Towards a Minimum Hapkido Standard

[glad2bhere]

Dear Suart:

".....Listen my view is more universal not as separatist but, for arguments sake if a YMK guy came to me with a 1st dan as long as his techniques are "good" and he's a good person then I'm OK with ranking him in Sin Moo why not? ..."

And so, we have finally come to the real point in your contributions. And reciprocity being what it is, if you will give Sin Mu ranking to a YMK practitioner it would follow that YMK would fairly give YMK ranking to Sin Mu, yes? Except that there is a single point that you are blythely ignoring. That single point is the nature of a "kwan" itself.

A "kwan" is not a "style" or a "building" or an "organization". It is a group of people who have bonded regarding the accomplishment of a goal and are unified by the commonality of the method that they select. This bond is more than just doing the same sorts of techniques, or doing disparate techniques the same way. Such bonds revolve around the priorities of promoting and perpetuating an art. Such bonds are built on fraternity or common experience. Such bonds are based on respect for the same things, the same personalities. Joining a "kwan" is not the same as joining any simple organization or association.

Moving beyond the nature of a kwan, the same can be said when one binds with a teacher. It is not a matter of paying your money and attending classes. Perhaps this is the common approach in the States and if it is they are welcome to it. You ask about my personal objection and this is it. You are certainly free to define your associations or affiliations any way you choose and I mean you no evil about it. Practice Hapkido all you like and I will bet what you do is not that different from anyone else. The key that you are avoiding is that to subscribe to a particular teacher or kwan entails a level of commitment and bonding beyond simply joining and paying your dues.

When I went to Korea I was accepted as a student in the Yong Sul Kwan. I paid $300 dollars for my one month training. But being accepted by a kwan is far beyond $300 dollars or showing up for class. And if I have to spend as many posts as I have working to make this distinction clear, I am not sure you are ever going to understand.

Let me say once more that we all share commonalities, but if what you are advocating is carte blanc interchangeability among various Hapkido arts, I am afraid you have come to the wrong string. Kevin has his approach as does Todd,as do we all. My approach is that we identify commonalities that will allow us to communicate free about what we do. What i am NOT advocating is the ability to interchange rank and standings free throughout the community. Sorry, but I think you are, quite simply, not appreciative of what it is that you are dealing with--- at least at the traditional level.

Sorry,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

Dear Suart:

".....Listen my view is more universal not as separatist but, for arguments sake if a YMK guy came to me with a 1st dan as long as his techniques are "good" and he's a good person then I'm OK with ranking him in Sin Moo why not? ..."

And so, we have finally come to the real point in your contributions. And reciprocity being what it is, if you will give Sin Mu ranking to a YMK practitioner it would follow that YMK would fairly give YMK ranking to Sin Mu, yes? Except that there is a single point that you are blythely ignoring. That single point is the nature of a "kwan" itself.

A "kwan" is not a "style" or a "building" or an "organization". It is a group of people who have bonded regarding the accomplishment of a goal and are unified by the commonality of the method that they select. This bond is more than just doing the same sorts of techniques, or doing disparate techniques the same way. Such bonds revolve around the priorities of promoting and perpetuating an art. Such bonds are built on fraternity or common experience. Such bonds are based on respect for the same things, the same personalities. Joining a "kwan" is not the same as joining any simple organization or association.

Moving beyond the nature of a kwan, the same can be said when one binds with a teacher. It is not a matter of paying your money and attending classes. Perhaps this is the common approach in the States and if it is they are welcome to it. You ask about my personal objection and this is it. You are certainly free to define your associations or affiliations any way you choose and I mean you no evil about it. Practice Hapkido all you like and I will bet what you do is not that different from anyone else. The key that you are avoiding is that to subscribe to a particular teacher or kwan entails a level of commitment and bonding beyond simply joining and paying your dues.

When I went to Korea I was accepted as a student in the Yong Sul Kwan. I paid $300 dollars for my one month training. But being accepted by a kwan is far beyond $300 dollars or showing up for class. And if I have to spend as many posts as I have working to make this distinction clear, I am not sure you are ever going to understand.

