hi,
just from reading this thread it seems to me that the problem that exists is still the arguement over styles. who's teaching this and calling it that...who does it belong to? who is doing it right or wrong according to our way of doing it?
think with me for a moment, outside of the box that is the concept of styles...
think about the individual style that focuses on kicks, or the one that focuses on throwing, or the one that focuses on grappling. a person who practices a style of martial art that focuses on one tiny aspect of combat is limited. seeing that limitation sets them on the path to discover how to overcome the limitation. they seek out other arts to find a more completeness within themselves.
so they go study an art that focuses on hand techniques. the kicker learns to use his hands. but still that isnt enough. he needs to find a way, once close enough to his opponent, to take him off his feet. so he finds a style that teaches throwing and takedowns. well, now he has those three skills. but what happens when he is on the ground? well, now he has to learn about grappling...and so on it goes.
if you think less about which style it is or comes from and more about what it will do to help you grow, you will come to see that a true martial artist isnt classified by any style at all, but by his ability to adapt and to move with the opponent and to use all the skills of the martial arts. i set about to discover what those were back in the eighties. i listed them for when i wanted to learn more about myself and to teach others. here is the list i came up with, that a more complete martial artist should possess:
1-stance/body position
2-footwork/mobility
3-offensive hand techniques
4-defensive hand techniques
5-offensive leg techniques
6-defensive leg techniques
7-throws/sweeps/takedowns
8-grappling/pinning
9-choke/strangle
10-miscelaneous controlling and maiming
11-joint/anti-joint-lock/break/throw
these are the main elements of the martial arts. some arts only use some of these elements in their teaching. some focus on part of the martial arts and dont teach the martial arts in its wholeness. years ago, when i trained in tae kwon do, we practiced some self defense techniques but we didnt do much with it. in studying tkd i felt very limited by the lack of hand techniques, especially when i fought against boxers. eventually i was able to train at a chinese based martial art school with an emphasis on wing chun and overcame some of my lack of skills in close range fighting. the added understanding i got from training in filipino arts helped even more. then i found a jkd school which helped me to work with western boxing skills as well.
can hapkido techniques be good for tkd? certainly. but like someone posted earlier, be dilligent to learn the proper application of the method of breakholds, of joint/anti-joint locks/breaks/throws. i have had two wonderful books on hapkido over the years. one by kwang sik myung and the other by marc tedeshi. hapkido has alot of great stuff to offer in that field of joint manipulation. so does aikido and kali and chin na. chin na is where all that came from anyways.
the problem is, with most styles and instructors, (some jkd included), that when you train in one art and add to what you are learning, you change the art that you are learning. most traditional schools, instructors, styles are against this because they feel that the only person who can add or take away from a style is the founder or the head. well, this is the whole point of not having individual systems. instead, we need men (or women) who will guide others to find their own ways in the martial arts. you start by learning the very basics of the martial arts, which i described above. the individual techniques may vary, but in all, most styles contain the same basic ones. front kick. side kick. turning (hook) kick. back kick. thrust punch. backfist. bottom or hammer fist. ridge hand strike. upper block. lower block. inside block. outside block. hip throw. shoulder throw. leg sweep. etc, etc. all of those basics can be taught in a school. a person can develop those skills if they set themselves to practice them. i had this point of view before i ever read anything by bruce lee on jkd. but when i did read what lee had to say it made sense with what i already knew. it is not the style that is important, but the man who is expressing himself.
i am not against those who wish to train one style and master one style and live for one style. i understand the dedication it takes to do so. but for those who are seeking beyond systems, seeking to find what they lack, they should be less concerned over the individual system and more concerned of the individual person.
i know that this isnt exactly the direct answer to the question but i felt that another viewpoint might be appreciated in response to the question asked. ive been through all this over the years and still see people who wont better themselves by studying other arts for fear of reprimand from their instructors or styles. and again, i dont say all this to upset anyone as i do understand why someone chooses to train and keep their art "pure". but, when a person asks this kind of question then i see them as searching for more and i hope that what i have said will help those who are seeking. if you arent seeking then let these words fall upon you as rain on the roof of your house. thanks for listening...
