# Traditional Training Styles - importance of non-compliant training



## iron_ox

Hello all,

Non-compliant training is very important for training techniques in Hapkido as it was taught by Choi Dojunim.  

OK, a simple statement to ope the thread, before I comment further, what do you all think?


----------



## WC_lun

Traditionl, non-traditional, whatever.  If you never test your skills against resisting people, how can you be confident that they work.  If your instructor  does not train against resisting opponents either, how would he know?  Guesswork?  Theorycraft?  Or just fantasy?  There is a BIG difference from training with a complient partner and one who is simulating a real encounter.  Even with fully resisiting training partners, that does not equate 100% to the street.  If you can't handle your resisting training partners, how are you gonna fare against someone really intent on hurting you and all the extra baggage that brings?  That doesn't mean just beat the hell out of each other.  There must be both a learning and confidence curve taken into account.


----------



## Gnarlie

Totally agree with WC_Lun on the confidence building curve.

While training with the aim of reaching non-compliance is important, it annoys me when beginners want to go there straight away in class. 

There are valuable lessons to be learned from compliance on the journey to non-compliance.  People who want to skip straight there often end up reaching the end point of a tech using brute strength, missing point of principle.  Brute strength through a technique is almost as dangerous as compliance but without the path to correct technique.  It will work against smaller opponents but can lead to nasty surprises versus larger, stronger people. 

I feel the same about structured pre arranged partner drills.  They have their place on the road to freestyle self defence. 

Gnarlie


----------



## DennisBreene

I agree. Noncompliance training always requires a balance of noncompliance vs technique to avoid injury. The more aggressive the noncompliance the more skillful the training partners need to be to avoid injury. Sort of falls in that bin with the aphorism that the most dangerous students are white belts and brown belts.    


Gnarlie said:


> Totally agree with WC_Lun on the confidence building curve.
> 
> While training with the aim of reaching non-compliance is important, it annoys me when beginners want to go there straight away in class.
> 
> There are valuable lessons to be learned from compliance on the journey to non-compliance.  People who want to skip straight there often end up reaching the end point of a tech using brute strength, missing point of principle.  Brute strength through a technique is almost as dangerous as compliance but without the path to correct technique.  It will work against smaller opponents but can lead to nasty surprises versus larger, stronger people.
> 
> I feel the same about structured pre arranged partner drills.  They have their place on the road to freestyle self defence.
> 
> Gnarlie


----------



## Doomx2001

I agree pretty much with everything said so far. My views is this: It is important that when learning a new technique there should be only 'light resistance' (meaning if it is a wrist grab, the uke should grab really hard, but the uke's arm remain lose). That isn't to say that you should train unrealistically when learning a new technique, but instead allow the tori to have the 'ease' to learn it in the beginning. Then graduate to medium resistance from the uke, then once the tori is still able to do the technique, go to almost full resistance. It is important that the tori experience and train in the techniques with full resistance because *you are only as good as you train*. I would hate for someone to be learning a watered down Hapkido style just to end up assaulted easily on the street. Real Hapkido is taught with a semi-realistic (as realistic as we can make them without injury) grabs, pulls, punches...etc that we can replicate safely in the dojang. That to me is Traditional Hapkido.


----------



## Doomx2001

Also, it isn't Hapkido if it don't hurt!


----------



## iron_ox

In Hapkido, the first part of training is done against grabs of various types.  This leads and moves forward to eventually seizing the opponent and getting control there.  The vast majority of Hapkido that I have seen uses compliant training mixed with high speed motion to try and make the techniques look like they would work, yet the very design of the techniques should always be done from non-compliance and with the appropriate energy, direction and intent that gives the techniques purpose in the first place.
After all, if all wrist grabs were "the same" why would there be such a variety of ways to counter them.  

I have seen far too many schools that use compliant training and then don't understand why the techniques fail in the school setting, forget in the real world.  The techniques themselves are designed from grabs to teach a pattern of movement and body mechanics that cannot be duplicated with compliance.

I disagree that one tries to reach non-compliance.  Perhaps in a demonstration phase this may be important, except all Hapkido technique from grabs can be done against non-compliant opponents very slowly if the body mechanics are right. Now, there is a great deal of conditioning that might need to precede this training, but it is very much the way the training should be done.

The first year I was in Korea, I was partnered with someone from a College Hapkido Program here in the states.  He claimed to be a third dan in Hapkido.  We were going over simple break away motions and simple wrist techniques.  I was grabbing at normal strength.  And although this is as much about conditioning as well, by the end of the third day, he was unable to continue because all the skin on his wrists was shredded.  He was simply not used to non-compliant training, and it showed.

I think you all raise very good points here.  In Hapkido, non-compliant training is essential, not only for some sort of street reality, but because the techniques themselves were designed to be taught in a non-compliant way.


----------



## K-man

Everything written in this thread also applies to Aikido. We train from holds as well, but the holds aren't the main object. The holds are just a means to enable an entry, whether you are held or not.  When done against total resistance, which we do most of the time, it makes you move around your partner's strength.

In the real world there is also the atemi that enables a lot of the techniques and destroys the focus and balance of the attacker. However, although we train against full resistance, compliance also has its place.  By not resisting a technique when it is being applied to us, we can move into the reversal or counter (kaeshi waza). Reversals in aikido are generally mosty taught after second or third dan.    :asian:


----------



## Doomx2001

To me, I take 'non-compliance' as meaning if the uke grabs with one hand, he is punching with the other, and tensing up to prevent a technique. Really good thread going on here.


----------



## arnisador

People fool themselves much too often. That's why beginners are so helpful--they don't know how they 'should' react and so you see what _really _happens with your techs.!


----------



## iron_ox

K-man said:


> Everything written in this thread also applies to Aikido. We train from holds as well, but the holds aren't the main object. The holds are just a means to enable an entry, whether you are held or not.  When done against total resistance, which we do most of the time, it makes you move around your partner's strength.
> 
> In the real world there is also the atemi that enables a lot of the techniques and destroys the focus and balance of the attacker. However, although we train against full resistance, compliance also has its place.  By not resisting a technique when it is being applied to us, we can move into the reversal or counter (kaeshi waza). Reversals in aikido are generally mosty taught after second or third dan.    :asian:



Although I cannot speak for Aikido, I will say that in Hapkido, the use of striking to distract an opponent is not required but it seems to be prevalent in many school, and this is my opinion is due to not understanding the nuance of the Art, but rather it seems just a basic understanding of bio-mechanics that when they fail must resort to a strike.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

I know this posted in the hapkido section, but the question seems to be a fairly universal one, so I hope no one minds a response from a jujutsu/judo/taijutsu perspective.

I think it's important to be clear on what is meant by "non-compliant" training. I don't think it's particularly useful to just drill a technique with uke trying to prevent tori from executing that particular technique. If I know exactly what technique you are trying to perform on me, I can almost always stop you from completing that exact technique. (If you're really good, that resistance will give you the energy to flow into a different technique, but that won't give you the practice you were wanting in your original technique.)

That doesn't mean that uke should just be a passive floppy zombie while tori drills the technique. Tori needs to provide the appropriate energy that the technique being drilled is intended to deal with. Is the technique designed to deal with someone who grabs and pulls? Someone who grabs and pushes? Someone who grabs and punches? Someone who grabs and holds on for dear life? Someone who grabs and executes an arm drag to take your back and then take you down? Uke needs to give that energy so that tori can understand what the technique is all about. (The speed and intensity of that energy can vary and should probably be kept low while tori is learning the fine points of the technique.)

That said, there is a need for some form of practice in which your partner does not give you a pre-scripted energy for a pre-scripted technique. Instead of grabbing your lapel and then cooperating while you break his balance, break his alignment, and then throw him, perhaps your partner will adjust to your movement, switch his grip, try to break your balance and throw you based on your reaction. Uke and tori, winner and loser, are not decided ahead of time.

That does not necessaarily mean sparring. Sparring is a valuable training method, but it has the downside of promoting a symmetric "dueling" mentality which may not reflect the realities of self-defense. The essential elements of this form of training is that each training partner is given an objective and is then free to achieve that objective in any way that does not violate the constraints that are agreed upon for that exercise. Some possible examples:
1) Start with partner A performing a cooperative takedown on partner B. The exercise begins when B hits the ground - his objective is to get back to his feet, while A's objective is to keep B down.
2) Partners A and B (the muggers) have the objective to move partner C to one end of the mat (the dark alley). Partner C has the objective to get away to the other end of the mat (freedom).
3) Partner A puts on gloves and has the objective of punching partner B. B is not allowed to strike and has the objective of thowing A to the ground.
4) Partner A starts with a superior gripping situation on partner B (perhaps a bear hug). Partner A tries to use his advantage to take partner B down. Partner B tries to escape or reach a neutral position.
5) Of course all forms of free-form sparring/randori, either with strikes, grappling, or both, fall into this category.

What is not helpful is confusing this sort of free-form non-compliant exercise with drilling a technique. When you drill a technique, you need lots and lots of repetition so that the technique can become second nature. If uke is fighting you the whole time you're drilling, then you're never going to get those repetitions and the technique won't come quickly enough when you start doing the free-form exercises.


----------



## Doomx2001

Tony Dismukes said:


> What is not helpful is confusing this sort of free-form non-compliant exercise with drilling a technique. When you drill a technique, you need lots and lots of repetition so that the technique can become second nature. If uke is fighting you the whole time you're drilling, then you're never going to get those repetitions and the technique won't come quickly enough when you start doing the free-form exercises.



That was basically what I was referring to in my post, which was about the method of non-compliance when it comes to 'drilling a techinque'. I wonder how many Hapkido styles practice Randori? This is a good thread.


----------



## Doomx2001

iron_ox said:


> I disagree that one tries to reach non-compliance.  Perhaps in a demonstration phase this may be important, except all Hapkido technique from grabs can be done against non-compliant opponents very slowly if the body mechanics are right. Now, there is a great deal of conditioning that might need to precede this training, but it is very much the way the training should be done.



At Jung Ki Kwan schools, when new techniques are taught, how many are taught at a time, and for how long of a period? _

For example: One Hapkido teacher may teach 1 or 2 hapkido techniques for the whole month, while another may teach as much as 15 in a month._

The reason I ask other than curiosity is because in the non-compliant training that you speak of, it would seem to work well just learning just 1 or 2 techniques in a month depending on the students progress I suppose. But then again, other than my continuing Bujinkan training, I haven't seen many Hapkido styles start out with firm non-compliant training (including the Hapkido styles I'm training in now), so I was curious as to how long it takes new students to catch on, and develop real skill in non-compliant training?  Because I know for myself, some people that I've trained with, I grab hard, and with intent, and they have great trouble doing the technique. And it takes them a long time just to get the basics down. And in my role as an 'uke', I'm not trying to be a prick to my training partner, but rather, give them more of a realistic situation that could lead to real skill development. 

Also, I'm not being critical of your argument, I'm actually very supportive of your training methods. I wish I could train at a Jung Ki Kwan, if one was close.  Good thread by the way.


----------



## WMKS Shogun

iron_ox said:


> Although I cannot speak for Aikido, I will say that in Hapkido, the use of striking to distract an opponent is not required but it seems to be prevalent in many school, and this is my opinion is due to not understanding the nuance of the Art, but rather it seems just a basic understanding of bio-mechanics that when they fail must resort to a strike.



I cannot speak for Hapkido on this, but I do know that Ueshiba, Morihei, the founder of Aikido, said that a majority of Aikido was atemi-waza. What he meant by this was that getting the uke's mind off what they were trying to do was a key part of good Aikido. Whether that atemi was a strike or some other type of distraction is unimportant. Obviously the better one's technical skill is, the more effective one's technique should be. Now, I know Hapkido shares much with Aikido, but is still its own distinct art with its own philosophies (which I am learning, slowly). I do not think that a strike as a distraction is a sign of weak technique, but a practical action to better fascilitate the flow of the skill. If the aim is self protection, a small strike is not necessarily a bad thing, though obviously, a controlling technique is more appropriate as strikes and joint-destruction is more legally liable. In my opinion, the legal aspect is the greatest reason to learn to do techniques without having to do strikes as well. Just my few thoughts on it.


----------



## iron_ox

Doomx2001 said:


> At Jung Ki Kwan schools, when new techniques are taught, how many are taught at a time, and for how long of a period? _
> 
> For example: One Hapkido teacher may teach 1 or 2 hapkido techniques for the whole month, while another may teach as much as 15 in a month._
> 
> The reason I ask other than curiosity is because in the non-compliant training that you speak of, it would seem to work well just learning just 1 or 2 techniques in a month depending on the students progress I suppose. But then again, other than my continuing Bujinkan training, I haven't seen many Hapkido styles start out with firm non-compliant training (including the Hapkido styles I'm training in now), so I was curious as to how long it takes new students to catch on, and develop real skill in non-compliant training?  Because I know for myself, some people that I've trained with, I grab hard, and with intent, and they have great trouble doing the technique. And it takes them a long time just to get the basics down. And in my role as an 'uke', I'm not trying to be a prick to my training partner, but rather, give them more of a realistic situation that could lead to real skill development.
> 
> Also, I'm not being critical of your argument, I'm actually very supportive of your training methods. I wish I could train at a Jung Ki Kwan, if one was close.  Good thread by the way.



