Journey to a new style...

[Hanzou]

The first comment has nothing to do with quality in the current era. Who's who and competition to be the "founder" for an art has nothing to do with the quality being taught today. Sure, if some of 90's and 2000's instructors are bad, well they are bad. But who or what standard do you use to measure them by? Same can be said about some instructors of ALL other styles who became such in the 90's and 2000's.
I do not have a Hapkido background so I have little knowledge or concern about its founding's. But as a style and system it is hard to dispute it holds quality. I think it is one of the more complete styles out there.

Which style or system? There's quite a few types of Hapkido out there. Those two Hapkido schools I showed as examples are certainly not quality. I wouldn't be sending my loved ones there to get any form of MA instruction, that's for sure.

My standard is seeing what you're doing and comparing it to what others are doing. Frankly, striking and grappling are dead give-aways to the quality standards of a given system. If you got a bunch of goofballs doing nonsense and those goofballs think that nonsense is awesome enough to advertise on the web, then something's seriously wrong with what they're doing.

 

[_Simon_]

I'd be interested in seeing someone's take on aiki-based striking. I have my own thoughts on it, but suspect my usage of "aiki" is not standard for Aikido.

Am not sure so much what entails aiki-based striking, but he uses alot of principles from his Aikido (flow, moving from/connection to your centre, importance of relaxation), and he speaks of moving away from the rigidness of alot of karate practice. Of being more natural and his approach to technique being alot more fluid, alive and relaxed.

I tried to look for a vid to illustrate but couldn't find one specifically, here's his channel if you were interested in seeing his approach: Shotokan Karate

 

[JR 137]

When I used to work out with old Shotokan friends we were always surprised at the similarities in Pinan 1 and 2 compared to our TKD which is very TSD influenced. Our #1 form starts with a down block and our #2 form starts with a high block/outside block combo. Is that similar to yours?

Yes, our Pinan 1 starts with low block, and 2 starts with what people may call that combo block. According to some sources, 2 was/is actually 1 and was typically taught first. Someone somewhere thought the order should be switched because the low block version was easier for a beginner to learn, so the names and order were switched. Not everyone adopted that. Someone else kept the numbers intact, but taught 2 before 1.

I can’t remember who did the number changes and when, nor who switched the order but kept the numbers in tact. But I haven’t ever seen someone changing the numbers and order of 3-5.

Actually, one other monkey wrench to throw in there - there’s a well regarded teacher who only teaches Pinan 5 (among other kata; but only #5 from the Pinan series). He calls it Pinan 5, but claims that 5 is the only real/pure one from the series and the rest are altered beyond recognition.

It’s way too early for me to remember, much less look up sources. The gentleman teaching only Pinan 5 is one of those highly respected teachers in Okinawa who’s not famous outside of the inner teaching circles on Okinawa. I got that info from a in-person conversation with guy who’s spent significant time training in Okinawa. I can’t remember the teacher’s name nor what style he teaches, but it’s one of the prominent Okinawan styles.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Which style or system? There's quite a few types of Hapkido out there. Those two Hapkido schools I showed as examples are certainly not quality. I wouldn't be sending my loved ones there to get any form of MA instruction, that's for sure.

We only see a small part of what they do there. The ground work I learned in NGA wasn't any better than that, but the rest of the material was, and the instruction was generally good. I think most/all arts either have areas they don't cover, or areas they cover poorly. I'd prefer the former, but I understand that while a style is starting to cover something, some of the coverage will be poor.

The concepts in the first video (I didn't watch the whole thing, so speaking of what I saw) are sound, but the demonstrations of application aren't. I can't tell what he's saying to them, but he seems to imply slipping behind someone is very easy (demonstrating with people who aren't trying to stop him). The other doesn't seem to actually have much skill on ground technique.

My standard is seeing what you're doing and comparing it to what others are doing. Frankly, striking and grappling are dead give-aways to the quality standards of a given system. If you got a bunch of goofballs doing nonsense and those goofballs think that nonsense is awesome enough to advertise on the web, then something's seriously wrong with what they're doing.

And that often amazes me. That second school probably has things they do MUCH better than ground work, but that's what they showed. If they did some of that ground work with even light, technical resistance, they'd quickly find out how unreliable some of that is.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Am not sure so much what entails aiki-based striking, but he uses alot of principles from his Aikido (flow, moving from/connection to your centre, importance of relaxation), and he speaks of moving away from the rigidness of alot of karate practice. Of being more natural and his approach to technique being alot more fluid, alive and relaxed.

