add on Hapkido

[dancingalone]

][/B]
Shomen rimi nage is one that could be dumbed-down as a clothesline.

You are right! I transposed the two techniques when I was editing my post. Appreciate the correction. -DA

 

[MrBigglesworth]

You are right! I transposed the two techniques when I was editing my post. Appreciate the correction. -DA

No worries.
I don't know enough about HKD yet (let alone where style A calls it X and style B calls it Y) to comment, so I have to stick with what I know. :wink1:

 

[chrispillertkd]

I do not know if you can answer this, but how thoroughly was the hapkido material integrated into the Chang Hon system? Was it literally an add on or was it integrated to accommodate the style of movement and fighting philosophy of Chang Hon taekwondo?

Daniel

I'm not the poster to whom you originally directed your question, but I am a V dan through the ITF (under Gen. Choi's son) so might be able to shed a little light on things.

Gen. Choi in his text books talks about the "Cycle of Taekwon-Do" which is visualized as a circle and made up of the five component parts of Taekwon-Do's physical training. There are fundamental exercises (likened to the individual soldier's training), patterns (platoon tactics), sparring (field exercises), dallyon/forging (equipment maintenance) and hosinsul/self-defense (ACTUAL COMBAT). Gen. Choi makes the point that while you can distinguish each part of the cycle you cannot do away with any part of it if you want to have real Taekwon-Do. In that sense Ho Sin Sul is definitely an important part of ITF training.

I will also point out that in the descriptions used, the General doesn't compare sparring to actual combat but rather makes that comparison to ho sin sul. There are, in fact, many different types of sparring in ITF Taekwon-Do but even free sparring falls under the category of "field exercises" not "actual combat." What this means is that when a student i introduced to ho sin sul techniques they should of course be introduced at a slower pace with a non-resisting partner until proficiency is gained. Resistence and speed can be added until the student is able to perform the technique under stressful conditions, with a resistent partner, etc. (Too often I have seen people get frustrated because they were unable t perform a technique they haven't spent enought time training and decide the problem is with the technique, not with them. Why doesn't anyone say that when the front kick they did misses its target? Practice, people!)

There has been some changing of ho sin sul techniques from when Master Chung Kee Tae worked with Gen. Choi (ca. 1972 or so). Foot work, for instance, is more linear focusing on angles rather than circles with a few exceptions. Striking to unbalance your partner seems more common in Taekwon-Do than what I have seen in Hapkido. The emphasis on using one's center of gravity to control one's partner is there, however. Breakfalls are taught, of course, although there's much less of the "flying" variety in Taekwon-Do.

This all being said, it will depend largely on the school as to how much them emphasize ho sin sul. Even in the ITF many schools focus on tournament training and so things like ho sin sul can get a bit of a short shrift. I've been fortunate that my instructor has always taught ths aspect of the art and has systematized his material quite a bit so each arnk has specific techniques to learn.

That all being said, there's much more of an emphasis on the systematizing of the striking and kicking techniques than of the ho sin sul techniques. I suppose that is understandable given that Taekwon-Do's main emphasis is power generation rather than joint locking.

I would also point out that ho sin sul does include strikes and kicks not just joint locks, holds, throws, sweeps, and releases.

Hope this is helpful.

Pax,

Chris

 

[dortiz]

"Dave, are you saying that someone should actually study Hapkido and gain an understanding of it before attempting to translate it to another art?"

Yup, someone who knows what they are doing REALLY well would have to insert these pieces. As we saw with Gen Choi. Wether its Hapkido or another style I am sure there are basic techniques that can be added but again by someone that knows what they are doing.

I dont believe in video training but I do like video supplement. Wether its to enhance or remind one of where to step, grab move etc. If taught right the video can help retain some basics. But not the feel. That will always have to be hands on.

 

[Kumbajah]

"Dave, are you saying that someone should actually study Hapkido and gain an understanding of it before attempting to translate it to another art?"

Yup, someone who knows what they are doing REALLY well would have to insert these pieces. As we saw with Gen Choi. Wether its Hapkido or another style I am sure there are basic techniques that can be added but again by someone that knows what they are doing.

I dont believe in video training but I do like video supplement. Wether its to enhance or remind one of where to step, grab move etc. If taught right the video can help retain some basics. But not the feel. That will always have to be hands on.

In your opinion, a TKD teacher with only video instruction might not be the best candidate to do this?

 

[dortiz]

Ok, Ok, Its a horrible idea.

I was originally thinking combat hapkido or the koryu group where the teacher would go to seminars and get basics and use the videos to supplement that but without a teacher involved if the person has not trained these things I agree, it gonna be a train wreck.

I think a good martial artist could take some basic close quarter techniques and work through them though. Sort of the Krava Maga type thing and use what works by working the techniques through. An art like Hapkido and even a mid level of finess will not be something they can discover. It took me about 4 years with training just to start to get things.