Well, I can only speak for myself.  I tend to teach techniques in pairs or threes. Mainly because or syllabus uses small groups of techniques clustered together to demonstrate a certain principle.  

The first three months or so or the new students training is about conditioning the wrists so that we can do good non-compliant training without doing any damage.  

The biggest issue that I have found is that people need to learn the proper body mechanics and full resistance is not a problem.

You are welcome to come to Chicago anytime you wish do try some training with us, you would be more than welcome!!  Although I do have a few emerging clubs scattered across the US, one in Davenport IA, New Orleans, Philly, a training group of mine in Connecticut, and a few others....


----------



## iron_ox

WMKS Shogun said:


> I cannot speak for Hapkido on this, but I do know that Ueshiba, Morihei, the founder of Aikido, said that a majority of Aikido was atemi-waza. What he meant by this was that getting the uke's mind off what they were trying to do was a key part of good Aikido. Whether that atemi was a strike or some other type of distraction is unimportant. Obviously the better one's technical skill is, the more effective one's technique should be. Now, I know Hapkido shares much with Aikido, but is still its own distinct art with its own philosophies (which I am learning, slowly). I do not think that a strike as a distraction is a sign of weak technique, but a practical action to better fascilitate the flow of the skill. If the aim is self protection, a small strike is not necessarily a bad thing, though obviously, a controlling technique is more appropriate as strikes and joint-destruction is more legally liable. In my opinion, the legal aspect is the greatest reason to learn to do techniques without having to do strikes as well. Just my few thoughts on it.



And I cannot speak for Aikido. But in Hapkido, using a strike or distraction as a function of doing a technique is unnecessary.  Since most fights don't really start from a wrist grab...but the techniques we do from them should not require a strike to make them work.  It is about proper mechanics, without them, adding a strike is useless.


----------



## Dwi Chugi

iron_ox said:


> And I cannot speak for Aikido. But in Hapkido, using a strike or distraction as a function of doing a technique is unnecessary.  Since most fights don't really start from a wrist grab...but the techniques we do from them should not require a strike to make them work.  It is about proper mechanics, without them, adding a strike is useless.




I have to agree with Mr. Sogor on this.  I have had different guest come in from different styles of hapkido in the past and they want to add the strike to off balance before doing the throw.  I think that is good Hoshinsool (self-defense) but not good Hapki (combind energy). I think if you can off balance someone using their energy against them than adding a strike in a street fight is easy.  It is hard however to take someone that likes to rely on striking to off balance their attacker and teach them house to off balance using pure Hapki.  

Now, if I am teaching a self-defense or street defense course I will teach the strike.  The course is only a few weeks long and I want to make sure my students can survive an attack safe.  But my Hapkidoin have a life time to learn the proper principles of Hapkido.  

Going back to the topic of the thread, I think non-compliance or live training is a must in true Hapkido.  At my dojang we run lines (where one person waits for the next person in line to attack them), circles (where the peron in the middle is attacked by the students on the outside of the circle) and even spar from time to time but I think we all can agree sparring is different than being attacked but if gives you some idea what getting hit or thrown unexpectedly is like.  

Great thread by the way.  I am pretty new and this is one of my first replys.


----------



## Doomx2001

Dwi Chugi said:


> Great thread by the way.  I am pretty new and this is one of my first replys.



Welcome to the forum, and please stick around. The more Hapkidoist we got here the better. Also the more idea's to share with one another to improve our selves, students, and just general all around research on things Hapkido. 
Glad to have you here.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

I once did a rather lenghty piece on this topic. To sum it up, from the perspective of using a martial art for the purpose of self-defense, you have two venues; the first is theory and the second is experience. Touching on the first, the majority of martial artists and indeed instructors teach from theory. This isn't meant to be a slight against anyone, or any art. It is simply a fact. Outside of a pushing/shoving match in the schoolyard, most have, fortunately, never been in a true altercation. This isn't a bad thing and even something to be sought after. Good self-defense begins long before the need to go hands-on. Having said that, there is a lot of useless, nonsense in many martial arts. I refer to it as fluff. It isn't really needed, doesn't enhance the art in terms of practical self-defense...but it _looks_ good and really impresses the uninitiated. But it is useless in a real fight, against a real person, who is really trying to hurt you.

A good example is an Aikido DVD I have somewhere in the bottom of a drawer. Not to pick on Aikido, the same thing could be applied to Hapkido and I have some completely ridiculous videos on Hapkido as well. For example, the master being 'attacked' by a dozen students who he effortlessly throws all over the mat. Really looks good, lots of flash and oohh-ahhh moments. Looking just a bit deeper, the students are waiting their turn to attack the master, assisting him be self-leaping into a beautiful break fall at the slightest touch and then getting up and waiting their turn to attack again. This same master who can take on a dozen 'bad guys' in a choreographed DVD is going to get his clock cleaned by a single street thug. My favorite is the attacker throwing a half-hearted punch, two feet to the side of the masters head and then kinda-sorta leaving it there long enough to let the master grab it and work his magic. A compliant, willing partner is of no value.

This is a prime example of those that have learned from someone that has no practical experience and teaches from theory...who in turn learned from someone with no practical experience and teaches from theory...and so on up the line. 

Then you have the individual that teaches from experience. They've actually successfully used something on someone that didn't want stuff used on them. Perhaps a plethora of times. When that type of experience starts mounting up you tend to know what will REALLY work and what is a bunch of crappola. This doesn't mean you need to go out and get into fights to see what works and in no way should be taken that way. But here is a litmus test; how many times have you actually been forced to use what you've learned against a real badguy? Did it work? Did you get your butt handed to you? What about your instructor...or his instructor? Is there anyone in the lineage, such as a police officer/corrections officer/bouncer etc that put various skill sets to the test within your art? Can anyone verify first-hand that a particular skill-set works? Is the skill set your teaching/learning going to actually work against a determined attacker? What is your level of confidence in it...and why? 

If I seem very direct in my comments, it is because this is what I do in the martial arts. I see so much..er, stuff in the arts that I shake my head at. Stuff that is not going to work in real lfe. Stuff that is vehemently defended as useable by those with the art. And to a certain extent I can understand defending what one has put effort into. But at some point, if we're sticking to a martial art being used for self-defense, we need to have a little reality check moment and ask ourselves just what is viable and what is flashy/fluffy garbage that has been inserted because of some percieved 'wow' factor. I'm very direct because I use it, sometimes on an almost daily basis. My last was just a few days ago against a very unwilling trusty of modern chemisty (read he was out of his mind on K2). I don't want to depend on an untested skill set when it hits the fan. I don't want to depend on something that only works if the guy is standing a certain way or holding my wrist a certain way and knows the proper time to break fall. 

Do you train against someone that is semi-compliant? Or do you train against someone that isn't going to 'give it to you'? Yes, we need to maintain a safe environment, but one can train with quite a bit or realism and still have a safety factor. Do you train under stress? Under stress we tend to lose manual dexterity so can you pull off your favorite lock/throw/choke etc against an unwilling opponent under stress? You may find its a lot different than with a willing partiner in a controlled environment. 

Self-defense is a chaotic, ugly affair. If you and/or your partner aren't taking serious and training as real as is possible (while still being able to walk out of the school the way you walked in) then your not doing yourself..or him/her any favors.


----------



## Dwi Chugi

Doomx, thank you for the welcome. I enjoy reading the posts from fellow hakidoin and martial artist in general.  You will find that I find a true interest in seeing others view on the art that I love. I may not find everything valid for me that is posted by others but I will always keep an open mind and value others views.  I love to ask questions on how other styles and systems of Hapkido and martial arts train. 

Kong soo do, great posts. I agree you have to train "live" to prove what works vs. what is shown just because it's part of the system. It is true that a fight is dirty and ugly.  It does not look like an aiki/Hapkido demonstration. I also think you have to train compliantly at first to get the technique down. We train different types of techniques different times of year. We do more techniques off of dynamic attack vs static wrist or lapel grabs. Please don't get we wrong we do train defense off wrist and lapel grabs its just my belief one is attacked with someone entering in with a technique then some one grabbing a body part. I live in Daytona Beach, Florida and the temp reaches 97 degrees with 100% humidity in the summer. We usually dress in shorts and a tank top. We are usually sweaty so wrist breakaway's or someone grabbing your shirt is not usually an issue. 

What kind of live training do you do in kong soo do?  How do you make it realistic without hurting each other? How often does your dojang train live?  

As I posted earlier we run lines where the head of the line is attacked straight on, a circle where the person in the center of the circle is attacked at random by the people on the outside of the circle at random and finally different types of sparring. Yesterday's rules were you were allowed to punch, kick, knee as hard as you wanted to the body and lightly to the face. Throws and take downs were legal and grappling to submission was ok too. Our main goal however was to get our opponent down while staying on our feet. Tuesday we will be doing the circle as our live training.


----------



## zDom

Kong Soo Do said:


> ... you have two venues; the first is theory and the second is experience. Touching on the first, the majority of martial artists and indeed instructors teach from theory.
> 
> .... A compliant, willing partner is of no value. ...
> 
> ... a prime example of those that have learned from someone that has no practical experience and teaches from theory...who in turn learned from someone with no practical experience and teaches from theory...and so on up the line.
> 
> [vs]
> 
> ... anyone in the lineage, such as a police officer/corrections officer/bouncer etc that put various skill sets to the test within your art? Can anyone verify first-hand that a particular skill-set works? Is the skill set your teaching/learning going to actually work against a determined attacker? What is your level of confidence in it...and why?
> 
> ...
> 
> If you and/or your partner aren't taking serious and training as real as is possible (while still being able to walk out of the school the way you walked in) then your not doing yourself..or him/her any favors.




I agree with some and disagree with other parts of the unedited post, probably because of my context. 

I think you are making some valid points, without doubt.


Here is my context, however: I HAVE been in fights. Lots. Since I was old enough to leave the front yard up until I was in a very serious altercation against against three grown men, one of which was a very serious individual wielding a tire tool.

And the martial art school I ended up in was founded by

Lee H. Park, who was witnessed by many individuals very effectively using martial arts to defend himself on several occasions.

Park's HKD teacher was Won Kwang-Wha who served as a bodyguard for high-ranking gov't officials and based on that experience favored practical techniques.

(Park's TKD instructor, Kong Suh Chong, had the reputation of practicing a VERY effective combat-style TKD, reportedly using it to aid escapes from communist forces, killing two captors with kicks)

Won's instructor was Choi (along with Choi's first student, Suh Bok Sub, who was also witnessed effectively using techniques in at least one real-life encounter)

My instructor was taught directly by Park. I know he has effectively used hapkido on more than one occasion but even while drinking around a campfire could never get play-by-play details: he would feel that was bragging and is genuinely too humble to recount those instances.

I have heard several stories from witnesses who have described their recollections of various hapkido black belts under Park and/or my instructor defending themselves.. very effectively.

For what its worth, I have successfully defended myself with hapkido.

So our techniques and training are not based on theory but on principles that have stood up to the ultimate "testing."



My question is: at what point do you accept that your instructors know what they are doing? Does each and every student, or each and every generation, have to "prove" techniques? And if someone fails does that necessarily mean the training/techniques are at fault? Maybe it means the practitioner failed.

No technique or method is a 100 percent effective; they just improve the odds more toward our favor.

While I think some might need a reality check, I don't see the need to re-invent the wheel or keep "testing" to see when water boils, so to speak.



Training beginners with compliant partners helps them learn the correct motions. Non-compliance comes later (at dan ranks).


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Dwi Chugi said:


> Kong soo do, great posts. I agree you have to train "live" to prove what works vs. what is shown just because it's part of the system. It is true that a fight is dirty and ugly.  It does not look like an aiki/Hapkido demonstration. I also think you have to train compliantly at first to get the technique down. We train different types of techniques different times of year. We do more techniques off of dynamic attack vs static wrist or lapel grabs. Please don't get we wrong we do train defense off wrist and lapel grabs its just my belief one is attacked with someone entering in with a technique then some one grabbing a body part. I live in Daytona Beach, Florida and the temp reaches 97 degrees with 100% humidity in the summer. We usually dress in shorts and a tank top. We are usually sweaty so wrist breakaway's or someone grabbing your shirt is not usually an issue.
> 
> What kind of live training do you do in kong soo do?  How do you make it realistic without hurting each other? How often does your dojang train live?



Thank you.  We use scenario based training in as many different environments as possible;


Dim light
Close quarters (between cars, stairs, elevator, inside a vehicle etc)
Different surfaces (grass, asphalt, concrete, sloping, slippery etc)
Improvised weapons
Options such as evasion, de-esculation etc

We often use normal street clothes.  Protective equipment depending on the drill.  Scenarios vary from no-force to force and are carried out to a logical conclusion.  We've been known to video tape segments to review later as well.  Somethings obviously can't be done full force or for full effect, but we try to get as reasonably close as safely possible to ingrain the response or possible responses.  


			
				zDom said:
			
		

> My question is: at what point do you accept that your instructors know what they are doing?