I tried to look for a vid to illustrate but couldn't find one specifically, here's his channel if you were interested in seeing his approach: Shotokan Karate

That would be aiki-based striking.

I'll poke around in that later and see what he's doing.

 

[_Simon_]

Yes, our Pinan 1 starts with low block, and 2 starts with what people may call that combo block. According to some sources, 2 was/is actually 1 and was typically taught first. Someone somewhere thought the order should be switched because the low block version was easier for a beginner to learn, so the names and order were switched. Not everyone adopted that. Someone else kept the numbers intact, but taught 2 before 1.

I can’t remember who did the number changes and when, nor who switched the order but kept the numbers in tact. But I haven’t ever seen someone changing the numbers and order of 3-5.

Actually, one other monkey wrench to throw in there - there’s a well regarded teacher who only teaches Pinan 5 (among other kata; but only #5 from the Pinan series). He calls it Pinan 5, but claims that 5 is the only real/pure one from the series and the rest are altered beyond recognition.

It’s way too early for me to remember, much less look up sources. The gentleman teaching only Pinan 5 is one of those highly respected teachers in Okinawa who’s not famous outside of the inner teaching circles on Okinawa. I got that info from a in-person conversation with guy who’s spent significant time training in Okinawa. I can’t remember the teacher’s name nor what style he teaches, but it’s one of the prominent Okinawan styles.

Yeah it makes sense to me having Pinan 1 as... well 1. Much easier to learn.

And wow haven't heard that about Pinan 5 and that claim! True in that I've seen slightly differing versions of Pinan 1-4, but I've also seen Pinan 5 being performed differently from what I remember, mainly stylistic (kokutsu dachi being different in Shotokan compared to Kyokushin/Seido), and I think instead of zenkutsu dachi I've seen kokutsu dachi used..

Oh and at my last tournament I caught up with somewhere who I'd trained with before, and he showed me in the version they practice the 2x manji ukes at the end aren't done at 45° angles but straight in front..

 

[DaveB]

Yes, our Pinan 1 starts with low block, and 2 starts with what people may call that combo block. According to some sources, 2 was/is actually 1 and was typically taught first. Someone somewhere thought the order should be switched because the low block version was easier for a beginner to learn, so the names and order were switched. Not everyone adopted that. Someone else kept the numbers intact, but taught 2 before 1.

I can’t remember who did the number changes and when, nor who switched the order but kept the numbers in tact. But I haven’t ever seen someone changing the numbers and order of 3-5.

Actually, one other monkey wrench to throw in there - there’s a well regarded teacher who only teaches Pinan 5 (among other kata; but only #5 from the Pinan series). He calls it Pinan 5, but claims that 5 is the only real/pure one from the series and the rest are altered beyond recognition.

It’s way too early for me to remember, much less look up sources. The gentleman teaching only Pinan 5 is one of those highly respected teachers in Okinawa who’s not famous outside of the inner teaching circles on Okinawa. I got that info from a in-person conversation with guy who’s spent significant time training in Okinawa. I can’t remember the teacher’s name nor what style he teaches, but it’s one of the prominent Okinawan styles.

That is interesting.

I've heard similar about Pinan 1 & 2.
Matsumura seito claim these were invented by Bushi Matsumura.

Regarding the 1&2 switch, as far as I know it's not common in schools that call them Pinan. The switch was a Shotokan thing where Pinan were renamed Hiean.

 

[oftheherd1]

I'm merely stating that I don't recall Hapkido doing ground fighting back in the day, now I'm seeing multiple examples of them doing it (poorly) and I'm wondering where that impetus is coming from.

What you are merely stating is that you don't have any backup for what you are saying. "Back in the day" is not a quantifiable time. I don't know how much time you spent (if any) trying to see what Hapkido taught. As you pointed out, it isn't a sport martial art. I you saw a demo, you would not have seen all the techniques available in Hapkido. Some ground escape techniques are taught, but not a lot, at least to my knowledge. Unlike BJJ, Hapkido students are not taught to go to the ground except in very controlled circumstances where a quick recovery is part of the technique. BTW, what are the multiple eamples of ground defense being done poorly? Those two you showed?

If that's what you learned, I would strongly recommend attending a few Bjj classes and learn how to actually fight from the guard position. That vid was bad on multiple levels.

I might consider that. But you would have to show me BJJ didn't borrow those techniques from another art, or improved them so much they are not recognizable as coming from another art. Otherwise, why wouldn't I go to the art BJJ got them from?

