add on Hapkido

[Kumbajah]

But you're not dumbing down anything. You are doing a different technique - one is a strike one is a throw. Irimi doesn't work because there is a strike to make him fall. It's like you are saying a hip throw (Seoinage) can dumbed down into a stomach punch.

 

[MrBigglesworth]

I think I may see the problem - How do you think irimi works? There isn't any strike.

You'd be surprised, I've seen shomen irimi nage that look very different and all worked like a charm:
- as a bottle-opener style neck crank (in Hapkido actually, but also in Aikido to answer those questions about how to handle "stubborn" uke...)
- the sweetest scalpel-blade diagonal slice up the chest into the neck and chin that had them horizontal 3 feet off the ground
- a wild lead them up the garden path by the scruff of the neck ended by one almighty club into the collarbone that had flattened them like a hammer.

All irimi nage, all executed with the priciple of connection between the 2 parties and stealing their balance before execution of the final element.


If you're talking about irimi as a concept, that's different again.
There is a well-known saying in Aikido about 5 + 5 = 10, but 2 + 8 also = 10. You base the response off the attack and when you catch it.
If you catch it early before they can plant their weight: irimi and slice in through the attack. If they have too much steam coming in and their weight is planted: tenkan and turn with it to diffuse and control (or maybe ura, but Yoshinkan doesn't have ura).

This is probably the biggest stumbling bolck to adding an art like Hapkido (Aikido is even worse): that understanding of the connection between the 2 parties whenever you are attempting to do a takedown, apply a lock or throw them.
It's not something that can easily be "bolted on", because unless you practise it and understand it in depth, you'll just end up wasting your time.
If you don't have that sort of time, then the block-punch-clothesline might be better than trying to learn irimi nage and not getting the point.


The thing about Hapkido is that it already has what you are looking for: striking integrated with takedowns, throws, locks, etc. It has a slightly different philosophy than Aikido: it seems to be somewhere between pure striking where you do something "to" them, and Aikido where connection is paramount in order to do something "with" them, (even if they have no say in it ;-).
The takedowns integrate kicking, strikes and sweeps with manipulation techniques that are similar to Aikido. It's much easier to learn them integrated than to learn them separately and integrate them yourself: ie bolted on.
Integration is the key.

 

[Kumbajah]

I think we are on the same page that the "fall" comes from connecting his balance to your movement, "taking his center", rather than simply smacking him in the head. Any strike is gravy rather than the meat. Irimi means to "enter" not "club the bastard."

 

[dancingalone]

Y It's much easier to learn them integrated than to learn them separately and integrate them yourself: ie bolted on.
Integration is the key.

I agree 100%. This is the ideal proposition. However, the question is what if you are a skilled striker? How do you expand yourself short of learning an entire new art itself?

 

[goingd]

For the record, this is in fact a thread about adding on Hapkido. That's the title. That is the sub forum it is in.

In order to integrate Hapkido into Taekwondo or another style, you do not have to adapt the style you already practice. Rather, I think it is better to find a connection to whatever style you already practice. Look deep and find the circular movement that does exist in Taekwondo and expand upon that. Follow this method in a number of areas and make the connections.

 

[dancingalone]

For the record, this is in fact a thread about adding on Hapkido. That's the title. That is the sub forum it is in.

Ah, if you were that literal in your meaning, then the thread could have ended with 1 post: Can't be done.

 

[dancingalone]

In order to integrate Hapkido into Taekwondo or another style, you do not have to adapt the style you already practice. Rather, I think it is better to find a connection to whatever style you already practice. Look deep and find the circular movement that does exist in Taekwondo and expand upon that. Follow this method in a number of areas and make the connections.

That's rather vague. Care to expound on the idea? I'm genuinely interested.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

How do you study a specific curriculum when you have no ties to the source at all? Surely, you recall this line of discussion started when I asked what new media resources paired with seminar training is available to add some close quarter combat to a almost exclusively striking curriculum.

In this case, the delivery method is the sticking point. Video only is good mainly only as reference or to give someone an idea of what they may be getting into before attending an in person class. For an experienced practitioner, the combination of visual media and hands on instruction may (or may not) be effective. But I think that when discussing the migration of techniques from one system to another, we need to separate the debate about the delivery method.

