# Does Hapkido have a technical standard?



## mastercole (Apr 13, 2012)

I have been looking over a variety of Hapkido websites. I read things about authenticity, originality, traditionally pure, etc.

How can these claims be verified?  

Does Hapkido have a technical standard, and if so, what/who sets that standard?


----------



## Haakon (Apr 13, 2012)

Hapkido covers such a broad range, sometimes it seems anyone who does Tae Kwon Do and adds in a couple wrist locks calls what they do Hapkido, I don't think there is any hard standard. Even with the larger international HKD orgs their curriculum varies so much it would be impossible to put a single standard across it. Some orgs teach forms, like the World Hapkido Federation, some are all practical techniques like Combat Hapkido how could you apply one standard?

Is a school authentic, some would say it isn't if the instructor can't trace his lineage back to Yong Sul Choi, which really shouldn't be that hard since he only died 26 years ago, they aren't teaching "real" Hapkido, but who defines what "real" Hapkido is?


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Apr 13, 2012)

Haakon said:


> Hapkido covers such a broad range, sometimes it seems anyone who does Tae Kwon Do and adds in a couple wrist locks calls what they do Hapkido, I don't think there is any hard standard. Even with the larger international HKD orgs their curriculum varies so much it would be impossible to put a single standard across it. Some orgs teach forms, like the World Hapkido Federation, some are all practical techniques like Combat Hapkido how could you apply one standard?
> 
> Is a school authentic, some would say it isn't if the instructor can't trace his lineage back to Yong Sul Choi, which really shouldn't be that hard since he only died 26 years ago, they aren't teaching "real" Hapkido, but who defines what "real" Hapkido is?



Valid points.  In order for a universally accepted technical standard to be accepted, there would need to be one, and only one Hapkido organization in existence.  Within that organization, one, and only one leader that sets that technical standard which everyone in turn supports and upholds.  

Is this realistically going to happen?  No.  If it were a realistic possibility it would probably have already been accomplished while the art was in its infancy.  Whatever facts or speculation one may consider (from power grabs, politics, personal conflicts, differing ideology etc) the seniors of the art did not combine the art into a single, cohesive unit.  

Another consideration is the vast amount of difference of opinion on what 'Hapkido' is and what it isn't.  Speaking only for myself, from my point of view...and no disrespect intended towards any particular group...I have seen some very high level Hapkidoin demonstrating techniques that I know would never work in a real world altercation.  Too complicated, too based in refined motor skills (which diminish while under duress/adrenaline dump) and useful only for 'show' against a semi-compliant partner that is willing to throw his punch a foot to the side of your head and leave it hanging there in mid-air for the 'master' to grab and demonstrate his fancy technique.  How could someone (not just me, but anyone that has used the art in the real world) support something like that as 'the' technical standard?  That would be intellectual dishonesty and a disservice to pass on to students.  That is my own viewpoint, based upon my perspectives and experience.


----------



## Haakon (Apr 13, 2012)

We've practiced techniques just like you describe Kong, things that barely work in the dojang even with a compliant partner, no way in hell would they ever work in the real world. One could argue there is some value in doing them to develop coordination and such, but as far as being a practical application, not a chance.

Before being able to set a technical standard we (global 'we', not just MAP) would need to define a set of core techniques that are Hapkido, similar to how Tae Kwon Do has specific patterns (depending on the org) that can be measured against. As far as I know there aren't even common terms for the same techniques across Hapkido orgs. For example what everyone in Aikido is called kotegaeshi (outward wrist twist), I'm sure every Hapkido school teaches it and calls it something different. I really don't think that kind of consolidation is ever going to happen for Hapkido. It is my belief that the art is to splintered with to many organizations that are large enough to be self sustaining so they don't have any reason to consolidate. If anything I expect the art to diverge even more, some orgs/schools might rename what they do like the Hankido people did, but others will keep calling what they do "Hapkido"" even though what they teach bares little resemblance to other schools that also teach "Hapkido".

All of which is a very long winded way of saying there really isn't a good way to authenticate what any given school is teaching, at least not beyond going to the school, watching them train and deciding for yourself if what you see if something you want to learn.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 14, 2012)

Haakon said:


> ...
> 
> All of which is a very long winded way of saying there really isn't a good way to authenticate what any given school is teaching, at least not beyond going to the school, watching them train and deciding for yourself if what you see if something you want to learn.



Seems that pretty much say it all.  For Hapkido, or any other martial art.  There are reasons why there are different styles in different types of martial arts.  Different students find certain things more to their liking and create their own style.  They then collect students who agree, or some way buy into that as being the best.