I'm saying that if you're pulling techniques from BJJ or other MAs, you should acknowledge that you're doing it instead of pretending that that stuff is native to the system in question.

If is an interesting word. But IF I knew any techniques in Hapkido were taken from any other art than Daito-Ryu, I personally would have no problem saying so. Hapkido is a rather young art. My GM told me that all the old GM knew and acknowledged that Hapkido was from a Korean man (DJN Choi) who had studied in Japan and brought his knowledge to Korea after WWII.

 

[Hanzou]

We only see a small part of what they do there. The ground work I learned in NGA wasn't any better than that, but the rest of the material was, and the instruction was generally good. I think most/all arts either have areas they don't cover, or areas they cover poorly. I'd prefer the former, but I understand that while a style is starting to cover something, some of the coverage will be poor.

The concepts in the first video (I didn't watch the whole thing, so speaking of what I saw) are sound, but the demonstrations of application aren't. I can't tell what he's saying to them, but he seems to imply slipping behind someone is very easy (demonstrating with people who aren't trying to stop him). The other doesn't seem to actually have much skill on ground technique.

I'm talking about this part especially:

This is wrong across the board. The guy on top is applying zero pressure on the guy on the bottom. All of his weight is actually on the floor where it should be on his partner's chest. He allows his partner to have both his hands free which allows an easy frame to push his partner's head upwards. The top pressure is so weak that he can pretty much bench press his partner's upper body away with just his arms. The choke applied is laughable, and from that angle provides zero threat to the person on the bottom. So why are they even practicing this? If a guy with zero training has you in that position, they're going for mount or they're punching you in the face. No one is going to lay like that and try to squeeze your neck from that angle. I'm pretty sure the guy on top is a black belt to boot.

The bottom guy's "counter" to this nonsense is just as bad. However, I don't feel like writing another paragraph.

And that often amazes me. That second school probably has things they do MUCH better than ground work, but that's what they showed. If they did some of that ground work with even light, technical resistance, they'd quickly find out how unreliable some of that is.

Well Oftheherd said that they practiced that very technique in his dojo. So there you go.

 

[JR 137]

That is interesting.

I've heard similar about Pinan 1 & 2.
Matsumura seito claim these were invented by Bushi Matsumura.

Regarding the 1&2 switch, as far as I know it's not common in schools that call them Pinan. The switch was a Shotokan thing where Pinan were renamed Hiean.

I’ve been told Heian is just the Japanese pronunciation of Pinan. Same kanji, same meaning. Many of the Japanese schools went back to calling them Pinan instead of Heian.

Your Bushi Matsumura stuff jogged my memory a bit. I think the Okinawan teacher I talked about only teaches Pinan 5 because that’s the only intact way Matsumura allegedly taught it (or the closest possible), whereas the claim is Itosu (and possibly Funakoshi, depending on who you ask) changed the Pinan series quite a bit.

Some claim the Pinan series is Itosu’s creation, breaking down Kusanku/Kanku into easier bits for children and beginners. Others claim it was I believe Matsumura’s and is based on another prominent kata* and a bit of Kanku.

At the end of the day, it’s all trivial knowledge to me Interesting, but trivial; I need to know what I’ve been taught.

*I can’t for the life of me remember which kata it was claimed. I want to say Gojushiho, but I’m pretty sure it’s not. It’s a prominent kata that’s not done in either organization I’ve been in. I’ve seen it many times, and after watching for the Pinan kata, it looked far closer to the Pinans than Kanku does. It’s done in Shotokan, and I remember watching a Kanazawa video of it when I was watching for Pinan stuff in it. Really driving me crazy now

 

[Hanzou]

What you are merely stating is that you don't have any backup for what you are saying. "Back in the day" is not a quantifiable time. I don't know how much time you spent (if any) trying to see what Hapkido taught. As you pointed out, it isn't a sport martial art. I you saw a demo, you would not have seen all the techniques available in Hapkido. Some ground escape techniques are taught, but not a lot, at least to my knowledge. Unlike BJJ, Hapkido students are not taught to go to the ground except in very controlled circumstances where a quick recovery is part of the technique. BTW, what are the multiple eamples of ground defense being done poorly? Those two you showed?

I might consider that. But you would have to show me BJJ didn't borrow those techniques from another art, or improved them so much they are not recognizable as coming from another art. Otherwise, why wouldn't I go to the art BJJ got them from?

