Towards a Minimum Hapkido Standard

[American HKD]

Greetings,

I try to minimize but it's hard with out leaving important stuff. This is what I teach at 9th & 8th gup.

My Strikes

9th gup
1. Center Knuckle
2. Back Fist
3. Inside Knife Hand
4. Outside Knife Hand
5. Ridge Hand
6. Bottom Fist

8th Gup

7. Palm Heel
8. Tiger Mouth
9. Spear Hand
10. Foward Elbow
11. Side Elbow
12. Doulble Elbow




Kicks

9th gup

1. Center Toe kick/front
2. Inside cresant
3. Outside cresant
5. Spear Kick
6. Low Shin Kick
7. Cutting or Curve Kick
8. Reverse Cutting
9. Knee Kick

8th gup

1. Push Kick
2. Hammer Kick
3. Cover/Block Kick
4. Upward heel strike
5. Down 45d. Heel Kick
6. High Round Kick
7. High Hook Kick
8. Slap or twisting Kick
9. Back Kick ( heel )

Most of these can be done front leg, jumping, high, low, combos, etc.

So I dont consider these seperate techniques adding to an infflated number of techniques our system really has.

Once the student can do the basic kick I introduce the all of the above methods of use. Speciality kicks are not part of this group.

 

[American HKD]

Greetings,

I try to minimize but it's hard with out leaving important stuff. This is what I teach at 9th & 8th gup.

My Strikes

9th gup
1. Center Knuckle
2. Back Fist
3. Inside Knife Hand
4. Outside Knife Hand
5. Ridge Hand
6. Bottom Fist

8th Gup

7. Palm Heel
8. Tiger Mouth
9. Spear Hand
10. Foward Elbow
11. Side Elbow
12. Doulble Elbow




Kicks

9th gup

1. Center Toe kick/front
2. Inside cresant
3. Outside cresant
5. Spear Kick
6. Low Shin Kick
7. Cutting or Curve Kick
8. Reverse Cutting
9. Knee Kick

8th gup

1. Push Kick
2. Hammer Kick
3. Cover/Block Kick
4. Upward heel strike
5. Down 45d. Heel Kick
6. High Round Kick
7. High Hook Kick
8. Slap or twisting Kick
9. Back Kick ( heel )

Most of these can be done front leg, jumping, high, low, combos, etc.

So I dont consider these seperate techniques adding to an infflated number of techniques our system really has.

Once the student can do the basic kick I introduce the all of the above methods of use. Speciality kicks are not part of this group.

Sorry I left out side kick above.

Kicks

9th gup

1. Center Toe kick/front
2. Inside cresant
3. Outside cresant
4. Side Kick
5. Spear Kick
6. Low Shin Kick
7. Cutting or Curve Kick
8. Reverse Cutting
9. Knee Kick

Blocks

9th gup

1. High forearm 2. Inside forearm 3. Outside forearm 4. Low forearm 5. Doulble X Block low/high

8th gup

1. Double Knife hand 2. inside circle 3. outside circle, 4. straight arm block
5. back hand parry

Basic Throws

9th & 8th Gup

1.Shoulder 2.Hip 3. Back Reap 4. Front Leg Sweep 5. Wheel Throw (lay backward & throw)

Joint Locks

9th & 8th Gup

1. Standard Hapkido Arm Bar 2. Outer turning wrist break 3. Outside Downward wrist lock 4. Straight Down wrist lock 5. Elbow over Elbow Bar. 6. 180d turning wrist/shoulder lock 7. hammer lock 8. goose neck 9. Spinning wrist twist 10. Shoulder Lock

These throws and Locks create a core that has hundreds of applications to work from.

 

[Paul B]

Hi Stuart,the techniques in themselves sound great so far! (That goes for everyone)

My question is....what attacks do you use to learn the techniques from at first? The standard grabs? Do you teach the techniques out of strikes more for the "intermediate" gups?

I guess what I'm getting at is application,I think everyone would agree that the approach changes between static and dynamic applications. So maybe we could "alter" the list a bit to include applications,no? Bad idea? Just a thought.

