Towards a Minimum Hapkido Standard

[greendragon]

I see your point... standard wise... I would put all three throws in there.. but shoulder throw.. I see what you mean.. if the person can execute the basic hip throw motion then shoulder throw, hooking shoulder throw, one arm shoulder throw, two arm shoulder throw, neck throw, etc... all hinge off the same motion...you would look for things like.. proper stepping, lowering center of gravity, bumping and drawing, and looking away...
Michael Tomlinson

 

[whalen]

I see your point... standard wise... I would put all three throws in there.. but shoulder throw.. I see what you mean.. if the person can execute the basic hip throw motion then shoulder throw, hooking shoulder throw, one arm shoulder throw, two arm shoulder throw, neck throw, etc... all hinge off the same motion...you would look for things like.. proper stepping, lowering center of gravity, bumping and drawing, and looking away...
Michael Tomlinson

The best way to test the throw is get on the mat with some judoka plain and simple.

When bruce and mike mentioned something like Ippon seonage (one Armed Shoulder Throw). They usually set you up first before attempting the technique. O soto Geri is mostly used to set up your opponent or to break his balance.

I know i tried and got hit with Tani otohshi it will humble you real quick after you regain your breath ha-ha..

That is when i tell them " Go ahead and Grab my wrist" make my day.

The one thing that has given me a slight advantage is that when they grab my sleeve i know how to conceal and maintain their grip and use A joint-lock in with the Judo throw It works for me until they catch on ...

Hal

 

[Kumbajah]

Heading to Judo Class tonight - explain this more if you please.

 

[Paul B]

Hi Mst. Whalen,

I have been told it is "legal" in Judo to use kansetsu waza on the grip into the throw,but have never even came close to pulling it off!

It's nice to hear that someone actually did it,every time I even think about it I wind up in yoko wakare or sode makikomi...ouch!

 

[glad2bhere]

".......if the person can execute the basic hip throw motion then shoulder throw, hooking shoulder throw, one arm shoulder throw, two arm shoulder throw, neck throw, etc... all hinge off the same motion...you would look for things like.. proper stepping, lowering center of gravity, bumping and drawing, and looking away... "

Exactly right. Now, not to put too fine a point on this but lets take a look at the example that you mentioned Re: Shoulder Throw vs Hip Throw. To my way of thinking and as reflected in the YMK curriculum the Shoulder Throw is a member of the Thoracic Family of Techniques while the Hip Throw is a member of the Pelvic Family of techniques. I could see including BOTH kinds of techniques in a Minimal Standard. Maybe others could see this and maybe they couldn't, I don't know. However the nice thing about a minimal standard is that whether both techniques are included or not I think you expressed a great example of exactly how one might use such a standard. I point this out ONLY because I have a passing familiarity with what you do at your school through your contributions and have been chewing over some "heretical" thoughts. Perhaps you or someone might want to give me your comments on this.

Suppose (using your schools practice) there were moves that might reveal a persons' abilities to benefit from Hapkido practice that are non-standard across the board in typical Hapkido arts. For instance, a person might have sucky kicks, but excellent wrestling moves. Might we want to consider such skills in much the way that a Roundhouse kick is non-standard (across the board)? At 3rd BB we train in ground-fighting (Positions of Disadvantage), but would we want to consider such techniques as part of the "basic" standard?
Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

".......if the person can execute the basic hip throw motion then shoulder throw, hooking shoulder throw, one arm shoulder throw, two arm shoulder throw, neck throw, etc... all hinge off the same motion...you would look for things like.. proper stepping, lowering center of gravity, bumping and drawing, and looking away... "

Exactly right. Now, not to put too fine a point on this but lets take a look at the example that you mentioned Re: Shoulder Throw vs Hip Throw. To my way of thinking and as reflected in the YMK curriculum the Shoulder Throw is a member of the Thoracic Family of Techniques while the Hip Throw is a member of the Pelvic Family of techniques. I could see including BOTH kinds of techniques in a Minimal Standard. Maybe others could see this and maybe they couldn't, I don't know. However the nice thing about a minimal standard is that whether both techniques are included or not I think you expressed a great example of exactly how one might use such a standard. I point this out ONLY because I have a passing familiarity with what you do at your school through your contributions and have been chewing over some "heretical" thoughts. Perhaps you or someone might want to give me your comments on this.

