Going to my first Hapkido school

[skribs]

I've trained Hapkido with my Taekwondo Master and earned my blackbelt in Hapkido. However, I believe his curriculum is very different from a dedicated Hapkido school. He focused the vast majority of class on wristlocks and similar techniques, and very little on the striking aspect. We had 20+ TKD classes per week and 1 HKD class per week, so he would focus on the part that HKD excels in over TKD for that class.

Additionally, I've been in a lot of arguments discussions with people (on MartialTalk and on Reddit) who claim to do MMA or BJJ about the efficacy of HKD. (My favorite was someone who had taken one aikido class and told me exactly how he thinks we train in my HKD class). I have been training BJJ for around 6 months now. It is the freshest training in my mind.

My Dad (who also trained with me in both TKD and HKD at my old school, although he was only a blue belt in HKD) is looking to get into a new martial art. So he's going to check out a nearby HKD school. I'm gonna go with him to check it out. I think it's going to be interesting to compare with both of my experiences above. The experience in previous HKD schools, and my recent experience in BJJ.

I do plan to stick with BJJ, because that's the journey I'm on right now. But I do think it will benefit me to skip one BJJ class to go check out this one.

 

[skribs]

Update: Power was out. Shoulda gone to BJJ class.

Will try again next week.

Rant: Why is every adult martial art class in my area either start or end at 7:30? How does anybody cross-train?

 

[Mider]

Nothing wrong with HKD, I’ve seen a few very good ones, many teachers today see the benefits of TMA and MMA, BJJ

 

[skribs]

Going to try it again today. And by that, I mean hopefully they have power so there's actually a class...

 

[skribs]

Made it to the class today. I now get some of the criticism that Hapkido gets. It wasn't all bad. There was some good. There were a few tips that I picked up in the class. If it were the only martial art school within an hour drive, I would go there. Luckily, it's not. Note that I am not going to name the school.

For starters, this was advertised as a hapkido class, but it was about 40 minutes of yoga followed by 20 minutes of hapkido. I have nothing against yoga existing. But I've done a year of yoga and that's enough of it for me. In fact, I texted my old yoga teacher (who is also an old TKD student of mine) and told her that I accidentally took another yoga class.

Then we get to the Hapkido. He said a couple of things that I very much agree with.

1. He is going to teach us what he learned, the way he learned it, as taught in his particular style of Hapkido. If there are different ways of doing something, he's not going to tell us what is right or wrong, he is simply going to teach us his way and expect that in his class, we do things his way.
2. Hapkido is purely about self-defense. It's not about sport, it's not about flash. It's about in a real situation where the other person may be trying to kill you, taking them out as quickly as possible. Essentially, if we train a punch, we need to train that punch to end the fight.

I do really like the way he phrased that he is teaching us Hapkido, and that he's not going to try to tell us what way is best, just teach us his way and we can compartmentalize it. (He used that word: compartmentalize). What I didn't like was him then explaining why his punch is stronger than a sport punch (i.e. boxing punch), because apparently:

• When you pick your heel off the ground, you lose the connection to the ground. (Really it helps you sink your hip and apply the principle he was trying to teach that you should sink into it).
• When you punch from the guard, it's just an arm punch and there's no hip turn into it.
• No sport fighter (except Tyson) tries to put their opponent down fast.

Personally, I don't want to judge him on his lack of knowledge of other arts, because I'm not there to learn other arts. I was there to learn Hapkido. But I also don't like it when martial artists will misunderstand fundamentals of other arts in order to promote their own. He made the point a few times about why his style of punching is better. I do agree with him that a chambered punch has more potential power than a punch from guard, but I believe it achieves this through the same principles, just having a better starting position.

As to the idea that Hapkido was about self-defense and not flash or competition...literally as he was telling us this, the other students were working on jump split kicks to hit two pads at the same time. A flashy move I've done in TKD, but not what I'd expect in a pure self-defense course.

After the yoga, and before he worked with us specifically, we did a quick warmup that included some punches, kicks, and combinations. Then he worked with us, and he wanted us to focus on a punch as if it was the only technique. No recoil, because we're expecting it to take the person out in one punch. Then he showed us a self-defense drill where we side-step a punch and do a combination. I didn't really see the "one punch" concept applied in anything else he taught us.

