I believe that Loyalty is important because like the saying of the Christians and Catholics say : ' The family that prays together stays together ' and by other expressions are like this one ' Strength comes from unity '.
Ramon,
While loyalty is a fine virtue, it is also a two way street. The student bows to the instructor, the instructor bows
back.
I have seen students abused over the years by instructors...and Grandmasters...that preached loyalty and respect. Advocacy of these two virtues was used to humiliate and guilt-trip students when they questioned their mistreatment. It is often quite effective. Students with low self esteems are particularly vulnerable to it.
If you've not been subject to this abuse...wonderful. Many have been.
I believe that HapKiDo to be done correctly, it must not be mixed and I know that many other people do not think like I do and I respect that.
As for mixing...I've touched on this topic in other threads, other areas of Martialtalk, and in talking about other arts. IT HAPPENS. It is an inexorable process...one that can't be stopped. Students and instructors are going to look at other systems, kwans, styles, what have you and see something that they want to integrate. A Hapkido instructor will see a Shoot stylist do a trap off a kick and execute a take down off of it. It works. It is similar to one, perhaps, the HKD teacher knows. It fills a gap or it augments what he knows. He starts to experiment with it....
Is this wrong? Hardly. A scan of the history of the martial arts and human progress shows that this is an inevitable outcome. Arts evolve. They "mix genes".
Koreans were doing this fifty years ago. They might be doing it today, for all I know. I tend to see a conceptual arthritis setting into many arts, though, wherein the heads of systems promote their methods as "complete" and not needing any further development...unless, of course, they're the ones doing the developing.
Don't get me wrong...I have nothing against tradition or holding fast to techniques as taught by one master. The latter is necessary from an archival point of view, if nothing else. But that master DIDN'T learn techniques as handed down for 1,500 years, unchanged and immutable. Somebody, somewhere, experimented. They adapted. They absorbed.
Regards,
Steve Scott