Suppose (using your schools practice) there were moves that might reveal a persons' abilities to benefit from Hapkido practice that are non-standard across the board in typical Hapkido arts. For instance, a person might have sucky kicks, but excellent wrestling moves. Might we want to consider such skills in much the way that a Roundhouse kick is non-standard (across the board)? At 3rd BB we train in ground-fighting (Positions of Disadvantage), but would we want to consider such techniques as part of the "basic" standard?
Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Each part of the curriculum must be included in the minimum requirements.
Trying to use the same core techniques cross applied will be easier to remember for most people.

Example an Arm Bar can work for single wrist, double, two on one, many clothes grabs front & rear, hair, and so on the only thing that will vary is entries & foot work maybe.

Core elements should be used for all defenses as much as possible any of the varations are extra to be shown as extra knowledge.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Stuart:

I think you lost me. I am hearing two very different messages in your post.

I am not even sure how to ask for clarification. Can you reword your statement differently? Maybe its just a typo (or maybe I need another cuppa)

BTW: TO ANYONE WHOSE INTERESTED: Over on Warrior-Scholar Net there is some posting being done regarding Preasure Points and equating Han-ja with those points, possibly with an eye towards uniformly referencing and identifying points. I have posted the 38 PP we have in YMK Hapkido along with what Han-gul I have from GM Myung (See: "Gold Book"). It would be nice if anyone has any other PP they use, especially if they have the Hangul/Hanja to go with it. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Paul B]

Good call,Stuart. I agree that the core should be used as much as possible. Every "extra" technique comes from a good working knowledge of the core,no? Is that what you were saying?

As Mr. Tomlinson replied,there are definitely different areas of "focus" in similar techniques,but to actually qualify "focus" as seperate entities alltogether,I don't see how that would be helpful to a minimum standard,as one would have to be familiar with the basic application before moving on. If I am way off base on that one,feel free to correct me,Mr. Tomlinson.

 

[glad2bhere]

Hmmmm...........

I think I agree in principle, but I'm not sure that I think of a concept quite in those terms. For me it is enough to say that a technique requires a sensitivity for the need for a concept rather than execution requiring a specific kind of concept. I have found that execution of Hapkido techniques requires many different concepts, usually employed in different proportions, depending on the technique. However, I think I am right to say that if a person represents themselves as being a 1st BB in Hapkido one could reasonably expect that person to be familiar with a number of those qualities and be facile in using them in executing a technique. For example, I have been on the mat with folks whose execution was effective, but often only because they are young and strong and can make up for modest performance with force or speed. I have also been on the mat with folks whose technique was not blindingly fast, but whose effectiveness was unquestionable having smoothly taken my balance by misaligning me, redirecting me, untiming me and so forth. Let me put this another way.

In my classes I always run into one or two people who make a big thing about "resistance". The idea seems to be that they want a technique that will work against someone who grabs with a vice-like grip and locks in his entire body behind the grab. Put aside the fact that nobody grabs like this, nor is it feasible that the person grabbing will know whats coming in advance and be able to anticipate the movement selectively, or that dealing with grabs is only one part of the overall curriculum for just a moment. What does such an exercise tell us about practice? That the final deciding point for practice is the end and not the means? In such a case need we abandon the concepts I have mentioned and put our goal as simply defeating our partner. And if defeating our partner is all that there is to Hapkido how is what we do any different from any of the martial sports where competition is the name of the game? I think, in theory, most practitioners will agree that we need these concepts and that their incorporation and use separate our art from many others. I will also say that it has been my experience that people are reluctant to actually examine such concepts or their application in technique. Why, I'm not sure. FWIW.

Note to Paul: You asked earlier about core techniques in grappling. Having you seen the list on page 1, post #8 of this string? I will be publishing this list along with the other techniques and their descriptions by the end of the week on my website. Thoughts and comments, as always, are invited.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

Good call,Stuart. I agree that the core should be used as much as possible. Every "extra" technique comes from a good working knowledge of the core,no? Is that what you were saying?

