# How much time does a typical Hapkido class devote to kicking compared to TKD?



## Axiom

Hi there. I recently learned that Hapkido was originally a pure grappling art which later incorporated kicking to its curriculum. My question is how this distribution looks nowdays? If you were to put a figure on it, how much active, offensive kicking are Hapkido students drilled in? Not just simply defensive tactics, but full-on roundhouse kicks, sidekicks etc.

Editors note: I hope it's not equivalent to the time spent joint manipulating/throwing in TaeKwonDo


----------



## WaterGal

That's going to depend a lot on the school/instructor.


----------



## Axiom

WaterGal said:


> That's going to depend a lot on the school/instructor.



 What would be a minimum, 40%? Several screen performers in Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan movies were Hapkido masters, yet famous on the silver screen for their kicking dexterity, which surprises me given that the emphasis is on grappling.


----------



## FighterTwister

Axiom said:


> That's going to depend a lot on the school/instructor.



I would have to say that Tae-Kwoon-Do is 80% kicking here because of its competitive nature in extreme kicking range techniques as a majority focus of weapon.


Tae-Kwoon-Do - Taekwondo - Wikipedia


Hapkido - Hapkido - Wikipedia













Thats in my opinion from all that I have seen.


----------



## Axiom

Thats in my opinion from all that I have seen.[/QUOTE]



FighterTwister said:


> I would have to say that Tae-Kwoon-Do is 80% kicking here because of its competitive nature in extreme kicking range techniques as a majority focus of weapon..



That's only sport oriented schools. Traditional TKD schools has a distribution somewhere around 60/40 kicks/punches.


----------



## MA_Student

Axiom said:


> What would be a minimum, 40%? Several screen performers in Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan movies were Hapkido masters, yet famous on the silver screen for their kicking dexterity, which surprises me given that the emphasis is on grappling.


Yes but kicking looks better on screen than grappling so you're more likely to see kicking than grappling in movies especially in old school bruce lee and jackie chan stuff. Maybe these days you'll see a bit more grappling but still I'd say 80% stroking 20 % grappling


----------



## Axiom

MA_Student said:


> Yes but kicking looks better on screen than grappling so you're more likely to see kicking than grappling in movies especially in old school bruce lee and jackie chan stuff. Maybe these days you'll see a bit more grappling but still I'd say 80% stroking 20 % grappling



My point is that they were good at it.


----------



## Axiom

MA_Student said:


> Yes but kicking looks better on screen than grappling so you're more likely to see kicking than grappling in movies especially in old school bruce lee and jackie chan stuff. Maybe these days you'll see a bit more grappling but still I'd say 80% stroking 20 % grappling



Bruce Lee vs Ji han Yeah in Game of death was 90% grappling/throws...


----------



## elder999

Axiom said:


> Bruce Lee vs Ji han Yeah in Game of death was 90% grappling/throws...


...and maybe the best sequence....


----------



## oftheherd1

In the Hapkido I studied we had a lot of kicks we practiced.  I would guess as many as TKD practitioners.  We used kicks in our techniques as well.  And to me, that would be the problem in answering your question.  If I grappled and based on where the grapple put you (as part of the technique), kicked you, how would you count that?


----------



## MA_Student

elder999 said:


> ...and maybe the best sequence....


Funny that because bruce lee hated that fight scene. I remember reading an interview with one of his friends maybe inosanto or jesse glover or someone like that who said he didn't like the fight or the guy he worked with and was going to reshoot it with a new actor but he didnt get the time to do it


----------



## MA_Student

elder999 said:


> ...and maybe the best sequence....


Just had a quick look through my bruce lee biography and found it. It was doug palmer who said it and it also said he wanted to reshoot it with Angela Mao


----------



## Axiom

oftheherd1 said:


> In the Hapkido I studied we had a lot of kicks we practiced.  I would guess as many as TKD practitioners.  We used kicks in our techniques as well.  And to me, that would be the problem in answering your question.  If I grappled and based on where the grapple put you (as part of the technique), kicked you, how would you count that?



I'm curious about the times you guys drill kicks in isolation from anything ese (fundamental training). How much of that would you say goes to kicking?


----------



## Axiom

MA_Student said:


> Funny that because bruce lee hated that fight scene. I remember reading an interview with one of his friends maybe inosanto or jesse glover or someone like that who said he didn't like the fight or the guy he worked with and was going to reshoot it with a new actor but he didnt get the time to do it



Ji Han Yeah had enormous difficulty with movie choreography, timing it. There's Game of Death outtakes showing Bruce Lee getting frustraded.


----------



## elder999

MA_Student said:


> Funny that because bruce lee hated that fight scene. I remember reading an interview with one of his friends maybe inosanto or jesse glover or someone like that who said he didn't like the fight or the guy he worked with and was going to reshoot it with a new actor but he didnt get the time to do it


not to derail the thread (in answer to the OP, it depends on _which_ hapkido, I'd think...)
Have *you* seen the movie?
Note that I didn't say "most entertaining," or even "best technically." Those were two other sequences-what to do *you* think they were?
I merely interjected with _my opinion,_ a cinematographer might have another, Bruce Lee another-what's *yours?*


----------



## Axiom

elder999 said:


> not to derail the thread (in answer to the OP, it depends on _which_ hapkido, I'd think...)
> Have *you* seen the movie?
> Note that I didn't say "most entertaining," or even "best technically." Those were two other sequences-what to do *you* think they were?
> I merely interjected with _my opinion,_ a cinematographer might have another, Bruce Lee another-what's *yours?*



My question was sparked by a TKD seminar in which the guy said: "Hapkido students can kick and punch, but not as well as TKDoins, and can grapple and throw, but not as well as Judokas. =jack of all trades"

Now, the bias meter is going crazy, but I was just curious how much truth there is in that.


