Does Hapkido have a technical standard?

[mastercole]

I have been looking over a variety of Hapkido websites. I read things about authenticity, originality, traditionally pure, etc.

How can these claims be verified?

Does Hapkido have a technical standard, and if so, what/who sets that standard?

 

[Haakon]

Hapkido covers such a broad range, sometimes it seems anyone who does Tae Kwon Do and adds in a couple wrist locks calls what they do Hapkido, I don't think there is any hard standard. Even with the larger international HKD orgs their curriculum varies so much it would be impossible to put a single standard across it. Some orgs teach forms, like the World Hapkido Federation, some are all practical techniques like Combat Hapkido how could you apply one standard?

Is a school authentic, some would say it isn't if the instructor can't trace his lineage back to Yong Sul Choi, which really shouldn't be that hard since he only died 26 years ago, they aren't teaching "real" Hapkido, but who defines what "real" Hapkido is?

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Hapkido covers such a broad range, sometimes it seems anyone who does Tae Kwon Do and adds in a couple wrist locks calls what they do Hapkido, I don't think there is any hard standard. Even with the larger international HKD orgs their curriculum varies so much it would be impossible to put a single standard across it. Some orgs teach forms, like the World Hapkido Federation, some are all practical techniques like Combat Hapkido how could you apply one standard?

Is a school authentic, some would say it isn't if the instructor can't trace his lineage back to Yong Sul Choi, which really shouldn't be that hard since he only died 26 years ago, they aren't teaching "real" Hapkido, but who defines what "real" Hapkido is?

Valid points. In order for a universally accepted technical standard to be accepted, there would need to be one, and only one Hapkido organization in existence. Within that organization, one, and only one leader that sets that technical standard which everyone in turn supports and upholds.

Is this realistically going to happen? No. If it were a realistic possibility it would probably have already been accomplished while the art was in its infancy. Whatever facts or speculation one may consider (from power grabs, politics, personal conflicts, differing ideology etc) the seniors of the art did not combine the art into a single, cohesive unit.

Another consideration is the vast amount of difference of opinion on what 'Hapkido' is and what it isn't. Speaking only for myself, from my point of view...and no disrespect intended towards any particular group...I have seen some very high level Hapkidoin demonstrating techniques that I know would never work in a real world altercation. Too complicated, too based in refined motor skills (which diminish while under duress/adrenaline dump) and useful only for 'show' against a semi-compliant partner that is willing to throw his punch a foot to the side of your head and leave it hanging there in mid-air for the 'master' to grab and demonstrate his fancy technique. How could someone (not just me, but anyone that has used the art in the real world) support something like that as 'the' technical standard? That would be intellectual dishonesty and a disservice to pass on to students. That is my own viewpoint, based upon my perspectives and experience.

 

[Haakon]

We've practiced techniques just like you describe Kong, things that barely work in the dojang even with a compliant partner, no way in hell would they ever work in the real world. One could argue there is some value in doing them to develop coordination and such, but as far as being a practical application, not a chance.

Before being able to set a technical standard we (global 'we', not just MAP) would need to define a set of core techniques that are Hapkido, similar to how Tae Kwon Do has specific patterns (depending on the org) that can be measured against. As far as I know there aren't even common terms for the same techniques across Hapkido orgs. For example what everyone in Aikido is called kotegaeshi (outward wrist twist), I'm sure every Hapkido school teaches it and calls it something different. I really don't think that kind of consolidation is ever going to happen for Hapkido. It is my belief that the art is to splintered with to many organizations that are large enough to be self sustaining so they don't have any reason to consolidate. If anything I expect the art to diverge even more, some orgs/schools might rename what they do like the Hankido people did, but others will keep calling what they do "Hapkido"" even though what they teach bares little resemblance to other schools that also teach "Hapkido".

All of which is a very long winded way of saying there really isn't a good way to authenticate what any given school is teaching, at least not beyond going to the school, watching them train and deciding for yourself if what you see if something you want to learn.

