# differences between Hapkido and Tae Kwon Do



## matt.m

I have read a ton of posts on the hapkido and tae kwon do forums.  I am studying both.  My father is a very active instructor and I have grown up around these two Korean Martial Arts.  So this is just based on opinions gathered through practice and observation.

Hapkido:  Founded by Choi.  This art in and of itself, as based on the Moo Sul Kwan cirriculum is an all encompassing martial art.  You have a plethra of wrist and clothes technique to draw from.  

Next you have the art of throwing, this is done differently than judo in the application of the throw.  The throw does not change, just the set up will be different.  Hapkido cirriculum also dictates doing 10 throws with one arm.  25 modifieds, these are throws done from various entries that are done as wrist throws etc.  Judo randori is a big teaching aspect.  

Sparring, jump kicking, spinning kicks and flying kicks are heavily previlant in the cirriculum.  Finished off by knife defense, cane techniques.  Punching and blocking is very important as well.

Now, I am sorry but a kick is a kick.  I always kick the same in tae kwon do class as I have learned in hapkido.  I have not been scolded for it yet.

The main three stances in hapkido, per Moo Sul Kwan: Horse, Sparring, and Front.  



Tae Kwon Do: One of the best kicking arts, period.  Tae Kwon Do, to the Koreans is no different than baseball in America. 


Tae Kwon Do has many different styles of striking and stances that are used in poomse.  In hapkido the knife and ridge hand strikes are taught and practiced.  However, there are no forms in gup ranks in hapkido.  In Tae Kwon Do poomse is a big part of the cirriculum.  

Tae Kwon Do incorporates set pf basic techniques which is nothing more than striking, punching and kicking done in combination.  One step sparring and of course poomse.

Tae Kwon Do is known for its kicking.  Sparring, jump kicking, spinning kicks and flying kicks are the cirriculum.   Tae Kwon Do has "self-defense" techniques.  They are, and let me be real clear on this.....They are not hapkido techniques.

Just because two korean arts share the same strikes, kicks, blocks, and stances does not make them similiar arts.  They are two different arts with two totally different cirriculums, serving two different purposes.


----------



## crushing

Matt,

Thanks for the compare and contrast.  Like you, I am studying both.  I agree with you that they are two different arts, but there still seems to be something complimentary about them.  I don't know if this makes sense, but I am starting to seem them kind of like the um (hapkido) and yang (taekwondo) of my MA studies.

Respects,
crushing


----------



## Brad Dunne

At the risk of bringing the wrath of all modern day Hapkidoin, there was a legit combination of the two arts, early in the beginnings of TKD. Many of the Korean instructors who flooded our shores in the 70's were versed in Hapkido. The initial instructions were along the lines of Japanese Karate, with their forms applications and the core self defense applications consisted of locks, throws, takedowns along with the common assortment of strikes, all of which can be found in todays Hapkido, especially the Sin Moo style. Now modern day "sport" TKD is another animal. It is so far removed from these elements that it's not a valid consideration at all. But at one time they were joined at the hip.


----------



## Paul B

Brad Dunne said:
			
		

> At the risk of bringing the wrath of all modern day Hapkidoin, there was a legit combination of the two arts, early in the beginnings of TKD. Many of the Korean instructors who flooded our shores in the 70's were versed in Hapkido. The initial instructions were along the lines of Japanese Karate, with their forms applications and the core self defense applications consisted of locks, throws, takedowns along with the common assortment of strikes, all of which can be found in todays Hapkido, especially the Sin Moo style. Now modern day "sport" TKD is another animal. It is so far removed from these elements that it's not a valid consideration at all. But at one time they were joined at the hip.


 
The wrath has been incurred!! I'm not sure by which camp,though. 

 I agree that it's probable some early "pioneers" may have come over with a smattering of HKD mixed in with their TKD. I wouldn't assume that they were any "higher ups" in HKD. Again..with KMA history in general anything's possible. I don't know how they reconciled their theory and movement between the two arts,nor do I expect any explanations to be forthcoming.LOL Any recognizable names you can give us from that early influx,Brad?

I also wonder if TKD and HKD were supposedly so compatible in the 70's,then why do we see the distinct differences between them today? Hmmm.


----------



## matt.m

I asked dad his opinion on the subject.  His reply was that Grandmaster Park once said that "In Tae Kwon Do class I did not learn hapkido, at the Yudo Academy I didn't learn Tae Kwon Do or Hapkido.  While my brother and I lived with Won-Kwang Wha we did not learn Yudo." 

GM Park came to Cape Girardeau, MO in 1969.  My father began learning from him in 1973.

My point is like I said, they are two different arts with two different cirriculums and they arts two arts that distictly stand on their own.


----------



## FearlessFreep

OK, maybe someone can explain to me what the 'difference' is.

Some background. I started Taekwondo as a self-defense art.  My first instructor also had some background in Hapkido.  So when we worked self-defense techniques, we had incorporated strikes, blocks, wrist locks, throws, etc....  at this point I did not know what "Taekwondo" was, I simply knew that I was taking a Taekwondo class and this is what I did (and we did the Taegeuk poomse and when talking about application, some of the moves were grabs, throws, etc...)

Now Im taking a class called "Hybrid Hapkido" which is tauht by a Hapkido 6th Dan who has also done Taekwondo (and is apparently well versed in BJJ and Muy Thai, that''ve I've seen).  So once again, I don't know at what point the Hapkido ends and the other stuff begins.

I've heard that Taekwondo is a linear striking art and Hapkido is more of a circular art, but they seem kinda interelated to me.  I mean, when I punch it comes forward from the chin straight into the target (linear) but to generate power I twist from the hips and the shoulders (a circular motion to drive a weapon in a straight line).  And *that's* what I learned from my Taekwondo instructor.  From my Hapkido instructor I learned to drive forward from my rear foot to get more forward motion and stronger twist.  So I'm using a linear drive to power a circular twist to empower a linear strike.  Same with kicks.  A spinning sidekick uses a circular body motion to add power to a linear strike.  So it seems to me that Taekwondo talks about 'linear' striking but uses a lot of circular body motion to add power and speed to those strikes, but Hapkido talks about 'circular motion' but is using circular body motiion to add power and speed to linear strikes.  Seems just like two different ways of talk ing about he same thing

This may just be an artifact of the fact that both my primary teachers have been familiar with both arts, but it does seem to me that the basic philosophical and practical approach to the techniques are very similar.  Granted that  at a "Taekwondo" school or a "Hapkido" school or curriculum may be quite a bit different, but the roundhouse I use in Hapkido class is the same roundhouse I learned in Taekwondo so at the core, the arts realy seem very similar


----------



## matt.m

http://mskhapkido.tripod.com/id14.html.  The link will show the testing cirriculum for Moo Sul Kwan hapkido.  Also, look at the photo galleries.  It will show pictures taken during tournaments or class.


----------



## matt.m

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> OK, maybe someone can explain to me what the 'difference' is.
> 
> Some background. I started Taekwondo as a self-defense art. My first instructor also had some background in Hapkido. So when we worked self-defense techniques, we had incorporated strikes, blocks, wrist locks, throws, etc.... at this point I did not know what "Taekwondo" was, I simply knew that I was taking a Taekwondo class and this is what I did (and we did the Taegeuk poomse and when talking about application, some of the moves were grabs, throws, etc...)
> 
> Now Im taking a class called "Hybrid Hapkido" which is tauht by a Hapkido 6th Dan who has also done Taekwondo (and is apparently well versed in BJJ and Muy Thai, that''ve I've seen). So once again, I don't know at what point the Hapkido ends and the other stuff begins.
> 
> I've heard that Taekwondo is a linear striking art and Hapkido is more of a circular art, but they seem kinda interelated to me. I mean, when I punch it comes forward from the chin straight into the target (linear) but to generate power I twist from the hips and the shoulders (a circular motion to drive a weapon in a straight line). And *that's* what I learned from my Taekwondo instructor. From my Hapkido instructor I learned to drive forward from my rear foot to get more forward motion and stronger twist. So I'm using a linear drive to power a circular twist to empower a linear strike. Same with kicks. A spinning sidekick uses a circular body motion to add power to a linear strike. So it seems to me that Taekwondo talks about 'linear' striking but uses a lot of circular body motion to add power and speed to those strikes, but Hapkido talks about 'circular motion' but is using circular body motiion to add power and speed to linear strikes. Seems just like two different ways of talk ing about he same thing
> 
> This may just be an artifact of the fact that both my primary teachers have been familiar with both arts, but it does seem to me that the basic philosophical and practical approach to the techniques are very similar. Granted that at a "Taekwondo" school or a "Hapkido" school or curriculum may be quite a bit different, but the roundhouse I use in Hapkido class is the same roundhouse I learned in Taekwondo so at the core, the arts realy seem very similar


 
I have seen tae kwon do schools that only teach tkd.  They teach a side kick totally different than a traditional hapkido school.  I don't know anything about hybrid hapkido.  I have only seen Moo Sul Kwan and Kuk Sool.


----------



## FearlessFreep

_I have seen tae kwon do schools that only teach tkd. They teach a side kick totally different than a traditional hapkido school._

Can you give an example?  I mean from the point of the mechanics of the kick or the theory behind the kick?  Was the TKD school a 'sport' school or a 'traditional self-defense' school?  I ask that because I've seen roundhouse kicks taught a little differently even in TKD schools because of the different emphasis of the schools so it wouldn't suprise me that schools would teach different ways to do a given kick, not because of the art but because of the intention.

I hope I'm not being contenious as I'm actually very curious.  Most of my Taekwondo training came from a school focused on self-defense and an instructor with background in Hapkido, now my Hapkido training comes fro m an instructor with a background in Taekwondo was well so I don't really know *what* I know,  and there seems a lot of overlap in the actual techniques, even though different schools emphasize those techniques differently.

The term 'hybrid hapkido' I think basically comes from the idea of combining Hapkido with techniques from other arts, as well as removing things that are 'traditional but not practical'. For example, after a recent set of belt tests the instructor wanted to get away from 'curriculum' to give people a mental break, so we spent a month working on ground fighting (BJJ).  The adults don't wear belts in class.  I guess it's really more of a "MMA with a strong emphasis on Hapkido" in many ways.    Where this comes to me is that we do a lot more emphasis on joint work, pressure points, throws, etc..than at my first Taekwondo school, but everything I've seen so far is that my first Taekwondo instructor really knew his stuff in these areas, it was just a different emphasis (less joint locks, more downblocks..if you will).  The same with common kicks, the roundhouse kick I do in my Hapkido class is the same mechanics of the roundhouse I first learned in Taekwondo (but is slightly different then how another Taekwondo school I attened for awhile taught it).  So I really don't know if what I do is a "Taekwondo roundhouse that my current instructor has adapted into his Hapkido" or whether Taekwondo and Taekwondo really have at the core, the same roundhouse kick.

