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]

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]

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]

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]

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