# Mixing arts - is this wrong?



## TigerLove (Feb 25, 2010)

Hi everybody!

What's up? 

I have a question..

I train Hapkido and Taekwondo. I train Taekwondo as it is, since Tkd have extremely defined curicullum. I trained Hapkido also as it is (if art like Hapkido can have fully defined curriculum).

Not so long ago, i started to pull some moves from other arts, and practiced them to make them part of my Hapkido knowledge.

Usually, word is about mixing some move from other art with Hapkido move. 

Example, i throw someone by the tehnique my Hapkido teacher learned me, and then instead of classic Hapkido joint lock and move, i finish it with arm bar from Jiu - Jitsu.

Or, we have the very basic defense from wrist grab. From here we do kicks, spins, throws, escapes, or mix it all together. But, i ''invented'' new move from that position, i mixed it with scissor takedown from Samba.

Further, since i trained Ninjutsu sometime, i also use some tehniques from that art, because many of them have the same principles from as tehniques in Hapkido, or if you want Teuk Gong Moo Sool, style which we train under.

I tryed it in the dojang, and realised my teacher have no nothing against that. Instead, he says that he is glad that i don't see Hapkido as closed, hard - defined art.

Later i realised, every higher rank in our dojo have some unique sort of tehniques - but also, they have the Hapkido curriculum as it is. That is what my teacher also told me - it's proper to bring and mix some new moves in my repertoar, but only if i go together with Hapkido curriculum.

My question is: is it proper??

My opinnion is yes, because we have arts like Taekwondo which have the fully defined curriculum, which is close to changes (except fights, where many fighters use moves from kickbox etc.), and arts like Hapkido which also have defined curriculum, but among that - only imagine is the end.

Your opinnions?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 25, 2010)

TigerLove said:


> Hi everybody!
> 
> What's up?
> 
> ...


They are practicaly sister arts; I see little conflict, other than the individual culture of the schools.
sean


----------



## seasoned (Feb 25, 2010)

It sounds like your instructor is open minded, and as long as he is willing, I say go for it. As long as you stay true to your main art, it could be fun and productive to experiment.


----------



## dortiz (Feb 25, 2010)

Everything you have described is considered Hapkido anyway. One of my teachers has one rule for Hapkido given its not a TEAM SPORT.

WIN!!    : )

Dave O.


----------



## l_uk3y (Feb 26, 2010)

Of course their is no problem in this situation. Your creating opportunities to round off your skills and will improve the effectiveness of your Hapkido as a result. Attacks can happen at different ranges and directions, by studying additional techniques you can be further prepared for it.

Just like I find my Wing Chun makes for a great short range striking system which just seems to create openings to change over into locks and take downs from my Hapkido. Or even half complete a Hapkido technique to gain a good position then go back to Wing Chun with a strike behind the knee and open back up into the strikes.


----------



## Blindside (Feb 26, 2010)

Given Hapkido's origins it would be pretty silly to take a position and say that "mixing arts is wrong."


----------



## Kumbajah (Feb 26, 2010)

For personal use and growth - I'm all for it. To teach a mix and call it Hapkido - I'm against it. 

ex. Capoeira kicks are cool but they aren't Hapkido.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 26, 2010)

Is it wrong? No

Is it confusing? Maybe


----------



## zDom (Feb 26, 2010)

Hapkido curriculums differ. Vastly. That said,




TigerLove said:


> Not so long ago, i started to pull some moves from other arts, and practiced them to make them part of my Hapkido knowledge.
> 
> ...
> 
> Example, i throw someone by the tehnique my Hapkido teacher learned me, and then instead of classic Hapkido joint lock and move, i finish it with arm bar from Jiu - Jitsu.



We have arm bars in MSK hapkido. No need for me to import one from jiu jitsu: it was done over 60 years ago by Choi.






TigerLove said:


> But, i ''invented'' new move from that position, i mixed it with scissor takedown from Samba.



We have scissor takedown in MSK hapkido. Kibonsoo No. 24.


My dad (a physician) always says, "There's no need to take a multivitamin supplement if you are eating a good, balanced diet."

I don't eat a good, balanced diet so I take a daily multivitamin supplement.

If your hapkido isn't providing all the tools you need, then I guess I don't blame you for finding supplements elsewhere. If it makes you feel any better, technically they ARE included in the wider concept of hapkido even if you aren't finding them in your particular flavor of hapkido.

But, having said that, I agree with Kumb:




Kumbajah said:


> For personal use and growth - I'm all for it. To teach a mix and call it Hapkido - I'm against it.
> 
> ex. Capoeira kicks are cool but they aren't Hapkido.




Do what you must to make sure your personal fighting toolbox has everything you need &#8212; but if/when you get to the point on your path where are you teaching, you owe it to your hapkido heritage to make crystal clear to your students what IS and what is NOT part of your hapkido curriculum, if you choose to share non-curriculum material (in my opinion).


As for me? Apparently I am blessed with a hapkido style that is providing a "balanced diet" &#8212; so I reckon I won't be needing any supplements


----------



## TigerLove (Feb 26, 2010)

@Zdom

You are right - in wider aspect Hapkido probably holds anything i would think off, under condition it makes some sense.

Our Grandmaster, which is Hapkido 6. dan, says there are about 5000 tehniques in Hapkido - so it would be really hard to teach them all as part of one school's curriculum, but also it's hard to ''invent'' some move that doesn't belong to those 5000 moves of Hapkido.

Great example of this is what you said: ''No need for me to import one from jiu jitsu: it was done over 60 years ago by Choi.''


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 26, 2010)

TigerLove said:


> Hi everybody!
> 
> What's up?
> 
> ...


I would be inclined to get with your instructor and ask if the same sorts of techniques are found in his hapkido curriculum and if they are performed any differently, and if so, why?

If the techniques are the same but you simply haven't gotten to them yet, or they are simply called different things, your instructor may be okay with it because it is already part of the curriculum.  

If the same techniques are performed differently, then you need to find out why.  I am not familiar with Samba, but a scissor takedown may just be a scissor takedown and the same in both arts.

As far as ninjutsu, my in my brief exposure to it (Jinenkan taijutsus) I saw a lot of crossover between it and hapkido.

As far as what is proper and what is not, if you feel that your instructor is the real deal (i.e. can really fight and really teach you to defend yourself), then follow his lead as to what is proper and what is not within your school.  If he is not scolding you or correcting you, then chances are, he's cool with what you're doing.

As to whether or not it is proper hapkido, you will likely get varying answers on that.  Like I said, if the techniques are identical but with different names, then it is unlikely that your instructor will say anything negative.