 

[American HKD]

Hi Stuart,the techniques in themselves sound great so far! (That goes for everyone)

My question is....what attacks do you use to learn the techniques from at first? The standard grabs? Do you teach the techniques out of strikes more for the "intermediate" gups?

I guess what I'm getting at is application,I think everyone would agree that the approach changes between static and dynamic applications. So maybe we could "alter" the list a bit to include applications,no? Bad idea? Just a thought.

I thinks most of hapkido teaches the basics from wrist grabs then clothes, punches, kicks, weapons, than more of the same at advanced level techniques.

 

[Paul B]

Sure thing.But since it's a "standard",for use across the board,where would you guys draw the line between individual gup attacks and techniques?

And I guess I also take issue with teaching shoulder throws to beginners. How can you expect someone to take nauk bup from that when they are just learning how to fall? I find that throw hard enough to fall from.It's a very high very hard throw,if we're talking about the same thing. IMO they are not familiar enough with themselves at that point to take it. Feel free to shoot me.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Paul:

Good questions and this is THE single place where I think we will generate the greatest amount of discussion. I see it coming from two areas.

The first area is whether to include techniques that a majority of folks (but not all) use.

The second area is where to draw a line to keep permutations ("applications") from being accepted as "unique techniques". This BTW is one of the reasons I have been delinquent getting the blocking material put out for folks to see as some people teach very different approaches to the roll of blocks, parries and redirects at different levels and for different reasons.
I'd love to hear more feedback in this area myself. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Paul B]

Hi Bruce,

I think it would also be a tremendous help to have the standard "names",as discussed earlier. Some of the techniques mentioned,I could only try to pick the name apart to try and figure it out. I find this frustrating at times. I could say "Yokomen Uchi Ikkyo" to almost any Aikidoka on the planet and they would know exactly what technique I was refering to. I think the Hapkido world would benefit unbelievably from having a common reference point like this!

That's why I haven't even really commented on any material at all,besides being the usual PITA...

 

[American HKD]

Greeting,



.............Good questions and this is THE single place where I think we will generate the greatest amount of discussion. I see it coming from two areas.

The first area is whether to include techniques that a majority of folks (but not all) use.

Keep it to a bare minimum IMHO or the list will keep growing larger and larger.

The second area is where to draw a line to keep permutations ("applications") from being accepted as "unique techniques". This BTW is one of the reasons I have been delinquent getting the blocking material put out for folks to see as some people teach very different approaches to the roll of blocks, parries and redirects at different levels and for different reasons.
I'd love to hear more feedback in this area myself. FWIW.........

You can't break out every nuance and make it a tech by itself. Think Core technique and the many nuances must be covered in context as students progress.

Example front kick, with toe, ball, instep, or heel. 1 kick tech (4 foot positions). Front kick with, skip, jump, front or rear leg. still 1 tech. (4 ways to do it.)
Multipling 1 kick x 4 ways to execute x 4 foot postions = 16 front kick techniques. OVER KILL!

This is what many seem to do then claiming 1000s of techniques from only a couple dozen real core techniques.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Stuart and Paul:

I'll bet that this will become a tedious process for some people who would like a quick fix but both of the points you have raised really deserve to get much attention in my book.

I strongly back the idea of "more is less" in this case. As we have seen in all of the lists so far whether Hal's or anyone elses, the teacher or the KJ always has the option of what goes into their particular take on things. If, however, what Hal teaches is "genuine hapkido" even if he himself teaches 50 or 60 techniques, one could reasonably expect to find most (all?) of the core techniques. Now, lets flip it the other way. Lets suppose that Hal teaches a system that is a combination of TKD and BJJ (its not but work with me for a second...). Such a system would probaby have most of the Kicking and most of the striking, but may not have the breakfalls, blocking, and grappling techniques common to other Hapkido arts. He could call it "hapkido" but it wouldn't meet the minimum requirements.

In hand with this, I would absolutely LOVE to have a common set of terms for the Hapkido arts to identify both techniques and concepts---- in English as well as Korean. This will take a bit more as will the standardizing of the spelling (English AND Korean). Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

Dear Stuart and Paul:

I'll bet that this will become a tedious process for some people who would like a quick fix but both of the points you have raised really deserve to get much attention in my book.

