Hapkido Q&A's

[Master Todd Miller]

(IE. Kondo Sensei (DRAJJ) has organized a curriculum of 118 techniques as the introductory part of his art. )

GM Lim has organized the JKHKD curriculum into 101 up to 1st Dan. Bruce: You act like you are the ONLY ojective Hapkidoin on the planet! You have seen GM Lim, GM Ji and GM Kim what kind of things did you notice?

MT is a great place to discuss things but there is only so much you can do with a keyboard. I think Bruce will be known in the Hapkido world with developing some of the most advanced Hap key-Sool (keyboard).

Lets keep the discussion going.

www.millersmudo.com

 

[howard]

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

bruce, sorry, but i don't agree that saying that master lim absorbed a tremendous amount of information from choi, and that it is apparent, is subjective. i believe that anybody with even a passing knowledge of any martial art would conclude the same thing from watching the man. individual observers may come away with different impressions, but it's difficult to imagine that anybody could conclude that master lim is not very knowledgeable about his art. one might call his knowledge "tremendous", "adequate", or any other adjective, but the knowledge is there - that is indisputable.

as for the exact number of techniques he learned from choi, no, of course i cannot give a number, but what possible relevance does that have to the simple point i was trying to make - that master lim is a very knowledgeable martial artist who teaches what he was taught by a specific individual?

i believe you have misunderstood me. the only reason i made the short post above was to try to point out that master lim does not claim to be the only source of anything, to my knowledge. i meant this as a positive statement about him. i'm not trying to say anything subjective about master lim or anybody else. as i've said, his knowledge is apparent (objectively so, if you will), and he claims to teach as he was taught - that's black and white. as for "adding to the wealh of hapkido information", i really dont' know what to make of that comment. my brief post was intended to communicate 2 small bits of information to anybody that might find it useful, not to add to an existing corpus of information. there's a chance that somebody could read it, and it could influence them in a decision to seek out master lim for training some day.

 

[iron_ox]

Hello Bruce,

Yes, I think we can quantify technique for many people. I believe you were at the seminar with Grandmaster Lim when he said he had been taught some 1800 or so techniques, and that his beginning curriculum has 100 techniques in it.

Now, you continue to return to why we do not fall at the feet of DRAJJ, well, simple, the art Choi taught is different, period. Dojunim Choi said his whole life that he was the only person made privy to certain levels of technique from Takeda Sokaku. He reiterated this in an article reprinted in Black Belt Magazine in 1999. As fas as having to retrace patronige back to DRAJJ, well, maybe they need to go to Korea, since not one person in the current DRAJJ camp from Japan ever learned as much as Choi.

Even so, what Choi taught had only one link to DRAJJ, with its founder, when that was severed, it was unnecessary to return to that organizational root because Dojunim Choi had been told by Takeda to teach in Korea and stay there. Now, you mentioned Jang Im Mok. According to a published interview, Jang mentioned that he knew of Choi in Japan during his stay. Now, a high ranking member of the Hapkido community in Soeul, GM Hur, Il Oung trained with Jang and was certified as his highest student and he has never tried to assume any mantle of contol with this technique. I would suspest because it is different than that of Dojunim Choi.

Chinese influence, yes I am sure that there is Chinese influence in Korean martial arts. Just NONE in Hapkido. Dojunim Choi trained in Japan, returned to Korea and never trained with anyone else in Korea. That doesn't meant that some didn't take Hapkido and add Chinese stuff, most notably Suh, In Hyuk who I believe added Northern Kung Fu to his self-styled Kuk Sool Won. Now, you make a continued cry for proof, well, show us the money - where is the evidence (and it can be as simple as a style, technique group, real tracable human) that Hapkido has ANY Chinese influence. I think there is enough evidence that MA travelled from China through Korea and down to Japan, then back up rather than the other way around, but OK, enough with the supposition that the rest of us just don't get it, provide evidence that even as early as 1948 there was an active Chinese martial influence in Korea - at least you can bring it to the same year that Dojunim Choi first taught. I'll even settle for the name of a monk or wandering Chinese MA master. It is confusing to others that may not have the same grasp as you when you state that people will not stand on documentary evidence - then provide none except references to Historical lifestyle books...