Let me say once more that we all share commonalities, but if what you are advocating is carte blanc interchangeability among various Hapkido arts, I am afraid you have come to the wrong string. Kevin has his approach as does Todd,as do we all. My approach is that we identify commonalities that will allow us to communicate free about what we do. What i am NOT advocating is the ability to interchange rank and standings free throughout the community. Sorry, but I think you are, quite simply, not appreciative of what it is that you are dealing with--- at least at the traditional level.

Sorry,

Bruce

Bruce,

I see things like this personally, I out grew my 1st teachers teaching methods (not his skill) but the way way he expresses the Mudu philosophy and quite a few other things that are not for this forum and that took over 12 years not 2 seminars.

I had a long term bond even awe of him that I would say is gone at this point. He told me once there's a time a son moves out of his fathers house that meant I was my own man an adult if you will.

We talk every week or two get together for meeting etc. and have a very friendly relationship.

As I said, Ji does and will certifiy anyone with the skills and the desire to learn he knows my teacher well and had not a second thought of going over his head or Kwan to teach me or Roy my partner.

In your Kwan theory that may be wrong, but I don't see it that way.

In olden day of MA arts student went from teacher to teacher to learn and improve thier skills that was normal.

You can still respect what your teacher did for you as I do but that's all.
I felt best served for my growth in Hapkido to move on.

I know for sure there are many Hapkidoin who feel the same way as I do and many will not, but never the less there should be a place for everyones path that I sure about.

 

[American HKD]

Bruce

I missed something above and I think you did as well in your explaination.

The Kwan is secondary to the Art.

The Art has to come first that why I beleive as I do. I would hold more credibilty to loyalty to ones teacher than the club itself.

The Kwan/Art relationship is good for both aspects of the Art but Hapkido is the main thing. Kwans can come and go, merge with another Kwan as my teachers kwan did in Korea so what he doesn't care that happened he never lost sleep over it.

YMK is not really even in exisitance these days is it, the WHF supercided the Kwan right? Ji Han Jae does'nt do anything with Sung Moo Kwan he does'nt care since Sin Moo. So this proves to me anyway the Art is way more important.

So not ranking someone whos knows the same thing as you because of a Kwan to me is very immature and not seeing the forest from the trees.

That's just MHO.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Stuart:

It is important to remember that when discussing Hapkido it is a mistake to characterize this or that as "more important" or "less important". When you work on your car I don't imagine that you are constantly ranking your tools in terms of importance. I don't think that working on a car in a parking lot as compared to a garage is more or less "important". There are advantages and disadvantages.

As far as the existence of Yon Mu Kwan versus the World Hapkido Federation that is a matter of history and policy. There are several reasons that GM Myung began the World Hapkido Federation and gradually put less emphasis on the kwan. Part of that was, admittedly, political. However, another reason had to do with the difficulty in representing the "kwan" as a viable institution to westerners. Westerners can understand organizations where one pays their fees and gets their membership. The kwan is a little harder to understand, rooted as it is in Korean culture. If you examine several of GM Myungs' books you will note that any number of the pictures of schools around the world still use "Yon Mu Kwan" to identify what they do. The emphasis, though, is usually more on the WHF approach than their staus as kwan members. There are still folks who take the nature of the kwan quite literally and quite seriously including yours-truly.

As far as "immaturity" goes, well, everyone has an opinion. I am sure people who are not members of the Masons view Masonic practices as "immature". I would even guess, such groups as Knights of Columbus, Moose, and VFW might be viewed narrowly. There is no reason people cannot join these organizations if they are motivated to, but they DO need to meet whatever the practices of the group are. Thats just the way it is. Casting aspersions such as "immaturity" does not help make your case. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[American HKD]

Dear Stuart:

It is important to remember that when discussing Hapkido it is a mistake to characterize this or that as "more important" or "less important". When you work on your car I don't imagine that you are constantly ranking your tools in terms of importance. I don't think that working on a car in a parking lot as compared to a garage is more or less "important". There are advantages and disadvantages.