That may depend upon the individual and their particular needs.  Depending upon the needs of the student, they need to be comfortable with the level of experience of the instructor.  


> Does each and every student, or each and every generation, have to  "prove" techniques? And if someone fails does that necessarily mean the  training/techniques are at fault? Maybe it means the practitioner  failed.



Valid questions.  It is absolutely possible for an instructor, who is experienced in actual use of the martial art and who is a good teacher to pass this on to a student who fails when it counts.  Does the student have the proper mindset?  Does the student have the commitment to do whatever is necessary to survive the altercation?   These are questions that can only be answered on an individual basis.  This is the part the instructor has no control over.  



> Training beginners with compliant partners helps them learn the correct motions. Non-compliance comes later (at dan ranks).



I agree that a beginner needs a span of time for the learning curve.  I don't agree with waiting till the Dan ranks however.  We normally have students going strong, if not full tilt within the first week on the things learned up to that point.  To be clear, they don't start off full bore, but we don't wait an extended period of time.  My students cannot afford to wait for six months or a year or two years.  They need something useable on day one.  They may not go all out on day one on a particular skill set, but it is done to the point they could use it if needed on the way to the car after class.


----------



## Doomx2001

Kong Soo Do said:


> Thank you.  We use scenario based training in as many different environments as possible;
> 
> 
> Dim light
> Close quarters (between cars, stairs, elevator, inside a vehicle etc)
> Different surfaces (grass, asphalt, concrete, sloping, slippery etc)
> Improvised weapons
> Options such as evasion, de-esculation etc
> 
> We often use normal street clothes.  Protective equipment depending on the drill.  Scenarios vary from no-force to force and are carried out to a logical conclusion.  We've been known to video tape segments to review later as well.  Somethings obviously can't be done full force or for full effect, but we try to get as reasonably close as safely possible to ingrain the response or possible responses.



Your description of your training has caused me to add Kong Soo Do as another martial art to check out/train in sometime in the future!  Are there any videos online that reflect well the Kong Soo Do that you practice? Also what martial art styles may have influenced Kong Soo Do in your opinion?


----------



## Doomx2001

iron_ox said:


> You are welcome to come to Chicago anytime you wish do try some training with us, you would be more than welcome!!  Although I do have a few emerging clubs scattered across the US, one in Davenport IA, New Orleans, Philly, a training group of mine in Connecticut, and a few others....



How hard is it to start a Jung Ki kwan club? The reason I ask is because I've been interested Jung Ki Kwan for about 3 or 4 years now. Also thanks for the invite to train at your school, hopefully whenever I get a chance to take a trip to Chicago again, I will try to do that.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Doomx2001 said:


> Your description of your training has caused me to add Kong Soo Do as another martial art to check out/train in sometime in the future!  Are there any videos online that reflect well the Kong Soo Do that you practice? Also what martial art styles may have influenced Kong Soo Do in your opinion?



Kong Soo Do in-and-of-itself was just one of the names given to the karate that some of the TKD pioneers taught.  They also used Kwon Bup, Tang Soo Do etc and then it all merged into Tae Kwon Do.  That was then.

Kong Soo Do, as we use it, is a combination of several variables.  Our brand of KSD is under the Mu Shin Kwan.  It started with four of us quite a long time ago. Each of us had various arts in our background, with a TKD and/or Hapkido connection.  The TKD wasn't the sport version, it was the 'old school' version similar to hard core karate (which one of us learned in Okinawa back in the 60's).  Of the four of us, three of us have L.E. backgrounds.  Over a period of years we blended our backgrounds, tossing out the fluff and keeping techniques/principles that flowed really well together in every area that we personally used;  striking distance, grappling distance, locks, throws, sweeps, cavity pressing, misplacing bone/tendon, ground work etc.  Our clients were mainly other L.E. who needed something usable on day one.  The problem we encountered was that by calling it TKD it put a lot of people off.  No disrespect to TKD intended, but in our area and particularly our circle of students, TKD is thought of as kiddie-karate and useless sport fluff.  And to be fair, although old school TKD was a base art (along with Hapkido which two of us had Dan ranking in), what we taught really didn't look like what people expect of TKD.  When I teach it looks more like Phillipino/Muay Thai than Korean Karate i.e. I'm the elbows and knee spike guy at striking distance with my specialty being locks/throws.  So TKD was out as a label.  So we eventually settled on Kong Soo Do as it was pleasantly generic enough to be pretty much anything we wanted since it simply translates over as Korean Karate or more specifically 'Empty Hand Way'.  

So now we have a unified structure and teaching outline.  The ranking structure was originally based on our TKD ranking and converted over to KSD and has progressed from there.  It seemed be be something a few others were looking for so now we have schools in four states and Australia.  

I had one teaching video but it was made years ago.  I've been trying to update it for the IKSDA (International Kong Soo Do Association) and anyone else interested.  Its been a challenge though trying to coordinate getting it done though.  Getting schedules to jive isn't easy.  When I do though I'll put it on the IKSDA website and probably post a link to it here on the board.


----------



## iron_ox

Doomx2001 said:


> How hard is it to start a Jung Ki kwan club? The reason I ask ifocause I've been interested Jung Ki Kwan for about 3 or 4 years now. Also thanks for the invite to train at your school, hopefully whenever I get a chance to take a trip to Chicago again, I will try to do that.



Where are you located? It may not be as difficult as you think...
And for the record, in English Jungki is written together....as it is pronounced this way.
Let me know where you are and we can see if we can figure out an option that might work for you.


----------



## iron_ox

Let's get back on topic,

Choi Dojunim's Hapkido requires non-compliant training, and certainly not waiting until the dan levels, this would mean beginners really have no concept at all about the body mechanics of the art. 

While I might understand demonstrating a technique in a compliant fashion for students to see, practice is done with a non-compliant approach because the techniques are designed to work that way. In fact it is the only way they work. 

One method we use to get students used to faster non-compliant training is to have students use basic escapes while their partner is using random grabs with different energy. This works very well. 

Another thing is to try and eliminate things like acrobatic falls as the result of rather useless wide arm throws.  I have seen far too many schools using compliant huge circle throws as part of training, not just demos, this sends a message to students that such throws work...a bad precedent.


----------



## zDom

iron_ox said:


> I have seen far too many schools using compliant huge circle throws as part of training, not just demos, this sends a message to students that such throws work...a bad precedent.



Are you suggesting that full circle throws (hip throw, one armed shoulder throw, body drop, etc.) DON'T work against a resisting opponent?




Second question,

Are you saying that you should teach the basic mechanics of throws and expect students to be able to do those throws against a resisting partner right away? After 10 repetitions? 100?


----------



## iron_ox

I am speaking more about the large arm circles associated with throws that try to use wrist leverage to affect a throw. Like grabbing the wrist and stepping under the arm then with a huge circle, the opponent is then wafted through the air. These are for kids demos, not real techniques.  And hip throws, they cannot be pulled off against anyone awake.

As far as non-compliant training, we do it from the second time one does a technique. Hapkido does not function without resistance.


----------



## Dwi Chugi

iron_ox said:


> I am speaking more about the large arm circles associated with throws that try to use wrist leverage to affect a throw. Like grabbing the wrist and stepping under the arm then with a huge circle, the opponent is then wafted through the air. These are for kids demos, not real techniques.  And hip throws, they cannot be pulled off against anyone awake.



I have to respectfully disagree about with Mr. Sogor onhip throws not working on anyone awake.  Ifwe are talking about the same hip throw, I have successfully pulled hip throwsoff against students at my dojang during our live training.  Also, every two to four weeks I train at a BrazilianJiujutsu school about an hour and a half from where I live and I have pulledoff quite a few hip and shoulder throws there against their students.  Some high ranking students some not as highranking.  I went to a Krav Maga Seminar afew weeks ago and while being attacked in one of their live training session&#8217;sI pulled off a hip throw.  In my humble opinion;if you disrupt the balance of your training partner, position your dan-jon (center)under their dan-jon and follow through with the throw they will go.


----------



## iron_ox

Dwi Chugi said:


> I have to respectfully disagree about with Mr. Sogor onhip throws not working on anyone awake.  Ifwe are talking about the same hip throw, I have successfully pulled hip throwsoff against students at my dojang during our live training.  Also, every two to four weeks I train at a BrazilianJiujutsu school about an hour and a half from where I live and I have pulledoff quite a few hip and shoulder throws there against their students.  Some high ranking students some not as highranking.  I went to a Krav Maga Seminar afew weeks ago and while being attacked in one of their live training sessionsI pulled off a hip throw.  In my humble opinion;if you disrupt the balance of your training partner, position your dan-jon (center)under their dan-jon and follow through with the throw they will go.



The person that made the comment said he had been in lots of fights...so i was speaking more of real fights, but even in training, a resisting opponent can easily stop a hip toss.

What do you mean about positioning your dan-jon?


----------



## Doomx2001

iron_ox said:


> Another thing is to try and eliminate things like acrobatic falls as the result of rather useless wide arm throws.  I have seen far too many schools using compliant huge circle throws as part of training, not just demos, this sends a message to students that such throws work...a bad precedent.



I think were on the same page as for when comes to acrobatic breakfalls, unless I read your post wrong.  I notice many times in Hapkido demo's people are thrown in a most dramatic fashion. When I first started learning Hapkido, I couldn't understand that when I did something like a whipthrow (where the arm is as straight as you can get it, take their balance, and throw them forward of you) that, most of the time, they would land either flat on their face or on their knees. While I could most definately be doing that throw wrong still to this day, I feel that acrobatic breakfalls create a false sense of skill and ability to the person that is 'throwing' their partner. 

I personally feel that we should practice breakfalls that reflect more of how a person is going to land on the street than a breakfall that is designed to make the instructor look like some sort of martial arts wizard. Usually when a whipthrow is done on me, I do more of a 'front breakfall', where to your head to the left or right, throw your hands up, and fall forward. 
One finally thought on acrobatic breakfalls is that when it comes to non-compliant training, I notice most people who do these acrobatic breakfalls are actually throwing themselves which is actually a dis-service to their training partner. You see it all the time in most Aikido schools (or at least the ones that have Youtube videos'), and about in half of Hapkido schools. Sometimes it might be necessary to do an acrobatic breakfall to avoid injury to the joint that is being twisted or compressed by your partner, but for the most part I feel acrobatic breakfalls are abused for the purpose they were originally intended to be used for. 

Also, I've always been taught that 'big circles' are really for begininers as it teaches them to use circles and as they advance in rank, they start using smaller circles. But, as well intended as that may be, for some students, it creates a bad habit that lasts all the way to black belt where they use these big circles to do their techniques. Although their might be a case made for some big circles to be used, for the most part, tight quick movements probably are the best way to go. 

And to answer the question, I am from southeastern Kentucky.


----------



## Dwi Chugi

iron_ox said:


> The person that made the comment said he had been in lots of fights...so i was speaking more of real fights, but even in training, a resisting opponent can easily stop a hip toss.
> 
> What do you mean about positioning your dan-jon?



I am meaning your center or where the knot of your belt is.  I am on the taller side so to throw someone I really have to get low.  Not the best throw for someone my size but I have drilled it a lot so it became second nature.  

In a real fight? I am not sure I would go after a hip throw unless fate gave it to me.  I believe the best self-defense is to have no enimies so I have not been in too many fights.  The ones I was in, my Hapkido served me well. 

I did do security work and was a body guard to some well known singers when I was younger.  I had a team and rearly ever took on someone one on one.  I have used goose neck locks and arm bars to get someone down with great success.  If I was working and threw a hip throw, I would have been mostlikely fired and sued.  

Anyways, I am enjoying being part of the post.  Thanks for hearing out my thoughts.


----------



## iron_ox

Dwi Chugi said:


> I am meaning your center or where the knot of your belt is.  I am on the taller side so to throw someone I really have to get low.  Not the best throw for someone my size but I have drilled it a lot so it became second nature.
> 
> In a real fight? I am not sure I would go after a hip throw unless fate gave it to me.  I believe the best self-defense is to have no enimies so I have not been in too many fights.  The ones I was in, my Hapkido served me well.
> 
> I did do security work and was a body guard to some well known singers when I was younger.  I had a team and rearly ever took on someone one on one.  I have used goose neck locks and arm bars to get someone down with great success.  If I was working and threw a hip throw, I would have been mostlikely fired and sued.
> 
> Anyways, I am enjoying being part of the post.  Thanks for hearing out my thoughts.



Thank you.  Just wanted to get your meaning specifically.  While i know where the dan-jon is, I was thinking more of centering the hips, but I do see what you are trying top say in terms of center of balance.


----------



## Dwi Chugi

iron_ox said:


> Thank you.  Just wanted to get your meaning specifically.  While i know where the dan-jon is, I was thinking more of centering the hips, but I do see what you are trying top say in terms of center of balance.