 

[oftheherd1]

...

All of which is a very long winded way of saying there really isn't a good way to authenticate what any given school is teaching, at least not beyond going to the school, watching them train and deciding for yourself if what you see if something you want to learn.

Seems that pretty much say it all. For Hapkido, or any other martial art. There are reasons why there are different styles in different types of martial arts. Different students find certain things more to their liking and create their own style. They then collect students who agree, or some way buy into that as being the best.

 

[mastercole]

We've practiced techniques just like you describe Kong, things that barely work in the dojang even with a compliant partner, no way in hell would they ever work in the real world. One could argue there is some value in doing them to develop coordination and such, but as far as being a practical application, not a chance.

Before being able to set a technical standard we (global 'we', not just MAP) would need to define a set of core techniques that are Hapkido, similar to how Tae Kwon Do has specific patterns (depending on the org) that can be measured against. As far as I know there aren't even common terms for the same techniques across Hapkido orgs. For example what everyone in Aikido is called kotegaeshi (outward wrist twist), I'm sure every Hapkido school teaches it and calls it something different. I really don't think that kind of consolidation is ever going to happen for Hapkido. It is my belief that the art is to splintered with to many organizations that are large enough to be self sustaining so they don't have any reason to consolidate. If anything I expect the art to diverge even more, some orgs/schools might rename what they do like the Hankido people did, but others will keep calling what they do "Hapkido"" even though what they teach bares little resemblance to other schools that also teach "Hapkido".

All of which is a very long winded way of saying there really isn't a good way to authenticate what any given school is teaching, at least not beyond going to the school, watching them train and deciding for yourself if what you see if something you want to learn.

So since there is not standard to compare to as correct Hapkido, and there is no combat contest to compare who develops the best fighters, it seems that I would simply pick a teacher that impressed me the most, that I felt was a good fit for me and that there is no way of ever knowing how good one Hapkido teacher, or student is compared to another. If I were recommended to a specific teacher, it would simply be based on the opinion of the recommender, not on any type of fact of ability, or achievement? So it is really a person's personal taste?

 

[mastercole]

Seems that pretty much say it all. For Hapkido, or any other martial art. There are reasons why there are different styles in different types of martial arts. Different students find certain things more to their liking and create their own style. They then collect students who agree, or some way buy into that as being the best.

Not for all martial arts.

For example; Judo has a curriculum standard, and a person can compare one teacher to another based on that standard. Judo also has combat, which sets one teacher and their students apart from another.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

If I were recommended to a specific teacher, it would simply be based on the opinion of the recommender, not on any type of fact of ability, or achievement? So it is really a person's personal taste?

A comment in regards to ability and/or achievement; they are not always one and the same. Particularly in the area of achievement. We are in the middle of a conversation about this very thing on MW. As an example, and I don't say this to be unkind, I've seen several high level Dan Hapkidoin demonstrate techniques that look 'cool' but in all honesty would not work against a determined, non-compliant attacker. So Dan rank, in and of itself from the perspective of a workable self-defense art isn't necessarily the best indicator. Someone could be of low or no rank, yet have practical experience against real people, and can effectively teach those skills from experience. If the desire to learn an art such as Hapkido is from a SD perspective then simply finding out the level of practical experience of an instructor is a must. A high Dan that has only trained with semi-compliant partners inside a controlled environment could offer theory, but not whether or not that theory stacks up in a actual altercation.

If Hapkido (or any art) is to be learned from a non-SD perspective i.e. just desiring to learn some movements and techniques regardless of the effectiveness of said movements and techniques then honestly, why not just go to Arthur Murry and learn dance? At least it would have a practical application. Again, take my comments in the light they are intended. Hapkido is often thought of as one of the more SD oriented Korean arts. That is a legitimate position if one considers the art from which it came i.e. Aiki Jujutsu which has a very good and practical track record from a SD perspective. Many of those seniors did use it in real world settings. So Hapkido, by extension can also be a valid and solid means of SD. We just need to be careful to separate what 'looks good' but doesn't work from what is much less flashy but will allow you to go home to your loved ones. Flash is a poor substitute for effectiveness.

If esoteric applications have to be added, let them be added after the primary function of the art has been accomplished. And then, only if it compliments the primary function.

 

[puunui]

We've practiced techniques just like you describe Kong, things that barely work in the dojang even with a compliant partner, no way in hell would they ever work in the real world. One could argue there is some value in doing them to develop coordination and such, but as far as being a practical application, not a chance.

You never know. Peyton Quinn, in his book Real Fighting, says that a master can make any technique work in a self defense situation. Obviously someone with a higher skill level has a higher probability of making something work than a beginner. I have a student who took whatever hapkido technique I showed, and practiced them like they could all be used in a self defense situation. He went home and trained hard in his garage with his uncle and other family members, all of whom were my students. They drove in from pretty much the other side of the island, from Wailua, to come to class and really wanted to learn. One day that one student got into an argument with one of his co workers, about the practicality of hapkido for self defense. Finally it came to demonstration time, so my student told the other guy go for it, do whatever you want. The other guy came flying in with a hard two handed shove, and my student did a semi complicated technique and threw him head first into the garbage can, his feet wiggling in the air until the can finally tipped over and he got out. That other guy ended up joining and the student now runs his own dojang.

 

[mastercole]

You never know. Peyton Quinn, in his book Real Fighting, says that a master can make any technique work in a self defense situation. Obviously someone with a higher skill level has a higher probability of making something work than a beginner.

Some practitioners never move beyond beginners mode.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Obviously someone with a higher skill level has a higher probability of making something work than a beginner.

With respect, this isn't necessarily correct. What needs to be taken into consideration is the venue in which a 'higher level of skill' was obtained. If the higher level of skill was obtained solely in a controlled environment (Dojang/Dojo) against a semi-compliant partner that isn't truly 'attacking' you with determination, focus and realism, then one will not actually know if it would work in a real world altercation. Put another way, in many arts there are what we would call high level masters that are fast and flashy. But what they are doing in that controlled environment would not work in an actual chaotic fight.

Thus, someone of a higher skill level would have to have obtained that level of skill in techniques and principles that are go-to movements. This demonstrates the need for uncomplicated, gross motor skills that are easily adaptable to an ever-changing fight. We absolutely cannot be 'wowed' by what looks good over that which has substance. Too many factors beyond our control will dictate was is practical and what isn't.

Now to be clear, this isn't to say that a Hapkidoin needs to go out and get into a fight. However, seeking training from someone that has practical, real world experience goes a long way. Additionally, when a technique, principle, movement or tactic is being taught we need to have a moment of honest exchange such as, 'have you used this against a violent, determined, non-compliant attacker'? Or, do we know if it has been used and what the result was? Is it a go-to movement that has a high probability of success or is in in the curriculum because it is a filler or looks flashy and has a 'wow' factor? If training has at least something to do with SD, then it is reasonable to know if what you're learning and investing sweat-equity in will actually work.

 

[mastercole]

For example what everyone in Aikido is called kotegaeshi (outward wrist twist),

That is also an interesting question. I think that Aikido and Hapkido have the same Hanja. Are the alike in anyway?

 

[Haakon]

That is also an interesting question. I think that Aikido and Hapkido have the same Hanja. Are the alike in anyway?

Correct, the same characters are used for Aikido as Hapkido. They both trace roots back to Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu so as you would expect there are many overlaps between the arts. Aikido tends to use larger circles than Hapkido and is usually considered a more gentle style, and of course Aikido has almost no punching and kicking. Some say Aikido is 90% atemi (strikes) but that certainly hasn't been the case in any Aikido class or seminar I've been to.

