It's mostly sweeps, throws, and armbaars. and is taught as an alternative to striking or a set up for a strike (like an elbow smash, etc.). It's thought of as a part of TKD, not hapkido or other Korean art. It's even shown in forms we do.
Grapling in Taekwondo???
- Thread starter Karate_Warrior
- Start date
It's mostly sweeps, throws, and armbaars. and is taught as an alternative to striking or a set up for a strike (like an elbow smash, etc.). It's thought of as a part of TKD, not hapkido or other Korean art. It's even shown in forms we do.
zDom
Senior Master
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,081
- Reaction score
- 110
I believe that combination was quite common. GM Lee H. Park, who founded the organization I'm in, (American) Moo Sul Kwan, had the exact same mix: TKD, HKD and Yudo.
(Also his life-long friend, GM Bong Yul Shin of St. Louis, has the same background, only with more of an emphasis on Yudo, while Park's emphasis was on HKD)
Park definately split them into separate curriculums, though.
I've had formal training in two out of the three (TKD & HKD). Unfortunately, there were only a couple of Park's students who went to chodan in Yudo, so other than what is incorporated into the HKD curriculum, there isn't really an opportunity to study Yudo for me around here.
I regret that a bit. I feel TKD enhances my HKD, and believe Yudo would also enhance it, were it available.
My instructor, Master Mike Morton, does teach us a lot of Yudo material, however, as he went as far as brown belt in the art.
Usually taught like: "here is a legal Yudo technique. For combat, you can also do THIS which is not legal in Yudo..."
NopeTKD as I first learned it (as passed down from the same Korean grandmaster where I get my HKD) is VERY combat oriented.
I'm glad to hear that... maybe there's more combat-oriented TKD training out there than I've imagined. One of the things TKD people tend to do a lot, I've noticed, is remind each other about how the teaching scene is now so pervaded by McDojangs---there's enough hand-wringing about it that you wind up getting the impression that that's pretty much all there is out there. But there do seem to be an awful lot of TKD people on this board who aren't McDojang products, so maybe things aren't as bad as all that.
I've heard that the Sells' TKD training approach is very, very good---both versatile and demanding. So again, maybe out-of-control commercialism hasn't totally deep-sixed the combat integrity of TKD training in this country.
Kwan Jang---this is so interesting---because Judo has the modern reputation of being a completely grappling-based discipline. But that must be part of the evolution of the martial sport side, which as you say has almost totally supplanted the MA. It's quite an eye-opener to see how `mixed' a lot of the supposedly one-or-the-other modern fighting systems are---at least two of the people I've been reading a lot this past year have pointed out that 19th c. bare-knuckle boxing had both leg strike techniques and grappling moves that were completely purged when the activity was reorganized as the modern combat sport.
That would be so great! This stuff really does need to get out into the culture of TKD so more people realize how full the resources of the art are. I personally find that kind of information among the most satisfying aspects of doing TKD---when you discover a possible use for something whose practical function isn't at all clear. I've seen examples of this sort of thing for karate---it's brilliant stuff.
Yes! Put me on your mailing list, please!
Oops---sorry about the misattributed quotation, Kwan Jang---I had copied zDom's quotation identification and mindlessly copied it in when I was citing stuff from your post, without realizing that I was doing that---probably a sign I'd better quit for the evening. It's after 2 a.m. here, I just noticed...
Last Fearner
2nd Black Belt
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2006
- Messages
- 712
- Reaction score
- 17
In my opinion, the correct answer to this question is "Yes!"
As others have stated, it has much to do with definitions, and sources of training. First, anyone who has read my posts knows that I define "Taekwondo" as the name chosen in 1955 to represent all of the Korean Martial Art knowledge, ancient past, recent past, and present. Any training that identifies itself with the history of native Korean Martial Art, regardless of the name it is called (IE: Hapkido, Subak, Taekyon, Hwarang-do, Hoshinsul, Yudo, etc.) should be construed as part of Taekwondo.
While it is true that some instructors of the past, did not want to use the "Taekwondo" label, or work under the auspices of a Taekwondo governing body, and they created their own schools and organizations, this does not remove the same knowledge from Taekwondo's curriculum. The only reason for "grappling" to be omitted from any Taekwondo course would either be because the instructor chose not to include it, or because the instructor was not taught the complete curriculum, therefore could not offer it.
The part of Taekwondo that resembles what is done in Hapkido is, in fact, hapkido. I was trained by Korean Grandmasters who were also Masters of Hapkido, and most of them did not separate the two. Nor did they separate Yudo, or Hoshinsul. Those in Hapkido organizations have chosen to be separate from Taekwondo, but the same skills and philosophy still remains in the complete Taekwondo curriculum.
Taekwondo is the main heading. People should not be misled by "literal translations" (smashing with the hands and feet), thinking that this means there is no grappling, ground-fighting, or anything else. The titles do not represent everything that is in the art. Does the word "judo" really cover all the techniques that are contained within the art? That would be like saying that a disc-jockey at a "discotheque" only plays "Disco" music. Actually, discotheques have been around long before the term for "Disco" music was coined. Although "discotheque" means a "record library" I don't believe you will find a librarian, or many records in them (more CDs, and wider range of music genre).
Perhaps, instead of calling our art "Taekwondo" we should use a more accurately descriptive name like:
The art of avoiding impact, throws, and ground-fighting by evading, blocking, or striking with the hands, feet, elbows, knees, and head, while using pressure points and joint locks, and grappling effectively on the ground, if you have to, but getting back to your feet as quickly as possible.
That name is a bit long, although, I don't know of a single, brief Korean word that would encompass all of that. Perhaps that is why we use the term "Do."
My point is, don't take something for its literal translation. The complete meaning is much more. Many people look at the so-called "McDojangs" (as many of them as there are), and say, "that is what Taekwondo is." False. Others see only the tournament oriented schools lacking Realistic Self Defense training and say, "that is what Taekwondo is." Again, False!
Grappling is a means to an end. When you make contact (other than striking) you are attempting to do one of three things: A. control your opponent's body, B. defeat through submission, knock-out, or injury (slight or death), or C. escape. Grappling can be done in a variety of positions, but can be divided into three main categories: 1. Standing, 2. Sitting, or 3. kneeling or lying on a surface (bed, ground, etc.).
The only issues that remain are, do you train in grappling at all, to what degree of thoroughness, and what is your preference or priority? Judo tends to focus on the grappling, throwing, and ground-fighting because that is the nature of the art. Taekwondo includes the ground-fighting, but it is the philosophy of Taekwondo to avoid the ground whenever possible, not because we are not good at it (for those who train properly), but because it is inherently dangerous to be in close contact.
This is particularly true with modern fighting where people commonly carry very sharp knives, and razors, and can cut you to shreds before you realize the blade is there. Also, there are problems with grappling with one person, if there are multiple attackers, especially if a friend of your attacker's has a knife or gun. The preference of a Taekwondoist is to stay mobile on your feet, keep your distance for safety, and use your strongest weapons. We strike, and destroy anyone who attempts to close in for grappling or take-downs for ground-fighting, but once on the ground, our skills in striking is not lost, nor should we be of lesser skill in actual ground-fighting to defeat the attacker.
Many people who studied Taekwondo for a short time (dropping out before 1st or 2nd Dan) might not have been shown the full range of ground-fighting that is contained in Taekwondo. If their instructor actually knew the skills, they might have only introduced basic grappling techniques to the color belts. I focus more on a balance throughout the training, but I do reserve some of the more deadly, and effective skills till I really know the student well (five or more years).