I am interested in Korea from 1943 forward, when Dojunim Choi returned there permanently to live. I certainly believe that Korean culture would mold any person that live there - hey, some rubbed off on me in a week, that does not mean that what we learn in Hapkido was modified to underscore a deep rooted Chinese MA influence - don't see evidence for it, did't see evidence of it when I was there (really didn't look hard though).

Now, I have one other line of interest here, Bruce I DO understand the need to have a person interested in the academic approach to things and you have brought much to the table, but you mention that to understand the deeper aspects of Hapkido, we must look at other arts - huh? If I want to understand the deeper roots of Shotokan, I practice Shotokan, not Wing Tsun - now Kanazawa Sensei stunned the world by training in TaiChi - but he did this he said for his own refinement, no the refinement of the art - e.g. personal, not Shotokan technique refinement. Now, if the study of material outside of Hapkido is to expand YOUR mind, great, but to bring it to the table and say that we all need to know about Mantis Kung Fu from Nothern China to understand the "ki" element of Hapkido - I think not.

And for those that still don't know, I have the greatest respect for Bruce, we train together often, and he has powerful technique. Despite what many may think of others rants offered here and elsewhere, I have never found Bruce to be disrespectful, and to the contrary, even with those that would offer unkind words he rarely speaks out against his detractors - publicly or privately off these boards. In saying all that, I offer the above with a smile, cause I know the response will be blistering.

Sincerely,

Kevin Sogor

 

[American HKD]

Greeting,

Can we be sure of Choi's Daito Ryu connection it seems to be only hear say because it seems that in all the material I read, Choi refered to Takada as his teacher but never specified what style learned.

As I already mentioned Ji Han Jae said Choi called what he taught only Yawara!

Does anyone have any sources to know what Choi called the system he learned in Japan?

If we are all doing some unknown brand of Yawara so what it's dood stuff!

The Daito Ryu records don't seem to prove anything about Choi connection to Daito Ryu anyway and I think that in itself says alot.
Because many of the Daito Ryu Senior Master would have surely known Choi as well to prove Choi studied in that school.

Also I have seen some Aiki-Jujutsu (not Daito Ryu) and we are doing the same techniques more or less.

I know many will disagree here but to me this seems to be much more of a believable and realistic theory IMHO.

 

[Master Todd Miller]

What Founder Choi taught went through name changes but the essence of what he taught was always the same. You can call it Yawara, Hapki Yu Kwon Sool, Hapkido. They all came from Choi and they are the same. What GM Ji teaches is a little different though.

An interesting point is that the term Yawara is what the Japanese call the Dan Bong stick. A stick about 9.5 inches long.

www.millersmudo.com

 

[American HKD]

Todd

I agree Choi always taught the same thing my question is what system did he really learn or do you think it's really unknown to say for sure.

Yawara stick probably a main weapon of Yawara hence the name.

 

[howard]

Yes, I think we can quantify technique for many people. I believe you were at the seminar with Grandmaster Lim when he said he had been taught some 1800 or so techniques, and that his beginning curriculum has 100 techniques in it.

kevin, i can clarify the second part of your comment definitively. if my math is correct, there are 104 techniques in the jungkikwan curriculum required for first dan, if you count the second variations of 2 of the techniques. there are 35 techniques for 2nd dan and either 35 or 40 for third dan. i don't know about the higher dan ranks, but i took part in a 5th dan test (as the testing partner, not the person testing) in which the person testing was asked to perform a selection of technique sets from a number of different parts of the curriculum through 3rd dan.

if anybody would be interested in what the 104 techniques are, i would be willing to share them here.

 

[howard]

Todd

I agree Choi always taught the same thing my question is what system did he really learn or do you think it's really unknown to say for sure.

Yawara stick probably a main weapon of Yawara hence the name.

hi stuart, i doubt that we'll ever know definitively exactly what choi studied in japan. we know that he swears it was daito ryu, under sokaku takeda. we also know that there are many daito ryu people who swear that this is all nonsense, that there is no evidence in japan of choi ever having studied under takeda, and that none of the people who spent time around takeda, including his son tokimune (who took up the daito ryu mantle when sokaku passed away) remember choi. finally, we know that choi was a very formidable martial artist when he returned to korea from japan.

many of us also believe that chois' art is an effective system of self-defense and is a beautiful martial art as well. that's enough for me.

