differences between Hapkido and Tae Kwon Do

[Brad Dunne]

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

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

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

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

 

[matt.m]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[matt.m]

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

 

[howard]

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

For my part, that absolutely is not what I meant. Look, these are simple facts:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[FearlessFreep]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

 

[FearlessFreep]

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


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

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

 

[American HKD]

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

Absolutely a gperfect point!

One needs to know the differnce to discuss the difference!

 

[PWilliams-HKD]

Greetings

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

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

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

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

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



Best answer yet.

 

[Hapkiyoosool]

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

 

[Kong Soo Do]

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

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

 

[JP3]

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

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

 

[tkdmaster78]

Matt,

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

Respects,
crushing

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

 

[tkdmaster78]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[oftheherd1]

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

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

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

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

 

[oftheherd1]

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

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

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

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

 

[oftheherd1]

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

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

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

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

 

[Kong Soo Do]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Additionally, if it's of any interest:

The Hidden Truths of Hapkido in Taekwon-Do

 

[oftheherd1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kong Soo Do]

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

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

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

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

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

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