Hapkido Q&A's

[greendragon]

I have to say that Bruce has a valid point here..
I too recognize Choi as the father of Hapkido.. heck I spent 8 hours on a pencil drawing of him to give to Master Whalen back in 1992 when he visited us here in Florida.. I probably know Choi's face better than most people on the planet... I will also note that in all my dealings with GM Ji Han Jae he has talked highly and lovingly of his time with Choi Yong Sool, he NEVER says anything bad about him and wouldn't stand for anyone else doing it either, GM Ji always refers to Choi as "his teacher". I think a common misconception about Ji Han Jae is that maybe people think there is some animosity from him about Choi, there isn't at all..
but as Bruce alluded to... once we peel back the layers of who came first then we can go back to Adam putting Eve in an outward wrist lock!!! Where does it go in the future???
Michael Tomlinson

 

[iron_ox]

Hello Bruce,

Again, what you have said is quite valid, here is how I define Hapkido - the art taught by Choi, Yong Sul - that no one else in Korea ever taught before him.

Itsa great to have other traditions, they are not Hapkido. Chinese kung fu is not hapkido, nor is wrestling or archery. The issue here is Hapkido, from a Japanese root, does not have a Confucian hierarchy.

It is great that others learned some Hapkido and mixed it with other stuff, or just made stuff up as it came to them, these generally have different names and are other martial arts, Kuk Sool Won, Hwa Rang Do - not Hapkido. I do not believe that Hapkido is a generic title for any Korean art that is not Tae Kwon Do.

It may be a great idea to create a pyramid of traditions, but the Hapkido tradition is quite seperate from other you mention - frankly, the "greater Korean MA spectrum" should have their own pyramids...

Sincerely,

Kevin Sogor

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Kevin:

.... and therein lies the rub.

I believe that Choi taught Hapkido. I believe that he also taught hapkiyusool and hapkiyukwonsool. I believe he also taught hapkisool. I also believe that he called his material "yawara". And I can feel completely comfortable believing all of these things at the same time. People can still point at Choi and say that he taught these arts, or levels of arts. People can still say that Funakoshi taught Karate even though the term has long-since expanded to include arts not taught by Funakoshi. People still say that Kano taught Judo even the the term has expanded far beyond the science that Kano taught. The question becomes a matter of do we want to focus on the individual or do we want to focus on the art? In the most specific definition of Hapkido one could say that Ji Han Jae invented the term and the art that goes with it. In the next most general definition one could say any tradition that descends from DRAJJ through Choi. In the most general definition one can say any grappling art filtered through Korean tradition. It becomes a matter of choice regarding ones' perspective. For example, some people like sports, and some people like Baseball-- which is a sport--- and some people like a particular Baseball team among all teams--- within the sport. For me, I follow Yon Mu Kwan Hapkido. I can safely say that Choi probably had no idea that there was a Yon Mu Kwan Hapkido. Our curriculum follows a Mu-Do approach including 6 weapons that Choi probably did not teach but which are an integral part of Korean Martial science and tradition. Now I can tell you, Kevin, that spending those days with Dojunim Kim has already caused me to rethink bits of what I know about the material the Yon Mu Kwan follows. However, I won't be dropping the Yon Mu Kwan curriculum, nor the weapons material, my passion for sword nor my loyalty to GM Myung. I will continue to grow my KMA experience, though I may not do it the way other people do. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Master Todd Miller]

One of the things that I have tried to do in my travels to Korea is to ask questions and interveiw Founder Chois students. The thing that is always consistant is DJN Choi called his art Hapkido, Yu Sool, Hapki-Yu sool, Hapki-Yu Kwon Sool, Dai Dong Ryu Hapki-Yu Sool. They were all the same thing, the martial art he learned. You see Founder Choi did not care what it was called, to him it was more what you became by following his style of teaching. This subject is very interesting the more you dig into what the students say about there time with the Founder.