----------



## mastercole (Apr 14, 2012)

Haakon said:


> We've practiced techniques just like you describe Kong, things that barely work in the dojang even with a compliant partner, no way in hell would they ever work in the real world. One could argue there is some value in doing them to develop coordination and such, but as far as being a practical application, not a chance.
> 
> Before being able to set a technical standard we (global 'we', not just MAP) would need to define a set of core techniques that are Hapkido, similar to how Tae Kwon Do has specific patterns (depending on the org) that can be measured against. As far as I know there aren't even common terms for the same techniques across Hapkido orgs. For example what everyone in Aikido is called kotegaeshi (outward wrist twist), I'm sure every Hapkido school teaches it and calls it something different. I really don't think that kind of consolidation is ever going to happen for Hapkido. It is my belief that the art is to splintered with to many organizations that are large enough to be self sustaining so they don't have any reason to consolidate. If anything I expect the art to diverge even more, some orgs/schools might rename what they do like the Hankido people did, but others will keep calling what they do "Hapkido"" even though what they teach bares little resemblance to other schools that also teach "Hapkido".
> 
> All of which is a very long winded way of saying there really isn't a good way to authenticate what any given school is teaching, at least not beyond going to the school, watching them train and deciding for yourself if what you see if something you want to learn.



So since there is not standard to compare to as correct Hapkido, and there is no combat contest to compare who develops the best fighters, it seems that I would simply pick a teacher that impressed me the most, that I felt was a good fit for me and that there is no way of ever knowing how good one Hapkido teacher, or student is compared to another. If I were recommended to a specific teacher, it would simply be based on the opinion of the recommender, not on any type of fact of ability, or achievement?  So it is really a person's personal taste?


----------



## mastercole (Apr 14, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Seems that pretty much say it all.  For Hapkido, or any other martial art.  There are reasons why there are different styles in different types of martial arts.  Different students find certain things more to their liking and create their own style.  They then collect students who agree, or some way buy into that as being the best.



Not for all martial arts. 

For example; Judo has a curriculum standard, and a person can compare one teacher to another based on that standard.  Judo also has combat, which sets one teacher and their students apart from another.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Apr 14, 2012)

mastercole said:


> If I were recommended to a specific teacher, it would simply be based on the opinion of the recommender, not on any type of fact of ability, or achievement?  So it is really a person's personal taste?



A comment in regards to ability and/or achievement;  they are not always one and the same.  Particularly in the area of achievement.  We are in the middle of a conversation about this very thing on MW.  As an example, and I don't say this to be unkind, I've seen several high level Dan Hapkidoin demonstrate techniques that look 'cool' but in all honesty would not work against a determined, non-compliant attacker.  So Dan rank, in and of itself from the perspective of a workable self-defense art isn't necessarily the best indicator.  Someone could be of low or no rank, yet have practical experience against real people, and can effectively teach those skills from experience.  If the desire to learn an art such as Hapkido is from a SD perspective then simply finding out the level of practical experience of an instructor is a must.  A high Dan that has only trained with semi-compliant partners inside a controlled environment could offer theory, but not whether or not that theory stacks up in a actual altercation.

If Hapkido (or any art) is to be learned from a non-SD perspective i.e. just desiring to learn some movements and techniques regardless of the effectiveness of said movements and techniques then honestly, why not just go to Arthur Murry and learn dance?  At least it would have a practical application.  Again, take my comments in the light they are intended.  Hapkido is often thought of as one of the more SD oriented Korean arts.  That is a legitimate position if one considers the art from which it came i.e. Aiki Jujutsu which has a very good and practical track record from a SD perspective.  Many of those seniors did use it in real world settings.  So Hapkido, by extension can also be a valid and solid means of SD.  We just need to be careful to separate what 'looks good' but doesn't work from what is much less flashy but will allow you to go home to your loved ones.  Flash is a poor substitute for effectiveness.  

If esoteric applications have to be added, let them be added after the primary function of the art has been accomplished.  And then, only if it compliments the primary function.


----------



## puunui (Apr 14, 2012)

Haakon said:


> We've practiced techniques just like you describe Kong, things that barely work in the dojang even with a compliant partner, no way in hell would they ever work in the real world. One could argue there is some value in doing them to develop coordination and such, but as far as being a practical application, not a chance.



You never know. Peyton Quinn, in his book Real Fighting, says that a master can make any technique work in a self defense situation. Obviously someone with a higher skill level has a higher probability of making something work than a beginner. I have a student who took whatever hapkido technique I showed, and practiced them like they could all be used in a self defense situation. He went home and trained hard in his garage with his uncle and other family members, all of whom were my students. They drove in from pretty much the other side of the island, from Wailua, to come to class and really wanted to learn. One day that one student got into an argument with one of his co workers, about the practicality of hapkido for self defense. Finally it came to demonstration time, so my student told the other guy go for it, do whatever you want. The other guy came flying in with a hard two handed shove, and my student did a semi complicated technique and threw him head first into the garbage can, his feet wiggling in the air until the can finally tipped over and he got out. That other guy ended up joining and the student now runs his own dojang.


