# Reversing the equasion: add on TKD



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 28, 2010)

It seems that both this forum and the taekwondo forum are rife with topics about adding hapkido to taekwondo, with many arguments ensuing as a result.

One thought that I had is this: would it not be easier to add taekwondo forms to a hapkido curriculum, moving and performing the techniques as one would in hapkido?  Some hapkido schools use forms and the taegeuk forms would not be all that difficult to adjust.  Maybe even add WTF sparring as a kicking drill?

Before anyone gets up in arms, I am *not* actually suggesting that anyone do this, nor am I stating that I think it is a good idea (or a bad idea).  It just seems like that would be easier than grafting hapkido onto taekwondo, would benefit a hapkido school commercially much more than grafting hapkido on to taekwondo benefits a taekwondo school, and could even serve as the foundation of a kids class.

But it seems that everyone wants to do it the hard way and add hapkido to taekwondo.  Personally, I think that taekwondo schools that try adding hapkido would do better to improve their taekwondo.  

And of course given that hapkido is a complete art already, I suppose that there is little motivation to graft aspects of TKD onto an existing curriculum. 

The point of this thread?  A look at the subject in reverse.  Who knows? Maybe there are a number of schools out there that do this already.  If so, I would be curious as to why and how well it worked out.

Daniel


----------



## Kumbajah (Jan 28, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> And of course given that hapkido is a complete art already, I suppose that there is little motivation to graft aspects of TKD onto an existing curriculum.



For me you've already answered it  - I don't see the benefit. Everything TKD has, HKD does and then some. Even the striking material is broader. 

The only impetus I can see is that the TKD material is more user friendly ( no falls, Less material, less painful) so if you wanted a more steady income stream - it's easier to sell TKD than HKD. So having TKD classes to financially support the HKD training seems a way to keep the doors open.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 28, 2010)

I guess that it just surprises me that an HKD school owner somewhere has not sought the much easier commercial rout of sticking a karate logo on the door, grafting on taegeuks and have the kids pad up for WTF sparring (as opposed to going the other direction, which seems to have the most commercial popularity).

Personally, I think that taekwondo makes a great kids program, but in a hapkido school, I think a kids program geared around the principles of hapkido would be better.

Daniel


----------



## Kumbajah (Jan 28, 2010)

Many (most) Hapkido schools do "pad up" for sparring. Although it looks more like ITF than the WTF bounce.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 28, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I guess that it just surprises me that an HKD school owner somewhere has not sought the much easier commercial rout of sticking a karate logo on the door, grafting on taegeuks and have the kids pad up for WTF sparring (as opposed to going the other direction, which seems to have the most commercial popularity).



I believe the Hwa Rang Do people teach a stripped down version of their system, called 'tae soo do', complete with h-pattern forms and all.


----------



## DBZ (Feb 1, 2010)

An iteresting thread. Of the three TKD schools were I live, one teachs TKD and HKD, the other teachs TKD and Akido, Then there is my school which is just TKD. I do cross train in Kenpo, But I like are school for the reason that when we learn TKD its just TKD. not a hybrid


----------



## dbell (Feb 1, 2010)

I would need to understand the purpose of the school to know if something should be added or not.

If the school is a TKD school, with the purpose of learning to compete, then HKD should not be added, as it deteriorates from the purpose of the school.

If the school has the purpose of self defense, then finding a way to integrate HKD may be of importance, and should be looked at by a person that has trained in both to a level that they are able to integrate the training into a "new" system, based on two existing systems.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 2, 2010)

dbell said:


> I would need to understand the purpose of the school to know if something should be added or not.
> 
> If the school is a TKD school, with the purpose of learning to compete, then HKD should not be added, as it deteriorates from the purpose of the school.
> 
> If the school has the purpose of self defense, then finding a way to integrate HKD may be of importance, and should be looked at by a person that has trained in both to a level that they are able to integrate the training into a "new" system, based on two existing systems.