 

[dancingalone]

There has been some changing of ho sin sul techniques from when Master Chung Kee Tae worked with Gen. Choi (ca. 1972 or so). Foot work, for instance, is more linear focusing on angles rather than circles with a few exceptions. Striking to unbalance your partner seems more common in Taekwon-Do than what I have seen in Hapkido. The emphasis on using one's center of gravity to control one's partner is there, however. Breakfalls are taught, of course, although there's much less of the "flying" variety in Taekwon-Do.

This sort of bridges what this thread and what the locked thread touchs upon. There's an entire range of self-defense that is sandwiched between pure striking and what people now call hapkido. It's found in General Choi's Taekwon-Do, in Pasa-ryu, in Chayon-ryu, in many independent TKD schools too. Some call it hoshinsul, some just call it "self-defense".

I don't think anyone reasonable would dispute that this material exists, and that some of it is is decades old, either stemming from the pre or post "Hapkido" formation period. Now their effectiveness is another matter and probably worthy of some discussion.

Most of this thread has focused on what techniques and what modifications would be needed to successfully transfer a current Hapkido/Aikido technique over for a striker in tae kwon do to learn and use. I have mentioned triangular stepping as well as some moves that adapt favorably to more use of force than perhaps feel. The goal is to create a smaller set of techniques that are easy to learn yet effective, considering that over time the technique will be taught to successive generations of students, many of whom will never have primary instruction in a jujutsu-derived art.

It's not a scenario of a taekwondoist learning inferior and unusable hapkido. It's more a case of creating a body of knowledge from a variety of sources that a taekwondoist would thrive practicing.

 

[Kumbajah]

This sort of bridges what this thread and what the locked thread touchs upon. There's an entire range of self-defense that is sandwiched between pure striking and what people now call hapkido. It's found in General Choi's Taekwon-Do, in Pasa-ryu, in Chayon-ryu, in many independent TKD schools too. Some call it hoshinsul, some just call it "self-defense".

I don't think anyone reasonable would dispute that this material exists, and that some of it is is decades old, either stemming from the pre or post "Hapkido" formation period. Now their effectiveness is another matter and probably worthy of some discussion.

Most of this thread has focused on what techniques and what modifications would be needed to successfully transfer a current Hapkido/Aikido technique over for a striker in tae kwon do to learn and use. I have mentioned triangular stepping as well as some moves that adapt favorably to more use of force than perhaps feel. The goal is to create a smaller set of techniques that are easy to learn yet effective, considering that over time the technique will be taught to successive generations of students, many of whom will never have primary instruction in a jujutsu-derived art.

It's not a scenario of a taekwondoist learning inferior and unusable hapkido. It's more a case of creating a body of knowledge from a variety of sources that a taekwondoist would thrive practicing.

I'm a bit confused - If we have already established (in this thread) that Gen Choi borrowed from Hapkido and other TKD systems also have HoShinSool. Why would there be a need to borrow again? If anyone knows about TKD it would be Gen Choi - wouldn't the prudent thing be to study his curriculum?

BTW - Triangle stepping is already part of Hapkido

 

[dancingalone]

I'm a bit confused - If we have already established (in this thread) that Gen Choi borrowed from Hapkido and other TKD systems also have HoShinSool. Why would there be a need to borrow again? If anyone knows about TKD it would be Gen Choi - wouldn't the prudent thing be to study his curriculum?

BTW - Triangle stepping is already part of Hapkido

There are TKD schools that have no ties at all to any of the alternatives mentioned above, including General Choi. They would be the prime audience for any such reinvention of the wheel.

"BTW - Triangle stepping is already part of Hapkido"

Good, but so what? I'm talking about making various techniques accessible to a TKDist, rather than discussing what is or isn't within hapkido.

 

[Kumbajah]

If Gen Choi already did the heavy lifting why not take advantage of it? Why wouldn't studying his TKD curriculum, even in part be prudent? To me it would be much easier than trying to figure out what is or isn't relevant in a completely different art.

I thought mentioning triangle stepping because you mentioned it as one of your proposed renovations for Hapkido to make it assessable and it's already in Hapkido so it's not a renovation.

 

[dancingalone]

If Gen Choi already did the heavy lifting why not take advantage of it? Why wouldn't studying his TKD curriculum, even in part be prudent? To me it would be much easier than trying to figure out what is or isn't relevant in a completely different art.

How do you study a specific curriculum when you have no ties to the source at all? Surely, you recall this line of discussion started when I asked what new media resources paired with seminar training is available to add some close quarter combat to a almost exclusively striking curriculum.
Even if the ITF had some useful resources, consider how do you marry Choi's material to your own if you 1) aren't sine wave 2) have different sparring drills and sparring rules or 3) execute even the striking techniques with different parameters than detailed in the Choi material? Do you pick and choose which ones to follow?

Surely you see the inherent problems. What is desired is a 'generic' add-on set of self-defense modules, not style-specific in terminology or usage. My impression of ITF TaeKwon-Do is that it is a "full" martial arts style meant to be imparted in whole.

I thought mentioning triangle stepping because you mentioned it as one of your proposed renovations for Hapkido to make it assessable and it's already in Hapkido so it's not a renovation.