In the end, you are the one who needs to use what you know when the rubber meets the road.  You have exposure to a good number of different things, so it is certainly reasonable for you to blend what you know.  As long as it is blending in a way that is beneficial to you, then I see no problem.  

Now, if the *teacher* is doing the mixing and matching of hapkido and other arts (doesn't appear so from your post), then we are having a different discussion.

Daniel


----------



## TigerLove (Feb 26, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Now, if the *teacher* is doing the mixing and matching of hapkido and other arts (doesn't appear so from your post), then we are having a different discussion.
> 
> Daniel



No, that's not the case.

 If it was - then i wouldn't train there. Hapkido is Hapkido and i want to receive knowledge from my teacher as part of Hapkido curriculum.

I believe, very hard, *it's crucial* to know difference about Hapkido and mix - moves. One day, maybe, i will be a teacher - and what i want to teach is Hapkido, ancient and official. Not some cocktail of martial arts. Knowing the difference is even more crucial, when to table comes question about *keeping origins in art per long period*. If everybody would just teach mix moves and origins as one, there wouldn't be any Hapkido for 50 + years.

 If, for my personal progress and satisfaction, i want to add some new tehniques in my sort of moves - it's my problem, as long as i respect and practice under Hapkido curicullum, and know the difference very very well.

For the rest of what you posted, i agree.


----------



## kaizasosei (Feb 26, 2010)

You take what you need when you need and match it to your own personal skills and abilities.  So i think to mix or not has nothing to do with ability.
More techniques and ideas offer more but one could begin to know only a little or everything but nothing really properly.  

One of the most common mistakes of the beginner ma is to focus too much on hurting impressive moves often not taking the time to notice the finer points. The fine points in the martial arts often make a big difference.  
I've learned so many tricks with clever techniques back in aikido for example.  Usually i'd get corrected by someone and after listening to the advice i was often really surprised what great tips i was being given.  
For striking also people come up with and train their own personal combos. The more the better.   But mixing traditions is kindof taboo somehow, don't know why. But also for religions, if you can change quickly enough it's cool, but to mix probably happens somehow in the brain, but is also somehow making an already questionable thing even more sketchy.  If someone does it in the privacy of their own home, i have no problem with it.  I could also accept many forms of such syncretic actions, like sometimes you see a many symbols of different religions together. A statue of Mariasama at a japanese town temple. That's kind of classy even mystical, but at it's worst, it would seem like a pathetic attempt or a kind of blasphemy.  



j


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 1, 2010)

TigerLove said:


> No, that's not the case.


I did not think that it was, but I wanted to clarify just to be sure where you were coming from.

Having said that, the practitioner may mix freely, though within the context of a class, the student should try to execute the techniques as they are taught.  Outside of class in a real SD scenario or MMA competition, anything goes so long as it works for you.

There is no right or wrong in this regard.

Daniel


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 1, 2010)

TigerLove said:


> One day, maybe, i will be a teacher - and what i want to teach is Hapkido, ancient and official. Not some cocktail of martial arts. Knowing the difference is even more crucial, when to table comes question about *keeping origins in art per long period*. If everybody would just teach mix moves and origins as one, there wouldn't be any Hapkido for 50 + years.



Keep in mind that Hapkido itself is a semi-mix art to begin with and is constantly evolving and adapting to new threats and new realities.


----------



## CDKJudoka (Mar 2, 2010)

I'm gonna say it. 

There is nothing wrong with taking jujutsu techniques and putting them into HKD, *as HKD is a Korean form of JJ*. It has all the throws, locks, chokes, etc of JJ with the lovely and powerful kicks of TKD. Everything that you have mentioned has been in use by Hapkidoin since it's inception. It is just a matter of whether the techniques are taught is a completely different story.



Keep going with it. There is nothing in the world that will make a better martial artist than experiencing and cross training in other martial arts.

As for the ninjutsu, I will keep my mouth quiet, save one thing, it is just another form of jujutsu that has been made into an art that has been dead for centuries. THANK YOU HOLLYWOOD AND ALL OF THE GAIJIN!!!


----------



## TigerLove (Mar 2, 2010)

Let's try to sum this: It's ok, even great, to mix martial arts for your personal approvement and growth, under condition you know the difference beetwen what is curriculum of your art, and what you tried on your own.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 2, 2010)

TigerLove said:


> Let's try to sum this: It's ok, even great, to mix martial arts for your personal approvement and growth, under condition you know the difference beetwen what is curriculum of your art, and what you tried on your own.


Well put!

Daniel


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 2, 2010)

TigerLove said:


> Let's try to sum this: It's ok, even great, to mix martial arts for your personal approvement and growth, under condition you know the difference beetwen what is curriculum of your art, and what you tried on your own.



I would caveat that with "what is the curriculum of your school/instructor".  Every instructor is a product of their own training, background, and experience so even things you're taught by your instructor may or may not always have a direct connection to the purity of the art itself.  But every instructor should have a reason and a thought process behind what they teach you and how it fits together so even if you do a wrist-lock into a hip throw from Hapkido and flow that into a far-side arm-bar from BJJ, if that's from your instructor than that's from your instructor and it's important to know that.  But if that far-side arm-bar came from a *different* instructor, than it is still valuable to know for yourself but it's probably important to know that distinction


----------



## TigerLove (Mar 2, 2010)

FearlessFreep said:


> Every instructor is a product of their own training, background, and experience so even things you're taught by your instructor may or may not always have a direct connection to the purity of the art itself.



If somebody try to buy some Hapkido book, or try search for ''hapkido tehniques'' on internet or you tube, or visit 10 Hapkido dojangs, what he will find, in all cases, is wrist grab escapes, circular motion,
principle of ''water flow'', so as similar or same basic tehniques - and basic tehniques is probably heart and begining of every art.

Though all instructors have their own way, probably ain't no Hapkido student in the world which don't know about things i mentioned upper.

If basic tehniques and principles were dissrupted with mixing, it wouldn't be Hapkido anymore, even knowing the fact Hapkido itself is open art.

To avoid this, knowing the difference does matter.

The best way to show this is to say this: We (in my club) have our Hapkido curriculum book. Our Grandmaster is creator of it. Our work and progress is based on that book. It's guide from white to black belt.

When a few of practicioners is ready for next belt testing, Grandmaster comes to our town, and test them. What he asks to do is the things you can find in that book.

