn't get both Moo Duk Kwan and Kukkiwon certifications which could (eventually) lead to their possessing high Dan rank from two different systems. Related, but different.


I'm not sure how it works, but to give a Kukkiwon certificate do you have to be endorsed or certified to able to award? Or for Moo Duk Kwan for that matter?


----------



## Dirty Dog

jezr74 said:


> I'm not sure how it works, but to give a Kukkiwon certificate do you have to be endorsed or certified to able to award? Or for Moo Duk Kwan for that matter?



Any KKW-certified 4th Dan (or higher) can sign the paperwork to register a KKW Dan rank. The person gets the actual certificate from the KKW and it's officially signed by the KKW President.
The same is true for the Moo Duk Kwan, except your certificates are signed by the person who is actually promoting you.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Dirty Dog said:


> The reality is that they're completely unrelated, and although both have been adopted and modified by the Koreans, neither is a Korean art. Taekwondo is derived (primarily) from Shotokan. Hapkido is derived (primarily) from Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu. Both have other things mixed in, and the origin stories of both are subject to a certain amount of vehement rhetoric.
> 
> Just as there are a fair number of people who can teach more than one style of Japanese art, there are a fair number of people who teach both of these "Korean" arts.



The most vehement part of the hapkido origin stories are the protestations of DRAJ exponents about Choi's exposure to DRAJ. Unlike TKD, HKD's founder actually credited a Japanese art instead of fabricating an origin from Korea's murky martial history.

The hapkido that most of us see is the synthesis of Choi's art with whatever Ji Han Jae and Kim Mu Hong had studied, which contained a lot of kicks, something Choi did not have very many of in what he taught.

Ji claimed to have learned his art from someone known only as "Grandma." I believe Kim Mu Hong had a CMA background, though I could be mistaken.

Regardless, TKD and HKD are contemporaries in terms of timeframe, but in terms of development.


----------



## jezr74

oftheherd1 said:


> But I don't feel my art is lessened by the controversy, nor was my learning affected in any way, good or bad.  People can say what they want.  Hapkido, like other arts, is an effective art.  What more would one want, than to study an effective MA, that they feel is best suited to them?



It's a controversy to ask sometimes. I don't give it much weight these days. But I love learning the history of different arts and how a style can be influenced by a single practitioner with a certain background, war, immigration, sickness etc.. I'm just a fan of getting the different theories and tid bits of info.

One of the things I was interested in trying to draw out in line with the TKD\HKD weave is when it started, or did something happen that sparked the trend of having them go hand in hand in some cases. I'm noticing, and correct me if I'm heading in the wrong direction, is that HKD has some soft teachers and some hard, and it reflects in the execution of some of the techniques I see performed from different streams. But I don't know enough yet about the different lines lineage. 

Are HKD schools closely aligned with TKD schools a more hard martial art, than what may have originally came out? And so has a fork at that point to subtler differences?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Daniel Sullivan said:


> The most vehement part of the hapkido origin stories are the protestations of DRAJ exponents about Choi's exposure to DRAJ.



No disagreement here. And no belief that there will be any real closure to the argument.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Unlike TKD, HKD's founder actually credited a Japanese art instead of fabricating an origin from Korea's murky martial history.



TKD didn't have a founder. It was synthesized from the training an experiences of a lot of people. Some of whom wanted to tie their new art to ancient times (for many reasons) and some who did not.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Dirty Dog said:


> TKD didn't have a founder. It was synthesized from the training an experiences of a lot of people.


I'm well aware of that.



Dirty Dog said:


> *Some of whom wanted to tie their new art to ancient times *(for many reasons) and some who did not.


This is the part that I was talking about; there was a fairly prominent effort at the outset to tie taekwondo to pre-occupation KMA and to obfuscate any non Korean elements in its origin. This was not the case when Choi founded hapkido.

Having said that, I have seen more than a few dojang websites that talk about "hapkido in ancient Korea," usually retrofitting the term, "hapkido" to describe grappling of pretty much any kind that is taught in their school.


