add on Hapkido

[dancingalone]

For Hapkido, or any other style for that matter, to be initially introduced,

I think that sentence fragment is very indicative of the problems in discussing martial education via nontraditional means. It's clear you still have the ideal of learning a completely different system in the front of your mind, despite the valuable discussion you wrote preceding the sentence about making common connections.

We all have our own biases. I have repeatedly agreed it's not possible to learn a complete style from video, at least not with the current technology available. At the same time, I think it's possible to learn discrete techniques from video as long as corrections and improvements can be made in person from a proficient instructor. I've observed this firsthand with basic kicks like the roundhouse kick and the side kick. Learning basic holds and locks would be the next increment in instructional sophistication, and it's an appropriate goal if the target audience is already a seasoned martial artist. I'm not talking about a 12 year old white belt who doesn't even know how to move in a bow stance - the target student would have years of experience already, including teaching experience.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

What you are asking for, Dancing, is probably more along these lines:

http://www.streetselfdefense.com/
http://www.closecombattraining.com/cctraining/startg.php?gclid=CIqBmOSju58CFUVn5Qodq3kMzg

This avoids the whole issue of whether or not it is hapkido. The only problem that arises is whether or not seminars are available and what the quality of those seminars is. Not to mention whether or not the individuals putting these courses together are any more qualified than the average green belt to do so.

Before GM Kim offered hapkido as a separate class, he incorporated hapkido into our TKD classes. Did it work well? Very. But he also was a hapkido instructor and has a couple decades of hapkido under his belt (he was an instructor in the ROK), as well as over three decades of taekwondo. Being thoroughly familiar with both systems, he already had the tools to integrate the two.

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Just to eliminate any confusion, I am in no way recommending the material in either of the above links. The material may or may not be sound. Both of them, the Fear No Man course in particular, are very off putting to me in the way that they are promoted. Especially in the 'learn our video course and be unbeatable on the street' claims.

Daniel

 

[goingd]

I think that sentence fragment is very indicative of the problems in discussing martial education via nontraditional means. It's clear you still have the ideal of learning a completely different system in the front of your mind, despite the valuable discussion you wrote preceding the sentence about making common connections.

We all have our own biases. I have repeatedly agreed it's not possible to learn a complete style from video, at least not with the current technology available. At the same time, I think it's possible to learn discrete techniques from video as long as corrections and improvements can be made in person from a proficient instructor. I've observed this firsthand with basic kicks like the roundhouse kick and the side kick. Learning basic holds and locks would be the next increment in instructional sophistication, and it's an appropriate goal if the target audience is already a seasoned martial artist. I'm not talking about a 12 year old white belt who doesn't even know how to move in a bow stance - the target student would have years of experience already, including teaching experience.

Your opinion is understandable and I respect it. I was simply stating mine, not attacking anyone else's.
Regardless of my statements on connections and my viewpoints on distance education, I am still discussing the ideas of add on material, not entire systems. I think, that regardless of how much you are going to teach, you need the first hand experience.

 

[dancingalone]

I think, that regardless of how much you are going to teach, you need the first hand experience.

And no one reasonable would argue that.

Thanks to all for participating in the discussion!

 

[goingd]

And no one reasonable would argue that.

You might be surprised...

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Here is a question:

Would an instructor of a hard style, such as Taekwondo, not add greater value to his or her class by working with a hapkido practitioner on escapes and counters to grabs?

In other words, taekwondo is a hard style and its self defense is geared around that. Rather than trying to hapkido your taekwondo, why not work with an experienced hapkidoin to develop defenses against and escapes from grapples? A few basic locks, sweeps and takedowns are items that are not necessarily specific to hapkido and certain would augment a TKD curriculum.

But is having an added hoshinsul curriculum really better than being able to defend against grabs and locks effectively? It seems to me that it is easier to learn to prevent someone from putting a lock on me than it is to learn twenty different locks and manipulations.

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

But is having an added hoshinsul curriculum really better than being able to defend against grabs and locks effectively? It seems to me that it is easier to learn to prevent someone from putting a lock on me than it is to learn twenty different locks and manipulations.

Daniel

This is rather dualistic, no? In understanding what will foil a successful lock or grab, you learn what makes them effective in the first place. What you describe might be a good gateway into learning how to apply a lock correctly in the end.