So, since both of my main teachers have been "Primary Art + adaptions from other art(s)" I've never really known wehere a given art ends and another begins, so when talking about he difference(s) between Hapkido and Taekwondo, it seems to me that while they have some techniques that the other doesn't have, they share a lot of techniques in the center, and those techniques are pretty similar at the core, and the diffferences are more one of local emphasis and preference

but one thing I know is that I don't know as much as I thought I knew a year ago so I'm willing to say maybe I just dont know what I'm tlaking about...just a wide-eyed, inexpereienced set of observations


----------



## matt.m

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> _I have seen tae kwon do schools that only teach tkd. They teach a side kick totally different than a traditional hapkido school._
> 
> Can you give an example? I mean from the point of the mechanics of the kick or the theory behind the kick? Was the TKD school a 'sport' school or a 'traditional self-defense' school? I ask that because I've seen roundhouse kicks taught a little differently even in TKD schools because of the different emphasis of the schools so it wouldn't suprise me that schools would teach different ways to do a given kick, not because of the art but because of the intention.
> 
> 
> The term 'hybrid hapkido' I think basically comes from the idea of combining Hapkido with techniques from other arts, as well as removing things that are 'traditional but not practical'. For example, after a recent set of belt tests the instructor wanted to get away from 'curriculum' to give people a mental break, so we spent a month working on ground fighting (BJJ). The adults don't wear belts in class. I guess it's really more of a "MMA with a strong emphasis on Hapkido" in many ways. Where this comes to me is that we do a lot more emphasis on joint work, pressure points, throws, etc..than at my first Taekwondo school, but everything I've seen so far is that my first Taekwondo instructor really knew his stuff in these areas, it was just a different emphasis (less joint locks, more downblocks..if you will). The same with common kicks, the roundhouse kick I do in my Hapkido class is the same mechanics of the roundhouse I first learned in Taekwondo (but is slightly different then how another Taekwondo school I attened for awhile taught it). So I really don't know if what I do is a "Taekwondo roundhouse that my current instructor has adapted into his Hapkido" or whether Taekwondo and Taekwondo really have at the core, the same roundhouse kick.
> 
> So, since both of my main teachers have been "Primary Art + adaptions from other art(s)" I've never really known wehere a given art ends and another begins, so when talking about he difference(s) between Hapkido and Taekwondo, it seems to me that while they have some techniques that the other doesn't have, they share a lot of techniques in the center, and those techniques are pretty similar at the core, and the diffferences are more one of local emphasis and preference
> 
> but one thing I know is that I don't know as much as I thought I knew a year ago so I'm willing to say maybe I just dont know what I'm tlaking about...just a wide-eyed, inexpereienced set of observations


 
Ok, I get it.  Sorry I am a little thick between the ears.  Ok, Moo Sul Kwan Tae Kwon Do and Hapkido are very tradition on it's teachings.  However, the tae kwon do side is all about self defense and want to be rockstars at sparring as well.  On the belt test I just took my peer got scolded for doing the sport version of a side kick.  

The GM I learn tkd and hapkido from has held GGM Park's thoughts as to how each art was to be taught.  I know my dad obtained his dan from GGM Park a few years after my current teacher.

The other school I was referring to is hyped as "Self Defense".  However, I have watched one of their tests, I have seen one of their open classes.  It is all sport or point sparring driven.

Another issue surrounding your confusion may be that you are not following a solid cirriculum.  I went to the tkd side after I had been in hapkido for many years, also judo.  So my side kick is the traditional chamber, blast straight out and rechamber kick.  Tae Kwon Do point fighting for sparring "Rockstars" really looks like a half baked round house kick.  Good for quick points but not much else.

I think I am very fortunate that none of the senior black belts and their dan ranking students have not changed the hapkido or tae kwon do cirriculums laid down by GGM Park.

A lot will also revolve around it being a sport or sparring driven school or not as well.

All I know from the Moo Sul Kwan perspective is that those who try and get away with doing the sport version of the kicks in tkd or hapkido, outside of sparring will get scolded.


----------



## Brad Dunne

OK, another attempt to post a response. I had a fairly lengthy one prior, but for some(?) reason it was posted into the twilight zone. This one will be much shorter.

Name / Names were quired. The most prominent one that come to mind is GM Bong Soo Han from the Billy Jack movies. He is touted as the introducer of Hapkido into the U.S. Now in my estimation, not only from the movie but also from viewing his training tape(s), I see a closer application to TKD than HKD.

As to the other question of ("I also wonder if TKD and HKD were supposedly so compatible in the 70's,then why do we see the distinct differences between them today? Hmmm.") Very easy to answer, but I think you already know the answer........TKD has become a SPORT. 

Now in addition, lets look at Hapkido in general. How many variations are there? Who dosen't use kicks, who only uses a few and yet still others who stipulate that they have more kicks than TKD. FF stated that there is an interface with linear and circular movements. I concur with his assessment. To simplify, one would be hard pressed to differ between Old School TKD and Hapkido practicioners if they were on the mat at a seminar and they didn't know who or what each other were.


----------



## Paul B

Thanks,Brad. :asian: I also dislike the post time-out thingie as well. Lost some good posts that way. :mst: I have to log back in as well and that *really* puts the damper on my wanting to type it all out again.

I do agree with your assement of circular and linear movements. However, I've never personally seen a TKD-in strike,throw,lock,or fall like a HKD-in. Again,as always,I can only speak from what I've seen and what I have experienced thus far.Which admittedly is not near enough..so saying to me that TKD (old school or not) is like Hapkido is a reason for narrowed eyes and a "Huh?" Maybe I just need to get out more.:asian: 

I feel that each art has unique qualities that are well worth the time spent studying. Even though it's a given that each style of Hapkido may have different technique,the principles of Yoo,Won,and Hwa are evident in each and every one.TKD *does* *not* follow these precepts,in much the same manner that Karate does not follow the principle of "JU" from Judo. Again,just my opinion.


----------



## American HKD

Greetings

I'm hearing some very mistaken elements regarding HKD kicks. 

Original HKD kicks and the method of chambering and executing is NOT the same as TKD. 

HKD kicks are loosey chambered, have more use of the hips, work on swinging or pendulum like theories almost exclusively. Not linear or mixed at all.

A lot of mixing from TKD & HKD kicks have accured because many people learned TKD first than moved to HKD and kept their TKD kicks as is.

HKD is a soft style kicking method, TKD is a Hard Style Karate system they don't mix except to the un-trained  eye.


----------



## Brad Dunne

Paul eluded to the precepts of Hapkido and that TKD does not follow the same. Again I must defer to the element of two seperate venues of TKD, which is what the initial discourse was about. Yes, modern day TKD is a very different discipline then that of it's formation platform. Now given that distinction, the concepts of self defense embraces both HKD and TKD and come from the same foundations of training. One should remember that Korean MA practicioners were already trained in various disciplines long before Choi introduced his version of Daito Ryu, which eventually became what now is known as Hapkido. Additionally, with the many variations of Hapkido, does anyone honestly think that the other disciplines that were already being practiced, did not interject themselves into what the training was/has become? I have seen spinning kicks, jump turning kicks and an assortment of other flashy kicks done at Hapkido seminars. These same kicks have been done at TKD seminars/tournaments, Karate and Kung Fu demonstrations and so on. Even the close range (grappling) area has kicks that Hapkido likes to claim as their own, but have been done in other style as well. Not to belabor the point, but the vast majority of the kicks are delivered the same in all of the disciplines. Perhaps this is the rational behind what Stuart stated, folks learned TKD first and then went into Hapkido and kicked the same way. I say so what, if the job gets done and the elements of a successful self defense are present. That kick, most times is going to set up a takedown or throw and if that's done according to Hapkidos protocals, then to me your doing Hapkido.


----------



## Paul B

I understand your veiwpoints guys,and thank you for sharing them. It's about time we had a good discussion going on in here. 

I have also noticed that whenever the TKD and HKD differences topics pop up..we always end up focusing on kicks. 

Why is that? :idunno: 

We all know that Hapkido has kicks and TKD has kicks..OK...but then what does HKD have that TKD doesn't? Why isn't (insert KMA here) just called Korean "We do it all" Art? 

I have yet to see a TKD-in be flowing and soft,which is fine,and I wouldn't expect them to if they're really practicing TKD. On the other hand..I wouldn't expect a HKD-in to be hard and rigid while executing technique. It just doesn't jive.


----------



## matt.m

I have never seen a "True" Tae Kwon Do cirriculum that involves sweeps, reaps, take downs or locks.  That kind of stuff is not tae kwon do.  Whoever says it is would be making an incorrect statement.  

Also, I have seen falling mentioned on these boards in reference to tae kwon do.  I am sorry but tae kwon do is none of these things.


----------



## Brad Dunne

Focusing on kicks.........Not really, but it has become a standard part of many Hapkido styles. It was said that Choi only had 10 kicks and they were all low. Many other styles also adhear to that application. But for some reason, most Hapkidoin wish to use the disclaimer that their kicking styles are different, so they interject the kicking aspect to the debate. As I said before, I don't care how a kick is chambered or delivered, because in real world time, nobody cares as to the how to, only how affective. 
I would suggest that if anybody is really that obsessed with the different attributes of the kicks, that they review the Hapkido tapes of Fariborz Azhakh, from Calif - a Sin Moo practicioner if memory serves. 

Paul wishes to know what HKD has that TKD dosen't. Modern day TKD is apples to oranges, so there's no debate there. The difference between original TKD and HKD is the amount of accountable techniques that were/are required. TKD learned the basic application and provided the student with a modest number of techniques to learn and practice, as opposed to the larger number of techniques that most hapkido curriculums have imposed. Both learning applications included breakfalls, but HKD has embraced that aspect with almost making it a seperate art. Folks can and will debate about the values of learning how to fall and it's necessity within the confines of training, but in actuality, lots of folks get hurt or hurt themselves because of faulty timing or landing wrong or something else went amiss. In real applications, the breakfall is a non-player. The vast majority of folks who attempt to use a lock or a throw will only succeed in breaking whatever joint that's in play at the time. Now this is what is supposed to happen in real world applications because of the pump the body gets. But with the attention to breakfalls in the training, most folks don't get an honest feed back as to what and how something will happen (personal opinion). 