----------



## elder999

Axiom said:


> My question was sparked by a TKD seminar in which the guy said: "Hapkido students can kick and punch, but not as well as TKDoins, and can grapple and throw, but not as well as Judokas. =jack of all trades"
> 
> Now, the bias meter is going crazy, but I was just curious how much truth there is in that.


I'm years divorced from my Hapkido and Tae kwon do training, but, again, it depends on which tae kwon do, and which hapkido. There was a Korean master  in NY, (where I grew up) As someone who had trained in all of those arts, (and who has dan ranking in judo and tae kwon do-as well as Kyokushin karate) I have to say that he and his students were kinda awesome....but that there is something to what the TKD guy said.....most of the time.


----------



## Axiom

elder999 said:


> I'm years divorced from my Hapkido and Tae kwon do training, but, again, it depends on which tae kwon do, and which hapkido. There was a Korean master  in NY, (where I grew up) As someone who had trained in all of those arts, (and who has dan ranking in judo and tae kwon do-as well as Kyokushin karate) I have to say that he and his students were kinda awesome....but that there is something to what the TKD guy said.....most of the time.



Nice. Which TaeKwonDo style did you train in and how did it compare to the kicking in Hapkido?


----------



## oftheherd1

Axiom said:


> I'm curious about the times you guys drill kicks in isolation from anything ese (fundamental training). How much of that would you say goes to kicking?



Well, I can only speak about the Hapkido I studied.  We did practice kicks, and in different ways.  Going through each of our kicks, eight reps each, in unison, was an opportunity learn and improve our kicks as well as good cardio.  When possible, we had a drill where we lined up with higher ranks in the lead.  Our GM, holding focus pads, would call out 8 or 10 kicks.  Each of us in turn would execute the kicks and run back to the end of the line, going through two or three times.  Then the sequence would change, as well the kicks required.  Again a chance to improve kicks from our own observation and that of our GM.

But it was never a concern to me to try and decide what the percentage was of kicks we practiced.  Nor what percentage of our techniques employed kicks.


----------



## Axiom

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, I can only speak about the Hapkido I studied.  We did practice kicks, and in different ways.  Going through each of our kicks, eight reps each, in unison, was an opportunity learn and improve our kicks as well as good cardio.  When possible, we had a drill where we lined up with higher ranks in the lead.  Our GM, holding focus pads, would call out 8 or 10 kicks.  Each of us in turn would execute the kicks and run back to the end of the line, going through two or three times.  Then the sequence would change, as well the kicks required.  Again a chance to improve kicks from our own observation and that of our GM.
> 
> But it was never a concern to me to try and decide what the percentage was of kicks we practiced.  Nor what percentage of our techniques employed kicks.



How was the sparring arranged given that it's a hybrid art? Was it like a precursor to MMA?


----------



## oftheherd1

In the Hapkido I studied we didn't spar other than as TKD practitioners spar.  Sparring at speed would end up damaging practice opponents.


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> I'm years divorced from my Hapkido and Tae kwon do training, but, again, it depends on which tae kwon do, and which hapkido. There was a Korean master  in NY, (where I grew up) As someone who had trained in all of those arts, (and who has dan ranking in judo and tae kwon do-as well as Kyokushin karate) I have to say that he and his students were kinda awesome....but that there is something to what the TKD guy said.....most of the time.



Why don't you just come out and say you don't believe Hapkido is a viable art?  Then give reasons.  Of course it may be difficult when you have qualified your remarks about which TKD and which Hapkido.  There is correctness in that.  But take the best of TKD and the best of Hapkido, and compare them.  That might give the OP or other readers more useful information.  Of course that would have to presume you have studied the best of both.  Regardless, it should make interesting reading from an experienced and respected MA.

Or explain what you mean by there is something to what the TKD guy said.  I have said before on MT that if all an art does is block, strike and punch, they should be very good at that.  I must not be over confident.  But of course, the Hapkido I studied had many defenses against strikes and kicks.  Against other grappling arts, Hapkido may have an advantage by being defense oriented.  But I don't have experience grappling with other grappling arts.  If you do, you could no doubt enlighten us.  I know I would appreciate that.


----------



## Axiom

oftheherd1 said:


> Why don't you just come out and say you don't believe Hapkido is a viable art?  Then give reasons.  Of course it may be difficult when you have qualified your remarks about which TKD and which Hapkido.  There is correctness in that.  But take the best of TKD and the best of Hapkido, and compare them.  That might give the OP or other readers more useful information.  Of course that would have to presume you have studied the best of both.  Regardless, it should make interesting reading from an experienced and respected MA.
> 
> Or explain what you mean by there is something to what the TKD guy said.  I have said before on MT that if all an art does is block, strike and punch, they should be very good at that.  I must not be over confident.  But of course, the Hapkido I studied had many defenses against strikes and kicks.  Against other grappling arts, Hapkido may have an advantage by being defense oriented.  But I don't have experience grappling with other grappling arts.  If you do, you could no doubt enlighten us.  I know I would appreciate that.



I would like to know why it depends on the TKD schools but not Judo? Is Elder suggesting that Judo has no crappy dojos?


----------



## oftheherd1

Axiom said:


> I would like to know why it depends on the TKD schools but not Judo? Is Elder suggesting that Judo has no crappy dojos?



I think that is something you should address to Elder.


----------



## oftheherd1

Axiom said:


> How was the sparring arranged given that it's a hybrid art? Was it like a precursor to MMA?