I trained in Judo and Aikido, but my curriculum is based solely in the full range of skills within Taekwondo. I become aware of what my opponent can do, and I train to be able to counter it. If a skill in another system is improved, or discovered as a modern method, I will adjust my training to include it. Any art should be flexible to grow with modern times, and new discoveries, but this does not mean that I am borrowing the grappling from another art because it already existed in Korea centuries ago. I simply modify its application as needed.
This is my opinion on the subject.
CM D.J. Eisenhart
It's usually anything goes in the self-defense department. That largely depends on if a given instructor happens to cover areas outside of striking properly.
So, it's kinda like asking if there's grappling in Karate...
Probably along the line of other answers, it depends on the organization. An organization dedicated to Olympic sparring probably doesn't include much, if anything, in the way of grappling.
We do quite a bit of grappling, including both stand up grappling and on the ground. One of my teachers conducted a grappling clinic during a black belt workout recently. I am in one of the more grappling oriented clubs in our overall organization.
I think this says it all. The overspecialization of the MAs---in part (but not entirely) the result of marketing stategies---is one of the reasons why so many controversies about their street-effective arise, and why so many practitioners have this uneasy sense that their arts have devolved in some way over the past decade or two (e.g., Master Terry Stoker's recent query and the following thread in the KMA forum, and similar threads that have appeared in the past in the fora for other MAs).
Very well put.
Nice!
Yes. I think that, correctly understood, TKD's striking and grappling components are perfectly complementary to each other, just as an increasing number of karateka have concluded about their Japanese or Okinawan arts. There is no either/or; grappling can feed striking finishes and vice versa.
This is sensible---look at some of the very disturbing facts that have emerged in the `redemption via martial arts' thread.
Some of the more recent posts by zDom and Kwan Jang and others are reassuring in their suggestion that there are more than a few dojangs out there which do provide a more complete curriculum. But there need to be a lot more. I think one of the crucial factors here is the dedication (or otherwise) of students. Martial arts in general have a high enough drop-out rate that if a dojang head takes Last Fearner's responsible position on where in the curriculum to introduce the really hard-core, dangerous component of the TKD skill set, the latter will wind up getting taught only quite rarely. That's fine---but a basic introduction to the full range of technique, including basic grappling, is probably safe to introduce at intermediate colored belt level[?]
I think this is right on the money.
Kwan Jang
Purple Belt
Last Fearner,
Outstanding post with great points. Thank you for that contribution.
Outstanding post with great points. Thank you for that contribution.
I am studying tkd from one of GGM Park's first students/dans. It has been through training and observation as I have a high brown USJA, as well as hapkido experience.
There are self defense techniques that promote off balancing leading to a quick strike. This will promote evasion if you will. I will also note that as I said earlier, these techniques can be mistaken as hapkidoesque. They are totally different. Here is why: The harsh immobilization or joint destruction is not present.
Furthermore: At one time GM Hildebrand would teach a hapkido cirriculum technique within a tae kwon do class. GGM Park said that the two cirriculums were not to be intermingled. Tae Kwon Do would be Tae kwon Do, etc.
There are self defense techniques that promote off balancing leading to a quick strike. This will promote evasion if you will. I will also note that as I said earlier, these techniques can be mistaken as hapkidoesque. They are totally different. Here is why: The harsh immobilization or joint destruction is not present.
Furthermore: At one time GM Hildebrand would teach a hapkido cirriculum technique within a tae kwon do class. GGM Park said that the two cirriculums were not to be intermingled. Tae Kwon Do would be Tae kwon Do, etc.
Matt---am I understanding this right: you're saying that while locks and the throws that locks naturally lead into are involved, the difference with Hapkido is that HKD practitioners cash out those throws as joint hyperextensions, dislocations or outright breaks, whereas TKD cashes them out as finishing strikes to vital areas forcibly exposed by the throw or controlling technique? The difference then is one of strategy---that HKDists are looking to wreck the attacker's bone/muscle connections whereas TKDist want blunt force trauma to do the work?