----------



## Instructor

Whenever I am asked about the Hapkido origin story this is what I've been telling my folks: Hapkido History - Hapkido Online

I would like to explore the first generation students and teachers more.  If anybody sees any glaring inconsistencies or has photo's, video, or stories, that would improve this page and is willing to share I'd love to improve it.


----------



## Chris Parker

Instructor said:


> Whenever I am asked about the Hapkido origin story this is what I've been telling my folks: Hapkido History - Hapkido Online
> 
> I would like to explore the first generation students and teachers more.  If anybody sees any glaring inconsistencies or has photo's, video, or stories, that would improve this page and is willing to share I'd love to improve it.



Hmm&#8230; as I'm sure you'd figure, there are a range of things on that page I'd question&#8230; but, as most is presented as "legend", and unverified, it's not a big thing. The section that I'd most have an issue with, though, is the portion that addresses similarities to Aikido:



> [FONT=Georgia, arial, sans-serif]It is also incorrect to say that Hapkido borrows many techniques from Aikido, that art evolved independently in another country.[/FONT]



Well, as the best evidence is that Choi was training alongside the early Aikido guys under Ueshiba, and that Aikido was in development in the same nation that Choi was in, at the same time he was there, in the same area, then I'd really question the validity of that statement. Aikido definitely continued to develop along it's own path later (which is what you seem to be addressing in the rest of that paragraph), but at the time Choi was there, it was still quite "positive" in it's methodology, very "hard" in it's application, and had quite a lot of atemi involved (Ueshiba was quoted as saying that "atemi is 90% of Aikido"&#8230; and his school at the time was referred to as the "Jigoku Dojo", or "Hell Dojo", for the amount of pain suffered within those walls). The differences in approach are more about Ueshiba's involvement with the Otomo sect of Buddhism later on, rather than it being drawn from a different set of ideals within Daito Ryu&#8230; honestly, that entire paragraph seems rather baseless, and lacking in understanding of Aikido's development.

I'd also strongly dispute the idea that the techniques only "superficially resemble" each other&#8230; as well as disputing the idea that the techniques are the defining aspect to show a link between the arts.

The next paragraph has it's issues as well (as do most of the references to anything Japanese&#8230; such as a "warrior class" still present in Japan in the 1940's&#8230, but that's not as important.


----------



## Instructor

Thanks Chris, I think I'll revise it.  I tend to agree with you.


----------



## jezr74

Would be good if there was a MT wiki similar to wikipedia. Would be great to see collaboration of information from all you guys and gals.


----------



## oftheherd1

jezr74 said:


> It's a controversy to ask sometimes. I don't give it much weight these days. But I love learning the history of different arts and how a style can be influenced by a single practitioner with a certain background, war, immigration, sickness etc.. I'm just a fan of getting the different theories and tid bits of info.
> 
> One of the things I was interested in trying to draw out in line with the TKD\HKD weave is when it started, or did something happen that sparked the trend of having them go hand in hand in some cases. I'm noticing, and correct me if I'm heading in the wrong direction, is that HKD has some soft teachers and some hard, and it reflects in the execution of some of the techniques I see performed from different streams. But I don't know enough yet about the different lines lineage.
> 
> Are HKD schools closely aligned with TKD schools a more hard martial art, than what may have originally came out? And so has a fork at that point to subtler differences?



What I have heard is that there was a movement to combine all the Korean MA under one unbrella; TKD.  I think it was a big political thing, but nationally and within all Korean MA.  As I was told, Hapkido and Tang Soo Do resisted, all the others complied, and became more Tae Kwon Do like.  That was as late as the mid 80s.  Hapkido has remained separate.  I don't know about Tang Soo Do.  I think Hapkido also went under a cloud of someone seeking to control it.  I guess that actually succeeded for a short time, then the previous Hapkido broke away and went back to their own methods.  Somebody who may know more should feel free to correct me, as I was not in Korea after 1987.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

oftheherd1 said:


> What I have heard is *that there was a movement to combine all the Korean MA under one unbrella; TKD.*  I think it was a big political thing, but nationally and within all Korean MA.  As I was told, Hapkido and Tang Soo Do resisted, all the others complied, and became more Tae Kwon Do like.  That was as late as the mid 80s.  Hapkido has remained separate.  I don't know about Tang Soo Do.  I think Hapkido also went under a cloud of someone seeking to control it.  I guess that actually succeeded for a short time, then the previous Hapkido broke away and went back to their own methods.  Somebody who may know more should feel free to correct me, as I was not in Korea after 1987.