Since Grandmaster is 6. dan in Hapkido and Teuk Gong Moo Sool, so as 7. dan in ITF and WTF Taekwondo, and was close friend of General Choi, i believe what he teaching us is a very direct connection to the purity of the art itself.

Besides that, i like to do some moves on my own. 

Probably, most of us is going through same or similar situation.

Thats the the thing i tryed to say, when i wanted to sum this: Keeping the art origins and purity is in the first place.


----------



## zDom (Mar 2, 2010)

DarkPhoenix said:


> I'm gonna say it.
> There is nothing wrong with taking jujutsu techniques and putting them into HKD, *as HKD is a Korean form of JJ*.



Hmmmm ... not _exactly_. Chili has hamburger in it, but Chili is NOT a hamburger. In this same way, Japanese JJ IS a major ingredient in HKD &#8212; but it isn't accurate to say that HKD is a Korean form of JJ.




DarkPhoenix said:


> It has all the throws, locks, chokes, etc of JJ *with the lovely and powerful kicks of TKD*.



(my bold)

Backwards (unless you mean just front, side and round). MOST of the "lovely and powerful kicks of TKD" came from hapkido. Spinning heel kicks, front straight leg heel kicks, flying kicks &#8212; all that stuff came from hapkido.


----------



## CDKJudoka (Mar 2, 2010)

zDom said:


> Hmmmm ... not _exactly_. Chili has hamburger in it, but Chili is NOT a hamburger. In this same way, Japanese JJ IS a major ingredient in HKD &#8212; but it isn't accurate to say that HKD is a Korean form of JJ.



Okay, a better way to put it. When I look at HKD and DRAJ, though, the only thing that is different is the lack of kicks in teh DRAJ.



zDom said:


> (my bold)
> 
> Backwards (unless you mean just front, side and round). MOST of the "lovely and powerful kicks of TKD" came from hapkido. Spinning heel kicks, front straight leg heel kicks, flying kicks &#8212; all that stuff came from hapkido.



Makes sense as there really aren't too many flashy kicks in Shotokan.


----------



## DBZ (Mar 4, 2010)

You can put anything in what my instuctor calls your "TOOLBOX" to make you a better MAist but I agree that some things you should not add and call it HKD. I share some things I learn in Kenpo to my TKD class mates and we practice it but we do not call it a TKD tech.


----------



## Manny (Mar 9, 2010)

I have aded to my TKD some moves from aikido and a few from judo and now I am learning Kenpo Karate and definetively want to ad Kenpo to my TKD.

Manny


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 10, 2010)

Manny, if I didn't know better, I'd say that you subconsciously want to take up hapkido.

Daniel


----------



## Manny (Mar 11, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Manny, if I didn't know better, I'd say that you subconsciously want to take up hapkido.
> 
> Daniel


 
You bet!!! sadly my friend there is no HKD dojang in my city. I think HKD will be very nice for a TKD guy, you know same country of origin and in some cases vocabulary and concepts, I thionk both MA complement each other also.

In my city we have several TKD dojnags, some karate dojos, a couple aikido dojos and maybe a couple of judo dojos and if I recal some Kung Fu schools too and just one Krav Maga training center.

Manny


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 11, 2010)

l_uk3y said:


> Of course their is no problem in this situation. Your creating opportunities to round off your skills and will improve the effectiveness of your Hapkido as a result. Attacks can happen at different ranges and directions, by studying additional techniques you can be further prepared for it.


Agreed. 
One of the benefits from MA is that you have _less_ of a chance of getting your *** kicked out in the real world. Having a primary art is IMO essential because it teaches the overall discipline of MA (whatever style/art). 
Throughout my life my MA is definitely a mix. Learning from whomever I can (from actual belt holders ranging from green up to 2-3 blacks), in informal situations. My base is definitely Wing Chun which has it's uses applicable to the art. Long range weapons/techniques come from TKD, Muay Tai and others. Ground fighting has been Jujitsu and common wrestling techniques. 
Essentially my MA is JKDI. And it has helped me on more than one occasion. 
When you're in your base art dojo then study on that art, if your belt ranking is enough to allow for experimentation and throwing in a bit of this or a bit of that... like others I don't see a problem with it. 
There are numerous topics about "cross training" here on MT. A simple use of the search engine will lead you to these threads. It'll make for interesting reading. 
:asian:


----------



## Sambone (Apr 6, 2011)

I don't see anything wrong with mixing the different styles. In my Hapkido class we learn the basic Taekwondo kicks, but of course keep in mind that I am not going to try and kick someone in the head in a street fight...take them out at the knees. Anyway, In my Taekwondo class we learn Judo, Taekwondo, and Hapkido. In my Judo class we learn Jujitsu, and in my Hapkido class well we learn all sorts of stuff. I have always been taught that Hapkido is a sport that is to train a person to defend yourself. The only rule I have ever been taught is there are no rules in this Martial Art.

So in my opinion I would say go for it!


----------



## puunui (Apr 6, 2011)

Sambone said:


> I don't see anything wrong with mixing the different styles. In my Hapkido class we learn the basic Taekwondo kicks, but of course keep in mind that I am not going to try and kick someone in the head in a street fight...take them out at the knees.




As stated above, the kicks in Hapkido are different from the kicks in Taekwondo, and if anything, Taekwondo adopted many kicks from Hapkido. Also, I learned that we do not "take them out at the knees" in Hapkido or otherwise do anything that would permanently injure someone.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 7, 2011)

Way back in February 2010 when I first posted in this thread I was restraining myself from posting something and I had successfully stopped myself from doing it&#8230;but then&#8230;. Someone resurrected this thing and&#8230;.. just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in 

Now I can no longer restrain myself and I MUST post as I first wanted to

Mixing arts&#8230;isn&#8217;t that cute&#8230;*BUT ITS WRONG!!!!!!!* 

But seriously as I said the first time...

Is it wrong? No

Is it confusing? Maybe 

There&#8230; I feel better now :asian:


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 13, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I did not think that it was, but I wanted to clarify just to be sure where you were coming from.
> 
> Having said that, the practitioner may mix freely, though within the context of a class, the student should try to execute the techniques as they are taught. Outside of class in a real SD scenario or MMA competition, anything goes so long as it works for you.
> 
> ...


 
That was one of the first of many surprises I got in Hapkido.  I had studied TKD many years before, and expected to be taught rigid techniques.  I was quickly corrected by the teacher I had, that although there was a reason for teaching things a certain way; it worked for most people.  If I had to vary something a little differently, and it worked best for me, that was the way to do it.  But in general, the way taught was best.