----------



## mastercole (Apr 14, 2012)

puunui said:


> You never know. Peyton Quinn, in his book Real Fighting, says that a master can make any technique work in a self defense situation. Obviously someone with a higher skill level has a higher probability of making something work than a beginner.



Some practitioners never move beyond beginners mode.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Apr 15, 2012)

puunui said:


> Obviously someone with a higher skill level has a higher probability of making something work than a beginner.



With respect, this isn't necessarily correct.  What needs to be taken into consideration is the venue in which a 'higher level of skill' was obtained.  If the higher level of skill was obtained solely in a controlled environment (Dojang/Dojo) against a semi-compliant partner that isn't truly 'attacking' you with determination, focus and realism, then one will not actually know if it would work in a real world altercation.  Put another way, in many arts there are what we would call high level masters that are fast and flashy.  But what they are doing in that controlled environment would not work in an actual chaotic fight.  

Thus, someone of a higher skill level would have to have obtained that level of skill in techniques and principles that are go-to movements.  This demonstrates the need for uncomplicated, gross motor skills that are easily adaptable to an ever-changing fight.  We absolutely cannot be 'wowed' by what looks good over that which has substance.  Too many factors beyond our control will dictate was is practical and what isn't.  

Now to be clear, this isn't to say that a Hapkidoin needs to go out and get into a fight.  However, seeking training from someone that has practical, real world experience goes a long way.  Additionally, when a technique, principle, movement or tactic is being taught we need to have a moment of honest exchange such as, 'have you used this against a violent, determined, non-compliant attacker'?  Or, do we know if it has been used and what the result was?  Is it a go-to movement that has a high probability of success or is in in the curriculum because it is a filler or looks flashy and has a 'wow' factor?  If training has at least something to do with SD, then it is reasonable to know if what you're learning and investing sweat-equity in will actually work.


----------



## mastercole (Apr 15, 2012)

Haakon said:


> For example what everyone in Aikido is called kotegaeshi (outward wrist twist),



That is also an interesting question. I think that Aikido and Hapkido have the same Hanja. Are the alike in anyway?


----------



## Haakon (Apr 15, 2012)

mastercole said:


> That is also an interesting question. I think that Aikido and Hapkido have the same Hanja. Are the alike in anyway?



Correct, the same characters are used for Aikido as Hapkido. They both trace roots back to Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu so as you would expect there are many overlaps between the arts. Aikido tends to use larger circles than Hapkido and is usually considered a more gentle style, and of course Aikido has almost no punching and kicking. Some say Aikido is 90% atemi (strikes) but that certainly hasn't been the case in any Aikido class or seminar I've been to.

I'm sure they aren't all the same, but there seems to be much more standing around and talking in Aikido classes than in the TKD and HKD classes I've been to. I never really felt I had a workout after most Aikido classes.

This is just my opinion, but I think that Hapkido is more likely to be of practical use than Aikido is, at least the way it is usually taught. I thought this quote from a high level Aikido instructor was a good insight to Aikido: 


> Asking a bunch of Aikido seniors about practical self defense application is like walking into a lab full of theoretical physicists and asking them if what they are studying has any actual use


He went on to say:


> I am saying that it has to be about the silliest way to train if one simply wants to be able to fight out on the street. It would be hard to find a martial art which took longer to get one to the level of practical capability.



Now that isn't to say that Hapkido is the be-all, end-all of martial effectiveness, but I think it is likely to be more useful, or easier to apply in the real world, far earlier in the training than Aikido. Not always of course, as Kong has pointed out there is plenty of fantasy training going on in Hapkido too.


----------



## mastercole (Apr 15, 2012)

Haakon said:


> Correct, the same characters are used for Aikido as Hapkido. They both trace roots back to Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu so as you would expect there are many overlaps between the arts. Aikido tends to use larger circles than Hapkido and is usually considered a more gentle style, and of course Aikido has almost no punching and kicking. Some say Aikido is 90% atemi (strikes) but that certainly hasn't been the case in any Aikido class or seminar I've been to.
> 
> I'm sure they aren't all the same, but there seems to be much more standing around and talking in Aikido classes than in the TKD and HKD classes I've been to. I never really felt I had a workout after most Aikido classes.
> 
> ...



Thank you for that detailed response, it was very interesting. You said Aikido was larger circles. In the early 90's I trained attended some training seminars that focused on small circles for wrist and arm locks, etc. The guy talked a lot about the size of the movement of grappling. He seemed to think that the larger the movement, the easier to counter or escape. Does Aikido's circles become smaller after a while of training, like Hapkido?