This debate can and will go on as it has in the past. The bottom line is that New age TKD is far removed, so no contest. Old school TKD has roots in Hapkido, but not to the extent, technique wise, that Hapkido does. Since the older TKD players are departing, one can assume that in a few years this debate just may disappear.


----------



## FearlessFreep

_
I have also noticed that whenever the TKD and HKD differences topics pop up..we always end up focusing on kicks._

Probably because they both *have* kicks and because of the overlap between the two, in terms of people learning Taekwondo and then learning Hapkido, and vice versa that becomes a common comparison point.

I gather from the above that even though I'm in a Hapkido class I'm doing kicks in more of a Taekwondo fashion, to put it superficially.  That maybe on the surface a sidekick looks like a sidekick, but if you know what to look for, they are different.


----------



## matt.m

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> _I have also noticed that whenever the TKD and HKD differences topics pop up..we always end up focusing on kicks._
> 
> Probably because they both *have* kicks and because of the overlap between the two, in terms of people learning Taekwondo and then learning Hapkido, and vice versa that becomes a common comparison point.
> 
> I gather from the above that even though I'm in a Hapkido class I'm doing kicks in more of a Taekwondo fashion, to put it superficially. That maybe on the surface a sidekick looks like a sidekick, but if you know what to look for, they are different.


 
That is probably the best, most simplisticly said thing during this whole debate.

You know I have always said that a side kick involves a tight chamber, launch and rechamber.  I see all of these people in tae kwon do, they do this half baked round house kick and call it a side kick.


----------



## FearlessFreep

_
You know I have always said that a side kick involves a tight chamber, launch and rechamber. I see all of these people in tae kwon do, they do this half baked round house kick and call it a side kick._

That's kinda odd because the sidekicks I was taught starts out with a tight chamber.  If by that you mean drawing the foot up to the hip and returning the foot to the hip after the strike.  So maybe I'm still more confused because it sounds like you are describing the sidekick I was taught in Taekwondo


----------



## howard

Brad Dunne said:
			
		

> It was said that Choi only had 10 kicks and they were all low.


Hi Brad,

If you check out the latest issue of Black Belt magazine, you'll see an article about the ten kicks that Choi taught GM Lim Hyun Soo of the Jungkikwan.  GM Lim trained directly with Choi for over 20 years.  One or two of the kicks are to targets above the waist, but the rest are low, as you say.

However, we can't say conclusively that Choi always taught these ten kicks to all of his students.  We know from information available from various of Choi's direct students that he taught different material to different people at different times in his life.  So, it's possible that he taught other kicks to other students, even though I'm not aware of any examples of this.



			
				Brad Dunne said:
			
		

> Old school TKD has roots in Hapkido...


Unless I'm misunderstanding your meaning, I have to disagree with you here.

Old-school TKD has its roots in Japanese and Okinawan Karate that some Koreans learned in Japan.  They took what they had learned back to Korea and began teaching it after the end of the Japanese occupation.  Most of them had trained in Shotokan.

Hapkido was just getting started in Korea at this time.  Choi's first student in Korea began training under him in, I believe, 1947.  I'm not aware of any of the original Korean Karate kwan heads studying under Choi Young Sool.

And, we can be sure that, whatever the art was that Choi learned in Japan, it was not Karate-based.  There is very little similarity between Choi's original art and the Korean Karate that preceded the creation of TKD.

Regards, Howard


----------



## matt.m

howard said:
			
		

> Hi Brad,
> 
> If you check out the latest issue of Black Belt magazine, you'll see an article about the ten kicks that Choi taught GM Lim Hyun Soo of the Jungkikwan. GM Lim trained directly with Choi for over 20 years. One or two of the kicks are to targets above the waist, but the rest are low, as you say.
> 
> However, we can't say conclusively that Choi always taught these ten kicks to all of his students. We know from information available from various of Choi's direct students that he taught different material to different people at different times in his life. So, it's possible that he taught other kicks to other students, even though I'm not aware of any examples of this.
> 
> 
> Unless I'm misunderstanding your meaning, I have to disagree with you here.
> 
> Old-school TKD has its roots in Japanese and Okinawan Karate that some Koreans learned in Japan. They took what they had learned back to Korea and began teaching it after the end of the Japanese occupation. Most of them had trained in Shotokan.
> 
> Hapkido was just getting started in Korea at this time. Choi's first student in Korea began training under him in, I believe, 1947. I'm not aware of any of the original Korean Karate kwan heads studying under Choi Young Sool.
> 
> And, we can be sure that, whatever the art was that Choi learned in Japan, it was not Karate-based. There is very little similarity between Choi's original art and the Korean Karate that preceded the creation of TKD.
> 
> Regards, Howard


 
Howard,

I have to agree with you almost entirely.  It is true that Choi taught a little differently in different parts of his life.  Ji Han Jae and Won Kwang Wha studied under Choi at the same time.  It was part of their day to day life.  The two most senior hapkido black belts in Moo Sul Kwan hapkido have even told me that even Great Grandmaster Park, who learned from Won-Kwang Wha could at times change a follow up to a technique from a punch to a stomp kick.  However, the core technique would stay the same.

Ji Han Jae and Won Kwang Wha are both notable high kickers.  Both students of Choi.  Grandmaster Hildebrand (7th dan TKD and 5th dan HKD) as well as my pop (5th dan HKD) are very observant to the differences, no matter how large or astute they may be from tkd and hkd.

Howard, thank you again for pointing out that tkd is a derivitative of shotokan karate.  An off branch and the Koreans changed it and made it their own.  Korean Karate is what Tae Kwon Do became.

I guess I should clarify the whole side kick analogy as well.  The tkd schools I have seen the half baked round kicks being called side kicks are more sport orientated.  They seems to hide behind the guise of self defense though.


----------



## American HKD

Brad Dunne said:
			
		

> Paul eluded to the precepts of Hapkido and that TKD does not follow the same. Again I must defer to the element of two seperate venues of TKD, which is what the initial discourse was about. Yes, modern day TKD is a very different discipline then that of it's formation platform. Now given that distinction, the concepts of self defense embraces both HKD and TKD and come from the same foundations of training. One should remember that Korean MA practicioners were already trained in various disciplines long before Choi introduced his version of Daito Ryu, which eventually became what now is known as Hapkido. Additionally, with the many variations of Hapkido, does anyone honestly think that the other disciplines that were already being practiced, did not interject themselves into what the training was/has become? I have seen spinning kicks, jump turning kicks and an assortment of other flashy kicks done at Hapkido seminars. These same kicks have been done at TKD seminars/tournaments, Karate and Kung Fu demonstrations and so on. Even the close range (grappling) area has kicks that Hapkido likes to claim as their own, but have been done in other style as well. Not to belabor the point, but the vast majority of the kicks are delivered the same in all of the disciplines. Perhaps this is the rational behind what Stuart stated, folks learned TKD first and then went into Hapkido and kicked the same way. I say so what, if the job gets done and the elements of a successful self defense are present. That kick, most times is going to set up a takedown or throw and if that's done according to Hapkidos protocals, then to me your doing Hapkido.


 
Greetings

Brad I thinks it's more than just getting the job done because any stlye can have a kick that gets the job done. Right?

Some people want to keep the system in tact and teach HKD methods.

HKD has 2 sources of kicks. 

1. Choi 
2. Ji Han Jae an Kim Moo Hwang these folks introduced the various kicks into HKD and there is a perfered method of doing them that follows certain principles of a soft sytle MA.

They are absolutely not TKD methods even for the same types of kicks. Another words both system have side kicks but they're not done the same way. 

My point that some people actually want to keep thier style in tact, rather than mix in any old kick that works.


----------



## Brad Dunne

Who to answer first? We'll start with Howard............When I stated that early TKD had/has roots in Hapkido was based upon what I said on a prior post. The Koreans were already training in several disciplines prior to Choi, as you pointed out. When Choi came on the menu, these folks undertook the study of what he was presenting. When it came time for the formulation of TKD, it's only  logical to assume that those that participated were/had some training in Choi's art. I personally base this on the instructions from the older Korean instructors I have studied under, plus the added information presented by them. I suggested that they had roots, but not that deep. 

As for the kicking aspect that Stuart mentions. This is where a lot of confusion stems from. Stuart stated that there is a perfered way of doing them and inturn allows for keeping the style intact. Again I would like to reference a prior post that listed looking at Fariborz Azhakh, who to my knowledge is listed as a Sin Moo stylist as is Stuart. The kicks that are shown are the same that was shown to me in my training and look all that of early TKD. The same by the way as those of Bong Soo Han, the so-called introducer of Hapkido to America. 

Matt M. relates the version of a "half baked" roundhouse that's supposed to be a sidekick. Sorry, but I have a hard time even trying to imagine what that could look like, moreover having the kick be effective. There's no way that the two kicks can be interchanged. The transition of the body is out of positioning. But now here again, this may be the proof of the pudding so to speak. A true side kick is a linear strike, with a tucked/chambered knee close to the body. The same way that I have seen it delivered in many Hapkido and TKD seminars by the older practicioners. A roundhouse kicks is a circular strike and can be done with either a chambered knee or a somewhat straight leg. There is no correct way - in my opinion - that these kicks can be mistaken for one another. Unless...........yes unless someone was shown the wrong way and now we have another quandry to ponder. 

Folks, bottom line here is that the majority of Hapkido folks like/wish to believe what they practice is a pure untainted art. We all know better. It came from Japan and was infused with other aspects and then reinfused from within by it's own students. I'm not saying that early TKD was the equal to Hapkido, no it wasen't and could not have been, they were different disciplines but there was an interweaving by the originators of TKD for they were versed , at least in the basics, of Hapkido and many if not all of the self defense techniques were from the Hapkido training that these folks received. Nothing more, nothing less.........


----------



## American HKD

Greetings



..........A true side kick is a linear strike, with a tucked/chambered knee close to the body. The same way that I have seen it delivered in many Hapkido and TKD seminars by the older practicioners............

What you described is not the HKD method taught in Sin Moo HKD. Fariborz Azhakh although he's avery good kicker it's almost pure TKD when I saw him.