I could just as easily cross train at a school that teaches the techniques I am looking to learn. So assuming that the individual can learn the techniques, the question then become either A: can they integrate them into their practice and make them useful for practical application or B: can they integrate them into the system and teach it in a way that is beneficial to their students.

Even if the ITF had some useful resources, consider how do you marry Choi's material to your own if you 1) aren't sine wave 2) have different sparring drills and sparring rules or 3) execute even the striking techniques with different parameters than detailed in the Choi material? Do you pick and choose which ones to follow?

Sparring rules are independent of whether or not one can marry Chang Hon taekwondo to their system. In my opinion, sine wave/no sine wave is irrelevant as well; there are enough ITF schools that do not teach it from what I read on these forums. If the Chang Hon system has already done the work to integrate the hoshinsul into its system in a synergistic and meaningful way, a taekwondo instructor should be able to learn it without difficulty.

Surely you see the inherent problems. What is desired is a 'generic' add-on set of self-defense modules,

Such things probably exist, and may be more effectively taught at a good MMA gym where blending of techniques from different styles is the norm.

not style-specific in terminology or usage. My impression of ITF TaeKwon-Do is that it is a "full" martial arts style meant to be imparted in whole.

Yes, it is a full system. One of the things that causes some of the friction in these discussion with regards to hapkido is that hapkido is also a full system.

A spin off issue is that taekwondo schools, ITF, ATA, KKW, you name it, as a general rule, have dropped hoshinsul type techniques from their curriculum in favor of striking, as striking wins tournaments and is easier to teach. Thus you have taekwondo schools looking to borrow from hapkido now that MMA has created a perceived need for things other than strikes and blocks, but those schools do not have the foundation to teach it as effectively as they do the rest of their curriculum. This kind of rubs some hapkidoin the wrong way.

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

In this case, the delivery method is the sticking point. Video only is good mainly only as reference or to give someone an idea of what they may be getting into before attending an in person class. For an experienced practitioner, the combination of visual media and hands on instruction may (or may not) be effective. But I think that when discussing the migration of techniques from one system to another, we need to separate the debate about the delivery method.

I don't think video delivery is the only sticking point, although it's surely a big one. It's been brought up time and again that a TKDist for example has a different movement paradigm, which would be a big obstacle to surmount if one decides on the 'learn hapkido or x system' pathway. I have been clear that's probably not the direction my friend will be pursuing. The goal is to add complementary material to what he has mastered already.

I could just as easily cross train at a school that teaches the techniques I am looking to learn. So assuming that the individual can learn the techniques, the question then become either A: can they integrate them into their practice and make them useful for practical application or B: can they integrate them into the system and teach it in a way that is beneficial to their students.

No arguments there. I think you are right enough about the cross-training challenges facing a seasoned martial artist. Hence the interest in a generic add-on curriculum.

Sparring rules are independent of whether or not one can marry Chang Hon taekwondo to their system. In my opinion, sine wave/no sine wave is irrelevant as well; there are enough ITF schools that do not teach it from what I read on these forums. If the Chang Hon system has already done the work to integrate the hoshinsul into its system in a synergistic and meaningful way, a taekwondo instructor should be able to learn it without difficulty.

I have a different perspective. In my karate school, the sparring builds on the lessons learned elsewhere. We don't just throw on pads and immediately transform in a high kicking spectacle like many others do. We strive to close in with our partner. We grab. We push, we pull, we trip.

I am encouraging my friend to use a similar holistic approach with all his drills and activities, and I'm not convinced it's such a great idea to try to integrate the Choi material verbatim. Preliminary internet searches and a few phone calls have revealed it's not as straight forward as it sounds. I don't think the ITF is geared in that fashion to just 'sell' their hoshinsul as a separate module. You have to buy the whole cow is my understanding.

Such things probably exist, and may be more effectively taught at a good MMA gym where blending of techniques from different styles is the norm.

Another fine thought from you, Daniel. Not knowing much about MMA, I can't help counsel my friend in this direction, but it's worth a few looks. Certainly, my friend won't be looked askance in those quarters.

A spin off issue is that taekwondo schools, ITF, ATA, KKW, you name it, as a general rule, have dropped hoshinsul type techniques from their curriculum in favor of striking, as striking wins tournaments and is easier to teach. Thus you have taekwondo schools looking to borrow from hapkido now that MMA has created a perceived need for things other than strikes and blocks, but those schools do not have the foundation to teach it as effectively as they do the rest of their curriculum. This kind of rubs some hapkidoin the wrong way.

