Traditional HRD Syllabus:pros vs. cons?

[glad2bhere]

"....However, we do have names for them as well (most) which does make initial learning and recall easier. Both sides of the coin, if you will...."

Do you use both Korean and English or one or the other?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Paul B]

Bob: I noticed before you said "point style sparring"...Is that just kicks and punches,no locks or throws?


Bruce: I am really curious about your take on "freestyle". I can understand your veiwpoint (kinda,not being a vet myself) on it "not being the same"...but do you think it offers nothing as way of "feedback"?

I am talking about a...sorry..."Aiki" style randori. Pre-selected attacks at the beginning,the lines between thrower and throwee get blurred later on as more resistance is added. I do see the problem about holding back on techniques that are meant to break,but I think that comes with the "if you break your partner,you don't get another one" philosophy we hold to while practicing regularly.

Let me just state that I am not talking about a points style match. It's meant to be a flowing excercise and to help people with making appropriate decisions regarding technique and movement. I personally think it helps by raising the stress level a bit,so one has just a taste of making decisions in real time.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Paul:

If what I am understanding you to decribe is anywhere accurate, there is a tradition of such training across the martial arts of China, Japan and Korea and there continue to be artifacts of such past practices still found today. The first bit that pops to mind are the "Push Hands" activities still found in Tai Chi. Likewise there are a number of "give-and-take" drills done by such established traditions as the Tesshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu sword people. The second half of the Kwon Bup Chapter of the MYTBTJ is likewise paired work as are the two-man kata of Judo, Aikido and Shorinji Kempo. On a more informal note I have participated in "flow-drills" with partners and can encourage those activities for the spontaneity it brings to the response or "problem-solving" one might need in using their material. The use of these drills would not require any "adding-to" an existing curriculum as they are simply a varied way of practicing material and might easily fall under the category of "multi-step sparring" (as compared to the better-known "one-step"). In such activities resistance, speed, contact, authority and finish are all negotiated to stress insight and awareness. Competition and intensity are viewed as counter-productive.

There are times when I write responses that my beliefs may not come across clearly so it never hurts to occasionally state it flat-out. I don't have a problem with change in the Korean MA, but I believe that it should very much be the rare exception and ONLY after existing material already known to the arts has been learned, examined and found lacking. I cannot see introducing material from outside the KMA when practices and material from INSIDE the KMA has not first been used and mastered. FWIW.

BTW: Since I know that you have a background in Hapkido arts, such "flow-drills" are often a part of "transitions" training which in the kwan to which I belong occur about 2nd BB. A transition is a technique whose foundation is the failure of the previous technique and is vary often confused with "counters" training often with disasterous results to the technique and confidence of the practitioner. One "flow-drill" with which I am familiar requires a trading back and forth of techniques with each practiioner exploiting the "failure" of the others' technique. Building on this a partner can do the same thing trading transitions back and forth but it requires a bit higher level of sophistication so as to make sure one can keep track of who is doing what and to whom.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Bob D.]

Hi Paul, WHRDA had "point sparring" which was basically kick-punch. I never really participated at the schools where this was practiced. They also do one step as well as three step "sparring" which as you probably know is choreagraphed attack-response sets. Advanced students would on rare occasions practice joint manipulation flow drills in a very relaxed, non-resistive form. If you would like to know more about methods we use (non WHRDA) and types of rondori or sparring we should start another thread on the subject.

HRD is an art that is entirely the creation of one Korean man who put together elements of Chinese Paqua-Chin NA, Japanese DRAJJ, Possably Shotokan, Korean Taekyon, (and just possibley some form of martial practice from Korean Buddhist monk???). So, with precedent, my instructors and the group I currently train/teach with have alway used usefull techniques, drills, theories, whatever from other sources to inhance our art. To us HRD is not some historical doctrine to be maintained unchanged. Dressing up for historical reinactment is great to honor those that came before but is a very small portion of what we're about. We are doing nothing the founder didn't do in regards to shaping the art to fit our needs/concerns. Actually we go further in trying to make learning more effecient (faster/easier), to make the syllabus more "well rounded" (ground work, etc.) and to modernize (latest fitness/training/equipment). There are no limitations. We (most) still maintain the "Base" art as a standard. But it changes and grows and as you can see from other instructors posts, we're careful that nothing is lost. I and most of the people I train with directly are/have been either police officers, bodyguards or active military. We use our training or train people that do on a daily basis, so keeping "up to date" and drawing from different sources is a valuable asset.

 

[Paul B]

Good stuff,guys!

The reason that this really piqued my interest is that at the recent Arnold Classic in Ohio,I was privy to see some well known Hapkido masters sit down and try to come up with a way to introduce Hapkido "sparring" in a competition setting.