----------



## PooterMan (May 19, 2011)

Eagle Academy in Chicago area teaches Tang Soo Do and Hapkido simultaneously. I would think that would be same as TKD and Hapkido.  Students test in each art separately, but during class they will switch back and forth between the arts.  My instructor here is TSD only. So we can only pick up the Hapkido we see at regional events.  I wish we could get a Hapkido instructor to move here from Chicago and join our TSD class to add to our repertoire (and yes, I had to look up the spelling for that)


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 24, 2011)

Blindside said:


> Given Hapkido's origins it would be pretty silly to take a position and say that "mixing arts is wrong."


 
Excellent statement.

It would be pretty difficult (read impossible) to find a truly 'pure' art that has had no outside influences and has been passed down exactly as developed.

The highest compliment a student can pay to his/her instructor is to exceed their level of knowledge.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 25, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> It would be pretty difficult (read impossible) to find a truly 'pure' art that has had no outside influences and has been passed down exactly as developed.


Purity is overrated anyway.  For the most part, the idea of a pure MA is used as either a marketing tool to appeal to the traditionalist or used for nationalistic reasons.  

Essentially, unless your MA was developed in a village where the only fights were with people in the village, you won't have an art that is 'pure.' 

Daniel


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 25, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Purity is overrated anyway. For the most part, the idea of a pure MA is used as either a marketing tool to appeal to the traditionalist or used for nationalistic reasons.
> 
> Essentially, unless your MA was developed in a village where the only fights were with people in the village, you won't have an art that is 'pure.'
> 
> Daniel


 
LOL, and that assuming the person person developing the MA never saw anyone else fight.


----------



## dancingalone (May 25, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Purity is overrated anyway.  For the most part, the idea of a pure MA is used as either a marketing tool to appeal to the traditionalist or used for nationalistic reasons.
> 
> Essentially, unless your MA was developed in a village where the only fights were with people in the village, you won't have an art that is 'pure.'
> 
> Daniel




I double dare you to cross post this in the Koryu Arts forum.  :angel:


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 25, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I double dare you to cross post this in the Koryu Arts forum. :angel:


Tempting! 

But those who practice a Koryu art would probably agree; much of what makes a Koryu art special is the preservation of tradition. Many who practice Koryu arts do so as much for cultural immersion as they do for technical proficiency.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (May 25, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Tempting!
> 
> But those who practice a Koryo art would probably agree; much of what makes a Koryo art special is the preservation of tradition.  Many who practice Koryo arts do so as much for cultural immersion as they do for technical proficiency.
> 
> Daniel



Bruno and Chris Parker are indeed reasonable about the realities of Koryu systems.  Thankfully MT seems to be free for the most part of the samurai wannabes.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 25, 2011)

Just realized I had misspelled Koryu, calling it Koryo by accident.  Fixed it in my post, but it remains preserved in your quote.

Daniel


----------



## punisher73 (May 26, 2011)

As in all things in life....it depends.

I just have two rules:

1) State where the information came from if it is not really in your style/system.
2) Don't resort to the MSU rulebook when trying to add things.  For those not familiar with the MSU rulebook, it means "make stuff up".

For example, several people mentioned adding kenpo to their TKD.  That's great, but be honest where it came from.  Don't take a kenpo technique and turn around and say that it is hidden within the forms or was only taught to a select few. (NOT saying this in regards to anyone in the thread, just an example, of something I have heard people say).

As for post #2, I see the trend now taking a position from a kata and then making up an application to fit a current trend and saying that it was a lost application only recently rediscovered in the kata.  For example, I have seen people use the crossover step from Naihanchi and the one legged stance from Chinto katas and tell people that it is really a triangle choke from judo/BJJ and that all of the katas are meant to be applied on the ground and all of the techniques in grappling are hidden.  If your school doesn't have ground grappling or groundfighting and you want to add something, fine, but be honest what you added and not lie about it, or MSU.

For me, I have enough on my plate with my style and exploration that I don't have time to fiddle around with other things.  The amount of information is staggering and anything else would just be a distraction.  I always think of the quote "jack of all trade, ace of nothing".


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 26, 2011)

puunui said:


> As stated above, the kicks in Hapkido are different from the kicks in Taekwondo, and if anything, Taekwondo adopted many kicks from Hapkido. Also, I learned that we do not "take them out at the knees" in Hapkido or otherwise do anything that would permanently injure someone.


 
Could you offer some additional information on where you learned this, and what the reasoning was behind this philosophy?  

Thank you.


----------



## puunui (May 26, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Could you offer some additional information on where you learned this, and what the reasoning was behind this philosophy?



I was training with GM JI Han Jae when I lived in San Francisco. I was withdrawing $500 from the ATM to pay my rent when some homeless looking guy grabbed my elbow in a threatening manner so I did a joint lock on him (our #1), and slapped him across the throat with the back of my hand, which caused him to stumble back and fall to the ground.  I was going to follow with a roundhouse to his head to knock him out (a sport thing) but his girlfriend put herself between us so I stopped. 

I went to class that same day and told GM Ji about the incident. He wasn't upset about the altercation and was happy that his technique worked but got very upset when I told him that I think I might have broke that guy's wrist. I got a long angry lecture about not breaking anyone's joints because sooner or later they will get arthritis in that joint, they will hurt, and they will negatively remember you, probably for the rest of their lives. He said you don't want someone out there hating on you every time the weather gets cold or whatever. He said that Hapkido is for pain only, not breaking joints. He made sure I understood this and it seemed at the time to be one of his central and most important philosophies, the idea that when we permanently injure someone, we permanently injure ourselves as well. It's right up there with his philosophy regarding lying about history or one's credentials. He is opposed to that too. If you are dishonest with others, then you are dishonest with yourself as well. 

I saw that homeless guy later walking around the same area and he was wearing some sort of brace on his wrist. I don't think he recognized me when I walked right past him. He used to hang around one of my favorite restaurants, Pancho Villa in the Mission District, which I always go to whenever I am in the area. That Wells Fargo bank branch with the ATM is still there as well.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 26, 2011)

puunui said:


> I was withdrawing $500 from the ATM to pay my rent when some homeless looking guy grabbed my elbow in a threatening manner so I did a joint lock on him (our #1), and slapped him across the throat with the back of my hand, which caused him to stumble back and fall to the ground.  I was going to follow with a roundhouse to his head to knock him out (a sport thing) but his girlfriend put herself between us so I stopped.
> 
> I went to class that same day and told GM Ji about the incident. He wasn't upset about the altercation and was happy that his technique worked but got very upset when I told him that I think I might have broke that guy's wrist. I got a long angry lecture about not breaking anyone's joints because sooner or later they will get arthritis in that joint, they will hurt, and they will negatively remember you, probably for the rest of their lives.  He said you don't want someone out there hating on you every time the weather gets cold or whatever.