----------



## mastercole (Apr 15, 2012)

_"I am saying that it has to be about the silliest way to train if one simply wants to be able to fight out on the street. It would be hard to find a martial art which took longer to get one to the level of practical capability."

Likely more of a cultural thing._


----------



## puunui (Apr 16, 2012)

mastercole said:


> Some practitioners never move beyond beginners mode.



oh well, what can you do.


----------



## WMKS Shogun (Apr 20, 2012)

Couple of things: Aikido being 90% Atemi (striking) is, if memory serves,  (a paraphrase of) a quote from Ueshiba, Morihei. As I heard it, he was talking about the use of atemi as a distraction to facilitate the movements. Basically, distraction and misdirection is 90% of aikido, not that 90% of the physical techniques of aikido are strikes. 
Also, someone else already said this, but Aikido does start with large circles, but many styles teach that the circles should get smaller as the practicioner gets better. The circles start big to make sure beginners are actually using circles.


----------



## American HKD (Apr 25, 2012)

mastercole said:


> I have been looking over a variety of Hapkido websites. I read things about authenticity, originality, traditionally pure, etc.
> 
> How can these claims be verified?
> 
> Does Hapkido have a technical standard, and if so, what/who sets that standard?



Good question.

I think good technical standards are kept by honest Masters who have learned and teach according to the standards their teachers passed on. 

I will be the first to admit I have seen many Black Belts that would not be blue belts in my school. No not everyone has the same standards and it is a shame.

We were always tested by two or more masters and the students had to satisfy all of them to pass.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 26, 2012)

mastercole said:


> I have been looking over a variety of Hapkido websites. I read things about authenticity, originality, traditionally pure, etc.
> 
> How can these claims be verified?


If you look at many TKD school websites, you run into the same sort of thing.  Yes, it can be verified, but it takes digging and research.  It is much easier to verify with taekwondo than it is with hapkido, partly because traditionally, hapkido has no forms.  With taekwondo, you can look at the forms and say, 'he's doing taeguk iljang, or he's doing a Chang Hon or a Songahm form.'  Taekwondo is much more accessible to most people, so they also have a better idea of what it is supposed to look like.  Since the technical content is generally narrower and more striking focused, it is also easier to evaluate.

Hapkido is less common and really doesn't use forms.  It's not an olympic sport and traditionally doesn't have a competitive element, so people don't have a mental image of what 'hapkido fighting' is supposed to look like either.  Because hapkido has striking with both the hands/arms and feet/legs, but which are executed differently, and because a lot of TKD schools incorporate kicks from hapkido, it is even harder to differentiate.



mastercole said:


> Does Hapkido have a technical standard, and if so, what/who sets that standard?


People who don't actually practice hapkido but have material culled from hapkido grafted onto whatever art they practice (usually taekwondo) are happy to say that they practice hapkido (even though they don't) and will say that there is no technical standard.  This is not true.

Hapkido, regardless of which federation or association, has a common body of material.  There are some differences from federation to federation, but there is far more overlap than difference.  Hapkido's techniques are designed around the hwu, won, and yu principles; harmony, circular, and flowing (there is another thread on this subject going).  Hapkido is a soft art, which makes it very different from taekwondo or karate.  

Aside from joint locks, manipulation, sweeps, and take-downs, hapkido has a body of strikes, some of which overlap with other Korean striking arts and some of which are uniquely hapkido.

As to who sets that standard, it is the same as with any other art; there are a number of federations, the largest of which I believe is GM Ji's; the Korea Hapkido Federation, which set standards for the technical content.

Other organizations include the International Hapkido Federation (GM Myung Jae Nam) and the World Hapkido Association (GM Jung Tae).  There are numerous other federations and associations, as well as unaffiliated schools. 

I have been trained by IHF lineage instructors and am also a member of the World Hapkido Association.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 26, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Valid points.  In order for a universally accepted technical standard to be accepted, there would need to be one, and only one Hapkido organization in existence.  Within that organization, one, and only one leader that sets that technical standard which everyone in turn supports and upholds.


I disagree with you here.  Legitimate hapkido can trace its roots back to a fairly small number of people, and while there are some differences between them, there is enough common technical content to tie them together. 

Is this realistically going to happen?  No.  If it were a realistic possibility it would probably have already been accomplished while the art was in its infancy.  Whatever facts or speculation one may consider (from power grabs, politics, personal conflicts, differing ideology etc) the seniors of the art did not combine the art into a single, cohesive unit.  



