Traditional Training Styles - importance of non-compliant training

I am speaking about starting by grabbing with full resistance, doing Hapkido training without actually applying full resistance is not really worthwhile.

Says you. We find our training methods work just fine and our hapkido to be quite worthwhile.

I understand how you could come to that conclusion as I have seen hapkido practiced that I don't believe would be effective if put to the test.

But you are making a sweeping generalization that I know to be untrue ("doing Hapkido training without actually applying full resistance is not really worthwhile").

The hapkido I train in has been put to the test since Day One and found to be very effective. So where does that leave your theory?



In my opinion, a strike is a strike, not a distraction - if you don't understand the body mechanics, train until you do! If, for whatever reason, you are grabbed in a fight, breaking an opponents knee is a bad idea as you will get dragged down.

Again, the point is that strikes are not necessary to make a technique work.

I agree that "a strike is a strike." Even for somebody who knows body mechanics, a strike can be useful in creating an opening for another technique.

In regards to breaking an attacker's knee: breaking a knee is harder than some people think it is to pull off. But then, I don't think that breaking a knee automatically ensures you would be "dragged down" either.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? How does a knee break as a response result in always being taken down? I can see that it might be a possibility depending on the circumstances, but that isn't what you've written: "you will get dragged down" indicates this is the only possible outcome of responding with successful knee break.


OK, but I am talking about what was referenced above which is having to use striking to make a technique work, I believe you are talking about a different idea. In any case, the technique itself should be based on your opponents offense, and at that point his direction should be predetermined.

Does your branch of hapkido only include responses to attacks, no ability to launch an attack?

Sogor, I don't know if your hapkido is as good as you think it is, but I am sure of two things:

1) There is plenty of good hapkido out there that uses training methods you are insisting results in hapkido that is not "worthwhile";

2) As you come across to me as someone who thinks they are the only one who understands hapkido, it seems to me that you either lack communication skills or critical thinking skills if you honestly think other hapkido practitioners are so ignorant about hapkido.
 
OK, but I am talking about what was referenced above which is having to use striking to make a technique work, I believe you are talking about a different idea. In any case, the technique itself should be based on your opponents offense, and at that point his direction should be predetermined.

I think we are talking about the same thing but maybenot. I basically was saying because I understand “Reaction Dynamics”, if Ideliver a strike to the solar-plexus and they bend over from the strike andtheir energy is moving at a downward motion then a hip throw or an outer wristthrow would be out. I would be betteroff kneeing them in the face or pulling them forward or elbowing them in theback of the neck because that is exposed.
I see all too often, people strike to the center of theirattacker to off balance them and try to get them to go the totally oppositedirection that they would fall.

I personally do not off balance people with strikes. I off balance them with my body movement. I do not discredit anyones Hapkido that does. It is just not my flavor of the art.

Just my take on it. Like I said, perhaps we are talking about two different things.
 
Non-compliant training is very important ...
It's confusion to use the term "non-compliant training". It's better to call it "compiliant training" and "non-compliiant testing".

If you want your training partner to help you to develop your "hip throw", the moment that you touch him, the moment that he sinks down, there is no way that you can develop your "hip throw" by using him as your training partner.

When you

- "train", your opponent wants to "help" you as much as possible.
- "test", your opponent wants to "fight/resist" you as much as possible.

Does this make sense?
 
It's confusion to use the term "non-compliant training". It's better to call it "compiliant training" and "non-compliiant testing".

If you want your training partner to help you to develop your "hip throw", the moment that you touch him, the moment that he sinks down, there is no way that you can develop your "hip throw" by using him as your training partner.

When you

- "train", your opponent wants to "help" you as much as possible.
- "test", your opponent wants to "fight/resist" you as much as possible.

Does this make sense?

For me, YES. That is how we train. Also, we do drills simular to zDoms video to create "MUSHIN" or "NO MIND" so the techniques just happens without us thinking about it. If you have to think to do a technique, then it most likely be countered. Most of my best defenses just happen without me thinking about it.

I believe in going with a technique to get the movement down. I also beleive in "non-compliiant testing". That is why I travel to other styles that spar like BJJ or Judo schools and try to use my Hapkido. They really try to resist because who wants to get thrown by someone in Hapkido?

My point earlier about not downing eacher was made because hapkido has a bad reputation with some of the other arts out there. I agree with both Iron_Ox and Zdom. There are some schools of Hapkido that don't get what Choi was teaching but as Zdom stated, there are a lot of great HAPKIDO out there. I like to think, even though I train in other systems and my Grandmaster only reached 6th Dan under Grandmaster Choi, my Hapkido is among the best. I would also like to say that there are probably a lot of guys and girls that have some top notch Hapkido just as good as mine on this site as well.

Just my two cents.
 