Hapkido side kick lifts the knee straight up like a front kick in a loose fashion (not chambered tight or close to the body) and all at once we turn the hip sideway lean down level to the ground and kick. Our body is in a straight line from the ankle to the shoulder.

Look on my web site there a couple of pictuces of me and my teacher doing a side kick HKD style.

Our round, front, and side are all chamber the same so you can't tell whats comming.


----------



## iron_ox

Brad Dunne said:
			
		

> Folks, bottom line here is that the majority of Hapkido folks like/wish to believe what they practice is a pure untainted art. We all know better. It came from Japan and was infused with other aspects and then reinfused from within by it's own students. I'm not saying that early TKD was the equal to Hapkido, no it wasen't and could not have been, they were different disciplines but there was an interweaving by the originators of TKD for they were versed , at least in the basics, of Hapkido and many if not all of the self defense techniques were from the Hapkido training that these folks received. Nothing more, nothing less.........



Hello all,

There is a timeline issue here certainly.  Choi, Hong Hi for one was not versed at all in Hapkido.  That is why he had Chung, Kee Tae from Toronto shot the self defense section of the "orange book" of TaeKwon do.  

There is no way that those first TKD people were "versed" in HKD - the first TKD Kwan was founded in 1955 - JI Han Jae, one of the first to teach HKD outside of Taegu did not do so until late 1957.

Timeline is off here Mr. Dunne.


----------



## Brad Dunne

Almost getting into a who's who here. I'm kind of confused here with Stuarts reply. If Fariborz Azhakh is all TKD with his kicks, but is a certified/registered Hapkido instructor, how did he get by if his instructors in Hapkido didn't correct him with his technique with kicks? After all, as you pointed out that's not the way Sin Moo folks kick, if in fact he is a Sin Moo practicioner. I know that sounds really picky, but it does add a valid equation to the mix.

As for the time line that's been brought to question, the initial reference was to the glut of instructors who came to America in the early 70's. Iron Ox may be totally correct in his time line assessment as to when TKD started and Jae first started teaching, but that dosen't have a bearing on what was brought to our shores during the stated time frame. Perhaps I was overly generous with the assessment of the founding fathers, but therein also lies another distinction. Who can say that just because Jae started teaching in 57 that nobody was instructed prior to that, that had ties to the formulation of TKD. Just food for thought.

Appriciate all the reply's that have been given.


----------



## American HKD

Brad Dunne said:
			
		

> Almost getting into a who's who here. I'm kind of confused here with Stuarts reply. If Yakan Dalawa is all TKD with his kicks, but is a certified/registered Hapkido instructor, how did he get by if his instructors in Hapkido didn't correct him with his technique with kicks? After all, as you pointed out that's not the way Sin Moo folks kick, if in fact he is a Sin Moo practicioner. I know that sounds really picky, but it does add a valid equation to the mix.
> 
> As for the time line that's been brought to question, the initial reference was to the glut of instructors who came to America in the early 70's. Iron Ox may be totally correct in his time line assessment as to when TKD started and Jae first started teaching, but that dosen't have a bearing on what was brought to our shores during the stated time frame. Perhaps I was overly generous with the assessment of the founding fathers, but therein also lies another distinction. Who can say that just because Jae started teaching in 57 that nobody was instructed prior to that, that had ties to the formulation of TKD. Just food for thought.
> 
> Appriciate all the reply's that have been given.


 

Greetings,

From your questions I'm starting to think you don't train in HKD or don't have much expirience, they tend to be very much on the surface with no depth to the art?

Fariborz Azhakh came to Sin Moo after he was a 2nd or 3rd dan? I don't know where he first learned to kick (he's very good) but different???

Only a person who had the training in the original system would know the difference, you either got it or not!


----------



## Brad Dunne

Fariborz Azhakh came to Sin Moo after he was a 2nd or 3rd dan? I don't know where he first learned to kick (he's very good) but different???

So different is apparently OK within the Sin Moo house, because that's how I read this. It really dosen't answer the question that posed, but that's OK.

Only a person who had the training in the original system would know the difference, you either got it or not!

???????????Got what? Apparently he's got something (see above) that his instructors deemed good and thusly granted him Hapkido ranking(s).

From your questions I'm starting to think you don't train in HKD or don't have much expirience, they tend to be very much on the surface with no depth to the art?

In the course of a debate, when one party deems it valid to question the other parties experience, this usually means that a nerve has been hit and that party has become offended. You have always carried yourself with a professional attitude on these boards. Now I find my self a little "vaklempt" (from SNL ).There is nothing personal in this, at least from my perspective. No allegations have been made, just questions seeking answers.


----------



## matt.m

Ok guys, look I began this thread to have a nice polite discussion.  When I began it, I meant to pick out the major cirriculum differences between the two arts.  This was to show how they were separate arts that stand on their own.

I know what I am about to say may be construed as rabal rousing, however it is not intended that way.  However: Moo Sul Kwan, Sin Moo, and Kuk Sool hapkido followed by the "Choi Purists" are the only true to form original strains of hapkido, to my knowledge.  To say different would be to devalidate Ji Han Jae, Won-Kwang Wha, He-Young Kimm etc.

I asked dad not too long ago why hapkido was not standardized like tae kwon do, with the poomse.  He answered with the following "Great Grandmaster Park once said that Choi didn't want his first students to teach their students the exact same thing."  That is why the wrist and clothes techniques of Moo Sul Kwan hapkido and Kuk Sool hapkido look a little alike but are not the same.

In my class we have a first dan that was one of Jim West's students.  We find it a pleasure to cross train with him and vice versa.  It is a different take on hapkido.

Oh by the way, I have read where Choi once said he learned 3808 techniques from Takeda.  That would leave a lot of room for variation from student to student would it not?


----------



## howard

matt.m said:
			
		

> Moo Sul Kwan, Sin Moo, and Kuk Sool hapkido followed by the "Choi Purists" are the only true to form original strains of hapkido, to my knowledge. To say different would be to devalidate Ji Han Jae, Won-Kwang Wha, He-Young Kimm etc.


Hi Matt,

You can add Jungki Hapkido to that list.  The head of the Jungkikwan, GM Lim Hyun Soo, was Choi's direct student for over twenty years.  Jungki Hapkido is based entirely on what Choi taught GM Lim.  That's why we only do the ten kicks that are described in that Black Belt article.



			
				matt.m said:
			
		

> I asked dad not too long ago why hapkido was not standardized like tae kwon do, with the poomse. He answered with the following "Great Grandmaster Park once said that Choi didn't want his first students to teach their students the exact same thing."


From the reliable evidence that is available, I believe it's fair to say that Choi did indeed teach differently to different students.  In order for Choi to teach you certain things, you had to prove your loyalty to him by training under him, and only him, for quite some time.  Since his training was so rigorous, not many were willing to do this.  But the ones that did learned the essence of what Choi himself learned in Japan.



			
				matt.m said:
			
		

> Oh by the way, I have read where Choi once said he learned 3808 techniques from Takeda. That would leave a lot of room for variation from student to student would it not?


GM Lim tells us the same thing.  To be precise, he once quoted to a group of us the number 3,806.  Ahh, what the hell difference do two techniques make among nearly 4,000? 

Brad, please stay in the discussion... I know Stuart, and trust me, he doesn't mean any harm.  He's a very good guy.


----------



## Brad Dunne

Brad, please stay in the discussion... I know Stuart, and trust me, he doesn't mean any harm. He's a very good guy.

I have no doubt that he is, I have nothing but respect for anyone that trains and is loyal to their art. I was just making an observation from the posted reply.

But now with Matts post and your addition of Jungki Hapkido to that list, it kind of gives the impression that if one is not affiliated with those styles, then one is not really practicing Hapkido. I realize that this statement opens the "Pandora's Box' so to speak, but it really just adds to the confusion of the subject and we're kind of getting off track somewhat or are we? Just who or what are the honest to goodness real Hapkido styles out there. I realize that the KHF lists over 40 Kwans that they recognize and then we have the Kido with unk number of kwans recognized and then there's the IHF, the new Korean Kido and the list goes on. It's been said that Choi taught different things to different folks, for whatever reason. This element alone allows for input from the student himself, which I understand is what Choi intended. So in light of that aspect, Hapkido is and should be ever evolving. So because one dosen't kick the same way as another venue of the Hapkido tree, this alone means that Hapkido is not being practiced? Lots of food for thought here.


----------



## iron_ox

Brad Dunne said:
			
		

> Who can say that just because Jae started teaching in 57 that nobody was instructed prior to that, that had ties to the formulation of TKD. Just food for thought.



Hello all,

Actually, we can say with some degree of certainty that Ji Han Jae was the first person teaching what he learned from Dojunim Choi in Seoul.  The art was not started until 1947, and Ji started at age 13 in 1949.  The bulk of other students were in Taegu - and since travel around Korea was and remained difficult even through the 1970's it is reasonable to assume that there was not much other instruction going on.

In addition, having been lucky enough to have a connection to GM Rhee Ki Ha, Gen. Choi's first TKD 9th Dan, I can tell you that his impression of any type of Hapkido style technique generally resulted in  him saying "Time to hold is time to hit...".  

There simply was no connection between the two at the time of their foundation.  But history is a fuzzy thing, so keep doing research, maybe a smoking gun is out there somewhere...

Fariborz Azhakh's first teacher if memory serves was GM Han Bong Soo.  This would explain the kicking for sure.


----------



## shesulsa

There are LOTS of threads in the Hapkido forum debating the origins of Hapkido.

But weren't we discussing the differences between Hapkido and TKD?? _*looks at thread title*_ Yep.  We were.


----------



## Brad Dunne

There are LOTS of threads in the Hapkido forum debating the origins of Hapkido.

I'm SURE there are, but nobody is debating origins.......

But weren't we discussing the differences between Hapkido and TKD?? _*looks at thread title*_ Yep. We were.

Yep!, we still are. artyon:


----------



## American HKD

Brad Dunne said:
			
		

> Fariborz Azhakh came to Sin Moo after he was a 2nd or 3rd dan? I don't know where he first learned to kick (he's very good) but different???
> 
> So different is apparently OK within the Sin Moo house, because that's how I read this. It really dosen't answer the question that posed, but that's OK.
> 
> Only a person who had the training in the original system would know the difference, you either got it or not!
> 
> ???????????Got what? Apparently he's got something (see above) that his instructors deemed good and thusly granted him Hapkido ranking(s).
> 
> From your questions I'm starting to think you don't train in HKD or don't have much expirience, they tend to be very much on the surface with no depth to the art?
> 
> In the course of a debate, when one party deems it valid to question the other parties experience, this usually means that a nerve has been hit and that party has become offended. You have always carried yourself with a professional attitude on these boards. Now I find my self a little "vaklempt" (from SNL ).There is nothing personal in this, at least from my perspective. No allegations have been made, just questions seeking answers.