Kong Soo Do said:


> Another consideration is the vast amount of difference of opinion on what 'Hapkido' is and what it isn't.  Speaking only for myself, from my point of view...and no disrespect intended towards any particular group...I have seen some very high level Hapkidoin demonstrating techniques that I know would never work in a real world altercation.  Too complicated, too based in refined motor skills (which diminish while under duress/adrenaline dump) and useful only for 'show' against a semi-compliant partner that is willing to throw his punch a foot to the side of your head and leave it hanging there in mid-air for the 'master' to grab and demonstrate his fancy technique.  How could someone (not just me, but anyone that has used the art in the real world) support something like that as 'the' technical standard?  That would be intellectual dishonesty and a disservice to pass on to students.  That is my own viewpoint, based upon my perspectives and experience.


How do you use that paragraph about overly complex techniques to support the first sentence about opinion of what constitutes hapkido?  The two are completely unrelated.  And outside of debate about CHKD, I really haven't seen all that much debate about what is and is not hapkido.

Regarding some techniques being over-refined or overly complex, over-compliance of partners, or having some other issue that makes them less effective on the mythical deadly street, that is hardly common to hapkido and those factors have nothing to do with whether or not the art is considered 'hapkido.'  While I do consider those factors to be worthy of consideration/discussion, at that point, you're getting more into the topic of 'what works on the street?' and away from 'is this hapkido?'


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 26, 2012)

mastercole said:


> So since there is not standard to compare to as correct Hapkido, and there is no combat contest to compare who develops the best fighters, it seems that I would simply pick a teacher that impressed me the most, that I felt was a good fit for me and that there is no way of ever knowing how good one Hapkido teacher, or student is compared to another. If I were recommended to a specific teacher, it would simply be based on the opinion of the recommender, not on any type of fact of ability, or achievement?  So it is really a person's personal taste?


Well, you'd have to look at the standard within the association/federation.  If the instructor is unaffiliated, then he got his training from somewhere.  Korean striking art + hapkido culled joint locks is not in any way, shape or form hapkido.  If the instructor is actually teaching hapkido, he should be happy to share his lineage.  If you go back far enough in his or her lineage, then their hapkido comes from an established line, which will then give you some basis for comparison.  

Hapkido is a young art, so many of the pioneers are still alive and practicing.  You certainly are familiar with that within the context of taekwondo.  It isn't a big mystery as to who learned from who and where they fit in in the grand scheme of hapkido.  If they cannot trace their line back to Choi Dojunim, then it probably isn't hapkido.  

There are other factors in school recommendations that are more related to the quality of the school owner, whether or not they might be a good fit for a specific customer, and less to what art they are teaching.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 26, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Hapkido, regardless of which federation or association, has a common body of material. There are some differences from federation to federation, but there is far more overlap than difference. Hapkido's techniques are designed around the hwu, won, and yu principles; harmony, circular, and flowing (there is another thread on this subject going). Hapkido is a soft art, which makes it very different from taekwondo or karate.



 Interestingly, I have a friend who lives in Korea and is a 5th dan in Hapkido who has told me on more than one occasion he's never heard those three principles while training in Korea. He said he first heard about them from westerners. 



> Other organizations include the International Hapkido Federation (GM Myung Jae Nam) and the World Hapkido Association (GM Jung Tae). There are numerous other federations and associations, as well as unaffiliated schools.



 GM Jung Tae is pretty awesome. I don't know how his Hapkido compares to others but I went to a seminar he put on and he was very impressive.



> I have been trained by IHF lineage instructors and am also a member of the World Hapkido Association.



Do both the IHF and WHA specifically teach the principles of harmony, circular, and flowing? 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 26, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> Interestingly, I have a friend who lives in Korea and is a 5th dan in Hapkido who has told me on more than one occasion he's never heard those three principles while training in Korea. He said he first heard about them from westerners.


The principles are implicit, but I suspect that students in Korea simply learned the art while westerners probably wanted details of what made hapkido hapkido and not karate.



chrispillertkd said:


> GM Jung Tae is pretty awesome. I don't know how his Hapkido compares to others but I went to a seminar he put on and he was very impressive.


I had planned to attend a seminar last year, but was unable to.  I am very glad to hear that you liked it.  I have a DVD of him demonstrating the full curriculum and I thought that what he presents was in line with what I had learned.  There were some stylistic differences; not a better/worse, but just different ways to approach the same techniques.



chrispillertkd said:


> Do both the IHF and WHA specifically teach the principles of harmony, circular, and flowing?


My instructors who were IHF or IHF descended did.  I have never heard them mentioned by anyone in conversation or in any of the material that I have, but the principles are definitely present in the way that the techniques are performed.


----------



## American HKD (Apr 26, 2012)

Those principles harmony, circular, and flowing do not seem to be spoken about in the original teachings of GM Choi, Yong Sool or Ji Han Jae. The main HKD principles are off balancing which is simply Push/Pull.