 

[American HKD]

Howard,

I know Choi had great MA techniques no arguement here!

I can only confirm from my research to date that Choi learned a form of "Yawara" of unknown origin.

Choi only said Takada was his teacher without ever qualifing teacher of WHAT? He may have only learned from Takada briefly or never was ranked from Tadaka or studied from various Teacher and called Takada his teacher because he learned the most from him etc.

Of course what I'm saying is speculation on my part but, I'm throwing out the question, does anyone have evidence of anything other than hear say?

My current teacher Ji Han Jae said all he could ever confirm was "Yawara" per Choi and never could prove any Daito Ryu connection either.

Any thoughts out there?

 

[iron_ox]

Hello all,

I think what is interesting about Takeda Sokaku is that HE created what today is known as DRAJJ. Check the history section of Kondo Sensei's site and it is interesting to note that Daito-ryu was considered "dead" until Sokaku revived it...and did so with a combination of all the arts he learned in his life including seperate weapon (Hozoin spear) and sword schools (itto ryu).

I have heard on several occasions that Dojunim Choi called what he taught Dae dong ryu hapki yusool (the Korean translation of DRAJJ) - I'll try and locate a definitve source here.

What we know about Takeda Sokaku is that he was a paranoid, that taught lots of people (as his enrollment books show) - but some, like John Denora indicate that there are substancial gapas in those books - indicating pages were changed and removed. It is even indicated that Dojunim Choi's name was one such removed name. One question that does linger is whether Takeda made a big issue of the name of what he taught?

We know that Taked'a third son Tokimune assumed the mantle of head after 1943, but how much had he been able to learn? Tokimune was born in 1916, and Sokaku died in 1943 - so if we assume the Tokimune started training at 10, he would have had only 17 years with his father. In addition, we know that during most of the latter part of his life, Sokaku travelled around daily, never sleeping in the same spot twice - not really a conducive learning environment for a ten year old. Dojunim Choi's life experience here sounds completely plausible here...

Just a thought.

Sincerely,

Kevin Sogor

 

[glad2bhere]

My sense is that whatever Choi learned out of that period was closer to some product resulting from Takedas' reconstruction of DRAJJ rather than some set curriculum. I had badgered a number of people some time back to provide a definitive DRAJJ curriculum and was told repeatedly that there was no such thing. Apparently Takedas' son and Kondo are the only two who actually have worked to structure a curriculum. Prior to their efforts there were a constellation of techniques and maybe some vague order whose logic was known only to the teacher. I can see where Choi would have come back from Japan and characterized his skills in the simplest manner possible ("yawara").

Oddly, there is kind of a parallel story in Korea in which Dojunim Kim and a couple of other students began to record techniques in pictures along with notes so as to produce a systematic approach. I was priveleged to be allowed to examine the notebooks and was very appreciative and respectful of what such an effort takes having been down that road myself. Its not as easy to do as some might think, and they were doing it with a 35mm camera and a ballpoint pen. At least I had computer technology on my side!

In this particular area I keep going back to what happened between Ueyshiba and Takeda for some guidance regarding what it must have been like to be a student to that person. Another piece is that while there are a number of folks of later fame who purportedly studied DRAJJ, there are simply not a whole lot of people who actually walked away with rank from Takeda himself. Jang Im Mok got his license after Takeda died--- from one of Takedas' students. Whole lot of loose ends.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[howard]

Hello all,

I think what is interesting about Takeda Sokaku is that HE created what today is known as DRAJJ. Check the history section of Kondo Sensei's site and it is interesting to note that Daito-ryu was considered "dead" until Sokaku revived it...and did so with a combination of all the arts he learned in his life including seperate weapon (Hozoin spear) and sword schools (itto ryu).

hi kevin,

i'm not sure it's accurate to say that sokaku created what is known today as drajj. drajj had existed in the aizu clan, which included takeda's family, literally for centuries, supposedly dating back to the emperor seiwa. sokaku probably learned drajj from his father (sokichi), who probably learned from his grandfather (soemon). there may have been some non-family instructors involved as well; seems that the most commonly mentioned is chikanori hoshina, aka tanomo saigo. even the daito ryu loyalists debate this point. as with choi young sool's story, the documentation is incomplete to say the least.

sokaku is sometimes referred to as the "reviver" (chuko no so) of drajj. he undoubtedly had quite a role in teaching the art to a much larger group of people than the aizu clan.

the primary sword art that sokaku studied, ono-ha itto-ryu, is considered essential in learning drajj. sokaku apparently taught that drajj techniques were derived from sword techniques.

you might have heard a parallel story in daegu. i certainly remember the instuctors there telling us that the jungki movements derive from sword technique.

regards, howard

 

[iron_ox]

Hello all,

Howard, I have heard that Hapkido is a "sword art without the sword" for 25 years, since the day I started, but it certainly got reinforced in Taegu.