As far as the existence of Yon Mu Kwan versus the World Hapkido Federation that is a matter of history and policy. There are several reasons that GM Myung began the World Hapkido Federation and gradually put less emphasis on the kwan. Part of that was, admittedly, political. However, another reason had to do with the difficulty in representing the "kwan" as a viable institution to westerners. Westerners can understand organizations where one pays their fees and gets their membership. The kwan is a little harder to understand, rooted as it is in Korean culture. If you examine several of GM Myungs' books you will note that any number of the pictures of schools around the world still use "Yon Mu Kwan" to identify what they do. The emphasis, though, is usually more on the WHF approach than their staus as kwan members. There are still folks who take the nature of the kwan quite literally and quite seriously including yours-truly.

As far as "immaturity" goes, well, everyone has an opinion. I am sure people who are not members of the Masons view Masonic practices as "immature". I would even guess, such groups as Knights of Columbus, Moose, and VFW might be viewed narrowly. There is no reason people cannot join these organizations if they are motivated to, but they DO need to meet whatever the practices of the group are. Thats just the way it is. Casting aspersions such as "immaturity" does not help make your case. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Bruce,

I wasn't implying your immature because your veiw differs from mine.

The fact remains people who all do the same Art Hapkido, from the same lineage of Ji Han Jae, don't or won't recognized each other across the board and that bothers me. It's like throwing out the baby with the bath water in my view.

The KHF has this part right by "universally ranking all Kwans in the Federation regardless of differences with one certification for all members".

Everybody in WHF must follow the same curriculum right?

In Sin Moo for example Master Ji teaches his core techniques but says you can do what ever you want from there. He says "It's your choice whatever you can do!"

Note: He's also talking to Instructors when he gives us that freedom of choice because he knows it will be done with-in the correct frame work of Sin Moo Hapkido.

What other Association or Master do you know is that open minded about the Art? To me it's amazing and shows a very secure person who can say and mean those things. That's how I feel about Master Ji, he's above all this pettyness.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Stuart:

Sounds like you have a good thing. If I were you I'd say you found a home and I would stick with it.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[iron_ox]

Hello all,

Getting back to the original intent of the string, can someone involved in this project please define the object for which you are developing minimum standards?

There has not been a single definition of what the minimum standards group is to use for Hapkido in this entire thread.

Isn't it neccessary to define the object of standards so as to set parameters?

 

[jfarnsworth]

There has not been a single definition of what the minimum standards group is to use for Hapkido in this entire thread.

How true that is. It reminds me of how many differences my fellow kenpo people have. :asian:

 

[glad2bhere]

You don't have to define "Football" for everyone to agree to call a ball "a ball". You don't have to define Golf for everyone to agree to call a nine iron "a nine iron". You don't have to define Taekwondo for all practitioners to decide that a front kick will be termed a "front snap kick" and be differentiated from a "front toe kick" or a "front heel kick". You don't have to define Hapkido for everyone to agree that compromising an attackers stability is called "off-balancing".

Do YOU want to define Hapkido? Go ahead. Thats not what this string is about and I don't see that its necessary, but knock yourself out. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[kwanjang]

In Sin Moo for example Master Ji teaches his core techniques but says you can do what ever you want from there. He says "It's your choice whatever you can do!"

Note: He's also talking to Instructors when he gives us that freedom of choice because he knows it will be done with-in the correct frame work of Sin Moo Hapkido.

What other Association or Master do you know is that open minded about the Art? To me it's amazing and shows a very secure person who can say and mean those things. That's how I feel about Master Ji, he's above all this pettyness.

Hello Stuart:
In my school I teach the core curriculum; however, even there I insist that students make the techniques their own. I cannot imagine anyone asking their students to "clone" things, as each person as an individual needs to use the principles of the techniques to suit their nature, body style, ability etc. etc. to their own best advantage. So, I think GM Ji is NOT the only one who feels the way he does about giving some leeway.

I might not have explained my reasons for NOT cross ranking. I WILL give people certification IF they show me good technique (and basically adhere to the generally accepted standards of Hap Ki Do). What I do NOT do is offer a blanket cross rank without actually SEEING a person do his stuff.