I mentioned it as an alternative to mitigate the difficulty Dave stated lay people have in learning to circle or spiral a partner down and into one's center. Look back a few posts. Regardless, the aside about it being in hapkido is appreciated, but it's hardly relevant to the main discussion.

 

[Kumbajah]

I'm having a hard time following what you are trying to get at - your question is either "how do you learn Hapkido without studying Hapkido" or "How do you teach Hapkido without learning Hapkido" You can insert any word other than Hapkido, e.x. Chinese or french cooking or basket weaving - I don't think there is a logical answer.

If ITF (Choi's) TKD is too distant to incorporate, how is HKD which is an entirely different art going to be easier?

 

[dancingalone]

I'm having a hard time following what you are trying to get at - your question is either "how do you learn Hapkido without studying Hapkido" or "How do you teach Hapkido without learning Hapkido" You can insert any word other than Hapkido, e.x. Chinese or french cooking or basket weaving - I don't think there is a logical answer.

I suggest re-reading all the posts carefully.

 

[dancingalone]

If ITF (Choi's) TKD is too distant to incorporate, how is HKD which is an entirely different art going to be easier?

You're completely missed the point. No one is talking about integrating hapkido.

 

[Kumbajah]

You're completely missed the point. No one is talking about integrating hapkido.

Of course we are talking about adding/integrating Hapkido. The name of the thread is "Add on Hapkido".

But to use your earlier example of Iriminage ( Shionage per you, corrected) from Aikido - you suggested making it a clothes line for TKD people - If you want to, I guess. But then it's no longer iriminage - the technique (iriminage) doesn't work that way - it's not a clothes line. So... it wouldn't be Aikido anymore or even function on Aikido principles. So what would be the point of looking to Aikido? You wouldn't be doing anything related to Aikido.

 

[dancingalone]

Of course we are talking about adding/integrating Hapkido. The name of the thread is "Add on Hapkido".

But to use your earlier example of Iriminage ( Shionage per you, corrected) from Aikido - you suggested making it a clothes line for TKD people - If you want to, I guess. But then it's no longer iriminage - the technique (iriminage) doesn't work that way - it's not a clothes line. So... it wouldn't be Aikido anymore or even function on Aikido principles. So what would be the point of looking to Aikido? You wouldn't be doing anything related to Aikido.

I get the impression you want to manufacture an argument where there is none.

100% of the people on this thread have agreed you can't just graft on techs from another art and hope to be successful. Hence the discussion on picking appropriate techniques and then making adequate analogies and adaptations for martial artists who come from mostly a striking background.

You are simply posing an argument that does not exist.

 

[Kumbajah]

I get the impression you want to manufacture an argument where there is none.

100% of the people on this thread have agreed you can't just graft on techs from another art and hope to be successful. Hence the discussion on picking appropriate techniques and then making adequate analogies and adaptations for martial artists who come from mostly a striking background.

You are simply posing an argument that does not exist.

No, I'm really confused on what exactly you are trying to accomplish. Using your Iriminage example - Can you explain the benefit of drawing a correlation between a concussive (striking) technique - the clothes line and a throwing technique (iriminage). They function in completely different ways. The mechanics that make them work are different.

What are you gaining by taking out the mechanics that make the technique irimi? Why not just use a clothes line technique or ridge hand which are in the TKD curriculum?

 

[dancingalone]

What are you gaining by taking out the mechanics that make the technique irimi? Why not just use a clothes line technique or ridge hand which are in the TKD curriculum?

Yes, I did mention you'd be dumbing down the technique and it turns into something else, hopefully more understandable and easy to learn yet still useful.

As for why, the application as a take down should be apparent for its value. Many people from a striking system never learn that a completed strike can transform into an unbalancing movement. They just pop a back-fist out and back strictly for the relatively minor damage it can inflict, rather than continuing with the motion and pushing their partner down in combination with some other unrooting work.

It is useful to start with a technique from another art to study its adaptability if only because the organization is apparent already. Judo has a good lexicon of techniques and how they fit together as does aikido. Dunno about hapkido.

 

[Kumbajah]

Yes, I did mention you'd be dumbing down the technique and it turns into something else, hopefully more understandable and easy to learn yet still useful.

As for why, the application as a take down should be apparent for its value. Many people from a striking system never learn that a completed strike can transform into an unbalancing movement. They just pop a back-fist out and back strictly for the relatively minor damage it can inflict, rather than continuing with the motion and pushing their partner down in combination with some other unrooting work.

It is useful to start with a technique from another art to study its adaptability if only because the organization is apparent already. Judo has a good lexicon of techniques and how they fit together as does aikido. Dunno about hapkido.

I think I may see the problem - How do you think irimi works? There isn't any strike.

 

[dancingalone]

I think I may see the problem - How do you think irimi works? There isn't any strike.

Sigh. My mistake for engaging with you, especially in light of the previous locked thread.

Did you miss this part?

Yes, I did mention you'd be dumbing down the technique and it turns into something else, hopefully more understandable and easy to learn yet still useful.

You're twisting and ignoring my words intentionally to front your agenda and I will have no more of it. Good day.

Anyone else interested in a discussion, I'd love to continue to hear from you.