Well by all means, find another art that does the Guard better than Bjj. It certainly didn't come out of Daito-Ryu or Aikido.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm talking about this part especially:

This is wrong across the board. The guy on top is applying zero pressure on the guy on the bottom. All of his weight is actually on the floor where it should be on his partner's chest. He allows his partner to have both his hands free which allows an easy frame to push his partner's head upwards. The top pressure is so weak that he can pretty much bench press his partner's upper body away with just his arms. The choke applied is laughable, and from that angle provides zero threat to the person on the bottom. So why are they even practicing this? If a guy with zero training has you in that position, they're going for mount or they're punching you in the face. No one is going to lay like that and try to squeeze your neck from that angle. I'm pretty sure the guy on top is a black belt to boot.

The bottom guy's "counter" to this nonsense is just as bad. However, I don't feel like writing another paragraph.

Critiquing the attack's technical merit isn't really the point, but I'll come back to that in a moment. The counter might actually work against an unskilled attack with a little resisted practice. I agree about the attack being weak. The point (to me) is that the response might be workable against the attack being presented. I'd rather see them use a better attack position, because what works there would (mostly) work just as well with this weaker attack. There are some factors that change with this position that require a different response. For instance, if the attacker has no weight on me, I can't use my legs and hips to shift him any significant amount. So, I suppose it's possible that was the point of this response. Probably not, but it's possible.

This is a good example of where just letting students add some honest resistance would show the weakness. Someone in the room would have thought to extend their own arms or shift their weight onto their partner, or maybe just shift their head when the frame comes up (because the guy on the ground has no head control). It wouldn't have to get really drastic to cause them to re-examine that response.

 

[oftheherd1]

Well by all means, find another art that does the Guard better than Bjj. It certainly didn't come out of Daito-Ryu or Aikido.

Well I don't intend to spend time doing that. Nor to continue this exchange with you. The Hapkido I learned suits me well. It is not a sport martial art, and most everything is done in defense of an attack. We do not intend to stay on the ground and attempt a submission. If BJJ likes to do that and so do you, you are in the right place. We cannot convince each other that our art is better, only be satisfied that our art allows us to do what we want from a martial art.

 

[Hanzou]

Critiquing the attack's technical merit isn't really the point, but I'll come back to that in a moment. The counter might actually work against an unskilled attack with a little resisted practice. I agree about the attack being weak. The point (to me) is that the response might be workable against the attack being presented. I'd rather see them use a better attack position, because what works there would (mostly) work just as well with this weaker attack. There are some factors that change with this position that require a different response. For instance, if the attacker has no weight on me, I can't use my legs and hips to shift him any significant amount. So, I suppose it's possible that was the point of this response. Probably not, but it's possible.

Uh, if there's no weight on you, what's stopping your hips and legs from moving freely? In the example above, there's nothing inhibiting the guy from the bottom to move his legs and hips to escape. Also with his arms just dangling like that, you can break his arms him from the bottom without even trying to escape.

Also the attack isn't realistic in any sense. A real attacker will attempt to advance the position, not lay on their tummy and try to choke you from afar.

This is a good example of where just letting students add some honest resistance would show the weakness. Someone in the room would have thought to extend their own arms or shift their weight onto their partner, or maybe just shift their head when the frame comes up (because the guy on the ground has no head control). It wouldn't have to get really drastic to cause them to re-examine that response.

They can only do that if they know what they're doing. Those guys clearly don't.

 

[Hanzou]

Well I don't intend to spend time doing that. Nor to continue this exchange with you. The Hapkido I learned suits me well. It is not a sport martial art, and most everything is done in defense of an attack. We do not intend to stay on the ground and attempt a submission. If BJJ likes to do that and so do you, you are in the right place. We cannot convince each other that our art is better, only be satisfied that our art allows us to do what we want from a martial art.

It isn't about one art being better than the other. It's about doing things the right way and the wrong way. If your goal is to escape the ground as quickly as possible, doing things the wrong way isn't going to help you achieve that goal.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Uh, if there's no weight on you, what's stopping your hips and legs from moving freely? In the example above, there's nothing inhibiting the guy from the bottom to move his legs and hips to escape. Also with his arms just dangling like that, you can break his arms him from the bottom without even trying to escape.

Nothing, but that wasn't my point. Some counters that use the hips to shift the opponent aren't useful when the opponent doesn't put weight on. There are side control methods I can use that don't put much of my weight on the opponent, to take that tool away.

Also the attack isn't realistic in any sense. A real attacker will attempt to advance the position, not lay on their tummy and try to choke you from afar.

I agree there are too many parts that aren't realistic. We don't have to get into technical breakdown to see them - just have the attacker try to resist a bit, and many of them will solve themselves.

They can only do that if they know what they're doing. Those guys clearly don't.

I don't think that's entirely true. Even someone who doesn't know what they are doing can provide better resistance. And someone who's actually trying to figure things out will come up with some solutions without instruction. Will it be as good as what the entire body of an art like BJJ has developed? No, but it can be better than what we see in that video. It doesn't have to be best - just useful.

 

[Hanzou]

Nothing, but that wasn't my point. Some counters that use the hips to shift the opponent aren't useful when the opponent doesn't put weight on. There are side control methods I can use that don't put much of my weight on the opponent, to take that tool away.

I would need to see exactly what you're talking about here. If you're talking about some sort of lock or hold, that's different than what we're talking about. In the case above, shrimping away, or the standard side control escape that leads you back into Guard would work just fine. It would work far better than the escape they used, which was frankly a mess. Honestly that side control is so bad, you could take the back without even trying.

I agree there are too many parts that aren't realistic. We don't have to get into technical breakdown to see them - just have the attacker try to resist a bit, and many of them will solve themselves.

I don't think that's entirely true. Even someone who doesn't know what they are doing can provide better resistance. And someone who's actually trying to figure things out will come up with some solutions without instruction. Will it be as good as what the entire body of an art like BJJ has developed? No, but it can be better than what we see in that video. It doesn't have to be best - just useful.

Here's the problem though: If your goal is to mimic an untrained attacker, then the attack needs to be based on what an untrained opponent would more than likely do. Regardless of their level of training, an attacker will attempt to advance their position. So if he's stretching outwards to choke your neck, they'll move in closer to increase the power of the choke. If they're trying to hurt you, or they just get tired of you bringing your hands up, they're not going to choke you anymore, they're going to strike you. Since they can't punch you effectively while laying on their stomach, they're going to go for a top position to gain an advantage on leverage. Keep in mind that this is just for an untrained opponent. If you're fighting against a trained person, you're dead.

Nothing the guy on the bottom is doing is preventing that from happening, and that's the problem.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I would need to see exactly what you're talking about here. If you're talking about some sort of lock or hold, that's different than what we're talking about. In the case above, shrimping away, or the standard side control escape that leads you back into Guard would work just fine. It would work far better than the escape they used, which was frankly a mess. Honestly that side control is so bad, you could take the back without even trying.

I'm talking about things like a basic upa. That uses the hips/legs to shift them, which wouldn't be useful if their weight isn't on them. I'm not arguing this makes it harder to escape/counter, but that it's a very different thing to escape/counter. In many ways, it's easier, but you do need a different approach.

Here's the problem though: If your goal is to mimic an untrained attacker, then the attack needs to be based on what an untrained opponent would more than likely do. Regardless of their level of training, an attacker will attempt to advance their position. So if he's stretching outwards to choke your neck, they'll move in closer to increase the power of the choke. If they're trying to hurt you, or they just get tired of you bringing your hands up, they're not going to choke you anymore, they're going to strike you. Since they can't punch you effectively while laying on their stomach, they're going to go for a top position to gain an advantage on leverage. Keep in mind that this is just for an untrained opponent. If you're fighting against a trained person, you're dead.

Agreed. And asking the "attacker" to resist a little will cause them to do some of those things. If you allow them to vary the attack, they'll do more of them. Working against that resistance, folks will figure out some of the stuff that works all on their own if they have some basic fight training (can't say whether these folks do, or not).

Nothing

the guy on the bottom is doing is preventing that from happening, and that's the problem.

Agreed.

 

[Hanzou]

I'm talking about things like a basic upa. That uses the hips/legs to shift them, which wouldn't be useful if their weight isn't on them. I'm not arguing this makes it harder to escape/counter, but that it's a very different thing to escape/counter. In many ways, it's easier, but you do need a different approach.

Again I'm going to need an example because the Upa Mount escape is the exact opposite of what (I think) you're talking about.

Regardless, I think we can both agree that that was a very bad drill.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Again I'm going to need an example because the Upa Mount escape is the exact opposite of what (I think) you're talking about.

Regardless, I think we can both agree that that was a very bad drill.

Then I don't know what upa is, though I thought I did - which doesn't surprise me.