While the generally accepted standards of Hap Ki Do might not have been written down yet, I think we ALL know when a person knows his stuff or does not. That is the criteria I use, and so far it has worked fine. To give you an idea what I mean: If a person shows good technique but he does not have hyung, I do not withold certification. I just want to SEE the stuff they do know. Many kwans do not require forms, so I do not insist on them (even though they are a big part of MY curriculum). I hope you get my drift.

 

[American HKD]

Hello Stuart:
In my school I teach the core curriculum; however, even there I insist that students make the techniques their own. I cannot imagine anyone asking their students to "clone" things, as each person as an individual needs to use the principles of the techniques to suit their nature, body style, ability etc. etc. to their own best advantage. So, I think GM Ji is NOT the only one who feels the way he does about giving some leeway.

I might not have explained my reasons for NOT cross ranking. I WILL give people certification IF they show me good technique (and basically adhere to the generally accepted standards of Hap Ki Do). What I do NOT do is offer a blanket cross rank without actually SEEING a person do his stuff.

While the generally accepted standards of Hap Ki Do might not have been written down yet, I think we ALL know when a person knows his stuff or does not. That is the criteria I use, and so far it has worked fine. To give you an idea what I mean: If a person shows good technique but he does not have hyung, I do not withold certification. I just want to SEE the stuff they do know. Many kwans do not require forms, so I do not insist on them (even though they are a big part of MY curriculum). I hope you get my drift.

Rudy,

Good post, we are in 110% agreement on all of the above.

People who are rigid are missing the boat IMO, as you said everyone's mind and body is diiferent.

I look for the way people move and you can tell if they know Hapkido or not.

My first teacher required us to memorized hundreds of tech. many of which just over lapped from somewhere else. When I was yound I did it but now
I think after you know x amount there's to need to memorize for memorization sake but understanding the principle of each technique is what's important.

Then your free to move or react at will as a MA.

 

[American HKD]

Greetings

Actually I've been thinking about the minimum standards for a while and I have two issues.

1. If it's JUST for the sake of terminology I think it's good.

2. If it's for requiring rank, meaning what someone has to learn it for X rank, I'm not sure if it will help.

Because a REAL Hapkido Instr. knows what to teach and these standards are meaningless for him/her.

 

[iron_ox]

You don't have to define "Football" for everyone to agree to call a ball "a ball". So any game using a "ball" is Football? How about the fact that the Brits call Soccer "Football" - so these two games are the same?

You don't have to define Taekwondo for all practitioners to decide that a front kick will be termed a "front snap kick" and be differentiated from a "front toe kick" or a "front heel kick". How can they be practitioners if they have no way of differentiating themselves from those doing other arts? The kick they do is for them unique to them and therefore would have definition to them.

You don't have to define Hapkido for everyone to agree that compromising an attackers stability is called "off-balancing". This is an element of several arts, not just one, and for this art would be only a single part of its definition.

It is, by definition of standards it is neccessary to define what you are standardizing. If you are not going to define Hapkido, then this is just an exercise in comparitive technique between who knows. Without definition, there will be lists of techniques that will have no bearing on any art at all. From an academic point of view, a definition shouild have been the first thing accomplished, otherwise, it is impossible to create a standard - becasue it would them beg the question of "standard of what".

By your analogy, Pete Rose and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar could all be considered part of a standard for great Football players.

 

[glad2bhere]

Maybe you need a definition to fullfill YOUR agenda, but I don't need one to accomplish what it is I am working at. I said that if you want to define Hapkido go ahead. You didn't do it so I am concluding that you have more investment in raising issues than solving problems. Nothing wrong with that except that is not what I am about. As far as I have been able to tell from the posts your contribtuions have been limited to finding fault and not to adding to the discourse. Again, nothing wrong with that except that is not what this effort is about. Now, is there something you would like to add to the growing wealth of information, or do you just want to stand around and
and comment loudly, and to noone in particular, how you could do what the folks who are actually working are doing "except better".

Bruce

 

[iron_ox]

Hello all,

Borrowed this becasue I think it is appropriate:


POT AND KETTLE

Perhaps the first rule of verbal self-defense, in the absence of legitimate and logically grounded opinion, is to accuse the accuser. Cornered, the VS or VTG will be quick to point out that it is the critic(s) who display(s) the warning signs of martial arts fraudulence.

