# Tkd & hkd



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 28, 2013)

I was curious as to how many folks here with TKD training have also taken/take HKD training?  Do you have/desire Dan rank in both?  Do you find it quite different from one another or a very good, complimentary fit?


----------



## Instructor (Jan 28, 2013)

I hold 1st Dan belts in ITF TKD and HKD.  My initial training was a hybrid school but I eventually sought out a school that only taught HKD.  In my opinion the styles are just plain different.  I think TKD people can learn HKD readily though.  The hardest part is getting out of that points sparring mindset and getting into that 'what's the quickest way to end this' mindset.

These days TKD is primarily something I teach children when I get young students.  For myself I feel closer to Hapkido it's as if it was made for me specifically.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jan 28, 2013)

I consider myself a "Dabbler" in HKD.  For two years while in College it was at one of those schools that commonly taught TKD and HKD. Since I had a Judo and ju Jitsu background before that the throwing / Falling and Joint locking was similar.   I attend HKD seminars when I can. Some of the people who gave these are fairly well known (Please forgive misspellings) Like Ji Han Jae, Kwang Sik Myung, John Pelligrini and In Sun Seo. I had to see Pelligrini because so many HKD people bad mouthed him I had to see for myself.   Saw him once for that purpose and twice more because I wanted to see the other guy he was with Carlson Gracie jr. and Bill Wallace. In Sun Seo was way beyond me . found it difficult to follow his "Lessons".I find the grappling aspects compliment the striking of TKD.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jan 28, 2013)

Our GM holds rank in both but technically we are a tkd club. We have a good sprinkling of hapkido throughout our tkd curriculum. From what I have seen the two compliment each other nicely.


----------



## WaterGal (Jan 28, 2013)

I have a 1st Dan in both.  I think they're quite different in some ways, but also complimentary.  Doing both allows you to be strong in both striking and grappling.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jan 29, 2013)

WaterGal said:


> I have a 1st Dan in both.  I think they're quite different in some ways, but also complimentary.  Doing both allows you to be strong in both striking and grappling.



Strong in grappling is hard to quantify. 
IMNSHO if you want to be strong in grappling Ju Jitsu is more beneficial than HKD.


----------



## Instructor (Jan 29, 2013)

Hapkido is derived from Ju Jitsu.  

It's also important to remember that Hakido grappling is not sport grappling rather, it seems designed to do maximum damage with minimum effort.


----------



## Uncle (Jan 29, 2013)

Instructor said:


> Hapkido is derived from Ju Jitsu.
> 
> It's also important to remember that Hakido grappling is not sport grappling rather, it seems designed to do maximum damage with minimum effort.


When speaking of jujitsu it is important to keep in mind which ryu, because jujitsu is a rather large umbrella term. Hapkido comes from dairto-ryu just as aikido does.
The issue is that a lot of the moves are not high percentage even without the added problems which come with an adrenaline dump. The "sport grappling" systems as you put it generally are more effective in both situations because of the ability to rigorously test and practice techniques full force without as much Rick of damage to an opponent. Thus you generally have wrestling and bjj at the top with one excelling in takedowns and positioning and the other positioning and submissions respectively. Also included would be another jujitsu derivative, judo, which specializes in takedowns from a clinched position. These are only the "pure" grappling systems and are very good at doing "maximum damage with minimum effort" because of their rigorous testing. There are then the systems which make use of both in unique areas like, sambo (generalized), muay Thai (clinch for striking), sanda (takedowns).


----------



## StudentCarl (Jan 29, 2013)

I have Dan rank in Taekwondo and am just a few months into Hapkido. I'm enjoying it and so far it seems to complement rather than conflict. I like that the Hapkido, at least where I train, is focused on functional use. We spar, but it's not for sport.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jan 29, 2013)

Uncle said:


> When speaking of jujitsu it is important to keep in mind which ryu, because jujitsu is a rather large umbrella term. Hapkido comes from dairto-ryu just as aikido does.
> The issue is that a lot of the moves are not high percentage even without the added problems which come with an adrenaline dump. The "sport grappling" systems as you put it generally are more effective in both situations because of the ability to rigorously test and practice techniques full force without as much Rick of damage to an opponent. Thus you generally have wrestling and bjj at the top with one excelling in takedowns and positioning and the other positioning and submissions respectively. Also included would be another jujitsu derivative, judo, which specializes in takedowns from a clinched position. These are only the "pure" grappling systems and are very good at doing "maximum damage with minimum effort" because of their rigorous testing. There are then the systems which make use of both in unique areas like, sambo (generalized), muay Thai (clinch for striking), sanda (takedowns).



I have noticed some other of your posts where you seem to believe Hapkido is of little value. Yet I didn't see it as an art you have studied or been belted in. So, I was just curious why you seem so quick to indicate that Hapkido is inferior?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jan 29, 2013)

As to the original question, I studied TKD briefly a long time ago, but later took up HKD as my primary art. I don't know as I would say they are complimentary but I don't think they oppose each other either. There were things I learned in TKD that I think aided me in my study of HKD. But they were more in the area of attitude of learning, embracing Ki, respect for the art and teachers. I did feel that the Hapkido I learned might have benefitted some from striking techniques I took from TKD. But I feel Hapkido is a very great and effective art. I agree with Instructor that it is very business-like and will probably end any confrontation painfully for an attacker.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jan 29, 2013)

Instructor said:


> Hapkido is derived from Ju Jitsu.
> 
> It's also important to remember that Hakido grappling is not sport grappling rather, it seems designed to do maximum damage with minimum effort.


In theory designs are great. The titanic was designed to be unsinkable.  Frankly, your point is lost on me. There is nothing against MMA rules that prohibits many HKD grappling techniques. Yet  few techniques like certain wristlocks and throws that are Hapkido staples are seen.  Of course many HKD techniques like arm bar which are virtually indistinguishable from their   Judo or Ju Jitsu relatives are common. Can you please provide an example (outside of say fingerlocks) of some HKD techniques that are common and could not be used for sport?


----------



## Instructor (Jan 29, 2013)

It's not about the individual techniques Earl.  It's about the emphasis.  The goal in hapkido is not submission, it's destruction.


----------



## iron_ox (Jan 29, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> In theory designs are great. The titanic was designed to be unsinkable.  Frankly, your point is lost on me. There is nothing against MMA rules that prohibits many HKD grappling techniques. Yet  few techniques like certain wristlocks and throws that are Hapkido staples are seen.  Of course many HKD techniques like arm bar which are virtually indistinguishable from their   Judo or Ju Jitsu relatives are common. Can you please provide an example (outside of say fingerlocks) of some HKD techniques that are common and could not be used for sport?



Master Weiss,

Very good point.  And with no disrespect intended  for the other Hapkido people here, it is possible that they have never  seen the offensive side of the art that is not based on "grab my wrist"  openings, but rather seizing of the opponent.  This is in my opinion why  it is so rare to see "Hapkido" people in MMA environments, because they  have not been taught any other aspect of the art except the most basic  stuff starting from grab motions.  

There is NO grappling, per  se, in Hapkido.  There are sets of older style seated techniques and  lying techniques that end in a variety of locks and immobilizations, but  there is no component of grappling as seen in MMA.  

There is no  art that is "too deadly" for MMA, rather there may be in fact, as Jon  says a different emphasis for the techniques, but unfortunately most  have only seen the window dressing of Hapkido taught by people that left  the instruction of Choi Dojunim before they had learned the entire  curriculum.


----------



## Uncle (Jan 29, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> I have noticed some other of your posts where you seem to believe Hapkido is of little value. Yet I didn't see it as an art you have studied or been belted in. So, I was just curious why you seem so quick to indicate that Hapkido is inferior?


I'm not saying hapkido is inferior. I'm saying that the daito ryu joint locks and throws which require fine motor skills and/try to control an opponent's body through the limb using those fine motor skills are inferior because they don't work on trained opponents and the fine motor skills go out the window under an adrenaline dump.
Also the lack of resistant training of these techniques means the people who practice them will not have the same level of skill with them as the people sho can practice slightly safer techniques in a resistant atmosphere. These are both the reasons Kano's students beat or tied all of the other jujitsu ryus in the Tokyo police tournament.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jan 29, 2013)

Uncle said:


> I'm not saying hapkido is inferior. I'm saying that the daito ryu joint locks and throws which require fine motor skills and/try to control an opponent's body through the limb using those fine motor skills are inferior because they don't work on trained opponents and the fine motor skills go out the window under an adrenaline dump.


If they worked so well you could save lots of $ in the prison system.  Develop a few highly trained guards and you wouldn't need to send 6-8 guys in for a cell extraction.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 29, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> If they worked so well you could save lots of $ in the prison system.  Develop a few highly trained guards and you wouldn't need to send 6-8 guys in for a cell extraction.



