Requirements to start Hapkido

[Daniel Sullivan]

I've never understood the whole TKD <> HKD thing in some schools that will give Hapkido ranks, when the instructor appears to have made a shortcut to instructor level of HKD based on both being a Korean martial art.

Obviously there are well credited instructors who have learnt both styles but I've also read and talked to people who have rank in both with 'iffy' timelines as to how it came about, or have been awarded rank based on their TKD rank, which equally confuses me. There may be legitimate reasons, I just don't know what they are, or I am reading too much into it at a glance.

There are plenty of organizations that are happy to grow their numbers by bringing fairly plentiful TKD people in and transferring their TKD rank to Hapkido or whatever art it is they're promoting. Usually, there is a seminar attendance schedule that initially inducts them and then continues their acclimation of the new curriculum. There are also fees to be paid.

The logic is that a TKD instructor is already fluent in the terminology, has an understanding of Korean arts via their taekwondo base, and can either incorporate the new curriculum into an existing TKD class, or teach it as an adjunct to it.

Haedong Gumdo was fairly famous for this in its formation, though I have no idea if this is still a common practice.

So much of how well this works in practice depends greatly upon the background of the person in question. Relevant experience makes a huge difference, particularly in picking up the conceptual elements of the new art.

Obviously, instructors don't wish to advertise that they got their high dan in a new art by showing up to a few seminars (in the grand scheme of things, twenty seminars is only a few if you're getting a dan ranking of fourth or higher out of it), so of course their timeline is appropriately ambiguous; manufacturing TIG can backfire on you, especially if conversations go into any depth on the subject. At the same time, they don't want to tell you that they attended a seminar and got rank, so they give out iffy timelines and ambiguous training histories.

Funny, but I find that such people are often incredibly snobbish about rank. And if the new style is some kind of made up style or an offshoot of another style, they're even more snobbish. This serves to keep them on an unapproachable pedestal and thus prevent their rank from being questioned. It doesn't work when talking to people with any real experience, but they do it anyway.

 

[jezr74]

There are plenty of organizations that are happy to grow their numbers by bringing fairly plentiful TKD people in and transferring their TKD rank to Hapkido or whatever art it is they're promoting. Usually, there is a seminar attendance schedule that initially inducts them and then continues their acclimation of the new curriculum. There are also fees to be paid.

The logic is that a TKD instructor is already fluent in the terminology, has an understanding of Korean arts via their taekwondo base, and can either incorporate the new curriculum into an existing TKD class, or teach it as an adjunct to it.

Haedong Gumdo was fairly famous for this in its formation, though I have no idea if this is still a common practice.

So much of how well this works in practice depends greatly upon the background of the person in question. Relevant experience makes a huge difference, particularly in picking up the conceptual elements of the new art.

Obviously, instructors don't wish to advertise that they got their high dan in a new art by showing up to a few seminars (in the grand scheme of things, twenty seminars is only a few if you're getting a dan ranking of fourth or higher out of it), so of course their timeline is appropriately ambiguous; manufacturing TIG can backfire on you, especially if conversations go into any depth on the subject. At the same time, they don't want to tell you that they attended a seminar and got rank, so they give out iffy timelines and ambiguous training histories.

Funny, but I find that such people are often incredibly snobbish about rank. And if the new style is some kind of made up style or an offshoot of another style, they're even more snobbish. This serves to keep them on an unapproachable pedestal and thus prevent their rank from being questioned. It doesn't work when talking to people with any real experience, but they do it anyway.

Not to say that their cannot be a practitioner that can learn both arts and be proficient. But I definitely found it a complete turn off when looking at schools and talking to instructors that reading between the lines, did not deserve (through lack of earning) the extra rank in a style, it diminished their credibility pretty fast.

I think I've only seen it occur with Korean arts for some reason, and I think your right with the attitude of these types, "Thou doth protest too much".

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Not to say that their cannot be a practitioner that can learn both arts and be proficient.

Having dan grades in more than one art is not that uncommon, particularly if the person has any age on them; two to six years to black belt, depending on the style means that a person over thrity could have two or more dan grades.

But I definitely found it a complete turn off when looking at schools and talking to instructors that reading between the lines, did not deserve (through lack of earning) the extra rank in a style, it diminished their credibility pretty fast.

And I'd bet that there was a high premium being charged as well.

I think I've only seen it occur with Korean arts for some reason, and I think your right with the attitude of these types, "Thou doth protest too much".

It's pretty ubiquitous. There are plenty of karate guys who suddenly fancy themselves as katana masters or samurai swordsmen. Caucasian men who somehow inherit Okinawan royal guard training and things of that nature. Always a book with a DVD to go with it on sale too.