In this scenario, it would be a hapkido school grafting on taekwondo forms (Taegeuk, Chang Hon, Palgwe).

We have numerous threads both here and in the TKD section about grafting hapkido onto taekwondo.  I was curious as to whether or not anyone goes the other direction: grafting on TKD forms and maybe the sportive element to an HKD curriculum.

It would certainly be easier to do so than grafting hapkido onto TKD, though personally, I think that TKD should be TKD and hapkido should be hapkido.

Daniel


----------



## zDom (Feb 2, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> ... though personally, I think that TKD should be TKD and hapkido should be hapkido.



Amen!


----------



## dancingalone (Feb 2, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> though personally, I think that TKD should be TKD and hapkido should be hapkido.
> 
> Daniel



I think this is a fairly modern outlook, Daniel.   

I've always been curious to ask someone who was around and practicing 'Korean' martial arts during the 1930-1950's and ask them what they think about making such style distinctions.  My thought (and I could be wrong) is that they would wonder why on earth we argue so much about packaging this and that into the world of TKD or hapkido when they should all exist as a complete and united package.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 2, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I think this is a fairly modern outlook, Daniel.
> 
> I've always been curious to ask someone who was around and practicing 'Korean' martial arts during the 1930-1950's and ask them what they think about making such style distinctions.


In the thirties through the fifties, KMA were outlawed, so I do not know what sort of perspective you would get.  I am sure that it would would be interesting.  

From what I understand, in Korea, the main repository of martial knowledge was the military.  Otherwise, arts were handed down within a family from generation to generation or were common to a particular region and were not formalized into a ryu system like the Japanese arts were.  I may be off base, but that is how I understand it.



dancingalone said:


> My thought (and I could be wrong) is that they would wonder why on earth we argue so much about packaging this and that into the world of *TKD or hapkido when they should all exist as a complete and united package.*


We argue because we have the internet!

But I tend to avoid participating in arguments.  Non productive, and one of the main reasons that I hardly post in the TKD section anymore, as that seemed to be all that ever occurred.  

The bolded part of your post, however, I would like to address specifically.  The main issue is not the idea of all existing as a complete and unified package.  All things considered, if you want a complete and unified art, hapkido already serves the purpose.

The main issue is, quite honestly, taekwondo.  I have *never* seen a debate about Hapkido and Kuksulwon, Hwarangdo, or Mudukwon.  These discussions about whether or not styles should be mixed seem to always involve taekwondo.

The main reason for this is, in my opinion, that taekwondo has moved away from being a martial art with a sportive element, becoming very much a sport with a martial element.  Taekwondo as an art form has suffered greatly, though as a *sport*, it has thrived.  Notice that it is the national *sport* of Korea, an olympic *sport*, and the largest governing body, the World Taekwondo Federation, exists to promote and to regulate the *sport* of taekwondo.  Take a good hard look at the requirements for advancement in the Kukkiwon and it becomes very apparent that a lot of what served as the foundation of taekwondo has been shed in order to streamline the curriculum for homogenization and unification of the kwans.  The Kukkiwon serves as a certification body mainly.

None of that is a criticism of the WTF or the Kukkiwon, but it has not been good for the art of taekwondo.

Add to that the fact that taekwondo is a Shotokan based art, and simply placing it next to hapkido as part of a unified whole does not work so well; the movement is different, the approaches are different, and the skill set of hapkido is much, much broader (note to Shotokan practitioners: I said broader, not better).  Taekwondo still is a hard art like Shotokan but has moved away from hand techniques in live sparring and towards kicks.  This further narrows the skill set, making a unique and challenging sport.

What is happening, in my opinion, is that the sport trend has been around long enough that, firstly, I no longer feel that it can be considered a trend, but more importantly, enough that a generation of instructors exists that never learned taekwondo as a complete art.  The emergence of MMA and internet forums have made people acutely aware of all that is out there.  But due to the direction that taekwondo has gone, these younger masters have realized that there is a whole skill set that has been effectively dropped in Taekwondo's transition from art to sport.  Now they want to fill in these perceived holes.  