With respect, this is an incorrect assumption.  Many of the Officers and Deputies in Correctional facilities are well trained, often more than their counter-parts on the road.  This is due simply to the need to go hands on more often, though with the advent of ECW's this need is somewhat diminishing.  However, the reason that a CRT team employs a minimum of six Officer/Deputies is for the safety of staff as well as that of the inmate/convict.  It is a highly specialized training where each position has a specific job during an extraction/relocation/chair placement.  This minimizes the risk to the inmate/convict that would normally occur if there were less numbers involved or the Officers/Deputies were not clear on exactly the best way to immobilize/relocate a violent inmate.  Since their inclusion in the 90's, the number of staff as well as inmate/convict injuries have dramatically gone down.  

Put another way, a highly trained Officer/Deputy _may_ be able to handle a situation solo and they often do, but why go solo when you don't have to?  Better to have a well trained group that can professionally take care of a situation with the minimum of injury exposure all the way around.  In the long run, a well run CRT team will save an agency/state millions of dollars in frivilous litigation/worker's compensation claims.


----------



## Instructor (Jan 29, 2013)

In regards to adrenalin.  I've had to fight for my life with little more than my Hapkido training.  I just about took a knife right to my eye socket.  It was plenty scary and when it was all over I was shaking like a leaf.  I am certain I experienced the adrenalin dump.  Happy to report my Hapkido worked just fine.  It wasn't very pretty but still perfectly effective.  What more could you ask for?

Also, just because a martial art isn't popular in an professional sport doesn't mean it isn't still effective.  I have great respect for those athlete fighters, I would not want to tangle with one of them.  But I also grow weary of MMA'rs dissing arts that they don't find valuable for their particular venue.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 29, 2013)

Uncle said:


> I'm not saying hapkido is inferior. I'm saying that the daito ryu joint locks and throws which require fine motor skills and/try to control an opponent's body through the limb using those fine motor skills are inferior because they don't work on trained opponents and the fine motor skills go out the window under an adrenaline dump.



Correct.  Under duress fine motor skills become much harder to near impossible.  Adrenaline dump can produce tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, and diminished dexterity in the extremities.  The old adage that, _'less is more and simple is better' _applies here.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jan 29, 2013)

It reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw once that read "Hapkido. Aikido's ugly cousin". I really enjoy the hapkido that our GM incorporates into our curriculum, but gee its brutal. If you keep it simple its extremely effective. A high ranking police officer I train with who has worked some really bad areas swears by hapkido, he cant speak highly enough of it, but he is really good at it and watching him use it in class against random attacks is just awesome to watch. But as I said earlier, its really brutal.


----------



## Uncle (Jan 29, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Correct.  Under duress fine motor skills become much harder to near impossible.  Adrenaline dump can produce tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, and diminished dexterity in the extremities.  The old adage that, _'less is more and simple is better' _applies here.


Exactly because it's not about this...


Instructor said:


> Also, just because a martial art isn't popular in an professional sport doesn't mean it isn't still effective. I have great respect for those athlete fighters, I would not want to tangle with one of them. But I also grow weary of MMA'rs dissing arts that they don't find valuable for their particular venue.



It's about the fact that gross motor skills are more reliable and ones which go after the core/legs or secure the arm better work better against trained opponents and under adrenaline or exhaustion. Compare for example hijishime from aikido and standing waki gatame from judo. Hijishime secures the arm by grasping the wrists and going elbow to elbow. Waki gatame grasps the wrist and uses the body as the leverage point to break the arm. Waki gatame secures the arm better and uses more gross motor skills. It's more reliable as are most techniques (not all) which are competition tested especially in open rulesets like MMA.

You can make similar comparisons with say wrestling and judo. A double leg takedown is far easier to set up and finish than an osotogari. And even though a double leg is more reliable than an osotogari, and osotogari is still more reliable than ikkajo from aikido. There's a reason wrestling techniques used to be allowed in judo competitions and aren't now. It's because judo used to be concerned with effectiveness. Kano even incorporated wrestling techniques into judo specifically for that reason. Now the Kodokan is concerned with maintaining the judo favour and not being shown up in their own competitions by wrestlers rather than making their skills and techniques the best.




Instructor said:


> In regards to adrenalin.  I've had to fight for my life with little more than my Hapkido training.  I just about took a knife right to my eye socket.  It was plenty scary and when it was all over I was shaking like a leaf.  I am certain I experienced the adrenalin dump.  Happy to report my Hapkido worked just fine.  It wasn't very pretty but still perfectly effective.  What more could you ask for?


Cool story bro but we're discussing mechanics here, not anecdotes. Here I am critiquing the grappling aspect of hapkido, specifically the daito ryu techniques with the mechanics mentioned and for the reasons mentioned. One anecdote doesn't take away the physiological effects influencing the outcome of these techniques in concert with the fight data. All we can really say is cool story bro. You fought the guy off, good for you.

Now these grappling techniques have their place but it is generally where there is no adrenaline dump and the opponent is not fully resistant. And I do love that hapkido seems to fluidly integrate striking and grappling, even moreso than many mma schools it seems.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jan 29, 2013)

Uncle said:


> I'm not saying hapkido is inferior. I'm saying that the daito ryu joint locks and throws which require fine motor skills and/try to control an opponent's body through the limb using those fine motor skills are inferior because they don't work on trained opponents and the fine motor skills go out the window under an adrenaline dump.
> Also the lack of resistant training of these techniques means the people who practice them will not have the same level of skill with them as the people sho can practice slightly safer techniques in a resistant atmosphere. These are both the reasons Kano's students beat or tied all of the other jujitsu ryus in the Tokyo police tournament.



I don't think most require that fine motor skills.  The techniques that are taught should work on all opponents.  Ki should help overcome 'adrenaline dump.'  Lack of resistance training has more to do with mercy for the practice opponent.  Done correctly, there is no resistance possible for most techniques.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jan 29, 2013)

ralphmcpherson said:


> It reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw once that read "Hapkido. Aikido's ugly cousin". I really enjoy the hapkido that our GM incorporates into our curriculum, but gee its brutal. If you keep it simple its extremely effective. A high ranking police officer I train with who has worked some really bad areas swears by hapkido, he cant speak highly enough of it, but he is really good at it and watching him use it in class against random attacks is just awesome to watch. But as I said earlier, its really brutal.



I think I and Instructor have said this before.  Hapkido is brutal.  It is meant to take away an opponent's desire and/or ability to fight.  If I cause pain every time I am attacked, the opponent no longer wants to fight because he doesn't want the pain.  If I break something, the opponent no longer has an ability to fight.



Uncle said:


> ...
> 
> Cool story bro but we're discussing mechanics here, not anecdotes. Here I am critiquing the grappling aspect of hapkido, specifically the daito ryu techniques with the mechanics mentioned and for the reasons mentioned. One anecdote doesn't take away the physiological effects influencing the outcome of these techniques in concert with the fight data. All we can really say is cool story bro. You fought the guy off, good for you.
> 
> Now these grappling techniques have their place but it is generally where there is no adrenaline dump and the opponent is not fully resistant. And I do love that hapkido seems to fluidly integrate striking and grappling, even moreso than many mma schools it seems.



I am still unclear to what level you have studied Hapkido to make such statements about the art, never mind the dissing of Instructor.  Subtly done, but dissing nonetheless, by such minimalization of his 'anecdote.'   Is it possible he was defending against a resisting opponent?  That he used mechanics and physiological effects?  

Mostly, I have to conclude you have never seen real Hapkido.  I have.  I don't claim to be the best, most perfect practitioner myself, but I have seen some really good Hapkidoists.  My GM was one.  I have seen many of his masters work out.  You would not really want to take them on in real combat.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 29, 2013)

Uncle-have you ever trained in hapkido and/or close friends with someone who has? If not, then all you can do is argue theory, rather than practicality in terms of hapkido's viability. How could you know what it requires or how tough it is when under pressure if you never tried it? If you have, say so and I'll shut up, since hapkido is not my area of expertise.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jan 29, 2013)

Instructor said:


> Also, just because a martial art isn't popular in an professional sport doesn't mean it isn't still effective.  I have great respect for those athlete fighters, I would not want to tangle with one of them.  But I also grow weary of MMA'rs dissing arts that they don't find valuable for their particular venue.



To be clear I wasn't dissing Hapkido as an art. I have enjoyed Hapkido lessons immensely. What I was dissing if you want to call it that was this statement from post #5 "Re: Tkd & hkd        I have a 1st Dan in both.  I think they're quite different in some ways, but also complimentary.  Doing both allows you to be strong in both striking and grappling."

AFAIAC if you want to be strong in grappling your time and energy are better spent in Ju Jitsu. All factors being equal I will take the JJ guy over the HKD guy in a grappling match anytime. 

I also had issues with this statement:
"
It's also important to remember that Hakido grappling is not sport grappling rather, it seems designed to do maximum damage with minimum effort."

I beleieve it a "Truism"  of Martial arts  that the goal is maximum results for effort applied through efficiency of action which is another perspective on maximum damage for minimum effort. The minimum effort statement is common but I don't think anyone really thinks they are putting out minimum effort. 