 
I want to make sure I understand you completely here.  In a situation where you're being mugged at an ATM (or anywhere) you should make sure you don't break anything on the mugger attacking you because you don't want him to feel negative towards you later when the weather gets cold?

That you don't want him hating you for defending yourself from his attack by breaking something on him to stop him from attacking you?

I'm assuming since you were going to do a round house kick to his head, while he was on the ground (about the only time this kick is useful i.e. individual is stunned or not in a position to avoid/stop it) that it was a violent grab on your elbow and you felt the need to kick him in the head, while on the ground, because the threat was still present?



> It's right up there with his philosophy regarding lying about history or one's credentials.


 
Curious that he would have this particular philosophy from the various interviews I've read from him and about him.  Did he have anything to say about humility or not acting arrogant to other people?  I mean if we're looking out for the feelings of violent attackers and all we should be looking to be even nicer to those not violently attacking us?

Just a thought I suppose.

Thank you for expounding, I have learned quite a bit from your post.


----------



## puunui (May 26, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I want to make sure I understand you completely here.  In a situation where you're being mugged at an ATM (or anywhere) you should make sure you don't break anything on the mugger attacking you because you don't want him to feel negative towards you later when the weather gets cold? That you don't want him hating you for defending yourself from his attack by breaking something on him to stop him from attacking you?



If you have any issue with GM Ji, you can take it up with him directly. But I did see his point, I could have accomplished the same result without injuring his wrist. Obviously, you operate under a different set of philosophical principles than GM Ji does, and by extension, I do. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> I'm assuming since you were going to do a round house kick to his head, while he was on the ground (about the only time this kick is useful i.e. individual is stunned or not in a position to avoid/stop it) that it was a violent grab on your elbow and you felt the need to kick him in the head, while on the ground, because the threat was still present?



I'm just a sport guy, I kept going until the referee (his girlfriend) said break. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> Curious that he would have this particular philosophy from the various interviews I've read from him and about him.  Did he have anything to say about humility or not acting arrogant to other people?



I've never seen him act arrogant to others and never read anything to that effect either. I will say that he is very Korean in thinking and culture, at least as far as concepts like respect go. I do find it interesting that you choose to use his techniques and the name and think the type of thoughts that you do towards him. Have you ever met him, or are you going with what you read only? He's quite an interesting man, and one of the best instructors I have ever had. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> Thank you for expounding, I have learned quite a bit from your post.



Doesn't sound like you learned anything, but if you say so.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 26, 2011)

puunui said:


> I could have accomplished the same result without injuring his wrist.


 
Could you have? By your own admission, you were going to roundhouse kick him in the head, while he was on the ground. That sets up one of two possible scenarios;


He was still violently trying to attack you from the ground, which caused it to be necessary to employ lethal force against him to stop his overt, hostile attacker motions. (I think you'll find that kicking someone in the head, particularly while on the ground, is considered lethal force in a court of law. I doubt he was wearing head gear and I doubt you were wearing foot gear).
You threw him down and just wanted to put a little exclamation point on it. Which would put you at excessive force since he was not employing lethal force against you.
Which was it?

If the attack was violent enough to require you to grab the attacker, and throw him to the ground, and attempt to kick him in the head....then maybe worrying about him getting wrist pain ten years from now when the weather turns cold is on the bottom of the list of considerations. 

And for GM Ji to give you a...



> ...long angry lecture about not breaking anyone's joints because sooner or later they will get arthritis in that joint, they will hurt, and they will negatively remember you, probably for the rest of their lives. He said you don't want someone out there hating on you every time the weather gets cold or whatever....


 
...sounds a bit out-of-touch too be completely straight-forward with you. 

Force should be appropriate to the situation with no more force being applied than is necessary to stop the threat. So, either you were in a lethal force situation (by your feeling the need to kick a man in the head who was already on the ground) and therefore who gives a rip about him having a sore wrist...or...you over-reacted big time and you're lucky you didn't wind up in jail.



> I'm just a sport guy, I kept going until the referee (his girlfriend) said break.


 
You just validated everything I've been trying to educate you on in regards to SD vs. Sport training with this statement. We fight how we train and under duress we WILL revert to our training (good or bad). As my sig line says, we do not rise to the occassion, we sink to the level of our training.



> Have you ever met him, or are you going with what you read only? He's quite an interesting man, and one of the best instructors I have ever had.


 
I have never met him, so I can only go by the words he's written or what has been written about him by those that know him. I'm sure he's a fascinating man and I'm glad you have enjoyed his instruction. 



> Doesn't sound like you learned anything, but if you say so.


 
Oh, on the contrary, I've learned a great deal. Thank you.


----------



## puunui (May 27, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Could you have? By your own admission, you were going to roundhouse kick him in the head, while he was on the ground. That sets up one of two possible scenarios;
> 
> 
> He was still violently trying to attack you from the ground, which caused it to be necessary to employ lethal force against him to stop his overt, hostile attacker motions. (I think you'll find that kicking someone in the head, particularly while on the ground, is considered lethal force in a court of law. I doubt he was wearing head gear and I doubt you were wearing foot gear).
> ...



Neither. But even if it was one of those, I'm always right, remember? If not, then there are some outstanding questions that you still need to answer. 



Kong Soo Do said:


> If the attack was violent enough to require you to grab the attacker, and throw him to the ground, and attempt to kick him in the head....then maybe worrying about him getting wrist pain ten years from now when the weather turns cold is on the bottom of the list of considerations.



I didn't throw him to the ground. Try re-reading. But then again, I'm always right, remember? 



Kong Soo Do said:


> And for GM Ji to give you a...
> ...sounds a bit out-of-touch too be completely straight-forward with you.



I'm glad that he gave me that lecture. Made me think about things in a whole new light. 



Kong Soo Do said:


> Force should be appropriate to the situation with no more force being applied than is necessary to stop the threat. So, either you were in a lethal force situation (by your feeling the need to kick a man in the head who was already on the ground) and therefore who gives a rip about him having a sore wrist...or...you over-reacted big time and you're lucky you didn't wind up in jail.