I don't think I understand what you are after here.  First, what is a hybrid art?  I think if you could go back far enough, it would be difficult to find any organized art that hasn't borrowed from previous arts or fighting skills.  As far as MMA is concerned, I don't know much about it, but I'm pretty sure no MMA practitioner is going to say Hapkido was a precursor.  From what I know, the MMA rule set would prevent Hapkido from competing and using Hapkido techniques.  Perhaps you should ask MMA practitioners here on MT.


----------



## Axiom

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't think I understand what you are after here.  First, what is a hybrid art? .



Hybrid art is defined as the following: "martial arts or fighting systems that incorporate techniques and theories from several particular martial arts (eclecticism). While numerous martial arts borrow or adapt from other arts and to some extent could be considered hybrids, *a hybrid martial art emphasizes its disparate origins*."


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, I can only speak about the Hapkido I studied.  We did practice kicks, and in different ways.  Going through each of our kicks, eight reps each, in unison, was an opportunity learn and improve our kicks as well as good cardio.  When possible, we had a drill where we lined up with higher ranks in the lead.  Our GM, holding focus pads, would call out 8 or 10 kicks.  Each of us in turn would execute the kicks and run back to the end of the line, going through two or three times.  Then the sequence would change, as well the kicks required.  Again a chance to improve kicks from our own observation and that of our GM.
> 
> But it was never a concern to me to try and decide what the percentage was of kicks we practiced.  Nor what percentage of our techniques employed kicks.





Axiom said:


> How was the sparring arranged given that it's a hybrid art? Was it like a precursor to MMA?





Axiom said:


> Hybrid art is defined as the following: "martial arts or fighting systems that incorporate techniques and theories from several particular martial arts (eclecticism). While numerous martial arts borrow or adapt from other arts and to some extent could be considered hybrids, *a hybrid martial art emphasizes its disparate origins*."


So if your definition of a hybrid art is one that focuses on it's disparate origins, how does the first quote from oftheheard suggest that? It's not stating that it came from TKD, and some other system, it's just stating that in hapkido they utilized kicks and would practice them fairly often.


----------



## Axiom

kempodisciple said:


> So if your definition of a hybrid art is one that focuses on it's disparate origins, how does the first quote from oftheheard suggest that? It's not stating that it came from TKD, and some other system, it's just stating that in hapkido they utilized kicks and would practice them fairly often.



My definition of a hybrid art is an art that emphasises and blends two or more distinct fighting forms into one - in this case grappling and striking.


----------



## oftheherd1

Axiom said:


> My definition of a hybrid art is an art that emphasises and blends two or more distinct fighting forms into one - in this case grappling and striking.



I think it would be borderline at most, but I really don't know that I would consider Hapkido a hybrid art.  It is generally accepted that the founder (DJN Choi) was taken from Korea to Japan as a boy, where he ended up at the household of the founder of Daito Rhu.  After WWII, he returned to Korea, and related he had actually trained and been belted in Daito Ryu.  That has been contested, but clearly DJN Choi was familiar with some MA.  It is generally agreed that Hapkido (not the original name) was blended with Korean kicks, which probably made it a more effective art.  But it did not really blend in a Korean art so much as incorporating in more kicks.  So to me it is not really a hybrid.  Not only is it a grappling art, it does not (normally) have forms, nor emphacise striking or kicking over grappling, rather using them within grappling.

EDIT:  I probably should add that Hapkido and TKD apparently came into being around the same time in Korea.  TKD is generally thought to have migrated in from Japanese Karate, but distinguished itself by adding more kicks.  That makes it even harder to suggest that Hapkido borrowed kicks from TKD.  It is more likely they were borrowed from some older Korean art, or from the same art that TKD originated from.  However, things like that were often not recorded, and have become the source of much speculation.  One reason is that at the time, and even still, the Japanese were very much disliked, so anything Japanese tends to be looked down on.  The Japanese really didn't treat the Koreans well after they officially took over in 1910.


----------



## Axiom

oftheherd1 said:


> I think it would be borderline at most, but I really don't know that I would consider Hapkido a hybrid art.  It is generally accepted that the founder (DJN Choi) was taken from Korea to Japan as a boy, where he ended up at the household of the founder of Daito Rhu.  After WWII, he returned to Korea, and related he had actually trained and been belted in Daito Ryu.  That has been contested, but clearly DJN Choi was familiar with some MA.  It is generally agreed that Hapkido (not the original name) was blended with Korean kicks, which probably made it a more effective art.  But it did not really blend in a Korean art so much as incorporating in more kicks.  So to me it is not really a hybrid.  Not only is it a grappling art, it does not (normally) have forms, nor emphacise striking or kicking over grappling, rather using them within grappling.
> 
> EDIT:  I probably should add that Hapkido and TKD apparently came into being around the same time in Korea.  TKD is generally thought to have migrated in from Japanese Karate, but distinguished itself by adding more kicks.  That makes it even harder to suggest that Hapkido borrowed kicks from TKD.  It is more likely they were borrowed from some older Korean art, or from the same art that TKD originated from.  However, things like that were often not recorded, and have become the source of much speculation.  One reason is that at the time, and even still, the Japanese were very much disliked, so anything Japanese tends to be looked down on.  The Japanese really didn't treat the Koreans well after they officially took over in 1910.



I say it's a hybrid art simply because two distinct forms of fighting are intermixed in one style. Regarding the kicks, both Karate and Taekwondo took their kicks from Shaolin Kung Fu, and Hapkido was probably no different. It all stems from the same source.


----------



## oftheherd1

Axiom said:


> I say it's a hybrid art simply because two distinct forms of fighting are intermixed in one style. Regarding the kicks, *both Karate and Taekwondo took their kicks from Shaolin Kung Fu*, and Hapkido was probably no different. It all stems from the same source.