I thought MMA competition did away with most of the "My art is too deadly for competition stuff long ago."  Yes there is stuff in some arts that is not allowed in MMA. 
If your art concentrates in eye gouging, groin ripping, ear tearing, back of head and spine shots, small joint manipulation biting etc. then perhaps you have a point. For the rest, the acid test of the MMA ring is readily available. 
​


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Jan 29, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> I think I and Instructor have said this before.  Hapkido is brutal.  It is meant to take away an opponent's desire and/or ability to fight.  If I cause pain every time I am attacked, the opponent no longer wants to fight because he doesn't want the pain.  If I break something, the opponent no longer has an ability to fight.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I too, have seen my GM and others at our club who are proficient at hapkido work out, full speed, full contact against random attacks and it's very impressive stuff. I would definitely not want to get into a "real" fight with any of them as they train to defeat an opponent as quickly and brutally as possible.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 29, 2013)

As with any art, you have good instruction and bad.  I'm sure we can all agree on the viability of the '_grab my wrist_' approach (not talking about initial instruction to newbies).  Nor is throwing a half-hearted punch a foot to the side of our partners head and then leaving the arm hang in space long enough for them to grab it and do a cool move a viable strategy for good instruction.  Hapkido, when taught properly with sound principles, as has already been stated, is downright brutal.  It was meant to be brutal.  It was meant to stop the fight *right now*.  Taught properly (as can be said with Chin Na or Jujutsu) it is readily useable against violent, resisting attackers while under the duress of a chaotic fight.  To be clear, it isn't going to look pretty.  It won't be choreographed like the DVD's.  But it does work.  I can attest to this personally as I use more Hapkido principles against bad guys than striking principles.  Maybe five to one.  Done properly, it will lock the entire body of the attacker up to where they can't continue resistance (if compliance is what is required).  If the situation requires something more _dynamic_, then it is a fine line between joint manipulation and joint destruction.  And there is a fine line between taking someone down _gracefully_ for submission and taking them down where they're arriving on the ground with broken bones/shredded tendons and/or ligaments.  Hapkido lies between someone on the ground locked up and immobile and someone on the ground damaged and unable to move whether you're touching them or not.  

But it can and does work...if trained properly and executed with the proper mind set for the situation.


----------



## Dwi Chugi (Jan 29, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I was curious as to how many folks here with TKD training have also taken/take HKD training?  Do you have/desire Dan rank in both?  Do you find it quite different from one another or a very good, complimentary fit?



When I got into traditional Hapkido at age 16 I just got my 1st Dan Black Belt in WTF Olympic Taekwondo. I originally got into the martial arts at age 12 to compete but my masters kept telling me to learn Hapkido as a self-defense. Once I obtained my black belt I thought it would be good to start cross training. 

Now, I'm 40 my Hapkido is my primary art that I teach and train in. We still have a rich taekwondo tradition at my dojang but I teach the Hapkido classes and just over see the much younger and athletic taekwondo group. The Taekwondo instructor at my dojang is top notch. 

I learned, trained and teach the two systems as separate arts. I'm not sure if I think they flow well together or not. I guess the kicking ability I have comes from my Taekwondo. The throwing is my Hapkido so I guess in a street fight they would flow back and forth. 

On a side note, those that say Hapkido doesn't work has not seen true Hapkido. My grandmaster was a ROK Marine and used his Hapkido to break out of a prison camp twice in Vietnam. My master is retired US Navial Special Ops and he used his Hapkido only once in combat (that I know about) but it worked and saved his life. I use to work security at some bikeweek concerts here in Daytona and I've used my Hapkido both solo and with other Hapkidoin just fine to break up fights and to walk someone to the door. 

I train in BJJ and Judo from time to time. At the end of the class a few of us will get together and roll or randori. If I am allowed to start standing, I have pulled off shoulder throws, hip throws and several types of fine motor wrist throws.  I guess I practice them so much they happen without me having to think about throwing them as I am sure those who truly train in Hapkido would have the same experience as I have or Instructor has had in his self-defense situation. 

That is my experience with Taekwondo and Hapkido. I know it's a tad off track but this post went in several directions and I wanted to address what I felt was important. Just my two cents, thank you for reading


----------



## Instructor (Jan 30, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> To be clear I wasn't dissing Hapkido as an art. I have enjoyed Hapkido lessons immensely. What I was dissing if you want to call it that was this statement from post #5 "Re: Tkd & hkdI have a 1st Dan in both.  I think they're quite different in some ways, but also complimentary.  Doing both allows you to be strong in both striking and grappling."
> 
> AFAIAC if you want to be strong in grappling your time and energy are better spent in Ju Jitsu. All factors being equal I will take the JJ guy over the HKD guy in a grappling match anytime.
> 
> ...



I was watching some local BJJ recently with one of my students.  It was impressive but privately I wondered how the match would go if one of the guys started eye gouging, biting, and breaking the other guys fingers.  All arts have their place.  Some fit better in the ring than others.

Hapkido has proven itself in the real world many times, it's proved itself in prison's, at traffic stops, in mental institutions, and even on the battlefield.  It doesn't need me to defend it.  

Not every technique works for every situation.  For example if my heart is thudding in my chest and I have tunnel vision I would likely choose not to use one of or more precise defenses in favor of one of our simpler ones.  It's like a toolbox you use the tool you need at the moment.  Sometimes in life you need a precision screw driver and sometimes you need a sledge hammer, we have both.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 30, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> I thought MMA competition did away with most of the "My art is too deadly for competition stuff long ago."  Yes there is stuff in some arts that is not allowed in MMA.
> If your art concentrates in eye gouging, groin ripping, ear tearing, back of head and spine shots, small joint manipulation biting etc. then perhaps you have a point. For the rest, the acid test of the MMA ring is readily available.
> 
> [/INDENT]


You do realize MMA rings are not real life.  Its a game or sport.  It has rules and refs and usually the fighters are not trying to actually hurt or kill each other.  To say well they don't use this style in MMA so it does not work is silly.  Real life is not a sport or a game.  So no an MMA ring is not an acid test for an art


----------



## Dwi Chugi (Jan 30, 2013)

Instructor said:


> I was watching some local BJJ recently with one of my students.  It was impressive but privately I wondered how the match would go if one of the guys started eye gouging, biting, and breaking the other guys fingers.  All arts have their place.  Some fit better in the ring than others.
> 
> Hapkido has proven itself in the real world many times, it's proved itself in prison's, at traffic stops, in mental institutions, and even on the battlefield.  It doesn't need me to defend it.
> 
> Not every technique works for every situation.  For example if my heart is thudding in my chest and I have tunnel vision I would likely choose not to use one of or more precise defenses in favor of one of our simpler ones.  It's like a toolbox you use the tool you need at the moment.  Sometimes in life you need a precision screw driver and sometimes you need a sledge hammer, we have both.



I am not taking anything away from BJJ. I am training it and I have added some ground defenses in my MuSool Hapkido. That may not be popular with the more Orthadox Hapkidoin but I want my system to work in every occasion and I believe if you do not add in some ground survival skills, you are doing yourself and your students a huge dis-service. That is the "MuSool" in my system. With that being said, I have never had to use BJJ is a street defense and none of my students have ever went to the ground in a fight. I don't ever want to go to the ground in a street fight. The BJJ people are very comfortable there and a good BJJ person would own just about anyone on the ground just like a good Hapkidoin will own anyone joint locking and throwing or for that matter a taekwondoin owning the kicking/punching game. 

Anyways, in BJJ class, there has been more than one occasion where a Jiujitsuka has been on top of me doing a transition and I could have grabbed his groin. There has been plenty of times when someone I have been rolling with loose sight of my hands and I could have went to the eyes or throat. 

For that fact, the first thing I teach on the ground is body control (wrist, head, hip and legs). BJJ and the Gracie's in particular are good at body control but in some sport schools, they loose focus of that in favor of gaining points. I attend a Gracie school and self-defense is first priority and then they work sport.  

In MuSool Hapkido, submissions are not focused on as much as controlling the person and getting back to your feet so you can throw them. If we can not get to our feet we have some submissions and dirty tricks up our sleeve as well.


----------



## Instructor (Jan 30, 2013)

I also did not mean to slight BJJ in any way.  I have the utmost respect.  I respect all arts and ask only that others respect mine.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 30, 2013)

> Originally Posted by *Earl Weiss*
> 
> 
> I thought MMA competition did away with most of the "My art is too  deadly for competition stuff long ago."  Yes there is stuff in some arts  that is not allowed in MMA.
> If your art concentrates in eye gouging, groin ripping, ear tearing,  back of head and spine shots, small joint manipulation biting etc. then  perhaps you have a point. *For the rest, the acid test of the MMA ring is  readily available*.





ballen0351 said:


> You do realize MMA rings are not real life.  Its a game or sport.  It has rules and refs and usually the fighters are not trying to actually hurt or kill each other.  To say well they don't use this style in MMA so it does not work is silly.  Real life is not a sport or a game.  *So no an MMA ring is not an acid test for an art*



I missed Master Weiss's comments on this and have to agree with Ballen on this point.  We had a rather lengthy discussion on this in the general MA section a couple of weeks back in regards to sport/MMA being viable for the battlefield/street.  It isn't in any way, shape for form.  I've touched on the myriad of reasons why in previous posts.  MMA is a sport, and as such it is excellent for its intended purpose.  And at the risk of turning this into a sport vs. self-defense thread, MMA/sport training is not applicable for self defense.  There are some elements that are useful to be sure i.e. conditioning, being able to take a punch etc.  But the methodology in general is not only insufficient but actually detrimental.  The same can be said for self-defense training for sport competitions.  