 
Luck had nothing to do with it. And GM Ji and I give a rip about the possibility of him having a permanent injury. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> You just validated everything I've been trying to educate you on in regards to SD vs. Sport training with this statement. We fight how we train and under duress we WILL revert to our training (good or bad). As my sig line says, we do not rise to the occassion, we sink to the level of our training.



that was a joke, one in which you obviously missed. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> I have never met him, so I can only go by the words he's written or what has been written about him by those that know him. I'm sure he's a fascinating man and I'm glad you have enjoyed his instruction.



 You have a problem with him, go call him up. Or better yet, go visit him. Go tell him what you think of him to his face. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> Oh, on the contrary, I've learned a great deal. Thank you.



That would mean I was wrong. But according to you, I'm always right, remember?


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 27, 2011)

Puunui, 

I have followed your posts with interest.  But I am curious about the two statements below.  They seem contradictory.  I was hoping you might clarify things.  You said (in the pasted in quotes below) your GM was angry you might have injured someone, then that neither you nor your GM give a rip about the possibility of him having a permanent injury.

I don't know that I would have been ready to kick the attacker, but perhaps, if I thought he was about to resume his attack.  Certainly if I thought he was about to resume, I would have no reservations against defending myself further. 

___________________________________________________________________________________
I went to class that same day and told GM Ji about the incident. He  wasn't upset about the altercation and was happy that his technique  worked but got very upset when I told him that I think I might have  broke that guy's wrist. I got a long angry lecture about not breaking  anyone's joints because sooner or later they will get arthritis in that  joint, they will hurt, and they will negatively remember you, probably  for the rest of their lives.  He said you don't want someone out there  hating on you every time the weather gets cold or whatever.

Luck had nothing to do with it. And GM Ji and I give a rip about the possibility of him having a permanent injury. 
___________________________________________________________________________________

Thanks for helping me understand what you meant.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 27, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> Puunui,
> 
> I have followed your posts with interest. But I am curious about the two statements below. They seem contradictory. I was hoping you might clarify things. You said (in the pasted in quotes below) your GM was angry you might have injured someone, then that neither you nor your GM give a rip about the possibility of him having a permanent injury.
> 
> ...


Ah, but they are not contradictory . Look at it again: He said that they _give a rip_, not that they *don't* give a rip. In other words, it does concern them.

Daniel


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 27, 2011)

> Originally Posted by *Kong Soo Do*
> 
> 
> _Could you have? By your own  admission, you were going to roundhouse kick him in the head, while he  was on the ground. That sets up one of two possible scenarios;
> ...





puunui said:


> Neither.



Neither?

Hmm, If you're going to attempt to kick a man in the head, while he is on the ground, with enough force to cause unconsciousness, then such force can also cause great bodily harm and/or death.  I think you'll find that the situation needs to be at a lethal force level in order to justify this amount of force being used.  One does not just 'kick em in the head' and then fall back on the reason of 'just because'.

In order to justify the use of deadly force the attacker needs to have the ability to cause you great bodily harm and/or death and you need to be in fear of your life.  The actual terminology will differ from state to state, but that is the gist of what is required.

So, when this man grabbed your elbow, and you described it as 'in a threatening manner', were you in fear of your life?  



> I didn't throw him to the ground.



You're absolutely right!  You're 'joint lock' and the force of your 'slap across the throat with the back of your hand' forced him to the ground.  Going to the throat with a strike powerful enough to cause him to stumble and fall down sounds like you're pretty much at lethal force already without even considering your attempt to tap-dance on his head.

So again, were you in fear of your life at this point?



> I'm glad that he gave me that lecture. Made me think about things in a whole new light.



I'm glad he did as well.  Otherwise we would not be able to bring this type of thinking to light for others to consider.  More on this later after your responses to the above questions.



> that was a joke, one in which you obviously missed.



Oh, I caught the smiley at the end.  And I know what you were trying to say.  But I was hoping that it would truly be a light bulb moment for you.  I'm still hoping.



> Luck had nothing to do with it. And GM Ji and I give a rip about the possibility of him having a permanent injury.



From what I'm reading it sounds like your lucky you weren't caught on video trying to kick a man in the head while he was on the ground.  But I will reserve final judgement on that until you answer the question of whether or not you were in fear of your life when he grabbed your elbow 'threateningly'.  

And exactly how was the grab threatening?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 27, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> From what I'm reading it sounds like your lucky you weren't caught on video trying to kick a man in the head while he was on the ground. But I will reserve final judgement on that until you answer the question of whether or not you were in fear of your life when he grabbed your elbow 'threateningly'.
> 
> And exactly how was the grab threatening?


Anytime an unknown person grabs you and demands something from you, you are in potentially life threatening danger. In this instance, the assailant had a potential accomplice; the girlfriend. 

Asking if he was fearing for his life at the end of an encounter that was likely less than a second long presupposes that that there was a long enough period of time between knocking the assailant down and preparing to deliver a finish to reconsider whether or not he was still in fear for his life.

Having said that, given that this topic actually began on another thread and is now being discussed on this one, it might warrant its own thread, as it really does not relate to the topic of mixing arts.

Daniel


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 27, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Anytime an unknown person grabs you and demands something from you, you are in potentially life threatening danger. In this instance, the assailant had a potential accomplice; the girlfriend.
> 
> Daniel



This is very true, which is why I'm looking for more details.  And although this (or most) situations usually happen very quickly, if one is using lethal force they must be able to articulate why they felt such force was necessary.  As I mentioned above, the terminology differs from state to state but the 'meat of the matter' is things such as 'intent', 'ability', 'what a reasonable person would have done in the same situation' etc.  And this is an important point for everyone reading this;  know your state statutes on 'use of force' and 'use of deadly force'.  

I think acting in a manner such as Puunui describes i.e. not injuring someone so that they don't get arthritis and dislike you when the weather gets cold is dangerous.  During a physical altercation, one cannot take the time to second-guess themselves.  They need to be clear as to the legal requirements of the situation and then proceed with the appropriate amount of force necessary to stop the threat.  The amount of 'force' may entail;



Running away i.e. escape if possible without putting yourself at increased risk.
Using command presence and verbal desculation.
A simple push.
A joint lock.
A strike to stun but not damage.
A strike to damage.
Deadly force.
And a whole range of things in-between.  What ever the amount of force, one needs to be able to justify that amount.  This is why I'm asking about the initial elbow grab i.e. what caused him to believe he was in a lethal force situation?  What was the man doing on the ground that made him attempt to use lethal force against him while on the ground?  And if he was indeed in a lethal force situation, it is bad advice to consider not using whatever force is necessary to stop the threat by worrying about the man getting arthritis later in life and hurting when it gets cold.