As Mr. Tomlinson replied,there are definitely different areas of "focus" in similar techniques,but to actually qualify "focus" as seperate entities alltogether,I don't see how that would be helpful to a minimum standard,as one would have to be familiar with the basic application before moving on. If I am way off base on that one,feel free to correct me,Mr. Tomlinson.

Paul

You understand what I'm saying. Good job!

 

[American HKD]

Hmmmm...........

I think I agree in principle, but I'm not sure that I think of a concept quite in those terms. For me it is enough to say that a technique requires a sensitivity for the need for a concept rather than execution requiring a specific kind of concept. I have found that execution of Hapkido techniques requires many different concepts, usually employed in different proportions, depending on the technique. However, I think I am right to say that if a person represents themselves as being a 1st BB in Hapkido one could reasonably expect that person to be familiar with a number of those qualities and be facile in using them in executing a technique. For example, I have been on the mat with folks whose execution was effective, but often only because they are young and strong and can make up for modest performance with force or speed. I have also been on the mat with folks whose technique was not blindingly fast, but whose effectiveness was unquestionable having smoothly taken my balance by misaligning me, redirecting me, untiming me and so forth. Let me put this another way.

In my classes I always run into one or two people who make a big thing about "resistance". The idea seems to be that they want a technique that will work against someone who grabs with a vice-like grip and locks in his entire body behind the grab. Put aside the fact that nobody grabs like this, nor is it feasible that the person grabbing will know whats coming in advance and be able to anticipate the movement selectively, or that dealing with grabs is only one part of the overall curriculum for just a moment. What does such an exercise tell us about practice? That the final deciding point for practice is the end and not the means? In such a case need we abandon the concepts I have mentioned and put our goal as simply defeating our partner. And if defeating our partner is all that there is to Hapkido how is what we do any different from any of the martial sports where competition is the name of the game? I think, in theory, most practitioners will agree that we need these concepts and that their incorporation and use separate our art from many others. I will also say that it has been my experience that people are reluctant to actually examine such concepts or their application in technique. Why, I'm not sure. FWIW.

Note to Paul: You asked earlier about core techniques in grappling. Having you seen the list on page 1, post #8 of this string? I will be publishing this list along with the other techniques and their descriptions by the end of the week on my website. Thoughts and comments, as always, are invited.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Bruce

Good point quality techniques doesn't require unbelievable speed or strenght. In fact speed has many factors to such as timing, smoothness, off balancing, with all these factors in play a technique will work.

A far as vise like grips I think most techniques should be executed before one grabs that tight or you'll have to create an off balance or a strike set-up.

 

[iron_ox]

In my classes I always run into one or two people who make a big thing about "resistance". The idea seems to be that they want a technique that will work against someone who grabs with a vice-like grip and locks in his entire body behind the grab. Put aside the fact that nobody grabs like this, nor is it feasible that the person grabbing will know whats coming in advance and be able to anticipate the movement selectively, or that dealing with grabs is only one part of the overall curriculum for just a moment. What does such an exercise tell us about practice? That the final deciding point for practice is the end and not the means? In such a case need we abandon the concepts I have mentioned and put our goal as simply defeating our partner. And if defeating our partner is all that there is to Hapkido how is what we do any different from any of the martial sports where competition is the name of the game? I think, in theory, most practitioners will agree that we need these concepts and that their incorporation and use separate our art from many others. I will also say that it has been my experience that people are reluctant to actually examine such concepts or their application in technique. Why, I'm not sure. FWIW.

Hello all,

Sorry, tried to stay out of this thread to observe, but the assertion that fights do not start with hard, fast grabs with lots of body english thrown in is wrong. This may be the result of an unfortunate streak of luck to work at some really bad bars, but in countless examples from myself and the other doormen I have trained, grabs ARE very hard, and the body of the aggressor is often solid if not simply following the grab.

Not sure about the meaning of the rest of this paragraph, but Hapkido, among other things is about defense of self and defeat of an opponent. We are not Aikido with some quasi-religious "world peace" agenda...

I believe that reaction to grabs is essential but to say that "no one grabs like that" simply indicates you have been lucky enough to have never been grabbed in a fight.

