# Hapkido & Taekwondo



## TKDJUDO (Dec 1, 2007)

What's the main difference between Hapkido & Taekwondo and which art would be more practical to use when defending oneself on the streets ?

As well, I would like to hear from anyone what they think would be the best type of martial art to learn to for self-defense because I am interested in enrolling my son in an art.


----------



## exile (Dec 1, 2007)

TKDJUDO said:


> What's the main difference between Hapkido & Taekwondo and which art would be more practical to use when defending oneself on the streets ?
> 
> As well, I would like to hear from anyone what they think would be the best type of martial art to learn to for self-defense because I am interested in enrolling my son in an art.



OK.

Second things first: _any_ of the traditional MAs can be a completely effective MA for street defense, if that art is trained _for_ street defense. That means, trained not for point-scoring in sports competition, but trained in realistic one-on-one scenarios with one of the participants playing the part of a dangerously violent but formally untrained attacker, a description which corresponds to the vast majority of cases. Again: it is not the art per se, but how realistic the training is for violent street confrontations, with the skills of that art exploited to inflict maximum, possibly permanent damage upon a completely _non_compliant attacker. Karate, TKD, Jiujitsu of various kinds, Ninjutsu of many kinds, and on and on and on, can be ferociously successful in that capacity if the student is trained from early days to exploit the technical resources of the art _with that goal in mind._

Since that's true in general, it's true in the specific case of TKD/Hapkido. TKD is, basically, the Korean development of Japanese karate, augmented with certain elaborations of kicking techniques (some of which have in turn diffused back to Japanese karate). Hapkido uses locks, throws, pins and so on as main tactical weapons to a greater extent than TKD does (though TKD does use them to set up strikes). Hapkido is to TKD as Jiujitsu is to Karate: arts based on limb control, pins, throws and so on, though some strikes are also trained and used, vs. primarily striking arts with vertical grappling techs utilized to set up terminal strikes to weak points on the attacker's body. People often compare Hapkido in Korea to Aikido in Japan, but my impression is that the grappling/striking mix in HKD is more like traditional Jiujitsu than it is like Aikido. Again, both TKD and HKD, properly trained for street defense, can be savagely effective destructive combat arts. The crucial bit is the training philosophy of the school. If you want close-quarters self-defense primarily, you must make that clear to the instructors at the school you're considering. Check out several classes there to see just how much of that is part of the regular curriculum. You should get a good sense after a few visits of whether the SD aspect is a high enough priority at the school to yield technical competence for that purpose.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 1, 2007)

You have a very good answer above. Both of these arts could be good for your needs. In HKD you'll usually see more locks and throws and escapes but still have a good variety of kicks and hand strikes. In TKD you'll usually get a wider variety of kicks and more sparring and exercise. All things being equal, in my opinion HKD is usually more well-rounded for self-defense and taught with more self-defense emphasis as TKD must balance the sport emphasis. _This varies considerably from school to school! _You really must investigate each school. In particular, how much locking, and how much kicking, is done in a given HKD style varies widely, but more importantly, how instructors train their art is highly variable. I knew a TKD instructor who eschewed the sport aspects, added in some boxing, and taught a great self-defense system.

Best art for self-defense? It depends on what threat you'll face, and who knows that? Boxing is often good for kids, as is Judo. What's available near you. In any event, the answer will still be: Visit the schools!


----------



## exile (Dec 1, 2007)

arnisador said:


> All things being equal, in my opinion HKD is usually more well-rounded for self-defense and taught with more self-defense emphasis as TKD must balance the sport emphasis. *This varies considerably from school to school! *You really must investigate each school. In particular, how much locking, and how much kicking, is done in a given HKD style varies widely, but more importantly, how instructors train their art is highly variable. I knew a TKD instructor who eschewed the sport aspects, added in some boxing, and taught a great self-defense system.
> 
> Best art for self-defense? It depends on what threat you'll face, and who knows that? Boxing is often good for kids, as is Judo. What's available near you. *In any event, the answer will still be: Visit the schools!*



This point cannot be emphasized enough: you have to go to the schools and see what they're doing. There are all kinds of ways to teach the same art, so it's not possible in advance to say which of two different arts is better to learn for purpose X or Y. It may be taught in a great way for X at school 1, but not well at all (from that point of view) in school 2. You have to _be_ there, and see just what's going on.