Source?


----------



## Axiom

oftheherd1 said:


> Source?



Given that Shaolin Kung Fu predates Karate, that Karate is based on Kung fu, and that the mechanics of several of Kung fu kicks are identical (ball of the foot), I'd say that's a safe bet.

I'm told Shaolin Kung fu is the style, but I will not state confidently whether that is reliable, since I'm no Kung Fu expert by any means.


----------



## oftheherd1

Axiom said:


> Given that Shaolin Kung Fu predates Karate, that Karate is based on Kung fu, and that the mechanics of several of Kung fu kicks are identical (ball of the foot), I'd say that's a safe bet.
> 
> I'm told Shaolin Kung fu is the style, but I will not state confidently whether that is reliable, since I'm no Kung Fu expert by any means.



Well, while Japanese Karate is generally believed to have come from Okinawa, and is generally translated "Chinese Hand," yes you can trace its history that way.  There are sources which claim an Indian Buddhist monk changed the Shaolin monk's martial arts to something more rigorous and that is what has become Shaolin Kung Fu.  Would you think you should be giving credit to that Indian monk for inventing Karate?

However, significant changes are not blending.  Hapkido is generally accepted to be taken from Daito Ryu.  It is a grappling art, not to be confused with striking arts.


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> Why don't you just come out and say you don't believe Hapkido is a viable art?  Then give reasons.  Of course it may be difficult when you have qualified your remarks about which TKD and which Hapkido.  There is correctness in that.  But take the best of TKD and the best of Hapkido, and compare them.  That might give the OP or other readers more useful information.  Of course that would have to presume you have studied the best of both.  Regardless, it should make interesting reading from an experienced and respected MA.



Because I think Hapkido is a viable art. What have I said that make you think I don't?

And, for the record, some of the Korean "yudo" guys are some of the toughest judoka I've seen-and I certainly like their training more than what happens in a lot of "sports oriented/Olympic" judo dojos in the U.S.

It's the same with TKD-I don't lilke Olympic TKD, for a variety of reasons.  I like good old fashioned "Korean Karate."


----------



## Tony Dismukes

oftheherd1 said:


> From what I know, the MMA rule set would prevent Hapkido from competing and using Hapkido techniques.


Just for the record, the vast majority of Hapkido techniques would be perfectly legal in MMA.


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> Because I think Hapkido is a viable art. What have I said that make you think I don't?
> 
> And, for the record, some of the Korean "yudo" guys are some of the toughest judoka I've seen-and I certainly like their training more than what happens in a lot of "sports oriented/Olympic" judo dojos in the U.S.
> 
> It's the same with TKD-I don't lilke Olympic TKD, for a variety of reasons.  I like good old fashioned "Korean Karate."



My apologies.  I obviously misunderstood.

A side thought.  In Korea, a euphemism for hoodlum is 'a dropout from a judo school.'  Some of them study and get very good at Judo.  But after a lower belt or two, they officially drop out.  In reality, they continue studying and get really very good at it.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tony Dismukes said:


> Just for the record, the vast majority of Hapkido techniques would be perfectly legal in MMA.



I would say yes and no.  If I put a grappling move on someone at speed (how else to do it?) I am likely to dislocate a joint before they can jump into a breakfall suitable for that technique.  If I am simply using kicks or punches, then yes.  Unless it would be a strike to the (edit) heart plexus or down into the notch of the neck.  Those are potentially death moves.

Is a dislocation of a joint considered legal?  I am not in to MMA so I don't know.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

oftheherd1 said:


> I would say yes and no.  If I put a grappling move on someone at speed (how else to do it?) I am likely to dislocate a joint before they can jump into a breakfall suitable for that technique.  If I am simply using kicks or punches, then yes.  Unless it would be a strike to the (edit) heart plexus or down into the notch of the neck.  Those are potentially death moves.
> 
> Is a dislocation of a joint considered legal?  I am not in to MMA so I don't know.


In MMA, if you dislocate the joint before your opponent can tap, then that's on them. No rules against it. The only Hapkido grappling moves which would be disallowed are finger locks.

Strikes to the "heart plexus"(?) are perfectly legal. The throat strike may not be legal, depending on the exact spot you are talking about.

There are certainly some moves from Hapkido (or most other arts) which would be banned in MMA, but if you go to YouTube and pull up some random Hapkido demonstrations, (as I just did), then over 95% of what you see will be legal under the current unified MMA rules. Much of the remaining 5% was legal in the past under different MMA rule sets.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tony Dismukes said:


> In MMA, if you dislocate the joint before your opponent can tap, then that's on them. No rules against it. The only Hapkido grappling moves which would be disallowed are finger locks.
> 
> Strikes to the "heart plexus"(?) are perfectly legal. The throat strike may not be legal, depending on the exact spot you are talking about.
> 
> There are certainly some moves from Hapkido (or most other arts) which would be banned in MMA, but if you go to YouTube and pull up some random Hapkido demonstrations, (as I just did), then over 95% of what you see will be legal under the current unified MMA rules. Much of the remaining 5% was legal in the past under different MMA rule sets.



Thanks for that information.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tony Dismukes said:


> In MMA, if you dislocate the joint before your opponent can tap, then that's on them. No rules against it. The only Hapkido grappling moves which would be disallowed are finger locks.
> 
> Strikes to the "*heart plexus*"(?) are perfectly legal. The throat strike may not be legal, depending on the exact spot you are talking about.
> 
> There are certainly some moves from Hapkido (or most other arts) which would be banned in MMA, but if you go to YouTube and pull up some random Hapkido demonstrations, (as I just did), then over 95% of what you see will be legal under the current unified MMA rules. Much of the remaining 5% was legal in the past under different MMA rule sets.