That is correct. MDK split, with half of the kwan going with Hwang Kee (MDK TSD) and half going with the Kukkiwon. Hapkido never went in, and I don't know if it's due to resistance on anyone's part or due to them not being taekwondo, or if the movement simply lost traction.

I'm not sure where Kuk Sool Won fits in, which is another organization with a name that implies a national organization, and which was founded in the sixties. Hwarang Do was registered as hapkido in Korea until the founder moved to the United States. I believe that Hwarang Do does require you to go through TKD to black belt prior to beginning the rest of their curriculum (you, or someone else may have mentioned this earlier), so if the HKD instructor mentioned by the OP came out of HWD, that would actually make logical sense.


----------



## oftheherd1

Instructor said:


> Anybody have a video of that one?



Sorry, just saw this.  I don't have a video of it, but it may be online somewhere.  Like so many things in Hapkido, the feet are very important.  I have seen two methods.  In one, you push off with your rear foot, either stepping into the kick, or from a stationary stance.  The other, you rotate by spinning with both feet.  You then drop as you spin around, and hook kick to the opponents ankle, as you support yourself by falling forward on both hands.  That may sound odd, but it gives great stability, so more power, and allows one to more easily spring back to an upright position.  I think the spin gives a little more speed and power, while stepping forward allows moving with an opponent that is retreating, especially from a kick.

EDIT:  Took a quick look and found this.


----------



## Dirty Dog

oftheherd1 said:


> What I have heard is that there was a movement to combine all the Korean MA under one unbrella; TKD.  I think it was a big political thing, but nationally and within all Korean MA.  As I was told, Hapkido and Tang Soo Do resisted, all the others complied, and became more Tae Kwon Do like.  That was as late as the mid 80s.  Hapkido has remained separate.  I don't know about Tang Soo Do.  I think Hapkido also went under a cloud of someone seeking to control it.  I guess that actually succeeded for a short time, then the previous Hapkido broke away and went back to their own methods.  Somebody who may know more should feel free to correct me, as I was not in Korea after 1987.



I don't think there was ever any effort to include Hapkido (which I think was going by a different name then) in the unification movement. Tang Soo Do didn't "resist"; the Moo Duk Kwan initially joined the unification movement, didn't like how things were progressing (it's thought this was largely because General Choi was the first president, rather than GM Hwang Kee), left, and (eventually) changed their name to Soo Bahk Do.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> That is correct. MDK split, with half of the kwan going with Hwang Kee (MDK TSD) and half going with the Kukkiwon. Hapkido never went in, and I don't know if it's due to resistance on anyone's part or due to them not being taekwondo, or if the movement simply lost traction.



According to my Kwanjangnim (who was there at the time) it was more like a third of the Moo Duk Kwan left. And there was no Kukkiwon until much later. But that probably falls into the realm of hair-splitting.


----------



## oftheherd1

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't think there was ever any effort to include Hapkido (which I think was going by a different name then) in the unification movement. Tang Soo Do didn't "resist"; the Moo Duk Kwan initially joined the unification movement, didn't like how things were progressing (it's thought this was largely because General Choi was the first president, rather than GM Hwang Kee), left, and (eventually) changed their name to Soo Bahk Do.



You may well be correct.  But I distinctly remember being told Tang Soo Do and Hapkido resisted coming under one controlling body.  Unfortunately, since that was some 30 years ago, I don't remember the source.  As to not being called Hapkido, I got the distinct impression it wasn't too long before I was told about it, that it had happened.  Could there have been two attempts to bring all Korean MA under TKD?



Dirty Dog said:


> According to my Kwanjangnim (who was there at the time) it was more like a third of the Moo Duk Kwan left. And there was no Kukkiwon until much later. But that probably falls into the realm of hair-splitting.