Something struck me over the last several hours as I taught class, which was just how humble Dojunim Choi was. He maintained a story all his life that he spent 30 years training in Japan under Takeda Sokaku, but had his certificates stolen. Even so, he never tried to claim any position of authority in any art. He simply said that he would teach what his teacher had taught him. He never claimed rank, or title - these were given to him by others. It is quite amazing when one considers that Dojunim Choi was one of the most influencial men in recent times in the martial arts, yet was so modest that he never sought out the limelight or accolades that so many of his students have.

That level of modesty is one thing that I did find refreshing in Korea - something sorely lacking here...

Sincerely,

Kevin Sogor

 

[glad2bhere]

"......Now, I have one other line of interest here, Bruce I DO understand the need to have a person interested in the academic approach to things and you have brought much to the table, but you mention that to understand the deeper aspects of Hapkido, we must look at other arts - huh? If I want to understand the deeper roots of Shotokan, I practice Shotokan, not Wing Tsun - now Kanazawa Sensei stunned the world by training in TaiChi - but he did this he said for his own refinement, no the refinement of the art - e.g. personal, not Shotokan technique refinement. Now, if the study of material outside of Hapkido is to expand YOUR mind, great, but to bring it to the table and say that we all need to know about Mantis Kung Fu from Nothern China to understand the "ki" element of Hapkido - I think not......."

Sorry, Folks, but its becoming clear that there is simply a much greater entrenchment in what is desired to be right and correct. I am finding it difficult to share information when it seems to me that folks only want to operate within a very narrow definition of what is under discussion.

1.) I will say again that we are going to go no-where discussing personalities. These various histories that people keep citing have been processed over and over again and its quite plain to anyone who reviews the many strings over a range of Nets that such histories are heavy on "he said- she said" and short on documented facts. Each and every one of the comments made here has been made on near identical strings on E-BUDO and AIKIDO JOURNAL and they came to nothing.

2.) If folks want to believe that the be-all and end-all of Korean grappling arts--- presently called "hapkido"---- is found only in the traditions proceeding from Choi Yong Sul and the Japanese thats fine. Kevin reports that he does not understand the need to consider another art to gather additional insights into the art that he practices. Likewise, this OK with me. I will share that the Japanese in general, and Choi Yong Sul in particular did not have the market cornered on Korean grappling. You will find the same techniques in Chinese Chuan Fa--- specifically in the Chin Na tradtions of individual arts--- and those have likewise been introduced to Korea. Questions regarding timing, footwork, combat distance, focus etc etc etc can as much be addressed through these contributions to Korea martial traditions as have come through the Japanese influences.

I can honestly report that Dojunim Kim has opened my eyes to a whole other way of viewing what I have learned so far in my Hapkido career. However, that does NOT obviate the Chinese influences that contributed to the Korean arts OR the weapons work which is likewise part and parcel of this study. If people want to look at only the Japanese influences, and of those influences only those that proceed from Choi, and of those only those that are shared through a particular personality I think you are cheating yourselves of a much richer learning experience.

BTW: I would also like to say to Todd that your gross Characterization of me as regarding myself as a sole source of objectivity was unworthy of you and is the sort of thing I would expect from people no longer able to express themselves on this net. Noone here has taken you to task for you particular view and I won't characterize it here, now, either. I can't see how that sort of contribution made the discussion better. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[iron_ox]

2.) If folks want to believe that the be-all and end-all of Korean grappling arts--- presently called "hapkido"---- is found only in the traditions proceeding from Choi Yong Sul and the Japanese thats fine. Kevin reports that he does not understand the need to consider another art to gather additional insights into the art that he practices. Likewise, this OK with me. I will share that the Japanese in general, and Choi Yong Sul in particular did not have the market cornered on Korean grappling. You will find the same techniques in Chinese Chuan Fa--- specifically in the Chin Na tradtions of individual arts--- and those have likewise been introduced to Korea. Questions regarding timing, footwork, combat distance, focus etc etc etc can as much be addressed through these contributions to Korea martial traditions as have come through the Japanese influences.