The heart plexus is a bundle of nerves associated with the heart.  It can be struck with a fist, or as we would usually do, with the end of a short stick.

heart plexus - Bing

Brachial plexus injury as an unusual complication of coronary artery bypass graft surgery


----------



## Tony Dismukes

oftheherd1 said:


> The heart plexus is a bundle of nerves associated with the heart.  It can be struck with a fist, or as we would usually do, with the end of a short stick.
> 
> heart plexus - Bing
> 
> Brachial plexus injury as an unusual complication of coronary artery bypass graft surgery


Hmm ... so the heart plexus is an internal structure protected by the rib cage? Not so likely to produce a lethal result via an unarmed strike in that case. That would be a legal target not only in MMA, but most full contact striking competition - including boxing. Muay Thai, Kyokushin Karate, etc. I don't think I can recall a single fatality due to a strike to that location.

The brachial plexus is a different spot and a much better target for striking. It's unlikely to have lethal results, but it can produce knockouts. Some combat sports allow strikes to the brachial plexus while others do not. MMA allows it.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tony Dismukes said:


> Hmm ... so the heart plexus is an internal structure protected by the rib cage? Not so likely to produce a lethal result via an unarmed strike in that case. That would be a legal target not only in MMA, but most full contact striking competition - including boxing. Muay Thai, Kyokushin Karate, etc. I don't think I can recall a single fatality due to a strike to that location.
> 
> The brachial plexus is a different spot and a much better target for striking. It's unlikely to have lethal results, but it can produce knockouts. Some combat sports allow strikes to the brachial plexus while others do not. MMA allows it.



Well, I will admit I have never struck anyone at the heart plexus, but I have trained it in short stick training.  But along with the notch strike, I was told it was very likely to put a person down, and possibly kill them.

I agree the brachial plexus is also likely to put a person down, but I have never done so.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, I will admit I have never struck anyone at the heart plexus, but I have trained it in short stick training. But along with the notch strike, I was told it was very likely to put a person down, and possibly kill them.


Where exactly is the external location you were taught to strike that would supposedly affect the heart plexus?

Are you sure you're not talking about the solar plexus? That's a good striking target, though unlikely to cause fatality.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tony Dismukes said:


> Where exactly is the external location you were taught to strike that would supposedly affect the heart plexus?
> 
> Are you sure you're not talking about the solar plexus? That's a good striking target, though unlikely to cause fatality.



It is a little difficult for me to describe.  It is to the left of the centerline and above the  breast/nipple.  I think you just need to learn and adjust for different people.  For me it wasn't so difficult to figure where it was as I have some knowledge of human anatomy.

No, I am not confusing it with the solar plexus, and I agree it is not likely to cause death, but it can.  In Korea a KATUSA was kicked by another KATUSA who had his boots on.  The Xiphoid process was broken and forced into the heart, killing that KATUSA.


----------



## Raymond

I'll let you know once I find out what the typical HKD class is 

The answer will vary based on the curriculum of the school, its organization, its lineage, etc etc


----------



## Axiom

Raymond said:


> I'll let you know once I find out what the typical HKD class is
> 
> The answer will vary based on the curriculum of the school, its organization, its lineage, etc etc



You mean TKD, right? TKD I can tell you -  bare minimum 50% training in kicking.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Axiom said:


> You mean TKD, right? TKD I can tell you -  bare minimum 50% training in kicking.



Really? And you know this based on your vast experience in one school?

Generalizing from inadequate experience is unwise. Especially about something as widespread and varied as TKD. 

The only realistic answer is that it depends on the curriculum of the individual school and the preferences of the instructor(s). And the day of the week, even.


----------



## Axiom

Dirty Dog said:


> Really? And you know this based on your vast experience in one school?
> 
> Generalizing from inadequate experience is unwise. Especially about something as widespread and varied as TKD.
> 
> The only realistic answer is that it depends on the curriculum of the individual school and the preferences of the instructor(s). And the day of the week, even.



Come on bro, a TaeKwonDo school that devotes less than 50% of it's time to kicking overall? I'd say my statement is very safe to make even without empirical evidence to support it.


----------



## elder999

Axiom said:


> Come on bro, a TaeKwonDo school that devotes less than 50% of it's time to kicking overall? I'd say my statement is very safe to make even without empirical evidence to support it.



Yeah, you'd be wrong.....again.


Gnarlie said:


> Point of interest:
> 
> The techniques of the Taegeuk series of poomsae are 80% hands. Just over half of that is defensive or blocking technique, the other half aggressive striking.   Less than 20% is kicking, and the majority of those kicks are front kicks.
> 
> If your class schedule is in line with that, then I'm not sure hand techniques are neglected.  Of course we balance up by practicing more kicking.
> 
> Gnarlie





Kong Soo Do said:


> This is a good point to bring up. It is apparent that there are different flavors of TKD with some being more inclined towards a specific venue. As one begins to 'specialize' in one area it is very possible for some elements to be dropped or neglected over time. This leads to the above quote which is similar to what I've said in the past, _you can't teach what you haven't learned_.
> 
> 
> 
> Which begs the question of why TKD is considered primarily a kicking art. At least originally, and in certain organizations, hand use (whether defensive, offensive, locking, throwing etc) was much more in use. To me, this is a better representation of the art as a whole as it takes into account more training options than focusing on just one specific area for one venue. Not to suggest that specialization for a specific venue is wrong, only that there is far more to the art if one wishes.


----------



## Axiom

elder999 said:


> Yeah, you'd be wrong.....again.



LOL? How can I write out *obscure *in enough adjectives?