In my opinion, a strike is a strike, not a distraction - if you don't understand the body mechanics, train until you do! If, for whatever reason, you are grabbed in a fight, breaking an opponents knee is a bad idea as you will get dragged down.

Again, the point is that strikes are not necessary to make a technique work.

But then, when you've got control of your attacker, what would you do? Are you going to keep them in a hold forever? I'd want to make sure I can walk away without them following me.

I think maybe we're not quite talking about the same thing? If you mean that you shouldn't need to strike to be able to move somebody into an arm bar or wrist lock, I do agree with that. I just think that a strike can supplement the technique, or be another way of dealing with the situation.
 
It's confusion to use the term "non-compliant training". It's better to call it "compiliant training" and "non-compliiant testing".

If you want your training partner to help you to develop your "hip throw", the moment that you touch him, the moment that he sinks down, there is no way that you can develop your "hip throw" by using him as your training partner.

When you

- "train", your opponent wants to "help" you as much as possible.
- "test", your opponent wants to "fight/resist" you as much as possible.

Does this make sense?

I understand what you are saying, but I am referring specifically to non-compliant training...that is a help in the development of the technique to work under real world conditions.
 
But then, when you've got control of your attacker, what would you do? Are you going to keep them in a hold forever? I'd want to make sure I can walk away without them following me.

I think maybe we're not quite talking about the same thing? If you mean that you shouldn't need to strike to be able to move somebody into an arm bar or wrist lock, I do agree with that. I just think that a strike can supplement the technique, or be another way of dealing with the situation.

Holds are mostly for training in the dojang, i prefer to finish with breaks...tends to end confrontation faster.

I was referring to the specific practice of the "deception strike" - it is unneeded with proper body mechanics.
 
I am referring specifically to non-compliant training...that is a help in the development of the technique to work under real world conditions.

Could you give some examples about "non-compliant training"?

Here are my examples of "non-compliant training".

You try to:

- punch me but I keep running away from you (non-compliant).
- throw me, I fall down myself (non-compliant) and drag you down with me.

My non-compliant respond won't be able to help you to develop any striking skill or throwing skill. I must miss something here.
 
Last edited:
- punch me but I keep running away from you (non-compliant).
- throw me, I fall down myself (non-compliant) and drag you down with me.

I only teach attacks to my students so they can be used in as Uke's in class. I teach attacking as a Hoshinsool Technique. In my humble opinion, if the attacker does not attack you, he is not an attacker and there for no need to defend.

The 2nd point is very valid. A BJJ player will do just that. If you do not know the correct counter to this the BJJ guy will get you on the ground and do bad things to you.

At the BJJ schools I have attended, I have been off my feet only once the last 10 years and that was from a collage wrestler that was visting. I finished the match with an arm bar. Other than him, no one has taken me off my feet so they can not work their BJJ ground magic. Now, the instructor will make us start on the ground and then after purple belt level I am owned, if we are playing by rules.

Just my two cents.
 
if the attacker does not attack you, he is not an attacker and there for no need to defend.

The 2nd point is very valid. A BJJ player will do just that.
So your example is your opponent tries to attack you and you respond to it. Do you get that from your sparring anyway?

When your opponent drags you down, you are training your "ground" skill. You are not training your "throwing" skill. You can't develop your throwing skill if your opponent refuses to stand on his feet. If your opponent stands on his feet, by definition, his is not "non-complient".

On the other hand, if you want to train your ground skill and when you use "jump guard", your opponent stands on his feet and holds your body up in the air, he is not helping you to train your ground skill either.

To me the word "non-compliant" is "don't give your opponent any chance". It's more than "resist". This is why I think the word "non-compliant" is not proper to use in "training".
 
Last edited:
Could you give some examples about "non-compliant training"?

Here are my examples of "non-compliant training".

You try to:

- punch me but I keep running away from you (non-compliant).
- throw me, I fall down myself (non-compliant) and drag you down with me.

My non-compliant respond won't be able to help you to develop any striking skill or throwing skill. I must miss something here.

In Hapkido, much of the early training relates to grabs from an opponent, so a simple example of non-compliant training is the grab being done with force, and purpose, not just like holding hands. Is that more understandable?
 
Hey, everybody... Let's try to keep things friendly, OK?

Are you talking to me? I just try to understand the definition of ""non-compliant training". I understand "non-compliant" and "training", but I have problem to understand "non-compliant training". Examples will be the best communication tool.
 
Are you talking to me? I just try to understand the definition of ""non-compliant training". I understand "non-compliant" and "training", but I have problem to understand "non-compliant training". Examples will be the best communication tool.

No, you were not being addressed.

Did my example make sense to you? Many "Hapkido" schools use loose grabbing, and jumping into throws....which is contradictory to the development of the techniques.
 
In Hapkido, much of the early training relates to grabs from an opponent, so a simple example of non-compliant training is the grab being done with force, and purpose, not just like holding hands. Is that more understandable?
Thanks for the example. I think I start to get some idea now.