Remember what I said about the sport trend not being a trend any longer?  The main taekwondo organizations are not going to address this need.  Because for a kicking oriented martial art, it _isn't_ a need. 

How do you fill in the hole?  Well, their master never taught them and may not have the knowledge themselves.  Hapkido, on the other hand, never dropped grapples, sweeps and takedowns.  Its already Korean and it is easier to find a hapkido school than it is to find an SD oriented taekwondo school.  So they lift it from hapkido.  Problem is that there a lot of fundamental, and more importantly, very subtle differences between hapkido and taekwondo.  Shotokan bunkai would be a better choice.  And there is tons of excellent material out there on the subject (Ian Abernathy being the first name to come to mind).

I am not critical of taekwondo schools that lift techniques from hapkido.  They are trying to do right by their students and give them a more well rounded curriculum.  

But the material for a full on, SD martial arts oriented taekwondo curriculum is still out there.  I think that people who want to teach taekwondo should truly plumb the depths of the art before lifting from a fundamentally different art.  Before looking outside one's art, perhaps a look outside of one's organization should be done first.

Sorry for the long winded post, Dancing.  

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Feb 2, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> From what I understand, in Korea, the main repository of martial knowledge was the military.  Otherwise, arts were handed down within a family from generation to generation or were common to a particular region and were not formalized into a ryu system like the Japanese arts were.  I may be off base, but that is how I understand it.



When I mentioned 'Korean' arts I really meant Korean karate and whatever training Choi Yong Sul brought back from Japan.  It gives me a headache trying to delve into the actual native Chinese-influenced systems like kwon bup, since you don't know what is actually fact or fiction.

I've always wondered what cross-pollination occurred between the people who went on to form tae kwon do and the people who grouped under the hapkido/Kuk Sool/Hwa Rang Do banners.  



> The main issue is, quite honestly, taekwondo.  I have *never* seen a debate about Hapkido and Kuksulwon, Hwarangdo, or Mudukwon.  These discussions about whether or not styles should be mixed seem to always involve taekwondo.
> 
> The main reason for this is, in my opinion, that taekwondo has moved away from being a martial art with a sportive element, becoming very much a sport with a martial element.  Taekwondo as an art form has suffered greatly, though as a *sport*, it has thrived.  Notice that it is the national *sport* of Korea, an olympic *sport*, and the largest governing body, the World Taekwondo Federation, exists to promote and to regulate the *sport* of taekwondo.  Take a good hard look at the requirements for advancement in the Kukkiwon and it becomes very apparent that a lot of what served as the foundation of taekwondo has been shed in order to streamline the curriculum for homogenization and unification of the kwans.  The Kukkiwon serves as a certification body mainly.
> 
> None of that is a criticism of the WTF or the Kukkiwon, but it has not been good for the art of taekwondo.


No arguments from me.  I decidedly fall into the camp that believes the people who controlled the larger factions within TKD have done the art a great disservice.  



> Add to that the fact that taekwondo is a Shotokan based art, and simply placing it next to hapkido as part of a unified whole does not work so well; the movement is different, the approaches are different, and the skill set of hapkido is much, much broader (note to Shotokan practitioners: I said broader, not better).  Taekwondo still is a hard art like Shotokan but has moved away from hand techniques in live sparring and towards kicks.  This further narrows the skill set, making a unique and challenging sport.


But tae kwon do was never so limited in the beginning.  Many of the TKD pioneers also trained in yudo, and IMO elements of yudo can and should have been integrated into TKD proper.  It sounds like this happened in the Moo Duk Kwan by a few posts written by fellow MT member SBN Rush.  

I realize this is the dirty pass TKD is at today, but I don't accept that Shotokan should have been the only influence on TKD during its development (along with the emphasis on kicking you mention).