He would know I would guess since he was there at the time.  As far as I know, I wasn't, since the first time I was there was about 74-76, then again in 79-81, and last from 84-87.  The last time was when I studied Hapkido there.  Do you remember the time frame your KJN talked about?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Dirty Dog said:


> According to my Kwanjangnim (who was there at the time) it was more like a third of the Moo Duk Kwan left. And there was no Kukkiwon until much later. But that probably falls into the realm of hair-splitting.



Thanks! I was unsure of the ratio. I had also heard that there was some amount of animosity between Hwang Kee and General Choi.


----------



## Instructor

One thing is certain then and now.  The martial arts community is very fractious.  Heck we can't even get all the Hapkido Orgs under one umbrella much less get them to call Hapkido something it's not like TKD.  I kind of like the atmosphere though full of strong independent type people.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Instructor said:


> One thing is certain then and now.  The martial arts community is very fractious.  Heck we can't even get all the Hapkido Orgs under one umbrella


Probably for the best.



Instructor said:


> much less get them to call Hapkido something it's not like TKD.


Not like TKD, but there is definitely a lot of cross pollination from HKD to TKD. Probably not so much the other way around.



Instructor said:


> I kind of like the atmosphere though full of strong independent type people.


And that's a good thing!


----------



## Instructor

The interesting thing is on the handful of times I've worked with folks from other Hapkido Orgs we found a whole lot more in common than differences.  At my level (relatively low on the food chain) I find parity with other orgs. They might teach things in a different order but the movements seem to be largely the same.


----------



## Dirty Dog

oftheherd1 said:


> You may well be correct.  But I distinctly remember being told Tang Soo Do and Hapkido resisted coming under one controlling body.  Unfortunately, since that was some 30 years ago, I don't remember the source.  As to not being called Hapkido, I got the distinct impression it wasn't too long before I was told about it, that it had happened.  Could there have been two attempts to bring all Korean MA under TKD?



It's not like people were going around kneecapping people if they didn't join... 
The first unification movements was in (if memory serves) 1955. There were five Kwans involved: Moo Duk Kwan, Chang Mu Kwan, Chung Do Kwan, Jido Kwan and Song Mu Kwan. The Korean War kind of stalled this effort. After the war, these five were joined by the Oh Do Kwan (from which the ITF evolved), Jung Do Kwan Han Moo Kwan and Kang Duk Kwan.

Tang Soo Do was the style taught by the Moo Duk Kwan, so as one of the original five, it's pretty clear that they didn't resist anything.

GM Hwang Kee left the unification movement with (reportedly) about 1/3 of his Moo Duk Kwan students in about 1964 and resumed teaching Tang Soo Do for a few years before changing the name to Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan.

So you could say there were two movements, if you consider the Korean War to have halted efforts. Or one protracted movement, if it was only on the back burner for a while.

I don't known when the name "Hapkido" was first used for the art, but I have always understood that (like most systems...) it's had several evolutionary names. I did a quick check and the Korean Hapkido Association was registered in 1969, but that doesn't tell us when it was first used.



oftheherd1 said:


> He would know I would guess since he was there at the time.  As far as I know, I wasn't, since the first time I was there was about 74-76, then again in 79-81, and last from 84-87.  The last time was when I studied Hapkido there.  Do you remember the time frame your KJN talked about?



Well, GM Hwang left in (about) 1964, so that would be when the Moo Duk Kwan splintered into two groups: Moo Duk Kwan Taekwondo and Moo Duk Kwan Tang Soo Do. Other splinterings have occurred since then, obviously.

So Hapkido was never a part of the unification movement. Was this because there was no invitation to join, or because they declined the invitation? I don't think there's any way to know for sure, but I'm inclined to think there was never an invitation. Had there been one, it's likely that one or the other group would have recorded it.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't known when the name "Hapkido" was first used for the art, but I have always understood that (like most systems...) it's had several evolutionary names. I did a quick check and the Korean Hapkido Association was registered in 1969, but that doesn't tell us when it was first used.


Hapkido was first used by Dojunim Choi, though it was supposedly suggested by his partner, Seo Bok Seob. The last evolutionary name prior to Hapkido was Hap-Ki Yu Kwon Sul. This is supposed to have happened in 1959.