So you are talking about the amount of force that your training partner should apply to you. If the grabbing is pre-defined, I will still call it "compliant". Should the amout of force be suitable to your training partner instead? If you have a pair of monster grips and your opponent is a beginner, since he can't break your grip, he won't be able to train the follow up technique. Your monster grib may only help him to develop strength but not technique.
 
Last edited:
Are you talking to me? I just try to understand the definition of ""non-compliant training". I understand "non-compliant" and "training", but I have problem to understand "non-compliant training". Examples will be the best communication tool.

No single person was addressed. We try to use the least moderation possible here at MT, so often friendly general reminders show up when we think a problem is starting. Kind of like putting out a forest fire by making sure the match is out rather than waiting for the whole forest to go up... These are generally unsigned, kind of vague statements, broadly addressed. Formal warning are generally indicated by headings like "ATTENTION ALL USERS" and are signed by the staff member.
 
At least from the fights I am getting into in my job, a little bit of non compliance helps, but as long as the techniques are sound, and you execute them as they are supposed to be, you're good.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
I agree that your training partner should increase power when you are ready. I don't agree that your opponent should do so when you are not ready for it.
 
No, you were not being addressed.

Did my example make sense to you? Many "Hapkido" schools use loose grabbing, and jumping into throws....which is contradictory to the development of the techniques.


I too have seen that type of "hapkido." But that is just bad practitioners or bad instructors.



When a new student shows up on the mat, and is shown a technique, I hope he grabs hard and resists: it always makes the technique MORE effective.

But then when I show it to him, I grip firmly (not rigidly with all my strength) but allow him to make the movements with no resistance so he moves in correct motion. At times when I see him doing something wrong, resisting some can show him how it won't work. But then I relax somewhat to allow him to get repetitions without using strength to wrestle with me — which will inevitably throw off the correct motion unless it is already well-trained.

Later we have techniques we practice against full resistance: my instructor said he wants to see our wrists hairless because the gripping has worn it away. And it HURTS to be the guy grabbing hard. Much worse than standing around with a firm, relaxed grip. And — I don't trust beginning belts to do wrist techniques against my resistance: they don't have the "feel" for the technique to realize when they have overcome resistance and stop the motion before it becomes an injury.



Now regarding jumping into throws:

There is one technique we jump to unwind a twisted wrist. I've seen these included in many branches of hapkido. We know it won't make anybody fly through the air. But when I'm doing it, them jumping and breakfalling allows me to crank the wrist-twisting motion further, pull their weight harder.


With throws that REALLY take people off a foot or both feet so they fall into the ground, when I have a new, weaker student I might jump into the throw a bit to make myself lighter (progressive resistance training works, as weightlifters know)

and to make sure I don't get lawn-darted into the mat! New student often can get me up just far enough to drop me on my head/shoulder, sometimes collapse under my weight.

For a more experienced student, however, I might lower my center of gravity, lean back, tighten up to make me heavier, them work hard for it and build strength — but I am not going to squirm in the air to avoid a good breakfall landing like they do in judo competition to deprive opponent of a point. Instead, I am going to "fall" and attack the mat with a good breakfall position. I'll probably start that thought process as soon as my feet are off the mat — so I'm not "jumping" at all — I'm just tucking my head to protect my head and neck and chambering/striking the mat with my hand and feet.

If a technique is going to jerk my feet off balance to face plant me, if it can be managed I'll flip and breakfall to my back. Front falls with my hips and feet above me driving my head and shoulders into the mat are no fun. We know attackers aren't going to do that and make that point clear on each of the throws. Even with a hip or shoulder throw, they probably aren't going to come down on their back, but will starfish their arms and legs out and tumble-crumple into the ground. Ouch.

And then there are a few throws in which the technique locks the elbow out. If you wait for the elbow to lock out and the throw to move you without committing your balance or even jumping ahead of it, it can be super painful and an injury risk.

What does it profit us to train a martial art to protect ourself from injury from attackers if we injure ourselves regularly training?


Finally, if my falling skill is being tested or I am being being thrown repeatedly so a thrower can get full throw reps, I am not jumping — but I am relaxing until the moment before impact (when I "attack" the mat).

Getting thrown 20 times in 30 seconds like that is exhausting enough, a high-intensity exercise.

Trying to resist 20 throws would be SUPER high intensity exercise.
 
Last edited:
I agree that your training partner should increase power when you are ready. I don't agree t. t your opponent should do so when you are not ready for it.


The point is that Choi . Dojunim's Hapkido is designed to be taught, and learned with non-compliant, or strong, opponents. The techniques are designed to be learned in as close to real world circumstances as possible.

The importance of this training ensures that even from early training, students have a good idea of real world conflicts.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top