 
Brad

I'm not being personal, but it is frustrating to hear over and over any old kick will sufice or TKD & HKD kicks are the same! To me that's like saying Black & White are the same color!

Expirience and first hand knowledge should not be taken lightly! When people on board speaks who has the knowledge and explain something to you take note.

Investigate that's all good but don't say one guy from Sin Moo kick like this so that's the right way. That's just not any valid proof.

Do this just for kicks, no pun intended. Rent some movies with these people and you'll see perfect examples of HKD kicking methods.

Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Angela Mao (enter the dragon Lee's sister), Hwang In Shik (several bruce lee & jakie chan movies), Ji Han Jae himself in Lady Hapkido, they all kick HKD style. 

Watch their movements and see how loosely they chamber and the more circular motions, compared to Joon Rhee kicks in TKD Strikes, He Ill Cho, or other pure TKD Masters. You will see a big difference!!! 

*This should be you gauge for qualifying what HKD kicking is!*

Master Hwang's Bio:

If you know the old school kung fu flicks of the 1970's, chances are you have seen Grandmaster Hwang In-Shik. Hwang was born in Korea and studies the art of Hapkido under the art's founder, Choi Yong-Sul. Hwang made his film debut in 1972's Hapkido. Hwang was the Hapkido teacher of the film's co-stars Angela Mao and Sammo Hung. Rumors (that later proved to be untrue) went around that Hwang would beat stuntmen up for real to show Hapkido's superiority to Chinese martial arts. This made one man want to teach the Hapkido expert a lesson. He was Bruce Lee and in Way of the Dragon, Hwang was beaten not only by Bruce but also Chuck Norris, an expert in the Korean art of Tang Soo Do. After the experience, Hwang showed respect for the Chinese martial arts and in fact, became an excellent villain actor in many films. In 1980, The Young Master proved to be Hwang's best performance. For 15 minutes, Hwang gets to show off the true style of hapkido by beating up Jackie Chan. After 1983's A Fistful of Talons, Hwang officially retired from the film industry. Today, Hwang, who holds a 10th-degree black belt in Hapkido, is in Canada, where he is teaching the art of Hapkido to many students. 

FILMOGRAPHY

Hapkido with Ji han Jae & ngela Mao (1972) 
Way of the Dragon (1973) 
Fist of Unicorn (1973) 
The Devil's Treasure (1973) 
When Tae Kwon Do Strikes with Joon Rhee TKD (1973) 
The Skyhawk (1974) 
Stoner (1974) 
The Tournament (1974) 
The Association (1975) 
The Close Kung Fu Encounter (1979) 
The Young Master (1980) 
Dragon Lord (1982) 
A Fistful of Talons (1983)


----------



## Paul B

Amazing..it always comes back to kicks.:uhyeah: 

Seriously now. What about the untold kajillions of variations of jointlocks,throws,chokes,etc? 

Are we saying that TKD-in execute flowing joint locks and throws? Are we saying that TKD-in use small,tight circles in those joint locks. How about Harmony? Last time I saw TKD-in practice it was kick and smash with no worry about not meeting force head on. How about when TKD-in practice blocking or parrying? Regrabs? Hooking? PP's?

Kicking is such a minute part of HKD curriculum. I just don't understand why it's *that* important to focus on kicks. :idunno: Are they important? Yep. And yes..some styles have different methods of kicking..but when asked to perform a technique,what technique would you demonstrate 9 times out of 10?


----------



## Brad Dunne

Investigate that's all good but don't say one guy from Sin Moo kick like this so that's the right way. That's just not any valid proof.

Nobody has said that. The reference was that you stated that Fariborz Azhakh was TKD before coming to Hapkido. All I asked was and also based upon your statement that Sin Moo stylists don't kick like that, was how did he become a Hapkidoist in the Sin Moo style and yet he kicks different from your training. The entire point to this debate is the connection, however small it may be to folks, that Hapkido and TKD were hand and hand at one time. I'm not saying they still are, but all the evidence is there and has been stated, perhaps unwittingly, on this board. Case in point; Bong Soo Han is Hapkido and reportedly Azhakh trained under him, thus the rational for the way he kicks. 

Expirience and first hand knowledge should not be taken lightly! When people on board speaks who has the knowledge and explain something to you take note.

Nevermind................... 

You want me to go and watch movies, but don't offer any popcorn.  
I have watched my share of movies and training tapes and that's another reason why my conclusions are as they are. I'm talking in generalities and your focusing on one style, your own, which has something unaccountable to answer. See Above.

I respect your intent to validate your art and style, but with all the variations of the art out there, well we'll just leave it there.:asian:


----------



## Brad Dunne

http://www.sinmoohapkido.com/kicking.html
Just offering some information here, that may help some folks with their interpertation of discriptions.
Please take note of the several kicks that use the term "High Tuck". To me that's another way of saying "Chambered"


----------



## American HKD

Brad Dunne said:
			
		

> Investigate that's all good but don't say one guy from Sin Moo kick like this so that's the right way. That's just not any valid proof.
> 
> Nobody has said that. The reference was that you stated that Fariborz Azhakh was TKD before coming to Hapkido. *No I said he came from another HKD teacher before Sin Moo, and secondly many TKD people came into HKD later and kept their TKD kicks and added HKD skills to the existing kicks.*
> 
> All I asked was and also based upon your statement that Sin Moo stylists don't kick like that, was how did he become a Hapkidoist in the Sin Moo style and yet he kicks different from your training. *He came to Sin Moo with prior training and never changed but that's the Master's problem not mine. Unfortunately this is common issue amongst many HKD people.*
> 
> The entire point to this debate is the connection, however small it may be to folks, that Hapkido and TKD were hand and hand at one time. I'm not saying they still are, but all the evidence is there and has been stated, perhaps unwittingly, on this board. Case in point; Bong Soo Han is Hapkido and reportedly Azhakh trained under him, thus the rational for the way he kicks. *I know Azhakah trained his first couple of dans under Steve Sexton. Bong Soo Han??? All I'm saying is he's NOT the litmus test for HKD kicking, These people in the movies I suggested are!*
> 
> Expirience and first hand knowledge should not be taken lightly! When people on board speaks who has the knowledge and explain something to you take note.
> 
> Nevermind...................
> 
> You want me to go and watch movies, but don't offer any popcorn.  *Sorry*
> I have watched my share of movies and training tapes and that's another reason why my conclusions are as they are. I'm talking in generalities and your focusing on one style, your own, which has something unaccountable to answer. See Above.
> 
> *Yes this thread is about the difference between HKD & TKD so I am being specific.*
> 
> I respect your intent to validate your art and style, but with all the variations of the art out there, well we'll just leave it there.:asian:
> 
> *It's not about me validating HKD that was done by the founders, I just want people to know there's a real difference in the kicking style*.


 
*Thanks that's all I'm done!:asian: *


----------



## Brad Dunne

*All I'm saying is he's NOT the litmus test for HKD kicking.*

*I never said he was, he was nothing more than an example that I chose to use to indicate the TKD/HKD interface.*

*As you pointed out, many TKD folks have entered into HKD, for HKD is the perferred Self defense training for these folks. My original contention was that the older TKD practicioners were getting this training, perhaps not as indepth as some would like, but they were being trained.  *

*This whole thread was kind of blown out of proportion because I interjected this assessment. Sorry for the disruptive direction it has taken. The original intent of this thread was the difference between HKD and TKD and modern TKD is far removed from HKD.*


----------



## matt.m

Paul B said:
			
		

> Amazing..it always comes back to kicks.:uhyeah:
> 
> Seriously now. What about the untold kajillions of variations of jointlocks,throws,chokes,etc?
> 
> Are we saying that TKD-in execute flowing joint locks and throws? Are we saying that TKD-in use small,tight circles in those joint locks. How about Harmony? Last time I saw TKD-in practice it was kick and smash with no worry about not meeting force head on. How about when TKD-in practice blocking or parrying? Regrabs? Hooking? PP's?
> 
> Kicking is such a minute part of HKD curriculum. I just don't understand why it's *that* important to focus on kicks. :idunno: Are they important? Yep. And yes..some styles have different methods of kicking..but when asked to perform a technique,what technique would you demonstrate 9 times out of 10?


 
Everyone please look at my first post that began the topic.  It will show that I did the break down of two different cirriculums of the two different arts.  I used the example of two different side kicks, we see what has happened.


----------



## matt.m

Least I forget, Howard Thank you.  For the life of me I could not remember the proper spelling of Jungki.  That is why I had put "Choi Purists"


----------



## howard

Brad Dunne said:
			
		

> But now with Matts post and your addition of Jungki Hapkido to that list, it kind of gives the impression that if one is not affiliated with those styles, then one is not really practicing Hapkido.


For my part, that absolutely is _not_ what I meant.  Look, these are simple facts:

1. The head of the Jungkikwan spent over twenty years training directly under Choi.

2. He has always maintained that he teaches exactly what Choi taught him.

Therefore, Jungki Hapkido is a faithful representation of what GM Lim learned from Choi.

These points do not imply anythnig about any other style of Hapkido.  To infer that they do is simply erroneous logic.

In the context of the topic of this thread, the ten kicks that Choi taught GM Lim look nothing like TKD kicks.


----------



## FearlessFreep

I think part of the problem with this discussion is that the basic premise of the the thread is "the difference between A and B" but A and B are not rigidly defined in the first place and there is almost as much variation within both A and B as there is between the two. 

I'll give an example with a simple kick, the roundhouse kick.