I'm sure they aren't all the same, but there seems to be much more standing around and talking in Aikido classes than in the TKD and HKD classes I've been to. I never really felt I had a workout after most Aikido classes.

This is just my opinion, but I think that Hapkido is more likely to be of practical use than Aikido is, at least the way it is usually taught. I thought this quote from a high level Aikido instructor was a good insight to Aikido:

Asking a bunch of Aikido seniors about practical self defense application is like walking into a lab full of theoretical physicists and asking them if what they are studying has any actual use

He went on to say:

I am saying that it has to be about the silliest way to train if one simply wants to be able to fight out on the street. It would be hard to find a martial art which took longer to get one to the level of practical capability.

Now that isn't to say that Hapkido is the be-all, end-all of martial effectiveness, but I think it is likely to be more useful, or easier to apply in the real world, far earlier in the training than Aikido. Not always of course, as Kong has pointed out there is plenty of fantasy training going on in Hapkido too.

 

[mastercole]

Correct, the same characters are used for Aikido as Hapkido. They both trace roots back to Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu so as you would expect there are many overlaps between the arts. Aikido tends to use larger circles than Hapkido and is usually considered a more gentle style, and of course Aikido has almost no punching and kicking. Some say Aikido is 90% atemi (strikes) but that certainly hasn't been the case in any Aikido class or seminar I've been to.

I'm sure they aren't all the same, but there seems to be much more standing around and talking in Aikido classes than in the TKD and HKD classes I've been to. I never really felt I had a workout after most Aikido classes.

This is just my opinion, but I think that Hapkido is more likely to be of practical use than Aikido is, at least the way it is usually taught. I thought this quote from a high level Aikido instructor was a good insight to Aikido:

He went on to say:


Now that isn't to say that Hapkido is the be-all, end-all of martial effectiveness, but I think it is likely to be more useful, or easier to apply in the real world, far earlier in the training than Aikido. Not always of course, as Kong has pointed out there is plenty of fantasy training going on in Hapkido too.

Thank you for that detailed response, it was very interesting. You said Aikido was larger circles. In the early 90's I trained attended some training seminars that focused on small circles for wrist and arm locks, etc. The guy talked a lot about the size of the movement of grappling. He seemed to think that the larger the movement, the easier to counter or escape. Does Aikido's circles become smaller after a while of training, like Hapkido?

 

[mastercole]

"I am saying that it has to be about the silliest way to train if one simply wants to be able to fight out on the street. It would be hard to find a martial art which took longer to get one to the level of practical capability."

Likely more of a cultural thing.

 

[puunui]

Some practitioners never move beyond beginners mode.

oh well, what can you do.

 

[WMKS Shogun]

Couple of things: Aikido being 90% Atemi (striking) is, if memory serves, (a paraphrase of) a quote from Ueshiba, Morihei. As I heard it, he was talking about the use of atemi as a distraction to facilitate the movements. Basically, distraction and misdirection is 90% of aikido, not that 90% of the physical techniques of aikido are strikes.
Also, someone else already said this, but Aikido does start with large circles, but many styles teach that the circles should get smaller as the practicioner gets better. The circles start big to make sure beginners are actually using circles.

 

[American HKD]

I have been looking over a variety of Hapkido websites. I read things about authenticity, originality, traditionally pure, etc.

How can these claims be verified?

Does Hapkido have a technical standard, and if so, what/who sets that standard?

Good question.

I think good technical standards are kept by honest Masters who have learned and teach according to the standards their teachers passed on.

I will be the first to admit I have seen many Black Belts that would not be blue belts in my school. No not everyone has the same standards and it is a shame.

We were always tested by two or more masters and the students had to satisfy all of them to pass.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I have been looking over a variety of Hapkido websites. I read things about authenticity, originality, traditionally pure, etc.

How can these claims be verified?

If you look at many TKD school websites, you run into the same sort of thing. Yes, it can be verified, but it takes digging and research. It is much easier to verify with taekwondo than it is with hapkido, partly because traditionally, hapkido has no forms. With taekwondo, you can look at the forms and say, 'he's doing taeguk iljang, or he's doing a Chang Hon or a Songahm form.' Taekwondo is much more accessible to most people, so they also have a better idea of what it is supposed to look like. Since the technical content is generally narrower and more striking focused, it is also easier to evaluate.

Hapkido is less common and really doesn't use forms. It's not an olympic sport and traditionally doesn't have a competitive element, so people don't have a mental image of what 'hapkido fighting' is supposed to look like either. Because hapkido has striking with both the hands/arms and feet/legs, but which are executed differently, and because a lot of TKD schools incorporate kicks from hapkido, it is even harder to differentiate.

Does Hapkido have a technical standard, and if so, what/who sets that standard?

People who don't actually practice hapkido but have material culled from hapkido grafted onto whatever art they practice (usually taekwondo) are happy to say that they practice hapkido (even though they don't) and will say that there is no technical standard. This is not true.

Hapkido, regardless of which federation or association, has a common body of material. There are some differences from federation to federation, but there is far more overlap than difference. Hapkido's techniques are designed around the hwu, won, and yu principles; harmony, circular, and flowing (there is another thread on this subject going). Hapkido is a soft art, which makes it very different from taekwondo or karate.

Aside from joint locks, manipulation, sweeps, and take-downs, hapkido has a body of strikes, some of which overlap with other Korean striking arts and some of which are uniquely hapkido.

As to who sets that standard, it is the same as with any other art; there are a number of federations, the largest of which I believe is GM Ji's; the Korea Hapkido Federation, which set standards for the technical content.

Other organizations include the International Hapkido Federation (GM Myung Jae Nam) and the World Hapkido Association (GM Jung Tae). There are numerous other federations and associations, as well as unaffiliated schools.

I have been trained by IHF lineage instructors and am also a member of the World Hapkido Association.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Valid points. In order for a universally accepted technical standard to be accepted, there would need to be one, and only one Hapkido organization in existence. Within that organization, one, and only one leader that sets that technical standard which everyone in turn supports and upholds.

I disagree with you here. Legitimate hapkido can trace its roots back to a fairly small number of people, and while there are some differences between them, there is enough common technical content to tie them together.

Is this realistically going to happen? No. If it were a realistic possibility it would probably have already been accomplished while the art was in its infancy. Whatever facts or speculation one may consider (from power grabs, politics, personal conflicts, differing ideology etc) the seniors of the art did not combine the art into a single, cohesive unit.

Another consideration is the vast amount of difference of opinion on what 'Hapkido' is and what it isn't. Speaking only for myself, from my point of view...and no disrespect intended towards any particular group...I have seen some very high level Hapkidoin demonstrating techniques that I know would never work in a real world altercation. Too complicated, too based in refined motor skills (which diminish while under duress/adrenaline dump) and useful only for 'show' against a semi-compliant partner that is willing to throw his punch a foot to the side of your head and leave it hanging there in mid-air for the 'master' to grab and demonstrate his fancy technique. How could someone (not just me, but anyone that has used the art in the real world) support something like that as 'the' technical standard? That would be intellectual dishonesty and a disservice to pass on to students. That is my own viewpoint, based upon my perspectives and experience.

How do you use that paragraph about overly complex techniques to support the first sentence about opinion of what constitutes hapkido? The two are completely unrelated. And outside of debate about CHKD, I really haven't seen all that much debate about what is and is not hapkido.

Regarding some techniques being over-refined or overly complex, over-compliance of partners, or having some other issue that makes them less effective on the mythical deadly street, that is hardly common to hapkido and those factors have nothing to do with whether or not the art is considered 'hapkido.' While I do consider those factors to be worthy of consideration/discussion, at that point, you're getting more into the topic of 'what works on the street?' and away from 'is this hapkido?'