His curriculum reminded us of our former Master's Taekwondo curriculum, except there's about 1/3 as much to learn at each belt, no forms, and you don't even need to memorize things by numbers. Yet, the black belts had to consult his handouts every time they wanted to work on something, instead of knowing the material to work on. And, despite my Dad being a blue belt in HKD and me being a black belt, he would have us start at white belt because he wants us to learn his material his way.

I did TKD as a kid for 4 years. When I started TKD as an adult, I started as a white belt. When I started HKD the first time, I started as a white belt. I recently started BJJ, and I started at as a white belt. If I'm going to go back to TKD or HKD, I understand if a school needs to check where they think I am and maybe places me differently. But if I'm going to start over at white belt, I'd rather do what I did and start a new martial art, instead of starting over in one I already have a black belt in.

I went into this with the idea that I wanted to pick up a few tips and see what a full-blooded Hapkido class was like. That goal was achieved. My plan was to continue to do BJJ that I've been doing lately, and that 100% cemented my decision to keep doing it. My Dad wanted to find a new martial arts school to train. He has 0 interest in BJJ. However, he is now more likely to join me in BJJ than continue HKD. (Although much more likely to continue TKD).

 

[Flying Crane]

What I didn't like was him then explaining why his punch is stronger than a sport punch (i.e. boxing punch), because apparently:

• When you pick your heel off the ground, you lose the connection to the ground. (Really it helps you sink your hip and apply the principle he was trying to teach that you should sink into it).

Just to comment on this. I’ve never trained a method where we pick the heel up when throwing a punch, so I won’t comment on that and won’t make any comparisons. However, keeping the heel down does make for a strong connection with the ground and with your rooting, and can create a tremendously strong punch. Of course this depends on what else is happening in the kinetic chain, just like any other methodology. I am certain that either way CAN lead to lousy punches. I suspect that either way CAN lead to extremely powerful punches. I know for a fact that the heel-down method does.

What is important to recognize is that a methodology cannot be properly evaluated with one, or a few, sessions. It usually takes some significant time to commit to and embrace the methodology in order to realize the fruits of the work and to see the real potential in the method. We are all influenced by what we have done previously, and that can sometimes get in the way of being open-minded to something new. We are all guilty of this.

That all being said, a lousy school can often be sniffed out within minutes of walking though the door, methodology-be-damned.

Maybe the real lesson is simply that different methods can all create tremendous results, and there is no single “best” way. And part of what is best for “you” is something with which you can relate and that makes sense to you. And what that is might not be the same thing for the next fellow.

 

[skribs]

I am certain that either way CAN lead to lousy punches. I suspect that either way CAN lead to extremely powerful punches.

This is also my opinion. It's why I liked his statement about him teaching me his way, and not judging the other ways. And why I didn't like him then judging other ways.

Maybe the real lesson is simply that different methods can all create tremendous results, and there is no single “best” way.

I think that there is a difference between "wrong for this class" and "just plain wrong."

For example, in Taekwondo, we do a roundhouse kick with a steep chamber, and a focus on height and speed at the expense of power. We want to score points, and points are scored only on the body and head. The "Muay Thai" style of roundhouse kick where you swing the leg like a bat is "wrong for this class", because it doesn't play well with going for points. But, it's a very effective kick, especially when aimed at the legs, in a competition or setting where you can kick the legs.

But if I were instead to swing the inside of my calf into my opponent's hip, that would just be a bad kick in any art. I'm striking with a soft surface in the weakest possible motion of my leg.

I don't think that what he was doing is teaching us that sideways calf kick. But I think what he was doing is along the lines of teaching the TKD kick and then showing the side-of-the-calf kick and calling it a "Muay Thai kick".

 

[wab25]

A few thoughts here....

I do really like the way he phrased that he is teaching us Hapkido, and that he's not going to try to tell us what way is best, just teach us his way and we can compartmentalize it. (He used that word: compartmentalize). What I didn't like was him then explaining why his punch is stronger than a sport punch (i.e. boxing punch), because apparently:

• When you pick your heel off the ground, you lose the connection to the ground. (Really it helps you sink your hip and apply the principle he was trying to teach that you should sink into it).
• When you punch from the guard, it's just an arm punch and there's no hip turn into it.
• No sport fighter (except Tyson) tries to put their opponent down fast.

For me it is telling when someone has to explain why another art is wrong or not as effective. To me, it means that he does not have confidence in either his art or his own ability in the art.