The common theme that abounded was one of concern for safety and the resulting effect on people's training for competition exclusively. One can readily see the effect on some Judoka training exclusively for shiai,and the resulting neglect of material contained in the Kata,which are where the "essence" of Judo lies,IMO. While this may not be the best comparison,I think you get my drift.

So the hard part is,to me....How do you practice in,or for, competition w/o losing sight of your original goals as a martial artist? The resulting effect would have to be a kind of watering down for public consumption,to attract more people to the art. Which is really what this is all about,ne?

I think it may be more beneficial for following the "flow drill" or problem solving approach where control of technique and proper usage are used as a kind of "point system",than to have an all out free-for-all,where if I can touch you,I get a point. Thoughts?

The reason I ask is because this is going to happen,one way or the other. When it does,I think it would be in all our best interests to really take a long,deep look and ask ourselves what effect this is going to have on our prospective Arts. Thanks guys.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Paul:

".....The reason I ask is because this is going to happen,one way or the other. When it does,I think it would be in all our best interests to really take a long,deep look and ask ourselves what effect this is going to have on our prospective Arts. ....."

Yes, it may happen. It does not have to happen but it may. I think the question is what we want to do about our responsibility to the arts we have inherited.

Lets look at your point about Judo. With its acceptance to the Olympics people began to shy away from groundwork since groundwork and chokes were not allowed in Olympic competition. Those kata and waza are going harder and harder to find. And remember Judo was a subset of at least three forms of Ju-jutsu and THOSE are getting harder to find.

Lets look at Kumdo. 90% of the people who practice Kumdo are essentially training in Kendo-- for competition. Its getting harder and harder to find the original Korean traditional sword but then you can't compete in that except by virtue of kata.

Lets look at TKD and TSD. Neither of these was ever much more than a martial sport. When people wanted to make it more of a martial art they drew on Japanese tradition and its harder and harder to find people who still train in Kwon Bup, Ship Pal Gwe, Kyong Dang and so forth.

Now if what we are talking about is just learning to fight competitively there are plenty of activities where a person can learn this. Why do we need to corrupt a Korean art and bend it around to the American way of thinking? This thread started with the idea of changing a curriculum. My response was why not learn to use the Korean material in some better way. We have been entrusted with an artifact of a culture and I don't hear anyone making a case for the Wol-do, Chang bong, or hyup-do. All I am hearing is that so-&-so art doesn't seem to be good as it is for competition. Makes sense. It was never intended for competition. Why is suddenly important to take something that was not intended for competition and alter it for a use for which it was not intended? Money? Prestige? Adulation? Power? Why not just go learn BJJ. Thats what that activity is all about. Its not like anyone is considering whether or not these changes will impact the cultural underpinnings of the art, are they? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Bob D.]

Paul:

So the hard part is,to me....How do you practice in,or for, competition w/o losing sight of your original goals as a martial artist? The resulting effect would have to be a kind of watering down for public consumption,to attract more people to the art. Which is really what this is all about,ne?

First, can I address the whole "competition" word being thrown around here?
I don't utilize sparring, grapplin, rondori for "Competition", never have. I utilize them for what you seem to be after.
The issue of how to get practical training of Hapkido type techniques without maiming each other has always been of concern to our group. What we've come up with is in part along the lines you've suggested. After a certian level of proficeincy in joint locks/throws the flow drills are introduced. The opponent simpley allows the transitions to happen but does not move unless made to do so. He's not resisting but also not going with it without proper technique being used. It's the opponent job to provide feedback so the student can correct until seemless transitions with good mechanics, posture, balance are achieved.
The second part of the process is more spontanious, dangerous and combative. I purposfully use the word "combative" as opposed to "competitive" as the participants are aware of the differences. Winning or loseing is not an issue as far as a result of the training goes.
It is somewhat "freestyle" but both know how far to take things and are hyper aware of their opponents reactions. Of course full vibration or shock to the Joint still cannot be used but it's the closest we've been able to get. We generally use cup, mouth piece as contact is full speed (and may use NHB type glove). The key is, it is inner circle students who know each other and ego or outcome are not part of the mindset. If one finds themselve in an obviously correct lock or submission they immeadiatly tap and start again on their own. Its about the process and the learning, thats it. Injuries, knockouts have happened but everyone has always walked away without anything serious. Cardio conditioning is a must as you'll find out. You can do "rounds" or just go until you've both had enough. I like round robins to experience a different partner every 4-5 minutes. Again feedback is very important to the process. You can stipulate that only traditional techniques may be used or not. Trust, obviously is a factor. Oh, and a third person watching is also recommended for further safety.
It may not be for you but it works for us until something better.