----------



## Axiom

"Of course we balance up by practicing more kicking"

/Your source.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Axiom said:


> LOL? How can I write out *obscure *in enough adjectives?


How is having 80% hands in the poomsae curriculum obscure?

Even if that statement isn't true, your statement was "TKD I can tell you - bare minimum 50% training in kicking." Those people you're considering obscure are evidence that's not always true.


----------



## Axiom

kempodisciple said:


> How is having 80% hands in the poomsae curriculum obscure?.



That's normal*. *It doesn't tell us anything about the distributed training because pattern is only one part of TKD training. But the other quote was kinda of hinting that some schools might very well spend more than 50% on hand techniques.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Axiom said:


> That's normal*. *It doesn't tell us anything about the distributed training because pattern is only one part of TKD training. But the other quote was kinda of hinting that some schools might very well spend more than 50% on hand techniques.


Ah, ok. I would agree based on my own experience that what they practice is not mostly hand techniques. But I would assume that if the patterns teach that much more hand techniques than kicking techniques, they should be? Where was the disconnect there from poomsae/pattern to practice?


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> "Of course we balance up by practicing more kicking"
> 
> /Your source.


By "we", I mean my class, not TKD as a whole. 

Failure to recognise the link between form and function lies with the individual. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## elder999

Axiom said:


> LOL? How can I write out *obscure *in enough adjectives?





Axiom said:


> I will outline why TaeKwondo, no matter contact level, or even rules, breaks down in a Muay Thai ring against a skilled Thaistylist. This despite the fact that all strikes in Muay Thai are also in TaeKwondo! My reasons may surprise you.
> 
> 1. Footwork. TKDoins are often renowned for their speedy  and light footwork. However, being light on your feet in a Thaiboxing ring also carries the disadvantage of being easier to knock OFF your feet. Thaiboxers in comparision are more flat footed but rock solid to the ground. Getting put on your butt repeatedly will wear and tear on you. And this will happen even more easily with one foot up in the air kicking..
> 
> 2. The kicks.  This ties in to the point above. TaeKwondo kicks are snappy and quick of the feet, but makes one liable to get pushed off balance in a rule set in which you can actually grabb and push down kicks. Stability will once again be a major question mark. This is demoralising in the long run and, the kicks you perfected in the dojang won't get you as many points (or KO'S) as you might have previously though..
> 
> 3. The hands. To break a skilled Muay Thai fighters defence in the ring you will need to soften him/her up with boxing, and/ or have a boxing defence to punches. Kicking alone will not get the job done against a legit guy(especially not concidering 1 and 2). TKD guys are not drilled in either offense or defence to the level required.
> 
> 4. No clinch. This can be modified in theory, but I will list it here given that most clubs neglect it.
> 
> 5. Lack of Continious fighting. TKD is geared towards one strike, one victory philosophy. Even WTF rules that allow full contact break after making contact. It will be an adjustment for a TKD fighter simply fight on and is definately puts him/her in a slight psychological disadvantage, compared to the thaifighter.
> 
> Feel free to comment and disagree on any of the points!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Axiom said:


> I would like to know why it depends on the TKD schools but not Judo? Is Elder suggesting that Judo has no crappy dojos?


Where did he say it didn't depend for the Judo schools?


----------



## Axiom

Gnarlie said:


> By "we", I mean my class, not TKD as a whole.
> 
> Failure to recognise the link between form and function lies with the individual.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



Yeah and he quoted YOU


----------



## Axiom

kempodisciple said:


> Ah, ok. I would agree based on my own experience that what they practice is not mostly hand techniques. But I would assume that if the patterns teach that much more hand techniques than kicking techniques, they should be? Where was the disconnect there from poomsae/pattern to practice?



No because of what I just wrote. TKD instructors do take into account the fact that forms are very hand oriented and to make the art distinctly Korean then spend a majority (not all) of other drills with kicks. This is how it should be as well IMO


----------



## Raymond

Axiom said:


> You mean TKD, right? TKD I can tell you -  bare minimum 50% training in kicking.



No I mean HKD.  The thread title starts with the phrase "how much time does a _*typical hapkido class*_ . . .".  The point of my post is that Hapkido is such a widely varied art with lots of orgs and independent dojangs, it is impossible to call any class "typical".  

Hapkido has joint locks, throws, take down, hand strikes, kicks etc.  Even the kicks between organizations will be different.  When you have so many things in the art, with so many ways to do it, there is no typical.  Broad generalizations are impossible to make so I don't even think its worth debating.


----------



## Axiom

gpseymour said:


> Where did he say it didn't depend for the Judo schools?



He said that it depends on the TKD school if they punch/kick better, but apparently not the Judo one if they throw/grapple better.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> Yeah and he quoted YOU


Who did? You aren't making sense. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## elder999

Axiom said:


> He said that it depends on the TKD school if they punch/kick better, but apparently not the Judo one if they throw/grapple better.



As many others here can attest, I've said as much about Judo schools many times.......


----------



## Axiom

Gnarlie said:


> Who did? You aren't making sense.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



The user named Elder999 did.


----------



## Axiom

elder999 said:


> As many others here can attest, I've said as much about Judo schools many times.......



But you didn't in the comment posted. That was why I was curious how it is that it only depended on the TKD school.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> The user named Elder999 did.


And? 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Gnarlie said:


> And?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



He took your comment to mean that there are TKD schools that focus more than 50% of its training on hand techniques, which it didn't. The other quote is not even worth adressing, it's a speculative claim how things "might be" in some ultra traditional, old-school TKD dojang, not a definite claim.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> He took your comment to mean that there are TKD schools that focus more than 50% of its training on hand techniques, which it didn't.