I've even seen some Duck Dynasty looking guy with videos of himself doing Tai Chi in front of a backdrop that was put up in a junkyard (no kidding).

You'd be amazed at what's out there with regards to questionable rank, fabricated histories, and new arts that somehow have mystical backgrounds.

 

[oftheherd1]

There are plenty of organizations that are happy to grow their numbers by bringing fairly plentiful TKD people in and transferring their TKD rank to Hapkido or whatever art it is they're promoting. Usually, there is a seminar attendance schedule that initially inducts them and then continues their acclimation of the new curriculum. There are also fees to be paid.

The logic is that a TKD instructor is already fluent in the terminology, has an understanding of Korean arts via their taekwondo base, and can either incorporate the new curriculum into an existing TKD class, or teach it as an adjunct to it.

Haedong Gumdo was fairly famous for this in its formation, though I have no idea if this is still a common practice.

So much of how well this works in practice depends greatly upon the background of the person in question. Relevant experience makes a huge difference, particularly in picking up the conceptual elements of the new art.

Obviously, instructors don't wish to advertise that they got their high dan in a new art by showing up to a few seminars (in the grand scheme of things, twenty seminars is only a few if you're getting a dan ranking of fourth or higher out of it), so of course their timeline is appropriately ambiguous; manufacturing TIG can backfire on you, especially if conversations go into any depth on the subject. At the same time, they don't want to tell you that they attended a seminar and got rank, so they give out iffy timelines and ambiguous training histories.

Funny, but I find that such people are often incredibly snobbish about rank. And if the new style is some kind of made up style or an offshoot of another style, they're even more snobbish. This serves to keep them on an unapproachable pedestal and thus prevent their rank from being questioned. It doesn't work when talking to people with any real experience, but they do it anyway.

Two excellent posts above. But I would disagree with the bolded and underlined portion above. At least as I learned it, there no way 20 seminars could give you a 1st Dan, much less a 4th or higher. Even if the seminars were 1 week each; and most I have seen advertised are just a weekend.

 

[Instructor]

The more I learn of Hapkido the less it seems to have in common as a methodology to Tae Kwon Do. I suppose in some of the kick-ier (I know it's not a word) versions of Hapkido they bear a closer resemblance but in our style our kicks are very basic and simple, not much like TKD at all.

My first school was a TKD/HKD hybrid. We learned TKD forms and kicks with joint manipulation from HKD. I came away from that experience with respect for both arts but knowing that my path lie with Hapkido. I pursued a pure Hapkido system and haven't looked back. I am permitted to teach both styles but I don't. I've pretty much left TKD behind for good and spent the last 20 years focused on Hapkido. In fact last year somebody asked me if I would be interested in teaching them Tae Kwon Do and I politely declined and recommended them to a good local school.

I truly think it's best to keep them separate and distinct if possible. I think a lot of times the reason you don't see pure Hapkido programs out there is they just don't have the broad appeal (especially for young people) that something like Tae Kwon Do does. Most brick and mortar places I've come across in the last decade or so seem to rely on revenue from teaching children. I think it would be much harder to keep a pure Hapkido program solvent.

I would also like to applaud Chris and oftherd1 on having an energetic and relevant discussion that stayed on track and stayed respectful, well done! I sincerely wish we had more factual evidence of Hapkido history. It's a great style, I fell in love with it right away. Over the years I've dabbled in other styles but I've never tried anything I like so much as Hapkido.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Two excellent posts above. But I would disagree with the bolded and underlined portion above. At least as I learned it, there no way 20 seminars could give you a 1st Dan, much less a 4th or higher. Even if the seminars were 1 week each; and most I have seen advertised are just a weekend.

Oh, I totally agree. I was not implying that it would; simply that the people in discussion are coming out of them with their teaching rank from one art being applied to a new art through a seminar process.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

The more I learn of Hapkido the less it seems to have in common as a methodology to Tae Kwon Do.

Exactly!

I suppose in some of the kick-ier (I know it's not a word) versions of Hapkido they bear a closer resemblance but in our style our kicks are very basic and simple, not much like TKD at all.

Actually, in some lineages, hapkido has more kicks and aerials than TKD does. I learned under an independent, and it was a much more meat and potatoes style with regards to kicking (though we did have that crouching spin kick).

 

[oftheherd1]

Exactly!


Actually, in some lineages, hapkido has more kicks and aerials than TKD does. I learned under an independent, and it was a much more meat and potatoes style with regards to kicking (though we did have that crouching spin kick).

If you are talking about the spinning, dropping heel hook kick, that is neat isn't it? So much power there; easily a broken ankle along with dropping your opponent to the ground.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

If you are talking about the spinning, dropping heel hook kick, that is neat isn't it? So much power there; easily a broken ankle along with dropping your opponent to the ground.