As for your actual question, I don't believe the actual issue is what choice you proffer is 'better'. The motivation for adding locks and throws into a striking curriculum is to be more versatile so that a restraint can be used instead of always punching or kicking, say your drunk uncle. Another motivation is to have the ability to end a fight quickly and nothing does that better than having your foe hit the ground in crushing fashion.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

On a personal level, I agree with you about the versatility of techniques and such, as well as the usefulness of HKD hoshinsul in practical applications. The question is whether or not a TKD instructor can integrate those techniques into the class in a meaningful way and truly add value for his or her students. There are plenty of useful techniques for ending a fight in taekwondo as it is.

Generally, regardless of the art, I find that a student is much better served with flawless basics and endless repetition of the basics of their art. I generally disagree that one needs to have every hole filled and a technique for every scenario. I think that applying a limited set of techniques in a variety of circumstances is much more beneficial. If the student has too many techniques to learn and practice, he or she will not have the proficiency in enough of them to use them practically for self defense.

This is one of the few areas where I subscribe to a less is more philosophy.

Most people training in a martial art for self defense are generally trying to prepare for some nebulous "street" encounter with an assailant. They need to be able to use what they know quickly and effectively and in the time that most people spend between white and black belt (average of two years in many TKD schools, three to four in others) there is not enough time to become truly proficient to the point that techniques are second nature unless the skill set is limited.

Regarding the drunk uncle:

I have seen the drunk uncle scenario in more than one place. Uncle can also be substituted with party goer, drunk patron at a bar, etc. Here is my thought on that:

This is not a question of training to handle the drunk once he or she gets out of hand. The best way to deal with this is to be aware of the situation and to extricate yourself from it before it gets out of hand.

If you are at someone else's place and a person or persons are having too much, exit. If the drunk is in my home, well, I generally cut people off before they get drunk, or serve no alcohol at all, so in all likelihood, he showed up drunk, in which case he is being sent home. If he drove on his own, cops are being called.

I don't get into situations of dealing with drunken revelers because I stay away from places where drunken revelers are usually found. I do not patronize bars and clubs. Staying away from such establishments and controlling the flow of alcohol in your own home when guest are over are far more effective than having drunk-friendly techniques.

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

Generally, regardless of the art, I find that a student is much better served with flawless basics and endless repetition of the basics of their art. I generally disagree that one needs to have every hole filled and a technique for every scenario. I think that applying a limited set of techniques in a variety of circumstances is much more beneficial. If the student has too many techniques to learn and practice, he or she will not have the proficiency in enough of them to use them practically for self defense.

This is one of the few areas where I subscribe to a less is more philosophy.

I understand what you are saying in a general sense.

I actually don't teach techniques per se to my own students. I prefer to call them "case studies" in the hopes that the difference in terminology will help my students realize that it is the application of principles that makes the art effective, rather than a premise of 'use technique A vs. attack B".

How can you limit techniques real combat? The attacks don't come in a preset fashion nor does your response ever look textbook sharp. The opportunity for something like a wristlock only comes in a split second of clarity in the chaos of combat. So to me it's not about limiting techniques. Rather it's about teaching guiding principles, so that as long as you abide by them (mostly) you'll be able to recognize opportunities in the heat of the moment and be able to freestyle something spontaneous that nonetheless will work.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Absolutely agree with that philosophy!

And in that regard, I am all in favor of some basic locks, sweeps, and takedowns being incorporated into a striking art. These can be done in a way that the students can drill in them and develop the ability to use them on the fly.

Within the striking skills in taekwondo, there are a good number of basic strikes that, combined with a couple of basic locks, sweeps and takedowns, all trained in with frequency and in high repetitions, will physically prepare a student to defend against an unarmed assailant. Add to that some effective techniques for dealing with common hand held weapons, and you have a pretty good SD curriculum.

Basic locks sweeps and takedowns should be found in a good many taekwondo resources. I am a bit leery of some of the weapon defenses that I have seen taught over the years, so I would be inclined to do some digging on the instructor.

I don't know that adding on hapkido specifically is necessarily the best option, though provided it is done properly, I certainly am not opposed to it.

Daniel