I strongly back the idea of "more is less" in this case. As we have seen in all of the lists so far whether Hal's or anyone elses, the teacher or the KJ always has the option of what goes into their particular take on things. If, however, what Hal teaches is "genuine hapkido" even if he himself teaches 50 or 60 techniques, one could reasonably expect to find most (all?) of the core techniques. Now, lets flip it the other way. Lets suppose that Hal teaches a system that is a combination of TKD and BJJ (its not but work with me for a second...). Such a system would probaby have most of the Kicking and most of the striking, but may not have the breakfalls, blocking, and grappling techniques common to other Hapkido arts. He could call it "hapkido" but it wouldn't meet the minimum requirements.

I disagree to be a Hapkido practicioner you must move like one and learn from a good HKD Instructor for some period of time to learn how to move. Just copying a standard won't cut it.

Moreover what you just brought up is a major problem with HKD today. I met many guys over the last several years who claim to be HKD stylists they call what they do HKD but don't move like one.

In hand with this, I would absolutely LOVE to have a common set of terms for the Hapkido arts to identify both techniques and concepts---- in English as well as Korean. This will take a bit more as will the standardizing of the spelling (English AND Korean). Thoughts?

English only we speak english!

Why should we standardize Korean names that aren't original names anyway they didn't use the Japanese terms already in place for who knows how long. I maybe wrong but I'm not aware of Korean standard names of HKD techniques.


BTW my curriculum out line is on my website!


Best Wishes,

Bruce
__________________
Bruce W Sims
Midwest Hapkido, Inc.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Stuart:

Do you think it is worthwhile to have a common Korean language version of a standard so that we might more easily discuss matters regarding Hapkido with them? At the superficial level I am thinking about technical matters such as an individual kick or strike. However I am also looking down the road regarding more conceptual matters such a "timing", "off-balancing" and "focus" etc etc which never quite get talked about as much as political matters.

As far as "moving" like a person who trains in Hapkido I can only say that I know what it looks like when I see it, but would be hard pressed to incoporate that into a standard. I have seen people who swing a sword around, for instance, and people who obviously know swordsmanship, but I would be hard-pressed to actually define the better transition of balance, or fluidity of motion as a standard. Any thoughts?

Regarding training under an identified master, for a specified period of time, I can only say that I have held this criteria for myself. I find it very important to me, just as upholding the integrity of the Kwan, while others may just use the word. Nobody seems willing to discuss the role of this tradition as part and parcel of a minimum standard. I really wish they would, I suspect it is as important as any other part of these things we are talking about, yes?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

Dear Stuart:

Do you think it is worthwhile to have a common Korean language version of a standard so that we might more easily discuss matters regarding Hapkido with them? At the superficial level I am thinking about technical matters such as an individual kick or strike. However I am also looking down the road regarding more conceptual matters such a "timing", "off-balancing" and "focus" etc etc which never quite get talked about as much as political matters.

As far as "moving" like a person who trains in Hapkido I can only say that I know what it looks like when I see it, but would be hard pressed to incoporate that into a standard. I have seen people who swing a sword around, for instance, and people who obviously know swordsmanship, but I would be hard-pressed to actually define the better transition of balance, or fluidity of motion as a standard. Any thoughts?

Regarding training under an identified master, for a specified period of time, I can only say that I have held this criteria for myself. I find it very important to me, just as upholding the integrity of the Kwan, while others may just use the word. Nobody seems willing to discuss the role of this tradition as part and parcel of a minimum standard. I really wish they would, I suspect it is as important as any other part of these things we are talking about, yes?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Bruce,

As you already know Hapkido isn't just a compilation of any techniques.

You also noticed I advocate no time requirement for rank advancement or an untold number of techniques to be considered for rank in HKD.

However there must be a tradition behind it, be it Choi, Ji, or some other afirmed lineage one can trace themself back to.

Also "way one moves" can only be taught by personal instruction from one who knows himself, this part of training you can't get by looking at a book or tape and say you know HKD requirements so give me a black belt.