I figured you did and just wanted to be clear.  When teaching, especially my teens, I try to get them to bend at the knees not the waiste.  Anothers words, keep your shoulders, hips and knees in as much alignment as possible.  If I ask them to get their hips lower they for some reason think to bend at the waiste.  If I ask them to lower their belt knot and keep it forward, they seem to have a better time bending the knees and not the hips.  

When teaching the hip or shoulder throw the belt knot is past his partners center or belt knot slightly.  

What is your minimum age you instruct?  This may be in a thread already or I should start a thread with this question.  I use to teach no one under the age of 16 but I just lowered the age to 13 years old and so far it is working out great.  I am not sure if I am going to lower my required age to earn a black belt yet though.  My instructor would not let me start until I was 16 and I was already a black belt in Taekwondo.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Doomx2001 said:


> I notice many times in Hapkido demo's people are thrown in a most dramatic fashion. When I first started learning Hapkido, I couldn't understand that when I did something like a whipthrow (where the arm is as straight as you can get it, take their balance, and throw them forward of you) that, most of the time, they would land either flat on their face or on their knees. While I could most definately be doing that throw wrong still to this day, I feel that acrobatic breakfalls create a false sense of skill and ability to the person that is 'throwing' their partner.
> 
> I personally feel that we should practice breakfalls that reflect more of how a person is going to land on the street than a breakfall that is designed to make the instructor look like some sort of martial arts wizard.



+1

The validity of break falls is always up for debate.  As mentioned above, they often fall differently in a real altercation than what is demonstrated in many schools/DVD's.  The effectiveness of a throw should depend upon what it actually does to an attacker rather than the acting ability of the person your throwing in the school.  In otherwords, a lot of these 'masters' get some 'help' from the assistant.  To be perfectly blunt, I think it is pretty dishonest and arrogant.  As I mentioned above also, some of these 'masters' and 'grandmasters' that take on a dozen people in the school/DVD setting would get their butt handed to them by just one person in a real fight.  That isn't painting with a broad brush and should be read to imply only those that embellish the art for the sake of flash.  

Many throws, when done correctly and in reality will seriously hurt the attacker.  Either they're going face first into the concrete or other people-unfriendly object or it is going to break the limb that is being used in the throw.


----------



## zDom

Dwi Chugi said:


> I have to respectfully disagree about with Mr. Sogor on hip throws not working on anyone awake.



I guess it depends on WHOSE hip throw.

If he believes his wouldn't work on anybody who is awake and/or resisting, I believe him.

But then, I have significantly more confidence in mine being effective (Moo Sul Kwan has always been known for its effective full-circle throws).

And the more a resisting person "starfishes" out, the more likely they are to come down on a limb in a way that causes significant injury. We don't expect them to fall pretty in combat like they do in training. We only fall like that in training so we can get back up and be thrown again.


----------



## zDom

iron_ox said:


> The person that made the comment said he had been in lots of fights...so i was speaking more of real fights, but even in training, a resisting opponent can easily stop a hip toss.



And in doing so, set themselves up to be thrown even harder in a different direction.

That is the principle of being like water, isn't it? Find the path of least resistance. Let them decide which way they want to be thrown.


----------



## zDom

Dwi Chugi said:


> I figured you did and just wanted to be clear.  When teaching, especially my teens, I try to get them to bend at the knees not the waiste.  Anothers words, keep your shoulders, hips and knees in as much alignment as possible.  If I ask them to get their hips lower they for some reason think to bend at the waiste.  If I ask them to lower their belt knot and keep it forward, they seem to have a better time bending the knees and not the hips.
> 
> When teaching the hip or shoulder throw the belt knot is past his partners center or belt knot slightly.




Exactly: you have to get your hips lower than theirs and put them in a state of off-balance.

Learning effective throwing is difficult; is hard work. Most people aren't willing to do the hard work it takes to develop effective throwing and assume that because we ARE able to pull it off, that our partners must be making it easy for us.

Coming in low is hard. Timing things so you can take advantage of their off-balanced state is hard to develop, too.


----------



## iron_ox

zDom said:


> I guess it depends on WHOSE hip throw.
> 
> If he believes his wouldn't work on anybody who is awake and/or resisting, I believe him.
> 
> But then, I have significantly more confidence in mine being effective (Moo Sul Kwan has always been known for its effective full-circle throws).
> 
> And the more a resisting person "starfishes" out, the more likely they are to come down on a limb in a way that causes significant injury. We don't expect them to fall pretty in combat like they do in training. We only fall like that in training so we can get back up and be thrown again.



This hip toss?  Don't see anything here but compliant throwing, and if you think this hip toss will work in the real world, well, they must fight really special like in St. Louis area.


----------



## iron_ox

zDom said:


> And in doing so, set themselves up to be thrown even harder in a different direction.
> 
> That is the principle of being like water, isn't it? Find the path of least resistance. Let them decide which way they want to be thrown.



Sadly I am really uncertain you have trained with enough resisting opponents to truly understand what happens when a hip toss is blocked.  The person trying the throw is placed off balance and is easily overpowered.  This was Choi Dojunim's initial experience with Suh Bok Sup, a Judo Blackbelt that Choi Dojunim overpowered so easily the Suh begged Choi Dojunim to teach him.

And the water principle is far more than "finding a path of least resistance".  It is about creating a whole in an offense, or finding a whole in an offense and exploiting it.


----------



## iron_ox

zDom said:


> Exactly: you have to get your hips lower than theirs and put them in a state of off-balance.
> 
> Learning effective throwing is difficult; is hard work. Most people aren't willing to do the hard work it takes to develop effective throwing and assume that because we ARE able to pull it off, that our partners must be making it easy for us.
> 
> Coming in low is hard. Timing things so you can take advantage of their off-balanced state is hard to develop, too.




These "big circle" throws that you consider effective and the ones you "ARE" able to pull off? (Starting at about 3:00)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqjvcdudRZE&feature=relmfu

Sorry, it didn't want to link.


----------



## iron_ox

To get us back on topic, here is a video of a non-compliant DEMO:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/103612-Jungki-Kwan-Demonstration-Video


----------



## Dwi Chugi

iron_ox said:


> This hip toss?  Don't see anything here but compliant throwing, and if you think this hip toss will work in the real world, well, they must fight really special like in St. Louis area.


 
I am not sure if this is fair to compare what may or may not work in a live situation since this appears to be a training drill being started from a static postition. Yes, it looks like there is very little being done to counter this technique, but its a drill.  When I trained Judo we would do a drill simular but with two people Uki (throwies) on either side of the Tori (thrower). We would have to run than to the other, throwing them.  

For me when I use the hip/shoulder throw in a live sparring match or when we are running a line and I am being attacked, it is usually the attacker that off balances himself to make the throw possible.  They are either attaching with a punch, push, tug or whatever and I feel their energy move forward.  

I teach the hip/shoulder throw at Orange Belt level and I teach the counters to such throws two belts later at Purple Belt level.

I am really not sure if traditional Hapkido had hip throws or not, I do know Choi's first student was a black belt in Judo so I would conclude that traditional Hapkido at least had counters.  When I say traditional, I mean the way Choi taught it.  My Grandmaster was a student of Choi's and he always taught hip and shoulder throws.  He also is a Black Belt in Judo and Taekwondo so some of the throws may have been from his Judo days.  

With that being said, I have trained hip/shoulder throws quite a bit, they are second nature, I have pulled them off at BJJ schools, Judo schools, Krav Maga schools and in my own school with my students.  I have countered quite a few in my day as well.  I have not used them in street fights because I have not really been in a real street fight since I was a in high school.  Most of my "hands on" knowledge came from the dojang and as a body guarding.  

I will say this, I am comfortable enough with my hip/shoulder throw that if the chance presented itself in a self-defense situation I would throw it and throw it so hard that my attacker would not get up for a while.

"What is the best weapon?
THE EARTH"

My two cents.  Thank you for listening.


----------



## iron_ox

Dwi Chugi said:


> I am not sure if this is fair to compare what may or may not work in a live situation since this appears to be a training drill being started from a static postition. Yes, it looks like there is very little being done to counter this technique, but its a drill.  When I trained Judo we would do a drill simular but with two people Uki (throwies) on either side of the Tori (thrower). We would have to run than to the other, throwing them.
> 
> For me when I use the hip/shoulder throw in a live sparring match or when we are running a line and I am being attacked, it is usually the attacker that off balances himself to make the throw possible.  They are either attaching with a punch, push, tug or whatever and I feel their energy move forward.
> 
> I teach the hip/shoulder throw at Orange Belt level and I teach the counters to such throws two belts later at Purple Belt level.
> 
> I am really not sure if traditional Hapkido had hip throws or not, I do know Choi's first student was a black belt in Judo so I would conclude that traditional Hapkido at least had counters.  When I say traditional, I mean the way Choi taught it.  My Grandmaster was a student of Choi's and he always taught hip and shoulder throws.  He also is a Black Belt in Judo and Taekwondo so some of the throws may have been from his Judo days.
> 
> With that being said, I have trained hip/shoulder throws quite a bit, they are second nature, I have pulled them off at BJJ schools, Judo schools, Krav Maga schools and in my own school with my students.  I have countered quite a few in my day as well.  I have not used them in street fights because I have not really been in a real street fight since I was a in high school.  Most of my "hands on" knowledge came from the dojang and as a body guarding.
> 
> I will say this, I am comfortable enough with my hip/shoulder throw that if the chance presented itself in a self-defense situation I would throw it and throw it so hard that my attacker would not get up for a while.
> 
> "What is the best weapon?
> THE EARTH"
> 
> My two cents.  Thank you for listening.



This thread is about the importance of non-compliant training.  I mentioned the hip toss thing because someone else brought it up.  This video is a perfect example of non-compliant training and drilling - why bother to do it at all?  And the point is much more that hip tosses are very easily countered - especially those shown above.  

Hapkido does have hip throws, delivered quite differently from the Judo style ones.  Yes, Choi Dojunim's first student was a Judo backbelt, who was never able to throw Choi Dojunim. Your Grandmaster is GM Jung Hwan Park?  He did have some training with Choi Dojunim, and at his dojang where he trained under Choi Dojunim's instructors, his primary rank is in TKD, but I understand he has Judo rank as well.

Again, the thread is about compliant training - not the validity of the hip toss, but I will add that unlike many other techniques, the circumstances of doing a hip toss in a non-compliant situation are rare at best.

Not looking to annoy anyone, just want to steer us back on track...


----------



## Dwi Chugi

iron_ox said:


> This thread is about the importance of non-compliant training.  I mentioned the hip toss thing because someone else brought it up.  This video is a perfect example of non-compliant training and drilling - why bother to do it at all?  And the point is much more that hip tosses are very easily countered - especially those shown above.
> 
> Hapkido does have hip throws, delivered quite differently from the Judo style ones.  Yes, Choi Dojunim's first student was a Judo backbelt, who was never able to throw Choi Dojunim. Your Grandmaster is GM Jung Hwan Park?  He did have some training with Choi Dojunim, and at his dojang where he trained under Choi Dojunim's instructors, his primary rank is in TKD, but I understand he has Judo rank as well.
> 
> Again, the thread is about compliant training - not the validity of the hip toss, but I will add that unlike many other techniques, the circumstances of doing a hip toss in a non-compliant situation are rare at best.
> 
> Not looking to annoy anyone, just want to steer us back on track...



Park is my Grandmaster and though I have trained under him directly the majority of my Hapkido has come from one of his high ranking students that is a master of Hapkido. I think it's appropriate to disclose that so there is no misunderstandings.

I know GM Park held black belts in Taekwondo and judo when he began his private lessons with GM Choi. In fact by the time he started HKD he served in the US Army as unarmed combat instructor, was captured twice in Vietnam and escaped twice, and earned his degree as a Doctor in Vetenary Mecication.

GM Park has said that GM Choi's nickname for him was "Taekwondo" because it took him about three years to stop trying to use TKD theory on the Hapkido he was trying to learn. I am guessing that he got the theories down because his Hapkido is pretty good. 

As of GM Park training under GM Choi's student instructors the only one he mentioned was a Mr. Kim that was a HKD black belt that wanted to train some TKD at the dojang Park was a student at. His TKD master placed Kim and Park together and they exchanged ideas. That was way before he started directly under Choi in 1969, I believe. 

It would make since to me that he may have studied under other masters though so I'm not discounting that. It will be a great question I can ask him the next time we are together. 

Back to the original thread. My point is that I go to other schools of martial arts and train and spar against other martial artist.  When I spar a jujitsu player they are being very non-compliant. If fact, they are trying to get me to the ground so they can work their BJJ magic. My point was my hip and shoulder throws work. My outer wrist throws work. My step under throw almost worked, but I elbowed the guy before I got the throw off. All these worked for me sparring non-compliant and resisting martial artist that compete.  I could not use all my HKD techniques because there are rules in bjj. 

As of the video you posted of the group throwing each other, all I can say its was a drill. Agree with it or not, that way of training works for them.  I do drills to teach people how to lower their hips. How to get under the person. How to do a technique when you are tired. 