That's the one.

 

[Instructor]

Anybody have a video of that one?

 

[jezr74]

The more I learn of Hapkido the less it seems to have in common as a methodology to Tae Kwon Do.

I totally agree, and I thought this before I took the art up, and just read about both histories from many and varying sources, hence my original statement that I don't understand why they seem to have so much involvement in TKD schools, or that they seem to jump across to HKD from TKD in a weird way. Having started Hapkido training for the last 8 months, I believe they are even more loosely related and heavily more towards Jujutsu and Aikido styles. I'd be interested to know what the difference in syllabus would be between to such instructors.

Again, I have nothing against TKD and think it's a great art, just this particular aspect I find odd.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I totally agree, and I thought this before I took the art up, and just read about both histories from many and varying sources, hence my original statement that I don't understand why they seem to have so much involvement in TKD schools, or that they seem to jump across to HKD from TKD in a weird way. Having started Hapkido training for the last 8 months, I believe they are even more loosely related and heavily more towards Jujutsu and Aikido styles. I'd be interested to know what the difference in syllabus would be between to such instructors.

Again, I have nothing against TKD and think it's a great art, just this particular aspect I find odd.

The reality is that they're completely unrelated, and although both have been adopted and modified by the Koreans, neither is a Korean art. Taekwondo is derived (primarily) from Shotokan. Hapkido is derived (primarily) from Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu. Both have other things mixed in, and the origin stories of both are subject to a certain amount of vehement rhetoric.

Just as there are a fair number of people who can teach more than one style of Japanese art, there are a fair number of people who teach both of these "Korean" arts.

 

[oftheherd1]

The reality is that they're completely unrelated, and although both have been adopted and modified by the Koreans, neither is a Korean art. Taekwondo is derived (primarily) from Shotokan. Hapkido is derived (primarily) from Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu. Both have other things mixed in, and the origin stories of both are subject to a certain amount of vehement rhetoric.

Just as there are a fair number of people who can teach more than one style of Japanese art, there are a fair number of people who teach both of these "Korean" arts.

Not disagreeing, just to add what I have said before. I once discussed the origin of Hapkido with my GM, commenting that it seemed to be related to Aikido or maybe Jujitsu. He put me straight immediately, saying it was not, but was started by a Korean who had studied an art in Japan, and returned to Korea after WWII, to start what became Hapkido. I never delved into that too much. I was satisfied with what I as learning, and didn't feel a need to trace its history to make myself a better learner. It had what I wanted to learn as it was taught in my GM's kwan.

Since it has become the subject of so much controversy, I kind of wish I had, since my GM was one of the older GMs. But I don't feel my art is lessened by the controversy, nor was my learning affected in any way, good or bad. People can say what they want. Hapkido, like other arts, is an effective art. What more would one want, than to study an effective MA, that they feel is best suited to them?

 

[jezr74]

Can't say I've seen it much in Japanese arts. I'm talking about automatic entitlement to a high level of another art by association of a persons primary.

I posted a podcast a few weeks back to a podcast talking about TKD and some of it's origins. It was a really interesting listen and gives some insight to the culture and mind set of Korea at the time. (is also a MP3 download) Which I think would play into the whole historical presentation of the Korean arts overall.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/52...1-manuel-adrogue-interview-hiyaa-podcast.html

 

[Dirty Dog]

Can't say I've seen it much in Japanese arts. I'm talking about automatic entitlement to a high level of another art by association of a persons primary.

It happens all the time. There are plenty of places that will sell you credentials of any rank in any art you'd care to mention. Hell, you can buy a PhD online. Why not a 9th Dan certificate too?

There are also "honorary" ranks awarded, and somehow the "honorary" part gets left off when people list their credentials.

There are also "swapped" ranks. By which I mean two highly ranked people from different systems will award each other rank. Looks good on the wall when prospective new students show up.

There are also "self promotions" were a person or persons form a new organization and promptly promote themselves (or each other) to Imperial Supreme Great Eternal GrandMaster 35th Dan.

There are also "social" promotions. For example, I teach in a Moo Duk Kwan school, but we also offer Kukkiwon certification to students who want it. There is no reason why those students couldn't get both Moo Duk Kwan and Kukkiwon certifications which could (eventually) lead to their possessing high Dan rank from two different systems. Related, but different.

There are also what I call "assimilation ranks" (yes, it's a Borg reference...) where an organization will offer equivalent rank to someone from a closely related system to grow their organization. The Kukkiwon does this, with the understanding (which it is impossible to enforce) that the person is then supposed to learn and teach the Kukkiwon curriculum.

I don't think it's ever (or at least not often) viewed as an entitlement. And it's certainly less common among the more respectable organizations. But it does happen.