As one who speaks english I don't recognize a real use for Korean terms other than to attach an orientalness to it if you will. But since I'm not an expert in the Korean languge I cant say if will provide a more meaningfull description of a technique to out weight the use of english alone.

Can you?

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Stuart:

I think you already know that you are "preaching to the choir". Since we both agree on this point, and we both acknowledge that this is important, the question remains.

1.) How do we quantify or characterize such a minimum?

2.) Is it fit into the larger and more behaviorally define minimum that we have so far?

Some time back I was toasted on another Net for advocating a code, or "ethos" by which one conducts their growth. Have we come full circle back to that spot? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

..........I think you already know that you are "preaching to the choir". Since we both agree on this point, and we both acknowledge that this is important, the question remains.

1.) How do we quantify or characterize such a minimum?

2.) Is it fit into the larger and more behaviorally define minimum that we have so far?

Some time back I was toasted on another Net for advocating a code, or "ethos" by which one conducts their growth. Have we come full circle back to that spot? Thoughts? ...........

This might be the end of this thread from what I see now, so I guess the only logical conclusion would be everything should be up to the teacher not any prescribed methods on paper or a single standard that works for all.

That leaves us with the problem of people getting along and accepting all legitimate schools of Hapkido no matter what thier curiculum looks like.

 

[glad2bhere]

".....That leaves us with the problem of people getting along and accepting all legitimate schools of Hapkido no matter what thier curiculum looks like......"

uh..... call me dumb, but isn't that a non sequitor.

Seems sorta conflicted to say "all legitimate schools of Hapkido" and "no matter what their curriculum looks like" in the same sentence. As I see it the point of having a minimal standard is to give recognition to those points upon which we all agree. Perhaps its a small start but I think a telling one. If on one hand we rebell at having a single standard unilatterally shoved down our throats in the name of a single identified authority, why would we want to go over to the other extreme and simply accept any criteria, bound by any limits and associated with any individuals for indeterminant amounts of time or unspecified values.

For my part I hold a pretty conservative positon in such things, but I can at least understand the existence of a very liberal take on things. I wonder if I am not now looking at the sort of inflexibility or intolerance that keeps the Hapkido community from pulling together. Have I misunderstood your position? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Paul B]

. However I am also looking down the road regarding more conceptual matters such a "timing", "off-balancing" and "focus" etc etc which never quite get talked about as much as political matters.

As far as "moving" like a person who trains in Hapkido I can only say that I know what it looks like when I see it, but would be hard pressed to incoporate that into a standard.

OK..this is gold,Bruce!

I would dearly love to see a work JUST on this aspect of Hapkido!

Stuart..I think this has everything to do with claims of "legitimacy". I can't count the number of times I have seen(as I am sure you guys have) someone who claims they train in Hapkido/Aikido/Judo or another one of the "internal" throwing arts who move like a rusty robot. There is definitely a fluidity that is inherent in any of these arts I mentioned. Without it..the "art" isn't there. Like you said....it "can only be learned from personal instruction" That is really a standard in itself,no?

Bruce,

As Stuart has pointed out repeatedly,there are only so many core techniques,and then the gajillion variations. How about just "standard" names for the core techniques? I mean seriously...what is the "core" of Hapkido?

Armbar,S-lock/Z-lock(Nikyo to me),elevated wrist twist(Sankyo to me),side wrist lock(Yonkyo to me),Four corner throw/Inside Outside twist(Shiho Nage to me),Turning Leaf/Two Finger Throw(Kote Gaeshi to me),Rising elbow throw(Sayu Nage to me).....you see what I am getting at? Now how many of you guys know or have heard those techniques by a hundred different names? I bet maybe some of you didn't know what I was talking about until maybe I gave the Aikido/Daito name. Think of how much better communication could become with just ONE name for a technique,with the variations contained,rather than trying to claim a different "animal"..no? If there are Korean terms for these techs. already,please enlighten me.

 

[glad2bhere]

Paul, you are right on the money!!