It does not really matter what history you believe or follow both DJN Choi and GM Ji have important spots in Hapkido history! :asian:

Take care

www.millersmudo.com

 

[American HKD]

Greeting,

I think Todd maybe right here, but let me qualify this statement.

1. According to Doju Ji, Choi called what he learned Yawara!
2. Ji being one of Choi original students would certainly know this fact!
3. Ji said he heard it was Daito Ryu but couldn't prove it!
4. Ji coined the name Hapkido & Choi used it!
5. Why because as Todd said I too believe choi didn't really care what it was called just follow the teachings.
6. There are older student of Choi who pre-date the Jung Ki Kwan before Ji coined the name Hapkido who dont use the name Hapkido but Hapki-Yu Sul.

What's all this mean, not much just do the Art

This is how I see this controversy.

 

[Master Todd Miller]

6. There are older student of Choi who pre-date the Jung Ki Kwan before Ji coined the name Hapkido who dont use the name Hapkido but Hapki-Yu Sul.


Who would this be?

I know GM Kim, Yun Sang studied with DJN Choi around the same time that GM Lim did.

Thank you.

www.millersmudo.com

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Todd and Stuart:

Somewhere along the line I think we are going to have to get past this particular issue and it seems this is beginning to happen. A couple of years back this discussion would have gotten stuck at just this political point and not gone past it. Now, it seems that we are beginning to allow for a variety of terms and views and maybe the stage is being set to move on to WHAT we are doing rather than WHO is doing what. For instance, I really like the idea that people can accept that there are a variety of terms or levels---- or whatever you want to call it---- and that different people were involved in different levels of development. For myself I am more intrigued with Kim Moo Woongs' take on kicking that Ji Han Jaes but then we are moving to talking about the dynamics that make one sort of kicking different from another and THATS where I see some real growth coming out of this discussion.

Another place where I see a need for discussion is not so much WHO is teaching right now but rather WHO is LEARNING right now. Follow my logic here for a moment.

As we talk about these various personalities such as Ji, Kim and Lim we can discuss their relationship with Choi and that makes for good coffee klatching, yes? But consider that each of these personalities is having people of varied backgrounds come and train in the particular art that they teach. Maybe its just me but I see a problem here. When a TKD person, say, comes and takes some training in a Hapkido art, therte is nothing to prevent that person from going back and teaching that material to their students. But what about saying that they now teach "Hapkido". Does anyone see a problem with this? Personally I see this as a topic more in need of discussion than various relationships and conflicts of the past. I teach Yon Mu Kwan Hapkido but its taken almost 20 years of my life to be able to make that statement. What about the person who trains for a few monthes and then puts up a sign in their window? I know the short answer is that eventually people will see the shallowness of his teaching but what about the damage such misrepresentation does to the art in general? Thoughts? Anyone?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[glad2bhere]

"......6. There are older student of Choi who pre-date the Jung Ki Kwan before Ji coined the name Hapkido who dont use the name Hapkido but Hapki-Yu Sul......"

Its really easier just to refer to Kimms' book and his fine history of the early years of Chois' teaching prior to, say 1957 or so. There are about 15 or so individuals listed if folks want to take a look. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Master Todd Miller]

Its really easier just to refer to Kimms' book and his fine history of the early years of Chois' teaching prior to, say 1957 or so. There are about 15 or so individuals listed if folks want to take a look. FWIW.

There are alot more people that studied with the Founder than Dr. Kims book states. I am more talking about DJN Choi students that continued with him.

Take care

www.millersmudo.com

 

[glad2bhere]

"......There are alot more people that studied with the Founder than Dr. Kims book states. I am more talking about DJN Choi students that continued with him......"

Then I guess I must just be missing the point.

The fact is that people came and people went and some people got taught one thing and other people got taught something else. And then there were people who whipped-stitched things together and ascribed it to Choi. There were also people who trained with Choi but gave him only a little acknowlegment. What I seem to be hearing is a subtle position being made for the same old "one true way" for an art proceeding from a nation that never had such a place in its culture for proprietary information.

Twenty years ago the big name was Bong Soo Han. If your training didn't proceed from him it wasn't genuine.

Then it was Ji Han Jae. If your training didn't proceed from him it wasn't genuine.

Then the KHF had there little mess and if you weren't sanctioned by them you weren't authentic.

Now we're back to Choi Yong Sul and if you can't trace back to him you are just not authentic. And we still have the split between Kim Yong Sang and Lin Hyun Su. Are we going to argue over whose the more authentic THERE?

And nobody wants to go back BEFORE Choi Yong Sul.

And nobody wants to talk about a peer such as Jang Im Mok.

So what is REALLY being said here? Its beginning to sound like "First there was Choi, and then there was ------- (fill in your choice) and then there is ME. Don't bother me about other traditions, sources or histories. I know what I want to believe because it makes me feel good to believe it." Is this about accurate?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Master Todd Miller]

Now we're back to Choi Yong Sul and if you can't trace back to him you are just not authentic. And we still have the split between Kim Yong Sang and Lin Hyun Su. Are we going to argue over whose the more authentic THERE?
:whip:
Who is arguing here Bruce? What split are you talking about? Bruce, You are reading things into this that are not there! Authentic Hapkido is from Choi, Yong Sul and there is no evidence of any Hapkido that was alive in Korea in 1944 when Choi returned there. The only thing I try to point out is that GM Lim was with the Founder day in and day out for a long time. Most others would travel on weekends to visit Choi. This is just a fact plain and simple! No dig or disrespect to anyone.

www.millersmudo.com

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Todd:

"......Who is arguing here Bruce? What split are you talking about? Bruce, You are reading things into this that are not there! Authentic Hapkido is from Choi, Yong Sul and there is no evidence of any Hapkido that was alive in Korea in 1944 when Choi returned there. The only thing I try to point out is that GM Lim was with the Founder day in and day out for a long time. Most others would travel on weekends to visit Choi. This is just a fact plain and simple! ......"

You are quite right. There is no contention here. What I am speaking to is a narrowed view of things. If its alright I would use your post as an example to underscore my position in the previous e-mail .

1.) If there is no "split" between Kim and Lim why are there two entities? Does it come back to who teaches a more authentic version of Chois curriculum or is it something as simple as who is going to be "the boss"?

2.) The there is no evidence of "hapkido" before Choi Yong Sul because everytime I point to the evidence people say that "its not evidence". We just got finished pointing out that what people are calling "hapkido" now was formerly called hapkiyukwonsul, hapkiyusool, yu sool, and yawara. People are choosing to stop at Choi because they don't want to give chin na, kwon Bup and Soo Bahk their recognition. Why? Because then those same folks lose the authority they have as being the sole source of the Korean arts we NOW call hapkido and may, quite likely be called something else later.

3.) And what is to be made of Lim being with Choi for a long time? I've been with Myung since 1990. What does that mean? I've been with KJN Koo for five years. What does that mean? DOJUNIM Kim was with Choi since 1974---- what does that mean? Dojunim Lim studied sword and DRAJJ in Japan. What does that mean? What is it exactly that you would have the readership here believe for having read your post? See this is why I just don't think we go anywhere talking about personalities. It does not expand our awareness of the arts, nor does it offer anymore insights other than from a propaganda point of view. I think we are making a real mistake. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

Greetings,

Chin Na is where all the or most of the locking techniques come from and Shou Jiao or Chinese wrestling is where most of throwing come from.

I'm friendly with a very good local Kung Fu Master and it's interesting to note that according to him there's no style on Chin Na alone until the last 20 years or so.

Chin Na techniques where part of or sub-sets of most Kung Fu systems. Therefore some systems taught certain technques of Chin Na while other styles would teach totally different Chin Na techniques.

Throwing is not part of Chin Na also if you research carefully you will also not that Yawara is closely related to Chin Na (a locking only type system). Nage or (throwing) was seperate school of techniques.

Today it seems that mosts Yu Sool, Jujitsu styles are a mixture of Yawara (locking) and Nage (throwing) along with other things such as Atemi waza (striking) and so on etc.

Last note I dont really care who started what as Bruce says it's a coffe table discussion. My exposure to Hapkido was through Ji Han Jae line and that's my roots and was Bruces, Todd and others from different lines and that's thier roots.

I think we can all get along and share regardless of these difference.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Folks:

".......Last note I dont really care who started what as Bruce says is a coffee table discussion. My exposure to Hapkido was through Ji Han Jae line and that's my roots and was Bruces, Todd and others from different lines and that's thier roots.

I think we can all get along and share regardless of these difference......"

Which brings us back around yet one more time to the same spot.

We can keep going over "whose roots," and "his roots" and "their roots" over and over again but how is that giving us greater insights into what we DO. As I mentioned before, for example, in the kwan to which I belong we do the six traditional Korean weapons. There is nothing to say that I HAD to learn anything more than the kendo-esque sword material GM Myung taught me if I wanted to meet that part of the curriculum. Now we could talk about whose sword work is more authentic Myungs', or Ji's or Lims' or ????? but how does that help the individual do Korean martial practice better? And what if I stayed only with the Ji tradition as filtered through Myungs instruction? He made a career out of teaching what he teaches and noone says a person can't do that. But what if a person wants to delve deeper into the art. Are we not required to exceed our teachers? Is what we pass on to our students not to be more than what was passed to us? How are we approaching this responsibility in this discussion?

Is anyone understanding what I am asking?

Are people willfully choosing not to discuss this aspect of Hapkido?

Please let me know if all you want to do is go round&round about personalities. There is a great deal of information out there and things to consider as regards ones' practice. However, if peoples' greatest expectancy for their practice is to simply regurgitate yet one more time Hapkido household names it would be a great help to me to know this up front. I don't want to be the party-pooper who rains on everybodys' party if thats what folks want. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

Bruce

I'm not sure what you mean exactly but if we are to do more than our teachers we need to exceed thier levels and introduce alternatives to what is being done now.

But what I am seeing here is most of us seem to be happy finding our individual paths regardless of the root anyway!

If you want to disscuss Hapki Yu Sool vs Yu Sool that's really hard to do in this written forum.

And yes I do agree with you that the Chinese has much influence into Korean MA esspecially the North.

I learned with a Hapkido Master KHA 6th Dan back in the early 80s was head instructor in my teacher school for 1 year. He used to show us Northern Korean Kung Fu I don't know much about it but the Chinese connection was in Korea.

 

[Master Todd Miller]

We can keep going over "whose roots," and "his roots" and "their roots" over and over again but how is that giving us greater insights into what we DO.

I agree there is only so much that can be done on a keyboard. Greater insight comes from training! Thye thing is Bruce, we all have differing opinions so it is important to not get to wound up by it. BTW I am only pointing to things that are true. Each can take it however they like.

I agree that there was a Hapkido style art in Korea before Choi but there are no unbroken lines to proove it! It only stands to reason Mudo traveled through China into Korea then on to Japan so in a way Hapkido came from the Chinese. :asian:

Relax Bruce I do not think this is worth getting upset about. JMHO

www.millersmudo.com

 

[howard]

1.) If there is no "split" between Kim and Lim why are there two entities? Does it come back to who teaches a more authentic version of Chois curriculum or is it something as simple as who is going to be "the boss"?

i don't believe that master lim holds himself out as anything like a "boss" figure. he simply says that he teaches exactly what he learned from choi young sool. i have never heard or seen any statement attributed to him that disparages any other hapkido style. in fact, he believes that martial artists should unite rather than bicker.

3.) And what is to be made of Lim being with Choi for a long time?

well, for one thing, that he absorbed a tremendous amount of information about choi's art. that is readily apparent to anybody who has ever watched master lim demonstrate technique.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Folk:

Please. I'm not upset about anything. I DO think that people are beginning to appreciate the view that I am presenting.

a.) The Japanese have the ryu-ha system and that makes for a lineage of authenticity. Even THEY do not always abide by this, but it is part of their culture.

b.) The Korean culture does NOT have such a system of successive lineage. The Koreans DO have a martial tradition and that tradition HAS been passed from generation to generation. Where people seem to get caught up is that in the passing, there is not always a specific individual to identify as the authority for doing the passing.

c.) I think that what folks would like to do is apply some sort of "proprietary information" or "intellectual properties" rule to the Hapkido arts and therein starts the fussing. To my mind we are discussing Korean traditions of which the Hapkido arts are but one expression. What I am hearing other people say is that we are discussing specific sets of practices handed down from one individual to the next through a clearly defined succession of leaders. The Koreans have not had this in their culture. It was imported from Japan. Why anyone so badly damaged by the Japanese for some 60 years would want to mimic their organizational system beats the heck outa me.

d.) AND IF people want to play the "proprietary information card"---- after all of the talk about Choi training in Japan------ how is it that we are not giving proper credit to the DRAJJ people and paying them fielty? How is it that things pick-up rather conveniently at the Korean border and only through a single person who happens to be the source of authentification for the traditions represented here? As a student of DRAJJ, as alleged by many, should not have Choi done the proper thing and connected all of his students, through his position, back to the DRAJJ tradition in Japan? Seems like some pretty selective thinking going on here to the otherwise.

Lastly, let me say that the Chinese arts have made as much influence for the Korean traditions (maybe more) than the Japanese arts. The fact that most people are pressing the Japanese connection is that is the source of their material. This all well and good and I truly wish them well in their efforts. Where I have trouble is when people say they practice KMA, press the traditions that stem from Japan and then ignore or even discount the other half of the Korean traditions. Whats up about that? Once again it seems as though people are taking the easy way, yes? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Howard:

"......well, for one thing, that he absorbed a tremendous amount of information about choi's art. that is readily apparent to anybody who has ever watched master lim demonstrate technique....."

Thank you. Your response was exactly why I made the original (and somewhat rhetorical) comment.

If you will note the subjectivity ("....tremendous...", "readily apparent") in your comment you will see why such discussions simply do not add to the wealth of Hapkido information. One persons' "tremendous" is easily another persons' "adequate". One benefit of using a medium such as a Net like this is that we contributors are forced to convert into black&white those emotional issues that bubble around inside. For instance, can you give an exact number for the techniques Lim learned? (IE. Kondo Sensei (DRAJJ) has organized a curriculum of 118 techniques as the introductory part of his art. )

My sense is that very shortly this string will begin to wind down and the reason will be that with a call for more objectivity people will begin to lose interest in the discussion. My personal experience in these discussions is that people enjoy the freedom of being able to spout out opinions without having to actually validate what they are saying. I have seen this time and again. I wonder if we are making as fine a use of this medium as we might. Am I expecting too much of the Net participants in this? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Kumbajah]

As a student of DRAJJ, as alleged by many, should not have Choi done the proper thing and connected all of his students, through his position, back to the DRAJJ tradition in Japan? Seems like some pretty selective thinking going on here to the otherwise.

This is the point that sticks with me - why say you are practicing "Hapkido" when by the "pure" Choi defenition it is DRAJJ ie the art Choi learned in Japan - unchanged. If some one practices Judo anywhere in the world it it still Judo. Karate came to Korea was changed/developed/evolved and became Tae Kwon Do. You still have the TSD practicioners but TSD is just the Korean Pronuciation of Karate. So why the name change to HKD instead of (whatever the prunuciation of Daito-Ryu)Hapki-yu-sool. How come there hasn't been more effort to reconnect with DRAJJ.

Brian