I can not speak for my other Hapkido brothers on this thread, but I personally do not find your post annoying. I enjoy talking about Hapkido with like minded people. It is how we grow. I learn from everyone I encounter even if we do not agree on certain things.  

I do think however, Hapkidoin try to discredit each other a little too much. There are dozens of other martial arts systems that would love to discredit Hapkido as an art. There are a lot of bad Hapkido styles out there, that is true. There is a lot of great Hapkido systems that can help spread the word, that as a whole Hapkido is the best street defense system there is. 

Just my two cents, thank you for listening.


----------



## zDom

The people being tested in this clip are the ones being thrown, not the throwers.

They have just gone through a vigorous two-hour test.

It's not a test of throwing effectiveness on display.

So what's your point?


----------



## zDom

Dwi Chugi said:


> I do think however, Hapkidoin try to discredit each other a little too much. ... There are a lot of bad Hapkido styles out there, that is true. There is a lot of great Hapkido systems that can help spread the word, that as a whole Hapkido is the best street defense system there is.



So sad and so true: as if putting down another branch of hapkido in some way lifts up someone else's.


----------



## zDom

iron_ox said:


> Sadly I am really uncertain you have trained with enough resisting opponents to truly understand what happens when a hip toss is blocked.  The person trying the throw is placed off balance and is easily overpowered.  This was Choi Dojunim's initial experience with Suh Bok Sup, a Judo Blackbelt that Choi Dojunim overpowered so easily the Suh begged Choi Dojunim to teach him.



I think the time I spent drilling attempts to complete throws with Mr. Rob Bullock, dan ranked hapkido and something like 6'3 and 270 lbs, with him resisting helped me understand what it is you think I don't understand.

I also learned a lot when training with a guy one inch shorter than me at 5' 11" and 300 lbs who was a yellow belt and terrified of falling. Talk about resistance...

And other training experiences I could bore you with.

But I would never have been able to even begin exploring a hip throw if blackbelts resisted me while I was trying to learn the basics of the throw.

I sincerely am interested in seeing how you train new students. What we are doing at MSK IS working for us, however, and has been for several generations.

As flawed as you think our training methods are, MSK hapkidon HAVE on many occasions effectively thrown not just a "resisting partner" but an actual attacker in actual self defense situations. 




iron_ox said:


> And the water principle is far more than "finding a path of least resistance".  It is about creating a whole in an offense, or finding a whole in an offense and exploiting it.




You mean hole in the defense, don't you?

And I did not claim that was the totality of the water principle. You obviously think about it a whole lot more than I do so I would be interested in reading what you have to say about the water principle in detail. Maybe you should start a thread.


----------



## zDom

iron_ox said:


> These "big circle" throws that you consider effective and the ones you "ARE" able to pull off? (Starting at about 3:00)
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqjvcdudRZE&feature=relmfu
> 
> Sorry, it didn't want to link.




Some of those are. One is an air fall over a wrist lock which allows them defender to do larger range of motion. We know it doesn't make people fly through the air. 

You realize those are gup ranked students in a live demonstration situation, right?

Next can we juxtaposition footage of Grandmaster Lee H. Park doing technique with a master level student alongside one of your green belts?


----------



## zDom

iron_ox said:


> ... a perfect example of non-compliant training and drilling - why bother to do it at all?  And the point is much more that hip tosses are very easily countered - especially those shown above. .




A punch is very easily countered: so why bother to do them at all?

Etc.


The non-compliant training allows practitioners to get much, MUCH more repetition in. With reps comes better technique.


I'd like to invite you to come do even 50 reps with a "compliant" partner and see how you feel. It is a very good workout.

That doesn't mean we ONLY train non-compliant situations. But you aren't going to get a good, practiced motion trying to get 50 reps in with a resisting partner.

I agree that having training against resistance is necessary for effective technique

You seem to disagree with the idea that getting repetition in with a non-resisting partner is a good way to get a well-trained movement. I think you are wrong &#8212; but that's OK. There have been different ideas on how to train hapkido since Choi started teaching and so we have, generations later, many different hapkido schools.

But your attitude is closed-minded and arrogant.

I think my way is better, but I'm not going to publicly call your way crap: it might not be. I might be wrong. Reckon I'd have to spend some time on the mat before I could really make an informed decision.

You, on the other hand, can say what you want but you are wrong. What we do works. Pontificating about how we are doing it all wrong doesn't change that.

And I genuinely smell a case of "sour grapes": you aren't able to do some of the things we do so you convince yourself (and try to convince everybody else) that it isn't worth being able to do anyway. If you knew as much about hapkido as you think you do you might see in even a few small clips what we are doing well instead of trying to pick apart gup technique to make sweeping criticisms of a solid hapkido curriculum.


And we aren't in St. Louis: my instructor teaches in Cape Girardeau. His students teach in Cape and Sikeston.

Come down and visit. If you can make it through the warmup with enough breath left to speak maybe you can teach me something.


----------



## Doomx2001

You know, one of the biggest problems with forums is the very thing they thrive on: Language. We mis-spell words, don't use correct grammar, and in most cases we ignore certain unsaid social protocals that we otherwise would not do in the real world resulting in people feeling insulted or hurt. Its such an easy thing to do, regrettably, and were all guilty of it at one point or another. Especially when comes to things that are dear and true to our hearts.

Alot of the conflict that arises from message boards is from the fact that we, as humans, actually communicate more through body language! Its been said that body language consist of 60 to 70 percent of human communication! So, its no wonder that we as humans being are more prone to have sever disagreements on issues when communicating on message boards. Also taking into account the use of negative words spoken in a positive tone meant in a positive way is something that the written language lacks, unless you want to type a book to convey a simple idea. 
I say this as it relates to the current 'feelings' on a hipthrow.

I figured that I would mention that from my current understanding, Iron_Ox is trying to say that non-compliant hipthrows, as how they relate to the principles and Jungki method, don't work well for him and maybe his class.  This could be because Jungki Kwan Hapkido focuses on simplicity at its core, but then again I have not had the privilege to study the style so, I don't want to give any misconceptions. 
As it relates to zDOMs argument of the effectiveness of a hipthrow in a non-compliant setting, he has said that it works well for him and his students. And this just may be because his style of Hapkido may operate under different principles than the Jungki Kwan. 
This might be because judo throws in Hapkido have more in common with samurai jujutus (where you break the arm and throw the person as opposed to just throwing them in Judo) and maybe zDOMS style of Hapkido uses more actual Judo principles than orthodox Hapkido? Just a thought.
But I would like to say that there is validity in both points. A non-complaint hipthrow could be easily blocked, but it can also be done, otherwise someone would not have invented it. 
I can say that because anyone who watches Judo tournaments or Judo training can observe this first hand as two Judoka fight for points and pride. As zDOM said, the drills created for Judo throws, help the students 'feel' when the time is right to hipthrow someone. Usually the students grab hold of one another as they push each other back and forth waiting for the right placement of the body, and to take the others balance. Judo drills are good for this.  Very Um-Yang. 

Focusing more on Non-Compliance in general besides what I had mention earlier about wrist grabs, I would like to get more into what I expect Non-Compliance to me as for when it comes to Hapkido.
Non-Compliance for me, would be someone grabbing you with one hand, and punching with another (instead of it hanging there as if they had a stroke in that arm). Non-Compliance to me means your training partner makes more of an effort to thwart your technique. 

Non-Compliance is a really good thing in martial arts, it helps you build good technique. However, it can also prevent you from developing good technique. 
Years ago, as I was starting out in the Bujinkan, I would train with certain people, where in which I would offer medium level resistence to their technique, but not enough to prevent them from doing it. These same individuals, when it was my turn, would not only stiffen up completely, but also twist, turn, and wrestle! When I trained with these individuals, I didn't learn nothing, and they were getting more out of the training. At class we do Gracie Jujutsu for ground work. There are drills you learn to get off your back, flip you oppenent off of you, and sit on his chest. The goal of drill is to learn the technique, flow with your opponent, and feel what he is doing (timing, Aiki, Hapki). Well, the individuals I alert to earlier took non-compliance or adding a little 'resistance' to my techniques for realisim as meaning 'sparring'. What was supposed to be a simple drill turned into a brazilian jujutsu grappling match where I learn nothing because I didn't get to learn the technique. 
Thats why, from these experiences, I recommend training slowly, with intent (and low to medium resistence), to learn the techniques. Then, within the same day, your non-compliant training partner can go crazy with his non-compliance as you now have built an idea of at least what the technique looks like instead of your training partner making an *** of themselves, LOL. 

Also, I just wanted to say, that it is a good thing to disagree. It makes for a good discussion. But no matter the things we say to each other in the heat of the moment, lets all remember that this is just the internet, and the internet can get silly as it usually does, but at the end of the day we prove our worth by the sweat we leave behind in the dojo along with our anger, worries, anxiety, and fears. I'm greatful to everyone on this message board and on others, because I learn so much from you guys. The information I gleam from you is priceless. It makes me a better Hapkiodist and all around martial artist. And as corny as this sounds, I say this with love. 
Anyway, good thread we got goin' on here.

 - Brian


----------



## zDom

Doomx2001 said:


> You know, one of the biggest problems with forums is the very thing they thrive on: Language. ...



Wonderfully stated, Brian/Doom.

You paraphrased very well the points I was attempting to get across.

I do disagree with your timing, but as you pointed out: it is OK to disagree. In our system, the "learning" phase takes place over the first four to six years before resistance is regularly trained. I have no doubt many people will find that is way too long.

I on occasion resist a student or ask them to resist on a single or very few repetitions if I see they are not understanding the technique when I first show it to them &#8212; but after that I return to our traditional repetition without resistance to build smooth, correct technique.

(Sometimes I sneak in SOME resistance to build strength in their motions as they begin to show better movement )

I'm sure other schools are getting satisfactory results employing resistance immediately or much sooner, but what we do works so I don't see our training methods changing anytime soon in regards to this.


----------



## WaterGal

Interesting thread, but I'm not totally clear on what's meant by "non-compliant training" - are we talking about training drills where the receptive partner (the one getting thrown) is basically standing there but resisting the technique, full-blown sparring, or something in between?  (It sounds to me like maybe not everybody on here are even talking about the same thing.)

I do think that both are important.  If your partner doesn't resist at all, you're not going to learn the proper body mechanics, and of course sparring gives you a sense of how a real-life situation would go, which is totally different than drills.

As far as this thing with hip throws - they definitely are much, much harder to do on a moving opponent than a stationary one.  I don't think I've ever successfully done one in a sparring situation, though I've had more advanced opponents manage to get one on me a couple times so I know they're not totally useless.


----------



## WaterGal

iron_ox said:


> And I cannot speak for Aikido. But in Hapkido, using a strike or distraction as a function of doing a technique is unnecessary.  Since most fights don't really start from a wrist grab...but the techniques we do from them should not require a strike to make them work.  It is about proper mechanics, without them, adding a strike is useless.



I agree about using a strike merely as a distraction, especially if you don't know the body mechanics, but if you're doing it to actually injure I think it has it's place.  If the objective is to incapacitate the opponent, breaking their kneecap will certainly help you with that.


----------



## iron_ox

WaterGal said:


> Interesting thread, but I'm not totally clear on what's meant by "non-compliant training" - are we talking about training drills where the receptive partner (the one getting thrown) is basically standing there but resisting the technique, full-blown sparring, or something in between?  (It sounds to me like maybe not everybody on here are even talking about the same thing.)
> 
> I do think that both are important.  If your partner doesn't resist at all, you're not going to learn the proper body mechanics, and of course sparring gives you a sense of how a real-life situation would go, which is totally different than drills.
> 
> As far as this thing with hip throws - they definitely are much, much harder to do on a moving opponent than a stationary one.  I don't think I've ever successfully done one in a sparring situation, though I've had more advanced opponents manage to get one on me a couple times so I know they're not totally useless.



Hello,

I am speaking about starting by grabbing with full resistance, doing Hapkido training without actually applying full resistance is not really worthwhile.


----------



## iron_ox

WaterGal said:


> I agree about using a strike merely as a distraction, especially if you don't know the body mechanics, but if you're doing it to actually injure I think it has it's place.  If the objective is to incapacitate the opponent, breaking their kneecap will certainly help you with that.



In my opinion, a strike is a strike, not a distraction - if you don't understand the body mechanics, train until you do!  If, for whatever reason, you are grabbed in a fight, breaking an opponents knee is a bad idea as you will get dragged down.

Again, the point is that strikes are not necessary to make a technique work.


----------



## Dwi Chugi

iron_ox said:


> In my opinion, a strike is a strike, not a distraction - if you don't understand the body mechanics, train until you do!  If, for whatever reason, you are grabbed in a fight, breaking an opponents knee is a bad idea as you will get dragged down.



I call that "reaction dynamics". I try to get my higher gup and lower dan belts to understand that if you strike, know the direction in which your opponent is going to react. If the uke moves opposite of the way the naga wants them too, your Hapki technique will not work and you may off balance yourself in the process.