I teach my class the way I was taught. But, all of the techniques can be done other ways, especially in other arts. If I know why other methods are done... I like to explain why they do it the other way, what benefits the other way has, as well as what benefits my way of doing it has... and if I am proficient enough in the other way, we may do it like that for a bit. There are other ways of doing it, that I don't understand. But here, I like to make the presumption that the way they do it works and that it is my understanding that is lacking. And I try to be honest about when I don't know. (I try to find someone to show me or explain it to me.... )

As to the idea that Hapkido was about self-defense and not flash or competition...

This is purely my own opinion... but any art that says that they are a "self defense" art, or not an "offensive" art... is pure marketing. If it is a martial art, it is about breaking, maiming and killing. It is the use of those skills that make it "offensive" or "defensive." I personally, don't have to think too hard to come up with a situation where to be "defensive" your best tactical move is to be "offensive" first (and by surprise!!!)

Then he worked with us, and he wanted us to focus on a punch as if it was the only technique. No recoil, because we're expecting it to take the person out in one punch. Then he showed us a self-defense drill where we side-step a punch and do a combination. I didn't really see the "one punch" concept applied in anything else he taught us.

This sounds a lot like old school Shotokan...

And, despite my Dad being a blue belt in HKD and me being a black belt, he would have us start at white belt because he wants us to learn his material his way.

If you stay within an organization, then it makes sense to keep your rank. But, once you go outside your organization.... you have to think about it differently. Yes, you have a black belt in HKD. But, really.... you have a black belt in Organization A Style HKD. You are now going to Organization B Style HKD.... which can be very different. This goes for all arts.... Each Organization has control over the expected curriculum. But, there is no Universal Organization setting standards.... So, each group is free to do as they please. In this case where it is similar.... you may progress faster than others... or you may take longer, because you have to unlearn habits from your previous training to learn the new way he is teaching. Personally, I would not worry about what belt he wants me to wear.... I would rather be the white belt that you don't have to worry about and that may surprise you than the black belt that, well remember, he can't do that bit and he is still working on that other part....

Anyway, it sounds like you got what you wanted and made the decision that works for you. (I would probably make the same decision in your shoes)

 

[skribs]

For me it is telling when someone has to explain why another art is wrong or not as effective. To me, it means that he does not have confidence in either his art or his own ability in the art.

I teach my class the way I was taught. But, all of the techniques can be done other ways, especially in other arts. If I know why other methods are done... I like to explain why they do it the other way, what benefits the other way has, as well as what benefits my way of doing it has... and if I am proficient enough in the other way, we may do it like that for a bit. There are other ways of doing it, that I don't understand. But here, I like to make the presumption that the way they do it works and that it is my understanding that is lacking. And I try to be honest about when I don't know. (I try to find someone to show me or explain it to me.... )

I also think it depends on what it is you're talking about. For example, when I open my school:

• Forms are the way I say they are, because I believe that form practice in Taekwondo is largely about replicating the details your Master has taught you, and that's what you will be judged on for the test.
• Beginner class, techniques are the way I say they are, because I want beginners to have a consistent "right way" of doing things so they don't get lost in what's incorrect and what's just a variation.
• Advanced class, there is a right way for a situation, a wrong way for the situation, and just plain wrong way. The situation may be something tactical (i.e. don't throw a haymaker when your opponent is right in your face), or it may be rule-related (i.e. don't kick the groin in sparring).

This is purely my own opinion... but any art that says that they are a "self defense" art, or not an "offensive" art... is pure marketing. If it is a martial art, it is about breaking, maiming and killing. It is the use of those skills that make it "offensive" or "defensive." I personally, don't have to think too hard to come up with a situation where to be "defensive" your best tactical move is to be "offensive" first (and by surprise!!!)

Or to avoid being sued. Whether or not it makes sense.

If you stay within an organization, then it makes sense to keep your rank. But, once you go outside your organization.... you have to think about it differently. Yes, you have a black belt in HKD. But, really.... you have a black belt in Organization A Style HKD. You are now going to Organization B Style HKD.... which can be very different. This goes for all arts.... Each Organization has control over the expected curriculum. But, there is no Universal Organization setting standards.... So, each group is free to do as they please. In this case where it is similar.... you may progress faster than others... or you may take longer, because you have to unlearn habits from your previous training to learn the new way he is teaching. Personally, I would not worry about what belt he wants me to wear.... I would rather be the white belt that you don't have to worry about and that may surprise you than the black belt that, well remember, he can't do that bit and he is still working on that other part....

My experience in TKD is that we brought in people from other schools, other styles of TKD, even other similar arts like Tang Soo Do and Shotokan karate. There were two caveats:

1. A black belt in another organization would wear their black belt, but take the red belt class until they could learn the material to test for our black belt.
2. A colored belt may be adjusted up or down if they were bored or overwhelmed.

In this case, my Dad thinks that he was specifically setting us up to fail so that he could show us that we need to start over. I go back to what I said in the OP. We started off with combinations. Then he worked with us on a basic punch, and told us he wanted to do the punch as if it's the only technique. Combinations were the most recent thing on our mind, so his critique could be seen as a bait-and-switch. If it was deliberate, which I don't think it was.

We discussed it with a friend of ours from our TKD/HKD school. He has done martial arts for probably 30 years, about 2-4 years at each school until the Army moved him, and then he retired and stayed at our school. He's a 3rd or 4th Dan in TKD, depending on which organization you talk about, a blue belt in BJJ, a red belt in HKD, and a something belt in a bunch of other stuff. He said the same thing. He has no problem starting over, but if he were to do another Korean art, he's not starting over.

 

[drop bear]

It is not like BJJ though? Where starting over really wouldn't make that much difference. As the basic tech has merit at every level. And if you wanted to be captain fancy roll. Then good for you. It is pretty much if you want to strut around in a white belt or a coloured belt.

 

[skribs]

It is not like BJJ though? Where starting over really wouldn't make that much difference. As the basic tech has merit at every level. And if you wanted to be captain fancy roll. Then good for you. It is pretty much if you want to strut around in a white belt or a coloured belt.

His curriculum is that each belt you have new techniques. The white belt stuff is very, very basic. Half of it is not even functional (i.e. a stretch kick).

I don't know if he would teach this way, but this is what I experienced in my TKD and HKD classes at my old school, and how I would most likely teach when I open my own. If I have a white belt class, and there are some that know what they're doing and others that don't, then I'm going to focus my attention on those that need the help. Those that are doing well would quickly accelerate, and then once they get to a point they're struggling is when I would devote more attention to them.

For example, let's say a Karetaka who is close to black belt joins my school. I give them the option to join close to black belt, or to start over at white belt. They choose to start over. In the white belt class, there is them and another person. The Karetaka is doing a decent roundhouse kick, but it's chambered 45 degrees before the pivot and extension, where mine is chambered vertical. The actual newbie is really struggling to do the kick at all. I'm going to spend probably 90% or more of my 1-on-1 attention on the newbie, because they need more help. It probably wouldn't be until the Karetaka was close to black belt that I would focus on the more minor details.

 

[skribs]

My Dad had previously had no interest in BJJ (I've been going around 6 months now). However, he decided yesterday that he would give BJJ a try. I don't know if he's sold on it. My Professor wants to add a striking class, and my Dad may try that.

However, my Dad has 100% different opinion of my BJJ professor than we had of this HKD school. He was fine with being given a white belt in this class, just as I was. After class, he mentioned to the professor that he was more interested in doing the striking class. The professor had asked about his previous martial arts experience (where the HKD master didn't even ask, and dismissed any previous experience we may have had as not his way). When we started talking about striking class, Professor said that he and I could help share our knowledge from TKD.

That's one thing I love about my professor, is he seems to share my respect for other martial arts. One example is when he and I were talking about tournaments, and he wanted to make sure that kids have the right mindset before going to a tournament (that if you lose, it's not the end of the world). I told him what my Taekwondo Master would say to the kids, is "It doesn't matter if you win or lose, but have a good attitude. If you win, but have a bad attitude, I don't like it. If you lose, but you did your best and had a good attitude, then I am happy."

When I told this to my professor, I could tell by his face and eye contact that he was actively listening and engaged, and showing me and my Taekwondo Master respect. He had a similar way of saying it, basically that win or lose isn't important, be safe and have fun is important. I've never gotten any arrogance or disrespect from him. He trash talks a little bit, but that's all in good fun. When he's being serious, he has a way of making us feel important that I really respect.

 

[JowGaWolf]

What I didn't like was him then explaining why his punch is stronger than a sport punch (i.e. boxing punch), because apparently:

• When you pick your heel off the ground, you lose the connection to the ground. (Really it helps you sink your hip and apply the principle he was trying to teach that you should sink into it)

This is correct just from punching the heavy bag without gloves. I punch both ways (heel up and heel down.) but I'm more concern that I will hurt my hand and my shoulder if I punch heel down and punch the heavy bag as hard as I can. As for which is harder. I don't think it matters. It's like hitting me in the face with a wooden bat and then hitting me in the face with a metal bat and asking me which one hits harder. The thing with punching with the heel down is that you are pushing your body weight into the punch and because of that your body doesn't give and if that timing is wrong then the force of that punch will feed back into your arm and you'll feel it in the joints. But you don't have to take my word for it.

When taught students. I told them both are important because sometimes you need to be on the balls of your foot and sometimes it's better not to be. It's not an either or thing.

 

[JowGaWolf]

What is important to recognize is that a methodology cannot be properly evaluated with one, or a few, sessions. It usually takes some significant time to commit to and embrace the methodology in order to realize the fruits of the work and to see the real potential in the method.

This is especially true with punching with the heel down and shuffling footwork. It's not something that can be picked up in one class or even in a month or two.

When we started talking about striking class, Professor said that he and I could help share our knowledge from TKD.

This may come from the perspective of it's good to have someone that does a different art so you can train against it. I was the same way with my classes. I was glad the instructor had a heavy boxing back ground and would often box during sparring. The other instructor was a brawler. For me this was an opportunity to understand Jow Ga vs Boxing, Jow Ga vs TKD, Jow Ga vs Shuai Jiao, Jow Ga vs Brawler, Jow Ga vs Wing Chun, Jow Ga vs Sanda. When I needed a good TKD kick to train against, there was a student there to give it to me. But that was just me so I was always happy to have people from other systems teach me about their system so that I can help improve my Jow Ga.

If all you do is BJJ vs BJJ then they aren't going to care about any other system. TKD vs TKD is the same. If that's the only competition that you do then there's no need to understand TKD vs BJJ.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Some good comments have already been made about the technical aspects, so I’ll skip that. I will address the rank issue. Even within the same art, if the curriculum is different enough, rank may not match up.

At first glance, the ranking in my curriculum was very similar to the ranking in the NGAA (which I came up in). But a high-ranking student (below Dan rank - those are instructor ranks in the NGAA) would not have been able to keep up at the same rank in my classes. They’d be missing entire areas my students spent time in. If they were really good for their rank and I knew their instructor (so I would know in advance what their experience was), I might consider letting them keep rank and train the gaps. Otherwise, I’d start them at a lower rank (maybe white, maybe not) and let them rank back up faster than usual if they can.

If I’d had a BB come in from the NGAA, I’d have offered to let them keep rank for 3-6 months and then test to keep it.

 

[H Whalen]

Made it to the class today. I now get some of the criticism that Hapkido gets. It wasn't all bad. There was some good. There were a few tips that I picked up in the class. If it were the only martial art school within an hour drive, I would go there. Luckily, it's not. Note that I am not going to name the school.

For starters, this was advertised as a hapkido class, but it was about 40 minutes of yoga followed by 20 minutes of hapkido. I have nothing against yoga existing. But I've done a year of yoga and that's enough of it for me. In fact, I texted my old yoga teacher (who is also an old TKD student of mine) and told her that I accidentally took another yoga class.

Then we get to the Hapkido. He said a couple of things that I very much agree with.

1. He is going to teach us what he learned, the way he learned it, as taught in his particular style of Hapkido. If there are different ways of doing something, he's not going to tell us what is right or wrong, he is simply going to teach us his way and expect that in his class, we do things his way.
2. Hapkido is purely about self-defense. It's not about sport, it's not about flash. It's about in a real situation where the other person may be trying to kill you, taking them out as quickly as possible. Essentially, if we train a punch, we need to train that punch to end the fight.

I do really like the way he phrased that he is teaching us Hapkido, and that he's not going to try to tell us what way is best, just teach us his way and we can compartmentalize it. (He used that word: compartmentalize). What I didn't like was him then explaining why his punch is stronger than a sport punch (i.e. boxing punch), because apparently:

• When you pick your heel off the ground, you lose the connection to the ground. (Really it helps you sink your hip and apply the principle he was trying to teach that you should sink into it).
• When you punch from the guard, it's just an arm punch and there's no hip turn into it.
• No sport fighter (except Tyson) tries to put their opponent down fast.