So if one is pushed he pulls and if pulled you push. Those movements can be straight or circular in nature and HKD reflects this in its techniques. 

The water principle etc. are kind of strange IMO.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 26, 2012)

I wonder if its more of an IHF theme.


----------



## American HKD (Apr 29, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I wonder if its more of an IHF theme.



Maybe?

I think it came about later in HKD and the off shoots of HKD systems as they developed. You do not hear those ideas in Japanese Daito Ryu, AKD or Jujitsu.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 30, 2012)

I won't speak about DRAJJ, but the principles certainly seem to be there in hapkido.  Whether the terms were grafted on at a later point is another question.


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 1, 2012)

American HKD said:


> ..
> 
> So if one is pushed he pulls and if pulled you push.
> ...



And as I learned it, often if you want to push, you pull slightly first, or if you want to pull, you push slightly.  If you want to go right, go left slightly first, and same for right.  By slightly, I mean just enough to get your opponent to react, then use your opponent's instinctive counter movement to aid you in making your move.  Perhaps you meant that as well sir?


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 1, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Legitimate hapkido can trace its roots back to a fairly small number of people, and while there are some differences between them, there is enough common technical content to tie them together.



Is there?  What is 'legitimate' Hapkido?  Is it the one with certain kicks added in?  Is it the Hapkido of another original student of Choi?  Is it ONLY what Choi taught and nothing else?  Reading different interviews of seniors it seems apparent that this is a point of debate amoungst them.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 1, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Is there?


Yes, there is.  

Hapkido is not homogeneous the way that taekwondo, kendo, or judo, but yes, there is a common set of techniques and a common approach that allow for a technical standard, albeit a somewhat loose one.

Each federation/association/org within the art has a more defined technical standard.  It really isn't all that different from other martial arts.  

Taekwondo, for example, has a number of organizations, each of which maintain their own technical standard, but all of which have enough similarity that they are still taekwondo.  

Also, each of those organizations can trace their lineage back to the five original kwans.



Kong Soo Do said:


> What is 'legitimate' Hapkido?  Is it the one with certain kicks added in?  Is it the Hapkido of another original student of Choi?  Is it ONLY what Choi taught and nothing else?  Reading different interviews of seniors it seems apparent that this is a point of debate amoungst them.


Again, legitimate hapkido can trace its roots back to a fairly small number of people.  And by legitimate, I mean hapkido that traces its line back to Choi Dojunim.  If seniors who can do this wish to debate among themselves, it is their time to waste splitting hairs.  

For the purposes of this discussions, and for non-hapkidoin, tracing it back to Choi Dojunim is the most fair handed and inclusive way that I can put it.  

Also, by 'legitimate,' I mean actually learning _hapkido_.  Striking arts with HKD culled joint locks grafted onto it, even if taught by someone who meets the above criteria is not hapkido, legitimate or otherwise.  It may be very effective and a lot of fun, but it isn't hapkido.  

ITF taekwondo apparently has HKD culled hoshinsul, which was received from a hapkido master (I'm sorry, but I cannot recall who it was).  The techniques were integrated into the system, and the system is taekwondo, not hapkido.  

Also, I speak from personal experience in this regard, having practiced TKD with HKD joint locks and then later hapkido.  Definitely different.  Not a greater/lesser kind of difference; simply different.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 1, 2012)

American HKD said:


> So if one is pushed he pulls and if pulled you push. Those movements can be straight or circular in nature and HKD reflects this in its techniques.
> 
> The water principle etc. are kind of strange IMO.


Not all that strange.  What you describe above is the principle of harmonizing or blending; i'm pulled, so I push, thus harmonizing my own motion with that of my opponent.

I don't think the issue is whether or not those terms were used, but whether or not those terms describe the practice of the art, which in my opinion, they do.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (May 2, 2012)

Sounds good Daniel.  That was a well thought out post that I can agree with you on.


----------



## American HKD (May 2, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Not all that strange.  What you describe above is the principle of harmonizing or blending; i'm pulled, so I push, thus harmonizing my own motion with that of my opponent.
> 
> I don't think the issue is whether or not those terms were used, but whether or not those terms describe the practice of the art, which in my opinion, they do.



Sure is.

I wanted to keep that very thought on ice because, as you realized push/pull says it all. Adding all the flowery stuff in nice but is non-essential for understanding the non-resistance theory of HKD. All a student needs to understand is the essence and how to apply it. 

Keep it real, real simple.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 2, 2012)

American HKD said:


> Sure is.
> 
> I wanted to keep that very thought on ice because, as you realized push/pull says it all. Adding all the flowery stuff in nice but is non-essential for understanding the non-resistance theory of HKD. All a student needs to understand is the essence and how to apply it.
> 
> Keep it real, real simple.