 

[Paul B]

The issue of how to get practical training of Hapkido type techniques without maiming each other has always been of concern to our group.

It sounds like you have a good group,Bob.

Its about the process and the learning

So you don't plan on having HRD tourney's or competing in open events? That's how I use the word competition,meaning participating in tournaments. The whole "winning and losing" thing. I think if it's something that you do in your own class or group for personal growth,more power to you.

I like round robins

Me too! Sounds like we share some terminology...cool.

You can stipulate that only traditional techniques may be used or not

Would you mind explaining this statement? It has been recently pointed out to me that maybe if I think I need to go outside the system,I'm just not looking hard enough at the principles of what I'm doing. I thought it was excellent advice.:asian:

 

[Bob D.]

So you don't plan on having HRD tourney's or competing in open events? That's how I use the word competition,meaning participating in tournaments. The whole "winning and losing" thing. I think if it's something that you do in your own class or group for personal growth,more power to you.

No, Not my bag. I would certianly encourage younger stundents to participate in those events. In my 20's I trained fullcontact kickboxing within my school twice a week as well as outside with the guys I worked with. A few of them where pros on the WKA/PKA circut, Ted Anderson, Mark Costello, Ricky Ocane. During the latter part of that time I was focused on bodyguard work and geared my training toward that. I still try and spar once or twice a week to stay sharp and work on different movements and set ups.

Would you mind explaining this statement? It has been recently pointed out to me that maybe if I think I need to go outside the system,I'm just not looking hard enough at the principles of what I'm doing. I thought it was excellent advice

Well, 1. Are the principles sound and how do you know?
2. as has been suggested by someone else earlier, no system is really complete. So how do you know if there is not a better way to do something if your stuck within the limits of you teacher/style? (Your teacher may be exceptional, I don't know)
Sure, you could explore it for another 8 - 10 years and maybe figure it out. Or maybe your lucky enough to have an instructor that can spell it out so you can learn it in this lifetime.
I've worked with many master instructors from many different arts and while most are great at what they know, few can teach it effeciently. Fewer have that elusive ability to do technique with a subtlety and power that make it seem magical. There is an instructor in San Diego that has that ability and is able to teach it, John Clodig. He moves me across the mat with these principles and makes it look like he's out for a walk in the park. I don't see or feel his locks until I'm already on my way down to the mat. The more I fight it the worse it is of course. The actual techniques (joint locks) are really not whats important in what he does, it's in the body mechanics and "key moves" as he calls them. It took him 30 years or so to get and be able to use them but he has developed a way he can teach it to an already advanced student in a relatively short time. His less experienced (less traditional backround) students are able to work on these concepts while learning their system, so they'll be that much further ahead of the curve as they advance. Sorry, side tracked.
I think doing both would be most beneficial as stated. If the principle is sound, I don't think it matters where it comes from.

 

[Paul B]

Good stuff,Bob. I agree,principles are what's important. Some people may know how to be able to show them,and some may only know that the technique works because their body mechanics have made it work *for them*.

I have been extremely lucky in my studies to have come across a few teachers who have pointed these things out to me. For myself...I still have a looong way to go.

I wish you the greatest of luck with your study. It sounds like you have a great outlook on the MA,and the best of intentions regarding your students. It's been a pleasure conversing with you.

 

[Bob D.]

...I still have a looong way to go.

Ha, don't we all! Good luck in your training/teaching! Bob

 

[Bob D.]

Paul, I was meaning to ask, Do you currently do some sort of Hapkido competition? How is it done?
Also how long have you been in the arts? Just Hapkido?
Just curious what your up to as it seems Hapkido around the country has differing curriculums.
regards, Bob

 

[Paul B]

Bob,

The competition we do is more of a freestyle excercise as I described before. However,the recent additions to the Hapkido division at the Arnold make it look like we (as an Org)will be trying out some sparring in a competition setting. I am really not sure how that will go yet,as it is very much a work in progress. There is a ton of work ahead,but hopefully it will be for the better.

I have been studying MA for a tad under a decade,*Jeesh,time flies huh?* and exclusively Hapkido now for 4 yrs. Chodan. I know...still very much a newbie.

 

[Mithios]

Interesting thread! The Shudokan (Tomiki) Aikido people have a sparring and randori program, and what your talking about sounds close to that. maybe you could get some more ideas from that?