> What is happening, in my opinion, is that the sport trend has been around long enough that, firstly, I no longer feel that it can be considered a trend, but more importantly, enough that a generation of instructors exists that never learned taekwondo as a complete art.  The emergence of MMA and internet forums have made people acutely aware of all that is out there.  But due to the direction that taekwondo has gone, these younger masters have realized that there is a whole skill set that has been effectively dropped in Taekwondo's transition from art to sport.  Now they want to fill in these perceived holes.
> 
> Remember what I said about the sport trend not being a trend any longer?  The main taekwondo organizations are not going to address this need.  Because for a kicking oriented martial art, it _isn't_ a need.
> 
> ...


Karate bunkai and yudo(judo) are natural sources to look at.  I argue that hapkido is too.  Look at what He Young Kimm is doing in bringing his Hanmudo system to taekwondo schools through his ITA affiliation.  Surely he believes there's value in this.  (I know the cynical will say it's a financial deal.)



> I am not critical of taekwondo schools that lift techniques from hapkido.  They are trying to do right by their students and give them a more well rounded curriculum.
> 
> But the material for a full on, SD martial arts oriented taekwondo curriculum is still out there.  I think that people who want to teach taekwondo should truly plumb the depths of the art before lifting from a fundamentally different art.  Before looking outside one's art, perhaps a look outside of one's organization should be done first.


Well there's the rub.  TKD has so greatly diverged over the years  that I believe each different style (ITF, KKW, whatever) is really its own system too at this point.  Not to mention the differences in what each separate instructor has or has not taught his own students...

There would be problems in trying to understand any new syllabus, even if it too is a 'tae kwon do' system.  And this is heightened when you're talking about new subject matter entirely such as grappling to someone who has only trained striking.  

I don't see as much of an advantage or natural affinity as you perceive in looking to other 'TKD' systems.


----------



## dortiz (Feb 2, 2010)

"Otherwise, arts were handed down within a family from generation to generation or were common to a particular region and were not formalized into a ryu system like the Japanese arts were"

There is no documentation of this except for a few Leaders who claim it in their own writing.

Korea was under Japanese occupation and that was after an age of enlightenment that also did not support the Martail Arts.

Just because different Koreans brought back two different arts to one country does not mean they integrate well.

Can programs help TKD come back to a fighting art, yes. Picking any of the styles and inserting them will always be a problem. Karate Bunkai is part of every lesson and the Kata, Bunkai and two man drills all tell one tale. This is the same for most arts. This is a new dillema adding fight to sport. It will require a lot of talented folks to solve.
On the other hand its a great sport and a person can just go out and train in Judo, JiuJitsu or Hapkido and once proficient find their own happy place.

Dave O.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 2, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> When I mentioned 'Korean' arts I really meant Korean karate and whatever training Choi Yong Sul brought back from Japan.  It gives me a headache trying to delve into the actual native Chinese-influenced systems like kwon bup, since you don't know what is actually fact or fiction.


The unverifiable stuff I pretty much ignore.  I won't say that is is false or lies, or what not, but since it cannot be verified, and taekwondo as a system does not match up the many of the claims, I simply do not include them in my analysis of taekwondo.



dancingalone said:


> I've always wondered what cross-pollination occurred between the people who went on to form tae kwon do and the people who grouped under the hapkido/Kuk Sool/Hwa Rang Do banners.


Before the Kukkiwon arose, probably a lot of guys training in a lot of the same stuff; strikes, grapples, sweeps, takedowns, and even some ground fighting.

Once the politics took over?  None whatsoever.



dancingalone said:


> No arguments from me.  I decidedly fall into the camp that believes the people who controlled the larger factions within TKD have done the art a great disservice.