In a way, asking whether art X or art Y is better for such and such a purpose is like asking, which is a better defense in chess against White playing 1 P-K4&#8212;the Ruy Lopez or the Sicilian? Black has won spectacular, almost supernaturally beautiful victories with both, and fallen on its face with both. If one were clearly better than the other, no one would play the less effective one. But there are different ways of playing both&#8212;more defensively, stonewall style, vs. more aggressively, looking to mix it up and challenge for the center early on... it depends on who's playing Black, and what kind of player White is. Either can be a superb defense... if you're a superb player. But there's no right choice of defense against White's opening move which will give you an advantage in gaining the victory, all on its own. Same with the MAs. As arnisador has noted, there is a huge range of training styles. You have to be use your judgment, and ask probing questions about the school's curriculum and focus. I agree, HKD&#8212;especially Combat HKD&#8212;is less likely to put primary emphasis on sport competition than TKD schools are... but as always, it depends on the school...


----------



## newGuy12 (Dec 1, 2007)

exile said:


> This point cannot be emphasized enough: you have to go to the schools and see what they're doing. There are all kinds of ways to teach the same art, so it's not possible in advance to say which of two different arts is better to learn for purpose X or Y. It may be taught in a great way for X at school 1, but not well at all (from that point of view) in school 2. You have to _be_ there, and see just what's going on.



Yes.  Please visit the schools and watch a class if you can.  Look and see which school practices in the more realistic manner, if self-defense is a high priority. The Master Instructor and Assistant Instructors make a far greater difference potentially than the curriculum.  

Also, please consider that if a student wishes to kick a lot -- that is, if he enjoys the feeling of kicking more than the feeling of being thrown or throwing the partner, then the practice of TKD will be more joyful and fulfilling to the student, and they will embrace the practice with all of their heart, where they may not enjoy the HKD as much.

Likewise, if the personality of the student is such that they enjoy joint locks and throws quite a bit, then perhaps they will embrace the HKD more. 



In either path, if you find a good Master Instructor, and the student engages themselves religiously, they can capably defend themselves!  Both of these Martial Arts are no joke.  They can give the students very powerful motions!



Regards,

Robert


----------



## Brad Dunne (Dec 2, 2007)

An additional point to consider, the age of your son. It has been debated that HKD, with the joint locks, may be harmful to children. This is due to the fact that childrens bodies is/are in the developmental stages and can be negitively impacted. The concensus is that under the age of 16, joint damage is too easily inflicted. Just some food for thought............


----------



## matt.m (Dec 18, 2007)

Take this into consideration, until around age 15 or 16 the locks really shouldn't be done.  Sure there is a subject to debate etc. etc. but for the sake of argument we will just call this last statement true.

Why not consider Judo and Tae Kwon Do as combination.  You get the blocking, punching and kicking of Tae Kwon Do.  Then you get the throwing/falling/and some arm bars.  I teach a judo class twice a week.  The students range from 8-14 for the kids.  I have the adults range from early to late 20 somethings.

All the above students of the 12 I teach are also tae Kwon Do students, I have told them all when they reach black belt in judo then they can take hapkido.  They will be of more appropriate age for the locks.  The 4 adults I have are also in hapkido.

Judo, if taught traditionally and not for the sport aspect is an extremely competent form of self defense.  If you have a Judo or Yudo school nearby by all means check it out.

I always give 1 free lesson so the prospective student gets the feel of the class and the other students.

Just my .02 

Hoshin,


----------