And I agree with perhaps splitting the topic.  The thread has drift and I mean no disrespect to the OP so my apologies to him.  If he is fine with the drift then thank you, if not perhaps the mod can split the topic?  Perhaps from the point of my initial question to Puunui?

Thank you.


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 27, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Ah, but they are not contradictory . Look at it again: He said that they _give a rip_, not that they *don't* give a rip. In other words, it does concern them.
> 
> Daniel


 
Ha!  But I will wait to see Puunui's response as to what he meant.  I took it the way I said, but am more than willing to be shown I was wrong.  ;-)

Personally I reserve judgement on his actions and his GM's response as you did.  I am assuming anyone who approaches you from behind while you are conducting an ATM transaction, and grabs you anywhere, is either trying to intimidate, or is very foolish (or both).  I also can't imagine anyone taking however short a time to think about response, one best just responds.  Even the kick may not be out of context, if the person appears willing to continue.  

I was taught immediate followups to techniques, actually as part of the technique; take a knife away and cut the opponent, apply a joint lock to the ground and hit or kick, throw and hit, kick or dislocate a joint.  We were also taught we could disengage at any point.  The circumstances dictate.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 27, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> Even the kick may not be out of context, if the person appears willing to continue.



This is correct, which is why I'd like further details of this incident.  One still needs to be able to justify the amount of force used either way.  For example, when I'm teaching a L.E. recruit class firearms, one of the things I emphasis is that they are responsible for EVERY round they fire.  They need to be clear on policy, state statute cover use of deadly force etc and they need to be able to articulate their actions. Same for a martial artist.  We need to be able to justify/articulate every strike.  That doesn't mean we second guess ourselves at the moment of truth, it means that we need to be prepared beyond just know how to hit someone.  We need to know 'when' and 'why' just as surely as we know 'how'.  

It may look like I'm trying to put puunui on the spot, and to a certain extent...I am.  But not to screw with him but rather to get more details and make this an educational moment.  

Why?

I'm a senior member of one of the biggest firearm boards on the net.  One of the things I often see is B.S. like;



9mm vs. .40 S&W
What has more 'stopping power'?
Do bullets know people down?
Yada yada yada
In essence, some people think that buying a gun and loading it up is all they need for SD.  They don't consider the legalities of using a firearm.  They don't consider the amount of training necessary to properly use the firearm.  They don't consider having a plan.  They don't consider things like using one hand, loading one hand, clearing malfunctions etc.

Same thing with the martial arts.  It isn't about just 'slapping him across the throat and kicking him in the head while he's on the ground'.  There is more to it than that.  And while I'm all for using the LEAST amount of force necessary to stop the threat, I don't think worrying about an attacker getting arthritis when it gets cold is wise advice.  

But I'll await puunui's details.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 27, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I think acting in a manner such as Puunui describes i.e. not injuring someone so that they don't get arthritis and dislike you when the weather gets cold is dangerous. During a physical altercation, one cannot take the time to second-guess themselves.


I don't think that it is a matter of second guessing one's self in the heat of the moment so much as a general mindset of training.  

If I always train to cause pain but no injury, then I won't have to second guess myself when the moment comes; I'll simply execute as I have been practicing.

If I always train to cause pain, injury, and potentially death, then I won't have to make the choice to escalate to more destructive techniques; I'll simply execute as I have been practicing.

Its all about the mindset.  Choice of specific technique is less important.

For myself, I think along the same lines that he does, albeit for different reasons.  My personal frame of mind is to be enough of a potential threat to an attacker that he will decide not to pursue when I escape and not so much of a threat that I actually put him in fear of his own life.  

In other words, I just don't want to be worth the hassle.  Anything beyond that I reserve for those times when that is not enough. Thankfully, those times have not presented themselves.

Beyond that, my personal beliefs go against desiring to do permanent injury to another.  If it is him or me and it is unavoidable, then so be it, but as I said, things have not come to that and I am careful to avoid places where such a scenario is more likely.

Daniel


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 27, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I don't think that it is a matter of second guessing one's self in the heat of the moment so much as a general mindset of training.
> 
> If I always train to cause pain but no injury, then I won't have to second guess myself when the moment comes; I'll simply execute as I have been practicing.
> 
> ...



No issue with anything you've stated.   I would like to touch on on point;



> If I always train to cause pain but no injury, then I won't have to  second guess myself when the moment comes; I'll simply execute as I have  been practicing.



As I've mentioned above, using the least amount of force to get the job done is fine and wise.  This is a good time to comment that there will be some people that will not stop because of pain.  This is why there is a fine line between joint locks and joint destruction.  Whether due to mind set, being an EDP (emotionally disturbed person) or a trusty of modern chemistry (drug user), some people do not feel pain (at least not initially).  And in some cases will have superhuman strength (for a specific duration of time).  

Now if the martial artist is truly experienced in locks, it isn't about the pain caused but rather locking the body so that it isn't able to move.  But not everyone is experienced enough to due this.  If I get the opportunity tonight I will expound on this further with one of my incidents to demonstrate the point.

So if a lock doesn't work, the martial artist needs to be prepared mentally and physically to go to the next level if it becomes necessary to do so.  Just wanted to expound on this point.



> Beyond that, my personal beliefs go against desiring to do permanent  injury to another.  If it is him or me and it is unavoidable, then so be  it, but as I said, things have not come to that and I am careful to  avoid places where such a scenario is more likely.



Sound wisdom.  

Fighting isn't the plan...fighting is for when the plan has failed.


----------



## puunui (May 27, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Hmm, If you're going to attempt to kick a man in the head, while he is on the ground, with enough force to cause unconsciousness, then such force can also cause great bodily harm and/or death.  I think you'll find that the situation needs to be at a lethal force level in order to justify this amount of force being used.  One does not just 'kick em in the head' and then fall back on the reason of 'just because'.



I spoke to a police officer and also a prosecutor from the area in question and both agreed that this is a no arrest, no prosecution scenario, and that "lethal force" was not used here and that I was obviously justified in doing what I did, that no explanation beyond what was given was necessary. The prosecutor in particular knows exactly where this incident took place and remembers the conditions at the time. Even if they wanted to attempt to prosecute, it would have been very hard because the complaining witness in this case would probably not show up for court, even if you managed to serve them with a trial subpeona. And even if they did show up, there would be competency and credibility issues. The prosecutor said that in the 1980's President Reagan cut funding for mental health programs, which resulted in mental patients being released and ending up homeless on the streets. He remembers the ATM area in question at the time being a defacto homeless camp, which is true. In addition to the person who grabbed me, there was a camp of 10 or more other homeless people with their shopping carts and dogs. He also said that robberies at ATM machines are common, and that there is a general policy to not prosecute the victim if self defense is involved, like it was in my case. It sends the wrong message (try to rob someone, and if you are injured, then you can prosecute or sue your victim) and the probability of conviction is extremely low. 

