Practical Hapkido

Water principle - Joint lock - takedown - joint - ordering- lock -handcuffs

 
Pentti said:
New video. Some of the blue belt techniques.
Click to expand...

Interesting to see. In the Hapkido I studied, punch defense was more at the yellow belt level, and kick defense was more at the blue belt level. Defense against head locks and rear neck chokes was along the way from 1st Dan to 2nd Dan. Nothing wrong with either approach, just different. My GM taught that as soon as I saw an arm coming over/around my head towards my neck, I should immediately lower my chin to my chest while a grabbed that attacker's arm at the pressure point between the thumb and first finger, and at the elbow pressure point(s) and lever out to step back and arm lock the opponent holding it with a wrist lock.

For non-Hapkidoists I know that sounds complicated, but it actually flows quite well.
 
oftheherd1 said:
Remember, Hapkido traces its roots to Dai Ito Ryu. You might find many things in it you have practiced under another name.
Click to expand...

I have not seen a great deal of Hapkido and it was just a thing I saw done slightly differently but none the less as you say same roots
 
Practical Hapkido is a modern style. A group of teachers (Hapkido and Taekwondo) developed this style for Hapkido, respecting history that has been influenced greatly.

Original Hapkido is rare today. Most Hapkido schools teach modern Hapkido, even though they claim to be a traditional school.

This video is the original Hapkido:
 
Pentti said:
Practical Hapkido is a modern style. A group of teachers (Hapkido and Taekwondo) developed this style for Hapkido, respecting history that has been influenced greatly.

Original Hapkido is rare today. Most Hapkido schools teach modern Hapkido, even though they claim to be a traditional school.

This video is the original Hapkido:
Click to expand...
That brings up a question that's been batted about before: what is "traditional"? Does that mean it's unchanged, or just that it has strong links to the traditions and roots of the art?
 
gpseymour said:
That brings up a question that's been batted about before: what is "traditional"? Does that mean it's unchanged, or just that it has strong links to the traditions and roots of the art?
Click to expand...

I don't mean this to speak for @Pentti, but for myself only.

I think as you no doubt know, that traditional is difficult to define: at what point does an art exist, and how much can it deviate from its origin and still claim to be traditional?

In my experience, Hapkido never doubted nor denied that it started from a Korean man who had studied MA in Japan, and returned to Korea after Word War II. It made some changes, mostly to incorporate a few more kicks, but that seems to have been it.

I don't know how much original Hapkido may have been removed, if any, nor how much TKD has been added. But it sounds interesting.
 
oftheherd1 said:
I don't mean this to speak for @Pentti, but for myself only.

I think as you no doubt know, that traditional is difficult to define: at what point does an art exist, and how much can it deviate from its origin and still claim to be traditional?

In my experience, Hapkido never doubted nor denied that it started from a Korean man who had studied MA in Japan, and returned to Korea after Word War II. It made some changes, mostly to incorporate a few more kicks, but that seems to have been it.

I don't know how much original Hapkido may have been removed, if any, nor how much TKD has been added. But it sounds interesting.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we’re on the same page on that. I just keep hearing discussions of traditional arts - what’s good and bad about them - and I often wonder how much of the chatter is caused by a difference in defining that term. I’m fairly certain most koryu students wouldn’t consider most of my training “traditional”, but most folks I trained with would.
 
The traditional Hapkido (Yong-Sul Kwan and Jungkikwan) is the same as Choi taught. Modern style has added something new and left something out. I do not see any problem here. I hope that all Hapkido styles can live in peace and harmony with each other.
 
Dirty Dog said:
Piffle. Hapkido is a modern style. Full stop.
Click to expand...

True. Along with TSK and TKD, and others.

But I think @Pentti if referring to Practical Hapkido being more modern as opposed to the Hapkido that was worked out by Choi and some of his first students. Efforts to extend Hapkido's history, in fact other Korean MA don't hold up well. I say that but really I can only speak to Hapkido as my GM told me. He said all the old GMs knew that Hapkido came from a Korean man who came back to Korea after WWII. Admittedly there is controversy about what was brought back to Korea.

To me, the bottom line is that there is a Korean MA called Hapkido, brought to Korea after WWII, and modified slightly. in its beginnings. I have no doubt the Hapkido I studied, being from the Korean Hapkido Association, is as close to that brought to Korea, as exists today. But I have no problem with GM who wish to deviate slightly in their Kwan, nor even try to make a better art as apparently has been done with Practical Hapkido. They seem to make no secret of what they do nor where their techniques come from. I see no reason to be angry at that.
 
Pentti said:
The traditional Hapkido (Yong-Sul Kwan and Jungkikwan) is the same as Choi taught. Modern style has added something new and left something out. I do not see any problem here. I hope that all Hapkido styles can live in peace and harmony with each other.
Click to expand...
Here we get back to the question of how people define "traditional" and "modern." Choi started teaching in 1948, so the most traditional form of Hapkido is no more than 70 years old. To some, that qualifies as modern.
 
Tony Dismukes said:
Here we get back to the question of how people define "traditional" and "modern." Choi started teaching in 1948, so the most traditional form of Hapkido is no more than 70 years old. To some, that qualifies as modern.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that, but I don't think it is anything to get out of shape about. After all, how old is Aikido, TKD or TSD? I would be more concerned about how good the art is at what it claims to do.
 
Pentti said:
The traditional Hapkido (Yong-Sul Kwan and Jungkikwan) is the same as Choi taught. Modern style has added something new and left something out. I do not see any problem here. I hope that all Hapkido styles can live in peace and harmony with each other.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Bot only all Hapkido styles, but all martial art styles.
 
Tony Dismukes said:
Here we get back to the question of how people define "traditional" and "modern." Choi started teaching in 1948, so the most traditional form of Hapkido is no more than 70 years old. To some, that qualifies as modern.
Click to expand...
And leaves us with the question of when we stop using the term "modern" (which originally referred to a specific time period, hence "post-modern" was a useful term at one point) to refer to an art. In Japanese koryu circles, "tradtiional" tends to be used to refer to koryu arts and those that maintain the traditions from koryu (rough working definition). But what about those that maintain traditions from 100 years ago (well after the Meiji restoration)? If an art has a "reformed" or "updated" branch, "traditional" would seem a reasonable term for a different branch that maintains more of the traditions of the art nearer its point of origin.
 
oftheherd1 said:
I can agree with that, but I don't think it is anything to get out of shape about. After all, how old is Aikido, TKD or TSD? I would be more concerned about how good the art is at what it claims to do.
Click to expand...

Who's getting bent out of shape?
As to your question, all three of those are modern arts, obviously. They're not much older than I am.
 
gpseymour said:
And leaves us with the question of when we stop using the term "modern" (which originally referred to a specific time period, hence "post-modern" was a useful term at one point) to refer to an art. In Japanese koryu circles, "tradtiional" tends to be used to refer to koryu arts and those that maintain the traditions from koryu (rough working definition). But what about those that maintain traditions from 100 years ago (well after the Meiji restoration)? If an art has a "reformed" or "updated" branch, "traditional" would seem a reasonable term for a different branch that maintains more of the traditions of the art nearer its point of origin.
Click to expand...


You raise a valid point sir as there seems to be a theme that bases what is considered modern on the Japanese idea (ie gendai).

So what the Japanese consider "modern" others may not
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Break falls

Previous Thread

GM Chinil Chang RIP

Next Thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top