Mithios

 

[lulflo]

I don't know that I have enough information to draw from (four and a half years), but in my experience so far, it has been beneficial to learn the whole syllabus and then add to it. For instance, instead of the same follow up for each technique, change it up to have many different scenarios to finish with. Also with Kwon bop, instead of the same strike after the initial combination of movement, I have been given alternate strikes (instead of back fist and punch, add outside knife hand and spear hand). I don't think it is changing the curriculum per se, just enhancing and mixing it up to cover more ground. I know the other strikes already, its just putting them into the mix to ADD to the information that is already there.

I have also noticed that there is not that much information on grappling yet, and that is something that I believe should be implemented much earlier as well. Again, I would not want to remove anything from the art, but to add as an additional fighting distance. I have learned the idea of fighting distances, gun, bow and arrow, staff, sword, shorter weapons like dan bong(sp?) and then kicks and punches, then joint manipulation and throws. But what happens next, when the "clinch" takes place and the inside fighting begins. A little wrestling background will get you somewhere, but not that far as you try to keep from getting pinned on your back. I need to be comfortable on my back and be able to stop punches and arm bars, etc.

I am part of the philosophy that everything I know is not better or worse, it is in addition to everything you know, likewise, everything you know is information that I want to know, not better or worse, just more information. In fact even information that is not good, is really good, because now I know that I shouldn't do this or that. I hope I am making sense.

So my conclusion in all of this is that I will teach all of the Traditional HRD that I have learned and I will also supplement it with More information that I have learned. I think that was the way HRD came about, wasn't it?

Farang - Larry O'Day

 

[floweringknight]

Larry - You are correct that the Art itself, must continue to evolve. Remember, one day you will be teaching Larry-HRD. It will still be the same art that your teachers are teaching you now; it will merely be reflecting your personality. As you grow; so does your "way". Think about the HRD you are learning from your teachers; and how different each of their "way(s)" is?...Sometimes it doesn't even seem like the same art. Yet, upon further investigation and deeper understanding, they wind up in the same exact place!

I do agree with you to some extent. A majority of the grappling / ground fighting "basics" are addressed in the Black Belt ranks, and I concure this is much later than it should be. What rank would you add ground fighting to?

 

[floweringknight]

Bob - I have gathered from your posts here that your main "beef" with the syllabus is the "how" of it; as opposed to the "what" of it. In other words, you agree basically with the material, but have concerns regarding how it is being (has been) taught. Is this generally correct? Just trying to understand.

 

[lulflo]

SBN Bailey - A thought had occured that perhaps some of the defensive grappling should be taught before purple belt - since most of the techniques up to that point are "defense from" techniques. Then at purple belt, more of the offensive applications of grappling. I would say white belt would be a good place to learn the mount and the guard with respect to positioning of the body and limbs, etc. Then graduate a little bit in orange belt to understand how to change positions from the mount to the guard and vice versa so one could gain an understanding of the need to feel the energy of the opponent(which would flow right into yellow belt for techiques too) and also learn breath control - it is tough to grapple for a long time without learning how to control the breath, I know the importance of this part all too well . Yellow belt could incorporate some of the defenses after a joint lock so there is a way to continue defending after the flip fall, roll, etc.

I am not any kind of authority on grappling, so I can not go much further than this. Again, I would never want to take anything away from this art, but would love to be able to bring more together for everyone's enlightenment.

Farang - Larry

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Luflo:

"......A thought had occured that perhaps some of the defensive grappling should be taught before purple belt - since most of the techniques up to that point are "defense from" techniques. Then at purple belt, more of the offensive applications of grappling. I would say white belt would be a good place to learn the mount and the guard with respect to positioning of the body and limbs, etc. Then graduate a little bit in orange belt to understand how to change positions from the mount to the guard and vice versa so one could gain an understanding of the need to feel the energy of the opponent(which would flow right into yellow belt for techiques too) and also learn breath control - it is tough to grapple for a long time without learning how to control the breath, I know the importance of this part all too well . Yellow belt could incorporate some of the defenses after a joint lock so there is a way to continue defending after the flip fall, roll, etc....."

I cited such a large piece because it covers a good-sized chunck of a curriculum. I can see a lot of references to how material from outside of HRD (in this case) could be added. What I DON'T see are any references to the groundwork taught in HRD itself. Hapkido arts have groundwork, though not all that much. How come there are no references to any of the HRD groundwork as it might relate to the things you would add from someplace else? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[lulflo]

Hello Mr Sims. - I understand that there is some groundwork in HRD, but it is very limited at this point (red sash). I am under the impression that grappling/ground fighting is something that I will have to look forward to in the realm of black belt. I am curious though, what groundwork are you specifically referring to? I don't know of any specific criteria within the color belts that directly relates to a grappling situation. I would like to find something to add to the criteria that can be performed in a testing environment, so any insight you can provide will be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your comments!

Farang - Larry