I believe Ji Han Jae founded the Korean Hapkido Association, though as I recall, Choi was made president of it at one point.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Instructor said:


> The interesting thing is on the handful of times I've worked with folks from other Hapkido Orgs we found a whole lot more in common than differences.  At my level (relatively low on the food chain) I find parity with other orgs. They might teach things in a different order but the movements seem to be largely the same.


That sounds like my experience as well. But without the element of international/Olympic level competition, the need for a large, centralized organization simply isn't there. Taekwondo, on the other hand, needs those mechanisms in place to support the sport on a global level.

Also, I tend to dislike large entities. Having said that, I am a part of the WHA, which has been a good experience for the past three years.


----------



## Instructor

I've seen some rather glaring quality control and performance issues with Tae Kwon Do comparatively speaking.  It's definitely buyer beware out there.  I've met TKD and TSD people that were phenomenal and I've walked into places and turned right around and walked out again.  Massive orgs don't guarantee quality.  You would think some level of oversight would take place but in my experience it's just not.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Daniel Sullivan said:


> That sounds like my experience as well. But without the element of international/Olympic level competition, the need for a large, centralized organization simply isn't there. Taekwondo, on the other hand, needs those mechanisms in place to support the sport on a global level.
> 
> Also, I tend to dislike large entities. Having said that, I am a part of the WHA, which has been a good experience for the past three years.



I'm with you there. I have KKW rank, since we do offer KKW certification to students, but I don't really feel a part of the KKW. I'm a part of the Moo Duk Kwan.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Instructor said:


> I've seen some rather glaring quality control and performance issues with Tae Kwon Do comparatively speaking.  It's definitely buyer beware out there.  I've met TKD and TSD people that were phenomenal and I've walked into places and turned right around and walked out again.  Massive orgs don't guarantee quality.  You would think some level of oversight would take place but in my experience it's just not.



The same thing is true of small (or no) org schools.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Instructor said:


> I've seen some rather glaring quality control and performance issues with Tae Kwon Do comparatively speaking.  It's definitely buyer beware out there.  I've met TKD and TSD people that were phenomenal and I've walked into places and turned right around and walked out again.  Massive orgs don't guarantee quality.  You would think some level of oversight would take place but in my experience it's just not.


Small independents are no guarantee of quality either. 

The thing people don't understand with large organizations is that their main purpose is to facilitate things that small independents usually can't. National and international events require large organizations, particularly large sporting events. The WTF, FIE (fencing), and FIK (kendo) are all examples of this, and each has national and local affiliates that feed into the international structure (USAT, USFA, and AUSKF being the United States national governing body for each of these sports/arts). Without competition, there's almost no need for such organizations, though they do exist for arts that don't have that element.


----------



## Chris Parker

jezr74 said:


> Would be good if there was a MT wiki similar to wikipedia. Would be great to see collaboration of information from all you guys and gals.



There was one. Very few people contributed, and it was closed a little while back, I believe.


----------



## Buka

oftheherd1 said:


> Sorry, just saw this.  I don't have a video of it, but it may be online somewhere.  Like so many things in Hapkido, the feet are very important.  I have seen two methods.  In one, you push off with your rear foot, either stepping into the kick, or from a stationary stance.  The other, you rotate by spinning with both feet.  You then drop as you spin around, and hook kick to the opponents ankle, as you support yourself by falling forward on both hands.  That may sound odd, but it gives great stability, so more power, and allows one to more easily spring back to an upright position.  I think the spin gives a little more speed and power, while stepping forward allows moving with an opponent that is retreating, especially from a kick.
> 
> EDIT:  Took a quick look and found this.
> 
> Low spinning heel kick (?? ????) - YouTube



I love that technique. It was first taught to me by a Kung Fu buddy, it was taught as an "Iron Broom". I used to use it in competition, especially against kickers. (Never once missed with it) Then, of course, times changed, and they outlawed all sweeps. I think they were trying for a milder, nicer style of fighting. In fact I think they wanted us all to wear dresses and wave at each other instead of striking.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

oftheherd1 said:


> Sorry, just saw this.  I don't have a video of it, but it may be online somewhere.  Like so many things in Hapkido, the feet are very important.  I have seen two methods.  In one, you push off with your rear foot, either stepping into the kick, or from a stationary stance.  The other, you rotate by spinning with both feet.  You then drop as you spin around, and hook kick to the opponents ankle, as you support yourself by falling forward on both hands.  That may sound odd, but it gives great stability, so more power, and allows one to more easily spring back to an upright position.  I think the spin gives a little more speed and power, while stepping forward allows moving with an opponent that is retreating, especially from a kick.
> 
> EDIT:  Took a quick look and found this.
> 
> Low spinning heel kick (?? ????) - YouTube


I totally missed this post! At about the 028 mark, where he slows down and shows the rotation/crouch prior to the kick, is how I learned this kick.


----------



## ballen0351

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I totally missed this post! At about the 028 mark, where he slows down and shows the rotation/crouch prior to the kick, is how I learned this kick.


Ouch you land that like he does in the clip that would hurt


----------



## oftheherd1

Buka said:


> I love that technique. It was first taught to me by a Kung Fu buddy, it was taught as an "Iron Broom". I used to use it in competition, especially against kickers. (Never once missed with it) Then, of course, times changed, and they outlawed all sweeps. I think they were trying for a milder, nicer style of fighting. In fact I think they wanted us all to wear dresses and wave at each other instead of striking.



I did find that touted as being taught in two other arts when I did my quick search.  Since Hapkido acknowledges it is a newer art, I doubt many Hapkido schools would try to say Hapkido invented that.  Many/most strikes, kicks, grapples, blocks, whatever, have been around for a very long time, and it would be difficult to impossible to say what art invented it.

Anyway, like you, I really like that kick.  Mostly I guess because you don't see it often, it is not expected, and no matter, is difficult to defend against.  I was always surprised by the amount of students that didn't seem to feel that was a good weapon in their arsenal.  Perhaps it is because as you alluded to, it is a little more difficult to accomplish in a dress.  :rofl:


----------



## oftheherd1

ballen0351 said:


> Ouch you land that like he does in the clip that would hurt



Absolutely so!  It can easily break an ankle of an opponent.


----------



## marysson

It might be an age requirement instead of a rank thing?  That would make sense, but not the rank part.


----------



## Shajikfer

PhotonGuy said:


> I know not all schools that teach Hapkido will do this but I once knew of a school that taught both Tae Kwon Do and Hapkido. In order to train in Hapkido at that school first you had to get a black belt in Tae Kwon Do there. I do know that Hapkido does use some of the techniques from Tae Kwon Do but to even start as a white belt in Hapkido at that school you first had to get a black belt in their Tae Kwon Do. I wonder if other schools have that same requirement.


 
My school was very similar; they taught Chung Do Kwan alongside Tang Soo Do, and Hapkido.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Shajikfer said:


> My school was very similar; they taught Chung Do Kwan alongside Tang Soo Do, and Hapkido.



Right, but did your school require any training or rank in any of their arts before you could train in their other arts?


----------



## Shajikfer

Yes. Hapkido techniques were introduced around 1st dan, but there was never you HAVE to be a 1st dan. It's just they were gradually implemented at classes. Tang Soo Do techniques were taught alongside Chung Do Kwan.


----------



## Instructor

oftheherd1 said:


> I did find that touted as being taught in two other arts when I did my quick search.  Since Hapkido acknowledges it is a newer art, I doubt many Hapkido schools would try to say Hapkido invented that.  Many/most strikes, kicks, grapples, blocks, whatever, have been around for a very long time, and it would be difficult to impossible to say what art invented it.
> 
> Anyway, like you, I really like that kick.  Mostly I guess because you don't see it often, it is not expected, and no matter, is difficult to defend against.  I was always surprised by the amount of students that didn't seem to feel that was a good weapon in their arsenal.  Perhaps it is because as you alluded to, it is a little more difficult to accomplish in a dress.  :rofl:


 
Hapkido is an art built on the shoulders of giants.  I would go so far as to say little or nothing in Hapkido was invented, it's all lifted from other styles.  It's the blending of it all into a cohesive set of awesomness that is what makes it special.  I love it..


----------