----------



## iron_ox

Dwi Chugi said:


> I call that "reaction dynamics". I try to get my higher gup and lower dan belts to understand that if you strike, know the direction in which your opponent is going to react. If the uke moves opposite of the way the naga wants them too, your Hapki technique will not work and you may off balance yourself in the process.



OK, but I am talking about what was referenced above which is having to use striking to make a technique work, I believe you are talking about a different idea.  In any case, the technique itself should be based on your opponents offense, and at that point his direction should be predetermined.


----------



## zDom

iron_ox said:


> I am speaking about starting by grabbing with full resistance, doing Hapkido training without actually applying full resistance is not really worthwhile.



Says you. We find our training methods work just fine and our hapkido to be quite worthwhile.

I understand how you could come to that conclusion as I have seen hapkido practiced that I don't believe would be effective if put to the test.

But you are making a sweeping generalization that I know to be untrue ("doing Hapkido training without actually applying full resistance is not really worthwhile").

The hapkido I train in has been put to the test since Day One and found to be very effective. So where does that leave your theory?





iron_ox said:


> In my opinion, a strike is a strike, not a distraction - if you don't understand the body mechanics, train until you do!  If, for whatever reason, you are grabbed in a fight, breaking an opponents knee is a bad idea as you will get dragged down.
> 
> Again, the point is that strikes are not necessary to make a technique work.



I agree that "a strike is a strike." Even for somebody who knows body mechanics, a strike can be useful in creating an opening for another technique.

In regards to breaking an attacker's knee: breaking a knee is harder than some people think it is to pull off. But then, I don't think that breaking a knee automatically ensures you would be "dragged down" either.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? How does a knee break as a response result in always being taken down? I can see that it might be a possibility depending on the circumstances, but that isn't what you've written: "you will get dragged down" indicates this is the only possible outcome of responding with successful knee break.




iron_ox said:


> OK, but I am talking about what was referenced above which is having to use striking to make a technique work, I believe you are talking about a different idea.  In any case, the technique itself should be based on your opponents offense, and at that point his direction should be predetermined.



Does your branch of hapkido only include responses to attacks, no ability to launch an attack?

Sogor, I don't know if your hapkido is as good as you think it is, but I am sure of two things:

1) There is plenty of good hapkido out there that uses training methods you are insisting results in hapkido that is not "worthwhile";

2) As you come across to me as someone who thinks they are the only one who understands hapkido, it seems to me that you either lack communication skills or critical thinking skills if you honestly think other hapkido practitioners are so ignorant about hapkido.


----------



## Dwi Chugi

iron_ox said:


> OK, but I am talking about what was referenced above which is having to use striking to make a technique work, I believe you are talking about a different idea.  In any case, the technique itself should be based on your opponents offense, and at that point his direction should be predetermined.



I think we are talking about the same thing but maybenot. I basically was saying because I understand Reaction Dynamics, if Ideliver a strike to the solar-plexus and they bend over from the strike andtheir energy is moving at a downward motion then a hip throw or an outer wristthrow would be out.  I would be betteroff kneeing them in the face or pulling them forward or elbowing them in theback of the neck because that is exposed. 
I see all too often, people strike to the center of theirattacker to off balance them and try to get them to go the totally oppositedirection that they would fall.  

I personally do not off balance people with strikes.  I off balance them with my body movement.  I do not discredit anyones Hapkido that does.  It is just not my flavor of the art. 
Just my take on it. Like I said, perhaps we are talking about two different things.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

iron_ox said:


> Non-compliant training is very important ...


It's confusion to use the term "non-compliant training". It's better to call it "compiliant training" and "non-compliiant testing".

If you want your training partner to help you to develop your "hip throw", the moment that you touch him, the moment that he sinks down, there is no way that you can develop your "hip throw" by using him as your training partner.

When you 

- "train", your opponent wants to "help" you as much as possible.
- "test", your opponent wants to "fight/resist" you as much as possible.

Does this make sense?


----------



## Dwi Chugi

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's confusion to use the term "non-compliant training". It's better to call it "compiliant training" and "non-compliiant testing".
> 
> If you want your training partner to help you to develop your "hip throw", the moment that you touch him, the moment that he sinks down, there is no way that you can develop your "hip throw" by using him as your training partner.
> 
> When you
> 
> - "train", your opponent wants to "help" you as much as possible.
> - "test", your opponent wants to "fight/resist" you as much as possible.
> 
> Does this make sense?



For me, YES.  That is how we train.  Also, we do drills simular to zDoms video to create "MUSHIN" or "NO MIND" so the techniques just happens without us thinking about it.  If you have to think to do a technique, then it most likely be countered.  Most of my best defenses just happen without me thinking about it.

I believe in going with a technique to get the movement down.  I also beleive in "non-compliiant testing".  That is why I travel to other styles that spar like BJJ or Judo schools and try to use my Hapkido.  They really try to resist because who wants to get thrown by someone in Hapkido?  

My point earlier about not downing eacher was made because hapkido has a bad reputation with some of the other arts out there.  I agree with both Iron_Ox and Zdom.  There are some schools of Hapkido that don't get what Choi was teaching but as Zdom stated, there are a lot of great HAPKIDO out there.  I like to think, even though I train in other systems and my Grandmaster only reached 6th Dan under Grandmaster Choi, my Hapkido is among the best.  I would also like to say that there are probably a lot of guys and girls that have some top notch Hapkido just as good as mine on this site as well.  

Just my two cents.


----------



## WaterGal

iron_ox said:


> In my opinion, a strike is a strike, not a distraction - if you don't understand the body mechanics, train until you do!  If, for whatever reason, you are grabbed in a fight, breaking an opponents knee is a bad idea as you will get dragged down.
> 
> Again, the point is that strikes are not necessary to make a technique work.



But then, when you've got control of your attacker, what would you do?  Are you going to keep them in a hold forever?  I'd want to make sure I can walk away without them following me.

I think maybe we're not quite talking about the same thing?  If you mean that you shouldn't need to strike to be able to move somebody into an arm bar or wrist lock, I do agree with that.  I just think that a strike can supplement the technique, or be another way of dealing with the situation.


----------



## iron_ox

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's confusion to use the term "non-compliant training". It's better to call it "compiliant training" and "non-compliiant testing".
> 
> If you want your training partner to help you to develop your "hip throw", the moment that you touch him, the moment that he sinks down, there is no way that you can develop your "hip throw" by using him as your training partner.
> 
> When you
> 
> - "train", your opponent wants to "help" you as much as possible.
> - "test", your opponent wants to "fight/resist" you as much as possible.
> 
> Does this make sense?



I understand what you are saying, but I am referring specifically to non-compliant training...that is a help in the development of the technique to work under real world conditions.


----------



## iron_ox

WaterGal said:


> But then, when you've got control of your attacker, what would you do?  Are you going to keep them in a hold forever?  I'd want to make sure I can walk away without them following me.
> 
> I think maybe we're not quite talking about the same thing?  If you mean that you shouldn't need to strike to be able to move somebody into an arm bar or wrist lock, I do agree with that.  I just think that a strike can supplement the technique, or be another way of dealing with the situation.



Holds are mostly for training in the dojang, i prefer to finish with breaks...tends to end confrontation faster.

I was referring to the specific practice of the "deception strike"  - it is unneeded with proper body mechanics.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

iron_ox said:


> I am referring specifically to non-compliant training...that is a help in the development of the technique to work under real world conditions.



Could you give some examples about "non-compliant training"?

Here are my examples of "non-compliant training".

You try to:

- punch me but I keep running away from you (non-compliant). 
- throw me, I fall down myself (non-compliant) and drag you down with me. 

My non-compliant respond won't be able to help you to develop any striking skill or throwing skill. I must miss something here.


----------



## Dwi Chugi

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - punch me but I keep running away from you (non-compliant).
> - throw me, I fall down myself (non-compliant) and drag you down with me.



I only teach attacks to my students so they can be used in as Uke's in class.  I teach attacking as a Hoshinsool Technique.  In my humble opinion, if the attacker does not attack you, he is not an attacker and there for no need to defend. 

The 2nd point is very valid.  A BJJ player will do just that.  If you do not know the correct counter to this the BJJ guy will get you on the ground and do bad things to you.  

At the BJJ schools I have attended, I have been off my feet only once the last 10 years and that was from a collage wrestler that was visting.  I finished the match with an arm bar.  Other than him, no one has taken me off my feet so they can not work their BJJ ground magic.  Now, the instructor will make us start on the ground and then after purple belt level I am owned, if we are playing by rules.  

Just my two cents.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Dwi Chugi said:


> if the attacker does not attack you, he is not an attacker and there for no need to defend.
> 
> The 2nd point is very valid.  A BJJ player will do just that.


So your example is your opponent tries to attack you and you respond to it. Do you get that from your sparring anyway?

When your opponent drags you down, you are training your "ground" skill. You are not training your "throwing" skill. You can't develop your throwing skill if your opponent refuses to stand on his feet. If your opponent stands on his feet, by definition, his is not "non-complient".

On the other hand, if you want to train your ground skill and when you use "jump guard", your opponent stands on his feet and holds your body up in the air, he is not helping you to train your ground skill either.

To me the word "non-compliant" is "don't give your opponent any chance". It's more than "resist". This is why I think the word "non-compliant" is not proper to use in "training".


----------



## jks9199

Hey, everybody...  Let's try to keep things friendly, OK?


----------



## iron_ox

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Could you give some examples about "non-compliant training"?
> 
> Here are my examples of "non-compliant training".
> 
> You try to:
> 
> - punch me but I keep running away from you (non-compliant).
> - throw me, I fall down myself (non-compliant) and drag you down with me.
> 
> My non-compliant respond won't be able to help you to develop any striking skill or throwing skill. I must miss something here.



In Hapkido, much of the early training relates to grabs from an opponent, so a simple example of non-compliant training is the grab being done with force, and purpose, not just like holding hands. Is that more understandable?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

jks9199 said:


> Hey, everybody...  Let's try to keep things friendly, OK?



Are you talking to me? I just try to understand the definition of ""non-compliant training". I understand "non-compliant" and "training", but I have problem to understand "non-compliant training". Examples will be the best communication tool.


----------



## iron_ox

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Are you talking to me? I just try to understand the definition of ""non-compliant training". I understand "non-compliant" and "training", but I have problem to understand "non-compliant training". Examples will be the best communication tool.



No, you were not being addressed.

Did my example make sense to you?  Many "Hapkido" schools use loose grabbing, and jumping into throws....which is contradictory to the development of the techniques.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

iron_ox said:


> In Hapkido, much of the early training relates to grabs from an opponent, so a simple example of non-compliant training is the grab being done with force, and purpose, not just like holding hands. Is that more understandable?


Thanks for the example. I think I start to get some idea now.

So you are talking about the amount of force that your training partner should apply to you. If the grabbing is pre-defined, I will still call it "compliant". Should the amout of force be suitable to your training partner instead? If you have a pair of monster grips and your opponent is a beginner, since he can't break your grip, he won't be able to train the follow up technique. Your monster grib may only  help him to develop strength but not technique.


----------



## jks9199

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Are you talking to me? I just try to understand the definition of ""non-compliant training". I understand "non-compliant" and "training", but I have problem to understand "non-compliant training". Examples will be the best communication tool.



No single person was addressed.  We try to use the least moderation possible here at MT, so often friendly general reminders show up when we think a problem is starting.  Kind of like putting out a forest fire by making sure the match is out rather than waiting for the whole forest to go up...  These are generally unsigned, kind of vague statements, broadly addressed.  Formal warning are generally indicated by headings like "ATTENTION ALL USERS" and are signed by the staff member.


----------



## Josh Oakley

At least from the fights I am getting into in my job, a little bit of non compliance helps, but as long as the techniques are sound, and you execute them as they are supposed to be, you're good.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

I agree that your training partner should increase power when you are ready. I don't agree that your opponent should do so when you are not ready for it.


----------



## zDom

iron_ox said:


> No, you were not being addressed.
> 
> Did my example make sense to you?  Many "Hapkido" schools use loose grabbing, and jumping into throws....which is contradictory to the development of the techniques.




I too have seen that type of "hapkido." But that is just bad practitioners or bad instructors.



When a new student shows up on the mat, and is shown a technique, I hope he grabs hard and resists: it always makes the technique MORE effective.

But then when I show it to him, I grip firmly (not rigidly with all my strength) but allow him to make the movements with no resistance so he moves in correct motion. At times when I see him doing something wrong, resisting some can show him how it won't work. But then I relax somewhat to allow him to get repetitions without using strength to wrestle with me &#8212; which will inevitably throw off the correct motion unless it is already well-trained.

Later we have techniques we practice against full resistance: my instructor said he wants to see our wrists hairless because the gripping has worn it away. And it HURTS to be the guy grabbing hard. Much worse than standing around with a firm, relaxed grip. And &#8212; I don't trust beginning belts to do wrist techniques against my resistance: they don't have the "feel" for the technique to realize when they have overcome resistance and stop the motion before it becomes an injury.