_They're oil and water in that they just don't mix.  They will exist side-by-side in the same pan but will separate and seek their own level.  _[Hey...that's good enough for a fortune cookie] :uhyeah:


----------



## Dwi Chugi (Jan 30, 2013)

Instructor said:


> I also did not mean to slight BJJ in any way.  I have the utmost respect.  I respect all arts and ask only that others respect mine.



Oh, I didn't see that you had any disrespect on your part. I have never seen any disrespect on your part.


----------



## Instructor (Jan 30, 2013)

I would also like to respond to Master Weiss.  Hapkido is no more deadly than the average 13 year old with a handgun, disgruntled housewife with a vial of poison, or 300 pound thug with a heavy object.

I just think that some arts are suited for competitive sport and some just aren't.  If somebody grabbed me and I was overpowered and could not escape the grab or turn it to my advantage I would bend their finger the wrong way to escape.  I would stick my thumb into their eye.  If need be, I would bite them.

It's not very sportsmanlike or even dignified, however it might allow a young woman to survive alive and un-raped.


----------



## Instructor (Jan 30, 2013)

Going back to the OP.  I once tried one of the Kung Fu styles.  Don't ask me to specify style because I simply don't know, it was only one class.  At the time I had a 1st Dan in Tae Kwon Do.

The teacher made me feel that not only was TKD inferior but that whatever we had we stole from Kung Fu.  He then stuck me into a low horse stance and left me there while he taught his other students.  When I eventually got tired and stood up he said that TKD people were weak.

Comparatively the Hapkido school picked right up where I left off in Tae Kwon Do and helped me adapt what I already knew to situations I had never tried to deal with before. They put me against a wall and showed me the way out.  They put me on the floor and showed me how to deal with that.  They came at me with two and sometimes three people.

I felt then and I still feel now that Hapkido and Tae Kwon do are very compatible, particularly if the teacher is good.


----------



## Dwi Chugi (Jan 30, 2013)

Instructor said:


> Going back to the OP.  I once tried one of the Kung Fu styles.  Don't ask me to specify style because I simply don't know, it was only one class.  At the time I had a 1st Dan in Tae Kwon Do.
> 
> The teacher made me feel that not only was TKD inferior but that whatever we had we stole from Kung Fu.  He then stuck me into a low horse stance and left me there while he taught his other students.  When I eventually got tired and stood up he said that TKD people were weak.



I have ran across so called masters and instructors like that. They usually have poor self-esteem about themselves and their art and they are over compensating for that lack of confidence. . I have no room for people like that in my life. You are better off where you ended up.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 30, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I missed Master Weiss's comments on this and have to agree with Ballen on this point.  We had a rather lengthy discussion on this in the general MA section a couple of weeks back in regards to sport/MMA being viable for the battlefield/street.  It isn't in any way, shape for form.  I've touched on the myriad of reasons why in previous posts.  MMA is a sport, and as such it is excellent for its intended purpose.  And at the risk of turning this into a sport vs. self-defense thread, MMA/sport training is not applicable for self defense.  There are some elements that are useful to be sure i.e. conditioning, being able to take a punch etc.  But the methodology in general is not only insufficient but actually detrimental.  The same can be said for self-defense training for sport competitions.
> 
> _They're oil and water in that they just don't mix.  They will exist side-by-side in the same pan but will separate and seek their own level.  _[Hey...that's good enough for a fortune cookie] :uhyeah:


To go one step further you can't say bring your style into the MMA ring and see how it works oh but you can't do XYZ its against the rules but you can use the rest of your style.  Well its not my style anymore when i need to follow your rules


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jan 31, 2013)

Some response to the point I was trying to make have gotten off track. I.E. the relative deadlyness of Hapkido as an art or for self defense.  My comments were restricted to the relative strengths of Hapkido vis a is it's grappling aspects and those of JJ. 

It was not an issue of how well an art did as a whole in competition since competition severly limits what is allowed.   However we do see techniques related to various arts in MMA.  The frequency and efficacy of JJ grappling techniques versus HKD grappling techniques (although admittedly the lines of distinction are not always clear), speaks volumes. 

If you want to be a strong grappler  and invest your time and energy in HKD that is your perogative.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jan 31, 2013)

Instructor said:


> Hapkido has proven itself in the real world many times, it's proved itself ..................................., and even on the battlefield.  It doesn't need me to defend it.
> .



I consider this to be one of the great myths of empty hand arts (Although I have been in HKD classes where some weapons were taught and it's not clear from the post if the battlefield proof involved "empty hand techniques.)

Sure there are anecdotal claims from empty hand arts about battle fiedl succes. Sometimes that they were designed for battle. 

I'll take the soldier / army with the weapon every time over the empty hand guy. 

How far back in istory would you have to go to find people sent into battle with no weapons?


----------



## Instructor (Jan 31, 2013)

The man is the weapon.  The thing in his hands (gun, pointy object, etc) is merely an extension of the man.  It increases his capability but is not a danger in it's own right.

This is why we spend so much time, effort, and money teaching people and not their guns.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 31, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> I consider this to be one of the great myths of empty hand arts...Sure there are anecdotal claims from empty hand arts about battle fiedl succes.



I think we sometimes think of the _battlefield_ from a Hollywood perspective i.e people charging across no-mans land with raised rifles and bombs bursting.  That has a part, but is not the whole.  The _battlefield_ is going from building to building or room to room or other close quarter scenarios.  And having been in the military and now L.E. I will equate the _battlefield_ to the street or correctional facility.  Whereas empty hand training is of little use against bullets and bombs, all three of those venues share combat in close quarter situations.  And often those situations require hands on, either due to the suddenness of the situation or weapons not being the best option.  

As with anything, there will be spectacular successes and dismal failures.  From experience, I can attest to the usefulness and effectiveness of Hapkido principles (which can and do include Jujutsu/Chin Na principles.  Where there may be slightly different nuances between these 'big three' the principles are exactly the same).  A strike may or may not stop an attack.  A kick may or may not stop an attack.  But a properly executed lock (typically after a strike) will immobilize at least a portion of the attacker's body.  When I lock a wrist, it isn't just the wrist that is being locked.  It locks the elbow, the shoulder and down into the waist of the bad guy.  One joint can affect the entire body as far as controlling and/or stopping the flow of the attack.  

I've mentioned before an altercation with an EDP (emotionally disturbed person).  My best (and repeated) elbow strikes did NOT faze him.  I know they were hard strikes because the Deputy I was rescuing felt the strikes through the EDP's back and into his own chest.  The EDP didn't even know I was there!  He felt no pain and displayed superhuman strength.  But when I put a lock on his hand (middle two fingers) he was immobilized down his full right side and the fight was over.  It wasn't the pain that stopped him it was the fact that half his body was locked up.  Pain is great but pain is subjective and relative.  But a proper lock is the key as it inhibits free movement regardless of pain or perceived pain.


----------



## Instructor (Jan 31, 2013)

That is my experience as well.  I've ended conflict with a well placed strike some of the time, I've ended conflict with joint manipulation every time.


----------



## Uncle (Jan 31, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> Some response to the point I was trying to make have gotten off track. I.E. the relative deadlyness of Hapkido as an art or for self defense.  My comments were restricted to the relative strengths of Hapkido vis a is it's grappling aspects and those of JJ.
> 
> It was not an issue of how well an art did as a whole in competition since competition severly limits what is allowed.   However we do see techniques related to various arts in MMA.  The frequency and efficacy of JJ grappling techniques versus HKD grappling techniques (although admittedly the lines of distinction are not always clear), speaks volumes.



Sorry folks my Internet was down. Anyway I was not criticizing hapkido as a whole but a certain section of its techniques. Some folks need to read before taking instant offense.

I quoted this above section because it has definite relevance to what I was saying with regard to certain hapkido techniques versus other techniques in hapkido and in jujitsu/wrestling/sambo/judo. Folks may have anecdotes about the techniques and their effectiveness but that does not validate them.

If we want to work from a scientific approach we can use the various MMA orgs as a large sample. What we see is very few fine joint manipulations as found in hapkido and aikido as derived from daito ryu because the opponent is fully resistant. Those techniques have their place but it is generally situational and against semi-resistant opponents.

Now compare with another sample group, law enforcement officers. What we see from LEO's in the case of techniques taught and techniques used is that techniques taught and used tend to be the higher percentage ones which are applicable across more situations. Hence in the grappling department you tend to see takedowns which go after the legs similar to wrestling. In terms of joint control you tend to see jujitsu style techniques where the subject is pinned to the ground, wall, or car to maximize control. These techniques also exist in daito ryu and their derivatives. What you will not see often if ever in these situations is officers using standing joint locks as takedowns or controls with the exception of come-alongs which are high percentage and similar in many respects to high-percentage standing locks from judo and bjj. These are generally employed, again, when e subject is semi-resistant.