Yes, and that's why I shouldn't have framed my question in such a polarizing manner. Regardless, the goal of adding throws, locks, pins, and chokes to a striking system can be done, and it has been. I mentioned in another thread that no one gives karate-ka any grief about the material in Okinawan bunkai, yet it surely is exactly what I am talking about.

 

[Kumbajah]

Yes, and that's why I shouldn't have framed my question in such a polarizing manner. Regardless, the goal of adding throws, locks, pins, and chokes to a striking system can be done, and it has been. I mentioned in another thread that no one gives karate-ka any grief about the material in Okinawan bunkai, yet it surely is exactly what I am talking about.

TKD being a derivative of Shotokan and Shotokan being a derivative of Te wouldn't the Bunkai of Karate be more applicable?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Yes, and that's why I shouldn't have framed my question in such a polarizing manner. Regardless, the goal of adding throws, locks, pins, and chokes to a striking system can be done, and it has been. I mentioned in another thread that no one gives karate-ka any grief about the material in Okinawan bunkai, yet it surely is exactly what I am talking about.

The only thing polarizing seems to be any mention of video. I have seen some of the discussions about video/online training in other sections and on other sites and they mostly turn into flaming.

I just treat the videos as books. Some are good, some are lousy. But none can replace in person training. How much supporting seminars can mitigate a regular class depends greatly on the nature of the material, the quality of the seminar host, the ability of the student to grasp the material visually, and the experience of the student. Too many variables for my taste.

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

The only thing polarizing seems to be any mention of video. I have seen some of the discussions about video/online training in other sections and on other sites and they mostly turn into flaming

No, there's more to it than that. There's also the sense that hapkido is being shown disrespect somehow by the thought of someone from a different system being able to learn a few concepts or techniques from hapkido, even if it is highly modified.

I just treat the videos as books. Some are good, some are lousy. But none can replace in person training. How much supporting seminars can mitigate a regular class depends greatly on the nature of the material, the quality of the seminar host, the ability of the student to grasp the material visually, and the experience of the student. Too many variables for my taste.

Daniel

Agreed. I hope no one would ever think I have argued learning from video was ideal. I do believe you can pick up some gross mechanics from a video though and if you are knowledgeable enough and talented enough, you can reap some benefits from them. In personal training opportunities are a must though.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

TKD being a derivative of Shotokan and Shotokan being a derivative of Te wouldn't the Bunkai of Karate be more applicable?

I think the problem with the bunkai is similarly problematic in this instance. It appears that this individual has little to base his foundation of grips, locks, throws, chokes, etc to grow/integrate his boon hae/bunkai. There must be a source of solid technique to build upon beyond the deep analysis of the hyung/kata/form.

I am not familiar with Hapkido, so I personally cannot say if this would be a good foundation or not. However, I think the appeal is staying within the Korean styles, and Hapkido is the famous Korean grappling ma.

My association teaches all of these techniques, so to me it is MDK TKD. My Kwan Jang Nim is Korean and began learning his art in the late 1940's, and I'm not sure, in those volitile days, what techs were considered only TKD or only HKD.. .

 

[dancingalone]

My association teaches all of these techniques, so to me it is MDK TKD. My Kwan Jang Nim is Korean and began learning his art in the late 1940's, and I'm not sure, in those volitile days, what techs were considered only TKD or only HKD.. .

Another good point. What qualitatively separates these pre-hapkido techniques from what is called hapkido now? Are there real distinctions in conception and execution or is it just a case of potato and po-TA-to? Either way, if it's effective like you state, no one will really care what it's called.

 

[Kumbajah]

I think the problem with the bunkai is similarly problematic in this instance. It appears that this individual has little to base his foundation of grips, locks, throws, chokes, etc to grow/integrate his boon hae/bunkai. There must be a source of solid technique to build upon beyond the deep analysis of the hyung/kata/form.

I am not familiar with Hapkido, so I personally cannot say if this would be a good foundation or not. However, I think the appeal is staying within the Korean styles, and Hapkido is the famous Korean grappling ma.