Now, when I first learned a roundhouse (RH) kick, it was taught to me by a 2nd Dan TKD instructor with some background in HKD as well (I don't know his ranking but he claimed to be about 70/30 TKD/HKD).  The way I was taught this kick was to drive straight at the target with the knee, and then turn the hip over to hit with the instep.  Your kicking foot comes across horzontally to the target, your pivot foot ends up completely turned around facing the opposite direction.  Your body is i a straight line from your shoulder to your foot.  That, to me, is a roundhouse kick.  Now, I went to another school and the instructor is a 7th Dan TKD gentleman who was a big time sport competitor in the 70s.  He teaches the RH kick to come up at 45 degree angle, and  the pivot foot only turns about half way, and your upper body only turns about 25 degrees itself.  It's faster than the way I learned the RH kick, but it's also less powerful.  (I take to calling them the "Combot RH" and "Sport RH" because the first seems better for really infliciting damage with one kick, but the second seems quicker for sport sparring)  Now, to add to this, another student in the class, named Cha who is about my age (37) and whose dad helped bring TKD to the US back in the 70s and who studied TKD as a kid, he said  that the way I do the RH kick is the old-school, traditional, TKD, fighting style.  Then I spend two weeks in a TKD school that is mortly sport with a bit of self-defense, and the instructor (and ex-US Olympic team competitor) is teaching  the RH kick like I first learned, with the full hip and shoulder turn over.  ThenI go to the Hapkido school with a 6th Dan HKD instructor who also does TKD and some other arts, and he teaches *both* versions of the kick, but calls the first one a "roundhouse kick"  and the second one a "round kick".  (and when my current instructor was talking about the 'round' kick, someone else mentioned that it was 'the TKD version' of the roundhouse kick

So the point is, what's a TKD roundhouse kick?  Um...depends on who you ask, who their teacher was, and what they are trying to accomplish with the kick.  Baoth of them start with the same motion (drive the knee straight forward at the target before turning into the kick) but they differ in execution and effect from there.

And I don't think that's really a "TKD kick".  I mean, Muy Thai has a kick called a 'roundhouse' kick but which is mechanically a lot different than either of those two varients.    And I think other arts use a 'roundhouse' kick which is similar to one of the above.  So i's really hard to call a roundhouse kick a "TKD roundhouse kick" because a) TKD is not the only one to use it and b) not all people in TKD use the same roundhouse kick.

And that's just from the TKD side on *one* technique, from my own limited exposure from people who were all under WTF TKD.  Given that there are many TKD organizations, and many HKD organizations that all may have variations in philosophy or application, it's a bit difficult to say "this is a HKD roundhouse and that is a TKD roundhouse" and then compare or contrast them.   Maybe 50 years ago TKD had a definitive roundhouse and  HKD had a distinct definitive roundhouse where you go do that, but I think over time people evolve what works and what doesn't and are exposed to other things and things change so that now a HKD roundhouse and a TKD roundhouse are not distinct things but you may find a HKD instructor teaching a roundhouse the same as the TKD guy down the street and but not the same as the TKD guy across town.

And when you get into the ring or some other place, the mechanics are not perfect.  When I try to throw my technically-best roundhouse kick, it comes across with a tight chamber and in close.  When I'm sparring, I'm not as precise so I tend to be loooser and swing a bit wider.  I think that's true of most people.  So when watching someone do a particular movements, before declaring that it is *the way* that a given art does a technique, consider the context.  Even people who use the 'combat  RH' kick are probably going to shorten it a bit in sparring.  Unless someone is trying to demonstrate a given technique for the sake of an example, what you see executed may not be the best example.


(And for what it's worth, I think the reason that 'it always comes down to kicks' is that TKD sparring is the most visible, and often the most practiced for those who focus on competitions, aspect of TKD so when you look at TKD from the outside, you see the kicks, so when you compare anything with TKD, you tend to compare with the kicks.  Unless you really spend the time working or at least observing, TKD poomse and one-steps and other parts of the TKD curriculum, you don't see the blocks and hand strikes and movements, much less the theory behind them)

So when comparing A vs B, keep in mind that the edges and definitions of both A and B can be quite a bit fuzzy and try to avoid simplistic definitions and hasty generalizations


----------



## FearlessFreep

I should say that this doesn't mean I think Hapkido and Taekwondo are 'the same', simply that they may share many common techniques where the difference in execution of those techniques may be as much a reflection of the individual practioner, instructor, or school of thought as it is a "Taekwondo vs Hapkido" distinction.


The other thing to think about is that since many instructors who teach Taekwondo also know Hapkido, and vice versa, unless an instructor is focused on teaching a 'pure, traditional' curriculum, you're likely to run into situations where a teacher will teach techniques or approaches that are not traditionally part of that art.  But over time, those techniques get passed down and incorporated so that those techniques are, for all practical purposes, part of the art.  "Tradtional TKD" may not have joint locks, ut many people who teach "traditional tkd" for self-defense will incorporate joint locks and manipulation as 'something that works', so the Taekwondo of 20 years from now may indeed be considered to have joint locks.  And Hapkido may have more hard linear attacks reminiscent of Taekwondo, etc..etc..

Today is just a snapshot of a very dynamic world, as science improves are understanding of body dynamics and motion and experience proves what is useful and not, things change and improve and are removed.  All you can say is what Taekwondo is today, or what Hapkido was at some point in time, but tomorrow, they will both be different anyway.


----------



## American HKD

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> I think part of the problem with this discussion is that the basic premise of the the thread is "the difference between A and B" but A and B are not rigidly defined in the first place and there is almost as much variation within both A and B as there is between the two.


 
Absolutely a gperfect point!

One needs to know the differnce to discuss the difference!


----------



## PWilliams-HKD

Greetings

I'm hearing some very mistaken elements regarding HKD kicks.

Original HKD kicks and the method of chambering and executing is NOT the same as TKD.

HKD kicks are loosey chambered, have more use of the hips, work on swinging or pendulum like theories almost exclusively. Not linear or mixed at all.

A lot of mixing from TKD & HKD kicks have accured because many people learned TKD first than moved to HKD and kept their TKD kicks as is.

HKD is a soft style kicking method, TKD is a Hard Style Karate system they don't mix except to the un-trained eye.



Best answer yet.


----------



## Hapkiyoosool

Wow....long forum but worth the read!
It seems that there are almost as many HKD styles out thwre as TKD. 
I think when stop comparing styles and just appreciate them, we will have a better understanding of each other. 
GM Choi came to the west in (1982 or 84 if I remember correctly) to try and unify the HKD folk. He said, "it's so difficult when everyone wants to be the sun instead of just being the moon to reflect the truth".
Sadly, I an not sure he died satisfied. 
I am not one for formalities so forgive me if I come across "rough around the edges".


----------



## Kong Soo Do

matt.m said:


> Just because two korean arts share the same strikes, kicks, blocks, and stances does not make them similiar arts.  They are two different arts with two totally different cirriculums, serving two different purposes.



Old thread, but what the heck, this section is pretty quiet.  I would submit that TKD could be almost indistinguishable from HKD if it were taught along the lines of many karate arts i.e. delving into the forms and recognizing that they contain a host of things besides just strikes and kicks.  It is my position that Korean forms are not as 'clean' as Okinawan kata in that they (in some cases) were cobbled together by those that were untrained in 'deeper' applications found in the katas that preceded the form in question.  Thus the information is there, but may not flow as well as a kata that intended from the beginning to have these applications.


----------



## JP3

In the years I tooka nd taught hapkido... if we were in the middle of HKD class and a new student had some TKD experience, we would literally skip the teaching of the kicking techniques for most of the basic kicks.

I think it was to just save time, and give the person something new, but it was effective, if not perfect.  But then... we'd need to define "perfect." Mine? Or yours? His? Hers? That guy over there's?


----------



## tkdmaster78

crushing said:


> Matt,
> 
> Thanks for the compare and contrast.  Like you, I am studying both.  I agree with you that they are two different arts, but there still seems to be something complimentary about them.  I don't know if this makes sense, but I am starting to seem them kind of like the um (hapkido) and yang (taekwondo) of my MA studies.
> 
> Respects,
> crushing



This is true. The two compliment each other so nicely that they are often taught together. I learned both at a Taekwondo school. How much influence did Hapkido have on the training? The uniforms we wore were Hapkido uniforms at a Taekwondo school.


----------



## tkdmaster78

matt.m said:


> I have never seen a "True" Tae Kwon Do cirriculum that involves sweeps, reaps, take downs or locks.  That kind of stuff is not tae kwon do.  Whoever says it is would be making an incorrect statement.
> 
> Also,* I have seen falling mentioned on these boards in reference to tae kwon do*.  I am sorry but tae kwon do is none of these things.




There are break falls described in the Taekwondo Legacy Guide (which was published around 1970), so Taekwondo does have falling techniques. What Taekwondo doesn't include is:

Weapons
Joint locks (very limited)
Throws
Submissions
Ground defence (very limited) 

This is why TKD and HKD are often taught together. They complement each other.


----------



## oftheherd1

Kong Soo Do said:


> Old thread, but what the heck, this section is pretty quiet.  I would submit that TKD could be almost indistinguishable from HKD if it were taught along the lines of many karate arts i.e. *delving into the forms and recognizing that they contain a host of things besides just strikes and kicks*.  It is my position that Korean forms are not as 'clean' as Okinawan kata in that they (in some cases) were cobbled together by those that were untrained in 'deeper' applications found in the katas that preceded the form in question.  Thus the information is there, but may not flow as well as a kata that intended from the beginning to have these applications.



I know you are an experienced practitioner of more than one art, and often use you knowledge in your work.  You can probable talk circles around me.

But I don't know that I would agree with what you have said.  In the TKD I have seen or briefly studied, there was very little similarity between them.  Almost no Hapkido has forms.  It mainly has techniques for specific defenses against specific attacks.  The closest I saw in TKD was some final moves in 3 step sparring had a sort of Hapkido flavor, but most were simply a final block and a counter punch.  Moo Duc Kwan  had some techniques specifically for multiple attacker defense.

But as to the bolded above, when I taught a 4th degree TKD practitioner, there were several times when I would show him a technique  and he would get this contemplative look on his face, and tell me there was a move in a TKD form that had never made sense.  There might be seemingly strange foot and waving arm movements.  When he questioned it, he would be told it was part of the 'art' of Martial Arts.  But the technique I had just showed him was obviously the basis for and the object of the TKD move.  That happened at least 4 or 5 times.  I then concluded that there were things buried in some TKD forms, the meaning of which had been lost even to high Dan teachers.  I wish I had written those TKD moves and their Hapkido techniques down.  I didn't so I don't recall them now.


----------



## oftheherd1

tkdmaster78 said:


> There are break falls described in the Taekwondo Legacy Guide (which was published around 1970), so Taekwondo does have falling techniques. What Taekwondo doesn't include is:
> 
> Weapons
> Joint locks (very limited)
> Throws
> Submissions
> Ground defence (very limited)
> 
> This is why TKD and HKD are often taught together. They complement each other.