Againto be clear:
- I am not ripping on hapkido as a whole but a certain set and style of techniques within the curriculum and in certain other arts
- These techniques have their place but they are not as high percentage in terms of effectiveness or situational viability as other techniques which fill similar or the same roles most of the time


----------



## Instructor (Jan 31, 2013)

Perhaps you should specify a certain technique to use as an example?  Gooseneck perhaps...  Used by Hapkido and LEO but rarely seen in MMA.


----------



## Uncle (Jan 31, 2013)

Instructor said:


> Perhaps you should specify a certain technique to use as an example?  Gooseneck perhaps...  Used by Hapkido and LEO but rarely seen in MMA.



Actually that would make a perfect example of a technique which is between the two so it gives a few points to work with.

The technique is one which is not as high percentage or gross motor as something like a double leg takedown yet at the same time it fills a different role. It works well against semi-resistant subjects but not so well against fully resistant ones because it requires finer motor skills. In those cases of hire resistance more gross motor, high percentage techniques are usually used. The techniques is MORE high percentage than something like a turning wrist lock as you have the elbow secured to the body so you are manipulating closer to your subject's core and in a more secure manner. At the same time it is less high percentage as a joint lock than something like a kimura. Now if we take the kimura as a technique we can level similar criticisms at a standing kimura versus one on the ground, and in many respects it has the same strengths and similar use to the gooseneck. It will still be superior to a standing wrist lock or other standing joint lock where the appendage is less secured. 

These standing techniques will be less high percentage than a takedown like a double leg or a lock where the opponent is pinned like a kimura on the ground. That is one of the reasons what you tend to see when LEOs have to cuff a highly resistant subject the protocol is essentially high percentage takedown > high percentage control > handcuff > escort. They will not try to attempt a standing joint lock on a highly resistant subject. The above does the same as a standing lock but works more against resistant subjects because the moves are gross motor and high percentage. These are more similar to what you see in grappling and MMA competition.

As I said, each hs their time and place. You would not use a double leg as a retention technique if someone is reaching for your firearm but a double leg + ground control will still be higher percentage than a standing joint lock for other tasks.


----------



## Instructor (Jan 31, 2013)

Not sure what you're point is as Hapkido also has a "Chicken Wing" style shoulder lock.


----------



## Uncle (Jan 31, 2013)

Instructor said:


> Not sure what you're point is as Hapkido also has a "Chicken Wing" style shoulder lock.


As I have said probably about five times by now. I am not criticizing hapkido as a whole but a certain style of techniques within hapkido. I have the same criticism of the same and similar techniques aikido and certain traditional jujitsu ryus.


----------



## Instructor (Jan 31, 2013)

You know how it is...They are noncompliant ...then you smash their face with a hammerfist and then try again.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 31, 2013)

Uncle said:


> Sorry folks my Internet was down. Anyway I was not criticizing hapkido as a whole but a certain section of its techniques. Some folks need to read before taking instant offense.


Not sure where in the quote you mentioned, or any of the other quotes anyone suggested you were criticizing more then a few techniques..can you quote it, sow e know what you're referring to?



> I quoted this above section because it has definite relevance to what I was saying with regard to certain hapkido techniques versus other techniques in hapkido and in jujitsu/wrestling/sambo/judo. Folks may have anecdotes about the techniques and their effectiveness but that does not validate them.


As was already stated, MMA isn't a 'proving ground' for everything, since it has a very distinct format with its own rule set, so not the best way to test if certain techniques are practical or not, as they may be illegal or simply unsportsmanlike in that rule set, and mindset.


> If we want to work from a scientific approach we can use the various MMA orgs as a large sample. What we see is very few fine joint manipulations as found in hapkido and aikido as derived from daito ryu because the opponent is fully resistant. Those techniques have their place but it is generally situational and against semi-resistant opponents.


 As stated above, and by others, MMA has a very specific ruleset and mindset. As for them being situational, all techniques are situational, which is why there are so many techniques out there. I'm not a huge fan of the phrase 'just another tool in your toolbox', but thats what a lot of these moves are, tools that you use in certain situations.



> Now compare with another sample group, law enforcement officers. What we see from LEO's in the case of techniques taught and techniques used is that techniques taught and used tend to be the higher percentage ones which are applicable across more situations. Hence in the grappling department you tend to see takedowns which go after the legs similar to wrestling. In terms of joint control you tend to see jujitsu style techniques where the subject is pinned to the ground, wall, or car to maximize control. These techniques also exist in daito ryu and their derivatives. What you will not see often if ever in these situations is officers using standing joint locks as takedowns or controls with the exception of come-alongs which are high percentage and similar in many respects to high-percentage standing locks from judo and bjj. These are generally employed, again, when e subject is semi-resistant.


Do you have any proof of this? I wouldn't know either way, but some people on here have suggested almost the opposite as far as what LEO's learn, so I would like to see proof. This goes for people suggesting the other way as well, if neither side brings proof, then not really sure the discussion can go any further.



> Againto be clear:
> - I am not ripping on hapkido as a whole but a certain set and style of techniques within the curriculum and in certain other arts
> - These techniques have their place but they are not as high percentage in terms of effectiveness or situational viability as other techniques which fill similar or the same roles most of the time


Thanks, for making the points clear 
For the first point, some of the reactions might be because they consider those techniques as a valuable part of hapkido, so insulting the techniques could be taken as insulting hapkido itself. For the second point, I agree with the situational viability, but not necessarily the effectiveness point, if used in the right situation, which once again goes back to the "tools in the toolbox" idea.


Finally, since I think you missed my other post, do you have any actual experience either learning hapkido, or constantly fighting/sparring/discussing with hapkidoists?


----------



## Instructor (Jan 31, 2013)

If the toolbox analogy is troublesome you might consider the attack geometry analogy.  We have techniques for various attack geometries.  Further we also have a proportional response.  In other words Hapkidoin do not have luxury of one goal i.e. winning a match.  Different engagements have different goals.  Three knife wielding attackers might mean we have to kill whereas an unruly bi-polar shoplifter really just needs to stuffed into the back of the cruiser.


----------



## Uncle (Jan 31, 2013)

Instructor said:


> You know how it is...They are noncompliant ...then you smash their face with a hammerfist and then try again.


and then your department gets slapped with a lawsuit for excessive use of force.



Instructor said:


> If the toolbox analogy is troublesome you might consider the attack geometry analagy. We have techniques for various attack geometries. Further we also have a proportional response. In other words Hapkidoin do not have luxury of one goal i.e. winning a match. Different engagements have different goals. Three knife wielding attackers might mean we have to kill whereas an unruly bi-polar shoplifter really just needs to stuffed into the back of the cruiser.


If you have three knife wielding attackers which joint lock to use is the least of your worries. And yes the toolbox analogy is a good one. And what I am saying is that if a framing hammer works for a wider variety of situations and mo effectively in those situations than a sledgehammer it should be the one put in your toolbox first and used most often.




kempodisciple said:


> Not sure where in the quote you mentioned, or any of the other quotes anyone suggested you were criticizing more then a few techniques..can you quote it, sow e know what you're referring to?


I'm not going to dig for it but it was where I was critiquing the category of techniques and people like instructor went on with anecdotes which essentially equated to "yeah well my hapkido has worked in the street in deadly situations."




kempodisciple said:


> As was already stated, MMA isn't a 'proving ground' for everything, since it has a very distinct format with its own rule set, so not the best way to test if certain techniques are practical or not, as they may be illegal or simply unsportsmanlike in that rule set, and mindset.


Yes but standing joint locks are allowed, wrist locks are allowed, elbow and shoulder locks are allowed. The only thing you can't lock on the arm is the fingers.




kempodisciple said:


> As stated above, and by others, MMA has a very specific ruleset and mindset. As for them being situational, all techniques are situational, which is why there are so many techniques out there. I'm not a huge fan of the phrase 'just another tool in your toolbox', but thats what a lot of these moves are, tools that you use in certain situations.


Read my comment above about the framing Hamm and the sledgehammer.




kempodisciple said:


> Do you have any proof of this? I wouldn't know either way, but some people on here have suggested almost the opposite as far as what LEO's learn, so I would like to see proof. This goes for people suggesting the other way as well, if neither side brings proof, then not really sure the discussion can go any further.


Watch your average episode of cops. That'll give you a pretty good idea of what they use when a person is highly resistant.




kempodisciple said:


> Thanks, for making the points clear
> For the first point, some of the reactions might be because they consider those techniques as a valuable part of hapkido, so insulting the techniques could be taken as insulting hapkido itself. For the second point, I agree with the situational viability, but not necessarily the effectiveness point, if used in the right situation, which once again goes back to the "tools in the toolbox" idea.