Now regarding jumping into throws:

There is one technique we jump to unwind a twisted wrist. I've seen these included in many branches of hapkido. We know it won't make anybody fly through the air. But when I'm doing it, them jumping and breakfalling allows me to crank the wrist-twisting motion further, pull their weight harder.


With throws that REALLY take people off a foot or both feet so they fall into the ground, when I have a new, weaker student I might jump into the throw a bit to make myself lighter (progressive resistance training works, as weightlifters know)

and to make sure I don't get lawn-darted into the mat! New student often can get me up just far enough to drop me on my head/shoulder, sometimes collapse under my weight.

For a more experienced student, however, I might lower my center of gravity, lean back, tighten up to make me heavier, them work hard for it and build strength &#8212; but I am not going to squirm in the air to avoid a good breakfall landing like they do in judo competition to deprive opponent of a point. Instead, I am going to "fall"  and attack the mat with a good breakfall position. I'll probably start that thought process as soon as my feet are off the mat &#8212; so I'm not "jumping" at all &#8212; I'm just tucking my head to protect my head and neck and chambering/striking the mat with my hand and feet.

If a technique is going to jerk my feet off balance to face plant me, if it can be managed I'll flip and breakfall to my back. Front falls with my hips and feet above me driving my head and shoulders into the mat are no fun. We know attackers aren't going to do that and make that point clear on each of the throws. Even with a hip or shoulder throw, they probably aren't going to come down on their back, but will starfish their arms and legs out and tumble-crumple into the ground. Ouch.

And then there are a few throws in which the technique locks the elbow out. If you wait for the elbow to lock out and the throw to move you without committing your balance or even jumping ahead of it, it can be super painful and an injury risk.

What does it profit us to train a martial art to protect ourself from injury from attackers if we injure ourselves regularly training?


Finally, if my falling skill is being tested or I am being being thrown repeatedly so a thrower can get full throw reps, I am not jumping &#8212; but I am relaxing until the moment before impact (when I "attack" the mat).

Getting thrown 20 times in 30 seconds like that is exhausting enough, a high-intensity exercise.

Trying to resist 20 throws would be SUPER high intensity exercise.


----------



## iron_ox

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I agree that your training partner should increase power when you are ready. I don't agree t. t your opponent should do so when you are not ready for it.




The point is that Choi . Dojunim's Hapkido is designed to be taught, and learned with non-compliant, or strong, opponents. The techniques are designed to be learned in as close to real world circumstances as possible.  

The importance of this training ensures that even from early training, students have a good idea of real world conflicts.


----------



## Doomx2001

iron_ox said:


> The point is that Choi . Dojunim's Hapkido is designed to be taught, and learned with non-compliant, or strong, opponents. The techniques are designed to be learned in as close to real world circumstances as possible.
> 
> The importance of this training ensures that even from early training, students have a good idea of real world conflicts.



Are there any videos online that illustrate that point? You guys might be talking about the same thing, then again, maybe different altogether. I think a video would help clarify a few things.


----------



## WC_lun

I don't think anyone is advocating that a beginning student comes in and is immediately exposed to fully resisting training partners.  That silly as well as dangerous.  It IS a process. However, in that process, if a person is not exposed to the "huh oh" moment of when something doesn't work they will be at a disadvantage if it happens.  There is also no training tool that can simulate getting thrown, punched, kicked, or grappled by someone who is serious about doing those things to you. None.  So eventually a student must experience what that is like to train to have confidence in his skills and the validity of what he has been taught.

It has been my experience that students lose all confidence in thier skills the first time they are involved with real violence.  That isn't an attack on thier chosen system, but rather one of many real human responses to violence.   For example, you do not want a student feeling what it is like to really be punched at for the first time if it is against someone that is really trying to do him violence.  There are so many other things they must deal with at that moment in time no matter how advanced a martial artist they are; fear, pain, adrenaline, suprise, etc, not to mention the actual situational stuff.  If a student has had serious punches directed them, it is something that they are used to and it becomes a non issue.  They have seen it before and know they can address it.  Then thier trained in reactions will kick in.

Fully resisting opponent's does NOT mean saying, "Hey Bill, grab my wrist as hard as you can and I'm gonna see if XXX technique works."  That is unrealistic and being caught in the training matrix.  The "uke" will already know what should be done and will set up roadblocks to keep that from happening before any contact has even happened. It doesn't neccesarily mean %100 force either.  Sometimes a student is not ready for that kind of exchange.  It means training in a manner that reflects reality as close as we can safely, with training partners that have that same goal.  It is not something that should be applied until a student is skilled enough that a teacher has confidence he will not be hurt.

Remember, all martial arts is about applied violence, either to the student and/or by the student. One of any self defense teacher's goals should be to have his students as well prepared as possible for that eventuality.  How can any student be prepared if thier first experience with what "applied violence" means is if they are attacked?


----------



## Dwi Chugi

Kung Fu Wang said:


> So your example is your opponent tries to attack you and you respond to it. Do you get that from your sparring anyway?
> 
> When your opponent drags you down, you are training your "ground" skill. You are not training your "throwing" skill. You can't develop your throwing skill if your opponent refuses to stand on his feet. If your opponent stands on his feet, by definition, his is not "non-complient".
> 
> On the other hand, if you want to train your ground skill and when you use "jump guard", your opponent stands on his feet and holds your body up in the air, he is not helping you to train your ground skill either.
> 
> To me the word "non-compliant" is "don't give your opponent any chance". It's more than "resist". This is why I think the word "non-compliant" is not proper to use in "training".



If an attacker strikes at me, yes, I willrespond to it. Do I get that from sparring? Not as much as if we do line orcircle attacks where the other Hapkido-in attack me, the way I would mostlikely be attacked on the street. When I "spar" at my dojang, most ofthe people I spar with calculate their attacks. There are checks and such. Theattacks are not as much "one punch kills" or "wide swings"as a street fight might be.

When I am at the BJJ school, there are plenty of guys that know my throwingskills and know they want me on the ground so they will just sit down. We do 5minute rounds so I will just walk, just outside their reach, so they cannotdrag me down. Basically, I stand about three feet from them and since I canwalk faster than they can slide, it is not an issue. Well, not until theinstructor or another higher ranking belt reminds me that I am there to learngrappling. I usually rebuttal with "I have never seen a street fight startwith someone sitting down". Seriously though, if I was in a situation onthe street and the guy just sat down, I would just walk away.

As far as being dragged down, it has never happened to me. Because of myHapkido, my balance is hard to break. I usually can out step them and break whateverhold they have. 

I do not use jump guard. I am 265 pounds and 6'5" tall. I have learned thejump guard but it is not something I would personally use on the street or onthe mat and unless the guy is my size or bigger I am not throwing it because hewill come crashing down on top of me. Also, I am a Hapkido-in first and formost. I would not use jump guard for the same reason I would not just punch orkick someone, its an attack. 

For the most part, I agree with not giving your attacker a chance to strike orgrab. There are so many Hapkido schools that play the "grab my wrist, nomy other wrist" or "grab my lapel, no the other side". One thing we practice is dont let them grabyour wrist or lapel in the first place. Then we will play the grab my wristgame just in case it does happen.
I hope I answered the questions you had. I sometimes ramble. LOL. If somethingis not clear I will be more than happy to try to clear it up.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Old saying said, "You can teach someone some skill. You can also take his skill back." One of your students is good enough to use his skill to beat up other students. Oneday you find out that he is a bad person. You intend to take his skill back. How will you do that?

- You tell him that he is too good to train with other students. he needs to train direct with you (isolate him away from others by giving him some ego mind).
- When you spar with him, you use defense and counter to make all his skill fail (destroy his self-confidence).
- After a year that all his skill fails on you, you then tell him to go back to train with others (release his freedom).
- Since his skill has not worked for over a year, his skill now won't even work on other students.
- His skill may never work for the rest of his life.

This example point out that it's not a good idea to seriously destroy someone's self-confidence. The 'non-compliant training" could destroy "self-confidence" big time if "overused".


----------



## iron_ox

IN Hapkido, the techniques are designed to be taught using real grips from day one.  It has nothing to do with losing self confidence, it has nothing to do with building up to it, the styles founder Choi Yong Sul Dojunim taught the techniques that same way, the art is meant to give people realism to a degree from day one.

There is a video demo under the video section here showing non-compliant - or at full grip...it is virtually impossible to tell from a video, but in technhical terms when the techniques are not applied with full resistance, they do not work well at all!!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

There is always another approach.

- Beat up all kids in grade school.
- Beat up all young boys in junior high.
- Beat up all young guys in senior high.

Now you have developed some dependable skills.

The strength cannot be developed overnight. It takes time. It may be better to use your hip throw on some 180 lb before you try it on some one with 250 lb weight.


----------



## iron_ox

WC_lun said:


> I don't think anyone is advocating that a beginning student comes in and is immediately exposed to fully resisting training partners.  That silly as well as dangerous.  It IS a process. However, in that process, if a person is not exposed to the "huh oh" moment of when something doesn't work they will be at a disadvantage if it happens.  There is also no training tool that can simulate getting thrown, punched, kicked, or grappled by someone who is serious about doing those things to you. None.  So eventually a student must experience what that is like to train to have confidence in his skills and the validity of what he has been taught.



In Hapkido as taught by its Founder, we start from day one with full resistance...



WC_lun said:


> It has been my experience that students lose all confidence in thier skills the first time they are involved with real violence.  That isn't an attack on thier chosen system, but rather one of many real human responses to violence.   For example, you do not want a student feeling what it is like to really be punched at for the first time if it is against someone that is really trying to do him violence.  There are so many other things they must deal with at that moment in time no matter how advanced a martial artist they are; fear, pain, adrenaline, suprise, etc, not to mention the actual situational stuff.  If a student has had serious punches directed them, it is something that they are used to and it becomes a non issue.  They have seen it before and know they can address it.  Then thier trained in reactions will kick in.



Agreed, this has much to do with how someone is trained...not system related



WC_lun said:


> Fully resisting opponent's does NOT mean saying, "Hey Bill, grab my wrist as hard as you can and I'm gonna see if XXX technique works."  That is unrealistic and being caught in the training matrix.  The "uke" will already know what should be done and will set up roadblocks to keep that from happening before any contact has even happened. It doesn't neccesarily mean %100 force either.  Sometimes a student is not ready for that kind of exchange.  It means training in a manner that reflects reality as close as we can safely, with training partners that have that same goal.  It is not something that should be applied until a student is skilled enough that a teacher has confidence he will not be hurt.



In Hapkido, it totally does....grab me as hjard as you can and I can make the material work...without effort...



WC_lun said:


> Remember, all martial arts is about applied violence, either to the student and/or by the student. One of any self defense teacher's goals should be to have his students as well prepared as possible for that eventuality.  How can any student be prepared if thier first experience with what "applied violence" means is if they are attacked?



Good point, but this is down to how someone is taught...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

iron_ox said:


> grab me as hjard as you can and I can make the material work...without effort...


As long as you twist your arm against your opponent's thumb instead of against the other 4 fingers, his monster grip may not work that well. It's the correct technique (turn your hand in the right direction) that matter and not the amount of force (unless you try to develop grip strength in training).

IMO, to find the right key to open the right lock is much more important than to fight against extra force. Sometime the harder that you grab, the harder that your opponent may hurt your grib when he twists his arm in fast speed.

If your opponent's right hand grabs on your right wrist, You use your left hand to grab on his right forearm, You then drop your right elbow toward him downward against his thumb with fast speed along with your body weight. the harder that he holds on, the more it may hurt his right thumb. Sometime it's not a good idea to hold on too tight even in training.


----------



## iron_ox

Kung Fu Wang said:


> As long as you twist your arm against your opponent's thumb instead of against the other 4 fingers, his monster grip may not work that well. It's the correct technique (turn your hand in the right direction) that matter and not the amount of force (unless you try to develop grip strength in training).
> 
> IMO, to find the right key to open the right lock is much more important than to fight against extra force. Sometime the harder that you grab, the harder that your opponent may hurt your grib when he twists his arm in fast speed.
> 
> If your opponent's right hand grabs on your right wrist, You use your left hand to grab on his right forearm, You then drop your right elbow toward him downward against his thumb with fast speed along with your body weight. the harder that he holds on, the more it may hurt his right thumb. Sometime it's not a good idea to hold on too tight even in training.



The point is that the techniques are designed to be done from these grabs.....and yes, one must learn when the better part of protecting your own hands.  Good point.


----------



## iron_ox

Kung Fu Wang said:


> As long as you twist your arm against your opponent's thumb instead of against the other 4 fingers, his monster grip may not work that well. It's the correct technique (turn your hand in the right direction) that matter and not the amount of force (unless you try to develop grip strength in training).
> 
> IMO, to find the right key to open the right lock is much more important than to fight against extra force. Sometime the harder that you grab, the harder that your opponent may hurt your grib when he twists his arm in fast speed.
> 
> If your opponent's right hand grabs on your right wrist, You use your left hand to grab on his right forearm, You then drop your right elbow toward him downward against his thumb with fast speed along with your body weight. the harder that he holds on, the more it may hurt his right thumb. Sometime it's not a good idea to hold on too tight even in training.