I can only tell you that when I studied TKD in the mid-60s, none of those things were taught to lower belts, and I didn't see it being taught to the one belted student we had.


----------



## oftheherd1

FearlessFreep said:


> ...
> Now, to add to this, another student in the class, named Cha who is about my age (37) and *whose dad helped bring TKD to the US* back in the 70s and who studied TKD as a kid, he said  that the way I do the RH kick is the old-school, traditional, TKD, fighting style.
> ...



I am not a TKD practitioner so I can't comment on any of that.  But to give credit for someone to have helped bring TKD to the US in the 70s is a bit of a stretch.  If his dad gave it some big boost, that I could believe.  But I was studying TKD under Jhoon Goo Rhee about 1965, at his school in Washington, DC.  He also had a school in Texas somewhere run by one of his former students.  Henry Cho (one of the fastest people I ever saw) had an established school somewhere in New York, I think somewhere in New York City.

I heard of others, but never met them.  Mostly back then people didn't know much of a difference between Karate and Kung Fu, and we usually had to tell people that what we studied was sort of like a Korean Karate.  

And yes, I realize the post I am commenting on is from 2006, long before I joined MT.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

oftheherd1 said:


> I know you are an experienced practitioner of more than one art, and often use you knowledge in your work.  You can probable talk circles around me.
> 
> But I don't know that I would agree with what you have said.  In the TKD I have seen or briefly studied, there was very little similarity between them.  Almost no Hapkido has forms.  It mainly has techniques for specific defenses against specific attacks.  The closest I saw in TKD was some final moves in 3 step sparring had a sort of Hapkido flavor, but most were simply a final block and a counter punch.  Moo Duc Kwan  had some techniques specifically for multiple attacker defense.
> 
> But as to the bolded above, when I taught a 4th degree TKD practitioner, there were several times when I would show him a technique  and he would get this contemplative look on his face, and tell me there was a move in a TKD form that had never made sense.  There might be seemingly strange foot and waving arm movements.  When he questioned it, he would be told it was part of the 'art' of Martial Arts.  But the technique I had just showed him was obviously the basis for and the object of the TKD move.  That happened at least 4 or 5 times.  I then concluded that there were things buried in some TKD forms, the meaning of which had been lost even to high Dan teachers.  I wish I had written those TKD moves and their Hapkido techniques down.  I didn't so I don't recall them now.



I think this opens up a very interesting conversation.  Let me see if I can break my thoughts down.  Does contemporary TKD look like contemporary HKD.  Nope.  Pretty much polar opposites in that one is, more or less, a linear block-punch-kick art and one is more circular and involves a whole host of things no generally seen in TKD.  But is that correct? Is that the way it could/should be?  Up until about 15 years ago, give or take, I thought of TKD and HKD as two very different arts.  And in truth, generally speaking they are the way they are taught.  However, there is small circle of folks in TKD that have gone a different path.  I feel that it stems back to Okinawan karate.

What follows is a simplistic, reader's digest version of the evolution of karate.  In the 1800's, karate was different that what is generally seen today in many/most schools.  Itosu Sensei was one of two men that most of the modern Ryus flowed from.  He was also a college professor in addition to being a karate master.  He wanted to get karate into the school system for it's health benefits.  But he realized that you can't teach 'real' karate to kids.  So he revamped certain kata, Pinan as an example, into a more block-punch-kick format and left out the chokes, throws, cavity pressing, joint destruction etc. movements.  This eventually flowed into the Japanese school system through efforts from Funakoshi Sensei.  None of this is a bad thing.  It was simply 'karate-lite'.  Now, keep in mind that Korea, like Okinawa was a prefecture of Japan during this time.  Flash forward to the end of WWII and the Allies winning the war and occupying Japan.  By-and-large, those karate masters in Japan/Okinawa start teaching the conquering invaders karate to make a living.  And again, by-and-large what was taught was the children's version of karate i.e. block-punch-kick.  Parallel this with Korea, which for the most part was had it's citizens as second-class citizens in the eyes of Imperialistic Japan.  The average Korean didn't learn 'true' karate either.  So you have both the Allied G.I. and the Korean martial artist leaning a specific sect of karate and then taking it back to their home countries and teaching it and passing it on to future generations.  Also keep in mind that the block-punch-kick format fits in nicely with sport competitions which is a $ generator for many schools.  

Karate practitioners such as Iain Abernethy Sensei, John Burke Sensei as well as TKD practitioners such as Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neill have delved into the kata/forms to reconstruct/interpret movements/techniques/concepts/strategies that go well beyond what is normally associated with them.  As far as Karate kata, looking at what/how they've researched demonstrates information that kata contain a myriad of things well beyond the B-P-K format.  Indeed, many Karate masters from various different Ryus stated that one could know all of karate from just one or a few kata.  Information that demonstrates throws, take downs, locks, cavity pressing,chokes, escapes etc.  In truth, you'd be hard pressed to see the difference between karate and say, Aiki Jujutsu.  If you walked into a class that had no specific identifiers you might confuse the two.

Switch gears to TKD and HKD.  HKD is generally accepted to come from Aiki Jujutsu/Aikido roots.  TKD is generally accepted to come from Karate roots.  Except for those that try to pass either off as 2000 year old arts indigenous to Korea.  That's bunk of course.  So, assuming/accepting that TKD comes from Karate one would make the logical assumption that they share many foundational principles.  TKD forms generally date back no farther than the 50's though some reflect renamed Okinawan kata the are much older.  So, if the movements in Okinawan kata reflect specific principles such as throws, locks, pressing, escapes etc. in addition to strikes it would stand to reason that TKD forms would contain the same information.  I would submit that kata are well constructed paragraphs of information,created by true Karate masters, to pass on to subsequent students.  I would further submit, without meaning to offer a slight towards TKD, that TKD forms mimic kata but in many cases were created by those that were FAR less experienced.  In otherwords, kata a beautifully crafted paragraphs that convey a story.  TKD forms are, in many cases, incomplete sentences cobbled together.  Yet they convey the same information in theory even if it doesn't flow as logically.  So a specific movement in a kata means something specific, it will have the same meaning when it's seen in a TKD form.  It may not be taught that way, but a movement is a movement regardless of what it may be called.

So that's why I don't think TKD forms are as 'clean' as kata.  Again, not a slight against TKD.  Those early TKD 'masters' did the very best they could with the training and experience that they had.  But this leads to the deeper/adult version of Karate.  As mentioned, Karate could look VERY much like Aiki Jujutsu in a LOT of it's movements.  So I would submit that TKD could look VERY much like HKD if it was taught in the same manner.  And that is how it is taught by a small segment.  Now I suppose I wouldn't go as far as saying they could be completely indistinguishable due to certain individual nuances in each art.  But again, if there were no visual identifiers (like a sign hanging on the wall of the school), TKD can (and is) taught in such as way by some schools to where you'd be hard pressing to label it one way or the other if you just walked in off the street to look at a class.  

It's bit of a change in how we think/view a particular art.  But I think it's a plus.  Your example of a student that was taught a movement in TKD that really had no explanation yet once he started learning HKD saw how that movement had an actual meaning/purpose.  Well, those same principles are in the forms, basically just sitting there unused until someone identifies them as actually working beyond the commonly accepted norm.  So TKD and HKD are separate arts but TKD could be taught in such a way as to be quite a bit more than what it's generally portrayed as.  Let's face it, mention TKD and you think spinning back kicks.  You don't think serious joint locks, throws, cavity pressing and all the other HKDish things. 

But it could be taught that way.  Again, HKD would still have it's own nuances but TKD could generally be more of a sister art with it's own nuances.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Additionally, if it's of any interest:

The Hidden Truths of Hapkido in Taekwon-Do


----------



## oftheherd1

Kong Soo Do said:


> I think this opens up a very interesting conversation.  Let me see if I can break my thoughts down.  Does contemporary TKD look like contemporary HKD.  Nope.  Pretty much polar opposites in that one is, more or less, a linear block-punch-kick art and one is more circular and involves a whole host of things no generally seen in TKD.  But is that correct? Is that the way it could/should be?  Up until about 15 years ago, give or take, I thought of TKD and HKD as two very different arts.  And in truth, generally speaking they are the way they are taught.  However, there is small circle of folks in TKD that have gone a different path.  I feel that it stems back to Okinawan karate.
> 
> What follows is a simplistic, reader's digest version of the evolution of karate.  In the 1800's, karate was different that what is generally seen today in many/most schools.  Itosu Sensei was one of two men that most of the modern Ryus flowed from.  He was also a college professor in addition to being a karate master.  He wanted to get karate into the school system for it's health benefits.  But he realized that you can't teach 'real' karate to kids.  So he revamped certain kata, Pinan as an example, into a more block-punch-kick format and left out the chokes, throws, cavity pressing, joint destruction etc. movements.  This eventually flowed into the Japanese school system through efforts from Funakoshi Sensei.  None of this is a bad thing.  It was simply 'karate-lite'.  *Now, keep in mind that Korea, like Okinawa was a prefecture of Japan during this time*.  Flash forward to the end of WWII and the Allies winning the war and occupying Japan.  By-and-large, those karate masters in Japan/Okinawa start teaching the conquering invaders karate to make a living.  And again, by-and-large what was taught was the children's version of karate i.e. block-punch-kick.  Parallel this with Korea, which for the most part was had it's citizens as second-class citizens in the eyes of Imperialistic Japan.  The average Korean didn't learn 'true' karate either.  So you have both the Allied G.I. and the Korean martial artist leaning a specific sect of karate and then taking it back to their home countries and teaching it and passing it on to future generations.  Also keep in mind that the block-punch-kick format fits in nicely with sport competitions which is a $ generator for many schools.
> 
> Karate practitioners such as Iain Abernethy Sensei, John Burke Sensei as well as TKD practitioners such as Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neill have delved into the kata/forms to reconstruct/interpret movements/techniques/concepts/strategies that go well beyond what is normally associated with them.  As far as Karate kata, looking at what/how they've researched demonstrates information that kata contain a myriad of things well beyond the B-P-K format.  Indeed, many Karate masters from various different Ryus stated that one could know all of karate from just one or a few kata.  Information that demonstrates throws, take downs, locks, cavity pressing,chokes, escapes etc.  In truth, you'd be hard pressed to see the difference between karate and say, Aiki Jujutsu.  If you walked into a class that had no specific identifiers you might confuse the two.
> 
> Switch gears to TKD and HKD.  *HKD is generally accepted to come from Aiki Jujutsu/Aikido roots.*  TKD is generally accepted to come from Karate roots.  Except for those that try to pass either off as 2000 year old arts indigenous to Korea.  That's bunk of course.  So, assuming/accepting that TKD comes from Karate one would make the logical assumption that they share many foundational principles.  TKD forms generally date back no farther than the 50's though some reflect renamed Okinawan kata the are much older.  So, if the movements in Okinawan kata reflect specific principles such as throws, locks, pressing, escapes etc. in addition to strikes it would stand to reason that TKD forms would contain the same information.  I would submit that kata are well constructed paragraphs of information,created by true Karate masters, to pass on to subsequent students.  I would further submit, without meaning to offer a slight towards TKD, that TKD forms mimic kata but in many cases were created by those that were FAR less experienced.  In otherwords, kata a beautifully crafted paragraphs that convey a story.  TKD forms are, in many cases, incomplete sentences cobbled together.  Yet they convey the same information in theory even if it doesn't flow as logically.  So a specific movement in a kata means something specific, it will have the same meaning when it's seen in a TKD form.  It may not be taught that way, but a movement is a movement regardless of what it may be called.
> 
> So that's why I don't think TKD forms are as 'clean' as kata.  Again, not a slight against TKD.  Those early TKD 'masters' did the very best they could with the training and experience that they had.  But this leads to the deeper/adult version of Karate.  As mentioned, Karate could look VERY much like Aiki Jujutsu in a LOT of it's movements.  So I would submit that TKD could look VERY much like HKD if it was taught in the same manner.  And that is how it is taught by a small segment.  Now I suppose I wouldn't go as far as saying they could be completely indistinguishable due to certain individual nuances in each art.  But again, if there were no visual identifiers (like a sign hanging on the wall of the school), TKD can (and is) taught in such as way by some schools to where you'd be hard pressing to label it one way or the other if you just walked in off the street to look at a class.
> 
> It's bit of a change in how we think/view a particular art.  But I think it's a plus.  Your example of a student that was taught a movement in TKD that really had no explanation yet once he started learning HKD saw how that movement had an actual meaning/purpose.  Well, those same principles are in the forms, basically just sitting there unused until someone identifies them as actually working beyond the commonly accepted norm.  So TKD and HKD are separate arts but TKD could be taught in such a way as to be quite a bit more than what it's generally portrayed as.  Let's face it, mention TKD and you think spinning back kicks.  You don't think serious joint locks, throws, cavity pressing and all the other HKDish things.
> 
> But it could be taught that way.  Again, HKD would still have it's own nuances but TKD could generally be more of a sister art with it's own nuances.