Personally, I don't want to judge him on his lack of knowledge of other arts, because I'm not there to learn other arts. I was there to learn Hapkido. But I also don't like it when martial artists will misunderstand fundamentals of other arts in order to promote their own. He made the point a few times about why his style of punching is better. I do agree with him that a chambered punch has more potential power than a punch from guard, but I believe it achieves this through the same principles, just having a better starting position.

As to the idea that Hapkido was about self-defense and not flash or competition...literally as he was telling us this, the other students were working on jump split kicks to hit two pads at the same time. A flashy move I've done in TKD, but not what I'd expect in a pure self-defense course.

After the yoga, and before he worked with us specifically, we did a quick warmup that included some punches, kicks, and combinations. Then he worked with us, and he wanted us to focus on a punch as if it was the only technique. No recoil, because we're expecting it to take the person out in one punch. Then he showed us a self-defense drill where we side-step a punch and do a combination. I didn't really see the "one punch" concept applied in anything else he taught us.

His curriculum reminded us of our former Master's Taekwondo curriculum, except there's about 1/3 as much to learn at each belt, no forms, and you don't even need to memorize things by numbers. Yet, the black belts had to consult his handouts every time they wanted to work on something, instead of knowing the material to work on. And, despite my Dad being a blue belt in HKD and me being a black belt, he would have us start at white belt because he wants us to learn his material his way.

I did TKD as a kid for 4 years. When I started TKD as an adult, I started as a white belt. When I started HKD the first time, I started as a white belt. I recently started BJJ, and I started at as a white belt. If I'm going to go back to TKD or HKD, I understand if a school needs to check where they think I am and maybe places me differently. But if I'm going to start over at white belt, I'd rather do what I did and start a new martial art, instead of starting over in one I already have a black belt in.

I went into this with the idea that I wanted to pick up a few tips and see what a full-blooded Hapkido class was like. That goal was achieved. My plan was to continue to do BJJ that I've been doing lately, and that 100% cemented my decision to keep doing it. My Dad wanted to find a new martial arts school to train. He has 0 interest in BJJ. However, he is now more likely to join me in BJJ than continue HKD. (Although much more likely to continue TKD).

Having been in Hapkido for over 45 years I have had the opportunity to train in Korea many times and throughout the US with various Grand Masters and Masters I have been very fortunate in that sense. I did not start out wanting to teach or become an Instructor I simply wanted to perfect my skills and needed a partner to be able to fall without getting injured. A journey begins with the first step,

What I have found is that a lot of GM'S and Masters both Korean and others will never tell their students that they may only have basic knowledge of Hapkido such as a Blue or Red belt but claim they are a GM and adorn their Dojang with certificates kind of a "Pat myself on the back wall" receiving rank from a real reputable organization with real roots in Hapkido cats weight and if you choose another Dojang in most cases if the Dojang you trained with, has a good reputation it will open the doors for you.

Was originally a member of the KHA back in the seventies and eighties to the best of my knowledge I was one of the first Non -Koreans to attend the Instructors course in 1982 in Seoul. I then was with the WHF under GM Kwang Sik Myung and their first Non-Korean promoted to 5th Dan in 1987 under them. I have been with the KHF for many years and have concentrated on passing on what I have learned Hapkido has been my life. I do not teach for money as I am an Electrician and can support myself and my wife without the need to of looking at students as my meal ticket.

Find a Dojang that is a real Hapkido Dojang with the intent of teaching Hapkido not using it to supplement their TKD Dojang .You can PM me or Email me at Hapkihw7@Yahoo.com if you find a new home, I am sure I can tell you or find out if the teacher you choose is a real or supplemental Hapkido teacher

 

[skribs]

Having been in Hapkido for over 45 years I have had the opportunity to train in Korea many times and throughout the US with various Grand Masters and Masters I have been very fortunate in that sense. I did not start out wanting to teach or become an Instructor I simply wanted to perfect my skills and needed a partner to be able to fall without getting injured. A journey begins with the first step,

What I have found is that a lot of GM'S and Masters both Korean and others will never tell their students that they may only have basic knowledge of Hapkido such as a Blue or Red belt but claim they are a GM and adorn their Dojang with certificates kind of a "Pat myself on the back wall" receiving rank from a real reputable organization with real roots in Hapkido cats weight and if you choose another Dojang in most cases if the Dojang you trained with, has a good reputation it will open the doors for you.