I agree.  I don't get into complexities with students; I just teach them techniques and how to apply them.

But I'm not teaching students; I'm engaging in a technical discussion with knowledgeable people in the same field.  Those terms are frequently used in internet discussions, as they encapsulate a lot of information in a fairly brief manner.


----------



## American HKD (May 3, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I agree.  I don't get into complexities with students; I just teach them techniques and how to apply them.
> 
> But I'm not teaching students; I'm engaging in a technical discussion with knowledgeable people in the same field.  Those terms are frequently used in internet discussions, as they encapsulate a lot of information in a fairly brief manner.



Speaking for myself I never was taught by my teachers anything more then push/pull theory. I only read about Yu, Hwa, Won on the net or in books. Also the water principle people talk about in HKD, it does not seem to actualy exist.

Kool Sul Won may have dreamed up these flowery philosophies, after reading the following you may notice push/pull is the basis for all three concepts.




> The foundation of Kuk Sool Won&#8482; training is based on the theory of _YU-WON-HWA.__From the theory of YU (flowing, as in water), we learn to "go with the flow." When we are pushed, we pull; when we are pulled, we push. Also, water symbolizes many things, not the least of which are adaptability, softness and at the same time, great force._
> _The theory of WON (circle) acknowledges that every person has his or her own circle of "private space." Attacks which invade this space should be redirected with flowing and circular defensive motions. This circle should be thought of as least resistance; always rolling (active), and therefore, difficult to hold or grasp._
> _Finally, the theory of HWA (harmony) represents the unity of mind and body. In practice, this is accomplished through repetition. Harmony is achieved within oneself, through a state of "emptiness" that recognizes "+" (yang) and "-" (um) are part of one; each is there to allow the other to exist, and cannot exist if the other part is not there._
> _The ramification of the theory of YOU-WON-HWA is that as flowing water seeks a harmonious state with its environment, constantly adapting to external changes, we should also seek to maintain harmony within our inner circle so that all trespassers in this space are redirected in direct proportion to the force they introduce._


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 3, 2012)

American HKD said:


> Speaking for myself I never was taught by my teachers anything more then push/pull theory. I only read about Yu, Hwa, Won on the net or in books. Also the water principle people talk about in HKD, it does not seem to actualy exist.


I've seen 'water' concepts taught by more than one instructor in more than one art.  I would say that the principle is there, but also that the principle can be expressed via different terminology, depending upon who you talk to.



American HKD said:


> Kool Sul Won may have dreamed up these flowery philosophies, after reading the following you may notice push/pull is the basis for all three concepts.
> 
> 
> > The foundation of Kuk Sool Won&#8482; training is based on the theory of _YU-WON-HWA.__From the theory of YU  (flowing, as in water), we learn to "go with the flow." When we are  pushed, we pull; when we are pulled, we push. Also, water symbolizes  many things, not the least of which are adaptability, softness and at  the same time, great force._
> ...


Wouldn't surprise me; there's been plenty of cross-migration of concepts and techniques between arts, particularly within the same region or culture.

The way that those principles were taught to me, however, differs from how they are described in the the quote above.  The way that I learned it was more like this:

Hwa: Harmonize with your opponent's movement so that you use his own force against him (push/pull)
Won: Use circular movements; the spacial element described in the KSW quote was also described in this as well.
Yu: Flow with the situation, allowing your movements and techniques to 'flow' from one to the next as needed.

Seems to work pretty well for me.   My instructors never got into the flowery stuff


----------



## milewski (May 16, 2012)

Judo is sport not combat.


----------



## andyjeffries (May 17, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Also, I speak from personal experience in this regard, having practiced TKD with HKD joint locks and then later hapkido.  Definitely different.  Not a greater/lesser kind of difference; simply different.



Daniel, could you elaborate here please.  I've done some sessions in Hapkido in the past (not enough to consider myself a Hapkido practitioner, more of a cross-training for a period to help my Taekwondo).  I didn't feel any particular difference from the HKD-style joint locks I'd learnt from Taekwondo (just more of them).

So, feel free to ramble as much as you like (don't worry about conciseness), I'd like to understand more about the differences between Hapkido and Hoshinsool in Taekwondo.

I recently bought the book Hapkido by Marc Tedeschi along with about half a dozen books on step-sparring and Taekwondo Hoshinsool, trying to increase my knowledge in this area - but I'd appreciate the insight that someone who has actually trained in both has.  Of course Puunui would be a great resource in answering this, but this is off-topic for his mailing list and he's absent from here...

Cheers,


Andy


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 17, 2012)

milewski said:


> Judo is sport not combat.