Long read but I think accurate except those minor things I bolded:  I think Korea was more a colony that a prefecture.  It began before 1910, in the later 1800s to be precise, but was official in 1910, going until the end of WWII in 1945.  The Japanese may like to say prefecture, but they didn't act that way.  During WWII, Koreans were not drafted to be soldiers until the Japanese army got more desperate.  Before that they were considered only to be useful as laborers (men) and prostitutes (Comfort girls, as women).  Koreans fought in many well know battles. 

In Japan they have never gotten credit for that, nor have the Japanese admitted to and apologized for their treatment of women.  I had never heard of Japan giving Korea status as a prefecture myself, so I don't know if that is true and I just nerver heard of it, or if that is revisionist Japanese history.

Hapkido is generally accepted to have come from Dai Ito Ryu, from which Aikido is also accepted to have come.  Hapkido is not accepted as having come from Aikido or Aki Jujitso.  How much influence Aikido may have provided is usually denied, but who knows.  Founder Choi seems to have been reticent about his time in Japan, and what he learned there, other that Dai Ito Ryu.

But I think you may well be correct in the rest of your beliefs about Karate, TKD, and HKD.  I only know that I thought it was significant that moves in TKD, which I had experienced in the TKD I studied in the 60s as well as the later TKD my student learned, had segments explained as 'art' but later could be seen in the Hapkido I studied.  Like you, I don't think that is a put down on TKD.  It simply means something was lost.  Whether for the reasons you mentioned as 'karate lite' or that Koreans didn't want to take the movements out, but didn't want any grappling in their art.

I like your likening of sentences and paragraphs in kata.  I think that might make kata make more sense to practitioners.  Just my thoughts.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

You may be correct in regards to the official term the Japanese used to describe their control of Korea.  



oftheherd1 said:


> Hapkido is generally accepted to have come from Dai Ito Ryu, from which Aikido is also accepted to have come. Hapkido is not accepted as having come from Aikido or Aki Jujitso



Isn't Dai Ito Ryu a form of Aiki Jujutsu?  This was my understanding.



oftheherd1 said:


> But I think you may well be correct in the rest of your beliefs about Karate, TKD, and HKD. I only know that I thought it was significant that moves in TKD, which I had experienced in the TKD I studied in the 60s as well as the later TKD my student learned, had segments explained as 'art' but later could be seen in the Hapkido I studied.



It is interesting to note that one of my instructors had two main instructors.  One was straight-forward 'modern' WTF/KKW TKD i.e. sport.  He's the one that runs weekend seminars for TKD folks that yield a BB in HKD after a weekend of training.  The other however was more 'old school' and taught very HKDish material that generally wasn't approved of by the other 'grandmaster'.  It seems that some went well beyond what we typically think of as TKD.  

I see this as a strength to TKD in that it can be pure sport or it can have really in-depth studies.


----------



## oftheherd1

Kong Soo Do said:


> You may be correct in regards to the official term the Japanese used to describe their control of Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't Dai Ito Ryu a form of Aiki Jujutsu?  This was my understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting to note that one of my instructors had two main instructors.  One was straight-forward 'modern' WTF/KKW TKD i.e. sport.  He's the one that runs weekend seminars for TKD folks that yield a BB in HKD after a weekend of training.  The other however was more 'old school' and taught very HKDish material that generally wasn't approved of by the other 'grandmaster'.  It seems that some went well beyond what we typically think of as TKD.
> 
> I see this as a strength to TKD in that it can be pure sport or it can have really in-depth studies.



I always heard founder Choi studied under Takeda, but that is disputed by some.  But frankly, most of the history of Hapkido I have learned from posters on MT or checking the internet.  It just wasn't an important thing in my studies.  My GM would answer my questions, but didn't hold classes on Hapkido history, at least not for 1st Dan nor 2nd Dan. 

It seemed that as the GM of his own kwan, that wasn't necessary.  I got the impression the other GM were the same.  He told me that founder Choi came from Japan, having studied there.  He said all the old GM knew that.  He also told me once who some of the older GM were, but their names didn't mean anything to me then.  He also mentioned knowing and studying with some old GM, such as Bong Soo Hong.  that name I remembered as I knew him from the movie Billy Jack.

When I studied under Jhoon Goo Rhee, it was the same.  I thing we just guessed there was some TKD in the sky that trained all TKD instructors or something, all senior instructors came from that. lol  And he taught what I would guess was a very traditional TKD.  We studied blocks, punches, and kicks.  We were taught to constantly work on increasing power and speed.  Without it being said, we learned to use gi (focusing energy).  I often wonder if I had been able to stay with him and been belted, if I might have been taught more about some of those 'artsy' moves, or been taught some throws or joint locks.

Frankly, I agree that grappling moves added to TKD would be an advantage.  I think a little more practice in striking and kicking might not help some Hapkido.  But as I learned it, probably not that much.  In Hapkido, we just learn that as we go and get stronger and faster.  Interesting to contemplate though.

Week end seminars for BB in Hapkido disgusts me.  Or any other MA for that matter.  I think I may have run into one myself a few years back.  He didn't seem anxious to talk when he found out I was belted and didn't seem to want to answer what style he was belted in.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

I want to say this was about five years ago.  Guys an 8th Dan (maybe 9th now?) in the KKW and big time into the sport side.  His buddy is a HKD GM (8th IIRC).  Seminar was exclusively for TKD BB's in the school.  Best part is that, according to the flyer, the only requirement was being a TKD BB.  So no former HKD experience needed.  And it wasn't just a first Dan HKD rank to be had...it all depended on your TKD rank.  So I'm assuming from how it read that you could get an instant 2nd or 3rd as well if you were high enough in your TKD rank.  All based on what you learned in a single weekend.

See...you've been doing it the hard way all this time.  

Check out this thread and the link provided to the flyer:

Need a HKD BB to go with your TKD BB?


----------



## oftheherd1

I think I remember you posting something about that once before Kong Soo Do.  I still can't believe it.  Well yes, I can.  Some people will lower their standards and just think it is OK.  I mentioned before a TKD instructor who advertised teaching Hapkido as well.  I had driven by his school many times, and finally decided to see what he was doing and how his teaching was about.  I inadvertently picked a time when there were no classes, and he was out.  Only his wife was there.  When I asked about Hapkido, she confirmed it was taught.  When I asked what style, she got real strange and allowed I should talk to her husband.  Then got on the 'phone and suddenly she had to leave, as her husband was picking her up, and he told me I could come back when he was teaching.  I didn't see the value to that.

I noticed from your link, a poster named Sidekick had this to say:



> Now comes the big question. *it's not all that difficult to understand how locks and throws work*, so if your really attuned to your training and have some background within the scope of SD (TKD does have SD techniques and most have been based upon Hapkido - General Choi of the ITF made them part of the curriculum), is it really that out of line to be recognized as a ranked Hapkido Dan from a weekend seminar? I know I'm going against my previous post on the subject, but sometimes when one reflects, a glimmer of light shines through and opens the portals for further investigation.



For any here on MT who are considering buying some books or CDs to learn Hapkido at home, without any access to an instructor, whether in a dojang or on line, it normally isn't that easy to learn joint locking, throws, pressure points, and the other things.  It gets easier as you progress, but you don't start out that way. 

That is why I personally cannot agree with being belted in and teaching TKD doesn't earn you a BB in Hapkido.  If it was that easy, why waste time and money on a seminar?  Why have to separate martial arts? 

I don't know that any SD techniques TKD has came from Hapkido.  Maybe in individual schools.  But as we have discussed in this thread, it appears they don't even know some of the meaning of some moves in kata,  That makes me think those things probably came from elsewhere.

Founder Choi did indeed prefer and teach low kicks over high kicks.  High kicks came later.  Low kicks are still preferred by the older GM, even though they incorporate and teach high kicks as well.  That I know from my GM.


----------

