my Hapkido concept

[goingd]

It is true for all styles, but I think Hapkido is more notably "flowy". Because of the emphasis on circles in Hapkido techniques can constantly flow in and out of each other and we have ourselves with limitless technique possibility. I honestly think that any martial art can ever be fully systematized.

If I were to ever teach Hapkido formally I would have a very loose curriculum with very high standards. I would teach with a base of about ten solid techniques before first Dan. Ten techniques obviously cannot cover Hapkido, so I would spend every class teaching whatever else came to my mind that I felt should be taught, making sure that throughout a student's experience in my class they would be very familiar with several techniques.

If I were to test students to first Dan the technique portion may go something like, "Show me one through ten, then show me 20 other techniques covering this, that and the other thing."

Just a thought. Any criticisms from those with a lot more Hapkido under their wing? I have had formal Hapkido training, but no official Hapkido rank.

 

[dortiz]

Usually its best to teach as ones teacher taught.

Dave O.

 

[goingd]

Our teachers aren't always right unfortunately. After all, if students never changed the curriculum then their would never be any motion forward. To completely standardize something - even with just one school or organization - cuts off evolution.

I'm certain there are flaws in how I hope to teach, but to an extent, that is how I learned. I was always very comfortable with a small group of techniques, and familiar with several others. When it came time to use it, it worked wonderfully (not that I didn't still get hurt).

 

[dancingalone]

A hapkidoist I know teaches in a very free-form manner. He doesn't have a set curriculum; instead he teaches principles and patterns of movement and recognition that are applicable across every single technique. His classes usually start with something like a straight punch or a club attack. His students learn various defenses to each attack, but in a very loose manner - there's no right or wrong answer for any of the drills.

 

[goingd]

A hapkidoist I know teaches in a very free-form manner. He doesn't have a set curriculum; instead he teaches principles and patterns of movement and recognition that are applicable across every single technique. His classes usually start with something like a straight punch or a club attack. His students learn various defenses to each attack, but in a very loose manner - there's no right or wrong answer for any of the drills.

That's how a lot of Hapkido is taught. I think it's actually more traditional. For whatever reason I prefer it that way.

 

[zDom]

A hapkidoist I know teaches in a very free-form manner. He doesn't have a set curriculum; instead he teaches principles and patterns of movement and recognition that are applicable across every single technique. His classes usually start with something like a straight punch or a club attack. His students learn various defenses to each attack, but in a very loose manner - there's no right or wrong answer for any of the drills.

As Moo Sul Kwan, we learn principles and patterns of movement that are applicable to all techniques through a set curriculum to ensure we get adequate repetition.

Standardized curriculum, in my opinon, doesn't restrict: it ensures you are learning and performing those principles and patterns of movement correctly while also providing an objective basis for evaluation by instructors.

YMMV.

 

[goingd]

As Moo Sul Kwan, we learn principles and patterns of movement that are applicable to all techniques through a set curriculum to ensure we get adequate repetition.

Standardized curriculum, in my opinon, doesn't restrict: it ensures you are learning and performing those principles and patterns of movement correctly while also providing an objective basis for evaluation by instructors.

YMMV.

I understand. I have nothing against set curriculum. I have a set curriculum for Taekwondo, but still teach beyond it. I have the same idea in mind for Hapkido, minus the forms.

 

[zDom]

I understand. I have nothing against set curriculum. I have a set curriculum for Taekwondo, but still teach beyond it.

I agree that THIS concept (quoted above) is pure win for the students.

IMO, having a set curriculum ensures you cover essential principles and get in the necessary reps on techniques.

But teaching OUTSIDE the curriculum (in addition) ensures a well-rounded understanding of the art and martial arts in general AND keeps things fresh and exciting for students (and instructors!)

Some of the stuff I enjoy MOST in hapkido class is the "extra" stuff we cover occassionally that is not "in" the curriculum for MSK hapkido, such as Yudo body holding and additional throws from yudo that are not required for tests.

 

[goingd]

I agree that THIS concept (quoted above) is pure win for the students.

IMO, having a set curriculum ensures you cover essential principles and get in the necessary reps on techniques.

But teaching OUTSIDE the curriculum (in addition) ensures a well-rounded understanding of the art and martial arts in general AND keeps things fresh and exciting for students (and instructors!)

Some of the stuff I enjoy MOST in hapkido class is the "extra" stuff we cover occassionally that is not "in" the curriculum for MSK hapkido, such as Yudo body holding and additional throws from yudo that are not required for tests.

Fabulous!

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

It is true for all styles, but I think Hapkido is more notably "flowy". Because of the emphasis on circles in Hapkido techniques can constantly flow in and out of each other and we have ourselves with limitless technique possibility. I honestly think that any martial art can ever be fully systematized.

If I were to ever teach Hapkido formally I would have a very loose curriculum with very high standards. I would teach with a base of about ten solid techniques before first Dan. Ten techniques obviously cannot cover Hapkido, so I would spend every class teaching whatever else came to my mind that I felt should be taught, making sure that throughout a student's experience in my class they would be very familiar with several techniques.

If I were to test students to first Dan the technique portion may go something like, "Show me one through ten, then show me 20 other techniques covering this, that and the other thing."

Just a thought. Any criticisms from those with a lot more Hapkido under their wing? I have had formal Hapkido training, but no official Hapkido rank.

If your background is strong in the skills, then teach in the way that is most comfortable to you. I see nothing wrong with this approach; it is simply different, not better or worse. Different students learn in different ways, so your approach will be a breath of fresh air for some and perhaps too open for others.

Daniel

 

[goingd]

If your background is strong in the skills, then teach in the way that is most comfortable to you. I see nothing wrong with this approach; it is simply different, not better or worse. Different students learn in different ways, so your approach will be a breath of fresh air for some and perhaps too open for others.

Daniel

Why thank you. I appreciate the note. ^~^

 

[Ty Hatfield]

Originally Posted by Spinmaster
what if if someone decided that a bazooka fits the definition of Hapkido??
First trying to make sure you and other people understand what im mean as philosophy. It is not the bazooka that is hapkido it is how well the person is using the bozooka.

It is not the styles im talking about I dont look at styles as in Judo, Jui-Jitsu, Karate etc. I look at what they teach and the ideas around the conspets they show. I look at what true consepts are what exactly they are teaching. I have find when you study enough styles they have some of the same points, some of the same exact moves it is just they are named differently. I found that you come up with some idea and seem to think you made it up only to find it is in some other style and most likely already a Consept.

So when im explain the idea of a Philosophy I look at every part as Hapkido. You use it in Training, in Busness, really you can use it in everything you do. If you are good at something most around me would say that is very nice hapkido.

So going to explain the idea of Philosophy in every day life:

You have some guy that is angery at you or saying things in typing or on the phone. He attacks you with this it is using energy, so with hapkido you redirect it using simple understanding.

Redirect, drop your level, and Circle. or
Circle, drop your level, and Redirect whatever way it is just using Hapkido understanding.

So back to guy talking bad at you in forums, you look over the issue, you (Redirect) using this I understand how you are thinking that way, I'm sorry or so what your saying is your better and that I dont understand this or that? no problem. (droping your level), then you circle by telling him how you can help him and that you want to work with him. Like this, "so your very good at teaching or know more than me?", Great help me! Teach me so can help others!

This is also Hapkido as a Philosophy. Teach love and helping others it really is all im trying to do. I want to teach the best Self defense and help others be safe.

 

[Ty Hatfield]

I look at the
Hap" meaning harmony, coordinating or coming together
"Ki" meaning life energy or force
"Do" meaning the path or way

So hapkido is the path or way of coordinating or comming together of energy or force
So hapkido is Concepts and Ideas of Choi Yong Sul and everyone he Trained with a mix of many understandings.

I explain it though concepts (Circle, Disrupt, and drop your level) I dont care what move if it is true it uses this formula.

I understand what your saying but I look at Aikido as a Philosophy also it is something that is hard to explain. Choi Yong Sul was a Master in what style? He used all his understanding to make what he called not hapkido at the time it was called Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu. When Choi was eight years old. It is said that while in Japan Choi became a student of Takeda Sokaku and studied a form of jujutsu known as Daito-ryu aiki-jujutsu. He returned to Korea at the end of the second World War and in 1948 began teaching his art at a brewery owned by the father of his first student Suh Bok Sub. He first called his art Yu Sul or Yawara later changing it to Yu Kwon Sul and Hap Ki Yu Kwon Sul and eventually name became Hapkido.

So what im saying is some very Well Trained Masters got together in a Brewery and thought out the concepts they would put into a form or style of understanding. They Named it a name but it is just a form of moves and positions. They got the moves and positions from everything they knew at the time.

This system was later combined with kicking and striking techniques of indigenous and contemporary arts such as taekkyeon and tang soo do.

So need to say I respect your view of Hapkido but like to see it like that but amost all the Arts can be defined im just saying Hapkido, Aikido, and Kung Fu are not as easy to define in my opionion. I look at them is a form of Philosophy.

 

[goingd]

Thank you for your thoughts. When looking at the various styles it is easy to see that the major details on the outside of the style are different. However, when breaking down each style piece by piece it can be found that the small details become more and more identical.

When I initially said, "my" Hapkido concept, I meant only to infer that I was pointing out the concept of Hapkido that works best for me.

The things Bruce Lee taught can be found in much, much older text referring to the martial arts and philosophy. I feel that both are right. Bruce Lee said to use what works for you, old Kung Fu stories talk about "making your Kung Fu your own."

We all see the world through a different tint; we can only evolve through our own methods.

Thank you again,
Greg L. ^~^

 

[Ty Hatfield]

Thank you for your thoughts. When looking at the various styles it is easy to see that the major details on the outside of the style are different. However, when breaking down each style piece by piece it can be found that the small details become more and more identical.

When I initially said, "my" Hapkido concept, I meant only to infer that I was pointing out the concept of Hapkido that works best for me.

The things Bruce Lee taught can be found in much, much older text referring to the martial arts and philosophy. I feel that both are right.

I agree fully thank you also for your thanks

Ty Hatfield