 

[jezr74]

It happens all the time. There are plenty of places that will sell you credentials of any rank in any art you'd care to mention. Hell, you can buy a PhD online. Why not a 9th Dan certificate too?

There are also "honorary" ranks awarded, and somehow the "honorary" part gets left off when people list their credentials.

There are also "swapped" ranks. By which I mean two highly ranked people from different systems will award each other rank. Looks good on the wall when prospective new students show up.

There are also "self promotions" were a person or persons form a new organization and promptly promote themselves (or each other) to Imperial Supreme Great Eternal GrandMaster 35th Dan.

There are also "social" promotions. For example, I teach in a Moo Duk Kwan school, but we also offer Kukkiwon certification to students who want it. There is no reason why those students couldn't get both Moo Duk Kwan and Kukkiwon certifications which could (eventually) lead to their possessing high Dan rank from two different systems. Related, but different.

There are also what I call "assimilation ranks" (yes, it's a Borg reference...) where an organization will offer equivalent rank to someone from a closely related system to grow their organization. The Kukkiwon does this, with the understanding (which it is impossible to enforce) that the person is then supposed to learn and teach the Kukkiwon curriculum.

I don't think it's ever (or at least not often) viewed as an entitlement. And it's certainly less common among the more respectable organizations. But it does happen.

Yeah, I think maybe this line of conversation is around what you call the assimilated rank.

There are also "social" promotions. For example, I teach in a Moo Duk Kwan school, but we also offer Kukkiwon certification to students who want it. There is no reason why those students couldn't get both Moo Duk Kwan and Kukkiwon certifications which could (eventually) lead to their possessing high Dan rank from two different systems. Related, but different.

I'm not sure how it works, but to give a Kukkiwon certificate do you have to be endorsed or certified to able to award? Or for Moo Duk Kwan for that matter?

 

[Dirty Dog]

I'm not sure how it works, but to give a Kukkiwon certificate do you have to be endorsed or certified to able to award? Or for Moo Duk Kwan for that matter?

Any KKW-certified 4th Dan (or higher) can sign the paperwork to register a KKW Dan rank. The person gets the actual certificate from the KKW and it's officially signed by the KKW President.
The same is true for the Moo Duk Kwan, except your certificates are signed by the person who is actually promoting you.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

The reality is that they're completely unrelated, and although both have been adopted and modified by the Koreans, neither is a Korean art. Taekwondo is derived (primarily) from Shotokan. Hapkido is derived (primarily) from Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu. Both have other things mixed in, and the origin stories of both are subject to a certain amount of vehement rhetoric.

Just as there are a fair number of people who can teach more than one style of Japanese art, there are a fair number of people who teach both of these "Korean" arts.

The most vehement part of the hapkido origin stories are the protestations of DRAJ exponents about Choi's exposure to DRAJ. Unlike TKD, HKD's founder actually credited a Japanese art instead of fabricating an origin from Korea's murky martial history.

The hapkido that most of us see is the synthesis of Choi's art with whatever Ji Han Jae and Kim Mu Hong had studied, which contained a lot of kicks, something Choi did not have very many of in what he taught.

Ji claimed to have learned his art from someone known only as "Grandma." I believe Kim Mu Hong had a CMA background, though I could be mistaken.

Regardless, TKD and HKD are contemporaries in terms of timeframe, but in terms of development.

 

[jezr74]

But I don't feel my art is lessened by the controversy, nor was my learning affected in any way, good or bad. People can say what they want. Hapkido, like other arts, is an effective art. What more would one want, than to study an effective MA, that they feel is best suited to them?

It's a controversy to ask sometimes. I don't give it much weight these days. But I love learning the history of different arts and how a style can be influenced by a single practitioner with a certain background, war, immigration, sickness etc.. I'm just a fan of getting the different theories and tid bits of info.

One of the things I was interested in trying to draw out in line with the TKD\HKD weave is when it started, or did something happen that sparked the trend of having them go hand in hand in some cases. I'm noticing, and correct me if I'm heading in the wrong direction, is that HKD has some soft teachers and some hard, and it reflects in the execution of some of the techniques I see performed from different streams. But I don't know enough yet about the different lines lineage.

Are HKD schools closely aligned with TKD schools a more hard martial art, than what may have originally came out? And so has a fork at that point to subtler differences?

 

[Dirty Dog]

The most vehement part of the hapkido origin stories are the protestations of DRAJ exponents about Choi's exposure to DRAJ.

No disagreement here. And no belief that there will be any real closure to the argument.

Unlike TKD, HKD's founder actually credited a Japanese art instead of fabricating an origin from Korea's murky martial history.

TKD didn't have a founder. It was synthesized from the training an experiences of a lot of people. Some of whom wanted to tie their new art to ancient times (for many reasons) and some who did not.