It's not an insult. It is a critique. It is putting them in their appropriate place in the toolbox which, in the case of this specific class of techniques, is the lower percentage of use and lower percentage of success category.




kempodisciple said:


> Finally, since I think you missed my other post, do you have any actual experience either learning hapkido, or constantly fighting/sparring/discussing with hapkidoists?


Yes. When I first trained in taekwondo my instructor was a 5th Dan in both taekwondo and hapkido and taught both. In the past year I've fought with and bested two hapkido blackbelts.


----------



## Instructor (Jan 31, 2013)

> Yes. When I first trained in taekwondo my instructor was a 5th Dan in both taekwondo and hapkido and taught both. In the past year I've fought with and bested two hapkido blackbelts.



And what were the rules imposed on these fights?


----------



## Rumy73 (Jan 31, 2013)

*My martial art is better than your martial art!!! (Frustrated sarcasm.)* Yes, the tiresome discourse that is found in every martial-arts related chat room and Internet forum. While I understand having pride in a system one has studied, it should not blind any of us to the point of demonstrating a lack of respect for other styles. So can we please drop this BS approach, people? Moving on to the point at hand.

 I have studied a fair amount of Hapkido and sparred with it. My experience is that in order to get to the point of using any kind of lock or throw, one has to have the aptitude to deal with an attack. Foot work. Blocks. Strikes. It all has a place. Good HKD programs incorporate these elements. What I have noticed reading the posts here (yes, I read them all), that several experiences with HKD are only associated with locks and throws. Those people are only getting part of the HKD experience. It is very similar phenomenon to when TKD students are mostly familiar with the WTF/ITF sports elements of the art, but have never been taught that TKD has locks, throws, self defense, ground fighthing. The number of schools that expose students to the total experience of any art is rather limited. This lends credence to my outlook that self-education is a must for anyone looking to be well rounded.

Any fight outside the ring is filled with the unpredictable. The best self defense, of course, is to be able to avoid violence. When violence does occur, anything goes. I would use only the best, most effective and rapidly executable techniques I know. Frankly, I am feel more confident about first delivering a strong strike or two before going for a grab or a throw. But I will take what comes. Hapkido, like any martial art, gives a person options.   

I almost forgot to mention, I really have come to appreciate how HKD has taught me to fall. I am not a young whipper snapper anymore and that sort of stuff comes in handy.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 31, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> I have studied a fair amount of Hapkido and sparred with it. My experience is that in order to get to the point of using any kind of lock or throw, one has to have the aptitude to deal with an attack. Foot work. Blocks. Strikes. It all has a place. Good HKD programs incorporate these elements.



+1 and I would add the correct mindset is paramount.  


> It is very similar phenomenon to when TKD students are mostly familiar  with the WTF/ITF sports elements of the art, but have never been taught  that TKD has locks, throws, self defense, ground fighthing. The number  of schools that expose students to the total experience of any art is  rather limited. This lends credence to my outlook that self-education is  a must for anyone looking to be well rounded.



+2 and I would add that TKD could be indistinguishable from HKD if taught that way.  TKD came from Karate which has most/all the elements of Jujutsu.  Unfortunately, all too often only a slice of TKD is taught.



> Any fight outside the ring is filled with the unpredictable. The best  self defense, of course, is to be able to avoid violence. When violence  does occur, anything goes. I would use only the best, most effective and  rapidly executable techniques I know. Frankly, I am feel more confident  about first delivering a strong strike or two before going for a grab  or a throw. But I will take what comes. Hapkido, like any martial art,  gives a person options.



+3 and I would add, as I've mentioned above, that good self-defense is seldom pretty.  Ugly and chaotic would be better labels.  

Good post


----------



## Earl Weiss (Feb 1, 2013)

Originally Posted by *Earl Weiss*


I consider this to be one of the great myths of empty hand arts...Sure there are anecdotal claims from empty hand arts about battle fiedl succes.



Kong Soo Do said:


> I think we sometimes think of the _battlefield_ from a Hollywood perspective i.e people charging across no-mans land with raised rifles and bombs bursting.  That has a part, but is not the whole.  The _battlefield_ is going from building to building or room to room or other close quarter scenarios.  And having been in the military and now L.E. I will equate the _battlefield_ to the street or correctional facility. .



I understand your use of the ter, "Battlefield" and it is not technicaly incorrect. However, when people claim that an art was developed or used succesfuly in battle, that is absolutley positively not what they are claiming. They are referring to some usualy non specific battle between organized opposing forces typical between nations or a nation and rebels. 




​


----------



## Earl Weiss (Feb 1, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I've mentioned before an altercation with an EDP (emotionally disturbed person).  My best (and repeated) elbow strikes did NOT faze him.  I know they were hard strikes because the Deputy I was rescuing felt the strikes through the EDP's back and into his own chest.  The EDP didn't even know I was there!  He felt no pain and displayed superhuman strength.  But when I put a lock on his hand (middle two fingers) he was immobilized down his full right side and the fight was over.  It wasn't the pain that stopped him it was the fact that half his body was locked up.  Pain is great but pain is subjective and relative.  But a proper lock is the key as it inhibits free movement regardless of pain or perceived pain.



A recent term I encountered at a seminar was "Mechanical Compliace" versus "Pain Compliance".


----------



## Earl Weiss (Feb 1, 2013)

Uncle said:


> Sorry folks my Internet was down. Anyway I was not criticizing hapkido as a whole but a certain section of its techniques. Some folks need to read before taking instant offense.
> 
> I quoted this above section because it has definite relevance to what I was saying with regard to certain hapkido techniques versus other techniques in hapkido and in jujitsu/wrestling/sambo/judo. Folks may have anecdotes about the techniques and their effectiveness but that does not validate them.



Well said. People got their knickers in a twist because of my statement vis a vis "Strong Grappling art" comparing HKD to JJ. 
If we were talking "Strong Striking Art"  I would take HKD or TKD over JJ. 

Some years ago when a group of TKD people had been training with my JJ instructor for over a decade smply to learn grappling without concern of JJ rank, the JJ Instructor said that the TKD guys did not need to spend any time on his striking curriculm since our striking was far superior to his guys.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Feb 1, 2013)

kempodisciple said:


> As was already stated, MMA isn't a 'proving ground' for everything, since it has a very distinct format with its own rule set, so not the best way to test if certain techniques are practical or not, as they may be illegal or simply unsportsmanlike in that rule set, and mindset.



Certainly not for "Everything" but shows a heck of a lot about what works and what doesn't. Even illegal stuff. 

These are usualy well trained and conditioned fighters with a determined mindset. 

The "Accidental" eye or groin shot is remarkably effective.  Shows that my art "Whupbut Foo" is effective


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Feb 1, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> Originally Posted by *Earl Weiss*
> 
> 
> I consider this to be one of the great myths of empty hand arts...Sure there are anecdotal claims from empty hand arts about battle fiedl succes.
> ...



I understand where your coming from.  Although the lines are very blurred now adays, a generalization could be presented that a Jutsu art was designed for the battlefield and included armed and unarmed techniques, principles and strategies.  Whereas a 'Do' was designed for unarmed, civilian use.  Again, this is a generalization and not of much use these days.


----------



## Uncle (Feb 1, 2013)

Instructor said:


> And what were the rules imposed on these fights?


The implied rule that since we were testing out skills against each other there would be no interference.
That we would be nice enough to follow society's rules by not killing each other.
That we would call 911 or drive the other to the hospital if either person required immediate medical attention.

I ended one by knockout and one by verbal tap out due to strikes. I was actually the one who was playing nice.




Earl Weiss said:


> The "Accidental" eye or groin shot is remarkably effective. Shows that my art "Whupbut Foo" is effective



Actually it's funny that they're effective NOW but when they were allowed they weren't all that effective and that was in tournament style events where people had to fight another few opponents afterward.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Feb 1, 2013)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I understand where your coming from.  Although the lines are very blurred now adays, a generalization could be presented that a Jutsu art was designed for the battlefield and included armed and unarmed techniques, principles and strategies.  Whereas a 'Do' was designed for unarmed, civilian use.  Again, this is a generalization and not of much use these days.


I have heard this before,  but so far have not learned of equivalent terminology as it would be applied in Korean or Korean arts. Similarly,  anyone who claims that any purely empty hand Jutsu art was for military conflict type battle field arts is in to the wacky weed.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Feb 1, 2013)

Earl Weiss said:


> I have heard this before,  but so far have not learned of equivalent terminology as it would be applied in Korean or Korean arts. Similarly,  anyone who claims that any purely empty hand Jutsu art was for military conflict type battle field arts is in to the wacky weed.



Agreed.  I'm not sure how much of any Jutsu type would have been empty hand.  Seems like many were an outgrowth of weapons use such as sword, bo etc.  

As far as a Korean equivalent, I agree with you.  Weapns use is more an add-in than an outgrowth.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 1, 2013)

> And what were the rules imposed on these fights?





Uncle said:


> The implied rule that since we were testing out skills against each other there would be no interference.
> That we would be nice enough to follow society's rules by not killing each other.
> That we would call 911 or drive the other to the hospital if either person required immediate medical attention.
> 
> ...