Yes, it did. There's at least one, and there are many many more schools where poomsae techniques form the majority of the training. 




Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

Gnarlie said:


> Yes, it did. There's at least one, and there are many many more schools where poomsae techniques form the majority of the training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk




Some obscure school located in South Korea? I know of no Chang Hon school focusing exclusively on forms. But maybe KKW is different.


----------



## Axiom

Fun fact: The American TaeKwondo Association (ATA) reportedly dropped the Chang Hon forms because they deemed it had too little kicks in them, especially for the coloured belts patterns.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Axiom said:


> No because of what I just wrote. TKD instructors do take into account the fact that forms are very hand oriented and to make the art distinctly Korean then spend a majority (not all) of other drills with kicks. This is how it should be as well IMO


Wouldn't this suggest that a lot of it is the emphasis the school places that determines the strengths/weaknesses of the school? Since the curriculum could say 80% hands, but you focus on the 20% kicks, and that makes a TKD school like the one most of visualize as TKD. Or the school could focus on the 80% hands, and it would barely be recognizable as the same art.


----------



## Gnarlie

Axiom said:


> Some obscure school located in South Korea? I know of no Chang Hon school focusing exclusively on forms. But maybe KKW is different.


Never said exclusively. Plenty of them in Europe. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Axiom

kempodisciple said:


> Wouldn't this suggest that a lot of it is the emphasis the school places that determines the strengths/weaknesses of the school? Since the curriculum could say 80% hands, but you focus on the 20% kicks, and that makes a TKD school like the one most of visualize as TKD. Or the school could focus on the 80% hands, and it would barely be recognizable as the same art.



If you saw me hit mitts, you would probably deduce that my club drills punches a lot. Well, it doesn't. I just have always had good, explosive hands.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Axiom said:


> If you saw me hit mitts, you would probably deduce that my club drills punches a lot. Well, it doesn't. I just have always had good, explosive hands.


Did you quote the wrong post? I'm failing to see how that relates


----------



## Axiom

kempodisciple said:


> Did you quote the wrong post? I'm failing to see how that relates



Emphasis does not necessarily determine a schools strength and weaknesses as it relates to the students proficiency. I was still however curious to know how Hapkido schools operate


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Axiom said:


> Emphasis does not necessarily determine a schools strength and weaknesses as it relates to the students proficiency. I was still however curious to know how Hapkido schools operate


I wasn't saying a students proficiency, I was saying what the school focuses on. 

But, I'm average, if a school spends more time kicks, the students will be better at kicking. If it spends more time on punches, the students will be better at punching. Ignoring anomalies.


----------



## Axiom

kempodisciple said:


> But, I'm average, if a school spends more time kicks, the students will be better at kicking. If it spends more time on punches, the students will be better at punching. Ignoring anomalies.



I guess I'm the exception on the negative side as well, because I have trained in a TKD school with 90% time spent on kicking and I was just as bad at those types of  extravagant kicks back then, as I am in my current school with 50% spent on kicks. And my static flexibility was equally poor.


----------



## Axiom

kempodisciple said:


> I wasn't saying a students proficiency, I was saying what the school focuses on..



What? if a school focuses more on punching, then what? What do you mean by weakness if not what is reflected in the students? How could a school be weak in and of itself? It's just an institution?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Axiom said:


> What? if a school focuses more on punching, then what? What do you mean by weakness if not what is reflected in the students? How could a school be weak in and of itself? It's just an institution?


One student can be good at punches, while the majority of the school is not. If that's not a focus, that would mean the school is probably weak in that area. Not that the school is weak, but that part of it is weak.


----------



## Axiom

kempodisciple said:


> One student can be good at punches, while the majority of the school is not. If that's not a focus, that would mean the school is probably weak in that area. Not that the school is weak, but that part of it is weak.



Or that students who gravitate towards kicking and are less able with their hands join a kicking oriented school. It's a bit like natural selection, actually. It's the quality of the training that matters more than time spent, as long as it's not completley neglected.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Axiom said:


> Or that students who gravitate towards kicking and are less able with their hands join a kicking oriented school. It's a bit like natural selection, actually. It's the quality of the training that matters more than time spent, as long as it's not completley neglected.


I'm not suggesting that the school is bad. The main school I attend focuses a lot on hands, and neglects kicks and grappling. I'm okay with that, even though it has those weaknesses. In fact, I don't think it's even bad to completely neglect certain things, as long as you have a way to handle people trying to use them in a fight.

But, as far as I'm concerned the idea that if a school as a whole practices something more than others, that's what people will improve in, is not really something to be debated. That's how practice and growth work; what you practice will improve.


----------



## Axiom

kempodisciple said:


> But, as far as I'm concerned the idea that if a school as a whole practices something more than others, that's what people will improve in, is not really something to be debated. That's how practice and growth work; what you practice will improve.



All else equal (quality of instructions, training method) then of course. I think kicking is more sensitive to inactivity than punching. At least that's my experience.


----------



## Tez3

As shown on another of the OP's thread, he's getting all his opinions and 'info' from a certain other site 

Oh dear so that accounts for everything.


----------



## oftheherd1

Axiom said:


> Hi there. I recently learned that Hapkido was originally a pure grappling art which later incorporated kicking to its curriculum. My question is how this distribution looks nowdays? If you were to put a figure on it, how much active, offensive kicking are Hapkido students drilled in? Not just simply defensive tactics, but full-on roundhouse kicks, sidekicks etc.
> 
> Editors note: I hope it's not equivalent to the time spent joint manipulating/throwing in TaeKwonDo



I've been interested following this thread.  It seems to me first of all that you have some real misconceptions about Hapkido.  As it isn't an art you study, I suppose that is understandable.  But what I really wonder, have you learned anything?  You have been quick to tell us things about Hapkido, when you don't study it yourself.  I don't know where you have been getting your information.  If you got it from a teacher, it surely wasn't a Hapkido teacher.