My association teaches all of these techniques, so to me it is MDK TKD. My Kwan Jang Nim is Korean and began learning his art in the late 1940's, and I'm not sure, in those volitile days, what techs were considered only TKD or only HKD.. .

I don't know if he practices the Bassai/Passai or the Pyong Ahn / Pinan Hyeong / Kata - but they are basically the same thing - even the new forms use the same techniques High block, low block, reverse punch etc. So to me it would be much easier to look to Karate / Te and Tang Soo Do then to look at a soft art like Hapkido.

"Hey look they do a crossing low block as a grip escape, I could that." rather than relearn how to block softly or using hip power alone to break the grip or keeping the grip to use to your advantage. There are different strategies at play.

 

[Kumbajah]

Another good point. What qualitatively separates these pre-hapkido techniques from what is called hapkido now? Are there real distinctions in conception and execution or is it just a case of potato and po-TA-to? Either way, if it's effective like you state, no one will really care what it's called.

Prior to 1945 there was no Korean TSD TKD (Karate) systems only Korean students of Karate and other systems. Choi started teaching Hapkido (yawara) in 1948 in Korea so are talking about a 3 year window. So any grappling applications would have come from the Japanese or Manchurian systems.

 

[goingd]

That's rather vague. Care to expound on the idea? I'm genuinely interested.

Sure. What I mean is that instead of seeing Hapkido and Taekwondo as holistically separate entities, try and see as many similarities as possible. This involves a lot of outward thinking and going against the grain of the norm. I've discussed in other threads that the innate techniques of Taekwondo as found in the forms have the definitive capacity to apply joint locks and take downs. I've heard it said that Taekwondo is only as hard you teach or practice it. If you look hard to see the Hapkido-esc applications that already exist in Taekwondo, and to feel the softness of Taekwondo hidden between the lines, then integrating Hapkido into what you learn will be much easier.

 

[dancingalone]

Sure. What I mean is that instead of seeing Hapkido and Taekwondo as holistically separate entities, try and see as many similarities as possible. This involves a lot of outward thinking and going against the grain of the norm. I've discussed in other threads that the innate techniques of Taekwondo as found in the forms have the definitive capacity to apply joint locks and take downs. I've heard it said that Taekwondo is only as hard you teach or practice it. If you look hard to see the Hapkido-esc applications that already exist in Taekwondo, and to feel the softness of Taekwondo hidden between the lines, then integrating Hapkido into what you learn will be much easier.

I think I understand where you're going with this. You have to make a connection in your mind to the soft side and have the sensitivity to understand when a certain technique is working on your partner or not, or even to recognize when an opening is there.

How about the nitty gritty details though? How do you learn a wrist lock for example unless you've learned it somewhere to begin with? What you describe is absolutely necessary, but it doesn't lead the horse to the water trough so to speak.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I am not familiar with Hapkido, so I personally cannot say if this would be a good foundation or not. However, I think the appeal is staying within the Korean styles, and Hapkido is the famous Korean grappling ma.

That is pretty accurate.

Daniel

 

[goingd]

I think I understand where you're going with this. You have to make a connection in your mind to the soft side and have the sensitivity to understand when a certain technique is working on your partner or not, or even to recognize when an opening is there.

How about the nitty gritty details though? How do you learn a wrist lock for example unless you've learned it somewhere to begin with? What you describe is absolutely necessary, but it doesn't lead the horse to the water trough so to speak.

Once you have an understanding of the similarities, you can translate the connections into words, and into practice. For example, a simple arm bar involves pulling one end of the arm and pushing the other. Compare this to a simple punch. Usually in Taekwondo, before punching, one hand is already "chambered," "set up," or "aiming," then when you execute the punch you essentially pull one hand back and thrust the other outward. When you find the simplicity in the detail, you find the concepts are the same.
For Hapkido, or any other style for that matter, to be initially introduced, it is my concrete opinion that one needs instruction beyond videos. I think they are a great method of reference and a legitimate way to to introduce or expand on ideas, but ultimately, a hands on teacher is a necessity. I applaud instructors who want to incorporate more immediately useful self defense, and I wish there were easier ways to do it, but I am entirely against "distance education." I don't believe it works academically any more than it does for something physical like the martial arts. I know that I can sound cold hearted on the subject because there are those without the means to a more direct education, but I don't believe we're that advanced just yet - to be able to teach, demonstrate and respond to one another without interacting face to face.