I should add that non-compliance comes with direction, and purpose - so the grabs are all different and should have a different defense...the reason to have a variety of techniques has greatly to do with the type of attack, what is its purpose, the direction of the energy, the type of grab.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

If you want tp apply your locking skill, it's better to grab your opponent first instead of to wait for your opponent to grab you. In combat, it's very unlikely that your opponent will grab you. But you can grab on your opponent anytime with any amount of force you want to. You may not be able to apply certain wrist locks on your opponent, but you can apply all your elbow locks and shoulder locks. This way, you don't have any dependency. You can apply your skill whenever you are ready. I'll call this more aggressive training method. It's better to ask a girl for a date than to wait for her to ask you for a date.


----------



## iron_ox

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you want tp apply your locking skill, it's better to grab your opponent first instead of to wait for your opponent to grab you. In combat, it's very unlikely that your opponent will grab you. But you can grab on your opponent anytime with any amount of force you want to. You may not be able to apply certain wrist locks on your opponent, but you can apply all your elbow locks and shoulder locks. This way, you don't have any dependency. You can apply your skill whenever you are ready. I'll call this more aggressive training method. It's better to ask a girl for a date than to wait for her to ask you for a date.



I'm not sure how this applies to using non-compliant training methods in Hapkido.  Sounds like interesting drilling for techniques.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

iron_ox said:


> I'm not sure how this applies to using non-compliant training methods in Hapkido.  Sounds like interesting drilling for techniques.


If your opponent just

- sticks his arm out for you to grab it, there is no "non-compliant" there.
- moves around and won't let you to touch his arms. there is some "non-compliant" there.
- tries to knock your head off, there is maximum"non-compliant" there.

Your challenge will be "how to get that arm grab". Always assume that a locking has to start from "your opponent grabs on you first" may not be logical.

Examples such as: Right hand grab on your opponent's right wrist, left hand 

- press on the back of his right palm with a wrist lock.
- bend his left elbow joint and take him down with an elbow lock.
- grab on his left elbow and take him down with a shoulder lock.
- ...

None of these locks requires your opponent has to grab on you to start with.


----------



## iron_ox

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If your opponent just
> 
> - sticks his arm out for you to grab it, there is no "non-compliant" there.
> - moves around and won't let you to touch his arms. there is some "non-compliant" there.
> - tries to knock your head off, there is maximum"non-compliant" there.
> 
> Your challenge will be "how to get that arm grab". Always assume that a locking has to start from "your opponent grabs on you first" may not be logical.
> 
> Examples such as: Right hand grab on your opponent's right wrist, left hand
> 
> - press on the back of his right palm with a wrist lock.
> - bend his left elbow joint and take him down with an elbow lock.
> - grab on his left elbow and take him down with a shoulder lock.
> - ...
> 
> None of these locks requires your opponent has to grab on you to start with.



Sir, I think you are either not understanding what is being discussed, or simply trying to derail the thread.

In Hapkido, we use grabs from a non-compliant training partner for the practice of technique.  Does that make sense to you?  It has nothing to do with the examples you have listed.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

iron_ox said:


> In Hapkido, we use grabs from a non-compliant training partner for the practice of technique.



Could you give an example?


----------



## iron_ox

Right wrist being grabbed by training partners left hand. One of the most basic.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

iron_ox said:


> Right wrist being grabbed by training partners left hand. One of the most basic.



The question then, is what makes the training partner "non-compliant"?

Do you mean that the training partner just grabs the wrist and holds on tightly while holding the arm rigid? That might be "non-compliant" in a sense, but it doesn't have much in common with a real attack or the sorts of non-compliance that an adversary might present in a real attack.

Firstly, if someone grabs your wrist in a real attack, they're doing it for a reason - to pull you off balance or to put you in a hammerlock or to clear your hand out of the way while they deliver some other striking or grappling attack. All of those present a very different energy from grabbing and standing there rigidly.

Secondly, the non-compliance an attacker will give to your technique in real life is highly unlikely to consist of just holding on tight and squeezing. Real life non-compliance might consist of 
a) hitting you while you're in the middle of your technique
b) yanking you off balance as you try to start your technique
c) readjusting his own stance and balance if your technique relies on pulling him off balance
d) readjusting his position if your technique relies on controlling the distance and angle between your bodies
e) releasing his grab if you start to put his limb at an unfavorable angle and immediately re-grabbing with the same hand or the other hand
f) using his free hand to block your free hand from aiding in your technique
g) using his free hand to break your grips as you try to wristlock his original attacking hand
h) using the arm he grabbed to pull you into a headlock and then run you headfirst into a wall
i) some combination of any or all of the above
j) etcetera

To be clear, I'm not advocating that your training partner do any of these while you work on drilling your technique. In order to build skill you need to drill for lots of reps and you won't get those if your partner is trying to counter you the whole way. I am saying that these are much more typical of real non-compliance by an actual adversary and that they present a very different sort of energy than someone who just grabs and stands there rigidly while holding on for dear life. 

So, returning to my original question - if you say that you are training with a non-compliant partner, what exactly do you mean by "non-compliant"?


----------



## iron_ox

Tony Dismukes said:


> The question then, is what makes the training partner "non-compliant"?
> 
> Do you mean that the training partner just grabs the wrist and holds on tightly while holding the arm rigid? That might be "non-compliant" in a sense, but it doesn't have much in common with a real attack or the sorts of non-compliance that an adversary might present in a real attack.
> 
> Firstly, if someone grabs your wrist in a real attack, they're doing it for a reason - to pull you off balance or to put you in a hammerlock or to clear your hand out of the way while they deliver some other striking or grappling attack. All of those present a very different energy from grabbing and standing there rigidly.
> 
> Secondly, the non-compliance an attacker will give to your technique in real life is highly unlikely to consist of just holding on tight and squeezing. Real life non-compliance might consist of
> a) hitting you while you're in the middle of your technique
> b) yanking you off balance as you try to start your technique
> c) readjusting his own stance and balance if your technique relies on pulling him off balance
> d) readjusting his position if your technique relies on controlling the distance and angle between your bodies
> e) releasing his grab if you start to put his limb at an unfavorable angle and immediately re-grabbing with the same hand or the other hand
> f) using his free hand to block your free hand from aiding in your technique
> g) using his free hand to break your grips as you try to wristlock his original attacking hand
> h) using the arm he grabbed to pull you into a headlock and then run you headfirst into a wall
> i) some combination of any or all of the above
> j) etcetera
> 
> To be clear, I'm not advocating that your training partner do any of these while you work on drilling your technique. In order to build skill you need to drill for lots of reps and you won't get those if your partner is trying to counter you the whole way. I am saying that these are much more typical of real non-compliance by an actual adversary and that they present a very different sort of energy than someone who just grabs and stands there rigidly while holding on for dear life.
> 
> So, returning to my original question - if you say that you are training with a non-compliant partner, what exactly do you mean by "non-compliant"?



Yes, and yes, sometimes.  Non-compliance, in that example I gave is holding tightly with strong grip and rigid arm.  As one progresses, it is also included that one would see many of the things you describe as well in training, except the headlock into the wall...

So for starters, it is a strong grip, with a body position that gives direction and purpose to the grab.  Then one can add elements of attempted off balancing, striking, whatever.

Good post Tony.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

iron_ox said:


> Right wrist being grabbed by training partners left hand. One of the most basic.



Can you start your training by using your right hand to grab on your opponent's left wrist instead?

- You can do this anytime you want to. The starting time is controlled by you and not by your opponent.
- You can grab him as hard as you want to.
- When you apply your locking skill (either wrist lock or elbow lock), your opponent can resist anyway he wants to. This will force you to change your locking from one to another.

Just image that you are a cop and try to take your opponent down. Your mind should be, "You don't grab me. I'll grab you."


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> grabs the wrist and holds on tightly ...



Agree with you 100% there. If your opponent does this to you, he can only help you to develop strong grip. He is still a "compliant" opponent. Again, if you twist your right hand to against his thumb instead of his other 4 fingers, his strong grip will still be meaningless.


----------



## Instructor

In our Hapkido we spend time doing same side wrist grabs then cross side and on and on till we've essentially been grabbed from every possible direction and vector.  We realize that getting grabbed in this manner is generally not what happens in combat, rather it's simply a place to begin to develop certain joint manipulations from various different directions.  The goal being able to apply all basic locks from any given direction.

Non compliance is simply the uke not making it easy for you.  It's basically resistence training.

Randomization comes not from our grabbing drills but light to medium contact sparring which generally is a combination of striking and grappling.


----------



## Chris from CT

iron_ox said:


> You are welcome to come to Chicago anytime you wish do try some training with us, you would be more than welcome!!  Although I do have a few emerging clubs scattered across the US, one in Davenport IA, New Orleans, Philly, a training group of mine in Connecticut, and a few others....



Where is your training group in Connecticut? I didn't know you had someone in my neck of the woods. I would love to get together with them.

Talk to you soon.
Chris


----------



## wingchun100

Absolutely. I'm so sick of all the videos out there by "experts" who have partners that cooperate with them. I mean, okay yes cooperate at first so the technique can be demonstrated...but after that, be difficult!


----------



## oftheherd1

wingchun100 said:


> Absolutely. I'm so sick of all the videos out there by "experts" who have partners that cooperate with them. I mean, okay yes cooperate at first so the technique can be demonstrated...but after that, be difficult!



I think you might find that the problem is that with Hapkido, and I would assume other grappling arts as well, if you don't know where to go and get there quickly, something is likely to be broken or dislocated.  If you continue to break or dislocate training partners appendages, you will rapidly thin down the ranks of those willing to be training partners.  And there is the point that a training partner needs to have an idea how to react to a technique as a defense for him as well.


----------



## wingchun100

oftheherd1 said:


> I think you might find that the problem is that with Hapkido, and I would assume other grappling arts as well, if you don't know where to go and get there quickly, something is likely to be broken or dislocated.  If you continue to break or dislocate training partners appendages, you will rapidly thin down the ranks of those willing to be training partners.  And there is the point that a training partner needs to have an idea how to react to a technique as a defense for him as well.



Maybe so but if you are trying to make a video to show how effective your art is, you won't get there with cooperative partners.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

The words of "non-compliant opponent" can be mis-leading.

If your opponent always runs away from you (non-compliant), even if you are Muhammad Ali, you can not hit him. A running away opponent will not be able to help you to develop any MA skill.


----------



## K-man

wingchun100 said:


> Maybe so but if you are trying to make a video to show how effective your art is, you won't get there with cooperative partners.


So to make a video showing how effective  your MA is you need to go out and pick a fight? If your art is any good it will be a very short video.


----------



## K-man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The words of "non-compliant opponent" can be mis-leading.
> 
> If your opponent always runs away from you (non-compliant), even if you are Muhammad Ali, you can not hit him. A running away opponent will not be able to help you to develop any MA skill.


Unless your style is for sport I would suggest what you have here is the optimal outcome. 
:asian:


----------



## DennisBreene

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The words of "non-compliant opponent" can be mis-leading.
> 
> If your opponent always runs away from you (non-compliant), even if you are Muhammad Ali, you can not hit him. A running away opponent will not be able to help you to develop any MA skill.



In training, there is some validity to this argument.  Not so much in running away, but in not being forceful at all. As in a weak grab that breaks or is released well before the student has a chance to practice the full technique.  If the uke does not understand what is required in the technique he or she may not provide any resistance. This is every bit as destructive to training the technique as too much resistance may be initially. Once the basic technique is being done with skill then adding elements of resistance and counter techniques is helpful as Tony described.  We accomplish this with various flow drills where I train. For instance going from an arm bar, to an arm bar counter, to the counter to that technique.  Partner training requires skills in the technique and cooperation for mutual training and safety.  Like most of what we train in martial arts, the theoretical destruction can't be practiced to the full extension of the technique.  Unless we revert to feudal customs, no one has the opportunity to just grab a random victim and try a technique on them to see how well it works.  The effort, and the argument, is continually about how to simulate reality at a reasonable level. I appreciate some of the suggestions made here that may assist in improving my techniques.


----------



## Raymond

This an older thread, but just my thoughts.  Fully compliant training is good for the beginner, white/yellow belt (or whatever your dojang uses for lower grades).  When learning techniques for the first time, you must train with a compliant partner in order to present a controlled environment for you to feel and understand the movements and mechanics.  It is also important for the compliant partner at beginner levels so that they can feel and understand where pain, off balancing, control and so on are at each point of a movement or technique.

As you advance through the gup ranks, then resistance from the partner should be employed gradually up the ranks.  NEW techniques at each rank can be practiced with compliance, but older, lower rank techniques can begin having resistance (in a safe manner as to not cause injury unnecessarily).  So that by 1st dan and up you can perform beginning gup rank techniques on fully resisting opponent's and able to flow or change from technique to technique based on the resistance (can I not get an armbar, then can I get the shoulder lock?  If I can't get the shoulder lock, can I flow into the wrist lock etc).


----------