I think you're posting in the wrong thread.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 17, 2012)

andyjeffries said:


> Daniel, could you elaborate here please.  I've done some sessions in Hapkido in the past (not enough to consider myself a Hapkido practitioner, more of a cross-training for a period to help my Taekwondo).  I didn't feel any particular difference from the HKD-style joint locks I'd learnt from Taekwondo (just more of them).


I suspect that you wouldn't, as in my experience, limited though it likely is, most of hoshinsul in taekwondo is hapkido sourced.  

Pretty much universally, when I've asked taekwondo instructors who include hoshinsul where they learned it, they say they either studied hapkido and hold rank or picked it up from hapkido via a training partner or a seminar.  

One gent even mentioned a book written by this gent: http://www.worldhapkido.com/master_choe.html, a book that I happened to have.  Good book, by the way. 



andyjeffries said:


> So, feel free to ramble as much as you like (don't worry about conciseness), I'd like to understand more about the differences between Hapkido and Hoshinsool in Taekwondo.


I think that the major difference between the two is that hapkido is centered around hoshinsul whereas taekwondo is centered around striking.  Also, hoshinsul in taekwondo tends to be hapkido sourced.  Even ITF taekwon-do, which has a fairly well developed hoshinsul in its curriculum, imported its hoshinsul from hapkido.

I don't look down on that, by the way.  I took taekwondo with HKD sourced hoshinsul for several years and greatly enjoyed it, and if I ever find myself teaching taekwondo again, that is the sort of class that I would teach.  

While I didn't notice the hoshinsul itself as being overly different, quantity aside, the strikes were executed differently and there were actually more kicks in the HKD that I learned than there are in taekwondo.



andyjeffries said:


> I recently bought the book Hapkido by Marc Tedeschi along with about half a dozen books on step-sparring and Taekwondo Hoshinsool, trying to increase my knowledge in this area - but I'd appreciate the insight that someone who has actually trained in both has.  Of course Puunui would be a great resource in answering this, but this is off-topic for his mailing list and he's absent from here...


I'd like to see Puunui return to active posting, but I don't think that that is a priority for him right now.  He could definitely give you a better answer than I, that is certain.


----------



## Egon (May 17, 2012)

As I learned, difference between Hosinsul and Hapkido is that Hapkido is full art with it principles, forms, stances, kicks..and other stuff which martial art is made of. Hosinsul is joint lock based self defense part of Taekwondo and only it. 

Hosinsul tehniques are originaly extracted from Hapkido by Gen. Choi and that's what they have in common. 

Hosinsul never had definite number of tehniques, so it evolves even today, and Taekwondo instructors still extracts tehniques from Hapkido. I believe reason is simply because many Taekwondo instructors holds degree in Hapkido.

Some schools blends Hapkido and Taekwondo so much that nobody know what they are practicing..everybody should find level of blending which is good to them..I think it's hard to mistake because Hkd and Tkd goes so well together that they should be practiced together.

First question was is there any technical standard in Hapkido..I would say yes but each federation / organisation have it's own standards, it would be probably impossible to have one standard for all.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 18, 2012)

Hoshisul is just the general term for self defense; literally protect body skill.  The term is not art specific.


----------



## Egon (May 18, 2012)

In my post I referred to specific Taekwondo Hosinsul. Is it often that Hosinsul term is not art specific or? I heard it only as Taekwondo term.


----------



## milewski (May 18, 2012)

mastercole said:


> Not for all martial arts.
> 
> For example; Judo has a curriculum standard, and a person can compare one teacher to another based on that standard.  Judo also has combat, which sets one teacher and their students apart from another.



I was referring to the above comment, sorry, should have included this quote in my comment.


----------



## Bruce W. Sims (Jun 17, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Hoshisul is just the general term for self defense; literally protect body skill. The term is not art specific.



Thanks, Daniel: 

Actually you rathermuch encapsulate this whole issue in just those brief phrases. The short answer to the OP is a simple "yes". Hapkido does have a technical standard. That technical standard, however, has a lot to do with where in the history of the Hapkido arts one chooses to take up the discussion. As a result, to identify the standard, one needs to choose whether the discussion is about YU SOOL, YUKWONSUL, HAPKIYUKWONSUL, or HAPKIDO. There are also derivations of each of these practices as well as corruptions and re-mixtures of the material. Thoughts? 

Best Wishes,

Bruce


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 26, 2012)

Bruce did bring up a viable point, that could apply to any art.  Arts can and do tend to change over time, not all, but many have.  It could be the addition of a form(s), certain drills, competiton etc.  All lead to a change in 'technical' standards.  One would have to define the period in which their asking the question.  As an example, Uechi Ryu originally taught only three kata.  In the 50's, five additional kata were added.  So the technical standard would have changed from someone earning their BB in the 40's as opposed to someone in the 60's as far as the actual time of testing.


----------