I appreciate you telling us you have not really studied Hapkido.  At least that is what I took from your answer.  Because if you were also a Hapkido student, I think you would be able to think through the strengths and weaknesses of both systems.  That had me, and apparently some others curious.  And it gives us a way to evaluate your statements.

I don't know about anyone else's style of Hapkido, but one of the first things I was taught was that there were no rules in Hapkido, except to protect yourself and subdue an opponent.  Naturally we anticipated tapouts at some point in many techniques, but esentually we went full bore up to the point of causing damage.  One has to develop a mindset of you know where to stop with a practice opponent, and where you would keep going to if you are in a real situation.  You have to complete the technique, just often loosely enough not to damage your practice opponent.  

But in general, during sparring TKD style, a Hapkido practitioner is at great disadvantage in not being able to do a technique to full power completion.  You learn to react instintively, without thought, to an attack.  Then you find you must stop and consider something else so you don't maim or kill your TKD style sparring partner.  Many times that will leave the Hapkido practitioner more open that would have been.

But I am happy for you.  You have bested two Hapkidoists so you can brag about it.  I would be careful though, of how you choose any future Hapkido practitioners to spare with.  I don't think you should count too heavily on keeping your win record intact if you don't.  If you run across one who isn't well trained, one who has not been taught proper humility, and can over react to frustration, things might not go well for either of you.


----------



## Uncle (Feb 1, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> I appreciate you telling us you have not really studied Hapkido.  At least that is what I took from your answer.  Because if you were also a Hapkido student, I think you would be able to think through the strengths and weaknesses of both systems.  That had me, and apparently some others curious.  And it gives us a way to evaluate your statements.


Clearly you've not been following along.



oftheherd1 said:


> I don't know about anyone else's style of Hapkido, but one of the first things I was taught was that there were no rules in Hapkido, except to protect yourself and subdue an opponent.  Naturally we anticipated tapouts at some point in many techniques, but esentually we went full bore up to the point of causing damage.  One has to develop a mindset of you know where to stop with a practice opponent, and where you would keep going to if you are in a real situation.  You have to complete the technique, just often loosely enough not to damage your practice opponent.


So you're saying every situation calls for deadly force? Funny because if that were the case almost ever hapkido practitioner would be behin bars after defending themselves as deadly force is rarely required. Now you're just hilarious. pretty sure I'm sure I'll be hearing other tried and true idiocies about not needing to follow laws and being tried by twelve than carried by 6.

Now of our rules one was not a rule but the method of engagement since we were testing our skills against each other. The second was not a rule but a law. The third was some courtesy.



oftheherd1 said:


> But in general, during sparring TKD style, a Hapkido practitioner is at great disadvantage in not being able to do a technique to full power completion.  You learn to react instintively, without thought, to an attack.  Then you find you must stop and consider something else so you don't maim or kill your TKD style sparring partner.  Many times that will leave the Hapkido practitioner more open that would have been.


They were completely free to use as much power as they wished and to attempt to maim me.



oftheherd1 said:


> But I am happy for you.  You have bested two Hapkidoists so you can brag about it.  I would be careful though, of how you choose any future Hapkido practitioners to spare with.  I don't think you should count too heavily on keeping your win record intact if you don't.  If you run across one who isn't well trained, one who has not been taught proper humility, and can over react to frustration, things might not go well for either of you.


See this is actually the reason I responded to the challenge of whether I had fought and beaten any Hapkidoists. When others try to use one or two anecdotes as proof of techniques I'm critiquing and I say that it doesn't refute my arguments or lend credence to theirs, suddenly I'm vilified for that. I am asked if I have sparred or beaten any Hapkidoists and I say I have. I am then asked under what rules in a sly attempt to devalue my story. When I provide rules which arent really rules at all and would not stop a hapkido practitioner from using their techniques full force, you devalue the high level Hapkidoists I fought in order to devalue my story.

We've gone from:
My technical critique of a select group of techniques in hapkido
To me being challenged as to whether I have fought any Hapkidoists recently (since I have had training in Hapkido before and I couldn't be attacked that way)
To every possible attempt being made to devalue my story by first attacking the rules I didn't set and then the Hapkidoists I fought.

If you ever wanted proof of the fact that you're not interested in a technical discussion but merely praising your own martial art and getting hot under the collar when any bit of it is critiqued... There you have it.


----------



## Dwi Chugi (Feb 1, 2013)

Uncle said:


> Clearly you've not been following along.
> 
> 
> So you're saying every situation calls for deadly force? Funny because if that were the case almost ever hapkido practitioner would be behin bars after defending themselves as deadly force is rarely required. Now you're just hilarious. pretty sure I'm sure I'll be hearing other tried and true idiocies about not needing to follow laws and being tried by twelve than carried by 6.
> ...



I always say that for every four Taekwondo schools there are you get one that is worth their salt. For every 10 Hapkido schools, you may find one that is any good. 

I think maybe some of us Hapkido people are on the defensive because (I personally feel) other styles and systems look down on the Hapkido. What I am trying to say is there are some great Hapkido systems and some that are not so good. I guess that is true with all styles. But with Hapkido, there's are a lot kooks. A lot of instructors that got their black belts in a year, six months and in some cases, in a weekend seminar. But there are some styles and systems of Hapkido that are great. A lot of great students, instructors and masters. 

I personally feel lucky because my grandmaster trained under the founder of Hapkido and he passed on his knowledge to my master and to me. My grandmaster lives in the same state as me. My master lives in the same state as me. So I don't have to fly to Korea for seminars to gain knowledge, I just drive an hour or two and I can train.  I feel that I have learned Hapkido the right way. 

With that being said; to test what I have learned, I have went to Judo clubs, BJJ schools , Krav Maga schools, and other martial arts styles and sparred with them. If I'm allowed to start standing up and use what I know, I usually come out on top. If I have to play by their rules, it's a coin toss. I have yet been thrown by a judoka or taken down by a BJJ stylist. I got taken down by a collegen wrestler once but I wrist locked him on the ground and he submitted. 

I have two students (one black belt and one brown belt) that went to a Krav Maga school with me and we were throwing outer wrist throws all day long during their training. The brown belt was a girl and she threw a man during the training. The Krav Maga guys showed us the up most respect after we proved ourselves. 

My wife about 12 years ago at green belt level used her Hapkido to defend herself against two male attackers in Europe. She escaped after throwing one with a wrist throw. 

What does all the mean? I don't know except we train hard and our system works for us. I along with my students have proved it in mock combat in different martial arts schools and working as bouncers, police and security as well as defending ourselves when the time was needed. My masters have used their Hapkido in the military and against other people in other systems as well. 

I think (from what I read) Instructor and Kong Soo Do have trained hard in their Hapkido and it works for them as your art works for you. We all train to the best of our abilities and sometimes we win and other times we learn. 

For me, I feel like Hapkido is constantly under attack by other systems. I think sometimes the attacks are valid and I think sometimes we are lumped into one category of mcdojangs. The fact of the matter, we are not all Mcdojangs so the ones that are not, kind of get offended when we read stuff on blogs we fill are invalid. 

Anyways, that is my point of view, for what's it worth.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 2, 2013)

Uncle said:


> Clearly you've not been following along.



Sorry if I have misunderstood.  I'm not going to look back over all your posts, but if you mentioned training or belting in Hapkido, I missed it, other than after several requests.  You then only mentioned attending a school that taught both TKD and HKD.  BTW, what level did you attain in Hapkido?




Uncle said:


> So you're saying every situation calls for deadly force? Funny because if that were the case almost ever hapkido practitioner would be behin bars after defending themselves as deadly force is rarely required. Now you're just hilarious. pretty sure I'm sure I'll be hearing other tried and true idiocies about not needing to follow laws and being tried by twelve than carried by 6.



Please don't put words in my mouth.  I never said every situation calls for deadly force.  It does not.  And I never said that.  But self defense implies not letting oneself get hurt or killed.  Many Hapkido techniques, in fact most, do not result in death.

...



Uncle said:


> They were completely free to use as much power as they wished and to attempt to maim me.



I'm sorry, I find that improper.  You are talking about dueling, not sparring.  I don't think good MA engage in such things.  Did you mean something else?




Uncle said:


> See this is actually the reason I responded to the challenge of whether I had fought and beaten any Hapkidoists. When others try to use one or two anecdotes as proof of techniques I'm critiquing and I say that it doesn't refute my arguments or lend credence to theirs, suddenly I'm vilified for that. I am asked if I have sparred or beaten any Hapkidoists and I say I have. I am then asked under what rules in a sly attempt to devalue my story. When I provide rules which arent really rules at all and would not stop a hapkido practitioner from using their techniques full force, you devalue the high level Hapkidoists I fought in order to devalue my story.



Well, again I'm not going back through all your posts, here and in other threads, but I didn't understand anyone to be challenging you on whether or not you had fought against Hapkidoists, but rather where you got your apparent great knowledge of Hapkido.  If I am wrong, just say so and I will accept that.  I also don't remember anyone vilifying you.  Some of us here have strong opinions, just as you do.  We may speak forcefully.  Since many of us are like that, we tend to overlook that.  You of course, don't have to.