It is SO typical. that when confronted with a very obvious question that begs answering in regard to the nature of the effort that is supposedly being undertaken, that the very nature of the questioner is brought into play as opposed to the question -

But, I suppose that the very nature of what has transpired here is the very answer to my question: Standards without definition, much like the agenda pushed here that Hapkido is a generic catch all for everything from Korea that is not TaeKwonDo. How convenient then to avoid a definition so that ANY set of techniques can come under consideration.

A definition of the word "Standard":

Something established as a basis of comparison in measuring or judging capacity, quantity, content, value, quality, etc.; a specified set of safety or performance qualities which a device or process must possess. These must generally be demonstrated by a series of tests conducted under pre-determined conditions. (eg - an agreed upon definition of what it is being standardized)

So, if you, or the rest of this group is not going to provide a definition, how do you measure the use of a standard for all Korean martial arts other than TaeKwonDo?

No Bruce, I am not being negative, I am simply right. It is the insidious agenda being pushed here of the use of Hapkido as a cover all that I object to and will continue to object to. My belief that this is infact the agenda here is further borne out by the lack of a definition by which a "minimal standard" can work.

Furthermore, to continue your rude conjecturing, if I am speaking to noone, well, at least I here it loud and clear - so I'm in damn good company.

 

[glad2bhere]

Fine-- go be right. How many terms have YOU contributed? How many concepts have YOU helped define? Fine. You get bragging rights to "being right". Not that you have helped improve anything, or pulled people togther or promoted better communication. But you CAN sit around and tell everyone how YOU were RIGHT. Good for you, Kevin. Thanks for all the help. You get to sit around and tell anyone who will listen that you were the sole source of "correctness" while everyone else was fumbling around. Oh--- but if they would have JUST LISTENED to Kevin, then they would have known the Truth instead of shambling along in darkness, right?

I remember something about lighting a candle rather than cursing the darkness. But there is security in cursing the darkness, isn't there Kevin? You don't have to risk anything because there are a LOT of folks who will validate darkness. How many people want to make the effort to light the candle? Or maybe you don't mind lighting a candle as long as YOUR candle is the only one ---- and YOU are the one who is holding it, yes? Fine. Whatever.

I suppose I should at least be grateful that you were honest enough to be forth-coming about what was on your mind ("....It is the insidious agenda being pushed here of the use of Hapkido as a cover all that I object to and will continue to object to. My belief that this is infact the agenda here is further borne out by the lack of a definition by which a "minimal standard" can work.....") Not like you were ever on-board with the idea to begin with, right? Of course, had it been YOUR idea it would have borne a halo and been accompanied by a heavenly choir---- and suitably defined in a manner to which you would like to become accustomed-- Hapkido according to Todd and Kevin and only available at "authorized dealerships". Like I say, "whatever".


Bruce

 

[iron_ox]

Bruce,

Wow, mighty good rant. Feel better? Now, can you define Hapkido for this minimal standard or not? That's all I questioned.

Against my better judgement, I will make one comment to your nonsense: I think you will be amazed at who I have brought together from the wedge this thread has tried to create - but only time will present that one.

 

[iron_ox]

Hapkido according to Todd and Kevin and only available at "authorized dealerships". Like I say, "whatever".

What does Todd have to do with this? I asked a question about definition and you try and insult both of us? Todd had nothing to do with this question - and frankly, the question of definition was open to all concerned with this project.

 

[glad2bhere]

Here, I'll fix it.

"......Hapkido according to Kevin and only available at "authorized dealerships"....." Whatever.

The bit with the definition is getting a little old. You are not interested in A definition. You are only interested in YOUR definition. Having to consider commonalities would mean that your take on Hapkido is no more, or less, valid than anyone elses, and thats bad for business, right? Not that you can't keep using this string to keep yourself in the public eye. Its just not what the original intention of the string was.

Bruce

 

[KenpoTess]

MOD NOTE

Thread Locked Pending Admin Review, There has been numerous reports to Mod referencing various issues. Sniping seems to be the main problem. An Investigation will ensue.

~Tess
-MT S. Mod-