Hello Bruce, OK, I'll bite, which arts, who teachs them, what is the heritage of these arts...you continue to invoke "Chin Na" which according to David Chow was not originated as a system until Tung Tsung Nee started teaching the public his art in 1934. (Kung Fu, Chow and Spangler, p78)

Sicerely,

Kevin Sogor

 

[iron_ox]

Hello again,

Bruce do you me arts like the one taught up the street from us like "Chung Do Mu Sool Won" - the one at Northern Illinois University? It that the sort of outside tradition you are looking for - I'm trying to get it here.


Sincerely,

Kevin Sogor

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Kevin:

"......Hello Bruce, OK, I'll bite, which arts, who teachs them, what is the heritage of these arts...you continue to invoke "Chin Na" which according to David Chow was not originated as a system until Tung Tsung Nee started teaching the public his art in 1934. (Kung Fu, Chow and Spangler, p78)...."

Lets start with the great granddaddy of them all. Taizu Long Fist.

Adam Tsu seems to be the single greatest modern proponent but thats only if you want the most modern material. If you want to trace the lineage from TLF to General Qi to the MYTBTJ (Kwon Bup Chapter) thats one string. If you want to trace the same lineage through Chen TCC to modern Korean practice thats another lineage. And if you want to trace the same lineage but a bit differently as far as application there is Yang TCC and that could even take you through Hwang Kee to TSD. I'm not TSD so I can't speak to that last.

What if you don't want to do Taizu Long Fist. OK, then lets go to Plum Blossom Praying Mantis. There is an entire Korean branch of this art documented through the Praying Mantis people and introduced to Korea in the early last century. Wang was the head-water of this lineage.

Don't want to do PM? Okay then lets go to Tam Tui. A separate art in its own right as well as an incoporated exercise pattern in most Chinese Boxing styles these 12 streets can be interpreted as the obvious concussive techniques as well as the more subtle grappling applications.

There are also the Ship Pal Gi and Kyong Dang people as well as a significant Chinese Boxing style unique to Korea which I can dig out if anyone is interested.

All of these traditions have a Chin Na aspect. The tradition that you mention in David Chows' work is a relatively new art. It was not originated by this gentleman mentioned but descends from an even earlier person who organized an art of 72 techniques from the chin na material of a number of boxing styles just prior to 1900.

Now. I've done my part and have given you the information. Don't have any names, addresses and phone numbers but I bet I could find these---- and so could you all. My question is why noone is particularly interested in giving these contributing influences to Korean martial science the sort of attention you are giving the Japanese material. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[iron_ox]

Hello Bruce,

OK, we have a bit of a start, but now make this connection to Hapkido please, I am positive there are kung-fu schools all over Korea, but how do they tie into Hapkido - and not in the sense of Chin-na has techniques that look like Hapkido, but specifically, how do these arts relate themselves to Hapkido? I would be willing to bet you could find reference in the Suh, In Hyuk self styled Kuk Sool Won -

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Kevin Sogor

 

[howard]

Something struck me over the last several hours as I taught class, which was just how humble Dojunim Choi was. He maintained a story all his life that he spent 30 years training in Japan under Takeda Sokaku, but had his certificates stolen. Even so, he never tried to claim any position of authority in any art. He simply said that he would teach what his teacher had taught him. He never claimed rank, or title - these were given to him by others. It is quite amazing when one considers that Dojunim Choi was one of the most influencial men in recent times in the martial arts, yet was so modest that he never sought out the limelight or accolades that so many of his students have.

That level of modesty is one thing that I did find refreshing in Korea - something sorely lacking here...

kevin, you could also be speaking about master lim, wouldn't you agree? he is very modest and humble, yet very dignified. he doesn't say he's the one true source of choi's art, or anything similar. he simply teaches what he learned.

it's interesting that when somebody is that knowledgeable, yet that humble, they inspire even more respect from you than if they tried to impress you.

 

[iron_ox]

Hello Howard,

I couldn't agree more.


Sincerely,

Kevin Sogor