 

[American HKD]

Hello all,

Sorry, tried to stay out of this thread to observe, but the assertion that fights do not start with hard, fast grabs with lots of body english thrown in is wrong. This may be the result of an unfortunate streak of luck to work at some really bad bars, but in countless examples from myself and the other doormen I have trained, grabs ARE very hard, and the body of the aggressor is often solid if not simply following the grab.

Not sure about the meaning of the rest of this paragraph, but Hapkido, among other things is about defense of self and defeat of an opponent. We are not Aikido with some quasi-religious "world peace" agenda...

I believe that reaction to grabs is essential but to say that "no one grabs like that" simply indicates you have been lucky enough to have never been grabbed in a fight.

Dear Kevin,

To me if your grabed hard and fast it's very hard to apply a lock without a set-up strike or two or your able to quickly off balance the guy.
Maybe you'll be lucky enough to see it comming perphaps you can avoid and redirect.

This brings up a point that's been bothering me since Bruce came back from Korea and started writing about how at that Dojang he was in they trainned with full force grabs and due to thier techniques of Hapki Yu Sul the force didn't matter.
And the rest of HKD from Ji or whom ever was at the level of YuSul so we needed a set-up strike.

I still don't get all that or buy into that fully at this time I need more info.

Thoughts

 

[iron_ox]

Hello Stuart,

I experienced the same thing at a different dojang in Korea, full force grabs etc., but I have always trained like this - the reality is that an unbalance works well, and at times so do set-up strikes, but with proper body mechanics, a technique can be easily applied because the "direction" of the technique is to "break down" the opponent and make compliance easier.

Obviously I cannot make sweeping generalizations about what other schools do, and would not, so not sure how everyone else deals with such grabs.

 

[glad2bhere]

Gees, Louise!!!

I don't think I ever realized how easy it is for folks to take a comment and run with it! How about we slow down for just a bit, 'kay?

First off, I have no problem with being grabbed, or being grabbed "hard". I think it is good training and I am right there with Kevin that I am not teaching some cosmic union between myself and my opponent. I didn't ask the attacker to come after me and I honestly think its part of my responsibility to educate a person who makes a bad choice. No humor intended, here, just a staement of fact. I will even go a step farther and say that part of the character development that I work towards with my students is that they are learning to execute some pretty nasty techniques on others and they need the development so as not to misuse their skills. OK So Far?

The second point is that I don't consider a person who knows what I am going to do before I do it, effectively knows what the result is expected to be, and can easily assume that I will (in the final analysis) not do anything that would truely hurt him an authentic application of skill. The attacker on the street get no such considerations. In this way (and in this way only) do I discount the use of such "total body lock-out" kinds of grabs.

Lastly, I do not eschew the role of pre-emptive strikes. Ueyshiba is said to have stated that Aikido is "90% atemi" (See: Shioda). As far as the execution of yu sool level Hapkido I use pre-emptive strikes and kicks all the time. When I practice Hapkiyusool level Hapkido I purposely elect NOT to use strikes or kicks to "soften-up" my partner as an additional challenge to polishing my accuracy and attention to detail. I hope this helps.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[glad2bhere]

After I wrote the last post I had a thought.

Lets say I am teaching my Hapkido class and rather than use the standard yu sool response, I elect to use the hapkiyusool equivalent. I wonder how many reading this post would consider that a misuse of material. Certainly I don't want to be seen to fumble and fuss, and I always want to look like I am in complete control of what is going on, but would I be stepping across some unseen line to use a technique or skill which the typical student in my class is not privey to succeed and then require my students to make do with what might be (arguably) a lesser skill? Thoughts? Comments?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

Bruce


......As far as the execution of yu sool level Hapkido I use pre-emptive strikes and kicks all the time. When I practice Hapkiyusool level Hapkido I purposely elect NOT to use strikes or kicks to "soften-up" my partner as an additional challenge to polishing my accuracy and attention to detail. I hope this helps....

Bruce

At this Hapkiyusool level are you saying the techniques will work just a well from that hard and fast grab as the Yu Sool level Hapkido?

If so are you saying at Hapkiyusool level there's never a need to strike due the effectiveness of this level of technique?