Well, they emphasized the sportive element to such a degree that the rest has been essentially relegated to forms competition or dropped altogether.



dancingalone said:


> But tae kwon do was never so limited in the beginning.  Many of the TKD pioneers also trained in yudo, and IMO elements of yudo can and should have been integrated into TKD proper.  It sounds like this happened in the Moo Duk Kwan by a few posts written by fellow MT member SBN Rush.


No, it was not limited.  That is what I was getting at.  But it has been moving to what it is today (a sport) since the mid seventies.  That is over three decades at this point.  Three decades was enough for a foreign occupation to heavily damage Korean culture and to almost virtually ruin the transmission of all Korean MA.  Three decades is more than enough time for a national organization completely rework one martial art into a completely different animal.



dancingalone said:


> I realize this is the dirty pass TKD is at today, but I don't accept that Shotokan should have been the only influence on TKD during its development (along with the emphasis on kicking you mention).


Well, I do not feel that it was the only influence, but it certainly is the foundation.  The Jidokwan devised the kick-centric sparring rules, both to differentiate it from Taekwondo and to make it look more Taekyeon-ish.  Even the name, Taekwondo, has a rhythmic resemblance to the word Taekyeon.  Taekwondo also has more softness than Shotokan.  

But when all is said and done, it is still Korean Shotokan at its core.  The kicking emphasis is entirely artificial.  It is entirely generated from the shift to sport and has nothing to do with martial efficacy.



dancingalone said:


> Karate bunkai and yudo(judo) are natural sources to look at.  I argue that hapkido is too.  Look at what He Young Kimm is doing in bringing his Hanmudo system to taekwondo schools through his ITA affiliation.  Surely he believes there's value in this.  (I know the cynical will say it's a financial deal.)


Hapkido can be mixed, certainly, but it is not a bolt on mod, so to speak.  A lot more has to be done with hapkido to blend it with taekwondo.  Not saying that it can't be done or that it shouldn't be done; only that it is more involved, mainly because the differences are much more subtle.  Also, the one doing the blending needs to have a firm grasp of both arts in order to do so effectively, something that most TKD instructors do not have.



dancingalone said:


> Well there's the rub.  TKD has so greatly diverged over the years  that I believe each different style (ITF, KKW, whatever) is really its own system too at this point.  Not to mention the differences in what each separate instructor has or has not taught his own students...
> 
> There would be problems in trying to understand any new syllabus, even if it too is a 'tae kwon do' system.  And this is heightened when you're talking about new subject matter entirely such as grappling to someone who has only trained striking.
> 
> I don't see as much of an advantage or natural affinity as you perceive in looking to other 'TKD' systems.


Well, the advantage is that there are still schools out there that have a developed boon hae (bunkai) or who's systems were developed by founders who collectively had extensive knowledge in both taekwondo and whatever other system was blended, such Chang Hon taekwondo.  One need not look outside of Chang Hon for hoshinsul because it has already been integrated and developed for the Chang Hon taekwondo system.  A Kukki practitioner would do better to look there, where all the work has already been done, than to look outside of the art altogether.

My point was not that one should avoid looking outside of one's art, but that one should make sure that they have learned an art in its entirety before declaring that it has holes and needs to have another system grafted onto it.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Feb 2, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> No, it was not limited.  That is what I was getting at.  But it has been moving to what it is today (a sport) since the mid seventies.  That is over three decades at this point.  Three decades was enough for a foreign occupation to heavily damage Korean culture and to almost virtually ruin the transmission of all Korean MA.  Three decades is more than enough time for a national organization completely rework one martial art into a completely different animal.



Sure.  That's the current reality.  That said, even though I no longer consider myself a TKD man, I still have a strong interest in seeing a focus on SD re-emerge within TKD.  Unfortunately, the fetish for tournaments and high kicks along with a general lack of higher martial understanding my from first MA instructor is what led me to switch styles way back in the eighties.