Was originally a member of the KHA back in the seventies and eighties to the best of my knowledge I was one of the first Non -Koreans to attend the Instructors course in 1982 in Seoul. I then was with the WHF under GM Kwang Sik Myung and their first Non-Korean promoted to 5th Dan in 1987 under them. I have been with the KHF for many years and have concentrated on passing on what I have learned Hapkido has been my life. I do not teach for money as I am an Electrician and can support myself and my wife without the need to of looking at students as my meal ticket.

Find a Dojang that is a real Hapkido Dojang with the intent of teaching Hapkido not using it to supplement their TKD Dojang .You can PM me or Email me at Hapkihw7@Yahoo.com if you find a new home, I am sure I can tell you or find out if the teacher you choose is a real or supplemental Hapkido teacher

The HKD school that was a TKD+HKD school I liked. I did not like the pure HKD school.

I didn't doubt his HKD skills. I doubted his teaching methods.

 

[Flying Crane]

I think that there is a difference between "wrong for this class" and "just plain wrong."

Agreed. I would also make the distinction of “wrong for this methodology”

For example, in Taekwondo, we do a roundhouse kick with a steep chamber, and a focus on height and speed at the expense of power. We want to score points, and points are scored only on the body and head. The "Muay Thai" style of roundhouse kick where you swing the leg like a bat is "wrong for this class", because it doesn't play well with going for points. But, it's a very effective kick, especially when aimed at the legs, in a competition or setting where you can kick the legs.

But if I were instead to swing the inside of my calf into my opponent's hip, that would just be a bad kick in any art. I'm striking with a soft surface in the weakest possible motion of my leg.

I don't think that what he was doing is teaching us that sideways calf kick. But I think what he was doing is along the lines of teaching the TKD kick and then showing the side-of-the-calf kick and calling it a "Muay Thai kick".

I agree with what you say here, but you placed it as a response to my comment that both ways can produce good results, there isn’t one single correct or good way to do things. I just wanted to clarify that my comment was in comparing a heel-up vs. a heel-down method for developing power when throwing a punch, and other similar foundational methodologies that an art may be built upon. Depending on what else is happening in the kinetic chain when that punch is being thrown, they can both be good if they are trained well and with the consistency to engrain it into habit. This is different from simply a poor way to execute a technique or a poor target choice for a particular technique. Yes, some of that kind of thing could be considered wrong or a very bad idea. I’ve trained in a method or two that had more than their fair share of what I considered bad ideas. So I am very familiar with the distinction.

I made the distinction of the heel-up vs. heel-down simply because your prior comment that I was responding to gave me the impression that you felt the former was the correct way and the latter was not. I disagree with that position. If I misunderstood you, feel free to correct me.

 

[skribs]

I made the distinction of the heel-up vs. heel-down simply because your prior comment that I was responding to gave me the impression that you felt the former was the correct way and the latter was not. I disagree with that position. If I misunderstood you, feel free to correct me.

It was more the attitude of "this is why a boxing punch doesn't work" and he demonstrates it by straightening his front leg and coming up to the tiptoes on the back leg, instead of by sinking his hip.

I'll admit that I didn't watch the clip you linked the first time through. Having watched it, he picks up his heels during the "flat foot" portion of the video. It's not a lot, but he does. I also tested a flat-foot punch and a heel-up punch on a BOB with a Strikemeter, and noticed similar results with both styles of punch, but that I had better mobility with the foot up.

He wants us to turn our hips with the foot rooted in place, and there isn't much room to generate that power with your whole foot rooted.

 

[Flying Crane]

It was more the attitude of "this is why a boxing punch doesn't work" and he demonstrates it by straightening his front leg and coming up to the tiptoes on the back leg, instead of by sinking his hip.

I'll admit that I didn't watch the clip you linked the first time through. Having watched it, he picks up his heels during the "flat foot" portion of the video. It's not a lot, but he does. I also tested a flat-foot punch and a heel-up punch on a BOB with a Strikemeter, and noticed similar results with both styles of punch, but that I had better mobility with the foot up.

He wants us to turn our hips with the foot rooted in place, and there isn't much room to generate that power with your whole foot rooted.

I didn’t link a video clip so I’m not sure which you are referring to.

I think I get what you are saying: he used a poor example to try and support his message and it just wasn’t consistent. Fair enough. A viable and functional method can still be done poorly, with poor results.