They both agreed that if a police officer or prosecutor wanted to push it, it was because they are inexperienced in the practical realities of such cases, or they had a separate hidden agenda for pushing the issue and that the supervisor for both would quash it. They both stressed the idea that the standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt", a very high standard, and they wouldn't waste their time, the court's time or a jury's time with this sort of case. 

They also felt that it was an even bigger waste of time to attempt to charge and convict me on something that I didn't do. I didn't kick that guy in the head, so why waste everyone's time with that? What ifs are great if you are an ivory tower academic, but not if you actually are responsible for doing the work of getting a conviction, beyond a reasonable doubt. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> You're absolutely right!  You're 'joint lock' and the force of your 'slap across the throat with the back of your hand' forced him to the ground.  Going to the throat with a strike powerful enough to cause him to stumble and fall down sounds like you're pretty much at lethal force already without even considering your attempt to tap-dance on his head.



If I wanted to have used "lethal force" in that situation, I wouldn't have used the back of my hand and he wouldn't have stumbled flown backwards. Instead, I would have used the hardened and conditioned edge of my knifehand, I would have struck in a different fashion, and he would have collapsed where he was, holding his crushed windpipe. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> From what I'm reading it sounds like your lucky you weren't caught on video trying to kick a man in the head while he was on the ground.



Actually I believe we were caught on video. We were at an ATM machine, and I believe there might have been cameras on the outside of the bank as well. They also had my name, because I did use the ATM machine.


----------



## puunui (May 27, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> During a physical altercation, one cannot take the time to second-guess themselves.



But isn't that exactly what you are asking everyone to do? See below. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> They need to be clear as to the legal requirements of the situation and then proceed with the appropriate amount of force necessary to stop the threat.  The amount of 'force' may entail;
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Oh, so there are rules then, in a self defense situation. I thought you said that there are no rules, remember?


----------



## puunui (May 27, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Having said that, given that this topic actually began on another thread and is now being discussed on this one, it might warrant its own thread, as it really does not relate to the topic of mixing arts.



I guess "hijacking a thread" is something only Kong Soo Do can do. The old, "Do as I say, not as I do" thing.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 27, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> *Now if the martial artist is truly experienced in locks, it isn't about the pain caused but rather locking the body so that it isn't able to move.* But not everyone is experienced enough to due this. If I get the opportunity tonight I will expound on this further with one of my incidents to demonstrate the point.


That goes without saying.  Pain vs. injury were wnat were mentioned.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 27, 2011)

puunui said:


> I guess "hijacking a thread" is something only Kong Soo Do can do. The old, "Do as I say, not as I do" thing.


Not true at all  I hijack threads frequently, though I try to return them to their rightful owners as quickly as possible. 

Daniel


----------



## puunui (May 27, 2011)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Not true at all  I hijack threads frequently, though I try to return them to their rightful owners as quickly as possible.



At the same time, you don't accuse people of hijacking a thread as a defense tactic when you are in a discussion and have no more facts at your disposal. Threads go off topic all the time. I personally don't really care if it does.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 27, 2011)

puunui said:


> I guess "hijacking a thread" is something only Kong Soo Do can do. The old, "Do as I say, not as I do" thing.


 
You must have missed my post where I suggested that the thread be split if the OP wished to keep on topic.  

Your offense is showing again.



> At the same time, you don't accuse people of hijacking a thread as a defense tactic when you are in a discussion and have no more facts at your disposal.


 
Rather than ping-ponging back and forth over three threads, I suggested taking it to pm, email or start a thread.  You chose to start a thread and I quickly joined you there with 'facts that were at my disposal'.



> Oh, so there are rules then, in a self defense situation. I thought you said that there are no rules, remember?


 
Your twisting my comments...again.  Let me try yet again to break it down for you;  in an SD situation, the attacker isn't bound by a set of rules you may have been trained to abide by in your training.  You (as in the 'good guy'), are bound by state statutes as to when and how you apply force.  That force could be anywhere from a push to deadly force.  It is wise for a student to know what the law states and how to react appropriately within the scope of the law. 

Would you not agree?

As for your incident, I'm glad that you were not injured and that it worked out fine for you.  As I've mentioned, I do not agree with what your instructor told you afterwards.  That isn't disrespect to him, or you.  That is my position and you don't have to agree with it.

With respect.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 27, 2011)

I wanted to add this specifically as a way to take it down a notch.  I'm very glad that Punnui safetly handled this situation and that no one was seriously hurt.  I think there are lessons to be learned on both sides of this current thread drift, at least a lot for the thoughtful person to consider.

I appreciate Punnui detailing this account as we can all glean something from it.


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 28, 2011)

We all have our beliefs, personal and as given to us by teachers and fellow students.  One of the first things I learned as a MA philosophy was to avoid fights.  Still good advice.  

As a Hapkidoist I kept that mindset.  Still, I never forgot that the goal in a threat/fight situation, is to survive.  If an opponent is hurt, it is his due for forcing me to defend myself in the first place.  I won't hurt to feel good about it, but I won't fail to hurt or injure an attacker to my detriment.

I don't know what Puunui's motive was for sharing his experience.  It rather seems to be that we shouldn't injure attackers.  As I said, I won't do it just for the sake of doing it, but I sure won't feel bad if it happens to an attacker while I am defending myself.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 28, 2011)

The way I always end a use-of-force report is, "he took away all of my non-force options and forced me to use force against him to regain control".

And as I've mentioned previously, the force used should only be that which is necessary to regain control of the situation (be it by escape, physical control or defeating the threat).  But it is important to note that _*MINIMAL* force may not be *MINIMUM* force_!


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 28, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> The way I always end a use-of-force report is, "he took away all of my non-force options and forced me to use force against him to regain control".
> 
> And as I've mentioned previously, the force used should only be that which is necessary to regain control of the situation (be it by escape, physical control or defeating the threat).  But it is important to note that _*MINIMAL* force may not be *MINIMUM* force_!



Many years ago we used to call it necessary force.


----------



## luckiest (Mar 17, 2012)

OP if you are still around, how do you find training in hapkido and tae kwon do? It is something I am considering. I currently do tae kwon do and hapkido is an option. Which one did you do first and for how long? Did you think you had difficulty with the techniques because of it?


----------