And what might be the difference if you can explain why one level may out class the other?

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Stuart:

I need to keep clarifiying this because it is very easy to get something going around that is not accurate. Let me take these separately.

".....At this Hapkiyusool level are you saying the techniques will work just a well from that hard and fast grab as the Yu Sool level Hapkido? ...."

Within the context of a training atmosphere I find that the hapkiyusool techniques work better than the yu sool techniques. What would happen out on the street, I have absolutely no idea. Within the controlled environment of training the hapkiyusool ounce-fer-ounce is better.

"......If so are you saying at Hapkiyusool level there's never a need to strike due the effectiveness of this level of technique?...."

The key word is "need". I must say that whether I was using yu sool level or hapkiyusool level, if I was attacked my response would undoubtedly start with a strike or kick. Thats me and thats the way I indoctrinate my students. The choice to train without a pre-emptive strike is a training concession that forces me to be more accurate and detailed in my execution. I am sure that the assumption is that my execution on the street would only be the better for this approach.

".......And what might be the difference if you can explain why one level may out class the other?....."

Sorry, but I really think that you are viewing this in a very inaccurate way. You might as well ask which is "better" ---- Checkers or Chess. Being "out-classed" does not enter into this. You might as well represent that Ji has wasted his life when he could have learned something much more sophisticated, yes? To my way of thinking thats not the way it works. Ji is happy with what he does. Myung is happy with what he does. Sims is happy with what he did and not has moved on to a refinement. To my way of thinking its the same as my sword. I could have stayed with the bamboo sword work of Myung, but why? There are other levels to move up to with sword. Are we, as practitioners, not mandated to exceed our teachers, and our students to exceed us? Thoughts? Comments?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Disco]

Whether it's realized or not, we at some point in training partake of both Hapkiyusool and Yu Sool. Example; the wrist grabs. How many are taught without the use of a strike to insure accomplishment? Pressure point techniques are another example. Just offering this up to attempt to tie the two together.

 

[American HKD]

Dear Stuart:

I need to keep clarifiying this because it is very easy to get something going around that is not accurate. Let me take these separately.

".....At this Hapkiyusool level are you saying the techniques will work just a well from that hard and fast grab as the Yu Sool level Hapkido? ...."

Within the context of a training atmosphere I find that the hapkiyusool techniques work better than the yu sool techniques. What would happen out on the street, I have absolutely no idea. Within the controlled environment of training the hapkiyusool ounce-fer-ounce is better.

"......If so are you saying at Hapkiyusool level there's never a need to strike due the effectiveness of this level of technique?...."

The key word is "need". I must say that whether I was using yu sool level or hapkiyusool level, if I was attacked my response would undoubtedly start with a strike or kick. Thats me and thats the way I indoctrinate my students. The choice to train without a pre-emptive strike is a training concession that forces me to be more accurate and detailed in my execution. I am sure that the assumption is that my execution on the street would only be the better for this approach.

".......And what might be the difference if you can explain why one level may out class the other?....."

Sorry, but I really think that you are viewing this in a very inaccurate way. You might as well ask which is "better" ---- Checkers or Chess. Being "out-classed" does not enter into this. You might as well represent that Ji has wasted his life when he could have learned something much more sophisticated, yes? To my way of thinking thats not the way it works. Ji is happy with what he does. Myung is happy with what he does. Sims is happy with what he did and not has moved on to a refinement. To my way of thinking its the same as my sword. I could have stayed with the bamboo sword work of Myung, but why? There are other levels to move up to with sword. Are we, as practitioners, not mandated to exceed our teachers, and our students to exceed us? Thoughts? Comments?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

I'm just trying understand something:

1. Why is Hapkiyu Sool better maybe you missing something in your own system like correct way to off balancing someone, or setting up the techniques or use of your foot work better to make the technique work?

I find that many HKD people have'nt went deep enough or were never taught how to really make the techniques work. And I think it's the way HKD taught that's the problem not this or that level.

If you check out some Aikido or Daito Ryu they still teach many principles and they they apply in real life that seems to have been left out of the Hapkido.

2. In your curriculum there's nothing in it thats like Hapkiyu Sool at all?