I think I understand enough to know you are mistaken. The whole point of those arts, on the street, is to slam people into things. Them getting tired is secondary, at best.Toast in milk gets soggy and lacks form or strength. Applied to a person it means someone who is weak and/or non-aggressive.
I think I see what you mean, and in general I can agree. Any martial art can surely be used in a brutal manner. I suspect in times past, it was expected that most would be intended to hurt of kill an opponent. In more gentile society these days, that would generally be frowned upon unless used in self defense against a deadly attack.
Surprisingly, there are techniques that are known to be able to cause death, but few of the techniques are deadly. And I never said Hapkido was taught as a deadly art. Some techniques would no doubt be considered brutal, but not all or even most, deadly. But most techniques are intended to manipulate joints. That is why I suggest that Hapkido is more brutal; the intent of most techniques is to cause pain and/or damage.
Granted some can be stopped before a joint is dislocated, in fact that has to be with a practice opponent. But in a real fight, doing so would leave one at a greater disadvantage to attack.
I think that is called Aikido.And that is not a put down to Aikido. But from what I have seen, Aikido just wants an attacker to go away. If they get hurt during a technique, oh well. But the intent is just to defend until the attacker gets tired and leaves. If I am wrong in that, I hope some of our Aikido practitioners will step up and correct me.
Again, let me point out that I never said Hapkido was a "deadly" martial art. You are correct that most if not all martial arts can be used in a deadly manner.