Have you figured out that Hapkido, like many arts, incorporates kicks into its techniques?  Do you accept that Hapkido has many kicks and applications of kicks that work well with a grappling art, but many perhaps not so well with a striking art?  Can you see why when used, they are incorporated into grappling techniques, therefore they aren't easily quantified like you want?  Do you accept that Hapkido, at least most schools, don't try to make themselves thousands of years old (no, Hapkido didn't originate in Sinanju either. ).  If so, you may start to learn a bit about Hapkido.  I'm just not sure what good it will do you.  You seem to want your own version of what Hapkido is.  If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.


----------



## Axiom

oftheherd1 said:


> I've been interested following this thread.  It seems to me first of all that you have some real misconceptions about Hapkido.  As it isn't an art you study, I suppose that is understandable.  But what I really wonder, have you learned anything?  You have been quick to tell us things about Hapkido, when you don't study it yourself.  I don't know where you have been getting your information.  If you got it from a teacher, it surely wasn't a Hapkido teacher.
> 
> Have you figured out that Hapkido, like many arts, incorporates kicks into its techniques?  Do you accept that Hapkido has many kicks and applications of kicks that work well with a grappling art, but many perhaps not so well with a striking art?  Can you see why when used, they are incorporated into grappling techniques, therefore they aren't easily quantified like you want?  Do you accept that Hapkido, at least most schools, don't try to make themselves thousands of years old (no, Hapkido didn't originate in Sinanju either. ).  If so, you may start to learn a bit about Hapkido.  I'm just not sure what good it will do you.  You seem to want your own version of what Hapkido is.  If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.



What have I told you about Hapkido? QUOTE me please


----------



## Tez3

Axiom said:


> What have I told you about Hapkido? QUOTE me please



Ok.





Axiom said:


> I recently learned that Hapkido was originally a pure grappling art which later incorporated kicking to its curriculum.





Axiom said:


> Several screen performers in Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan movies were Hapkido masters, yet famous on the silver screen for their kicking dexterity, which surprises me given that the emphasis is on grappling





Axiom said:


> How was the sparring arranged given that it's a hybrid art





Axiom said:


> I say it's a hybrid art simply because two distinct forms of fighting are intermixed in one style. Regarding the kicks, both Karate and Taekwondo took their kicks from Shaolin Kung Fu, and Hapkido was probably no different. It all stems from the same source.


----------



## Axiom

Those are uncontroversial, historical facts. I have never claimed any personal, technical knowledge about Hapkido, other than that our grappling in TKD is from a Hapkido master who befriended Hoi Chong Hi.


----------



## oftheherd1

Axiom said:


> Those are uncontroversial, historical facts. I have never claimed any personal, technical knowledge about Hapkido, other than that our grappling in TKD is from a Hapkido master who befriended Hoi Chong Hi.



I debated whether to select funny or disagree, both apply.  How about some of your sources?  And who is Hoi Chong Hi?


----------



## MasterArtMason

Axiom said:


> Hi there. I recently learned that Hapkido was originally a pure grappling art which later incorporated kicking to its curriculum. My question is how this distribution looks nowdays? If you were to put a figure on it, how much active, offensive kicking are Hapkido students drilled in? Not just simply defensive tactics, but full-on roundhouse kicks, sidekicks etc.
> 
> Editors note: I hope it's not equivalent to the time spent joint manipulating/throwing in TaeKwonDo



We only do about 20 percent kicking. Plus over the years the kicks have gotten much lower and more direct. In Canada a lot of Hapkido master road the wave of TKD in the 70's and so really got into kicking.


----------



## oftheherd1

MasterArtMason said:


> We only do about 20 percent kicking. Plus over the years the kicks have gotten much lower and more direct. In Canada a lot of Hapkido master road the wave of TKD in the 70's and so really got into kicking.



My GM told me that most of the older GM preferred lower kicks; faster and more likely to connect.  That was also how my GM preferred, but he taught a variety of high and spinning kicks and defenses for them.


----------



## MasterArtMason

oftheherd1 said:


> My GM told me that most of the older GM preferred lower kicks; faster and more likely to connect.  That was also how my GM preferred, but he taught a variety of high and spinning kicks and defenses for them.



As I was growing up in the arts we did all the fancy stuff. My hips hate me today from it. LOL.


----------



## DaveB

Axiom said:


> Hi there. I recently learned that Hapkido was originally a pure grappling art which later incorporated kicking to its curriculum. My question is how this distribution looks nowdays? If you were to put a figure on it, how much active, offensive kicking are Hapkido students drilled in? Not just simply defensive tactics, but full-on roundhouse kicks, sidekicks etc.
> 
> Editors note: I hope it's not equivalent to the time spent joint manipulating/throwing in TaeKwonDo


4.


----------



## skribs

In my Hapkido classes, we've done kicks once.

This is, however, a specialized class at a Taekwondo school, so we get plenty of kicking practice at the school, just not in hapkido class.


----------



## Jin Mu Kwan

In our school (Jin Mu Kwan) we practice the kicks that founder Choi Yong Sul taught to his disciples always and they are used as our warm up!  We also use them in our techniques as a student is able to deliver safely.
BTW-Choi did these from the beginning, they were not added by others or taken from Korean arts after his return!


----------



## dvcochran

Axiom said:


> I'm curious about the times you guys drill kicks in isolation from anything ese (fundamental training). How much of that would you say goes to kicking?


Isolated kicking averages 1/4 to 1/3 of a "normal" class.


----------