A sly attempt to devalue your story?  That is just what you have done, so I guess I can only encourage you to develop a thicker skin.

And I didn't see any rules except in this last post, and I must admit, I see that as more of yes we had them, but not so much what they were.



Uncle said:


> We've gone from:
> My technical critique of a select group of techniques in hapkido
> To me being challenged as to whether I have fought any Hapkidoists recently (since I have had training in Hapkido before and I couldn't be attacked that way)
> To every possible attempt being made to devalue my story by first attacking the rules I didn't set and then the Hapkidoists I fought.



I am think you are making some big and unjustified leaps.



Uncle said:


> If you ever wanted proof of the fact that you're not interested in a technical discussion but merely praising your own martial art and getting hot under the collar when any bit of it is critiqued... There you have it.



I am always interested in technical discussions.  I'm not overly impressed by what appears to be BS in that it is unsupported by facts and/or common sense.  I am indeed inclined to praise my art.  You seem inclined to do the same.  Why not?  Why would anyone continue to study an art they didn't like?  

I hope I haven't said anything to make you think I am hot under the collar.  I am not.  I am also aware of the strength and weaknesses of Hapkido.  All MA have that.  That is one of the great things about a forum like MT.  We get to compare things from other arts that we might like to add to our list of things that improve is as MA.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 2, 2013)

Uncle said:


> To me being challenged as to whether I have fought any Hapkidoists recently (since I have had training in Hapkido before and I couldn't be attacked that way)



Maybe people are confused about you having trained in hapkido because it's not one of the arts you have listed as havig trained in on your profile. 

I'm not really sure how much training i hapkido one would need so they "couldn't be attacked that way," however. I imagine quite a bit.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 2, 2013)

chrispillertkd said:


> Maybe people are confused about you having trained in hapkido because it's not one of the arts you have listed as havig trained in on your profile.
> 
> *I'm not really sure how much training i hapkido one would need so they "couldn't be attacked that way," however. I imagine quite a bit.*
> 
> ...



That is a good point.  More importantly, Hapkido is primarily a defensive art, not offensive.  Something Uncle seems to have a complete lack of knowledge about.  You will seldom be attacked by Hapkido, rather you are more likely to be defended against by Hapkido.


----------



## iron_ox (Feb 2, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> That is a good point.  More importantly, Hapkido is primarily a defensive art, not offensive.  Something Uncle seems to have a complete lack of knowledge about.  You will seldom be attacked by Hapkido, rather you are more likely to be defended against by Hapkido.



Hello all,

I'm sorry, this notion is not strictly correct.  While Hapkido's initial training is geared toward defensive action, the bulk of the material is offensive in nature with the general theory that the best defense is a faster offense.  

This has been an interesting thread thus far, and is really going in several different directions.  But I would think that is an outsider looked at the state of Hapkido today, they would think it is a highly questionable art. Virtually no one stands by its Founder, most people do not have the entire curriculum at their disposal, and instead of learning it, whether it be here or in Korea, things are cobbled on and called Hapkido when they really have no use in the art as most of the situations that these "add ons" want to address are already dealt with with in full curriculum of Hapkido.  

I don't someone needs to be a student of Hapkido to be critical of much of what one can find say on Youtube...even a mediocre martial artist could see that most of the compliant stye "Hapkido" on there is lousy and useless. In many cases, in my opinion, Hapkido suffers most from the attempt to make the "circle more round" by thrusting add ons into a curriculum they really don't know. 

As far as the relationship of TKD and Hapkido, at least it is my understanding (and I have no idea about the Kukkiwon style, only with the ITF or General Choi) the General Choi approached Hapkido Master Chung Kee Tae and asked him to add some "ho shin sul" to the TKD curriculum, and thus the self defense techniques in the "orange book" are all Hapkido.  

I don't know if they complement each other or not.

The point that the MMA ring is not a fool proof proving ground is well taken, as intent is often as much in question as is technique.  A realistic street confrontation that lasts more than 30 seconds seems too long.  Unless there is some overriding need to control someone, it seems the order of the day is to make sure you can extricate yourself from the situation and leave, not pin someone, etc.

The jail guard topic was interesting.  One of my earliest Hapkido instructors was GM Fred Adams, a slight but strong man that was a prison guard who was often sent into cells alone to extract prisoners, which he did with great efficiency, but I dare say that in today's litigious jail environment his methods would not be allowed.

Lastly, while all the anecdotal stories are kinda fun to read, they are only really useful to "your" perspective, there is a youtube video that shows a BJJ guy "besting" a Hapkido guy....there is no information about the Hapkido guys actual background or technical skill, just that he was a Hapkido guy - so to me those types of comparisons are weak at best.  That's really the same for the "I know my art works because me and my students have thrown down some whoop ***" - I have NEVER met a martial artist that was not a badass in his own mind at least...these types of comments used in context to show some level of experience are great, but otherwise they seem silly. And I know this because I know I am awesome at "gooseneck" locks - in a bar I worked at this guy was being unruly, and I got him in a perfect gooseneck and escorted him out the front door....YEAH, my technique totally works! - Except the guy went to his car, got his Mack10 came back and shot out every window in the club - but my gooseneck lock was perfect....its all context.

Interesting thread.  Everyones contributions have been great so far!


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 2, 2013)

iron_ox - I have always read your posts with great interest and  respect.  But I guess the Hapkido you learned, and the Hapkido I learned  were different.  Or maybe I just didn't advance far enough in my Hapkido studies.

All we learned until just before our black belt tests was defensive.  Right at the last, we studied offensive techniques.  For the most part, the offensive techniques were adaptations of the defensive techniques we had already learned.  One could of course then think back and extrapolate offenses from other defensive techniques we had already learned.  Maybe that was what you meant.  I don't know.  However, the majority of the techniques taught were defensive.  I attained a 2nd dan black belt, and learned all the techniques for 3rd dan, but never tested.

So maybe there are a lot of techniques after that which are offensive, that I just hadn't gone far enough to learn.  But the fact remains, the way I was taught Hapkido was primarily defensive.  A brief description of your Hapkido's training would be of interest to me.

Regardless, again, I always look forward to your posts and read them with interest.


----------



## iron_ox (Feb 3, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> iron_ox - I have always read your posts with great interest and  respect.  But I guess the Hapkido you learned, and the Hapkido I learned  were different.  Or maybe I just didn't advance far enough in my Hapkido studies.
> 
> All we learned until just before our black belt tests was defensive.  Right at the last, we studied offensive techniques.  For the most part, the offensive techniques were adaptations of the defensive techniques we had already learned.  One could of course then think back and extrapolate offenses from other defensive techniques we had already learned.  Maybe that was what you meant.  I don't know.  However, the majority of the techniques taught were defensive.  I attained a 2nd dan black belt, and learned all the techniques for 3rd dan, but never tested.
> 
> ...



Virtually every technique that can be done as a defense has an offensive component.  And I agree that many motions taken at first to be defensive can easily be used for offense.  There are however groups of techniques that are offensive in nature only.

What type of training are you looking for a description?  Happy to help if I can...


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 4, 2013)

iron_ox said:


> Virtually every technique that can be done as a defense has an offensive component.  And I agree that many motions taken at first to be defensive can easily be used for offense.  There are however groups of techniques that are offensive in nature only.
> 
> What type of training are you looking for a description?  Happy to help if I can...



Well, I guess from your answer I probably have a better understanding. I am still inclined to say Hapkido is more defensive, but that is just the way I was taught.  I certainly agree that much of Hapkido's defensive techniques can be used offensively.  But I was taught it more as a defensive art.

Thanks very much for your reply.


----------



## Instructor (Feb 5, 2013)

Hapkido is a tool.  You can smash someones knee or rotate their shoulder out of joint offensively or defensively.  I personally feel that once combat is inevitable, in other words for better or worse (usually worse) I am commited to fight somebody. I go on the offensive.

Kevin's right, if you can keep them on the defensive you decide the engagement.

Not that I am looking to fight but if somebody gives me little option then it's best to prevail.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Feb 5, 2013)

Instructor said:


> Hapkido is a tool.  You can smash someones knee or rotate their shoulder out of joint offensively or defensively.  I personally feel that once combat is inevitable, in other words for better or worse (usually worse) I am commited to fight somebody. I go on the offensive.
> 
> Kevin's right, if you can keep them on the defensive you decide the engagement.
> 
> Not that I am looking to fight but if somebody gives me little option then it's best to prevail.



I always remember that line from Road House, "Be nice until it's time not to be nice".


----------



## Instructor (Feb 5, 2013)

When I first transitioned to Hapkido I found no hyung (forms) to be nice.  I never really enjoyed learning them.  Now I find myself thinking I learned a great deal from my old TKD forms.

One thing I like about Hapkido is it's just very different.  I like things that are unique.  With TKD I felt I was learning something generic.  Not that it wasn't good, just really very similer to what others were doing all over.


----------