> Well, I do not feel that it was the only influence, but it certainly is the foundation.  The Jidokwan devised the kick-centric sparring rules, both to differentiate it from Taekwondo and to make it look more Taekyeon-ish.  Even the name, Taekwondo, has a rhythmic resemblance to the word Taekyeon.  Taekwondo also has more softness than Shotokan.


Hmm, perhaps your local flavor of TKD is softer.  The TKD system I learned emphasized power and swift, direct movement.  This goes back to what I was saying about divergence in TKD.




> But when all is said and done, it is still Korean Shotokan at its core.  The kicking emphasis is entirely artificial.  It is entirely generated from the shift to sport and has nothing to do with martial efficacy.


I'm probably misunderstanding what you're trying to convey, but I believe the kicking emphasis has wide-reaching implications on the effectiveness of TKD as a combat system.  More balance is needed IMO.



> Hapkido can be mixed, certainly, but it is not a bolt on mod, so to speak.  A lot more has to be done with hapkido to blend it with taekwondo.  Not saying that it can't be done or that it shouldn't be done; only that it is more involved, mainly because the differences are much more subtle.  Also, the one doing the blending needs to have a firm grasp of both arts in order to do so effectively, something that most TKD instructors do not have.


I agree.  We had this very discussion a couple of weeks ago.  



> Well, the advantage is that there are still schools out there that have a developed boon hae (bunkai) or who's systems were developed by founders who collectively had extensive knowledge in both taekwondo and whatever other system was blended, such Chang Hon taekwondo.  One need not look outside of Chang Hon for hoshinsul because it has already been integrated and developed for the Chang Hon taekwondo system.  A Kukki practitioner would do better to look there, where all the work has already been done, than to look outside of the art altogether.


My preliminary investigation leads me to conclude that not many schools that claim to use the Choi syllabus, (ITF membership status unknown), actually follow it in full.  I won't put anyone on the spot, but hoshinsul was almost an unknown term to a couple of the places my friend and I called.  We've talked about awful SD being practiced in TKD schools trying to 'add on' hapkido.  I shudder to think about what might be going on.... General Choi's curriculum is no panacea, I'm afraid. We've beaten this to the death already: good instruction is crucial where ever it comes from:  a teacher from a new style, a mentor with broader knowledge in your organization, even seminars from a traveling master.



> My point was not that one should avoid looking outside of one's art, but that one should make sure that they have learned an art in its entirety before declaring that it has holes and needs to have another system grafted onto it.
> Daniel


???

I assume you're referring to the Choi hoshinsul again?  If so, I would say in the personal example I am aware of, my friend does not practice ITF tae kwon do, so to even investigate the possibility of Choi's curriculum, it would mean looking outside his own system to begin with.


----------



## Kumbajah (Feb 2, 2010)

Just to add 2¢ - my instructor came to Hapkido in 1960 from Tang Soo Do  (Chung Do Kwan) and Judo. He had also studied the "local" under his uncle as a boy.  - Hapkido was like nothing he'd seen before - even the kicking. TSD from his telling only had 3 kicks ( round, front and side). Hapkido was entirely different from anything he'd studied to that point.


----------



## dbell (Feb 2, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> In this scenario, it would be a hapkido school grafting on taekwondo forms (Taegeuk, Chang Hon, Palgwe).
> 
> We have numerous threads both here and in the TKD section about grafting hapkido onto taekwondo.  I was curious as to whether or not anyone goes the other direction: grafting on TKD forms and maybe the sportive element to an HKD curriculum.
> 
> ...



Duh...  Bonk me about the head, I know that but flipped it...

I'm not sure that Hapkido, at least as I studied it in Korea under GM Kim in Seoul Korea, needs TKD added to it.  What I have been studying for over 27 years now in the form of Hapkido has pretty much everything that TKD can provide, aside from some Katas....

Not sure there would be much to add that would actually add value?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 3, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Sure.  That's the current reality.  That said, even though I no longer consider myself a TKD man, I still have a strong interest in seeing a focus on SD re-emerge within TKD.  Unfortunately, the fetish for tournaments and high kicks along with a general lack of higher martial understanding my from first MA instructor is what led me to switch styles way back in the eighties.


Agreed, though I do not see re-emergence of any SD focus in taekwondo.  Seems everyone wants in on the Olympics.



dancingalone said:


> Hmm, perhaps your local flavor of TKD is softer.  The TKD system I learned emphasized power and swift, direct movement.  This goes back to what I was saying about divergence in TKD.


Not a question of hard or soft.  I was talking about the arts origins.  The taekwondo that I grew up with was swift and powerful and the taekwondo that I practice now still is.  When I say soft, I do not mean lack of power, but a bit more circular than Shotokan.  Note; I say a bit, as neither can be characterized as a soft art.



dancingalone said:


> I'm probably misunderstanding what you're trying to convey, but I believe the kicking emphasis has wide-reaching implications on the effectiveness of TKD as a combat system.  More balance is needed IMO.


Agreed.  What I meant by artificial is that the kicking emphasis is entirely image and competition driven and has no roots in any ancient KMA.



dancingalone said:


> My preliminary investigation leads me to conclude that not many schools that claim to use the Choi syllabus, (ITF membership status unknown), actually follow it in full.  I won't put anyone on the spot, but hoshinsul was almost an unknown term to a couple of the places my friend and I called.  We've talked about awful SD being practiced in TKD schools trying to 'add on' hapkido.  I shudder to think about what might be going on.... General Choi's curriculum is no panacea, I'm afraid. We've beaten this to the death already: good instruction is crucial where ever it comes from:  a teacher from a new style, a mentor with broader knowledge in your organization, even seminars from a traveling master.


For one, I am using the term hoshinsul in a generic fashion, but Choi's is the primary Taekwondo system that has it integrated.  No, not a lot of schools use Choi's syllabus.  But the material is out there.  Not only that, I would gather that there are schools that actually do use the Choi syllabus that would like to connect with others who do the same.  Certainly, there is no panacea.  As you point out, good instruction is what is needed, but also, good instruction in the needed areas.




dancingalone said:


> ???
> 
> I assume you're referring to the Choi hoshinsul again?  If so, I would say in the personal example I am aware of, my friend does not practice ITF tae kwon do, so to even investigate the possibility of Choi's curriculum, it would mean looking outside his own system to begin with.


As I recall, your friend practiced Chang Hon, or the Chang Hon forms at least.  ITF is an organization.  The actual system, I believe, is called the Chang Hon system.  So while it may not be his system, it is related and still within the same art.

This is one of those areas, be it your friend, or anyone else, where a long time practitioner can either seek outside of his own art or dive deeper into it.  While I do not see the dominance of sport going anywhere or lessening, taekwondo is still young enough that an advanced practitioner can still clearly see what taekwondo was before the emergence of sport dominance and teach that style of taekwondo within his or her own school.  

But that takes a lot of work, connecting with people ,and seeking out source material, an undertaking that not everyone has the time or energy to do.  Which is why I had said earlier that I understand the appeal of adding hapkido; you are guaranteed to have hoshinsul in a hapkido school, so it is easier to simply find a hapkido school than it is to hunt through TKD schools and see who has authentic SD and who just has filler.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 3, 2010)

dbell said:


> I'm not sure that Hapkido, at least as I studied it in Korea under GM Kim in Seoul Korea, needs TKD added to it.  What I have been studying for over 27 years now in the form of Hapkido has pretty much everything that TKD can provide, aside from some Katas....


Well, it doesn't need it.  Near as I can tell, the consensus is that stand alone hapkido schools are not trying to graft on taekwondo, or any other art for that matter.  It seems to be only taekwondo schools that want to graft on hapkido.



dbell said:


> Not sure there would be much to add that would actually add value?


Only commercially.  And only in the short term. 

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 3, 2010)

Kumbajah said:


> Just to add 2¢ - my instructor came to Hapkido in 1960 from Tang Soo Do  (Chung Do Kwan) and Judo. He had also studied the "local" under his uncle as a boy.  - Hapkido was like nothing he'd seen before - even the kicking. TSD from his telling only had 3 kicks ( round, front and side). Hapkido was entirely different from anything he'd studied to that point.


Given that TSD is essentially Shotokan (same forms and all) with Korean terminology, that doesn't surprise me.  Funakoshi's Shotokan had relatively few kicks and taller stances.  I believe that it was his son who emphasized deep stances and introduced more kicks.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Feb 3, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> As I recall, your friend practiced Chang Hon, or the Chang Hon forms at least.  ITF is an organization.  The actual system, I believe, is called the Chang Hon system.  So while it may not be his system, it is related and still within the same art.
> 
> This is one of those areas, be it your friend, or anyone else, where a long time practitioner can either seek outside of his own art or dive deeper into it.  While I do not see the dominance of sport going anywhere or lessening, taekwondo is still young enough that an advanced practitioner can still clearly see what taekwondo was before the emergence of sport dominance and that style of taekwondo within his or her own school.
> 
> But that takes a lot of work, connecting with people ,and seeking out source material, an undertaking that not everyone has the time or energy to do.  Which is why I had said earlier that I understand the appeal of adding hapkido; you are guaranteed to have hoshinsul in a hapkido school, so it is easier to simply find a hapkido school than it is to hunt through TKD schools and see who has authentic SD and who just has filler.



He's sort of my second cousin if you go through our respective TKD lineages.  We did study the Choi forms, but I wouldn't characterize is as studying the Chang Hon system.  To me, that would mean we followed General Choi's syllabus as outlined in his Encyclopedia as well as his later teachings not documented in the books.  We're from the Jhoon Rhee Texas TKD line.

I agree with your reasoning on why hapkido is an appealing avenue for TKDists.  I guess it's probably up to discussion which dovetails better:  karate bunkai, judo, or hapkido.  And the answer likely depends on what kind of TKD you practice.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 3, 2010)

Got my start in Jhoon Rhee in the DC area (Kensington dojang, which is now Tai Yim Kung Fu).  From what I recall and understand, Jhoon Rhee's system is pretty much entirely striking.  I did not get far enough with Jhoon Rhee, and I was like eight, to be able to make an informed statement on that.  Also, from what I have read from other Texas Jhoon Rhee folks on MT, there is a healthy amount of boxing influence.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Feb 3, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Got my start in Jhoon Rhee in the DC area (Kensington dojang, which is now Tai Yim Kung Fu).  From what I recall and understand, Jhoon Rhee's system is pretty much entirely striking.  I did not get far enough with Jhoon Rhee, and I was like eight, to be able to make an informed statement on that.  Also, from what I have read from other Texas Jhoon Rhee folks on MT, there is a healthy amount of boxing influence.
> 
> Daniel



Probably a fair statement, at least with regard to what he taught in Texas.  Not sure if he added anything else once he moved to DC.  I achieved a 2nd dan and the only takedowns I learned were a scissors takedown and a 'sickle' leg sweep at green belt.  At brown belt, there was a bulldog takedown and hip and shoulder throws added.  That was it.

And yes, there was plenty of boxing punches and combinations.  Believe it or not, the boxing handwork blended quite well and IMO made us better 'fighters' in a brawling sense.


----------



## Kumbajah (Feb 3, 2010)

Jhoon Rhee started in the DC area, in 1962. 

"Nobody bahdders meee"


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 3, 2010)

Kumbajah said:


> Jhoon Rhee started in the DC area, in 1962.
> 
> "Nobody bahdders meee"


Nobody bahdddrs me eeder.

I actually remember the ads he had *before* the Nills Lofgren penned jingle.  Simpler times, those. 

Daniel


----------