Just as we all have been saying --- each in our own way---- it really has nothing to do with organizations, politics or personalities. And as you and Stuart have pointed out there are actually only a "few" core techniques of which the rest of the curriculum are variations. For myself I wish the "historians" among us had not gotten hung-up on numbers upwards of 3000 techniques. Has anyone ever met anyone who could actually document all 3,650 techniques? Has anyone ever gotten two leading personalities to agree how many actual techniques there are? However, that does not keep people from finding reasons to remain separate from others despite all Hapkido traditions sharing a number of the basic techniques themselves. What is worse, is that while it is relatively simple to compare physical techniques, it gets much harder to identify commonalities among Hapkido concepts. We all agree that there are such concepts but how many people actually talk about them or can agree what the core concepts are (apart from the Three Principles, I mean). If I had to put money of things like this I would say that the real fear behind doing something like what we have been working on is that there are some people in positions of leadership who are more than a little scared that when folks start pinning them down to chapter and verse practitioners are going to find that the Hapkido arts are a lot more smoke and mirrors than anyone ever gave them credit for. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

Paul, you are right on the money!!

Just as we all have been saying --- each in our own way---- it really has nothing to do with organizations, politics or personalities. And as you and Stuart have pointed out there are actually only a "few" core techniques of which the rest of the curriculum are variations. For myself I wish the "historians" among us had not gotten hung-up on numbers upwards of 3000 techniques. Has anyone ever met anyone who could actually document all 3,650 techniques? Has anyone ever gotten two leading personalities to agree how many actual techniques there are? However, that does not keep people from finding reasons to remain separate from others despite all Hapkido traditions sharing a number of the basic techniques themselves. What is worse, is that while it is relatively simple to compare physical techniques, it gets much harder to identify commonalities among Hapkido concepts. We all agree that there are such concepts but how many people actually talk about them or can agree what the core concepts are (apart from the Three Principles, I mean). If I had to put money of things like this I would say that the real fear behind doing something like what we have been working on is that there are some people in positions of leadership who are more than a little scared that when folks start pinning them down to chapter and verse practitioners are going to find that the Hapkido arts are a lot more smoke and mirrors than anyone ever gave them credit for. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

You can't pin them down they wont like thier secrets uncovered.

Smoke & mirrors, good one Bruce.

Legitimate HKD is hard to pigeon hole but a start is someone trained by a succesive lineage to the recognized sources Choi or Ji. This does mean they'll be a good teacher or anything but at least they have a claim to learning the style.
For example most of my teachers students even black belts aren't teacher material but they were at least in the right place.

 

[greendragon]

You know there are a lot of techniques that look close to each other but if done correctly actually break or manipulate different parts of the anatomy... example: this is our terminology...
1. reverse circular wrist throw
2. elbow breaking wrist throw
3. overhead twist...

These 3 techniques look a lot alike but the angled steps are a little different, the grip is a little different, and you actually feel the pain in 3 totally seperate areas of your arm and body... Master Whalen can expound on this....

when I first started Hapkido I couldn't see the difference...now it is clear as day... I think a lot of the "variations" are really not variations but seperate techniques... I have some Aikido friends that have shown me the 10 basic joint locks and throws and tell me that everything else is a "variation" of these 10.. then I show them the difference in pain between the 3 I mentioned earlier and I see the light going off in their head... IMHO if the pain and breaks effect different areas of the anatomy then it is a different technique and not a subset or variation....
Michael Tomlinson

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Michael:

I agree in both principle and practice with what you said. I think the matter would eventually come down to where one draws a cut-off if we are dealing with minimal standards. For instance, I am sure that any accomplished Hapkido practitioners would know a variety of wrist throws using either adduction or abduction of the wrist. It would seem that, though what you say is very right, were a person to be able to perform a technique or two using the two biomechanics I have mentioned that would be sufficient as a minimum skill level. I would then feel comfortable working such techniques with that person. Another example are shoulder throws of which there are many. I should think that if a person could perform a simple Forward Shoulder Throw (J. "Ippon Seionage") that a teacher would feel comfortable doing shoulder throws with that person even if his background was uncertain. Now, certainly if it was a matter of someone applying for membership to the WHF I would certainly test them over that criteria but I see that as a different sort of issue. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce